Monday, April 30, 2007
Question
If I were in a rock band called Vituperation Toxicity and I recorded a song called Gay Voodoo Limbo Tango and Wango Dance would I be the coolest person in the known universe?
...don't answer that until you consider that Kip Winger is our lead singer.
...don't answer that until you consider that Kip Winger is our lead singer.
Ladies
Well, at least the latest court opinion has provided us with a fresh opportunity for condescending assholes who believe women are idiots to reveal themselves anew.
Lord Saletan really is an idiot.
Lord Saletan really is an idiot.
"Journalists of Questionable Patriotism"
Just who would they be, Howie, and who gets to be the questioner?
Maybe some of Howie's colleagues should call him up and see if they're on his list.
Maybe some of Howie's colleagues should call him up and see if they're on his list.
Oh My
Waas:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides -- who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. A copy of the order and other Justice Department records related to the conception and implementation of the order were provided to National Journal.
In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.
The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.
A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.
...
A senior Justice Department official, who did not know of Gonzales's delegation of authority until contacted by National Journal, said that it posed a serious threat to the integrity of the criminal-justice system because it gave Sampson, Goodling, and the White House control over the hiring of senior officials in the Justice Department's Criminal Division, which oversees all politically sensitive public corruption cases, at the same time that they held authority to hire and fire U.S. attorneys.
Broderella
Funny:
If you think through that logically, he's saying that everyone who can get an audience "without having to be cleared by anybody" doesn't like him.
As for his stuff about Reid, this is just bizarre. In the original column he wrote:
He's got a "long list of senators from both parties."
Except 50 of them told him to pound sand. To which he responded:
Who's on his list of senators? Where exactly did this list come from?
BRODER: I know, and I am not a fan of the blogs, and the blogs are not fans of mine, and we can live with that tension as well. What I like about the world today is that people can have an audience without having to be cleared by anybody, and it's a great thing for this country that people can express their views.
If you think through that logically, he's saying that everyone who can get an audience "without having to be cleared by anybody" doesn't like him.
As for his stuff about Reid, this is just bizarre. In the original column he wrote:
And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.
He's got a "long list of senators from both parties."
Except 50 of them told him to pound sand. To which he responded:
Broder told E&P that he was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators "spontaneously" came up with the letter (adding that he was being "tongue-in-cheek").
The columnist also said he was "not surprised" that his Thursday piece drew such a negative reaction from the 50 senators and most of the many readers who flooded WashingtonPost.com with comments. "This war is so unpopular and for very good reason," said Broder. "I've written many columns critical of this administration's actions in Iraq, and most of the response of readers to those columns has been: 'Right on.'"
Who's on his list of senators? Where exactly did this list come from?
I Like Hillary
I just don't really like the people she surrounds herself with (with some notable exceptions). As the campaign goes on it'll be harder and harder to rationally distinguish between the two.
Will We Give Ourselves A Fright
Our leaders showed more courage when they informed us that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself " instead of telling us to be scared all of the time. True leaders will move us past the notion that what we want is a Great Protector to keep away the demons.
Stories
I didn't mean to imply I was making a novel suggestion, or that personal stories haven't been part of the pro-choice movement all along, but I think the situation has changed a bit with the most recent Court ruling. I think it'll be very possible to focus on the fact that this isn't about "Congress getting in the way of you having an abortion," it's about "Congress stopping your doctor from doing what's best for you." To people like me those are largely indistinguishable, but for the "abortion is icky" crowd the latter may have more resonance.
So, yes, more stories please, and everyone with a megaphone should be open to broadcasting them.
So, yes, more stories please, and everyone with a megaphone should be open to broadcasting them.
Civility
- 9 a.m. -- (POLITICS/CIVILITY/BOEHNER/LIEBERMAN) CONFERENCE -- The American Enterprise Institute, the University of Pennsylvania and the Brookings Institution sponsors a conference titled "Civility and American Politics," to discuss "how incivility affects our political system and our ability to tackle the problems of twenty-first-century life." Location: 902 Hart Senate Office Building
Meanwhile
Over there:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed more than 20 people when he blew himself up among mourners at a Shi'ite funeral north of Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi police said.
The attack took place inside a crowded mourning tent in the town of Khalis in volatile Diyala province, police said.
Stories
As I've long said, ultimately the country is very pro-choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee. People assume that they, personally, will be able to make sensible reproductive and health decisions with their doctors, but are "uncomfortable" with the thought of other people making decisions they don't approve of and therefore there's more support for chipping away at these things around the edges. People fail to understand that such things have the potential to affect them personally, and fail to understand that Judge Santorum or someone will be intervening in their private medical decisions.
Ultimately, brave people are going to have to stand up and start talking about their personal experiences with these things in a way which communicates "this could happen to you" to people.
Ultimately, brave people are going to have to stand up and start talking about their personal experiences with these things in a way which communicates "this could happen to you" to people.
At Least He's A Good Tipper
But shame on him for giving all that money to the evil French.
RADIO host Rush Limbaugh is far from conservative when it comes to his big appetite. The Post's Braden Keil reports that Limbaugh and a female companion lived large at Kobe Club last Thursday night, devouring bacon with truffles, Japanese strip steak, Kobe beef cheek ravioli, a large seafood platter, a combo of American, Australian and Japanese wagyu steaks and several "side" dishes. After finishing their $700 feast, Limbaugh left the server a $1,000 tip. On a previous night, Limbaugh and another female friend were spotted by patrons sharing a $4,000 bottle of wine at '21.'
Matt Drudge Rules His World
Well, well, Time is hiring Mark Halperin.
I suppose we can expect more mash notes to and desperate cries for love from Hugh Hewitt.
Maybe at long last he can explain which journalists, especially his new Time colleagues, "hate the military."
Perhaps Jay, Joe, Ana Marie, and Karen can comment on this.
I suppose we can expect more mash notes to and desperate cries for love from Hugh Hewitt.
Maybe at long last he can explain which journalists, especially his new Time colleagues, "hate the military."
Perhaps Jay, Joe, Ana Marie, and Karen can comment on this.
Exporting Democracy
Bush style.
Maliki's Office Is Seen Behind Purge in Forces
Some Commanders Had Pursued Militias
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sauced and Saucy
I have no idea if Bush is back on the booze or shagging his SecofState, but yes the former would of course be not just a legitimate news story but an important one, and the latter would be a legitimate one by the prevailing standards for such things.
Speaking of The Editors
I've been meaning to re-run this.
...effing editors, must be feeding straight melamine to the hamsters.
...effing editors, must be feeding straight melamine to the hamsters.
More Thread
Go read some other blog for a change. You will if you want to discover THE TRUTH!
...oh, what the hell, a couple thoughts following up the post below. It's true that the media has never been very consistent with standards about when private lives should be allowed to remain private. I don't just mean that they fail to live up to some ideal standard, I mean that there doesn't seem to be any consistent standard which they even pretend to adhere to. I'm sure individual reporters and editors do have such a thing, but overall it's pretty random.
As for media figures potentially being caught up in this, aside from personal hypocrisy their potential for being fair game is in direct proportion to the degree to which they are "celebrities" rather than simply journalists. There are no clear guidelines here, of course, though at a first pass those who have a tendency to market themselves as a brand rather than simply marketing their work start moving into celebrity territory. If Britney Spears' private life is fair game, then perhaps Tim Russert's is as well (no I'm not suggesting something here). Russert crossed clearly into that territory when he when he used his celebrity status to market a book about himself. Being a teevee figure moves you into celebrity status, though that of course isn't true of all journalists who make appearances on the teevee. If it's about you, you're a celebrity, if it's about what you're reporting, you're not.
