The Afghan War

Replacing Gen. McChrystal with Gen. Petraeus is a definite signal that we're going to stay and continue to try to "win" in Afghanistan.

And now Republicans are taking up the mantra: "Afghanistan is Obama's war !!"

Well, yes, in one sense that is true. He has been Commander in Chief for 18 months, he called it "the necessary war" (in contrast to that other, unnecessary one), and his surge of troop levels there is still in the build-up stage.

But more and more people from the middle and the right are joining those on the left who opposed continuing it. Michael Steele's remarks got him in trouble, but he said what a lot of his own party members are saying.

From a different part of the political spectrum, Fareed Zakaria is calling it "disproportionate." Referring to CIA chief Leon Panetta's comment that the number of Taliban in Afghanistan may be down to as few as 50 to 100, he said on CNN yesterday:

If Al Qaeda is down to 100 men there at the most, why are we fighting a major war?

. . . Last month alone there were more than 100 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan. That's more than one allied death for each living Al Qaeda member in the country in just one month. . .

Why are we investing so much time, energy, and effort when Al Qaeda is so weak? Is there a more cost-effective way to keep Al Qaeda on the ropes than fight a major land and air war in Afghanistan? I hope someone in Washington is thinking about this and not simply saying we're going to stay the course because, well, we must stay the course.

Good questions to be asking. I'm sure there are better answers than simply "because . . ." But it does seem that we're heading for a quagmire, not unlike Viet Nam. It's not oil this time, like in Iraq, although the recent publicity about the mineral mining possibilities puts the greed issue back on the table.

My hunch is that the Obama administration would like nothing better than to get out and concentrate on our huge domestic problems. But I think it's fair to say that it would have been political suicide for Obama to walk away from Afghanistan. Those same Republicans who are hanging it around his neck now would be whooping it up and condemning him for cowardice and weakness if he had even hinted at wanting to end it short of total victory.

I think one simple answer to the "disproportionate" argument is that few Taliban are there now because they simply moved over into Pakistan. If we left, they would just return and set up their training camps and intimidate the people again.

The one glimmer of hope -- short of some sudden miraculous victory -- is that Petraeus is held in such high regard across the political spectrum that he might be the one person who could conclude that we had done all we can, that we're now doing more harm than good, and that we should leave.

Ralph

Vatican XII

Back on May 13 in my Vatican XI rant against the pope, Richard responded to say that the pope wields less influence than we non-catholics think and I shouldn't bother to listen to Benedict.

But he does have a lot of power over what happens in the administration of the church. The New York Times continues today with another article in its investigative journalism about the history of the Vatican's handling of the sex-abusing priests in the days when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and in charge of the Vatican office under whose jurisdiction sex abuse cases came.

The article today reveals just how much bishops from around the world were pleading with the Vatican to take some action. There was confusion about who had what responsibility, and documents have now come to light that make it clear that all cases of sexual abuse were to be referred to Ratzinger's office for handling. But nothing was being done, and the bishops could get no guidance nor help, despite repeated petitions and pleas.

Finally, in 2000 a group of bishops traveled to Rome from Australia, Canada, England, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and the U.S. -- and essentially forced them to listen.

In addition to handling abusive priests, Ratzinger's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was also charged with other duties more consistent with his interests -- and that's where he was putting his energies. At the same time these scandals were going unaddressed by the Vatican, Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which Ratzinger saw as Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.

In his defense, the article also points out that he was answerable to John Paul II, who seems to have been even more opposed to taking the abuse scandal seriously. And, when forced to by pubic opinion and bad publicity for the church, Benedict has responded in some ways that are good.

But it seems clear, both from his history and his repeated gaffes -- even while doing the right thing -- that he just does not really get it. For example, while now taking a much harder line of discipline toward abusers, he still makes references to this coming to light now by people who want to hurt the church. The problem in his eyes is not the abuse but the harm to the church.

It may be impossible for him to do any better than he has done. But, to this non-catholic observer, his primary concern is for the institution of the church -- and only when that is threatened does he turn his attention to human factor. I'm glad Richard and his fellow intellectual, progressive catholics do not lose faith because of this, but I would find it difficult.

Ralph

Rand improves his political savvy

I ridiculed Rand Paul for his inartful and politically disasterous handling of the interview where he expressed his objection to one part of the civil rights bill. He got a lot of noise back about that one, accusing him of wanting to perpetuate discrimination. No, he was just opposed to government control over private business, not integration; but he didn't clearly frame it that way.

