ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

Whoa: TIME may protect its reporter Matthew Cooper by pre-emptively releasing documents containing information
on who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/28/193723/786

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_go_ot/reporters_contempt

Bob Novak’s mysterious role: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-is-novak-off-hook-inquiring-minds.html

Paging Representative DeLay. . . Paging Representative Cunningham. . . The Chair of the House Ethics Committee
drops his absurd demand to place his own staffer on the committee, possibly clearing the way
for the committee to begin hearings

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/DeLay_inquiry_set_to_move_Chairman_of_Ethics_committee_backs_0629.html

But. . . http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/29/22210/2754

Oh, and on the subject, check out this priceless DeLay quote

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/29/quote_of_the_day.html
"It's not a pay raise. It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), quoted by the AP, on a vote to increase congressional salaries.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/29/193553/016
[Ed Kilgore] How long, after all, will we have to wait for the next party-line GOP vote against a minimum wage increase
to make sure the neediest working Americans "are not losing their purchasing power"?
How long before the next administration or congressional Republican effort to cap or
pare funding for Medicaid or some other safety net program on grounds that maintaining
the purchasing power of beneficiaries represents a "spending increase"?
And how long, for that matter, will it be before Republicans take credit for popular
spending increases--say, for the military--that really just maintain the "purchasing
power" of current appropriations?

DeLay has lurched into the dangerous territory of real-life measurements of money:
what you can buy with it. He's done so on the most vulnerable grounds imaginable (other than
the usual GOP weeping about the horrific taxes levied on the estates of billionaires):
compassion for Members of Congress who are busily evading a large variety of national challenges
while running up a ruinous national debt.

As Bruce Reed observed in the latest issue of Blueprint magazine: "There's another easy way for Congress
to prove it understands that public responsibility comes before personal gain.
Members of Congress should stop giving themselves cost-of-living increases
until the federal government stops running a deficit and spending the Social Security trust fund.
Responsibility begins at the top."

Cheney gets an EKG exam – not really very surprising or scandalous information.
But of course this gang can’t even tell the truth about such a simple (and easily verified) factual matter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/itas-not-the-ekg-ita_3388.html

Support the troops! Bush Co. shortchanges veterans’ health care (and VA Sect’y Jim Nicholson screws up Big Time). . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800545.html

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/06/correction_situation_at_va_is_even_worse_than_normal.html

. . . which led to this delightful exchange between Harry Reid and Rick Santorum on the floor of the Senate

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senator-reid-eviscerates-santorum-on.html

Bush’s “support the troops” web site looks a lot like a “support George Bush” web site – does that surprise you?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/is-big-brother-censoring.html

Of course, they lie about this too: http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/10000_hits_per_second/

Find it before it gets pulled down: the WH web site for posting all their good news about “Renewal In Iraq”
(thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news-archive.html

John McDonald on the undercurrent of fear Bush was playing on in his Tuesday speech

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2005/06/be_afraid_be_ve.html
At least he didn’t raise the color code to orange. Strange how that hasn’t happened since the election ended.

But there shouldn’t be any doubt about the intent of last night’s speech -- to scare the American people into
supporting the war in Iraq. . .

But don’t worry, very few people bothered to watch

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1576
[Reuters] President Bush's address to the nation, urging Americans to stand firm in Iraq, drew the smallest TV
audience of his tenure, Nielsen Media Research reported on Wednesday. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006948

Fearing that bad news would step on the President’s message, the Army withheld information on the helicopter
shot down in Afghanistan, killing 17

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1572

Has George Bush already lost in Iraq?

http://billmon.org/archives/001955.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-lame-duck-and-lame-commander-in.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000971144

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/29/BL2005062901429.html

And Scotty, as usual, struggles to deny the plain meaning of administration statements: when did the job
of Press Secretary shift from answering questions in order to provide information,
to doing nothing but “responding” to questions with non-sequiturs that
reinforce the WH message of the day?

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3589&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Why the feckless Dems still haven’t capitalized on Bush’s war lies and failures

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/30/democrats_struggle_to_find_one_voice_on_iraq/
House and Senate Democrats, sensing an opportunity in President Bush's sagging poll numbers and an increasingly
unpopular war, have held a series of long, closed-door meetings over the past several weeks
to find a common position and a sharpened political message on the Iraq War.

Some participants in the meetings said Bush's failure to articulate an exit strategy
in his speech on Tuesday night only underscored the need for Democrats to devise their position.
But they also acknowledged that within the party, there are fundamentally different views on the war.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/30/15955/6892
[Bob Herbert] The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.

Idiotic GOP rep Robin Hayes (R-NC) claims to have proof of a Hussein-9/11 link. Since no other intelligence agency, congressional committee, or Presidential review panel has claimed to have anything close to such evidence, either Representative Hayes is withholding valuable data that no one else has, or (more likely) is whistling through his hat. But the conspiracy-loving wingnuts persist in assuming that there MUST be such a link, and that for some inexplicable reason the govt is sitting on the information (as if they wouldn’t have released it long ago to buttress their flagging case for the war in Iraq). But of course Bush himself has proven all too willing to tiptoe around the edges of hinting at such a link because he knows it feeds into this widespread misconception

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_digbysblog_archive.html#112005993175529648

More: http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/29/143724/460
I would, however, be very interested in hearing one of the grand poobahs of DC journalism explain to me why it is that it's okay for Republican congresspeople -- subcommittee chairs, even -- to say totally lunatic things, while the slightest hint of unhingedness on the part of anyone, anywhere who might have at some point voted for a Democrat is a huge problem.

Forget Syria and Iran – invade Saudi Arabia!

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/29/15/14/the-smell-of-victory/
[NY Post] U.S. commanders in Iraq are facing a growing security threat from Saudi Arabia — which is emerging as a major center for recruitment and financing of terrorist operations in Iraq, The Post has learned.

Labor Dept buries negative reports on working conditions in Central America, afraid that they might jeopardize CAFTA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062900310.html

Is Bolton now too damaged and illegitimate to be an effective UN representative, even if Bush manages to force him through with a recess appointment?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000762.html
The White House wants him to take a recess appointment -- and he allegedly doesn't want it under these conditions. There are other things he can do. AEI is probably warming a chair right now. . . In the end, while the White House did not get its way in the Senate, it will probably prevail in nudging Bolton to accept the job any way he gets it. Principle will be lost, and Bolton knows it.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006945

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/29/172323/722

On Bolton‘s enemies inside the Bush administration (fun)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/29/121018/540

House Republicans really have a death wish: they are insisting on voting on a Social Security proposal

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_26.php#005917

Charlie Cook, from his weekly (email) newsletter

For those of you who might have been on vacation or otherwise distracted last week, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and a number of other House Republicans proposed the creation of private investment accounts to be funded out of the Social Security surplus.

Hello, a Social Security surplus?

Last time I checked, President Bush had given an impassioned State of the Union speech trying to persuade Congress and the country that the Social Security system was headed toward insolvency. . . It boggles the mind to think that anyone believes that Republicans could sell this country the idea that there is a Social Security surplus. . .

Like every other credible independent political analyst I know, I think it is very, very unlikely that Democrats can retake control of the House or Senate next year. Yes, I know it is a second-term, mid-term election, and that in five out of the six such "six-year-itch" elections, the party holding the White House incurred devastating losses. In fact, the average outcome in those six elections was a loss of 36 House and six Senate seats, enough to turn over control of both chambers if just an average outcome occurred.

But we keep reminding ourselves that the scarcity of vulnerable Republican seats in the House and Senate makes it almost impossible for the GOP to lose control.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has figured into the equation that Republicans would begin engaging in profoundly stupid and potentially suicidal actions that might prove us wrong and put them back into minority status. . .

Nice. Kentucky’s Republican governor reportedly has an illegal “hit list” of Democratic state workers to get rid of (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005506280344

Bonus item: this is really, really cool

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/29/84831/0916
This site by the Newseum is pretty amazing.

It has a Flash map of the United States and other regions of the world with links to various cities. Mouse over the cities, and you get a copy of the local newspapers front pages. Click on it, and you get a large scan of the front page.

An incredible way to quickly see what stories are playing heavily both nationally and throughout the world.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:52 AM

 
NOT WORTH IT

On the speech last night, there is only one thing to say, really: blah

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006611.php
[Kevin Drum] That was sure a. . . ho hum speech. I thought it was supposed to be about our strategy to win in Iraq, but he offered nothing new at all. Our commanders say we don't need any more troops, a timeline for withdrawal is bad, and democracy is on the march. . . Beyond that, nothing but the usual rah rah. No wonder the networks were hesitant about televising it.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#112001926351562515
[David Corn] Bush's speech will not alter the landscape--here or in Iraq. It was the rhetorical equivalent of treading water. Before the speech, NPR had asked me to talk about the address afterward with a conservative pundit. Minutes before we were to go on, an NPR worker called. We've decided, she said, that there was not enough in the speech to warrant an analysis segment. . .

[NB: what I found most interesting, and a key theme picked up by the headline writers, is Bush’s need to reassure us all that the bloodshed, sacrifice, and suffering have been “worth it.” Interesting because (a) nobody can know if it has been worth it yet until we see how this all plays out, and (b) that assessment will be made by popular judgment, in hindsight, not by Bush’s fiat. So far, people have mostly decided that it HASN’T been “worth it,” and several more years of quagmire, with an uncertain outcome, aren’t likely to raise that opinion.]

One more thing to add, thanks to Billmon

http://billmon.org/archives/001952.html
I'm going to let others parse the recycled evasions, half-truths and downright lies in Bush's speech. (160,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi forces??? That ain't true even in Shrub's parallel universe, much less ours.) I've been doing this kind of thing for more than two years now, and I'm tired.

I'll also dispense with the long, detailed analysis of whether the speech will help Bush or not. The New York minute version: It buys him a favorable news cycle and a week, maybe two, of extreme lapdog obedience from the corporate media. It could move the polls his way by a couple of points. But after a month, and another 40 or 50 dead GIs, nobody will remember a word of it, not even G.W.

But I do want to take a longer minute to point out a subtle, and at times bizarre, shift in the propaganda rhetoric -- one that, as predicted, appears to set the stage (or at least leaves the door open) for further negotiations with some of the bad guys. It starts with this line:

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

Many of them?? So what murderous ideology do the rest of them follow? Utilitarianism? This use of an adjective that's at least several terrorists short of "all" or "every" is echoed in this line:

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom.

. . . I think the partial pronoun is the tee up for the actual change in the party line, which is slipped in here:

They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order.

If you go back and look at the old party lines (versions 1.0 and 2.0) you can quickly see that something new has been added. Heretofore, the "anti-Iraqi forces" have consisted of:

1.) Foreign Terrorists (aka "assassins")
2.) Regime Remnants (aka "dead enders")
3.) Criminal Elements (aka "thugs")

But now we have a fourth category, one with a nice neutral name that doesn't allude to hacking people's heads off or gassing your own people or hating our freedoms:

4.) Iraqi Insurgents (aka "negotiating partners.")

From there on out, the speech carefully and repeatedly distinguished between the terrorists and the insurgents, who are now -- in the fantasy world of the White House propaganda shop at least -- two unique and different populations, where before they were one and indivisible:

Iraqi forces have fought bravely – helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul.

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents.

Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves.

We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

And so on. It would seem the error in the historical record has been rectified (although the gang still hasn't gotten that memory hole thing completely down yet.) But the policy -- "no nation can negotiate with terrorists" -- hasn't changed one bit. It remains as a monument to our leader's moral clarity and unflagging resolution.

It really is amazing what you can do with -- and to -- the English language.

More dissections: http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/arguing-with-bush-bushs-speech.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121689/fr/rss/

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/bush-iraq-speech-by-the-numbers/

What Bush didn’t say . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/wash-post-editorial-slams-bush.html

http://www.soonerthought.com/archives/001651.html

George Bush, paragon of consistency

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2005/06/can-you-say-flip-flop-today-president.html
[Bush last night] “Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. . . Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. . . It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. . . And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/28/bush_once_demanded_an_exit_strategy.html
"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- Bush criticizing President Clinton on not setting a timetable for troops in Kosovo, 4/9/99

"I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- Bush, again criticizing Clinton, 6/5/99. . .

"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious." -- Bush, in response to a question from Jim Lehrer, 10/12/00.

Scotty’s version: We’ve got a strategy, a strategy for success. . . just don’t ask us what it is

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006935
[SCOTT McCLELLAN]: Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory. It is a two-track strategy: there is the military and political track. . .

Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success?. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: [T]he President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place. . . I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is. It's an opportunity for the American people to hear about the strategy. . . You're going to hear him talk about the strategy we have for succeeding in Iraq, the strategy we have for victory, and where we are in terms of implementing that strategy.

[NB: I imagine Scotty saying all this with a tic and a squint and a head-jerk. “Strategy. . . awk!. . . the President has a strategy. . .it’s a very specific strategy. . . errk!. . . it’s a strategy for success. . . gah!”]

Harry Reid’s response

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/28/204745/992
“Tonight’s address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts.

“There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President’s Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. “Staying the course,” as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.

“The President’s numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.

“Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead.

“Our troops and their families deserve no less.”

A very reserved reception from the troops. To me, this was a prime story. I’m sure they were prepped that this wasn’t to be a pep rally and that a lot of hooting and cheering weren’t appropriate to the moment. But even given that, the facial expressions and body language of the audience were like a bunch of people sitting in a dentist’s waiting room.

Look, the “serious” media can report with furrowed brow about Bush’s tone and rhetoric, but these people in uniform know some things. They know there aren’t enough troops over there. They know there are shortages of critical supplies, even now. They know the Iraqis are nowhere near ready to take over on their own. They know there wasn’t a plan -- a “strategy for success” – to follow up the initial fall of Baghdad. They know the daily frustrations and futility of fighting a “whack-a-mole” insurgency when a lot of the locals don’t want you to be there. They know that a lot of their buddies are being raked over the coals for prisoner abuse, while the officers who told them to “get tough” with the prisoners are getting excuses and promotions. They know the extended tours of duty, the broken promises about being able to go home, and the prospect of no end in sight. And many of them know the sorry state of medical care for vets.

I’m sure most of them support Bush, and I’m sure most of them, even now, agree that it has been “worth it” (they really HAVE to believe that, don’t they, at this stage?). But they aren’t going to be convinced by Bush’s “I feel your pain” rhetorical stylings and faux sincerity that the armed forces haven’t been seriously shortchanged and taken advantage of by poor war planning and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld’s stubborn refusal to admit any mistakes at all.

And I wonder how they feel about the emergence of secret negotiations with the very people who have been slaughtering their brothers and sisters?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_digbysblog_archive.html#112000443022126186
I notice the props are having a hard time keeping their eyes open, though. Poor guys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28cnd-prexy.html
Rather than interrupt the president with applause, the soldiers sat silently in green uniforms and maroon berets, until Mr. Bush, well into his speech, declared, "We will stay in the fight until the fight is won." Then they clapped, the only applause he received until the end of his address.

Yep, fake applause

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/abc-reports-that-white-house-advance.html
ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.

Looks like ABC won’t be getting any chummy thank you notes for a while

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-made-iraq-1-training-ground-for.html
Stephanopoulos just said on ABC that the CIA said a few weeks ago that there were no real ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the war, but that now Iraq is THE NUMBER ONE TRAINING GROUND for Al Qaeda worldwide. Good God. Do people realize what that means?

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/29/war-in-iraq-was-supposed-to-prevent-it-from-becoming-a-training-ground/
The fact that Iraq has BECOME a terrorist training ground is true. It wasn’t one before the invasion of Iraq. And Bush admitted as much in November 2002. Before the war, Bush claimed we needed to attack Iraq to PREVENT it from becoming a terrorist training ground. Here’s what he said:

Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use his shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. [Bush, 11/4/02]

We don’t have to imagine any longer. Bush’s miscalculations in his handling of Iraq have unified the terrorists and have allowed Iraqi territory to become the terrorist training ground that the extremists desired.

Time Magazine Reported the “goal” of the militants in a July 2004 article:

A “Time investigation of the insurgency today — based on meetings with insurgents, tribal leaders, religious clerics and U.S. intelligence officials — reveals that the militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement. … Their goal now, say the militants interviewed, is broader than simply forcing the U.S. to leave. They want to transform Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1980s: a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded groups.”

Nearly a year later and with little headway having been made against the insurgents, the CIA recently reported the results:

“A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda’s early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.”

Insta-poll

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#112001943301685205
[CNN] A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans who watched President Bush's Iraq speech Tuesday night showed that 46 percent had a "very positive" reaction to what they heard.

The poll was taken immediately after the speech, and the 323 adults interviewed were 50 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent. The margin of error was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Another 28 percent said they were "somewhat positive" about what they heard, and 26 percent said they had a "negative" reaction.

"It's difficult to tell from these poll results how the speech will affect general U.S. public," said CNN polling director Keating Holland.

"Many Americans did not watch the speech. Those who did were 2-to-1 Republican, so most were arguably already in the president's camp."

[“Arguably”]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701482.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top general in Iraq said yesterday that U.S. military attempts to initiate discussions with Iraqi leaders who claim to hold sway within the insurgency are in the early stages and have not yet yielded much progress.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. . . said there have been no discussions with foreign fighters, including those linked to insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi.

"They're discussions, and they're discussions primarily aimed at bringing these Sunni leaders and the people they represent into the political process," Casey said at a Pentagon news conference. "But to characterize them as negotiations with insurgents about stopping the insurgency, we're not quite there yet."

Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that the war is on track toward success. He cautioned again that the insurgency could last for years and declined to put a timetable on a possible U.S. withdrawal. . . "The suggestion of those who say we are losing, or that we're in a quagmire, seems to be that, as long as there's violence in Iraq, that the conclusion must be that the insurgents are winning," Rumsfeld said. "Not so.". . .

Neither he nor Casey specified what criteria would be used to decide when to bring troops home, but Rumsfeld said a perfectly peaceful Iraq is not what will define success. . ."Success for the coalition should not be defined as domestic tranquility in Iraq," Rumsfeld said. "Other democracies have had to contend with terrorism and insurgencies for a number of years, but they've been able to function and eventually succeed."

War defenders pooh-pooh poll results in the U.S. while simultaneously trumpeting poll results in Iraq

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002196.html
[Dana Milbank] The result is a somewhat muddled message: Attack the polls, or cite them? Attack the skeptics, or persuade them?. . . Yesterday, only moments after Rumsfeld denounced "mercurial" polls, his fellow briefer, George W. Casey Jr., the top general in Iraq, observed: "Recent polls confirm that Iraqis are confident in their government and their security forces," he said. The juxtaposition was even worse Sunday; Rumsfeld, in the same interview denouncing polls, suggested looking "at the polling data on the confidence that the Iraqi people have for the Iraqi security forces."

There are a lot of ways to read this, none of them good

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121733/fr/rss/
A wire piece in the Journal says an Iraqi journalist was apparently killed by GIs after he didn't pull over as their convoy was passing; it is reportedly the third such killing of an Iraqi journalist in the past week.

MZM, the defense contractor in the Duke Cunningham case, has a VERY interesting history

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_26.php#005903
"MZM opened its doors in 1993, but its first federal contract was a $140,000 deal in July 2002 to provide "office furniture" and "custom computer programming services" for the executive office of the president of the United States, according to the Federal Procurement Data System." San Diego Union-Tribune, June 25th, 2005.

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3578&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Government procurement records show that MZM, which Wade started in 1993, did not report any revenue from prime contract awards until 2003. Most of its revenue has come from the agreement the Pentagon just cut off. But over the past three years it was also awarded several contracts, worth more than $600,000, by the Executive Office of the President. They include a $140,000 deal for office furniture in 2002 and several for unspecified "intelligence services.". . . A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.

[Holden] I'm sure its perfectly normal for the White House to buy $140,000 worth of furniture from a defense contractor, right?

What we already knew. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-halliburton28jun28,1,4822477.story
A top Army Corps of Engineers official charged Monday that Halliburton Co. was able to receive no-bid contracts for work in Iraq because of repeated assistance by the office of the secretary of Defense.

Bunnatine Greenhouse, a longtime senior procurement executive for the Army Corps of Engineers. . . called the multiple interventions "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

"Essentially every aspect of the RIO contract remained under the control of the office of the secretary of Defense," she said, referring to the acronym for the contract known as Rebuild Iraqi Oil. "That troubled me and was wrong."

The Chinese oil bidness: they’ve learned how things get done over here

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/06/25psi.html
Public Strategies Inc., the Austin-based public affairs firm, likes to keep a low profile. . . That probably will be impossible with one of the firm's newest clients: CNOOC Ltd., the Chinese oil company that's trying to buy Unocal Corp. . .

CNOOC's bid faces opposition from some members of Congress because of concerns about Chinese trade practices and national security. The government can block any deal it thinks threatens national security. . . Given those obstacles, CNOOC needs all the help it can get. So this week the company hired PSI and other high-powered law and lobbying firms, including Washington-based Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

PSI has some important political connections. Vice Chairman Mark McKinnon is a longtime campaign adviser to President Bush. And managing director Mark Palmer, who is handling CNOOC, knows plenty about managing controversy: His previous job was as the executive in charge of public relations for Enron Corp., which had businesses all over the world. . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/28/17/06/9781/
Q When the President talks about high gasoline prices, he often cites the demand for gasoline and crude oil from China. Is the President comfortable that the company partly owned by his campaign media advisor is assisting the Chinese in their attempt to purchase Unocal?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of that matter, we are following those reports closely. . .

“An arrogant insult”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006931
Now that it's clear that the Senate doesn't support John Bolton, many conservatives are pushing for a recess appointment. But surprise, surprise -- back when Bill Clinton was president, a recess appointment was an "arrogant insult."

Why a recess appointment would be a bad idea. . .

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000761.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/28/13244/3578

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_26.php#005913

. . .but Frist shows no signs of bringing Bolton up for another vote (I guess that trip to the woodshed a week or so ago wasn't to get him to promise to bring up another vote, but to STOP TALKING about the fact that there wasn't going to be another vote)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000760.html

More coming on the Franklin case

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002195.html

Karl Rove has a plan for Rudy Giuliani (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://radarmagazine.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/06/28/index.php#report_001506

Chaos ahead: Christian groups plan to flood the courts with a hundred more religious monument cases

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701583.html
"We see this as an historic opening, and we're going to pursue it aggressively," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Washington-based Christian Defense Coalition, which organized vigils outside the Florida hospice where Terri Schiavo died this year.

Ken Tomlinson, the kind of boss any of us would love to work for

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-cpb28jun28,1,1489257.story
A consultant hired by the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to monitor the political leanings of guests on PBS' "NOW with Bill Moyers" last year also tracked the content of programs hosted by NPR's Diane Rehm and public broadcaster Tavis Smiley, according to a Democratic senator who obtained a copy of the analysis.

The consultant, Fred Mann, provided Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, CPB chairman, with a report classifying guests interviewed by Smiley and on "The Diane Rehm Show" on National Public Radio as "liberal" or "conservative". . .

The corporation's inspector general is now examining Tomlinson's hiring of Mann, who was previously employed by a conservative journalism education group, as well as other contracts given to GOP lobbyists. . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:55 AM

 
“RESISTANCE IS FUTILE”

It appears that the far Right is getting frustrated that they can’t get everyone to fall in line with their agenda. Thinking that this was their moment to permanently restructure government, the US legal system, and the rest of the world to fit their vision, suddenly people are exhibiting a disturbing skepticism and independence of thought. And so, of course, the Right’s response is to attack their own allies (on 90% of the issues, because they don’t support them on 100% of the issues) just as viciously as they’ve been attacking their enemies. Fun to watch

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/when-repubs-attack-each-other.html
First, Cheney goes after Hagel. Now conservative leader Grover Norquist attacks three GOP Senators over at the College Chickenhawks conference:

Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as "the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona" - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.

More Republican bullying of scientists who dare to publish work that doesn’t support their agenda – this is truly frightening (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1926

You don’t need to be a baseball fan to be deeply disturbed by the implications here

http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003059.html
[Roll Call] Three months into their inaugural season, the Washington Nationals are in first place. Attendance is strong, hopes are high, and the team is reportedly turning a tidy profit.

But to some Capitol Hill Republicans there is a dark cloud on the Nats' horizon: the potential that their newly adopted home team could be purchased by billionaire financier George Soros.

Earlier this month, Soros joined an ownership bid being led by entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky. Their group is one of more than a half-dozen angling to take over the Nats, who are currently owned by Major League Baseball.

In addition to being a well-known currency speculator and philanthropist, Soros is also known in political circles for having pumped more than $20 million in the last cycle into groups seeking to unseat President Bush and elect Democrats.

While the Soros-Ledecky group is not seen as the frontrunner to win the bidding for the Nationals, who should be awarded to their new owner at the end of the 2005 season, the very prospect that Soros could have a stake in the team is enough to irritate Congressional Republicans.

"I think Major League Baseball understands the stakes," said Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (R), the Northern Virginia lawmaker who recently convened high-profile steroid hearings. "I don't think they want to get involved in a political fight."

Davis, whose panel also oversees District of Columbia issues, said that if a Soros sale went through, "I don't think it's the Nats that get hurt. I think it's Major League Baseball that gets hurt. They enjoy all sorts of exemptions" from anti-trust laws.

Indeed, Hill Republicans could potentially make life difficult for MLB in a variety of ways. In addition to being exempt from anti-trust rules, baseball is still under scrutiny over the steroid issue. The Nats, meanwhile, hope to have a publicly-funded stadium built soon, though money for that venture is expected to come through the sale of bonds rather than a federal outlay.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/gop-threatens-major-league-baseball.html
So now Republicanism stands for controlling the free market. Big-time Republicans, like, oh, George W. Bush, are permitted to own the Texas Rangers. But Soros is different because, uh, Democrats hate America, don't get 9/11 and want to kill our troops, so in uber-Christian-white America we don't let rich Jewish financiers do the same business deals that white Christian Republicans are allowed to do.

But there’s more. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006915
[R.C.] Soros isn’t the only political big-shot looking to buy the Nats. The ownership group seen by many insiders as the frontrunner to buy the team includes Fred Malek, a close friend of President Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Another bidding group includes ex-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.).

Fred Malek's presence in the competing Republican buyer group makes the Republican threats against baseball if the Jewish, Democratic Soros becomes a buyer even creepier. Malek, lest readers forget, was Richard Nixon's official Jew counter. According to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's book, The Final Days (via Slate):

Late in 1971, Nixon had summoned the White House personnel chief, Fred Malek, to his office to discuss a "Jewish cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The "cabal," Nixon said, was tilting economic figures to make his Administration look bad. How many Jews were there in the bureau? he wanted to know. Malek reported back on the number, and told the President that the bureau's methods of weighing statistics were normal procedure that had been in use for years.

Now, Malek has long been a booster of baseball in the Washington region, so it's not a huge surprise that he should be a lead competitor for the local team. But, according to Tim Noah's 2001 piece, "Malek is best known in political circles for resigning in 1988 as George Bush's hand-picked deputy chairman for the Republican National Committee after the Post's Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward reported that 17 years earlier Malek had, at Richard Nixon's request, counted the number of Jews then working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics." Malek was later rehabilitated by George W. Bush, whose syndicate to buy the Texas Rangers Malek joined in 1988.

Ragging on Soros isn't about keeping politics out of the game -- it's about furthering the interests of ruling party loyalists.

Everyone links to this sick and twisted column by Rick Santorum (R-PA) in Catholic Online

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership. Unlike most, I have been visited by the gift of hope; for I see in this fall an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. . .

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. . .

