Relief is just a leak away

By Capt. Fogg

There's nothing like a good leak. No, I'm not talking about beer drinking or kidneys. Yes, it may still be all about indecent exposure, but exposure of a different kind of naughty bits. God bless the leaker.

Remember "climategate," that clumsy journo-speak title for some e-mails between British climatologists that after a bit of redaction seemed to be saying that the evidence for global warming was fabricated by a great worldwide network of rogue paleoclimatologists plotting to be characters from a James Bond movie? Well, the hoax may be on the other foot now, so to speak, but you won't hear it from the folks at Fox News who spread it around the planet. You won't find Fox News admitting or mentioning that NASA data confirmed a rise in temperature quite independently and with irrefutable scientific rigor.

You won't find Fox News admitting to error of any kind much less to deliberately lying, whether its hoaxing us about scientific data or showing the fake and fraudulent video that ruined ACORN. I admit, those e-mails had me going for a while, but that was before the new data and the new revelations. Even Andrew Breitbart publicly washed the egg off his face, but Fox News? Well, you decide.

It was all too easy to call Julian Assenge a "terrorist" or call for his summary execution, but I'm curious to see the outcome of some recent leaks showing just how Fox News slants the news:

Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data... we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question,

said Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon in a leaked e-mail in response to correspondent Wendell Goler's report that that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization data again confirmed that the 2000 to 2009 decade has been the warmest worldwide on record, not just warmer than the previous one.

Like anything Fox News gets paid to misrepresent, conflicting data must always be impugned by the " some say" or "people say" trick as though those "critics" weren't simply Roger Ailes or Bill Sammon or a Fox News sponsor or most of all the Republican Party.
When the data conflicts with the politics, always mention "the critics." That's unslanted journalism, Fox News-style.

And when something you don't like sounds good, change the name.

Take the "public option," for instance. According to a leaked memo from Republican pollster and Fox News man Frank Luntz:

If you call it a "public option," the American people are split, if you call it the "government option," the public is overwhelmingly against it. 

Public sounds popular, sounds democratic, sounds like the people want it and polls show that they do, so let's call it "the Government option," said Sammon to Sean Hannity in another leaked e-mail. "Great idea," said Sean.

Let's also claim that the "government option" would be "sponsored by the government," although in fact, the proposed public option would have funded the program with the premiums paid by enrolees -- just like private insurance. So we need even stronger language -- let's call it the "Government-run option" and drape it in the Soviet flag.

Never mind that we're lying, whatever serves the Party, that's what we'll say. That's journalism, Fox News-style.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Nancy Pelosi and the GOP-fueled media narrative on torture

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Following up on my earlier post on Specter and Pelosi.)

If top Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham had any idea what was going on -- that is, that the Bush Administration had signed off on torture and that detainees in U.S. custody were being tortured -- they should have spoken out forcefully at the time.

But the story here isn't Pelosi, or what may now be her hypocrisy. This is what the Republicans want the story to be, for obvious reasons (anything to distract attention and make the Dems look bad, if only because of right-wing spin and a media establishment that plays right along), but the real story remains this: It was the Republicans who went along enthusiastically with Bush and Cheney et al. on torture.

It was the Republicans who defended torture then and who do so now. There were exceptions, like McCain, but, for the most part, Republicans went along with Bush and Cheney on anything and everything having to do with their so-called war on terror. If Democrats can be criticized for anything, it is for not being vigilant enough, not being aggressive enough, not subjecting the Bush Administration to more effective scrutiny. But, on torture, what could they have done if they were being lied to by the CIA?

The Beltway media, doing the Republicans' bidding and taking unadulterated GOP spin as their narrative, are all over Pelosi at the moment, smearing her and her party at every turn. It is essential that Democrats retake control of this story and, as much as possible, redirect the focus at the real culprits.

