Hillary Clinton complains about her press treatment. And while she has a point, she does so with crazy eyes. The way this is going, she is going to wish she dropped out a week ago.
Posts For: February 26, 2008
Nuts and Bolts
Hillary is trying to nail him down on details, for a change. Facts and figures. This is where she thrives and he flounders. If she can keep that tone (which was beginning to creep in) out of it, this is her best approach.
This Is the Sound of Americans Watching This Debate
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
The Debate: Hillary Asked If She Is Losing It
Her measured response indicates she is not going to get angry, but she does pull out a female-friendly phrase (she will “stand up for herself”) and makes a poised defense of her health care plan. His response is equally measured. Obviously the name of the game for him is to create no interesting YouTube moments and to blur the differences between the two of them. So far, so good from his perspective.
Anyone Seen Bill?
The directive may have come from Hillary’s campaign or it may have been doctor’s orders, but boilin’ Bill Clinton has been officially benched. Here’s the International Herald Tribune:
He is being kept as far from the media as possible to prevent any more of the red-faced, finger-wagging tirades and freelance political commentary that polls say cost Hillary Rodham Clinton a lot of support, particularly among black voters.
So what audiences in venues like Lancaster, a working-class town of 33,000 about 35 miles, about 55 kilometers, southeast of Columbus, are seeing is a subdued and substantive former president going on at length about Iraq, health care, education, job creation and what he portrays as the multiple sins of the Bush administration.
Okay, not benched—sent down to the minors. It certainly took the Clintons long enough to face up to the fact that Bill was not being received with the public adoration they thought his due. The Tribune reports that in a December New York Times/CBS News Poll, 44 percent of those polled said they were more likely to vote for Hillary because of her husband and 7 seven percent said he made them less likely to do so. In the latest such poll, respondents were split evenly at 22 percent in each category.
Since Bill has been demoted from the main room to the lounge, Hillary has made the mistake of embodying the traits that seemingly turned her husband’s fans against him: the divisiveness, sense of entitlement, scolding, baiting, and general propensity for playing the victim don’t look much better on her. I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that if she too went into hiding for a while, her numbers might jump.
Guns in the Desert
ANBAR PROVINCE, IRAQ – The Humvee slammed to a halt on the desert road between Fallujah and the town of Al Farris. I peered around the driver’s head from the back seat and tried to figure out what was happening.
“Why are we stopping?” I said.
“IED,” Sergeant Guerrero said.
I swallowed and took the lens cap off my camera.
“Where?” I said.
All five Humvees in our convoy had stopped and pulled to the side of the road. None had been hit.
“We think there’s one buried off the road around here.”
Two soldiers, including Sergeant Guerrero, stepped out of the vehicle. “Can I get out, too?” I said. I had no idea how long we would stop or if they would even let me out of the truck.
“Sure,” Sergeant Guerrero said. “You can get out.”
All IED’s are dangerous no matter how much body armor you’re wearing if you’re standing anywhere nearby when they explode. Some create small explosions that are merely intended to harass convoys. Others are formidable anti-tank mines. A smaller number create explosions as big as air strikes and will absolutely destroy you if you’re not inside a heavily armored vehicle. The term IED, short for improvised explosive device, is used to describe just about any explosive that isn’t discharged from a weapon.
I slowly pushed open the vault-thick up-armored door and stepped out into the desolate countryside of Al Anbar. An Iraqi Police truck was parked in the desert a few hundred feet to our right. I hoped there wasn’t an IED trigger man lurking somewhere who was waiting for all of us to expose ourselves.
Let’s Just Hire Der Spiegel
The always interesting Claudia Rosett has come up with this year’s best suggestion for President Bush: buy a subscription to Der Spiegel—and get rid of the bureaucracy that produces U.S. National Intelligence Estimates.
As CONTENTIONS readers know, the American intelligence community, in an NIE released last December, stated that it had “high confidence” that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003. As Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell testified at the Senate Intelligence Committee this month, weapons design is “the least significant” portion of a nuclear weapons program. The most important is obtaining fissile material. In Iran’s case that would be enriched uranium.
The NIE talked about that issue too. It said that Tehran would probably be able to produce enough uranium for a single bomb sometime “during the 2010-2015 time frame.” Yet not everyone agrees with this view. “New simulations carried out by European Union experts come to an alarming conclusion: Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb by the end of this year,” reports Spiegel Online.
The end-2008 prediction is based on an assumption that Tehran’s technicians have figured out all they need to know about their centrifuges. That appears unlikely. Yet as the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in November, Iran has made substantial progress recently. Even if the European Union has overestimated Iran’s technical capabilities, it would seem that Tehran will be in a position to build a bomb before the end of this decade, not the middle of the next one. That conclusion fits in with Israel’s estimate of 2010.