I do hate to see reporters hauled before the law, but now that the Supreme Court has rejected their appeal, will Miller and Cooper testify -- and will this (finally) lead to charges in the Plame case? A good overview of where things stand

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/27/16318/8942

Priceless. Now 57% believe that the government INTENTIONALLY LIED about the war in Iraq. (The other 43% say it was the Easter Bunny)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111991330176698695

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/27/122113/642
I beg to differ with WaPo that this is a partisan divide. Independents and Democrats know that the Bush Administration has been mendacious from the beginning on Iraq.

And when 65% of Republicans no longer believe a Republican Administration, that is not a sign of a partisan divide - that is a sign of an amazing consensus. . . Let's turn the numbers around so they make sense - 65% of Republicans, 81% of Independents and 87% of Democrats do not believe the insurgency in Iraq is weakening. . . Only in the strange world of the Media does such a result represent a "partisan divide."

Bush’s speech tonight, which they are bullying the networks to cover live because of its “importance,” isn’t expected to say a damn thing that is new about Bush’s “stay the course” approach to Iraq

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3574&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
MR. McCLELLAN: Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory. It is a two-track strategy: there is the military and political track. On the military front, it's important to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and then our troops can return home with the honor that they deserve. And then there is the political track. The Iraqi people are showing that they're determined to build a free and democratic and peaceful future, and we must continue to do all we can to support them as they build a lasting democracy. . .

Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success? Is there a new direction, or is the President basically summing up what he has said before?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place. . .

Q Well, I guess what I'm asking is, are people going to hear things they haven't heard the President say before? Are there new details?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think many Americans have not heard much of what the President has to say tomorrow night. . .

Q The question is, is there a new direction, though, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're going to hear from the President tomorrow night. I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is. It's an opportunity for the American people to hear about the strategy.

Q Isn't the message really more patience? Isn't that really what the President is going to be requesting. . .

Q Scott, just to follow up on what Terry was trying to ask -- you said the President is going to get very specific. I understand he's not going to shift strategy at all. But, in terms of specifics, is it going to be the kind of thing where he's going to talk about how many battalions have been trained in Iraq? Is that the kind of thing you think that Americans don't know about? Or is it going to be, you know, presenting new initiatives and new ideas, things we don't know about?. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but that's for the President to do tomorrow night. You're going to hear all this tomorrow night. He will talk about the importance of training and equipping Iraqi security forces, and where we are in terms of making progress to do that. There has been a lot of important progress made. Iraqi forces are standing and fighting the insurgents, and standing and fighting with coalition forces, they're doing it on their own. The Iraqi people are also coming forward, providing more intelligence to help defeat the terrorists and go after them where they are. . .

Q I guess my question is, beyond discussing, perhaps in great detail, what's already going on right now, is he going to offer new ideas, new initiatives, either from the U.S. -- joint initiatives with the U.S. and other countries -- in order to make what he says the goal -- is possible?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I would describe it the way I did. You're going to hear him talk about the strategy we have for succeeding in Iraq, the strategy we have for victory, and where we are in terms of implementing that strategy. . .

Q Scott, if so much progress has been made in Iraq, why is the public support dropping so steadily?

MR. McCLELLAN: If so much progress has been made? I think we can go through and talk about the progresses made. There has been --

Q The question is why --

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been significant progress made in just a year's time. It takes time to build a democracy. Our own nation went through a lot of struggles before we were able to build the kind of democracy that thrives today.

Q But why is public support dropping so much?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're a nation at war, and war is something that is very tough. It is tough to see the images of violence on the screens of our televisions.

[NB: A trained monkey could do this job – oh, wait, he is]

David Corn: show the speech

http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/06/no_reason_for_n.php

Another faint-hearted nay-sayer on Iraq

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2005/06/winning_at_any_.html
“Before we commit troops, there has to be a clear strategy.” Contrary to recent developments, U.S. military forces should never be sent on “vague, aimless and endless deployments.”

George Bush, 2000

Could the insurgency have been foreseen? IT WAS – just not by Rummy and the boys

http://billmon.org/archives/001948.html

How to talk about the war

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/27/23520/0288

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/28/61820/5361

Halliburton’s alleged billion-dollar fraud

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/06/halliburton_accused_of_stealing_13_billion_from_usa.html

What next on Bolton?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000759.html

The Supreme Court issues a reasonable and principled compromise on religious displays – which means the theocons must be outraged

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/28/supreme_court_splits_rulings_on_religious_display/

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/27/ten_commandments/index.html

Fox News’ fair and balanced coverage of the story

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506270003
“Court Rules Against Ten Commandments"

Cunningham scandal: spreading and spreading

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_26.php#005897

Our ethically challenged (Republican) House of Representatives

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006917

Cheney’s hospital visit: a check-up? a serious problem? did he even go to the hospital? Don’t expect these people to give you a straight answer

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/27/cheney/index.html

The ruling elite: by the numbers (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0624-25.htm
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. . . [read on!]

How the blogs got the mainstream media to pay attention to the Downing Street memos

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121669/
A bit more than a week after the Post's ombudsman dinged the paper for not seriously covering the pre-war Downing Street memos, the Post seriously covers the pre-war Downing Street memos. It's a reasonable overview, but there's not much new. A piece in the Journal looks at how some liberal activists launched a now darn successful (shoestring) campaign to get the memos covered.

Bonus item: Reality-challenged

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/06/27/tomo/index1.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:31 AM

 
IN DENIAL

The theme today is the increasingly bizarre semantic gymnastics the Bush gang is resorting to as a way of not admitting that the situation in Iraq is worsening, that the insurgency poses a real threat to their plans, that they are in fact “negotiating with terrorists” (which they vowed never to do), and so on. Annie Lamott captures their state of mind with a perfectly apt image

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/25/9204/21166
The White House and the war machine are collapsing, and their only hope would be to hit a bottom, like alcoholics and addicts have to do before they have a prayer of finding a solution. Until then, drunks keep lowering the bottom, justifying everything, lying even to themselves. . . I think that many in the majority party are finding themselves in the same psychic shape as alcoholics a few months before they finally seek sobriety, except for George Bush, who apparently does not have a clue. With alcoholism, other people can see that the alkie is, to quote one of my friends, in a state of pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization; but it takes what it takes for the alcoholic to realize that. . .

I mean, it’s just surreal sometimes. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/rummy-problem-in-iraq-is-foreigners.html
[Meet the Press] MR. RUSSERT: I think the concern that many people have is that if we were wrong or misjudged that, are we making some other misjudgments now? This is how The Washington Times reported in exchange before the hearings. "[Sen. Carl] Levin asked whether the general thought the insurgency was in its `last throes,' as Mr. Cheney said ... last month. `In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it was the same as it was' six months ago, Gen. [John] Abizaid replied."

For the sake of clarity for the American people, what about this insurgency? Is it in its last throes or is it alive and well and vibrant and strong as it was six months ago?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Well, there are various ways to measure it. If you measure the number of incidents, it's gone up during the election period and now it's back down. If you look at lethality of those instances, it's up. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that the insurgency's stronger? Is it in its last throes? The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary standpoint. I think the way to think of it is that the insurgents are foreigners in some significant number. They are attacking Iraqis and killing them. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4624385.stm
Speaking on Fox News, Mr Rumsfeld said the US regularly "facilitates" meetings between Iraqi officials and insurgents. . .

Mr Rumsfeld did not confirm any details of the talks - and sought to downplay their significance.

"I would not make a big deal out of it," he told Fox News.

"Meetings go on frequently with people.

"I think the attention to this is overblown."

http://billmon.org/archives/001943.html
But Mr. Rumsfeld said no negotiations are taking place with hardened terrorist elements belonging to al-Qaida or those, as he put it, "with blood on their hands."

[Billmon] It wasn't too long ago (four months, to be exact) that our Cheerleader-in-Chief was lumping all "anti-Iraqi" forces together in the same Islamofascist stew:

"Terrorists and insurgents are violently opposed to democracy, and will continue to attack it. Yet the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed. The whole world is seeing that the car bombers and assassins are not only fighting coalition forces, they are trying to destroy the hopes of Iraqis, expressed in free elections.

And the whole world now knows that a small group of extremists will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people."

This, of course, was the party line for many moons. It was not, however, the original line. In the good old days -- back when Bush was still posing in his flight suit -- the insurgents were usually painted as a motley crew of "former regime elements" and "Baathist dead enders," reinforced by "criminals and thugs" released from Saddam's jails. Foreign terrorists, when they were mentioned at all, were a distinctly secondary propaganda element.

All this changed in the spring of last year, when the insurgency exploded into full view of the folks back home. The tidal wave of bad news -- Americans burned alive in Fallujah, the revolt of Moqtada Sadr's Shi'a militia, Abu Ghraib, the failure of the WMD snipe hunt -- apparently convinced the White House spin doctors that the war in Iraq had to be tied much more closely to the war against Al Qaeda.

The result was a sudden, obsessive focus on the evil al-Zarqawi and his jihadi legions -- as when Dan Senor, the GOP campaign mouthpiece turned coalition spokesman, tried to blame Zarqawi for the entire Fallujah debacle:

The problem here is not with the Fallujans, the problem here is not with the coalition. The problem here is with foreign fighters, international terrorists, people like Zarqawi, who we believe to be in Fallujah or nearby.

Here's Rummy, banging on the same propaganda drum back at the Pentagon:

The terrorists, assassins are threatened by the Iraqi's people's progress toward self-government, because they know that they will have no future in a free Iraq. They know, as al Qaeda associate Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi put it in his letter recently, that we intercepted: "Democracy is coming."

From that point forward, administration officials usually made a special point of referring to the Iraqi resistance as "the terrorists" -- and even launched a mini-campaign to pressure the media into using either that word or the newly invented phrase "anti-Iraq forces" instead of the more neutral "insurgents" or "insurgency."

But now the whole world (or at least, that part which reads the newspapers) knows that "terrorists" and "assassins" are the administration's new negotiating partners. Since Bush has a rock-hard policy of never negotiating with such people, the only solution is a rhetorical one. The line must be changed again. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/26/171431/183
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents. He said Iraq's security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then. . . Rumsfeld said he is bracing for even more violence. "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday."

http://billmon.org/archives/001944.html
WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on the program, I got a phone call . . . from a gentleman who had been a veteran of Vietnam, wounded twice in Vietnam, whose son is now serving in Iraq. And he said that he never thought that this country would fight another Vietnam, meaning send our troops over there without enough strength to win, but he said . . . that's exactly what's going on in Iraq, that we are fighting another Vietnam in the sense that we don't have enough force to win. And then he said, the problem -- and I'm going to quote him now -- is, he said, "Rumsfeld tried to fight this on the cheap."

RUMSFELD: Yes.

WALLACE: What do you say to that patriotic but very concerned father?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think you thank him first for his service, and then thank him for the service of his son. And then point out that this is not a decision I make; this is a decision that's made by the military commanders. General Franks, General Abizaid, General Casey have decided what those numbers are. They've recommended them to me. I've recommended them to the president. I agree with them. I think they're right.

Fox News Sunday
June 26, 2005

The issue of troop levels is so delicate that the commanding officer here, Col. Stephen W. Davis, refuses to allow their true numbers to be publicly released. If insurgents learned the figure, he says, it would pose a safety risk for his marines.

The New York Times
June 26, 2005

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006593.php
Rumsfeld said Sunday [that before the war] he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things "that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started.". . . Asked if his list included the possibility of such a strong insurgency, Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed."

[Kevin Drum] I think we can take that as a "no," especially since there's pretty overwhelming evidence that no one before the war took the possibility of a sustained insurgency seriously, least of all Rumsfeld.

These guys still can't face the reality of what's happened to their lovely little war. They willfully ignored the advice of the uniformed military officers who had actual experience in fighting modern wars, and because of that they didn't know what they were getting into before the war, they didn't know what they were up against after the war, and they're apparently still clueless about what to expect in the future.

Juan Cole’s discursus on the plain meaning of “last throes” – all good, but here’s the punch line

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/it-depends-on-what-throes-is-it.html
And then Dick Cheney came along and reinterpreted it as something that could last for twelve years. . .

Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/26/175537/375
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq. . .

It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:

The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.

Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren't helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.

. . . "What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."

Dick Cheney on Chuck Hagel

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111983439862518323
Since 9/11, we've had people like Chuck Hagel and other politicians and we've had people in the press corps and commentators who've said we can't do Afghanistan.

That’s a lie, of course: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-cheney-now-trying-to-shut-gop.html

Matt Yglesias on Chuck Hagel

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/26/19331/1883
Chuck Hagel seems more concerned than ever about the direction of America's policy in Iraq. Good for him. . . So what's Hagel going to do about it?

Abu Ghraib, which Bush promised to tear down, will be EXPANDED instead (because the war is going so well, you know?)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=650029
The numbers of prisoners being held by the US in Iraq has reached record levels this month, with 10,783 in custody, up from 7,837 in January and 5,435 in June last year. American Iraqi officials agree there is no sign of the resistance or the prisoners it produces abating soon.

Conditions at Gitmo getting better, Congressional visitors say (well, it would be hard to make them much worse!)

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/06/fool_me_once.html
[Michael Froomkin] Reading this item, JURIST - Paper Chase: UPDATE ~ US House members report improved conditions at Gitmo. . .

After visiting the Guantanamo Bay detention center Saturday [JURIST report], House Republicans and Democrats reported that conditions at the facility are improving. The lawmakers traveled to the detention facility to witness interrogations and observe living conditions of the suspected terrorists. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) [official website] said that “[t]he Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago”. . .

. . . reminds me of this item from the Washington Post last April, Detainee Questioning Was Faked, Book Says; U.S. Military Denies Staging Interviews:

The U.S. military staged the interrogations of terrorism suspects for members of Congress and other officials visiting the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600448.html
A new independent investigation of abuse allegations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "doesn't make sense," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday. . . "I think that to go back into all of the things that's already been reviewed by everybody else doesn't make sense," Rumsfeld said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on NBC.

Did Rumsfeld just say 12 YEARS?!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111979768364060444
This Week:

George Will: There is the 2008 election in this country that could produce a victory for the insurgents."

George Steph: How is that?

George Will: By a crack in the American... by electing a president who says 'if elected I will withdraw.'

[Atrios] Fareed then gently reminded Will that our army is going to be f-cked by the end of 2006 unless Operation Yellow Elephant starts having more success.

Then Will said that Iraq is our Chechnya.

Someone pour me a drink.

Oh, George. . . ?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111980098212850909
This is from a George Will column in August of 2003:

Abizaid briskly defines the modest, nuts-and-bolts but potentially momentous development that must happen soon:

"We've got to do a lot more to bring an Iraqi face" -- beyond the nearly 60,000 Iraqis already under arms in reconstituted security forces -- "to the security establishments throughout Iraq very quickly." As Wolfowitz says, the basic U.S. strategy is to "get us into the background before we become the issue."

[Atrios] So, almost 2 years ago, we had Wolfowitz hitting exactly the same themes that they're hitting now - we've trained a bunch of Iraqis and all we need to do is train a few more.

More Atrios

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111982748145701654
I'm surely not the first person to make this observation, but it makes me physically ill when I think about the fact that Bush is going to use members of the military as props in his Tuesday night speech to the country.

Someone in the WH press corps has had enough

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3564&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q Scott, I understand there is an anniversary date next Tuesday, but you're saying that this speech is happening, in part, because this is a critical moment, a critical time --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q -- in Iraq. What's more critical about this month and this moment than, say, a month ago or nine months ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a critical period. The transitional government is moving forward on drafting a constitution. . .

Q Is this moment any more critical than the critical moments you described in the run-up to the presidential election a year ago September/October, in the run-up to the election in Iraq last December/January? You said the same thing then, a "critical moment."

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think you can go back and look at those time periods and look at what we said during that time period. This is a very critical period in Iraq. Here's why: because the terrorists are trying to test our resolve, and they're trying to shake the will of the international community and the Iraqi people. The terrorists, as General Abizaid --

Q They've been doing that for months, don't you agree or --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, as General Abizaid talked about, there have been a growing number of foreign terrorists coming in to Iraq, because they recognize that Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism. And, Bill, we are a nation that is at war. And the Commander-in-Chief believes it's important to keep the American people informed about --

Q Yes, but what's changed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are you going to let me finish, or are you going to keep jumping in?

Q Well, you said the same thing before, and I accept what you say. But what's changed?

MR. McCLELLAN: I was just talking to you --

Q It's the same condition that we found ourselves in a year ago.

MR. McCLELLAN: I was just outlining to you why it's a critical period --

Q Yes, but it was a critical period for the same reason then.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in Iraq, and we are a nation at war. And the Commander-in-Chief has a responsibility to keep the American people informed about the progress we're making and the strategy we have for succeeding. . .

Q Yes, but I mean, it's the same thing that you're saying.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that -- no, it's not. I think the American people want to hear from their Commander-in-Chief. And you may take it --

Q I'm not arguing about that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you may take a different view, but I think the American people want to hear from their Commander-in-Chief, and they will have the --

Q That's not what I'm arguing about.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's go on if you're not going to –

[NB:. . . if you’re not going to shut up and just passively take notes from the load of crap I am shoveling here]

The rest of the GOP is getting nervous about the Bush Team’s approach -- and you can see why

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27bush.html
In discussing the White House's problems, Republicans cited a variety of assumptions and decisions that have not worked out as Mr. Bush and his team had planned. They said the administration may have overestimated how much of a mandate Mr. Bush had coming out of last year's campaign, underestimated the willingness of the Democrats to stand up to him and relied too much on a belief that he could force Congress into action by taking his case directly to the people.

They said a degree of difficulty was to be expected, given the scope of Mr. Bush's second-term ambitions. At the same time, they said, Mr. Bush and his team are struggling with a problem they never had during the campaign: with no high-profile political opponent as a foil, and with Democrats refusing to put forward competing proposals on issues like Social Security, the president and his policies stand on their own, with nothing to deflect partisan fire.

Should Mr. Bush have a Supreme Court vacancy to fill - a possibility that could present itself as early as Monday - it could further inflame partisan passions and complicate the prospects for the rest of his agenda, including his push for major new energy and trade legislation this summer, members of each party said.

"They thought because they had slain the Kerry dragon they could claim a mandate and do what they wanted to," said one prominent Republican in Washington, who insisted on anonymity to speak candidly about what some see as the administration's miscalculations. "Now they have to sell things, whether it's Iraq or stem cells or John Bolton - let alone Social Security - on their own merits."

[NB: Take those three cases as examples: in each instance, the people ain’t buyin’ what the Bush team is selling. Add Social Security too – these are dramatically unpopular positions, it isn’t just a matter of better PR]

Poor Bill Frist

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011231.html
[WSJ] Mr. Frist is the youngest Senate majority leader since Lyndon Johnson and one of the most powerful leaders in Washington. Yet just as he was on that night in Nashville, he remains a work in progress. . . That presents risks for President George W. Bush, who wants Mr. Frist to advance an ambitious second-term agenda. It's also a danger for Mr. Frist, especially if he runs for president in 2008. His restless nature and supreme confidence have led him into waters over his head. . .

Hey, I’m a uniter AND a divider!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111981358428554008
Tom Delay speaking to the College Republicans:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander. That's the truth." The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right” [that liberals hate our troops and want the insurgents to win]

Tom DeLay on 9/20/2001:

DELAY: Well, there's no American that wants us to fail, that's for sure. When we went home, every member that I've talked to had the same experience that I had. Everywhere I went, it didn't matter who you were talking to -- I ran into some of the most liberal constituents that I had. People would come up to me, hug me, kiss me. They would -- they'd just say they're with us, you know, "We want this done and we want it done right, and we're with you." I mean, the prayer rallies that we went to, the vigils that we saw.

Judge William Pryor, beneficiary of the Dem/GOP “compromise” on judicial nominations, loses not a moment in setting fire to the scenery

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/26/07/36/hints/
Federal appeals Judge William H. Pryor Jr., whose fierce opposition to abortion prompted a two-year fight over his Senate confirmation, said Wednesday that “it’d certainly be wrong for a Catholic lawyer or judge to do something to advance a grave evil like abortion.”

This is what happens when you say you are trying to “fix” Social Security, but your real goal is to get rid of it: you come up with goofy, disingenuous proposals like this one – and then back them up with ridiculous photo ops that show how truly dedicated to Social Security you are

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/24/115249/269
This week’s gambit by the House leadership and Senator Jim DeMint to resuscitate Social Security privatization demonstrates how desperately ill the idea has become. Their proposals, which would finance private accounts out of the program’s surpluses, include blatant budget gimmicks while worsening the finances of the system and the government. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_26.php#005891
Who could ever think these gonzos could want to do the program harm when they get together to shred their Social Security statements?. . .

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-social27jun27,1,2069862.story

The future of PBS

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/26/07/45/propaganda-time/
[Frank Rich] The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers’ expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations – or thrilled to the “journalism” of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies – you’ll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio. . .

Look. . . at the seemingly paltry $14,170 that, as Stephen Labaton of The New York Times reported on June 16, found its way to a mysterious recipient in Indiana named Fred Mann. Mr. Labaton learned that in 2004 Kenneth Tomlinson, the Karl Rove pal who is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, clandestinely paid this sum to Mr. Mann to monitor his PBS bête noire, Bill Moyers’s “Now.”

Now, why would Mr. Tomlinson pay for information that any half-sentient viewer could track with TiVo? Why would he hire someone in Indiana? Why would he keep this contract a secret from his own board? Why, when a reporter exposed his secret, would he try to cover it up by falsely maintaining in a letter to an inquiring member of the Senate, Byron Dorgan, that another CPB executive had “approved and signed” the Mann contract when he had signed it himself? If there’s a news story that can be likened to the “third-rate burglary,” the canary in the coal mine that invited greater scrutiny of the Nixon administration’s darkest ambitions, this strange little sideshow could be it. . .

“It’s pretty scary stuff to judge media, particularly public media, by whether it’s pro or anti the president,” Senator Dorgan said. “It’s unbelievable.”

Not from this gang. Mr. Mann was hardly chosen by chance to assemble what smells like the rough draft of a blacklist. He long worked for a right-wing outfit called the National Journalism Center, whose director, M. Stanton Evans, is writing his own Ann Coulteresque book to ameliorate the reputation of Joe McCarthy. What we don’t know is whether the 50 pages handed over to Senator Dorgan is all there is to it, or how many other “monitors” may be out there compiling potential blacklists or Nixonian enemies lists on the taxpayers’ dime. . . [read on!]

UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU. . . MAYBE

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111979992087367718
Given the obvious problems with military recruiting it's absolutely stunning that no prominent leader has put out a patriotic call to enlist. We joke about the College Republicans, but why didn't Senator McCain go give a speech politely suggesting that they consider serving their country?. . . We all know the basic answers to this question, but the media and our political leaders have been unwilling to confront exactly what those answers mean.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/27/03536/6964
[Bob Herbert] The all-volunteer Army is not working. . . The all-volunteer Army is fine in peacetime, and in military routs like the first gulf war. But when the troops are locked in a prolonged war that yields high casualties, and they look over their shoulders to see if reinforcements are coming from the general population, they find -as they're finding now - that no one is there. . .

Now, with the war going badly and the Army chasing potential recruits with a ferocity that is alarming, a backlash is developing that could cripple the nation's ability to wage war without a draft. Even as the ranks of new recruits are dwindling, many parents and public school officials are battling the increasingly heavy-handed tactics being used by military recruiters who are desperately trying to sign up high school kids. . .

But with volunteers in extremely short supply, an even more emotional divide is occurring over the ways in which soldiers for this war are selected. Increasing numbers of Americans are recognizing the inherent unfairness of the all-volunteer force in a time of war. That emotional issue will become more heated as the war continues. And it is sure to resonate in the wars to come.

Plame investigation soon coming to a head? (How many times have I written that?)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006594.php

Bonus item: the Denver Three come to Washington, demanding that the govt release the name of the WH staffer who (illegally) posed as a Secret Service agent to evict them from a Bush event. We’ll see how this plays out, but for the laugh of the day, check out how Scotty tries to dismiss them

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27letter.html
The White House was having none of it. . . "It's clear that these three protesters are trying to advance their own political agenda," Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in an interview Friday. Asked who the mystery man was, Mr. McClellan did not respond and then said he had no interest in going over yet again the events in Denver on March 21.

[NB: Yeah, those damn protestors, trying to advance a political agenda. I’ll bet they didn’t even VOTE for George Bush! Why should we listen to them?]

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:48 AM

 
WEAK LINKS

What is this nonsense: we know where he is but we’re not going to do anything about it yet? Is this their new answer to “why haven’t you captured Bin Laden?” How lame

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/goss.bin.laden/
CIA Director Porter Goss says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the al Qaeda chief will not be caught until weak links in the war on terrorism are strengthened. . . The magazine asked Goss when bin Laden would be captured. . . "That is a question that goes far deeper than you know," he said. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.”

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/25/content_454570.htm
US Vice President Dick Cheney said that he knows where Al-Qaeda terror chief Osama bin Laden is hiding out, but not his precise location. . . "We've got a pretty good idea of the general area that he's in, but I -- you know, I don't have the street address," Cheney told CNN in an interview, confirming comments by Central Intelligence Agency chief Porter Goss.

Oh, great, now Bush “has a plan to end the war.” Haven’t we heard that before?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=649723
[Bush, 2005] As new violence ripped through Iraq, President Bush insisted yesterday that he has a plan to defeat the insurgency that, critics say, now threatens to trap the US in a war without end, resembling the Vietnam debacle three decades ago.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/documents/nixon.speech/
[Nixon, 1969] At the time we launched our search for peace I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiation. I, therefore, put into effect another plan to bring peace -- a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front.

Is this part of the “plan”? Bush flip-flops big time

http://billmon.org/archives/001942.html
No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
April 4, 2002

After weeks of delicate negotiation . . . a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies. The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings . . . further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

The Sunday Times of London
US 'in talks with Iraq rebels'
June 26, 2005

[Billmon] The basis of Bush's appeal has always been his obsessively cultivated image of strength and resolution -- of never backing down or looking for a way out of a fight. Likewise, the administration's last effective selling point for the war is the classic circular argument: America must stay in Iraq because it is in Iraq. Withdrawing before the "mission" is completed would show weakness and encourage the terrorists.

Negotiating with the "terrorists" completely undermines both arguments. It makes Bush look like a trimmer -- exactly the charge leveled with such effect against John Kerry, as in this explanation from the nutcase conservatives at NewsMax:

The Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

By opening negotiations (according to the Sunday Times, the Americans made the first move, not the insurgents) the administration has shown weakness -- every bit as much, if not more, than it would by setting a timetable for withdrawal.

Bush acknowledged on Friday that “the way ahead is not going to be easy” and for once the Iraqi insurgent commander agreed with him.

“It looks like the Americans are in big trouble in Iraq and are desperate to find a way out,” the commander said. “Why else would they have rounds of negotiations with people they label as terrorists?”

. . . And so we arrive at the heart of the problem: To salvage any ending short of total defeat in Iraq, the Cheney administration must act like those spineless, flip-flopping liberals. They have to negotiate with the terrorists, listening to their demands, trying to understand their grievances and goals -- shit, offering them therapy sessions for all I know. But at the same time, Bush also has to keep up the never-give-an-inch macho act, lest the silent majority finally grasp the dismal truth: Their sons and daughters must go on dying in the quagmire so the neocons can find a way out that doesn't involve losing too much face.

That's why I think this story has the potential to develop into a PR debacle that dwarfs Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the Downing Street memos put together. It echoes all too painfully the primal sin of Vietnam as enshrined in popular mythology: that the politicians led the army, and the country, into war, but weren't willing to pursue it to victory.

That's why I'll be watching closely to see how (or whether) the lapdogs of the American media react to this story. Because if they can ignore this, they can ignore anything.

Bush losing credibility

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-bushiraq26jun26,1,2110155.story

U.S troops still waiting for safer vehicles

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/middleeast/26armor.html

Iraqis still waiting for reconstruction to begin

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/25/22/59/waiting/
Anyhow, here’s the question one of them asked Bush:

“When will you begin the reconstruction in Iraq?”

So, to an Iraqi, it looks like no reconstruction at all has taken place—a little reality therapy for our delusional President:

[The] question that seemed to take Bush, who has already sunk a couple of hundred billion dollars into the occupation, by surprise.

Hundreds of billions gone, and no evident results on the ground. . . Of course, there’s the $8 billion that simply went missing (I wonder where?), but that’s just a small percentage.

So, what did Bush answer:

“We are spending reconstruction money,” Bush said. “But, you know, you need to ask that to the government. They’re in charge. It’s your government, not ours.”

Nice example of passing the buck. And what does Jafari say?. . . “We hope that Mr. Bush will try to redo a Marshall Plan, calling it the Bush Plan, to help Iraq, to help the Iraqi people,” he urged. “And this would be a very wonderful step.” The president, by way of reply, said “Good job” and led the prime minister to lunch.

53% now say the war in Iraq was a mistake

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011218.html

Did the Bush hawks WANT the more fundamentalist candidate in Iran to win (heightening the contradictions)?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6614e78-e44b-11d9-a754-00000e2511c8.html

Karl Rove’s primitive political logic

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111971676221360314

Ugh

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1552
[WP] He has risen to the highest ranks of the White House, carries the title of deputy chief of staff and presides over a broad portfolio of domestic and foreign issues. . . Rove's flamboyant remarks -- in which he roused conservatives by saying liberals prefer "therapy and understanding" for terrorists instead of retaliation -- has put President Bush's top strategist back on stage. It's a place where he has seemed increasingly comfortable of late. . .

His colleagues see him as one of the administration's most potent public advocates on behalf of Bush's major initiatives. "Karl is a key asset to this White House," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in an e-mail message. "His keen insight into the president's thinking, grasp of a wide range of complex issues and ability to speak beyond the Washington Beltway, make Karl a valuable messenger for the president's second-term agenda."

So familiar, it’s hardly worth mentioning any more

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/25/14/27/foxes-henhouse-etc/
[Baltimore Sun] President Bush has nominated as chief of enforcement for the Environmental Protection Agency a partner in a law firm defending W.R. Grace & Co. against criminal charges in a major environmental case. EPA employees were told late Thursday that Bush had nominated Granta Nakayama to lead the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, according to an EPA memo obtained by The Sun. . . Nakayama, 46, a specialist in environmental law, is a full partner in Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The law firm is defending Grace against multiple criminal charges alleging that the Columbia-based company and seven of its current or former executives knowingly put their workers and the public in danger through exposure to vermiculite ore contaminated with asbestos from the company’s mine in Libby, Mont. . .

Eleven EPA lawyers and investigators contacted yesterday refused to comment on the record, with most saying that any public comments would be “a career-ender.”. . . However, they said the appearance of a conflict of interest involving EPA’s top enforcement official is likely to have a chilling effect on pursuing investigations and actions involving Grace and any other companies represented by Nakayama’s firm.

Rehnquist about to step down, right-wingers warn Christian groups not to get too outspoken about Supreme Court nominees (shhh. . . be quiet and you’ll get what you want)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/26/gop_rift_looms_over_high_court_nominations/

[NB: The problem is that the resurgent Christian Right is feeling its oats these days and WANTS to be seen as having the power to pick Supreme Court nominees (or at least to be able to veto anyone not to their liking). This could be interesting.]

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-candidates26jun26,1,2295270.story

Hints of new Bolton disclosures

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000758.html

Bonus item: Young Republicans learn from their elders (Bush, Cheney, etc.)

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9556221.htm
[2004] Young Republicans gathered here for their party's national convention are united in applauding the war in Iraq, supporting the U.S. troops there and calling the U.S. mission a noble cause. . . But there's no such unanimity when they're asked a more personal question: Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?. . .

"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles. . . "As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East. . .

"If there was a need presented, I would go," said Chris Cusmano, a 21-year-old member of the College Republicans organization from Rocky Point, N.Y. But he said he hasn't really considered volunteering. . .

"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go. . . "I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops. . . "We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.

Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said. . .

25-year old Matthew Vail, wtih Students for Bush, says "I'm in college right now, but who knows? The bug may get me after college."

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:07 AM

 
LAST THROES

Two afterthoughts on the Karl Rove comments. One is that this remark (“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies”) seems to me to be a direct response to the DSM revelations. I think that what Herr Rove is telling us is that, hell yeah we started planning an attack on Iraq right after 9-11 – even though there was no evidence that they were involved in 9-11 – because they were “our enemies.”

Second, the WH response is the kind of innocent “who me?” reaction they love to give after poking you in the eye with a sharp stick. The worst, the absolute worse part of Rove’s comments were when he said “Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." By using the word “motive” Rove was doing more than just “describing a difference in philosophies”: he was attributing a motive to liberals to WANT to put troops at risk, to encourage terrorist attacks

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/24/rove.speech.ap/index.html
A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism. . . "I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

A selection of responses: some of these are WHITE HOT with anger and outrage

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/175942/900

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/152323/050

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/06/24/karl_rove/

http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/06/rove_not_just_a.php

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006894

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/does-karl-rove-hate-our-liberties-and.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/131143/102

One of my favorites

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/8621/80662
Listen, I'm pissed as hell at Rove. I am a democrat and have been forever. (I'm 54) ... my two kids who just happen to be in the US Army serving are also democrats. My son and daughter both joined as soon as they possibly could after 9/11. . . My son and daughter both emailed me last night wanting to know just who in the hell the Rove guy is. They both want to plaster his face everywhere around the bases they are stationed. It seems that Rove didn't know that a good percentage of enlisted folk were Democrats. They like to say around the bases that republicans don't volunteer.

The first GOP Senator defects

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006895
This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: "Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?". . . Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don't respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson's staff told us she agrees with Rove's remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: "Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn't speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that's what the senator believes."

Josh Marshall’s “bitch slap” theory

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003295

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/ex-marine-explains-why-rove-issue.html

But, to me, the most interesting analyses are that Rove’s comments are a sign of weakness, not of strength. For these guys, when you’re in trouble, attack

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/24/BL2005062400894.html
There are at least two reasons why no one should expect any apologies from Karl Rove or the White House for Rove's controversial comments Tuesday night, in which he described the liberal approach to national security as being weak and possibly even treasonous.

1) This White House doesn't apologize.

2) Why apologize when you said exactly what you meant to say?

Karl Rove didn't get George W. Bush this far just by luck. Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare: He doesn't defend his candidate's weaknesses, he attacks his opponent's strengths. Unapologetically. . .

Today, Democrats are uniting against the war and the public is increasingly worried and critical about Bush's leadership. So what's Rove doing? Rather than defend against their criticisms, Rove has decided to go for the jugular. . .

http://billmon.org/archives/001938.html
In retrospect, I think Rove's comments will be seen as both the GOP's opening shot in the 2006 congressional elections and the swan song for Bush's ill-fated Social Security "reform" campaign. Depending on how things go at the polls next year, it could even be remembered as a kind of howled lament for the death of Bush's entire domestic program. . . It's hard to see how Rove and the gang can expect to sit down and negotiate seriously with the Democrats over Social Security after launching what looks to be a sustained PR campaign denouncing them as traitors and/or terrorist dupes.

http://billmon.org/archives/001937.html
Situation Hopeless
Now that Karl Rove's recent comments have been thoroughly chewed, swallowed and digested by the political blogosphere, maybe it's time to consider what they imply about America's prospects in the war on terrorism. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/213051/460
Conservative blogger John Cole continues to have a complete rundown of the pro-Rove defenses, and isn't much impressed with any of them. . . Bottom line: those defending Rove are full of it. While the RNC and White House are so far solidly endorsing Rove's attacks, the defenses are intellectually bankrupt, and it doesn't take longer than a few choice quotes to prove it. It's also become clear that the Rove hatchet job -- coming in the middle of a highly unusual publicity blitz by Rove himself, which itself is being cited as the initial preparations for a full-scale White House attack against their critics -- was fully intentional. . .

We now know these talking points were White House approved and distributed. That's why this is so important: there's more of this coming, for anyone who doesn't sharply toe the Bush Administration line, and it's happening right now for a reason. The stories coming out in the next month are going to be very, very bad for Bush and for everyone involved in selling the Iraq War. Bush's numbers have absolutely tanked, the Downing Street documents are getting more and more attention, Bush and Cheney are increasingly seen as so out-of-touch with ground reports from Iraq as to border on slightly delusional, and Senate Democrats are beginning to increasingly demand specific documents relating to the ("fixed?") claims made by the Bush Administration in the runup to the Iraq War.

Therefore, anyone who doesn't support Bush's failed and increasingly unpopular policies is a traitor. That's the line they're going with.

Such a revealing quote: Bush says he’s not giving up in Iraq. Thanks for the reassurance George, because what really matters is your image of resoluteness, not the changing facts on the ground

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/politics/25prexy.html
In conversations on Friday, several senior American officials conceded that the president's speech would have to walk a tightrope. "We have to explain, convincingly, why we think the situation will swing our way," one official remarked. . . Scott McClellan, indicated that the president would offer more details of his strategy, but not a change of course.

With American casualties showing no signs of tapering off, Mr. Bush is having an increasingly difficult time convincing even members of his own party that his strategy is working. . . The White House is having to contend with televised images each day that reinforce an image of constant carnage, along with public remarks from military leaders reporting an increase in the flow of foreign fighters and no letup in the pace of attacks on American forces. And military commanders in Iraq have acknowledged that the training of Iraqi forces is progressing with painful slowness.

Reality check: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1543

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-surprise-bush-still-cant-talk.html

US finally, and officially, admits torture (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300

An Italian judge orders the arrest of 13 CIA operatives for kidnapping and rendition

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/1875/84460

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121602/fr/rss/
The NYT and LAT say it's unclear whether the Italians knew about the operation beforehand, but the WP and Boston Globe says the Italian antiterror squad was taken by surprise. ''By kidnapping him [the Americans] interrupted an investigation already taking place by the Italian police," an anonymous official told the Globe. ''We had already been tapping his conversations. We had information on his friends and his links." Interestingly, the WP quotes a former CIA counterterrorism official who doubts it was a CIA operation. "The agency might be sloppy, but not that sloppy," he said. "There is no way they would sanction a kidnapping on Italian soil."

Frist apparently tries to mediate on Bolton documents, unsuccessfully (real effort? Kabuki show? Who knows?) Anyway, the Dems say, we’re through negotiating: Bolton's finished

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000756.html
"If they don't have (the documents) by the end of the day, it's finished," [Joe Biden] said of the bitter dispute over President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The Pentagon database on 16-25 year olds apparently violates the Privacy Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/politics/24recruit.html

Phony “Secret Service” agent the subject of a criminal investigation – now why, exactly, are they keeping his name secret?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005885

Duke Cunningham lawyers up (and he needs to)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005887

Tom DeLay apparently has another little problem to add to his list: a drinking problem (don't miss the video)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111967290997574080

“Manufacturing uncertainty” – an excellent analysis

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006579.php

1984 in 2005 (thanks to Ben Rice for the link)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/24/the_return_of_1984/

A new poll: who do you hold more responsible for the Iraq war: Bush or Hussein?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/rasmussen-poll-bush-more-responsible.html

Bonus item: someone at CNN has a very dark sense of irony

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111961547456527869

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:33 AM

 
THE MORNING AFTER

Karl Rove takes off the mask. See, I am actually glad this happened. Glad that the viciousness and hate hiding behind the posture of sanctimonious Christianity among these people is on display for all to see. Glad that this sucker punch reminds the Dems that APOLOGIES EARN YOU NOTHING (in Durbin’s case, each time he said he was sorry, the vitriol in response was ratcheted up, not down). Glad, most of all, that the Dems have been reminded yet again that for these people politics is war by other means: that the Rove strategy is never to compromise, to accommodate, or to accept the pendulum swings of electoral fortune. If you ever listen to Rush, you know that the goal of these people is to ELIMINATE liberalism as a voice in public discourse, to seek to arrange the electoral map and rules of contest so that the Democrats never gain widespread power again. Duly warned, the question for the Dems now is: fight or die?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/23/13262/6222
[Rove] Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.

[Kos] He's right. We want to understand.

We want to understand why Osama Bin Laden hasn't been captured? Why did the administration take its eyes off Al Qaida to invade Iraq? I mean, Al Qaida is the enemy Rove himself said we had to defeat. But we haven't.

Instead of defeating our enemies, we went to war against an impotent enemy -- Saddam. And yes, we want to understand. Like, why did they lie to go to war in Iraq? Why is that war still going, unabated? Why are we no closer to victory now, than we were in when Bush declared "mission accomplished"? Why don't our troops have proper ammo? Why aren't there enough boots on the ground in Iraq? Why are we still dying in Afghanistan?

He's right. I want to understand. I don't understand why the administration hasn't called for sacrifice. Why won't war supporters enlist? Why won't they encourage their circle of influence to enlist? Why won't they level with the American people, and give an honest assessment of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't understand how our nation, always the good guys, is now perceived as the "bad guy" the world over. I don't understand how torture has become a commonplace occurrence inside facilities that bear the stars and stripes.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/rove-also-said-that-liberals-want-our.html
[Rove] Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin. . . "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1119549666
Can there be any doubt that this White House and administration have no desire to work for national unity, even on issue of terrorism? It's MO seems to be division and polarization — whipping up rage against defined enemies...which now apparently include those who compete with it at the ballot box. . .

Some questions for Mr. Rove:

• So our military forces are composed ONLY of Republicans? Only Republicans have died on the battlefield? There were no Democrats, no independents? No one who gave their life for our country was ever a liberal? Do they have to be Rush Limbaugh listeners to go to the front lines?
• Did you inform Google and Yahoo and all of the search engines yet that someone has hacked into their servers? Because the last time we checked, news stories and websites have lots of stories and articles saying Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan. And although some had their reservations about it, many of them backed the U.S. going into Iraq. Some Democrats have also supported the Patriot Act.
• We did a search and can't find Democrats having suggested a visit to Dr. Laura. When did anyone suggest counseling for terrorists or Saddam — or anything remotely suggesting a touchy-feely approach to terrorism? After 911 there was bipartisan unity. Even on the Iraq war, the administration got lots of Democrats to go along with them.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/23/BL2005062300945.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111956227535704911

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/does-karl-rove-hate-our-liberties-and.html

The WH makes excuses for Rove, stands by his slander

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/white-house-stands-by-roves-comments.html
[AP] The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

More Scotty: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3545&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/whife-house-chief-of-staff-andy-card.html
[Andrew Card] "Karl Rove's speech was a speech that I think reflected some of the rhetoric that a lot of people feel."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111958074494901622
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because "what Karl Rove said is true."

You think this was spontaneous or an accident? GOP releases a new Durbin video and talking points timed to coincide with Rove comments

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/23.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/white-house-intentionally-had-rove.html

The WH flashes the green light on McCarthyite attacks on Democrats, so now we get things like this

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/23.html#a3598
"Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who joined Pryce at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops. . . "

I like the Democratic response: make it about Bush, not about Rove

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/23/13262/6222
[Harry Reid] "I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that the Bush White House would continue to use the national tragedy of September 11th to try and divide the country. The lesson our country learned on that terrible morning is that we are strongest when we unite together, that America's power is in its common spirit of democracy and freedom.

"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign. The lesson of September 11th is not different for conservatives, liberals or moderates. It is equally shared and was repeatedly demonstrated in the weeks and months following this tragedy as Americans of all backgrounds and their elected representatives rallied behind the victims and their families, united in our common determination to bring to justice those responsible for these terrible attacks.

"It is time to stop using September 11th as a political wedge issue. Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day. When it comes to standing up to terrorists, there are no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. The Administration should be focused on uniting Americans behind our troops and providing them a strategy for success in the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq. I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks and urge Mr. Rove to take appropriate action to right this terrible wrong."

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/23/22/17/cheap-trick/
[Howard Dean] “Once again, Karl Rove is going back to the most reliable of his cynical political attacks: dividing the country over the war on terror. Americans deserve more than this kind of outrageous cheap trick.

Unfortunately, given the miserable failures of Bush’s foreign policy, its no wonder Rove would launch this desperate attempt to deflect from the real issues and distort what Democrats say than admit what Republicans have done.

“Since September 11, 2001, Democrats have been urging the Bush administration to prioritize equipping our troops to win the war on terror, capturing Osama bin Laden and securing the homeland. So, it’s no surprise that Rove’s comment highlighted the Republicans’ rhetoric and not their record.

“The Democratic Party’s unified commitment to protecting this country, supporting our troops and honoring our Americans who have died in the war on terror has not and will not ever waver.

“For the good of the country, it’s time for President Bush to show some leadership and unequivocally repudiate Rove’s divisive and damaging political rhetoric.”

http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00012258.html
[DNC] White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove just meant that Democrats and Republicans had "different philosophies" when it comes to their reactions following 9/11. We agree. Our philosophies couldn't be more different when it comes to fighting international terrorism. Let's compare. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111953119586542551
[Paul Waldman] Karl Rove's comments are even more despicable than what we've come to expect from Republicans. There is no depth to which they will not sink, no tragedy they will not exploit for political gain. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005869
[Josh Marshall] I guess we needed more evidence that Karl Rove is the most despicable man on the American political scene today.

I remember talking last year to a guy who'd been on shows a few times with Rove. And he told me how when you talk to the guy, there's nothing in his eyes, no soul. Just a machine, an animal. . .

Don't forget that these statements are meant to outrage you. You're a targeted audience They're meant to perpetuate a state of maximal polarization in this country -- the state of affairs most suited for vampires like Mr. Rove to suck the nation dry.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005870
[Josh Marshall] For Rove, the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan have always been nothing more than tools of domestic politics. He speaks for the president and the president speaks for him. So all of that applies to the president too unless and until we hear from him. . . The president and his partner are more concerned with going to war with half the country than they are with war against the country's enemies abroad. Until the president thinks differently on that key point there's simply no point in dealing with him on anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
[Dan Froomkin] And consider that all this is coming from a man who in April, in a talk at Washington College in Chestertown, Md., lit into the press corps for hyping political conflict. . . As Dana Milbank wrote. . . "Rove attested that 'most people I know on both sides of the aisle actually believe in the positions they take,' and he proposed a rule: 'Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree.' "

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111953820542510239
I'm for some reason reminded of the climactic scene in War Games when the computer is playing tic tac toe against itself over and over and Matthew Broderick is yelling at it telling it to LEARN! LEARN!. . . Learn, Democrats, Learn.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/okay-have-we-learned-lesson.html
Lynn Sweet writes a column in today's The Hill that analyzes the role Mayor Daley's criticism had in the whole Durbin affair:

The mayor did not understand that his comments gave the right-wing Internet websites, radio and cable shows the opening they were looking for and undermined Durbin. It also did not help Durbin that the criticism came from one of the nation’s leading Democrats who happened to be the mayor of the largest city in Durbin’s state.

That any Democratic politician or pundit in 2005 does not understand how the right wing media machine operates is beyond me, but it happens over and over. . . David Sirota wrote a column yesterday about how Democrats fall in to this trap all the time. The right-wingers love it when someone in the Democratic party establishment criticizes one of their own. They use those words against us all -- very, very effectively. Joe Biden and John Edwards attacking Howard Dean is a classic example.

More lessons: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006570.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111954927078723417

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/23/213139/449

Are some Republicans backing off Rove’s comments? This story won’t move to the next level unless and until some Republican comes out against them – quick, someone push a mike in front of John McCain or Lindsey Graham

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/24/05549/2756

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/white-house-in-full-spin-mode-on-rove.html

What can YOU do?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/call-your-members-of-congress-and-ask.html

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3540&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/23/164620/680

Getting past the outrage, what are the politics of the Rove comments? When a senior WH official starts channeling Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, that means something. Bush’s agenda is flatlining, conventional wisdom has already relegated him to “lame duck” status, his popularity is falling, and his own party is acting increasingly uncomfortable in carrying water for him. These are entrenched trends, not momentary cycles: so it takes a cataclysmic event to change the dynamic.

Bush is never so popular as when he has someone or something to run against: that’s why he’s always been more popular during election campaigns than he is when he is actually governing. People never really voted for him or the agenda he wants to implement, and whenever they focus on THAT, his support crumbles. So the GOP needs to create an electoral dynamic all over again: having refused at every stage to govern in a bipartisan way, having pushed away Democratic support, they now face the prospect of the Dems actually being able to impede their extremist agenda, and with popular support in doing so – so the Dems must become the enemy

As these postings suggest, Rove favors the politics of polarization, and this latest action clearly fits. But I think it is also something more than that. This rhetorical nuclear bomb wants to force everyone to talk about the failure of the war in terms, not of what the Bush gang has done, and failed to do – but in terms of a loyalty test that the GOP can’t lose. U.S. troops tortured people, with official encouragement? Frame it as, Why are the Dems attacking our fighting men and women? Government policies have run roughshod over human rights and civil liberties? Frame it as, Why are the Dems more worried about the rights of terrorists than they are with keeping us safe? The insurgents are making a laughing stock of our prewar machismo and overconfidence? Frame it as, Why do the Dems want our enemies to win? Losing ground on Social Security and every other major initiative? Frame it as, Why are the Dems undermining our “wartime President”? If the Dems get caught up in a dynamic based around whining about what Mean Old Karl said about them, they lose

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1539
[From a reader at Daily Kos] Notice the difference between Rove's statement and recent Dean gaffes. . . . What Rove said plays into the Republican negative stereotype of liberals and Democrats. . . . Rove not only got covered all over the country saying that, it is going to be on the broadcast news again tonight, the Dems will be criticizing him, but the statement will be there again. Then again its all over the papers tomorrow, Dems criticizing, but that damn statement again. Then a few days later, Bush swoops in [and] admonishes Rove. Bush comes in [to] look statesmanlike and above the fray, all while Rove's statement keeps getting replayed. A week's worth of a statement playing into a negative stereotype of us, and no one who matters on their side ends up hurt. See, this is why they are beating us.

[Swopa] How can Democrats keep the conversation from playing out this way?. . . Rove is happy to create a controversy because he thinks the larger conversation is framed in a way that hurts the Democrats. That means the "disciplined, coherent way" to fight back is to reframe the conversation by focusing on a higher target than Rove. . . Specifically, we need to pin this explicitly on the fact that Shrubya is losing the war, not just in Iraq but the fight against terrorism. . . I'd put it this way:

Three years after losing focus on the real enemy and leading us into a mismanaged war in Iraq, the president has given up looking for ways to win and is now just looking for someone to blame.

Who is the real “traitor” here?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006577.php
The Al Jazeera passage. . . says specifically that the motive of Dick Durbin and others who criticize prisoner abuse is to put our troops in danger. He didn't say Durbin was merely careless, he said Durbin wanted to put our troops in greater danger. That's treason.

Generally speaking, I tend not to get too bent out of shape by occasional rhetorical howlers. It's just part of the game. But calling Durbin and his fellow liberals traitors — which is clearly what that passage suggests — really is beyond the pale coming from a highly placed political official, isn't it? Or am I missing something here?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111957759629161877
[Glen Smith] Karl Rove's un-American attacks on those who disagree with him deserve the condemnation they're receiving. I've known him for 20 years, and I'm not surprised he said them. He's a socially inept but patient thug whose willingness to haunt the nation's dark political alleys for years, waiting for the right time and the right victims, is too often taken for unparalleled political intelligence. . . [read on!]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/23/183411/583
Karl Rove, Traitor. . .

Will it backfire?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111956805700569155

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/ken-mehlman-what-karl-rove-said-was.html\

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006874

http://billmon.org/archives/001935.html

By the way, one other little teeny weeny problem with what Rove said: IT’S PREMISED ON A LIE

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006575.php
Just for the record, is Al Jazeera broadcasting Dick Durbin's words about Guantanamo, as Karl Rove said? Abu Aardvark, who reads Arabic and listens to Al Jazeera, says it sure doesn't seem like it.

And Atrios gets the last word here

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111956085152625761
For the record, my motives aren't to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I'd ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

Scotty still trying to explain how the Iraq insurgency is in its “last throes” (“Damn that Dick Cheney, why does he PUT me in these situations?”)

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3546&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q You can't change his meaning. You guys are trying to step back now, and I don't blame you.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree with you. . .

Cheney attacks the English language

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/cheney-explains-what-he-meant-by-last.html
[CNN] "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution," he said. "The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand that if we're successful at accomplishing our objective -- standing up a democracy in Iraq -- that that's a huge defeat for them. . . “

[And on Gitmo] "They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want," the vice president said.

[NB: See? Just like Club Med]

We know for a fact, I know for a fact, that Rumsfeld is a liar

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/23/donald-rumsfeld-pants-on-fire/
RUMSFELD: We know for a fact, I know for a fact that no one in the Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction. — Fox News Radio, 6/21/05

VERSUS

RUMSFELD: We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. — ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, 3/30/03

Oh-oh, bad news

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/24/us_general_says_troops_question_support
The top US military commander in the Middle East warned yesterday that troops are questioning whether the American public supports the Iraq war and implored political leaders to engage in a frank discussion about how to keep the country behind a mission that the armed forces believe is ''a war worth fighting."

The real scandal buried in the Downing Street memos

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006572.php
Michael Smith, the reporter who uncovered the Downing Street Memos, thinks everyone is focusing on the wrong issues. The real news, he says in the LA Times today, is that Tony Blair knew the war was illegal and was fishing around for a way to bait Saddam Hussein into attacking first. . .

More: http://slate.msn.com/id/2121222/

Why aren’t we helping out in Darfur?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006873
Robert Zoellick's announcement that we're not sending troops to Darfur is painful and humiliating.

The Bush administration is opposed to the dispatch of U.S. or European forces to help enhance security in Sudan's Darfur region because they could be vulnerable to attack by terrorists, the No. 2 State Department official said Wednesday.

The region is populated by "some bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers," Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said, mentioning Somalia in particular as one possible source.

On the one hand, you've got Mark's point that we don't really plan to do anything about Darfur. On the other hand, you've got Matt's point that we've squandered too much of the United States' muscle to confront other problems in the world. That clapping sound you hear is all the other bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers in the world realizing they can do anything they want.

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006871

The Abramoff investigation. You just wait: a LOT of stuff is going to ooze out, and a lot of people are in big trouble

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006866
[TNR] There is one last, even more bizarre, twist to the new information about Abramoff's West Bank connection. It comes in the form of an email to Abramoff, which details prices of thermal vision devices, from a Russian man named Vadim. His complete email address has been redacted by the Indian Affairs Committee, but his email domain is still legible: naftasib.com. As Abramoff scandal junkies know, Naftasib is a Russian oil and gas company which helped to arrange and underwrite a murky and much-discussed 1997 trip Tom DeLay took to Moscow with Abramoff. According to the Post, DeLay met with Naftasib executives while in Moscow, for reasons that have never been entirely clear.

Why would someone at Naftasib be helping Abramoff procure military equipment? Well, the Post has also reported that Naftasib "has business ties with Russian security institutions." And the email from Abramoff's correspondent, Vadim, includes an email signature identifying him as "Assistant to Mrs. Nevskaya." That is presumably Marina Nevskaya, a Naftasib executive who reportedly served as an instructor at a Russian military intelligence school.

So there you have it. A rich Washington lobbyist apparently schemed to use money from Indian tribes to buy paramilitary equipment from Russian oil executives and send it to Israeli settlers in the West Bank. What could be simpler?

