December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Response
:Washington was ablaze this week with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings on how to improve the situation in Iraq. Democrats and Moderate Republicans lined up to lavish praise of the ten wise men that have given us a “New Way Forward”. And despite the excitement, there is very little in this report that gives much hope for the future of Iraq. Not only does the report speak to a “grave future,” it provides few substantive realistic proposals. I will address these flaws in the next couple days; I first wanted to address the current critics of the report.
There is plenty to criticize in this report – lack of boldness, lack of a coherent overall strategy, and lack of honesty in the true difficulties in getting things back on track – all of which have been attacked. Ironically, these attacks have come from leading neoconservative thinkers.
Richard Pearle, a Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the invasion said, “The report is a monumental disappointment… The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide and now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “Sometimes realists have to deal with reality. Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have.”
And Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute said that “It’s preposterous, period.”
Of course, the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings are not what really got this group of neoconservatives mad. What really angers them is that there were only two neoconservatives among the 40 or so experts that briefed the Commission. Apparently that was not enough. Again, Michael Rubin, “Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy… [the Commission] gerrymandered [experts] experts to ratify predetermined recommendations. Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
The neoconservatives may be totally right in the specifics – the Commission may be wrong (I’ll argues as much this week) and they may have been left of the Commission – but they are wrong on the overall picture. The Commission really shouldn’t have had a single neoconservative on the briefing board. It really makes no sense to have their input.
For one, the President has endorsed their vision of the world and he met with the Commission. He is in the best position to articulate that vision and his views were well represented. Thanks to the President, the Commission never really considered an immediate withdraw despite large evidence in support of such a move. In addition the Commission was to address alternative paths to victory. It is hard to see how having the architects of the war as chief experts helps to provide a path other than the one we are currently on.
Truthfully, though, what’s concerning to me is that there were even two neoconservatives on the Commission staff. It would be as if a big group got together for a study group in College that was dominated by one person. The group later receives its test grades and found they all failed. Come the next test, I guarantee, that the group will not invite or listen to the person that dominated the last conversation. Unfairly, after all that person may have some good thoughts to add to the discussion for the next test. But that person was responsible for your failure on the last test and you would be a fool to listen again.
Likewise, it would be foolish to give any credence to people like Rubin, Weinstein, or Pearle. They failed this nation. They believed that we would be greeted with flowers and that the oil would pay for the invasion. They still believe that permanent bases are needed to take care of Israel and put pressure on Iran. While full responsibility is on the President, the neoconservatives have a large share of the bloodshed and failure on their ideas. And for that, pardon me, if I do not care if they feel that they are now not being listened to – don’t we all wish that we hadn’t listened to them three years ago.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, America)
December 6, 2006
Gates Confirmation
:We will soon have a new Defense Secretary. Robert Gates was confirmed today with a 95-2 vote (only opposed by Conservative Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) who seemed to think he was not supportive enough of the President’s policies in Iraq). The Senate seems to have finally come to the view that most of the population already had decided – Rumsfeld has to go and the sooner the better (more on this when Rumsfeld finally leaves the Pentagon, rumors have him staying through the end of December). And while few will argue with this desire, we have no idea if Dr. Gates is the right man for this job. Sure he said the right things for a day and a half and seems to be a bit independent but he is not the first to dazzle Congress nominated by this President. The devil was in the details and could have been had if his hearings were delayed to hear the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. Instead we know very little about Dr. Gates and have no basis to be excited about this nomination.
(Filed under: America at War, Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
Iraq Study Group
:Do you have your copy yet? I hope to finish it by this weekend and will begin posting my thoughts soon after. Get your copy at Amazon by clicking on this link: Iraq Study Group
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
December 3, 2006
Life Isn’t Fair
:Tonight the college football championship game will be announced and as much as it pains me to say it, Michigan will not be in it. They had their shot, and the country will say that its time for someone else to get a crack. A couple years ago, the University of Oklahoma lost in its conference championship game (by a lot), they went any way. They got destroyed. If you don’t win your conference title you shouldn’t get a chance at the national title.