...oh, what the hell, a couple thoughts following up the post below. It's true that the media has never been very consistent with standards about when private lives should be allowed to remain private. I don't just mean that they fail to live up to some ideal standard, I mean that there doesn't seem to be any consistent standard which they even pretend to adhere to. I'm sure individual reporters and editors do have such a thing, but overall it's pretty random.
As for media figures potentially being caught up in this, aside from personal hypocrisy their potential for being fair game is in direct proportion to the degree to which they are "celebrities" rather than simply journalists. There are no clear guidelines here, of course, though at a first pass those who have a tendency to market themselves as a brand rather than simply marketing their work start moving into celebrity territory. If Britney Spears' private life is fair game, then perhaps Tim Russert's is as well (no I'm not suggesting something here). Russert crossed clearly into that territory when he when he used his celebrity status to market a book about himself. Being a teevee figure moves you into celebrity status, though that of course isn't true of all journalists who make appearances on the teevee. If it's about you, you're a celebrity, if it's about what you're reporting, you're not.
Madam
Brian Ross on Howie's show:
While I think the clients have legitimate privacy claims if they were committing no crimes, the flip side is that the the Feds have indicted her based on the idea that there were crimes committed but that any legal issues related to the men should just be ignored. Whether or not she was running an illegal prostitution ring, the Bush Justice Department is claiming she did.
That does complicate the issue quite a bit. She obviously has a legitimate right to expose her clients in order to use them in her defense. The fact that cracking down on prostitution is a Bush DOJ initiative also makes it more justifiable to highlight any Bushies who get entangled with it, as they are being implicitly accused of criminal activity by that DOJ even if it is unconcerned with those crimes.
Media outlets have a tough call here. Any name they release is a choice both to name that one and to not name others. Rumors (true or not) about who they haven't named will be used to accuse the media outlets of covering for some people but not others.
Anyway, the legal consensual sexual activities of private citizens really shouldn't be media fodder. Prominent politicians are always open to gross hypocrisy charges, which makes them potentially fair game. It's a bit murkier for non-prominent government officials.
Should be interesting...
ROSS: We told her that we would take it seriously, that it was a potentially important story. Her point is that she runs an operation that she claims offered no sex. And that she sees it as hypocritical that the government is going after her and the women who worked for her and not the men. The phone lists were in her home when the Federal agents raided it. But they were not interested in apparently the names of the men, only the women who worked for her. So she thinks that it is hypocritical. Secondly, she wants to call some of these men to testify on her behalf. She's turned down a deal, a plea bargain deal from the government and wants to go to trial.
While I think the clients have legitimate privacy claims if they were committing no crimes, the flip side is that the the Feds have indicted her based on the idea that there were crimes committed but that any legal issues related to the men should just be ignored. Whether or not she was running an illegal prostitution ring, the Bush Justice Department is claiming she did.
That does complicate the issue quite a bit. She obviously has a legitimate right to expose her clients in order to use them in her defense. The fact that cracking down on prostitution is a Bush DOJ initiative also makes it more justifiable to highlight any Bushies who get entangled with it, as they are being implicitly accused of criminal activity by that DOJ even if it is unconcerned with those crimes.
Media outlets have a tough call here. Any name they release is a choice both to name that one and to not name others. Rumors (true or not) about who they haven't named will be used to accuse the media outlets of covering for some people but not others.
Anyway, the legal consensual sexual activities of private citizens really shouldn't be media fodder. Prominent politicians are always open to gross hypocrisy charges, which makes them potentially fair game. It's a bit murkier for non-prominent government officials.
Should be interesting...
Sunday Bobbleheads
Document the atrocities:
ABC's "This Week" -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; actress Natalie Portman.
CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Rice; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., presidential candidate.
CNN's "Late Edition" -- Rice; Reps. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., and Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County); Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi foreign minister; European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
"Fox News Sunday" -- Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and wife Cindy McCain.
Oh My
Escorts!
Let me say now that to the extent that this is consensual, legal, and doesn't involve gross hypocrisy of public figures and the agenda they advocate it's none of our business. To the extent that such qualifications are met I hope it doesn't become our business.
ROSS: There are thousands of names, tens of thousands of phone numbers, and there are people there at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers — a long, long list, and as well, the women who work for the service, David, include university professors, legal secretaries, scientists, military officers.
Let me say now that to the extent that this is consensual, legal, and doesn't involve gross hypocrisy of public figures and the agenda they advocate it's none of our business. To the extent that such qualifications are met I hope it doesn't become our business.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Late Night
Every year I fail to win a MacArthur and then fail to get drafted into the NFL. All very depressing.
...oooh! Pundit wars! Rich goes after Broder.
...oooh! Pundit wars! Rich goes after Broder.
It’s our country’s bitter fortune that while David Halberstam is gone, too many Joe Alsops still hold sway. Take the current dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, who is leading the charge in ridiculing Harry Reid for saying the obvious — that “this war is lost” (as it is militarily, unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops). In February, Mr. Broder handed down another gem of Beltway conventional wisdom, suggesting that “at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback.”
Some may recall that Stephen Colbert offered the same prediction in his monologue at the correspondents’ dinner a year ago. “I don’t believe this is a low point in this presidency,” he said. “I believe it is just a lull before a comeback.” But the fake pundit, unlike the real one, recognized that this was a joke.
New Thread
With the 358th pick in the the 3rd Round of the NFL Draft, the Seattle Seahawks pick Rorschach, Tight End, University of Phoenix.
Why Didn't I Think Of That?
Worth revisiting this, from over a year ago.
8 more US troops died attempting to carry out this excellent strategy.
...9.
Glenn Reynolds
1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?
Yes.
2. Have you changed your position?
No. Sanctions were failing and Saddam was a threat, making any other action in the region impossible.
3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?
Win.
8 more US troops died attempting to carry out this excellent strategy.
...9.
Meanwhile
Over there:
BAGHDAD - A parked car exploded Saturday near one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines in the city of Karbala as people were headed to the area for evening prayers, killing 55 people and wounding dozens, officials said.
The explosion took place in a crowded commercial area near the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, officials said. At least 55 people were killed and 70 wounded, said Salim Kazim, the head of the Karbala health department.
I Love Journalists
If only these two excerpts had been sequential, perhaps the absurdity would have been apparent:
While mainstream reporters must sign their names to news stories and submit to the editors and ethical guidelines of their organizations, the bloggers -- many operating freelance -- often write under anonymous sign-ons and without the bureaucracy or controls of a mainstream media organization.
...
But one key state Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concern for riling the netroots crowd, warns that such efforts are potentially positive and negative.
Netroots commentary can frequently be intensely personal, even "totally mean and irrational," the strategist said, with some bloggers finding power in their ability "to assassinate political characters online."
"It's amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it's so irresponsible," the insider said. "And it's pulling the mainstream media in that direction."
The Reeds and Brass Have Been Weaving
Often people, usually in the course of needing to explain the almighty power of blogs to people who don't get it, want to describe blogs in terms of specific tangible successful events. You know, "blogs took down Trent Lott," and whatnot. And while there are certainly occasions where I think blogs have played a very important and clear role in defining and shaping events, I always think it's wrong to focus on those events as what's really important about the blogosphere.