Key Republicans now lining up with Democrats to demand that the WH produce information on Bolton

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000755.html

How bad is the “new” GOP proposal on Social Security? You won’t believe how bad – clearly its only purpose is to entice the Dems into offering a counter-proposal

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006862

Bush could have a consensus nominee for the Supreme Court if he wanted one (but, of course he doesn’t)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006861
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were consensus nominees. Orrin Hatch recommended them to Bill Clinton -- because Clinton consulted with him, even though Republicans were in the minority. As a result, Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3 and Breyer 87-9.

The SC short list

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/fr/rss/

Thought experiment. Imagine if a Democrat made the following statement (names substituted)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506230005
I've been watching [George Bush] professionally since [his] career began. . . [He is] absolutely sociopathic. . . [He’s] the Manchurian candidate.

It turns out that the deal on the house Duke Cunningham bought is as shady as the deal on the house that he sold

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005868

A close reading of the DNC report on Ohio, 2004

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/23/ohio_vote/index.html

Bonus item: Hilarious – everyone on the Right is tripping over each other trying to distance themselves from Ed Klein’s stupid, sloppy, and utterly dishonest “bio” of Hillary Clinton. . . even the book’s own publisher

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506230004
Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh wrongly denied that conservatives are behind the promotion of Edward Klein's discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005).

Limbaugh claimed that conservatives "have nothing to do with" the book, instead speculating that it was a "left-wing idea" intended to "inoculate" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from criticism through the dismissal of the book's claims as "a right-wing hatchet job.". . . In her June 23 column, Noonan similarly denied conservative involvement with the book, which she called "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced." Claiming the book will "inoculate" Clinton "against future and legitimate criticism and revelations," she characterized Klein as having "no conservative bona fides". . . Limbaugh claimed that The Truth about Hillary "has nothing to do with anybody in the conservative wing of any party. It has nothing to do with a bunch of right-wingers."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506230002
In a statement posted June 22 on its website, Penguin Group (USA), which owns the imprint Sentinel, publisher of Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary, attempted to wash its hands of the controversy surrounding the book. The statement claimed that "the opinions and viewpoints" in the book do not reflect those of Penguin or its parent company, Pearson plc.

In a passage impugning its own author's sense of journalistic fairness, Penguin declared that "factual accuracy does not mean unopinionated or unbiased. Mr. Klein's interpretation of what he reports is unabashedly his opinion. Neither he nor Sentinel pretend otherwise."

Not only did Penguin impugn Klein's fairness, it refused to stand by the accuracy of his book, stating that "it is the long-established and legally recognized practice in book publishing that it is the author's responsibility to assure factual accuracy."

Here’s how bad the book is, chapter and verse

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506230001

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:23 AM

 
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR

Bring it on!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-says-bring-it-on-and-uh-bad-guys.html
Well, Bush got his wish. He hoped would-be terrorists would come to Iraq and now the New York Times reports a new CIA study says that Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists. Unfortunately, instead of standing around and waiting politely to be killed, these jihadists are going to take the skills they've learned so effectively in Iraq and spread it around the world. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22bomb.html
American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records. . . The surge in attacks, the officials say, has coincided with the appearance of significant advancements in bomb design. . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1536

Mission accomplished! (again!)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006562.php
[Karl Zinsmeister] What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue — in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war. . .

David Brooks, master of the seemingly nonpartisan and reasonable (but actually toadying) op-ed “think piece,” does it again

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/06/what_is_david_b.html
Since we don't have the evidence upon which to pass judgment on the overall trajectory of this war, it's important we don't pass judgment prematurely. . .

[And then, quoting FDR] "Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us."

Downing Street memos: in what universe is this not the blockbuster scandal of the decade? (thanks to David Prochaska for the link)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=3602

Bush’s Bolton options: few, and all unpleasant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200393.html

Dems plan to block another nominee until they get WH documents

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/22/23/50/go-carl/

Who runs the White House?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/22/BL2005062201115.html

Corruption in the Coalition Provisional Authority finally being investigated

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3535&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Meanwhile, back in DC: we’ve gotta build a bigger trough. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006563.php
[Jeffrey Birnbaum] The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. . . "There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm.

NCLB, like so many Bush policies, basically acts as a conduit to funnel federal bucks to big GOP donors (thanks to A.G. Rud for the link)

http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0506-114-EPRU.pdf

Here’s something else that NCLB does (in case you didn’t know)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121375/fr/rss/
The Post's off-lead says the Pentagon, in a bid to improve recruiting, has contracted with a private firm to create a database of all students in the U.S. aged 16-18. The No Child Left Behind Act already allows the military to gather some school info, but this latest effort goes further and will include everything from Social Security numbers to what subjects students are studying (at least that's what the Post says). The info will be taken from commercial databases, state DMVs, and elsewhere.

Draining the Abramoff cesspool (and who will go down the drain with him?)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/22/18129/9112

The “Denver Three” (ousted from a Bush event by a phony Secret Service agent) come to Washington

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/22/122756/577
The Denver Three's quest: to learn the identity of the "Mystery Man" who, impersonating a Secret Service agent, forcibly removed them from a taxpayer-funded Social Security event with President Bush three months ago because of a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on one of their cars.

They and their attorneys have filed 10 freedom-of-information requests. They won support from eight of Colorado's nine members of Congress and persuaded lawmakers to send letters of protest to the White House and Secret Service. Working from a Denver coffee shop and from a loft apartment, they spend hours each day contacting reporters, producing almost daily news coverage and provoking questions at White House briefings. They have a Web site and bumper stickers, and they got a well-funded liberal group to send them to Washington. Now they're talking about public meetings and a lawsuit.

If the flag desecration amendment ever passes, I would like to see charges filed against this guy first

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3536&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

More hypocrisy: with recruiting down and troop needs in Iraq climbing, perhaps someone in the Bush clan could step up and do their part. . . who would like to go first?

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3521&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q Is the President concerned about the recruitment being down in his home country, he can't get -- you know, some day you may give a war and no one will come? And, also, the second part of the question, is there any member of the Bush clan who is in the military service now, that you know of?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd have to go check; that's a pretty large clan, as you --

Q Would you do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- as you referred to. In terms of -- and certainly there are members of the family that have served and served very admirably in the Armed Forces.

Q I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now.

Who? http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3523&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/22/22/15/an-honest-conversation/
[Steve Gilliard] If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.

While we’re with the gaggle, let’s watch Scotty refuse to answer a few more simple factual questions

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3537&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q Were you able to check into that report that Kim il-Jong sent a message -- private message --

MR. McCLELLAN: Kim Jong-il?

Q Yes, that's the one. (Laughter.) Sent a message to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Mr. Kim Jong-il.

Q Exactly, that's the same one -- in 2002 to President Bush?

MR. McCLELLAN: I saw the report you were referring to. I guess it was a couple of individuals who had written an op/ed in the Washington Post today. I don't know what your questions are about it, but --

Q Well, the question is, was there, indeed, a message, did the President receive a message --

MR. McCLELLAN: I saw the op/ed that these individuals had written. I didn't consider there anything new to be in that report. I mean, I'm not interested in going back and plowing old ground. We have a way forward for resolving the nuclear issue with regards to North Korea, and that is the six-party talks.

. . . Q So you just won't talk about whether --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just not interested in plowing that old ground.

Q I was. . .

Q Scott, how concerned is the administration about the potential for Iraq to become a sort of training ground for Islamic extremists who may go back to their home countries and use these techniques to destabilize their governments? There's a new report on that recently.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me mention a couple things. As the President has said for some time now, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism. Wherever you stood before the decision to go into Iraq, I think we can all recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism.

. . .Q Just following up on that question, you said at the outset of that, the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism. I thought it was a central front in the war on terrorism before we invaded.

MR. McCLELLAN: It is. It's part of the war on terrorism, yes.

Q It was.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it is.

Q It is now --

MR. McCLELLAN: Both.

Q Was it prior to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Both. It's part of the war on terrorism, David, Go ahead.

Atrios is right: looks like Tom Noe is threatening to take a few Ohio pols down with him (possibly including the Governor)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111944759117796708

More: http://www.dispatch.com/election.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/22/20050622-A1-00.html

Duke Cunningham promises to answer all questions about his shady financial dealings. . . except this one

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005864

Ken Tomlinson: more lies (and a little message from the Bush gang)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506220009

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3537&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q Scott, the President has been asked to remove Ken Tomlinson as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 16 Democrat Senators. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: . . . Let me just say that we continue to support him. . . He was originally appointed by the Clinton administration and we continue to support him in his work.

Bill O’Reilly: clown show (part one)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111946668141266794
“Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything. . . “

[NB: See, dissent’s fine. Just not about anything that matters. Got it?]

Tom DeLay: clown show (part two)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111944306052836355
"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," DeLay said.

"And if you took that as the image of what is a great city that has an incredible quality of life and an incredible economy, it's amazing to me. Go to Iraq. And see what's actually happening there.”

[NB: Is he saying that Houston is just as bad as Iraq? Worse? I wonder how this plays back home]

Jack Abramoff: clown show (part three)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121375/fr/rss/
"I hate to ask you for your help with something so silly but I've been nominated for membership in the Cosmos Club, which is a very distinguished club in Washington, DC, comprised of Nobel Prize winners, etc.," Abramoff wrote. "Problem for me is that most prospective members have received awards and I have received none. I was wondering if you thought it possible that I could put that I have received an award from Toward Tradition with a sufficiently academic title, perhaps something like Scholar of Talmudic Studies?". . . The rabbi, conservative radio host Daniel Lapin, gave his blessing. "I just need to know what needs to be produced," he wrote. "Letters? Plaques?"

DNC report on the 2004 Ohio election

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/22/185033/454

I doubt this is true, but could the Senate be within grasp for the Dems in 2006? Fifteen races to watch

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/22/153829/764

Even better prospects: Seven governors

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/22/13814/6328

Bonus item: Reality tv reaches its nadir (and that’s really saying something)

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/06/ibigots_choicei.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:22 AM

 
BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE

Down! Sit! Roll over! Good boy!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/06/21/national/w100222D81.DTL&type=printable
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he won't schedule another vote on John R. Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador and said President Bush must decide the next move. A State Department spokesman chastised Senate Democrats, saying Bolton has been left "hanging in the wind.". . . Frist, R-Tenn., said there was nothing further he could do to break a Democratic stalemate with the Bush White House over Bolton, an outspoken conservative who, opponents argue, would undermine U.S. interests at the world body.

One hour later. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/bolton.vote.ap/index.html
Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R. Bolton for U.N. ambassador. . . Talking to reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush, Frist said: "The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote."

Just over an hour earlier, Frist said he wouldn't schedule another vote on Bolton's nomination and said that Bush must decide the next move.

[NB: I guess Bush did decide the next move, all right]

And, by the way, there now seems to be a procedural reason why Frist can’t just call another cloture vote

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111938750945049163
I thought on the previous cloture vote [Frist] had voted against cloture so that he would be allowed to bring up the cloture vote again. This time around the only Republican to vote against cloture was Voinovich -- wouldn't he have to be the one to bring up the vote?

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005857

What next?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000753.html
[Steven Clemons] Unless the White House concedes on document requests, the Bolton nomination will remain in permanent limbo. Because the administration has yielded on nothing regarding these requests, the media and others watching this process will not settle for much less than full disclosure and provision of the requested documents -- viewing anything held back as material that demonstrates problems in Bolton's record.

So many people are surprised by the White House's intransigence on the documents that they believe that something seriously damaging must be in them. At this point, the White House has to make everything available -- or nothing will be acceptable.

That is not likely to happen.

That means that the White House maintains a stance on Bolton that pushes a vote. The Dems "lock down" as Frist has said. And nothing changes.

That then gives the White House some excuse to make a recess appointment. . .

What the WH approach on Bolton tells us about the upcoming Supreme Court fight

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006849

No, no, no, no, no. This gets it all wrong. How could anyone paying attention for the last five years write this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html
[E.J. Dionne] The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. . . Were they lying? The more logical explanation is that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Look. The “believed their own propaganda” excuse is simply the latest of a series of market-tested excuses. Here’s the basic sequence:

Step 1: Everything we told you was true

Step 2: Okay, it wasn’t true, but our intelligence people said it was

Step 3: Okay, our intelligence people were telling us it wasn’t true either, but we convinced ourselves it was. An all-too-human error: given a potential threat, we assumed the worst-case scenario

But that’s all too forgivable. It’s not worse to be self-deceived than to be an intentional liar. Don't give them that out. There’s no doubt that these people knowingly lie. Do you think they “believe their own propaganda” that global warming doesn’t exist? Or that privatized accounts will “increase” people’s Social Security earnings? Or that the deficit will be “cut in half” by the time Bush leaves office? No, of course not: lying is their modus operandi.

In the soon-to-be infamous words of the Downing Street memo, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" – but this isn’t an isolated circumstance, it’s a GENERAL METHOD that the Bush gang has followed from the very beginning: decide upon a policy, then create a “reality” to justify it. Remember this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality”. . .

''If you operate in a certain way -- by saying this is how I want to justify what I've already decided to do, and I don't care how you pull it off -- you guarantee that you'll get faulty, one-sided information,'' Paul O'Neill, who was asked to resign his post of treasury secretary in December 2002, said when we had dinner a few weeks ago.

Howard Dean gets it: when they lie, you have to say so. The media won’t do it for you

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/21/quote_of_the_day.html
"We are going to be much tougher and in-your-face with the Republicans when they say things that aren't true."

Even Lindsey Graham (R- SC) gets it: check out his commentary on the movie “Seven Days in May,” for which he co-hosted a screening

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/21/105911/189
[Steven Clemons] Graham said that there were similarities between the political gamesmanship at play today and in what the film depicted some 40 years ago. He said that one of the reasons he worked to undermine those who wanted to trigger the so-called "nuclear option" over judicial nominations in the Senate is that he believed that one branch of government was trying to subordinate other branches.

He said that this was a time in politics -- particularly in the Congress -- in which policy decisions were tilting towards the loudest, often uninformed voices -- and that reasonable politics were being undermined.

He said that he worried that America today was vulnerable to a new generation of demagogues who would come in and "push all the buttons" on "9/11, terrorism, Guantanamo, and the like" and try and wreck the system of checks and balances that characterize America's style of democracy.

Graham, who co-led the impeachment effort against President Clinton, was pretty moving. It was clear that he was indicting the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. . .

At the same time. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006841
[Matt Yglesias] Look, it's nice that Graham is saying smart, dissenting things about the direction of national policy. But he keeps voting for the policy. Just like Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and the rest of the gang, he has done nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to correct the situation. Instead, he's actively collaborated in generating the problems he cites.

Durbin apologizes, again, for daring to say out loud what everyone knows to be true

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111939054756856556
[Daily Howler] Durbin asked an obvious question: If you’d read that report, would you ever have thought that it was describing American conduct? Or would you have thought what Durbin said—that it must describe an evil regime, the type we have long denounced? The answer to that is perfectly obvious—and so is the state of our fallen culture. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1533
[Swopa] [I]t's reasonable to wonder what the hell is wrong with so many Americans -- how could they be more upset over the words of a politician than about the sickening spectacle of U.S. soldiers chaining someone to lie in his own excrement for hours or days on end?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/21/135539/764
[Jefferson Morley] In the U.S. media, the debate about Guantanamo often focuses on the propriety of the language used to describe the treatment of prisoners. The White House, conservative columnists and his Senate colleagues criticized Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for saying U.S. interrogation techniques were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Post's Anne Applebaum, a Guantanamo critic, rebuked Amnesty International for likening the prison camp to the Soviet gulag. In the foreign media, the debate is more likely to focus on the propriety of the treatment itself.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111939071157949968
[Star Tribune] The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. . . Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than this. . .

Bill Clinton on the practical objections to torture

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/21/135539/764
"Practical problem number one. If American or British troops get the reputation for abusing people in their prisons, " Clinton said, "it puts are own soldiers much more at risk" when they are serving overseas.

"The second problem is, if you rough somebody up bad enough they'll eventually tell you, most of them, whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it.

"And if you run a dictatorship, maybe all you want is for somebody to say they are guilty. If you are trying to preserve and expand freedom you want to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. If people are abused and they confess, or they finger other people, and you gather up those who are not guilty, then as a practical matter you've let the guilty go free."

The “global war on terror” is dangerously misconceived

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/06/global_war_on_t.html
“This war has a popular label and a political label, but it’s not accurate,” said [General Wallace Gregson]. . . “This is no more a war on terrorism than World War II was a war on submarines. It’s not just semantics . . . Words have meaning. And these words are leading us down to the wrong concept.”

Lovely. Bush policies have turned Iraq into an “incubator” for terrorism

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/bushs-iraq-incubator-of-terror-syria.html

We’re still sending troops into danger with inadequate equipment – and it’s about to get much worse

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment/

Scotty forgets the plain meaning of “yes” and “no”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/whos-not-telling-truth.html
Q Scott, can we get a clear "yes" or "no" answer on whether the President agrees on the Vice President's assessment that the insurgency is in "its last throes?". . .

Bush keeps talking, but people are tuning him out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/20/BL2005062000576.html
[Dan Froomkin] When the president of the United States says jump, people jump.

But with President Bush, it seems like more and more often they're jumping in the opposite direction.

Polls show that all of Bush's talk about Social Security has caught the public's attention -- except that the more they hear about his proposals, the less they like them.

Bush's increasing insistence that things are going well in Iraq has been accompanied by a dramatic loss of support for the war.

And the latest backfire would appear to be in Iran, in response to Bush's denunciation last week of Iranian elections as a sham. . .

The consensus view in the press today is clear: Bush is losing his touch. . .

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121256/fr/rss/
The Wall Street Journal goes high with President Bush, in a seemingly last-gasp effort to change Social Security, giving encouraging words to two Republican plans that are opposites: One calls for scaling back benefits, the other for adding private accounts. That later plan is viewed by many Republicans as an "exit strategy," since it would almost certainly be defeated and then everybody could move on.

List of GOP Senators unwilling to sign on to the anti-lynching bill now down to eleven (good to know that there are only eleven Senators unwilling or unable to put their names on record, isn’t it?)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senators-smith-r-or-and-hutchison-r-tx.html

The Rovean politics of polarization, and the dilemmas it presents for Democrats

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1527

More: http://billmon.org/archives/001934.html

Duke Cunningham promises to release documents that will totally vindicate him: uh-huh, he’s got them right here. . .just a second. . . sure, any time now. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005854
Even more telling is the tightlippedness of Cunningham himself. After the story first broke he put out word that he was assembling paperwork that would put all questions to rest. But he now seems to have gone to ground. . . Cunningham spokesman Mark Olson says that the congressman has no timeline for when he'll speak to reporters or come forward with his all-clarifying dossier. . . Says Olson: "The congressman is putting together all the relevant records and information and will disclose it at the appropriate time."

Yeah, explain this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005861
In our last post below, we asked just what defense and national security-related services Mitchell Wade's MZM, Inc. was providing the US government and whether the fact that Wade had to get Duke Cunningham a house and a boat to secure the contracts tells us anything about the quality of the services Wade's company provides. . .

Cunningham is on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the defense appropriations subcommittee, which puts him in position to influence the awarding of defense intelligence contracts.

MZM had 56 such contracts totaling $68,645,909 in fiscal year 2004, according to Keith Ashdown, an analyst with Taxpayers for Common Sense. One of those contracts is to provide interpreters in Iraq. For the most part, the contracts were awarded to MZM without competition through a process known as "blanket purchase agreements."

I assume this means that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, the GOP will be looking for a female attack dog on the ticket, that they don’t want a guy to be playing that role (I assume it also means that Condi Rice isn’t willing to)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/20/will_hutchison_seek_veep_slot.html
Analysts speculate that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-TX) decision to forgo a gubernatorial race was based, in part, on her ambitions for 2008. . .

Hillary’s new moderation

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/21/clintons_gop_allies.html

Bonus item: check out the ad that Crooks and Liars tried to run in the Young Republicans’ conference program – and the lame excuse they gave for not running it

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/21/16116/8359

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:38 AM

 
LIES, CORRUPTION, AND FAILURE

What the Republicans call “obstruction,” normal people call “winning.” Dems hold firm on Bolton docs, pick up Voinovich’s support

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111931145704414100

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121209/fr/rss/
As the WP emphasizes, Bolton has lost ground: The last time his nomination went up for a vote, three more senators backed him. This time, one Republican, Sen. George Voinovich, voted against cloture, and six senators, including three Republicans, simply didn't vote. Those supporting a continued block on Bolton cited the White House's refusal to hand over documents a Senate committee has requested.

Recess appointment for Bolton: back-door victory, or embarrassing failure?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121207/fr/rss/

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000741.html

Remember Sibel Edmonds? The whistleblower who was consistently silenced by the FBI when she worked for them? Well, she’s talking now

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/20/13/38/sibel-speaks/
"Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, during April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. . . Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that:

1. Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities;

2. The attack was going to involve airplanes;

3. Some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States;

4. The attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office. . . No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General."

Bush’s latest lies about the war in Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050618.html
We went to war because we were attacked. . . Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home. . . We're fighting a ruthless enemy that relishes the killing of innocent men, women, and children. By making their stand in Iraq, the terrorists have made Iraq a vital test for the future security of our country and the free world. We will settle for nothing less than victory.

Add them to a truly amazing list of consistent lying at nearly every opportunity in the months leading up to war – even before 9-11 (I know, I know, it’s all just “political talk”)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111931070175688214

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/20/155014/549

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006547.php

U.S still low-balling troop needs in Iraq: this time it’s Condi

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/condi-cant-count-condi-rice-seems.html
[Juan Cole] The Iraqi military needs to be bigger than the current Coalition force, since that isn't big enough. So, if Iraq did need a trained military of say, 300,000, how long would that take to stand up? (You can't count the traffic cops in this total, as SecDef Rumsfeld has been wont to do; I mean soldiers.). . . maybe 5 years worth or more.

Moreover, there is a real question as to whether you will ever get the troops of the new Iraqi government to fight in a thoroughgoing way on behalf of what they mostly think of as an imperial power. . . Newsweek reports that Iraqi officials admit that the new security services are infiltrated by the guerrillas. . .

Dr. Rice's comments imply that she thinks a counter-insurgency effort can be handled with a small force that can be stood up relatively soon. That is not true. And if her comments were intended to make the US public confident that US troops could be withdrawn from Iraq any time soon, then she was actively misleading them.

Death of a soldier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900928_pf.html

MP, brutally beaten in “mock” interrogation exercise, sues the Pentagon

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/18/MNG18DAM6S1.DTL

[NB: and this is how they treat THEIR OWN guys!]

Andrew Sullivan – every now and then he does surprise

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/20/164539/051
“I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful.”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006827
[Matt Yglesias] It's interesting as a case study in the operation of the smear machine, but really more telling as an instance of the ethical black hole into which the contemporary right has fallen. Nowadays, every time somebody raises the topic of immoral torture-related policies undertaken by the Bush administration the instant conservative reaction is to transform the conversation into a debate about the appropriateness of the critics' rhetoric. Every time, the point of the defense is not to defend the conduct in question, but simply to note that someone, somewhere, at some time has done worse things. We're better than Saddam Hussein! Our prisons aren't as bad as Auschwitz! People may be detained arbitrarily without hearings, appeal, due process, or POW status, but it's no Gulag!

http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=9885
Why are Republicans focusing on one Democratic remark? Because God forbid anybody pays attention to what the GOP is doing.

And now this: according to the wingnuts, Durbin and his anti-torture ilk are responsible for the recent fragging incident. And if you think that’s dishonest and hateful, read on. . .

http://billmon.org/archives/001927.html

Yep, more opposition to torture from the “hate America” crowd

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/20/23318/9200

[NB: oops, never mind. . . ]

Bush offers a typically sharp and carefully considered “legal analysis” of indefinite detention

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011160.html
"We've got some in custody - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a classic example. The mastermind of the September the 11th attack that killed over 3,000 of our citizens," Mr Bush said at a press conference after meeting with European Union leaders. "And he is being detained because we think he could possibly give us information that might not only protect us, but protect citizens in Europe," Mr Bush said.

"And at some point in time he will be dealt with, but right now we think it's best that he be kept in custody. We want to learn as much as we can in this new kind of war about the intention, and about the methods, about how these people operate," he said. "And they're dangerous, and they're still around, and they'll kill on a moment's notice."

[Jeralyn Merritt] When exactly is that point? When he, and not a court, decides? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held since March 1, 2003. The U.S. even took his 7 and 9 year old sons into custody. Ramzi bin al Shibh has been held in secret overseas detention since September, 2002. How much more information will they give after two or three years? How do we know Mohammed masterminded the 9/11 attacks? Shouldn't a judge or a jury decide that?

Iraq may be the “central front in the war against terror,” but this isn’t stopping the Bush gang from making mischief in Iran too (thanks to Ann Lopez for the link)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

http://billmon.org/archives/001924.html
[Seymour Hersh] “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Is Bin Laden in Iran?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/20/osama_iran/index.html

Things change

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111927975447702539
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them.

--George W. Bush, 9/11/2001

When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.

--Porter Goss, on why we can't catch Bin Laden, in an interview for 6/27/05 edition of Time.

Our watchdog news media, always looking for the news you need to know

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111931507677996757
[Arianna Huffington] Here are the number of news segments that mention these stories: (from a search of the main news networks’ transcripts from May 1-June 20).

ABC News: "Downing Street Memo": 0 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 42 segments; "Michael Jackson": 121 segments.

CBS News: "Downing Street Memo": 0 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 70 segments; "Michael Jackson": 235 segments.

NBC News: "Downing Street Memo": 6 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 62 segments; "Michael Jackson": 109 segments.

CNN: "Downing Street Memo": 30 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 294 segments; "Michael Jackson": 633 segments.

Fox News: "Downing Street Memo": 10 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 148 segments; Michael Jackson": 286 segments.

MSNBC: "Downing Street Memo": 10 segments; "Natalee Holloway": 30 segments; "Michael Jackson": 106 segments.

The arrogance of power: the TSA collected private information on airline passengers EVEN AFTER Congress told them not to (and after they promised they wouldn’t)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111929607505003818

Computer glitches

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002184.html
Fans of the online database of registered foreign lobbyists at the Justice Department's FARA office may be in for a rude awakening, as I was today, trying to check on the most minor thing. It's been taken offline. The staff there assures it's been taken down only because they are putting a new system up. But the computer people seem to be experiencing some unspecified problems getting the new system up. The FARA staff say they frankly haven't a clue when the new system might actually be up. Given the way things have been going in our corner of the universe, I fear we may never seen it online again until 2008.

A litany of Bush Co.’s rewriting of science to fit their policies. Even more shocking and audacious than you think (thanks to Kos for the link)

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1127

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9884
To hear Piltz tell it, the White House has essentially broken the back of the U.S. climate-change science program by suppressing one of its key documents: the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a 2000 report loathed by industry that explains national and regional vulnerabilities to global warming (decreased snowpack in the West, for instance, will lead to dwindling water supplies for an already parched region). Piltz relates in his complaint memo that references to the report have been "systematically" edited out of government scientific documents, and claims that the administration has deliberately sent the report into "a black hole." As Piltz put it to me in an interview, "There's got to be a special circle in hell reserved for people who play games with scientific information."