The last rematch for a title occurred in the 1997 Sugar Bowl. Coincidentally, the University of Florida won its only national title avenging an earlier loss to Florida State. You won’t hear Urban Myer or anyone else from Florida mentioning it this week. But they should – they should at least be honest about what’s going on. That year, Florida State was the better team. They proved it during the regular season defeating the Gators by three at home. They should have gotten to play someone new and see how they could have done (and they probably would have won). But Steve Spurier had a couple weeks off to scheme and that Florida team won by 30 some points and took home their only crown.
This year, Michigan lost in Columbus by 3. Don’t you think a couple weeks off might benefit the Wolverines like they did the Gators in 1996-97? Of course it would. Six weeks to prepare for that shotgun look that Michigan faced exclusively in Columbus. Six weeks to prepare for a neutral site. Six weeks to correct some problems. Michigan might very well win the game. We will never know.
Instead, the hypocritical Gator fans (who shouted in 1996 that you get seven points when your at home and want extra credit for road wins at Tennessee, Georgia, and at Florida State and their lose at Auburn) refuse to acknowledge how close Michigan was at Columbus. Could Florida have come that close? Having watched them play against Arkansas, Tennessee, Auburn, and LSU – I doubt it.
Eventually their delay of game and false start penalties will kill them (as will them switching quarterbacks and having a drop back passer run). In fact all of those things have killed them this season – they can’t score. That might work in the SEC where no one can score (Arkansas’ quarterback actually cannot hit the side of a barn as he proved last night when he went 10-for-22 and would have been a lot worse except for some questionable pass interference calls). Come the National Title game, their defense will be good but still give up a couple touchdowns. Can they score that many? Only if they get a touchdown because the punt returner muffs the ball into the end zone, the running back throws a pick during a late game drive, and they get a fifty yard TD run from a wide receiver that was hit at the line of scrimmage. So, basically not likely.
Life isn’t fair. Almost everyone outside the southeast admits that Michigan is the second best team in the country. With the system we have today that won’t be enough. Instead the Gators will go. They’ll get destroyed. And in sense that would be the perfect ending. Why should there be a playoff or a bowl season when we already know the obvious – the best team in the country is in scarlet and silver. They have a hideous four letter name. They are from an inferior state. They are named after a nut. Yes, Ohio State is the best team in the country. No more games are needed. They should be crowned right now. Alas, life isn’t fair.
(Filed under: Sports, NCAA, Commentary)
November 7, 2006
Midterm 2006
:A couple quick thoughts about this election (I will be following up on some of these themes in the days ahead):
- Vote!
- Who would have thought the Democrats would have a chance to take over the majority in either the House or the Senate even three months ago? Amazing. At the beginning of the year, some were looking at an outside shot of the Republicans gaining a filibuster immune majority for the last two years of the Bush administration (60 seats). Of course, Conservative spinners are now trying to say what a huge loss it would be for the Democrats if they do not take the House tonight and how it was a preordained victory. Pure rubbish and political spin. Just remember the last few election cycles and how surprising it really is for the Democrats to be even close tonight.
- For all of the Bush and Rove bravado about tonight’s results, a Democratic victory could be the best thing for his administration (not to mention for the country). Clinton was able to use a divided government to gain support and move the agenda of the country away from his base. If Bush did the same, he would find that a lot of people could agree on things like energy conservation, an aggressive policy towards Iran and North Korea, and immigration. Not to mention that he wouldn’t mind having another party to pin some of the Iraq war on (although it will be hard to stick after six years of complete dominance in DC for the GOP).
