Hank Kalet

An interesting suggestion from The Nation’s David Corn on his Capital Games blog. Corn, the magazine’s Washington editor, puts the fight over the House Intelligence Committee into perspective.

On the one hand, you have a candidate at odds with the new speaker and who has been a weak link the party’s attempts to challenge the Bush administration on intelligence issues — a huge consideration given that the Democrats won two weeks ago because of the war in Iraq — and an ethically compromised former judge. Neither offer a particularly palatable choice.

A third choice, Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, is an interesting possibility — but might not fly with the Congressional Black Caucus, according to Corn, making him a problematic compromise.

Another option may exist, however, one that locals should be able to rally around: Rush Holt. Here is how Corn explains his choice:

He is a former Princeton University physicist and past intelligence analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He specialized in nuclear matters. He knows much about the intelligence bureaucracy and about weapons proliferation and loose nukes, critical national security priorities. First elected in 1998, Holt has not been shy about confronting the administration and the intelligence agencies. He voted against granting George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. He has challenged the administration’s policies on the detention and questioning of suspected terrorists, arguing the White House has not been mindful enough of civil liberties. He also was one of the few Democrats to charge on to the House floor to oppose the Republicans when they sought to intervene in the Terri Schiavo affair. The Courier News of Bridgewater, New Jersey, endorsed Holt’s reelection this year and noted, “Holt offers the kind of intelligence, reasonable and decisive voice that has been all too lacking inside the Beltway during the partisan wars of recent years. But Holt’s value in Congress goes beyond that; he has developed a reputation as a thinking man’s congressman, a scientist by trade who provides more thoughtful analysis on issues than most lawmakers.” Holt calls for beginning a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He has warned the administration not to hype the intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapon program, noting the “intelligence on Iran is poor, contradictory, or both.”

Tapping Holt, the seventh-ranking of the committee’s nine Democrats, would be an unconventional move. The CBC would be agitated–even though its members are already claiming three major chairmanships: Conyers at the judiciary committee, Rangel at the tax-writing committee, and Representative Bennie Thompson at the homeland security committee. The Hispanic caucus could be peeved, too. Other House Democrats might be uneasy about such a sharp slap at the seniority principle (though younger members would be heartened). But this would be a chance for Pelosi to send a signal: the Democrats do regard national security seriously and are willing to put aside political concerns to do the right thing. She would be saying, merit matters most when it comes to protecting the United States. Yet if she sticks with Hastings, she is going to have to defend the quasi-indefensible. It will appear–rightly or wrongly–that she cannot shake free of racial politics and institutional imperatives. She ought to instead adopt a radical stance and give this most important job to the most qualified person.

Seems like a good idea.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Nice piece on The Blog of South Brunswick from Steve Masticola on life in the village of Kingston.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

I wasn’t going to say anything about Michael Richards’ obsenity-laden and n-word-ridden tirade the other night. But then I read this perceptive post from Bob Rixon’s The Rix Mix blog and just wanted to pass it along. Read it and consider not only Michael Richards, but Mel Gibson and all those other celebrities that allow their bigotries to spew out. He says the n-word is (bold-facing is mine)

both an awful word & a lazy word. It rarely fails to bring to my mind terrible images. Everyone in my family used it; only in the house, of course – we were raised to have good manners even toward “negroes.” It’s a word I quietly retired from my active spoken vocabulary in high school, which I recall as one of the first times I consciously reasoned with myself about language. I could avoid the word & still be racist, but could never use the word & not be a racist.

Fear charges prejudice, so I wonder what an experienced comic like Michael Richards feared when a couple of hecklers interrupted his act. He’s an edgy, improvisional comedian, but after so many years in show business, you’d think he’d have a stock of responses ranging from bemused to aggressive but funny putdowns. What made that ugly brew bubble up & then boil over?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

This item from Harper’s seems to sum up the political situation among American hawks as it now relates to the Iraq War. The former insiders are now dumping on President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — a trio who deserve whatever blame is foisted upon them — but are pretending to have clean hands.

The reality, as Ken Silverstein reports, is a bit different. Writing about one of these so-called insiders (the hawks who are now asking “who me?”), Ken Adelman, a Bush cheerleader in the early days who continued to back the “stay-the-course” line until fairly, he offers this:

Adelman would have us believe that he has absolutely no responsibility for the Iraq disaster? His breaking point on Iraq, he told the Post, was Bush’s decision to award Medals of Freedom to Paul Bremer, General Tommy Franks, and George Tenet. “The three individuals who got the highest civilian medals the President can give were responsible for a lot of the debacle that was Iraq.” Adelman sounds jealous, not righteous. It’s too bad there’s no medal for being a whining, war-promoting hypocrite.

That sounds about right.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Juan Cole’s Informed Comment is too often criticized, but it is the one place readers can go to get the unvarnished truth about Iraq. This is from today’s postings:

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that on Monday running street battles erupted in several districts of Baghdad between guerrillas and Iraqi police. In Salikh, the Bank district, Sumer, and Tujjar, residents were forced to flee their homes lest they be exposed to kidnapping or caught in the cross-fire. The fighting, mainly with small arms fire, began when guerrillas attacked a police checkpoint. Police attempted to close off the affected neighborhoods. They also closed Salikh Bridge, which is among the main point of access to Baghdad from northern provinces such as Diyala, Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah. The closing created traffic jams and forced drivers to use an alternative route into the city.

The toll of killed and injured from this fighting was not known when reporters put al-Zaman to bed.

Reuters reports political and sectarian violence in Iraq for Monday.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick