Hullabaloo

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

 
The Big Easy's Got The Blues


Commenter antifa wrote in another thread on Sunday night:

I called Mama Marisol, got her on her cell phone. She had her crystal ball in the front seat, and she was 'leavin-leavin, cher.'

Heading up Basin Street past St. Louis 1, she saw all the skeletons sitting on top of their tombs, rolling their bones and readin' em, shakin' their heads at her.

This won't end well.

Mama marisol was right, cher. This is terrible.

If it keeps on rainin', levee's goin' to break
And the water gonna come in, have no place to stay

Well all last night I sat on the levee and moan
Thinkin' 'bout my baby and my happy home

If it keeps on rainin', levee's goin' to break
And all these people have no place to stay

Now look here mama what am I to do
I ain't got nobody to tell my troubles to

I works on the levee mama both night and day
I ain't got nobody, keep the water away

Oh cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do no good
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to lose

I works on the levee, mama both night and day
I works so hard, to keep the water away

I had a woman, she wouldn't do for me
I'm goin' back to my used to be

I's a mean old levee, cause me to weep and moan
Gonna leave my baby, and my happy home

*by Kansas Joe McCoy and famously covered by Led Zeppelin.




.
digby 8/30/2005 01:19:00 PM |

 
Comic Designer

I haven't weighed in on the recent Bell Curve wars (although Atrios reprised some of my former comments this week-end) because it just gets so tiring. But as I read some of the recent discussion of Intelligent Design, it struck me that we are seeing a clash of the psuedo-sciences coming on the right that could be very fun to watch.

You see, the racist Bell Curve people are ardent adherants of evolution; one of their primary wingnut funded institutions is called The Charles Darwin Research Institute. When you go to the site, you will see that it opens with a stirring defense of the theory of evolution and natural selection. As you read down you see its true agenda:

Based on his readings and his personal experiences of exploring Southwest Africa, Galton concluded that the average mental ability of Africans was low, whether they were observed in Africa or in the Americas. In Descent, Darwin acknowledged Galton's work and also accepted the importance of the brain-size differences reported between Africans and Europeans by Paul Broca and other nineteenth- century scientists.

Modern studies confirm Darwin and Galton. The races do differ in average brain size and intelligence. The racial gradient in average intelligence and brain size increases from Africans to Europeans to East Asians.

This institute is run by J. Philippe Rushton, who is best known for his hypothesis that men with bigger penises and women with big breasts and buttocks have smaller brains and are therefore biologically inferior. He is famous for saying in an interview: "It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything."

In 2003, he became head of the nazi-founded Pioneer Fund which also supports such racist and sexist luminaries as Richard Lynn of the recent "women are dumber than men" study. Both of these alleged scientists' work are positively referenced in The Bell Curve.

Unsurprisingly, Bell Curve authors Murray and Hernstein (and contributor Lynn) all pretty much agree with Rushton that large black dicks are a very serious threat to western civilization. Because of their large dicks and big tits, you see, blacks are more promiscuous and therefore have a different "reproductive strategy" that undermines our culture by overpopulating it with more big dicks and more big tits rather than the small dicks of white men like Murray, Hernstein, Rushton and Lynn.

They fail to explain why such a reproductive strategy would actually be inferior in their Disney version of Darwin's big adventure, but they do set forth a very novel explanation as to why having a very small dick is a good thing. (I wonder if any woman (or man) has ever bought that line.)

Anyway, none of these dummies for Darwin, many of whom have followers in the white supremecist creationist crowd (as well as the long standing approbation of such cultural icons of dick as Andrew Sullivan) can sign on to the new fundamentalist chic of the moment --- ID. Without evolution, a tiny tiparillo is just a tiny tiparillo.

So what happens when the Bell Curve meets up with the Discovery Institute? Will the racist Darwinians have the nerve to ask why the "Intelligent Designer" came up with the really, really fucked up idea that the big brained white guys like them got the tiny penises and the small brained, big dicked blacks got all the big-titted, hot assed women? Will the Discovery Institute fellows feel compelled to drop their pants to prove that the IDer in chief knew what he was doing?

I sense a monumental crack-up among the racist wingnuts. It's either god or monkeys --- with their inferior manhoods hanging (ever so slightly) in the balance.



.
digby 8/30/2005 09:27:00 AM |

Monday, August 29, 2005

 
Awesome Chutzpah

It looks as though the Republicans are trying out a new play. If it works in this out of town try-out, will it be long until we see it on the national stage? From Josh Marshall:

Gov. Ernie Fletcher(R) of Kentucky and a slew of people from his adminsitration have been embroiled for some time now in a big government personnel scandal. And he just called a press conference and basically pardoned everybody.

I think this is what Republicans call decisive leadership.

.
digby 8/29/2005 06:23:00 PM |

 
Angry Mad Props

Everybody's talking about the Iraqi woman, Safia Taleb al-Suhail (who Bush used as a prop last year at the SOTU) saying that the new constitution is a setback for women's rights:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women," she said. "But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

But she's not the only one. Kevin at Catch spotted another prominent Iraqi woman who has been used as a convenient prop by the Bush adminsitration. She is now disillusioned with what the US as well. Here's Bush on March 3rd, 2004:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to thank my friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, who's with us today. This is the third time we have met. The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office -- let's see, was it the first time? It was the first time. The door opened up. She said, "My liberator," and burst out in tears -- (laughter) -- and so did I. (Applause.)

Dr. Khuzai also was there to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops. And it turned out to be me, as well. Of course, I didn't tell her I was coming. (Laughter.) But I appreciate that, and now she's here again. I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you've got liberty etched in your heart, and you're not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we're proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

Here's what Dr. Kuzai told the NY Times on August 24:

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women's leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

We are so very noble.



.
digby 8/29/2005 05:57:00 PM |

 
Judy In Da Skies

Arianna has a great pithy take on the NY Times ever more pathetic editorial attempts to persuade their readers that something terrible has happened to Judith Miller who is now in her 55th *gasp* day of confinement. (Even as her husband is telling all their friends that Judy is having the time of her life in jail.)

The crux of the editorial is a ludicrous attempt to show that a worldwide outpouring of support for Miller has created a veritable Judy Tsunami heading toward Pat Fitzgerald and the Alexandria Detention Center, ready to sweep her to freedom.

The proof? Well, according to the Times “a Paris-based journalists’ organization” sent around “an impressive petition” last week in support of Miller that was signed by “prominent European writers, journalists and thinkers including Gunter Grass, Barnard-Henri Levy, the French philosopher, and Pedro Almodóvar, the Spanish filmmaker”.

Forgive me if I have my doubts about how well-versed in the intricacies of the Plame case -- and Judy Miller’s role in it -- Messrs. Grass, Levy, and Almodóvar are. Which do you think is more likely, that someone put a petition in front them and said “The Bush administration is throwing reporters in jail, please sign!” or that, after contemplating the latest revelations about Scooter Libby’s early-July breakfast schedule, John Bolton’s Plamegate memory lapses, and the eight pages of redacted material in Judge Tatel's ruling, the trio was convinced that Miller doing time for refusing to come clean and move the investigation forward is, in the words of the petition, “a miscarriage of justice”?

But the John Hancocks of Grass, Levy, and Almodovar are not the only evidence of the Judy Tsunami cited... oh, no -- far from it! To buttress its argument, the Times once again drags out the backing of Bob Dole (gee, Bob Dole, maybe I should rethink this!) and the “poignant case” of “reporters in Pakistan -- Pakistan, mind you” who “took time out from their own battles to send messages of support”. That really is poignant. And utterly pointless. It sheds absolutely no light on the key issue here: whether Judy Miller acted as a professional journalist or as an advocate who perverted the nature of journalism.

It’s interesting to chart the shift in the Times’ rhetoric from its first “defending Judy” editorial to this latest, clammy iteration. At least that maiden voyage, back on July 7th, included the “frank” admission that “this is far from an ideal case” -- indeed, that its details are “complicated” and “muddy”. But even as those details -- and Miller’s role in Plamegate -- have grown more complicated and more muddy in the ensuing weeks, the Times’ position has become more simplistic: Judy is a martyr. Bob Dole and Gunter Grass and some guys in Pakistan (mind you) agree. Case closed.

The fact that they have to bring up Bob Dole again at all is just embarrassing. You could still see the words " first amendment yadda, yadda, yadda" erasures on the thing. His op-ed was a babrely disguised hit piece on Pat Fitzgerald, based on nothing.

But Arianna leaves out my favorite part of the editorial today:

As Jack Nelson, a veteran journalist for The Los Angeles Times, wrote recently: "Without leaks, without anonymity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government." He cited Watergate, Iran-contra and President Bill Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky. If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose. This is not about Judith Miller or The Times or the outing of one C.I.A. agent. The jailing of this reporter is about the ability of a free press in America to do its job.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that paragraph and why it is self-refuting?



.
digby 8/29/2005 05:23:00 PM |

 
Got Morals?

Peter Daou has written a very interesting piece today about how the left and right philosophically differ on Iraq. He points out the overlooked fact that the left views the war from a moral standpoint --- indeed, the left views our relationship with the world from a moral standpoint --- while the right sees both those things from a material standpoint. It seems obvious now that he's brought it up, but I've never actually thought about it quite that way before:

The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader.....

War hawks squeal about America-haters and traitors, heaping scorn on the so-called “blame America first" crowd, but they fail to comprehend that the left reserves the deepest disdain for those who squander our moral authority. The scars of a terrorist attack heal and we are sadder but stronger for having lived through it. When our moral leadership is compromised by people draped in the American flag, America is weakened. The loss of our moral compass leaves us rudderless, open to attacks on our character and our basic decency. And nothing makes our enemies prouder. They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.

I think this is an good way for liberals to think about our government and how the world works. And it can even be done in simple, common sense terms that may just resonate with those who wonder what it is we stand for. And aside from the fact that an amoral superpower is a country not worth living in and one that shames all of us who live within it, moral authority leads to material good as well. A great country behaving in an immoral way makes that country weaker, not stronger. Allies mistrust it and are reluctant to join forces. Enemies are emboldened, not cowed, because they see the country behaving in an almost desperate fashion and perceive that it is much weaker than it is. And when leaders of the most powerful country in the world leave the impression that they care nothing for the world's opinion, the world begins to see that country as a potential enemy instead of a friend.

People are naturally suspicious of power and because of that it behooves us to ensure that others can trust us and rely upon us behave morally and ethically. Breaking treaties, throwing off old friends and partners, ignoring our own constitution and the rule of of law creates an impression that the United States is unreliable, immoral and aggressive. It makes us less safe. Only shallow people think that our country can fight off the whole world. Only delusional people would want us to try. Our moral authority is not an impediment that we can or should toss off when it is inconvenient. It is an absolutely nevessary component of our national security.

We are in the middle of a great culture war in this country in which liberals are continually accused of being immoral and indecent by people who profess to hold strong religious beliefs. These morals, however, are almost exclusively confined to personal sexual matters and seem only to apply to the conduct of individuals in their private lives. They seem to have nothing to say about our government conducting itself without regard to morality whenever it is convenient. (Indeed, we have just witnessed one of the most prominent religious moralists in the country calling for our government to assassinate the leader of an oil rich country because it would save money.)

After the last election I read many pieces in which religious people advised that Democrats had to begin speaking in religious terms and appeal to voters on a moral basis. It was immediately assumed that this should be done in exactly the same way that the Republicans do, using their definition of morality. But I would suggest that we should make our own case for moral values --- as a government and a nation. It is there that we will find common ground among truly religious people and non-religious people of all stripes. And it is there that politics and morality are appropriately and necessarily linked in a free and democratic society.

If I had been polled after the last election I might very well have said that moral values were a primary reason for my vote. I found the conduct of this war deeply immoral. And I also believe that this immorality makes us less safe. If Democratic politicians want to run on restoring moral values in government they can count me in. I'm a proud member of that moral values crowd and I'll happily hold hands with any religious person who wants to join me.



.
digby 8/29/2005 02:54:00 PM |

 
Tim Russert For Best Actor

Following up on Michael Wolff's Vanity Fair piece, Media Matters points out that Time magazine withheld information from the public and wrote articles that can only be described as cover ups in the Plame affair.

After speaking to Rove, Cooper sent an email to Michael Duffy, Time's Washington bureau chief, relating what Rove had told him about Wilson's wife and saying that Rove had spoken on "double super secret background." The next day, Cooper spoke to Libby, who confirmed Plame's identity. Two days later, Robert D. Novak's infamous column revealing Plame's identity appeared.

[...]

Duffy, Cooper, and Time not only failed to inform their readers in July 2003 that they were part of the story, but they continued to report on the leak without offering that information for more than a year. In addition to two stories in October 2003, Time wrote about the leak again on January 12, 2004.

I've been shocked by this since the beginning. But it's not just Time that's done this. An equally egregious example is none other than the Monsignor --- Tim Russert. He too was subpoenaed and has since acknowledged that he spoke with Lewis Libby during the period in question. NBC released this very lawyerlike statement after he spoke with the special prosecutor that raises as many questions as it answers:

Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.

If Bill Clinton had issued that statement, Father Tim would have been all over it for weeks. When parsed it can only lead to one conclusion. NBC's lawyers carefully left the door open for it to be revealed that Russert knew that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that he told Libby that. All this statement says is that he didn't know her name or that she was undercover.

But strangely Tim Russert has never been asked by anyone to explain that statement even as he discussed this case many times on Meet The Press. During the same period that Duffy was writing articles in which he failed to reveal Time's role in the story or the fact that he knew that the white house was lying outright, Russert was hosting hour long shows on the topic and never revealing that he was one of the journalists called --- even as he grilled Novak and leaned on other reporters to reveal their sources!

These are some of Russert's questions to Wilson, Novak and "the roundtable" from the October 5th, 2003 transcript of Meet The Press right after it was revealed that the Justice department was going to investigate the leak:

Russert: Was there a suggestion that this was cronyism, that it was your wife who had arranged the mission?

Gosh, I don't know Tim. You talked to Lewis Libby. Was there? Or were you the one who told Scooter that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

Russert: What did journalists tell you that the White House officials were saying to them?

Wilson: Four days after Bob Novak’s article came out, which outed my wife, I was—I started receiving calls from journalists and news agencies saying, first, that “The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall we can’t even put them up,” followed by, over the weekend—so that would have been five or six days after the Novak article —a respected journalist called me up and said, “White House sources are telling us that this story is not about the 16 words”—even though the administration had acknowledged they should not have been in the State of the Union address—”this story is about Wilson and his wife.” And finally, on Monday, a week after the Novak article, I received a call from a journalist who told me, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says that your wife is fair game.”

Russert: This was all after the Novak column appeared?

You tell us Tim. We know you spoke to Scooter before the Novak column came out, but did anybody call you afterwards? Do you know of any other reporters who were called?

Russert: Why would this official happen to have known that Ambassador Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent?

Novak: Well, I think senior officials know everything, don’t they?

Russert: Do you find that curious?

Novak: No. I don’t think so.

One of Novak's sources was Lewis Libby whom you also spoke with in the same period. Did you tell Libby that Wilson's wife was an employee but not that she was an agent? Your carefully worded statement certainly raises suspicions that you did. Is it possible that you told Libby that Wilson's wife was CIA and he pretended that he didn't know? Or are you saying that he really didn't know she was an agent?

Russert: When you say that it was not a partisan gunslinger, does that rule out Karl Rove?

Did it rule out Libby, the official you spoke with at the same time as Novak?

Russert: Let me turn to The Washington Post. And, well, one last thing before I—do you regret printing her name... Did you have any sense when you were being told this and you were typing it in your computer, “My God, the person that told me this may be committing a crime”?

Did you have any sense when you grilled Novak that you were leaving out a whole bunch of information about your own role in this story? Did you think "my God, I and everyone else in this room are play-acting and in doing so are betraying our profession and holding the public in total contempt?"

Russert: Let me turn to The Washington Post. Dana Priest, last Sunday you wrote a story on the front page which said this: “A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. ...‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.” What do you make of that? What was going on?

Tim, you are a Washington journalist who we know spoke with Scooter Libby before Novak's column ran. What did you think was going on?

Russert: In your story, you say a senior administration official said that two White House officials which sent off an awful lot of people in this town scurrying, saying, a senior administration official, as opposed to White House official, this must be the CIA at war with the White House.

You are one of the scurriers. How many other reporters know a lot more than they are telling? Can you give us names? Are they protected under the reporter's privilege too?

Russert: Bob Novak, many people have come up to me on the street and said, “Why doesn’t Bob Novak simply identify who his sources are? He knows who told him. Just say—pick up the phone, call the Justice Department, go on television and say, ‘This is who committed this crime’?”

Why don't you just come clean and tell your audience that you and the people sitting around your roundtable are all putting on performances worthy of Meryl Streep and calling it news?

Russert: David Broder, explain to our viewers what you have observed, and why journalists have this code where they simply will not divulge their sources.

Broder: The principle is pretty simple. It is the government’s responsibility to keep the government’s secrets secret. It is not the press’ responsibility. Our inclination, once we have information, is to try to verify it, to amplify as much as we can, the background and the context. But our basic obligation, then, is to share information with the public.

Except, of course, in situations like this where the story involves the press corps itself --- two of the principle players are right here! --- and where its access to important Republican officials is at stake. Then you feel free to stage a revival of Waiting For Godot on the set of Meet the Press and pretend that you are asking questions that others pretend to answer.

Russert: Bill Kristol, who used to work for Vice President Quayle, now runs The Weekly Standard magazine, has written a long essay where he said the president has taken too passive a stance in this situation, that he should call in his top senior aides and demand to know exactly what happened, and then take action, fire them...David, observing the administration, what should the president be doing now, and how much disarray are we watching?

Broder: Well, I was at the Democratic National Committee meeting yesterday where Al Sharpton said the president is moonwalking this question, and I think he’s got it about right. It is hard to believe that if the president, when he was dealing with a finite universe of possible leakers, did not really put the heat on, that he couldn’t get an answer to his question...

Russert: What do you think, Bob Novak?

Novak: I don’t know. I’m in an impossible position on this and I...

Russert: That’s why you’re here.

What do you think Tim? You're in the same impossible position Novak is. You know who the leakers are --- one of them, at least, spoke to you around the same time he spoke to Novak? Why are you so cocky? Don't you find it the least bit uncomfortable suggesting that the president should fire the people who you are protecting --- while failing to inform your audience of what you know?



Give yourself a treat and read the whole transcript to get the full flavor of the utter phoniness of that show. And I think you'll particularly enjoy the end when Bob Novak get's all self-righteous about Democrats smearing Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That show was in October of 2003. By that time everyone knew the score. Russert pretended to put on his inquisitor's robes and pretended to interview Novak. Novak pretended that he didn't know that Russert knew much more than he was saying and played the role of the injured journalist throwing himself on the first amendment pyre. Priest knew the real story of the internecine war between the CIA and the administration over the WMD and Broder knew that the president wasn't going to try to "find out" who the leakers were because he knew that the leakers were close associates of the president --- who very likely already knew.

We, the idiot Americans, watched their little pageant having no idea that the whole thing was a farce put on purely for the benefit of the poor deluded public.

Tim Russert still has never said what he knows although there is no obvious reason why he shouldn't. If reporters' highest principle is to protect their sources rather than aid a grand jury investigating a crime, then they must also agree that they cannot then use the excuse that their lawyers or the prosecutor has requested they not speak of what they know. You can't have it both ways.

At the very least reporters should not be allowed to go on television or write stories in which they are participants and not reveal that. Nor should they be allowed to stage little pageants in which everyone involved is pretending that they don't know what they know. That's not journalism. (Or is it?)

Russert recently came back to this story on Meet the Press and in a most bizarre fashion "admitted" that he was involved in the story. Here's how he did it:

Let me turn to the CIA leaked case investigation. There have been numerous newspaper reports that the investigation is now focusing on perhaps perjury as opposed to the leak because the leak is difficult to prove under the law. What we know so far is that in terms of journalists, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, Russert of NBC, Matt Cooper of Time magazine have all testified, either in deposition or before the grand jury. We assume Robert Novak has testified because Judy Miller of The Times who didn't testify is in jail. And there's been numerous newspaper reports that there's a difference between the testimony of some of the reporters and Scooter Libby of Vice President Cheney's office and Karl Rove of President Bush's office. Bill Safire, what do we make of all this?

Can you believe it? "There have been numerous newspaper reports that there's a difference in the testimony of some of the reporters and Scooter Libby." And who do you suppose is one of those reporters? Tim Russert!

None of the crack reporters on the roundtable even come close to asking about it or commenting on it. They just pretended that it was perfectly normal for Russert to talk about himself in the third person and reference stories in which he's the primary player and pretend otherwise.

But here is the real kicker:

MR. RUSSERT: There has to be an original source, somebody.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Even if it came from a reporter...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the reporter got it from someplace.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right. And...

MR. RUSSERT: But I was asked what I said. I did not know

Russert seems to have forgotten himself for a minute there. Once he realized what he'd gotten himself into, he quickly answered with a nonsensical "I was asked what I said. I did not know."

The question of the "who was the original source for the reporter" is a question that someobody should have asked him a long time ago. (It doesn't just apply to Judith Miller.) NBC's heavily lawyered press release is very suspicious and leads one to conclude that Russert may have told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He should have been pinned down on that. And if it's true, the natural follow-up is "who told Russert?"

The rest of the panel knew better than to pursue that line of questioning with the King of the Kewl Kids. They just adjusted their Kabuki masks and went back to the dance.


.
digby 8/29/2005 09:05:00 AM |

Sunday, August 28, 2005

 
The Battle Of New Orleans

This hurricane looks to be a living nightmare. I went through a bad one in the same area in 1965 --- Hurricane Betsy --- and these things are scary. My father was working on a NASA test site in Mississippi and had word that the storm was going to be bad so he moved us up north before it hit --- ahead of everyone else. We were lucky. The town we lived in was pretty devastated.

I was just a kid, and the creepiest thing I remember about it was that when we returned to our house there were snakes all over the place. And we had a rather large boat in our front yard --- that had been in the bay several blocks away.

Man, I hate to see New Orleans get hit. It's one of the greatest cities in the world with some of the greatest people in the world. Let's hope this thing isn't as bad as they say it's going to be.



.
digby 8/28/2005 04:05:00 PM |

 
In The Trenches

This is the funniest thing I've seen in eons. Apparently, the testosterone is flowing so strongly down there in Crawford that the Move America Forward "Cindy Doesn't Speak For Us" team got all excited and kicked the Pro-Bush Protest Warriors' asses by mistake.

TBOGG has the whole story, along with the appropriate Monty Python reference.


And I dunno whether "Cindy-Hanoi Jane" is going to catch on. But I can see they have a bit of a problem. They can't really call her Bagdad Cindy, can they? "Insurgent Cindy?" Nah, just doens't have a ring to it. I guess Cindy-Hanoi Jane is the best they can do. Tells you something.

Update: Kevin at Catch has some pictures. Apparently the Protest Warriors' signs were just a little bit too subtle for the folks. They said "except for ending slavery, fascism, naszism and communism war has never solved anything" which is hilarious in its own right. (Fascism and Nazism both! And communism too. Well sort of. I guess.)

Kevin has a link to the freeper thread that tries to explain all of this. It's very confusing for them.

.
digby 8/28/2005 10:27:00 AM |

Friday, August 26, 2005

 
Expecting Different Results

I'm sure I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but as Dear Leader says "you gotta catapault the propaganda." Therefore, I hope you'll bear with me reiterating an earlier point as I discuss Wes Clark's WaPo op-ed.

I am, as many of you know, a fan of Clark's. I thought he would have made a good president, although I can see now that he isn't a real member of the club and would have had a terrible time navigating Washington as a politician at this point in history. (It's not that he doesn't know Washington, it's that he wasn't properly anointed. The Clinton's may have backed him, but let's not forget that the Clintons are considered tres nouveau establishment and are hardly to be trusted in such matters.) In any case, I'm always interested in what he has to say on Iraq because from the early days of the debacle, he was pounding on the fact that the military's mission was to secure the country for political ends --- which were never entirely clear.

Today he writes a very intriguing critique of Bush's mistakes and offers some solutions. Both Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias have some interesting criticisms of his plan, saying it is not all that realistic and he doesn't adequately explain how he would accomplish certain things.

To that I say, "right on Wes." This op-ed is not actually a policy document --- it is a political document. As I've been pointing out for a while, all Democratic navel gazing on this political. Wes Clark cannot actually implement any policy and neither could any elected Democrats. So, unless you believe that George W. Bush read Wes's column this morning over his bowl of Cap'n Crunch and thought "great ideas! get me Condi and Rummy on the horn!" this whole thing is an academic exercise.

I believe that there is a less than zero possibility that George W. Bush is going to implement any sane plan to withdraw from Iraq, much less one set forth by a Democratic presidential aspirant. And I say this with the greatest assurance that I'm right for the simple reason that George W. Bush has failed on every level, at every moment, from the very beginning to do anything right on Iraq. Why in God's name would we think that he will suddenly become sane and do something different today?

And even if they change course, there is no evidence that the Bush administration could then implement a plan with any more competence than they have anything else. The heartbreaking truth of the matter is that as long as Iraq is in the hands of the Bush administration and the Republicans, it is fucked. Period. That means that all Democratic policy prescriptions are essentially political positioning for the elections. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Therefore, Clark's piece should be seen for what it is --- laying a benchmark for Bush's failure. By the time any Democrats have a chance to implement any real plans for Iraq, Wes's plan will be moot. The doors that he sees as still being slightly open are closing very rapidly. The state of play in 2006 and 2008 is going to be very different. But it's useful for Wes Clark, retired General, to be on the record with an alternative in 2005 that clearly lays blame on the Bush administration and sets forth in exactly what ways they've failed -- militarily, politically and diplomatically. He ends his op-ed with this:

If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.

He knows very well that the admnistration can't adopt a winning strategy. They have burned their bridges with the international community, they don't believe in diplomacy, they are willing to shitcan the fundamental democratic principles of an Iraqi constitution to get a temporary bump in the public opinion polls. If they truly wanted to change course they would not have installed a madman at the UN whose first order of business is to start tearing up international treaties. They are continuing to fight their war for US hegemony on the world stage, Republican hegemony in American politics and Executive hegemony within the government. The "war on terrorism" and Iraq are merely staging areas.

I happen to think that Bush has already "lost" the war in Iraq and that we should stage a tactical retreat fairly quickly. But Clark will likely be running for office and he wants to stake out a position that the Republicans are incompetent to wage war and I understand that. Democrats have to persuade the public that they are better at protecting the country than the Republicans and it's a daunting task. Clark's voice is essential to that task.

If we had the ability to get Bush to pull out tomorrow, I'd say Clark was wrong to agitate for a "winning strategy." Since we don't, I think he's making a smart political move. When the next election comes around, the Democrats can say "If Bush had done what Wes Clark said we should do back in '05, maybe he could have salvaged the huge mistake we made by going into Iraq. But he lost the war instead and now we have no choice but to pull the troops out. We are a strong country and we will do fine. But we desperately need new leadership. The Republicans have failed."

The fact that people continue to think that Bush might do the right thing leads me to this article in The Observer (via Rick Perlstein) that analyzes the angst of the liberal hawks as they watch Iraq spiral quickly into a quagmire:

“Someone wrote that you knew who the surgeon would be, so you knew what the operation would look like. And there’s some truth to that. I was not as aware as I should have been of just how mendacious and incompetent the surgeon was going to be,” said Mr. Packer by telephone from his office at The New Yorker on a recent afternoon. “At the time, in March 2003, you had to make a choice: Are you going to say yes or no to this thing? Of course, it didn’t matter—it was going to happen no matter what you said—but in an existential sense, you wanted to be counted."

[...]

“The people on the right cannot possibly be feeling the kind of dissonance that liberal supporters are feeling. It’s not a simple matter to live with, I have to tell you,” said Mr. Wieseltier, whose name appeared on a letter to Mr. Bush urging the removal of Saddam Hussein in late 2001, and who said that the U.S. shouldn’t cut and run. “I think that it is impossible, even for someone who supported the war, or especially for someone who did, not to feel very bitter about the way it has been conducted and the way it has been explained.”

This is where I am continually left speechless. In March 2003 we already knew that the Republicans were mendacious enough to stage a phony impeachment and steal an election. And we also knew that the brand name in an empty suit they call a president was a fool and that the people who were backing the war had been wrong about every single big ticket foreign policy issue since the mid 70's. We knew that the Democratic Senators who voted for the war resolution were re-fighting Gulf War I where many Democrats were ignominiously shown to be losers when they voted against a war that we went on to gloriously win. They were scared of being on the wrong side again. (And they blew it --- again.)

Long before March 2003, I knew this. I'm nobody. And here you have these people who call themselves liberal intellectuals who were evidently taken in by a man who spoke in comic book dialog, a Laurie Mylroie friendly foreign policy team that was nuttier than fruitcakes and a mission being sold as a cakewalk that was to any lowly layman's eye the most daunting nation building task since WWII. Their delusional, unilateral preventive war doctrine alone should have been enough to jolt any self-respecting liberal into keeping his distance.

For some writers who were accustomed to speaking only to tiny audiences clustered on the coasts, the invasion of Iraq and its implications presented an opportunity to actually influence something. It was a career-making moment for theorists who had cut their teeth in Bosnia and who were ready to test out their newly formed vision of American force as a tool to promote democracy and human rights and prevent genocide. It made media stars of academics like Mr. Feldman, who prior to the war was merely an “assistant professor who had been teaching for one year,” according to him, and the human-rights expert Michael Ignatieff of Harvard, who wrote various Iraq analyses for The New York Times Magazine. Writers such as Mr. Wieseltier, Mr. Berman and Mr. Hitchens were profiled admiringly in the months before the war, held up as avant-garde prophets.

The reality was something else altogether. The Iraq invasion has proven to be a true reporters’ war—far too dangerous for anyone not embedded with the Marines or carefully tucked away inside The New York Times’ Baghdad bunker to navigate. And not only has the Bush administration carried out the war and the occupation based on reasons which turned out to be greatly misrepresented, prompting a flurry of “I told you so’s” in certain circles, but it has flouted many of the key recommendations put forth by the liberal hawks, which had made their war support possible in the first place.

On what planet did liberals think that the modern Republican party gave a flying fuck about what they thought about anything? It certainly wasn't planet earth circa 2003. Bush had just recaptured the Senate and was striding around the country, codpiece bursting, proclaiming to the entire world that he didn't care what they thought. Did liberal intellectuals actually believe some fantasy that Bush could blow off Europe and ultimately the entire security council but listen to them? My God.

Why are people so unwilling to admit what they are seeing before their eyes, even today? The Republican party is corrupt, incompetent and drunk with power. And no matter what their intentions, they are incapable of setting things right. We have seen this over and over again.

Yet still I see a flurry of earnest discussion about how we should deal with Iraq and what plans should be implemented --- as if they have real world implications. They do not. As I wrote earlier, I think there is political value in doing this as it pertains to positioning for the next election. But I have no illusions, and never have, that anyone in the Bush administration gives a damn what we think or will follow any policy advice from liberals, hawks or otherwise. They do not operate that way.

I don't believe in purges or demands for disavowels; they have a faint whiff of Stalinism that rubs me the wrong way. Nobody has to apologise to me for what they believed about the war. But, considering that their credibility is more than a little bit tattered, it would probably be a good idea if the liberal intellectuals who backed the war finally recognized that everything they say and do is being used for political fodder and adjust their thinking and writing accordingly. They are not going to affect Bush administration policy. There is still a chance they could affect politics, however, if they will just stop pretending that the Republicans are operating on a logical basis in which they can find some common ground.

I think this is where we separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. If, after all you've seen these last five years you still believe that the Bush administration can be given the benefit of the doubt, that they will do the right thing, change course, follow sage advice, reevaluate their strategy, bow to the facts on the ground --- then you have the same disease the Bush administration has. As Ben Franklin said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



.
digby 8/26/2005 11:33:00 AM |

Thursday, August 25, 2005

 
Right Makes Might

Gary Farber recommended this great article in TNR on Guantanamo by Spencer Ackerman and I'm passing on the recommendation.

Ackerman breaks down all the reasons why Guantanamo is counterproductive to our national security as well as why it is an immoral, legal and strategic mistake of epic proportions. He very clearly shows how the administration's stubborn "my way or the highway" philosophy has put it at odds with virtually every other country and actually impeded the detention of dangerous people. It seems that the rest of the world isn't willing to throw its constitutions out the window to accomodate us just because we've thrown out ours. And the administration refuses to change anything, including our ineffectual torture techniques and endless detention policies.

Ackerman believes that this is because the entire scheme is in service of one overriding concern:

The Bush administration has adopted this radical approach because it is defending the idea that the Constitution empowers the president to conduct war exclusively on his terms. A series of memos written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 effectively maintained that any law restricting the president's commander-in-chief authority is presumptively unconstitutional. (When GOP Senator Lindsey Graham recently quoted to Pentagon lawyer Daniel Dell'Orto the inconvenient section of Article I, Section 8, granting Congress the authority to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," he farcically replied, "I'd have to take a look at that particular constitutional provision.") Last month, when some GOP senators tried to bar "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of detainees in an amendment to the 2006 defense bill, the White House sent them a letter threatening to veto any attempt to "restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," and Vice President Dick Cheney warned senators against usurping executive power. For good measure, the White House instructed the Senate leadership to pull the entire half-trillion-dollar bill from the floor, lest the offending language within it pass.

