I guess there’s a one percent chance the terrorists might target the Apple and Pork Festival in Clinton, Illinois, or the Old MacDonald Petting Zoo in Woodville, Alabama. Therefore we must act as if it is a certainty!
The One Percent Doctrine
I’ve been reading Suskind’s new book, the title of which refers to the doctrine Cheney adopted after 9/11 — essentially that if there’s a one percent chance that someone might do something terrible, the administration must act as if it is a certainty.
It takes a little while for the horror of that to sink in, but when you really think about it, it effectively means that this country has been governed by complete madmen for the past five years. Life is all about making reasonable decisions based on probable odds. In retrospect, it’s what I was trying to say in this cartoon, back in January of 2003. If there was a one percent chance that the moon might crash into the earth someday, we would, as rational people, respond differently than if the odds were at one hundred percent, or even fifty percent. We would monitor the problem, consider options. We would not make it the single most pressing issue of the day.
You would have to be literally insane to suggest blowing up the moon immediately because there was a one percent chance that it might crash into the earth someday.
But as Suskind tells it, this is what the entire Iraq War has been about. All the tragedy, all the blood spilled, all the ensuing chaos — all because there was a one percent chance that Saddam might help terrorists someday.
Lieberman
(Note to Atrios readers: scroll down this entry for the news from New Haven).
A Washington Post columnist gets it:
Well. I don’t blog; I columnize. But count me with the bloggers on this one. No great mystery enshrouds the challenge to Lieberman, nor is the campaign of his challenger, Ned Lamont, a jihad of crazed nit-pickers. Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president’s enablers in this year’s elections. As well, Lieberman’s broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats. He is not being opposed because he doesn’t reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant.
As early as December 2001 Lieberman signed a letter to President Bush asking him to make Saddam Hussein’s Iraq our next stop in the war against terrorism. As recently as last month, he opposed two Democratic resolutions to scale back our involvement in the war. And just last week Lieberman characterized the progress of the war as “a lot better” than it was a year ago, adding, “They’re on the way to building a free and independent Iraq.”
So, why the surprise if Connecticut voters, listening to Lieberman and looking at his record, conclude that they cannot trust his judgment on the single most important issue of the day? That’s not mandating purity; it’s opting for a senator who pays more attention to the war on the ground than to the war in his head.
* * *
Lieberman’s ultimate problem isn’t fanatical bloggers, any more than Lyndon Johnson’s was crazy, antiwar Democrats. His problem is that Bush, and the war that both he and Bush have championed, is speeding the ongoing realignment of the Northeast. His problem, dear colleagues, is Connecticut.
In other Lieberman news, from the New Haven Register:
“We are seeing an increased number of unaffiliated voters switching to Democratic to vote in the primary,” Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Tuesday.
Several registrars of voters in the New Haven area agreed, saying they are even getting some calls from Republicans asking if they can still change their registrations in time to vote in the Democratic primary.
Looks like Joe’s core constituency is trying to rally behind him. Fortunately, they’re too late:
The answer to that question is no; the deadline for switching from one party to another was May 8.
Hilarious
Li’l Kim
Dennis Perrin asks:
Is there a better Other than Kim Jong Il? A Central Casting classic. And how very retro to have an Asian supervillian in these days of Arab-fear…
Amid the rhetoric and red flags (of all kinds), the basic scenario remains as it has for decades: the US will decide who will or will not own or use WMD, and North Korea currently tops the NO list. Thing is, there’s really not much Bush can do about Kim’s stockpile, especially militarily, as any strike would immediately result in Seoul’s destruction, assaults on Japan, and God knows what else. Indeed, a resumption of the Korean war would be a very bad thing all around, which is why Bush is reduced to telling Kim, “We expect you to adhere to international norms,” a command that is both laughable and serious — laughable in the sense that Bush is instructing anyone on global etiquette, but serious in that such blazing hypocrisy is indeed the “international norm.” There are Masters and there are Servants, and Kim is decidedly the latter, a role he continually rejects.
And that is the true nub of this whole “crisis”: Kim’s refusal to assume the position. I know there are numerous obstacles, mostly domestic, that tie Bush’s hands on this front, but still, how hard would it be to put Kim on the payroll? Lord knows the US has bankrolled far worse, and allows other nations to behave in ways that would get North Korea baked were they to act in kind (see Israel in Gaza), so I really don’t see the problem here. Yes, the native ideologues would bark and foam at the very thought, but a serious geopolitical player would make them choke on their own bile. Picture Richard Nixon arriving in Pyongyang, shaking Kim’s hand and slapping him on the back, reviewing his troops and toasting him at a state banquet. Think Kim could resist that? Please…
But Bush is no Nixon. Hell, he rates below Agnew on the political hustler scale. So, here we’ll remain, stuck between calls for military action and Cold War-style containment, when the solution is right in front of us: pay Kim off. What better way to show him the glories of capitalism?
The rest of Dennis’ sensible suggestions are here.