- No matter what happens, the power of the Republican majority is in serious trouble. The Democrats were able to neutralize the money advantage of the GOP across the board this year (they still had less but not as much as in previous cycles). This is with corporate lobbyists giving two-thirds of their contributions to Republicans. Only a year ago, that was closer to one-hundred percent as the GOP basically demanded that K Street lobbyists only play ball with them or their bills would sit on the sideline. Businesses are now rethinking that logic and it is obvious that with a tight Congress (with either party in control) heading into a wide-open Presidential race, the Democrats will be getting money from the corporations, in addition to the funding they found elsewhere.
- Finally, this is one exciting race. As many as seven Senate seats are still in play. The House is likely to flip but it could be anywhere from 10 to 40 seats that change with control still in the balance. The Democrats will also gain seats at the state level which could be huge heading into redistricting fights in 2010. Imagine if gerrymandering had not become such a great science for both parties? These nights would be too much fun.
Like I said, I hope to be posting some follow-up comments in the days ahead. This has been an exciting race that I really regret not sharing more of my thoughts on it.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
January 31, 2006
The Alito Confirmation: Wiser Heads Prevailed
:One of the problems with the landscape that is the politically charged, partisan fragmented electorate is that we rarely get a chance to actually see/participate in a true debate of what is right for our nation’s future. With the nomination of Samuel Alito to the highest court in the land, there were three dialogues that could have been helpful to our nation’s future: 1) how do we see the separation of powers factoring into a world where the executive has much more power than the framers intended, 2) how much say should Congress have in the advise and consent of new justices, and 3) do the potential justices current views have any bearing on whether they should sit on the Supreme Court.
Alas, the nation had none of those conversations in the lead up for Alito’s confirmation today and we are none the wiser for it.
Alito is still mainly an unknown. He is clearly conservative. And from past decisions on the separation of powers to gerrymandering of districts, he is far to the right of the middle and far from my comfort level. He seems like a nice enough fellow, even if I do not agree with a thing he believes. But I cannot say that for sure, since once again we did not have a substantive discussion about him. Once again we have an unknown placed on the high court. Once again we as a nation did not have a valuable conversation.
This is something that everyone in this nation bears a responsibility for. We have not demanded or even asked for such a debate. So instead we get a bunch of showboating Senators asking questions in the middle of a long speech against or for the nominee. We learn nothing about Alito in this process.
The sad thing is that if Alito had answered truthfully and given us a good glimpse of what he believed and what his judicial philosophy entailed, many Senators would have voted against him. For instance, had he admitted that he will overturn Roe v. Wade because he believes its decision does not follow from the Constitution (which is hardly an uncommon position among Constitutional scholars), he would have been successfully filibustered yesterday. By not saying anything, Alito guaranteed his confirmation. But that doesn’t allow any of us to have a better idea of his beliefs or the direction the nation is headed. We the people do not benefit.
Why am I writing all of this when the title of this piece is “Wiser heads prevailed?” As I stated in the third paragraph, I do not necessarily agree with known Alito views. But I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Today, I would have voted to confirm him to become the 110th> Justice of the Supreme Court. He clearly is a man of integrity and has a sound judicial mind. To me that is the power the Constitution grants to the Senate in the confirmation process. He meets both. But I still have serious misgivings about the entire process. We have not learned much about Alito nor have we had a conversation about this nation’s future. But the system could have gotten so much worse had the filibuster worked yesterday.
Had a parliamentary procedure derailed his nomination yesterday, Democrats would have introduced a new level of pettiness and partisanship, much like Clinton’s impeachment did eight years ago. Thankfully, numerous Democrats joined Republicans and voted to close debate so that today’s confirmation vote could take place. While Senators should be blamed for allowing the confirmation hearings to descend into such an abyss, they should also be at least recognized for allowing a vote to take place. The system is bad but it could only have gotten worse.
(Filed under: Supreme Court, Commentary, Politics, US Courts, America, Alito Nomination)
January 28, 2006
Behind the scenes upgrade
:Today, the Tim Fry Report is being run by Word Press 2.0. I am not sure that you will see big changes on the site with this upgrade but it is a significant upgrade behind the scenes. Lots of features to make running this site even easier. In addition, I am finally satisfied with the theme. All of the css is now written for both display on the screen and for print, especially the new reply stuff. Actual posts to come early this week.