It would not be difficult to solve the indefinite-detention problem: Pass a law allowing for a circumscribed period in which officials interrogate the detainee and accumulate evidence before bringing charges against him. This is how it works in countries like Great Britain and Israel, both mature democracies that have fought terrorist threats militarily and legally for decades. But the administration has strongly resisted any move to introduce legal protections to Guantánamo Bay. When the Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantánamo inmates could bring habeas corpus challenges to their detentions in federal court--settling the question of whether detainees had recourse to the U.S. legal system--the Justice Department adopted the bewildering position that, once detainees file their claims, they possess no further procedural or substantive legal rights at all, an absurdity to which the administration is sticking.

That's not all. Before a Senate panel last month, Dell'Orto argued that Congress shouldn't create a statutory definition of the term "enemy combatant," since the administration needs "flexibility in the terminology in order to ... address the changing circumstances of the type of conflicts in which we are engaged and will be engaged." The very next week, before an appellate court panel, Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the continued detention without charge of American citizen and suspected Al Qaeda terrorist José Padilla, explained what the administration has in mind for its "flexible" definition. Federal appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, a Bush appointee, noted that, since Padilla was arrested not on an Afghan battlefield but at a Chicago airport, the administration's discretion to detain an American citizen ought to be fettered, "unless you're prepared to boldly say the United States is a battlefield in the war on terror." Clement immediately replied, "I can say that, and I can say it boldly." In essence, the administration is claiming authority to detain anyone, captured anywhere, based not on any criteria enacted by law but rather at the discretion of policy, and to hold that individual indefinitely.

That position--that the war on terrorism requires executive latitude at odds with hundreds of years of law--has animated every single step of the administration's approach to the war. It's why Bush has kept nato allies at arm's length while simultaneously trumpeting their absolute necessity to the defeat of Al Qaeda. It's why he didn't just oppose the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to investigate the history of counterterrorism policy, he also argued it would be an unacceptable burden on his prosecution of the war. And it's why he's blasted any move by the courts to exercise oversight of the war as a dangerous judicial overreach: When a district court judge last year challenged the constitutionality of the administration's military commissions for the trial of enemy combatants, the Justice Department "vigorously disagree[d]," as a spokesman put it, and contested the ruling until the commissions were reinstated on appeal last month. For the administration, its expansion of executive power is synonymous with victory in the war--regardless of the real-world costs to the war effort.

This pretty much says it all. President Bush having unchecked power is synomymous with victory. (There can be no doubt that this executive power would not apply to a Democratic president in similar circumstances.)

Once again, every loss becomes a win. Every mistake means that they must dig in all the more deeply, because to not do so would be to admit they were wrong. And if they were wrong, the terrorists will have won.



.
digby 8/25/2005 06:07:00 PM |

 
Rotten Elites

I was reading Gary Hart's op-ed yesterday morning, when I was reminded of this post on A Tiny Revolution to which I've been meaning to link.

Hart's article is a well written, straighforward call for Democrats to step up on the Iraq issue. He is convinced, as I and others are as well, that the crucible of the McGovern campaign (which he chaired) scarred the current leadership class of the Democratic party. He says:

Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

I think it scarred them to such an extent that they avoid feeling political passion about anything. The Democratic leadership is desperately afraid of making the mistake of 1972 ever again --- which they see as wild, peacenik utopianism. As a result are determined to be as colorless and lackluster as possible. They never want to be in the position again of being called "unserious."

Considering our current political situation, I can't help but be reminded of the old joke:

"Howard and Joe are facing the firing squad. The executioner comes forward to place the blindfold on them. Howard disdainfully and proudly refuses, tearing the thing from his face. Joe turns to him and pleads: "Please Howard, don't make trouble!"

So Hart says what we are all thinking and yet it sounds odd and discordant coming from the pages of the Washington Post. And I think the reason is that he isn't speaking in beltway parlance. And apparently, he never has.

According to the post I linked at A Tiny Revolution, the beltway crowd has always thought of him a a flake and a weirdo --- just as they think of people like me and probably most of you who are reading this as weirdos. Jon says:

I grew up in the Washington area and went to school with lots of children of government and media types. Then I went to Yale, which is also full of such offspring. What I saw was that the corporate media—places like the New York Times, Washington Post, the networks, etc.—and government figures are blatantly, brazenly in bed with each other. And not just metaphorically; it's often literally true. There's Andrea Mitchell & Alan Greenspan; James Rubin & Christiane Amanpour; Judith Miller & a cast of thousands; and so on.

In any case, whoever they're shtupping, they share a mindset: they self-consciously see themselves as a governing elite that runs things hand in hand. That's why Nicholas Kristof is anxious that calling George Bush a liar may make America "increasingly difficult to govern."

He shares an anecdote of his years at Yale when Richard Cohen came to speak:

Cohen told all us fresh-faced, ambitious, grotty youths this:

The Washington press corps had specifically tried to push Hart out of the race. It wasn't that he'd had extramarital affairs—everyone knew this was the norm rather than the exception among politicians. Hart wasn't at all unusual in this respect. Instead, Cohen said, it was because the press corps felt that Hart was "weird" and "flaky" and shouldn't be president. And when the Donna Rice stuff happened, they saw their opening and went after him.

(I wish I remembered more about what Cohen said about the specific gripe of the press corps with Hart, but I don't think he revealed many details.)

At the time, I remember thinking this:

1. How interesting that the DC press corps knows grimy details about lots of politicians but only chooses to tell the great unwashed when they decide it's appropriate.

2. How interesting that the DC press corps feels it's their place to make decisions for the rest of America; ie, rather than laying out the evidence that Hart was weird, flaky, etc., and letting Americans decide whether they cared, they decided run-of-the-mill citizens couldn't be trusted to make the correct evaluation.

I'm not a naive person and I know that centers of power always feature this sort of thing to one extent or another. Elites tend to gather. But the thing about democracy is that it's supposed to keep a lid on the worst impulses of the ruling class by allowing the hoi polloi to be involved in the process. I think that things have gotten seriously out of balance in recent years.

It was clear that Bill Clinton was offensive to the Washington establishment from the beginning, mainly because although he had all the proper elite credentials, he clearly wasn't a real member of the club. I remember at the time that this surpised me. Georgetown, Yale, Oxford, DLC, Governors association --- I thought that made up for the fact that he was a bit of an earthy, good old boy. But it seemed to inflame them even more.

Bob Somerby discusses the WaPo writer John Harris' book on this very subject:

... finally we get to the real explanation—to some sort of “cultural clash” between Clinton and the press corps. Why did the press corps have such disdain? Why was Clinton covered in the way that he was? Readers, prepare to be grossly underwhelmed. Clinton wasn’t cool, the way JFK was, Harris finally tells us:

HARRIS (continuing directly): There is a certain kind of politician for whom journalists tend to fall. John F. Kennedy, with his cool detachment, humor and irony, was the supreme example. Journalists of that era recall that JFK was breathlessly candid about his political strategies, and even the contradictions between his public statements and private views. Clinton was not a man of detachment. He was immersed in his performance, utterly earnest, offended by suggestions that his private motives were any different from his public pronouncements. At times the antagonism between president and press corps had a high school dimension. Clinton, working hard on his grades, saw the reporters as slackers and bullies—more interested in gossip and carping than anything constructive. The reporters, shooting spitballs from the back of the class, regarded Clinton as a preening apple-polisher.

Clinton wasn’t cool, Harris says. He wasn’t cool, like JFK was! Indeed, Harris has already explored this notion at an earlier point in his book. “Clinton by no means lacked humor,” he writes on page 35, “but his natural bent was toward cheerful patter and oft-told yarns. Washington humor is different—ironic and knowing, the sort of detached wit that John F. Kennedy used to beguile a generation of journalists.”

That's why the late, great Mediawhores Online dubbed them the Kewl Kidz. And for all their alleged ironic detachment and urbane wit, they never got the joke.

I spent the 90's in LA, working closely with people who know a thing or two about cool and Clinton was considered the coolest president ever. He was obviously incredibly smart, good humored, catnip to women and had the common touch. It was clear to me from the earliest days of his presidency that his problem with the Washington press corps most assuredly was not that he wasn't cool enough --- it was that he was too cool.I suspect that Clinton always had this problem when dealing with the elites whom he was more than smart enough to hob-nob with --- he was too earthy, too sexual, too down and dirty. Like the timorous Dems of the class of '72, the establishment (of which they are now a part) thinks being overtly human is to be a little bit too close to the beast.

They hated Al Gore for the opposite reason. He reminded them of their own geeky selves. They hated Hart because he emits a whiff of McGovernite hippie -- a fate worse than death. In other words, the elite "liberal" media --- and the Democatic establishment --- all seem to be battling personal demons that they are taking out on Democratic politicans. And they live in this little DC bubble that resembles nothing so much as a royal court where palace intrigue is beamed out into the rest of the world and called "politics." It's infected how we all interpret political matters --- I have only recently realized just how much it infected me.

I have never been much of a revolutionary. Even when I was young I tended to cringe at any kind of earnest, "to the barricades" kind of thinking. I tend to think in smaller strategic and tactical terms rather than large sweeping movements. However, I have come to realize that this is one of those times when something has to happen from the ground up. Washington has become a kind of aristocrisy, with all the attendant inbred, insular, corruption that eventually befalls a ruling elite.

The biggest sickness in our politics is this top down, elitist mentality in which people are fed a diet of information, entertainment, products and ideas that are focus grouped, soulless and commercial --- and which are then filtered through a ruling media class that is so psychologically cramped, so emotionally sterile, so stuck in their own feedback loop that they are presenting a totally distorted version of reality. It's important that we look elsewhere for wisdom and leadership.


.
digby 8/25/2005 04:21:00 PM |

 
Winning and Losing

Ezra weighs in on the politics of withdrawal and apologizes for being craven for even discussing it. I can understand why he felt he had to say that because a lot of people object to viewing this serious issue from a political standpoint. But I feel that politics are the only issue as far as Democrats are concerned. We haven't even the smallest bit of institutional power to affect any change in the president's Iraq policy.

This confusion continues to be a central problem for Democrats. We need to accept that we are not the governing party. If we think we are going to affect policy from our position as the irrelevant "other" party, we are sorely mistaken. Our elected officials aren't even invited to routine meetings on legislative issues; we will not be consulted on Iraq. This is an internal Republican party policy debate that they would love to cast as a partisan fight. I can see no reason why we should accomodate them by assuming responsibility for something over which we have absolutely no say and no control.

It's clear that Democrats are much, much better at actual governance than Republicans who seem stymied, confused and in over their heads. Their political agenda is good for getting (barely) elected but it has proven to be completely inadequate to actually run the country. So I'm not criticising the Democratic love of wonkish planning and analysis. It's exactly what the country will need when we again become the governing party and have to clean up this gargantuan mess the Republicans have made of things. But people don't vote for plans even though they insist to pollsters and focus groups that they do. They vote for (or against) leaders and visions.

In order to change the direction of this country we have to prioritize and our first priority and only responsibility is to get more Democrats elected to office so that we can change the balance of power. That's it. Everything we do must be in service of that goal.

So, let's not be afraid to talk about Iraq in political terms. Yes,there is a debate within the party about whether or how to withdraw from Iraq. But I don't believe it will be a very difficult one to resolve when all is said and done. Events and available troop strengths are pushing that issue far more than any Democrats can anticipate or plan for. If we capture a majority in 2006, I would hope that we immediately begin hearings and take an entirely fresh look at the situation as we go into the 2008 campaign. When we have the power to actually do something then we have the responsibility to dig out of this quagmire. Until then, this is Bush's war and Bush's war alone.

Ezra brought up 1972, but I think the more pertinent electoral analogy (although it is very imperfect) is 68. Nixon won because of the realignment of the south in response to the civil rights act. And because he was smart enough not to get in the way of the Democrats eating their own on Vietnam. He implied that he had a secret plan to end the war and used his "law and order" image to cement the idea that he wouldn't cut 'n run, while never saying anything specific. During the campaign it was Johnson's war, all the way.

Matt Yglesias says today:

I think David Brooks' column today makes it clear that conservatives are about done with this venture, too, though they'd like to label it a success and I'd prefer to label it a failure. But that's half semantics and half politics. I'd rather see the war end than see it drag on for years and years purely in order to make sure George W. Bush gets stuck with the blame for it.

Would that that were the choice. Unfortunately, the war is likely to go on for a good long time whether David Brooks thinks they can declare victory and go home or not. Sure, Bush is going to stage a draw-down before the '06 elections simply because he has to. The military can't keep up. But contrary to what others think, I think it's obvious that Bush plans to have troops in Iraq for a very long time. Just yesterday he said unequivocally "We will stay, we will fight, we will win." His hope is that Iraq can put together some vague semblance of a working government so that he can declare victory --- and stay.

Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX—and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support. Although Camp Victory North remains a work in progress today, when complete, the complex will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo—currently one of the largest overseas posts built since the Vietnam War.

Such a heavy footprint seems counterproductive, given the growing antipathy felt by most Iraqis toward the U.S. military occupation. Yet Camp Victory North appears to be a harbinger of America's future in Iraq. Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country—long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely. John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.

[...]

Suspicions also run deep both inside Pentagon circles and among analysts that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into the facilities in pursuit of a different agenda entirely: to turn Iraq into a permanent base of operations in the Middle East.

[...]

One indication of an open-ended U.S. occupation is the amount of money that has already been spent on bases in Iraq. KBR’s first big building contract there, in June 2003, was a $200 million project to build and maintain "temporary housing units" for U.S. troops. Since then, according to military documents, it has received another $8.5 billion for work associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom. By far the largest sum—at least $4.5 billion—has gone to construction and maintenance of U.S. bases. By comparison, from 1999 to this spring, the U.S. government paid $1.9 billion to KBR for similar work in the Balkans.

I do not believe there is anything the national Democrats can do to change this policy. We have to change the government. Therefore, I think it's in their best interests to begin to define what winning and losing means before the Republicans do. In an e-mail exchange on this subject, reader Charles Saeger suggested:

Change:

"We cannot win the war in Iraq and staying could rouse terrorist sentiment against us"

to:

"The Republicans lost the war in Iraq and our continued presence is rousing terrorist sentiment against us."

I happen to think this has the benefit of being true. The Bush administration lost the war before it began because it was unwinnable as a purely American/British venture. He didn't mishandle it. He didn't misjudge. He lost it.

I know it's unpalatable to use their frame, but I think it's pretty ingrained in the American psyche. We are the ultimate "win-lose" culture. Because of that I believe it is in our political interest and the country's security interests to frame this as a Republican loss. Terrorism is still a threat. Nukes in the hands of bad actors are a very, very serious threat. We are economically and militarily weakened by Bush's response to 9/11.

The Republicans lost Iraq. Like Lincoln when he replaced McClellan, the voters of the United States need to replace the Republicans if we want to "win" the war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

If we can convince the country of that then we are in a good position to get them to listen to our alternative plans for withdrawal as a tactical retreat in the bigger war on terrorism. Framing it as an American loss, ("our" loss) however, will set the stage for another 30 years of "liberals wouldn't let us win it" bullshit. It's time to put that nonsense to bed. The GOP has proven in real time, right before our eyes, that they want to start wars but they don't have a fucking clue how to win them. That needs to be reiterated over and over again to the American public. If it sinks in we might just be able to find our way out of this ridiculous national security paradigm we've been in ever since the wingnuts asked "who lost China" back in 48. It created Vietnam and it created Iraq. Enough.

Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush and the Republican party.



.
digby 8/25/2005 01:32:00 PM |

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

 
Christian Assassination Doctrine

I don't know if I heard this right, but I think that one of the CNN anchorettes just asked a first amendment expert if Pat Robertson's statement should fall under freedom of religion since he was advocating "the idea of taking out one very bad individual to save thousands of others."

I don't even know where to start laying out everything that is wrong with that premise. I'm no biblical scholar but I don't think there is any religious precept that backs up this notion, certainly no Christian precept. But even if there were --- when did Hugo Chavez morph into a genocidal monster? I certainly understand that free market capitalists have serious beefs with his economic vision and he's not exactly a beacon of transparent governance and political freedom, but he's no Stalin. He's not even Fidel. Robertson himself said that oil was the main concern. (She would have made sense if she said "saving thousands of others ... a few bucks at the gas pumps.")

I haven't heard this formulation anywhere else, but I haven't been keeping up on all the nuances. Is the religious right now characterizing criticism of Robertson as an attack on his religion or was this just a case of a very dumb TV actress coming up with this weird premise all by herself?


.
digby 8/24/2005 10:59:00 AM |

 
We will stay, We will fight, We will win!

Is Bush on drugs? He is more "animated" than I think I've ever seen him. He's all hunched over, swinging his arms wildly, screaming into the microphone. It's quite a performance.

My favorite line so far is the patented "they can run but they can't hide." C'mon. You just have to sit back and admire the sheer audacity of continuing to say that after four long years.

He must be thrilled to be back in the saddle, running for president, which is the only thing he knows how to do. And he must be happy to be back lying his ass off in front of his hand-picked enthusiastic crowds. I'm especially enjoying his little historical analogy comparing the Iraqi constitutional drafting process to our own, neglecting the relevantlittle fact that our constitution left a tiny little problem hanging out that resulted in the bloodiest war in American history --- or the other niggling little fact that the Iraqis are blowing each other up over similar disagreements already. But hey, what's a little civil war now and then?

And to think they gave Howard Dean days of shit for his scream. This guy is doing a bad imitation of a certain gentleman who also used to work himself into a frenzy before his adoring crowds. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!



.
digby 8/24/2005 10:23:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

 
Christian Soldiers

Maybe I've missed it, but with all the hoohah on TV about Robertson putting out a hit on Hugo Chavez today, I haven't heard much in the coverage about him putting out hits on the supreme court and the State Department ("Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up”) earlier this year.

I don't know that any of Robertson's followers literally believe they are the instruments of God, but let's just say you don't have to have a crazed imagination to think that one or two just might. And as much as the media seems to be trying to portray old Pat as some sort of a has-been, he still has a very large following.

January 2005:

The 700 Club's average daily audience, according to AC Nielsen's November sweeps, is up 26% over last year. At a time when most daily shows are struggling The 700 Club is experiencing tremendous increases. November's average daily audience of 922,000 households is the highest in ten years and we experienced the same success in October and November.

The Barna Group, which does in depth polling on Christian issues, says:

( Mar 14, 2005) The reshaping of Americans’ lives is evident in various facets of their life, including the spiritual dimension. A new nationwide survey conducted by The Barna Group indicates that while 56% of adults attend church services in a typical month, a much larger percentage is exposed to religious information and experiences through various forms of media. Radio and television are the most popular Christian media, but faith-related Internet sites as well as religious magazines, newspapers and books also enjoy significant exposure.

[...]

The percentage of adults who watch Christian television programming has remained unchanged since 1992, with an estimated 45% tuning in to a Christian program during a typical month. Relatively few adults (7%) watch Christian television on a daily basis. About four out of ten adults (41%) never watch such programming.

Christian television draws its strength from people in their 60s and older, females, residents of the South, African-Americans, people with limited education and income, and born again Christians. Two-thirds of the born again population views Christian programming each month, which is more than double the proportion of non-born again adults (30%) who follow that pattern. The segments of the public least likely to watch Christian TV include mainline Protestants, Catholics, unchurched people, Asian-Americans and college graduates.

A rather large number of Americans watch Christian TV. An increasing number of them get their news from this media. Pat Robertson, whose 700 Club appears more than once a day on Disney owned Family Channel, is the most popular of all...and he's a lunatic spreading hate and violence to people who are very susceptible to his message. It's only a matter of time.

This media is an unofficial adjunct of the GOP and an extremely important cog in their evangelical political machine. I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watching Republicans squirm as they try to distance themselves from this ass today. Has anyone seen or heard any response from the other big names on the Christian Right?



.
digby 8/23/2005 01:22:00 PM |

 
Every Loss Is A Win

(Or, a dead soldier is like a dollar in the bank ... the Bank of Political Capital.)

Poputonian from Kidding on the Square wrote me this e-mail which I found quite insightful. With his permission, I'm posting it here:



On February 20, 2003, exactly one month before the United States invaded Iraq, Norman Mailer spoke these words before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Terrorism and instability are the reverse face of Empire. If the Saudi rulers have been afraid of their mullahs for fear of their power to incite terrorists, what will the Muslim world be like once we, the Great Satan, are there to dominate the Middle East in person?

Since the administration can hardly be unaware of the dangers, the answer comes down to the unhappy likelihood that Bush and Company are ready to be hit by a major terrorist attack, as well as any number of smaller ones. Either way, it will strengthen his hand. America will gather about him again. We can hear his words in advance: "Good Americans died today. Innocent victims of evil had to shed their blood. But we will prevail. We are one with God." Given such language, every loss is a win.

Every loss is a win. So that’s how they do it.

More than two years later, Junior is still drilling down that hole. Reuters made this report on Saturday, August 20, 2005:


Bush invokes Sept 11 to defend Iraq war link:

In a few weeks, our country will mark the four-year anniversary of the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. On that day, we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors no longer protect us from those who wish to harm our people.
...
Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy.
...
They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war.

But sometimes when political capital is low, really, really low, when your own worshipers begin thinking disloyal thoughts, you have to pull out all the stops. This is when you start trading in dead soldiers. Even National Public Radio noted how unusual it was that in his speech today in Salt Lake City, Bush invoked the dead. Here is what a desperate president said to his throng of future detractors:

We have lost 1,864 members of our Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 223 in Operation Enduring Freedom. Each of these men and women left grieving families and loved ones back home. Each of these heroes left a legacy that will allow generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty. And each of these Americans have brought the hope of freedom to millions who have not known it. We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists, and building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us win and fight -- fight and win the war on terror.

Given such language, every dead soldier is a win.
digby 8/23/2005 10:06:00 AM |

 
The Politics Business

Writing about this morning's very creepy article about the new evangelical Christian training for conservative aides on capitol hill (which he points out should hardly be necessary since there already exist a ton of institutions for that purpose called ... "church") Jesse notices something that I think is quite important:

There are times where I really wonder if there's any such thing as grassroots conservatism anymore. Conservatives seem to be intent on making any expression of conservative belief little more than the assembly of an out-of-the-box movement. You want to start a petition for intelligent design in your school district? Here's the talking points, magazines, a list of local experts and the e-mail for your very own Discovery Institute scientist.

The modern Republican Party isn't just antipathetic to democracy - it seems to be doing everything within its power to convert it into a sham of itself, all the benefits of democracy without any of the actual practice or participation. You can be a principled Christian conservative for $345, with free lunch! For an extra $50, learn how to dress your spouse to communicate that they're not Hillary!

For all the talk of the conservative philosophical backbone, modern conservatism is little more than a paint-by-numbers affair, with doting teachers standing over you making sure that #3 is red and not green, because that might otherwise send the wrong message. It appropriates the rhetoric of soul-saving while remaining entirely soulless itself.

I think that its soullessness may be due to the fact that movement conservatism is now a business. So is the Christian Right. The "Republican industry" has become a livlihood for a whole lot of people who are not directly involved in the political process or the typical televangelist ministries. Somebody has to provide all those "paint-by-numbers" petition kits and out of the box local candidate blow-up dolls. We need to start seeing them through this prism.

The question is what kind of a business model are they using? (It may or may not be relevant that one of the biggest funders of conservative causes in the nation is the DeVos family --- of Amway fame.)



.
digby 8/23/2005 09:46:00 AM |

 
Efficient Pain

OneGoodMove has video of a protestor being tasered over the week-end. As with all these taser vids, I got a queasy feeling in my stomach when I saw it. I don't know how many of you have been shot with electricity, but I have had it happen by accident and it's really awful. Worse than being hit hard. Way worse.

This video shows an unarmed, restrained, female protestor on the ground being tasered. It looks very efficient, very easy, very simple. I'm very suspicious of police having simple, easy, efficient and unaccountable ways of subduing unarmed citizens.

I understand why cops like tasers. It's a non-lethal way of making citizens immediately compliant. Who wouldn't like that? But I am viscerally uncomfortable with the fact that police have the unrestrained discretion to inflict serious pain on citizens simply because it does not leave a mark. Just as they should not be allowed to punch a restrained protestor in the face, which would also subdue her, they should not be able to taser a restrained protestor. The law should not allow authorities to inflict pain unnecessarily even if the pain does not result in serious damage. And evidence is mounting that it does.

Talk Left (which has a very handy compendium of information on the taser, here) wrote yesterday about the police who are suing because of injuries sustained when they were tasered in training. And quite a few lawsuits are coming down the pike from others who have been permanently damaged by tasers. The company that manufactures them has been extremely uncooperative and unforthcoming with information. It's most telling that cops who volunteer to take tasering in training rarely offer to take another one.



.
digby 8/23/2005 08:31:00 AM |

 
Tid Bits

I don't want to get into the Able Danger mess because, as I wrote earlier, my gut tells me it's nonsense. However, I can't resist sharing two new pieces of information:

From Steve Soto I learned that the whole "roll-out" of the story was pre-approved by Dennis Hastert, Pete Hoekstra and most amazingly, Steven Cambone at the Pentagon. I'm sure they were all just showing their deep respect for whistleblowers. (Too bad Bunatine Greenhouse didn't get pre-approved.)

The other tid-bit, via Laura Rozen, is that another member of the team came forward to say that Atta had been named in 2000. Unfortunately, he couldn't produce any evidence because:

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

It would be interesting to know if he switched jobs before or after 9/11.



.
digby 8/23/2005 07:54:00 AM |

Monday, August 22, 2005

 
Politics vs Policy

Matt thinks that the base is all about shrill rhetoric over substance, and I think there's some truth to that.

My main critique of the netroots would be that I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy. Dick Gephardt, having done more than any other member of the Democratic Party to land the country in Iraq, was able to recapture the hearts of many bloggers by calling Bush a "miserable failure."

It warmed my heart to hear that line, too, just as I thrilled to Hackett's Bush-bashing. But I'd much rather live with a moderate tone and an an anti-war policy than live with the reverse. Liberals need to be clear about what our priorities are.

I think most liberals' first priority at this point is to remove the Republicans from sole power and many in the Democratic netroots have come to the political conclusion that we will only do that if we speak truth to power. The immoderate tone that thrills the netroots is not just for emotional satisfaction; it is a political strategy for beating the opposition.

I think that many in the netroots are no different than the vast majority of Americans everywhere. Policy is seen through a heuristic prism of impressions, image and preconceptions. Very few people are engaged in politics as a purely intellectual debate about the actual efficacy of one policy over another. Most people, even most smart people, make their political decisions based on a whole range of perceptions, only a few of which are based on strict reason.

I think the base of the Democratic party has come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Democrats have been successfully tagged as being soft on terrorism, crime, national security what have you, is because of the way we appear to the American people when we allow the other side to bash, swift-boat and deride with impugnity. And they have concluded that one way to show that we are not in fact a party of wimps and sissies is to call out the Republicans.

It is conventional wisdom that one of the reasons Hackett did as well as he did was because of his sincere righteous indignation about the leadership of this country and I think it's at least partially true. That translates to strength and authenticity to people who hear long-winded multi-year withdrawal scenarios and immediately switch the channel --- which are a majority of voters. I think the guy is tremendously charismatic whose status as an Iraq war veteran made him somewhat unique, but there is little doubt in my mind that he was able to win over some people, probably the Ross Perot type independents, who respect candor and authenticity. In this day of over-handled candidates it is a very heady breath of fresh air to see a Democrat appear unafraid and unintimidated.

I think it's terrific that people want to have a dignified wonk-fest about how to deal with the situation in Iraq. But I will guarantee you that the best "plan" isn't going to win any elections. They never do. Elections will be won because the country is sufficiently disillusioned with the GOP and the Democrats prove to them that they are a better alternative. And that proof will not come from the details but from the big picture.

I'm not even sure I think that Democratic politicians should be on the record with any detailed withdrawal plans at all at this point. The focus, to my way of thinking should remain on the president as the country (finally) internalizes the fact that this war was a mistake. There is plenty of time for our patented 10-point-plan yawner of a stump speech as we move into the next election cycle.

Right now I think the right political move is to keep the pressure on the Republicans. Make them take ownership of this war, gas prices all the simmering discontent that you can see lurking in all the polls on every issue. Separate ourselves, not with our intellectual superiority (which is a given in any case) but by our energy and our disgust with the status quo.

The think tanks and pundits can debate the various strong points of withdrawing on a six month vs a two years modified pull back or an urban withdrawal backed by air support or whatever. I think that's great. But since we have no chance of implementing any plan ourselves and since it is, in my view, almost impossible that any action the Bush administration undertakes will be successfull no matter how perfectly we design a plan for him to implement --- from a political standpoint all this wonkery beside the point.

What we should be debating is how we win elections. The base of the party is ready to support anyone who is willing to speak in clear, straighforward terms about the contrast between the Republicans and the Democrats and they believe that it could be a winning electoral strategy to do that. Certainly, they are extremely impatient with the split the difference, triangulation strategies that have failed to win majorities for the last several election cycles.

That, I think, is the real question here. Will our "shrillness" help or hurt the party? I think the netroots believes it's time to try a message that has a little more heat than lukewarm water. The establishment, still smarting from their seminal loss in 1972, is scared to death of anything that resembles real passion. Far more than a serious division in the party over specific policy, that, I think is the real fault line. What kind of politics --- not policies --- do the Democrats think will win?



.
digby 8/22/2005 06:32:00 PM |

 
Not Ready For Prime Time

I just saw that bozo Gary Qualls on Olbermann talking a bunch of outrageous gibberish about Cindy Sheehan misusing his son's name and how she isn't taking care of her family etc. He is pathetic.

But he really shouldn't be allowed to go on television and say that Cindy Sheehan treated him disrespectfully when there is so much documentary evidence to the contrary.

Hesiod has been on the Qualls story for a while now and he featured an account from last week when Qualls met with Cindy and they hugged and he told her he loved her.




Cindy Sheehan, right, hugs President Bush supporter Gary Qualls of Temple, Texas after the two met at her camp near Crawford, Texas, Saturday, Aug. 13, 2005. Qualls' son Marine LCPL. Louis W. Qualls was killed in the battle of Fallujah Nov. 14, 2004. Qualls answered an invitation from Sheehan to meet with pro-Bush parents that lost children in Iraq. Qualls was the only parent that came.



.
digby 8/22/2005 05:13:00 PM |

 
Credibility Gap

Kenneth Baer says that the Democrats should have a robust, public debate about foreign policy and then people should pick a side and fight it out in the primaries in 2008 --- as opposed to what is happening now which he characterizes as this:

The argument within the party has been played out through blog posts and random quotes in newspapers across the country. But while there is contentiousness, there is hardly a debate. There is a vocal group on the left who is angry -- at the Democratic establishment and the foreign-policy establishment. Yet, the establishment is relatively quiet in its response. In many ways, this silence only magnifies the perceived influence and power of the Democratic left (which, while possessing its own unique power, has yet to prove the hold it purports to have on the zeitgeist of the Democratic rank-and-file: beat a more hawkish Democrat in a primary or win a general election, and then you'll have some weight behind your claims.)

Well, he has a point. Although it would be much more powerful if the Democratic establishment could boast of winning any elections lately either.

And I would have to say that he would have an even better point if the Democratic foreign policy establishment hadn't enthusiastically signed on to the greatest strategic cock-up in American history. If it's credibility we're talking about, I think the establishment needs to walk a little bit softly right now. It isn't the left who fucked up this time.

It's not that there is no desire or ability to compromise, strategize or agree on tactics among the various factions. But, for those of us who have been bellowing until we are hoarse for the last four years about the magical thinking about Iraq, it is ineffably galling to still be treated as if we are the starry eyed hippies when in it's the allegedly sophisticated savants of the foreign policy establishment who have behaved as if this war could be won by clicking the heels of Laurie Myleroie's ruby slippers.

We are the ones who pointed out the fact that Bush's delusional PNAC/TeamB/CPD braintrust had been wrong about everything since the dawn of time and were the last people who should be trusted with a pre-emptive war doctrine. We're the ones who noticed that you didn't have to be a nuclear scientist to see that the "evidence" of Saddam's arsenal had a bit of a comic book flair to it. (The drone planes should have been a tip-off.) We're the ones who understood that people tend to not like being invaded by foreign troops even when they despise their own leaders.

It was the sophisticates of the establishment who bought every bit of snake oil the administration was selling, not us. And yet we still have to be condescended to from the people who were flat out, 100% wrong?

I am not a pacifist. And I never said that we should not respond to the threat of global terrorism. But I disagreeed with the way this administration and the Democratic hawks went about doing it --- especially this enormous mistake of invading a middle eastern country for inscrutable reasons, at this time, in this way. And I was right. I don't know if I represent the zeitgeist of the rank and file, but I do know that I and others of "the left" who saw this debacle for what it was have earned a little fucking respect.



