Night of the Republican Living Dead

To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites "legacy costs," including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote, "Our extensive pension and (post-employment) obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us." Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.

But there's a twist to the automaker's pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.

Another of GM's pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.

When General Motors cites retiree costs, the giant auto maker has a point: It owed nearly 700,000 U.S. workers and retirees pensions that totaled $87.8 billion at the end of last year.

But $95.3 billion had already been set aside to pay those benefits when due.

All of these assets are earning investment returns, which offset the pensions' expense. GM lost $10.6 billion in 2005. But deep as its losses have been, they would have been far worse without the more than $10 billion per year in investment income that the GM pension plan for the rank and file generates.

The pension plan for GM executives is another matter. Unfunded to the tune of $1.4 billion, it detracts from GM's bottom line each year.

The oil shocks caused a big problem, and part of the problem was this – giving lots of money to a bunch of Middle Eastern dictatorships really meant giving lots of money to a very few individuals. When you pay for a barrel of oil from Kuwait or from Saudi Arabia, really that money is controlled by the kings of those countries. When you buy oil from, say Sweden, or Britain or Canada, that money goes into a lot of hands, who then turn around and use their foreign currency bonanza mostly to buy goods.

Well, no matter how many jets or limos you want, there really is a limit to how much even a few thousand noblemen and dictators can spend.

They had lots of money, and when you’re rich and have piles of money, and aren’t a complete moron, you go looking for assets to buy – businesses, real estate and so on that produce returns. Since your own countries are backwards third world economies, even if you want to spend at home, there’s a limit to it. So you go to first world economies. Since oil is bought in dollars, and since the US is the lynchpin world economy, mostly you go to the US (although Europe had to deal with this issue as well, and chose a different path, one of regulating ownership, instead.)

So the US realized that if it didn’t do something, the cutting edge, most profitable industries in the US would be bought up by a very few rich oil princes. In absolute terms their money was small compared to the entire float of the US economy, but it was highly liquid and more than sufficient to buy controlling interests in all the businesses really worth buying. One solution, the one most of Europe chose, was to create laws that said “no, you can’t buy that.”

That’s not the choice that was made – the choice made was to make America’s rich [rich] enough to compete.

This book augments the portrait of Mr. Bush as an incurious and curiously uninformed executive that Mr. Suskind earlier set out in "The Price of Loyalty" and in a series of magazine articles on the president and key aides. In "The One Percent Doctrine," he writes that Mr. Cheney's nickname inside the C.I.A. was Edgar (as in Edgar Bergen), casting Mr. Bush in the puppet role of Charlie McCarthy, and cites one instance after another in which the president was not fully briefed (or had failed to read the basic paperwork) about a crucial situation.

During a November 2001 session with the president, Mr. Suskind recounts, a C.I.A. briefer realized that the Pentagon had not told Mr. Bush of the C.I.A.'s urgent concern that Osama bin Laden might escape from the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan (as he indeed later did) if United States reinforcements were not promptly sent in. And several months later, he says, attendees at a meeting between Mr. Bush and the Saudis discovered after the fact that an important packet laying out the Saudis' views about the Israeli-Palestinian situation had been diverted to the vice president's office and never reached the president.

Keeping information away from the president, Mr. Suskind argues, was a calculated White House strategy that gave Mr. Bush "plausible deniability" from Mr. Cheney's point of view, and that perfectly meshed with the commander in chief's own impatience with policy details. Suggesting that Mr. Bush deliberately did not read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was delivered to the White House in the fall of 2002, Mr. Suskind writes: "Keeping certain knowledge from Bush — much of it shrouded, as well, by classification — meant that the president, whose each word circles the globe, could advance various strategies by saying whatever was needed. He could essentially be 'deniable' about his own statements."

"Whether Cheney's innovations were tailored to match Bush's inclinations, or vice versa, is almost immaterial," Mr. Suskind continues. "It was a firm fit. Under this strategic model, reading the entire N.I.E. would be problematic for Bush: it could hem in the president's rhetoric, a key weapon in the march to war. He would know too much."

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.

... "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

Center for Constitutional Rights lawyers, who defend 200 of the detainees, said the suicides were acts of desperation carried out by people who had not been charged and have no hope of getting their day in court.

The human rights group Amnesty International blamed the Bush administration's policies for the deaths.

But Harris said the suicides were an act of "asymmetric warfare" aimed at getting the prison closed. He said a "mythical belief" had spread among inmates that the camp would be shut if three detainees were to die.