White House sends out legacy talking points

By Creature

Basically since President Bush refrained from getting blown by an intern during the last eight years his presidency is deemed a success. Mission accomplished.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

William Ayers spins back

By Creature

"Symbolic acts of extreme vandalism." True, illegal, maybe necessary, ultimately fruitless, and, all the while, five words sure to make Pat Buchanan's head explode. Awesome.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Anti-Palin protest bigger than Welcome Home rally

By Libby Spencer

Proving once again that you can't trust the elite media, Mudflats reports from on the ground in Anchorage.

I attended the Welcome Home rally for Sarah Palin this morning. Hooo. It was an experience. About a thousand (maybe) hard-core Palin supporters showed up to hear her speak at the new Dena’ina Convention Center in downtown Anchorage.

Then he went to the anti-Palin rally.

Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn’t honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn’t happen here.

Local newspaper ADN confirms the numbers and has more. Meanwhile, here's Mudflats' report from the welcome rally. As he says, the capacity of the room is 5000. MSM is reporting the crowd at 2000+. You tell me.


Many more pictures at both posts. One suspects if they conducted a popularity survey today, Palin would no longer be polling in the 80th percentile. And I wonder if Bruce Springstein knows Palin is using his songs? I doubt he would be pleased.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Counting out the money

By Libby Spencer

Remember when money counted as a barometer of viability in a campaign? I suppose McCain laid that metric to rest with his comeback but nonetheless, this can't be a good sign for Hillary. I would preface these figures with the caveat that they come from the Politico, so I'm not vouching for their reliability but if they're true...

The rest can only be spent in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other up-front expenses would have been less than $2 million.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.

What has been reported widely enough to believe is that the Clinton campaign has stiffed small vendors all the way back to Iowa, while Politico reports she allegedly has paid off one big company that has the ability to stage events nationally. In terms of keeping her candidacy alive, this makes sense. In terms of demonstrating fiscal responsibility, not so much. And no matter how you slice it, I'd say the figures argue for Obama's greater support among the voters who are engaged enough in the process to contribute to the campaigns. Surely they will turn out to vote in November.

Meanwhile, the GOP's faithful are more than happy to see this go on forever. The WaPo asks "what's the hurry" in an editorial. The Bush administration's biggest media cheerleader thinks it would be just great for the Democrats to keep this up right through August, assuming the candidates will discuss the issues instead of tearing each other apart. I do too, if they would run against McCain instead of each other, but the commenters to my other post on this aren't buying into the idea that there's a unity pony under all the shit that has been slung so far in this contest. Can't say I blame them.

Even more telling, prime neo-nut and former chief Clinton basher Richard M. Scaife reassessed his opinion of Hillary and now finds it's a very favorable one indeed. I think we can guess who the GOP really want to run against in November. I suppose you can't blame them. They have 15 years worth of oppo already in the can against Hillary. They would have to work a lot harder to trash Obama and I don't think anyone believes that no matter who the nominee is, that we'll continue to see this great equanimity coming from these quarters once we have one.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

After Iowa

By Carol Gee

The party caucus news has lacked perspective. One or two state outcomes does not a victory make. There are other crucial things happening that are getting crowded off the news pages too easily.

Wyoming held its "forbidden" Republican primary a few days later. Gov. Romney came out ahead because his son showed up, the campaign spent some money, and maybe because there are Mormons living in Wyoming.

Free and fair elections? This is the year of the elections - yes, this year - and the voting machine problems are not fixed. No matter who the two nominees are, if you cannot be sure of honest elections, none of this matters at all. TMCnet recommended a very good (10 page) fairly new article in the New York Times Magazine, from which I quote:

The earliest critiques of digital voting booths came from the fringe — disgruntled citizens and scared-senseless computer geeks — but the fears have now risen to the highest levels of government. One by one, states are renouncing the use of touch-screen voting machines. California and Florida decided to get rid of their electronic voting machines last spring, and last month, Colorado decertified about half of its touch-screen devices. Also last month, Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, released a report in the wake of the Cuyahoga crashes arguing that touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” She was so worried she is now forcing Cuyahoga to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting — before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, have even sponsored a bill that would ban the use of touch-screen machines across the country by 2012.

