Fables of the Reconstruction
I have been opposed to our invasion of Iraq from the get-go, but now that we're there, I just don't believe we can cut and run. Unfortunately, we've been dealt a set of cards that will make it very hard to play against the house. Iraq also concerns me on a personal level because my Dad has been working in Baghdad since the spring (around the time when Fallujah started blowing up). I wish he wasn't there, but I worry about his safety daily, especially now that the insurgents seem to be getting closer to the Green Zone with their suicide bombing runs.

He and his wife (who's stateside, but who gets a lot of info from him) keep telling me that there's lots of good that's happening in Iraq that we just don't hear about. And I have no doubt that we're only getting a small view of the whole of the country (just as we get only a small slice of life in our own country, which seems to be dominated by he said/she said political wrangling and stories about Scott Peterson). So, here's some news from the Defense Department about the ramping up of reconstruction projects:

The pace of reconstruction projects has changed in recent months. Hess explained that up until "several months ago," the focus has been on getting funds obligated and contracts signed. "And now, clearly, our focus has turned, and rightly so," he said. The focus now is on "actually putting construction in the ground and starting construction projects."

He said officials hope to have 1,000 projects started -- and many completed -- by the end of this year. Currently, 700 projects under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund are in progress throughout the country.

Taylor shared some statistics: Today in Iraq there are 28 water-treatment plants, 13 sewer projects, 72 health-care facilities, 5 public buildings, 62 "border ports," 9 fire stations, 37 electricity substations, and nine military bases under construction.

Five water-treatment plants, one sewer project, and 73 health-care facilities have been completed.

In addition, Taylor said, 3,100 schools have been "rehabilitated," and 39,000 police, 14,000 border police, three battalions of regular-army soldiers and eight battalions of National Guard soldiers have been trained and equipped.

Good to hear. But it's risky business as the LATimes reminds us:

The bullets had barely stopped flying here when a convoy of military engineers braved the deserted streets this week to begin rebuilding water pumps, electricity lines and roads.

It was risky business. At the first checkpoint, a skittish Iraqi national guardsman fired a warning shot. Then, U.S. tanks accidentally ran over and mangled new aluminum electricity cables awaiting installation.

Fearful that patrolling U.S. soldiers would mistake them for insurgents and open fire, workers refused to return to the local water treatment plant until they received a hastily scribbled authorization note from a U.S. commander.

Moving so quickly with reconstruction projects in a chaotic combat zone where residents dared travel only with white flags may seem overly eager, but it's part of an evolving U.S. military strategy to oust insurgents in Iraq and restore stability before January's election.

But then there's this troubling bit of news from the Daily Star in Lebanon (which is starting to get picked up by US news sources, too):

Iraq only has 10 percent of the money needed over the next six years to fix its sewerage and drinking water systems, a dilemma worsened by a US proposal to shift two billion dollars earmarked for the sector to security, the public works minister said on Thursday.

Nasreen Barwari was speaking as Iraqi government officials prepared to fly cap-in-hand to Tokyo next week for an international donors' conference.

"It is very critical that grants get expanded for the sector," the young female minister told a news conference in Baghdad.

The US government promised to pump 18.4 billion dollars (15 billion euros) into reconstruction projects in Iraq after last year's invasion.

But a month ago it revealed a plan to shift some of this cash into beefing up the country's security forces in response to a violent insurgency there.

And Fred Kaplan at Slate keeps up the pressure for what's being outlayed for the reconstruction versus what's been appropriated:

More damning are the report's figures on Iraqi reconstruction. Yes, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $18.4 billion for this effort; but, according to the report, the authorities on the ground in Iraq have spent just $1.3 billion—about 7 percent of the money set aside.

The specifics of this disparity are still more depressing. For security and law enforcement, $3.2 billion was appropriated, but only $646 million has been spent. For electricity, $5.4 billion was appropriated, $330 million spent. For water resources and sanitation, $4.2 billion was appropriated, a pathetic $23 million spent. For oil infrastructure, $1.7 billion was appropriated, just $47 million spent. For justice, public safety and civil society, $1 billion was appropriated, $55 million spent. For health care, $786 million was appropriated, but $4 million spent. For transportation and communication, $500 million was appropriated, $12 million spent. And the list goes on.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

You're Out of Order, This Whole Freaking Country's Out of Order!
This is a great cartoon by the Seattle PI's David Horsey:

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Help Is On The Way (We Hope)
Juan Cole, one of my blogging heroes, invites Professor Joseph White, Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University, to comment on what can be done in Iraq by a President Kerry. It's a rather long commentary, but here are the key grafs:

Kerry can’t legitimately promise that he will get a lot of help from allies and international organizations. They must calculate their own national interests and domestic politics (or, for international organizations, where they’ll get staff willing to risk going to Iraq), and the costs may exceed the benefits. What Kerry can argue is that he has a better chance of getting help from allies and international organizations than Bush does. Consider the situation of the French:

The French government opposed invading Iraq for very good reasons: that invading Iraq was a diversion from the real task, fighting jihadis, and that Saddam could be kept in a box by inspections. They were right. But, as noted above, now Iraq IS a front in a conflict with jihadis. There is a French interest in avoiding jihadist victory in Iraq, because, expanded beyond Iraq, the movement is highly likely to have nasty effects on French interests. But it has to be very hard for the French to turn around and support the U.S. with Bush as president: partly because of personal feelings among leaders and partly because Bush has proven that his judgment in operational decisions cannot be trusted. There is a further problem, to which Kerry had referred. The Bush administration has been so focused on keeping contracts for American corporations, using contract decisions to punish the French and others, that it would be very hard for any French government to cooperate unless it could show that the French were no longer being discriminated against in economic terms. I suspect that the material value of contracts in the short run is not the major issue. After all, the average French contractor, like all others, must have serious doubts about sending their staff to Iraq at the moment. But the French must care about both the principle and the long run, whether there would be any business prospects if Iraq is ever stabilized. So Kerry makes a good substantive point when he talks about contracts.

Hence Kerry can offer realism, some practical measures to enlist others, and simply the advantage of not being Bush, so making a fresh start. Beyond that, however, he and Bush would face much the same constraints. Everybody is for training more Iraqi soldiers and policemen; the challenge is to ensure they’re competent and don’t go over to the other side(s). Kerry is more likely than Bush to admit a need for more force, and has called for a larger Army. But it’s not clear where the extra volunteers could be found under current conditions, and the political constraints against deploying more troops in Iraq are strong. Neither Kerry nor Bush has evident ways to make the Shia trust the Sunnis, or the Turks accept Kurdish autonomy. Kerry may be seen in most of the world as very different from Bush, so have a better chance of winning cooperation from forces outside Iraq. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that the contending forces inside Iraq will make the distinction between Kerry and Bush. If Kerry wins he has a better chance of some sort of “success” than Bush does, but it’s still going to be very difficult.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Lost
This will be interesting for Friday's debate:

Iraq now appears to have destroyed its stockpiles of illicit weapons within months of the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and by the time of the American invasion in spring 2003, its capacity to produce such weapons was continuing to erode, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report by Charles A. Duelfer said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The finding amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators has concluded were the facts on the ground.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

The 50% Solution
The New Republic has a counter to Cheney's assertion in the debate last night that Iraqi security forces should be included in number of Coalition of the Willing casualties:

While hard numbers aren't available from the Allawi government--which has stopped releasing information about how many Iraqi security forces are standing and fighting--a tremendous number of Iraqi police fatalities are from insurgent bombings, many occurring at recruitment stations in recent weeks, and often before Iraqis engage the enemy. Worse, as was evidenced by the April collapse of Iraqi forces, the insurgent attacks have caused a literally untold number of Iraqis to refuse to stand and fight. Iraqi security officials recently told me that as many as 30,000 police officers, about half of those in uniform, are unqualified to serve. Many are simply insurgents with badges; plenty of others are corrupt. In one of the most ominous figures to emerge from Iraq, a new poll this week found that 55 percent of Iraqis report a lack of confidence in the authority of Iraqi security forces--about a 35-point drop in public confidence since the summer. In short, Cheney is simply drawing a misleading equivalence: When it comes to combat performance, capability, and competence, the job done by U.S. troops is simply qualitatively different from the work done by Iraqis in uniform.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Round 2: Edwards
I wasn't quite as nervous last night before the debate (well, at least nervous about the debate--I've got final wedding plans that are continually racing through my mind). And it turned out to be a rather fun joust to watch. Overall, I'd call the whole thing a draw, as both sides were pretty strong in delivering the "red meat" to their base--thus each side can feel satisfied that their man won (whereas last week, it was rather evident that one participant was just not up to speed). But on points, Edwards got in a lot of jabs that could very well stick, especially with undecided voters. Here's William Saletan's take from Slate:

If you watched this debate as an uninformed voter, you heard an avalanche of reasons to vote for Kerry. You heard 23 times that Kerry has a "plan" for some big problem or that Bush doesn't. You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges. You heard 13 associations of Bush with drug or insurance companies. You heard four attacks on him for outsourcing. You heard again and again that he opposed the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security, that he "diverted" resources from the fight against al-Qaida to the invasion of Iraq, and that while our troops "were on the ground fighting, [the administration] lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay." You heard that Kerry served in Vietnam and would "double the special forces." You heard that Bush is coddling the Saudis, that Cheney "cut over 80 weapons systems," and that the administration has no air-cargo screening or unified terrorist watch list.

