LIBERADIO(!)

We spent a healthy portion of today’s show discussing the 4th anniversary of the Iraq War. ABC News is kicking off a week of coverage called “Iraq: Where Things Stand”. As part of the kick-off, they have an extensive write-up of an extensive poll that has been conducted in Iraq. I’m going to present some items below that struck me from reading it, but I encourage you to read the write-up (which includes a link to the even longer full report) in its entirety. Trust me: I’m not cherry-picking. This report does not paint a pretty picture of life on the ground or popular sentiment in Iraq.

15-second summary:

• a minority of Iraqis think that life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein
• a plurality of Iraqis think that the U.S. is to blame for the continued violence
• a majority of Iraqis think it is acceptable to attack U.S. forces

The Good

In perhaps the most positive result in this poll — certainly one of the few — a desire for political unity remains. Fifty-eight percent say Iraq should continue as a single, unified country with a central government in Baghdad. That’s declined, though, from 79 percent in 2004 and 70 percent in 2005.

While it doesn’t mitigate Iraq’s troubles, there has been some progress. Median household incomes have advanced from $150 per month in 2004 to $204 in 2005 and $286 now. Employment is up sharply. So is possession of consumer goods: Nearly every household in Iraq now has a satellite dish and a radio; nine in 10 have a cell phone, up from a mere 6 percent in 2004.

The Bad

More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who’s been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn’t feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country’s population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe.

In 2005, despite the difficulties in their country, 71 percent of Iraqis said their own lives were going well. Today that’s been all but halved, to 39 percent. In 2005, two-thirds expected their lives to improve over the coming year. Now just 35 percent see better days ahead.

In an equally dramatic reversal, majorities now give negative ratings to each of more than a dozen essential aspects of daily life — jobs, schools, power and fuel supply, medical care and many more. In late 2005, for instance, 54 percent said their power supply was inadequate or nonexistent; now that’s swelled to 88 percent. And in 2005 just 30 percent rated their economic situation negatively. Today that’s more than doubled, to 64 percent.

The Ugly

The number of Iraqis who call it “acceptable” to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.

Given all this, for the first time since the 2003 war, fewer than half of Iraqis, 42 percent, say life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein, whose security forces are said to have murdered more than a million Iraqis.

Asked whom they blame most for the current violence in Iraq, far and away the most common answer — voiced by four in 10 Iraqis — is either U.S. and coalition forces (31 percent), or George W. Bush personally (nine percent). Al Qaeda and foreign jihadi fighters are cited by 18 percent (far more by Shiites and Kurds than by Sunnis).

The End

Interestingly, for all the negative changes in attitudes and experience, one result has remained essentially stable: Iraqis still divide, now by 48-52 percent, over whether the United States was right or wrong to invade in spring 2003.

Despite the ambivalence of Iraqis on whether or not our aggressive foreign policy was a good idea, I certainly think it was not. Maybe the answer to Fukuyama’s question wasn’t ready to be answered in 1992, or even 2002. But I’m hoping the lesson that the global community — of which we are a part — learns from the mistake of Iraq is that we are far enough along in history that foreign policy goals should not be pursued with force. Leave that to foreign policy responses. Now, as to the question of Iraq? I’ll leave that to the Iraq Study Group…

If I were a true political historian, what I’d be researching right now would be the activist campaign. My interest was piqued when Tom Vilsack [insert duck noise here] announced that his campaign was going carbon neutral (i.e., he would track electricity usage in his campaign and buy carbon offsets to ensure that his campaign was net zero). Sadly, Gov. Vilsack dropped out of the race. Impressively (surprisingly?), John Edwards announced that he, too, would run a carbon neutral campaign. He’s even using the same company (Native Energy) that Vilsack was using. (The fact that it’s in Vermont must make Howard Dean happy.)

A while back (after an experience with a get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, actually; I’ll probably write more about this at some point), I was pondering the notion of the use of political party structures to enact public policies rather than merely relying on the petri dishes of legislatures which produce sausage not resembling the meat in a party platform. For instance, what if Democratic party headquarters around a city, state, or country began maintaining records of living wages and then guaranteeing all party staff a living wage based on the location of their residences. Or what if Democrats began offering a health care plan of some sort (single-payer?) offered to registered Democrats.

And now these presidential campaigns are showing us the way on the issue of energy policy (which, in my opinion, is energy security). Will there be any more initiatives announced by other campaigns? And just how common is this trend historically? Have any past presidential campaigns engaged in policymaking while campaigning?

Nashville is currently considering an ordinance that would require a constrained subset of new Metro buildings to attain LEED Silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Several cities have adopted similar ordinances. Pittsburgh even has a LEED-certified convention center. Imagine if it became a campaign tactic to hold campaign events only in LEED-certified buildings. I imagine that would spur the private sector to unprecedented levels of intentional development.

I think walking the walk in this way is a remarkable way to use the bully pulpit of public life to effect real change. Who needs to read a 10-point platform when we can see the actual benefits of a campaign in action? I can’t say that I’d endorse a surge in Iraq or an attack on Iran by John McCain’s campaign staff, though…

Guests: Alma Sanford & Thelma Kidd of Tennessee Democratic Women’s PAC; Former Tennessee State Senator Shea Flinn; and Suezann Bosler, Co-founder & Board Member of Journey of Hope.

Events: TDWPAC’s Third Annual Silent Auction

Links: Keeping track of the Iraq War (NY Times article and chart); Al-Qaeda in Iraq May Not Be Threat Here: Intelligence Experts Say Group Is Busy On Its Home Front; Watch Meet the Press’s “4 Year Anniversary” Roundtable featuring former Congressman Tom Andrews, director of the Win Without War coalition; former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay; Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Congressman Joe Sestak, retired vice admiral of the U.S. Navy; Emmanuel says, “Democrat’s Stay Away from Stephen Colbert!”