(Filed under: Commentary, Why I am Back)
January 21, 2006
Comments are now live
:You ask and I provide. I have finally taken the time to allow commenting on the Tim Fry Report. At this point it is pretty basic, as I did not have time to fully test it. Line breaks will not work and I didn’t do a lot of work to stop spam. Depending on how this works out (i.e. how many responses there are), I may add more features. And in terms of the report, obviously a weekly update was simply too ambitious. I will try to post news commentaries more often and occasionally a news article that has fallen through the cracks. Thanks for sticking with me. Happy responding.
(Filed under: Commentary, Why I am Back)
January 18, 2006
Feeling Completely Hopeless - The Iranian Nuclear Problem
:Iran’s decision this past week to restart their nuclear program appeared to come out of nowhere. Many have recently speculated as to how the European Union’s talks with Tehran failed or how the United States can get the Russians and the Chinese on board for new sanctions. But this is a distorted conversation. Iran’s re-started nuclear ambition was easily predictable with the events ongoing in neighboring Iraq.
At the outset of the invasion of Iraq, conservative columnists lined up to praise the invasion as a way to demonstrate to other dictators what would happen if they “misbehaved.” When, five days after Saddam Hussein was arrested, Muammar al-Qaddafi announced his intention to give up a WMD program, conservatives saw this as proof. Charles Krauthammer, at the time, wrote that it could not be a coincidence. Dictators were feeling the “aftershocks of war.” For the sake of argument and ignoring many scholars who point to Qaddafi offering the same thing for four years to end Western sanctions, let’s assume that Krauthammer was right - the invasion of Iraq did make nations more civil – then we are in store for a difficult few years.
The problem with this conservative view that a successful invasion would be a message to the rest of the world is what happens when the invasion fails or at least bogs down. The invasion tied up our military. Over 100,000 troops are stationed just across the border in Iraq but none of them can be spared to threaten Iran. Effectively the United States does not have any teeth. If the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a message, a rogue state now knows they have until the United States leaves Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. If you accept the argument, then you also accept that the rest of the world gets the opposite message if the invasion fails.
And that is where we are with a failed invasion. If you agreed with Krauthammer’s views three years ago, you would have assumed that if Iraq failed you would end up where we are today. That is why I was so surprised today when I read Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post where he blamed the European Union’s misguided and naïve talks with Iran. It was a complete red herring argument.
While, the European Union’s talks with Tehran may have been imperceptive of the true Iranian desire, one should not hold the EU accountable for that. They had little choice. If there are two ways of dealing with the situation a) diplomacy and b) military, they had no choice when the US invaded Iraq. And when the wheels came off the US military in Iraq, there was no threat. Of course, the Iranians pulled out of their commitments to arms inspections and seals. They always wanted a nuke and now they had their chance.
All of this angers me. I share this administration’s desire to limit the nuclear club and do not feel comfortable with a Tehran hot button. But it isn’t surprising. After all we have been hopeless to do anything about it since we tied up our military for a decade in invading Iraq. That Krauthammer and other conservatives didn’t see it coming doesn’t make it unexpected. Just them blind to the problems of invading Iraq.
(Filed under: Iraq, Bush Administration, Middle East, Iran, Commentary, Europe, America, Global Issues, Nuclear Proliferation, European Union)
November 14, 2005
Will be back 11/21
:With my in-laws here last weekend and all last week dealing with the Appropriations Bill at my work, I have had little time for anything other than the essentials. I should be back in the swing of things by next Monday. By then I hope to have some updates for the site, including an ability to subscribe to the email report, small navigation improvements, and (if I can figure it out) comments accepted on certain posts. So stay tuned…
(Filed under: Commentary, Why I am Back)
/ Older Reports