.
digby 8/22/2005 09:13:00 AM |

 
Winning Dumb

I keep hearing that the beltway insiders have their money on George Allen to be the Republican nominee in 2008. I assume it is because he is just as stupid as George W. Bush.

From Michael Crowley subbing at TPM:

When Republican senator/presidential hopeful George Allen was on ABC's This Week today praising the Bush administration for its training of Iraqi security forces, George Stephanopoulos suggested that the Post's story has some pretty troubling implications for that utterly essential element of our success there. Not to worry, Allen said -- factional divisions are nothing new:

[Y]ou have that even in our United States. We have local police, we have state police, and you have the FBI.

Got that? Bloodthirsty Shiite militiamen really aren't so different from, say, Virginia state troopers. To which a startled-looking Stephanopoulos objected: "They're not militias going out and killing people outside the law!"

The Republicans have determined that they do better with nominees who make their constituents believe they are smart enough to be president. It's the right's version of the self-esteem movement.

George Allen is an extremely dumb guy. Really dumb. Awesomely dumb.

Who do we have that's dumb enough to beat him?



.
digby 8/22/2005 08:24:00 AM |

Sunday, August 21, 2005

 
Novak: Black Kettle Edition


War protesters sleeping with the enemy



.
digby 8/21/2005 03:38:00 PM |

 
WDTPKAWDHKI

Here's an interesting article in Salon making a case that George Bush's history as a political operative makes it likely that he knew about the operation to discredit Wilson:

As one might expect, much of Bush's work for his father's presidential campaigns was done behind the scenes. Yet it's clear he was steeped in political minutiae and imposed few limits on what he was willing to do to get the job done. In 1986, veteran reporter Al Hunt predicted that Jack Kemp would receive the 1988 Republican presidential nomination instead of George H.W. Bush. When George W. saw Hunt dining with his wife and 4-year-old son at a Mexican restaurant in Dallas, he went up to their table and said, "You fucking son of bitch. I won't forget what you said and you're going to pay a fucking price for it." Bush didn't apologize until 13 years later, when the incident resurfaced in the context of his own presidential campaign.

In 1987, the George H.W. Bush campaign gave unusually close access to Newsweek reporter Margaret Warner. That resulted in a cover story titled "Fighting the Wimp Factor," in which Warner discussed "the potentially crippling handicap" that the senior Bush wasn't tough enough for the job. George W. was incensed. He called the magazine and "told reporters that his father's campaign would no longer talk to Newsweek." According to White House reporter Thomas DeFrank, George W. told him that Newsweek was "out of business." In his anger, however, Bush "went somewhat beyond the authorized message." The following day, a Bush campaign spokesman announced, "We're not cutting them [Newsweek] or anybody else off from their efforts to cover the campaign." George W., apparently, has never gotten over the incident. In his memoir, "A Charge to Keep," published more than a decade later, he wrote, "My blood pressure still goes up when I remember the cover."

The article doesn't provide anything but speculation based on past behavior but the authors do suggest that the press should ask the President about it directly:

... the media refuses to ask two questions that President Bush could not delay answering until he "finds out the facts": Mr. President, prior to July 14, 2003 (the day Robert Novak's column appeared), were you aware that Valerie Wilson was a CIA agent? And did you discuss her role with any other member of your administration?

I can see Bush saying anyway that he's not going to answer any questions because there's an ongoing investigation, but if he can't even answer that much for himself, on the record, it's pretty damned weak. He is the president of the United States. How could it possibly taint the investigation for him to say what he knew?



.
digby 8/21/2005 01:59:00 PM |

 
Getting Off The Bus

It is a rare day indeed when I am in agreement with anyone over at The Corner, but this is one of those days:

Andrew McCarthy:

For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

[...]

Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

[...]

But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "freedom" is.

His argument is that establishing an Islamic theocracy in Iraq furthers the goals of the violent Islamic fundamentalists, which is a big "no shit." But, of course, the war itself, from the very beginning, has furthered the goals of violent islamic fundamentalists. This is just frosting on the whole fetid cakewalk.

What this really does is put the coda to the last phony cassus belli --- that by bringing freedom and democracy to a country in the heart of the middle east we would plant the seeds for a thousand flowers to grow. Now, along with the other rationales, we can throw this one on the "no longer operative" pile.

I got an e-mail from someone I respect asking me why I made such a big deal out of women's rights being denied when there are so many other freedoms at stake. It's a legitimate question I suppose, but I think the question answers itself. The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."

Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives.

This is not to say that an Islamic theocracy is fine in every other way. It will, of course, curb religious freedom entirely. Too bad for the local Jews and Christians --- or secularists, of which there were many in Iraq. It will restrict personal freedom in an infinite number of ways. Theocracies require conformity in thought, word and deed.

And all of this must be viewed within the conditions that exist in this poor misbegotten place as we speak. The country is on the verge of civil war. Chaos reigns. Daily life is dangerous and uncomfortable.

It simply cannot be heroic for the richest, most powerful democratic country on earth to claim the mantle of liberator only to create a government that makes more than half the population second class citizens and forces the entire country live in conditions that are less free and more dangerous than before.

It is certainly not acceptable for that country to take any credit for spreading freedom. Creating an Islamic theocracy is anything but noble. It is a moral failure of epic proportions.


Update: James Wolcott notes one of the leading neocon architects of mid-east democracy on Press the Meat this morning explaining all this:

[AEI and PNAC fellow] Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21: "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there, I think they will be there, but I think we need to keep this perspective."

[...]

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

UpdateII: Here's the video from our friends at Crooks and Liars


.
digby 8/21/2005 10:13:00 AM |

 
Good Bloggin'

DC Media Girl has a whole passle of interesting posts up with information I haven't seen anywhere else. First, she found out that Michelle Malkin is nothing but a big ole flip-floppin' flip-flopper. Here's Michelle from the year 2000:

The government has apologized and provided cash compensation to victims who were forced into camps. There is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong.

Oh! My Goodness. And she has some bonus Malkin racist blogging here.

Then we find out from Women's Wear Daily that Judith Miller's husband has been telling people that she's having "the time of her life" in prison:

That Miller might be having a good time comes as no surprise to many among the rank and file at the Times, who don't see her as quite the martyr that Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. does. And friends of the couple said earlier reports of Miller's suffering in jail are dated now that she's settled in at the Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia. The hip-hop and bad food, coupled with a parade of important visitors have, they said, made the experience a novel and interesting one for her. Too, Miller is evidently enjoying all the attention she's getting in the press and is likely to have her pick of book deals if she emerges from the ordeal with her reputation intact. In the same way Martha Stewart's time at Alderson initiated her comeback, Miller's internment has burnished an image tarnished by months of controversial reporting leading up to the war in Iraq. (Indeed, one Times source said recently, "She thinks she's Martha Stewart.")

Finally, the DC Mediafirl highlights this delighful letter to Cindy Sheehan from my favorite rightwing Christian icon, Fred Phelps:

Why did your son die in Iraq? Because you raised him for the devil and Hell. You hated him. You taught him "It’s OK to be gay," and other God-rejecting lies, that brought the wrath of God Down upon this evil nation.

Why did your son die in Iraq? Because God hates America and has purposed to destroy her. They turned America over to fags; they’re coming home in body bags.

That's nice, isn't it? And poetic too: "They turned America over to fags; they're coming home in body bags." Somebody ought to call nashville. I hear a song coming on.



That's just three items. Check out DC media Girl regularly. You'll learn things.
digby 8/21/2005 08:32:00 AM |

Saturday, August 20, 2005

 
Whose Freedom Is It Anyway?

Islam will be "the main source" of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position.

If agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.

Well, we're not really talking about human rights now are we? We're talking about women's rights, which are always negotiable.

And what say you Hitchens, you useful fucking idiot? Americans just "freed" the Iraqis so they could live under Islamic law. That's quite a goddamned achievement. You must be so proud.

How about you Condi? Are you proud of what you've done? You just "freed" 13 million women into second class citizenship -- probably into hell. Tough luck ladies. Don't worry, though, your granddaughters might get their rights back in their lifetimes. You can't stop progress, you know.

And what about you, George you misbegotten cretin. Is this what you were talking about in all these windy speeches about freedom being the gift of the almighty and all that other flatulent twaddle you peddle to the silly rubes who confuse leadership with frat boy swagger? Did you free the Iraqis so they could live under Ayatollahs?

Iraqi women's lives have already become demonstrably less free. This will codify it. And tough shit if you're gay or secular or different in any way. Some fucking freedom.

I hope that everyone makes it their business to remind every Republican asshole they know that it wasn't the liberals who turned Iraq into a theocracy. This is happening on their watch, under their auspices. We don't believe in theocracy. They do. They do not believe in freedom. We do.

I am now officially an isolationsist. Not because I don't think that Americans should spend its blood and treasure on foreigners. It's because I don't think the world can take much more of our "freedom and democracy."

These are extraordinary times, historic times. We've seen the fall of brutal tyrants. We're seeing the rise of democracy in the Middle East. We're seeing women take their rightful place in societies that were once incredibly oppressive and closed. We're seeing the power and appeal of liberty in every single culture. And we're proud once again -- this nation is proud -- to advance the cause of human rights and human freedom. Junior, March 12, 2004

What a steaming pile of horseshit.



.
digby 8/20/2005 03:52:00 PM |

 
The Way Life Should Be

Dear Abby:

Q: I live in a family-oriented neighborhood. My next-door neighbor flies his gay pride flag in his front yard. Because we have a lot of families with young children who do not need to be subjected to that kind of thing, I have asked him numerous times to remove it.

His response is, it's a free country and he does not subject anybody to his lifestyle.

I strongly feel that in a neighborhood devoted to children's morals and the way life should be, he should not be allowed to have that flag in his front yard. I threatened to call the police.What should I do?

RIGHTEOUS in New Castle, Pa.

Dear Righteous:

A: First of all, calm down. Your neighbor is hurting no one, and "young children" will not understand the flag. Unless there are restrictions in your neighborhood governing the display of flags, your neighbor has a right to hoist his banner.

Good for Abby, the voice of common sense. I bet that mom is just fit to be tied. She's probably going to immediately start coaching her kids to claim they were molested. That's the only recourse the liberals have left her.

One thing I'd like to know is why so many of these people sound like they have only heard half of every argument? They write things like "a neighborhood devoted to children's morals and the way life should be" as if it makes sense. Do they zone out in church and only catch half the sermon or what?

Our president does the same thing so it's not surprising. But dear gawd, I cannot imagine what it's going to be like once all these home schooled kids take charge of the wingnut infrastructure. I can barely understand what they are talking about now. I can't imagine what gibberish they are going to be spewing in a few years.



.
digby 8/20/2005 03:21:00 PM |

 
Beat Him To The Punchline

Considering his record and sophomoric tone well into his thirties, I have no doubt that John Roberts' hilarious little quip, "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide" is a jab at women. When he is asked about it at the hearing he will say it is a standard lawyer joke --- and much laughter among the senators will ensue and the media will all remark about what a fun-loving and modest fellow he is.

I would hope that a Democratic member of the judiciary committee, preferably Diane Feinstein, is smart enough to bring this up immediately and rob him of that punchline with a clever question.

"Judge Roberts, when I was in law school I remember hearing a lot of lawyer jokes. One of my classmates used to tell one about the man who goes to the doctor and finds out he has only six months to live. He says to the doctor, "that's such a short amount of time, doc. Is there anything I can do?" The doctor replied, "marry a lawyer, it'll be the longest six months of your life." ...

Yes, my husband thinks that one is funny too...

Now the white house says that when you wrote "some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide" that you were just making one of those lawyer jokes. If so, it was pretty funny. But it does raise the question of how you feel in general about women's role in society. You are nominated to replace the first female Supreme Court justice ...


We can see this one coming a mile away folks. They've probably got Dennis Miller on the horn coming up with a zinger. We should beat them to it.



.
digby 8/20/2005 02:14:00 PM |

 
Respectfully Decline

Why is it that sports guys are the only journalists with any guts? Keith Olbermann quit MSNBC when he just couldn't take doing the Monica story night after night. Bob Costas refused to host Larry King last night when he was told he's have to do another ridiculous navel gazer about Natalee Holloway:

Veteran sports broadcaster Bob Costas declined to fill in as host on CNN's "Larry King Live" Thursday night because of the program's focus that night on the missing Alabama teenager and on Dennis Rader, the BTK serial killer.

Costas — who has been serving as an occasional substitute for King since June — bowed out of the Thursday show after he could not persuade producers to change the program's lineup, which included an interview with Beth Holloway Twitty, the mother of the high school senior who disappeared in Aruba in late May.

"I didn't think the subject matter of Thursday's show was the kind of broadcast that I should be doing," Costas said in a statement, adding that he "respectfully declined to participate."

I've noted before that the sports writers are often the ones who call bullshit. I don't know why this is so. Perhaps it's because they aren't dependent on the political media establishment for their daily bread. Or maybe it's just a different occupational culture. Whatever it is, it's clear to me that the political reporting fraternity would do well to take a lesson from their sports bretheren. Just say no.



.
digby 8/20/2005 01:09:00 PM |

 
Psssst

Max Blumenthal has written an interesting article about Just-Us Sunday II in which he observes that the Christian right was not at all happy with the fact that John Roberts helped out the wrong side of the Romer gay rights case.

With the revelation of Roberts's involvement in the Romer case, right-wing activists began jumping ship. The leader of a Virginia antigay group, Public Advocate, yanked support with the declaration, "'Freedom' is not embracing perversion." Joseph Farah, editor of the heavily trafficked far-right webzine WorldNetDaily, attacked Justice Sunday's planners in thinly veiled language in an August 12 column: "We now have 'conservative' organizations leading the fight for confirmation of a man [Roberts] who is certain to be a grave disappointment to them." Perhaps most important, Gary Bauer, the former Family Research Council president who built the organization into one of Washington's largest conservative operations during the 1990s, denounced the Bush White House in his daily newsletter for picking a "stealth nominee" and questioned their refusal to release 50,000 pages of Reagan-era Roberts documents.

The position of Justice Sunday II's organizers consisted of halfhearted apologia through gritted teeth. "The Romer case was perhaps one of the most egregious decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court...and to have Roberts be part of that in any way was troubling," Dobson said during an August 8 appearance on Fox News's Hannity & Colmes. But, Dobson assured the audience, "he had a very minor role." When host Sean Hannity peppered him with questions about Roberts's role on Romer, Dobson was forced to concede that "the Republican senators need to vet him [Roberts] also." It was a stunning role reversal, considering that Dobson and his allies had spent the past month attacking Democratic senators who vowed to question Roberts's views on social issues.

What do you suppose these people would do if they found out that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is gay? Or that one of the most successful Republican strategists of all time took his lover and two children and got married in Boston as soon as they made gay marriage legal?

Tom DeLay is feted as a Christian hero when he's the crookedest politician since Boss Tweed. Laura and Barbara Bush are both on the record as being pro-choice. Do these Christians know this?

I can guarantee that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would find a way to make these things known. They understand the concept of divide and conquer.


.
digby 8/20/2005 12:34:00 PM |

 
Mary and Wayne

Last night before I signed off, I posted an interview by Rose Aguillar with Mary Fowler, an Oklahoma Republican. At the end of the interview, I posted a comment from a disabled Oklahoman named Wayne Yeazel who depends on the government but who says he doesn't vote.

Mary Fowler is an evangelical Christian who believes that Republicans pick their candidates based upon their devotion to Jesus. In fact, she sees republicanism as part of her church. For her, religion and politics are the same thing.

Wayne Yeazel and his family have terrible money problems. If you read the whole interview you can see they are all living on social security disability. Wayne Yeazel feels no connection to the party that has spent the last year fighting to save their only source of livlihood. His wife says she doesn't like the government in general, which is quite astute considering that they are trying to destroy her family at the moment --- but she doesn't vote either. Clearly, they have no idea how directly politics affects their lives.

Mary Fowler can be dealt with only one way --- we must separate Republicanism from her church. It won't be possible to out church them but it can be done by exposing them. Republicans are not godly. When she finds out that they aren't godly she will stop voting for them --- most likely stop voting at all. (And unless she learns to separate religion from politics it is probably the best thing.) It won't be easy to convince her, but she is much more attached to her vision of the Bible than the Republican party. She chose Republicanism after she was saved, not before. She will choose Jesus over Tom Delay if push comes to shove.

I urge you to read all the interviews. I picked Mary Fowler because she is probably fairly representative of the hard core evangelical Republican who is unreachable for Democrats because of our fundamental philosophy of pluralism and tolerance (and reason.) I harbor no illusions that she will ever vote for us. But she is fundamentally not a political person; she sees the world entirely through the prism of her church. The concept of democracy is meaningless to her. Until the Republicans realized that they had an highly organized consituency out there waiting to be plucked, people like her didn't involve themselves in politics because they simply didn't believe the secular institutions of government were relevant or important. They operated in the spiritual, personal, private sphere which is really where religion belongs and where it thrives.

I think Mary Fowler can be shown that Republicanism is not what she thinks it is and separate it from her belief system. It will take a lot of work because people like her place their trust in authority figures and believe what they are told. But over time these things can penetrate if the message is consistent and clear. We don't have to convert them. We just have to sow doubts.

If we are to destroy the exploitative evangelical political machine the Republicans have built, the Mary Fowlers out there must open their eyes to the fact that the Republicans are tainting their church with their sin and hypocricy. Mary Fowler is a sincere fundamentalist Christian, not a political hack. Has anyone read "Elmer Gantry" lately? Mary Fowler is being sold a bill of goods.


Wayne Yeazel and his family don't vote. Mary Fowler does. We need to switch that around.


.
digby 8/20/2005 09:20:00 AM |

Friday, August 19, 2005

 
Stories In America

Rose Aguillar is interviewing people in states that overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush. It's a fascinating insight in to Real Murika. Here's one from Oklahoma:

Mary Fowler, 54, Housekeeper

Why do you think gas prices are so high?

From what I've read, they say it's because of the Iraq war. I've also read about alternatives to gas and even automobiles that use alternatives, but for some reason, the big oil companies bought up the patents for that, so it's not just the Iraq war and it's not President Bush's fault. He gets blamed for everything, but it's not his fault. It's just greed from other people. I feel like the president is doing everything he can to help.

Like what?

For one thing, he is protecting our country by being in Iraq. We can't pull out too soon because they'll think we're chicken and they'll try to attack us again. We can't pull out until they're able to fend for themselves. Those who are strong are supposed to help those who are weak. We are strong and we're that way for a reason. We've always been peacemakers. As long as we keep the peace, we'll be blessed.

So you believe we're acting as peacemakers in Iraq?

Yes and we're protecting the innocent. Muslims want to rule the world. They want to take over the whole world. That's their evil purpose.

Do you know any Muslims?

I've ministered to them. A few lived in my apartment building and they invited us over for dinner. I went with a Christian guy. They were nice. The food was nice. At the end, we said, 'Can we pray for you?' And they said yes, if we can pray for you. We prayed for the peace of god. Most of them are very harsh. There's no tenderness or love.

Do a lot of Muslims live in this area? Have you met any others besides the ones who invited you over for dinner?

Most of them live in Tulsa.

Why do you think we're in Iraq? People say we're freeing the Iraqis one minute and then change their opinion and say they're horrible people.

Soldiers over there say we don't get half the news. There's so much good going on. The majority of the people appreciate the help. The majority, not the weirdos who are deceived.

Where do you get your information about the war?

The Bible and the 700 Club. I also listen to preachers who know what's going on. Pat Robertson.

What do you like about Bush?

He's a praying man of god. He's a family man and he does care. He gets blamed for everything. If this country would turn back to god, things would get better. You can't go on killing babies and allowing homosexual stuff to stay. We do love the people, but we don't love their actions.

Do you think talking about homosexuality does anything to improve healthcare or poverty?

I guess for me I've always had to trust the lord for the next job, which is usually housecleaning. If you have your eyes on him, he'll take care of you. The government can't help us.

Do you always vote?

Yes, I volunteered for the Republican Party and I enjoyed it very much.

Have you always been Republican?

When I first registered, I was a Democrat. Just from studying in school, I thought that's what I wanted to be because I believed in government for the people, by the people and of the people. But after I was saved, I realized the Republican beliefs are me so I switched and I'm glad I did.

What does it mean to be a Republican?

Republicans pick the people who believe like we do.

You mean believe in the Bible?

Yes and godly principles. If we kick god out, we'll be like other countries that have AIDS, sickness and poverty. God created the earth, he created the rules and he knows what's best for everybody.

Unfortunately, we have AIDS, sickness and poverty in this country.

Yes, because we allow homosexuality.

You blame homosexuality for AIDS, sickness and poverty?

Well, sometimes people are innocent. This nation is in trouble. The ACLU are run by communists and funded by communists. What does that tell you? They want to take god away from us.

The ACLU once helped Pat Robertson's son set up churches. They also helped Jerry Falwell fight church restrictions three years ago. If they wanted to take god way from you, why would they help Pat Robertson's son and Jerry Falwell?

I haven't heard about that. I'm sure there are a few good people in the ACLU.

I've interviewed a lot of people on this trip and while they want freedom of religion, none have said they want to take god away.

When they first started the country, those that didn't believe in Jesus were put in jail. Once a country is dedicated to god and founded on its principles, it has to stay that way.

What issues are most important to you?

Getting the right Supreme Court Justice in you. I want god back in the schools. They kick god out of schools and they wonder why we have drugs and sex in the schools.

And then there's this:

Wayne Yeazal: I was a truck driver until I got hurt. I had a bunch of surgeries and had a $300,000 bill. There's no way I can pay for that. I'm on Medicaid and only make $400 a month from social security.

Do you vote?

Twila Yeazal: No. I don't like the government.

Wayne Yeazal: I don't vote. I don't pay attention.

.
digby 8/19/2005 06:35:00 PM |

 
Mexican Terrorists

I'm hearing Rep. John Culberson (R-Nutcase) on MSNBC saying that we know that terrorists are coming over the Mexican border, hiding among friendly illegal immigrants, and that we should trust American volunteers (with no history of mental illness --- which leaves out his constituents) to patrol the border. Just the other day I heard Governor Bill Richardson on Fox going on and on about how illegal immigrants are mutilating animals but we should beef up the border patrol to deal with it.

This kind of talk, in my experience, always means that the economy is in deep shit. I don't care what the numbers say and I don't care how happy everyone is supposed to be in this wonderful growing economy --- it obviously sucks. Illegal immigrant bashing never happens when the party's in full swing.

I can see that we are going to spend a lot of time on this convenient scapegoating the next few years and judging from Richardson's approach, the populist Democratic position is going to be that we need to bash Mexicans with professional border patrol agents as opposed to picking them off with vigilante posses. I guess we are taking the kinder gentler approach?

Economic populism does have an unfortunate history of teaming up with nativism and it looks like the Republicans and the Democrats are going to be racing to see who can get there first. Business always willingly puts up with a short term phony interruption in their cheap labor supply in order to feed the rubes, so no worries of a GOP crack-up on this one. The bigger question is whether the hispanic population is going to put up with the inevitable race baiting that underlies these periodic bash-fests. Whoever threads that needle the best is probably going to be the winner in the western swing states.


One problem with getting older is that you begin to see these pernicious patterns play out repeatedly within your own lifetime and it is profoundly depressing.



.
digby 8/19/2005 04:17:00 PM |

 
Being Burketted

I try not to make sweeping claims about things for which I cannot possibly know the answer, but like most people I often have some sort of feeling about what the answer will be nonetheless. This is because when you examine certain odd claims your intuition and deductive powers kick in even when you don't have all the evidence. I have that feeling about the Able Danger story, which is why I haven't written about it.

First of all, anything that Curt Weldon is involved with is automatically suspect. It just is. He's a nutball who shouldn't be let anywhere near a position of real authority. That doesn't mean he's automatically wrong, of course, but when you combine it with the fact that his evidence is based upon memory, documents have disappeared and the guy backing up the claim has subtly changed his story --- let's just say my skeptical antenna are way, way up. Something is wrong with this picture. Particularly this part:

As to the timing of why this is all coming out only now, Shaffer revealed in his appearance on NPR's Talk of the Nation Wednesday that it was Weldon's idea to make a fuss over Able Danger being shut down, only after Shaffer and Phillpott recently approached him to get support for funding their new data mining proposal.

C'mon.

And if JPod and his ilk get covered in ignominy over it, so much the better. They want so much for it to be true, particularly the part about the 9/11 commission blowing these allegations off. They also want to blame it on Jamie Gorelick, which makes no sense whatsoever but it will mean they can exonerate the poor little Pentagon which just didn't know what to do. (And did you know that Jamie Gorelick once worked at the Pentagon too, a long time ago? Coincidence? I think not...)

The whole thing sounds incredibly dicey to me. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm open to seeing some real evidence --- I'd be happy to see Rummy's Pentagon nailed for a cover-up. But I have a feeling that this is a Burkett special.



.
digby 8/19/2005 03:12:00 PM |

 
Warm Feelings

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

[...]

Powell's speech, delivered on February 14, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

The president had no problems in that regard, did he? He still has warm feelings galore.

I'm glad to see that some members of the administration are coming forward to say they have regrets. It's important for the historical record. But don't expect the mainstream press to care about it. This is all old news, you know.

I do think it's an important insight into the psychology of people who are involved with these things. There were a few who spoke out and a few who resigned in protest but not many. It's important that we examine that phenomenon and try to figure out how this happens. It's not unprecedented, of course. There have been many examples and some amazing analysis done on the subject. But here we have it in real time, someone who knew the government was taking the country to war for inscrutable reasons and yet he went along. He is not without a conscience. And conditions were such that he would have lost his career, but he wouldn't have lost his freedom or his life if he had quit. But he didn't. Neither did Powell, who could have changed the course of history had he resigned. Why didn't they?


.
digby 8/19/2005 01:41:00 PM |

 
Your elitist slip is showing

In an otherwise quite reasonable defense of Cindy Sheehan, Garance Franke-Ruta makes this statement:

Sheehan hails from a part of the country where, when she went looking for answers, the easiest ones to find are the ones that she found. There is no grassroots, accessible organizing by Democratic foreign policy centrists, for example, so when people outside D.C. start looking for answers, all they find is one part of the left spectrum of opinion.

I find it very unusual that someone who blogs would say such a thing. I very much doubt that Sheehan drove to a Berkeley Code Pink potluck for answers to her questions about Iraq. I know she lives in a regional backwater where the folks are all unsophisticated rubes who don't know nothin' bout foreign policy like all the smart people in Washington DC do, but I suspect they do have the internet and television. She may have even read a blog called TAPPED.

It's patronizing to assume that her views are the result of being unable to access the sophisticated thinking in washington DC. I suspect she chose the people who are supporting her today as much as they chose her. After all, two years ago when her son was killed it was pretty hard to find any "sophisticated" liberals in Washington DC who gave a flying fuck. They were still waving flags and talking about kicking ass. It was only the "default leftist" hayseeds out in nowheresville who would give this woman the time of day.

I agree with Franke-Ruta that her power derives from her moral authority as a mother whose child was killed. What else would it be? She's not a professional politician, analyst or activist. Her political views are secondary. But she isn't a child, either. Her political views are no more spurious than any other American's and I would give her more credit than to assume that they stem from an inability to obtain other opinions. If she wanted to read transcripts of Brookings symposiums about Iraq, she certainly could. And she may have for all we know.

Furthermore, as eRobin pointed out on the American Street yesterday, her peacenik beliefs probably stem more from her committed catholicism than anything else. There is a strain of serious lefty catholic politics in this country from long before the Berrigan brothers. Out here in the California boondocks, catholics tend to be very leftwing indeed.



.
digby 8/19/2005 12:21:00 PM |

 
The Pincer

Kevin Drum challenges "failure is not an option" Democrats to put up or shut up:

...if you do believe we can win in Iraq, let's hear what you mean by "win" and how you think we can do it, and let's hear it in clear and compelling declarative sentences. "Stay the course" isn't enough. What Bush is doing now obviously isn't working, so what would you do that's significantly different?

Conversely, if you don't believe we can win in Iraq, and you're only suggesting we stay there because you can't stand the thought of "looking weak," then your moral compass needs some serious adjustment."

I can't imagine any realistic "winning" scenario at this point in which Americans are involved. Indeed, it was lost from the the minute we defied the world and decided to go it alone. It's the "american-ness" of the occupation that is its most immediate problem. So we should go, if only to relieve that pressure.

There is a very slight chance that if we leave the Iraqis themselves will create a stable, democratic system but I'm extremely pessimistic. The country was an artificial construct to be begin with and the fact that the majority were repressed by the minority for decades, and that vast amounts of money is at stake in certain areas and there is a rise of extreme religious fundamentalism in the region means that this is almost certainly destined for disaster. It was foreseen by many that we could actually make things worse for the Iraqi people and we have.

The next question is whether it will ignite the rest of the region in some way or whether it will be confined to Iraq only. It is becoming a training ground for terrorist tactics already and we seem unable to do anything about it. As Kevin points out, this too was inevitable:

The insurgency is not going to give up, the Army doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent commitment to using counterinsurgency techniques against it, we don't know for sure that they'd work anyway, and let's face it: the track record of major powers beating large-scale overseas insurgencies is close to zero in the past half century.

But Kevin's question about "looking weak" is more than an academic one to both the neocons and Osama bin Laden. The neocons are convinced that everything from the rise of terrorism to male pattern baldness is the result of looking weak. They have been very explicit in their view that American presidents Reagan and Clinton both made terrible mistakes by withdrawing from Lebanon and Somalia. It is a fundamental part of their threat analysis.

Likewise, Bin Laden credits the mujahadeen running the Russians out of Afghanistan as precipitating the destruction of the Soviet super power. There are undoubtedly many of his followers who think that the insurgency running the US out of Iraq would accomplish the same thing, which is, of course, ridiculous. But providing bin Laden with the opportunity to declare "victory" is enough to give the neocons apoplexy.

I don't happen to think we should make decisions based upon what bin Laden thinks about anything. We have provided him with plenty of recruiting material by invading Iraq --- there is little margin in worrying about whether withdrawal will result in bin Laden taking a victory lap.(How ironic it would be, too, considering that it was Bush who created a fictitious connection between al Qaeda and Iraq in the first place.) The neocons worry incessantly about this. It's almost as if they share the Japanese obsession with "face" and they will do almost anything to save it. They will fight withdrawal with every breath in their bodies.

And that brings me back to Kevin's post. He says:

Either you believe that there's a way we can win in Iraq — a real way that involves the leadership of George Bush and his staff, not some fantasy scenario in which he suddenly turns into the reincarnation of FDR — or you don't. And the only reason to stay in Iraq is if you think we can win.

There is no real way to win in Iraq with or without George Bush and his staff. But there are different ways of losing. He is not going to stand for a complete withdrawal, timed or otherwise. They aren't leaving. The military is forcing them to draw down, and they probably will for practical and domestic political reasons. But they will not just pick up and leave which means that the perception of American occupation --- and certainly the perception of American involvement in the government --- will continue. And, of course, the civil war that is developing will also continue. I cannot realistically see another scenario developing.

That's the real world we are living in until 2008. The Bush administration will watch Iraq turn into the ninth circle of hell before they will completely withdraw. So, Kevin's challenge to Democrats to come up with a better plan is actually a political challenge. They can try to put pressure on the government, but they will not make any headway on policy. Not with this group.

Everything is about positioning for the next two elections. And that I see in two phases. Now is the time to lay blame where blame should be laid and ensure that Bush's splendid little war is seen as his debacle and no one elses. Calls for withdrawal by the dove camp are perfectly appropriate. It's vastly important that Republicans be held responsible for this failure. That is not an emotional response --- it is, I believe, an essential process before we can change the foreign policy dynamic that has plagued us ever since the 50's. The wimp-baiting from the right has gotten us into the two worst foreign policy debacles of the last half century and we have to put a stop to it.

Remember, unless something catastrophic happens, the US will not leave Iraq until 2008. But we will have to leave as soon as he is out of office. Right now, the Democratic foreign policy hawks are calling for more troops --- an impossibility. But that demand, made in 2005, may allow them to argue that when the going got tough they were calling for more troops and Bush wouldn't listen. By 2007 this will be a moot point, but it may be smart to articulate it now. Under tremendous pressure at that point from the doves in the party, the candidates will all sorrowfully conclude that despite their best efforts in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 to get Bush to win the this war decisively, he failed, and now we have no choice but to withdraw completely and actively court international involvement --- which they, unlike Bush, might actually be able to accomplish.

I think that we are seeing a Democratic pincer movement that is going to fatally squeeze the Republican policy. On the one side we have the growing Cindy Sheehan withdrawal movement, very emotional very compelling. It's the right argument, but its main purpose is to weaken Bush --- there is no chance in hell that it will force a complete troop withdrawal. On the other side he has the Democratic establishment calling for more troops and a greater effort to gain international support. Bush cannot do that either. He is trapped. All he can say is "stay the course" which is not adequate to win and ensures that we lose slowly and painfully.

