Temperament matters.

Where one is thoughtful, the other one is direct. Where one sees shades of gray, the other sees black and white. Where one thinks options through, the other declares himself ready to charge ahead. Obama and McCain at Saddleback Church? So they say.

But I’m thinking of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the movie version, Thirteen Days, I’m thinking in particular of the scene where President Kennedy meets with the Joint Chiefs. While Kennedy is bringing up all the obstacles and consequences, the Joint Chiefs generally, and Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay in particular, can’t envision any negative consequences from an American attack upon Cuba.

Fortunately for history, a tape of the real meeting between President Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs is avaiable here. It took place on October 19th (you need RealPlayer to listen to it).

Here’s the summary:

JFK concludes that an air strike would give the USSR “a clear line” to take Berlin – the way they took Hungary after the 1956 Suez invasion. [3:30] He states that our allies would think of us as “trigger-happy Americans” who lost Berlin because we did not have the guts to endure the situation in Cuba. Cuba is 5 to 6,000 miles from Europe he argues, and “they don’t give a damn about it… This is a very satisfactory position from their point of view.” [4:10]

JFK states that an air strike would neutralize the missiles but would likely force the USSR to take Berlin “which leaves me only one afternative which is to fire nuclear weapons – which is a hell of an alternative – to begin a nuclear exchange.” [5:15] “I don’t think we have any satisfactory alternatives,” JFK concludes, because the problem is not just Cuba but Berlin. If it were only Cuba it would be easy: “But if we do nothing, we will have problems in Berlin anyway. So, we have to do something.” [6:50]

Air Force chief of staff General Curtis LeMay, argues forcefully that the blockade and the political talks without accompanying military action will lead to war. He concludes that the Soviets won’t take Berlin if we act in Cuba but will take it if we fail to act [8:30]. “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich…. I just don’t see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.” [9:30]

JFK cites the fact that nations automatically expel diplomats if their own diplomats are expelled and concludes that if we take military action the USSR will have to as weIl. [10:25]

Several members of the JCS argue for military action and express fears that the blockade alone is a weak response which could lead to nuclear blackmail. [14:25]

Thus, where Kennedy was thoughtful, LeMay was direct. Where Kennedy saw shades of gray, LeMay saw black and white. Where Kennedy thought options through, LeMay declared himself ready to charge ahead.

And whereas Kennedy averted a nuclear disaster, LeMay most likely would have caused the world to be blown up.

Robert Kennedy also was as thoughtful as his brother, according to Robert McNamara’s notes.

An ominous (and paranoid?) little snippet from the movie, as the meeting with the Joint Chiefs had just ended, went like this:

LeMay walk out of the Oval Office with Taylor, Carter and their staffers.

LEMAY: Those goddamn Kennedys are going to destroy this country if we don’t do something about this.

There are dark looks on the faces of the other officers. They agree.

I don’t know whether that snippet was a piece of dramatic license, although I guess it probably was. But the gist is sound. What else would a LeMay conclude about a “weakling setting up his country for nuclear blackmail?” Of course, LeMay and those likeminded eventually did get their way.

58,193 Americans of my generation subsequently died.

And to this day nobody can tell anybody else why they died.

Yes, temperament matters a great deal. Perhaps Caroline Kennedy noticed something when she compared Barack Obama to her father last Winter. At the time, everybody else saw the glitz, the crowds, the speeches, the “rock-star” persona. Did she see the thoughtful mind — the kind of mind that once saved the world from annihilation?

Rick Warren asked:

“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

Barack Obama said:

“Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective answering that question with specificity you know is above my pay grade.”

I think it would have been cool if he said instead:

“At the precise moment in which that baby becomes a baby.”

And Rick Warren probably would have said:

“And what moment would that be?”

And the answer to that would be:

“Aha!”

Two weeks of sun & fun — although it’s raining heavily at the moment.

Have wifi in the cabin and may keep in touch. Otherwise, see ya soon!

Michael Mukasey urged Congress to give him a spanking new ass-cover:

Congress should explicitly declare a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the war on terrorism lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.

Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.

“Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us,” Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

“Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations,” he said.

Meaning, of course, that up until now detentions have not been legal, so it’s bypass the Supreme Court time again. No news in that. What struck me, though, was the dead dictator upon whom this administration is patterning itself. W’s love for the “Pinochet Model” of mass privatization is well known, but it is not Agosto Pinochet whom Mukasey’s wishes evoke. No, it would be the grandaddy of cold war South American thugs,

Paraguay’s own Alfredo Stroessner, who ruled for 35 years starting with a coup in 1954. Now Paraguay had an exemplary constitution, but there was a clause that enabled the president, in times of grave national emergency, to declare a “state of siege.” To avoid abusing this special authority, if the president wished to renew the state of siege, an extension had to be approved by the legislature three months after the state of siege was declared. Stroessner was big into extensions. As his Washington Post obituary put it:

The general brought early stability and foreign investment to the Paraguayan economy. With time, he shrugged off his less savory policies as “the cost of peace” and kept his country in what he called a constant “state of siege” that overruled his democratic constitution.

