Brew City Brawler

Who’s Being Serious About Iraq?

"Being Serious About Iraq" Rick Esenberg thundered over at Shark and Shepherd on Monday, in an effort to rebut Mike Mathias' assertion that "peace activists" were right about Iraq (an assertion about as controversial as saying the earth orbits the sun). Ese goes on to make a gooey argument that Bill Clinton bears part of the blame (credit?) for going into Iraq because he made regime change in Iraq part of U.S. policy, plus a bunch of intelligence agencies thought he had WMDs, etc. So it's not just Bush's fault.

 

Plus, don't say Bush lied because that's not nice.

 

Being serious apparently means ignoring that the administration stretched intelligence to fit its ends (given the stakes, the Brawler would say this falls under "lying"), something Dick Cheney literally cannot stop himself from doing. Being serious means eliding that the Bush Administration hyped the threat of nukes far beyond what most credible observers, who saw a potential risk of chemical/bio weapons, would support (aluminum tubes, anyone?). Being serious apparently means ignoring Hans Blix's reports that he found nothing and that, with some exceptions, the Iraq regime was cooperating with inspections. Being "serious" apparently means ignoring that people familiar with Iraq's weapons program spoke out against the buildup (Ritter, Butler). Being serious also means ignoring that Bush's rush to war came under serious criticism on diplomatic/procedural/political grounds (Gore being the most notable) as well as moral (Pope John Paul II, who said it didn't meet the criteria for a just war).

Being serious also means making statements like this:

 

Even if Saddam was in check in 2003, it seemed unlikely that he could be kept there.

 

with a straight face. Seriously? How would he have gotten out of "check"? Coalition air patrols had the run of the skies. Does Esenberg seriously believe that Saddam could have rebuilt a conventional army or WMD program without it getting blown up? (And if Saddam was such a threat, why were his neighbors cool or opposed to U.S. action while they supported Desert Storm?)

 

Being "serious" about Iraq also means citing an essay by a noted McCarthy apologist and proponent of invading Iran (who's wargamed bat-shit scenarios of said invasion) title "Why Iraq Was Inevitable." That seems a bit of a determinist, if not a vulgar Marxist, theme for the non-materialist Esenberg, but when you're hard-pressed to defend a war that's killed tens of thousands, you gotta grab whatever reed you can.

 

As one might expect, McCarthy apologist Arthur Herman's essay is bulging with manure. The Brawler doesn't have time to divert a river through  it, so he'll just tend to a few bits, selected almost at random.

 

Herman tries to argue that the U.S. was doing the hard work that the UN wouldn't do. The UN didn't have the stones to follow up on its Resolutions so it was up to the U.S. to do so.  

 

“The case against Saddam, even by the UN’s own rules, was rock solid, and in November 2002 the Security Council did unanimously issue Resolution 1441, ordering him to disarm his WMD’s or face “serious consequences.” Everyone understood that “serious consequences” meant the use of force, including on Iraq's territory."

Actually, the people who hammered out 1441 said -- explicitly -- it was not an authorization for war. Said one: “[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." That'd be dovish U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte (who, arrogating to the U.S. the right to preemptive war, said that the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting defend itself against the threat posted by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nation as resolutions and protect world peace and security." That didn't work out too well, did it.)

 

Later, Herman distorts the record on Hans Blix's search for WMDs:

 

The president held back until Blix's interim report on January 27, 2003,which even the New York Times labeled "grim." There was nothing in it to suggest that Iraq had accepted the principle of complying with UN resolutions or intended to take any of the steps that, in Blix's words, "it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

 

From theinterim report (which did include some complaints about Iraqi behavior):

 

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

 Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.  The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul.  Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good.  The environment has been workable.

 Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences.  Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day.  These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections.  We seek to be both effective and correct.

Quick -- is Herman's characterization of Blix's report a "lie"? And should he have noted that Blix would subsequently argue the invasion of Iraq was illegal? Or should have have cited these words from a March 2008 columnn penned by Blix:

 

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

Esenberg, no doubt, finds these words unserious.

