Why can't Bush be more like Lord Chamberlain?: This....writer...from the Telegraph, entertains us with her self-loathing over loathing America. In her mind, it's simply untenable that America does or has done the following: 1) Engaged in friendly fire; 2) executes [in selected states - she fails to mention] prisoners; 3) detains Al Qaeda members in Gitmo; and 4) invented Coca Cola. She blathers on about how every time she turns on the t.v. she sees American products, faces or currency. Our smug images upset her tea apparently. Your post on British-controlled Iraq is serendipitous because this writer conveniently overlooks the centuries of oppression her country inflicted on millions of people back when her country was relevant. It is not worth arguing over whether every thing this country does is noble and perfect. However, what is worth arguing over is that we are the model for success world-wide, show leadership internationally in every area worth mentioning, and do more to ensure peace than any single or collective group of nations anywhere. This cliche gets tired, but, she deserves it: If it wasn't for us, she'd be speaking German."

Assault Weapons: TNR's &c blog says that Bush's stand on renewing the assault weapons ban (which the NYT called "a bold political calculation") is actually a "political no-brainer." They're close, but still not quite right. As TNR notes, only a small minority favor letting the ban expire, and even fewer guide their voting on the issue. Remember the 2001 flap about the NRA's Wayne LaPierre dictating gun policy out of an office in the West Wing. This is a safe way to demonstrate some independence. Is it pretty much meaningless, since it only maintains the status quo? Yep, and Bush and Rove are no doubt delighted by the opportunity. Besides, the "base" that is alienated by this will go exactly where with their votes? Beyond being a no-brainer, this a piece of nearly painless triangulation, targeted at soccer moms, worthy of Dick Morris. The tax cut rhetoric has been pretty high, but expect that to come down a notch soon, particularly as the Democratic race begins to peel off low performers. The administration will want more and more of these low-cost suburban issues to get the "compassionate conservative" meme back into play.

Agree or disagree with the Bush White House, they are playing near-flawless contract bridge as the Democrats play a silly game of Old Maid right now.

Iraq: The latest Smithsonian has a brief look at British-controlled Iraq following the first world war. It is, if nothing else, a bleak cautionary tale. The British relied too much on educated Sunnis, who came to dominate the bureaucracy and, later, the Ba'ath Party. Colonial-style administrators showed and exemplary tin ear for the feelings of the minority Shi'ites and Kurds, who resented the Sunni Faisal and vented their frustrations on the ostensibly pro-British Iraqi Jews. In 1917, when the British marched into Baghdad, British General Stanley Maude declared:

Our armies
do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators.

Familiar refrain. The British proceeded to dominate Iraq, militarily or by proxy, until the Qassem coup of 1958, which removed the Faisal line and engendered the Ba'athist counter-coup ten years later. Fascinating stuff and, hopefully, forefront in the minds of Jay Garner and Paul Bremer.

I don't foresee similar American plans, mainly because out country won't tolerate colonialism the way the British did for so many years. In addition, I'm enough of an idealist to think that a federalist-style republic will go a long way toward pacifying the fractionalism and vying nationalisms of Iraq, while a British-installed Sunni monarchy -- even when it flirted with anti-British sentiment -- merely continued the need for British interference.

Hypocrisy? An intellectual exercise for those on the right still confused about the Bennett deal: Imagine someone who is a really committed environmentalist. She gets on your case all the time about recycling, about not littering. She nags at various companies about polluting the land and water with various harmful chemicals. She loudly protests GMOs and harps on people who don't have efficient windows in their house or keep their thermostat too high. A real pain, a killjoy. One day you see her pulling up to the TV studio to do her latest on-air rant, and she's driving the biggest gas-sucking hog of an SUV you've ever seen in your life. You call her on it. She says, "Hey, it's still legal to own one of these. Besides, I never really made a big deal about automotive pollution." You'd give her a pass, right? Yeah, sure you would.