There were commies in them thar hills, ya see, so for more than 30 years, exceptions had to be made. Just as Mukasey wants it now. Because there are terrorists here, there, and everywhere. As long as somebody’s mad at us. Or forever. Whichever ends sooner. The comparisons to the reign of W continue throughout Stroessner’s obituary.

Elections:

“El Excelentisimo,” as he sometimes trumpeted himself, was elected every five years with near-universal approval that he took for a clear mandate. However, voting fraud was rife, and he tended to receive overwhelming support from dead constituents.

Except in Paraguay, dead constituents make voter caging, bogus and/or broken machines, etc. etc. unnecessary.

Dealing with unlawful combatants/communist threats:

With a network of informants and the backing of the military, he tortured dissidents, both real and perceived.

A Paraguyan senator, Carlos Levi Rufinelli, a member of the token opposition party, told the New York Times in 1975: “I was a prisoner 19 times, and I was tortured six times. Most of the time, I did not know what they wanted. They did not even know what they wanted. But when they put the needles under your fingernails, you tell them anything, you denounce everybody, and then they say, ‘See, you were lying to us all the time.’ “

And of course, crony capitalism:

All the while, the country became astoundingly corrupt. Payoffs were essential to all commerce, with much of the swag going to top military officers. Paraguay became a sanctuary for smugglers in arms, drugs and everyday goods such as whiskey and car parts.

Good thing about term limits. It probably takes more than eight years for a dictator to really get his act going. Stroessner’s regime was able to accomplish more than Bush, Mukasey, et. al. could ever wish. Google Joelito Filartiga.

Time was, the Albany office of the Department of Motor Vehicles lived up to its stereotype: dingy, chaotic, and staffed with ornery people — or, to be fair, people probably rendered ornery by their dingy and chaotic surroundings.

The DMV was among the smudgy faces of gummint that righties used to sell their contracts with America for the rich to hoi polloi. Liberals, long known for giving America equality, suffrage, prosperity, and global leadership, became known for spawning — nasty bureaucrats.

Somewhere in the middle of the Cuomo administration, everything changed at the Albany DMV. The office was made more spacious. Lines moved rapidly to the reception desk, where you’d get a number, deli style, that also told you your expected wait time. Benches were hard wood, but no less comfortable than a typical church pew, and news feeds scrolled along the wall next to an electronic bulletin board that indicated which number was ready to go to which counter. And it made a loud “ding” every time a new number came up.  Best of all, the staff was helpful, even friendly (and as for the one or two not so friendly, at least they were colorful).

All it took were a couple tweaks, and this face of government turned into one freckle-faced kid in summer. So if all it takes are a couple of tweaks, why is Michael Lerner getting so ponderous on us?

Liberal programs emphasize economic needs and political rights. I’m a liberal, and support those programs. And they’ve proved very effective when it comes to delivering “objective” caring – the elimination of discrimination, leveling the playing field for competition in the public arena (at least among middle class people), and delivering economic aid for the poor.

…What liberals miss is that their government programs often lack any interest in fostering “subjective caring” – the experience of being cared for and about by those who deliver “objective caring.” Over the past 70 years, many people have come into contact with government employees (e.g. in the post office, the DMV, zoning and permit offices, INS, IRS, welfare and unemployment agencies) where subjective caring is rather scarce.

People often leave these encounters angry that their taxes are paying the salaries of disrespectful or emotionally deadened government employees whose one-dimensional following of the rules often ignores the subtleties of human life. These encounters leave many people open to the “downsize government” strategy of the political Right.

Just like a “liberal” to resurrect a right-wing straw man (person?) on the brink of the Republican Party’s going the way of the Whigs. All it takes are a couple of tweaks! Although I must admit, that subjective/objective caring thing does make one sound oh so academic.

Back in the day, when Michael Lerner was a FOB*, his “Politics of Meaning” had some buzz — until pundits ranging from Katha Pollitt to Maureen Dowd jumped all over its squishiness, and Lerner went the way that FOH* Jean Houston would go later.

Maybe Lerner sees a second shot at meaning for himself, as a FOBO, perhaps?

Instead of funding churches and worrying about possible indoctrination, it would make more sense to recast government programs and our public education systems so that they were required to see others as successful not just as maximizers of material self-interest and gratifications, but as love-oriented beings whose needs could be addressed without invoking any particular religious tradition.

