Josh Marshall is on a roll. He has the best follow throughs on at least two different stories that have the potential to influence the political dynamics of this country. If he is not on your bookmarks yet, take a look.
The Plame affair
Reply
Monthly Archives: September 2003
the quest for the perfect RSS reader continues …
This thread on Nielsen Hayden’s has interesting suggestions about RSS readers available on the market. Bloglines sounded interesting.
As I said in an earlier post, I am currently test driving FeedDemon, which is very cool, if a trifle slow (that could be because I am on a beta product). I also heard very good things about Newsgator.
In case you are an India newshound, Indian Express is now available through syndications (via Mahesh). I hope Rediff follows suit.
The shortest political quiz
The world’s smallest political quiz says that I am a centrist.
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
A quiz that I took last year said that I am a borderline-left libertarian (left-right -0.50, Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.79). Unfortunately, I can no longer find that quiz online. It was rather interesting.
IEW
Go check out my new posts at IndiaEconomyWatch. I’ll be back here on tuesday.
New Indian weblogs & zines
Mahesh Santaram is hosting the ‘Bharatiya Blog Mela’, a rich showcase of Indian bloggers. I was very pleasantly surprised by both the presentation (the design is a spoof on Indian Express) and the content.
Lately, there has been a bunch of interesting new blogs and zines from the Indian community
Om Malik, a journalist with Business 2.0 and the writer of Broadbandits: Inside the $70 million telecom heist has started an interesting new weblog called ‘Not really Indian’ . It seems to cover Indo American cultural kitsch and what he calls ‘un NRI like things’.
I also noticed another interesting weblog called Prayatna on Typepad (via Emergic).
Former NDTV producer and anchor, Smita Maitra and Amrita Ghosh, English lecturer/PhD candidate in Drew University are starting a new Indian literary webzine called ‘Cerebration’. It is currently hosted on Geocities which is rather fragile. It is moving to this location. They are also looking for interesting submissions.
Dialognow, Satya Circle and Mantram have already on the map for some time now and have acquired quite a bit of traction among those looking for news and views from the Indian community on the net.
India Economy Watch
Edward and I are collaborating on India economy watch. Please go there and check out my first post on that weblog. More soon.
Judith Miller and ‘untrue statements’
This week, well known NYT reporter Judith Miller wrote about Syria’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons.
Assad is a 24 carrat scoundrel. He is capable of any kind of nastiness. But I no longer trust Miller’s word for it. Jack Shafer has been keeping a vigil on Judith Miller’s reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also read Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz (who has his own conflict of interest) on the subject of Judith Miller. Her credibility on the subject of WMD is shot to pieces. I am awed that NYT would let her report on this subject so soon after the last fiasco.
Talking of credibility, check out Walter Pincus and Dana Millbank’s story on Dick Cheney’s defence of the US administration’s Iraq policy on the talk show circuit last sunday:
Asked about his earlier dismissal of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki’s prewar view that an occupation force would have to be “on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers,” Cheney replied: “I still remain convinced that the judgment that we will need, quote, ‘several hundred thousand for several years,’ is not valid. In fact, Shinseki had not mentioned “several years” in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25.
Similarly, Cheney argued that the administration did not understate the cost of the war in Iraq, saying it did not put a precise figure on it. Asked about previous assertions by then-White House Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. that the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion and that a figure in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion was too high, Cheney replied: “Well, that might have been, but I don’t know what his basis was for making that judgment.”
…..He then revived the possibility that Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 attacks, allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Baghdad five months before the attack.. ….An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place. Czech authorities, who first mentioned the alleged meeting in October 2001 to U.S. officials, have since said they no longer are certain the individual in the video of the supposed meeting was Atta. Meanwhile, in July, the U.S. military captured the Iraqi intelligence officer who was supposed to have met Atta and has not obtained confirmation from him.
Cheney also seemed to broaden the intelligence on other alleged al Qaeda connections with Hussein, saying, “The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.” Up to now, administration officials and CIA documents have said there had been eight meetings, primarily in the early 1990s, when bin Laden was in Sudan.
Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. “I don’t want to speculate,” he said, adding that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.”
….Of the weapons search, Cheney said, “We’ve got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay, who used to run UNSCOM.” Kay, who is heading the 1,200-person search group, did not in fact run UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission that directed inspections in Iraq from 1991 through 1998; he was for one year the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which handled the nuclear portion of those investigations for UNSCOM.
As evidence that Hussein had “reconstituted” his nuclear weapons program, as Cheney had said before the war, the vice president cited Hussein’s prewar possession of “500 tons of uranium.” But the material was low-grade uranium, the waste product of a nuclear reactor unusable for weapons production without sophisticated processing that Iraq could not do.