Justice Dept officials worked to undermine their own dept’s case against Big Tobacco

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/20/more_tobacco/index.html

The Democrats’ war on Christianity (didn’t know that, did you?) - thanks to Atrios for the link

http://njdc.org/njdcspeaks/detail.php?id=457

Yeah, it’s all those damn hateful people who have it in for Christians – Christians who promote a gospel of love. . .love and. . . and . . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1524
"What we are recognizing is that circumstances are so bleak that you're turned into a criminal if you speak a word in favor of God," said Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of Westboro founder Fred Phelps. . . Later Saturday evening, the church members plan to demonstrate outside a Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation event in San Francisco before returning to Tracy on Sunday to picket half a dozen churches whose leaders spoke out against the Kansans' protest.

"Strip away their titles, and those churches are all talking about the same big lie," Phelps-Roper said, "that God loves anyone."

Ken Tomlinson lied too (get in line, Ken)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506200007

Trouble ahead?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpb21jun21,1,7003459.story
Bowing to calls to delay the selection of a new president amid concern that the leading candidate was too partisan, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting agreed Monday to wait until Wednesday to choose a new chief executive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/politics/21broadcast.html
A researcher retained secretly by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to monitor the "Now" program with Bill Moyers for political objectivity last year, worked for 20 years at a journalism center founded by the American Conservative Union and a conservative columnist, an official at the journalism center said on Monday.

The decision by the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, to retain the researcher, Fred Mann, without the knowledge of the corporation's board, to report on the political leanings of the guests of "Now" is one of several issues under investigation by the corporation's inspector general. . .

Jeb Bush, fighting fearlessly and relentlessly to keep you safe

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/22826/9554
[Sherman Dorn] Saying that there may yet be criminal culpability to the Black Plague in medieval Europe, on Friday Florida Governor Jeb Bush released a letter he had sent to Pinellas County District Attorney Bernie McCabe asking for McCabe to open an investigation into what Michael Schiavo knew about the Plague, when he knew it, and whether he had called 911 early enough in the fourteenth century.

In related news, syndicated talk-show host Glenn Beck told his radio audience Friday that Schiavo may be responsible for the collapse of the case for invading Iraq. . .

But, seriously: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/schiavo_/2005/06/misdirection.php

Duke Cunningham (R-CA) served with four subpoenas

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005851
But apparently, they're not subpoenas over the House debacle, which the feds are also investigating. They're about something else.

More: http://billmon.org/archives/001928.html

And, as usual, the web of scandal spreads. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005853
[Copley] "A defense contractor who took a $700,000 loss on the purchase of Rep. Randy Cunningham's Del Mar residence in 2003, and provided a yacht for his use in the nation's capital, forced his employees to make political contributions that benefited the San Diego Republican and other members of Congress, according to three former senior officials of the company."

There's also this intriguing nugget: "A third former employee of MZM described being rounded up along with other employees one afternoon in the company's Washington headquarters and told to write a check with the political recipient standing by. The former employee didn't give the name of the politician receiving the donations."

Bonus item: an amusing parody of Cunningham’s real estate shenanigans

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111928678091199158

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:25 AM

 
THE SHIELD

I have been thinking about popular tv series like “The Shield,” or “24,” which emphasize the unsavory and sometimes brutal things our protectors do – feel they are entitled to do – to keep us safe. They are a sign of the times. It makes me realize that the Republicans understand something we don’t about Gitmo and prison torture. The scandal of Abu Ghraib was the photos: people don’t want to see these things, don’t want to be reminded that they happen. But most people, if you ask them, will say (post 9-11), “Do whatever you have to do to punish these people and keep us safe. Just don’t tell us about it.” Is anyone really surprised that captured terrorists have been tortured? Truly frightened people will ask you to do anything to someone else if they think it will save them and their loved ones.

None of this is to excuse what the Bush gang has done, and the extent of abuse pretty clearly got out of hand even given their objectives. But they believe – and haven’t been proven wrong yet – that as long as they are successful in blocking another major attack, most people will be disgusted, appalled, outraged, and then ultimately forgiving of their actions. And they also understand something else: that once people have accepted or rationalized these things, they don’t want to be reminded of them any more (since this reminds them of their own complicity) – which is why it is so easy for the Bush gang to demonize Amnesty International, Dick Durbin, or others who have the gall to point out to people what these actions mean for our self-image as a just and decent country. OF COURSE WE ARE A JUST AND DECENT SOCIETY. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SUGGEST THAT WE AREN’T?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/19/132326/431
The Republicans have chosen to embrace prisoner abuse. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/19/23133/0525

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/06/note_to_lefty_i.html

Promoting the officers responsible

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/politics/20military.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is considering new top command assignments that would possibly include promoting Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Pentagon and military officials say. . . Such a move, which has been urged by senior Army officers and civilian officials now that an Army inquiry has cleared General Sanchez of wrongdoing, seems to reflect a growing confidence that the military has put the abuse scandal behind it.

More: http://billmon.org/archives/001923.html

[NB: It’s not promoting failure -- it’s promoting SUCCESS]

Condi Rice: a shameless liar, but not a very good one (although she is certainly practicing hard)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111920062078509094

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1120
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:

[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.

That’s not true. To build support for the war the administration told the American people that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable.

Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:

[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months

Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

[NB: a GENERATIONAL commitment? Can you imagine what the reception to the war would have been if people had been told that it would last years (with no end in sight), close to two thousand American lives, or more before it is over, and hundreds of billions of dollars?]

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/stephanopoulos-asks-condi-about-dsm.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/hagel-were-losing-in-iraq.html

Learning to lie better is an indispensable job skill for her future in Republican politics, but she has a way to go to match Dick Cheney

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111919665392910096
[AP] General William Webster, the U.S. commander for Baghdad, said. . . "Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point."

[NB: or “last throes”?]

Well, we may be seeing the last throes. . . of something

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111918613244029943
[Boston Globe] A former Pentagon official, journalist, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, a man with considerable political and military knowledge, came back from a fact-finding trip in Iraq talking about the ''gap between those who work there, who were really careful of every word they uttered of prediction or analysis, and the expansive, sometimes, I think, totally unrealistic optimism you hear from people back in Washington."

In a report to the council, Gelb was scathing about America efforts to train an Iraqi army. ''If you ask any Iraqi leader, they will tell you these people can't fight. They just aren't trained. And yet we're cranking them out like rabbits." As for plans to train a 10 division Iraqi army by next year, Gelb was scathing. ''It became very apparent to me that these 10 divisions were to fight some future war against Iran. It had nothing to do, nothing to do," with taking Iraq over from the Americans and fighting the insurgents.

Americans have statistics for everything in Iraq, yet little of it reflects reality. ''The information seeps in, and you wonder" about its reliability," Gelb said. " You wonder if you really know what's going on, because essentially what you have are the statistics. It reminds me so of the Vietnam days."

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/united-nations-strategy-as-resolution.html
The United States has failed militarily in Iraq, and the situation there is deteriorating rapidly. A protracted guerrilla war is increasingly becoming an unconventional civil war. The US can mount operations against infiltrators on the Syrian border, but cannot permanently close off those borders. The US can prevent set piece battles from being fought by militias. It cannot prevent night-time raids. Seven bodies showed up Sunday in East Baghdad, executed. They were almost certainly victims of this shadowy sectarian war. . .

“Bring the troops home” The national theme of the Democratic congressional campaign in 2006?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111919886557396637

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006539.php

Seriously: Will there be war crimes charges brought against these people once they’re out of office?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002180.html

Where’s Osama?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011141.html

Right-wing goofballs try to deny that the Downing Street memos are real. This is good news because it shows that they realize how damaging they are

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006537.php

Here’s another nice DSM tidbit

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006540.php
[Kevin Drum] Here's an interesting little tidbit from the Downing Street Memos. It's from the "Options Paper," and it's the only place in the entire set of briefing papers that sets out goals for the government of postwar Iraq. First there's this:

The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change. The end states could either be a Sunni strongman or a representative government. . .

These two options are described in more detail later on:

• a Sunni military strongman....The US and other militaries could withdraw quickly. However, there would then be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic, Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interest. With time he could acquire WMD; or

• a representative broadly democratic government. This would be Sunni-led but, within a federal structure, the Kurds would be guaranteed autonomy and the Shia fair access to government....However, to survive it would require the US and others to commit to nation building for many years. This would entail a substantial international security force and help with reconstruction.

Now, this does not make it sound as if anyone involved had a very strong commitment to democracy in Iraq. The two options, both of which appear to be equally acceptable, are a Sunni strongman or a government led by Sunnis — and guaranteeing leadership to a minority faction is only slightly more "democratic" than simply installing a strongman in the first place.

More DSM news

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/fixing-intelligence-around-facts-part.html

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001108.html

Bolton, Plame, and DSM: not exactly a web of connections, but some pretty interesting confluences

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/19/204617/845

Hey, guess what’s improved SINCE Bolton left his position in the State Dept?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002181.html

Looks like Bush hasn’t managed his “political capital” any better than he managed the assets of the several corporations he ran into the ground

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1521

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/if-it-looks-like-lame-duck-and-quacks.html

The Bush gang doesn’t have enough Circuit Court seats to fill with all the wonderfully qualified judges they seek to promote: so now they want to create new ones

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011140.html

The Republican Senators who refused to sign on to the anti-lynching bill “explain” themselves (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://capitolbuzz.blogspot.com/2005/06/senators-who-refused-to-co-sponsor.html

Paul Wellstone (1998) on what the Republicans would try to do to Social Security, given the chance

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/19/09/09/prescient/

Why the Republicans don’t worry about lying, even when they get caught

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/19/12111/7850

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/20/35654/5365

Mea culpa: A while back I linked to a story that suggested that more than 7000 additional American deaths in Iraq had been covered up by the Pentagon. The nature of this project is that my credibility depends on the credibility of people I choose to quote. I stand by that, and by them. But it also means admitting when they, and I, were wrong

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/20/24437/8204

Bonus item: Carl Hiassen (if you don’t know his savagely funny books, you should)

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/19/08/16/the-rights-stuff/
[Miami Herald] To rebuff accusations that the United States is running a ‘’gulag’’ at its Guantánamo Bay naval base, the Pentagon last week revealed that its spending $12.68 per day to feed each of the 520 detainees at the controversial Camp Delta prison.

The Gitmo Diet includes whole wheat bagels, fresh fruit, baklava, yams, veggie patties and nearly 10 pounds of halal-certified meat every month for the Muslim inmates.

The menu was made public to reassure the Islamic world and concerned Americans that the Guantánamo facility isn’t such a bad place, compared to other lockups.

Nutritionally, that certainly seems true. The $12.68 spent on each detainee’s daily meals at Camp Delta is about five times what it costs to feed a prisoner in Florida.

On the other hand, all prisoners in Florida get a few things that the Guantánamo inmates do not. For starters, they get charged with an actual crime.

Then they get a lawyer.

Then they get a day in court, and an opportunity to defend themselves.

In lieu of indictments, the Camp Delta detainees are served bagels and fruit salad. There’s reason to believe that many would gladly trade their healthy breakfast for a good old-fashioned American trial.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:25 AM

 
POLITICAL TALK

The quote of the day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701346.html
President Bush marketed the new Medicare prescription drug plan Friday in a visit to a community center here. . . "This isn't political talk, this is true," he said.

[NB: The plain meaning of this statement speaks volumes. In Bush’s world, “political talk” doesn’t have to be true – in fact, usually isn’t]

Bush, Sept 9, 2003:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003987
"Iraq is now the central front" in the war on terror, he told the country.

Bush, June 18, 2005:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/16857/0912
"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," he said. "This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight."

Bush, May 2, 2003: ”Mission accomplished”

“Lyndon Baines Bush” (with graphic)

http://billmon.org/archives/001917.html

The Associated Press starts to do due diligence on the DSM memos: and once you start digging, there is some real stuff in there

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos
When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later. . .

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.". . .

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Brits thought pre-war bombing raids on Iraq were illegal (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1660300-523,00.html
A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice. . . The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

More: http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/us-uk-bombing-raids-on-iraq-in-summer.html

Our government has not only used napalm in Iraq, and lied about it, they lied about it to our closest ally (thanks to Holden for the link). And have you seen any mention of this in U.S. papers?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397

Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111914538980868168
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

More news from Iraq

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1518
[NYT] Among fighting units in the war's badlands -- in Falluja and Ramadi, in Haditha and Qaim, in Mosul and Tal Afar -- complaints about force levels are the talk of officers and enlisted personnel alike. . .

But high-intensity operations like the one at Falluja are like driving a stake into a hornets' nest, many American officers say. They scatter the insurgents, who regroup and return as soon as American troop concentrations are reduced. Seven months after Falluja was recaptured, in ruins, pockets of insurgents still operate in the city. Tal Afar, Mosul, Qaim, Haditha, Samarra, Ramadi, Hilla - all have been targets of coalition offensives, only for the insurgents to come back, starting the cycle over.

. . . a feeling is growing among senior officers in Baghdad and Washington that it is only a matter of time before the Pentagon sets a timetable of its own for withdrawal. These officers point to the effect on American public opinion of the slow disintegration of the 30-nation military coalition that America leads, and to frustration on Capitol Hill with the faltering buildup of Iraqi forces. These officers also cite the recruiting slump and fear the risk is growing that the war, like Vietnam, will do lasting damage to the Army and the Marines.

"I think the drawdown will occur next year, whether the Iraqi security forces are ready or not," a senior Marine officer in Washington said last week. "Look for covering phrases like 'We need to start letting the Iraqis stand on their own feet, and that isn't going to happen until we start drawing down'."

They can’t capture Zarqawi, but they sure like to get mileage out of capturing people connected to him

http://billmon.org/archives/001915.html
June 16, 2005: U.S. Says It Has Captured Al Qaeda Leader for Mosul Area

June 5, 2005: Militant linked to Zarqawi arrested

May 25, 2005: Top aide to al-Zarqawi arrested north of Baghdad

May 25, 2005: US: al-Zarqawi aides arrested

May 9, 2005: Gains seen after new arrest of al-Zarqawi aide

April 19, 2005: Iraqi Security Forces Capture Two Zarqawi Associates

March 9, 2005: A Zarqawi cell "prince", six others captured in Baquba

And so on -- and on and on and on and on.

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1514

The $30 million for Halliburton to build a new prison at Guantanamo may just be the first installment of a HALF BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT. I guess this means three things: first, they never intended to close it down; second, a lot more poor souls are going to be hidden away there; and third, none of them will ever be released. Thanks Dick

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20050617-1128-guantanamo-construction.html

Chris Wallace, Fox News, explains why Guantanamo isn’t so bad, reacting to Durbin’s use of a quote from an FBI report – don’t miss the last line (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/06/now-thats-classy.html
CW: . . . But what the FBI memo alleges, and it is an allegation, is, you know, would be considered a day at the beach in the Soviet gulag or Nazi...I mean, what was so horrific in the memo, and I'm not saying, you know, there aren't legitimate questions there, is that someone is chained to a floor and forced to defecate on themselves, and has loud rock music playing. Excuse me? I mean, you know, Auschwitz? Bergen Belsen? The Soviet gulag? I think they would have been very happy to be allowed to defecate on themselves.

Actually, I agree with this 100%

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/18/19/33/us-not-as-bad-as-most/
[Pavel Litvinov] There is ample reason for Amnesty to be critical of certain U.S. actions. But by using hyperbole and muddling the difference between repressive regimes and the imperfections of democracy, Amnesty’s spokesmen put its authority at risk. . .

The most effective way to criticize U.S. behavior is to frankly acknowledge that this country should be held to a higher standard based on its own Constitution, laws and traditions. . .

Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word “gulag” to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty’s credibility.

And here comes Newt Gingrich, who always has a nose for a demagogic opportunity: even though he is not, the last time I looked, a member of the Senate, he calls on them to pass a resolution to censure Durbin

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/181222/724
"By voting for or against the censure, the rest of the members of the U.S. Senate can go on record and make clear how they judge Durbin's characterization of American soldiers." Gingrich continued, "It will also send a clear message to terrorists who will use the words of a Senate leader against us that the Senate stands in support of America and our military and against those who seek to destroy the free people of the United States.”

Written on “Speaker of the House” letterhead?!

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011138.html

And another right-wing Gitmo t-shirt

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/133448/639
NEW! NEW! The Club G'itmo T-Shirt - What Happens in G'itmo Stays in G'itmo

How long will it be before the GOP tries to turn this story into some kind of justification for our own torture policies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/international/middleeast/19torture.html
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.

Perhaps, like me, you have trouble keeping all the –stans distinct from each other. Well, here’s why Uzbekistan matters

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/uzbekistans-slaughter-of-its-citizens.html
It's not bad enough that Bush pretends he wants to spread freedom around the world but then coddles ugly repressive regimes like Uzbekistan, which boils alive dissidents and is one of the nastiest governments in the world. But offer Bush a military base and he becomes dizzy with delight. So we've provided aid to this horrible government and when it gunned down hundreds of its own people and NATO countries wanted to investigate, Bush blocked it because he's a stand-up guy and we can't have an investigation into terror interfering with the war on terror.

But it turns out we're not just shielding Uzbekistan. According to the New York Times, we've armed and trained the very units that were involved in the massacre of hundreds of innocent Uzbekistan citizens. Mind you, the NYT published our implicit involvement in such a horror on the dead news day of Saturday.

More: http://nytimes.com/2005/06/18/international/asia/18uzbekistan.html

Scotty, trying hard to ignore the stench of Bush’s dead and rotting Social Security proposal, still wants to blame the Democrats for its failure

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3496&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Q I have one thing. There are reports this morning that both Bill Thomas and Chuck Grassley have given up trying to get Republican support for personal accounts and they're going to bring to the floors of their respective Houses a bill that doesn't have personal accounts. Is the administration okay with that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure -- which reports are you referring to?

Q The Wall Street Journal story that says that pretty much that both chairmen have given up trying to find a majority support in their committees.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're working very closely with Congress to save Social Security for future generations. This is an important part of what the President talks about when he talks about economic security. Retirement security is a critical component of people's economic security, and the President believes very strongly that we need to not only make it permanently sound, but we also need to make it a better deal. And that's why personal accounts are so important. . .

Q Do you think the two issues could be separated? In other words, you can move a solvency bill now and then come back later and take a look at the personal accounts again?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me reiterate that we believe that making it permanently sound and making it a better deal are both an important part of solving and - not only - well, of saving and strengthening Social Security. We want to save it and strengthen it, and that's why personal accounts are so important. . . It's unfortunate that the Democratic leadership is still trying to block efforts to solve this important priority.

Q But the Democrats are saying that the President is being obstructionist and refusing to negotiate, only if personal accounts are on the table. Why won't you take personal accounts off the table?

Or, as Bloomberg News puts it

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3491&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
President George W. Bush is trying to salvage his faltering campaign for private Social Security accounts by accusing Democrats of obstructionism while searching for a compromise that can win approval in Congress.

[NB: Yep, I’m sure this puts the Democrats in a mood to work with him.]

Oh yeah, this will work

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005845
Steve Soto has a great catch today over at the TPMCafe Economics discussion table about Social Security front. Sens. DeMint, Santorum and Graham next week will unveil a new plan to fund private accounts out of the money that's supposed to go into the Trust Fund.

So, after months of claiming that the sky is falling because the Trust Fund won't keep growing forever or, alternatively, that the Trust Fund doesn't exist at all, they now offer a new solution, raid the Trust Fund now to fund private accounts.

Plame update: Cheney questioned (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/politics/main620810.shtml

Man, that rewritten environmental report discussed here yesterday wasn’t just edited or tweaked – it was eviscerated

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-official-removes-science-from.html
[LAT] The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals.". . . Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."

Bush Co. still working hard behind the scenes to untrack G-8 global warming policies (thanks to Groom Lake for the link)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1509839.00.html
Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer.

These papers - part of the Bush administration's submission to the G8 action plan for Gleneagles next month - show how the United States, over the past two months, has been secretly undermining Tony Blair's proposals to tackle climate change.

It’s okay to have Mary Carey attend their fundraiser, but now Bush Co. wants to crack down on porn

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-and-theocrats-really-want-your.html

The House, in their ongoing effort to undermine the concept of judicial review, is trying to defund attempts to enforce legal rulings on church/state issues

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/204250/263

Grand jury empaneled in Duke Cunningham case

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005843

In Ohio, Gov. Taft must not have heard the expression “when it happens on your watch it’s YOUR responsibility”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/justice-ohio-gop-style.html
The investment scandal at the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation escalated yesterday as Gov. Bob Taft purged one of his high-ranking employees for keeping him out of the loop about a $215 million loss in the months leading to the presidential election.

New Hampshire phone jamming scandal spreads: now judge wants wider GOP records

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005844

Washington Whispers: Jeb won’t run because his wife doesn’t want him to

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/18/why_jeb_wont_run.html

How left and right blogs are different

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/12/17357/3049

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/17/19145/2404

The revolutionary impact of blogs within repressive regimes

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/18/08/12/freedom-bloggers/
[BBC] “Blogs are a great tool in repressive regimes. In countries like China and Nepal, setting up a blog is the only way to be a real journalist,” said Mr Pain.

“We wanted to attract attention to how important blogs have become in terms of freedom of expression,” he added.

“In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted.”

Bonus item: Fox News polls show a positive balance for Bush’s approval (48/43) when no other poll is anywhere near that (aka, where is the missing 9%?)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/18/14142/0275

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:57 AM

 
HATEFUL

Jeb Bush, in one of the all-time despicable moves, follows up the autopsy of Terri Schaivo (which definitively proved two things: that her condition was unrecoverable, whatever the miracle-hopers and her camera-hungry parents said; and that her husband Michael was totally innocent of the charges that he had abused her) with which of the following actions?

a. A sincere apology for dragging a grieving husband’s good name and character through the mud over the course of several years

b. An appeal to the state legislature to pass a new “family privacy” law, which bars politicians from intervening in family-physician health decisions

c. Taking the lead to organize a charity campaign to collect donations for the families of other vegetative-state patients (ones who don’t have the benefits of wall-to-wall national tv coverage to help them raise money), so that “right to life” advocates can help them cover the brutal hospital costs of keeping their family members alive

d. Asking a state prosecutor to explore filing charges against Michael Schiavo based on dubious fifteen year-old rumors

Answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17cnd-schiavo.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/17.html#a3487
Typical republican trick. Look like a fool for your actions so shift the focus onto something else.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/17/124727/645
Using the power of the State for political retaliation. . . Schiavo should sue.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006530.php
The Bush children have always been distinguished by a fiery unwillingness to back down combined with an almost bestial pursuit of revenge against anyone who has ever crossed them. They don't want to beat their opponents, they want to destroy them. . . What kind of human being would keep a vendetta like this alive at this point?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1513
Many fine people have already weighed in on the gutless, appalling smear by Florida's fundamentalist chew toy governor today. . . Like Atrios, Majikthise, and Armando (and, I'm sure, a host of others), my jaw dropped at the petty vindictiveness of this PR stunt. What kind of soulless dishonesty must it take, I thought, for someone to do that just for the sake of personal/political gain?

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/06/jeb_bush_sics_p.html
Let me adapt and repurpose a phrase from a patriotic American: If I read this to you and did not tell you that it [was the Governor of Florida maliciously prosecuting an innocent man 15 years after the tragic collapse of his wife to settle a political score], you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/06/jeb_bush_sinks_to_a_new_low.html
Jeb Bush has called for an “investigation” into something unknowable in an attempt to rehabilitate his ultra-right-wing credentials. . . It’s highly that this craven act will produce a result the base will be able to brag is “inconclusive” since there is no relevant evidence to be found now. The major effects will be to further torment Michael Schiavo — HASN’T HE SUFFERED ENOUGH? — and throw a sop to the red-meat crowd. . . Experts agree: Jeb Bush is a ghoul.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/jeb-bush-gets-prosecutor-to-agree-to.html
Time to restart that national and public debate about Terri Schiavo and what the Republicans did to her. They want this debate, let's have it. Remember, the GOP's position was at around 18% in the polls.

Frist: stupid AND evil

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/demand-senator-terri-schiavo-is.html
For the second time in two days, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) outright lied. The first time was when he told the morning shows yesterday that he never said Terri Schiavo wasn't in a persistent vegitative state. ThinkProgress and others pulled up the old video of him saying just that. But this one is even worse. . . Frist went to the Senate floor and outright lied about what Senator Durbin (D-IL) said about the horrendous treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011127.html
[Frist] “We can debate whether Guantanamo helps us save lives and win the war on terror. But what I can’t stomach are the comparisons being made between Guantanamo and some of the most egregious symbols in the history of mankind. I am referring to the remarks of Amnesty International officials that compared the U.S.-run Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag.

I am referring to the International Committee of the Red Cross official who reportedly compared U.S. soldiers to Nazis. And, regrettably, I am referring to a Senate colleague who, this week, called Guantanamo a ‘‘death camp’’ and drew parallels to Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s gulags, and Pol Pot’s killing fields.

This was a heinous slander against our country, and against the brave men and women who have taken great care to treat the captured terrorists with more respect than they would ever have received in any point in human history. . . “

[NB: The problem is, Durbin never said that (as covered yesterday, a misguided Washington Times headline writer did). What Durbin actually said: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/17/1128/43767]

And so, it is a very small step to this, from Powerline, one of the leading right-wing blogs: Don’t apologize, embrace your inner torturer

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/17/15343/1136
We love Gitmo

Check out the latest (and very full) line of apparel that allows you to wear your heart on your sleeve, or somewhere close to it: "I heart Gitmo."

. . . Does Powerline love a prison camp? Really? How very strange.

You can’t make this stuff up

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050616/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_halliburton_dc
Halliburton. . . will build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States is holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects, the Defense Department announced on Thursday.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006823
[Jeffrey Dubner] George W. Bush, June 9, asked about closing Gitmo:

[Neil] CAVUTO: But now President Carter has said, sir, shut it down. Joe Biden said shut it down. Do you think it should be shut down?

BUSH: Well, you know, we're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America. What we don't want to do is let somebody out that comes back and harms us. And so we're looking at all alternatives and have been.

By "looking at all alternatives," of course, he meant expanding its capacity by 40 percent. I was pretty cynical about Bush's comment last week, but I never expected anything this shameless. He doesn't care at all about describing reality, does he?

The Downing Street memos and the judgment of history

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/17/185219/797

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000963759

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002171.html

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11923118.htm

Ha, ha. I guess this is how they pay back loyalty: the WH is searching desperately for someone to run against Katherine Harris (R-FL), who helped deliver the 2000 election to them, because they are convinced that she is a loser and they couldn’t convince her not to run for the Senate in the first place

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/17/white_house_seeks_primary_opponent_for_harris.html

Bye-bye! FBI opens investigation into “Duke” Cunningham’s shady real estate deal

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005842

More ethical troubles for DeLay (thanks to Kevin Drum for the link)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4484.html
[Newsday] House Majority Leader Tom DeLay owns stock worth more than $50,000 in ExxonMobil, according to financial disclosure reports, while at the same time he is one of the driving forces behind legislation that would shield that company and other manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits that could cost them millions.

Thirteen Senators who still won’t put their names on the record against lynching

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/orrin-hatch-r-ut-signs-onto-anti.html
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054
John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744
Gordon Smith (R-OR) - (202) 224-3753
John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441

Bolton: drifting. . .drifting. . .

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000738.html
John McCain is actively trying to "broker" a deal -- but he has been at it for some time and is frustrated with White House intransigence. He supports the principle of document requests that the Dems are making -- and the White House doesn't like McCain criticizing the administration on that front.

Dana Milbank, ultra-cynical WP reporter (and source of lots of good reporting, to be fair) really blows it in his Conyers committee coverage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html
In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session.

"At the next hearing," he told his colleagues, "we could use a little subpoena power." That brought the house down. . .