Left of center blogs filled various connected vacuums which were created by a triangulating-against-itself-Democratic party, a media with a "no liberals on TV or radio" rule, and the post-9/11 media prostration to the Bush administration and its complete abdication of its responsibility with respect to the Iraq war, all of which followed its campaign 2000 prostration to the Bush candidacy. Overall what blogs have been able to do is create an unfolding political narrative which has been largely absent elsewhere. Sometimes it's about emphasizing different things, sometimes it's about combating DC conventional wisdom, sometimes it's about highlighting things which are being ignored. But taken all together it's about telling the story of politics in a different way.
While there are other elements - fundraising, various types of activism, etc... - day to day the power of the blogosphere is that it offers up a competing version of political reality, in opposition to the Russert/Matthews/Dowd version and in opposition to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox News/Heritage Foundation version.
I remember years ago I'd know exactly when the few compelling liberal voices would have their moments. I knew when Joe Conason's column would hit the NY Observer, when Paul Krugman's column would hit the NYT, when Michelangelo Signorile's column would hit the New York Press. There were so few of them, voices in the wilderness, and there weren't enough to sustain a narrative.
As Greenwald suggests, things have changed and are changing. The narrative can be sustained, and it can find its way elsewhere into the media bloodstream. It isn't just blogs, of course, but they're an important part.
Here's Bill Moyers chatting with Josh Marshall. And Bill Moyers chatting with Jon Stewart.
Left of center blogs filled various connected vacuums which were created by a triangulating-against-itself-Democratic party, a media with a "no liberals on TV or radio" rule, and the post-9/11 media prostration to the Bush administration and its complete abdication of its responsibility with respect to the Iraq war, all of which followed its campaign 2000 prostration to the Bush candidacy. Overall what blogs have been able to do is create an unfolding political narrative which has been largely absent elsewhere. Sometimes it's about emphasizing different things, sometimes it's about combating DC conventional wisdom, sometimes it's about highlighting things which are being ignored. But taken all together it's about telling the story of politics in a different way.
While there are other elements - fundraising, various types of activism, etc... - day to day the power of the blogosphere is that it offers up a competing version of political reality, in opposition to the Russert/Matthews/Dowd version and in opposition to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox News/Heritage Foundation version.
I remember years ago I'd know exactly when the few compelling liberal voices would have their moments. I knew when Joe Conason's column would hit the NY Observer, when Paul Krugman's column would hit the NYT, when Michelangelo Signorile's column would hit the New York Press. There were so few of them, voices in the wilderness, and there weren't enough to sustain a narrative.
As Greenwald suggests, things have changed and are changing. The narrative can be sustained, and it can find its way elsewhere into the media bloodstream. It isn't just blogs, of course, but they're an important part.
Here's Bill Moyers chatting with Josh Marshall. And Bill Moyers chatting with Jon Stewart.
Max
Cleland with Wolf yesterday.
...transcript:
...transcript:
BLITZER: All this happening as the battle over Iraq, funding for the war, and a time line for withdrawal, raging here in Washington with Congress and the White House at an impasse right now.
Joining us now, the Vietnam veteran, the former Democratic Senator, Max Cleland.
Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
Let me get your quick reaction to that piece we just heard.
It's been, what, four years. The U.S. has been training thousands of Iraqi troops, but they're still not ready.
How frustrated are you that it's taking so long to get these Iraqi troops ready to defend their own country?
MAX CLELAND (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, it reminds me of Vietnam, quite frankly. The -- the essence of what we're seeing in Iraq is what we saw in Vietnam, that unless you have the political support of the people there, they're not going to support really fighting for their own country.
It's not until we get out will they really take it upon themselves to defend themselves, particularly against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is just now using them and coming in and -- and attacking Americans, as they did when they killed those nine soldiers from the 90 -- 82nd Airborne.
So, we are part of the problem, not part of the solution. That's why, after five years of war, it's painfully obvious that there is no strategy to win. There is no strategy to end this war. And so the war is essentially unwinnable and untenable militarily. And that's why we have to get out.
But the Iraqis must ultimately take care of their own country. And that's what we need to leave them to do.
BLITZER: Here's what the president said today about the Democrats' desires to include a timeline for withdrawal in the war funding bill.
Listen to the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept a timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one. I just don't think it's in the interest of our troops. I really think it's a mistake for Congress to try to tell generals, our military experts, how to conduct a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. What do you say to the president?
CLELAND: Well, this is not a test of the president's will, you know? And Congress is not trying to tell the generals what to do.
The truth of the matter is, there is no strategy that the president is telling the generals to do. You see, that's the problem.
I mean, more and more, generals are coming out of the military, particularly the Army, and saying the war is unwinnable militarily. It is essentially a political war that we're going into. And we're on the wrong side of it. We're trying to occupy a nation that doesn't want us there.
Secondly, we're going after the wrong enemy here. Al Qaeda is morphing around the world. They morphed most recently into North Africa. And George Tenet's book just coming out in the next few days says his concern is still about al Qaeda in the United States.
So, we need to withdraw from Iraq, withdraw our ground forces from there, because we are not part of the problem -- I mean solution. We're part of the problem there.
BLITZER: But you're...
CLELAND: And this is not a test of the president's -- this is not a test of the president's will. He may have his -- he may have his day on this, but when he signs that veto early next week, he will sign it in blood, because he's just guaranteeing the death of more Americans in Iraq.
BLITZER: Saxby Chambliss, the man who beat you in your run for re-election the last time around in Georgia, he says, and I'm quoting now, "It's almost un-American, un-American to come out and tell the enemy that they've won and lost."
Listen to this little clip of what he said on the Senate floor yesterday. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), GEORGIA: Men and women of the 3rd ID simply don't agree with the Democrats who want to tuck tail and run. Georgians don't want to do that, the military does not want to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. He says Democrats are almost un-American for what they are trying to do.
What do you say to Senator Chambliss?
CLELAND: Well, first of all, I've been called un-American and unpatriotic by the senator before. It wasn't true then, it's not true now.
And secondly, I don't take my advice on war from somebody, Mr. Chambliss, who tucked his tail and ran from the war of his generation. He got out of going to Vietnam with a trick knee. So I'm not going to follow anybody's advice on that, and I'm certainly not going to back off my view that it's time to protect Americans, it's time to bring our young Americans home, and it is time to set a timetable.
That's what the Congress is voting on, and has voted successfully on. It is now time to change strategy, change policy. If the president won't change, ultimately we will see more Americans die, and ultimately we will get out of Iraq, but after he's gone.
BLITZER: You fought in Vietnam at a time of serious debate here in the United States over what U.S. troops were doing there in Vietnam. You know the impact on moral to fighting men and women.
What about the impact on the battlefield right now in Iraq, as a result of this very serious debate under way here in the United States?
CLELAND: Well, you feel like -- a young French lieutenant in the French Indochina War in Vietnam said he felt like he was shot in the stomach and kicked in the rear end. And I'm sure that members of the armed forces in Iraq feel that way.
I know that's the way I felt in Vietnam when the massive unrest in the United States breaking out in '67 and '68. But the worst morale problem is to commit young Americans to a cause that is not winnable and is ultimately untenable and unsupported by the United States people -- people in America.
So, the best thing we can do is make sure we have as good an exit as possible. And the president, if he vetoes this bill, will give up the last opportunity he has to make a bipartisan exit from Iraq. Ultimately, it's going to be ultimately on his head and shoulders, and he'll be signing that veto pen in blood because more young Americans are going to die when he vetoes this bill.
BLITZER: Senator Cleland, the current U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has been in Washington all week. He's appealing to everyone for patience, to give him some time, to see if this new strategy can work, at least through September or so. He says at this point, he and the U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker, would have a better sense if it's working. He promises that if it's not working, he will tell the American people the truth.