Delegates and conventions are still to come. Steve Clemons' recent Washington Note post reminded me of what the "real deal" is all about. The presidential nominations rests on the delegate counts, according to his IHT link. To quote TWN:

A candidate in the Democratic race needs 2,025 delegates -- and because of the lead Hillary Clinton has in securing "superdelegates", she's still first in the overall delegate allotment so far. . . In overall delegates now, Hillary Clinton has 175; Obama has 75; and Edwards 46.

Dealing with Iraq is still to come - Speaking of numbers, thanks to Juan Cole for linking to McClatchy's regular report on recent Iraq violence. To quote numbers of two days ago that Cole included provides useful perspective:

7 civilians were wounded in an IED explosion inside a mini bus on al Salam bridge that links between Doura and New Baghdad neighborhoods around 3,00 pm.

Police found 12 anonymous bodies in Baghdad today . . .

Diyala

Six civilians (3 men, 2women and a child) were killed and three others (2 men and a woman) were injured in an IED explosion that targeted a mini bus on Sa’adiyah- Khanaqeen Street northeast of Baquba today morning.

A civilian was killed and another was injured while a carriage was passing near the IED near the Silo in the center of Baquba city today morning. When the members of Sahwa (the awakening) council came to help, another IED exploded in the same place injuring three members of Sahwa.

18 civilians were injured when an IED exploded inside a local market in Jalawla city northeast Baquba city around 5,00 pm. Two of the injured people were moved to Sulaimaniyah hospital because of their critical conditions.

An American soldier was killed in an IED explosion that targeted his vehicle while conducting a military operation in Diyala province. US army confirmed the news in a press released issued today.

Kirkuk

Police found a body of a young man near Sargaran area west of Kirkuk city. Police said that the body is of a young man from Arbil province and his name is Mohammed Ali.

After Iowa I am avoiding getting too caught up in the latest about who is ahead in what public opinion poll. Candidates' fortunes come and go, the pundits gossip about who was snarky to whom, and millions of us around the nation await our turns to make our own wishes known to our political parties. We must honor the process and not get ahead of ourselves. This election is just too important to turn into a mere horse race, with pundits and pollsters flogging the candidates towards an arbitrary finish line. And too many are unable to look past the ends of their turned up noses.

Cross-posted at South by Southwest

Creating reality 101

By Creature

Today in the down-is-up world of George W. Bush's presidency the future is bright, corners are being turned, and approval ratings mean nothing because it's only a matter of time before "the [public] will start to look at the presidency through a different prism."

In BushWorld lowered expectations count as victories. In the RealWorld actual expectations have been crushed under the weight of a collapsing economy, a collapsing foreign policy, and the understanding that this president's time is up yet nothing can, or will, be done to remove him from the White House any sooner. While the country holds it's breath and waits for Bush to exit, Bush holds his breath, plays in his bubble, and spins success.

Everything about this presidency is pathetic, including its attempt at spin.

For a more complete picture of Bush as the great and soon to be popular leader see Peter Baker in today's WaPo.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Col. Boylan succumbs to GGDS

By Libby Spencer

Glenn is having a totally bizarre email exchange with the spokesmouth for our sainted Petraeus. The Colonel's email displays some significant lack of manners and it's unclear whether Boylan is denying sending it or not. There's been much speculation about whether Boylan actually denies sending the missives or whether someone is spoofing the address, but either way it's an astounding breach of either security or protocol. I don't think they're supposed to be this rude.

As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable. The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be. But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you. You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you.

He was much more respectful when he "engaged us" at Newshoggers but still he arrived to complain that his remarks were taken out of context and then his interview was responsive to our questions, but still evasive. He didn't tell us we hadn't already heard through the official press releases. He failed to address the explicit points. I'm not surprised he declined to engage us further. I think he was unused to being challenged, having spent all his time "engaging" with adoring sycophants in Hawkslandia.