And, boy, does he hear it from the blogosphere (and from Conyers himself)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111903442267653567

http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002990.html

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001475.htm

Ken Tomlinson, GOP hack brought in to demolish PBS, is even more of a tool than we thought

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/17/23/37/oops-4/
[NYT] E-mail messages obtained by investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting show that its chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, extensively consulted a White House official shortly before she joined the corporation about creating an ombudsman’s office to monitor the balance and objectivity of public television and radio programs.

Mr. Tomlinson said in an interview three months ago that he did not think he had instructed a subordinate to send material on the ombudsman project to Mary C. Andrews at her White House office in her final days as director of global communications, a political appointment.

But the e-mail messages show that a month before the interview, he directed Kathleen Cox, then president of the corporation, to send material to Ms. Andrews at her White House e-mail address. They show that Ms. Andrews worked on a variety of ombudsman issues before joining the corporation, while still on the White House payroll.

John Danforth on the threat from the religious right

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senator-danforth-blasts-religious.html

More rewriting of scientific reports to fit Bush policies

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006531.php
[Kevin Drum] I really wish "scientists" would quit their incessant whining about the commendable amount of time and effort the Bush administration takes to make their reports more accessible to average folks. The fact is, "beneficial" is just a whole lot easier to understand than bureaucratic mumbo jumbo like "significant adverse impact." If the science community would take more care with their language in the first place, none of this would happen.

What is TABOR, and why should you worry about it?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/17/194818/631

Bonus item: and now for something completely different. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011133.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:49 AM

 
UGLY AMERICANS

WH jumps on Dick Durbin’s back for daring to speak the simple truth about our country’s shameful torture practices. What circle of Hell is reserved for those who are lying about the system of abuse they created at Guantanamo and elsewhere?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5079208,00.html
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it is "beyond belief" that Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin would compare treatment of dangerous enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to the death of millions of innocent people by oppressive regimes. . . “Our men and women in uniform go out of their way to treat detainees humanely, and they go out of their way to uphold the values and the laws that we hold so dear in this country,'' McClellan said.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/16437/9450
[Kos] What is beyond belief is that the type of torture more at home under tyrants and dictators is being seen in camps flying the United States flag. . . If McClellan and Bush want to defend torture, that's their right. But it's not the America I believe in.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/game-set-match-now-white-house.html
[John Aravosis] Well, our slumber is over. We're not going to sit back and let these un-American, law-breaking, torture-enabling criminals in the White House and the right-wing noise machine defend an outright violation of the law, defend the torture of innocents, and think that we're going to sit back and shrink like a violet.

http://billmon.org/archives/001911.html
[Billmon] Well, if you can't see the evil in locking prisoners of war -- some of them held by mistake, others only foot soldiers in the Taliban's army -- in 100 plus degree rooms for 24 hours without food or water, until they shit or piss all over themselves -- then you're truly beyond redemption. Once you've reached that point, you can probably justify anything, up to and including murder.

Unfortunately, according to the polls, that category may include a sizable fraction of the American people. I've speculated on the reasons for this before, I won't rehash them here. Maybe it's just human nature to ignore evil when it takes place outside of immediate eye or ear shot. . .

Easier still to look the other way when the arrests take place half a world away, the archipelago is entirely offshore and the prisoners aren't driven through the streets in trucks but whisked through the sky by the CIA's own private airline. Add in the facts that those arrested are foreign, non-Christian and non-white -- and that some of them almost certainly are guilty of terrorist atrocities -- and you have the perfect excuse for a nation of Sergeant Schultzes to stick to its "We know nothing" line.

And why not? If the inhabitants of greater Dachau could ignore the smoke billowing from the chimneys of the invisible, unmentionable camp up on the hill, why shouldn't we expect most Americans to ignore what's going on in Guantanamo, or Bagram or Abu Ghraib -- or any of the other islands in the archipelago?

How the Washington Times describes Durbin’s comments

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/17/3314/38080
The story from right-wing rag Washington Times earlier tonight sported this headline:

Durbin Calls Gitmo a Death Camp

Except he didn't call it a death camp.

So they changed it to:

Gitmo called death camp

Which is interesting, because no one has called it a "death camp".

Is Durbin making it all up?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned. . . Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 — obtained by ABC News — show that Alberto Mora, general counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.

But there is a trend here: the bullies are feeling threatened, and their only recourse is to attack: attack those who question their record of torture, attack those who question their war lies, attack those who have the temerity to disagree with them on any policy issue

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/did-pentagon-just-threaten-members-of.html
Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita on congressional critics of Abu Ghraib:

The Pentagon on Thursday invited more members of Congress to visit the Guantanamo jail for foreign terrorism suspects, saying criticism by some U.S. lawmakers showed "a real ignorance of what's really going on. . . And the way they are describing it is unfortunate, and in some places I believe those people will regret having made those kind of comments."

Are the insurgents, as Dick Cheney said, in their “last throes”? Of course not. It was a ridiculous lie that should have been greeted with nothing but scornful laughter. Well, this comes close

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/165822/502
Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?

McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward....

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve. . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3485&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

The first fragging case in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246860/

The war is going miserably, and the Bush gang thinks that the real problem is that their public relations approach needs honing

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/16/12465/6266
I'm always fascinated by the non-linear nature of political debates. Somewhat suddenly, and for reasons not clearly or immediately related to what's going on in the country, the big question of Iraq is again at the forefront of the national debate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq17jun17,1,3174796.story
Apprehension over the war in Iraq surged Thursday as a group of lawmakers demanded that President Bush develop plans to withdraw troops and a top Pentagon official expressed concern about sagging public support for the U.S. military effort. . .

The White House said Bush planned to deliver a speech this month on the importance of the U.S. mission, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged to work harder to explain the administration's objectives. . . "I'm going to, like I think all members of the administration, perhaps try to do more to get out to the public to talk about what it is we are trying to achieve and what it is we are achieving," Rice said at a news conference. "So I would say this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term."

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1511
[AP] Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.

Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis. Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who heads the transitional government chosen after January elections. . .

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground — there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time — dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/16/BL2005061600917.html
President Bush's recent happy-talk about Iraq just isn't cutting it anymore. Even the White House has figured that out. . .

[NB: Have they?]

Attack attack attack

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/133856/956
[Reuters] The White House accused Democratic leaders on Wednesday of obstructing President Bush's agenda in a second straight day of combative attacks against the minority party on Capitol Hill. . . "I think the American people reject those who simply say no and stand in the way of getting things done," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

So far [Bush] has been unable to gain traction in Congress over his proposals to overhaul Social Security and has had ongoing struggles over energy legislation and the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, among other items. . . On Social Security in particular, Bush has called on Democrats to offer their own proposals instead of simply attacking his, but the tactic has largely not worked.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000963228
Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?

McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Why not?

McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place [Conyers] and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.

These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --

Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.

McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.

Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?

McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. . .

Q Scott, on John Conyers, John Conyers is walking here with that letter again, as you have acknowledged from Elaine's comment. But 88 leaders on Capitol Hill signed that letter. Now, I understand what you're saying about him, but what about the other 88 who signed this letter, wanting information, answers to these five questions?

McCLELLAN: How did they vote on the war -- the decision to go to war in Iraq?

Q Well, you have two -- well, if that's the case, you have two Republicans who are looking for a timetable. How do you justify that?

McCLELLAN: I already talked about that.

Q I understand, but let's talk about this.

McCLELLAN: Like I said --

Q Well, just because -- I understand -- but if you're talking about unifying and asking for everyone to come together, why not answer, whether they wanted the war or not, answer a letter where John Conyers wrote to the President and then 88 congressional leaders signed? Why not answer that?

McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated earlier. This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed.

[NB: I’m sure you see the remarkable implication of McClellan’s position: no one who opposed the war has any moral standing to question or criticize it now. By that logic, only people who agree with us about the war can criticize it. . . but of course, they agree with us. Perfect!]

From Ann Lopez

In case you were unable to watch the 'Downing Street' Hearing live, it will be rebroadcast on CSPAN-2, Friday evening at 7 p.m. Central.

The Conyers hearing may just have given this issue new legs

http://billmon.org/archives/001914.html
If the idea behind today's DSM hearing was to give the media a fresh news hook to talk about the memo and put pressure on the White House to respond, then I guess I'd say mission accomplished." . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005841
[Nelson Report] [There is] an increased press and Congressional focus on the so-called “Downing Street Memo”, from the then-head of Britian’s secret service to Prime Minister Blair, stating flatly that President Bush and his top advisors had determined to go to war with Iraq well in advance of playing out the UN process. . . Our point for tonight is that this memo, really a series of memos, has had a strange life...but after a delayed reaction in this country, it seems to be leading somewhere...where, exactly, is the question.

We can report, not as a partisan, but as an observer who happened to be working for a Congressman deeply involved in the Pentagon Papers fight of 1971, that old hands note eerie similarities to the start-up process of questions raised, and the potential for Congress to become more seriously involved. . .

Add those up, add your own examples, and you will know why you hear conversations in the past couple of days using the “impeachment” word...not as a prediction, this is way too soon and/or extreme for now...but as part of an attempt to measure historic parallels, and to think aloud on how far this process might go. Maybe nowhere? Or, maybe we’re just seeing the beginning of something. We mention it tonight because the conversation is being held less quietly than before, and politics in Washington may be about to get even worse, if you can imagine anything worse.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/06/17/dsm_press/
[Joe Conason] To judge by their responses, the leading lights of the Washington press corps are more embarrassed than the White House is by the revelations in the Downing Street memo -- which quite suddenly is becoming as "famous" as NBC's Tim Russert suggested weeks ago, when most of his colleagues and everyone at his network were still ignoring the document.

Mooing in plaintive chorus, the Beltway herd insists that the July 23, 2002, memo wasn't news -- which would be true if the absence of news were defined only by their refusal to report it.

They tell us the memo wasn't news because everybody understood that George W. Bush had decided to wage war many months before the United States and its allies invaded Iraq. The memo wasn't news because anyone who didn't comprehend that reality back then has come to realize the unhappy facts during the three ensuing years. The memo wasn't news because Americans already knew that the Bush administration was "fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy," rather than making policy that reflected the intelligence and the facts about Iraq.

Only a very special brand of arrogance would permit any employee of the New York Times, which brought us the mythmaking of Judith Miller, to insist that new documentary evidence of "intelligence fixing" about Saddam's arsenal is no longer news. The same goes for the Washington Post, which featured phony administration claims about Iraq's weapons on Page 1 while burying the skeptical stories that proved correct.

If you listen to those mooing most loudly, such as the editorial page editors of the Post, the Downing Street memo still isn't news because it doesn't "prove" anything. (Only a Post editorial would refer to Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of Britain's MI6 intelligence service who reported the fixing of intelligence to fit Bush's war plans, as merely "a British official.") Certainly it proves much about the candid views held by the most knowledgeable figures in the British government. Evidently the Post's editorialists would rather not learn what else the memo might prove if its clues were investigated.

How foolish and how sad that all these distinguished journalists prefer to transform this scandal into a debate about their own underachieving performance, rather than redeem mainstream journalism by advancing an important story that they should have pursued from the beginning. This is a moment when the mainstream press could again demonstrate to a skeptical public why we need journalists. Instead they are proving once more that their first priority is to cover their own behinds. . . [read on!]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=3539
[David Corn] The British memos are further evidence that Bush overstated the main reasons for the war. They also show that his key line of defense is bunk. When confronted with questions about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and his allies have consistently pointed to bad intelligence. But the previously released Downing Street memos and the new ones indicate that the Brits--who had access to the prewar intelligence--saw that the WMD case (based on that intelligence) was, as Jack Straw observed, weak. One might ask, why did they have such a different take than the one Bush shared with the public?

By the way, you probably heard or read some of the lame attempts to suggest that in Brit-speak “fixed” (as in “the facts and intelligence were fixed”) didn’t really mean what we thought it did. Well, guess what?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-downing-street-memo-is-smoking-gun.html
Michael Smith [the Times reporter who broke the story]: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it.

Frist calls for a new Bolton vote Monday: Reid invokes DSM to argue against him

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton17jun17,1,1999742.story

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20050616/pl_nm/bush_bolton_dc
"Concerns about this administration hyping intelligence and Great Britain hyping intelligence cannot be dismissed lightly," Reid said, adding that it "is no small matter for us to learn whether Mr. Bolton was a party to other efforts to hype intelligence."

Looks like they’re going to lose again – and a recess appointment over Fourth of July weekend is looking like a real possibility

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000737.html

We may be seeing a resurgence now of people who opposed the war from the start. Part of Kerry’s problem was that (having voted to support the war) all he could say was that Bush had managed it badly. At the time, conventional wisdom was that any explicitly anti-war candidate (like Dean) didn’t have a chance. Well, things seem to have changed

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_digbysblog_archive.html#111877452825325428
What we are wondering is that, in light of the information that they knew Saddam wasn't a threat to US national security and knew that there were no terrorist ties, why then did they really want to invade --- particularly after 9/11 when it had been made very clear that a real threat existed that needed our full attention? . . . For all I know they had a perfectly reasonable rationale. But whatever it was, it was not the one they said it was.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111895253595243385
Barney Frank just made the point that it's pretty impossible to end something when you didn't have a good reason to start it in the first place. It's hard to have an exit strategy when you don't know why you're there and what you hope to accomplish. . . We've had multiple and shifting justifications from the players, but justifications were just excuses and marketing pitches, not reasons.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111895706384528282
Now, for better or for worse, the anti-war faction is going to step up. They will be marginalized and largely ignored by the media, but they will have what the hawk faction doesn't have and probably can't - a clear message and position. . . I don't know what the right politics are and I don't know what the right policies are, really, but the question now is whether the rest of the Democrats, those "centrists" and "hawks" start to tear the party apart over this issue by distancing themselves from the dirty hippies. . .

On holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire: we may still see a significant realignment of the party

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/144525/370

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/16/encouraging_signs_for_house_democrats.html
House Democratic leaders presented caucus members with "some of their most encouraging internal polling data yet, arguing that the numbers show growing weakness among Republican incumbents and new hope for attracting viable Democratic challengers to take them on," Roll Call reports. "The polling, conducted in seven of the nearly 40 Republican House districts that the DCCC is targeting, showed that no GOP Member registered re-election numbers higher than 43 percent heading into 2006.". . . According to The Hill, the poll found that "seven Republican members would be easily defeated if their reelection took place today."

You have two options: “guilty” or “guilty”

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/16/08/27/spreading-democracy/
[NYT] A military defense lawyer told a Senate hearing on Wednesday that when military authorities first asked him to represent a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, he was instructed that he could negotiate only a guilty plea.

The lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift of the Navy, who represents a Yemeni, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, said that he regarded the effort, in December 2003, “as a clear attempt to coerce to Mr. Hamdan into pleading guilty.”

Chris Matthews, displaying that finely honed logic and sense of fairness we have all come to expect from him

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111894298160514501
My big concern is, the longer you keep them, the angrier they get. Eventually, you are going to send them home. Maybe the smarter thing is to execute everyone down there, because if you‘re going to send them back to the Arab world or the Islamic world angry as hell at us, they‘re going to be doing dirty stuff against us, right?

[NB: So, let me get this straight. We round them up and detain them illegally. We provide them no recourse to legal review. Many of them we torture and a few we kill. So, of course, if they hated us before, now they despise us even more. So now, I guess we’ll just have to go ahead and kill them all]

Frist lies about his lies about Terri Schiavo

http://billmon.org/archives/001913.html
LAUER: But when you stood on the floor and you said, She does respond, are you at all worried that you led some senators . . .

FRIST: I never said, She responded. I said I reviewed the court videotapes – the same ones the other doctors reviewed – and I questioned, Is her diagnosis correct?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Today Show interview
June 16, 2005

"Once again in the video footage, which you can actually see on a web site today, but in the video footage, she certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli that the neurologist puts forth."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Senate Floor Remarks
March 17, 2005

"I have looked at the video footage. Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Senate Floor Remarks
March 17, 2005

"I never made the diagnosis, I wouldn't even attempt to make a diagnosis from a videotape."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Remarks to Reporters
June 16, 2005

"The diagnosis they made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Interview on The Early Show
June 16, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061600501.htm
"I never, never, on the floor of the Senate, made a diagnosis, nor would I ever do that," he told NBC's "Today" show.

Some Democrats and doctors criticized Frist's March 17 Senate speech in which he said he was commenting on Schiavo's highly publicized case "more as a physician than as a United States senator."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/politics/16react.html
The autopsy of Terri Schiavo - particularly the findings that she had irreversible brain damage and was blind - left Republicans who had pushed so aggressively for federal intervention struggling on Wednesday to defend their argument that she should have been kept alive.

Senator Mel Martinez, the Florida Republican who pressed the case most, said he has since had second thoughts about Congress's involvement.

"I really probably come to the view this has to be more resolved at the state level, seems like the kind of issue the state courts deal with," Mr. Martinez said. . .

"I think it will be seen at some point as a turning point in America about what's going on with the Republican Party - namely that you have this fanatical party willing to impose its own views on people, and frankly, powerful enough to do it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was among the most vocal critics of the Schiavo bill. "This is particularly a problem for Dr. Frist. This is a direct refutation of his TV diagnosis."

Bush’s latest poll numbers: 40 by the 4th looks to be within reach. And look at the other numbers

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/195119/175
Bush approval

Approve 42 (46)
Disapprove 51 (48)

Action in Iraq

Right Thing 45 (47)
Should have Stayed out 51 (49)

Economy

Approve 39 (38)
Disapprove 56

Iraq

Approve 37 (38)
Disapprove 59

Social Security

Approve 26 (26)
Disapprove 62 (62)

Bush shares your priorities for the country?

Yes 35 (34)
No 61 (61)

Congress shares your priorities for the country?

Yes 19 (20)
No 71 (68)

Quack! http://billmon.org/archives/001912.html

George Bush, defender of electoral fairness

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17prexy.html
On the eve of the election in Iran, President Bush declared Thursday that the electoral process there had failed to meet "the basic requirements of democracy" and that the "oppressive record" of the country's rulers would undercut the legitimacy of the vote.

Mr. Bush's criticism of Iran was in sharp contrast to the praise that members of the administration had showered on Egypt and Saudi Arabia for their modest moves toward elections, and it appeared to amount to a pre-emptive American effort to challenge Friday's vote.

But at a briefing on Thursday, Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's press secretary, said "different circumstances require different strategies" and denied that Mr. Bush was muting criticism of allies while increasing pressure on countries like Iran.

On Thursday evening, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, explained the administration's logic in condemning Iran's electoral process and praising Egypt's.

"They couldn't be more different cases," Mr. Hadley said in a telephone interview. "Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Egypt is fighting terror. Iran's policy is to get rid of Israel. Egypt is fostering the peace process."

He added: "Egypt has not had an election for 7,000 years. They are trying to start one up, and it won't be perfect."

[NB: You get it. Judging the quality and fairness of elections has nothing to do with characteristics of the elections themselves. If it’s an ally, any half-witted attempt at something that looks like a vote is praised; if it’s an enemy, nothing can possibly satisfy us – cf., Venezuela]

Bush suffers a fairly small defeat on the Patriot Act, but it looms large in its implications

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/16/backlash/index.html

“Duke’s done”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005839
With the news today that the boat Randy "Duke" Cunningham lives on down at the yacht club really isn't 'his' yacht but rather a yacht pretty clearly bought for him by a defense contractor getting his help on the appropriations committee, you really have to wonder: How do they think they'll get away with it?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005840
San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Logan Jenkins says: "Duke's done. One way or another, an under-the-table real-estate deal will end his long run in Congress."

And from Ohio . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111893688682636980
[Plain Dealer] At the same time a Maryland investment manager was losing millions of dollars in a fraud scheme, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation allowed him to continue managing $20 million of its money.

In the end, the bureau says, it lost $1.34 million of the $20 million it invested with Chapman Capital Management, a firm owned by Baltimore investment manager Nathan Chapman. . .

The bureau gave Chapman Capital Management $20 million to invest between May 1998 and February 2000 and allowed him to invest that money until March 7, 2003. . . During two of those years, one of Chapman's companies lost about $40 million in clients' money in a well-publicized fraud scheme perpetrated by another bureau investment manager, Alan Brian Bond, according to published reports.

When our children grow up and can’t go outside without umbrellas, when the polar caps start melting, when hurricanes and floods become common occurrences, let’s all remember this period when Republicans consistently denied the reality of global warming and fought furiously to block policies to combat it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601666.html
Bush administration officials working behind the scenes have succeeded in weakening key sections of a proposal for joint action by the eight major industrialized nations to curb climate change.

Under U.S. pressure, negotiators in the past month have agreed to delete language that would detail how rising temperatures are affecting the globe, set ambitious targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and set stricter environmental standards for World Bank-funded power projects, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. . .

The administration's push to alter the G-8's plan on global warming marks its latest effort to edit scientific or policy documents to accord with its position that mandatory carbon dioxide cuts are unnecessary. Under mounting international pressure to adopt stricter controls on heat-trapping gas emissions, Bush officials have consistently sought to modify U.S. government and international reports that would endorse a more aggressive approach to mitigating global warming.

More on Ken Tomlinson’s (apparent) misappropriation of PBS funds to pay two GOP party hacks to spy on a U.S. Senator – and if that’s not amazing enough, look who one of them turns out to be

http://billsrants.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/06/inspector_tomli.html
Now it seems Tomlinson has actually used CPB money to hire Republican lobbyists, without the knowledge of the Board of Directors, to keep a watchful eye on Senator Conrad Burns, who had the gall to propose an amendment that would give public television stations more representation on CPB’s Board. One of those lobbyists, Brian Darling, may ring a bell with readers as the author of the infamous Mel Martinez memo outlining the ways that Republican legislators could exploit the life and death of Teri Schiavo to their partisan advantage.

Bonus item: Is there some reason the GOP doesn’t WANT to be called the party of white Christians? Given their reaction, you’d imagine they thought there was something wrong with that

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2005/06/howard_dean_is_.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:57 AM

 
THINGS FALL APART

A nice overview of the seven (SEVEN) British memos now available, and what they tell us

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/fr/rss/
This is about as solid as the evidence gets on these matters: By mid-summer 2002—at a time when Bush was still assuring the American public that he regarded war as a "last resort"—the president had in fact put it on his front burners.

It may be that criticisms of the media for being slow to catch this story are starting to have an effect

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/15/downing_effect/index.html
But is it possible that a flat-footed mainstream media may have actually helped the political left's cause? Its scant initial coverage got the left particularly fired up over the memo, which in turn has brought the issue more press now, perhaps even more than it might have otherwise received. Boosted by the blame-the-media story, the belated coverage is forcing another look at the Bush administration's deceptions and manipulations in the run-up to the war.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383.html
Three summers ago the pages of this and other newspapers were filled with reports about military planning for war to remove Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bush's determination to force a showdown. . . One observation in the memos is vague but intriguing: A British official is quoted as saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Yet it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime. . .

[NB: "vague but intriguing"? This WP editorial reveals another reason why the media have been slow to pick up the Downing Street story – because it is an implicit indictment of them not to have done more to cover these lies at the time. Hence their typical response is, “well, we already knew Bush wanted to go to war, and we said so at the time” – as if that were the issue, which it isn’t]

Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun calls for impeachment

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/15/07/24/impeach-him/
The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush has lied to Congress and to the American people about the justifications for war. It includes a formal letter and report that he submitted to Congress within 48 hours of launching the invasion in which he explained the need for the war in terms that appear to have been intentionally falsified, not mistaken. . . Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.

Set your recorders, Thursday afternoon (thanks to Ann Lopez for the info)

"C-SPAN To Carry 'Downing Street' Hearings Live on C-SPAN 3. For those who don't receive C-SPAN 3 on their local TV, you can watch the online feed at c-span.org The hearings will also be carried live on Pacifica Radio and via Radio Left."

Time change (2:30-4:30 Eastern) http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002160.html

Background reading: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011111.html

Iraq: there are rosy scenarios, and then there are pathological delusions

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006507.php
Don Rumsfeld in an interview with BBC's Newsnight:

Asked if the security situation had improved [in Iraq], he admitted: "Statistically, no."

"But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along," he added. "A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/rumsfeld-iraq-no-safer-today-than-when.html

Here comes civil war: the Kurds are learning from their masters (us)

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/15/kirkuk/index.html
[WP] "Police and security units, forces led by Kurdish political parties and backed by the U.S. military, have abducted hundreds of minority Arabs and Turkmens in this intensely volatile city and spirited them to prisons in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, government documents and families of the victims. Seized off the streets of Kirkuk or in joint U.S.-Iraqi raids, the men have been transferred secretly and in violation of Iraqi law to prisons in the Kurdish cities of Irbil and Sulaymaniyah, sometimes with the knowledge of U.S. forces. The detainees, including merchants, members of tribal families and soldiers, have often remained missing for months; some have been tortured, according to released prisoners and the Kirkuk police chief.

"A confidential State Department cable, obtained by The Washington Post and addressed to the White House, Pentagon and U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the 'extra-judicial detentions' were part of a 'concerted and widespread initiative' by Kurdish political parties 'to exercise authority in Kirkuk in an increasingly provocative manner.'"

“Jaw-dropping” indeed: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002161.html

Republicans starting to distance themselves from Bush’s war

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/16/republican_rift_forming_over_iraq.html
Some Republicans "are starting to edge away from the White House on its policies in the war on terror, as bad news continues to emerge from Iraq and the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"While the complaints remain low-key and aren't enough to produce significant changes, they signal a lessening of the broad and deep support Mr. Bush has had among Republicans for his approach to both the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq.”

Gitmo

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480
"[T]hose who are most urgently advocating that we shut down Guantanamo probably don't agree with our policies...."
-- Vice President Cheney, 6/13/05

[NB: Well, duh, ya THINK? So this is a reason to dismiss their criticisms? And anyway, what about Mel Martinez?]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480#3
The right wing has launched a coordinated campaign to trivialize the documented problems at Guantanamo Bay. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) held a press conference in which he reviewed the prisoners' daily menu and declared there was no abuse "unless you consider eating chicken three times a week real torture." At yesterday's news briefing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bizarrely boasted that "at Guantanamo, the military spends more per meal for detainees" than it does on rations for U.S. troops. Radical right talk show host Rush Limbaugh painted the detention center as the picture of religious freedom that "may be a great vacation spot for oppressed Christians in the United States." And in a fit of self-congratulation, Vice President Cheney summed it all up: "I think these people have been treated far better than they could expect to be treated by virtually any other government on Earth." Here's what they don't tell you: abuse at Guantanamo has been confirmed by the military and the FBI. For all the rhetoric, the reality is that Guantanamo Bay "has put our soldiers and citizens at risk, become a rallying cry for our enemies and a recruiting tool for the global terrorist network."

Oh yeah, everything is just fine there. Chicken, three times a week!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111888362105658298
[FBI] “On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night.”

Here’s what Dick Durbun (D-IL) said about this FBI report, and now he’s being attacked by the right-wing goose-step crowd for stating the obvious

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/16/25826/4241
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/its-official-right-wing-smear-and-lie.html

And now this: Bush Co. announces a new interpretation of the law that will allow them to hold these people, without charges, “in perpetuity”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011107.html

Watch Scotty try to justify this inexcusable policy, then eventually give up and cut the press conference short

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3471&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Interesting exchange over the mainstream media’s increasing tilt toward conservative views: Is it just the corporate media defending its masters? Currying favor with the Establishment? Cowed by the relentless bashing they get from right-wingers, theocons, and talk radio? It’s important to get a handle on this, because just griping (as we often do here), Why do the media treat Dems this way and Repubs another way? isn’t getting at the issue

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/15/17547/1068
[Matt Yglesias] Kevin Drum rightly heaps scorn on Howard Kurtz's assertion that though "The press performance in covering this tightly disciplined administration has been far from perfect, especially on Iraq" we should remember "that during the Clinton years, it was conservatives who saw the media as being embarrassingly soft on the White House.". . . Nevertheless, I do think it's true that some of a liberal haranguing of the press for not covering this or that more is a bit misguided. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111887504419554719
[Atrios] Yglesias is correct in pointing out that some part of the reason the Democrats can't get any press is that they don't run committees, can't hold hearings, etc. Certainly, if they did the media would feel more obligation to cover stories, and the resulting regular "new" news that hearings can make would give stories more life.