Hypocrisy knows no idealogy: Balko, writing for FoxNews, shows the hypocrisy of the Right in their collective rush to defend Santorum and Bennett all in a well-woven article which draws from the famous "No Guardrails" editorial from ten years past in the WSJ. Balko's point is that the Guardrails mantra was that we need self-imposed limits, that not every form of behavior, even if ostensibly legal, should be encouraged or practised (i.e. homosexuality). So, when Bennett goes out and throws down in Vegas, even though he's exercising his own right to give away his money, that behavior shouldn't be encouraged or defended, yet the Right circles around him like he's a fallen general. Say it with me: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Plus his cologne stunk: It seems his mastery on the court never quite translated into the board room. Yes, Michael Jordan will not be running the Washington Wizards again. This man left his comfy job as "President" of a moribund, but hopeful franchise in order to put in a couple years of service so that he could teach the young kids how to play, while also taking some pressure off of them whille they developed into their own identity. Good idea, horrible execution. Instead of taking the pressure off, he took over. He played ridiculous minutes, demanded the ball at crunch time, and then whined when the 20-year old millionaires didn't work as hard as he did. One could argue that he left the team in worse shape than when he came in. Rather than developing a squad, he developed acrimony; so much so that many of his teammates wouldn't contribute to his retirement gift. This is Michael effing Jordan!! In the end, his Airness didn't teach his team anything other than how not to wrap up a glorious career. But there's always the new Charlotte franchise to burn down.

Oil Connections: I think you're right that the Halliburton story may be off and running now. The fact that Waxman is ready to make a stink means that he sees some firm footing to the story. I think there may be some truth to the defense that Halliburton was the only firm that could field a unified team for a job so strewn with unknowns. That said, the fact that Iraq was taken so quickly and with so little oil-infrastructure damage should mean that bidding could open up quite soon. Any attempts by the administration to kick the bidding down the road some more will have to be taken as a gift to Cheney's old firm. On the other hand, there is a great deal of brainpower in the administration, no small part of it Cheney's. He knows he's vulnerable on this issue. He also knows that even the appearance of favoritism in contracting Halliburton will be a serious publicity problem, particularly considering that Cheney just re-upped as Bush's number two. I don't think the administration is dumb enough to step on such an obvious landmine. Then again, who thought Clinton would be dumb enough to get head from the help while being sued for harrassment? Or that Nixon would continue to record incriminating conversations in the high days of Watergate? Everyone has blind spots, and this may be Cheney's.

There's oil in them thar dunes: This story has failed to grow legs of late, but this may get it in Nikes yet. The fact that Halliburton got the contract without any bidding is curious enough, but it was always played that it was only for putting out fires, and there was no time to take bids. Fair enough, given that Halliburton had the expertise. Now we learn that the contract is for a whole lot more than just fire-fighting. The article says that the competitors haven't screamed too loudly as of yet, because the expectation that the remaining work will be put up for bid, and everyone wants a piece of the action. Still, it can't be all coincidence, can it?

The Open Secret: Senator Edwards's fund raising activities show a troubling pattern. Who knows what's going on here, but such patterns have shown up before. Al Gore's Buddhist temple visit also raised suspicions that reimbursement-for-donation practices were widespread. I think they surely are, in both parties. If it's done right, it's a tough thing to prove. This is one of the penalties of our campaign finance laws: when donations are capped at such a low level, the incentive to find back doors is incredible.

Shiflet must read FauxPolitik: Note his uncanny honing in on how gambling at slots (which you can teach a "blind pin-headed monkey to play") and video poker (akin to "crack"; leads to death of one's children) are without even the argument of merit, whilst interactive, table poker is an actual skill which demands interaction to boot. Hmm, nope, nothing like that ever said here a day or two ago.

When will Bush's daughters turn 35?: Your proposition of Condi becoming Veep and/or the Prez certainly is logical and well-reasoned...which of course makes it fatally flawed. Look at our last say, 6 presidents, and tell me which one was the logical choice...at the time the campaign season began. None of them, save Reagan, were the real front-runners in the beginning. None was without serious (apparent) drawbacks, whether it be issues of "character", intelligence, gravitas or ability to speak. No, what it comes down to is an odd mix of party machine and vox populi. For example, W was the clear party choice - "they" figured he could be controlled, was a known entity, and had many debts that had to be repaid. Conversely, Clinton was a clear people's choice (although a diluted one with Perot in the mix initially), that the party probably wouldn't have figured for their first pick (although, at the time, his charisma had won many over even at the party level). Reagan was hand-picked by the oil and business establishment, many of who were his friends, and most figured that he too, could be handled and depended upon to reward his friends. Carter ... well, he was running against Ford, which perhaps made him the default candidate. Bush, Sr. was a continuation of Reagan, which was partly to blame for his defeat by Clinton four years later. Nixon was at first the rebel in his party, but his near misses with JFK meant he couldn't be denied. Again, back to my point ("Oh, you have one?"): while Condi appeals to demographics, from what I've seen she has as much charisma as Mondale, no make that Dukakis. She's probably too smart, and may even be a bit scary to the Party because heaven forbid she get "too black." No, I think your Jeb push is more appropriate (given that Neil may be a bit busy by then with his divorce appeal).