Anyway, I've pondered this for a few hours. It's hard to tell for sure. All neocons sound the same to me but I think Boylan wrote, or least dictated all the emails. Despite the difference in temperment between the Newshoggers experience and Glenn's treatment, the language has the same cadence and I think Boylan lost his cool because it was Glenn he was writing to. Glenn nailed him on the linky love fest with Weekly Standard and Boylan just got insensibly pissed off.

I've been watching this develop for a while and I've noticed a growing number of Fringetopians jumping on the boxcar of Greenwald loathing. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of new incomprehensible fixation. I do believe Glenn has joined the ranks of Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Soros and of course the Clintons, as a new derangement syndrome -- GGDS.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Token withdrawal

By Creature

Every time a member of this administration hints at withdrawal it must be made clear that they are lying. Their intention is to stay, and stay indefinitely. Token withdrawals are not an option. Bull must be called.

And, yes, Democrats, I'm talking to you.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Chaos! Outrage! Politics as usual

By Libby Spencer

The Politico shows its alleged non-partisan political stripes today in their colorful description of the hijinks in the House last night.

In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv), Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.
The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and an unprecedented low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber.

Unprecendented low? How soon the Politico forgets. For a publication that bills itself as the ultimate professional Beltway insiders, it seems rather odd they would have omitted a little historical reference that sprang immediately in all the amateurs' minds. James Joyner, who couldn't be called liberal by any stretch of the imagination recalls a similar incident.

The Republicans would certainly be in a better position to take the moral high ground on this one had they not done essentially the same thing when they had the majority. It happened two years ago on the Central America Free Trade Area bill:

The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval.

Not that this stopped GOP Rep. Cantor from shrieking the sky is falling...

An outrage. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

Where was he while the president is accumlating dictatorial powers under the mythical executive privilege? This was all just parliamentary grandstanding, on both parties' parts and frankly I don't get why the GOP didn't just go for this, if they really had the votes to pass it.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling “shame” on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own.

Shame on all of them for wasting the taxpayer's dime on these sort of theatrics. We have bigger problems than worrying about how to punish illegal immigrants with under the table measures. I continue to think if we simply abolished amendments, our laws would be more comprehensible, our legislators would be more accountable for their votes and would also get a lot more done.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Numbing the effects of Mideast violence in 5 easy lessons

By Carol Gee

Internet news space routinely covers the unsettling facts of death and destruction in the Middle East. Sometimes it is a routine recitation of the numbers, such as a Financial Times story about 1) the crisis in Pakistan.

Sunday and Monday from my desk - As I scanned a number of stories, I was struck by sentences that felt out of place in the pieces. Buried in the middle of the articles, were jarring short sentences marked by banality and minimization. Note the following italicized segments of article quotes that are marvels of understatement focused on economics, mere politics and confusing statistical information.

How to psychologically numb out in five easy lessons. The news over the past few years has been traumatizing. But we have become numb to it as a way of defending against the enormity of actual reality. The following citations are illustrations of why this happens.

Understating the obvious: 2) Anyone traveling to Kirkuk this Monday took their lives in their hands. Unfortunate locals and visitors lost their lives in a coordinated attack, terrible in its effectiveness. Reuters' matter of fact news service story does not begin to adequately convey the carnage. Now an everyday reality in this misbegotten war, it is intensely personal to victims and their families. Buried in the story is the political understatement of the year. To quote,

At least 80 people were killed on Monday in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk in a coordinated attack by a suicide truck bomber in a crowded market and a separate car bomb parked on a busy street, police said.

. . . Iraqi police said 136 people were wounded in the Kirkuk blasts and warned that the death toll could rise further.

. . . Time is pressing. Many Americans want their soldiers to come home soon and senior members of Bush's own Republican Party have broken ranks to call for a change of war strategy.