However, this lets the media off the hook far too easily. They certainly show no problem keeping a story alive endlessly, even ones which don't involve missing white women, when they choose to. Plenty of Clinton-era pseudo-scandals (and post-Clinton era Clinton pseudo-scandals) were kept alive for significant amounts of time even without officials hearings and whatnot.

Now, I would sadly admit that part of the problem is that the Democrats still haven't managed to work the media machine. The deck is certainly stacked against them, but they could do a lot better. They need to figure out how to work with existing narratives to their advantage, and how to occasionally seize the moment to create their own. Given the hostility of the media and their lack of power that's a challenge, but something they need to learn how to do. Opportunties materialize and they fail to make use of them. It's depressing.

More: http://billmon.org/archives/001907.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006514.php

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/15/221437/407

The latest revised list of Republican Senators who won’t take a stance against lynching: add Hutchison, Smith, and Kyl, take off Voinovich, Crapo, and Murkowski

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/updated-list-of-gop-senators-who-still.html
Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has an ingenious excuse: see, he’s already supported one piece of pro-black legislation this year, so I guess that’s his quota

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senator-lamar-alexander-r-tn-only.html

Did Orrin Hatch (R-UT) okay this?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/sen-hatchs-office-reportedly-tells.html
I called Orrin Hatch's office. I frankly expected more of him. I consider him a sane mainstream conservative, not a wingnut. I expressed my disappointment in his failure to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution. The young man answering Hatch's phone dropped into his reply, apropos of nothing, that "Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK". Freakin' pathetic, eh?

Richard Shelby (R-AL) has staff lying about it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senator-shelby-r-al-lies-to.html

A great editorial

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/omg.html
There were nearly 5,000 victims of lynchings - the vast majority of them black - between 1882 and 1968. During those years, almost 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress. The House of Representatives passed three such measures between 1920 and 1940.

None ever made their way through the Senate, as Southern senators used the filibuster, extending debate as a delaying tactic. According to Allen, as quoted by the Associated Press, senators opposed to anti-lynching legislation over the years spent a total of six weeks filibustering against such measures.

So, with the blood of 4,743 lynching victims crying out from the ground for some measure of justice - however delayed it might be - the U.S. Senate used the cover of night, and the more despicable cover of a voice vote, to take not a bold and courageous stand, but a lukewarm acceptance of responsibility for one of the most heinous chapters in American history.

[Virginia Senator George] Allen, in comments to the Associated Press meant to praise his Senate colleagues, said, "It's not easy for people to apologize, but I think it does show the character of the Senate today."

The vote certainly did show "the character of the Senate," and found the body sorely lacking in that commodity. . .

Zing!

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006795
[Matt Yglesias] It seems that some Republicans won't stand up to Christian fanatics at the Air Force Academy intent on harassing Jewish cadets, while others won't take a public position on whether or not lynchings were bad, lest they alienate their racist constituents. It's almost as if they're a white, Christian party that's not all that sensitive to the concerns of America's racial and religious minorities or something.

Schiavo autopsy: brain shrunk to half the usual size, profoundly atrophied, and damaged irreversibly; unable to process visual stimuli (i.e. BLIND); unable to digest food taken orally – and in no way a victim of abuse. Who will apologize to Michael Schiavo now for the vicious lies said about him?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/schiavo-autopsy-results-are-in-there.html
Remember, her father actually said that if she only had the right therapy she'd be a productive member of society. Then there was Dr. Frist and Dr. DeLay's diagnoses. Oops.

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006797

Shouldn’t a doctor be punished for knowingly uttering a false diagnosis to the news media?

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1100
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a “persistent vegetative state.”

“I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office,” he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. “She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli.”

[NB: Video evidence that was manipulatively shot and edited, and which was already by that time two or three years old]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006509.php
Frist: "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

Autopsy report: "The vision centers of her brain were dead."

Why this story matters

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/terri-schiavos-autopsy-will-facts.html
But the facts are simple and straightforward: there is no evidence Terri Schiavo was abused or mistreated (they pointed especially to the barrage of exams performed right after her initial collapse that would have indicated this). Terri Schiavo was clinically blind, putting to rest the sad delusion that she was looking at people or following a balloon or other actions utterly impossible given her condition. Terri Schiavo's brain was HALF the size of a normal person of her age; in other words she was severely dysfunctional and incapable of the reactions her family and outsiders who hadn't even examined her wanted to imagine she was performing. Terri Schiavo would have choked to death if given food or water via her mouth -- so those fools rushing the security guards to give Terri water would have killed her, not helped her. And no amount of therapy or treatment would have ever changed her condition.

In numerous other details, the medical examiner reinforced the facts that were known for more than a decade and confirmed by every responsible medical professional involved in her care -- both those directly hired by the family factions and those appointed by the courts. Every absurd charge has been undercut or proven flatly wrong. Every sound medical finding has been reinforced when possible.

Do basic scientific facts matter anymore? Are people obsessed with emotional hysteria and a refusal to listen to the facts going to be any more likely to face the truth now than they were during the media circus that surrounded her final days? Will the news channels that insultingly showed that edited footage of Terri with New Age-y guitar playing in the background now show it and state the medical facts -- that Terri was blind, her brain shrunken down to nothing and she was incapable of recovering anything like an emotional response to the world around her? I doubt it.

This is a larger pattern: the far right refusing to face facts on global warming or evolution or the fact that condoms work and are an essential part of any program to combat AIDS and on and on. In short, the far right hates science, hates facts, hates the truth. . .

[NB: Poor Michael, he’s just “reality based” like the rest of us]

The right-wing response to the autopsy? Facts? Medical science?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_digbysblog_archive.html#111888037180287883
"Just because the vision center of her brain was blind doesn't mean her brain couldn't have compensated somewhere else."

"Considering that she died of intentionally inflicted starvation and DEHYDRATION, is it any wonder that her brain was half the size of a normal brain?"

"We have to remember that this is from the WaPo, not a credible news organization, so they might find it convenient to omit certain, necessary facts."

Well we do know that Michael owns the County Sherriff so how hard would it be for him to buy the Medical Examiner. The only way I would have trusted the autopsy is if it was done by the FBI...."

More trouble for the reality-based

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006787
Why would The New York Times report that two new studies "rebut" earlier peer-reviewed work on the effectiveness of virginity pledges when, according to the Times's own reporting, the study was not peer-reviewed, is unpublishable in real academic journals, uses an unreliable data source, and only supports the conclusion when you use a non-standard test for statistical significance? For that matter, why would they refer to Heritage's Robert Rector as "Dr. Robert Rector" when he has no Ph.D.? Why would you cover a study like that at all? . . . The only newsworthy information in the story is that the Bush Department of Health and Human Services has decided for some reason to start contracting out research on controversial questions to an ideological think tank that is non-partisan in name only, rather than to proper independent analysts.

Theocracy alert

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/06/16/christian_right_plans_to_screen_gop_candidates.html
[USAT] "Leaders of conservative Christian organizations plan to jointly interview Republican contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination, perhaps even endorsing one of them -- steps that could expand their already considerable political influence"

Bush Co. STILL producing (illegal) phony news pieces, after having been told to stop doing it

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506160132jun16,1,7753902.story
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has churned out three dozen radio and television news segments since the first of the year that promote a controversial trade agreement with Central America opposed by labor unions, the sugar industry and many members of Congress, including some Republicans. . . In one radio segment, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said that passing CAFTA should be an easy decision for members of Congress. . . "I can't imagine how any senator or House member from ag country could stand up and vote against CAFTA," Johanns said. "It makes no sense to me. It's voting against our producers.". . .

Critics contend that such policies blur the line between government propaganda and legitimate reporting, and the Government Accountability Office described the prepackaged news reports as "covert propaganda" if the government agency does not clearly identify its role in the production of the report. . . President Bush said. . . he didn't object to government-produced news segments as long as "they're based upon facts, not advocacy." He also said the burden was on the news stations to disclose that they obtained the reports from the government.

[NB: Nice to see that they’re avoiding “advocacy”]

Bush: the better people know him, the less they like him (gee, just like his Dad)

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_VS_BUSH?SITE=PAPHQ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-06-15-05-40-02
As funny as this may sound, President Bush misses John Kerry. In the 2004 campaign, Bush sought to make the election a referendum on the Democratic senator's character and leadership skills rather than his own record as president. Now that he has nobody to run against, every day is a referendum on Bush. And it's taking a toll. . .

Now, with nobody else to blame, Bush stands alone. He can't deflect voter concerns about the economy and other pressing domestic matters. With the death toll in Iraq pushed above 1,700, more than double the number of a year ago, it's no longer a choice between Bush and Kerry.

It's Bush's war. Period.

"There's just a general angst right now," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. "He's paying for his Iraq policy more now than he was before the election. People know we have to win, but they're not very happy about it. So he has a lot of problems and, frankly, nobody to blame them on. . .

Some Republicans say they fear that Bush and his advisers are ignoring the signs of voter discontent, moving too slowly to adjust their strategies. They also blame GOP congressional leaders for focusing on legislation that seems to help a select few while making no progress on issues that matter to many. . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/15/BL2005061501200.html

The Republicans are scrambling to get some kind of Social Security proposal on the table, so they can start criticizing the Democrats as obstructionists. The problem is, anything they are likely to propose will be wildly unpopular, which will JUSTIFY the Democrats obstructing it. Oh me, oh my

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006794

More: http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/15/12352/0396

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502300.html
With the Senate Finance Committee at an impasse on Social Security and House leaders anxious about moving forward, Republican congressional leaders have told the White House in recent days that it is time to look for an escape route. . .

Frist’s Bolton rant yesterday appears to have COST him votes

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006791
Funny enough, it turns out that heaping abuses on Democrats en masse precisely when you need only a small number of Democrats to vote with you is not such winning strategy. Who knew?

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000730.html

Reid: Bolton’s going down, again, and will keep going down until the WH responds to reasonable requests for information

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000732.html
From the outset of the debate on John Bolton's nomination, Senate Democrats have had a clear and consistent position: If the Administration works in good faith to give the Senate the information it deserves, Senate Democrats are ready to immediately give this nomination an up or down vote. . .

In this instance, we are seeking information that bears directly on the fitness of John Bolton to serve as our representative to the United Nations. And we are not engaging in a fishing expedition. We are seeking clearly defined documents and information about two very important issues:

-- Did Mr. Bolton attempt to exaggerate what Congress would be told about Syria's alleged WMD capabilities?

-- Did Mr. Bolton use, and perhaps misuse, highly classified intelligence intercepts to spy on bureaucratic rivals who disagreed with his views or for other inappropriate purposes?

Pat Roberts: a desperate and slightly ridiculous move

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000733.html
Senator Pat Roberts has just pulled one of the most idiotic moves in the Bolton Battle -- trying to match the names of Bolton intel analyst victims with the redacted identities of U.S. officials in NSA intercepts.

Roberts then took the names of Rexon Ryu, Christian Westermann, and other Bolton road-kill and asked John Negoponte if those names are in the intercepts. Negroponte said none were listed of course -- all staged, all kabuki. . .stacked deck. It would be funny if not such a pathetic act.

[NB: These names, of course, are NOT the ones the committee was interested in – to say nothing of the “just trust us” image of Roberts chatting privately with Negroponte and then reporting on the conversation. Is there any innocent explanation of why Roberts (Chairman of a different committee altogether – Intelligence, not Foreign Relations) should be intervening, uninvited, in this matter?]

http://chargingrino.blogspot.com/2005/06/roberts-on-bolton-breaking-now.html
Noticeably absent from Roberts' list (and he began by saying his list "included" the names mentioned above) was former US Ambassador to South Korea, Thomas Hubbard.

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000734.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000735.html
Senator Roberts has now established the precedent that running names by the Director of National Intelligence is a legitimate way to proceed. It would be very easy now to check against the list. . . I wonder if Roberts knows that he has now opened the door -- far and wide -- for further investigation now?

The staid and serious Financial Times

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000731.html
[FT] Frist emphasised that it was crucial to fill quickly the UN position, which he said had remained vacant for 200 days since the resignation of John Danforth, the previous US ambassador.

In an attempt to reinforce the urgency of the UN position, Frist listed a series of significant events that had occurred in those 200 days.

"We have seen the orange revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the vote in Iraq, the vote in Palestine, the hope of opening the presidential elections in Egypt."

That just leads Observer to wonder whether the US should even bother sending an ambassador to the UN. Democracy seems to have fared better when the US chair has been empty. . .

“There are no moderate Republicans”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111889014535015346

The revolving door between the Bush White House and Exxon/Mobil. The question is, in which direction is it spinning?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006510.php
[Kevin Drum] Seven days ago: "President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian."

Also seven days ago: "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents....The official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors...had already approved."

Five days ago: "Philip A. Cooney, the chief of staff to President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, resigned yesterday, White House officials said."

Today: "Philip A. Cooney, the former White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, will go to work for Exxon Mobil this fall, the oil company said yesterday."

Philip Cooney: hardworking White House staffer or bought-and-paid-for shill for the oil industry? Or is there a difference?

Guess who was responsible for lowering the Justice Dept tobacco penalty from $130 billion to $10 billion?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/republican-political-appointees-in.html
[L]ong time Bush friend, Associate Attorney General and former tobacco attorney, Robert McCallum. . .

“Coingate gets weird”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111884591197276306
The suburban Denver home of a former employee of Tom Noe was burglarized over the weekend, with thieves making off with artwork, guns, jewelry, cars, and $300,000 in wine — possibly purchased with money from the state of Ohio. . . Investigators from the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office on June 3 took custody of 3,500 bottles of wine valued at $500,000, and seized hundreds of rare coins, 265 Cuban cigars, computers, and documents from Mr. Storeim’s home and office as part of a criminal investigation.

Duke Cunningham in “big trubba”

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/15/94625/0192

Other GOPs too: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005835

Even Hastert is calling for an investigation: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005836

More GOP corruption (gee, you might think the news media might start to notice a pattern – that is, if they were interested in such things)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/15/125212/011
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) made $822,000 last year from the sale of a controversial real estate investment with an Anchorage developer who had obtained a huge federal contract with his help, records show. . .

Boy, it didn’t take Ken Tomlinson long to get in trouble, did it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/politics/16broadcast.html
Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are examining $15,000 in payments to two Republican lobbyists last year that were not disclosed to the corporation's board, people involved in the inquiry said on Wednesday.

One of the lobbyists was retained at the direction of the corporation's Republican chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, they said, and the other at the suggestion of his Republican predecessor, who remains on the board.

The investigators, in the corporation's inspector general's office, are also examining $14,170 in payments made under contracts - which Mr. Tomlinson took the unusual step of signing personally, also without the knowledge of board members - with a man in Indiana who provided him with reports about the political leanings of guests on the "Now" program when its host was Bill Moyers. . .

[NB: Of course, this shouldn’t be any surprise: THIS IS WHAT THEY DO]

The new book on Hillary (published by PENGUIN) is worse than you can imagine. Sloppy, dishonest, and incoherent, even for the loony Right

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111887592049229567

A totally unconvincing “explanation” of the exit poll results showing that Kerry beat Bush: Kerry voters were oversampled. But this is ad hoc: how could Kerry voters have been oversampled, not by one or two pollsters, at one or two polling places, but at precinct after precinct, in different states? If anything this explanation gives ammunition to those right-wingers who believed that the exit polls were INTENTIONALLY distorted to give Kerry an election night boost (don’t bother voting, he’s already won) and to undermine Bush’s legitimacy if he did win. It’s all ridiculous

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/15/exit_polls/index.html

Bonus item: I have always felt that the opening comedy sketches of the late-night shows are a good barometer of the Zeitgeist: if they feel that it’s safe to ridicule the President, they know what their viewers are ready to hear

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/15/103135/434
Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity

10. Dip into social security fund to give every American free HBO

9. Use diplomacy to bring peace to Brad, Jen and Angelina

8. Try fixing Iraq, creating some jobs, reducing the deficit and maybe capturing Osama

7. Figure out a way for the Yankees to win a game

6. Replace his "country simpleton" persona with more lovable "hillbilly idiot" image

5. Use weekly radio address to give Americans a Van Halen twofer

4. Get Saddam to switch to boxers

3. Ditch the librarian and make Eva Longoria First Lady

2. Resign

1. Jump on Oprah's couch while professing his love for Katie Holmes

Late Show with David Letterman

[NB: Resign?!!]

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:59 AM

 
LYNCHING PARTY

Who are the Republican Senators who refused to sign on to the anti-lynching resolution (as of this morning)?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/final-list-of-senators-refusing-to.html
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

[Kent Conrad (D-ND) was on the list but later co-sponsored after the fact]

George Allen (R-VA) was on the list, but scrambled to establish his belated bona fides (he’s running for President, you know)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006777
[NYT] Others described the resolution as an act of expediency for Mr. Allen, who is a likely presidential candidate and who has been criticized for displaying a Confederate flag at his home and a noose in his law office.

Shelby and Sessions (R – AL) develop amnesia

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/dog-ate-my-anti-lynching-resolution.html

How Senators' offices are lying to cover up their votes (or lack of them)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senate-offices-intentionally-lying.html

Frist!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/frist-now-accused-of-trying-to-veto.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article up. . . pointing the finger at Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) as the man who refused to have a real roll call vote on the anti-lynching resolution. . . Frist then tried to blame the debacle on Senators George Allen (R-VA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), saying THEY didn't want a real roll vote to put Senators on the record. Not true, say Landrieu and Allen. They WANTED a real vote, but Frist would not allow it. He did NOT want Senators to have to go on the record. Nor did Frist want the issue to come up at all during daytime, because evidently he didn't want the resolution getting much media attention. . .

A great response (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://www.intelligencesquad.com/id120.html
The vote was held late at night, all the better not to make it onto the evening news. Also all the better to avoid an actual roll call vote – where each senator would have to actually vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – since it is easy for senators to make themselves "unavailable" after-hours. Odd actions for a body allegedly expressing its regret to the nation, no?. . .

This little stunt is but the latest in a wave a actions by the federal and some Southern state governments to "address" their race-based sins of the past. . . . If the Senate is looking for something to apologize to blacks for, how about sending judges to the federal bench who failed to enforce the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for, oh, about a hundred years?. . . How about apologizing for passing that mean-spirited tax cut for rich people a few years back, which will place a crushing debt on the backs of most Americans, but almost all black Americans, a few decades from now?!

And confirming Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court? What's up with that?!!! He was one of just three justices who just this week dissented in a ruling that a black death row convict in Texas was intentionally denied black jurors for no reason other than race. Y’all need to be apologizing for foisting his sorry behind on us!

The Senate can eat its apology, for all we care. . . If the Senate wants to show true regret for its past failings, it should drop the talk, and get with the action. . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006501.php

NBC authenticates the Downing Street memos (this seems trivial, but apparently the initial reluctance of some reporters to run with the story, post-Rathergate, was a fear that the memos might have been faked). OK, so now what’s their excuse?

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/14/10/16/confirmed/

More memos!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,4080933,full.story

See, the papers say, it’s all AP’s fault

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/14/downing/index.html
Editors rely on the worldwide wire service to let them know what's worthy of attention, and that's particularly true for international events. In the case of the Downing Street memo out of London, they say the AP simply failed to cover the story. . . Jim Cox, USA Today's senior assignment editor for foreign news, tells Salon that when the story first broke last month, "we looked to wires for guidance" but for days didn't see anything. . .

"The original story broke on a Sunday, so it was initially difficult to match without access to government officials and documents," said Nick Tatro, the AP's deputy international editor. Then, the AP editors who repeatedly considered doing a story, he said, didn't necessarily see the document as a clear-cut case of proving the manipulation of intelligence. . . "Our people felt it wasn't a completely clear comment from the raw material," Tatro said. "It was our intent to do a story, and it just didn't happen."

In response to a request for comment, Deborah Seward, AP's international editor, conceded to Salon in an e-mail, "Yes, there is no question AP dropped the ball in not picking up on the Downing Street memo sooner."

Where things stand

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9838

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/13/BL2005061300982.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

Video: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/14/165331/733

“The Lie of the Century” (thanks to Sandra Q for the link)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

I smell desperation. Bush claims huge “mandate,” crows about his “political capital,” has dominant majorities in both houses of Congress, but his agenda is going nowhere fast. So? It must be time to blame the Democrats

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2005/06/15/bush_blasts_democrats_for_agenda_of_road_block/

Why Bush’s poll numbers have dropped so far, and why it will be difficult to raise them again

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/14/2755/18795

In Iraq, a proposal of amnesty for the insurgents (uh-huh, just the sort of thing you do when you are winning and they are in their “last throes”)

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/14/10/04/standing-firm-2/

Enemies everywhere: first Amnesty International, now the International Red Cross

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/15/06/37/with-us-or-against-us/

Duke Cunningham, digging frantically to get out of the hole he’s dug for himself, only digs it deeper

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005822

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005828

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005829

DeLay vouches for Cunnigham’s integrity! (write your own punch line here)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005827

Grover Norquist takes a different path, goes into hiding

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006780
Looks like Grover Norquist -- who has been fighting a Senate Indian Affairs Committee subpoena of records from his outfit, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) -- won't be testifying about his connections to Jack Abramoff's lobbying shenanigans at the committee's upcoming hearing.

Bush staffer who rewrote global warming research lands on his feet (surprise, surprise) with a nice job at Exxon/Mobil – or maybe he was always working for them

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-surprise-bush-anti-global-warming.html

The tangled web of “Coin-gate” reveals the buddy-buddy system of GOP corporate welfare

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111875222386612549

More: http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11886514.htm

Frist (with McCain at his side) says he will call for another vote on Bolton: but since the WH continues to stonewall on relevant documents, it’s doubtful whether anything will change in the vote totals

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/14/bolton/index.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000722.html

Transcript: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000724.html

What game is McCain playing? (again)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000725.html

Democrats respond on Bolton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401462.html
A key Democratic senator warned yesterday that the Bush administration may be losing ground in its bid to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, as the White House continued to rebuff Democrats' request for documents related to the nominee.

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000726.html

The myth of Bolton as a UN “reformer”

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120933/fr/rss/
The WSJ notices that for all the administration's talk about how John Bolton, the currently blocked nominee for U.N. ambassador, is needed to reform the institution, neither the White House nor Bolton has offered many details. "The U.S. is essentially playing possum on the entire reform question," said one prof. It's a good piece—except:

"The U.S. agenda on reform is not to constrain the U.N. or put it in a box because of its problems," said a senior State Department official. "Our purpose is to revitalize the U.N. so it can better carry out the missions outlined in its charter."

Such a bold statement. No wonder the official was granted anonymity.

Bolton vote on Thursday?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000728.html

“In the American Bunker” (a must-read)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-31.htm

Why the Washington establishment won’t give Howard Dean a break (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050614/spanking_the_chairman.php
[Paul Waldman] On Sunday’s Meet the Press, [David] Broder scolded Dean. . . “By focusing so much on his own comments rather than looking for a way to give the party a policy voice, he’s really done them a disservice.”

Which is sort of like me punching you in the nose, then saying, “What you need to do is stop focusing so much on your nose.”

And so it goes for Howard Dean. When Wolf Blitzer interviewed Dean recently, he asked five questions critical of comments Dean had made, then posited that the Democrats have been “spectacularly unsuccessful in recent elections…doing very, very badly,” then to close the interview asked four more questions about statements Dean had made. Frustrated with Dean’s attempts to discuss—get this—policy issues, Blitzer at one point said, “One other quote you made that's been—you've been asked about this—you don't have to respond, but I'll just read it.” That’s what passes for journalism on cable news these days. . .

The Washington journalistic establishment just doesn’t like Howard Dean. He’s rough around the edges, and he doesn’t play by the rules, especially the rule casting Democrats as perennially weak and apologetic . And reporters didn’t have to look too hard to find Democrats who would go on record about their displeasure with Dean.

Democratic politicians sometimes seem so ignorant about how the news media work, one wonders how they ever got elected in the first place. Here’s a tip: If you want reporters to write about all the things the Bush administration is doing wrong, don’t criticize your party chair to them. . .

Of course, Joe Biden has his own twisted reasons

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/15/11522/3301

Is Dean a genius?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/14/103123/373

Poll of the most, least popular Senators: a map of vulnerable GOP seats

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/14/131959/659

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/14/122017/350

Judge Roy Moore, of Ten Commandments fame, may still cause trouble for the GOP

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006504.php

More: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/14/conservatives_popularity_may_be_problem_for_gop/

The Dems search for “new ideas” (sigh)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006770

More: http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060905/dems.html
Aside from considering their broader message, New Democrats also discussed a desire to weigh in soon on predatory lending, one attendee said. . .

Good analysis of the Larry Franklin case (thanks to Laura Rozen for the link)

http://www.nysun.com/article/15374

Bill Gates sells out to sell to China

http://billmon.org/archives/001904.html

The end of PBS: former Republican National Committee co-chair being considered as next president

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506130001

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506140001

Fox News “interviews” Bush (smooooch!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/09/BL2005060901050.html
Later, Gibson had this to say: "Now, Neil, nobody can talk to the president very long without bringing up the war."

Cavuto: "Right..."

And yet, somehow the topic never came up. . .

CNN – used to be a news network

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111878573686488022
[Atrios] Wolf the Beard just informed his viewers that (rough quote) "A recent string of abductions have some grandparents concerned and wondering what they can do to keep their children safe. . . "

Look, this is just tabloid journalism. He's implying that there have been more abductions than usual, rather than just more abducted people who CNN deems attractive enough to cover 24/7. One of the abductions, of course, wasn't even an abduction.

Actual journalism would involve taking 15 seconds away from the Where the White Women At show to actually answer the question of whether there has actually been an uptick in abductions.

CNN notices the porn star at the GOP fundraiser (sort of)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/14/pornstar.gop.ap/index.html

Fox definitely takes notice (woo-hoo!)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/uh-oh-hes-that-brian-wilson-ooooooh.html

Why it all matters

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/this-is-why-ive-been-pushing-mary.html

WH does NOT want to talk about it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/white-house-refusing-to-explain-why.html

Bonus item: The Return of the Bulge

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/06/buldge_redux.html

[NB: You know, this shouldn’t be such a tough thing for the WH beat reporters to track down, if they really wanted to. For those of us who always believed that Bush was wired during the debates (does anyone doubt this is just the sort of thing they would do?), it is infuriating that there seems to be so little interest in what would certainly be a massive investigative coup]

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:23 AM

 
IF A TREE FALLS. . .

We are slowly moving past the scandal of the Downing Street memo, and the other documents that show Bush lied about when he decided to go to war AND lied about the excuses that were constructed to justify it. Okay, we all get this.

The scandal now is, Why DON’T the media in this country want to acknowledge what a scandal this is?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_digbysblog_archive.html#111863836287781943
[Digby] I honestly don't know why there is any question that the Downing St Memo is the most important historical document to emerge showing that Bush and company took us into Iraq on false pretenses. . .

The fact of the matter is that the media are part of the political establishment, as as such, had as much of a stake in making the case for the war as the administration did, despite the fact that many of them knew very well there was no threat. They couldn't wait to go to war. They were intoxicated by bloodlust and they sold that bloodlust like it was the best reality show in history --- "9/11: America's Revenge" and they were right. It was a hell of a show.