Summary: The Union Jack Goes Green; Ever more open government is a good thing. Let the Sun Shine In!; Used Soldiers. Battle Ready. Cheap. Check Condition; and finally, a Scandal in the Bush Administration! At Least, One That’s Getting Attention…

Listen: Used Soldiers. Battle Ready. Cheap. Check Condition. (22:13 20.3MB)

“Capital Turns Cold for Bush,” by Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen (The Politico)
The powerful new baby in political coverage — The Politico — gave rise to the title of yesterday’s Note. Competence is the new black. And on the same day as Freddie blogged about the issue of competence completely unrelatedly! (Is that a word?)

“President Turns to an Insider to Negotiate on Dismissals,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times)
Meet the man who might very well decide the outcome of this whole U.S. attorneys firing scandal. Harriet Miers he ain’t.

“Hagel vs. Obama: What a Dream,” by William Arkin (Early Warning, special to washingtonpost.com)
Great Minds Media gets disrupted as Mary and William Arkin (Oscar-winner) meld over 2008-flavored sugarplums. Make Mary’s Hagel-flavored!

“What an anti-Giuliani ad should say,” by Robert Polner (Salon)
“Swift fire engining” doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as easily as “swift boating,” but it might be the most effective way of knocking the current Republican frontrunner down a peg or two.

“Alaska senator among Republicans feeling antiwar heat,” by Nicole Gaouette (Los Angeles Times)
Alaska might be cold, but the antiwar heat still burns. Murkowski: “There’s a commitment and resolve in these young men to finish the fight. But what we in Congress are saying is, ‘Finish the fight — what does that mean?’ And that’s the debate you see.” At least we’re finally having a debate.

“Republicans Dodge Homosexuality Question,” by Jonathan Martin (The Politico)
One thing’s for sure: The Big 3 from the GOP are certainly not gay. Because if they were, they’d be all over this question, falling over one another to condemn gay people. Now, as for Sam Brownback…

“The Purse Isn’t Congress’s Only Weapon“, By WALTER DELLINGER and CHRISTOPHER SCHROEDER (NY Times Op-Ed) The debate that Congress needs to have about the Iraq war is being hijacked by sound-bite arguments.

“What My Uncle Knew About War“, by Dick Cavett (NY Times)
“I have a statement: Anybody who gives his life in war is an idiot.” — Dick Cavett

Summary: Our “most Long Island show ever!” continues with a blast from Mary’s past. In this episode we interview TV Critic Marvin Kitman, who wrote about television for Newsday (Long Island’s news daily) for 35 years. He recently released his latest book, The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O’Reilly, which really got O’Reilly’s Irish up (even though the man gave Kitman about 29 interviews). We ask Marvin why Bill is such a blowhard and we get some pretty good answers! Happy St. Patrick’s Day, Bill!

Listen to: The Marvin Kitman Show (20:25 18.7MB)

Tom Shine over at Politics as Usual uncovers a prime example of post-Katrina executive incompetence over at everyone’s favorite federal agency, FEMA. This is the nth example of Bush’s compassionate conservatism at play in the real world.

The notions of an Ownership Society or compassionate conservatism actually have some nobility to them in policy addresses and stump speeches, but they, like most policy ideas, are revealed to be hollow in the face of incompetence. This is what has disturbed me since 2000 about the coaltion of the willing that coalesced around Bush. Did the ends of the philosophies (anti-taxation, religious righteousness, hawkishness, pro-business) really justify this means?

In my opinion, this is where Democrats have an opportunity to change the direction of the country dramatically in the wake of the Bush administration. Democrats need to sell a vision of competence. I think they can actually pull back the reins on some of the policy ideas currently in the arena and just demonstrate an ability to execute something not too dissimilar to the current mission of federal government with competence. Of course, all of this is contingent upon the nominating process sending to the voters someone who is able and willing to do this. And it will be a superhuman feat if such a nominee is able to execute with progressive incremental changes. Guess who’s not holding his breath?

The Always On series illustrates what we’d be talking about if we were on the air 5 days a week.

Summary: Liberadio(!)’s “Most Long Island show Ever” continues with our interview with Sprout of the all-woman, New York-based (but Long Island-raised!) hip-hop trio Northern State. They’re on their way to stir it up at SxSW. All you Austin Suckamofos better back the f**k up!

“I’m a saint not a sinner I am the prize winner,
Gonna get the NSP and host my own spaghetti dinner,
I’m a vegetarian, humanitarian, imaginarian, not a libertarian,
The country’s getting ugly and there’s more in store,
But don’t blame me cause I voted for Gore,
Keep choice legal, your wardrobe regal,
Chekhov wrote the Seagull, and Snoopy is a beagle,
It’s like dum de dum I keep my eyes underground,
I’m walking down the street I’m the purveyor of sound…”
– Northern State, A Thousand Words

Listen to: Complex Times Call for Complex Rhymes (Interview with Sprout from Northern State) (11:02 10MB)

This is starting to become, you know, a thing with these guys. Yesterday, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that he thinks homosexuality is immoral:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Nice. Hey Pace, do you command all the troops with that mind-set?

The article continues by pointing out that a “2005 government audit showed that about 10,000 troops have been discharged” because of Army’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy including more than 322 linguists (including 54 Arabic specialists). Whatever. Who needed those specialists anyway? Oh, wait, we did. It seems that the our armed forces are all coming up a little short in the foreign-language specialists department.

According to Pace, one of the country’s top generals, the “war on terror” isn’t as important as the “war on capable and loyal personnel.”

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said it best, “The real question is: What is moral about discharging qualified linguists during a time of war simply for being gay or lesbian?”