As the debate turned to domestic policy, you heard that we've lost 1.6 million net jobs and 2.7 million net manufacturing jobs under Bush. You heard that he's the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. You heard that 4 million more people live in poverty, and 5 million have lost their health insurance. You heard that the average annual premium has risen by $3,500. You heard that we've gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion debt. You heard that a multimillionaire sitting by his swimming pool pays a lower tax rate than a soldier in Iraq. You heard that Bush has underfunded No Child Left Behind by $27 billion. You heard that Kerry, unlike Bush, would let the government negotiate "to get discounts for seniors" and would let "prescription drugs into this country from Canada." You heard that at home and abroad, Bush offers "four more years of the same."

Most Democrats, including Kerry, duck and cover when Republicans bring up values. Not Edwards. He knows the language and loves to turn it against the GOP. The word "moral" was used twice in this debate. The word "value" was used three times. All five references came from Edwards. He denounced the "moral" crime of piling debt on our grandchildren. He called the African AIDS epidemic and the Sudan genocide "huge moral issues." When Ifill asked him about gay marriage, he changed the subject to taxes. "We don't just value wealth, which they do," said Edwards. "We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."

Last night's debate was much more wide ranging in its substance than last week's Presidential debate, and thus it was full of flying facts from both sides that were a bit puffed up. Though, I must say, that the puffiness came more from Cheney than Edwards. Here are some fact checking items I've sourced this morning.

The NYTimes seems to be falling for Cheney's suggestion to include Iraqi casualties in the whole count of casualities for coalition forces.

Some factual disputes were echoes from last week's debate between the presidential candidates, including the cost of the war - Mr. Edwards put the figure at $200 billion, but only $119 billion has been spent so far. Another issue was the proportion of casualties borne by the United States: Mr. Edwards said 90 percent of fatalities, but that includes only foreign troops killed, and does not count approximately 700 Iraqi security forces said to have died.

Now, I do not want to belittle the sacrifices that Iraq's populace has made for this war, because it is vast and heartbreaking (especially when you consider the toll on citizens caught in the crossfire). But the point was centered on the Coalition of the Willing, the nations who came together to share the burden of this war. Here's Josh Marshall on the subject:

In response to Edwards' claim that the US has sustained 90% of the coalition fatalities in Iraq, for instance, Cheney insisted that Edwards wasn't telling the truth because he wasn't including all the Iraqi soldiers and police officers who are of course now dying in their hundreds. So Cheney said the number is only 50%.

If you want to change the definition of 'the coalition' that everyone has used for the last two years I guess this may be technically true. But it struck me as silly and drove home the President's and the Vice President's unwillingness to look reality in the face and level with the public.

The essential truth is that for whatever reasons we don't have many allies with us in Iraq and the overwhelming number of casualties are Americans. Word games don't change that.

FactCheck.org checks into Edwards' accusations about Halliburton, and finds that he was mostly right:

On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was CEO.

• Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.
  
• Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria.
  
• Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however.  In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990.

Speaking about FackCheck.org, Cheney did a little name dropping last night of the site (to direct folks to see that Edwards had some statements wrong). But, he referred to factcheck.com. Seems that it might have been a dead URL at the beginning of the night, according to Josh Marshall, but it's got content on it now, and it's not the sort of content that Cheney would like to refer to.

Then there's the matter of Cheney's assertion that he had never met Edwards before they stepped on the stage last night, putting forth the idea that Edwards wasn't engaged in Senate activity. Salon's War Room wraps this up nicely:

"You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." And he ended with this zinger: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Some pundits were very impressed, apparently, with this line from Cheney. Andrea Mitchell went on "Hardball" and said she thought Cheney did "awfully well at, first of all, putting John Edwards in his place, saying that I have been presiding over the Senate and I didn't meet you until tonight. Talking about his not having been on the job was pretty devastating." Except, it's not true.

He has, in fact, met Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards corrected Cheney right after the debate, according to Kerry advisor David Ginsberg. The two men first met at a National Prayer Breakfast, the Kerry-Edwards campaign said -- here's the transcript -- and then later in the Senate when Edwards escorted fellow North Carolinian Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in. (Update: The Kerry campaign now has a photographic evidence!)

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Global Village
Bush & Co. have been making hay about Kerry's "global test" comment in last Thursday's debate. Salon tries to put it to bed:

On the campaign trial this weekend, Bush has lambasted Kerry for what the Republicans call Kerry's "'global test' doctrine." In Ohio Saturday, Bush said: "In the debate, Senator Kerry said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry doctrine. He said -- he said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves."

Only that's not what Kerry said. At Thursday night's debate, Kerry said that an American president "always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike." He said that he would never "cede away" the right "to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." But, Kerry said, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reason."