He's learning fast, it seems. I was rather impressed with the way he handled questions about creationism and government money going to faith-based organizations for social services.

First, he joked: "I forgot to mention that I was only taking easy questions." Then he said:

The faith-based initiative was getting government involved in churches basically, and that scares me a little bit, because there are things that you can say in the church that we think are sinful, and that should be something we can say. But the second this church starts taking government money, then they're going to say you can't say these things are sinful.

Well, that's not quite right. The government doesn't dictate what can be said in the church, but it does say that you can't discriminate and that everyone has to be given equal opportunity for jobs or assistance, and that you cannot use the money to further a religious point of view -- in the programs that the government is paying for. That I agree with.

As to the creationist question, he simply declined to speculate about how old the earth is. The questioner had hoped he would agree with his own view that it is 6,000 years old. But then Paul framed it this way:

I'm not running for minister. I'm more than willing to stand up and say I'm a Christian, but I don't think I have to go into every detail of what my religious beliefs are. If I were going to be the minister of their church, they'd have a right to ask me that.

I still disagree with him basically about the role of government, and all questions that derive from that one. But he's learning fast how to better frame his answers to questions on the campaign trail. Will that make him more appealing to independents in Kentucky, which he will need to win the election? We'll see.

Ralph

What ?? John Boehner must be kidding !

John Boehner's tanning bed must be frying his brain. Why else would he commit political suicide by saying that we should increase the Social Security retirement age to 70 in order to pay for the war?

I know, that is consistent with Republican philosophy. But to say so in an on-record interview -- that he wants to take money from old folks to pay for a war that Bush started, so the rich people can keep their tax cuts that he gave them at the same time he was invading Iraq?

What a political gift -- if only the Democrats knew how to make use of such lunacy. Campaign slogans, bumper stickers, cartoons, late night comedians ridiculing grandpa who is so unpatriotic that he wants to retire instead of doing his part to help pay for the war. Show a slave-master with a giant whip, lashing out at all the grandpas chained together struggling to pull a huge armored Hummer out of the ditch -- and having an IED blow them all up. That should do it.

Is it possible I'm missing something? Is this a weird coded message to the Tea Party crowd? I can't make any sense -- even Republican sense -- out of it.

Ralph

Cheney's heart, Rummy's vanity

We know that Dick Cheney has an anatomical heart, because we are told about it every time it malfunctions and he has to have another bypass, another angioplasty, another pacemaker, or another defibrillation. It's getting to be not very newsworthy, apparently, given the difficulty I had in finding any followup news to the report that he was hospitalized last Friday for more heart symptoms.

Over the weekend, there were no bulletins and no news, either in the papers or on the internet. Finally, today, Huffington Post and CBS News online reported that he had been released from the hospital. But none of the following even mentioned it in their online news web sites: New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, CNN, ABC, NPR, McClatchy, BBC, or Al Jazeera news services.

Sen. Byrd's death, the Kagan confirmation hearings, McChrystal's retirement, BP oil mess, and more were of more immediate concern. And what Huff and CBS did report was enigmatic.

Huff: "He underwent testing and ultimately received medication to treat a fluid buildup related to his aggressive form of heart disease." Are they talking about congestive failure and/or edema due to lack of adequate cardiac output? Or pericardial fluid? Obviously their reporter didn't know the clarifying questions to ask.

CBS: "Cheney was given IV treatment for retention of fluid related to his coronary artery disease, which improved his condition. A source familiar with the case told CBS News that the incident nonetheless confirmed Cheney's 'tenuous cardiac status.'"

The last seems a not so subtle message that he is in a rather serious and precarious condition. Of course, one might have predicted that when he had his first serious heart attack at age 37 -- and when he had the four more since then, plus quadruple bypasses, two angioplasties to clear clogged arteries, a pacemaker, at least one instance of requiring zapping to stop fillibration -- AND served as Sec of Defense, presidential Chief of Staff, Vice President, and CEO of Haliburten since then. So don't count him out yet.

So much for his anatomical heart. Does he have a human heart? That's debatable. Apparently he likes his daughters, Little Liz who's forever on TV defending his policies, and even the one who is lesbian and has given him and Lynne some more grandbabies. I still thought it was pretty telling that the newborn pictures released to the public showed Dick and Lynne with the baby, grinning like possums, as if they had done it themselves -- and the two mothers nowhere to be seen in any released photos.

Meanwhile, his pal Rummy was at the Pentagon today for the unveiling of his $50,000 portrait to hang as an honor given to former DoD Secretaries -- his second, given that he served in that capacity once before. Wouldn't you think one portrait would be enough? Wouldn't modest propriety have led him to suggest: let's save the money for a second one?