Why not give the general some more time to see if he can make it -- make it better?
CLELAND: Time? This is the fifth year of this war. As a matter of fact, next Tuesday is the anniversary of President Bush standing up on an aircraft carrier, playing dress-up with his flight suit, which he never wore in combat, trying to be the war hero he never was, and saying major combat over, mission accomplished. And later on he said, "Bring 'em on." Well, they came on, surprise, surprise. Have killed over 3,300 young Americans and wounded over 30,000, and over half a million Iraqis have died.
I don't want that kind of patience. It's five years into this thing now. It's time to end it, and it's time to move on and worry about al Qaeda. That's the real threat to this country.
BLITZER: We're going to leave it there.
Senator Cleland, as usual, thanks for joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
CLELAND: Thank you.
Love
Hot monkey love:
Within minutes of McCormack's announcement, Tobias's biography was removed from the USAID Web site.
State Department officials declined to comment further on the reasons for Tobias's resignation.
"I'm sad today," said one person close to Tobias. "The president loves him and Condi absolutely loves him."
More Broder
We normally think of "High Broderism" as the worship of bipartisanship for its own sake, combined with a fake "pox on both their houses" attitude. But in reality this is just the cover Broder uses for his real agenda, the defense of what he perceives to be "the establishment" at all costs. The establishment is the permanent ruling class of Washington, our betters who know better. It is their rough agenda which is sold as "centrism" even when it has no actual relationship with the political center in a meaningful way. Democracy's messy, in Broder's world, and passionate voters are problematic. It is up to the Wise Old Men of Washington to implement the agenda, and the job of the voters to bless them for it. When the establishment fails, the most important issue is not their failure, but that the voters might begin to lose faith in and deference for their betters. Thus, people must always be allowed to save face, no matter what their transgressions, as long as they're a part of his permanent floating tea party.
While this basic attitude isn't unique to Broder, his apparent lack of interest in the actual details of policy makes him a more absurd figure than some. For him it's not about results, but about the right people being in the right places. It is terribly elitist in all the wrong ways. Arguments can be made for certain types of elitism - you do want a brain surgeon conducting brain surgery - but Broder's elites are simply aristocrats. It's their town.
While this basic attitude isn't unique to Broder, his apparent lack of interest in the actual details of policy makes him a more absurd figure than some. For him it's not about results, but about the right people being in the right places. It is terribly elitist in all the wrong ways. Arguments can be made for certain types of elitism - you do want a brain surgeon conducting brain surgery - but Broder's elites are simply aristocrats. It's their town.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Dance Satan
Apparently Doug Schoen decided that lefty blogs needed a new punching bag and offered himself up in sacrifice.
Oh My
Escorts!
Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation.
Tobias, 65, director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), had previously served as the ambassador for the President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief.
A State Department press release late Friday afternoon said only he was leaving for "personal reasons."
On Thursday, Tobias told ABC News he had several times called the "Pamela Martin and Associates" escort service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." Tobias, who is married, said there had been "no sex," and that recently he had been using another service "with Central Americans" to provide massages.
Oh My
Was wondering what was going to break this evening:
WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.
Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.
He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.
When contacted at his home in Washington, Coughlin said he resigned voluntarily because he was relocating to Texas. “I was not asked to resign,” he said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “It’s important to me that it's made clear that I left voluntarily.”
Very Mean
I must say that Ezra Klein is being very mean to Doug Schoen who is, by virtue of having purchased a bunch of ads for his book, a truly awesome person.
So whatever you do don't go read Ezra saying mean things about him.
So whatever you do don't go read Ezra saying mean things about him.
Opposition Party
The line pushed by Timmeh and others is that the failure of journalism in the runup to the Iraq war is somehow the fault of Democrats. Now certainly plenty of Democrats - and the Democrats generally - can be blamed for many things in that period, but Timmeh's shitty show isn't one of them.
And plenty of Democrats did vote against the AUMF and were against the war, so I'll engage Timmeh on this and go over his guest list (Democratic members of Congress only) from the day the Senate passed the AUMF until Shock and Awe Day.
10/13/02 - No Dem member of Congress.
10/20 Schumer - voted for it (subject was gun control/DC Sniper).
10/27 No Dem member of Congress.
11/03 No Dem member of Congress.
11/10 Tom Daschle - voted for it
11/17 Landrieu - voted for it
11/24 Graham - voted against it
12/01 John Kerry - voted for it
12/08 John Lewis - voted against, but subject wasJohn Lott Trent Lott..
12/15 Carl Levin - voted against.
12/22 no dem member of Congress. "Laura Bush, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Rudy Giuliani discuss the emotional, spiritual and philosophical lessons and challenges of the past year."
12/29 Biden - voted for it.
01/05 - Reid - voted for it.
01/12 - No Dem member of Congress
01/19 - Lieberman, voted for it.
01/26 - Dodd, voted for it.
02/03 - Bill Nelson, voted for it (show's subject was space shuttle disaster)
02/09 - No Dem member of Congress.
02/23 - Dennis Kucinich, voted against it. Debated Richard Perle. Richard Gephardt, voted for with extra gusto.
03/02 - No Democratic member of Congress.
03/09 - No Democratic member of Congress.
03/16 - No Democratic member of Congress.
There were war skeptics who weren't members of Congress - Al Sharpton, Mike Farrell, Madeleine Albright, Wes Clark.
So, in that 5 month period you had 9 appearances by pro-AUMF Dem senators, 2 appearances by senators who voted against. Two appearances by anti-AUMF House members, though only one discussed the topic, and one appearance by a pro-AUMF House member.
23 senators voted against the AUMF (Dems+Jeffords), and the majority of House Democrats.
And plenty of Democrats did vote against the AUMF and were against the war, so I'll engage Timmeh on this and go over his guest list (Democratic members of Congress only) from the day the Senate passed the AUMF until Shock and Awe Day.
10/13/02 - No Dem member of Congress.
10/20 Schumer - voted for it (subject was gun control/DC Sniper).
10/27 No Dem member of Congress.
11/03 No Dem member of Congress.
11/10 Tom Daschle - voted for it
11/17 Landrieu - voted for it
11/24 Graham - voted against it
12/01 John Kerry - voted for it
12/08 John Lewis - voted against, but subject was
12/15 Carl Levin - voted against.
12/22 no dem member of Congress. "Laura Bush, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Rudy Giuliani discuss the emotional, spiritual and philosophical lessons and challenges of the past year."
12/29 Biden - voted for it.
01/05 - Reid - voted for it.
01/12 - No Dem member of Congress
01/19 - Lieberman, voted for it.
01/26 - Dodd, voted for it.
02/03 - Bill Nelson, voted for it (show's subject was space shuttle disaster)
02/09 - No Dem member of Congress.
02/23 - Dennis Kucinich, voted against it. Debated Richard Perle. Richard Gephardt, voted for with extra gusto.
03/02 - No Democratic member of Congress.
03/09 - No Democratic member of Congress.
03/16 - No Democratic member of Congress.
There were war skeptics who weren't members of Congress - Al Sharpton, Mike Farrell, Madeleine Albright, Wes Clark.
So, in that 5 month period you had 9 appearances by pro-AUMF Dem senators, 2 appearances by senators who voted against. Two appearances by anti-AUMF House members, though only one discussed the topic, and one appearance by a pro-AUMF House member.
23 senators voted against the AUMF (Dems+Jeffords), and the majority of House Democrats.
