The Magician’s Force

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107383/

In 1999, George W. Bush said we needed to cut taxes because the economy was doing so well that the U.S. Treasury was taking in too much money, and we could afford to give some back to the people who earned it. In 2001, Bush said we needed the same tax cuts because the economy was doing poorly, and we had to return the money so that people would spend and invest it.

Bush’s arguments made the wisdom of cutting taxes unfalsifiable. In good times, tax cuts were affordable. In bad times, they were necessary. Whatever happened proved that tax cuts were good policy. When Congress approved the tax cuts, Bush said they would revive the economy. You’d know that the tax cuts had worked, because more people would be working. Three years later, more people aren’t working. But in Bush’s view, that, too, proves he was right. If more people aren’t working, we just need more tax cuts.

Now Bush is playing the same game in postwar Iraq. When violence there was subsiding, he said it proved he was on the right track. Now violence is increasing, and Bush says this, too, proves he’s on the right track.

On July 23, 2003, three months into the occupation, Bush scoffed that Iraqi insurgents were confined to “a few areas of the country. And wherever they operate, they are being hunted, and they will be defeated. … Now, more than ever, all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back.” A week later, he assured reporters, “Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful. … As the blanket of fear is lifted, as Iraqis gain confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will gain more cooperation.” Bush warned that failure to stick with his policies “would only invite further and bolder attacks.”

A year later, the insurgents are not defeated, conditions are not more peaceful, the blanket of fear is spreading, cooperation is fraying, and attacks on U.S. personnel are growing bolder. Does this prove Bush is failing? No. It proves he’s succeeding.

When the violence increased this spring, Bush, Vice President Cheney, and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said insurgents were growing “desperate” in their efforts to “derail the transition”�the handover of sovereignty scheduled for June 30. “This is precisely what our enemies want,” Bush argued. The violence proved Bush was on the right track, and the handover would soon be complete, demoralizing the enemy. The insurgents would be crushed. “In Fallujah, Marines of Operation Vigilant Resolve are taking control of the city, block by block,” Bush bragged.

Three months after the handover, the attacks continue to escalate. Fallujah is completely out of control. Is this failure? No, it’s success. Things are getting even worse because we’re doing even better. Now it’s the January 2005 Iraqi elections, not the June 2004 handover, that’s supposedly inspiring the enemy’s desperation. If we stay the course till January, we’ll turn that corner we thought we’d turned in June. “Yes, it’s getting worse, and the reason it’s getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election,” Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted Sunday on This Week. “And because it’s getting worse, we will have to increase our efforts to defeat it.” Bush understands that the resistance is evidence that history is on our side. As he explained Tuesday, the violence is growing “because people are trying to stop the march of freedom.”

If the situation in Iraq improves in the coming weeks, Bush will take credit. If it deteriorates, he’ll take credit for that, too. “Terrorist violence may well escalate as the January elections draw near,” he warned Thursday. “The terrorists know that events in Iraq are reaching a decisive moment. If elections go forward, democracy in Iraq will put down permanent roots, and terrorists will suffer a dramatic defeat.” So take heart. We’ve got ’em right where we want ’em.

Why I hate venture capitalists

Because they are ignorant fools.

It has been said that editors get a bad rap from authors, because they can’t see good stuff in front of them and they piss on talent.

They have nothing on venture capitalists.

In my day, I’ve gone to VCs with four major business proposals. Now, my track record is certainly not undistinguished– after all, my company conducted the first e-commerce transaction over the Internet. There are those who believe that me and mine may have also invented the internet shopping cart. We can also mention the first e-book publisher on the net, and I ran a heck of a lot longer than companies founded and funded by traditional publishers.

And what does this get me? Bupkis. Can’t even get my phone calls returned.

Figures…

…post something, go away for a week, and watch how the world has changed.

So the documents ain’t real. And the blame, of course, is clearly on CBS.