 

Then, Herman just wanders into the bizarre:

 

Should we have backed off after the Blix report on January 27, 2003, even as the American troop buildup in Kuwait was in full swing? That would have devastated Bush's reputation as a war leader after his resounding success in Afghanistan, and guaranteed that he would never be more than a one-term president (which may have been the real objective of his critics anyway).

 

Is it me or is Herman conflating the national interest with Bush's reputation? Truly, the mind reels.

 

Esenberg says he savored Herman's essay as he swigged some Oregon Pinot Noir. Seems like a waste, as articles like this are best complemented by grape MD 20/20.

 

Over at the blog Balloon Juice, Army vet/war-supporter-turned-Obamaton John Cole says:

 

In a just world, people like me who cheerleaded this disaster would have to pay a price for our foolishness. As it is, I have learned a horrible lesson at the expense of thousands American dead and tens of thousands of American wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars. It isn’t right.

 

One awaits the day when Esenberg can find it in himself to make this leap rather than turn to a McCarthy apologist to make a point that's long since gone past indefensible.

 

For more Esenberg ear-plugging, check out this classic Brawler post.

What cities is Charlie Sykes talking about?

On the rare occasions when Charlie Sykes permits people who disagree with him on his show, he doesn't argue with them. He leaps from conservative talking point to conservative talking point in a surreal fashion that baffles anyone who's trying to follow an intellectual thread vs. merely say, "You go, Charlie."

Oh, and when he runs out of talking points he just makes shit up.

And so it went when Charlie "debated" Earl on Tuesday. Earl took issue with Sykes slandering of people gathered at the Coggs center as moochers and his characterization of people in the inner city (i.e. black folks) in general. Earl would say things are the hardest now that he's ever seen in his 54 years. Charlie asked when was this golden age. Earl says in the 70s. The 70s? Charlie snorts. Earl points out in the 70s African Americans in Milwaukee had, relatively, a high standard of living and the issue is jobs. Charlie says don't you think those jobs in manufacturing left because of EPA standards and a litigious environment (LOL). Earl blames Nafta. And on it goes until Charlie's shifted the goal posts many times, apparently shuts down Earl's mike, and explains why Earl is confused.

My recollection is strained at this point,but Charlie says other cities have bounced back -- in context, bounced back from difficult economic situations. Why not Milwaukee? But he never cites an example. And so the Brawler asks: what cities is Charlie referring to. Because, to be frank, as far as rust belt cities that were hammered during the restructurings/sky high interest rates/recessionary environment of the late 1970s and early 1980s, Milwaukee is faring fairly well. The Brawler recently was speaking with a highly paid consultant type who's bounced around and lived in any number of Midwestern burgs and was pleasantly surprised when he landed in Milwaukee. "It's not Detroit," he said. "It's not Cleveland." No, it's not, and it's not any other number of Midwestern burgs that have gone through wrenching economic transitions. It is far, far from perfect -- and the opening of a new hip  restaurant in the Third Ward or a hipster bar in Bayview should not be mistaken for overwhelming progress while the central city continues to suffer -- but compared to its peers, it's doing all right.

So the Brawler asks: What cities does Sykes wish Milwaukee were more like?

Charlie Sykes, race baiter

It's not a surprise that Charlie Sykes took the low road of race baiting in his discussion of the 12th & Vliet "riot" on Monday.

What percentage of people there have cable TV? he mused at one point.

"I would say at least 85%," opined one caller, who didn't allow her ignorance to stand in the way of a precise statistical assessment (indeed, with those skills, why did she have time to call in to Charlie at 9:30ish on a Monday?). Others bemoaned how the people were lining up to get free food vouchers so they could get their hair done.

None of this is a surprise, and Mike Plaisted and Zach Dub have addressed the broader right wing narrative (and Capper ably provides a frontline POV in comments at Zach's).