Time for Another Blogger Ethics Panel
Lieberman employee and Jane Hamsher stalker DANGERSTEIN is at it again.
WooHoo! A Record!
Euro hits new high against dollar.
Not all that important, except for those of us who think a trip to Europe would be an enjoyable experience. The devaluation of the dollar isn't in isolation a bad thing, unless it happens at a catastrophic pace.
Not all that important, except for those of us who think a trip to Europe would be an enjoyable experience. The devaluation of the dollar isn't in isolation a bad thing, unless it happens at a catastrophic pace.
They Write Letters
50 Senators write to the Washington Post:
We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, "The Democrats' Gonzales."
In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.
The Democratic caucus is diverse, and Mr. Reid has worked tirelessly to make sure that the views of each member are heard and represented. No one ideology dominates the caucus, so that a consensus can be reached and unity achieved. It is hard to imagine a better model for leadership.
Because Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus, is a good listener and has an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together, the Senate has accomplished a great deal during his time as majority leader. Armed with his years of service in the Senate and with a mastery of procedure, Mr. Reid has led the chamber with a slim majority and a minority that is, at times, determined to stop legislation with which it disagrees.
In the first 100 days alone, we made great strides under his leadership on long-neglected legislation concerning stem cell research, the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations and the minimum wage, to name three. In addition, under Mr. Reid's leadership, we have fulfilled our obligation, left uncompleted by last year's Republican-led Senate, to fund the federal government. He has accomplished all of this in the face of stiff opposition and with a commitment to giving ideas full opportunity for debate.
Finally, in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they "don't recall" anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people.
THE MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
Washington
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Uhhh...?
MSNBC Chyron:
The debate, of course, being the 7pm Democratic debate. On MSNBC, a relatively low rated cable station. The Today Show, of course, is a highly rated broadcast program.
Friday on Today: White House Counsel Dan Bartlett responds to debate
The debate, of course, being the 7pm Democratic debate. On MSNBC, a relatively low rated cable station. The Today Show, of course, is a highly rated broadcast program.
Carry-On Glock
I don't know how you can be so stupid as to try to bring a gun on the plane. You really have to be too stupid to breathe.
8 rounds in the gun with an extra clip in the bag.
David Huckabee, a son of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, was arrested at an Arkansas airport Thursday after a federal X-ray technician detected a loaded Glock pistol in his carry-on luggage.
"I removed the bag and asked Mr. Huckabee if he knew what he had in the bag," Little Rock police officer Arthur Nugent wrote in a report after he was summoned to a security checkpoint. "He replied he did now."
8 rounds in the gun with an extra clip in the bag.
Working Them Hard
Here's a lovely tale about a blue-collar boy from Buffalo who was working his sources so hard he forgot to pick up the phone and call them.
Fighting Age Beinart Talks to Bill Moyers
I like how he shifts discussion from the message (getting it fucking wrong) to the medium (television). You were wrong in print, too.
Kweschins
A CBSer says Bill Moyers is being unfair.
Here are the questions that were asked at that news conference.
Here are the questions that were asked at that news conference.
Ron Fournier.
Q Let me see if I can further -- if you could further define what you just called this important moment we're in, since you've made it clear just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed, and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort. Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?
...
Steve.
Q Are we days away?
...
Q Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?
...
Dick.
Q Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors -- notably, Secretary of State Powell -- have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence with us, as well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?
And in relation to that, today, the British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending the resolution, perhaps with an eye towards a timetable like that proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more support within the members of the Security Council. Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?
...
Jim Angle.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.
...
Jim Angle.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.
...
Q The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.
...
Terry Moran.
Q Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?
...
Gregory.
Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?
...
Q Sir, I'm sorry, is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam Hussein, in your mind?
...
Bill Plante.
Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.
...
Elizabeth.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?
...
Q No matter what?
...
Mark Knoller.
Q Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?
...
Bill.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Even though our military can certainly prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at least slightly more challenging for us, and therefore, at least slightly more likely that American lives will be lost? And if they don't reverse course, would you stop backing their entry into the European Union?
...
Q Oh, I have a question. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I'm sure you do have a question.
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America -- well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?" Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.
...
Hutch.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
...
Ann.
Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?
...
Ed.
Q Mr. President, good evening. Sir, you've talked a lot about trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about their own lives, about how to spend their own money. When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the administration, surely, has costed out various scenarios. If that's the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know what to expect, sir?
...
George Condin.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I can follow on Steve's question, on North Korea. Do you believe it is essential for the security of the United States and its allies that North Korea be prevented from developing nuclear weapons? And are you in any way growing frustrated with the pace of the diplomacy there?
...
Bob.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?
...
Jean.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the coming days, the American people are going to hear a lot of debate about this British proposal of a possible deadline being added to the resolution, or not. And I know you don't want to tip your hand -- this is a great diplomatic moment -- but from the administration's perspective and your own perspective, can you share for the American public what you view as the pros and cons associated with that proposal?
Iraq'd
Well, with almost all Republicans now on record voting in support of permanent war, the only thing which could prevent another big victory for Democrats in '08 is campaign consultants telling their candidates not to run on the war.
Young Broder
Washington Post, October 7, 1969.
If there are any smart literary agents around these days, one of them will copyright the title [ed. note - titles can't be copyrighted] "The Breaking of the President" for the next big series of nonfiction best-sellers. It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon B. Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard M. Nixon in 1969.
The likelihood is great that they will succeed again, for breaking a President is, like most feats, easier to accomplish the second time around. Once learned, the techniques can readily be applied as often as desired - even when the circumstances seem less than propitious. No matter that this President is pulling troops out of Vietnam, while the last one was sending them in; no matter that in 1969 the casualties and violence are declining, while in 1968 they were on the rise. Men have learned to break a President, and, like any discovery that imparts power to its possessors, the mere availability of this knowledge guarantees that it will be used.
The essentials of the technique are now so well understood that they can be applied with little waste motion. First, the breakers arrogate to themselves a position of moral superiority. For that reason, a war that is unpopular, expensive, and very probably unwise is labeled as immoral, indecent, and intolerable. Critics of the President who are indelicate enough to betray partisan motives are denounced (That for you, Fred Harris.) Members of the President's own party who, for reasons perhaps unrelated to their own flagging political careers, catapult themselves into the front ranks of the of the opposition are greeted as heroes. (Hooray for Charley Goodell.)
The students who would fight in the war are readily mobilized against it. Their teachers, as is their custom, hasten to adopt the students' views. (News item: The Harvard department of biochemistry and molecular biology last week called for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam.)
Next, a New England election (the New Hampshire primary is best but the Massachusetts Sixth Congressional District election will do as well) surprisingly shows that peace is popular at the polls. The President's party sees defeat staring it in the face unless it repudiates him, and the Harris poll promptly comes along to confirm his waning grip on public trust. The Chief Executive, clearly panicky, resorts to false bravado and says he will never be moved by these protests and demonstrations, thus confirming the belief that he is too stubborn to repent and must be broken.
And then, dear friends, Sen. Fulbright and the Foreign Relations Committee move in to finish off the job.
All this is no fiction: it worked before and it is working again. Vietnam is proving to be what Henry Kissinger once said he suspected it might be -- one of those tragic, cursed messes that destroys any President who touches it.
That being the case, any President interested in saving his own skin would be well-advised to resign his responsibility for Vietnam and publicly transfer the assignment of ending the war to Congress or the Vietnam Moratorium Committee or anyone else who would like to volunteer for the job.
But he cannot. And that is the point the protesters seem to overlook. Assume that they and the President are both right when they assert the time has come to end this war. Assume that the protesters know better than the President how to do so -- despite the conspicuous absence of specific alternatives to the President's policies in their current manifestos.