STEPHEN COLBERT, Daily Show Senior Media Correspondent: Jon, there’s got to be some accountability. Dan Rather is the head, the commander in chief if you will of his organization. He’s someone in the ultimate position of power who made a harmful decision based upon questionable evidence. Then, to make things worse, he stubbornly refused to admit his mistake, choosing instead to stay the course and essentially occupy this story for too long. This man has got to go!

STEWART: Uh … we’re talking about Dan Rather…?

COLBERT: Yes Jon, Dan Rather. CBS is in chaos, it’s unsafe, riven by internal rivalries. If you ask me, respected, reputable outsiders need to be brought in to help the rebuilding effort.

STEWART: … at CBS News?

COLBERT: Yeah, at CBS news! What possible other unrelated situation could my words be equally applicable to?! Now people need to be held accountable. The commander in chief, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser — everyone at CBS News needs to go!

Yet somehow, we still don’t know what Bush was doing during all that time. And it’s not like it would be hard for Bush to clear this up and say what he was doing during that time.

But, Glenn, I hear you cry, Bush’s service was 30 years ago. Why should we care if he showed up then?

Well, there’s this: 40 percent of Army reservists fail to report to Fort Jackson

And really, why should they? After all, if GWB can blow off his commitments to the armed forces when he’s not at risk of being sent overseas for a year and shot at, why shouldn’t these folks do it when they are at definite risk for that?

Bush has a hard time showing moral authority on this one. Why, it would be like GWB advocating tougher sentences for drug offenders after it was shown that he used drugs and his wife sold them. Or if you were revealed to be gay after advocating against gay marriages. Or… wait, you don’t think I’m implying anything there, do you?

The CBS Document fiasco

Another request from comments: this time, asking “Would love to hear what you think about the CBS forged documents scandal”.

This story has taken many twists and turns in the ten days (yes, just ten days) this story has existed. First, the letters and allegations, then “experts” claiming the letters were forged, then Killian’s secretary saying they’re recreations but the sentiment is accurate, and now hearing that the original questioner of the documents is a Republican operative who helped get Clinton disbarred.

Yeesh.

I hate repeating what other folks have said on the topic, so I’ll point you to Mark Kleiman and Josh Marshall and Tim Noah have said on the subject. But I will add these things to the debate.

* It certainly is possible to frame a guilty man. And just because someone may have been framed doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of the crime in question. Doesn’t ANYBODY remember O.J.?

* Every so often, bad guys try a fake frame of themselves to divert suspicion from themselves later.

* The White House, upon initial release, either thought the memos were genuine, implying that they thought all the charges in them were accurate; or were in on the gag, and were setting people up for a later takedown.

* Why would the White House think they were genuine? Because George W. Bush knows what happened during his tenure in the National Guard. Even though he has yet to come clean about it. If he filled in the missing gaps in his time period, this entire mess would go away. Which implies that either the mess is a useful distraction or that he/they thinks there’s something worth hiding.

* George W. Bush has a known prediliction for going after guys “who tried to get my daddy”. Exhibit A: the guy who had nothing to do with 9/11, but ran Iraq instead. I point people back about 12 years ago and the famous on-air confrantation between Bush I and Dan Rather, and remind people that CBS was also the news organization that broke the Abu Gharib prison scandal photos.

Oh yeah– is the document a forgery? Maybe. I don’t have enough evidence; and neither do most of the folks commenting on it, they haven’t examined the document in question, certainly not to the standards of even a civil trial. Let’s go on to another question then: is what is contained true? After all, whether a book is a first edition or a reprint that someone’s trying to sell as a first edition doesn’t affect the words on the page. I would dearly love for THAT to be a focus of investigation.

Secret Messages

In mail, someone wondered where the secret messages were.

But I don’t have any “secret messages”.
Unless you count coded messages to liberals–
Really, what would those say?
In case of Bush
Election in 2004,
Depart country immediately?

Perhaps I should start that up,
A sort of “Early Warning System”…
Unless, of course, it’s already too late.
Let’s just stick with silly secret messages, and see who notices.

Fnord.