Politics

Peter Arnett gave Iraqi television an interview over the weekend, and got fired for it. My first reaction to the news was, well, he ought to be fired for giving a propaganda interview. He’s supposed to be a reporter. Would that MSNBC routinely fired people who gave propaganda interviews; god knows we’ve seen enough of ‘em on Fox. Let’s break down the transcript. First off, he gives Iraq credit for being cooperative and courteous; probably untrue but meaningless fluff. Second, he says there’s “growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war.” He also says “It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.” The first is true, mostly due to media coverage of recent events, and the second — well, if we fired people for saying that, we’d have to fire Ann Coulter. ...

I’m not sure why Blix’s latest comments (original) haven’t gotten more play. I think that when Blix says “We feel that Iraq must do more than they have done so far in order to make this a credible avenue,” that it behooves us to take note. He is in fact agreeing at least in part with the US claims that Iraq has not demonstrated that they have disarmed. ...

Well, that’s interesting. I figured when the Solomon Islands politely extricated themselves from the coalition, it was just one of those things and a good excuse to poke some fun at Bush. A diplomatic error but not a really important one. So what do I say when it happens again? This time, Slovenia is saying “Hey, wait, include us out.” This time it’s after we accidentally included them in the wartime budget. No kidding; we were slated to give ‘em four and a half million until the Prime Minister of Slovenia said they didn’t want our money.

This story (original) on a couple of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in Umm Qasr is revealing all the way through. Start with the fact that they were both recent conscripts, one only seventeen years old. Notice how they didn’t feel safe surrendering until an old Iraqi who’d been through the first Gulf War told them it’d be OK. They were really happy to surrender once they thought it was safe, though. ...

Rumsfeld just told Syria to stop sending arms to Iraq, and stated that he considered supplying arms to Iraq to be “hostile acts.” Does that mean we’re threatening military action? “I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. It was carefully phrased.” Three things. First: Rumsfeld ain’t Secretary of State. Why isn’t Powell saying this? (Yeah, OK, so it’s a rhetorical question.) Second: if Syria’s actions are a hostile act, what is it when Russia supplies arms to Iraq (original)? ...

Hah. I’ve mathematically clinched victory in my group in the [Yahoo March Madness pool](http://web.archive.org/web/20220124012201/http://web.archive.org/web/20220124012201/http://tournament.fantasysports.yahoo.com/men/ (original)/) (original). Nobody can stop Mr. Domino! I’m actually doing pretty well overall, being in the 77th percentile. If Kentucky holds on and goes all the way I’ll have a respectable record. If not, well, I selected Florida to be in the finals, which tells you what you need to know about that eventuality.

So of course, Richard Perle is gonna stay on the Defense Policy Board. Good news for Perle; he still gets to make money from a venture capital fund which invests in homeland security, and he still gets to officially advise the President on matters which will affect those investments. I’d like to officially redefine the term “”Trent Lott moment”:/archives/000654.html” as follows: a Trent Lott moment is when someone in the public eye is caught doing something unethical, and as a result steps down from his or her former position in a way which doesn’t actually cause him or her any significant inconvenience beyond a loss of prestige. Thank you for your attention to this detail.

Gary Hart has a weblog. He has made the fundamental mistake of turning on comments. Word to the wise: some of the most popular bloggers on the Internet don’t have comments. You can do without ‘em, and if you have ‘em, people will expect you to respond to them. The pitfall of opening lines of communication is that you might be forced to close them, and that’s worse than never opening ‘em at all. ...

I’m getting really obsessive; I’m tempted to subscribe to Stratfor’s War on Iraq service. Fifty bucks… well, Kit Paypaled me a buck yesterday, so call it forty-nine bucks. I’ll think about it. I am an admitted information junkie. It occurred to me yesterday that I’d have a blast taking a year off, travelling around the world, and blogging the whole thing. Sort of like Allbritton, but less dangerous and not really anything like a professional journalist. I’m committed to my current job for a few years minimum, so it won’t happen any time soon, but one never knows. Maybe someday. I could have done it the other year, while I was unemployed, and come to think of it I should have. I hadn’t expected such a long period of unemployment, though. (Laugh at my naivety.)

Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, resigned today (original). The proximate cause is the $725,000 he was gonna be paid for lobbying on behalf of Global Crossing. However, the real meat of the story is this article (original), which outlines the ways in which Perle’s venture capital company benefits from the War on Terror. It’s a chicken and an egg question; if Perle really believes that the War on Terror is the right thing to do and he would advocate it no matter what his finances, then there’s nothing morally flawed in his venture capital activities. The problem is that you can’t tell which came first from the outside. That’s why, in these situations, you simply avoid the entire problem and refrain from any investments which could possibly be perceived as a conflict of interest. Pleading innocence doesn’t absolve you; divesting does. ...