(Nor is it a surprise that Charlie Sykes' denunciation of these people as moochers is inconsistent with some of the central premises of his show in recent months. Charlie frequently bemoans the high cost of gasoline, which drives up the cost of everything, including food, he says. And then uses it to attack "Democrats!" Sometimes, he'll say "Imagine being on a fixed income." (In point of fact,many workers in America are on a fixed, if not shrinking, income. But in this case he's most likely referring to wealthy pensioners.) So, if food costs are rising -- as Charlie tells us -- wouldn't it be likely that the people most affected by sharp increases in food prices (i.e. the poor) would show up in great numbers upon hearing a rumor that free food vouchers were being distributed. And, earth to charlie: Shiftless moochers don't show up in a line at five in the morning, as you suggest. Moochers aren't aware there's two five o'clocks. People who are having a hard time making ends meet do. But you've never known people like that. And even if you had, that might interrupt a narrative of  thug culture/culture of dependency driven by a few knuckleheads that Monday.)

The thing that aggravated the Brawler the most, however, and showed some pristine race-baiting by Sykes, was his connecting the "riot" to a local push for the city to require mandatory sick time for workers.

As Charlie says:

"You don't think the voters in the city of Milwaukee are going to go, 'Hey, this is great, I get free time. I basically now get a week and a half where I don't even have to show up at work. I just have to call in and say "I'm sick" and my employer has to accomodate me and pay me. You don't think that voters in the city of Milwaukee are going to overwhelmingly" vote for mandatory sick days.

As someone who's worked in the real world (i.e., not grown up in Fox Point, not entered a field in which you were a legacy, not held a job as a radio host after lying about the identity of a female co-host not your wife), the Brawler would suggest that most people call in sick when they or their children are actually sick. And, earth to Charlie, there are places where you can get fired right now if you do that because you don't have sick days. (Please see Pundit Nation.) And if you don't think an employer will find a reason to can somebody if they sense they're abusing the sick day policy, you really have no sense of how the world works. Labor market's slack,baby. Fear is in the air. Only a coddled talk show host, whose entire work for the day is recasting and transmitting crap he's read on the WSJ editorial page or on blogs could speak with such assured ignorance.

Here's a story from the real world:

She cited the case of a father with a son who suffers from asthma. The boy was in and out of the hospital and needed to be monitored for 48 hours. Although the father had worked at a grocery store for three years, he was not able to miss work to care for his son, Stear said.

Now, there may be an economic case to be made against this. (And the Brawler thinks it's weak. It is difficult to imagine any business suffering unduly for having to give an employee a day off when he or she is sick.) But Charlie doesn't even make an effort to make that case. Instead he suggests that support for mandatory sick time would be driven by an urge for shiftlessness by "voters in the city of Milwaukee."

And when he says "Voters in the city of Milwaukee" he quite clearly is talking about "black voters." And when he imputes to them a propensity toward shiftlessness and laziness, that's classic racism.

Moreover: Longtime listeners of Charlie Sykes may recall that WTMJ gave him several days off after his mother died last year. It's nice that they did that. Many employers would be less generous. Is that OK with Charlie?

Ah, look at all the fringey people

 Say "fringe" to the Brawler, he immediately pictures beady-eyed dudes of advanced middle age who cruise Victor's.

Mark Belling, however, means it to refer to people who ride the bus.

From another most likely unedited opus in the Waukesha Freeman:

Unless you’re one of the fringe that actually rides the bus, transit just isn’t that important. Almost everybody who has a job drives to it or gets a ride from somebody else. Throwing tens of millions at such a tiny part of the transportation ridership is pointless. Creating a train that runs along Lake Michigan is beyond pointless; it’s moronic. Raising our already onerous tax burden for the benefit of the cult that uses transit is another nail in the region’s economic coffin.

"Economic coffin" -- seriously, one cannot be paid too little for dropping such a phrase for public consumption.