Senator Obama should be seeking to have government programs and employees be judged effective in part by the degree to which they convey genuine caring and love. Far from being a slippery slope toward breaking separation of church and state, this direction is the most effective way to head off the assault on government that gains many enthusiasts from among those who have experienced government programs as missing the key elements of their humanity.

“Have government programs and employees be judged effective in part by the degree to which they convey genuine caring and love?”  Yeah, that’s Chicago politics.

Better to let dead memes stay dead. We don’t need meme zombies invading a countryside slowly coming to its senses. Oh, and I don’t want the DMV to love me. I just want some courtesy and efficiency.

*In the 1990’s there were such things as “Friends of Bill” and “Friends of Hillary.” Over the course of the Clinton presidency, these titles became ironic of course, because hey, the 1990’s were ironic.

In the real world , this would appear to be a non-story:

In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote Friday. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece.”

In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is “standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.”

I’ve had editors, and of course it is “standard procedure to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission” everywhere. I have one editor who routinely returns my submissions loaded with red ink markings and usually a note to the effect of “Terrific piece. Here are a few suggestions!”

It would seem to me that the author of Faith of My Fathers would know plenty about editors. Certainly more than I.

So why is teh nooz (i.e. CNN) all about this framing? Because the McCain campaign told them they should?

New York Times rejects McCain essay.

Why, that’s almost as bad as that wingnut wurst-mill, Newsmax:

NY Times Censors McCain Op-Ed

Huh? Rejects? Censors?

Teh nooz just wants to indulge this tantrum, I guess. Even Dan Abrams is calling the while flap “a win for McCain” because he gets to pick on the NY Times.

After all, we’re talking about a bona fide war hero here, a manly man among manly men. And he has this macho thing to say:

Waaahhh waaahhh waaaaahhh. That librul old NY Times likes the other guy best. No fair!! Waaahhh. Fight my battles for me, CNN. C’mon you guys! Beat up that mean old NY Times like you did when they wrote about Vicki Iseman.  I want to say what I want to say my way and. I. want. to. do. it. NOW!

So to the barricades, teh nooz! There’s a damsel manly man in distress. Editors scare him. Either that, or Dan Abrams is right. Kind of.

The McCain campaign’s one remaining defining characteristic is its preference for cheap shots. A “win” is when they can land one.

You can read McCain’s draft here.

Yep. Needs work I’d say.

On Chris Matthews’ Sunday Gaborama, an icicle of insight:

Howard Fineman drops a 10 megaton bomb, ready to detonate if only anyone notices. (Like that’s gonna happen!)

“You want to cover over your two terms with a third term the way Ronald Reagan did with George HW Bush.”

In other words, every Republican Presidential Administration since 1980 has been either a criminal enterprise, or a cover-up of a criminal enterprise. Thus was every Republican presidential administration for the past 40 years a criminal enterprise or a cover-up — since Gerald Ford couldn’t actually cover anything up after Nixon’s tapes were outed, he did the next best thing by pardoning the criminal. Oh, and he left us with this legacy:

But to Fineman’s point, there was this:

Lawrence E. Walsh concludes his account of prosecuting the Iran-contra affair on a decidedly sour note: ”What set Iran-contra apart from previous political scandals was the fact that a cover-up engineered in the White House of one President and completed by his successor prevented the rule of law from being applied to the perpetrators of criminal activity of constitutional dimension.” ”Firewall” is about how and why Walsh failed, for which he blames himself a little, Congress and conservative judges somewhat, but above all Reagan Administration officials who constructed a ”firewall” around the President after the illegal arms sales to Iran and the diversion of the proceeds to the contras were first revealed in November 1986.

… According to Walsh, Attorney General Edwin Meese was the cover-up’s architect, but he was assisted by Vice President George Bush; the chief of staff, Donald Regan; the Director of Central Intelligence, William Casey; [Caspar] Weinberger; and other top administration officials.

and this:

Six years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan’s Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger’s private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.

… But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh’s effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush’s decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

And, of course, the mystery of mysteries, the grandaddy of modern GOP priorities and tactics, the conspiracy theory nobody complains is a conspiracy theory, really — this.

Troops in Afghanistan. Negotiations with Iran. Barack Obama gets to see how his foreign policy ideas might work, since the Republicans are busy adopting them. Of course, the people putting these ideas in play are the same people who accidentally leaked this to everybody in the USA:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

And ever the politician –

…Maliki was careful to back away from outright support for Obama. “Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business,” he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain’s more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”

Nonpartisan — uh huh. And as many have pointed out, the United States has been clear about respecting Iraq’s wishes.

That goes until they ACTUALLY ASK US TO LEAVE. So far.

I guess what separates a naif from a foreign policy expert is understanding this truth of the universe:

There is neither strength nor wisdom in spitting into the wind.

The wind is blowing the ball into the R side. Whaddaya gonna do, boyz?

