Tom Watson

Conservatives Balk

Fascinating column in the reliably conservative Wall Street Journal yesterday by reliably conservative Capital Journal columnist John Harwood about the opinion of the military analyst of the reliably conservative Hudson Institute. Says retired Gen. William E. Odom:

"We have failed. The issue is how high a price we're going to pay. ... Less, by getting out sooner, or more, by getting out later?"

This is the man who directed the National Security Agency for President Ronald Reagan, a true conservative Republican who believes in a strong American realpolitick who teaches at Georgetown and Yale. Listen to what he says:

"Anybody that's pro-American cannot gain legitimacy. It will be a highly illiberal democracy, inspired by Islamic culture, extremely hostile to the West and probably quite willing ... to fund terrorist organizations ... It probably will radicalize Saudi Arabia, [and] it could easily radicalize Egypt."

True conservatives - those of balanced budgets, smaller government, and the traditional American big stick - are breaking ranks now with a President they (for the most part privately) loathe and cannot respect. Gen. Odom has a prescription that not even John Kerry endorses - leave immediately and call the Europeans' bluff on putting peace-keepers in under a U.N. flag.

Oh and by the way, 10 more today.

In Our Place...

If you're interested in the real cost of the war in Iraq, what life's like for our soldiers on the ground, read this article in the Washington Post. It describes the challenges facing the military hospital in Baghdad, the changing nature of soldiers' injuries, and the rising toll that the spread of violence in a destabilized former Iraq is costing us. These guys go in our name - really, in our place - as volunteers in our underpaid, and underappreciated armed forces. One excerpt:

While waiting for what one senior officer wearily calls "the flippin' helicopters," the Baghdad medical staff studies photos of wounds they used to see once or twice in a military campaign but now treat every day. And they struggle with the implications of a system that can move a wounded soldier from a booby-trapped roadside to an operating room in less than an hour.

"We're saving more people than should be saved, probably," Lt. Col. Robert Carroll said. "We're saving severely injured people. Legs. Eyes. Part of the brain."

Flag Draped

For some reason, the Bush team believes that it's okay to use the flag-draped remains in the photo on the left in a political advertisement - but that it's not alright for Americans to see the flag-draped coffins of brave Americans coming home from Iraq, above. As Jerry points out (and ably defends in a fascinating back-and-forth with a detractor), this national leadership team seems selective in the use of the images of the glorious dead.

Fourth and Long

It's almost too easy to call Pat Tillman an American hero, but that's what he was. Eschewing millions in NFL money to defend the United States against a clear and present enemy, the former Arizona Cardinals defensive back was killed in action 25 miles southwest of a U.S. military base at Khost, Afghanistan. That Tillman died in America's "good war" - the just, decisive action against al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and the toppling of the regime that harbored them - creates a neat and heroic story of war and sacrifice for countless columnists and politicians. And Tillman's life and the manner of his death deserve to be celebrated. What strikes me in this tale is the U.S. Army Sergeant's humility and silence in becoming a highly-trained Ranger. There were no press conferences, no reality shows on his elite training, no embeds along with the NFL star. In fact, Tillman virtually disappeared from the media - until his death made headlines yesterday. Rare are the American celebrities who willingly disappear in the course of risking their lives; Ted Williams and Jimmy Stewart come to mind. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if the human resources necessary are missing in the vital, in-country battle against al Qaeda - are too many brave men and women being wounded and killed in the wasted effort of Iraq, while the "aggressive defense" of the United States in Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan is spread painfully thin? I don't think the unilateralist hawk contingent in the Pentagon has the answer - but a truthful answer is something that men like Pat Tillman deserve.

TV's Best Show

No matter where I am or what I'm doing, every weeknight at 11 pm, my PVR whirs into action and records the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The Time Warner Cable settop box (the future killer of Tivo) is set to record - and keep until manually erased - each night's show. And I watch them all, sometimes a couple of episodes at a time. Without a doubt, it is the finest television show extant. Sure, the material is great - the Daily Show has terrific writers and a great cast of faux news reporters like Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, Ed Helms, and Rob Corddry. And it's got the usual guest list of actors, musicians, politicians, authors and real newsmen. But what holds the show together is Jon Stewart. As Don Imus has repeatedly pointed out, no one on television sells his material better than Stewart - who, until this gig, was at best a journeyman comic and actor. Melding the best tradition of Jackie Gleason, Bob Hope, and Walter Cronkite, Stewart runs not only the best late-night comedy show on TV, but the best current affairs show on TV. Fans already know this - if you're not one, watch it for a few nights, and you'll be hooked. Promise.