Violence drives stocks lower: 3) How often have we heard about the connection between war and the economy? Here it seems to also be true in Pakistan, of all places. Yahoo! News carried this recent story from Pakistan about the statistics in the aftermath of Sunday's suicide bombings. To quote,

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani investigators were hunting on Monday for links between a surge of violence in the northwest and an assault on a mosque in the capital as the death toll from two suicide-bomb attacks on Sunday rose to 45.

Nearly 100 people, most of them members of the security forces, have been killed in attacks in the northwest since July 3 when government forces surrounded Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, after clashes erupted. There are also fears the collapse of a 10-month pact with militants in the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border would lead to more violence.

. . . Pakistan's main stock index closed 1.81 percent lower on worry over the violence, dealers said.

Try to keep this straight in your head: 4) One of the most fascinating stories came from the New York Times. Headlined, "Mistrust as Iraqi Troops Encounter New U.S. Allies," it detailed the dizzingly intricate web of changing alliances amongst the combatants in Iraq. We cannot fathom the connections, nor can the decision makers in Washington. It speaks to the heart of the problem with placing U.S. troops in the middle of a very complicated civil war that takes the lives of innumerable Iraqis and 3000+ members of the American military. To quote,

Abu Azzam says the 2,300 men in his movement include members of fierce Sunni groups like the 1920s Revolutionary Brigade and the Mujahedeen Army that have fought the American occupation. Now his men patrol alongside the Americans, who want to turn them into a security force that can bring peace to this stretch between Baghdad and Falluja.

A few miles away, in the town of Abu Ghraib, Brig. Gen. Nassir al-Hiti and his brigade of Iraqi Army soldiers also have the support of the American military. But they have a different ambition, some American commanders here say: doing everything they can to undermine Abu Azzam’s men, even using a stolen membership list to single them out for wrongful detention.

. . . The gulf between Abu Azzam’s men and the Iraqi soldiers remains vast, with American troops sometimes having to physically intercede. And it is an unmistakable caution that the full depths of the problems facing Iraq cannot be measured in the statistics about insurgent attacks and sectarian killings that carry so much weight in Washington.

Political progress unsatisfactory. . . No kidding! 5) The Iraqi parliament is taking August off, but, wisely, the U.S. congress has remained in session. Neither body has made much progress in ending the war in Iraq. This weekend brought us more marvelous minimizations from the Bush administration. The Financial Times headlined, "US politicians unite on anger over Maliki" Quote,

Longstanding US frustration with the government of Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, erupted after the White House admitted last week that political progress in the country was unsatisfactory.

. . . In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Bush pointed to signs that this year’s US troop build-up was beginning to increase security. “Our strategy is built on the premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress,” he said.

But with Iraqi lawmakers on vacation in August, the chances of a political breakthrough before September appear slim. Tony Snow, White House press secretary, defended the parliament’s month-long break, pointing out that August temperatures in Baghdad can reach 54°C . Critics noted that US troops would have no such respite from the savage heat.

Well, there you go. Five. Are you numb yet?

(Cross-posted in extended version at South by Southwest.)

Analysis -- positive or negative?

By Carol Gee

Picking up on what Michael said in his recent post about what Americans think about the war in Iraq:

It is vital that we understand what we read in the news. That does not mean merely understanding what the words themselves mean. We must understand what is behind the author's thinking regarding the actual facts of the story, in order to judge the truthfulness of the article. This is important because a story will be more or less TRUE depending on the biases that color the author's "take" on it. Therefore it is helpful to ask, what is the writer's cognitive view (way of thinking) about the objective facts? Is it pessimistic or optimistic? The author will, consciously or unconsciously, give us clues in the words:

First, look at the characteristics of pessimistic language describing a "bad thing."

• 1- The bad thing is big.
• 2 - The bad thing is permanent.
• 3 - The bad thing may have been our responsibility.

Look at the characteristics of pessimistic language describing the "good thing."

• 4 - The good thing is little.
• 5 - The good thing is temporary.
• 6 - The good thing is not something for which we can take credit.
  

Second, look at the characteristics of optimistic language describing a "bad thing."