In any event, the EU simulations inject some urgency into the efforts to disarm the mullahs. European Union nations are planning in May at the earliest to offer a package of economic incentives to Iran if it gives up enrichment. The United States for its part looks as if it will succeed in persuading a sufficient number of other members of the Security Council to pass a third set of sanctions. Yet nobody expects the new measures, if they are in fact adopted, will actually stop the Iranians. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday about the Western efforts at the U.N., “They could spend 100 years passing resolutions but it wouldn’t change anything.
What is changing at this moment is Iran’s technical capability to enrich uranium. Yet, outside Israel and the offices of Der Spiegel, there seems to be an insufficient sense of urgency in stopping Tehran.
Harvard’s Modest Muslims
Harvard University has had it with the unfair treatment of its female Muslim students. Their modesty must be protected. Here’s Boston University’s Daily Free Press:
Men have not been allowed to enter the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center during certain times since Jan. 28, after members of the Harvard Islamic Society and the Harvard Women’s Center petitioned the university for a more comfortable environment for women.
Harvard Islamic Society’s Islamic Knowledge Committee officer Ola Aljawhary, a junior, said the women-only hours are being tested on a trial basis. The special gym hours will be analyzed over Spring Break to determine if they will continue, she said.
Come to think of it, how modest is it to make a university rewrite its gym policy because of your personal belief system? Well, the important thing is Harvard got rid of Larry Summers. I mean, he suggested there may be some innate differences between men and women. And you’d never find that kind of talk in Islam.
Power’s Out
As if yesterday’s paltry showing at the Break-the-Blockade demonstration in Gaza were not enough, today we have additional reason to think that Hamas is not too interested in returning to the status quo ante with Israel. Significant parts of Gaza, the PA has decided, will be put onto Egypt’s electrical grid–thus ending the strip’s dependency on Israel for electricity, and thereby eliminating one of the last remaining signs of “occupation.” Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu applauded the PA’s decision, saying that “We welcome any project that links us to our Arab brothers and ends our relations with the occupation.”
I particularly like the phrase “ends our relations with the occupation.” It suggests that instead of referring to Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel itself is “the occupation,” which is anyway what Hamas and many other Palestinians have claimed all along. Note to reader: Any time you hear people speak of a “sixty-year occupation,” as they frequently do at the UN and other international forums, this is what they mean.
The transfer of Gaza to Egypt’s electrical grid is a major step towards enabling Israel to wash its hands of Gaza, making it Egypt’s problem–which is what I had previously insisted was really happening with the blockade and its subsequent breach. The winners in this transfer are Israel (which wants to be able to say it’s not occupying anything in Gaza) and Hamas (which is becoming increasingly in charge of what happens in the Palestinian territories); the losers are the PA (which is incapable of maintaining control over the territory it has been given) and Egypt (which has no desire whatsoever to be responsible for Gaza, but now finds itself with little choice). Now we just need to wait for the international community to recognize that when Israel pulls out of “occupied” territory and cuts its economic ties, it cannot be simultaneously blamed for both a “blockade” and an “occupation.” It’s one or the other–or maybe neither.
Cool It, Aftergood
Steve Aftergood, the proprietor of the blog Secrecy News, knows more about secrecy in government than just about anyone else in the United States. He has also thought deeply about the issue. He and I disagree about a great many things, including his contention that the Bush administration has been excessively secretive about what he calls its “shameful” activities in the realm of national security.
But unlike some of his colleagues in the open-government lobby, Aftergood believes that “genuine national security secrets such as confidential sources and legally authorized intelligence methods should be protected from disclosure.”
In this, he evidently disagrees with the premise of Wikileaks.org, whose purpose is to develop “an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis” that will combine “the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies. . . . Anybody can post comments to it. No technical knowledge is required.”
Aftergood has pointed out that there is a cardinal distinction between unauthorized disclosure of classified information in a democracy and in an authoritarian state, a distinction that Wikileaks.org (the site has been temporarily shut down by order of a federal judge) aims to blur:
In a democratic system, people have the opportunity to define their own disclosure standards. If you violate those standards or encourage others to do so then you are in effect undermining the democratic process.
Jay Lim of Wikileaks.org is unhappy with this kind of criticism, and has written a message to Aftergood, which has been posted on Secrecy News.
Who’s side are you on here Stephen [sic]? It is time this constant harping stopped.
You know full well if you make n comments about us and m negative ones about us it’ll only be the negative comment that is reported — since everyone else has only positive things to say and by your position at FAS [Federation of American Scientists} there is an expectation of positive comment. You are not a child. As a result of your previous criticism it seem you are becoming the “go to” man for negative comments on Wikileaks. Over the last year, our most quoted critic has not been a right wing radio host, it has not been the Chinese ambassador, it has not been Pentagon bureaucrats, it has been you Stephen [sic]. You are the number one public enemy of this project. On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page. Some friend of openness!
We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don’t, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond.
Jay Lim
“Cool it” Aftergood. In other words: the message from Wikileaks.org to Aftergood is that he should shut up or they will “be forced to respond.” This sounds awfully like a threat. Is it not ominous that this is how some advocates of openness in government want to conduct the discussion? What does this tell us about Wikileaks.org project and the people behind it?