I'm sorry to have to reduce this to politics. It is an absolutely horrible situation that should have been prevented and wasn't. That was our failure. But it has happened and it is what it is. The only thing we can do is ensure that Republicans are held accountable for this failure and prepare the ground for the future. If I thought we could convince the GOP to do anything different, I would put politics aside and say that we should all work together. But that is clearly impossible. They will not listen. They will not admit that they've made any mistakes. And worst of all, they will not do the one thing that might make a difference --- take the US off the playing field in Iraq. They believe that doing that in past situations from Vietnam to Somalia is the reason terrorism is a threat today. More importantly, they would lose face and that they will not do.

All we are left with is politics. And we should not be afraid to be strategic. I'm not sure it's a bad idea for the '08 presidential hopeful club to be hawkish right now, for the reason I outlined above. And I also think it's a good time for the dove faction to exert itself. Pressure coming from both the left and right on Bush is a good idea. I think it stands us in good stead for when we actually have the power to do the thing that needs to be done --- withdraw.

And we simply have to change this right-left foreign policy dynamic that is really a vestige of the old cold war mentality and has no place in this new century. This is a complicated world and we cannot continue to allow hawks to wage non-essential wars they cannot win in order to define liberals as wimps and show the world how omnipotent we are. Especially since each time they do it we end up in an unwinnable quagmire with horrible loss of blood and treasure. It's got to stop here.



.
digby 8/19/2005 09:11:00 AM |

Thursday, August 18, 2005

 
It's Over

George W. Bush's streak of good luck continues --- at the expense of others as usual.

Cindy Sheehan had to leave Crawford to take care of her ailing mother. Without her, the protest becomes something different, less compelling and less meaningful. What a shame.

But it was very worthwhile. The questions about Iraq have crystalized for a lot of people who up until now just felt vaguely uncomfortable. The press have been forced to see the anti-war sentiment that has clearly been showing up in the polls in human terms. And Democrats and others have been able to connect with one another in a personal and meaningful way for the first time in a long time. That is not something that we should ever underrate. People need to feel part of things; they need to be allowed to be human. Cindy Sheehan and her protest gave a vast, frustrated and near hopeless number of Americans something to believe in. Let's hope it changed the zeitgeist for good.


.
digby 8/18/2005 02:29:00 PM |

 
Bloodthirsty Wench

The prosecutor in the BTK case just said that the prisoner should be put into the general prison population to "hack it out with the other guys."

She is undoubtedly a law and order Republican.

This is not to say that I don't understand the feelings of the families of the victims. This guy is a psychopathic monster. If one of them said something like that I think it would be understandable. It's human. But, there was once a time when the representatives of the justice system were expected to hold to higher standards of reason and reverence for the law in these situations --- which doesn't include publicly hoping that a prisoner be killed by other prisoners in jail.

Of course this prosecutor made an utter fool of herself for more than five minutes with her bizarre giggly affect so maybe she's on drugs or something. Even Blitzer and Greenfield were appalled by her antics.


Update: I stand corrected. Apparently she is a law 'n order Democrat.



.
digby 8/18/2005 01:58:00 PM |

 
Political Enthusiasm

Sam Rosenfeld asks a very good question. Why aren't the elected Dems using the Roberts nomination to make our case for the future? There is no margin anymore in giving the Red State Dems "free" votes on anything because the Republicans have shown time and again that there is no reward for "good" Democratic behavior. I would hope that Reid is whipping the caucus to give Roberts as small a margin as possible. But, there's more to it than that. There is opportunity in losing by making a well defined case against the politics, philosophy and policy that Roberts so clearly represents. I've seen no signs as yet that the Senate Democrats are going to exert even the smallest amount of political intensity to that job.

Acknowledging that Roberts nomination is almost sure to be confirmed, Rosenfeld says:

What remains continuously puzzling is the binary logic Democrats insist on applying to situations like this, wherein either a full substantive victory or the complete evaporation of political energy seem to count as the only possible alternatives. On this issue as with many others, there remains a weird disinclination to focus party efforts on using substantive defeats over actual policy outcomes (which are largely foreordained anyway for the minority party) to highlight contrasts with the GOP and forge a message for future electoral battles.

On the one hand, Roberts’ confirmation is essentially a lock, barring unforeseen developments during the hearings. Outside advocacy groups have their own interests to attend to and their own reasons for demanding opposition to the nominee, but for Senate Democrats, an active push to block Roberts doesn’t really make sense. On the other hand, there truly is little substantive justification for Democrats to actually endorse this nomination. So why do it?

As Matt wrote last month, “being in the minority comes with a few advantages -- first and foremost among them a release from the obligation to think realistically.” It shouldn’t be impossible, with creativity and coordination, to make the principled argument against Roberts part of the case for sending more Democrats to Washington. And it’s a bit distressing that throughout the coverage of base-party tensions over strategy on Roberts, this never seems to come up as an option worth considering.

This seems to me to be a Dem weakness across the board. If we can't win, why bother? (A corollary to this is, "if it's risky we shouldn't do it.") I suspect this is a matter of psychology --- some of it a holdover from the 60's, as we've discussed before --- and some of it an unwillingness to admit that the political minority and we are playing a different game. Yglesias' point is important. When you don't have the responsibility of governance (and particularly when the majority goes out of its way to govern in a purely partisan way) you are much freer to operate from a totally political standpoint.

It seems that many Democrats find that cheap or disreputable. But what it is, is opposition politics. Because you have no real power to enact your agenda, the strategy should be to frame the opponents agenda in the most offensive way possible and present an alternative that could not be passed today in either governing coalition but for which you would like to build a consensus over time.

I think that the Roberts nomination should be opposed on the basis of his active hostility to a right to privacy. Others may differ --- he's absurdly business friendly and anti-environmental, so a case can be made against him on that. In fact, he's pretty much everything loathesome I can imagine in a judge, (except that he is not anti-intellectual and he's obviously well qualified for the job.) But we should find a philosophical issue or two that we believe really define the difference between the two parties and begin to inculcate that difference in the minds of the electorate.

It's risky because we have no assurance that people will always agree with us. But that risk aversion is our biggest problem. We seem to think that we can be all things to all people and we just can't. So, we need to stake out a claim and work to bring some people over to our side. That takes time and effort and a willigness to use every opportunity we have in front of the cameras or on the op-ed pages to make our argument to the American people.

PM Carpenter recently discussed Newt Gingrich's recent call to arms in just these terms and clearly illustrates why the other side wins (barely) even though they are not really supported by the people on the issues themselves:

[Newt says] “Our core pattern should be ‘there is a BIG difference [between left and right] and it is a fact….’ We must then take such key facts to immediately illustrate a large vision; we cannot remain in arguments at the detail level.”

If you’re a conservative, odds are you won’t admit what Newt just admitted. If you’re a liberal, you’ll smile at what Newt just admitted, which is that conservatives cannot successfully debate liberals because the details that underlie most debates tend to support the liberal position, not the conservative. If the details supported Newt’s side, rest assured he would be touting the marvels of the fine point.

His outline of political action was also a resoundingly open call to demagogic arms. The “core pattern” he mentioned means, in translation, to repeat, repeat, repeat the “BIG” differences without ever substantiating the conservative arguments behind them. In fact, there should be no conservative arguments - just catchy slogans that appeal to those uninterested in inconvenient details. It’s not the “Big Difference” that Mr. Gingrich stresses as the advisable course of action. It’s the “Big Lie.”

That is the game they have been playing for 25 years and they are winning with it. And it's more than just the fact that they can't win the substantive argument. It's also because they've learned how to define themselves in big, philosophical terms and they successfully used their public platforms throughout their years, in and out of power, to project that definition. They never miss an opportunity.

I don't suggest that we adopt their dishonest demagoguery, but we do have to learn how to counter this effectively. Having wonky analytical arguments may be good for policy (and I hope we will always do this) but politically it's disasterous. Clearly, the public doesn't want to hear the details. If they did, they'd study the issues and vote for the party that most closely aligns with their interestsd --- and the Democrats would have a majority. They want a vision.

We will probably not win on Roberts. The nuclear option is very unlikely to be triggered unless Bush nominates a total nutcase --- and since the bar for that has been set lower than Janice Brown, I don't think it's possible. That's the sad consequence of not winning the presidency or the Senate in the last election. But it doesn't mean that we can't use these occasions to build for the future and make our case. Just because we can't win it today doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to lay the groundwork for winning tomorrow. Are these politicians so spoiled that they simply refuse to stage a tactical defeat, even for a higher purpose?



.
digby 8/18/2005 12:14:00 PM |

 
Acting The Role of Reporters

Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei says Bush spokesman Scott McClellan "is seen as someone who might not tell you a lot, but is not going to tell you a lie. More broadly, we go to the [White House press] briefings if for no other reason to hear the White House spin on world events. They rarely figure into our daily reports because we will talk to Scott and others one on one and not in front of a crowd."

Setting aside the ridiculous assumption that McClellan tells the truth, which is completely unbelievable unless he's a braindead robot, can someone tell me why reporters should get their questions answered in private? The press briefings are purely PR exercises and the reporters should refuse to go instead of giving the white house a platform to spin bullshit as news. If the real news is gathered privately, then the press is simply playing a role in a public relations event.

The reader who pointed this out to me said something to the effect of, "it's easy to see why JD Guckert felt so at home in those briefings." No kidding.



.
digby 8/18/2005 10:57:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

 
Feckless, Photo-op

Kos has posted a handy list of the fine support the Republicans gave their commander in chief when he took action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I urge you all to read it and maybe even print it out to hand to your Republican friends when they get in your face about it being unamerican to not support the president in a time of war.

There is one quote missing from Kos' list, however, and it's one I must have heard a hundred times, from none other than our favorite maverick JJ McCain:

We didn’t have to get into Kosovo. Once we stumbled into it, we had to win it. This administration has conducted a feckless photo-op foreign policy for which we will pay a very heavy price in American blood and treasure.

Iraq, on the other hand, was necessary.



.
digby 8/17/2005 06:14:00 PM |

 
Rationale #459

In case anyone is wondering what is the latest rationale for the war in Iraq, Nicole Devenish, whitehouse spokesperson just said that we are "laying the foundation for peace."

Isn't that great? Why didn't we think of it before? That could serve as a catch-all rationale for any war in history --- and it can be used by either side. "The Emperor of Japan may have been a little bit ambitious when he had his navy bomb Pearl Harbor, but he should be given credit for laying the foundations for peace."

I finding it hard to believe, but this ridiculous notion of David Ignatius'--- that we will be successful if things turn out ok in 30 years seems to be catching on. On Hardball they were busily comparing George Bush to Harry Truman --- because Truman was unpopular while he was re-building Europe and Japan and we all know that Truman was considered to be a great president decades later. Of course he hadn't unilaterally started WWII with a bogus rationale, but that's just a niggling detail.

So we can assume that Junior will be seen as a great president someday just like old Give "Em Hell Harry. He was plainspoken too, don't you know. (Nobody seems to notice the eery resemblance between Bush and his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, however.)

It would seem that in this one unique instance the government is taking the long view. We don't know when there will be peace --- why, it could take years and years. But we know that when Iraq does achieve it, they will have George W. Bush to thank for it. Praise be.



.
digby 8/17/2005 04:45:00 PM |

 
Telling The Story

Michael at Reading A1 wonders why some Democrats seem skittish about Cindy Sheehan. I have wondered this too. It seems as if our side has a knee jerk fear of controversy. I think he correctly diagnoses the problem:

Every so often I'm brought up short by the "discomfort" within the operative class, current or wannabe, toward political demonstration—as if it would be slumming to stand on a hot tarmac with a bunch of sweaty people holding a sign; as if it showed a lack of that so-prized seriousness to speak in and with symbols, rather than engaging in policy debate. Cindy Sheehan is reminding us, we don't especially need policy debate right now. What we need, very badly need, are stories: and story is just what the theater of Camp Casey is giving us. The right-wing talking point—that Cindy Sheehan doesn't really want to engage in dialogue with George Bush, that her demand for the dialogue he won't give her (and wouldn't, even if he were improbably to meet with her) is a sort of playacting—is accurate, but beside the point. The relations of power are difficult to conceptualize, and can be even for people trained to do that sort of thing. There is nothing difficult, on the other hand, about the mother of a dead soldier standing ignored at the end of the man's driveway who sent her son to be killed, waiting stoically in the Texas sun for an answer she knows will never come. Nor is there anything about it that doesn't speak volumes of truth to the ugly situation in which we find our country, five years on in the Rove/Cheney regime.

I'm flabbergasted that anybody on the left has even a moment's hesitation about this, has the least qualm about making use of the gift of symbol Cindy Sheehan is presenting us.

Politically, nothing could be more important for Democrats than to tell the story of Iraq in human terms.

The president got himself re-elected with this image:

As music blared from stadium loudspeakers, Marine One, the presidential helicopter, carrying Bush, his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, and first lady Laura Bush, landed in left field, dusting some of the 10,000 cheering supporters with dirt from the warning track. Bush emerged to the theme of the movie Top Gun.

"The choice in this election could not be clearer," Bush said from a podium set up on second base. "You cannot lead our nation to the decisive victory on which the security of every American family depends if you do not see the true dangers of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Political theatre works. If people could be politically persuaded by civilized debate, the Lehrer News Hour would be the highest rated news show on television. Most people need drama, excitement, pathos, catharsis --- on some level their emotions have to connect with their minds in order to understand.

Up to now, the story of Iraq has been told through the prism of American might and glory. It was a stirring tale. Unfortunately, the story of Iraq isn't really a story of might and glory; it's a story of arrogance, incompetence and human suffering. That's the story that Cindy embodies as she stands out there in the hot sun, surrounded by supporters, asking the president to answer the question for which he has no answer.

The spectacles of 9/11 and Iraq are over. Even the war supporters are singing a different tune now ---- the swashbuckling "I-raq 'n Roll" has given way to the mournful "Arlington." Cindy Sheehan's story is the story of that shift in the zeitgeist. We do not need to be afraid of this; it's good for the country.



.
digby 8/17/2005 02:33:00 PM |

 
They're Killing Us

John Aravosis, linking to Steve Soto's wonderful post about liberal pundit Richard Cohen, says in his headline "good guy, but dead wrong about Karl Rove and the war in Iraq." He may be a good guy, I don't know him, but the problem is that he's dead wrong about a lot of very important things at exactly the wrong moment.

I've written a lot about Richard Cohen over the years because I think he is a large part of what ails our side in this political/civil war. The liberal elite pundits, whom everyone assumes speak for "reasonable Democrats" are the first link in a chain that defines Democrats as being without conviction or belief. Democratic politicians, the media and the strategists take cues from their positions as to what constitues the "correct" liberal position. And it's killing us.

Richard Cohen is the poster boy for this destructive effete punditry. His claim yesterday that the Plame investigation was "not a major story. It's a crappy little crime and it may not be a crime at all," is just the latest in a long line of cocktail party bon mots that seem almost designed to ruin any chances the Democrats have of making headway in the media. Perhaps there is no better example, however, than this one from November 2000:

Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."

At precisely the wrong moment, Cohen made precisely the wrong argument. It is his very special gift. The Republicans can always count on Cohen to give the respectable liberal view that Republicans are really the good guys and prove to everyone else that Democrats are a bunch of wimps.

Yesterday, he claimed that he doesn't blame reporters for getting the Iraq war wrong because they have to rely on their sources, (which we now know is solely comprised of the Bush administration and each other.) John Aravosis politely replies:

I'm a reporter, a writer, an activist, and many other things. And I didn't "get it wrong" like Richard Cohen apparently did. I totally got that something didn't add up BEFORE the war in Iraq started. I remember telling many people that the fact that the rationale for going to war in Iraq had changed, oh, 27 times (literally) had me a bit concerned. I remember telling them that I supported going into Afghanistan but Iraq smelled fishy - Bush didn't have a clear reason for going in and something didn't smell quite right.

Oddly enough, Cohen was an early skeptic of the war. Back in July of 2002 he was questioning the necessity for war:

The reason I started this column with LBJ's letter to Marshall Surratt of Dallas, Texas (a copy of which Surratt recently sent on to me), is that the lack of candour and the willingness to exaggerate the stakes in Vietnam cost both Johnson and the United States dearly. Not only was the triggering event for that war, the Tonkin Gulf incident, either wholly or partly concocted, it was used to justify a policy that had already been decided.

Is the same thing happening with Iraq? Are the events of September 11 being used to justify a goal that was already something of a fixation for some Bush administration figures?

I don't know. But I do know that certain hard questions have not yet been answered.

[...]

The US can take casualties, but only if it understands why. War plans are being drawn up in the Pentagon. But explanations are lacking at the White House.

All it took to turn him into an enthusiastic supporter was Colin Powell, every reasonable liberal pundit's favorite Republican Daddy. He could hardly contain his breathless relief that he could now join in the excitement:

"...the case Powell laid out regarding chemical and biological weapons was so strong -- so convincing -- it hardly mattered that nukes may be years away, and thank God for that. In effect, he was telling the French and the Russians what could happen -- what would happen -- if the United Nations did not do what it said it would and hold Saddam Hussein accountable for, in effect, being Saddam Hussein.

The French, though, are so far deaf to such logic. Their foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that the consequences of war are dire and unpredictable. He is right about that. But the consequences of doing nothing -- and mere containment of Iraq amounts to nothing -- are also dire and somewhat predictable. The United Nations will be revealed as a toothless debating society -- a duty-free store on the East River -- and every rogue will have learned a lesson from Saddam Hussein: Stall until everyone loses interest.

By this point a very large minority in the US and majorities of everyone in the rest of the world were convinced otherwise. There were massive protests that were disregarded as old hippy relics by the beltway media elite. It was clear that they were not being skeptical of any of the many rationales the Bush administration presented --- all they knew was that Bush had decided to go to war come hell or high water and once they knew that they became supporters of the war. Their intoxication was palpable.

And while the Republicans were being extolled for their resolute courage, the Democrats were being portrayed as bedwetting panic artists. This image was used to great effect during the presidential campaign. It was at this point that liberal Richard Cohen, with his usual impeccable timing, chose to admit that he had gotten all askeered about anthrax:

I'm not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack -- more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.

[...]

The terrorist attacks coupled with the anthrax scare unhinged us a bit -- or maybe more than a bit. We eventually went into a war that now makes little sense and that, without a doubt, was waged for reasons that simply did not exist. We did so, I think, because we were scared. You could say we lacked judgment. Maybe. I would say we lacked leadership.

Very inspiring, no? A leading liberal admitting that he supported the Bush administration because he was afraid. Does it get any worse than that?

The Democrats have an image problem. And that image problem is constantly reinforced by the liberal pundits who helped create it in the first place. We are saddled with this milquetoast reputation in large part because the "reasonable" liberal pundits have political tin ears and yet are catered to and listened to by Democratic politicians and their handlers.

Like I said, I'm sure Richard Cohen is a good guy. But no politician anywhere should care what he thinks or listen to him or anyone like him, and there should be a concerted effort to persuade the media that these guys do not speak for us. Richard Cohen is what's killing us.



.
digby 8/17/2005 10:01:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

 
Shoulda Listened To His Daddy

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft Time (2 March 1998)

That's a snarky title, but it's quite true anyway. There are going to be many different ways to evaluate this period in our history, but the prism of the father-son relationship is perhaps the most compelling --- and maybe the most important. That combination of the second rate son with the manipulating neocon advisors is the stuff of Shakespeare.

Look at what Scowcroft and Bush Sr were saying and look at the state of Iraq today. It is breath-taking, isn't it? It can really only be explained by magical thinking on the part of the neocons and the long frustrated desire on their part to conquor something. And Georgie just wanted to do what his father didn't do --- take out Saddam and win a second term. By that standard he's been a rousing success. One wonders if he feels satisfied. He doesn't look it.

In our endless search for explanations as to why they really did this inexplicable thing, Junior's relationship with his father and the neocon psyche are probably the places where the answers truly lie.

I wonder what would happen if a reporter were to ask Junior how he felt about the fact that his father's predictions of failure in Iraq had all come true? I'd really like to see that.



Thanks to Chris K for reminding me of this article.


.
digby 8/16/2005 07:15:00 PM |

 
No Claims Of Fairness Here! :)

I often get a little bit annoyed when people automatically dismiss something written in a partisan publication purely because it is partisan. It's tempting to do that, but it skews your world view if you assume that all conservative or liberal newspapers and magazines are liars. It's important to read them and try to see them as objectively as possible if you want to understand the real state of the debate. Certainly, their editorial policy and choice of stories will favor their side, but I have always assumed that the reputable publications do try to adhere to basic journalistic standards when it comes to straight reporting.

So, this exchange of e-mails between a National Review reader and an investigative writer shows me once again that I have been far too trusting. Evidently NR writers proudly admit to only using Republican sources. And they admit to it with all the naive earnestness of Jimmy Olson:

In hindsight, I really could have worded that sentence better. I certainly wasn't trying to mislead readers or skew the facts. Based on additional research I did this morning, I can see your take is correct.
As far as my heavily GOP sources go, I do write for the biggest U.S. conservative publication. No claims of fairness or objectivity here! :)

Thanks to Matt Stoller for the tip. Read the whole thing. It's a fascinating exchange and a very interesting insight into the way that conservative "reporters" think. Note especially the fact that even though the reporter thinks that Doug Forrester is toast in New Jersey, he happily writes a phony, error riddled probe of Jon Corzine anyway. Just for fun, I guess.



.
digby 8/16/2005 05:35:00 PM |

 
Lock-step Agreement

Reader Richard M sent in this link to an article written by David Shipley regarding the function of the op-ed page of the Ny Times:

The Op-Ed editors tend to look for articles that cover subjects and make arguments that have not been articulated elsewhere in the editorial space. If the editorial page, for example, has a forceful, long-held view on a certain topic, we are more inclined to publish an Op-Ed that disagrees with that view. If you open the newspaper and find the editorial page and Op-Ed in lock step agreement or consistently writing on the same subject day after day, then we aren't doing our job.

How odd then that the editorial page runs a plaintive request for Judith Miller's freedom and the next day the op-ed page runs Bob Dole's spirited defense of Miller's position. It would seem that the gamut of opinion on the subject runs from Miller being a valiant journalist protecting the first amendment and her sources to Miller being a courageous reporter protecting her sources --- and the first amendment.

I'm looking forward to further stirring justifications of Miller on the op-ed pages. Perhaps they could even get Judy herself to write one. After all, she hasn't written one thing on the subject.


.
digby 8/16/2005 04:40:00 PM |

 
"Kick 'Em Out"

I hear liberals say in frustration that they'd like to leave the country or that they'd like to secede, things like that. But I never hear them say that they'd like to kick their political rivals out of the country. Perhaps it's a fine distinction, but it's a distinction nonetheless. Via media Matters, here's Rush:

We just had Stephen Breyer saying, oh, yeah, totally appropriate, we must import what they're doing around the world in other democracies, it will help buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law, and we might learn something, too. Well, here's something I'd like to import. I'd like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate-rhetoric filled mullahs and imams that are stoking anti-American sentiment. Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there.

That first amendment has outlived its usefulness now that the right people are in charge anyway. (Calling the government "jack booted thugs" would be fine under certain circumstances, but not in others, I assume.)

So Rush just openly fantasizes in front of his 20 million listeners about deporting Michael Moore and half (only half?) of the Democratic Party. I'm sure all those Real Americans in their offices and cars just sat back and thought, "yeah, wouldn't it be great is we could just get rid of all those people once and for all?"

In modern parlance I think that could be called "political cleansing." It's been done before --- usually by communists, the modern republican's favorite role models. Totalitarians 'R Us.



.
digby 8/16/2005 11:25:00 AM |

 
Et tu Gail Collins?

The day the so-called liberal New York Times has that old fuck Bob Dole carrying its water for them is the day they have finally sunk to irreparable ignominy.

Yesterday they editorialized about poor little Judy and the freedom of the press:

An investigative reporter for The Times, Ms. Miller was ordered to testify as part of an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is not yet clear where the investigation is going, or why Ms. Miller's testimony was demanded by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor. Intentionally revealing the identity of a covert operative by a government official is a crime, but at this point, the only one serving time in jail is a civilian, Ms Miller.

It is true that some journalists have abused and overused unnamed sources over the years. But in the main, the secret source is not a convenience for the news media or a shortcut for an easy story. He or she is the backbone of a free and independent press. Think about the civil servant who sees a superior lying and breaking the law. Think about the employee who sees a manager whitewashing a report on a hazardous product.

Think about a powerful government official leaking sensitive classified information to the press solely to discredit a critic of the government's policy.

Think about a journalist using the reporter's shield law to protect her from having to testify about her own role in discrediting a critic of the government's policy.

Think about a reporter never being required to write a story about her involvement in a huge case reaching the very highest levels of government.

Think about a reporter lying to her employers to save her own skin.

But it wasn't enough to beat their chests one more time about freedom of the press (to be manipulated by powerful forces), they then hired Dole to follow up with a stirring defense of poor Judy on the op-ed page today. I've been following Dole my whole life. He has a good sense of humor but he's always been a mean partisan asshole. In his old age, especially, he has become a very nasty and willing to say anything. Last summer he used his credibility as a severely wounded WWII vet to go after John Kerry's medals. Now he's weighing in on the Plame investigation as one of the sponsors of the Intelligence Protection Act to claim that Plame wasn't covert.

He boo-hoos about whistleblowers and freedom of the press for half the article. (As if he really cares; this is Bob Dole we're talking about. You can practically see the eye-rolling and the yada-yada-yada.) Once he gets that out of the way, he launches into the impending GOP Fitzgerald meme --- the "out-of-control" prosecutor.

With the facts known publicly today regarding the Plame case, it is difficult to see how a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have occurred. For example, one of the requirements is that the federal government must be taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the agent's intelligence relationship with the United States. Yet we now know that Ms. Wilson held a desk job at C.I.A. headquarters and could be seen traveling to and from work. The journalist Robert D. Novak, whose July 14, 2003, column mentioned Ms. Wilson, using her maiden name, and set off the investigation, has written that C.I.A. officials confirmed to him over the telephone that she was an employee before he wrote his column.

I, of course, do not know what evidence Mr. Fitzgerald has presented to the grand jury, nor will I hazard a guess as to the final outcome of his investigation. But the imprisonment of Judith Miller will be even more troubling if it turns out that no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has occurred.

No he doesn't know what the evidence is, but he and the NY Times are working in tandem to make it look like Pat Fitzgerald is out of control. The liberal media strikes again.

If they think that Bob Dole would ever come to their defense if the shoe were on the other foot, they are out of their minds. Dole would be the first one on the "law 'n order" bandwagon. In fact, you can just feel the dripping sarcasm in his voice as he chokes up over poor little Judy's plight, while softening up Fitzgerald for shiv.

The NY Times is foolishly putting all its eggs in Judy Miller's basket and it's costing them. It's one thing for them to support her legally and financially. But considering the huge controversy about her role in the case, for them to be helping the Republicans discredit the investigation is beyond the pale. They need to recognise that when their editorial stance echoes partisan Republican attempts to discredit the investigation itself, they are in serious danger of putting their loyalty to Miller in service of politics in the worst way. Ironically, that's exactly what Judy has done for the last decade.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's exactly what Howell Raines did throughout the 90's too. Indeed, this is just par for the course in our liberal media. You really can't go wrong if you sidle up to the Republican character assassins. Good copy, big ratings, easy access. It's good business.


Update: According to Arianna's spies, Miller is receiving visits from John Bolton in jail which just strikes me as a foolish thing for both of them to do. Are they that close or are they both just that arrogant?


.
digby 8/16/2005 08:13:00 AM |

 
Deadlines

There is nothing worse to the Bush administration than missing deadlines. They have a fetish about it. Going back to 2000, the post-election argument rested entirely on the idea that if they missed any deadlines for any reason the world would explode. Nothing but nothing, must interfere with a meaningless arbitrary deadline.

There is a reason for this, of course. They are always scrambling to get something finalized before their ill-conceived plans or public lies are exposed. We are witnessing this happening before our eyes once again:

Some specialists said the administration is fixated on artificial deadlines at the expense of addressing substantive issues. "There's no doubt the administration has the ability to force an agreement in the next seven days," but if it is one that does not resolve the underlying issues "that's a much, much bigger failure than failing to meet a deadline," said Judith Kipper, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"There's a bit of a message to the administration: 'Don't rush this. . . . We need to do this right, not fast,' " said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the U.S.-led occupation authority on constitutional issues. The bid to meet the deadline, he added, was driven by the political imperative of bringing troops home as soon as possible. "It's shameful," he said. "It's constitutional malpractice."

But their reasons have nothing to do with what is good for Iraq. They are rushing for the benefit of George W. Bush's political standing. Whenever he's losing support they pull out another artificial deadline. This time, they have real rootin' tootin' experts saying so on the record:

As Gelpi described it, the American people remained supportive of the Iraq effort despite extensive violence when they saw incremental goals being met -- first the handover of partial sovereignty last summer, and then the democratic elections in January.

Since then, he said, public support has fallen because there are no more intermediary benchmarks. Bush could have laid some out in his speech short of a timetable for withdrawal, Gelpi said, such as setting targets for how many Iraqi security forces would be trained by certain dates. That, he said, would give the American public a sense of moving forward as these benchmarks are attained.

"What's important for him now to keep the public with him is to look forward and say we're going to make progress and this is what progress looks like," Gelpi said.

So, they are rushing Iraq to finalize a constitution so that Bush can be perceived as "winning" in Iraq. Let us all wave a purple finger and get a bounce in the polls. And if a few little hitches develop, well, they'll deal with that down the road. hopefully after the 2006 elections.

Besides, Condi is very confident. Even if the talks are stalled on certain sticky issues, she knows what the Iraqis really want:

"It's quite remarkable how much the process has become more inclusive over the last couple of months," Rice said. She added that any final document should guarantee women's rights. "We've been very clear that a modern Iraq will be an Iraq in which women are recognized as full and equal citizens," Rice said. "And I have every confidence that that is how Iraqis feel."

Perhaps the Iraqis "feel" that the Americans "have been very clear that a modern Iraq will be an Iraq in which women are revognized as full and equal citizens" but it looks like they also "feel" that the Americans can go piss up a rope. But whatever. So half the population winds up less free than they were under Saddam. Big deal. It's not like it's really important in the grand scheme of things.

The only thing that matters is that Junior is able to have a press conference and announce "progress" in Iraq so the idiot Americans will be appeased for another month or two. That's the plan anyway.



.
digby 8/16/2005 07:24:00 AM |

Monday, August 15, 2005

 
Shameful Indifference

Speaking of the anti-military right, check out The Editors' "Wanker of the Week" for August 8th, Michel Ledeen:

This is to mourn the murder of the free lance journalist Steven Vincent, a victim of the Sadrist thugs (that is to say, the Iranian-sponsored terrorists) in Basra. His crime was to have written about the fanatics in Basra, who are attempting to create a mini-islamic republic in the south, to the shameful indifference of the British forces and Coalition commanders, and the so-called Left in this country and Europe. If there is ever a day of reckoning, those opinion makers who have remained silent in the face of the monstrous terrorist campaign against the Iraqi people will find it quite impossible to explain their de facto collusion with the terrorists.

He hasn't quite made it as far as the Powerline boys to include the Iraqi people in that litany of traitors, terrorists and incompetents but give hime time.

If only they'd listened to him and sent in General Ahmad Chalabi and his boy scouts this thing would have been a cakewalk. The plan had so much promise. And he looked so cool in his black GI Joe t-shirt:




Memo to those on the right who say the Left supports Islamic fundamentalists: we're the Godless Heathens, remember? We're against the religious zealots running governments across the board. Of course, that includes your "base" here in the US too so you'll have to pardon us for our consistency and ask yourselves why we find you incoherent on this matter.

We always understood that while deposing Saddam was easy, the risk of civil war or an Islamic theocracy were very high. We thought it might be worthwhile to wait for just a fucking minute to see how this little terrorism problem played out before jumping into the middle of the hornets nest and swinging wildly. So, please don't blame us. We don't like totalitarians. We don't like theocrats. And we understood that when you go mucking around in the middle east at the direction of con-men and ideologues, you are likely to fuck things up.

America isn't magic. The military does not have magical powers. We knew this. Michael Ledeen and his fanciful cohorts apparently didn't. Now they are blaming everybody --- and I mean everybody --- but themselves for the failure they have wrought.



.
digby 8/15/2005 09:15:00 AM |

Sunday, August 14, 2005

 
Cheeseburgers In Hell

The cunningrealist caught an interesting Powerline post in which we learn that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" down in Crawford can easily be differentiated.

I'm waiting for the inevitable stories of the hairy, smelly, dirty protesters living like pigs. It's like the sun coming up in the morning.

Meanwhile in case you are wondering how to spot them, here's a picture of a couple of the alleged good guys. Their signs, which feature pictures of Casey Sheehan, say "Freedom isn't Free."



No word on whether either of these two "good guys" ever sacrificed anything for freedom.


.
digby 8/14/2005 01:16:00 PM |

 
Are They Necessary?

Atrios brings up something I've been wondering about. It's assumed by most of us that one of the reasons we are in Iraq is because we want to establish permanent military bases there -- presumably because we had to remove the "temporary" ones we had in Saudi Arabia (at bin Laden's rather dramatic request on 9/11.)