The Brawler supposes on must give Belling credit for using the word fringe instead of a racial epithet (fringebacks?). But the Bell outdoes himself in the preceding paragraph:

In the meantime, politicians and sellout business groups are again trying to raise our taxes for the least important component of the local transportation network - mass transit. The fake "crisis" has been promoted for years by The Business Journal and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and they’re now getting backing from the increasingly left-wing Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce. MMAC is joining the papers and other local lefties in calling for a 0.5 percent sales tax in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties to pay for more buses and the inane Milwaukee-Kenosha commuter train.

You might think the MMAC might have more insight into the need for a functioning mass transit system in the era of $4 gas than a failed TV talk show host. But you'd be lefties if you thought that! You gotta admit: Belling is a Brown Shirt's Brown Shirt.

As a public service, the Brawler share real life pictures of the "fringe" who use mass transit to get around town:

(Wait, that dude's white!)

(Wait, more white people?)

(Check out the dude with the papers folded in his shirt pocket!. How fringe is that?)

This just in: Bush lied, people died

People will sometimes point out that that bumperstickers oversimplify complicated issues (no kidding). But it appears the bumpersticker "Bush lied, people died" actually understates the case.

--Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

--Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

--Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

--The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

--The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

--Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Most sentient readers will say "no kidding." But alas, even the more respectable voices on Milwaukee's right have long sneered at the BLPD formulation. Not the least of which is Rick Esenberg.Consider (links to the Shark's original commentary):

The argument that "Bush lied" is specious.

***

Rev. Joseph Lowery trotted out the multi-discredited" Bush lied about WMDs" trope and suggested that liberating Iraq from a murderous dictator was like genocide.

***

That Hussein was not then as dangerous as the entire world believed and that he was (as the Bush administration always conceded) not directly involved in the attacks of Sept. 11 (even as he actively supported Islamic terror) now forms the basis of a  malicious and unsupported myth "Bush lied; people died."

Now the Brawler only raises these comments because (trusting iT's observations) he thinks Esenberg is really much smarter than this. Esenberg's last claim was always specious given that Condi's statement about Hussein's aluminum tubes was pure fabrication (and yes, it's fair to pin blame for Bush's NSC director's remarks on Bush, that whole buck-stops-here-particularly-on-the-road-to-war thing).But why address that when you can throw out words like "specious" or "malicious and unsupported myth"? Or does the Shark really think, in matters of life and death, there's a meaningful difference between lying and making shit up based on wishful thinking?

The Brawler has little doubt that the findings of this Senate report will have zero impact on the arguments of the pro-Iraq occupation dead-enders. Why let revelations of the "facts" of why we're in Iraq actually enter the terms of debate.

But Esenberg has said elsewhere that he doesn't think McCain's position on the war will hurt him the fall. The Brawler suspects that observation will prove specious.

Obama's scary plans for America revealed

Does God want another Scott Walker gubernatorial run?

Asked a while back about his position as the presumptive GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2010, Scott Walker said he was focused on his priorities for the next two years -- getting McCain elected, getting other Repubs elected, etc. Not mentioned -- as Pundit Nation noted at the time -- was effectively managing Milwaukee County.

Also conspicuously absent from Walker's comments was how the position of God would weigh in his decision to run for governor again. Which is odd, given that when he made his ramshackle run in 2006 -- and when he pulled out -- he was the instrument of God's will.

From the March 24 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Walker said he made the final decision Thursday. His campaign fell $200,000 short of a self-set goal of $500,000 by the end of March, Walker campaign manager Bruce Pfaff said.

Walker, a preacher's son, said he prayed on the decision this week before making it, much as he had before his entry into the race.

"I believe that it was God's will for me to run," Walker said. "After a great deal of prayer during the last week, it is clear that it is God's will for me to step out of the race."

So, clearly, the obvious follow up for reporters is whether he is praying on whether to once again inflict a Walker gubernatorial bid on Wisconsin. In the meantime, Scott will continue to act as the agent of forces less than divine in his job as County Executive -- incurring criticism from even stalwart supporters.