• 7 - The bad thing is little.
• 8 - The bad thing is temporary.
• 9 - The bad thing is not our fault.

And look at the characteristics of optimistic language describing a "good thing."

• 10 - The good thing is big.
• 11 - The good thing is permanent.
• 12 - The good thing is something for which we can take credit.

The key is how distorted is the view. The following article can give us a little lesson in cognitive analysis of possible author bias towards over-optimism or too much pessimism in the face of the objective facts. I will italicize the words and use one of the above numerical keys to define what I believe to be the cognitive view of either the author or one of his subjects.

Author's view, "It is out of our hands." The article is from today's My Way News. It is titled - "Analysis: Only Iraqis Can Win the War." It was written by Robert Burns for the AP (7/1/07). I quote:

Notes Bush's optimistic stance -- In a speech Thursday, Bush struck a notably optimistic tone about his strategy (12) and gave no indication he was ready to give up or change approach(11).

Author's rational pessimism... How much worse might things get if U.S. troops left (3) and the sectarian killing escalated (1)?

Overly optimistic view of Bush's favorite adviser... According to Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently visited Baghdad and is a leading supporter of the current strategy, the truly decisive phase of the current campaign will begin in late July or early August (8). He predicts that phase will bring much lower levels of violence by year's end (7).

Rational pessimism, given the facts... Just this past week a leading Republican voice on foreign affairs, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, broke ranks with Bush. Lugar said he had reached the conclusion that sticking with the current strategy will not serve U.S. security interests (4, 5). He also said it is almost impossible to establish a stable government in Baghdad in a reasonable time (2, 3).

Rational pessimism about the facts on the ground... One more worry is the wear and tear on the Army and Marine Corps. The services were straining to keep up a staggering pace of troop rotations (1) even before Bush decided to send thousands more (3) into and around Baghdad and before the Pentagon decided that rotations would be extended from 12 months -- already viewed by many as too long (2) -- to 15 months.

Potential rational realism or author's wishful thinking?... That is why, if Bush concludes in the months ahead that his strategy for securing Baghdad is not working fast enough (5), he may feel compelled to find a different approach, perhaps reducing the U.S. combat role (4) without abandoning Iraq. He has hinted at such a transition possibly coming next year.

Rational pessimism, limiting expectations, again -- That could explain why Bush and other administration officials recently have cited South Korea as a possible model (2) for the long-term U.S. military role in Iraq. The idea would be to work out an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep at least a tripwire U.S. force there to train with Iraqi troops and to act as a deterrent (4).

Realistic assessment of history -- The point is that instead of completely abandoning Iraq, as the U.S. did in Vietnam in the 1970s (3),

Author's possibly rosy optimism... The U.S. would maintain a presence large enough to protect its broader interests in the Persian Gulf region (10).

My analysis of this author's objectivity is that it is pretty good overall. At the beginning of his piece he talks realistically about several current "bad things." He also includes information that reinforces the currently overly rosy optimism of the administration and those upon whom they have recently relied for advice (namely, Frederick Kagan). He reports on the growing rational pessimism of one of the president's key supporters, Senator Lugar. He discusses the realistic and very pessimistic view of the situation for the military. And finally the author gives hints that the administration may be looking for ways to take a more rational stance with lowered expectations for the eventual outcomes of the war in Iraq.

The author must be a real optimist by nature, however, because he concludes with the idea that the U.S. can and will permanently have its way in the region, "protecting its broader interests in the broader Gulf Region." In my pessimistic opinion that is absolutely not a foregone conclusion at this point.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Cheney lies even as truth emerges

By Libby Spencer

Cheney and Rush Limbaugh yukked it up on Rush's show with a good old fashioned, liberal-bashing gabfest. The money quote was Cheney's trotting out the long debunked contention that there was any nexus whatsoever between Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda.

...Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. ...