There is still a vital distinction, granting all this, to be made between the constitutionally protected expression of dissent, aimed at changing national policy, and mass movements aimed at breaking the President by destroying his capacity to lead the nation or to represent it at the bargaining table.
The point is quite simple. Given the impatience in this country to be out of that miserable war, there is no great trick in using the Vietnam issue to break another President, you have broken the one man who can negotiate the peace.
Hanoi will not sit down for secret talks with the Foreign Relations Committee. Nor can the Vietnam Moratorium's sponsors order home a single GI or talk turkey to Gen. Thieu about reshaping his government. Only the President can do that.
There is also the matter of time. It is one thing to break a President at the end of his term, as was done last year. It is quite another thing to break him at the beginning, as is being attempted now.
The orators who remind us that Mr. Nixon has been in office for nine months should remind themselves that he will remain there for 39 more months -- unless, of course, they are willing to put their convictions to the test by moving to impeach him.
Is that not, really, the proper course? Rather than destroying his capacity to lead while leaving him in office, rather than leaving the nation with a broken President at its head for three years, would not their cause and the country be better served by resort to the constitutional method for removing a President?
And what a wonderful chapter it would make for Volume 2 of "The Breaking of the President" series.
Searchlight
Begala has a good column about Broder, which highlights, among other things, his sneering elitism. Given that Broder has long painted himself as the One True Understander Of What The Murkin People Think it's important to call him out on that.
They Know Even Less Than What They Say
Greenwald discusses the Moyers documentary in contemporary context.
The tragic absurdity of our contemporary political discourse, where selling a catastrophic war ensures your tenure in elite punditry, cannot be overstated.
The tragic absurdity of our contemporary political discourse, where selling a catastrophic war ensures your tenure in elite punditry, cannot be overstated.
Blowing Up Bombs Where Angels Would Fly
Little Petey Beinart, 4/29/02:
PETER BEINART: (CNN 4/29/02) We need a little bit of logistical support, but we don't need the moral support of anyone, because we're on the side of the angels in this.
What the People Think
Obviously what orthodontists and the other members of the dirty masses think is much less important than, say, the thoughts of Washington insiders who have proven their inability to find their own asses again and again over the past few years. So, I imagine such views will be left out of the Sunday outlook. Still, here it is:
BTW, I really think it's important for all good people to cancel their Washington Post subscriptions. It has become yet another propaganda arm for the Bill Kristol wing of the Republican party, as if that territory wasn't already amply covered.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 35% of voters are opposed to both of these options for ending the war.
...
Underlying these attitudes is pessimism about the War itself. Just 29% of American voters believe the troop surge launched earlier this year has made things better in Iraq. Twice as many, 61%, believe the surge has either made things worse (43%) or had no impact (18%). A separate survey found that just 33% believe history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. Fifty percent (50%) believe it will be viewed as a failure.
BTW, I really think it's important for all good people to cancel their Washington Post subscriptions. It has become yet another propaganda arm for the Bill Kristol wing of the Republican party, as if that territory wasn't already amply covered.
They Write Emails
The deputy editor of the Washington Post's Outlook section is sending this email around:
Is Harry Reid right? Is the Iraq War lost?
The Washington Post's Outlook section wants to hear how people in the know would answer this ringing question. So we're asking a variety of people around town and in the political/military/media/diplomatic community to tell us what they think. We'd love it if you could send us no more than 50 words from the senator, starting with a blunt "yes" or "no" and then explaining why, for publication in this Sunday's Outlook.
You can send responses directly to this e-mail. I'll need your reply by 2 p.m. Thursday, April 26.
Look forward to hearing from you soon, and many thanks.
Best,
Warren
Moyers
I couldn't stomach watching the whole thing, though I skipped through it. If you have an iron stomach you can watch here.
"Get a Life"
In response to Murtha taking issue with McCain joking about IEDs, McCain said:
The point is that dead troops and other victims are no longer capable of getting "a life."
All good fun for St. McCain, though.
Lighten up and get a life.
The point is that dead troops and other victims are no longer capable of getting "a life."
All good fun for St. McCain, though.
Jonah's World
Recently Max asked:
But he basically answered his own question:
Probably the most successful kind of internet troll, the kind of troll unaware that it is actually attempting to troll, is the truly stupid person. They attract an immense amount of attention, bringing out all of our inner teachers. We cannot believe they are actually that stupid. We believe that maybe, somehow, if we explain things to them very slowly they will actually have the capacity to learn. But they don't. They are giant honking ignoramuses who don't know anything about anything and likely never will.
Yet we can't resist them, because we are fascinated by their stupidity. Fascinated that they manage to be that profoundly dumb yet still manage to tie their shoes, string complete sentences together, etc.
Jonah's so stupid he has no idea how stupid he is. It'd be funnier if he wasn't one of the standard bearers of the dominant (if fast waning) political movement in this country.
Why do so many bloggers engage in online debates with Jonah Goldberg?
But he basically answered his own question:
He's a gigantic honking ignoramus. He doesn't know anything about anything.
Probably the most successful kind of internet troll, the kind of troll unaware that it is actually attempting to troll, is the truly stupid person. They attract an immense amount of attention, bringing out all of our inner teachers. We cannot believe they are actually that stupid. We believe that maybe, somehow, if we explain things to them very slowly they will actually have the capacity to learn. But they don't. They are giant honking ignoramuses who don't know anything about anything and likely never will.
Yet we can't resist them, because we are fascinated by their stupidity. Fascinated that they manage to be that profoundly dumb yet still manage to tie their shoes, string complete sentences together, etc.
Jonah's so stupid he has no idea how stupid he is. It'd be funnier if he wasn't one of the standard bearers of the dominant (if fast waning) political movement in this country.
Reboot
Petraeus is now rebooting the war as the US allied with Iraqis against al Qaeda.
Lord help us.
...ah, I see Lieberman was prepped with the talking points, which Fred Hiatt dutifully printed.
Funny how all that works.
Lord help us.
...ah, I see Lieberman was prepped with the talking points, which Fred Hiatt dutifully printed.
Funny how all that works.
And the First Eschaton Wanker Emeritus Award Goes To
David Broder.
We'll provide his acceptance speech for him.
We'll provide his acceptance speech for him.
Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove. In the days when he was operating from Austin, we had many long and rewarding conversations. I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of the historic cabin Karl and his wife Darby found miles away and had carted to its present site on their land.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
People Hate Bush And Hate The War
I don't know what it'll take for that to enter the bloodstream of Official Washington.
...and:
ouch
WASHINGTON - As the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House clash over an Iraq spending bill, with President Bush vowing to veto it because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats.
...
Yet the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.
What's more, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible. And 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Thirty-seven percent say the situation has stayed about the same, and just 12 percent think it has improved.
...and:
According to the poll, only 22 percent believe the country is on the right track. That's the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when Bush father's was running for a second term -- and lost.
ouch
Sorry, It's Video Day
Blame Monica A for this horror which will require spending a few hours at the Daily Kitten in order to recover.
More Bush dancing horrors.
More Bush dancing horrors.
Knuckle-Dragging Savages
I sense we're swinging back from "spreading peeance and freeance to the Iraqi people" to "kill the brutes." It's always hard to keep track of just where that pendulum is at any particular moment.
Now That Bigfoot is Captured
A little musical palette cleanser for the previous unpleasantness. Upon This Tidal Wave of Young Blood (.mp3) from Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.