Then the GOP leadership decided to shuffle the deck a bit and "improve" on the idea of a floor debate. It was a classic bait and switch: Republican leaders promised a debate on the war, but delivered a debate on whether "the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror." No amendments or changes were allowed. Is Jones still pleased? Not so much.

Jones now says he feels duped by his own party's leadership. "Maybe I should have been less trusting, but I felt it would be a debate that would allow us to talk about policy," Jones told me. "I don't see how we would have gotten hurt if we had allowed members of both parties to go down to the floor to offer an amendment."

Lesson #1 on Capitol Hill: if you trust the Republican leadership, you're making a mistake — even if you're a Republican.

In a very straighforward descriptive style, Khalilzad writes that Iraqis must hide the fact that they work for the US or face ostracism or worse. Women are being treated only slightly better than if they were living under the Taliban in 1999 --- and they are being asked to wear clothing that Khalilzad admits was not even required by the most repressive Iranian Ayatollahs. They are losing their driving privileges and are considered suspicious if they use a cell phone --- they might be calling a lover, you see. (This is your fundamentalist religion working to "free" women from the burden of being full citizens.)

People are being gouged for electricity, to which they barely have access anyway (in 115 degree heat!) They face kidnappings and violence every day of their lives. Sectarian divisions are showing up in all their social interactions, even among families. They must adopt separate customs, dress and manner of speaking to travel freely through various neighborhoods in Baghdad or risk violence. They cannot trust the security forces, who seem to be getting more hostile to the population, especially those who work for the US. Their anxiety is palpable as they feel their lives are hurling out of control.

Did I mention that the people he is talking about in this cable are all employees of the US embassy in Baghdad? That's right. These are the highly privileged, educated elite who work inside the Green Zone. Imagine what it's like out in the hinterlands.

So, Joe Biden's running for president. He says Democrats need to show strong leadership on national security and be less condescending to people of faith. Of course no elected Democrats are condescending to people of faith and Joe's been in the Senate for quite some time showing piss poor leadership on national security. But, hey, Joe knows what those other Democrats need to do. One wonders why he doesn't do it.

Well, you can't defy the stereotype if you don't first reinforce the hell out of it. After all, how's he going to prove he's not just another pasty white guy who's got to either run for president or recognize that he'll never be president, if he doesn't find something to with which to compare himself?

And he can't compare himself favorably with Republicans, because then he wouldn't get invited to their parties anymore, and that would suck. Besides, comparing himself favorably with Republicans is what's expected of a Democrat. Harry and Nancy and Howard have that schtick covered. What Joey here has to do, then, is make the point that he's different from all the other Democrats, that he's different from the dozen or so other Dems equally qualified to be president. How to do that, how to do it, hmmm. How to make himself sound special and convince the party he's their savior. Troubling. Difficult. After all, it's not like he's been anything other than a middling senator who's done some good stuff, some bad stuff, voted with Republicans a lot and basically kept getting elected. Not much to inspire people with there. Oooh, look, Lieberman's on TV! Man, Joe Lieberman sure has gotten a lot of press over the years. Chris Matthews sure does seem to think he's the shit.

I write a lot about tribal identity, specifically conservative tribal identity, and I think it's an issue we need to think about in order to understand how our politics really work. Mostly, I have felt throughout my adult life, since Reagan anyway, that I didn't have much of a tribe, certainly not a political tribe. The left has been defined for so many years by the exaggerated cartoon image created by the wingnuts that it's often been difficult to even admit you are a liberal, much less publicly identify and congregate with others explicitly on that basis. You'd pick an issue or a candidate, maybe. You'd speak in a sort of code. But you rarely gathered in one place as liberals or revel joyously in calling yourself one.

That's changing. Last night I saw Laughing Liberally here in LA and I now think that for the first time in a long time people are willing to assume the mantle and be proud liberals for its own sake. This virtual bloggy thing of ours is translating into actual human interaction. And that means we can change our politics.

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."

"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.

Scarborough: It is a chilling scenario. Had this alleged power been used during the Nixon administration. Deep Throat would have been exposed before Watergate erupted.

"These are not contradictory goals: America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," he said.

"Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society"

As we rejoin our heroes, a recap of the story so far: two hard-living jock assholes from shithole inland San Diego suburb Poway, two fools who don’t care about anything but besides pussy, beer, and Camaros, make good, in a sense, landing respectively in the CIA (in time for Iran-Contra!) and defense contracting. By all accounts, they keep getting up to the same old shady shit as they ever did. Along with fellow San Diegans Dukestir, John Negroponte, Nine Fingers, Mitchell Wade, and who knows what other unindicted Inland Empire coconspirators, they launch a historically massive federal embezzlement scheme, enriching themselves to the tune of many millions of dollars. These being inveterate southern California frat boys, the cigar-n-hookers poker parties (not to mention the thinly veiled homoeroticism) necessary to grease the wheels of power come as naturally as breathing. Unfortunately, Dukestir’s bribe-a-thon was a little to obvious even for credulous, on-the-take San Diego, and he gets caught. News about the parties starts coming out, Dusty is inevitably going to go down. But Porter Goss won’t fire him: why? Was he in on the take? Maybe as a Representative? Does Dusty have some other dirt on him?

Goss’ frat brother Negroponte realizes that Dusty has to be cut loose regardless, and gives Porter an ultimatum. Porter, still thinking he can somehow come out of this with his secrets safe, is more scared of Dusty than he is of losing his job. He is fired. Soon enough Dusty resigns. Negroponte doesn’t seem very scared of Dusty: why not? Also, the White House almost immediately reinstates one of the people Goss canned, somebody who was fired because he wouldn’t keep quiet about Dusty.

As an old lefty who's seen a little of the CIA's handiwork in Central America, I probably should be happy the Cheneyites and their Democratic enablers have managed to fuck the agency beyond all recognition. But I have a sinking feeling that's not going to curb the regime from doing the nasty (most death squad program-related activities having been transferred to Rumsfeld's Special Forces X-Men.) But it's already crippled the parts of the CIA that do things that actually serve the national interest (and my own personal interests) like trying to stop, or at least monitor, the spread of WMD. Awhile ago I heard Keith Obermann on MSNBC asking some ex-CIA agent if Goss had managed to turn the agency into the new FEMA (or words to that effect.) The guy basically ducked the question, but the expression on his face as he did so was quite eloquent.

Heckuva job, Porter. Heckuva job.

However, just because the Night Porter is carrying his own bags out the door, that doesn't mean the White House's war on the agency is over. The leak investigations and political purges no doubt will continue, if more discreetly. The people who have been purged -- taking with them something like 300 years worth of cumulative experience -- aren't coming back. The CIA isn't the new FEMA; it's the new New Orleans, flooded and gutted and left to mold in the mud.

I'd say it would take years for the agency to recover, but my suspicion is that it will never recover, as its missions and resources continue to flow towards the Pentagon, like stars being sucked down a black hole. Rather than being a hatchet man, like Schlesinger, or a caretaker, like Carter's CIA director, Stansfield Turner, Goss's successor may be more in the nature of an undertaker, charged with the continued, gradual dismantling of the agency -- taking the C out of CIA.

The truth can't hurt, can it?

Of course it can. Ask the jester. Ask the clown.

And that's exactly what Colbert did in a bravura performance whose legacy will at a minimum be one or two phrases that will be used to sum up George W. Bush for the ages:

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

and

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.

It's one thing to hang a phrase like that on a sitting president from the comfortable distance of a TV studio or an editorial page...but to do so on the same podium is chutzpah of the highest order. That one was for the history books. Literally.

But the third point about this fake up at the White House is how it is an implosive, not explosive, change. Bush is bringing things more in house, more into his inner circle, more incestuous. The reality is that this change signals a move to dealing with the coming fiscal storm, an attempt to make sure that when retrenchment comes, it is other people's trenches that get over run.

What has been lost in all the commentary is the single largest fact about Bush's tenure - it has been the largest reorganization of the government since Truman, the largest expansion since LBJ, and the largest sustained deficits in the post-World War II era. We are not seeing an executive that has tried to leave a mark and is now accepting that its marginal changes are held in place, the way Clinton's last two years were, or Reagan's, or Eisenhowers, or Ford's completion of Nixon's second term.

Instead let us realize what has happened in the last 6 months - the Federal government sharply restrained spending, leading to two quarters of anemic GDP growth, and has just now turned on the taps to bouy the economy for the elections. But next year stealth austerity will not be enough - if, indeed, it was enough this year, since the failure to restrain growth even more is rapidly turning $70/bbl for oil into a floor, where it once was a ceiling.

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

[...]

...In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

"I believe this decision today is not in accordance with the kind of public service that I've provided to the people of Illinois over 40 years," Ryan told a throng of reporters as he left the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

Reached later by telephone, Warner, who made more than $3 million on the insider deals, said he was unprepared for the guilty verdicts.

"I've been trying not to have negative thoughts," Warner said. "I honestly thought I would walk."