Cheney also spoke of a “a gentleman” who had come forward “with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system.” The man, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, had denied that the nuclear program had been reconstituted after 1991.
Similarly, Cheney argued that the administration did not understate the cost of the war in Iraq, saying it did not put a precise figure on it. Asked about previous assertions by then-White House Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. that the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion and that a figure in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion was too high, Cheney replied: “Well, that might have been, but I don’t know what his basis was for making that judgment.”
…..He then revived the possibility that Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 attacks, allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Baghdad five months before the attack.. ….An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place. Czech authorities, who first mentioned the alleged meeting in October 2001 to U.S. officials, have since said they no longer are certain the individual in the video of the supposed meeting was Atta. Meanwhile, in July, the U.S. military captured the Iraqi intelligence officer who was supposed to have met Atta and has not obtained confirmation from him.
Cheney also seemed to broaden the intelligence on other alleged al Qaeda connections with Hussein, saying, “The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.” Up to now, administration officials and CIA documents have said there had been eight meetings, primarily in the early 1990s, when bin Laden was in Sudan.
Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia’s ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. “I don’t want to speculate,” he said, adding that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.”
….Of the weapons search, Cheney said, “We’ve got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay, who used to run UNSCOM.” Kay, who is heading the 1,200-person search group, did not in fact run UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission that directed inspections in Iraq from 1991 through 1998; he was for one year the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which handled the nuclear portion of those investigations for UNSCOM.
As evidence that Hussein had “reconstituted” his nuclear weapons program, as Cheney had said before the war, the vice president cited Hussein’s prewar possession of “500 tons of uranium.” But the material was low-grade uranium, the waste product of a nuclear reactor unusable for weapons production without sophisticated processing that Iraq could not do.
Cheney also spoke of a “a gentleman” who had come forward “with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system.” The man, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, had denied that the nuclear program had been reconstituted after 1991.
But Cheney knows what he was doing. A lot more people would watch the sound bites on TV than would read Washington Post.
A few weeks back, a Washingtonian story had puzzled over why the Post doesnt love Walter Pincus:
If President Bush suffers because it turns out he took the country to war on false pretenses, he might look back on stories by Walter Pincus for drawing first blood.
On March 16, the eve of war, Pincus wrote in the Post that ?U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information? about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
At the time, the Bush White House was telling the world that America had to invade Iraq to root out weapons of mass destruction. Pincus quoted sources saying that there was ?a lack of hard evidence.? And they also said the White House had ?exaggerated intelligence? to back up its drive toward war.
Pincus was uniquely positioned to delve into the intricacies of the weapons question. At 70, he had been reporting on national security for 25 years at the Post. Along the way he had cultivated sources in Congress, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the scientific community. For decades, he has been close to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Yet the Post buried Pincus?s March 16 story on page A17. It took help from Bob Woodward to get the story published at all….According to reporters, editors continually underplayed Pincus?s scoops and discounted their stories that ran counter to Bush?s call to arms. None of which deterred him, especially after he dissected Secretary of State Colin Powell?s February 5 speech to the United Nations. ?I suddenly realized everything he said was inferential,? says Pincus. As he did with stories about the neutron bomb in the 1970s and the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, Pincus burrowed deep and wrote often.
…In June Pincus sunk his teeth deeper into the emerging story of the nuclear material that Iraq was supposed to have sought from Niger to make nuclear bombs. US officials repeated the claim as fact and talked ominously of mushroom clouds. President Bush mentioned ?significant quantities of uranium? in his State of the Union speech. …. Pincus pursued it day after day. He says he had to fight to get it on the front page. ?The best way to get a memo to the President is the front page of the Post,? he says. Finally, at the end of May, Pincus broke onto the front page with a story about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. He stayed there as his stories?some with other reporters?put pressure on the White House to admit that the President?s 16-word sentence about uranium going to Iraq was not credible.
Pincus eventually prevailed within his own newspaper, but why did a veteran reporter have to bow and scrape to get his stories noticed and then printed?
….What Pincus did was help put the Post in front of the biggest story of the day. Managing editor Steve Coll says of Pincus: ?We were proud of his coverage before the war, and we?re proud of it now, and we?ve tried to give it prominent display throughout.?
On March 16, the eve of war, Pincus wrote in the Post that ?U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information? about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
At the time, the Bush White House was telling the world that America had to invade Iraq to root out weapons of mass destruction. Pincus quoted sources saying that there was ?a lack of hard evidence.? And they also said the White House had ?exaggerated intelligence? to back up its drive toward war.