Hear that, George? You've got to be able to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." That's called the past tense -- as in, act now and ask questions later. What Kerry said -- what Kerry plainly meant -- was that the United States was free to take pre-emptive action if there was a legitimate reason for doing so, a reason so powerful that the world would understand.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Fox Hunt
I didn't do too many online polls last night (too tired from all that pizza--I was just so nervous, I couldn't stop stuffing my face), but I did check on the Fox News site and noticed that they didn't have a poll on their front page. Interesting. Today, Josh Marshall noticed an article posted on the front Fox News that had some very dubious quotes from Kerry:

Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.

"I'm metrosexual — he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.

A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.

The article itself, from a blog-style campaign trail page at FoxNews.com, has been taken down, and Mr. Marshall has put in some calls and will post the original article in PDF format later.

Sheeesh. Some folks wonder why can't the Democrats play in the same dirty sandbox as the Republican shills like Rove & Co.. Frankly, I'm quite happy we don't. This is just juvenile and embarrassing.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Mixed Messages
The American Prospect blog notes a survey taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which surveyed folks as to their understandings of the two candidates' views:

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (70%). . . .

Many of the uncommitted (those who say they are not very sure which candidate they will vote for) also misread Bush’s position on most issues, though in most cases this was a plurality, not a majority. The uncommitted incorrectly believed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (69%), the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (51%), the International Criminal Court (47% to 31%), the land mines treaty (50%), and the Kyoto treaty on global warming (45% to 37%). Only 35% knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now, while 36% incorrectly believed he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven, and 22% did not give an answer. Only 41% knew that Bush favors increased defense spending, while 49% incorrectly assumed he wants to keep it the same (29%) or cut it (20%). A plurality of 46% was correct that Bush wants the US, rather than the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (37% assumed the UN).

The uncommitted were much more accurate in assessing Kerry’s positions. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (75%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (60%), the land mines treaty (57%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (54%), and wants the US, not the UN, to take the lead in developing Iraq’s new government (71%). Pluralities correctly assumed that Kerry favors US participation in the International Criminal Court (49 to 30%) and that he favors doing more research until its effectiveness is proven (46%), with 26% assuming he does not want to build a system at all). Thirty-nine percent correctly assumed that he wants to keep defense spending the same, but 36% assumed that he wants to cut it.

And one note about last night's debate. Bush was making a big deal about not signing onto the International Criminal Court. After the offenses that were brought to light by Seymour Hersh at Abu Ghraib (which has not had much play in this campaign lately), I can see why Bush, Inc. wants nothing to do with that entity.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]

Round 1: Kerry
Before the debate started last night, I was nervous as hell. As I drove to pick up some pizza, I couldn't listen to NPR as I normally would have (we were watching the debate after it started, thanks to the TiVo), so I listened to bombastic classical music that really wasn't setting me at ease. But once we started filling up on yummy, doughy pizza (we said goodbye to the South Beach Diet for the night) and got into the swing of the debate with Kerry, I was put at ease.

Kerry was crisp and to the point and he was actually making points against his opponent, who seemingly could only parrot about a dozen talking points over and over and over again. I would love to get a count of the times that Bush used the phrase "mixed messages"--it was like the ballpeen hammer effect. Though repetitive, Bush was forcefully on message and at times he just looked perturbed. But the main thing was he was on the defensive most of the night, and Kerry looked more "presidential." Here's what The Guardian says:

But at other moments in the contest, Mr Bush seemed to lose track of his point between sentences and seemed to struggle to fill his allotted time for each response. Challenged by Mr Kerry for awarding tax cuts to wealthy Americans while the money could have been used to improve America's counter-terrorist defences, the president reply was vague and hesitant.

"Of course, we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job," Mr Bush said. "I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how best to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work."

And here's what the conservative Weekly Standard has to say:

Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity.

Both sides played a little loose with some of the facts, but this fact checking article compiled by the Seattle Times comes up with more stretchs of the truth from the Bush side (there are more instances in the article--I'll just post the key items):

Bush, for instance, praised reports that "10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election." While that may be true, there are also fears of massive vote rigging in advance of the country's first-ever presidential election Oct. 9, because the registration numbers are in some places significantly higher than what had been estimated for eligible voters.

Bush reprised a standard attack from his stump speech, as he presented Kerry as a flip-flopper who once said he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

The quote, something Kerry has acknowledged as an inarticulate moment, was in reference to a military funding bill that included money for troops in Iraq.

But the reality is a little more complex. The senator did vote for an amendment approving the money, but only if it was paid for by repealing tax cuts pushed by Bush. When that proposal failed, Kerry voted against the bill to protest what he considered a flawed and costly war.

[...]

Kerry suggested that the U.S. has spent $200 billion on Iraq, largely because it supplied the bulk of the troops. This is an exaggeration, because it combines the amount already spent — about $120 billion — with money that is expected to be spent in the coming year or requested by the administration.

[...]

On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well, but Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process — and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly to North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.

 
[Full Post/Permalink]