Maybe it's just because I don't fully understand the military dimension but why do we need permanent bases in either Saudi Arabia or Iraq?

We have bases in Turkey. We will have bases in Afghanistan forever. We can get halfway across the world in hours. Our ally Israel is right there. We have ships and subs of all kinds. We have troops in Europe. We have ICBM's armed with nuclear weapons. Hell, we're trying to weaponize space.

I realize that the all knowing PNAC recommends that we create new bases all over the place, partly as a way to reduce the carrier fleet and to redeploy after the cold war, but I've never really understood why we absolutely have to have big, expensive bases smack dab in the middle of hostile territory in the modern world. And as far as I can tell, the neocon braintrust has never fully explained it.

I suspect that there really isn't a military rationale that makes any sense. I suspect that it is another of those show-of-force military pageants of which the neocons are so fond. If we just swagger around in their faces they will be afraid, very afraid.

There is the Israel factor, which I realize. Perhaps that's the only reason, but if so it is not sellable to the American public and it shouldn't be. We support Israel, but invading countries, installing governments, creating chaos and spending 200 billion plus to create bases to protect it when it does a very good job of protecting itself is crazy.

I may very well be wrong on this and there is a perfectly good geo-strategic reason to have 30,000+ troops permanently stationed in the middle of a hostile desert. Please fill me in if you know the answer.


.
digby 8/14/2005 12:38:00 PM |

 
Now watch this spill

Somebody needs to get Karen Hughes on the horn stat. Her boy is really making a mess.

President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and "it's also important for me to go on with my life," on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."

"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides.

He just needs put all this unpleasantness behind him and go on with his life. All this obsession with war,war,war --- death, death death could just drive a boy crazy. Besides, being all thoughtful and sensitive is hard work. It makes him feel unbalanced.



.
digby 8/14/2005 11:17:00 AM |

 
Dying for nothing

"When it all started, we were hearing about nuclear weapons, gas, biological weapons, all sorts of stuff," Blake says. "Of course I thought we should get rid of stuff like that. But now we know that was all bull, and so I now believe I was wrong. But maybe wrong because I was lied to from the start. How are we going to get out? That's what I want to know."

"A couple of years ago, I thought the invasion of Iraq was justified. I believed the reports that stated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and figured it would only be a matter of time before they were found.

Presidential press conference March 6, 2003, a little more than a week before the invasion:

We have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector.

The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?

Iraqi's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews. And hotels where the interviews take place are bugged by the regime.

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.

If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and the world would witness their destruction.

Instead, with the world demanding disarmament and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show while he hides the rest and builds even more.

Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament.

Great Britain, Spain and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

All. Bull.

When you fuck up on that grand of a scale, when you look people in the eye and tell them that you know unequivocally that something is a threat and it turns out that there was nothing --- you are either a liar or an idiot. Or both.

He can run but he can't hide. The chickenhawks are coming home to roost.


.
digby 8/14/2005 10:26:00 AM |

 
Ungrateful Ragheads

Examining the ever expanding list of victims to blame for the cock-up in Iraq, John at Blogenlust notices that Hindquarters has found the ultimate betrayors of America --- and when you think about it, it makes so much sense. Did the right ever seem very comfortable throwing their lot in with a bunch of ... arabs?

This morning, Hindrocket takes Frank Rich to task for saying the war is over, while completely ignoring the Washington Post article that essentially says the same thing. Then he fires the opening salvo of what will surely be the Mother of All Blame Games:

In the medium and long term, what happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. It is certainly possible that they might forfeit what the Bush administration and America's armed forces have given them: a chance at freedom and the opportunity to live in peace with their neighbors. But if the Iraqis fail, it won't be because liberals stampeded the United States into abandoning them.

Yes, let's blame the Iraqis. How dare these ungrateful bastards reject the freedom and peace we've provided them?

I don't think Highpockets thought that one through, actually. Regardless of whether the military have become a bunch of bedwetters, or whether the Iraqis are a bunch of ungrateful ragheads --- no one is more responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in American history than liberals.

This just shows how rattled the right is at the moment. They've temporarily forgotten who the real enemy of the people is.



.
digby 8/14/2005 09:13:00 AM |

Saturday, August 13, 2005

 
The Biggest Strategic Blunder In American History

We broke it, we bought it and now we are throwing it in the trashcan

Yes, very noble.

We're winners.

In case anyone's wondering, aside from the hideous loss of life for no good reason, we have also spent so far 187 billion dollars to depose Saddam and turn the country into an Islamic theocracy and send it into anarchy. Excellent. Very noble. Worth every penny and every life.

The question is, has anyone told the president all this stuff because he doesn't seem to be getting the news. Look for him to angrily deny all this and say that he's the one making decisions and these people don't know what they are talking about.

Maybe it's all trial balloons, but this has a whiff of panic about it. I sense some very serious disarray within the administration. They are all over the place. I'm wondering if a palace coup isn't taking place before our eyes.


Update: Frank Rich says "Somebody tell the president the war is over."

Update II: And then there's this from William Kristol:

The president knows we have to win this war. If some of his subordinates are trying to find ways to escape from it, he needs to assert control over them, overrule them, or replace them. Having corrected the silly effort by some of his advisers to say the war on terror is not fundamentally a war, he now has to deal with the more serious effort, emanating primarily from the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, to find an excuse not to pursue victory in Iraq. For if Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, we need to win there. And to win, the president needs a defense secretary who is willing to fight, and able to win.

Update III: Bush slapping down the Generals
More on military dissatisfaction from BTC News.
Dr Tom More thinks he knows who one of the unnamed senior administration sources is.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the general who was fired recently was having an affair with a female civilian, was separated from his wife and was let go because he was told to end the affair but he called her on the phone. There is something so wrong with that story.


.
digby 8/13/2005 07:42:00 PM |

 
The Latest

I know this isn’t going to popular on this website, but may I just point something out?

A soldier’s #1 job is to stay alive. If you die, you can’t accomplish the mission, and you weaken your team and put your buddies in danger.

Obviously Sheehan’s son, I forget his name at the moment, didn’t die on purpose, and he may well have have had no control over the circumstances that let to his death.

BUT.

In war, there are no excuses. You find a way to stay alive, whatever it takes — if you’re a good soldier. Sheehan’s son didn’t do that. He paid the price. but he als failed the mission and let down his buddies.

As a soldier, he was a failure. He was brave (maybe), but he was also incompetent.

So, really, how much exactly are we supposed to grieve over this guy? Isn’t a certain amount of disapproval in order for the guy — and by extension his mom, for making such a fuss over a person who was, in the last analysis, by definition a loser?

So shouldn’t Mrs. Sheenhan be showing a little more shame about the situation and maybe not wanting to get her son and his shortcoming splashed all over the media?

Something to consider, anyway.

I shouldn't have stolen that from Andrew's comment section, but I needed to get it out there. To start the meme. To provide the right with the argument they've been waiting for.

I've been thinking for a while that we might be seeing the beginning of a new trend in American politics --- the anti-military right. Rush is calling marines "pukes," veterans are being called cowards and fakers, disabled vets are mocked for not having the right wounds or getting them in the right way, GOP hags are wearing cute little "purple heart" bandaids on their cheeks. People are selling busts of the president using his lack of combat experience as a selling point saying outright that physical courage is no longer particularly worthy of conservative approbation. Being a veteran buys you no credibility and no respect in today's Real Murika.

This is how they transform Chickenhawkery into a badge of courage.

I suspect that what we are hearing (aside from the self-loathing fidgeting of those who loudly beat wardrums yet are too selfish to serve) is the distant rumblings of a massive rightwing frustration with the military's inability to just "win" this damned thing so we can move on to our next country. It was supposed to be a cakewalk. They are reading things like this and seeing red:

Administration officials have all but given up any hope of militarily defeating the insurgents with U.S. forces, instead aiming only to train and equip enough Iraqi security forces to take over the fight themselves.

[...]

Top Pentagon officials have made no secret in recent weeks of their eagerness to begin withdrawing some troops to ease the strain of lengthy deployments. At the same time, military commanders have cautioned against expecting that Iraq's new army and police forces will develop quickly enough to operate on their own within another year or two.

"It's a race against time because by the end of this coming summer we can no longer sustain the presence we have now," said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who visited Iraq most recently in June and briefed Cheney, Rice and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "This thing, the wheels are coming off it."

But none of this can't be Dear Leader's fault. He's the man with the real courage.

Bush distanced himself from such predictions Thursday, pointing out that he, not the generals, would have the last word.

"The decision finally will be made by me — upon the recommendation of Gen. Casey, through [Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld, to me," Bush said.

Well thank god for that. None of those pukes over there know what they're doing. It's a blessing that our commander in chief, the man with the political courage to start wars for no reason and bankrupt the country, is in charge. All hail Dear Leader.


Update: Guys, I realize that this might be a parody --- or it might not. Wingnuts are just this crazy these days. That's why wrote the little thing about getting the meme out there and providing them with an argument. It's that absurd.

The larger point, however, is not. The right is getting a little bit disresepctful toward the military these days. It's not marching quite to their tune the yway they want it to --- which is to kick ass and move on.



.
digby 8/13/2005 03:40:00 PM |

 
It's About Time

Check out Arthur's response to the inchoate anger towards Cindy Sheehan. It's a good one.

Returning to the present controversy about Mrs. Sheehan, one aspect of John Cole’s remarks deserves comment:

I think Cindy Sheehan has moved beyond the role of grieving mother, and is now a political figure who gets no free pass for her bizarre, outrageous, and offensive statements.

No one has ever maintained that Cindy Sheehan’s views are entitled to a “free pass.” But it is not her views that are being attacked: it is Cindy Sheehan as a person. Cole thinks many in the “anti-war left” are “cynically exploiting” Mrs. Sheehan’s tragedy. Perhaps some of them are. If that’s true, I wouldn’t like it much (although my mind-reading skills are not too advanced, so I can’t determine people’s motives that easily in the absence of sufficient evidence).

But here’s the truth, which I do not hesitate to name: given the propaganda onslaught that’s gone on for the last several years with regard to Iraq—and the propaganda onslaught that is now underway with regard to Iran, with a still willing and still servile media—I don’t give a damn. Cindy Sheehan is being “cynically exploited” in order to stimulate a national discussion about whether we should get the hell out of Iraq? Good. It’s about goddamned time.

Exactly. Although I'm pretty sure that Cindy Sheehan hasn't been guided or exploited by anyone in her quest. "The left," if you're talking about organizations, can't get it up to do anything that effective. Believe me, the Democrats would have peed their pants at the idea of sending a woman to Crawford to demand to see the president. It's so awfully unseemly you know. Someone might get upset. Besides it isn't manly and we want ever so much to be super-duper manly.

In fact, last year at this time, if you'll recall, Max Cleland went down to Crawford and wheeled his chair right up to the gate. The Democrats got all nervous that it was too ... undignified. Max was getting a little bit shrill, you see, and looked like he might be getting ready to force the secret service to push him off the property in his wheelchair. How indelicate.

No, this was a grassroots move started by one individual who felt strongly enough to put herself on the line. No leftwing group could have ever orchestrated anything this successful.


.
digby 8/13/2005 02:44:00 PM |

 
They're New At This


Here's a blog report from Camp Casey yesterday when the counter protestors arrived. I'm sure everybody's heard by now that they were all chanting "we don't care" which is right up there with "hey, hey ho, ho, social security's got to go" for sheer political brilliance.

But this really cracks me up:

They've got a whole bunch of counter-protesters walking down the street towards Camp Casey like a parade, about 50 people. One is holding a sign that says "Help, I am surrounded by American-hating idiots!" He is apparently quite proud of his sign, Not exactly the brightest bunch!

I just want to shake that guy's hand. He was a plant wasn't he? Wasn't he?



.
digby 8/13/2005 01:53:00 PM |

 
Mendacious, outrageous...

Yesterday I said that Cindy Sheehan is driving the Republicans crazy because she is asking the unanswerable question. The cognitive dissonence is short circuiting their cerebral cortexes. Today The Poorman catches John Cole having a total meltdown, which doesn't surprise me because Cole actually has a brain and he often uses it. These are the first to have their heads explode in situations like this.



If you haven't linked to this Poorman post from Atrios' site already, do so at your own risk. You will laugh until you cry but the evil kitten-man will also implant the nastiest, most unkillable, earworm you've ever had in your life. Don't say I didn't warn you.



.
digby 8/13/2005 01:39:00 PM |

Friday, August 12, 2005

 
The Other Opinion

"Our interest in the event is consistent with our past support of causes related to the victims of September 11 and the veterans of wars past and present," said Eric Grant, spokesman for The Post. "The event was never presented to The Post as a rally to support the war. We would be disappointed if it took that approach."

The Pentagon spokewoman seems to think something different:

Mrs. Barber said organizers and police expect anti-war backlash. "It would be naive to do anything in Washington and not expect the other opinion," she said.

Protesting the walk, she said, would be tantamount to "protesting the events of September 11 or protesting our veterans."

Clearly, this is not expected to be a standard fourth of July, John Philip Sousa freedom-fest. Any child can see exactly what's going on. The pentagon is very cynically using 9/11 as their 3,000-dead-civilian-humans shield to stage a war rally. The bastards.

We have a day set aside to honor Veterans. It's called Veterans Day. The whole country gets the day off and everything. We also have a holiday set aside to commemorate the fallen in wars throughout our history. The whole country gets the day off for that too. It's called Memorial Day. Both of those holidays are appropriate days for the Pentagon to hold events. Veterans Day is the perfect day for a march and a concert --- and they've been holding them on that day for many, many decades. Memorial Day, of course, should be more solemn with the traditional ceremonies at the various War Memorials.

September 11th is a civilian day of mourning. If the Pentagon wants to hold a memorial service for those who died in the Pentagon that day, fine. Staging a march and a concert is in terrible bad taste. And if I'm not mistaken, there were some who were very upset at this kind of thing not long ago --- and that event wasn't paid for by the tax payers and sponsored by the media:

"What a complete, total, absolute sham," said Vin Weber, a former U.S. representative from Minnesota. "The DFL clearly intends to exploit Wellstone's memory totally, completely and shamelessly for political gain. To them, Wellstone's death, apparently, was just another campaign event."

September 11th apparently is just another opportunity to sing along with "I-raq and Roll."

But.... for those of you who won't be able to make it to the big event in Washington, in New York the day before you can go to another memorial rally, organized by Take Back Our Memorial --- which is not sponsored by 9/11 families as it appears, but is instead the work of a confused gay right wing blogger who has a blog called Lime Shurbet. (Like all cosmopolitan, hypocritical wingnut fag hags, Michelle Malkin is a big fan.)

For those who are looking forward to attending the solemn event in New York on the 10th, lets hope that Robert will be there to provide some inspiration on that sad day. Here's what you might expect:

I hope Cindy Sheehan brought lube to Crawford because every anti-war moonbat in this country looks to be jockeying for a chance to ride her ass.

Update: I understand from Robert Shurbet that the web site Take Back Our Memorial, while not being officially sponsored by the some 9/11 family organizations, is acting as a clearing house for various activities they support. Shurbet says these groups are sponsoring the rally so I stand corrected.



.
digby 8/12/2005 09:30:00 PM |

 
Courage

I think we've found Kaye Grogan's day job:

President Bush is a Leader who has the courage to lead. It is political courage. It is not poll driven it is conviction driven. It is consistent and does not change because of pressure or threats of political survival. It is reconfirmed every day. It differs from combat courage in that it is thought oriented not reaction oriented. Combat courage does not necessarily translate into political courage. Combat courage is admirable and you only know if you have it when you are in combat. President Bush has demonstrated that he has political courage and this is why he was re-elected. By owning a bust of President Bush, Commander in Chief you will be making a statement and in a politically charged environment, it takes courage.

Unless your decorating style is early meth lab, it takes courage in any environment. I think the eyes move and everything.

"Combat courage" while admirable (I gue-uss) is nothing compared to "political courage." See, warriors are "reaction" oriented instead of "thought" oriented like our brave preznit. In fact, the whole military is nothing but a bunch 'o pukes when you stop and think about it. Real men don't fight wars. They join the Republican party and run for office and then get re-elected by demonstrating political courage.

And the neat thing is that he's wearing his hot chippendales flight suit in the sculpture. That's because even though he isn't a puke, he's still our Commander in Chief and he looks better in a uniform than any old combat puke ever could.


Update: Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast astutely observes that "resoluteness" and consistency is exactly what child psychologists advise that parents must show to young traumatized children. TV's Supernanny says the same thing -- routine, predictablity are what young children need to feel safe. Jill writes:

In the nearly four years since 9/11, Americans have been like the young children who are the subject of the above article, and they have responded to the President's "consistent" message the way a child would -- as a sign that everything's going to be OK, instead of as an adult should -- by comparing the message to the reality and realizing that this president isn't "resolute", he's delusional.

Changing one's mind and one's approach in light of new evidence is what an adult does. Only a child continues to insist that Santa Claus is real even after catching Mommy and Daddy putting the presents under the tree and eating the cookies. But this insistence on believing everything George Bush says is a symptom of the persistent juvenile state in which American adults have wallowed since 9/11. His "consistency" and the petulant way he has of continuing to insist that the Iraq war ws the right thing to do are reassuring to adults having who are still unable to accept that there's nothing special about our status as Americans that is going to keep us safe in this current world. It's that reassurance that keeps them from facing the lies that he told about why he wanted to go to war in Iraq. Because if Daddy doesn't know what he's talking about, it feels to many people as if the rug was pulled out from under them.

It's polite to say "Americans" but she's really talking about Republicans. The rest of us have felt much more insecure since our "Daddy" sat stunned at the moment of crisis and ever since then has been acting like a drunk 15 year old with the keys to his brother's corvette.



.
digby 8/12/2005 07:40:00 PM |

 
The Appearance Of Winning

This cracks me up. In a story called "No Clear Finish Line" Peter Baker examines the fact that the administration is really becoming stuck in its Iraq policy as the country turns against the war.

Failure to meet the deadline, analysts say, would be a devastating setback to Bush and could accelerate the sense at home that the process is not going well. Alarmed by falling domestic support for the war, Bush aides resolved in June to rally the public by having the president take a more visible role explaining his strategy and predicting victory. Bush flew to Fort Bragg, N.C., to deliver a prime-time address pleading for patience, part of what aides said would be a sustained campaign.

But Bush then largely dropped the subject until yesterday's meeting at the ranch, addressing the war mainly in reaction to the latest grisly events on the ground. In the ensuing vacuum, Rumsfeld and the U.S. effort in Iraq have come under increasing fire even from Bush supporters, such as Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and the American Spectator magazine.

"The Bush administration has lost control of its public affairs management of this issue," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose analyses of wartime public opinion have been studied in the White House. "They were so focused on this through 2004. . . . I don't know why they've slipped."

Now let's think about this. In 2004 what was going on? Oh that's right. A presidential election. And who was running that election? Oh that's right, Karl Rove. Hmmm --- what's happened since then that would put them so off their game?

And even more astounding, what could have happened in Iraq that made them lose control of the public affairs management? Could it be --- reality?

Gelpi, if you recall, is one of the public opinion experts who told the president that people don't care about why a nation goes to war, only if it can win:

In shaping their message, White House officials have drawn on the work of Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts. Feaver, who served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early years of the Clinton administration, joined the Bush NSC staff about a month ago as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform.

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.

"The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed," Gelpi said in an interview yesterday.

[...]

In studying past wars, they have drawn lessons different from the conventional wisdom. Bush advisers challenge the widespread view that public opinion turned sour on the Vietnam War because of mounting casualties that were beamed into living rooms every night. Instead, Bush advisers have concluded that public opinion shifted after opinion leaders signaled that they no longer believed the United States could win in Vietnam.

Most devastating to public opinion, the advisers believe, are public signs of doubt or pessimism by a president, whether it was Ronald Reagan after 241 Marines, soldiers and sailors were killed in a barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, forcing a U.S. retreat, or Bill Clinton in 1993 when 18 Americans were killed in a bloody battle in Somalia, which eventually led to the U.S. withdrawal there.

The more resolute a commander in chief, the Bush aides said, the more likely the public will see a difficult conflict through to the end. "We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely. "We want them to understand there's a political process to which the Iraqis are committed and there's a military process, a security process, to which we, our coalition partners and the Iraqis are committed. And that there is progress being made but progress in a time of war is tough.

There is nothing that isn't just a matter of PR and marketing to these people. Unfortunately when your soft drink tastes like horse piss, you have a problem no matter how resolute you are about saying it tastes good. Apparently they all agree that if the president just goes around singing "I'd like to build Iraq a coke" until you feel like jamming icepicks in your eardrums, everyone will be satisfied.

Here's the problem. People might be willing to stay the course and stick with the mission --- if they knew what it fucking was. They've changed their rationale so many times that nobody has a clue. And people aren't as dumb as these guys think they are. Setting phony "benchmarks" in a process nobody understands isn't "winning."

What does winning in Iraq mean? That we've created a beautiful Jeffersonian democracy in the mid-east that is so successful that everybody sees it and says "I want that too?" Or is it "training" the Iraqi forces to become the new strongman's Gestapo? Is it an Islamic state along the lines of Iran? Or is it as David "let them eat cakewalk" Ignatius says, we will have won if Iraq finally gets down to having a functioning society 30 years from now?

Ridding the world of evil, or winning the war on terror, or spreading freedom and democracy are impossible to quantify. It's undoubtedly one of the reasons why,as Wolfowitz put it so prosaicly, WMD was the only reason "they could all agree on." (And then there turned out not to be any...)

You can't convince people they are winning a war that has no real purpose and is unwinnable in any real sense. These are slogans not goals. The president can blather on forever about how resolute he is but unless he can convince people that he knows what winning is, and that it's a cause the American people actually want to win (as opposed to installing a new Ayatollah in iraq)and that we are actually, you know, winning, it cannot work.

It was fine during the presidential campaign when people were making a one on one comparison and judged that he was the one they thought could "win" --- whatever it was. Now that he's out there on his own, he's actually going to have prove it. And he can't. Because I don't think he gives a shit about freedom and democracy and wouldn't have th first clue about how to define what winning in Iraq would be.

He's probably going to declare victory and strut around in a codpiece sometime around election day. It bought him some time before --- at this point I think all he cares about is getting through these next three years and then demanding blow jobs from the Carlyle Group for the rest of his life. The only winning he ever cared about was winning the last election.



.
digby 8/12/2005 06:22:00 PM |

 
Gearing Up


Amanda Marcotte and quite a few others are upset that NARAL pulled their ad. But I think the ad did what it was intended to do. They were only running it in a couple of states, remember. It was designed to cause controversy. And it succeeded. Yesterday the story was on the front page of the NY Times.

They used the swift boat model. Oh yes, all the congoscenti are clutching their pearls and the anti-choice groups are running their own ads and everybody's in a tizzy. But just as the swift boat ads were targeting veterans and military types who were possibly lulled into complacency by Kerry's war record, NARAL is targeting pro-choice women who may not yet realize how high the stakes have suddenly become. They are trying to wake them up to the threat and sometimes it takes a firestorm to do that. The details don't matter, it's the headline and the image.

I don't know if the tactic succeeded, but I don't believe it hurt the greater cause any, despite the handwringing about its "intemperence." (Where would we be if liberal pundits couldn't call for the smelling salts everytime some liberals forget their manners.) They could put on a tea party and have everyone wear white gloves and the right would still say the feminazis are on the march.

NARAL is playing a rough game and they are willing to take some heat to do it. They give cover to pro-choicers in the Senate who feel they must pretend to be above such nastiness to do their solemn duty (although why the other pro-coice groups piled on is beyond me.) They'll now put out a more "temperate" ad that will not inspire nearly the same level of vitriol --- and the other side is running ads about ads, always a good thing. I think it was a pretty good play.

Let's face some ugly facts. Roberts is almost assuredly going to be confirmed. I wish I had some hope that we could stop him -- hell, I wish we could stop all of them. Not that we shouldn't try, but unless something really shocking is revealed I just don't see it. There is no way that the gang of 14 is going to go along with a filibuster on this guy and it will take pictures of him dressed in his Peppermint Patty costume with Karl Rove naked on a dog leash to get enough Republican defectors. (That would probably lock in their support, actually)

No, the point here is to punch hard for Rehnquist's seat --- the one that will swing the court definitively. I know we don't want to have to face this, but the fact is that when we "lost" last November it always meant that a guy like Roberts, right wing hit man that he is, would probably be the best we could hope for. Which is nothing.

For the pro-choice advocates, the stakes could not be higher. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, they are looking at spending years -- decades -- fighting tooth and nail in places like Alabama, Missouri, Utah and Mississippi to try to win back for women the rights they have had for the last 30 years.

I know that some people think that's a radical and unlikely outcome, and I can't figure out why. It is quite clear that a fairly large number of states are going to make abortion illegal and very quickly too. While some Democrats blithely discuss whether it wouldn't really "be better" if the states handled abortion and allowed the local people to decide such a thing (never mind that the woman who needs an abortion and can't just jump on a plane to California will just have to take one for the team) for pro-choice advocates it means that they are going to have to ramp up their advocacy to unprecedented levels, hire huge staffs to begin the legal challenges and defenses that are going to be required in probably at least 25 legislatures and courts.

They are rallying their troops in hopes that they will be able to stop that horrid eventuality, but if they can't they are going to need lots and lots of help and they know it. And all the while the constitutional right to privacy that undergirds the entire panoply of reproductive freedom issues is going to remain under assault.

I would suggest that any young lawyers out there who are sympathtic with this cause study up on the history of abortion law in your state and begin to think about strategies. It's highly unlikely that Roe vs Wade is going to stand. No matter how much people believe that keeping it legal is a masterful Rovian strategy to keep the rubes hungry, they are going to have to deliver someday. They will do it by throwing it to the states. The rubes will then be more than thrilled to keep fighting for the fetus there.



Update: I just realized that none other than Bob Novak, who must be back on his meds (or I need to go on some) more or less agrees with me that this isn't really about the Roberts nomination and that NARAL is playing a longer game.

The current hard count for Roberts is 60 senators. That would be more than enough to confirm him and barely enough to end a filibuster. But it is not enough to further the grand strategy for a conservative court. At least 70 votes for confirmation may be needed to make it comfortable for President Bush to name somebody at least as conservative as Roberts to the next vacancy, which soon may be in the offing.

The 30-second television ad aired nationally by NARAL Pro-Choice America this week claimed that Roberts as a young Justice Department lawyer supported bombing of abortion clinics. In fact, he worked on a brief intended to protect peaceful picketing. NARAL's approach was not meant to sway the Senate but to pick off nervous Democrats and perhaps a Republican or two, keeping Roberts as close to 60 votes as possible. The president and his closest advisers then would have to ask themselves: If a nominee as squeaky clean as John Roberts cannot do better than this, can we risk nominating another conservative for the next vacancy?

For those of you playing at home, if Novakula is right we have at least 14 5 Democrats who are going to vote for Roberts. I say "at least" because it's theoretically possible that a Republican or two (or Jeffords) might not. There will be no filibuster.

Novak is probably right that in that case, barring a shocker, this is all about keeping the vote low enough that Bush doesn't think he can nominate Randell Terry next time. The best we can hope for is to play at the very margins. Depressing.



.
digby 8/12/2005 06:10:00 PM |

 
When Will Iraq Be Free?

An e-mail from Rick Perlstein and some of the comments from others to my post below, have made me realize that there is a corollary to The Question:

George Bush said that Casey Sheehan died in a noble cause. We know that this noble cause was not to "disarm Sadam Hussein" because Saddam Hussein had already been disarmed. Perhaps some thought that he hadn't and so pushed for war, but that is not noble. That's a terrible mistake.

We know that this noble cause was not to fight terrorism. There was no terrorism in Iraq, it had no association with 9/11 and they knew it. The terrorist mastermind of 9/11 remains at large -- his number two guy just put out another video. By all accounts the invasion of Iraq has inspired terrorist recruiting. And terrorists just attacked London, the capital of our closest ally. Perhaps some thought that invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism in order to fight terrorism was noble, but it isn't. That's a horrible delusion.

So, we are left with the final reason. We are there for the noble purpose of bringing freedom to the middle east.

The question then becomes: Have we brought freedom to Iraq?

It is occupied by a foreign power and is dividing and sub-dividing among ethnic and religious factions that are killing Americans and each other. And they are very likely to put in place religious laws that will make half of the country, along all religious and ethnic lines, demonstrably less free than they were under Saddam. Our occupation is creating conditions that make freedom more unlikely than if we leave. As president Bush famously said, "they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

So, I ask these people who can so easily dismiss all the earlier reasons they fervently believed demonstrated that invading Iraq was a noble and just cause: If we haven't yet brought freedom to Iraq, when will Iraq be free?

I certainly hope that nobody is going to say that Casey Sheehan died so that Iraq can spend the next thirty years in a civil war, as the Marie Antoinette of the beltway, David Ignatius, suggested. He believes that America's noble cause will be a success if we turn Iraq into Lebanon circa 1975:

The alarm bells are ringing in Iraq this summer. I don't agree with Gaaod that it's time to abandon Iraqi democracy. And I don't think the Bush administration should jettison its baseline strategy of training Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. troops. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq this week carried the implicit message that America's time, money and patience in Iraq are not endless. The Iraqis must step up and find their own solutions.

Wise observers see new cause for anxiety. John Burns of the New York Times suggested last Sunday that an Iraqi civil war may already have begun, in the Sunni suicide attacks against Shiite targets and in the anti-Sunni death squads that are said to have been organized by Shiite militias. Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote a column yesterday, "Preparing for a shipwreck in the Middle East," in which he cautioned: "The American adventure in Iraq -- creative, bold and potentially revolutionary -- threatens to sink under the weight of a Sunni insurgency that has fed off the Bush administration's frequent incompetence in prosecuting postwar stabilization and rehabilitation."

A useful rule about Iraq is that things are never as good as they seem in the up times, nor as bad as they seem in the down times. That said, things do look pretty darn bad right now, and U.S. officials need to ponder whether their strategy for stabilizing the country is really working.

Pessimists increasingly argue that Iraq may be going the way of Lebanon in the 1970s. I hope that isn't so, and that Iraq avoids civil war. But people should realize that even Lebanonization wouldn't be the end of the story. The Lebanese turned to sectarian militias when their army and police couldn't provide security. But through more than 15 years of civil war, Lebanon continued to have a president, a prime minister, a parliament and an army. The country was on ice, in effect, while the sectarian battles raged. The national identity survived, and it came roaring back this spring in the Cedar Revolution that drove out Syrian troops.

What happens in Iraq will depend on Iraqi decisions. One of those is whether the Iraqi people continue to want U.S. help in rebuilding their country. For now, America's job is to keep training an Iraqi army and keep supporting an Iraqi government -- even when those institutions sometimes seem to be illusions. Iraq is in torment, but the Lebanon example suggests that with patient help, its institutions can survive this nightmare.

I'll probably be dead by the time Iraq would get through the next 35 years of bloodshed, along with hundreds of thousands of much younger Iraqis and Americans who will be killed before their time, so I won't be able to celebrate the noble success of keeping institutions, as opposed to people, alive.

Spencer Ackerman in TNR said it best:

In this blithe description, fifteen years of carnage and atrocity followed by a further fifteen years of foreign domination was merely a prelude to the hopeful scenes of Martyrs' Square. (Hey, you need martyrs, right?) It's a debatable contention whether the "national identity" of Lebanon survived, though sectarian loyalty certainly deepened. What aren't debatable contentions are that 100,000 people didn't survive, nearly another million were displaced, and one of the world's premier jihadist networks, the still-powerful Hezbollah, was born. These aren't footnotes, and I have a feeling that the participants of the Cedar Revolution would never dream of treating them as such.

So, yes, an Iraqi civil war--which could be as bad as, or even worse than, Lebanon's civil war--really is the end of the debate about whether the decision to invade Iraq was justified. (As TNR editorialized a year ago: "Iraq's political future could well be decided by guns rather than ballots. If another dictator murders his way to power, or the country dissolves into violent fiefdoms, the war will have proved not just a strategic failure, but a moral one as well.") Sure, something would follow a civil war, but our enterprise won't and shouldn't be judged by that far-distant outcome. Instead, it should be judged by the path that led, under U.S. auspices, to widespread sectarian violence.

If we invaded Iraq to liberate it only to watch it decend into chaos,sectarian violence or fundamentalist theocratic rule (which we will, of course, eventually escape because as Don Rumsfeld says, "our patience is not infinite") then invading Iraq will finally, definitively not be a noble cause. Freedom may be untidy --- this is a bloody misbegotten mess. It is possible that this will not happen. But each day that goes by the odds are getting worse. And in every measurable way so far, the Iraqis in their everyday lives are less free than they were before. They are in constant danger of being killed in random and not so random violence over which they have no control. Violent anarchy is not freedom.



Oh, and by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism continues unabated.



.
digby 8/12/2005 01:01:00 PM |

 
The Question

I've been wondering what it is about Cindy Sheehan that's gotten under people's skin. Her loss is horrible and everyone can see that she is deeply pained.(Only the lowest, cretinous gasbags are crude enough to attack her in her grief.) She's a very articulate person and she's incredibly sincere. But she's touched a deeper nerve than just the personal one.

