Bloggers Do the American Political Science Association Convention

Last Friday, I attended the American Political Science Association convention at Washington, DC's Mariott Wardman Park and Omni Shoreham Hotels. It was huge. For fans of what Washingtonians call "show business for ugly people," it seemed something like a buttoned-down version of the Cannes Film Festival. The APSA convention motto: "Mobilizing Democracy." (I had my mobile phone with me, does that count?)

At registration, I spotted Washington Post columnist David Broder and Princeton University professor Cornel West. The 0800 am session on Bush's presidential leadership style, in which Princeton political science professor Fred Greenstein predicted that Bush would come back from outrage over Hurricane Katrina in the same way he came back after 9/11 was packed--Broder was in the audience, as was Brookings Institution political guru Thomas Mann, among other American politological luminaries. Washington Post reporter John Harris shared a scoop, as he contrasted the governing styles of Bush and Clinton, then revealed that Hillary likes Bush Junior's style and hopes to emulate it. Yikes!

I missed seeing Republican bigwigs Elliott Abrams, and Bill Kristol, or former Clinton advisor William Galston, who appeared at some other panels, (I guess they aren't too busy doing their jobs to bloviate with academics) but did have a chance to drop in on a panel about the Bush doctrine in Iraq.

It featured John Hopkins professor Francis Fukuyama, who appeared with Princeton's John Ikenberry, and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer. The banner hanging above their heads read: "APSA: Networking a World of Scholars."

It was strange to hear Fukuyama, one of the signatories of the famous (or notorious) 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein, now mocking the Bush doctrine as an equivalent to the Wizard of Oz scene where the munchkins come out singing "Ding, dong, the Witch is dead..." Fukuyama may be right now, or he may have been right then, or he may be wrong twice in a row. Could he have been right twice in a row? Who knows? Maybe the Bushies thought it was the end of history, or something? I admit that I don't know...

I do know that I certainly would want to think twice before I would trust anything Fukuyama has to say about politics or world affairs.

The worst was yet to come. Professor Ikenberry was icky in the extreme, he actually used the term "final solution" in connection with Bush's policies in Iraq, a creepy academic type, who thought he was so cute and clever. Ikenberry appeared so amoral and calculated that he made Fukuyama look good by comparison. Mearsheimer seemed to be the most "realistic" of the bunch, arguing that the Bush doctrine is dead, though no one will admit it. This, at least, is a testable hypothesis. We have three years to see if he is right or wrong...

Most interesting--after the book exhibit, which really was great, all publishers were there, and some gave away free books, which I'll discuss as I read them--was the Claremont Institute's panel on bloggers and politics, concentrating on Powerline's coverage of the Dan Rather 60 Minutes II scandal. Both John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff were there, and there was a lively debate about blogs versus newspapers with Jeff Gertz of The Washington Times and the Boston Globe's Peter Canellos. Canellos gave the liberal line pretty well, and Hinderaker agressively challenged him. It was almost like watching Crossfire. (You can see Hinderaker v. Canellos in the picture above.)

At that same session, I learned that author and US News correspondent Michael Barone is now a blogger, since he was introduced from the audience as a member of the tribe.

Overall, I'd say reporters at APSA were more interesting than professors, and bloggers at least as interesting as journalists. And before attending APSA, I didn't realize that Bush political appointees cared what political science professors thought (a mistake, IMHO).

Karen Hughes and the Islamists

Thanks to a tip from Powerline (I went to their panel session about Dan Rather at the American Political Science Association over the weekend), I read this disturbing article by Joel Mowbray detailing Karen Hughes' embrace of the Islamic Society of North America, a reportedly pro-Islamist organization according to Mowbray.

Hughes' PR strategy seems to be dangerous, and indicates that the Bush administration may not have learned from its mistakes in the soon-to-be "Islamic Republic of Iraq." The State Department's position on her appearance seems to be a direct provocation to Russia over Chechnya. If I were the Russian ambassador, I'd file a diplomatic protest immediately, based on the information in Mowbray's account, as Hughes' appears to be consorting with supporters of terrorism:

When asked about much of the above, State spokesman Clay seemed uninterested. He first argued that Hughes' appearance was no big deal, since the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security were also sending representatives. But DHS and DOJ sent low-level department lawyers who are neither principals nor political appointees. Not the same thing as sending someone who's logged countless hours by the President's side.

Clay also defended the appearance before ISNA by noting, 'They do not support terrorism.'

Except when they do.