Little wonder that 30% of Americans still support this administration if they only listen to Rush for their news. TPM Muckraker has the links that establish that Zarqawi actually took up residence in Northern Iraq, among the Kurds, an area over which Saddam had little control and that Saddam feared his influence as much as we did and that Zarqawi didn't align himself with AQ until 2004. Not to mention, the US apparently had a chance to take out Zarqawi before the invasion but didn't do so - for reasons unknown, but it's not difficult to draw the conclusion they didn't want to disturb their casus belli for the invasion.

Providing the current debunking of Cheney's lies on the matter, a declassified DoD report released yesterday provides the latest proof on Feith's chop shop's cooked up intelligence.

...the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

A footnote to the report also adds, that "post-war debriefs... ...all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" alleged by Feith's office." This of course is polite polispeak to say the White House lied through its teeth to get their war.

This is all old news really but it does serve to reinforce the treasonous conduct of the White House throughout its administration. Given that there are so many new converts to reality-based thinking, it's a necessary and important part of the process of reining in the Imperial President before he does any further damage to our national security. Perhaps it's not too late to impeach after all.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Why Hillary can't win

By Libby Spencer

The blunt triangulation that worked to put her husband in office has become a double-edged sword and Hillary has cut her throat on it. Bill won before Blogtopia was invented and while Hillary has embraced "teh internets" as a political tool, she apparently doesn't yet understand that the days you could equivocate according to your audience are long over.

Either she's for staying in Iraq or she's not. Either she's for gay rights or she's not. She can't have it both ways and in trying to do so, has effectively written herself out of the race.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Kagan's surge of sibling loyalty

By Libby Spencer

Robert Kagan must be plenty tired from heaving those huge buckets of White House water in this piece but I guess it's worth it to him to hear the applause from the few remaining true believers. This would have been funny as an Onion satire but it takes on a truly pathetic patina as a "serious" opinion piece.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

Such is the disdain of the neo-cons for us little people that Kagan apparently believes we haven't noticed the political opposition has been ignored and circumvented -- not surmounted -- and only a thoroughly deluded partisan could describe the deployment of about 5,000 men into a city of 7 million as "flowing." Trickle would be more apt.

As for his substantial proof that the surge is having a significant effect, he makes vague statements about increased optimism among the remaining population and cites the disappearance of miltias within the city without noting that the bulk of the educated middle class Iraqis have long abandoned their country and the militias have not been disbanded, but have merely regrouped outside the limits of our reach. His "evidence" is peppered with a lot of ifs and maybes and willfully ignores that for the "stricter clear and hold" strategy to work in the long term would require US troops to remain in Baghdad for years, not months.

In short, Robert is saying he completely buys into his brother Fred's wishful thinking. Fred, you must recall for yourself, since the WaPo fails to mention it, is the author the surge strategy. Unfortunately, wishful thinking may buy the neo-cons some time, but it won't win a war. Nonetheless, I'll answer Robert's question.

If I'm wrong and the surge succeeds, I'll send sweets and flowers to his brother myself, along with my hearty congratulations. I'd ask in turn, if the critics are right and the surge fails, will he and his cabal of the clueless finally wake up and admit the neo-con dream has become a nightmare?

Meanwhile, for the ultimate short version of Kagan's column, see Heretik's not to be missed post.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Fairly unbalanced

By Libby Spencer

I might have added this to my Kondrake post as an update but it's simply so brilliant it deserves a post of its own as the must read of the day. Jurassicpork offers some clues as to "why the Nevada Democratic Caucus pulled out of Fox 'News’s' proposed coverage of the Democratic Presidential debate" and has assembled perhaps the largest collection of Fox News faux pas screen captures in the history of Blogtopia.

Trust me on this. Go read.

What's the matter with the media?

By Libby Spencer

Jesus' General has a thought provoking post on how our media is failing in their time honored mission of informing Americans and Joe Gandelman expands on that theme. Both are must read posts if you're interested in media issues.

Meanwhile, James Joyner disagrees and says the fluff pays the bills. He goes on to say there's "no dearth of good reporting on matters of war, international affairs, and domestic public policy. Indeed, there’s more of it than most of us can keep up with." But he misses the point.