UPDATE: This was quick. Ball back to al-Maliki. Iraqi Administration sings “I’m Your Puppet:”*

… a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

How’s that song go?

*I’m Your Puppet
Linden Oldham/Dan Penn
© 1965 Screen Gems/EMI Music Inc. (BMI)

Pull the string and I’ll wink at you, I’m your puppet
I’ll do funny things if you want me to, I’m your puppet

I’ll be yours to have and to hold
Darling you’ve got full control of your puppet

Pull another string and I’ll kiss your lips, I’m your puppet
Snap your finger and I’ll turn you some flips, I’m your puppet

Your every wish is my command
All you gotta do is wiggle your little hand
I’m your puppet, I’m your puppet

I’m just a toy, just a funny boy
That makes you laugh when you’re blue
I’ll be wonderful, do just what I’m told
I’ll do anything for you
I’m your puppet, I’m your puppet

Pull them little strings and I’ll sing you a song, I’m your puppet
Make me do right or make me do wrong, I’m your puppet

Treat me good and I’ll do anything
I’m just a puppet an you hold my string, I’m your puppet
Yeah, I’m your puppet

Walking, talking, living, loving puppet
I’m hanging on a string girl, I’ll do anything now

I’m a walking, talking, living, loving puppet, and I love you

I’m a smiling happy face when you want me to
Even make you happy when you’re feeling blue.

Oh, yeah.

Rep. Linda Sánchez  makes a good case for it:

Again last week, we saw the arrogance of former White House advisor Karl Rove when an empty chair sat for him in front of the House Judiciary subcommittee where he was required by subpoena to testify. Not only did he refuse to appear before the committee — let alone testify — but he defiantly left the country thereby blatantly ignoring his obligations under the congressional subpoena served on him. When he did return to the country, Rove found the time to gab with TV reporters on a summer press tour in Beverly Hills, but failed to stop by the Judiciary Committee in Washington.

…Mr. Rove should not be able to hide behind the president to avoid the American public. Americans are fed up with this administration flouting the law. They expect Congress to hold people accountable and that is exactly what we intend to do. Letting Mr. Rove get away with this would set a dangerous precedent. I have recommended that we hold Mr. Rove in contempt of Congress. If we need to revive the inherent contempt procedure which gives Congress the authority to arrest those who defy Congressional subpoenas, then so be it.

The courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process. Any person who scoffs at the law and who has committed an offense that is punishable by jail time should be put in jail. This includes Karl Rove.

Robert Greenwald has a nifty video:

and a petition for you to sign for the Judiciary Committee!

Think it will make a difference? As Rep. Sánchez says, “The courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process.” To date, Congress has sure seemed to me to have pulled in the exact opposite direction.

I’d say sign it anyway.

This month there are those recognizing this fourth anniversary (the decision was announced, actually, a week ago):

Palestinian leaders today said they would seek UN sanctions against Israel after the international court of justice ruled that the barrier being built around the West Bank was illegal and should be pulled down.

Announcing its findings, the court said the “security wall” infringed the rights of Palestinians, adding that Israel should pay compensation for the damage it had caused.

It was big news in a lot of places, except we had a presidential election going on. Besides, we officially sided with Israel:

Israeli officials insisted they would not accept the court’s ruling, saying the barrier provided a vital security bulwark against Palestinian suicide bombers. They argued it has already saved hundreds of lives since building work began.

…The Israeli position was supported by the US administration, which argued that the international court of justice was not the right place in which to address the issue. “We do not believe that that’s the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

At least the Israelis had a rationale. The United States faces no such threat from the Tohono O’odham nation. Who?

Calling it an affront to religious freedom, representatives of an Arizona Indian tribe have asked the federal government to halt construction of a border fence across the tribe’s Arizona reservation.

Leaders of the Tohono O’odham nation say the fence, currently being built along the U.S.-Mexican border by the Department of Homeland Security, will prevent members of their nation from crossing into Mexico for traditional religious ceremonies.

“This wall and the construction of this wall has destroyed our communities, our burial sites and ancient Tohono O’odham routes throughout our lands,” said Ofelia Rivas, according to the Washington Times.

Rivas argued that the fence will violate the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which guarantees free exercise of traditional religious practices for Native Americans. She said that the fence would disrupt such practices by limiting travel to and from O’odham land in Mexico.

The Tohono O’odham reservation straddles the Mexican border for 75 miles in Arizona, and extends south into Mexico. According to the 2000 census, 18,000 people live on the reservation, which spans an area roughly the size of Connecticut.

For the sake of comparison, Connecticut’s land area is 5544 square miles; the West Bank’s is 2270.  So we’re not talking about some two-horse town here, exactly.

I guess, if the Tohono O’odham nation would bring this dispute to the Hague, DHS could argue that we stole the land fair and square, and so what are they doing on our border?