Mysterious ways, indeed.

Perhaps the Journal-Sentinel's McIlheran should avoid writing about the whole rock genre

Patrick McIlheran embarrasses himself by approvingly linking and quoting a rightwing hack who suggests many of the 75,000 people at Obama's Portland,Ore. rally were there to see local indie rock heroes The Decemberists, who opened up for Obama.

Patrick would have been well advised to have read Sadly No's (exponentially more reliable than the New York Sun or the National Review put together!) take on the hopeless argument that even a fraction of the people gathered would have been there primarily to see the Decemberists. As one commenter there notes, when the Decemberists played in NYC for two nights they played at a 3,000-capacity venue.

Does McIlheran think that the Decemberists are "spawn" of Bob Dylan?

And which is worse:Getting people to come to a rally by having the Decemberists open up or walk through a Potemkinized street of Baghdad and say things are going great?

(The Brawler wishes to note that while he is not a huge fan of the Decemberists, Colin Meloy's book for 33 1/3 about the Replacements' Let It Be is very, very, very good.)

This silliness gets exhausting. Back to hiatus!

Journal Sentinel gushes over the dreamy Paul Ryan

Most newspapers give little attention to bills that are nothing more than grandstanding or empty gestures. That's especially true for bills introduced by House members of an ideologically bankrupt minority party.

But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel positively gushes about the "excitement" generated in conservative circles for a fiscally irresponsible bill that he claims would reform Social Security, Medicare, the health care system and the tax code. It notes that it's an ambitious plan that even Ryan admits won't go anywhere -- arguably because it's nothing more than a rightwing wish list cranked out to fire up the base in what is sure to be a November massacre for the GOP.

"I call it a road map for America's future," said Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, because the name "Steaming pile of GOP BS" already was taken and mention of roads drive up contributions from his buddies at the Operating Engineers. "If we don't start tackling these problems, they're going to tackle us."

Sadly the article doesn't tackle the actual specifics of the bill -- it contents itself to quote some Republicans who say Paul Ryan is a man of enormous intellectual magnitude and includes an obligatory quote from a liberal type who whines about how the bill benefits the rich. Wah wah wah.

It doesn't note that most people hate health savings accounts -- a point noted in a National Review of doe-eyed Paul -- or that HSAs are in no way a miracle cure for the health insurance crisis the country faces. HSAs are at the core of Ryan's plan to "tackle" the problem of health insurance.

And while it mentions Paul Ryan's plan to fix Social Security (a program that serious people know doesn't face any imminent threat despite some scary, context-free numbers the reporter throws out) -- "Allow workers younger than 55 to invest a third of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts." -- the story doesn't raise the question of how Social Security will meet current obligations if workers are putting money into retirement accounts. Kind of a serious issue. Also, Ryan's plan guarantees people who invest money in retirement accounts would receive the standard payment if their investments don't work out. Can you say "moral hazard?" And where does that money come from?

And that's just for starters.

It's evident from the story that the reporter has no idea what she's writing about -- or doesn't care -- and that she's just running the traps -- wacky contrast lead, quote the congressman, add a patina of policy talk, throw in some quotes favoring/opposing the man behind the plan without addressing the actual plan and "whallah!" you have a news story. And shame on the editors for running this ... piece. The only people served by this story are Paul Ryan and his people who have another clip portraying him as an oasis of ideas.

A more pertinent question the reporter could have put to the ostensibly fiscally conservative Paul Ryan is why he continues to support an occupation that is draining will drain our coffers for decades to come for no good effect.

Which is worse: A paper that sucks or no paper at all?

Awesome bible verses: James 5: 1-8

From theNew Testament's Letter of James, the theological justification for modern Republicanism:

1] Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
[2] Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
[3] Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
[4] Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.
[5] Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
[6] Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.
[7] Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
[8] Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Written by Rev. Wright?