Those stories get short shrift when the focus is on Anna Nicole 24/7 for days on end and they don't sink into the public consciousness with a two minute news item tucked into endless speculation about who the father of Smith's baby is. It's well established that the average person needs three repetitions to retain information. For those of us who actively seek out the news, we can still find it in the dregs of the coverage but the average Jake isn't getting it. All they have to work with is badly skewed Limbaugh style soundbites designed to promote disinfo.

I gave up on televised news years ago. I get my info almost solely from the internet and the odd print source. But the taxpayer is subsidizing the media industry with billions of dollars worth of free access to the airwaves and deserves a better product. They're never going to get one while the competition is limited to five or six major corporations. It's time to break up the monopolies and bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Joyner points out that megacorps can absorb losses better than small operators but the losses were only initally incurred because the independent news sources were forced to compete with deep pocket corps who offered a dumbed down product that was more palatable to the public's purient interests and could contain costs with consolidation. If we leveled the playing field, and opened it back up to more players, we could restore some honesty to journalism and limit the ability of the spin machine to drive the news cycle.

The only downside I see in that is to the profit margins of the media mega-corps. I'm all for capitalism, but sometimes what's good for business isn't necessarily good for America. This is one of those times.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

GOP jive talking

By Libby Spencer

If you had any doubts left that Co-dependent Joe Lieberman has joined the White House team, which seems unlikely what with all the warm and approving mentions by Bush and Cheney lately, the latest (leaked) GOP talking points memo should convince you. The steno sheet urges the party faithful to pimp Joe's recent remarks to the WSJ as proof positive of how nice and bi-partisan they've become since they got their asses whupped in the mid-terms. The GOPers love this line.

The people in Congress, and the public, were quite right in saying the president's got to come up with a different approach. And he did. It's better than any other plan I've seen because it holds the hope of success. Most of the other plans are effectively just giving up and walking away."

And Steve Hadley reinforces the meme in a WaPo op-ed.

"Ultimately, a strategy for success must present a realistic plan for bringing security to the people of Baghdad. This is a precondition to advancing other goals. President Bush's strategy offers such a plan -- and it is the only strategy that does."

And what is this miracle strategy again, that has this extraordinarily high hope of success? Throwing a pitiful 20 or 30 thousand soldiers into a snake pit of over 6 million people? We did that last summer and it completely failed so WTF is new about it?

New would be rolling in with thousands of troops and tanks and helicopters and air strikes and leveling the city to bring order. Oh wait -- we did that when invaded and broke the social order in the first place. Come to think of it, we did that in Fallujah too. That city is still not secure either. And forgive me if I mention that the latest bloody 24 hour battle with some mysterious new Shia cult took place 100 miles south of Baghdad. The insurgents, whoever they are, are violent, not stupid. They're not going to wait around Baghdad while we muster our troops. They've already left the city and are spreading out.

To use the words realistic and great potential for success in the same sentence as Bush's new plan would be laughable, if only he wasn't so deadly serious about going forward with a strategy that seems doomed to set us back again.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

A half-glass-full battle

By Creature

On Sunday, in a highly publicized battle, the Iraqi forces in Najaf battled insurgents, or militias, or a cult, to the death. The details of the battle were sketchy and with whom the Iraqis were fighting was clearly in question. However, one aspect of the battle, a battle that reportedly killed between 150 and a gazillion people, was not in question: it was Iraqis who were in charge and GWB's policy was vindicated. Well, guess again.

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

They said American ground troops — and not just air support as reported Sunday — were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.

The reality is clear, the Iraqi forces are not up to the job. The spin is even clearer, at every step of the way in GWB's latest publicity offensive (some might say publicity "surge") Iraqi successes will be trumpeted despite the reality on the ground. Call me cynical, I guess I don't have a "half-glass-full mentality," but haven't we been down this unrealistic road before?

The New York Times has more.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)