A couple of months ago, when the Downing Street Momos came out and the media elite pooh poohed them as nothing but old news, I wrote a post called "The Elephant":

...the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.

Have any of you been at a social gathering in which this question comes up? Have you felt the palpable discomfort? Nobody really knows. Those that adhere to the "CIA fucked up" rationale can't explain Downing Street. Those who think you had to back the government in a time of war, are visibly discomfitted by the fact that we never found any WMD. Flypaper is crap...

Yes, we already knew the intelligence was fixed, we knew they understood that Saddam was no threat, we knew they lied to the American people and we knew that they intended to go to war no matter what.

But we still don't know for sure why they did all that. Until we do, I don't think we will be able to figure out how to deal with it.

I asked "why did we invade Iraq" and commenters had dozens of possible reasons. Everybody "knows" why Bush did it -- oil, revenge, imperial ambition, because he could etc, etc etc. There are many possible reasons and perhaps the truth is that there wasn't one reason. But we really don't know.

Atrios posted a question from a reader around that time about the same subject in which he or she asked:

...Can’t someone come up with a pithy sound bite that captures this and makes it accessible to a non-political, non-foreign policy public? I love your indignation and your explanations, but I have a hard time seeing this go anywhere without a talking point that even a Democratic senator can remember.

That's what Cindy Sheehan has finally been able to do. And it's why she's driving the Republicans crazy.

I said I want the president to explain what was the noble cause that my son died in, because that's what he said the other day when those 14 marines were killed. He said their families can rest assured that their sons and daughters died for a noble cause. And I said, "What is that noble cause?"

It is not an academic exercise for her. She lost her son --- and she'd like to know why. Nobody can explain to her -- or to any of us --- why we invaded Iraq and why people are dying. They said it was to protect us -- but it wasn't a threat. Then they said it was to liberate the Iraqi people, but Saddam and his government are a memory and yet the Iraqi people are still fighting us and each other. Our invasion of iraq has inspired more terrorism, not less. Oil prices are higher than they've ever been. The country is swimming in debt. People are being killed and maimed with the regularity of the tides.

And everybody knows this. Deep inside they know that something has gone terribly wrong. We were either lied to or our leaders are verging on the insanely incompetent. That's why when Cindy Sheehan says that she wants to ask the president why her son died --- in those simple terms --- it makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It's not just rhetorical.

She literally doesn't know why her son had to die in Iraq. And neither do we.


.
digby 8/12/2005 08:47:00 AM |

 
And I Thought That Horse Story Was Bad.

TBOGG "just made America throw up a little in its mouth."

I may never recover.
digby 8/12/2005 08:38:00 AM |

Thursday, August 11, 2005

 
Love Those Nurses

Poor Arnold. He's working so hard to "get dah special intests oud of Sahcramento" that he hardly has time for anything else. He needs to have some fun.

Sticky Fingers! Arnold wants $100k To Hang Out at Rolling Stones Concert With Him

Dear Boston Rolling Stones Fans,

This Sunday Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will join you at the Fenway Park concert. His guests, likely to include some of MA's biggest corporations and most devoted Republican funders, will be paying $100k to hang out with the Governor. Isn't ticket-scalping illegal? The 'cheap seats' will be section B4--this is where the little corporations (those only coughing up $10k of their shareholders' money) will be seated. Turn and say hi. And know that the money raised is going to cut school funding, attack nurses and other union members, subsidize drug companies, and restrict choice/privacy rights.

Dear Mick--how about changing "My Sweet Neo-Con" to "My Sweet Schwarzen-Con?"

Best,

California's Nurses

.
digby 8/11/2005 03:58:00 PM |

 
Be Sure To Wear Red

Hey, what's a little Triumph Of The Will march among friends? Christopher Hayes contributing editor, In These Times, says:

Yesterday we learned that the Department of Defense is planning a massive "America Supports You Freedom Walk" for the fourth anniversary of 9/11. Bracket for a moment the heinous company in which this this places the Bush administration (Cuba, Iran, and China, just to name a few of the regimes that regularly utilize state-sponsored marches and rallies as propaganda tools), and bracket for a moment the fact that this march for "freedom," which will take place on public streets, apparently requires participants to register with the DoD. There's one aspect of this whole mess I'm surprised hasn't received more attention. Check out this paragraph from the Pentagon's press release:

"The walk was made possible with the help of several local in-kind supporters, including Stars and Stripes newspaper, Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Subway, Washington Post, Lockheed Martin, WTOP, ABC/WJLA-TV Channel 7 and News Channel 8, and the Washington Convention & Tourism Corporation, according to the Freedom Walk Web site."

I count four different media outlets in that list. Funny, I thought it was the role of the press to challenge not collude with the government when it attempts to disseminate propaganda. And propaganda this is, let's be very clear. One supposes that the suits at the Washington Post Company who OK'ed the partnership with the DoD figured the sentiment of "supporting the troops" is so anodyne as to be wholly uncontroversial, akin to news anchors wearing flag pins on their lapels. If the rally were sponsored by some independent group of citizens, that'd be one thing (though still strange), but it is being organized by the United States military, the same entity currently administering and promoting an increasingly unpopular war, one that remains the single biggest news story in the nation and the subject of much public debate. This is a not a "support the troops" rally but rather, a "support the war" rally. Media outlets simply have no business granting their imprimatur to such a crudely political stunt.

.



digby 8/11/2005 03:16:00 PM |

 
Step Into The Shower My Boy

Not only do they not have a sense of humor, they have no talent. And they're proud of it. Here we have Karl Rove's special Christian blowjob purveyor, Tim Goeglein, making the assertion that liberals choose different professions than conservatives because a couple of Democratic friends of his said at a dinner party that they wanted their kids to be writers or editors. He finds this surprising because his Republican friends want their children to be doctors, lawyers or businessmen.

I was under the impression that lawyers were mostly Democratic scum, but whatever. And what's with all this elitist ejamacated bullshit? I thought the salt of the earth Republicans wanted their kids to be real men --- soldiers and athletes, and real women -- wives and mothers.

The point apparently is that liberals are the girlie-men artists, writers and musicians, while the Republicans are the manly men who run the world with their huge penises.

The article then goes on to interview conservative writer Mark Helprin who complains that the NY York review of books always mentions that he's a Republican, but never mentions that Norman Mailer is a Democrat. I guess it never occurs to him that the fact he is a Republican is the most distinguishing thing about him while Mailer is well --- a literary genius and American icon. (Who would happily kick his ass, even today, I have no doubt.)

The erudite Helprin then says:

"The arts community is generally dominated by liberals because if you are concerned mainly with painting or sculpture, you don't have time to study how the world works. And if you have no understanding of economics, strategy, history and politics, then naturally you would be a liberal."

On the other hand, if you are concerned mainly with drinking til you puke and branding the asses of your frat brothers, you are a conservative hero.

Seriously, he's right, though. Anyone who studies fine arts is by definition someone who knows nothing of economics, strategy, history and politics. Especially if they waste time reading that limp wristed, know-nothing William Shakespeare. None of the great poets, painters and sculptors ever depicted historical scenes or figures so you can surely skip that useless drivel. The classics, of course, have nothing to teach about any of this. It's a good thing that generals and leaders of all stripes have scrupulously avoided reading them over the years because the last thing we need is some mincing bookworm running things.

Economics, I agree, are not a big part of the liberal arts curriculum, but "Atlas Shrugged" certainly is, and sadly for humanity, I suspect that that is the first and last econ book that most conservatives ever cracked. Unfortunately, some of them get it confused with their other favorite novel, the Bible.

So, he's right. We know nothing of the world and that is why we are liberals. Unlike the Republicans who believe the Bible is literally true and that the scientific method is religion. We should definitely leave the running of the world to those folks.

Truly, I'm beginning to think this is a mass form of male panic. Everything has been reduced to prancing queers and the manly men who are bravely fighting them back. The social re-ordering wrought by the gay and women's movement over the past 40 years has obviously been too much for certain people whose brains are unable to deal with rapid change. They are short circuiting. Maybe we should think about putting Viagra in their kool-aid or something.



.
digby 8/11/2005 09:20:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

 
Pro Choice Veterans For Truth

I am with Brad Plumer on this argument about NARAL. NARAL has a specific agenda and its only hope of keeping that agenda as strong as possible is to keep the Democratic party on the straight and narrow on abortion rights. From their perspective, it makes a lot of sense to endorse an occasional blue state pro-choice Republican --- certainly against an anti-choice Democrat.


Brad says:

Call me cynical, but I don't believe for a second that modern-day Democrats would think twice about selling out a constituency or interest group for the sake of electoral gain. Not a warm and fuzzy picture of the home team, but there you go. The moment NARAL gives the party reason to take pro-choice constituents for granted, they'll get shafted. Look at black voters, or unions, over the past decade. Look at how the religious right has been roundly abused by the Republican Party. (When's that gay-marriage amendment coming? Oh right, never. Chumps. Now keep voting for us.) Parties always pander towards groups that are in danger of defecting; they know they can screw over the loyal core somewhat, so long as there are no consequences. Unless NARAL shows that there are consequences, such as endorsing a pro-choice Republican in a blue state, they'll get taken for granted. Maybe that's due to sexism on the part of the Democratic leadership, but mostly it's just the way coalitions work.

Now some have argued that NARAL should line up behind the party simply because any Democratic majority in Congress would best protect abortion rights. Kos: "When Democrats regain power, choice, the environment, worker's rights -- the whole gamut -- will be protected." I'm sorry, but bullshit. Hark back to 1976, when both houses of Congress, controlled by Democrats, passed the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding for abortions. Gerald Ford signed it into law, but it was Jimmy Carter who had heartily endorsed the bill, and was ready to make it a campaign issue. A major, major victory for pro-lifers all-around, perhaps one of their biggest to date.

I understand that we all need to stick together, but if I were NARAL I'd be getting very, very concerned about some Democrats' willingness to "soften" their stance on the issue of choice because it's allegedly hurting the party --- you know, moral values and all that. I might just think it's smart to show some muscle. There is no way I'd blindly trust anyone in this environment to fight this battle for me.

There is a great example of how this works over the long haul and it comes from the grandaddy of all single issue groups --- the NRA. They are certainly an indispensible and active part of the GOP coalition as they've always been, but they have plenty of Democrats on their side now too. And they did not get to where they are by being good little GOP soldiers. They fought every single battle on the gun issue alone and they insisted on every candidate they backed being on board. When they started their campaign it was not the default mainstream position in either party.

And they backed plenty of Democrats over Republicans if they had to. Sometimes they backed the losing candidates because they were in urban elections where the Republican couldn't win without endorsing gun control. And if there ever existed a red state Republican who was for gun control you can bet that the NRA would back a Democrat who was against it --- even if control of the Senate depends on one seat (which is not the case for Chafee.) In Illinois, for instance, Governor George Ryan was elected to office in 1998 over an NRA-backed Democrat. In the last election they didn't endorse either senate candidate in Oklahoma because both had a 100% rating with the NRA. The issue was off the table and so were they. More often they support NRA Republicans over NRA Democrats, but that's just smart politics considering who presently owns the government. They keep focused like a laser on what matters to them and they have done this during good times and bad for the GOP.

But does anyone believe that even though they are a single issue "special interest" that the NRA doesn't help the Republican party in the most substantial way possible? They've pretty much killed us in the rural areas and turned the red states blood red. They've won. Except in big cities, this issue is dead. Republicans have nothing but respect for them --- even if they backed a Democrat or two along the way. They know what they brought to the party.

Interest groups have always been around they can be very helpful to the political party that hews most closely to their agenda, as we've seen with the NRA. In fact, virtually everybody is a special interest of some kind --- even bloggers, who are now representing the "netroots" who have their own concerns and issues they want addressed. These interest groups have infrastructure and loyalty --- two things we still need. If there are certain people for whom choice is the defining political cause of their life, we want them. But no organization is going to be able to -- or want to -- sell their members a candidate who does not agree with their defining cause. They lose their credibility when they do that and then they lose their organization. We can't afford to lose any sympathitic institutions-- we barely have any as it is.

NARAL feels threatened and rightfully so. There are a lot of Democrats who seem to be awfully willing to consider jettisoning their cause. They are exercising their clout among pro-choice believers. And we need some people who are independent of the party apparatus to do certain things like this:

An advertisement that a leading abortion-rights organization began running on national television on Wednesday, opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as one "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week-old confirmation process.

Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair, and a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with an opposing advertisement.

[...]

A conservative group, Progress for America, said it would spend $300,000 to run ads, beginning Thursday, on the same stations on which the Naral ad is appearing. "How low can these frustrated liberals sink?" its advertisement asks.

Oh boo fucking hoo. I'm trying to remember how many veterans groups denounced the swift boat ads. Funny, I can't think of any. Yet, the first thing out the timorous non-NARAL pro-choice community is how "intemperate" the ad is.

You want to see some aggressive progressives -- here they are. NARAL. Fighting for what they believe in. They are getting this issue on the front page of the NY Times and they aren't backing down. Good for them.


.
digby 8/10/2005 08:57:00 PM |

 
Logical Dumbness

Bob Somerby has made a rare mistake in logic and since it is so rare, I feel compelled to point it out. He says:

For the record, we still haven’t seen a single scribe note the obvious problem with the Palmeiro story—the fact that you’d never take a heavy-duty roid in a year when you knew you’d be tested. What’s the missing piece of the puzzle? Sports scribes seem determined not to ask. But then, the human ability to look past the obvious has driven a wide range of public discussions in the years since we started THE HOWLER. Despite iconic claims about “man, the rational animal,” dumbness is part of our human inheritance.

For some reason Bob does not ascribe the same observation here to Palmiero. It's true that dumbness is part of our human inheritance, which is why is just as possible that Raffy stupidly took steroids in a year he was going to be tested as it is that the press has not thought to wonder if Raffy could really be that stupid.

It has to be pointed out that drug tests are given all the time to people who know they are going to be tested --- and they test positive. I can't explain why they think they can get away with it, but they do.

Certainly Palmiero would have been dumb to take steroids right now, but he's a major league player under a huge amount of pressure to perform. Maybe he got some bad information and thought this particular drug wouldn't register. Maybe he was told by his team that they'd overlook it. It's also possible that he was set up or the test was wrong. But really, it's fairly common for people to fail scheduled drug tests, and for the most obvious reason of all --- because they took drugs.

I don't know if he did it or not. But I don't think that the logic that it would be a dumb thing to do is a very convincing reason to flay the press for not being more skeptical of the charges. People do dumb things all the time. Especially the press --- and sometimes even star athletes.


.
digby 8/10/2005 07:27:00 PM |

 
Go Cindy

Head over to Joe Trippi's place and listen to Cindy Sheehan's blog call. She's just great.

You'll get to hear the mellifluous voices of some of your favorite bloggers, too...
digby 8/10/2005 05:09:00 PM |

 
Crude But Effective

I'm sure that US advisers counseled trumped-up impeachment or a bought-and-paid-for recall, but the Iraqis had no use for our "democratic" methods for removing the mayor of Baghdad from power. They just deposed him. Very efficient. Tom DeLay took notes.



.
digby 8/10/2005 01:39:00 PM |

 
Playing For Time

Kevin wonders why the White House appears to be bobbling the Roberts nomination citing this article in the Washington Post this morning:

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

[...]

While the White House plays catch-up in studying Roberts's past, it is facing complaints from some of its conservative supporters about what they feel has been a stumbling campaign for the nominee.

Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, said in the days after the nomination "there was a drop-off of message and focus."

I think this is mostly kabuki. There had always been concern that Roberts was being nominated too early --- a clearly political decision to take the heat off of the Plame investigation:

... a conservative icon in Washington is worried because the White House rejected his advice regarding the timing of its announcement of Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. Free Congress Foundation founder and president Paul Weyrich says opposition groups will now have a month to rally their forces and voice their opinions on Roberts before hearings begin in late August.

"I pleaded with the White House not to make the appointment until the end of August because if it is made now, and Congress then goes out of session, you will have all the left-wing groups screaming about the appointee," Weyrich says. That vocal opposition has already begun.

According to Weyrich, the White House response to his request was lukewarm. "You know, it was just a 'thanks for your input' type of thing," he recalls. "I'm not sure they really comprehend what will happen to their nominee if the nominee's good."

Weyrich voices concern that the month-long interval before hearings begin will give those opposed to Roberts time to build their objections to a fever pitch. He says that happened once before to another Supreme Court nominee -- Robert Bork.

They knew there was going to be time to sully Roberts which is why they have "just decided now" to thoroughly review all these documents before they can release them.

I don't deny that there is probably some disarray at the White House. They have been off their game for a while. But I think they probably decided they could draw out the fact-finding enough through the month of August to make nominating him early worthwhile. It's risky for them. Who knows what could seep out? But they are now in precarious enough waters that they have to take some political risks.



.
digby 8/10/2005 01:17:00 PM |

 
Guerilla Blogging

For all of you who might be interested, check out this fascinating study on the progressive blogosphere written by Chris Bowers of MYDD and Matt Stoller of Blogging of the President.

They highlight the fact that local political blogging seems to be one area in which the conservatives are outpacing the progressives --- which Bowers further expounded upon just the other day when he learned that an allegedly nonpartisan local Pennsylvania newsblog was actually a GOP front.

The local angle and the GOP front angle are connected. I'm not just being paranoid. There is evidence in plain sight that they have done this --- the Thune bloggers are a perfect example --- and that they are actively training people to do it:

From May 1999 through August 2003, Krempasky worked for Blackwell as the graduate development director of the Leadership Institute, an Arlington, Virginia–based school for conservative leaders founded by Blackwell in 1979. The institute is the organization that had provided “Gannon” with his sole media credential before he became a White House correspondent. It also now operates “Internet Activist Schools” designed to teach conservatives how to engage in “guerilla Internet activism.”

Indeed, Krempasky could be found teaching this Internet activism course one recent February weekend to about 30 young conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington. “He advocated that people write from their experience -- and not necessarily as conservatives,” a Democratic consultant who attended the seminar incognito told me. For example, Krempasky told “a conservative firefighter” that he should write about firefighting because that would be of interest to readers. Using that angle, he could build an audience. And if push ever came to shove, he could respond to an online dogfight from the unassailable position of being a firefighter -- and not as just another conservative ideologue. Krempasky then offered to help all the attendees set up their own blogs. “We’re definitely in serious trouble,” said the Democratic attendee.

I know that Krempasky is a big hero among some in the lefty blogosphere because of his bipartisan work with the FCC. I'm sure he is a great guy. He even linked positively to me once.

But he was trained by one of the master ratfuckers of all time --- Morton Blackwell. "Guerilla internet activism" is high-tech ratfucking. I'm just saying.



.
digby 8/10/2005 12:42:00 PM |

 
General Misconduct

I sure hope that General Geoffrey D. Miller isn't putting his penis where it shouldn't be. You can get in in real trouble for that kind of behavior.

[General] Byrnes, reached by telephone at his home yesterday, declined to comment. His defense attorney, Lt. Col. David H. Robertson, said the allegation against Byrnes involves an affair with a private citizen. Byrnes has been separated from his wife since May 2004; their divorce was finalized on Monday, coincidentally the same day he was relieved of command, Robertson said.

"The allegation against him does not involve a relationship with anyone within the military or even the federal government," Robertson said, emphasizing that the allegations do not involve more than one relationship. "It does not involve anyone on active duty or a civilian in the Department of Defense."

[...]

The Army has been hurt over the past year by detainee-abuse cases and has been accused of not going after top officers allegedly involved in such abuse. Army officials said relieving Byrnes was meant to show the public that the service takes issues of integrity seriously.

I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't the only one who considers hauling a naked prisoner around on a dog leash to be a form consensual sex.

It should be noted that Geoffrey Miller didn't actually fuck anyone personally, that we know of. He only created the torture and sexual humiliation regimes at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and lied to congress.

Naturally, he was promoted.



.
digby 8/10/2005 11:44:00 AM |

 
Misdirection

In an effort to find out how we can win back the independent rural and red state Bush voter, Democracy Corps did some focus groups (pdf). They found that while there was deep dissatisfaction with the country's direction, they still blame Democrats because Democrats are immoral. Or something like that.

I'm pressed for time today so I won't be able to post much, but I do recommend that you read this report and contemplate the fact that it appears that the only way for Democrats to win these voters is to adopt fundamentalist religious views or wait for the Republicans to destroy the economy so thoroughly that they turn to the Democrats by default as they did in 1932. It's quite obvious that nothing short of that is going to convince them to vote for us. These people cannot vote for us because we don't share their moral and religious values --- which if you believe the statistics on domestic violence, divorce, children born out of wedlock and and any number of other indicators of personal sexual morality --- are totally incoherent, self-serving, and entirely without any practical basis.

They don't care about issues --- indeed, they think that moral values are the issues. Republicans are for (the right kind of) Christians therefore they are better at defending the nation and the economy. It's a simple formula that doesn't require much investigation and is validated and emphasized constantly by the predominant political influences in rural red states: churches and talk radio. (Re-read this most insightful article by Christopher Hayes from last year to more fully understand the fact that these people don't even know what political issues are.)

Particularly among non-college voters, cultural issues not only superceded other priorities, they served as a proxy for many voters on those other issues. With most voters expressing little understanding of the differences between Democrats and Republicans or the relative merits of their positions on economic policy, health care, retirement security, and other issues, they felt it safe to assume that if a candidate was ‘right’ on cultural issues – i.e. opposed to abortion, but most importantly opposed to gay marriage and vocal about defending the role of faith and traditional Judeo-Christian values in public life – that candidate would naturally also come closest to their views on these other issues.

Here they are in their own words. (Or if you don't like covers, just tune in to Fox or Rush Limbaugh for the original version.)

We should be able to put a manger in the city market. I believe that we are Christian and we should be able to put a manger there. They’re giving everybody else rights. But it’s the Christian that we’re not allowed to give. Everybody else can get what they want to.Look what’s on our money. ‘In God We Trust’ That’s right. No Ten Commandments in the court house and stuff. And no pledge of allegiance to the flag. We’re in America. (Little Rock, older noncollege women)

You know, in God we were built, our country was built on God’s principals. And if we’re to maintain that we need to maintain God’s laws along with it. It says it right on the coins. Yeah, you can’t pull that apart. And they’re trying to pull it apart; you know the separation of church and state. And Republicans tend to stay away from that and allow these things. It’s the Democrats that are pulling us away from having Ten Commandments in places. (Appleton, younger noncollege women)

My big thing is the moral issues that they stand for. Or the immoral. They’re for the abortion and the gay movements, and individuality, and do what you feel instead of the way it should be. (Appleton, younger non-college women)

It appears to me in the last few years the Democrats have been. I view them as more anti-religious, almost opposing any kind of religion or propagate religion, like what happened in Colorado Springs a few weeks ago. (Denver, younger college men)

I still think that the Democrats are too politically correct. They don’t want to step on anybody’s toes. Whatever you’ve done, you had the right to do it. (Louisville, older non-college men)

I would like to believe that they represent the interests of working people and the middle class but they don’t. Not anymore. I don’t think they do. They’re just out for their own personal gain themselves, the ones that are there. (Denver, older college women)

Their leaders always seem very weak and unprepared. I am never confident in a Democrat that comes up that he can handle the political issues that come up. Especially internationally or anything. I have just not been impressed at all with their capabilities. (Appleton, younger non-college women)

I think that they’re in complete disarray and there’s just no forward momentum to the Democratic Party right now. There’s a total lack of leadership. (Louisville, older non-college men)

I’m proud to be an American because of the way this country was founded. And they stand up for this nation’s Christian heritage. There’s no question that - I believe this with all my heart - that this country is blessed the way it has been for all these years because of the way it was founded. And God’s looked on us favorably. And I think Republicans have that at heart, most of them do. And it shows in the moral stance they take. Because you hear all the time that there are no absolutes, but there truly is, and I think that they recognize that and try to push that through in their agenda. (Little Rock, younger non-college men)

They seem kind of weak to me. Weaker on terrorism. They seem like they would be more eager to hold out the olive branch instead of recognizing the fact that this is my enemy. We need to defend ourselves. (Denver, older college women)

Quit criticizing so much and have a little bit more of your own direction. Whether it’s right or wrong, pick a direction and go…Be on the offense instead of thedefense. (Appleton, older non-college men)

The Democrats have opposed these efforts? Well, where is their great idea for protecting jobs? Where is their great idea for lowering health costs? They don’t have it. (Appleton, younger non-college women)

They want to point out the issues that go wrong that the Republicans are making. And yet, they don’t really have a solution of their own…That’s why they don’tever win now. (Little Rock, older non-college women)

The report concludes:

These findings are not surprising in the context of recent electoral trends, with Democrats making slow but steady gains among college-educated voters over the past decade while increasing percentages of non-college voters support Republicans, contrary to their own economic self-interest. We believe most Democrats share certain core beliefs about civil rights, opposition to government restrictions on individual liberties, and separation of church and state that are inviolable, and we would not in any way advocate that Democrats change these beliefs or seek to obscure them in an effort to reverse recent losses among rural and red state voters. At the same time, Democrats must recognize the dynamics behind these trends and find a strategic framework that combines these core beliefs with an aggressive ‘change’ agenda that taps into broad dissatisfaction with the current leadership in Washington.

Good luck threading that needle.

I am interested in any work people have done on the Paul Hackett campaign in which he apparently won the rural voters while losing in the more affluent exurbs. Something about him was able to transcend the christian right influence with the country folk. I suspect it was style, which when you think about it is the one thing that might just be able to pull some of these people away from their preacher proxy model. They have, after all, already demonstrated that they are entirely hueristic decisionmakers who are discontented with the direction the country is going but can't rationally put that together with who is in charge. Hackett looks and sounds like a mans man who wasn't "weak" --- the constant refrain. (Good work Rush.) Maybe that's all it really takes.

One final note: The GOP courting of conservative evangelicals began back in the 70's. It was no an accident of fate. They knew that it was an untapped source of conservative non-voters who could easily be mobilized by their churches. It is a political machine.

The Republicans are not fucking around here. They are building an impermeable, corrupt political machine made up of cronies, employees and hangers-on the likes of which we haven't seen since the 19th century. They are court-packing, gerrymandering, impeaching and recalling --- not to mention electronically stuffing ballot boxes and throwing disputed elections to their handpicked Supreme Court judges. They control the DC lobbying process and own a rather large piece of the media landscape. They are not building their "permanent majority" through a civil, democratic process.

Trying to court their most borg-like constituency is really beside the point.



.
digby 8/10/2005 09:54:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

 
Journalistic Performance Art

Via Americablog, I read from CJR that Michael Wolff has an article in Vanity Fair that *gasp* questions the propriety of the major news organizations withholding important information from the public for their own purposes:

Michael Wolff deals with the Rove/Plame/Miller fracas in this month's Vanity Fair (the article isn't available online). Wolff manages to find a unique approach to the issue, positing the thesis that the New York Times and Time magazine are complicit in the cover-up of the fudging of intelligence in the prelude to war in Iraq -- in that they knew Rove was the source of the Plame leak intended to discredit Joe Wilson after he called the administration to account. "Not only did highly placed members of the media and the vaunted news organizations they worked for know it, not only did they sit on what will not improbably be among the biggest stories of the Bush years, they helped cover it up. You could even plausibly say that these organizations became part of a conspiracy -- they entered into an understanding that, as a quid pro quo for certain information, they would refuse to provide evidence about a crime possibly having been committed by the president's closest confidant."

To Wolff's mind, newspaper and magazine editors need to ask themselves an elementary question: "To whom do you owe your greatest allegiance: sources or readers?"

As Wolff sees it, by throwing their hand in with anonymous sources up to no good, instead of with readers, several distinguished media outlets let themselves become tongue-tied and thereby muffed an incendiary story that was in the palms of their hands.

"... [T]he greatest news organizations in the land had a story about a potential crime that reached as close as you can get to the president himself and they punted, they swallowed it, they self-dealt" -- all to protect a dubious source.

It's a novel take, but an intriguing one.

I don't think it's so novel. Many of us among the unwashed masses continue to scratch our heads in wonder as we watch guys like Tim Russert engage in this weird kabuki where he grills others about information pertaining to issues in which he is intimately involved --- and never mentions that fact. James Carville goes on Imus and pontificates about all the rumors he's hearing about the case and nobody asks him about his wife -- who is part of the story and was called to the grand jury. Bob Novak snaps at his press interlocutor, "how do you know if I've been called to the grand jury or not?" His questioner, of course, doesn't bother to follow up with the logical question, "Have you?"

I didn't know what Walter Pincus knew until he wrote an obscure piece for the Neiman Foundation. Meanwhile I've been reading his stories for two years as he quotes "people who've been briefed on the case" and tells it as he's phoning it in from Mt Olympus.

The NY Times rails against Karl Rove for not holding a press conference to tell what he knows while their reporter has never written a word about the same story --- an act of non-journalism for which she's in jail because she refuses to reveal her sources. Apparently, the NY Times feels that Judith Miller, a professional journalist, has no obligation to tell the public what she knows. Her only obligation, apparently, is to protect her source(s).

The media have become performance artists. And apparently they don't even see how surreal this whole thing looks to those of us who aren't involved. They all know a hell of a lot more about the story than they have revealed. And none of them (excepting perhaps Novak) have any personal legal liability stemming from the Fitzgerald investigation. They are simply protecting powerful government sources or each other or God knows what -- and in doing that they have failed spectacularly to do the job they are supposed to do. Nobody is saying that they have to reveal who their sources are, which is what the reporter's privilege provides. But is it too much to ask that they at least stop pretending that they aren't part of the story? Or better yet, is it too much to ask that they just tell the public what they know?

This is a huge scandal, as Wolff says, that may reach as high as the president. Half the press corps know details that they haven't written about. Yet, modern journalistic standards seem to indicate that if bodily fluids had been exchanged instead of classified information we would have gotten to the bottom of this a long time ago.



.
digby 8/09/2005 06:07:00 PM |

 
Special Friends

So, that multi-millionaire asshole Tom Noe stole $10,000 from the disabled workers of Ohio to give to that multi-millionare movie star asshole Arnold Schwarzenneger --- who only agreed to return the money after a big stink was made about it. (He's hurting, you see. He had to cancel his lucrative 8 million dollar "supplement" payoff.) I guess it was hurting his image as a guy who would work against the "special interests." Which he has done --- except he thinks that firefighters and nurses are the miscreants. Crooked coin dealers are just "good friends."

This is getting ridiculous. Are we so inured to their graft and corruption that we can't make political hay out of the fact that the entire Republican party is nothing but a bunch of crooked greedheads? Jesus. They've had total power for less than five years and they're bleeding the country dry.



.
digby 8/09/2005 04:54:00 PM |

 
Making Homos

Sadly No! posted this fascinating little note yesterday about our favorite dauchsie beater, James Dobson:

James Dobson's Focus on the Family has posted this delightful series of articles on how to instill your children with the proper "gender identification." The first piece is called "Is my child becoming a homosexual?" and it basically says that if your child exhibits "gender confusion," there's a good chance that he'll turn into a fruit

It features a full rundown of symptoms, like "is different" and "likes to play with girls" that are clear signs of impending homoism. It says that if your little boy shows any of these strange and freakish behaviors you should seek professional help. And to head off any problems, dads should take action themselves:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Well, that depends on if his dad is Gary Bauer, but that's another story. (And anyway, everybody knows that real men pound square pegs into round holes and tell the hole they should just lay back and enjoy it.)

Frankly, as astonishingly simpleminded as "Dr" Dobson's understanding of human sexuality is (not to mention the pain and heartache his cruel advice is going to wreak on the poor kids --- both gay and straight -- who have the bad luck to be born into these families) there is a silver lining. These mindbendingly ignorant, primitive sperm donors will be blamed among the faithful for their children being gay.

Apparently these people believe that a boy becomes gay if his dad fails to drag him into the shower to show him his big penis...

wow



Update: For some more dog pounding FOTF fun, check out these movie reviews on the American Street. Fr' instance:

March of the Penguins

The movie doesn’t credit our Creator with the masterpiece of nature known as the emperor penguin.

*sigh*


.
digby 8/09/2005 03:35:00 PM |

 
Hard-Wired

Mithras asks the perennial question" "Where are all the funny conservative bloggers?" It is one that has plagued philosophers and sit-com writers alike since the dawn of blogging (lo those many years ago.)

I am afraid that the answer is one that people may not want to hear or even think about. You see, it's not a matter of choice. From the time they were small children they knew that they weren't funny --- and more importantly, they knew that they didn't even know what funny was. These people were born that way. No matter how hard they try they are unable to be what society deems "normal."

And science has backed up this finding, which should lay to rest once and for all the canard that being entirely without a sense of humor beyond the most puerile schoolyard taunting is a matter of "preference." It's the way they are hard-wired.

For instance:

An investigation by Simone Shamay-Tsoory and colleagues shows that the ability to understand sarcasm depends on a carefully orchestrated sequence of complex cognitive skills in specific parts of the brain.