McCain Takes it to Rudy
His speech today:
Heckuva job, Rudy.
Free lifetime subscription to Eschaton for the first mainstream media person who picks up on that.
They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency.
Heckuva job, Rudy.
Free lifetime subscription to Eschaton for the first mainstream media person who picks up on that.
Stephanie Miller on MSNBC
Stephanie Miller will be taking the former Imus slot from Mon-Wed next week.
viewerservices@msnbc.com to express your support for this decision.
viewerservices@msnbc.com to express your support for this decision.
We Write Letters
A bunch of people write to the DNC and the RNC requesting the convention footage be placed in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license (.pdf).
The Outrage Generation Machine
Consider, if you will, a parallel universe in which Bill Clinton presided over a deeply unpopular war in Iraq which was increasingly opposed by members of the Republican party. Thousands of US troops had died, and many thousands more had life-altering injuries. And, then, First Lady Hillary Clinton said, on a popular morning show, that over the course of the war no one had suffered more then she and her husband had.
Just imagine for a moment how that would've played out on talk radio, Drudge, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the nightly news, the Sunday shows, the wingnut columnists, the liberal columnists, NPR, etc...
I imagine few honest members of the media industrial complex could deny this point, though most refuse to learn the broader lesson implied by it.
Just imagine for a moment how that would've played out on talk radio, Drudge, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the nightly news, the Sunday shows, the wingnut columnists, the liberal columnists, NPR, etc...
I imagine few honest members of the media industrial complex could deny this point, though most refuse to learn the broader lesson implied by it.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
QOTD
Jon Stewart:
Basically, first-term president Bush, you invaded to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein. And you, current president Bush, are there to battle the threat created by the lack of Saddam Hussein.
Oh My
What fun we're having.
...and Renzi news.
WASHINGTON - In a burst of activity over the last eight days, FBI agents and federal prosecutors have won a guilty plea from a former congressional aide, implicated two more House of Representatives members and put the scandal surrounding onetime super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling back into the headlines.
The pace of the inquiry, which now has bagged a veteran congressman, a deputy Cabinet secretary, a White House aide and eight others, appears to be accelerating.
And it portends to be a major new headache for the Bush administration and congressional Republicans still reeling from a furor over the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys and from last fall's election, which put Democrats back in command on Capitol Hill.
The newest figure to face serious FBI scrutiny is Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., who said bureau agents have asked for details of a 2003 golf trip to Scotland that he took with Abramoff - a trip that the House ethics committee recently found violated House rules.
...and Renzi news.
The Simon Standard
I look forward to Roger Simon holding all politicians to his new ecumenical standard.
And, yes, I just wet myself laughing.
And, yes, I just wet myself laughing.
Credibility
From Reid's spokesman:
Cheney's an absurd buffoon. I can't believe how the talking heads on the teevee seem to quiver when he appears. What a joke.
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Jim Manley, Spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, released the following statement today after comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney:
Vice President Cheney should be the last person to lecture anyone on how leaders should make decisions.
Leaders should make decisions based on facts and reality, two words that seem to be foreign to the Vice President
This is the same guy who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that we would be greeted as liberators. And it's the same guy who continues to assert that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda long after our own intelligence agency conclusively refuted this notion. To suggest he lacks credibility would be an understatement.
The Vice President's and others' attacks on those who disagree with their failed policies are signs of desperation. They are lashing out because they know the days are numbered for their failed strategy and that the American people and a bipartisan majority are determined to force this Administration to change course in Iraq.
Cheney's an absurd buffoon. I can't believe how the talking heads on the teevee seem to quiver when he appears. What a joke.
Bring out the Snarl
They sent out Big Time to snarl at Democrats. Even they're not stupid enough to think anyone actually gives a shit about Dick Cheney, anyone but our elite media who think that when Dick snarls the Democrats are supposed to cower.
We're supposed to take war advice from a man who shot someone in the face.
We're supposed to take war advice from a man who shot someone in the face.
Worm Dirt
Mary Tillman just recounted this incident:
And they delayed Jessica Lynch's recuse for a day because they needed to prepare to videotape it.
These are bad people.
In a transcript of his interview with Brig. Gen. Gary Jones during a November 2004 investigation, Kauzlarich said he'd learned Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother and fellow Army Ranger who was a part of the battle the night Pat Tillman died, objected to the presence of a chaplain and the saying of prayers during a repatriation ceremony in Germany before his brother's body was returned to the United States.
Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.
In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."
Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so. There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know."
Asked what might finally placate the family, Kauzlarich said, "You know what? I don't think anything will make them happy, quite honestly. I don't know. Maybe they want to see somebody's head on a platter. But will that really make them happy? No, because they can't bring their son back."
Kauzlarich, now 40, was the Ranger regiment executive officer in Afghanistan, who played a role in writing the recommendation for Tillman's posthumous Silver Star. And finally, with his fingerprints already all over many of the hot-button issues, including the question of who ordered the platoon to be split as it dragged a disabled Humvee through the mountains, Kauzlarich conducted the first official Army investigation into Tillman's death.
That investigation is among the inquiries that didn't satisfy the Tillman family.
"Well, this guy makes disparaging remarks about the fact that we're not Christians, and the reason that we can't put Pat to rest is because we're not Christians," Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, said in an interview with ESPN.com. Mary Tillman casts the family as spiritual, though she said it does not believe in many of the fundamental aspects of organized religion.
"Oh, it has nothing to do with the fact that this whole thing is shady," she said sarcastically, "But it is because we are not Christians."
After a pause, her voice full with emotion, she added, "Pat may not have been what you call a Christian. He was about the best person I ever knew. I mean, he was just a good guy. He didn't lie. He was very honest. He was very generous. He was very humble. I mean, he had an ego, but it was a healthy ego. It is like, everything those [people] are, he wasn't."
And they delayed Jessica Lynch's recuse for a day because they needed to prepare to videotape it.
These are bad people.
Very Serious People
Lawrence Kaplan:
Our pal Larry wrote that exactlytwo years ago 25 months ago.
"At what point does the press report a trend? The question comes to mind because, over the past month, the news from Iraq has been unusually good. Depending on which military official you ask, insurgent attacks have dropped by either a third or nearly half. The number of Americans killed in action has declined. Civilians have begun killing terrorists. Over the past week alone, U.S. forces have killed scores of insurgents in lopsided battles -- in the latest, Iraqi forces spearheaded the offensive. Does this mean America has turned a corner? Can we see a light at the end of the tunnel? Does it mean anything at all?
At least to judge by the amount of press coverage devoted to the past weeks' progress in Iraq, the answer would seem to be no.
Our pal Larry wrote that exactly
My Vision
Fred Hiatt, Joe Lieberman, Bill Kristol in Annie Afros and little red dresses singing:
The sun'll come out
In six months
Bet your bottom dollar
That in six months
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
in six months
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!
The sun'll come out
In six months
So ya gotta hang on
For six months
Come what may
In six months! In six months!
I love ya in six months!
You're always
A Friedman
A way!
Until the End of the Summer
Elite press consensus appears to be taking its cue from Joe Lieberman and taking the view that it's just wrong not to let the boy king have another chance to let the surge "work," that we should just sit back and give the incompetent crew yet another do-over.
So, just shut the hell up until August! Or September! Or whenever the hell summer ends.
I imagine the Friedman Unit Generator is hard at work, preparing for the inevitable reboot that will come at that time. When Snowe and Collins furrow their brows and look sad and very seriously say they hope things get better soon. When Joe Lieberman writes his annual "things are getting better finally!" column. When a 3 day period with no mass casualty event in Iraq provides "proof" that maybe it's really really working!