BD Loses Leg

Most Americans know that 700 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, but less frequently publicized by the body count-obsessed press are the wounded. According to the U.S. Central Command, 3,952 men and women have been wounded in combat. These are all injuries that require evacuation and treatment outside of Iraq, and many are severe. We tend to focus too much on the admittedly dramatic power plays in Washington - on what Cheney, Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld are doing, or what Kerry thinks about it. So leave it to Doonesbury to attempt to bring home the cost of this occupation. Gary Trudeau's strip this week covers that cost: one of its lead characters, the conservative soldier-quarterback BD, loses a leg in an insurgent attack. It's brilliant.

Jersey Girls

The backlash has started. Since my posting on the Jersey Girls and their incredible service to the nation in investigating our country's intelligence failtures, my mailbox has lit up with scathing attacks on the four 9-11 widows. Most point to a few right-wing sources - and suggest condescendingly that these courageous women should spend more time with their children, instead of serving as the driving emotional force behind the 9-11 Commission. A few highlights from compassionate conservatives:

"Ever wonder what hell will be like? Maybe it will be a big room where those tiresome "Jersey Girls," who made 9/11 whining into a cottage industry, and the White House press corps have to sit asking each other asinine questions for eternity."
Ralph Kinney Bennett of Tech Central Station, a right-wing Website.

"Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them."
Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal.

"It has now been firmly established that they are being propelled by anti-war, pro-socialist or social reconstruction Democrat groups."
Rush Limbaugh of right-wing radio.

These comments are, in my view, un-patriotic and worthy of widespread public scorn and ridicule. These four women who lost their husbands have held our government accountable - they dare to ask alound "how can 19 Saudi nationals attack the United States and kill nearly 3,000 people." The Commission is the result of their efforts - it may not be comfortable politically for the Clinton and Bush Administrations, but it's vital. And we owe a debt of gratitude to the Jersey Girls: Kristen Breitwieser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken and Patty Casazza

The Original Webgrrl

Aliza Sherman's description on her new Weblog is insanely non-descriptive to those who know her: "in my 30s, writer, learning to blog." Aliza, I beg to differ. In the mid-90s, in the age of the newborn Web, Aliza was a bundle of energy, promotion, and talent - the original Cybergrrl. See, Aliza Sherman understood the Internet as an inherently social medium - one that could lead people to meet, talk, get together in person. Like the adventure I shared with Chervokas, her Webgrrls was an amusement park thrill ride of a business - built on Aliza's vision and personality, careening around New York. We've lost touch, of course, in the post Cybergrrl world. I read that she's traveled across country in an RV, giving up New York, living out west (a seeming epidemic among New York women I know). Aliza's just getting her mediagirl blog warmed up - can't wait to hear that voice again on a regular basis.

IM on Issues 1.0

Thought I’d present one of the many instant message conversations I’ve been having these days about John Kerry, George Bush, and the current landscape – this one with long-time collaborator Jason Chervokas. The focus is on international relations, the war in Iraq, and terrorism. It’s been edited slightly to remove short-hand that only he and I understand and to fix typo’s.