Pincus was uniquely positioned to delve into the intricacies of the weapons question. At 70, he had been reporting on national security for 25 years at the Post. Along the way he had cultivated sources in Congress, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the scientific community. For decades, he has been close to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Yet the Post buried Pincus?s March 16 story on page A17. It took help from Bob Woodward to get the story published at all….According to reporters, editors continually underplayed Pincus?s scoops and discounted their stories that ran counter to Bush?s call to arms. None of which deterred him, especially after he dissected Secretary of State Colin Powell?s February 5 speech to the United Nations. ?I suddenly realized everything he said was inferential,? says Pincus. As he did with stories about the neutron bomb in the 1970s and the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, Pincus burrowed deep and wrote often.
…In June Pincus sunk his teeth deeper into the emerging story of the nuclear material that Iraq was supposed to have sought from Niger to make nuclear bombs. US officials repeated the claim as fact and talked ominously of mushroom clouds. President Bush mentioned ?significant quantities of uranium? in his State of the Union speech. …. Pincus pursued it day after day. He says he had to fight to get it on the front page. ?The best way to get a memo to the President is the front page of the Post,? he says. Finally, at the end of May, Pincus broke onto the front page with a story about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. He stayed there as his stories?some with other reporters?put pressure on the White House to admit that the President?s 16-word sentence about uranium going to Iraq was not credible.
Pincus eventually prevailed within his own newspaper, but why did a veteran reporter have to bow and scrape to get his stories noticed and then printed?
….What Pincus did was help put the Post in front of the biggest story of the day. Managing editor Steve Coll says of Pincus: ?We were proud of his coverage before the war, and we?re proud of it now, and we?ve tried to give it prominent display throughout.?
(Some links via TPM)
indie movies from India
In the last few years, there has been a spate of low budget Indian English movies. They don’t have the polish and sophistication that established directors, expensive sets and pricy cinematographers bring to a movie. But neither do they suffer as much from Bollywoodish melodrama. There were also the sleeper hits of last year from well known Indie directors, Mira Nayar (Monsoon Wedding) and Gurinder Chadha (‘Bend it like Beckham’). Both crossed the cultural chasm that plagues movies about South Asian experiences. Incidentally, I recently watched ‘Mississipi Masala’, a movie made few years earlier by Nayar. I think it is more honest than ‘Monsoon Wedding’.
What triggered this particular bout of profundities is reading the reviews of Everybody says I’m fine, the first feature film made by Rahul Bose and ‘Where is the party yaar’, directed by Benny Mathews ((via Sajit Gandi and Prashant Kothari respectively).
Rahul Bose was a fixture in the Bombay theatre scene. He first came to national prominence through his role in ‘English August’. The book was incredible. It came out when we were still in college. We couldn’t stop talking about it. The movie was also well made. But it does not have as much charm that the book does. But the gals could not stop talking about Rahul Bose.
Bose also acted in Aparna Sen’s ‘Mr and Mrs Iyer’ opposite Konkana, Sen’s daughter. It was released a few months back. Even if you see only one Indian movie this year, I would strongly recommend that you watch this. It has its weaknesses. But it is by far one of the best Indian movies made in the last few years. Most of the dialogue is in English and it is sub titled well.
I also saw Leela ( the reviews here). Leela is more feel-good and mushier. But what is important about Leela is not that it is shallow in resolution, but that it attempts an honest examination of sexuality and cross cultural identity.
Indian economy watch weblog
I have been feeling the need for something like this for a very long time. Thanks to Edward for putting this in place!
Libertarian manifestos
I recently read Dr. Arnold Kling’s rejoinder to Kristol’s neo- conservative agenda and Brink Lindsey’s slightly older post on his libertarian worldview (via Prashant Kothari).
Both are polished, seductive arguments. But the trouble with manifestos is that it glosses over details that do not fit the ideological boundaries. The real life is messy and full of compromises. Also, people have a way of subverting good intentions of any kind. Just like conservatism is not about racial prejudice, but it has ended up as a subculture under the republican umbrella or endemic corruption is not expected to be a part of socialism, but that it what it created everywhere; I am afraid, oligopolies that may result from a lbertarian free rein will lead to its own kind of excesses.
However, if I have to set markers, I would say that I have a lot more sympathy for the libertarian agenda (as opposed to the party bearing that name) than I do for neoconservatism. The trouble specifically with libertarian ideology is that it does not provide for any exception for stuff like, say, education. Education, to me, is the great equalizer. And only big government can administer a secular education for the poor. Libertarianism also does not make any allowance either for the greed or the foolishness which is inherent in people.
I am not advocating socialism here. In India, I saw the damages that socialism can do to a country. I am a free marketeer who has acquired over the last few years a large dose of respect for the idea of strong market regulations and of regulatory bodies . I am still working my way to a viable political philosophy. But I do find certain tenets of libertarianism appealing.