Well, taxpayers, not to worry. His Humbleness paid the $50,000 price tag himself. All this for an allegded war criminal who will never be held accountable. Instead of a line-up mug shot, we get a $50,000 oil portrait hanging in the Pentagon. IT JUST AIN'T RIGHT.

Ralph

Two decisions

So far today, the Supreme Court has handed down two decisions:

1. By a 5-4 decision, it struck down a Chicago law that banned hand guns within its jurisdiction. What this means is that the court has decided that it is a violation of the 2nd amandment rights to keep and bear arms for a local government to have stricter gun control laws, based on local crime statistics -- although its opinion (written by Justice Alito) left some room for there to be some limits in other cases.

2. By a 5-4 decision, it upheld a lower court decision that allowed a university to deny funds and official recognition to a local campus Christian group that requires members to sigh a statement of faith that effectively bars gay and lesbian students from being members. The ruling does not "kick the organization off campus," as some would have it. The group can exist and meet; it simply says the school doesn't have to support such a group that discriminates against some students.

In both cases, the usual conservative and liberal justices lined up accordingly with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote, joining the conservatives on #1 and the liberals on #2.

Of course, Elena Kagan is unlikely to change this balance, since she will replace John Paul Stevens. Only if Obama has the chance to replace one of the conservative members (which seems unlikely, barring unforeseen health problems), will the balance shift.

The only hope for her making things better is that she might help persuade Kennedy to join the liberals in a few more cases than otherwise. Kennedy will be a crucial vote when the case to overturn California's Prop8 makes it to the Court. From his very favorable majority opinions for the Court's striking down Colorado's Amendment 2 and the Texas sodomy law, there's a good chance he would side with the liberals on a gay rights issue.

Still -- "gay marriage" brings out different issues for some people. But the case made by the team of Olsen and Buis in the hearings in California this spring is compelling, and the defense was a complete dud. Their argument for the Prop8 ban was essentially "because it's always been that way" and "it's better for children to have a mother and a father."

If conservatives vote according to a reading of the law, as the they claim they do, then there seems little room to stand on to deny equal protection to gays. But then, we know, they don't always do what they say they do. The "originalists" will likely say that the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage and ignore the contradictions all those times they themselves "invent" what's the Constitution says.

Ralph

GOP and Kagan

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings will be held this week for Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Republican senators promise to say stupid things to keep it from being dull, and they are desperately looking for new material. There must be nothing new to find, because they are doing re-runs of two supposedly damning issues that got shot down weeks ago.

1. That she is anti-military. John Kerry has thoroughly debunked this issue. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she had to deal with the fact that allowing military recruiters to use the campus office of career services would violate the university's non-discrimination policy, which antedated Don't Ask, Don't Tell by 15 years. She however allowed them to meet with students in other campus locations. She was chosen to address the cadets at West Point, where she warmly and admiringly acknowledged them for their courage. And always, when greeting a new class of students at Harvard, she gave special recognition to the returning veterans in the class. Opposed to DADT? Yes. Anti-military? Hardly.

2. The fact that she has never held a position as a judge. None other than far-right Justice Scalia said he thought that was a good thing, given that the present court has plenty of former judges; and besides it's not necessary anyway, he said.

But they're Republicans, right? So they can't just shut up and vote against her. They have to grandstand. It's already started.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) says she has "serious deficiencies" and he even hinted at a filibuster.

But Mitch McConnell (R-KY) takes the cake:

"The question before the Senate is whether, given Ms. Kagan's background as a political adviser and academic, we believe she could impartially apply the law to groups with which she doesn't agree and for which she and the Obama administration might not empathize. So far, I don't have that confidence."

Now wait a minute. Repeatedly, when it goes from a Republican nominee to a Democratic nominee, they do a complete reversal about what's ok (like how awful that she has no judicial experience and has been a presidential adviser -- yea, completely unlike Harriet Miers, huh?).

But now McConnell is doing a complete reversal from one Democratic nominee to another Democratic nominee by the same Democratic president. Exactly one year ago, you would have thought Obama's comment about Sonia Sotomayor and "empathy" was the worst thing in the world. Now, Kagan isn't qualified because she LACKS empathy?

Of course, we all know what he means. She maybe won't have "empathy" for the fat cat businessmen and Republican power-freaks who want to control our government -- when they are in power, that is.

But wouldn't you think he would have chosen a different word than the one they ridiculed so joyously just a year ago?

Ralph