In a January 2000 press release, ISNA declared, 'In order to honor the Shaheeds and the Mujahideen of Chechnia, ISNA has decided to dedicate Shawwal 1, 1420, the day of Eid al Fitr as 'Solidarity with Chechnia Day' throughout North America.'

'Shaheeds' is the term used by jihadists for glorification of suicide bombers. U.S. law officials think that the 'shaheeds' and 'Mujahideen' in Chechnya are terrorists; many of the most high-profile terror cases since 9/11 have involved support for those forces.

Even giving Clay the benefit of the doubt that he did not know of the Chechnya statement, is lack of support for terrorism the only bar which an organization must clear?

Administration officials--particularly someone of Hughes' prominence--should embrace the organizations fighting the Saudi takeover of Islam in America, not the group perhaps most responsible for perpetrating that very takeover.

Spun off of the Saudi-created and funded Muslim Students Association (MSA) over 20 years ago, ISNA is likely the largest single provider of Islamic materials to mosques in America.

For a sampling of what might be contained in Saudi-sponsored pamphlets and literature, one need look no further than the Freedom House report issued earlier this year. Using Muslim volunteers to gather Saudi-published or sponsored materials in more than a dozen prominent mosques across the country, Freedom House found shocking intolerance, anti-Semitism, and even explicit endorsement of violence.

Bush Can Learn From Putin

That's the advice from Konstantin's Russian Blog, in relation to the tragedy in New Orleans.

The Islamic Republic of Iraq?

Writing in The National Review, Andrew McCarthy responds to Charles Krauthammer's cheerleading on behalf of the Bush administration's new Iraqi constitution, one that make Islam the state religion:

An obsession that all people must submit to the authority of Islam is the beating heart of militancy. Concededly, the proposed constitution is not a militant document — there is much in it that would be anathema to jihadists. Still, the drive to impose Islam formally as the state religion, over the objections of a substantial minority of Iraqis, is hardly an augur of moderation.

Read the whole thing, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say...

Gas Prices Get Personal

Just paid $3.57 a gallon for gas here, near Dulles airport. When I got back to DC, saw the same gallon of gas cost between $3.71 and $3.79.

I'm old enough to remember the Carter Years of stagflation, OPEC, and hostages, so I'd say things are looking a little too much like the 70s already...

Bush Cronyism in FEMA Disaster

The polite word is "networking," the blunter term is "cronyism" --the result of Washington politics as usual in picking the head of FEMA has been calamity in New Orleans, according to
the Boston Herald (War and Piece had this tip earlier):

Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado.

``We do disciplinary actions, certification of (show trial) judges. We hold classes to train people to become judges and stewards. And we keep records,'' explained a spokeswoman for the IAHA commissioner's office. ``This was his full-time job . . . for 11 years,'' she added.

Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.

``He was asked to resign,'' Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night.

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.

The White House last night defended Brown's appointment. A spokesman noted Brown served as FEMA deputy director and general counsel before taking the top job, and that he has now overseen the response to ``more than 164 declared disasters and emergencies,'' including last year's record-setting hurricane season."

Bush's strategy of spreading enough graft around to keep both Republicans and Democrats happy may come back to haunt him and his party. Newt Gingrich, who organized the Republican revolution that began with exposure of a Congressional check-kiting scandal, once said that people will tolerate corruption so long as they receive government goods and services, but that if they don't get them, they won't tolerate corruption--and it can become an explosive political issue.

Also, there are probably some other scandals lurking, such as questions about construction contracts on the New Orleans levees. Why did they give way, could shoddy construction or engineering, or improper inspections, due to corruption, be to blame?

If the Democrats stick to a "good government" political strategy, rather than race-baiting, they stand a good chance to take the House back in 2006 using this issue. Then, they will be in a position to impeach Bush over the New Orleans flood (even if the Senate stays Republican), which may help their chances in 2006. As the Washington Post editorial argued yesterday, literally billions of dollars have been spent on disaster preparedness since 9/11--yet America was totally unprepared for New Orleans. That means money has been lost, wasted, or stolen by President Bush and his administration. So it should be an interesting election year...

Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Wikipedia has interesting entry on the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a forerunner to Katrina...

Bush Opens Begging Bowl

The most depressing news yet, from China's Xinhua News Agency:

 WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States, suffering from heavy death toll and economic losses wrought by Hurricane Katrina, will accept any offers of aid from abroad, the White House said Thursday.

    "We are open to all offers of assistance from other nations, and I would expect we would take people up on offers of assistance when it's necessary," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

    Also on Thursday, US President George W. Bush has asked his father, former president George Bush and his predecessor, former president Bill Clinton to lead fundraising efforts for the victimsof Hurricane Katrina.