"Retractor"..."check"...: So you're saying that even though it's true, he doesn't deserve it? Well, no one is arguing that Bennett is a bad person (not really), and certainly being a gambler puts him in stead with, oh, half of America...make that more than half when Powerball is running hot. So, one might say that he shouldn't be lambasted from coast-to-coast just because of who he is. Well, darnit, that's the point, isn't it? He's perhaps the most sanctimonious person in America that doesn't have a talk show. His entire joie de vivre is VIRTUE. Throwing away millions of dollars to a machine, no matter how you cut it, isn't virtuous. Okay, then, is it non-virtuous? Maybe. It's like finding that Jimmy Swaggert likes to sleep with hookers..again and again; like Michael Jackson bleaches his skin, and like Clinton sleeps with white trash. Interesting, but irrelevant to the normal functioning of everyday life. No one would like for their own peccadilloes to be thrown into the light, but when you make it your job to do that to everyone else, as they say, turnabout is fair play.

Retraction: I'm going to take a baby step back on the Bennett fracas. I'll let everything stand as written except this: I said on Monday, "Boy does he deserve everything he gets." Well, Jonathan Alter was on Imus this morning. Imus asked where the scoop came from, and Alter hesitated. Imus then asked if someone leaked Bennett's gambling history to embarrass Bennett. Alter replied, "I think that's fair to say." As much as Bennett is a self-righteous prig, this is starting to sound less like publishing gossip and more like a journalistic "hit." Is it newsworthy? Probably. But I'd love to hear a journalist explain why. Alter's only explanation this morning was (paraphrase), "If you don't see why this is news, you just don't get it." I don't think that'll fly from a professional.

More: Shiflett, with usual good humor, on the Bennett flap.

OMB: Bush budget man Mitch Daniels heads back home to Indiana. You know who'd be a great pick to replace him. The guy who should've had the job in the first place: John Kasich.

More: Serious fiscal conservative Stephen Moore agrees. That's bound to be the kiss of death in a "compassionate conservative" adminstration.

Some Questions about Cheney: I have to admit surprise at how this is being treated as not-necessarily-news. Sure, there's this paragraph:

There had long been speculation Bush would replace Cheney, who has had four heart attacks, and take a running mate who could run to succeed him in 2008 if the president wins a second term.

How mildly can you put it? First, it's a serious blow to the party to have no one waiting in the wings for 2008. Yes, Cheney could step down in, say, 2006 to let an heir come aboard, but don't you really want a battle-tested VP rather than a Gerald Ford?

Second, what does this say about Bush? Does it say that, even after Iraq, he doesn't have the confidence to move his eminence grise to an informal role and take on someone like Condi Rice as a running mate? She's about the sharpest knife in the GOP drawer right now, plus she isn't a 70-year-old white guy from the midwest. She's a sharp Californian (by transplant, but aren't they all?) with serious foreign policy cred and (let's be honest) the soccer-mom-vote-magnet trifecta of being black, female, and young. She looks great in a suit, too.

Third, I think we need to start asking the as-yet-unspoken question: Is Bush doping the ticket with Cheney in order to clear the 2008 decks for Jeb?

Social [In]Security: A large spread in the "Ideas" section of the Boston Globe this weekend featured an infotorial (now in the pay-only archives) by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of CEPR in which they argue, in effect, that Social Security reform is a sop by the GOP to financial big boys. (Never you mind that the late Pat Moynahan, who was anything but in bed with Wall Street, was one of the first to point to the coming trust fund deficit.) Beyond that, Baker and Weisbrot's analysis is so full of holes that it's a wonder that it was run by any self-respecting editor. Some examples:

The "war against Social Security" is based on a shortfall, within 75 years, of "three-quarters of one percent of our national income," by which I assume they mean GDP, which shortfall will have to be covered out of general revenue via higher taxes. (Three-quarters of 1% appears to come out to about $100 billion, which is about enough to float 1 million retired baby boomers for one year, at today's rates -- which will be laughable 30 years from now, even at a low rate of inflation.) First of all, that kind of share of GDP is "huge" and "risky" when it's in the form of a tax cut instead of a tax hike. (Plus, run it through some dynamic analysis and you might find it does nearly as much harm as good.) Second, and more to the point, it's a weaselly statistic, since the important relationship is between revenue and shortfall, not GDP and shortfall.