Dr Shamay-Tsoory, a psychologist at the Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa and the University of Haifa, said: "Sarcasm is related to our ability to understand other people's mental state. It's not just a linguistic form, it's also related to social cognition."

The research revealed that areas of the brain that decipher sarcasm and irony also process language, recognise emotions and help us understand social cues.

"Understanding other people's state of mind and emotions is related to our ability to understand sarcasm," she said.

[...]

The study showed that people with damage in the prefrontal lobe struggled to pick out sarcasm. The others, including people with similar damage to other parts of the brain, were able to correctly place the sharp-tongued words into context.

The prefrontal lobe is known to be involved in pragmatic language processes and complex social cognition. The ventromedial section is linked to personality and social behaviour.

Dr Shamay-Tsoory said the loss of the volunteers' ability to understand irony was a subtle consequence of their brain damage, which produced behaviour similar to that seen in people with autism

"They are still able to hold and understand a conversation. Their problem is to understand when people talk in indirect speech and use irony, idioms and metaphors because they take each sentence literally. They just understand the sentence as it is and can't see if your true meaning is the opposite of your literal meaning."

As an example, consider this famous satirical mifire by Dinesh D'Souza:

... the Democrats could become the party of moral degeneracy. In recent years the Democrats have not embraced moral degeneracy outright. They have contented themselves with hiding behind the slogan of "liberty." If accused of encouraging pornography, the Democrats have said, "No, we are for liberty of expression." Charged with supporting abortion-on-demand, the Democrats insist, "No, we are the party that gives women freedom over their own bodies." Caught distributing sex kits and homosexual instruction manuals to young people, the Democrats protest, "We are merely attempting to give people autonomy and freedom of choice."

But what is the need for this coyness? The Democrats should stop hiding behind "freedom of choice" and become blatant advocates for divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and pornography. Indeed the Democrats could become the Party of the Seven Deadly Sins. The political advantage of this approach is that the Seven Deadly Sins are immensely popular. Imagine the political opportunities if all vices were associated with the Democratic party!

Yes, right now President Bush and the Republicans are riding high. But just wait until 2004, when the party of fighting terrorism, promoting economic growth, and fostering traditional moral values, meets its match in a party that stands for anti-Americanism, economic plunder, and moral degeneracy.

More to be pitied than censured, I'd say. It is insensitive to mock people for their inability to understand or be able to define irony, whether in the form of satire or sarcasm. It's simply a matter of higher brain function. They can't help it.



.
digby 8/09/2005 01:59:00 PM |

 
Establishment Claws

The Carpetbagger Report points to a case that shows the dangers this modern pluralistic country is facing as it begins to legally enshrine religion into public life:

In Pleasant Grove, Utah, for example, a Ten Commandments memorial, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971, sits in a secluded area of city property that is intended to honor the city's heritage. Pleasant Grove is now facing litigation about the display, not from civil libertarians, but from another religious group that wants equal treatment.

People will pooh-pooh this case as they did an earlier one involving Wicca, in which a practitioner sued for the right to give the invocation for the legislature and was denied because her religion wasn't part of the Judeo-Christian tradition:

The Fourth Circuit upheld the decision of a county legislature which sought to ban certain religions from giving an opening invocation:

The 4th Circuit ruled Chesterfield County's Board of Supervisors did not show impermissible motive in refusing to permit a pantheistic invocation by a Wiccan because its list of clergy who registered to conduct invocations covers a wide spectrum of Judeo-Christian denominations. Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, No. 04-1045 (April 14). Chesterfield County is in the Richmond suburbs.

"The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the opinion.

Ok. So, as long as the Judeo-Christian tradition is fully represented then everything is ok, right? Not exactly. Guess what's starting to happen:

A religious watchdog group went on the attack Monday against a Bible study course taught in hundreds of schools in Texas and across the country, saying it pushes students toward conservative Protestant viewpoints and violates religious freedom.

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, said the course offered by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research that promote a fundamentalist Christian view.

The council dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a "far left" extremist organization trying to stifle academic review of a historical text. Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the Bible class group, accused the network of censorship.

"They are actually quite fearful of academic freedom, and of local schools deciding for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens," Ms. Ridenour says in a statement on the council’s Web site.

Network President Kathy Miller said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer a Bible class. The network asked Mark A. Chancey, a professor and biblical scholar at Southern Methodist University, to review the council’s curriculum. He was not paid for his work, Ms. Miller said.

Dr. Chancey’s review found that the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible’s historical accuracy. He said the course suggests that the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation’s founding document.

All of those points may be acceptable to some religions, but not to others, Dr. Chancey said.

[...]

"No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them," said the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin.

Surprise, surprise. There is disagreement even within the "Judeo-Christian" tradition --- a fact which anyone who took 10th grade world history would already know. And some quite ugly problems promise to re-surface as more and more tax dollars are being funnelled to religious programs that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion:

A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."

Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."

[...]

The agency's Web site says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants personally agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scripture. It does not refer to any specific branches of Christianity.

[...]

Sandy Steadman said she was hurt and disappointed that Bethany received funds from the Choose Life car license plates. "I know of a lot of Catholics who get those tags," she said.

She added: "If it's OK to accept our money, it should be OK to open your home to us as a family."

You do not have to be a genius to see that even though this country is majority Christian, there is always plenty of room for religious strife among the pious. The founders understood this very well being that they were the decendents of religious refugees from a country that had been fighting these sectrian battles for centuries.

They understood that democracy cannot properly operate when government establishes religion and that religion cannot freely operate when the government endorses one belief over another. Religion and government exist in their own equally important spheres. One of the ways the US came to deal with this ia a practical manner has been this: churches didn't pay taxes and in return they didn't expect the government to proselytise for them. All churches were on their own to promote their creeds however they wanted --- except through the government. That way, we didn't ask people to pay for religious belief they didn't endorse and we didn't create conditions whereby one religion could be seen to have preference over another.

The rules were always relaxed in terms of certain non-doctrinal traditions like holidays, which heavily favored the majority Christians (who could at least all agree that the big Christian holidays were shared among them all.) And we long practiced a sort of cultural protestant Deism that didn't presume any specific political agenda. Socially, of course, we were horribly bigoted toward Catholics, Jews and anybody else who didn't accept whatever the prevailing local sects decreed, but the federal government held to sort of phony distance that at least allowed the long progressive struggle to create a truly tolerant religious environment to endure. And it finally prevailed. Huzzah.

Sadly (or maybe inevitably) just at the moment when this country seemed to have found its way to a real tolerance of different religious beliefs, where there was more varied religion per square mile than virtually anywhere else in the western world, we've decided to force the government to get involved in pushing certain beliefs because they are majoritarian. I guess we're overdue to take a little walk through the 17th century and experience some of that good old fashioned, traditional religious hatred.

People think "what's the harm in putting up the 10 commandments on a courthouse?" Who cares? Truly, not a whole lot of people do. But as you can see by the the various legal challenges being mounted on behalf of minority religions and the stirrings of sectarian confrontation among Christian faiths, it would have been better if the government had just made it clear from the beginning that it can't take sides. People would understand that, even most majority Christians.

The government should stay out of it, period. Let everybody believe what they will in perfect freedom. But it should be on private property funded by private money. The principle isn't all that tough. Sadly, it appears that we are now going to have to painfully illustrate step by step, through court cases and endless fighting for who knows how long, why it is better for religion for the government to stay out of its sphere. (The battle for secularism for its own sake has been lost for the time being.) I guess we just have to relearn these lessons over and over again.



.
digby 8/09/2005 10:50:00 AM |

 
What Will We Have Wrought?

Matt Yglesias makes a good case for withdrawal of US troops upon the inveiling of Iraq's new constitution.

Far better to take advantage of the forthcoming promulgation of a new constitution for Iraq and then schedule a withdrawal on our own terms. Such a withdrawal would be pegged not to an "arbitrary timetable" but to the perfectly objective one governing Iraq's political process.

This would not only provide us peace with honor but also with the best chance for securing a decent outcome in Iraq. Setting an end date would allay Iraqi fears of an indefinite occupation and allow us to secure more cooperation in the short term, give moderate Sunnis the opportunity they need to join the political process and separate themselves from the jihadists, and focus the minds of Iraq's political elites on the urgent need to resolve the issues underlying sectarian tensions. Defeating every last insurgent in Iraq is not a realistic goal. But fortunately for us, neither is the insurgency's goal of renewed Sunni hegemony a realistic one. A clear plan to bring the troops home would allow us to begin focusing on the kind of support for the new regime -- political, diplomatic, financial, logistical, and intelligence -- that can be provided over the long term, and that would allow a wise Iraqi government to eventually stabilize the entire country. Meanwhile, we can work on rebuilding our armed forces and reconfiguring them for the 21st-century security landscape.

I agree that withdrawal is probably the best solution at this point and it is logical to tag it to a milestone political moment. Our presence seems to be perpetuating the insurgency rather than quelling it. But, I really wonder whether the outcome will be as benign as Matt suggests.

It seems to me that even if we reject the cynical Realpolitik that says the country needed a strongman in order to survive, certainly we screwed things up so badly that we've allowed the conditions for protracted civil war to foment quite nicely. Perhaps there never would have been a better time, but I still cannot help but wonder at the logic that said we should use the moment of al Qaeda's greatest PR victory to engage in a dicey game of chicken in the mid-east --- at huge expense, without global support.

It still stuns me that the starry-eyed neocons thought we were so all powerful that we could simply flip a switch and the world would be changed. The timing was right for domestic political purposes but it couldn't have been worse for strategic purposes. Keeping Saddam in place for a short while, until the smoke cleared at least, would have allowed us to get a much better lay of the land post 9/11 and perhaps make some realistic decisions.

But, all that is spilled milk now and we find ourselves at a point where we are thinking seriously of leaving Iraq in a chaos we have created and I would be interested in what are the realistic scenarios among the experts for a post withdrawal Iraq. It is unlikely that I would change my mind about the correctness of our doing so, but I would like to be prepared for what may follow. I have a feeling I know the answer and it makes me sick to my stomach.

In this regard I have been meaning to mention that shameful column by David Ignatius from last week called Iraq Can Survive This in which he makes the increasingly common rightist argument that someday things will probably work out in Iraq so everything we did will have been right in retrospect:

Pessimists increasingly argue that Iraq may be going the way of Lebanon in the 1970s. I hope that isn't so, and that Iraq avoids civil war. But people should realize that even Lebanonization wouldn't be the end of the story. The Lebanese turned to sectarian militias when their army and police couldn't provide security. But through more than 15 years of civil war, Lebanon continued to have a president, a prime minister, a parliament and an army. The country was on ice, in effect, while the sectarian battles raged. The national identity survived, and it came roaring back this spring in the Cedar Revolution that drove out Syrian troops.

Similar logic would have one believe that because Czechoslovakia is now a thriving democracy, the invasion of Hitler in 1938 was all for the best. And hey what's 30 years of human suffering? Eventually things will probably get better --- as long as the "national identity" survives. Dear God.

This argument reveals something very fundamental about the way that the war hawks see this as a game of Risk rather than a catastrophic upheaval in which actual human beings are being killed and maimed and in which the everyday lives of those who live on that piece of land are affected in the most consequential ways possible. Who but the most arrogant, spoiled,pampered, elitist American could write such a thing? Perhaps David Ignatius should have a talk with Peter Daou, who actually lived in that lucky land of Lebanon during the civil war and occupation while "the country" was on ice. Unfortunately, the humans who lived there had some more immediate problems:

I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon's civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the "Cedar Revolution." I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I've seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn't presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn.

Ignatius's logic is becoming more prevalent among war supporters as we see that our lame attempt at neocon nation building (which was based, as are all their "plans" upon idealistic fantasies and crossing their fingers)has failed. Therefore, they are now going to take the "long view" in which victory will be prematurely hailed because as one Bush supporter puts it: "All that matters in the long run is the liberalization Bush and Blair have unleashed."

Neat trick, isn't it? Any progress in the future can be attributed to Bush and Blair's foresight, no matter how long it takes or how much blood is spilled in the meantime. Indeed, George W. Bush, magical figure that he is, must, therefore, be responsible for the fact that:

...there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but ... today 120 (62.5%) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies.

Still, I wonder how a bloody civil war in a huge country in the mid-east, at a time of rising Islamic extremism and peak oil can be sold as being for the Iraqis' own good --- and ours? Assuming that we withdraw (because we really have no choice, as Matt Yglesias writes, and because we are actually exacerbating the problem with our presence) what are the realistic ramifications of Iraq descending into sectarian violence as seems to have already begun? What will we have wrought with this misbegotten invasion for the next decade or three --- until everything comes out in the wash and we can permanently give George Bush credit for having invented human progress, that is?



.
digby 8/09/2005 08:31:00 AM |

Monday, August 08, 2005

 
Pushing Keller

Talk Left points out that all this talk of a waiver for Lil Miz Judy is bunk. Lil' Miz Judy is refusing to talk for reasons of her own.

However, I maintain that calling on Libby to produce this waiver puts pressure on the one place that may have some influence with Miller --- the NY Times. The weak point for her is if her employers get really antsy. We've already seen some indication that they are. Divide 'n conquor.

Jane Hamsher reports something I hadn't heard before which was James Carville's appearance on Imus last week in which he posited that Fitzgerald was going to call Keller et al before the grand jury. I don't know how he'd know that, but whether he does or not, it's quite clear there are rumblings down at the Kewl Kidz soda shoppe. Carville is very well connected if nothing else.

(In fact, as with so many others in the beltway circle jerk, he has a conflict of interest a mile wide --- his wife, who is up to her ears in this thing. She was, after all, hired back specifically to handle the post Novak damage control.)

Still, I assume that he's not working for Rove:

Carville said there was "heavy, heavy speculation out there" that Miller was being used by the White House to "disseminate this" - an apparent reference to CIA employee Valerie Plame's name.

"There are all sorts of rumors and I hear second hand that [Miller] was screaming out in the news room about this."

The Times, said Carville, "to some extent is going to have to come clean. Because they're going to have to tell us what Judy Miller knew, when she knew it and who she told."

"And there's a lot of people at the Times - and I know this to be a fact - who believe that," he insisted.

"It's going to be very interesting to see," Carville mused, "whether [Miller's] problem is a First Amendment [problem] - i.e., I want to protect a source - or a Fifth Amendment [problem] - I was out spreading this stuff too."

None of this is particularly new to those of us who've been following the punchin' Judy show. But it does seem to be bubbling up. As more and more strategic leaks are sprung, it becomes clear that some major media players have not been forthcoming.

Certainly Tim Russert owes everybody a little explanation about that NBC psuedo-statement that leaves wide open the fact that he may have shared a delicious little bit of back-biting gossip with his friend Scooter. If he didn't then he should come clean and take his medicine as he so santimoniously advises all his politician friends to do.

Bob Novak should be... oh forget it. The man's having a public nervous breakdown. It's absurd to think that he would behave like a journalist anyway. He should be retired. (His sources are already making a fool of him --- remember the Rehnquist is resigning today at 4:50pm story?)

And finally, we have the vaunted New York Times executive staff who've been parading Judy around like she was Jesus himself being crucified for standing up for the first amendment. It's been awfully convenient for them to do so, but their loyalty to Judith Miller is misplaced and it's hurting their reputations. They are going to have to start making some tough choices about what is really important to them.

If Lewis Libby says publicly that he released Judith Miller from all her obligations, the public is really going to wonder what in the hell is going on. See, this excuse that sources shouldn't be coerced only works when the source is a powerless lone citizen standing up against the full force of the government. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States. If he makes it clear that he releases her from her waiver, nobody is going to believe that he's weakly acquiesing to the big bad government. He is the big bad government.

I realize that Miller will likely not capitulate even then. But it will put a tremendous pressure on the NY Times --- and they may put pressure on her. We'll see whether Miller cares more about her neocon buddies or her own career and reputation.



.
digby 8/08/2005 06:40:00 PM |

 
A La Carte

Michael at Americablog brings up a point I think is worth a little passing mention. People talk a lot about pushing for "a la carte" cable as a way to appeal to social conservatives who say they want to limit what their children see on television. But these social conservatives are not being honest. John points out that you can block any channel just by calling your cable company. After all, they have the ability to block out HBO if you don't pay for it, they can certainly block out MTV if you request it.

I think that most people would like the idea of paying only for the channels they watch. I pay an exhorbitant amount of money to basically watch a handful of channels in order to feed my addiction to CNN and HBO. But I think that people have to recognise that the whole 500 channel universe is built on the idea that you pay big bucks for these channels we all like in order to subsidize the ones that fit the niche markets. In the early days, they really did support new stuff this way, although it's now become a much different game with advertisers and big media conglomerates buying up cable channels.

I think it is highly unlikely that they will create an a la carte system that will allow you to actually save money. They'll just price CNN at 50 bucks a month and you won't get any of the quirky channels you might watch once in a while.

And I would bet that there would still be no respite from the religious right's screeching about decency on cable. They can have all that dirty, dirty turned off right now if they want to. It's not that they don't want their families to see "Deadwood." They don't want me to see "Deadwood."



.
digby 8/08/2005 05:21:00 PM |

 
Who Was Neville Chamberlain's Priest?

Can somebody please explain to me why the Democrats should be blamed for every stupid utterance that emantes from some junior college instructor, while the Republicans dance free of any association with a preacher who says "God Hates Fags?" Is it just the fag word that allows them to escape? It must be because the sentiment is certainly mainstream GOP cant.

I think Pastor Fred Phelps should be tied around the necks of the right wing Christianists with a bowline knot. Julia fills us in on his latest cause:

WBC rejoices every time the Lord God in His vengeance kills or maims an American soldier with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" (Ps. 58:10).

To most effectively cause America to know her abominations (Ez. 16:2), WBC will picket the funerals of these Godless, fag army American soldiers when their pieces return home. WBC will also picket their landing spot, in Dover, Delaware early and often.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think that Phelps was saying that US soldiers are all "little Eichmans."

I recall that during a supremely insane period in our recent history we were told ad nausaeum that the president receiving fellatio sent a message of loose morals to the culture. (Fellatio hadn't been popular until then.) If that were true, I would think that messages like this should be seen as incitement for the likes of Fred Phelps:

Tony Perkins:

"If we do not immediately pass a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage, we will not only lose the institution of marriage in our nation, but eventually all critics of the homosexual lifestyle will be silenced. Churches will be muted, schools will be forced to promote homosexuality as a consequence-free alternative lifestyle, and our nation will find itself embroiled in a cultural, legal and moral quagmire."

Chuck Colson:

"Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America's decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers…. when radical Islamists see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news coverage of same-sex couples being ‘married’ in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent--the kind they see as a blot on Allah's creation. Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it's also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us."

Alan Keyes

“It’s about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family. We must oppose it in the military. We must oppose it in marriage. We must oppose it if the fundamental institution of our civilization is to survive. Those unwilling to face that fact and playing games with this issue are doing so irresponsibly at the price of America’s moral foundations.”

Gary Bauer

“An instinctive revulsion against evil isn’t bigotry, it’s our best defense.”

Gosh, it sure looks to me as if old Fred's only using some salty language to say the same thing the rest of these guys are saying. In fact, he's right in the mainstream of religious right thought. Apparently, God does hate fags.

So now pastor Fred is picketing outside military funerals, celebrating their deaths because they are part of a system that allows gay people to exist. He's making the same sort of logical leap that Ward Churchill made when he condemned the dead capitalist workers at the WTC for being part of a global economic system that exploited the downtrodden masses --- a point of view that is held by no more than .05% of Americans, who dwell at the far left fringe of American thought and have no influence on politics whatsoever.

Fred Phelps, however, dwells quite close to the mainstream of the religious right, which has huge influence in the Republican party. If instead of using a slur, he were picketing various events with his homemade signs and they said "God Hates The Homosexual Agenda" would he be any different than hundreds of other groups who say the same without any sense of shame or regret? It's just one little word.

I don't imagine that a spiritual advisor like Chuck Colson celebrates the killing of American servicemen, but his statement above sure sounds like he's sympathising with the Islamic fundamentalists' complaints about decadent western culture. One can see how Fred might extrapolate from that that the bad guys in this war of civilizations are Americans. In Fred's mind he's picketing fallen soldiers' funerals in order to protest his country's immorality.

I really don't want to hear any more lectures about Ward Churchill or any other obscure little left wing gadfly. The mainstream of the Republican party is out there promoting an agenda that the Ayatollah would be proud to sign on to --- and they admit it. Who are the appeasers now? And who is responsible for Fred Phelps celebrating the deaths of American servicemen? It sure isn't me.


Julia links through to some military wives' novel way of dealing with James Dobsons' blood brother's little stunt. They are turning the Phelps circus into a fundraiser.



.
digby 8/08/2005 03:59:00 PM |

 
Dear Leader

Kevin points to this Ron Brownstein column in which Brownstein compares the Republican Party's governing style to North Korea. It's quite true. They believe bipartisanship is date rape. They know that they needn't fear they will be seen in a bad light by the public for this because the public gives fuck-all about legislative process --- and the media allows them to present themselves as having mandates or representing the mainstream despite having only the thinnest majority. They've taken the "winner take all" concept to new heights.

From Brownstein:

The essence of the modern Republican governing strategy is self-reliance. The goal is to resolve all issues in a manner that solidifies their political coalition. The means is to pass legislation primarily by unifying Republicans, thus shrinking opportunities for Democrats to exert influence. This approach represents the political equivalent to what the North Korean government calls Juche: a strategy of maximizing independence by minimizing dependence on outside forces.

I keep hearing that until Democrats start "winning elections" they should just step aside and if they refuse, they will be shoved aside. It makes me wonder if the founders knew what they were doing with this representation thing. Surely, it would have been more efficient to just have the ruling party come to Washington and legislate without interference from the minority. Think of how much money it saves.

One thing I think that both Brownstein and Drum neglect with their North Korea comparison is that in order to succeed it must also feature a godlike infallible cult leader. (After all, before Kim Jong Il was revealed as the successor to his father, he was mysteriously referred to as "party center"):

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

In North Korea they have the same kind of leader --- but they have the good graces to notice:

Reflecting his apparent encyclopedic knowledge and superhuman abilities, the Dear Leader is also considered by North Koreans as a "great figure of the arts and architecture," "genius of music," and "world famous writer," the report said.

The KCBS added that the Dear Leader is a "computer genius who surprises computer experts", and the "ideal leader of the world" because he is so erudite.

The North's media also have described the North Korean leader as an "incarnation of power" who exerts "unlimited creative power" and is the "hero of the heaven."

Perhaps when we are done renaming every street in American after Great leader Ronald Reagan, we can begin the movement to officially recognise our Dear Leader too.

He, at least, knows his own value

Q -- at politically? I mean, you've still got Iraq holding over your head and Social Security. You've got a lot of tough things that are going --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it took -- it took the -- I don't know how many times I have to tell people that polls go up and polls go down. If you made decisions based upon polls, you would be a miserable leader.

Q But power is perception.

THE PRESIDENT: Power is being the President.

[...]

Q Did the Bolton decision, you think, have any affect on your relations with the Senate, or will they understand?

THE PRESIDENT: ...Bolton's standing in the world depends upon my confidence in Bolton, and I've got a lot of confidence in Bolton.

One would think it would be much more efficient if we let Dear Leader make all the decisions. After all, power is the president. However, it would be much more difficult for the revolving door of lobbying and the military indusrtrial complex to make multi-millionaires of generals and politicans. So we need to at least have a congressional pageant now and then. The Democrats can play the fools.



.
digby 8/08/2005 02:04:00 PM |

Sunday, August 07, 2005

 
Punchin' Judy

Arianna has more insider dirt on the Judy Miller file:

A well-connected media source e-mailed to say that the most interesting development on the Miller story is coming from inside the Times: "I gather that Doug Jehl, who is a dogged and respected reporter, has been assigned to do an in-house investigative report for the Times and that he is already cutting pretty close to the bone. Several editors he has spoken to are now asking themselves why there wasn't more questioning of whether Miller's silence reflects a fear of incriminating herself rather than betraying a source. I predict this will start to unravel in the next couple of weeks -- if only because the Times is afraid of getting scooped again by outside rivals."

If they just now began to question this then there is a lot more wrong with the NY Times than we've known. Considering Miller's recent history any cub reporter would have at least wondered whether Miller was colluding with the administration on this.

As Xeno reminds me in the comments, the NY Times recently published quite a scathing editorial about Karl Rove "using" the press for his own ends and demanded that he hold a press conference and admit what he knows.

Far be it for us to denounce leaks. Newspapers have relied on countless government officials to divulge vital information that their bosses want to be kept secret. There is even value in the sanctioned leak, such as when the White House, say, lets out information that it wants known but does not want to announce.

But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. And Karl Rove seems to have been playing that unsavory game with the C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a career diplomat who ran afoul of President Bush's efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[...]

The White House has painted itself into a corner. More than a year ago, Mr. Bush vowed to fire the leaker. Then Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly assured everyone that the leaker was not Mr. Rove, on whom the president is so dependent intellectually that he calls Mr. Rove "the architect."

Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless.

Mr. Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public.

I assume that the NY Times will issue another such scathing indictment of Scooter Libby now that we know he was the person who Judy Miller is protecting. After all, he has the power to release Judy tomorrow if he will just hold a press conference and tell everyone what conversation he had and with whom. Then Judy would be released from her obligations and could testify in good faith. Right?
digby 8/07/2005 10:23:00 AM |

Saturday, August 06, 2005

 
Libby On The Label

According to Murray Waas, Scooter told Fitzgerald that he met with Miller on July 8th. But he has not given Judith Miller the specific waiver she seeks to talk to the prosecutors.

It's time for the press to go to the mattresses and demand an explanation from the white house.

The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.

Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby.

But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else without a more specific, or personal, waiver. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller had not been granted "any kind of a waiver … that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given."

Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to comment for this story.

[...]

At least two attorneys representing private clients who are embroiled in the Plame probe also privately questioned whether or not President Bush had encouraged Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller in an effort to obtain her cooperation.

In a memorandum distributed to White House staff members shortly after the investigation became known, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who at the time was White House counsel, wrote, "The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation." Bush himself said: "[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, while sidestepping the specifics as to whether Bush should order Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller, said in an interview Friday evening: "I would say the president has the power to help us get to the bottom of this matter. And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened but to prevent such a thing from happening again."

This is bullshit. The white house cannot get away with saying they are cooperating with the prosecutor by not talking --- and then not require the staff to fully cooperate with the prosecutor.

"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

Here's Scotty from July 11th:

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Now that it's been reported that Libby is the source Miller is protecting the media should demand that Libby free their sister from jail.

"Scott, Judy Miller is languishing in a DC jail because the vice president's chief of staff refuses to grant her a specific waiver. The prosecutor has told federal judges that he needs to talk to her. Is this what the president calls cooperating with the investigation?"

There really is no good reason why Libby hasn't provided a specific waiver for Judy if he told Fitzgerald he talked to her.

Unless he lied to the prosecutor about what was said, that is.



And if Judy gets a specific waiver she has no more excuse to play Jeanne d'Arc. If she still won't squawk, the NY Times will have to finally admit that they have employed a neocon operative as a reporter.


.
digby 8/06/2005 09:39:00 PM |

 
Sit Tight

A thought to ponder as we debate whether we should be moving toward more social conservatism. The number one Republican in the US Senate just endorsed stem cell research and the number three Republican in the Senate just backed off his previous support for intelligent design.

This would indicate to me that these two politicians, one of whom is running for president and the other who is trying to keep his seat in a swing state, have seen numbers that indicate the religious right is hurting their chances. They are sistah sojah-ing like madmen pretty damn early in the game.

I suspect that some democratic strategists think this is a good reason for us to "meet them in the middle" by running as social conservatives --- just without James Dobson. But anyone who thinks this is someone who hasn't been watching politics for the last 20 years.

We should sit tight. We're already in the middle, right where most of the public is. It's just that the public didn't realize it until recently. When the wingnuts start devouring each other we should tie them together and run against the whole lot. I know this because I watched it happen in the 80's. To us.



.
digby 8/06/2005 04:04:00 PM |

 
Good For Thee But Not For Me

The United States' envoy in Iraq delivered a warning on Saturday to Shi'ite Islamist leaders, propelled to power by U.S. forces, not to use a new constitution to impose discriminatory laws by majority rule.

Hmmmmm.

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

"Article --

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

.
digby 8/06/2005 02:43:00 PM |

 
The Palmeiro Defense

In related news, Karl Rove returned to testify before the grand jury investigating the Plame leak today. Rove testified that while he indeed did leak Valerie Plame's name to reporters, he has no idea how it happened.

"I still don't know what caused me to do it," Rove said. "I know I didn't mean to do it. I don't even think I did it, but I did. I'm not a crazy person. We were going to get our war anyway. It makes no sense."

Read the whole thing.



.
digby 8/06/2005 02:33:00 PM |

 
Confession Is Good For The Soul

In anticipation of tomorrows Press The Meat, I think that guests should be required to read Swopa and Fishbowl DC. Maybe Ashleigh Blitzer ought to see if he can get Monsignor Tim on his show.

It turns out, contrary to my post below, that NBC was a little bit, shall we say ... lawyerly, with its statement of Russert's involvement:

Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.

What that statement very cleverly leaves open is that Russert did tell Libby that "Joseph Wilson's wife" was a CIA "employee."

Look, this is getting stupid. There is no reason on earth that Tim Russert should not be required to say right out if he repeated gossip to Lewis Libby about Joe Wilson and his wife. It means that he's a dirt-dishing little scumbag but it has no bearing on his legal culpability. One could easily understand why he would think that repeating this tidbit to a man who had the highest security clearance wouldn't exactly mean he was spilling state secrets.

I would have thought that since all this has been hashed over in great detail these last few weeks that the "professionals" in the mainstream press would have thought it was worthwhile to pursue --- even if it meant that the leader of the kewl kids was confronted with his own words and asked to explain. After all, that is what he does every single Sunday morning to whichever poor schmuck submits him or herself to his grilling.

As Atrios eloquently points out this morning, this absurd idea that celebrity journalists aren't public figures is laughable in itself. But the idea reaches total absurdity when you consider that these celebrity journalists are players in the biggest scandal of the last five years. When you have these journalists being called before Grand Juries, making deals with special prosecutors and distributing carefully worded lawyerly statements --- they are just like any other citizen in that situation; they are witnesses to a possible crime. I wish that the press were so solicitous of private citizens who don't have their own TV shows when they camp out on their doorsteps screaming for comment.

Tim Russert gave a very lawyerly statement about what he told the special prosecutor. He has never been asked to expand on it or clarify it, to my knowledge. That is journalistic malpractice.

Here's what they should do, it's really quite simple.

Mr Russert, did you ever tell Scooter Libby in any way shape or form that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

Oh, and then guys,if he tries to answer by saying that he didn't know her name or what her role was at the CIA, follow up. Be reporters and persist. Ask him if he mentioned Joe Wilson's wife to Libby at all. If he says yes, then ask if he mentioned where she worked. It's not hard.

Update: I see Arianna beat me to this.

...frankly, this week, instead of coming up with questions for Tim, I’d like to hear him give some long-overdue answers about his still ill-defined involvement in Plamegate.

And I’m not the only one feeling this way. Earlier this week, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sydney Schanberg called on Russert and all the other reporters involved in the story (yes, that includes you Bob Novak) to “tell us everything”: “Tim Russert cuts a large figure in Washington,” wrote Shanberg. “He should be a big man now and give us some details; why not agree to be interviewed by someone as probing as he?"

[...]

So what do you say, Tim? Why not put Roberts’ faith on hold for a week and restore the public’s faith in you by putting yourself in the Meet the Press hot seat? As Schanberg said of his fellow reporters: “We have no rational explanation for calling regularly on government and corporate giants to release all possible information to the public if we ourselves decline to release the details about our roles and our processes when they are germane to the story.… The public has a right to know; isn’t that our mantra?”

Considering how well Bob Novak has responded to being on the receiving end of the cattle prod, I suspect that The Padre will not take to well to being "probed" with his own petard. But it is worthwhile to put pressure on these guys to start leveling with the public. I know that it's too much to ask that this clubby little world be exposed, but we have to try.

I'll agree with Kevin on this to the extent that the press may be better than it used to be in many respects, but that's not really the problem. With the rise of public relations, the cacophany of information and the overwhelming power of marketing we need an independent press more than we used to to help us filter through the bullshit so that we can maintain our democracy. Instead, they seem to be drifting toward entertainment values which are by definition controlled by the very forces that are making it difficult for the public to see their world clearly. The last fifteen years of political coverage have been dominated by tabloid circuses or jingoistic parades. They need to try harder.



.
digby 8/06/2005 12:57:00 PM |

 
The Terminator

In case anyone's wondering if Pat Fitzgerald is really as much of a prosecution machine as people think he is, there is actually little doubt. He seems to really like putting away dirty politicians of all stripes. In fact, he seems to be mowing down the entire corrupt Illinois political system in a thoroughly bipartisan way:

If ever U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald leaves Chicago, I figure that Mayor Richard Daley, his Democratic machine and his Republican friends in the Illinois political combine will pop for champagne at Gibsons in Rosemont.

[...]

"I'm just going to do my job until someone tells me otherwise," Fitzgerald said at a news conference in which he announced the indictments of more combine boys.