Chervokas: If Kerry can give people a handful of decent reasons to vote for him, he could clean up.
Watson: He'd better start and he needs a way better message on the war/terrorism question...he comes across as weak on ideas
Chervokas: Yup
Watson: I need to blog this – I haven't posted in a week, been on the road.
Chervokas: Terrible....Kerry has gotta come out with a full-scale plan of what he would do differently as President to clean up Iraq, make it stable, and destroy al Qaeda.
Watson: I agree - if he could "project leadership" on this issue a bit more, he'd have something.
Chervokas: Yeah, forget what happened before. Iraq is going to be a huge problem if he can win. You can't just pull out, so what's Kerry's plan for a stable Iraqi government?
Watson: Indeed, for the Muslim world, for energy policy, for globalism - it's all tied together. His fake protectionist stance hurts his foreign policy stance.
Chervokas: Also, nice job by Bush with Sharon, basically telling the Palestinians to go fuck themselves and undercutting his own stated policy.
Watson: Well, that's GWB.
Chervokas: Yeah, but there's short and long term programmatic problems with Iraq
Watson: First - there is no Iraq!
Chervokas: Short term Kerry would inherit troops on the ground and no political solution.
Watson: We need to realize that and proceed - first stop, Turkey - you want in, accept Kurdistan as a nation. Then deal with partitioning the Sunnis and the Shia's.
Chervokas: It's called "nation building."
Watson: Yeah, but smaller nations. So that if one goes south, you still have the other two.
Chervokas: The problem is the only deep water port is in Basra. It's like the problems with partitioning Israel and Palestine.
Watson: True, but oil pipelines go cross country anyway.
Chervokas: Culturally, it might work … but economically it might not.
Watson: You need to create stable trading patterns. The old Arab world, what we called Persia, was based on stable trading routes. It's one of the the oldest “international” trading societies on earth.
Chervokas: Yeah but the U.S. model is multi ethnic, shared economics as the basis of nationhood - which isn't necessarily wrong.
Watson: We need to accept that the USA is a one in a million shot.
Chervokas: Well, okay, but look at the European Union. They've managed to have sovereignty and joint economics and the early going looks pretty good.
Watson: True. Of course, the EU came about after tens of millions of people died by warfare over the course of a single century - it took that to point the path to an EU.
Chervokas: Yeah, well, that's always been the path to long term reorganizaton on economic lines versus tribal ones. It never happens peacefully.
Watson: It's not generally accepted post 9/11 as a “tough-enough” stance, but we really need to look at the causes of terrorism in these huge societies and see what we can do - America fights very well, but it's also the best post-fight peacemaker in world history. We always invest. We need more of that spirit of American optimism that has always guided the nation.
Chervokas: Well, very specifically in the case of Iraq we went in with no political plan. The Bushies were clearly played by Chalabi and wanted to install him as their guy, but that's obviously not going to happen. June 30, they’'re "turning over" control of the country, and today they can't even tell you to whom or to what authority they intend to turn over the freaking country.
Watson: Yeah.
Chervokas: Long term, sure, the appeasement of repressive regimes from Saudi Arabia to Egypt, the military overthrow of the elected religious government in Algiers, etc....all long term strategic problems. But you can't have 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the entire time you’re trying to solve those problems. And you can't meanwhile be standing there with Sharon telling the Palestinans “take what we give you and like it.”
Chervokas: Palestinian/Israeli policy is crucial because is broadly effects opinion of us negotiating posture elsewhere. Of course if we give Sharon a blank check, we're gonna give the Saudi family a blank check.
Watson: Yeah, how you treat the Palestinians resonates in every capital in the Arab world - friendly and otherwise. You just don't get the feel that there's a governing strategy at the White House. Like they think it's Florida - how will it play tomorrow?
Chervokas: Where is Colin Powell? He's gotta be the most spineless Secretary of State of all time. Madeline Albright had a bigger set.
Watson: It's all about "loyalty" at the White House - not long-term love of country, service to the world, or even power-brokering internationally - it's just loyalty to the central team vs. "all enemies, Democrat or terrorist."

Kristen Breitwieser - Hero

In the wake of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 committee, when we learned by about the memo that caused her to stonewall for weeks and allow herself to be thrown to the wolves by the White House, destroying her reputation forever, I have found my new hero - and strangely enough, I found her on the occasionally annoying "Hardball with Chris Matthews." My new hero is Kristen Breitweiser.

Kristen Breitwieser's husband, Ronald, was killed in the World Trade Center, and Mrs. Breitweiser has represented victims' families who are monitoring the work of the commission. She is brilliant, well-spoken, and tough. She argues that this administration and its agencies - particularly the FBI and CIA - ignored the warning signs. But what is most painful to Kristen Breitwieser and the other 9/11 widows who have gone public is the Bush Administration's refusal to take any responsibility and to stop spinning.

Her reaction today to Rice's performance was swift and cutting: it was Rice's job to "fuse that information" and present it to the President, and "you know what, she didn't do it." Rice's answer: "I can't remember if I told the President about al Qaeda cells operating here in the United States."

And now, of course, we know that it's a fact what Breitwieser and the other 9/11 widows - dismissed as hysterical by Bush officials - have long argued about the title of a daily Presidential security briefing. As the nation now knows, it was entitled:

Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

I'm not convinced the U.S. could have prevented the 9/11 attacks - possibly, with more effective Presidential oversight, but in my view unlikely. What's offensive is the poltically-motivated coverup of what went on during the national crisis. And that's why we owe the widows of 9/11 like Kristen Breitweiser a debt of gratitude, because more than any other Americans, they've refused to be cowed by the Administration. And they're shining a light on our recent national tragedy.

---

UPDATE: The full Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001 has been released on a Saturday night by the White House. It is not, as Dr. Rice claimed under questioning, historical in nature. It deals with what were then current and ongoing threats and U.S. field operations. The revelations in it are not great for the President - but the Administration is just making things worse by trying the old political sidestep. Take responsibility and move on - voters, I think, would be forgiving.