Real-wage growth, they argue, will more than offset any tax bite to cover the trust fund deficit. That's possible, but in the next paragraph the authors steal that possibility when they note that the 30-year U.S. trend of real-wage stagnation makes Social Security all the more necessary. So which is it, boys? Can we grow our way out of the crisis or not?

The authors also aim to debunk a number of "accounting tricks" that reformers use to bolster their arguments. They say that reformers point to the fact that demographics suggest that we will move from an earners-to-recipients ratio of 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2035, then they claim (again) that increases in wages and productivity will cover demographic shifts. First of all, they cherry pick their numbers. Reformers are more likely to point to the 16-1 ratio in 1950 and the 5-1 ratio in 1960 (perhaps you see a pattern emerging?), and to the further demographic trends that threaten Social Security, like retirees living longer after retirement. Baker and Weisbrot's argument seems to be that this ship is seaworthy by redefining the meaning of "hull."

Another "trick," the authors say, is that the trust fund is "disparaged" as a box of IOUs. (It is exactly that.) "The bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund," they say, "are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that our government would default on them." Wow. Straw Man Alert! I don't recall anyone saying that default was the problem. The problem will be the costs associated with not defaulting. The trust fund took in the Social Security withholdings and loaned it to the Treasury, which promptly spent it. So the only accounting "trick" here is in the hands of the authors when they say that the trust fund contains securities "amounting to $1.5 trillion and growing by $200 billion a year." The only thing growing by $200 billion a year is the debt on the trust fund. When those securities are called due to pay benefits, guess where it'll come from. General tax increases. As noted before, the authors call it a "relatively small" tax increase needed to cover the shortfall. But remember that it is a tax in perpetuity, not a one-time hit to cover an anomalous shortfall. And this will not "pay for" Social Security. It will simply be a necessary complement to what is already drained from your paycheck as Social Security contributions.

This is ridiculous stuff, and the Globe should be ashamed for running it. Even the GAO sees the need for reform, and the GAO is not exactly known for being packed with fire-breathing Friedmanites.

Say it isn't so...: No I mean it. Say it's not true. Give examples, give plausible explanations. Open your bank records, defy anyone to find one iota of improper income/spending. Show us that you're a principled objector to U.S./U.K. actions in the Mid East. Do anything to give me reason to doubt that the only thing wrong about kicking you out was that it came 30 years too late. Please. Help me out here...I'm begging.

Bill Clinton: Yeah, this is old stuff. Why rehash it? Because Sidney Blumenthal is about to. Howard Kurtz quotes from the preview of Sid's new memoir:

The Sid Blumenthal book on Bill Clinton is coming out, and the Salon excerpt includes this striking moment from the ex-president's second inaugural: "Chief Justice Rehnquist . . . had been chilly and inexpressive toward the president throughout the morning. He was grim while swearing in Clinton to his second term, with Hillary holding the Bible. Now Rehnquist turned to speak to him. 'Good luck,' he said. 'You'll need it.'

"'They're going to screw you on the Paula Jones case,' Hillary said."

Think this happened? Sounds like a Robert Reich situation to me (see here or here).

I Concur: Hillary Clinton will make a dandy president one day ... the day she completes her twelve-step program for recovering totalitarians and starts taking her anti-whining meds. Come to think of it, maybe a brain transplant would be easier.

Good to see you were paying attention: You have passed the test and are now worthy of entry into the inner sanctum of political bloggers. All that I require is four hairs from your head, and $3,000 (25% of which goes to Andrew Sullivan to support his writing for which we remain truly appreciative and indebted). Besides, for us to get sued, as public figures, they have to show "actual malice," and I'm as innocuous and un-malicious as they come. Just ask anyone, I'll wait..........see?! Anyway, what's the difference between one war monger and the next? All I know is what I read in the New York Times and that oil drilling in Alaska has GOT to go. And Hillary Clinton will make a fine president one day.