Can't we take care of our own? Even India refused international aid, after the Asian tsunami...

Don't Blame the Neocons

Brendan O'Neill says the Clinton administration built up Al Qaeda, by turning a blind eye to Islamist militants funded and supplied by Iran during the Bosnian conflict in what is now former Yugoslavia. He notes that many reputed Al Qaeda terrorists have well-documented ties to groups active in Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as Chechnya. Unfortunately, the article in The Spectator.co.uk is available by paid subscription only. I hope they open it up...

War and Piece Says FEMA Head Not Qualified

Will Bush's cronyism do him in? War and Piece thinks it might:

My lord, the guy heading FEMA has no qualifications. What was he doing before getting pulled into FEMA by the Bush administration in 2003? He was an estate planning lawyer in Colorado and of counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association Legal Department. And yes, it is the same Michael D. Brown.

He Might Have Stopped...

This White House photo by Paul Morse says it all: Bush is unable or unwilling to get personally involved, in order to help people in New Orleans. He won't stop his plane to get out and take a look, comfort the suffering people of the Gulf Coast, or crack heads to be sure that the job is being done right.

Any other President--or mayor, or governor, or normal elected official in a democracy--would have been down on the ground, in hip boots, wading through the muck, encouraging rescue and recovery efforts. If he didn't want to get wet, Bush might have more closely inspected the damage from a helicopter, as he did in NYC after 9/11. Instead, Bush chose to stay above it all, peering down from the comfort of his Air Force One seat.

The White House has long had the reputation of refusing to put the President in "uncontrolled" situations. He took three days to get to NYC after 9/11, something this New York native has never forgotten. Better late than never...but if Bush can't deal with "uncontrolled" situations in his fifth year in office, IMHO he's not qualified to be President of the United States.

Human Rights Activist Arrested in Moscow Terror Plot

Little Green Footballs tipped us off to this Mosnews story about the activities of former Guantanamo prisoners.

All in all, of the seven Russian Guantanamo prisoners extradited from Cuba in 2004, only two are not in custody.

Airat Vakhitov, arrested Saturday, was engaged in human rights activities in Moscow, Vremya Novostei reports. He wrote articles and was working on a book about rights violations in Guantanamo, was going to travel to London for the former Guantanamo prisoners Round Table, as was Rustam Akhmyarov.

If the police manage to link the two Guantanamo prisoners arrested in Moscow and those arrested in Tatarstan, it may prove that they are related to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the newspaper summed up.

Creative Wins MP3 Patent Fight

Never heard of Pocket Lint before, but this sure is an interesting story about iPods and other MP3 players.

New Orleans Paper Predicted Flooding

You can read the 2002 Times-Picayune series mentioned in today's Wall Street Journal here.

And here's todays' flood coverage.

How to Help Hurricane Katrina's Victims

Instapundit has posted a list of websites for charities that are trying to help. (ht Little Green Footballs)

Free Judy Miller

I don't often agree with the New York Times editorials, but on this one, we're on the same page. Judy Miller interviewed me during the NEA debate, and she was 100 percent accurate, a good and honest reporter. If she's not going to crack, and she seems like a tough cookie, what's the point, exactly?

The French Were Right...

This article from 2003 by Paul Starobin seems worth a second look.

The Times of India: Looting, Rioting in New Orleans

The Times of India headline about Hurricane Katrina reads: "Looting, rioting in storm-ravaged New Orleans."

Yushchenko Condemns Kiev Attack on Yeshiva Students

The Guardian quotes Yushchenko's condemnation of the recent skinhead attack near the Central Synagogue School in Kiev:

"Such incidents are unacceptable in Kiev and Ukraine...I will persistently ask all authorities to work hard to prevent any shameful reoccurrence.''

According to the story, Ukrainian authorites now admit the attackers appear to be members of "a skinhead nationalist group."

Starbucks Fights for Russian Trademark Rights

The Moscow Times has this story, that explains why there were no Starbucks in Moscow when we lived there this past winter. We wondered how it could be, since there were reportedly thousands of Starbucks in China. Turns out that a trademark dispute has held up the company's Moscow plans for several years. As a result, the only Starbucks coffee is found in Mariott hotels; and the only place a Starbucks could legally open would be in the US Embassy--because it is officially American territory. The case is winding its way through the Russian courts, Starbucks v. 000 Starbucks (the Russian company that claims the rights). It seems to be a matter of $600,000, not principle, so perhaps they'll find grounds for a settlement...