All of this we know and have known for some time. But that doesn't mean that there is no story now. Indeed, the Downing Street Memo presents a chance for the press to redeem itself; this isn't the end of the story. So far, it has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even broaching the subject of what this administration has done and their own complicity in it. They may never be able to admit all that. But in that it officially documents the fact that the administration knew there was no threat and knew there was no connection to terrorism, the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq. . .

More: http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/06/13/drhousem.htm

More on how the New York Times shamefully misinterpreted the pre-Downing Street memo yesterday. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1079

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/13/nyt_shuffle/index.html

. . . and here’s what else the memos say (thanks to Ahmad Sultan for some of these links)

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1078
British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.” [Iraq: Options Paper]

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]. . .

Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I3A22324B
[Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary] In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. . . A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We have also to answer the big question - what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than in anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq’s WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

More: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/13/dsm_briefing/index.html

The examples keep coming: here’s how CNN covered the story (warning: if you have high blood pressure problems, stop reading now)

http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000989.php
But this evening, here's CNN Headline News saying that the Downing Street Memo "suggests that the Bush administration saw the Iraq war as inevitable. . . "

Yeah, like Hitler saying that his invasion of Poland was inevitable.

NBC's version

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/
In fact, current and former diplomats tell NBC News they understood from the beginning the Bush policy to be that Saddam had to be removed — one way or the other. The only question was when and how.

[NB: And so it's okay that they lied to start a war to do it]

More: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/12.html#a3414

The role of bloggers in keeping this issue alive

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/downing-street-memos-and-revenge-of.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120821/fr/rss/

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/13/1113/50370

U.S. military leaders realize the insurgency in Iraq can’t be defeated militarily

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/11879261.htm
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics - an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency. . . Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

[NB: The only thing surprising about this story is that anyone is surprised. This was an entirely predictable scenario for anyone not taken in by the “we will be greeted as liberators” delusions of the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis]

Feingold introduces Senate resolution calling for troop withdrawal (this will be fun to watch if it ever gets debated on the floor)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/13/193739/182

More Republicans call for closing Guantanamo. . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/13/gitmo/index.html

. . . so it must be time to roll out the Designated Liar (hey, he has no shame – he’ll say ANYTHING)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13cnd-cheney.html
Responding to calls by some Democrat and Republican lawmakers to shut down the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, Vice President Dick Cheney today strongly defended the treatment and detention of prisoners there, saying that the detainees have been treated far better than by "any other government on the face of the Earth."

[NB: This explains why we have let Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog groups into the prison to witness how wonderfully and humanely they’re being treated. . . right?. . . uhh. . .you mean they HAVEN’T?]

Lies? or just “misleading”?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005814

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/13/231126/424

Which is more appalling: this story, or the fact that the Post buried it on page 15?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301550.html
Defense officials from Russia and the United States last week helped block a new demand for an international probe into the Uzbekistan government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials. . . British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in a communique issued by defense ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a daylong meeting in Brussels on Thursday.

Here’s how much Bush really cares about helping Africa

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-dont-waste-our-money-by-refusing.html

Say, how’s that Saddam Hussein trial coming along?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011083.html
Last week, lawyers for Mr. Hussein complained that he had been allowed only two meetings with them since he was arrested in Iraq in December 2003.

Twenty Senators don’t want their names associated with an anti-lynching bill (but since they insisted on a voice vote, not a roll call, no one knows who they are. . . yet. Ask your Senators which way they voted)

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/14/0014/17164

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/quick-note-from-john.html

Big Bolton announcement due later this morning (from Frist and McCain). That pairing suggests to me that they will announce a “deal” on the WH releasing some heavily-edited form of the documents, not at all what the Democrats are asking for – but unilaterally declaring that the impasse is “over.” We’ll see

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000720.html

Another dishonest and totally unworkable Republican plan for Social Security

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006760

Amazing: you know about GOP party discipline in terms of voting loyalty, but look at how they puts the screws on members to enforce fundraising efforts (a full-time job from the looks of it – no wonder these people don’t know anything about the legislation they’re voting on)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006499.php

I hear pink triangles work just fine for this purpose

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/christian-coalition-leader-wants-gays.html
The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group says that gays should be required to wear warning labels. . . "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," said Rev. Bill Banuchi, executive director of the New York Christian Coalition.

74% of Republicans are white Christians – but Howard Dean is a bad guy for pointing it out

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006498.php

Talk about the pot calling the kettle. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1489
[Dick Cheney] "I think Howard Dean's over the top. I've never been able to understand his appeal.. . . So far, I think he's probably helped us more than he has them. That's not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party."

. . . Vice-President Richard B. Cheney (himself the recipient of a much-coveted 60% disapproval rating).

The Franklin indictment revealed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061300738.html
A Pentagon analyst has been indicted on charges that he leaked classified military information to employees of a pro-Israel lobbying organization and an Israeli official, federal authorities said Monday. . .

None of the charges involves espionage. . . The FBI's long-running investigation has focused on whether Franklin, of Kearneysville, W.Va., passed classified U.S. material on Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential main Israeli lobbying organization in Washington, and whether that group in turn passed it on to Israel. Both AIPAC and Israel deny any wrongdoing.

Washington Post covers GOP fundraiser, doesn’t mention one of the. . .err. . .guests

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/wash-post-refuses-to-mention-porn-star.html

Will anyone with access to sources follow up on Billmon’s breaking story (yesterday) about the Pentagon's propaganda office?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002150.html

Any national news follow-ups to the Duke Cunningham story, broken yesterday?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_12.php#005815
[Josh Marshall] From the plain facts of the matter, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday, it seems like there's a pretty strong case that this defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, gave a congressman a personal gift of almost three-quarters of a million dollars and hid it in the form of home sale. And this was a congressman who was in a position to -- and by his own account apparently did --help the contractor secure numerous defense and intelligence contracts valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

That sounds like sort of a big deal, doesn't it?

So far Google News shows no pick ups for the story, only a reprint in a paper from just north of San Diego.

Yet another example of how right-wingers get away with saying ANYTHING on their agitprop network

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506130003
[Brit Hume] I think that these kinds of problems and accusations [about prisoner abuse at Guantánamo] and so forth grow out of a community that stretches from the American left through much of Europe to enemies across the world from which terrorism springs, who want the world to believe that America is what's wrong with the world, or is in danger always of being what's wrong with the world, and if this administration starts yielding to those critics, it will be a very perilous path –

[NB: Yes, the infamous leftist/Euro/terrorist alliance. Damn! And I thought we were being so cagey about keeping that secret. Run, boys, we’ve been exposed by the relentless journalism of Brit Hume!]

Bonus item: Fascinating. How are right-wing political blogs different from left-wing political blogs?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/134225/847

[NB: One difference: leading left-wing and liberal blogs create a space for readers to question and disagree with them -- leading right-wing blogs don't. (And, no, PBD doesn't: if you want to argue with these postings, go to the original authors, please)]

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:38 AM

 
BREAKING FAITH

One of the peculiar reactions from some progressives on the Downing Street memo and follow-up news is that we knew all this before and the real problem is why it wasn’t made into an issue earlier, when the war might have been stopped. Fair enough.

But while news junkies and obsessives do know all this already, it is news to a lot of Americans – and when we float the “old news” line, it excuses the current media who are inclined to say the same thing as a rationale for ignoring it all. New, explicit confirmation of what we might have known or guessed earlier IS new news.

Furthermore, the present denials of Bush, Blair, Mehlman, et al. are also new news. These documents show them to be flat-out liars. And even if the revisiting of these documents only proves their CURRENT lies and attempts to rewrite history, that’s just as important, perhaps more so

Here’s why this issue still matters

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006487.php
So: three high level officials from our closest military partner came to Washington for high level talks. All three came to identical conclusions. What's more, the balance of the DSM is a discussion of military plans and legal justifications that assumes military action as a given. The only question mark is the exact date.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/bush-and-blair-committed-to-war-in.html
As Michael Smith reports for the London Times, "regime change" is illegal in international law without a United Nations Security Council resolution or other recognized sanction (national self-defense, or rescuing a population from genocide, e.g.). Since the United Kingdom is signatory to the International Criminal Court, British officials could be brought up on charges for crimes like "Aggression.". . . Smith quotes the briefing and then remarks on how it shows Bush and Blair to be lying when they invoke their approach to the UN as proof that they sought a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11872791.htm
Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who is now a war analyst at Boston University, said: "The memo is significant because it was written by our closest ally, and when it comes to writing minutes on foreign policy and security matters, the British are professionals. We can conclude that the memo means precisely what it says. It says that Bush had already made the decision for war even while he was insisting publicly, and for many months thereafter, that war was the last resort. . . This is no longer a suspicion or accusation. The memo is an authoritative piece of information, at the highest level."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo-best-breakdown-of.html
[Mark Danner] At this point in the meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair weighed in. He had heard his foreign minister's suggestion about drafting an ultimatum demanding that Saddam let back in the United Nations inspectors. Such an ultimatum could be politically critical, said Blair—but only if the Iraqi leader turned it down:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.... If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

Here the inspectors were introduced, but as a means to create the missing casus belli. If the UN could be made to agree on an ultimatum that Saddam accept inspectors, and if Saddam then refused to accept them, the Americans and the British would be well on their way to having a legal justification to go to war (the attorney general's third alternative of UN Security Council authorization).

Thus, the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111858031387398813
There are two sets of people here. One consists of inside the beltways types and assorted news junkies and the other consists of The Amerkin Public. The former knew the Iraq war was a foregone conclusion by early 2002, but didn't bother to tell the Amerkin Public. They still haven't. I knew the dance with the UN was bullshit and I tried to point it out, but my blog is not all powerful. The American press did not bother to tell people. And, now, they still don't want to bother to tell people. . . It's just like Russert calling the Downing Street Memo the "famous" Downing Street Memo? Famous to whom?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111861011237504653
Meanwhile, the morons are still running the show:

Party strategist David Axelrod explained the Democratic wariness: "We already fought that battle [over Bush's veracity] and we lost. He got elected again. So even though the memo is important, there's a sense that people don't want to revisit the lead-up to war. Although I'm not sure I agree with that, when you look at the number of Americans dead today."

More: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3445&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://billmon.org/archives/001897.html

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1071

A brilliant summation

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111863178868234462
Reader mm writes in (slightly edited):

As far as I can understand the logic, the MSM decided in 2004 that war had been determined on in 2002, but that there was no way of proving it. So it was a non-issue, and the MSM gave the administration a pass. When the Brits leaked the DSM proof in May, the MSM then decides that this is old news (to themselves, anyway) and gives the administration a pass. I think Heller immortalized this type of logic as Catch 22.

But wait: it gets worse. Here is the NYT headline on their article today about the new pre-Downing Street memo

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html
Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120758/fr/rss/
That headline hangs on a single clause of a single sentence in the 2,300-word memo:

Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

[NB: This is really despicable. It's clear from the overall content of these memos that a decision HAD been made. What this line can only mean is that no FORMAL political decision had occurred -- a public speech announcing war plans, going to Congress for a vote of approval, etc. The headline perversely takes this line in the wrong way. Why?]

The full memo: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

A tremendous piece by Billmon on the growth of the propaganda branch of the Defense Department (the question is, propaganda directed at WHOM?)

http://billmon.org/archives/001900.html
Even before the Iraq invasion, you may recall, Rummy and the gang were scheming to create their own in-house propaganda and disinformation operation, to be called the Office of Strategic Influence. The program was nominally killed after the critics pointed out how easily the phony news it created could drift back into the domestic media. (This was back when the Democrats still had a foot in the door of power, and Rumsfeld had to back down every once in awhile.)

But the Donald soon made it clear he intended to push through the budgetary back door what he couldn't get through the front door. And after the Dems lost the Senate, he didn't even try too hard to conceal what he was doing. The occupation of Iraq -- and the money and lack of accountability it spawned -- put the Pentagon in the "strategic influence" business in a big way, with its own TV news operation (the Pentagon Channel), a Coalition-controlled Iraqi TV and radio network (now nominally in the hands of the Iraqi government, I presume, but still powered by Pentagon dollars and run by a U.S. vendor) and a millions of dollars to hire PR firms and consultants to spin the coalition's propaganda to the Iraqi people.

The net benefit of all this in terms of strategically influencing the Iraqis -- or the rest of the Islamic world -- has been roughly zero, or maybe even a negative number. But the benefit to the Bush administration and the Republican Party is a different sum, harder to measure. For some time now, one of my pet suspicions has been that the Pentagon's psywar budget is also a hidden piggy bank and an R&D laboratory for the GOP's own political propaganda operations.

I have no proof of this. I didn't even have anything that could reasonably called evidence, until today, when I came across this story. . .[read on!]

Let’s put the following pieces together: enlistments are way down, with no sign of a reversal; tours of duty have been doubled up and extended about as far as people can be pushed; mercenaries and private “contractors” have proven problematic and unreliable; and there are no prospects for major troop reductions any time soon. Add it all up, and where will Bush’s Iraq adventure be a year from now?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/12/10426/9414

Interesting question: will Chicago’s Democratic convention, 2008, look like the convention in 1968? (not the Grant Park part, I hope)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/12/21543/3239
[David Gelber] If the leadership of the Democratic Party (other than Ted Kennedy) continues to resist setting a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq, you can be sure that a Gene McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy will emerge to mobilize a peace bloc determined to get us out. And, quite obviously, we’re not talking about a fringe group.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.

It is still an open question whether Iraq will eventually dissolve into civil war (or whether it might already be in the midst of one)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/12/193517/621

Custer Battles: the bad penny that just won’t go away

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AM6RHO1.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
Former executives of Custer Battles -- an American firm accused of stealing millions from Iraq reconstruction projects and banned from further government contracts -- have continued doing contracting work and have formed new companies to bid on such projects, The Associated Press has learned.

And another corporation, gouging the U.S. to make huge profits off the war

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insure13jun13,0,1635361,full.story
For more than a year, AIG and industry allies have fought an initiative to cut the rates for workers' compensation insurance that U.S. contractors operating overseas are required to carry, according to interviews and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. . . Rates have soared since the war in Iraq began, raising suspicions among government officials that the companies may be overcharging contractors and, ultimately, taxpayers who foot the bill.

Is the proposal to close down Guantanamo gathering steam?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo13jun13,1,7117268.story

Lindsay Beyerstein argues that Sensenbrenner’s hissy fit to shut down a House committee hearing was not only a jerky thing to do, but illegal

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/06/12/sensenbrenner-illegally-terminates-patriot-hearing/

This GOP Congressman is in big trouble

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/13955/7106

The GOP is trying hard to label the Ohio coin fund scandal a local state matter: but the tentacles of Noe’s fundraising reach throughout the party – even up to Bush

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/ohio-gop-coin-gate-culture-of.html

Will Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s blatant and cynical use of a church to sign public legislation (to shouts of “amen” from the crowd) backfire and cost him moderate Republican support?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEXAS_GOVERNOR_RELIGION

Progressive core values: do you like this list?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/1956/07246

It must be asked, if Dean is such a horrendous choice as head of the DNC, why so many Republicans have been offering the helpful advice that the Dems should dump him (Cheney, for one). Now, of course, I’m sure they want nothing but the best for the Democratic party, but really, who cares what they think? Perhaps what bothers them is that there is someone, finally, in a prominent position willing to say things like this

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_atrios_archive.html#111862744603743161
"My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News," Dean said. That was in response to vice president Dick Cheney calling Howard Dean "over the top" on Fox News on Sunday.

[NB: Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats took this position across the board?]

Bonus item: NBC, CNN to merge (not really, it’s a joke, and a pretty funny one at that)

http://thepoorman.net/?p=179
“However, society has changed, and the business of journalism has changed with it. These days, with the increased opportunities available to white women, we as a nation are losing track of even the prettiest white women. White women are dissappearing in Aruba, from their jobs as Washington interns, and even right before their own weddings. And while we do our best to give the public all the necessary information about missing white women, the job is just too large for any one cable network to handle.

“And it is not just the number of white women who are going missing that is the problem. There are also white women who aren’t missing, but whose location and situation demands public attention. There are white women on trial for drowning their kids, white women who are dead but nobody knows who killed them, and even some white women who are on spring break and drunkenly flashing their breasts. Clearly, the sheer volume of white women stories is beyond anything journalists have ever had to deal with before.

But even when we restrict our coverage to only the prettiest white women, the coverage is often superficial and redundant. Really: does the public need to hear interviews with Jennifer Wilbanks’ bridesmaids on MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC? Of course not. The public should be able to hear interviews with Jennifer Wilbanks’ bridesmaids on MSNBC, interviews with her coworkers on CNN, and commentary by experts in the field of missing white women on CNBC. However, today, the fragmented nature of the cable news business makes such in-depth coverage impossible. With this merger, we will increase the breadth and depth of our missing white women coverage, and so meet our sacred obligation to keep the electorate informed and aware about where the white women are at.”

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:32 AM

 
CONNECTING THE DOTS

Bombshell of the morning. Now that Bush and Blair are on record saying that the Downing Street memo doesn’t mean what it says in plain English, today brings a SECOND memo that confirms the first, and more. In fact the B boys had already agreed to go to war THREE MONTHS BEFORE the July memo

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal. . .

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. . .

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. . .

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html
A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq. . .

"A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

[NB: I don’t see how Blair survives this. Bush?]

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-and-blair-lying-about-iraq-again.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/sf-chronicle-blasts-bush-over-downing.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006486.php

http://billmon.org/archives/001895.html

Will the MSM finally be shocked and shamed into treating this like the huge story it is?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/opinion/12rich.html

Now that Thursday Conyers hearing on the Downing Street memo looks a lot more interesting

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004611.php
[Steve Soto] First and most damaging to me, why would the White House see a need to build a strategic information campaign using White House staff to manipulate media coverage in favor of a war months in advance of going to the UN, Congress, and the American people if the issue and decision had not already been made? Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote a little-noticed but never disputed paper that outlined the steps the Bush Administration took to build what in essence was a strategic influence and disinformation campaign to manipulate the media and sway public opinion in favor of a war that Bush says he hadn’t yet decided upon. These efforts started with the creation of the Coalition Information Office by none other than Karen Hughes at about the same time the Downing Street Memo said that Bush had made up his mind. . . .

Second, none other than Bob Woodward himself in his wet-kiss book “Bush at War” reported that Bush authorized Rumsfeld to move approximately $700 million from Afghanistan reconstruction to the establishment of a logistical infrastructure to support an Iraq invasion, without the required congressional notice and authority. . .

And lastly, it has been reported that Bush dropped in on a White House meeting in Condi Rice’s office in March 2002, and blurted to the three startled US senators Rice was meeting with “Fuck Saddam, we’re going to take him out.”. . .

[NB: All of these stories were well covered at the time – but if that choice quote at the end isn’t in every major paper the day after the hearing – FROM MARCH 2002 – then you know the fix is in]

Hey, how is that Iraq war adventure coming along?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294
We see the war in Iraq only through the distorted lens of the occupiers. The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency, one I have myself felt, to protect those who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the unit and are, in effect, captives. They have no relationships with the occupied, essential to all balanced reporting of conflicts, but only with the Marines and soldiers who drive through desolate mud-walled towns and pump grenades and machine-gun bullets into houses, leaving scores of nameless dead and wounded in their wake. The reporters admire and laud these fighters for their physical courage. They feel protected as well by the jet fighters and heavy artillery and throaty rattle of machine guns. And the reporting, even among those who struggle to keep some distance, usually descends into a shameful cheerleading.

There is no more candor in Iraq or Afghanistan than there was in Vietnam, but in the age of live satellite feeds the military has perfected the appearance of candor. What we are fed is the myth of war. For the myth of war, the myth of glory and honor sells newspapers and boosts ratings, real war reporting does not. Ask the grieving parents of Pat Tillman. Nearly every embedded war correspondent sees his or her mission as sustaining civilian and army morale. This is what passes for coverage on FOX, MSNBC or CNN.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0611iraq-assess11.html
Military operations in Iraq have not succeeded in weakening the insurgency, and Iraq's government, with U.S. support, is now seeking a political reconciliation among the nation's ethnic and tribal factions as the only viable route to stability, according to U.S. military officials and private specialists.

Two years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Iraq conflict has evolved into a classic guerrilla war, they argue. Outbreaks of fighting are followed by periods of relative calm and soon thereafter by a return to rampant violence. Underscoring the strength of the insurgency, militants killed five U.S. Marines in a roadside bombing and authorities found 21 bodies on Friday near the Syrian border, where American and Iraqi troops conducted a major military operation in western Iraq.

Despite significant guerrilla setbacks and optimistic predictions by a host of American commanders earlier this year, the Sunni-backed insurgency remains as strong as ever, forcing U.S. officials and their Iraqi allies to seek a political solution to the bloodshed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/international/middleeast/12convene.html
The Bush administration, seeking to close the continuing rift between Shiite and dissident Sunni Arab leaders in Iraq, is enlisting Europe, the Arab world and the United Nations to pressure the Baghdad government to include minorities in the political process, administration and other diplomats say.

[NB: This is a stunning story. If we, of all people, don’t have leverage with the current Iraqi government, especially on such a basic issue as building a broad-based government, then what have we accomplished? More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1486]

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/06/11/18/10/a-long-war/
But but but… what happened to “the last throes” [Cheney] was talking about last week?

Vice President Dick Cheney lauded and thanked international special operations soldiers for helping fight terrorism but warned them that their work is far from over.

“We have a long war ahead of us, and our enemies are waiting for us to let our guard down,” Cheney said. . .

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/11/104210/554
"We have a chronic problem on our hands, not an acute problem," said South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of a Senate subcommittee on military personnel. "We should assume there are going to be 100,000 troops in Iraq two years from now, and continuing losses. It is time to repackage this war and let Americans know we are fighting for freedom."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/10/BL2005061001224_pf.html
"Faced with declining public support, Mr. Bush needs to tell Americans 'it's going to take a lot more time . . . at least through the end of 2006,' and explain what still has to be done there, Sen. Joe Biden told reporters after returning from his fifth visit to Iraq.

"The Delaware senator, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he gave his suggestion Tuesday to Stephen Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, after finding 'a total disconnect' between the situation in Iraq and optimistic statements by Mr. Bush and his top aides. . . .

"A White House aide acknowledged the Biden-Hadley meeting but had no comment on the senator's proposal, noting that Mr. Bush often speaks about the situation in Iraq."

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/msm-pay-no-attention-to-iraqfocus-on.html

Another Bush lie: “200 terrorists” tried and convicted under Patriot Act

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011069.html
[WP] An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

“Interrogating Ourselves”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/magazine/12TORTURE.html

Wow. The WH aide (and former oil company lobbyist) who was caught editing scientific reports on climate change, abruptly quits. Had you heard this story? I hadn’t

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002146.html
[NYT] Mr. Cooney's resignation came two days after documents revealed that he had edited government climate reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures. Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. Dana Perino, a deputy White House press secretary, said the decision was unrelated to revelations about the documents. Mr. Cooney did not respond to e-mail or phone messages left at his home.

BTW, the author of this story (Andrew Revkin) has been on the case of Bush Co. deceptions around global warming for years

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/06/lack_of_pattern.html

DeLay and his backers are trying very hard to bury any interest in his ethical problems: but the release of new stories like this ought to keep the issue alive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay12jun12,1,2337722.story
Watchdog groups say the documents suggest that DeLay's involvement in the committee — which he founded in 2001 using $50,000 provided by a parallel group he had run for years in Washington, Americans for a Republican Majority — was deeper than he has acknowledged.

Did Bill Frist violate campaign laws too? (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0605/12frist.html
Hundreds of thousands of dollars Frist's supporters had given him to run for the Senate were dwindling at a rapid rate. Much of that money was lost in a stock market investment that experts say was out of line with the way candidates traditionally invest campaign funds. Frist's campaign also took on more than $1 million in debt so that it could repay Frist for interest-free loans he made to his campaign six years earlier.

And then, in a decision experts say violated federal campaign regulations, Frist filed reports with the Federal Elections Commission that made it difficult for his contributors and political foes to determine just how bad off his campaign finances were. . .

The Frist campaign's reversal of fortunes, traced through bank documents and often incomplete and inaccurate campaign disclosure forms, centers on three key decisions Frist made in 2000 that ultimately drained away much of the money entrusted to him by his supporters. . .

A deal coming on Bolton information, in exchange for a vote? Or is this still all a Kabuki dance? (who's "trying" to reach a compromise, whose fault is it if it fails, etc?)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000716.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000717.html

The Republican congressman who thinks his intelligence connections are better than the whole rest of the federal government’s (and look who they are)

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002144.html

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9836

More: http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/10/13248/8867

Interesting event. Mel Martinez (R- FL), former Bush official and general tool, suddenly announces that he thinks closing Guantanamo wouldn’t be such a bad idea after all (what’s going on here?)

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3442

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_05.php#005809

Sunday talk show lineup

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/11/233236/550
Face the Nation: Pat Leahy vs Lindsey Graham; then WaPo Investigative rpt John Harris reports on his 2- yr exploration of Clinton's Penis.

The McLaughlin Group: Issue #1)John plays Dean-Fence #2)John Reports on his trip to Iran - how Iran would never use wmds - and outlines possible deal btn US and Iran

Late Edition: Chuck Hagel vs Dianne Feinstein; Imad Moustapha, Syrian Amb; Kissinger vs William Cohen; Lee Hamilton and John Lehman

This Weak: Barney Frank and Anthony Hsieh and Suze Orman ( Housing Bubble); then Walter Jones on his change in heart in supporting the Iraq Quagmire and "Freedom" Fries"

Foxx Propaganda: Duncan Hunter; Tom Malinowski, Director of Human Rights Watch; David McCullough

60 Minutes: How US Aid changes the life of an African Girl; Bob Dylan; Telephone scams on Elderly Americans

Meet the Corporate Press: Benedict Joe Biden; Curt Weldon; Then: Woodruff (Heather #1), Ifill (Heather #2), Broder (Heather #3) & Harwood discus how wildly popular George Bush is

Bonus item: Fox News is acting more and more like a political agency and not a news organization

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jon-alter/fox-watergate-and-intimi_2397.html
[Roger] Ailes is a very talented TV producer (and, by all accounts, an unusually good boss) who has brought his bare knuckles political skills to the media world. When he's attacked, he hits back harder, whatever the facts. His m.o. is distraction. He either unloads a barbed soundbite or hides behind his munchkins and assumes his anonymously-sourced counterattack will just fuzz up the issue and make people focus on something other than the fraudulence of his claim to being "fair and balanced." He assumes his adversaries are patsies who will be easily cowed into silence. This time, he assumed wrong.

More on the blending of news and politics: http://thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=3331

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:00 AM

 
BENIGN NEGLECT

This is an old story, but if anyone wants MATERIAL PROOF that Bush decided early, in July 2002, to go after Iraq, perhaps someone could ask why he transferred $700 million from Afghanistan funds to begin preparing for an attack on Iraq (and, by the way, that’s illegal)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/06/ana05019.html

And here is even more evidence, collected by Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/piles-of-smoking-guns-kind-readers.html

But the most ridiculous Downing Street defense of all. You guessed it: it’s all Clinton’s fault. As reader David Noreen asks, given that this administration has always had contempt for all things Clinton, why is it that whenever they really get backed up to the wall they whine “but Clinton did it first”?

http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/06/reconsidering_t.php

On Bolton: someone’s leaking. The Dems clearly know some of the names Bolton was spying on via the NSA intercepts. Fun ahead. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/politics/11bolton.html

Why would the Bush gang want to appoint someone to the U.N. who hates the U.N.?