It's all so absurd and so horrible.
So, just shut the hell up until August! Or September! Or whenever the hell summer ends.
I imagine the Friedman Unit Generator is hard at work, preparing for the inevitable reboot that will come at that time. When Snowe and Collins furrow their brows and look sad and very seriously say they hope things get better soon. When Joe Lieberman writes his annual "things are getting better finally!" column. When a 3 day period with no mass casualty event in Iraq provides "proof" that maybe it's really really working!
It's all so absurd and so horrible.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Time's Editors
Perhaps they should step in and have an intervention with Joe Klein.
Not holding my breath.
Not holding my breath.
Meanwhile
Over there.
BAGHDAD - Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 20 were wounded Monday in a suicide car bombing against a patrol base northeast of Baghdad, the military said.
The attack occurred in Diyala province, a volatile area that has been the site of fierce fighting between U.S. and Iraqi troops, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, according to a statement.
The nine Task Force Lightning soldiers died of injuries sustained in the blast, which also left 20 soldiers and an Iraqi civilian wounded, the military said.
Go Away
As if we hadn't had enough to put up with lately, Frank "The Worst Critic in America" Bruni was lurking around my city.
The awful food writing is no surprise to those of us who lived through his campaign 2000 writing.
(via foobooz)
The awful food writing is no surprise to those of us who lived through his campaign 2000 writing.
(via foobooz)
Sharpton/Tancredo '08!
I took the plunge and officially became an official Unity '08 delegate.
It's true I briefly flirted with the Editors/Airwolf '08 campaign, but now I'm back in the Unity fold supporting the only ticket which can bring America together.
It's true I briefly flirted with the Editors/Airwolf '08 campaign, but now I'm back in the Unity fold supporting the only ticket which can bring America together.
Awesome
I think these RNC ads are great, and I hope they spend a lot of money to run them. Over and over and over.
"Fixing" Social Security
In the summary overview we have this:
Roughly, this would require increasing both the employee and employer share of the tax from 6.2% to 7.05% (there might be some employment/wage impacts of such a change so this is a rough take).
A small price to pay to ensure Robert Samuelson never writes another column.
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase of 16 percent in payroll tax revenues or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two.
Roughly, this would require increasing both the employee and employer share of the tax from 6.2% to 7.05% (there might be some employment/wage impacts of such a change so this is a rough take).
A small price to pay to ensure Robert Samuelson never writes another column.
DOOOMED
Well, another year and not much has changed. Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled benefits without any program changes until 2040, and now it's 2041.
American Family Association
How do they know how often Cho was spanked? Besides, I thought hot saucing was the preferred method of wingnut discipline.
Memo to Alec Baldwin: more hitting, less yelling.
Memo to Alec Baldwin: more hitting, less yelling.
Too Many Wankers
Memo to Dean Broder: the fact that Republicans whine and screech and cry and carry on is not, in fact, evidence that someone has said anything wrong.
The whiny ass titty baby party always whines and screeches and cries. It's what they do.
The disconnect between elite opinion in Washington and reality continues to grow. It's frightening.
The whiny ass titty baby party always whines and screeches and cries. It's what they do.
The disconnect between elite opinion in Washington and reality continues to grow. It's frightening.
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Bush bouncing all the way to 33%.
Some days I really just can't stand watching the teevee. They still talk about this stuff as if Democrats are on the defensive and the steely-eyed rocketman is going to wow the public with his plainspoken ways.
People hate Bush and hate this war. It's that simple, and it's been true for quite some time.
Some days I really just can't stand watching the teevee. They still talk about this stuff as if Democrats are on the defensive and the steely-eyed rocketman is going to wow the public with his plainspoken ways.
People hate Bush and hate this war. It's that simple, and it's been true for quite some time.
Trustees
Incoming: stupid journalism.
The Social Security Trustees are supposedly releasing their annual report today, so we can look forward to lots of stories about how Social Security is DOOOOOOOOOOMED.
The Social Security Trustees are supposedly releasing their annual report today, so we can look forward to lots of stories about how Social Security is DOOOOOOOOOOMED.
Clear?
Boehner, 90 days ago:
Since the, about 250 US troops have been killed. The rhetoric about Iraqis "standing up" and talk of training has ended. And life goes on.
BOEHNER: I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work. And, again, that's why we need to have close oversight, so that we just don't look up 60 or 90 days from now and realize that -- that this plan is not working. We need to know, as we -- as we're -- we move through these benchmarks, that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do.
Since the, about 250 US troops have been killed. The rhetoric about Iraqis "standing up" and talk of training has ended. And life goes on.
BAGHDAD - Three suicide bombers launched attacks in different parts of
Iraq on Monday, killing at least 27 people and wounding nearly 60 on Monday, police and politicians said.
Hostage Situation
Krugman:
There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.
If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.
But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.
What’s at stake right now is the latest Iraq “supplemental.” Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.”
At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he’s broke and needs extra cash.
What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm’s way without first ensuring that they’ll have the necessary resources.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
And the cover...
...which made it okay for white kids to like rap, white broadcasters to play it, and brought back Aerosmith from the dead.
More Thread
You talk too much.
...odd, I never knew Run was the brother of Russell Simmons. And I was someone who saw Krush Groove in the theater on opening night!
...odd, I never knew Run was the brother of Russell Simmons. And I was someone who saw Krush Groove in the theater on opening night!
Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Wall...
Anyone actually in charge?
CAIRO, Egypt: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday that he has ordered a halt to the construction of a barrier that would separate a Sunni enclave from Shiite areas in Baghdad, saying there are other ways to provide protection.
Meanwhile
What a lovely war.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Gunmen in northern Iraq stopped a bus filled with Christians and members of a tiny Kurdish religious sect, separating out the groups and taking 23 of the passengers away to be shot.
Iraq'd
Brownback:
In other words, we can never leave.
The date we set a deadline to pull out is the date al Qaeda will declare victory over the United States.
In other words, we can never leave.
Politics as Theater
Leaving aside the various sins of error, emphasis, and omission, there is a place in our political discourse for political-writing-as-theater criticism as practiced by people like Rich and Dowd. The problem is that this type of stuff has come to dominate our political discourse, and it's especially awful when it gets filtered through the mouths of people like Chris Matthews who lack any talent in that area whatsoever.
More Truth
In fairness to CNN, they let a bit of truth slip out too. Yesterday:
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Americans do not want to fight an unwinnable war. That's why back in 2005, President Bush said --
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we'll accept nothing less than complete victory.
SCHNEIDER: The president speaks about the war a little differently now.
BUSH: It's really important as we -- that we have a sober discussion and understand what will be the consequences of failure.
SCHNEIDER: Pessimism about Iraq has continued to mount, even before the news of Wednesday's bombings in Baghdad. In a CNN opinion research center poll taken last week, 69 percent of Americans said things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who though things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October. The public's view -- it's not working. Senator Reid put it bluntly.
SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV) MAJORITY LEADER: As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost.
SCHNEIDER: Senator McCain objected.
VOICE OF SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's not the view of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line as we speak.
SCHNEIDER: Do Americans believe the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq? Last month they said no by better than two to one. Do Americans believe the U.S. will win? No. Do Americans believe the U.S. can win? The public is split. They're not sure. So Reid said --
REID: But there's still a chance to change course and we must change course.
SCHNEIDER: Which side does the public take in this standoff? It's not even close. Sixty percent of Americans say they side with the Democrats in Congress, thirty-seven percent with the president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)