"I love my job. I'm very, very lucky to work with the people behind me and the people behind that, and I have no plans to do anything else."

Federal authorities charged three political insiders Wednesday with extorting money from investment companies working with the Teachers Retirement System pension fund.

According to the indictments, in trying to shake down a Virginia investment firm on behalf of Republican Stuart Levine, top Democratic fundraiser and lawyer Joe Cari is alleged to have said:

"This is how things are done in Illinois."

Another lawyer, Steven Loren, also was charged in the shakedown scheme. He and Cari are now cooperating with prosecutors. Levine, who was indicted on multiple counts, was recently indicted in another alleged kickback scam on the state's Health Facilities Planning Board.

Years ago, some questioned if there was an Illinois combine, a ruling bipartisan clique gorging on public money, using political muscle to fill their pockets. I don't think many people question that anymore.

According to the grand jury, some Democrats and Republicans work together just fine. They're not divided by opposing ideologies. Instead, they're bound by a common interest: cash.

The combine fought to stop Fitzgerald from coming to Chicago from New York. They ran former U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) out of politics for the sin of installing Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) in the job of federal hammer in Chicago.

Lately, there's been speculation that the president would lean on Fitzgerald and remove him because Fitzgerald is a presidential irritant, acting as special counsel in Washington. He's investigating Bush administration officials for reportedly leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Presidential political adviser Karl Rove and others in Rove's sphere have been questioned in the investigation. It is assumed Rove will seek revenge. U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) wants to hold Senate hearings to question Fitzgerald about his investigation. These hearings are seen as an extension of Rove's long hand.

And in Chicago, Fitzgerald has the Outfit upset, not to mention Streets & San, the mayor's office and Daley's own 11th Ward organization, and the Republican clique of former Gov. George Ryan. Fitzgerald and Chicago FBI chief Rob Grant are expected to announce more corruption charges in another case on Thursday morning.

So they're giving everybody agita. With all this going on, all these investigations and all the political interests he's threatened by pursuing cases, Fitzgerald was asked the big question.

Do you want to stay?

"I'm not going to start lobbying for a job," he said. "I'm just saying that I'm very happy with my job, very grateful I have it, and I'm just going to keep working."

He wasn't lobbying. And he wasn't being slick about it. He was just answering the question, appearing to be slightly embarrassed to be talking about himself.

I don't know Fitzgerald well. But I can see he is uncomfortable with being cast as some knight on a white horse. He's no such thing. He's much more dangerous.

He's a federal prosecutor who does not want to run for governor or a big job in a top law firm. He's not whispering that he'd like to be made a federal judge. He doesn't want to be somebody's rainmaker.

There's nothing more frightening to the combine than someone without an appetite they can feed.

If he hands down indictments the long arm of Karl Rove is going to morph into a thousand tentacles intent upon bringing this guy down. Within minutes you will see every talking point the Democrats used against Ken Starr being regurgitated by right-wing mouthpieces as if they just made it up that morning. It's one of their favorite (and most useful) tactics --- use the other side's rhetoric against them. They take advantage of the ear worms of repetitive political rhetoric which a lot of people then just automatically accept as conventional wisdom.

And if you think you've seen Republicans whining and snivelling about being victimized before now, you ain't seen nothin' until you see them shriek like little old ladies about being persecuted by the jack-booted thugs. If and when that happens, I hope that the liberal pundits have the wisdom to turn the tables on them this time and call them out for being a bunch of bedwetting sissies. Karl Rove needs to take it like a man. There's a war on. If he'd just apologise, maybe we could move on ...

'N what about the rule 'o law?


.
digby 8/06/2005 09:16:00 AM |

 
Jujitsu Death Blow


Blogenlust's Law states ...

As an online discussion among wingnuts grows longer, the probability that a Clinton will be blamed for something approaches 1 (i.e., certainty).

Here's the example John cites:

The left appears to have lost its appetite for the Plamegate scandal. This, in itself, is more than sufficient reason for conservatives to pursue the matter aggressively. The left has much to hide in this affair. Now that they have done us the service of making Plamegate a national issue, let us employ Saul Alinsky’s principle of "political jiu-jitsu" and re-direct the left’s own momentum against it.

Of particular interest is the odd connection between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and would-be president Hillary Clinton. Cooper is the reporter who made an elaborate show of pretending that he was ready to go to jail to "protect" his "source" Karl Rove. In fact, we now know that Rove had given Cooper a blanket release to reveal his name some eighteen months before Cooper finally revealed it. So why did Cooper pretend that he only received permission at the last minute, just before he was to be jailed for contempt? And why did major media assist Cooper in his pretense?

Plainly, the Democrats’ media allies were trying to distort the facts to cast Rove in a bad light. But to what end? Such an elaborate deception could not have unfolded on its own. Someone had to orchestrate it. But who?

One hint may come from the fact that Hooper’s wife, Mandy Grunwald, is a former spinmeister for the Clinton White House and a close confidante of Hillary. Her father, Henry Grunwald, was formerly editor of Time magazine, and wrote the first major editorial calling for Richard Nixon’s resignation (hat tip, Sacajaweau).

[...]

It would seem that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Like her father before her, Mandy Grunwald now finds herself at the vortex of what appears to be an effort to undermine our commander-in-chief at a critical phase of a major war.

How likely does it seem, gentle reader, that Matt Cooper failed to discuss his Plamegate work with his wife? And how likely does it seem that Mandy Grunwald failed to keep Hillary’s war room advised of her husband’s progress?

To put it another way, what did Hillary know and when did she know it?

I hadn't thought about it before, but it's perfectly obvious that Hitlery and her minions in the liberal media hatched this clever plot to implicate the White House in the outing of a CIA agent --- in order to help the terrorists. My God, it's been right in front of our faces all this time!

I'm reeling from the devastating cleverness of that move. My head is spinning. All is lost, my friends. All. Is. Lost. I'm joining the other side. They were always right. I was always wrong. They have won three elections in five years and I realize that we can never defeat them again. They are too smart for us.


.
digby 8/06/2005 08:39:00 AM |

Friday, August 05, 2005

 
Uhm no --- He's Just An Idiot

Bush's loyalty raises doubts about his political judgment

"It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap - his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. "Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.

"The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country," Dallek said.

It's not that his administration can do no wrong. It's that he can do no wrong. If he picked these people for his administration or for his friends, thay are, by definition, good people who are above suspicion. To say otherwise would be to admit that his judgment is imperfect and that is impossible. Dear Leader is an infallible child.

Several analysts said the Palmeiro situation illustrates that point. Bush took a strong stand against steroids in his 2004 State of the Union address, demanding that major league sports take tougher action to eliminate steroid use by athletes.

"The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football and other sports is dangerous and it sends the wrong message - that there are shortcuts to accomplishment and that performance is more important than character," Bush said.

But when news of Palmeiro's positive drug test and 10-day suspension by Major League Baseball became public, Bush almost instantly backed the ballplayer, saying Palmeiro spoke truthfully on March 17 when he wagged his finger at the
House Government Reform Committee and emphatically denied ever using steroids.

Bush's fondness for Palmeiro - who recently became only the fourth major league player to slam more than 500 home runs and 3,000 base hits - dates back to when Palmeiro played for the Rangers under Bush's ownership.

"Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him," Bush said Monday. "He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do."

Bush's quick defense seemed contradictory to some, in light of his previous tough talk on steroids.

"His defense in this case, so quickly, seemed like an about-face, from taking a stand to a ridiculous statement a fan might make to another fan in a bar," said Richard Lapchick, chairman of the DeVos Sports Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida. "It certainly didn't seem like he thought that one through."

How unusual. And he's usually so intellectually thorough.

Stephen Hess, a political scientist at George Washington University in Washington, believes Bush's judgment isn't clouded by loyalty. The president had no problem in dismissing Lawrence Lindsey, his economic adviser during the 2000 campaign and the head of his Council of Economic Advisers until his ouster in 2002.

"That showed me he'll carry loyalty to a point - which is part of what presidents do," Hess said.

Of course, Lindsey was let go not long after he estimated publicly that a war in
Iraq could cost $200 billion, far above Bush loyalists' line at the time, which may have been seen as disloyal. Iraq war costs will exceed $200 billion in the next year.

And he was fat. His loyalty doesn't extend that far.

Honestly, this blind defense of Palmiero has little to do with loyalty. It's about Bush's faith based approach to everything. If he believes it, it must be true. He does not use reason to come to conclusions. He makes decisions based on feelings and beliefs and "instinct." In this case, his instinct is that Palmiero is a good guy and therefore could not have lied. His "instinct" is that creationism makes sense and therefore, is as legitimate as evolution. His "instinct" was that Saddam was a threat and therefore, we had to invade.

We have a man with a child's mind running this country. Millions of us can see this as clearly as we can see his face on our television screens. People can call me an elitist and a snob for pointing this out but I will never stop. It's like telling me it's rude to notice that the sun came up this morning or that gravity exists. It is observable fact that this president is intellectually stunted. I'm not going to pretend otherwise so that certain people's feelings don't get hurt. I'll lose my mind.



.
digby 8/05/2005 05:04:00 PM |

 
Lawyered Up

It's almost spooky that I've been writing about Novak all this week --- even before he had his hissy fit yesterday. Perhaps I have some sort of psychic powers of which I've been unaware up to now. I hope so. If this works out I'll get back in the market.

Actually, there is a more prosaic explanation. I've been writing about Bob Novak all week because he wrote an odd column about the Plame case on Monday. It was the first time he's written anything about it in many months. And he said that he'd done it against his lawyers' wishes. Atrios is reporting a rumor that Novak is being called before the Grand Jury all of a sudden. I would suspect that if it's true, it's because of something he wrote in that column.

We all know that it is quite strange that he had not been called before (although we don't know that for sure.) It's even more strange that he seems to have cooperated. Otherwise, unless Pat Fitzgerald was the most incompetent boob in the DOJ, he would have been in the same boat as Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. It's the nature of the "cooperation" that's most curious.

Of the major media players, Walter Pincus has spoken to the public and the prosecutor. Matt Cooper has spoken to the public and the prosecutor. Tim Russert made a deal and spoke with the prosecutors and NBC released a statement to the public relaying the substance of his conversation. Judith Miller hasn't spoken to either the prosecutor or the public and is in jail. Robert Novak, the only one who actually published the leak information, hasn't spoken to the public but (we assume) he has spoken to the prosecutor. He has repeatedly said that he cannot discuss the case in any way because his lawyers have advised him not to say anything publicly.

Why would that be? Here's one little hint, although it may just be an accidental turn of phrase. The day after Novak had his little contretemps with Ed Henry in June, miracle of miracles, the NY Times actually did a tiny little story on why Novak has not been on the hotseat like every other reporter in town. And Novak's publisher said this:

Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.

"We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment," Mr. Cruickshank said. "But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending."

Why is his legal counsel recommending a legal strategy at all? Nobody else is using that excuse. Obviously, as a journalist he cannot use the white house excuse that the prosecutor has requested he not talk about the case because ... well, that would make him the worst kind of journalistic sissy there is. Especially compared to macho Judy Miller. While it's true that Miller is practising shoddy journalism by refusing to write what she knows (without revealing her source) she at least is following the general principle that the press shouldn't knuckle under to the government, which is, after all the reason for the confidentiality rule in the first place.

Novak hasn't upheld anything at all. He's almost certainly given up his sources and also refused to answer questions. He is being totally unprincipled. It's left him open to being called a hack and a liar and he's restrained from responding by his "legal strategy." It's clearly driving him crazy. And that leads me to believe that his lawyers know that there is a grave danger that if Bob keeps talking he's going to find himself in a big heap of trouble.

It's possible that Novak wrote something he shouldn't have in that column on Monday. Not knowing what he's told the authorities I don't know specifically what it said that would be cause for worry but Bob is clearly having a very hard time with the fact that he is not allowed to spin his way out of this defend himself :

Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

Again, why would Novak have to be so careful? He's not covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act nor is he really prohibited from publishing classified information. His only reason for having to be so cautious is because he either has an immunity deal with the prosecution, which I sincerely doubt, or his lawyers believe that Fitzgerald thinks he may have lied to the authorities or obstructed justice.

Based on his meager public statements alone you can easily see why Fitzgerald would have ample reason to suspect him of participating in a cover-up. He's been changing his story from day one. In his original column he said that Wilson was a fine, well qualified non-partisan, ex-diplomat and that the administration had told him that his wife suggested him for the mission. He explained a few days later, "I didn't dig it out -- they gave it to me --- they thought it was significant." Shortly thereafter, he changed his story and wrote that it had been just an "off-hand remark" in the midst of another conversation. Then when the justice department began its investigation he said he pursued the story because he was "curious" as to why a partisan Democrat like Joseph Wilson with no qualifications was sent on the mission --- a characterization that is entirely at odds with what he actually wrote.

You can see why his lawyers wanted him to shut up. He tends to draw suspicion on himself every time he opens his mouth. And let's not forget that Karl Rove and others, through their mouthpieces, have been using the same line with respect to other reporters like Cooper --- "it was an offhand comment." Indeed, the administration figures involved seem to want us to believe that they were just offhandedly mentioning this little factoid with no coordination or plan at all --- to a reported half dozen elite DC journalists. Robert Novak, contrary to his earlier statements and the tenor of his original piece, seemed to want to enthusiastically back that up and imply that he was independently pursuing the story of the partisan democrat Joe Wilson's trip all on his own. How very convenient.

And there is another aspect to this story as well. Novak seems to have finally lost the protective insular cloak of the celebrity proess corps brotherhood. But that doesn't abslove them of their absurd silence all these months.

It is one thing for a reporter to withhold the names of his sources. It is quite another for a reporter to withhold information from the public to protect each other. But this case has shown in numerous ways that the press feels perfectly comfortable trafficking in gossip about a president's sex life --- and funneling that gossip through the foreign press and back to sleaze sites like Drudge in order to "get it out there." But they have been remarkably willing to stay silent when their "stars" are involved in a legal tangle.

That's one big reason why this ridiculous spectacle of Bob Novak and Tim Russert and Judith Miller the rest of these guys, who clearly have pertinent information, has been played out for two years as kabuki while the rest of us keep scratching our heads and wondering why they don't just tell us what they know.

Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei changed the dynamic last week when they printed Bill Harlow's comments about Novak. Novak lost his composure, both in print and then on television. He is a spoiled DC elder who believes that he is above the petty humiliations and character assassination he deals every day to politicians of whom he disapproves. He can't believe that he has to sit back and let people trash his reputation while he's constrained from responding by the possibility of legal consequences. Poor baby. Maybe he ought to spend some time in jail reading some of his columns and reviewing tapes of his Crossfire and Capital Gang appearances in which he ruthlessly destroyed Democrats for the last 40 years. Maybe he could write a novel about his experiences on the other side of the fence --- where Bob Novak is subjected to ... Bob Novak.


Update: Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED has a delicious little piece of speculation about Novak's "cooperation" and his little temper tantrum yesterday:

Picking up on what Atrios hints at, if James Carville was engaging in some privy, insider goading when he told Robert Novak that he has to “show the right wingers that you are a stand-up guy, and The Wall Street Journal is watching your every move,” does that suggest that Novak already named names? If so, is the VRWC silently sharpening their knives in the event that Novak's spilled the beans? Will they sacrifice one of their own?

.
digby 8/05/2005 12:25:00 PM |

Thursday, August 04, 2005

 
Leaning On The Bulldog

Josh Marshall wonders why Novak would have stomped off the set just because Ed Henry was planning to ask him about Plamegate (if that's why he did it.) After all, Novak's been successfully fending off questions about this for two years now.

I think he might be a little bit prickly because he didn't want it generally known that his most recent column used false information not generated this time by "senior white house officials" but from a discredited cockheaded man-ho. Check out Peter Daou's full report on the Gannon "expose" that Novak used as proof that the Kerry campaign "discarded" Joe Wilson.

It seems to me that it's possible the mean old man just didn't want to face the fact that he is a has-been journalist as well as a Republican hack who's outlived his usefulness. Retirement must be looking pretty good.



.
digby 8/04/2005 05:49:00 PM |

 
Just Shut Up

Bayh said there are legitimate grounds to criticize
President Bush's approach to fighting terrorism, but until Democrats establish more credibility on the issue, many voters won't listen.

"Many Americans wonder if we're willing to use force to defend the country even under the most compelling of circumstances," Bayh said. "The majority of Democrats would answer that question that, yes, there is a right place and a right time. We don't get to have that discussion because many people don't think we have the backbone."

And the best way to deal with that is to vigorously endorse whatever insane, bullshit war the Republicans want to wage. Because it's worked out so well so far.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

I guess even though more than half the Democrats signed on to that cock-up, we still should have been even more enthusiastically running off the cliff with old George. What utter nonsense. If DLCer Evan Bayh thinks that we'll build credibility on national security by screaming "War On Terror" louder and shriller than the Republicans, he's nuts. Even they know that slogan has outlived its usefulness.

Might I suggest that the reason Democrats have no credibility on national security is not because we allegedly refuse to defend the country, but because bedwetters like Evan Bayh run all over the country validating the Republican's patented talking points that Democrats refuse to defend the country?

It's true that the American people think we have no backbone. But let's just say the reasons have less to do with our national security policy and more to do with our leadership. We will have credibility on national security when we have a credible national security policy --- and when we show the country that we aren't so afraid of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove that we'll scurry to the front of the line to sign up every time they say boo.



.
digby 8/04/2005 05:06:00 PM |

 
Sensitive Little Creatures

This is best reason yet to vote for Hillary Clinton.



Speaking of which... via Crooks and Liars I see that both Little Ricky and Novakula had hissy fits on the air today. Ricky resorted to gay bashing right away. I suspect that Novakula will be buying himself a nice new SUV very soon.



.
digby 8/04/2005 02:00:00 PM |

 
Waiting To Exhale

Via Talk Left, I see that Murray Waas and Joe Wilson were on Democracy Now. Waas obviously has some informed contacts and he said a couple of things that caught my eye:

MURRAY WAAS: Fitzgerald keeps his cards close to his vest. There was some interesting action in the last couple days before the Grand Jury. Two of Karl Rove's aides came before the Grand Jury, an assistant and another top aide. We're not sure what they said. We're not sure why they were called. But that would indicate some intensification or moving toward some kind of closure, which way is a little bit difficult to tell, but Fitzgerald does seem stymied still by the lack of testimony by Judith Miller.

[...]

So, we're not sure exactly where things are going. One other interesting possibility, if there isn't -- if there aren’t indictments brought, there is the option for special prosecutors to issue a public report. So, Fitzgerald can potentially put out everything that he knows in the public record. But he is kind of a man who is impervious to public opinion, who doesn't see his role necessarily as one of informing public opinion, but simply prosecuting crimes. So, he has had discussions with people in the Department of Justice, and some people have urged him to take that course, but we hope we can find out what actually happened here. If there are indictments, there would be trials, and if there were no indictments, because the evidence doesn't reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt to bring people to trial, that maybe there would be a public report. And lastly, interestingly, there's a movement by Nancy Pelosi, the majority leader -- Democratic leader in the House now, to get behind a Democratic resolution of inquiry by Congress to get to the bottom of this, when Fitzgerald is all done. So hopefully someday we'll learn the truth, we’ll learn all of the facts.

I can't tell you how much it's going to chap my hide to see Karl Rove and his buddies skate because Judith Miller is covering for them. After watching them willfully and credulously print every smear that scumbags like David Bossie could dream up about Bill Clinton, the NY Times makes a fetish of protecting the Bush administration. Our paper of record has seriously lost its way. It is now little more than a Republican plaything; its reputation is being used as a vehicle to mislead the public; its ethics and standards are being manipulated to cover up corruption. Something is very rotten at the Grey Lady. (Here's Gene Lyons' latest take on the matter. He's an expert in the perfidy of the NY Times.)

And I think we know why the republicans are being very ginger in their treatment of Fitzgerald and why Senator Pat Roberts backed off his threat to hold hearings about the investigation. They don't want to piss Fitzgerald off and force him to offer a public report in order to clear his own reputation.

Everybody's sitting tight.

Update: I see that Talk Left has yet another post on this matter in which she wonders why (Rove's lawyer)Donald Luskin is no longer talking and speculates that his law partner Benjamin Ginsberg might be involved:

Is Ginsberg serving as an ex-officio, behind the scene counsel to Rove? Don't forget, Ginsberg both represented the Bush campaign during the 2000 Florida recount and served as counsel to the Bush 2004 re-election campaign.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. The post links to an interesting interview in Legal Times with Richard Sauber, Matt Cooper's lawyer:

LT: From all that you've heard and all of the people you have spoken to, what do you think Fitzgerald is aiming for?

RS: I spent a lot of time on the phone [with Fitzgerald] and in person. He was so careful not to give away anything -- even with body language -- any indication of what he was looking at or where he was going. It was quite astonishing how uncommunicative he was. So the short answer is, I don't know.

But the only clue is that he submitted some fairly extensive material under seal. Every judge who has commented on that [has said] how impressive the showing is and how important this case is to national security. All I can surmise is that he has a substantial amount of evidence to continue a fairly robust investigation. And it does involve classified material.

This Fitzgerald is a machine, isn't he?





.
digby 8/04/2005 12:58:00 PM |

 
Losing Their Religion

The ratfucking operation in the GOP is getting awfully sloppy these days. They just don't seem on their game. And it's not just that Rove is sweating bullets wondering if he's going to have a fun new roommate named Roscoe pretty soon. I think it's because the true masters of the game are getting old --- and the younger generation of ratfuckers are like so many children who inherit great fortunes --- spoiled and worthless.

Consider the fact that the Republicans create a "voting irregularity" front group to counter the charges that they are fixing elections. Fine. I would expect no less. This is what they do.

But, by God, I never thought they'd be dumb enough to use nationally known Republican operatives to do it. Jim Dyke was the communications director for the RNC during the 2004 campaign, ferchistsake. He was all over television. And now six months later he's working with a 501c "non-partisan" group that released a report claiming "Democrat operatives" are stealing elections. Please. Any good GOP sleaze artist knows that you create at least a couple of degrees of separation between the party and the ratfucking. Roger Stone must be shaking his head in disgust. I suppose it's what happens when you lose the hunger for power.

Bradblog has even more on the rightwing blogs little orgasm over this "non-partisan" report.



.
digby 8/04/2005 10:22:00 AM |

 
Representing Gays For Free

I think Kevin asks the right question about this story that John Roberts did pro-bono work on a gay rights case:

It's probably a sign of my slow deterioration into political senility that I'm less interested in the actual story here than I am in the meta-story. Why did Serrano write this piece? Who suggested it to him? And why did they suggest it?

Was it to make Roberts look less doctrinaire and therefore more palatable to liberals? Or was it designed to plant seeds of doubt about his doctrinal trustworthiness among conservatives? Or to insinuate that maybe Roberts is gay after all? Or what?

This sounds like a job for Arianna to me.

If I had to guess I'd say that it came from the liberal side which looked over his statement to the Senate of pro-bono cases he'd worked on and saw that he'd left out one important case. But who knows?

It certainly does seem odd to me that a staunch Republican and Catholic like Roberts, who we know by now is a winger's right winger, would work on a gay rights case like this one. This was no arcane legal issue like one of the two pro-bono cases he descibed in his statement. Nor was it on behalf of the poor like the other one, which one could say is easily reconcilable with his religious beliefs. This was a landmark gay discrimination case. He could have begged off, I'm sure.

I can't guess what went on, but I do think it's odd that he didn't mention it, if what he wants to do is present himself as a non-ideologue for the purposes of a smooth confirmation. It would have been a perfect example of his "open-mindedness." On the other hand, it might stir up discomfort among the religious extremists who are demanding perfect fealty these days. But then, he really is a super ideologue, so why was he defending gay rights in the first place? He couldn't do his pro-bono work for causes that didn't offend his religious beliefs?

I'm with Kevin. This makes my head hurt.



.
digby 8/04/2005 09:32:00 AM |

 
Who He Is

Steve Soto deconstructs the GWOT-GSAVE flippity-flop and Tim Grieve over at Salon reminds us that this isn't the first time they've done it. Seems the leader who says "Aah'm a leader who knows how ta lead cuz aah've led" is a teensy weensy bit inconsistent on this issue.

But I have to say that I never thought he'd really give up the "war." After all, who is George W Bush?

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.

He's a war preznit for the culture 'o life. He's nothing without that.



.
digby 8/04/2005 08:32:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

 
Heroes And Chickenhawks

Gary Farber has been writing about a very interesting follow-up to the story from last night about the Iraqi General who was killed with the novel "beating with a rubber hose while tied up in a sleeping bag" interrogation technique. I was unaware that this was only uncovered because of another honorable whistleblower:

For Sgt. 1st Class Michael Pratt it would have been far easier to look away. If war is hell, after all, there are going to be some demons. And since hooking up with the Colorado-based 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq in early 2003, the Utah National Guard soldier had learned it was simpler to ignore questionable actions than report them.

But the guardsman couldn't look past what he had seen in the Al Qiem Detention Facility. Not after the death of an inmate whom he believed had been abused by a senior officer. Not even as the Army announced that the prisoner had died "of natural causes."

Army records show that apparent abuses of inmates at the makeshift prison, known as the Blacksmith Hotel, may have been ignored had Pratt not reported his concerns to Utah Guard officials, outside the chain of command of the unit to which he was temporarily assigned. The documents, transcripts from testimony given by Pratt in a closed hearing last March, also detail the soldier's struggles to do what he felt was right in the face of pressure to remain silent.

The record also illustrates a disturbing charge: That the unit with which Pratt found himself in Iraq was little interested in hearing an enlisted soldier's complaints and concerns about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Contacted by The Salt Lake Tribune, the Bountiful native declined to speak about the matter, saying he wanted to ensure any further testimony would not be tainted by public comment. Maj. Mark Solomon of Fort Carson, Colo., the commander of 3rd Cavalry troops not currently deployed - including four soldiers implicated in the inmate's death - said he could not comment on any of Pratt's allegations.

But a 38-page transcript of previously secret testimony details what Pratt claims to have seen at Blacksmith - and why he ultimately decided that he could not remain silent.

[...]

A soldier with a squeaky-clean record and reputation during his 18 years in the Utah National Guard, Pratt was apparently unprepared for what he found in his first few months with some of the regular Army soldiers of the 3rd Cavalry.

Among the allegations made in his testimony: That he had witnessed a soldier shoot a 14-year-old boy in the back during a raid - as the boy was running away. That matter, he claimed, was never thoroughly investigated, though fellow soldiers assured him that the rules of engagement had been followed when the teen was shot.

Later, when he learned that unqualified soldiers were conducting interrogations, Pratt again logged a compliant. In response, he testified, he was investigated - and told by other soldiers it was for blackmail purposes.

The final blow came when Pratt reported that a group of combat engineers had confiscated a large stash of currency from an Iraqi family who intended to use the money to send their daughter to Jordan for an operation. When he reported the matter to an officer in his chain of command, Pratt said, "he told me I was getting too close to the Iraqis. He accused me of losing my objectivity."

"After that incident," Pratt said. "I realized that it was pointless to report anything."

[...]

Still, Pratt said he confronted the senior soldier after he watched another officer pull a sleeping bag over an inmate, immobilizing the man with cord before slamming him to the ground. When the inmate began to pray aloud, Pratt said, the officer poured water into his mouth and cupped his hands over the inmate's face.

Welshofer, the unit's "subject matter expert" on interrogation techniques, told Pratt "the sleeping bag technique" was authorized, though only certain soldiers were allowed to use it, according to Pratt's testimony. In the following days, the record states, Pratt watched as Welshofer himself applied the technique on another inmate, sitting on the bound man's chest and stomach as he asked him questions.

"I could tell by the way he was sitting, if I was in the detainee's position, I would have had a hard time breathing," Pratt said, adding afterward: "I'm surprised that it didn't kill him."

This guy was finally heard when he left Iraq and reported what he knew to an officer from the Utah National Guard stationed in Kuwait. It's likely that this whole story would have been swept under the rug if this man had not come forward as he did.

He is a hero, to be sure, as are others, which I wrote about the other night. It's quite clear that torture, beatings, abuse and sexual humiliation were standard operating procedures from 2002 - 2004 at least, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. I won't even hazard a guess about what happened to the ghost prisoners they considered to be real threats and kept in various offshore prisons or rendered to friendly despots who would happily torture them for us. One of them says they sliced his genitals --- but then we are told that they are all liars, so what do I know? (I thought the tales of menstrual blood in Guantanamo were ridiculous too --- until they turned out to be true) Considering what was done to those who were considered low level, I'm not sure we ever want to know the details. Apparently, at least for a time, people at high levels ordered our military to behave like barbarians. And gosh, it's really worked out so well.

I know that war is hell and all, but it's really important to keep in perspective one particular thing. We invaded Iraq; it didn't attack us. We weren't invited in either. We just did it. And as we now know, the reasons we gave for doing it were false. And when we got there we were so unprepared that we allowed the country to immediately devolve into chaos. Out of that chaos an insurgency developed. Our reaction was to "take the gloves off" -- in a country we had allegedly just liberated -- the same way we "took the gloves off" with al Qaeda.

The vast majority of Iraqis were not Saddam's bitter-enders, not insurgents and certainly not terrorists. They had just spent 30 years under the thumb of a totalitarian dictator. And yet we were rampaging through their homes, "hunting insurgents" and treating them as if they were an enemy. We sent in too few troops and those we sent were untrained and inexperienced. And we let the CIA and other unacountables have a free hand.

Again, these were Iraqis, the people we claimed to be liberating --- not a country of terrorists who threatened our way of life. And yet I think many of our troops did not understand this. And why would they? The president of the United States constantly made it sound as if they were one in the same. He evoked 9/11 in the same breath as Iraq over and over again. Many of our troops believed that the Iraqis were responsible for the terrorist attacks. And with the instructions to "take the gloves off" they took out their rage against those they believed were responsible.

This is why the chickenhawks should be forced go to war. It's not that they must be willing to die for their country; nobody's dying for America over there --- they are dying for George W. Bush. It's because if young (and not so young) men and women are going to be forced to have blood on their hands like this; to be involved in the killing of innocents and torture and abuse due to political incompetence, then the political supporters of this war should have to share in their nightmares and their guilt. Let them be the ones fending off nervous breakdowns and suicide, let them have this on their consciences. The chickenhawks who support "taking the gloves off" in an unjust war should be forced to be the ones who do this barbaric dirty work on behalf of the man they see as the great deliverer of freedom and democracy.

I sincerely hope that George W. Bush's God exists. Because if he does, he's sending that SOB straight to hell.


Farber has been posting on this for several days. Here he discusees an earlier story from the Denver Post.

Update: For another excellent analysis of the full story read this post and the next one down from Marty Lederman at Balkinization.
digby 8/03/2005 06:46:00 PM |

 
What Makes You Feel Free?

Armando points to this WaPo article in which we find that John Roberts does not believe in a right to privacy. Now, I realize that this is really an arcane legal debate, but I wonder how it plays politically?

According to this Gallup Poll (pdf)from 2003 (when we were in high GWOT "fear-up) this is how the American people saw it:

Tell what makes you feel free?

36.

Next I am going to read some basic American rights. For each one, please indicate whether this is crucial to your own sense of freedom, very important but not crucial, somewhat important, or not important at all.

How about - [RANDOM ORDER]?

2003 Nov 10-12

Crucial---very important---Somewhatimportant---Not Important---No opinion



The right to vote 60 37 2 1 *

Freedom of religion 55 39 5 1 *

The right to free speech 52 40 7 1 *

The right to due process 52 37 7 1 3

The right to privacy 47 44 9 * *

The right to petition the government 44 37 15 2 2

Protection against unreasonable searches/seizures 40 39 16 2 2

Freedom of the press 36 37 22 4 1

The right to keep and bear arms 30 26 27 15 2

Interesting, don't you think? It would appear that a rather large number of Americans not only believe they have a right to privacy, they believe it is more crucial than freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.


I think that this is one of those big ticket "superjumbo" items that Democrats should begin to stake out. This issue is not just one that applies togovernment, but business as well and with companies selling our personal information to the highest bidder and the government and religion encroaching into our private lives, this issue is becoming more and more salient.

The Republicans are always introducing constitutional amendments and bills that have no chance of passage in order to stake out their position on constitutional issues. We should do this too. And our elected representatives should say loud and clear that we believe in a right to privacy. Let the Republicans explain why they don't.

This seems like a no brainer to me. Guys like Rick Santorum are now just coming right out and saying that they don't believe in a right to privacy and we are about to put a new justice on the Supreme Court who believes that the Bill of Rights does not imply such a freedom. Ok. Let's amend the constitution and make it explicit, then. 91% of the public are with us. And I suspect they are going to be a bit surprised to learn that there are big thinkers out there in the GOP who believe that this very important, crucial right doesn't exist at all.



.
digby 8/03/2005 05:03:00 PM |

 
Wedged In

I keep reading in the mainstream press about the terrible rift between the DLC and the left and how Democratic candidates are going to have to thread the needle in 06 and 08 to deal with it. We are all told how desperately the party needs to stop being a collection of issu