THE BIG LIE

Let me explain something to the Republicans. When you start a war, it is and should be the number one story every day in the news, until it’s over. Americans are in harm’s way every single day at your bidding. People, often innocent civilians, are killed every single day. This war is rightly hung around your necks because you wanted it and forced it upon the country. Don’t whine now

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/bill-frist-complains-that-spotlight-is_30.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sat for an interview with bloggers Captain Ed and Powerline's John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson. Sen. Frist gave many notable answers, but the most notable, by far, was his complaint that Democrats are putting the "spotlight" on the war in Iraq . . .

[Frist]: I think what they’re doing – it’s such a political problem – is that they’re taking the spotlight and doing whatever they can to focus that spotlight on Iraq . . .

Why this focus on Iraq scares the Republicans so much

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/30/124253/171
In the study, half of the respondents were asked questions about President Bush and the war in Iraq before answering questions about the Senate race, and half were asked about the Senate race first. Among those respondents who were asked about Bush and Iraq first, [Democrat] Menendez held a two point advantage, 41 to 39 percent. But among the respondents who were not primed to think about the war in Iraq, [Republican] Kean held an 11 point advantage, 47 to 36 percent.

[Matt Stoller] When voters hear Iraq, they think Democrats are strong. When voters hear nothing or they hear terrorism, they think Republicans are strong. There will be an October surprise of some sort, either a ramping up of Iran or just jawboning. We know it. So let's just get ready and make sure that this election is about 'the overseas war on terror', ie. Iraq, and not who's tough enough to turn America into a complete security state.

Bush gears up for (are you ready?) ANOTHER public relations blitz to build up support for the war in Iraq

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8336.html
[Steve Benen] It's like a football coach who only knows how to call one play. . .

As the WSJ noted, this latest series of speeches will be "the president's third major round of Iraq addresses in less than a year." Indeed, the whole strategy is looking awfully familiar. Consider this item from the Washington Post, under the headline, "Bush Goes on Offensive To Explain War Strategy":

President Bush plans to begin a series of speeches next week again explaining the administration's strategy for winning the war in Iraq, as the White House returns to a familiar tactic to allay growing public pessimism about the war that has helped keep the president's approval rating near its historic low.

That was from March, though it might as well have been from this morning.

To be fair, there are subtle differences between these "major public-relations offensives." The first round of speeches — let's call them the "don't believe your lying eyes" series — sought to convince Americans that the war effort really isn't a disaster. The second round tried to emphasize that the president really does have a plan to succeed; we just have to be patient.

This third try will emphasize what Republicans everywhere will be saying between now and the first Tuesday in November: this is bad, but the alternative is worse. (In other words, expect to hear "If we leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here" quite a bit.) . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1287.html
[Ezra Klein] I'd love to know which "major public-relations offensive to strengthen support for the Iraq War" we're at now. Is this the fifth? The seventh? The twelfth? Because while Rummy accuses Democrats of "campaigning on fear" (see, irony's not dead!) and Bush denounces all of us who eventually want to stop running Iraq, I'm getting, well, bored. This is the third set of major speeches Bush has given on the issue this year, and the song and dance remains the same. We can't abandon the mission, we must stay the course, any sort of orderly withdrawal or redeployment is catnip for terrorists, and so on. . .

The White House explains its new PR offensive (once again intentionally blurring the War in Iraq with the War Against Terror)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7036
Q What is different about this particular push than the previous three over the past year, and even before that, dating all the way back? He's always highlighted the high stakes involved. He's always highlighted the fact that there needs to be an ability to adapt to the enemy and fight in different ways. What is different about this one?

MS. PERINO: Our nation is heading into the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and it is important that the President be talking to the American public about this war that we didn't start . . .

[NB: This WHAT??!??]

Great story from Ron Suskind’s new book

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/cheney-tried-to-use-cia-in-2004-to.html
"In mid November 2004, a few weeks after the President's reelection... Cheney wanted a portion of a particular CIA report declassified and made public. [CIA analytical chief Jami] Miscik knew the report - it was about the complex, often catalytic connections between the war in Iraq and the wider war against terrorism. The item the Vice President wanted declassified was a small part that might lead one to believe that the war was helping the broader campaign against violent Jihadists. The report, she knew, concluded nothing of the sort. To release that small segment would be willfully misleading. She told the briefer to tell Cheney that she didn't think that was such a good idea. The Vice President expressed his outrage to Porter Goss."

Porter Goss then had one of his deputies call the analyst and tell her "Saying no to the Vice President is the wrong answer."

Here it comes: The Big Lie

http://www.examiner.com/a-234704~Bush__Leaving_Iraq_would__embolden_terrorists_.html
President Bush warned on Monday that Democrats might cut off funding for Iraq if they win control of Congress in November . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003177.html
President Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield, charges that many Democrats say distort their stated positions.

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. . . .

[NB: Yes, my friends, those treasonous Democrats plan to leave our brave men and women stranded in the hot sands of the desert with no boots, no bullets for their guns, no food, no body armor (oops – drop that one). . .

Once again we see how vicious these liars really are. Here’s the truth of the matter:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14365222/
The most explicit proposal to end the U.S. deployment to Iraq has the backing of only 17 out of the 201 House Democrats. . . That House measure, the “End the War in Iraq Act of 2005,” (H.R. 4232) was proposed by Rep. Jim McGovern, D- Mass. and would simply cut off funding for the Iraq deployment, except for money needed for "the safe and orderly withdrawal" of U.S. soldiers.]

Iraq might be ready to take over security duties in 12-18 months, U.S. general says (and that’s supposed to be the GOOD news)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL056267.htm

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/general-casey-gives-optimistic-view-of.html
[Chris] Wow, like we haven't seen enough of this routine. Does Casey think that the American public is a bunch of idiots? Same, same and it's getting really old. . .

Keith Olbermann on Rumsfeld: just go, listen or read it for yourself

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. . . [don't miss it!]

I try to avoid shrillness and hyperbole here, but these same maniacs really do want to stage an attack against Iran

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/30/fox-selling-iran-war/

Here’s how bad it is: even ever-reasonable and moderate Matt Yglesias blows his stack

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009588.php
The Iran debate has really become rather surreal. You have the "Islamofascist" locution jumping from the fever swamps of rightwing punditry into the mouth of the President of the United States. You have the Secretary of Defense issuing dire warnings of another Munich. These things are being done by the exact same people who, four years ago, were utterly dismissive of claims that invading Iraq was likely to serve Iranian interests better than American ones. Indeed, you have the exact same people who two years ago were assuring us that it made sense to commit American blood and treasure to fight Sunni insurgents on behalf of Iranian-backed Shiite militias now saying we need to commit more blood and treasure in Iraq to stop . . . Iranian-backed Shiite militias. . .

And then there's the small matter that our purported would-be Hitlers in Teheran were trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States as recently as 2003. Their proposal was rejected by the Bush administration. Not rejected, I remind you, because the Bushies found the details of the proposal inadequate and Teheran refused to compromise further. No! It was rejected without any effort at negotiation because, at the time, the administration was busy threatening to overthrow the government of Iran as the second or third item in an ambitious plan to overthrow every government in the region. . .

I'm sorry to have gone on at such great length here, and a little nervous about stepping outside the "sensible" zone with my commentary on this topic, but somebody needs to call bull$#*t on the prevailing elite consensus about Iran. Of course it would be better to find a way to persuade, cajole, whatever Iran out of going nuclear -- the spread of nuclear weapons is, as such, bad for the USA. But there's no need -- absolutely no need -- for this atmosphere of panic and paranoia.

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009589

What the HELL is going on here?!

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004831.html
From a reader who covers the White House: "So, I’m reading Powerline, as I do every day. And I’m skimming Hinderaker’s account of meeting with Frist … and suddenly I see it. 'He tells a chilling story of receiving a call from President Bush a week before the recent British airline bomb plot was disrupted. The message at that time, communicated to less than a handful of top federal officials, was that a terrorist plan was known to be in progress which could kill several thousand Americans, but there was no assurance that it could be stopped.' Um, beg pardon? Can this be true? Bush told Frist fully one week before the bust that there as some kind of plot that 'could kill several thousand Americans'? Why would Bush provide such useless, vague information with zero security value? Did Frist ask for any more information? Who else was told that 'there was no assurance that it could be stopped'? Any Congressional Democrats on that call list?"

The Goofus Files

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115696466469838001
BRIAN WILLIAMS: . . . Do you have any moments of doubt that we fought a wrong war? Or that there's something wrong with the perception of America overseas?

BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely -- I have no doubt -- the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let's hope calm works. And we were attacked.

WILLIAMS: But those weren't Iraqis.

BUSH : They weren’t, no, I agree, they weren't Iraqis, nor did I ever say Iraq ordered that attack, but they're a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorists. Now in terms of image, of course I worry about American image. We are great at TV, and yet we are getting crushed on the PR front. I personally do not believe that Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said, “al-Qaida, attack America.” . . [read on]

The public has lost interest, but do you remember all the excuses from the Bush gang about how narrowly focused their warrantless spying program was?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7033
[Holden] Note that in this case both ends of the telephone conversations (which were illegally eavesdropped upon without a warrant) were within the United States despite Bush Assministration claims that they only eavesdrop sans warrant on calls where one party is located abroad. . .

As I often repeat here, Rove 101 says, “always accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/gop.fascism.ap/index.html

More: http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/08/post_316.html

The kind of people they are (part 1)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/125558/900
Hey Commie:

Imagine my chagrin when I used a search engine to find commentary about myself, and there was your shallow, dilettante, asshole self, labeling me a "white supremacist."

Being the shallow, nigger-loving dilettante that you are, you probably DO consider niggers to be your equal (who am I to question this?): Yet, unlike you and your allies, I have an I.Q. in excess of 130, which grants me the ability to objectively evaluate the Great American Nigro (Africanus Criminalis.). . . [more of the same deleted] . . .

I honestly pray to God that some nigger fucks, kills and eats you and everyone you claim to love!

Earl P. Holt III
4029 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO
63110-3621 . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/171616/569
George Allen [R-VA] speaking today . . . "You can tell a lot about people by the folks they stand with" . . .

He’s not the only one: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115699935468774603

The kind of people they are (part 2)

http://sideshow.me.uk/saug06.htm#08301450
[WP] A federal judge on Tuesday allowed an anti-affirmative action proposal to go before Michigan voters despite agreeing that it won a place on the November ballot through widespread fraud. . . . Opponents said the advocacy group misrepresented the referendum's ultimate aims while petitioning to put the issue on the ballot. The group submitted more than 508,000 voter petition signatures, far more than the 317,517 required by state law. The ballot wording approved by the state elections director twice refers to a ban on "affirmative action," a phrase that did not appear on the group's petition.

[Avedon Carol] A group formed calling itself "the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" and collected signatures on "a civil rights petition". Nothing on the papers informed signers that the initiative was for an anti-Affirmative Action proposal. The judge agrees that this was fraud but allows the proposal onto the ballot anyway despite the fact that it is not the proposal petition-signers were led to believe they were supporting.

Corporate killers

http://www.slate.com/id/2148712/
[Andrew Rice] The WP, following a Boston Globe scoop, fronts a piece that says that scientific studies have determined that the amount of nicotine in cigarettes increased an average of 10 percent between 1998 and 2004. The cigarette companies say they have no idea how it could have happened. A judge in a recent federal lawsuit determined that the companies have "designed their cigarettes to precisely control nicotine delivery levels." More nicotine makes cigarettes more addictive and harder to quit.

Joe Lieberman SAYS he doesn’t want to undermine the Democratic cause. But what does he say when it is pointed out that his increasingly cozy relationship with Connecticut Republicans could jeopardize a Democratic takeover of the House?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8337.html
"They should have thought of that during the primary, but here we are."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/30/114143/325
[Chris Bowers] I have watched the video, which is difficult to stomach and which I will not reproduce here since it is Faux News, and there seem to be two ways to read this quote. One reading would be that Lieberman thinks that instead of voting their conscience, Democratic primary voters should have instead capitulated to his threats to leave the party. The other reading is that the party establishment, which gave their complete support to Lieberman during the primary, should never have allowed the primary to happen in the first place. Either way, Lieberman clearly views his run as revenge against Democrats for actually engaging in party democracy. So, either voters should be swayed through threats, or votes should not be allowed to take place. No matter which reading is accurate, Lieberman's sheer disdain for democracy is overwhelming. As far as he is concerned, democracy is only useful as long as it allows you to remain in power, and now he is just a tough parent punishing bad children who actually had the gall to vote for someone else. This is pure, arrogant, aristocracy, through and through.

Is Lieberman riding off into the sunset?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/135146/739

Well, it’s official – it was Ted Stevens (R-AK) who issued that secret hold which blocked a bill calling for open disclosure of govt grants and contracts (and whose exposure, by the way, is a great victory for grassroots efforts on the net). And Stevens is without question one of the worst abusers of the system. But wait, it gets better: his reason for blocking it?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009593
[Justin Rood] Why did Alaska GOP Sen. Ted Stevens (the $250 million "Bridge to Nowhere" Ted Stevens) say he's holding up a $15 million proposal to create transparency in government spending?

He's worried about the cost.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/183713/462
But Sen. Coburn's spokesman John Hart questioned Stevens' motive. "The only reason to oppose this bill is if he has something to hide," Hart said. . .

Do you think it’s just an accident that Ken Tomlinson, after bringing a more conservative bent to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, was rewarded with a new job in the State Dept even after being fired for misconduct at CPB?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/state-department-report-shows-massive.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/washington/29cnd-broadcast.html
Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year following a separate inquiry that found evidence that he had violated rules meant to insulate public television and radio from political influence. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8330.html
[Steve Benen] We're dealing with a man who has lied, schemed, and politicized his way through nearly three years of government service. But let's not forget one key detail: he's still working in the administration, in a key diplomatic post.

Nearly a year ago, Tomlinson resigned from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, after a series of amateurish scandals. Yet, despite all of his humiliating hackery at the CPB, Karl Rove also made Tomlinson the head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent government commission that oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Liberty, and Radio Sawa and its sister TV network, Alhurra — making Tomlinson a key person in America's international diplomacy.

As Franklin Foer explained in a very good TNR piece a year ago, Tomlinson has run the BBG just as he ran the CPB, "purging the bureaucracy of political enemies, zealously rooting out perceived 'liberal bias,' and generally politicizing institutions that have resisted ideological intrusions for decades."

And now he's been caught, again, misusing government resources and violating government personnel policies. How long will the White House stand by this clown?

[NB: Steve’s a pretty smart guy – but he misses the point here. Tomlinson is doing EXACTLY what they want him to be doing, and they will keep him in harness as long as they can, until the law or public pressure force them to get rid of him]

Lazy journalism

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/11391/0969
[Cleveland Plain Dealer] In a county that proudly paints itself political red, where about 70 percent of voters backed President Bush in 2004, Nathan Estruth showed up at a park Saturday morning to hear the blue people.

In particular, he wanted to listen to Ted Strickland, the Democratic candidate for governor who, with U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, was headlining a three-day bus tour promoting the party's statewide ticket in some of Ohio's most Republican counties.

Estruth, a father of four who typically votes Republican, milled in the back of a partisan crowd of about 100. . . At the urging of a friend, he came to give the Democrats, who have been out of power in Ohio for more than a decade, a chance to win his vote. . .

After the 40-minute rally, Estruth said he was not ready to vote Democratic. He was put off, he said, by their harsh rhetoric.

"I wanted to see if he was an executive with clear plans for fixing the state," he said about Strickland. "What I got was partisan talk. He confirmed my worst fears."

[Kos] So, um, who is Nathan Estruth? The president of Common Sense Ohio, a Blackwell-allied group running hundreds of thousands of attack ads across Ohio targetting Strickland.

And the dumbass reporter Mark Maymik at the Cleveland Plain Dealer represented him as an unbiased regular voter.

More lazy journalism

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html
State Department official source of Plame leak

[NB: Lazy because (1) while Armitage was a source, possibly even the first source to discuss Plame with reporters, he wasn’t the only source; (2) Armitage wasn’t the one who told Novak that Plame was a CIA operative, and (3) Armitage wasn’t the person to start intentionally circulating the Plame/Wilson connection within the government: that was Libby (presumably at Cheney’s bidding)]

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015617.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] The Times says this ends the mystery. I disagree. The question remains of whether there was a concerted effort to use Valerie Plame Wilson's undercover or classified employment status with the CIA in an attempt to smear Joe Wilson. . .

[NB: And also whether there was a concerted effort to cover up the conspiracy through lying and convenient forgetfulness – which is what has Libby in trouble, not the leak itself]

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3316

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=116511

Will we ever know the truth of what happened in the Ohio 2004 presidential vote?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/washington/31ohio.html
“We’re not claiming that what we found reveals a huge conspiracy,” Mr. Rosenfeld said. “What we’re claiming is that what we found at least reveals extremely shoddy handling of ballots, and there are some initial indications of local-level ballot stuffing.”

In Miami County, Mr. Rosenfeld said, the team found discrepancies of 5 percent or more in some precincts between the people in the signature books and the certified results. . .

Ann Coulter calls for the murder of another public official

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608310001

Are people wising up to the scam? Fox News ratings “dropping precipitously”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8333.html

If you don’t think the traditional media is threatened by the bloggers, look at the lengths this article goes through to paint the whole blogosphere as a bunch of whacked-out nuts

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060830/opcom30.art.htm

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7039

Bonus item: Here is the subversive, dangerous, highly offensive Arabic t-shirt that got a young man kicked off an airplane (thanks to Ahmad S. for the link)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-02.htm

***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 @ 7:28 AM

 
THE POLITICS OF FEAR

It’s all they have left

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15378263.htm
[Robert Steinback] The perception that Bush's popularity grows as the threat of terrorism rises remains a powerful one, particularly with Vice President and chief White House ideologue Dick Cheney. If news reports are correct, Cheney both pressured the British to reveal their investigation earlier than they felt necessary, then used this prior knowledge to try to frighten U.S. voters inclined to support anti-Iraq war candidates like Ned Lamont, who upset Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's recent Democratic primary.

This perception is built on the notion that a frightened, trembling America is a pro-Bush America. . .

But that was back when most Americans hadn't yet grasped that conventional warfare isn't the prescription for fighting terrorism. Kicking butt militarily felt real good for a while. That was before it became clear the extremist enemy had devised a counter-strategy previously tested against the Soviet Union: Bog down the opposing military machine far from home, then wear it down psychologically through expensive and bloody attrition.

Americans aren't falling for this ''only more war can protect you from the evil terrorists'' routine as easily as they once did . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009581
[Matt Yglesias] Accepting the Bush administration's view that the more dangerous the Bush administration makes the world the more we need to keep on keepin' on with the Bush approach is . . . absurd.

First up, Dick Cheney

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8321.html
"I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

[Steve Benen] Cheney has been using this one quite a bit, and it's a fascinating example of multi-layered dishonesty. First, relying on the straw-man tack the White House is so found of, Cheney insists critics of the war in Iraq believe the U.S. "simply stirred up a hornet's nest." Has anyone actually made this argument? No matter; Cheney can't be bothered with details.

Second, you'll notice, of course, that the VP is once again subtly connecting the war in Iraq and 9/11. He's quite fond of doing so.

And third, the more I think about Cheney's argument, the more wanton it appears. To follow the VP's logic, the Middle East has been a hornet's nest for a while, long before 9/11. As he sees it, does this mean there was nothing wrong with invading Iraq under false pretenses and hitting the hornet's nest with a stick for a while?

Then, Don Rumsfeld goes even farther

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/29/rumsfeld/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Proving that he can still show Dick Cheney a thing or two, Donald Rumsfeld offered up what Matt Yglesias calls the "full wingnut monte" in a speech before the American Legion today.

Among the secretary's insights:

The war president: "We are truly fortunate to have a leader of resolve at a time of war. Through all the challenges, he remains the same man who stood atop the rubble of lower Manhattan, with a bullhorn, vowing to fight back."

The big questions: "We need to face the following questions: With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased? Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists? Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply 'law enforcement' problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches? And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world’s trouble?"

The straw-man arguments: "The struggle we are in is too important -- the consequences too severe -- to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of 'Blame America First.'"

And finally, the let's-forget-that-whole-civil-war-thing finale: "In Iraq, a country that was brutalized and traumatized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship is now undertaking the slow, difficult, and uncertain steps to secure a new future, under a representative government -- one that is at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, their neighbors, and to the world."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009579
[Matt Yglesias] For his latest trick, in a speech to the American Legion, Don Rumsfeld gives the full wingnut monte. America faces an undifferentiated fascist menace. Bush's critics are appeasers who don't understand the lessons of history who blame America first and hate freedom. The media is treasonous and a free press is a luxury we can ill-afford in this time of crisis. Etc.

This, I think we can assume, is the fall campaign. The idea is to psyche the Democrats out. To make them think they can't win an argument about foreign policy. To make them act like they can't win an argument about foreign policy. And to thereby demonstrate to the American people that even the Democrats themselves lack confidence in their own ability to handle these issues. . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115687850792495378

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/donald-rumsfeld-and-pedophilia.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8329.html
[Steve Benen] If you missed Donald Rumsfeld's remarks today. . . you missed the Defense Secretary at his least sensible. This guy was on a roll, lashing out at "quitters," who "cannot stomach a tough fight" and are inclined to "blame America first." Throw in a few straw-man attacks and some sycophantic praise for the president and you get the idea. It was quite a string of bumper-sticker slogans. . . [read on]

Rumsfeld, creator of a Pentagon office designed to disseminate fake news, says that a gullible media is his biggest nightmare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800879.html
"That's the thing that keeps me up at night," he said during a question-and-answer session . . . "They are actively manipulating the media in this country" by, for example, falsely blaming U.S. troops for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

Oh really? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901320.html
The platoon commander for the squad of Marines who killed as many as two dozen Iraqi civilians during an attack in Haditha last year recommended later that the sergeant who led the attack receive a medal for his heroism that day, according to military documents.

Rumsfeld: we’re ready to take on an additional war if necessary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800916.html

Harry Reid responds

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009583
Secretary Rumsfeld’s reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the War on Terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq. If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history it's Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ignored military experts when he rushed to war without enough troops, without sufficient body armor, and without a plan to succeed. Under this Administration's watch, terror attacks have increased, Iraq has fallen into civil war, and our military has been stretched thin. We have a choice to make today. Do we trust Secretary Rumsfeld to make the right decisions to keep us safe after he has been so consistently wrong since the start of the Iraq War? Or, do we change course in Iraq and put in place new leadership that will put the safety of the American people ahead of partisan games? For the sake of the safety of this country, it is time to make a change.

Learning from history?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30rumsfeld.html
Rumsfeld Says War Critics Haven’t Learned Lessons of History

Yeah, right: http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/rumsfeld-accuses-critics-of.html




Matt Yglesias traces the Bush gang’s war policies to what he calls “The Green Lantern Theory.” I believe it can be traced to a somewhat different historical precedent. . . .

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics
Up at Cato Unbound you can find Reuel Marc Gerecht's latest argument for bombing Iran. . . . Like a lot of conservative writing on foreign affairs it puts a huge amount of weight on things like will, resolve, and perceptions of strength and weakness. It's a view of things that reminds me of nothing so much as the Green Lantern comics, which I enjoy a great deal but regard as a poor guide to national security policy.

As you may know, the Green Lantern Corps is a sort of interstellar peacekeeping force . . . with the most powerful weapon in the universe, the power ring. . . . The ring is a bit goofy. Basically, it lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that, when fully charged what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. . . .

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them: "Add a failure in Iran to a failure in Iraq to a failure in Afghanistan, and we could supercharge Islamic radicalism in a way never before seen. The widespread and lethal impression of American weakness under the Clinton administration, which did so much to energize bin Ladenism in the 1990s, could look like the glory years of American power compared to what the Bush administration may leave in its wake."

I don't even know what else to say about this business. It's just a bizarre way of looking at the world. The wreakage that the Bush administration is leaving in its wake is a direct consequence of this will-o-centric view of the world and Gerecht takes it as a reason to deploy more willpower.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115685537810760734
[Atrios] Rumsfeld fully embraces the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

[WP] Rumsfeld said there was no doubt the United States could win militarily in Iraq if it stayed the course. . . . "The important question is not whether we can win. Of course we can win. We won't lose a single battle," he said. "But do we have the will?"

Triumph of the Will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

Reason #8492 for being in Iraq: to help prevent the civil war that our invasion and mismanagement precipitated

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1271.html

Yes, the Washington media may be sick and tired of the trivial matter of the govt lying to dupe the country into a bloody, costly, and unnecessary war – but fortunately, not everyone is. A comprehensive timeline from Mother Jones (thanks to Kevin Drum for the link)

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Who said this?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7013
"Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well . . . I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like."

Irony alert!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attorney_general
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Iraq's future would depend on its enforcing the rule of law, but only its people and political leaders could decide what type of law that would be.

Gonzales said after meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh that they had discussed the use of "extraordinary measures," referring to policies toward prisoners and detainees. He added that the U.S. would not tell Iraq how to handle the issue.

"It is difficult to decide what is appropriate now and what is allowed under the law. This decision will be made by the Iraqi government," Gonzales said. He did not offer specifics or elaborate. . .

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1278.html

Are we surprised? The latest terrorist bombing scare in the UK “may have been” a bit exaggerated

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8326.html

The failure of the levees in New Orleans, Bush tells us, is yet another reason why we need more off-shore drilling!

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/bush_drill_our_way_to_a_strong.html

Bush’s economy

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7008
[WP] A measure of U.S. consumer confidence slid in August to a nine-month low as worries about job growth and the economy overshadowed the Federal Reserve's recent pause in some two years of raising interest rates . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009576
Median earnings are down, the number of uninsured is up. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/29/new-census-numbers/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8325.html
[Steve Benen] Earlier this year, the Bush administration announced that it no longer saw any reason for the Census Bureau to keep producing its annual report on poverty and income. It may be the only government survey that researchers how income changes affect their poverty status, health coverage, and use of government services, but the Bush gang decided policy work could be done just as well without it.

Fortunately, the report survived administration opposition and was released today. Given the results, it's not hard to understand why Bush wanted to keep the results hidden. . .

More: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/522916/?sc=dwhp
Since 2000, Americans have been getting poorer, and national rates of severe poverty have climbed sharply, according to a study published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. . .

Armitage admits Plame role

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html

What we now know (and don’t know) http://www.liberaloasis.com/2006/08/what_we_know_about_plamegate.php

Once a crook, always a crook: more trouble for Ken Tomlinson

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30broadcast.html
State Department investigators have found that the head of the agency overseeing most government broadcasts to foreign countries has used his office to run a “horse racing operation” and that he improperly put a friend on the payroll. . . The report said that the official, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, had repeatedly used government employees to perform personal errands and that he billed the government for more days of work than the rules permit. . .

Mr. Tomlinson, a Republican with close ties to the White House, was ousted last year from another post, at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, after another inquiry found evidence that he had violated rules meant to insulate public television and radio from political influence.

George Allen’s racist pals: “The first rule of Macaca Club is, you do not talk about Macaca Club. The second rule of Macaca Club is, you DO NOT talk about Macaca Club. . .”

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060911&s=george_allen

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/29/195724/263



Another lying scandal for Bill Frist (R-TN) – and this one may cost him

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_el_se/frist_medical_license
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist acknowledged Tuesday that he may not have met all the requirements needed to keep his medical license active — even though he gave paperwork to Tennessee officials indicating that he had. . .

Haven’t had much here on the Bob Corker (R) vs Harold Ford (D) Senate race in Tennessee. Even when the Republicans may not be corrupt, they have a way of acting like it (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-is-corker-afraid-of.html
What Is Corker Afraid Of?
That is the question most folks in Tennessee are asking these days as Bob won't release his full tax returns and he won't agree to debate Congressman Ford. Cleary, he is afraid of something, but what? . . .

Narrowing the list of who put the “secret hold” on the govt openness and accountability bill

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001439.php

Is he the one? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001440.php




The latest ploy to try to retain Tom DeLay’s seat for the Republicans

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115688532605896859

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001437.php

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/29/in_tx22_perry_calls_special_election.html

[NB: Here’s my question – are they INTENTIONALLY causing confusion (cf “butterfly ballots”) in order to set up an election appeal?]

We’ve been reviewing likely Democratic pick-ups in the House and Senate: here’s the latest on governor’s races

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/26/181524/530

Just yesterday I was ranting about the wrongness of having the heads of state re-election committees for Bush, like Katherine Harris (FL) and Ken Blackwell (OH), also serving in their capacity as Secretaries of State to oversee the elections and vote-counting. It really is outrageous. Well, thanks to Avedon Carol we learn that someone is doing something about it

http://sideshow.me.uk/saug06.htm#08291422
"Finally, there's a focused and innovative national campaign against Republican voter suppression, voter intimidation, and voter fraud: Secretary of State (SOS) Project," says Glenn Smith at MyDD. And yes, it sure seems like something that should have started immediately after Katherine Harris' partisan tricks as Secretary of State in Florida. It should not be possible to put the head of a candidate's local campaign in charge of running the election, but this is what's going on in our country, and it shows.

“The SoS campaign will allow us to contribute to candidates who will fight these undemocratic forces. How often do we talk to discouraged progressive voters who back away from participation because they believe the elections are rigged by suppression, or by voting machines that provide no auditable paper trail? Well, now we can tell them there's a national effort aimed precisely at that problem.”

No, they don’t practice racial profiling: but don’t try to wear a t-shirt with Arabic writing on an airplane

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015608.html

Bush’s book club

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11931

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7014
We need to get homes available for people. A renewed New Orleans is a New Orleans with new homes. Everybody understands that. The people here, and those who have left, they all tell me one thing -- particularly those who -- "I miss New Orleans," is what they say. . . [read on]

Events like the JonBenet Ramsey feeding frenzy are beyond our scope here – but the media’s taste for sensationalism and gullibility have larger implications

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8323.html
[Steve Benen] TV "news" devoted as much as 15 times more coverage of the bogus Ramsey arrest, while the New York Times devoted 13 reporters to Karr's hoax and two to the NSA case. . . . The degree of the screw-up is breathtaking. . .

[NB: As if this will make them act any differently the next time. . . ]

Bonus item: Kyra Phillips (CNN) makes a fool of herself (thanks to Crooks and Liars for the link)

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/cnn/cnn-live-mic-snafu-the-video-197383.php

***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 @ 8:00 AM

 
NO RESPECT

Remember in June when Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq negotiated a national reconciliation plan that included a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops? My, did the Bush gang rush to put a lid on THAT notion – and of course, we see how well national reconciliation has gone without that condition. Well, darn if that pesky Prime Minister isn’t at it again

Then: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

Now: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115677960633179678
Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki predicted it "will not be long" before US troops can start withdrawing from his country but would not commit to a timetable. . . .

Ho-hum

http://www.slate.com/id/2148538
[Andrew Rice] It's been an exceptionally bloody couple days everywhere in Iraq: "Over all, more than 100 Iraqis were killed Sunday and Monday," according to the NYT, including at least 13 in a Baghdad car bombing. Which somewhat takes the wind out of yesterday's lead LAT story, which was headlined: "Deaths Drop in Iraqi Capital." . . .

The “backdoor draft”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/backdoor-draft-continues.html

Ah, those dastardly “some people”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/some-say-dick-cheney-is-wrong-to-have_28.html
[Dick Cheney] "Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone," Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention . . . [read on]

We can play this game too: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/some-say.html

Dick Cheney: more powerful even than you think

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8311.html
[NB: read it all, but get this] And at this point, accountability is tough because Cheney prefers total secrecy. When The American Prospect's Robert Dreyfuss requested the names of people who serve on the vice president's staff, he was told this was classified information. Seriously — public aides, on the public's payroll, working for a public official, have to be kept secret. Why? Because Cheney says so.

More: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/26/the_cheney_presidency/

George Bush, bully boy (thanks to Avedon Carol for some of the links)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/082606.html
The U.S. news media always makes light of George W. Bush’s tendency to put down others through disparaging comments about their personal appearances or by assigning them silly nicknames. It’s just the “inner frat boy” coming out, we’re told. . . [read on!]

The kind of man he is: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115683324352219617
The former FEMA chief cited what he called an e-mail "from a very high source in the White House that says the president at a Cabinet meeting said, 'Thank goodness Brown's taking all the heat because it's better that he takes the heat than I do.'" . . .

During a trip to West Point on June 1, Bush pulled White aside for a private talk. "As long as they're hitting you on Enron, they're not hitting me," said Bush. . . .

[NB: This says it all, doesn’t it? What would you say about a person like this in any other walk of life? What would you say if a friend talked this way? Now imagine this is your President]

Bush on the couch: http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/01/the_life_and_cr.html

This has been said before, but not usually so well: one of the classic Rovean themes is that rain AND no rain are good news for them – they can’t lose, they will argue it either way. And the media are happy to play along

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/everything-is-always-good-_115678408586921382.html
[Glenn Greenwald] One of the important points you learn from listening to political pundits is that every event and every controversy is always good for the Republicans. No matter what the controversy is -- even if it arises from the President's getting caught breaking the law -- the more it's talked about, the more political benefits will accrue to the Republicans, because most Americans are on their side. . . .

When the NSA scandal first broke, Bush's approval ratings were in the high 40s. . . . I recall those days all too well. The NSA scandal was going to be Bush's political salvation. It would shift the debate back to terrorism, where they always win. Americans are too simplistic and stupid to care about the rule of law or privacy. They only want to cheer on the swaggering, sometimes-reckless Cowboy as he smashes the Bad Guys with machismo and grit. . . The White House did everything possible to convince journalists that they welcomed the NSA scandal because it would be so politically beneficial for them. . . [read on!]

This is very strange. Apparently, Bin Laden is on the FBI “Most Wanted” list – sure, no surprise. But he’s on it for the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998, not for 9/11

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8315.html

More efforts to turn Democrats into Republicans Lite

http://sideshow.me.uk/saug06.htm#08281753

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009411.php

From Greg Palast (c/o Susan Madrak) – a great report on how “accountability” for the failures of Katrina is proceeding

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/08/28/10/53/katrina-the-real-story/
[Greg Palast] Here’s the key thing about a successful emergency evacuation plan: you have to have copies of it. Lots of copies — in fire houses and in hospitals and in the hands of every first responder. Secret evacuation plans don’t work. . . Specifically, I’m talking about the plan that was written, or supposed to have been written two years ago by a company called, “Innovative Emergency Management.”

Weird thing about IEM, their founder Madhu Beriwal, had no known experience in hurricane evacuations. She did, however, have a lot of experience in donating to Republicans. . .

While in Baton Rouge, I dropped in on the headquarters of IEM, the evacuation contractors. The assistant to the CEO insisted they had “a lot of experience with evacuation” — but couldn’t name a single city they’d planned for when they got the Big Easy contract. And still, they couldn’t produce the plan. . .

It’s been a full year now, and 73,000 New Orleanians remain in FEMA trailers and another 200,000, more than half the city’s former residents, remain in temporary refuges. . . . Should they come home? Rebuild? Is it safe? Team Bush assures them there’s nothing to worry about: FEMA won’t respond to van Heerden’s revelations. However, the Bush Administration has hired a consulting firm to fix the failed evacuation plan. The contractor? A Baton Rouge company named “Innovative Emergency Management.” IEM.

Accountability starts at the top: http://64.226.238.78/PA/pk/pk229.shtml

How they play it: hiding government spending so that the federal budget looks more balanced – just until the elections

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009413.php

The Big Story about this fall election is the prospect for a Democratic takeover in Congress – but you wouldn’t know that from reading the news

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115682400853110672

The latest count: 15-20, maybe 25 gains in the House:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/28/171742/379

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/2006-house-ratings.html

The kind of people they are: Rhode Island edition

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/08/republicans_eat.html

George Allen (R-VA) steps in macaca . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/oh-what-difference-macaca-makes.html
James Webb (D) 47.9
George Allen (R) 46.6

You could call John McCain (R-AZ) a prostitute, but that would be a terrible slur against prostitutes. . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115681550735922012
MCCAIN: I believe that the “Christian Right” has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they’re so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party. I don’t have to agree with everything they stand for, nor do I have to agree with everything that’s on the liberal side of the Republican Party. If we have to agree on every issue, we’re not a Republican Party. I believe in open and honest debate. Was I unhappy in the year 2000 that I lost the primary and there were some attacks on me that I thought was unfair? Of course. Should I get over it? Should I serve — can I serve the people of Arizona best by looking back in anger or moving forward?

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain how his views on this program when you have him on.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115678521452151693
[Tucker Carlson] McCain ran an entire presidential campaign aimed primarily at journalists. He understood that the first contest in a presidential race is always the media primary. He campaigned hard to win it. To a greater degree than any candidate in thirty years, McCain offered reporters the three things they want most: total access all the time, an endless stream of amusing quotes, and vast quantities of free booze. . . . I saw reporters call McCain "John," sometimes even to his face and in public. I heard otherse, usually at night in the hotel bar, slip into the habit of referring to the Mccain campaign as "we"- as in, "I hope we kill Bush." It was wrong, but it was hard to resist.

More unanswered questions on the Armitage/Plame story: something’s not quite right about the published accounts

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009408.php

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/28/cheney/index.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2148535/fr/rss/

If the White House wants their press secretaries to retain ANY credibility with the press, they’d better start giving them better information

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7001

Remember the “secret hold” one lone Senator used to block a bipartisan bill requiring more openness on govt grants and contracts? The folks over at TPM Muckraker are using the resources of the blogosphere to find out who it was (although of course it depends on 100 Senators all telling the truth, so . . .)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009563

Bonus item: The respect he deserves

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7005

***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

 
CIRCULAR FIRING SQUADS

On asking Democrats what they would do to fix the mess in Iraq

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/27/92232/9038
[Chris Murphy, D-CT] "It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit strategy.

Joe Lieberman, of course, thinks it’s much simpler than that

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115668570056130952
“I believe that the best way for us to win the war in Iraq is to come together - the administration, Congress, and Republicans and Democrats - to find a solution that will allow our troops to come home with Iraq united and free, with the Middle East stable and the terrorists denied a victory.”

[NB: Thanks, Joe – we’ll get right on that]

As we linked yesterday, Republicans are publicly distancing themselves more and more from Bush’s war in Iraq (and privately express even greater fury over the mess it has become). But the media narrative is “Republicans united, Democrats divided,” so of course they have to shape a story that fits that theme

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/26/AR2006082600811.html
Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops

In fact: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/27/92232/9038
[Dem from CT] So here's the deal, editors. Let's make it simple for you.

1. Stay the course is a failure that has led to civil war. Democrats are united in wanting a course correction.

2. There's no easy way for the egg to be put back, but never forget it was the fumble-prone President who dropped it.

3. Clean-up is messy, but necessary. Get the kids out of the kitchen who made the mess, and put the grownups back in charge, or the mess will never get cleaned up.

4. There are several plans being discussed, from Feingold's to Murtha's to the position statement by Dem leadership to the idea floated last week by Byman and Pollack (who at least acknowledge civil war). The public does not demand a finished product by November. They do demand serious work and effort on the task. That includes oversight, which this Congress has never implemented. And it includes accountability (Pollack forgot to include himself, by the way, although Rumsfeld's head seems to be first in line these days).

5. How we got there is vitally important to cover. It's not old news because it will affect how we deal with Iran. Unless we understand fully the mistakes made in Iraq, we will make them again.

Now how hard was that?

If consistency, factual evidence, and intellectual honesty meant anything, most right-wing pundits would have been ignored long ago – yet somehow they keep being taken seriously

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/08/dancing-on-parodys-grave.html
[Glenn Reynolds, “Instapundit”] HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO DIE WHILE SERVING IN IRAQ? About half as likely as Americans back home, reports the Washington Post. . . [read on!]

[NB: Ergo, Iraq is safer than here! Get it?]

Is it civil war yet?

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/civil-war-violence-explodes-throughout.html

Bush policies ARE giving birth to a new Middle East: and here’s what it looks like (thanks to Ahmad S. for the link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082200978_pf.html

Iranian sanctions can’t work – here’s why

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3305?PHPSESSID=b065dc08bddcf51271f8507f003d2d11

New questions raised about the Armitage/Plame story (from the forthcoming book, Hubris): does it get Libby off the hook, or implicate him even more deeply?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009547
[Newsweek] In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

[Swopa] "I'd start with the odd claim that Armitage didn't realize his apparently crucial role until reading Novak's October 1, 2003 column."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/27/93319/8673

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004814.html
[Laura Rozen] If Armitage told Justice Department investigators about his role in the leak to Novak back in October 2003, how come Fitzgerald didn't include it in his timeline?

It’s still Libby!

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3304?PHPSESSID=b065dc08bddcf51271f8507f003d2d11
[David Corn] The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Armitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife. . . [read on]

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=116511

http://libbydefensefund.com/news/06/0827.htm
Libby, if we recall, met with Armitage the week before his meeting with Woodward -- and it was Libby that requested a State Department backgrounder as to how Joe Wilson came to be sent to Niger. . . .

Is Colin Powell being set up?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-is-setting-up-colin-powell-to.html
[John Aravosis] And now the Bush crowd is getting one last dig at Powell even though he's already out of the picture. Will Powell respond, or yet again take the fall for an administration that never fully trusted him? Stay tuned. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret. . .

You knew, you just KNEW, that the Bush gang would respond to the Supreme Court decision that rejected their Guantanamo tribunals with stalling, secrecy, and minimal changes to create a patina of “reform.” Well, sure enough. . .

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/27/military_lawyers_see_limits_on_trial_input/

The kind of little story that is happening with more and more frequency now, and no one seems to notice

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/still-more-unchecked-powers-for-bush.html
[Glenn Greenwald] This article from the San Francisco Chronicle details the truly amazing story of two U.S. citizens -- a 45-year old resident of the San Francisco area and his 18-year old son -- who, after travelling to Pakistan, have been barred by the Bush administration from re-entering the country. They have not been charged with any crime, and no court has ordered or even authorized this denial of entry. The administration is just unilaterally prohibiting these two Americans from re-entering their country. . . According to the article, the two Americans have already submitted to an FBI interview, but one of them -- the American-born 18-year-old -- "had run afoul of the FBI when he declined to be interviewed again without a lawyer and refused to take a lie-detector test. " For those actions -- i.e., invoking his constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination -- he is being refused entry back into his country. . .

Yesterday, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers admitted that the repaired levees in New Orleans still might not withstand a major storm. So, of course you had to expect a major push-back on the Sunday talk shows

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/27/123541/866
[Don Powell, Office of Gulf Coast Rebuilding] There is a widespread coordination, and I think we're ready. There's no question in my mind, we're ready . . There's been an extraordinary amount of effort by the Corps of Engineers on restoring and repairing the levees, and I believe that the levees are ready for the hurricane season.

The US Chamber of Commerce as a front organization

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/drug-companies-paid-for-chambers-pro.html
[AP] The pharmaceutical industry quietly footed the bill for at least part of a recent multimillion-dollar ad campaign praising lawmakers who support the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, according to political officials.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims credit for the ads, although a spokesman refused repeatedly to say whether it had received any funds from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. . . .

The Democrats have ABC (Anybody But Clinton), but a lot of Republicans are desperate to find an alternative to John McCain too. Here are some likely candidates

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/27/141628/829

The kind of people they are

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.php#009551
[DK] More bigotry from our enlightened Republican friends. This time it is Steve Laffey, candidate for U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, whose white sheet is showing, in columns he penned while in college in the early 1980s. . . [don’t miss it!]

“We are all macacans now” (thanks to Avedon Carol for the link)

http://georgefelixallen.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-are-all-macacans-now.html

Katherine Harris (R-Disneyworld) “clarifies” her comments on religion and politics

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N4A7326AD
[AP] Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said. . .

The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.

Mark Kleiman shows why this excuse just won’t do

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/religion_and_politics_/2006/08/what_christian_means_to_the_christianists.php

Poor, poor Katherine – here’s how bad it has gotten

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001424.php

I can’t tell you how happy this makes me: Ken Blackwell (R-OH), whose shenanigans in Ohio were the 2004 version of Harris’s in Florida 2000, also seems headed for a humiliating defeat

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/27/in_ohio_strickland_opens_huge_lead.html

[NB: Gee, why should we be upset when the HEADS of Bush re-election committees are also the people supervising the elections and counting votes?]

Wow. More on Republican election nullification: in a close, contested election in California, Republican Brian Bilbray apparently defeated Francine Busby, Democrat. The results were, as expected, challenged. But before a recount could take place. . .

http://sideshow.me.uk/saug06.htm#08280107
[Avedon Carol] The story so far is that Brian Bilbray flew to DC and got sworn in well before the results of his special election race against Francine Busby were certified. You'll recall that his alleged victory was not only razor-thin, but also highly questionable. There are still those who don't buy it, and not without good reason. But Dennis Hastert swore Bilbray in on 13 June, though the election was still being audited more than two weeks later, after which an election contest was filed.

So, why are we bringing this up now, when everyone has already forgotten about it. Well, how about this:

On July 31, 2006, the Contestants filed an election contest, seeking a hand recount and to invalidate the election on several grounds, not only including the affirmative evidence of irregular results, but also including the stonewalling of citizen information requests and the pricing of recounts at an estimated $150,000 that made it difficult or impossible for any citizen to tell who won the election.

On August 22, 2006 the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the swearing in of Bilbray deprives everyone else of jurisdiction including specifically the San Diego Superior Court because Art. I, sec. 5 of the US Constitution has been held to mean that the House and Senate are the judges of the Qualifications of their Members, one of those qualifications is supposed to be "election."

So what we're hearing is that, because Bilbray rushed to Washington and was sworn in illegally, that invalidates any challenge to what may have been a completely false result, and thus no one can question that result, review the ballots, or anything else to verify the election. (So, how far are we from Republicans who lose elections simply flying to DC, getting illegally sworn in, and...?)

I'd really like to know why just about no one is paying attention to this. Have we already given up on that whole "election" thing?

Bonus item: “Let’s bomb Iran”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015595.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

 
LESSONS UNLEARNED

Happy anniversary. One year after Katrina, the start of hurricane season, and they STILL haven’t fixed the levees properly

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-government-not-sure-if-rebuilt.html

More on the Bush gang’s attempt to make Iran (not Iraq) THE issue of the fall elections

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009402.php

Watch the Republicans run

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/26/1322/26464
In todays issue of the Los Angeles Times Johanna Neuman takes a look at defections within the Republican Party over the issue of the Iraq War. . .

They love us, they REALLY love us

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/91.html
91.7 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of US troops in their country--a nearly 20 percent increase since 2004. A big majority thinks the US is in their country for the oil.

Lindsay Beyerstein coins a useful new word

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/08/bush_tells_war_.html
War widows take note, when the president deigns to give you a private audience, know your place. Your job is to be hugged, and that's it.

Be warned that you must not, under any circumstances, take advantage of your face time with the prez to ask serious intellectual questions.

"He said, `Terrorists killed three thousand people, we had to go to war.'" Halley continued to me. "I said, `Well, who put the Taliban into power? The United States did.' He said, `I'm not going to have a philosophical debate over politics.'

Obviously, if the Big Man wanted an abstract moral discourse, he would have gone to your husband's funeral and listened to the pastor.

Remember, grieving widows, even if the president gets you alone in a room, it's not about you, or your "arguments" about the duties Christians who commit nearly unforgivable sins but who retain the power to mitigate harms to innocents, if only they can transcend their bitter egos and walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

You're hugmeat. Got it?

Maureen Dowd has always been fascinated with the patricidal aspects of George Bush’s uneasy relationship with his father – but has it lately gotten worse?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8308.html

It’s now more or less confirmed: it was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s #2 at the State Dept, who started the whole Plame business. Will this buttress the Rove/Libby defense that there wasn’t a coordinated effort to out her?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3303
[Swopa] [I]f the real story of the Plame outing was as simple as Armitage telling Novak everything, and Novakula then getting a terse confirmation from Rove and going to press, it makes very little sense for Fitzgerald's investigation to unfold as it has. So it's probably safe to assume that things didn't happen that way . . . I've harped repeatedly on the fact that Novak has avoided saying clearly whether his conversation with his so-called primary source was actually the first time he'd learned about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA. Why did the now-indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby tell so many lies to the FBI and the grand jury about what he knew regarding Plame's identity if he played no role in that information being passed along to Bob Novak? And why did Libby tell Ari Fleischer the exact information that Novak would attribute to his primary source just one day before Novakula met with Armitage? It seems to me that this mystery hasn't been fully resolved yet.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015593.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] Fitzgerald has long thought Armitage did nothing criminal. Yet, he indicted Libby anyway and almost indicted Rove. Novak's original column wasn't just gossip about Joe Wilson. It outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. But Newsweek reports Armitage didn't know Plame's employment was classified.

It's curious to me that Fitz is giving Armitage and Rove a pass, but not Libby. Why? I think it has to do with the July 12 flight to Norfolk. Fitz has not yet closed his investigation. I suspect Cheney is still in his cross-hairs. And Ari Fleischer is a key witness against Libby. Somehow, I suspect Ari Fleishcher has given more to Fitzgerald than we know.

[NB: What this says to me is that conspiracy, perjury, and cover-up are still the significant legal issues, not the original outing.]

How the system works. A bipartisan bill “that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance” is blocked by a single Senator. Who was it? You’ll never know

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/26/17347/5684

This man is simply too stupid to be believed. George Allen (R-VA), after all this, explains the macaca mess to a friendly whites-only audience, WINKS, then says how “sorry” he is

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/25/135655/157

The state of race relations in this country – is racism okay again?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8305.html
Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo, Mississippi, voted out a 12-year-old boy who "asked Jesus to live in his heart" at the church two weeks ago. Why the ban? Joe is biracial, and church members didn't want the black side of his family attending with him. . . They were "afraid Joe might come with his people and have blacks in the church," church pastor John Stevens told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. . .

http://sideshow.me.uk/saug06.htm#08261825
Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children. . .

More: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/608240332/1002/NEWS

Barack Obama (D-IL) goes to Kenya with his wife, has an AIDS test to make a point of showing people there is nothing to fear from being tested. How does the Free Republic cover the story?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/08/26/kenya.obama.ap/index.html
[CNN] U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, publicly visited a clinic and took AIDS tests Saturday in Kenya, where fear and social stigmas have slowed progress in fighting the disease. . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690378/posts
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: BISEXUAL

Further reflections on Katherine Harris’s (R-Disneyworld) loony statement that electing non-Christians to public office means “in essence you are going to legislate sin.” So does this mean that Jews and Muslims shouldn’t be elected? Where does she stand on Joe Lieberman?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/gop-senate-candidate-and-friend-of.html

The religious right goes ballistic over FDA approval of Plan B, the morning after pill

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1333925,00.html

The sorry state of American journalism

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608260001?src=newsbox-atrios.blogspot.com#2
West Coast: Dick Cheney said he was stuck with the grave decision of whether to shoot down the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania or not. The recently released NORAD tapes confirm that the government first knew of the flight one minute before it went down. Is Cheney lying, again. . . ?

Jonathan Weisman [Washington Post]: If I can get him on the phone, I will query him. Cheney's statements present a quandary for us reporters. Sometimes we write them up and are accused of being White House stenographers and stooges for repeating them. Then if we don't write them up, we are accused of being complicit for covering them up. So, all you folks on the left, what'll it be? Complicity or stenography?

[Jamison Foser] We can't speak for all the "folks on the left," but we suspect most of them would choose "Option C: Journalism."

Indeed, several participants in the online discussion made exactly that point. As one put it: "[R]esearch and intelligent questions based on said research that makes up 'Reporting'. Retyping statements without research is 'Stenography'. Avoiding asking tough questions because it makes your original stenography look really, really bad is 'Complicity'." Weisman, showing nothing but contempt for his readers -- and, though it seems he didn't realize it, for his profession -- responded with a series of churlish comments like "Please apply for my job" and "Sometimes, you folks really drive us nuts."

We can assure Mr. Weisman that the feeling is mutual.

Read the entire transcript of Weisman's chat here for a perfect illustration of many of the problems with journalism today. . .

Sunday talk show line-up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/26/AR2006082600733.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.); federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding Donald E. Powell; New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas; AOL co-founder and Revolution Health Group Chairman Steve Case.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Powell; Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.); former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael D. Brown; science educator Bill Nye.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): FEMA Director R. David Paulison; New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Paulison; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R).

LATE EDITION (CNN): Powell; Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.); Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D); Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; Lebanese philanthropist Fouad Makhzoumi.

Bonus item: Whoa-ho! Don’t compare Rush Limbaugh to the bloggers – that makes him angry

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115664136937585869
[T]hese people are just flat out loonies; they are insane kooks, these left wing blog types. . .

***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 @ 8:17 AM

 
STRANGE BREW

Today, an unusually rich concoction of the bizarre, the disturbing, and the simply outrageous . . .

The weird politics of Connecticut: just days after saying he would campaign for the Democrats in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman now says he’s going to stay neutral. Meanwhile, Chris Shays, Connecticut Republican, takes a stronger anti-war stance than Lieberman – and Lieberman responds, “hmmm . . .I’ll have to take a look at that”

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/noncombatant_jo.php
Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives. . . . Lieberman . . . was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson. . . . “I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

August 10: http://www.farrellforcongress.com/news/aug10-ctpost.htm
Lieberman said that he will continue to support the Democrats running for Congress even though they now support Lamont . . . "It is a little bit harder, but I have endorsed the three of them," he said. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/25/iraq.shays.ap/
Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican defending his seat from an anti-war challenger, says the U.S. should consider setting a timeline for troop withdrawals from Iraq. . . . Shays, long a supporter of the war and previously an opponent of withdrawal timetables, said he hopes to offer a specific time frame after he holds congressional hearings on Iraq next month. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_atrios_archive.html#115652429809849174
[Atrios] A cookie for the reporter who calls the Lieberman people to ask them if Chris Shays' Iraq policies would be a "tremendous victory" for terrorists.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2E5623AD
Lieberman Says Lamont's Policies Would Be "Tremendous Victory" For Terrorists
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

And today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the
Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at [Shay’s] proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals. . .

[NB: yes, you read that right: Democrat Ned Lamont’s withdrawal timetable proposal is capitulation to the terrorists – but Republican Chris Shay’s withdrawal timetable proposal is worth taking a look at. . . .]

But Connecticut is nowhere near as strange as New Hampshire

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6982
[Nashua Telegraph] A Republican candidate for [New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District] said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq. . .

Gov Ernie Fletcher (R-KY), enters a plea agreement admitting guilt for corruption, but with no legal consequences (that’s some plea agreement!). Go to the excellent Bluegrass Report site and read all about it – you couldn’t make up something wilder than this!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/25/115935/528

More: http://www.bluegrassreport.org/
"I have been cleared of all charges against me and have been exonerated of all allegations."

More Republican scandal (ignored by the national press)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009538
[Paul Kiel] Sen. Conrad Burns' (R-MT) state finance director accused by Montana officials of securities fraud. . . . A Burns spokesman just told us that the director resigned (very quietly, apparently) from the position July 27th.

The evolution of a lie: sit back, relax, and enjoy the acrobatics of George Allen, his people, and his apologists in trying to dodge the “macaca” issue

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608250001
* Allen did not know what "macaca" means, and his use of the term was really intended as a play on the word "'mohawk,' a term that his campaign staff had nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut” . . . [The Washington Post; 8/15/06]

* From Allen's statement provided to CNN: "I ... made up a nickname for the cameraman [Sidarth], which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory” . . . [National Journal's The Hotline weblog; 8/15/06]

* Allen was calling Sidarth a "mash-up" of terms that amounted to "shit-head." "[T]wo Republicans who heard the word used" claimed "macaca" was a combination of " '[m]ohawk,' referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and 'caca,' Spanish slang for excrement, or 'shit.' " [The Hotline; 8/16/06]

* "For folks to think that I would know what sorts of genus of monkeys are in Eastern Asia -- ascribe a lot more intelligence to me than I actually have." [ABC's Nightline; 8/16/06]

* From an August 19 memo Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams sent to Republican leaders and the Allen campaign leadership: "[T]he news media created what they call a 'feeding frenzy' ... [l]iterally putting words into Senator Allen's mouth that he did not say”. . . [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; 8/19/06]

* John McCaslin in his August 21 Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" column. According to McCaslin, "Joseph Luchi, a translator who lives in New York City" and claims to be "fluent in Italian and of Italian descent," wrote to McCaslin claiming that "[m]y mom used this word [macaca] about myself and my sister many times. It means 'fool, clown, dummy.'"

* From Allen's August 22 appearance on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: "I take full responsibility. I'm not offering any excuses because I said it [macaca], and no one else said it” . . . [The Washington Post; 8/24/06]

* From Wadhams' interview: "I think the [August 19] memo [blaming the media for "putting words into Senator Allen's mouth"] speaks for itself." [The Washington Post; 8/24/06]

* "Allen said he made the name up, then said he recalled that he had a niece nicknamed 'Maca Maca.' " [Los Angeles Times; 8/24/06]

And today, ANOTHER version of events: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/woah-two-days-after-george-allens.html
"I've said all I care to say about it - and I'm moving forward," Allen told the AFP. "I've apologized for the insensitive remark - and that's all I'm going to say about it. There's nothing more that needs to be said. I've said all I need to say - and I'm moving forward."

[John Aravosis] Funny, but earlier this week George Allen's campaign manager wrote in a memo that Allen did nothing wrong, and that the entire incident was the work of the "liberal media." . . . So which one is, Senator? You were wrong for making an "insensitive" racist remark, or is this all the fault of the liberal media (and you know who controls them)?

Get used to it, George http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/embattled-gop-senator-george-allen-r.html

More: Allen’s confederate flag “collection” http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/25/21013/6899

I had a friend once who, playing Trivial Pursuit, was asked the following question, “If you are standing in St Louis, looking east, what state are you looking into?” Her answer was “Baltimore,” an answer so wrong in so many ways that it’s hard to start to fathom it. We all had a good laugh and she was a sport about it. But now, care of Glenn Greenwald, we have a May 4, 2003 column from neocon pundit Mark Steyn, who takes over the trophy!

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/so-wrong-that-it-re-defines-wrongness.html
[Steyn, May 4, 2003] This war is over. The only question now is whether a new provisional government is installed before the BBC and The New York Times have finished running their exhaustive series on What Went Wrong with the Pentagon's Failed War Plan. . .

On the other hand, everything that has taken place is strictly local, freelance, improvised. Many commanders have done nothing. . . Others have figured the jig's up, discarded their uniforms and returned to their families. Some guys have gone loco, piling into pick-ups and driving themselves into the path of the infidels' tanks. A relatively small number have gone in for guerrilla tactics in the southern cities. . . .

It takes two to quagmire. In Vietnam, America had an enemy that enjoyed significant popular support and effective supply lines. Neither is true in Iraq. Isolated atrocities will continue to happen in the days ahead, as dwindling numbers of the more depraved Ba'athists confront the totality of their irrelevance. But these are the death throes: the regime was decapitated two weeks ago, and what we've witnessed is the last random thrashing of the snake's body. . .

SO dumb: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608250003
[Steyn, guest hosting on Rush Limbaugh’s show] [B]asically, if you want to find an exit strategy for Iraq, then pretty soon, you're going to. . . . have to be finding an exit strategy for a lot of other places because those jihadists, they're not like the gooks in Vietnam. They're not just going to be content to take over Vietnam. If America pulls out of Iraq, they're going to follow us wherever we go. . . .

[45 minutes later] I wanted to talk about -- first of all, I wanted to say something. I said -- I used a word in a, in a period context. And you know the way it is these days. You always have to go back and explain these things.

I dusted off a word from the Vietnam era, and I referred to "the gooks." And the trouble is, if you're a writer like, like me and you write for the Chicago -- I write for the Chicago Sun-Times and National Review and all kinds of things. And when you're typing you, you put these words in quote marks, and when you're on the air, you forget that sometimes people don't see the quote marks.

Katherine Harris (R-FL), with nothing more to lose, sells her soul to the theocratic right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501640.html
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics. . .

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/25/quote_of_the_day.html
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

More: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article

Blue eyes or brown?

















Let’s remember the appalling timeline of events surrounding Katrina – since they will be totally muddled, forgotten, and lied about in the next few days

http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501481.html
Bush aides said the president will accept responsibility for the botched federal response while stressing that the government has learned from the Katrina mistakes and promising to see through the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast. . .

Bush meets with war widow – but he doesn’t want to talk about the war

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/25/bush/index.html
Halley said the president told her that "there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war."

More from Hildi Halley: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C546223AD
"As President, you're here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war." . . . [read on!]

The Decider

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-decides-what-us-will-do-about-iraq.html
A somewhat overlooked part of President Bush's Press Conference this week was his comments strongly suggesting that he believes only he -- and not the Congress -- has the power to decide when the war in Iraq ends, as well as whether we will begin a new war with Iran. All of the debates we are having about what to do about Iran and Iraq are meaningless if the President believes (as he seems to) that all power to decide these matters rests with him. . .

[NB: As I mentioned yesterday, I think this gets it a bit wrong – I think the Bush gang WANTS a vote in Congress authorizing the President to use force in Iran (even if they don’t think they need it), because the political issue of forcing Democrats on the record is too valuable for them leading up to the fall elections. In the end, I’m really not sure they’re prepared to actually attack Iran and suffer the consequences internationally (no one, not even Britain, would support them – except Israel), domestically (is Bush ready to start a third war when his first two are going so badly?), and economically (the oil markets would explode).

A contrary view: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/26/63846/7347]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001607.php
"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds," says Nadim Shehadi, one of the report's authors and a fellow of the Institute's Middle East department. . .

Is the Bush gang preparing to circumvent the UN Security Council on Iran?

http://www.slate.com/id/2148475/fr/rss/
[Barbara Raab] U.S. Ambassador John Bolton tells the LAT that the Bush administration will keep moving forward at the U.N. with a proposed package of sanctions against Iran. However, with strong new indications that Russia, China and France do not have America's appetite for an escalating confrontation with Tehran, Bolton says the U.S. is working on a parallel track outside the U.N., in which existing anti-terrorism laws would be used to put a new financial squeeze on Iran. Washington is working to persuade other (undisclosed) countries to follow suit. . .

Dan Froomkin explains why the jaded and cynical DC press corps is sick of hearing about the lies that got us into the war in Iraq – and what that costs us now that the same thing is happening again!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/24/BL2006082400737.html

Will the Dems hold a “no confidence” vote on Donald Rumsfeld?

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/08/that_the_congre.html

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/25/112536/504

Do the neocons REALLY care about democracy in the middle east?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009533

As we stand down. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009543
[AP] Iraqis looted a military base vacated by British troops and stripped it of virtually everything removable on Friday, an indication of possible future trouble for U.S.-led coalition forces hoping to hand over security gradually to the Iraqi government. . .

Turkey bombs Kurds in northern Iraq!

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/turkey-strikes-pkk-bases-in-north-iraq.html

Republicans sponsor an Official Secrets Act

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00121

The Pentagon releases an innocent man held for almost five years at Guantanamo without charges. And how do they describe it?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=33851

The theocratic right desperately wants to keep alive the issues of stem cells, abortion, and contraception, even as science outstrips their simpleminded slogans

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3300
[Fubar] No released eggs means no fertilization, no fetus, nothing. So this leaves these groups with three options:

1. Concede that science may have finally found a way eliminate abortions, pack up their bags and go home.
2. Stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la la...
3. Admit that their objection isn't really to abortion, but to contraception -- or better yet, to people having sex.

Some of them are making a valiant attempt at a fourth option: to change the definition of 'embryo' from a fertilized egg implanted in a woman's womb and undergoing cell division to a plain old fertilized egg, just floating around. The idea is that anything that gets in the way of this whole sperm + egg -> fertilization -> implantation -> cell-division process is tantamount to abortion and therefore qualifies as an object of their ire. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115652053968368724
[Dover Bitch] Yesterday, they said life begins with conception.

Today, they say life begins with intercourse.

Tomorrow, they will tell us life begins with dinner and a movie.

The kind of people they are

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115653967251832391
MILANO: Well, "Dare to Ask," Glenn, like my book, I Can't Believe You Asked That!, is -- it's a chance for people to ask those kinds of taboo cultural questions that we all wish we could ask but we're so afraid of offending in this P.C. world that, you know, we -- we dance around it, as you were saying earlier.

BECK: OK. I have one. I have one. I'm going to get to some of the questions that have already been asked, but I've got one that drives me out of my mind. I work at Radio City in midtown Manhattan, and up by the doors, you know, like where the -- you know -- the office kitchen is, in Braille, on the wall, it says "kitchen." You'd have to -- a blind person would have to be feeling all of the walls to find "kitchen." Just to piss them off, I'm going to put in Braille on the coffee pot -- I'm going to put, "Pot is hot." Ow!

[Digby] Glenn Beck is "driven out of his mind" by little signs in braille outside offices that tell blind people which office they're entering. Apparently, this "political correctness" interferes with wingnut freedom to not have to look at little plaques they dislike ... or something. . .

It's downright cruel that society is so "politically correct" that they restrict the freedom of good and decent people like Beck from exercizing his god-given right to commit acts of physical violence against people with physical handicaps, too. Where will all this political correctness end, I ask you?

The good news is that CNN is making sure that men like Beck have a national forum from which to educate and entertain the people with commentary such as this.

Bonus item: Ann Coulter loses it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8299.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 @ 8:23 AM

 
OCTOBER SURPRISE?

Is the Bush gang laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009391.php
[Laura Rozen] Is the marketing campaign against Iran begun? Here was the deputy director of operations for the joint chief of staffs at the Pentagon yesterday . . .

Fox News helps: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009526
Iran is supporting Bin Laden anyway, via their intelligence services and funding, so going after Iran is really the same thing as getting Bin Laden.

Trumped-up House committee report complains that intelligence agencies have failed to provide an adequate rationale for attacking Iran

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8282.html
[Steve Benen] In other words, there are a number of high-ranking Republican officials who want a confrontation with a Middle Eastern country they believe is an imminent threat. Intelligence officials consider the foreign foe a problem, but haven't produced the evidence the Republicans want to see. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the intelligence officials — they're getting in the way of a perfectly good war. Sound familiar?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004803.html
[NYT] The report ... is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. . .

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former C.I.A. official known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire. . .

All in all, this is a chilling reminder of what happened when intelligence analysts told Vice President Dick Cheney they could not prove that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon or had ties with Al Qaeda. He kept asking if they really meant it — until the C.I.A. took the hint. . .

If the Republicans who control Congress really wanted a full-scale assessment on the state of Iran’s weapons programs, they would have asked for one, rather than producing this brochure.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009393.php
Columbia University's Gary Sick, formerly an official in the National Security Councils of presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, doesn't think much of the House Intelligence committee report . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/republicans-want-intel-on-iran-to-be.html
[AJ] As an aside to my broader point, it's worth noting, for pure hilarity, that the House intel report the article cites, aside from being fairly idiotic overall, has an interesting perspective on Iran's missile launch locations. If you scroll down to page 15, you'll see that the report, written by the House committee responsible for intelligence, appears to have the ranges for Iranian missiles (including one that doesn't exist, natch) originating from . . . wait for it . . . Kuwait! Apparently Iran took over Kuwait and nobody even noticed. . .

“Riddled with errors” http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/republican-congressional-report-on.html

The report’s primary author? Fred Fleitz, former John Bolton aide: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004791.html

The politics of all this: Will a fall vote to authorize Bush to use force against Iran “if necessary” be the new litmus test for loyalty to national security, leading up to the 2006 elections?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_atrios_archive.html#115643479783184545
[Matt Yglesias] Democrats had better be prepared to confront this business aggressively. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that they won't be. . . . [read on]

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009522

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3295

Reason #914 for invading Iraq: to weaken Iran!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009529
Greg Sargent has the excerpts from Joe Lieberman's appearance on the Glenn Beck show during which Beck said a whole series of absurd things about Iran to which Lieberman happily agreed. The highlight is that Lieberman assented to Beck's view that "The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit" of the Iraq War, but that fundamentally, "We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran."

[NB: Since Iraq under Hussein (whatever one thinks of him) was the main bulwark AGAINST Iran in the region, this assertion is nothing short of delusional – and Lieberman went along with it?]

You know that no rhetorical excess is too much for these people – and I think we’ve found the new Republican meme for the 2006 elections

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/24/123859/595
North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, on the campaign trail Wednesday in Montana, defended Republican Sen. Conrad Burns' recent comments about immigrants and said that voting him out of office would be a "disaster." . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
[Bush] I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But . . . [l]eaving before the job is done would be a disaster. . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608060002
[Cokie Roberts] it would be "a disaster . .“ if businessman Ned Lamont were to win the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary against incumbent Joseph I. Lieberman . . .

Sidney Blumenthal – always fun to read

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/08/24/bush/
Bush is trapped in a self-generated dynamic that eerily recalls the centrifugal forces that spun apart his father’s presidency. . . . Outdoing the father by subduing "the wimp factor," the son has not grasped that it was the father's presumed strength and not his weakness that undid him in the end.

President Bush's staggering mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation. . . has until recently served his purpose of seeming to defy the elements of chaos he himself has aroused. By stringing every threat together into an immense plot that justifies a global war on terrorism, however, he has ultimately made himself hostage to any part of the convoluted story line that goes haywire.

Because Bush has told the public that Iraq is central to the war on terror, the worse things go in Iraq, the more the public thinks the war on terror is going badly. Asked at his press conference what invading Iraq had to do with Sept. 11, Bush seemed so dumbfounded that at first he answered directly. "Nothing," he said, before sliding into a falsely aggrieved self-defense -- "except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack."

Asked about sectarian violence in Iraq, Bush's voice suddenly went passive. "You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war." Indeed, he might have heard it from his top generals, John Abizaid and Peter Pace, who testified before the Senate on Aug. 3, seriously off-message from Bush's P.R. campaign of relentlessly stressing "victory." As Abizaid said, "Sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it." . . .

The sorry state of the American electorate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8291.html

The Bush gang continues its assault on independent journalism

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009524

Still a Joe Lieberman supporter? Read this

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/24/bunches_of_opportunities.html
[A] all three of Connecticut's incumbent Republicans--Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays, and Nancy Johnson--are facing tough fights for their political lives . . . One thing's clear: the three Democratic House challengers here aren't at all hurt by the fact they are endorsed by both Lieberman and Lamont . . .

http://www.farrellforcongress.com/news/aug10-ctpost.htm
[August 10] Lieberman said that he will continue to support the Democrats running for Congress even though they now support Lamont.

"It is a little bit harder, but I have endorsed the three of them," he said. Lieberman endorsed Joe Courtney over Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2, and Chris Murphy over Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/24/12492/6043
[August 24] Joe Lieberman will be campaigning with GOP candidates Jodi Rell and Rob Simmons today . . .

Scientists say they now can extract stem cells from already-existing embryos without destroying them. Countless embryos are created through in vitro fertilization, and end up being discarded. So what objection could the Bush administration have to allowing stem cell research now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html
But Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.” . . .

[NB: But Bush has ALREADY agreed to let stem cell lines derived from embryos be used for research. And anyway, the mere use of embryos was not his original objection. See below]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-3.html
Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. . . . Some people argue that finding new cures for disease requires the destruction of human embryos . . I disagree. . .

More: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2006/08/a_refrain_from_groucho_marx.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8285.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/25/62657/7063

Plan B (the “morning after” pill, a.k.a. “emergency contraception”) is finally approved for use without a prescription – which can help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and hence abortions. This is the first sensible thing I’ve seen come out of this govt in a long time. But a big piece of the credit goes to Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA), who held up the confirmation of a new FDA head until they stopped dragging their feet over this approval. Now, let’s get RU-486 approved too

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/health/24cnd-pill.html

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2006/08/thesis_topic.php

The Know-Nothings: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115648721239150272

Theocracy watch: the decline of the Christian Coalition’s political power

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8288.html

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/washington/25religion.html
A new poll shows that fewer Americans view the Republican Party as “friendly to religion” than a year ago . . .

Bonus item: The YouTube effect on politics

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/24/145812/387

***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 @ 6:52 AM

 
LAST DITCH

Awww . . . . a heartwarming story. Poor homeless man drives all the way from Louisiana to Washington DC in his FEMA trailer to plead the needs of Katrina victims before President Bush. Even better: he’s a white guy named Rockey (not one of those angry blacks down there). Except, hmm . . it wasn’t a FEMA trailer. And he’s a former chief executive of a company, not just your average Joe. And, uh, the Bush people INVITED him. And, well, yeah, he’s a former Republican candidate for office down there. And, waddya know, he seems mostly to have come to say “I wish we could have Bush for four more years.” Isn’t that a SWEET way to celebrate the anniversary of the disaster, and deflect criticism of Bush’s inaction and obliviousness at the time of the catastrophe?

http://www.attytood.com/archives/003647.html
[CNN, at its cloying, credulous worst] RICK SANCHEZ: I don't know if you were watching a couple days ago, but you might remember that we talked to a man named Rockey Vaccarella. . . He's a Katrina victim who was driving to the White House with a FEMA trailer. And he seemed to strike a nerve with people. He's there now. He's actually been invited inside. He wanted to go and met with the president. Well, guess what, the president has decided to meet with him . . . He was confident when he told us that the president would come out and find a way to talk to him.

[Rockey] You know, it's really amazing when a small man like me from St. Bernard Parish can meet the President of the United States. The President is a people person. I knew that from the beginning. I was confident that I could meet President Bush.

And my mission was very simple. I wanted to thank President Bush for the millions of FEMA trailers that were brought down there. They gave roofs over people's head. People had the chance to have baths, air condition. We have TV, we have toiletry, we have things that are necessities that we can live upon.

But now, I wanted to remind the President that the job's not done, and he knows that. And I just don't want the government and President Bush to forget about us. And I just wish the President could have another term in Washington. . .

[Will Bunch] Turns out that the earthy Vaccarella -- a highly successful businessman in the fast-food industry -- is indeed a Republican pol, having run unsuccessfully under the GOP banner for a seat on the St. Bernard Parish commission back in 1999 . . .

And in fact, Vaccarella seemed very confident that he would be meeting with Bush when he left home, to the point where he had a date scheduled and everything. . .

Shouldn't the media be a tad more skeptical about events like these? And isn't the fact that Vaccarella was once a Republican candidate for office a relevant fact that should be mentioned, to help viewers place his effusive, nationally televised praise in context. . . . This is a White House that has pledged, as you recall, "create our own reality," and they're doing it again. How many times we will in the media act as Charlie Brown, kicking with futility at the phony football that Rove and this White House hold out for us, again and again and again.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115635170491988563
[Bush] Rock is a plain-spoken guy. He's the kind of fellow I feel comfortable talking to. I told him that I understand that there's people down there that still need help. And I told him the federal government will work with the state and local authorities to get the help to them as quickly as possible.

MR. VACCARELLA: That's right.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6957
[Holden] Yeah humble, plain-spoken, blue-collar Rockey was once the Chief Operating Officer of one of the largest private companies in New Orleans. . . . Just a regular guy, no wonder he got to meet with the president when he asked and Cindy Sheehan did not. . .

UPDATE: Almost forgot, Rockey's trailer. . . Ain't no FEMA trailer.

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6958
Q Were you aware of Rockey Vaccarella's political background? Was he invited to meet with the President because he supports the President?

MS. PERINO: I checked into that, and at the time of invitation, no, there was no knowledge of his political affiliation.

Q You didn't know he had ever been a Republican candidate?

MS. PERINO: No, he was not invited -- he was invited before anybody knew that. . .

[NB: Invited!]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608240002
On the August 23 edition of CNN's Live From..., host Kyra Phillips allowed Katrina survivor Rockey Vaccarella to repeatedly praise or deflect blame from President Bush over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, yet failed to note that Vaccarella once ran for local office as a Republican . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8280.html
[Steve Benen] Unfortunately, it's all-too-typical. The media buys into the Kabuki Theater as if it were real, while the White House pretends to be genuinely interested in meeting with a person who can represent everyone who's suffered along the Gulf Coast, but instead arranges a photo-op with a GOP activist who tells the nation how great it would be if Bush had a third term. . . . Raise your hand if you're surprised.

The big-picture analysis of Bush’s press conference on Iraq: Peter Baker catches the fundamental shift in rhetoric

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301878.html
Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was "progress."

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.

The shifting rhetoric reflected a broader pessimism that has reached into even some of the most optimistic corners of the administration -- a sense that the Iraq venture has taken a dark turn and will not be resolved anytime soon. . . . While still committed to the venture, officials have privately told friends and associates outside government that they have grown discouraged in recent months. . .

The tone represents a striking change from what critics considered an overly rosy portrayal of Iraq, and the latest stage in a year-long evolution in message. . .

"He looks foolish and not credible if he says, 'We're making progress in Iraq,' " [Christopher F. Gelpi] said. "I think he probably would like to make that argument, but because that's not credible given the facts on the ground, this is the fallback. . . . If the only thing you can say is 'Yes, it's bad, but it could be worse,' that really is a last-ditch argument."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
[Bush] If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself . . .

I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself. . .

I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction. . .

And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred . . .

Unite your friends and divide your enemies – Bush’s middle east policies have achieved just the opposite

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009518
The past week or so has seen some renewed attention to the longstanding hawk-pundit gambit of referring to people as "Islamofascists" since the President, in what I can only understand as a sign of increasing desperation, decided to more-or-less sign on to this agenda by adopting the slightly-less-absurd formulation "Islamic fascists." The other day, Spencer Ackerman made the fundamental pragmatic argument against this -- Muslims everywhere really, really, really don't appreciate this terminology. . .

A contrary view: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/08/so_what_if_it_is_islamofascism.php

Today’s must-read, from a former State Dept employee

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11859
[Flynt Leverett] Three and a half years after the invasion of Iraq and five years after 9-11, the outbreak of armed conflict between Israel and radical groups in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon has revealed how badly the president’s chosen Middle East strategy has damaged the interests of the United States and its allies in the region. The current conflict -- which comes alongside a growing likelihood of strategic failure in Iraq -- shows the negative consequences of the administration’s disdain for diplomatic engagement with problematic but pivotal players in the region. . .

Let’s see: 9-11 happened, then we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, the Taliban is coming back, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists, Al Qaeda’s membership and reach is growing, Hezbollah have been made into heroes across the middle east – but we sure have isolated Iran haven’t we?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1856363,00.html
The US-led "war on terror" has bolstered Iran's power and influence in the Middle East, especially over its neighbour and former enemy Iraq, a thinktank said today. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009387.php
Noting "significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about Iran," the House Intelligence Committee staff report questioned whether the United States could even effectively engage in talks with Tehran on ways to diffuse tensions.

[Kevin Drum] Got that? It's not just that we don't really know anything about their nuclear, biological, etc. programs. We don't even know enough to talk to them intelligently.

This despite the fact that Iran was declared part of the Axis of Evil more than four years ago. In response to the House report, the White House says reassuringly that they are "taking steps" to do better. . . .

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060823/ts_nm/mideast_iran_dc_1

And so the usual actors draw the logical conclusion from these intelligence failures: yes, it’s time to attack Iran!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24intel.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/weve-got-no-intel-on-iran-part-ii-gop.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009388.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009519
[Matt Yglesias] Shocking. Republican politicians warn that intelligence professionals are being insufficiently alarmist about Iran. And rightly so. After all, last time there was a dispute like that, the alarmist politicians were completely vindicated and the skeptics in the intelligence community definitively refuted. You all remember that. . . . Right? Right?

Now that people are ready to separate the War in Iraq from the War on Terror (despite the best efforts of the Bush gang to weld them together), it’s an opening for the Democrats – Swopa lays out the talking points

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3293

One way in which they ARE linked

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/osama-would-vote-republican.html
[John Aravosis] There is a strong belief inside the US government that perhaps the reason we haven't been hit is because Osama decided a while back NOT to hit us again on the US mainland. Rather, he is targeting our allies (Spain and England particularly), the argument goes, in order to force them to pull out of Iraq, and more generally distance themselves from the US, in order to leave us all alone in our Iraqi quagmire, thus making Iraq an even BIGGER quagmire (taking the financial and military hit), but just as importantly, making the US (and its Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) the focus of all the Muslim rage that will continue to build because of the US presence in Iraq.

Or to put it more simply, Osama wanted the US to invade the Middle East, and he really wants us to stay there because our presence helps generate anti-US and pro-Osama feelings. . .

Joe Lieberman can try to back off the WMD issue now, but look at the record – guess who was one of Bush’s main enablers on the WMD lie at the time?

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1203/snakes-off-the-head-what-are-we-really-fighting-for

It isn’t just George Allen (R-VA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) – the Republicans are having a dickens of a time dealing with the race issue this year. Their problem? They keep blurting out what they really think!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8275.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608240003

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/racist-gop-ad-in-ri-gop-senate-primary.html

Allen apologizes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301600.html

The attacks on Judge Anna Diggs Taylor continue

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2006/08/judge_taylor_ge.html
[John McDonald] As one conservative blogger wrote, her ruling is “a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level. Apparently, he has a different interpretation of the Constitution as well.

But it gets worse. The conservative blog-way spewed forth to call her an “Unpatriotic,” “America Hating,” “Crazy Bitch,” “Jihad Judge,” who should be “immediately impeached.” She is “insane” and must be a “black” or “fucking a sand nigger.” Judge Taylor deserves, as one blogger writes, “to have the first bomb that comes here dropped on her head.”

And from the outlying edges of the real fringe comes this, as reported by the Huges for America Blog citing comments from Free Republic: “ This traitor should be taken out back and SHOT. Period. Not a joke, not sarcasm. I'm tired of this terrorist-allied judicial legislators. (Note: That’s not in the Constitution either.)

As for the President Bush, he say’s “Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.”

He is right about that.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-supporters-develop-sudden.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Bush supporters have suddenly developed -- literally overnight -- a profound and noble interest in the judicial ethical rules governing conflicts of interest. They're all experts on these rules now and most (though not all) have shockingly decided that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor acted improperly by ruling on the NSA case even though she is a Trustee of an organization that donated money to the ACLU (which means she is a corrupt person, which means that her ruling was wrong, which shows that the Commander-in-Chief did nothing wrong). Experts in judicial ethics are making clear that this was hardly an arrangement requiring recusal, but at worst, should have been disclosed.

To illuminate what is really going on here, let us note the fact that the same crowd attacking Taylor now was quite dismissive over a far more serious and corrupt "conflict of interest" -- the fact that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went on an intimate little hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to accept an appeal in the lawsuit in which Vice President Cheney had been sued for his failure to reveal facts surrounding the Energy Task Force. Cheney never disclosed his hunting excursion, nor did Scalia. Instead, the parties discovered this only when The Los Angeles Times learned of it and then reported it. . .

Maybe the quality of Judge Taylor’s legal arguments can be questioned – but not by the likes of this

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/ann-althouse-nyt-legal-expert-on-case.html
[Glenn Greenwald] This Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Ann Althouse purports to criticize Judge Taylor's ruling in the NSA case on the ground that Taylor "didn’t bother to come up with the verbiage that normally cushions us" from suspicions that a court is motivated by the result, not the law, and because what Althouse calls "immensely difficult matters" surrounding Bush's violations of FISA were "disposed of in short sections that jump from assorted quotations of old cases to conclusory assertions of illegality."

The fact that something is "immensely difficult" for Ann Althouse to figure out does not mean that it is, in fact, "immensely difficult." Most actual legal experts, across the ideological spectrum, have found nothing challenging -- let alone "immensely difficult" -- about concluding that the President of the United States does not have the power to break the law by engaging in the very conduct which the law criminalizes.

Althouse thinks that the President's claim that neither courts nor Congress can interfere in his conduct with regard to national security "is a serious argument, and judges need to take it seriously," but she never says why that argument is "serious" or what the court failed to consider in rejecting the administration's theories of presidential omnipotence. Althouse apparently thinks that repeating the words "serious" and "difficult" enough times will bestow on her little platitudes the scholarly weight which her analysis so plainly, so embarrassingly lacks. . .

People who live in vacation homes shouldn’t throw stones. The RNC tries to go after Markos Moulitsas (the Kos of the Daily Kos empire), by complaining that he takes too many vacations. Uh, that isn’t really an issue the supporters of part-time president George Bush want to take on, is it?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1222.html

A new approach on stem cells?

http://www.slate.com/id/2148319
[Joshua Kucera] Biologists announced that they have developed a method of gathering stem cells without killing an embryo, which they say removes the primary ethical objection to medical research using the cells. . .

The new stem cell technique was designed to be as unobjectionable as possible by piggybacking on an existing method of diagnostic testing of embryos in the in vitro fertilization process. The embryo then keeps developing, apparently unharmed (though scientists aren't 100 percent sure of this yet).

"There is no rational reason left to oppose this research," one of the scientists involved told the NYT. But the White House said they'll be deciding what's rational, thank you. A Bush spokeswoman said the scientists had the right idea, but that in the end, "any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns." . . .

The Journal, which puts the stem cell story on the front page of its Marketplace section, has both the clearest and most detailed explanation of the science involved. . .

Bonus item: Has Bush gotten dumber?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/conservative-tv-host-says-bush-does.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 @ 6:45 AM

 
ANIMAL HOUSE

Plame news! Looks like we’ve found out Bob Woodward’s original source on Plame (and very likely Bob Novak’s too). Armitage has been speculated for a long time – now there is some confirmation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_woodward
The No. 2 State Department official met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified that an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame. . . . Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003. . . . An attorney for the Wilsons said Tuesday that, based on the calendar, she was considering adding Armitage to a civil lawsuit accusing Vice President Dick Cheney and two White House aides of conspiring to reveal Plame's identity. . . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3289

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/22/plame/index.html
[Tim Grieve] The identity of Woodward's source is something of a tangent in Plamegate, except for this: Robert Novak, who, unlike Woodward, actually outed Plame in print, has said that whoever told Woodward of Plame's identity is probably the same person who first told him.

This little tidbit in U.S. News and World Report is all over the blogosphere. Apart from the fact that it is so totally unsurprising, the interesting question is this: Clearly it’s been well-known for a long time – so why is it coming out at this particular point in time, and why hasn’t it been talked about before?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/060820/28whisplead.htm
Animal House in the West Wing
He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115628714400862833
[Digby] The president who claimed he would bring honor and dignity to the white house . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8267.html
[Steve Benen] Then again, perhaps it's best not to expect too much of Bush's social graces. I would have found it hard to imagine the president giving an unsolicited neck-rub to the Chancellor of Germany, or trying to publicly embarrass top administration officials for getting post-graduate degrees, too.

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6941

In his press conference Bush said, quote, “"We're not leaving [Iraq] so long as I'm the president.” How did the media cover it? (I think you can guess the answer)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608220005
BAIER: The president said as long as he is president, U.S. troops will not leave before the mission is complete. . .

RADDATZ: The president acknowledged that he is sometimes frustrated by the lack of progress in Iraq and worries about civil war. But he was adamant that the U.S. will stay the course. . .

GONYEA: On Iraq, the president has been facing growing criticism of his policies. When pressed today on whether it's time to change his overall strategy, he said no, that it's vital to remain in Iraq until the new government can provide for its own security. . .

Michael A. Fletcher and Glenn Kessler: While acknowledging that raging sectarian violence and mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq are "straining the psyche of our country," Bush said that withdrawing U.S. troops before the nation is stabilized would be disastrous. . .

Another disappearing quote

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608230001

More on Bush’s promise never to “question the patriotism of someone who disagrees with me”

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/releases/012

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608220006
[Rush Limbaugh] On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh "respectfully" disagreed with President Bush's statement that "I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me," saying, "I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

[NB: So now will Bush be asked to repudiate Limbaugh's position?]

More on Bush’s claim that he never linked Saddam to 9-11

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/23/73715/4782

Two final links on Bush’s miserable press conference performance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/22/BL2006082200658.html
[Dan Froomkin] That part of Bush's answer makes me wonder how much else of what he said isn't true either. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2148197
[Fred Kaplan] “moronic”

Less than six degrees of separation: new surveillance rules could tag many more people as “linked to terrorists”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1209.html

Lincoln was right: you can’t fool all of the people all of the time

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/08/lincoln_was_right_.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23poll.html
Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats . . .

Supporting our troops

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/marines-start-involuntarily-recall.html
[AP] The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months. . . This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war. . .

Eliott Abrams, Iran-Contra crook and one of the real thugs of the Reagan administration, has been rehabilitated and remains mostly under the radar of the Bush administration – but no longer

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001605.php

More indications that Sect’y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may be on the skids?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004788.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004787.html

The “Democrat party.” Now Bush is using the term, and the press is starting to notice (some in the press are starting to use it too). Hendrik Hertzberg pointed out here a few days ago that the term is a slur, plain and simple, cooked up by Tom DeLay and others. And one wonders, once again, why the Democrats stand for something that the Republicans wouldn’t let go for an instant – there would be a concerted push-back and the term would disappear in 72 hours.

So, I give this to the Democratic party for free – a three-part strategy. Get every self-respecting party member to repeat constantly:

(1) “Why do the Republicans have trouble with the word ‘Democratic’? Does this have something to do with their opposition to voting rights, verifiable voting machines, and the will of the people on Iraq?”

(2) “It is a simple sign of respect to any group to call them the name they choose to be identified by: if blacks want to be called African-Americans, or if adult females want to be called ‘women’ and not ‘girls,’ then it is an intentional insult to refuse to do so.”

(3) “Until this stops, we are going to keep referring to the GOP as the ‘Republic party’ (with a heavy emphasis on ‘Repub – LICK’) – and we will keep doing it until they drop the term ‘Democrat party.’ We will show them respect when they show it to us”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1207.html

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

Strange, but persuasive: how Republican corruption may be HELPING some conservative candidates

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/22/8354/24262

The dangers of incumbency in the present climate

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009504

The death of small-government conservatism?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11860

More on the conservative revolt: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115629755296817459

James Inhofe (R-OK) must not be reading the same newspapers as the rest of us: says progress in Iraq is “nothing short of a miracle”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/iraq-is-nothing-short-of-miracle.html

More: http://www.senatemajority.com/outrageous_quote_of_the_day_james_inhofe_0

John McCain (R-AZ) keeps making angry-sounding noises about Bush’s Iraq war – but still supports his policies

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8269.html

Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) long journey rightward

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009505
[Josh Marshall] Joe Lieberman and right-wing talk show host Glenn Beck have a chat and agree about pretty much everything. Are we in the midst of World War III? Check. WMD wasn't why we went into Iraq? Check. Etc.

Polling trends: two separate polls have Ned Lamont closing to within two percentage points of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and another shows James Webb closing in on George Allen in Virginia

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/22/12363/8882

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/22/allen/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Maybe "Macaca" means "make my lead disappear" . . .

Allen’s campaign puts out a strange letter trying to correct the record on his racist comments

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/22/142134/457
Literally putting words into Senator Allen's mouth that he did not say . . .

[NB: Huh? This was on VIDEO-TAPE, you idiot!]

Even after Senator Allen apologized . . . Senator Allen has said that his comments were a mistake. Who among us has not made mistakes? In fact, how many of us could put in the hours of work, travel, meetings, campaigning, etc. that Senator Allen has over the years and make as few mistakes as he has? . . .

[NB: So, if it was a mistake for which he apologized, then he DID say something that was a “mistake” and for which he thought it appropriate to “apologize.” So the words WEREN'T "put into his mouth."]

Apparently the media's standard for candidates is now that they must be perfect, not human . . .

[NB: I think that asking candidates to refrain from racist slurs is hardly too high a standard to expect . . . do you?]

Conrad Burns (R-MT), another Republican fighting for his life, just made his re-election harder too

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/gop-senator-conrad-burns-and-his-nice.html
[AP] Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, whose re-election campaign is pressing for tighter immigration controls, referred to his house painter as "a nice little Guatemalan man" and suggested that worker as well employees of a roofing company he hired might be in the country illegally.

"The other day, the little fella who does our maintenance work around the house, he's from Guatemala, and I said, 'Could I see your green card?'" Burns said at a June meeting recorded by Democrats. "And Hugo says, 'No.' I said, 'Oh gosh.'. . . "Hugo is a nice little Guatemalan man who is doing some painting for me . . . in Virginia," Burns told the audience, to laughter, after hanging up on the call. "No, he's terrific, love him." . . .

Double bad news for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, from the NYT: she may have had a conflict of interest in the NSA case – and they get her name wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html
The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Taylor Diggs, and called for further investigation. . .

[NB: This will probably be corrected by the time you see it]

Bonus item: George Bush’s reading list (uh-huh)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8271.html
[Steve Benen] . . . including John Barry's "The Great Influenza," Geraldine Brooks' "Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women," Gordon Wood's "Revolutionary Characters," and (I kid you not) "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" by Shakespeare.

***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 @ 7:48 AM

 
NEVER WRONG

You won’t hear this said in the popular media, but Bush’s performance in his press conference yesterday was awful, truly horrifying: the worst combination of cluelessly repeating tired old excuses, jaw-dropping falsehoods, and inappropriate humor. He sounded weary, impatient, petulant, defensive, and pointedly obtuse about the concerns and questions asked – “Don’t you get it? I’ve said we need to do this. Why are you questioning me?” Bush doesn’t know how to respond to questions except to insist that what he believes to be true MUST BE true.

Don’t miss it. An edited transcript, with commentary, follows . . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And, therefore, we have a plan to help them -- "them," the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives. . .

[Billmon: What [Isaiah] Berlin meant, I think, is that hedgehogs try to integrate all of their experiences and thoughts into a single, overarching concept of life and their place in it. . .

At this point, I would say Shrub is acting like a hedgehog on hallucinogens. His one big integrative idea -- exporting American-style "democracy" to Iraq at the point of a gun -- has proven fatally, disasterously wrong, but he can't let go of it, because it's the only idea he's got. . .

I think if Shrub were ever forced to let go of his vision, his one big idea, it would not only crush his fragile ego, it would leave him completely incapable of making any sense at all out of his presidency, out of America's role in the Middle East, out of the universe.

So now he's imitating the hedgehog as literally as any human being can -- he's rolled himself up into a defensive ball, spines out. He has nothing useful to say and absolutely no strategy beyond hunkering down and passively defying reality. . .
http://billmon.org/archives/002703.html]

You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned about that, of course, and I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing is clear: The Iraqi people are showing incredible courage. . . .

A failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

[Swopa: Okay, let's leave aside for a moment the practical issues involved in terrorists holed up in a "failed state" somehow managing to oversee a thriving oil-export business -- something that the Iraqi government has been unable to do despite the full support of the U.S. military and billions of dollars in reconstruction funds.

What I want to know is, what happened to Dubya's faith in the free market system?! If we become their loyal customers, won't those "evil" terrorists be sorely tempted to put aside their "hateful ideology" in favor of the fruits of capitalism -- luxury condos, vacations at posh European resorts, etc.? How could they blow us up when we're busy inflating their investment portfolio?
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3285]

You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people, saying, withdraw now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country.

[Bill Kavanagh: I’d prefer that someone in the White House press corps had gotten an answer to the obvious question yesterday: “What exactly is your plan for Iraq— and given how poorly the mission is going now, what will you change within it to achieve the security goals you keep suggesting are achievable?” . . . The President actually manages to attack a straw man of withdrawal, which isn’t responsible for the current disaster, by comparing the current situation to one that might be worse? This is unbelievable gall. . . He’s an embarrassment and so is a press corps that lets him get away with a staged rant about defending the country by running our military headlong into the sands of Iraq, with no achievable goal and no plan for an exit.
http://billsrants.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/bush_press_conf.html]

If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people. . .

[NB: Remember this when he says, later, “I don’t listen to polls – it doesn’t matter that a clear majority of Americans want us to set a timetable for withdrawal"]

Helen. (Laughter.) What's so funny about me saying "Helen"? (Laughter.) It's the anticipation of your question, I guess. . .

Q Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's -- Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of your oath for a truce?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which bothers me -- but, again, what caused this.

Q Why drop bombs on --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish -- let -- ma'am. Ma'am, please let me finish the question. It's a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway. (Laughter.) I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath. . .

Let's see -- we'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)

Q Yes, kind of. (Laughter.)

Q Very close quarters.

THE PRESIDENT: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery I'll call on you. (Laughter.) By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody -- (laughter.) Never mind.

Q Kind of the Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.) . . .

[NB: Ha, ha, ha. But seriously, let’s get back to the death and violence. . . ]

Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not? . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. . . .

[NB: Yes, you heard that right. Can we make this the campaign slogan of the 2006 elections? http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-not-leaving/]

That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground . . .

Suzanne.

Q Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work. . .

Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.

This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq. . .

[Joe: The President has no plan to solve the quagmire in Iraq. He offers rhetoric. Yet, one more time, he's most willing to lay out a political agenda about Iraq . . .
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/with-no-plan-for-iraq-war-bush-unveils.html]

Q Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals, and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there, and that it really is Iraqi versus Iraqi. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised. And your spokesman said, no, you're determined. But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, about what's happening? . . .

THE PRESIDENT: . . . No, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders.

No question there's sectarian violence, as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means.

And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long-term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one where government responds to the will of the people. And that's really -- really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation, and others believe, it is possible to defeat this ideology.

Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically bound. I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them. And the best way to confront them is to help those who want to live in free society.

Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.

Q But are you frustrated, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated.

[Tony Snow: Bush doesn't get frustrated . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/17/BL2006081700708.html]

Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy.

[Media Matters: In an August 21 article on the press conference, Washington Post staff writer Daniela Deane included this answer, but removed from the middle of the quote Bush's admission, "Sometimes I'm happy." Deane offered readers no indication that she had edited the quote.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608210004]

These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists, and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's the question. And my answer to that question is, we must. . . .

Knoller.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: How are you feeling?

Q I'm good, sir. It's good to be back.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Yes, it's good to see you. Sorry we didn't spend more time in Crawford. I knew you were anxious to do so.

Q Always am.

THE PRESIDENT: That's good. (Laughter.) That's why we love seeing you. . . .

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier. Do you agree with those in your party, including the Vice President, who have said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and then as a message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. . .

[NB: As Steve Benen points out, notice the frequency of Bush’s references here to staying in Iraq until the “mission is complete.” It would be fair to ask him two questions. One, what EXACTLY will constitute a “completed” mission? Two, does this mean an uncompromising, open-ended commitment no matter how bad the conditions get there?

[Steve Benen] [T]hese answers are obviously repetitious and frequently nonsensical, but as Swopa noted a few weeks ago, that's not because the president is some kind of rambling lunatic who's too dense to understand the question (though that may be part of it); it's because Bush isn't really talking to anyone in the room or watching the whole video.

“[The president's] audience consists of people who are accidentally catching a soundbite on the news while flipping channels, or looking for reassurance while watching Fox News.”

I think that's almost certainly right. Rove & Co. told him beforehand, "Mr. President, go out there and emphasize the importance of 'completing the mission.' Our focus groups say people respond well to the phrase." The president, unimaginative when it comes to answers of his own, followed the instructions carefully.

As a result, every question about Iraq prompted almost the exact same response. Part of this may be because Bush could think of nothing else to say, but just as likely, Bush never knows which answer is going to make the evening news. Better to make them all the same, just to play it safe.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8260.html

[John Aravosis] Bush never plans to leave Iraq, no matter HOW bad or HOW hopeless it gets . . . This is a very important point that, oddly, Bush himself has openly admitted repeatedly. He plans to keep US troops in Iraq until the end of his term, period. We're not leaving. It doesn't matter how bad things get, how many Americans die, how much money it costs. It doesn't even matter how hopeless the situation becomes. He will NOT remove US troops from that country until "we win." . . . But what if we can't win?

This is the question that Bush refuses to answer. Bush has only ONE plan for Iraq. We win, then we come home. And its corollary, we don't come home UNTIL we win. . . But what if we never win?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-never-plans-to-leave-iraq-no.html]

I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region. Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live. . . .

[NB: Never questioned the patriotism of war critics?

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/12/124922.php
BUSH: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. . . As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955
When some raised objections to how the Homeland Security Department was being structured, President Bush said the Democratic-led "Senate is not interested in the security of the American people."

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955
Under the headline “Rumsfeld: Critics Give Terrorists Hope,” Newsday reported on 9/9/03 that Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld said “that critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism.”

Lots, lots more: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955]

There is a global war going on. And somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement, in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing extremists that believe something, and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets. . . But you know something -- it's an amazing town, isn't it, where they say, on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, an attack would occur, and they say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town.

And so we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out, in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is, we're not patriotic, simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they?

What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different point of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. . .

And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned. . .

[NB: Once again, Bush poses not only as our Commander in Chief, but as our Spiritual Father
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-worried-about-americas-soul-and.html]

This is a global war on terror. I repeat what our major general said -- or leading general said in the region. He said, "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." I strongly agree with that.

[Digby: I would normally say we should use logic and reason by pointing out that all the terrorists aren't in Iraq --- as the foiled British plot recently showed --- so being in Iraq can't prevent terrorists who are elsewhere from coming over here. . .
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115619478266963812]

And if you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country.

We're talking about a long-term issue here, as well, Ann. In the short-term, we've got to have the tools necessary to stop terrorist attack. That means good intel, good intelligence-sharing, the capacity to know whether al Qaeda is calling into this country and why. We've got to have all those tools -- the Patriot Act, tearing down those walls between intel and law enforcement are a necessary part of protecting the country. But in the long-term, the only way to defeat this terrorist bunch is through the spread of liberty and freedom.

And that's a big challenge. I understand it's a challenge. It requires commitment and patience and persistence . . .

Q Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy and people will change their mind about it, or is this the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Look, Presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't care. Of course, I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq, I can understand that. . . . And so, yes, I care, I really do. I wish -- and so, therefore, I'm going to spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq.

Q Can I follow --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. On the other hand, Ken, I don't think you've ever heard me say -- and you've now been covering me for quite a while, 12 years -- I don't think I've -- 12 years? Yes. I don't think you've ever heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions because the polls say this or that. I've been here long enough to understand you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm going to do what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is.

[NB: Bush, a few minutes earlier: “imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before [Iraq] has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people. . .”
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/21/bush2/index.html]

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

[On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-11.htm]

It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

[Mark Kleiman: I'm not sure what that means. If chemical weapons count, and chlorine gas is a chemical weapon, then I have the means to make weapons of mass destruction . . . under my kitchen sink.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2006/08/bush_fesses_up_on_wmd.php]

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. . . .

[Think Progress: To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

As Think Progress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001382.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8258.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/21/bush3/index.html

http://www.correntewire.com/the_mother_of_all_walkbacks_bush_admits_iraq_had_nothing_to_do_with_9_11

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1193.html]

I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

Last question. Stretch. Who are you working for, Stretch?

Q Washington Examiner.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good. Glad you found work. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause early-term abortions. Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel about Plan B in general?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support Andy's decision.

Thanks for letting me come by the new digs here. They may be a little too fancy for you.

Q We'd be happy to go back.

Q Are we coming back?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, you're coming back.

Q Can we hold you to that?

THE PRESIDENT: Coming back to the bosom of the White House. (Laughter.) I'm looking forward to hugging you when you come back, everybody. When are you coming back?

Q You tell us.

Q May.

THE PRESIDENT: May, is that when it is scheduled?

Q They've sealed off of our -- they sealed off the door. We're wondering if we're really coming back or not.

Q The decision will be made by commanders on the ground. (Laughter.)

Q There's no timetable.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you think this is, a correspondents dinner or something? (Laughter.)

Thank you all.

Q Thank you.

Q Are you going to come visit our workspace?

THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)

[Psychoanalyzing the speech: http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/bushs-arab-dream-palace-is-it.html]

Special Edition: The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6933

Well, now we know that the will of the people matters in Iraq, but not in the U.S. Still, recent polls show that opposition to the war is growing

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/poll-opposition-to-iraq-war-at-all.html
[CNN] Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago. . .

[John Aravosis] Oh, but it gets better:

Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence. . .

More cracks in the transatlantic alliance

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001380.php
[Justin Rood] Last week I noted the curious silence from the Bush administration about leaks to the press that appeared potentially damaging to the ongoing investigation of the British "liquid terror" plot.

Not everyone has been so sanguine as the White House, apparently. British counterterror police have angrily requested the FBI quit leaking sensitive information about the ongoing probes . . .

Bush’s Plan B on Plan B

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8259.html

Joe Lieberman continues to try to modulate his pro-war/anti-war credentials, and gets himself in a terrible tangle doing it

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_atrios_archive.html#115617513266767100

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/21/lieberman/index.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8256.html

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_atrios_archive.html#115619008104197143
[Eric Alterman] Here’s my prediction: If Lieberman wins the election, he will not switch to the Republicans, as some fear. But he will do the functional equivalent, which is accept Bush’s appointment to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, resign his seat and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his stead. That is the implicit deal between the Lieberman camp and Rove, Cheney, Bush etc and the reason, that alone, in the entire country, this is the only race where this most partisan of political operations, refuses to support the Republican in the race. Bush, Rove and Cheney do not make political decisions on the basis of what they think is good for the country. They care only about their party and themselves. If Lieberman supporters are genuinely supporting him as a Democrat, is it not enough for him to pledge to vote with the party in the Senate. He must pledge that, under no circumstances, will he accept an appointment from Bush or resign his seat under any circumstances, so long as a Republican occupies the state House.

Tough crowds: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/22/15610/8451
"That's a way of looking at it, another way is you being a sore loser," says Adam Mocciolo, Waterbury.

A Major League smackdown of the Bush gang’s arguments and evidence in the Padilla case

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6935
[U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke] "There can be no question that the government has charged a single conspiracy offense multiple times, in separate counts, when in law and in fact, only one [alleged] crime has been committed," Cooke wrote in an eight-page ruling released to prosecutors and defense lawyers on Monday.

"The danger raised by a multiplicitous indictment is present in the instant indictment," she wrote, stressing that it violates the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution -- the prosecution or punishment of a defendant twice for the same offense. . .

But earlier this summer, as both sides prepared the case for trial, Cooke said the government's evidence appeared “very light on facts."

Last month, Cooke ordered Miami federal prosecutors -- for the second time -- to provide more details to make their case against Padilla, Hassoun and Jayyousi, all charged with supplying money and recruits for Islamic extremists abroad.

Cooke said the prosecutors' initial response was “insufficient."

More: http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/08/judge_cooke_dismisses_13_padilla_indictment.html

Glenn Greenwald isn’t ready to drop the illegal wiretapping ruling, and neither am I: but he puts his finger on something I’ve been wondering about for a while now. The press and “responsible” commentariat really don’t want to hear about Bush’s law-breaking, whether it’s true or not. They see the potential for Congressional hearings, resignations, and even possible impeachment – and having been through all that with Clinton (for reasons that look laughably trivial today) they have no appetite for going through it again, especially when the right wingnuts and talk radio attack dogs will blame THEM for undermining our Commander in Chief in time of war

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/rules-of-polite-washington-discourse.html
[Jonathan Turley] The far more difficult question is the implication of Taylor's ruling. If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid.

Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. . .

[Glenn Greenwald] This has been the most bizarre part of the NSA scandal all along: the President got caught red-handed violating an extremely clear law -- he admitted to engaging in the very behavior which that law says is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine -- and yet official Washington (the political and pundit classes) simply decided to pretend that wasn't the case. . .

Let’s see: given the critical reaction to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling on illegal NSA spying, what do you think the analysis should be of THIS legal reasoning?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009493
[Josh Marshall] This really is sort of a bad joke. A judge has thrown out a verdict against a corrupt defense contractor who swindled the CPA (the US occupation government of Iraq) because, he says, the plaintiffs hadn't adequately demonstrated that the CPA was an "instrumentality of the US government."

Basically the CPA was too multinational in character for the contractors who swindled it to be sued in American courts. . .

Beautiful dead girls (women)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/21/201719/923

Handicapping the race for the Senate

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/21/174847/673

Bonus item: Can you feel the love? Katherine Harris (R-FL) addresses a "pep rally"

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6930

***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 @ 7:16 AM

 
NO EXIT

The dilemmas of Iraq war support: people like John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who are trying to maintain some distance from Bush as “loyal critics” of the war, without fundamentally challenging Bush war polices, end up in some pretty miserable contortions

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_atrios_archive.html#115608514513377012
[McCain] “The administration has done the wrong thing for the last 3 and a half years which leaves us with no option other than staying the course.”

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/joe-iraq-better-than-one-year-ago.html
Joe: Iraq Better Than One Year Ago, Worse Than Six Months Ago . . .

July 6th: Iraq better than it was a year ago. Iraqi military ready to lead the fight.

August 20th: Iraq worse than it was six months ago. Iraqi military not ready to lead the fight.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S4F21299D
Lieberman reiterated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign due to setbacks in Iraq and said that despite his own support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, he thinks Bush has mishandled Iraq policy after the invasion. . . "I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004 . .”

Chuck Hagel (R-NE) doesn’t have this problem

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/20/hagel-iraq-civil-war/
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said that Iraq is in a “very defined civil war” and that the Middle East is “the most unstable we’ve seen since 1948.” He also reiterated that the United States needs to begin withdrawing troops within the next six months because staying the course just continues to “kill Americans and put Americans in the middle of a civil war that we have less and less control and influence over every day.”

More Hagel: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015545.html
"I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable." . . .

Watching the Sunday talk shows yesterday, something has shifted in the conventional discourse about the war

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/20/134942/764
[DemfromCT] An important shift in the media narrative has taken place this week. Whether it's Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Hagel, or this long article in the WaPo by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, the new CW is that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Tell me about it. We wrote about the Iraqi civil war six months ago, maybe even before, but only now are the oh-so-sophisticated DC Kewl Kidz catching on. But it's an important milestone, because mention of civil war runs the risk of making American voter support, what's left of it, plummet. We're there to prevent and mitigate a civil war. If it's already happening, buh-bye.

In any case, defining "buh-bye" is important. Cheney and Co. would have you believe that to all Democrats that means leave immediately. He's trying to push that line with Ned Lamont, but it's hard to paint CT suburbanites as angry leftists when they're/we're really irate moderates. The prospect of "Iraqi civil war" as the narrative makes that even less likely to work. . . .

A slow morning for feeds today, so here is a set of clips from Meet the Press yesterday – I thought it was a very important and revealing exchange on the war. My comments follow

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/print/1/displaymode/1098/
MR. GREGORY: And welcome all. Dr. Vali Nasr, you write in “The Shia Revival,” but also in an article in this month’s Foreign Affairs magazine, that the war in Iraq has profoundly changed the Middle East, but not in the way that the United States necessarily anticipated. We’ll put a piece of that article on our screen. You write, “When the U.S. government toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, it thought regime change would help bring democracy to Iraq and then to the rest of the region. The Bush administration thought of politics as the relationship between individuals and the state, and so it failed to recognize that people in the Middle East see politics also as the balance of power among communities. Rather than viewing the fall of Saddam as an occasion to create a liberal democracy, therefore, many Iraqis viewed it as an opportunity to redress injustices in the distribution of power among the country’s major communities. By liberating and empowering Iraq’s Shiite majority, the Bush administration helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the Middle East for years to come.” How upset is that balance right now, Dr. Nasr? Is it civil war?

DR. VALI NASR: Not yet, but it seems that all sides are acting as if they’re expecting it to happen. You know, building their forces, they’re trying to get a strong position within Baghdad itself, they’re ethnic cleansing the neighborhoods. And the forces that are keeping that country together are gradually losing ground to the forces that are pulling it apart.

MR. GREGORY: How badly did we miscalculate the way Iraqis would view the toppling of Saddam? In other words, did we miscalculate that they would think about being Iraqis before being Sunni or Shia?

DR. NASR: Right. We, we assumed that there is a uniform civil society and civil order in that country. We forgot that the last 10 years of Saddam’s rule were essentially a sectarian government and that once you take the pressure lid off, that what comes to the fore most immediately is the way in which each side has viewed its political position. . .

MR. GREGORY: General Barry McCaffrey, we’re doing this in a military way, in large part. Our troops are not trained to referee a civil war. From a military point of view, as you come up with strategies, how do you navigate this current reality in Iraq?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, I’m not sure I know. . . Dr. Nasr, I think, accurately articulated the political problem we’re facing. It’s not going to be solved—the battle of Baghdad won’t be solved by the United States Army. We’ve had 22,000 killed and wounded, two-thirds of our brigades, the ones that aren’t deployed, in the United States Army National Guard now, are not ready to fight. So the surge capability to deal with this from a military perspective is not there.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think more troops are needed at this point?

GEN. McCAFFREY: I’m not sure it’s the right question. First of all, they’re not available. . . . The Army is $23 billion short, our equipment’s coming apart, we’re drafting 42-year-old grandmothers to be privates in the Army. I shouldn’t have said draft, asking for volunteers. So I don’t think the combat power is there in the Army and the Marine Corps to solve this problem militarily. . .

MR. GREGORY: And we talk about Iraqi security forces, and I mentioned earlier in the program Michael Gordon with The New York Times has just returned from Anbar Province being embedded with troops, and he writes the following about Iraqi troops: “Even at its best, the Iraqi military faces severe constraints. It has no helicopter-assault capability, indeed no air force to speak of. It mostly relies on the Americans for medical care and reconnaissance. And it has no tradition of entrusting its sergeants and other noncommissioned officers with important responsibilities. . .

“What I saw in more than three weeks in Anbar Province,” western Iraq, “was not reassuring. Dogged efforts were being undercut by a dysfunctional Iraqi bureaucracy in Baghdad. . . Iraq’s Ministry of Defense has been slow to issue promotions for the new soldiers and to distribute proper pay. A goodly number of the Iraqi soldiers have voted with their feet and gone AWOL. . .

“What kind of exit strategy is this when Iraqi soldiers in some of Iraq’s most contested areas have been leaving faster than the Americans?” What kind of exit strategy?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, it’s miserably underresourced, which—a shortcoming I’ve articulated over on the Hill now and to the administration. . . . There’s no plan to build a force which would be capable of, of replacing us. So I think our strategy is flawed. . .

MR. GREGORY: And yet, John Harwood, politically speaking, an exit strategy is critical for this White House and indeed, for Republicans this year. And yet that exit strategy may not be available to them in terms of getting troops back in sizeable numbers.

MR. JOHN HARWOOD: You know, a lot of Republicans at the beginning of the year counted on some of these benchmarks being met and then troops being able to come home, the elections earlier this year. That simply hasn’t happened. Hasn’t changed public opinion, hasn’t, evidently, changed the situation on the ground in a positive way. Neither has the death of Zarqawi. . .

If this war becomes perceived as a civil conflict, that’s when you see, according to some of the experts who look at public opinion, that’s when you could see the bottom drop out in terms of public support. It hasn’t happened yet. You know, the public is pessimistic, David, but they—if you ask them should we get out in an immediate and orderly way, in our Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, two-thirds of the American people say no. They’re still hanging in. They’re taking the attitude that we can’t just leave.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. HARWOOD: But if this becomes perceived as a civil war, that could change in a hurry. . .

MR. GREGORY: Dr. Vali Nasr, let’s talk a little bit more broadly about the Shia revival, that is, of course, the title of your book. You talk particularly about Iran...

DR. NASR: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...exploiting the fact that the Sunni wall has been taken down from all around its borders from Iraq and in Afghanistan. What are the consequences, then, of this broader Shia revival?

DR. NASR: Well, we’re seeing it reflected in the current war in Lebanon, where Iran essentially came to the floor as a major power broker holding most of the cards, and we saw that our traditional allies in the region were, were marginalized. What we’re seeing at this time period is, as conflicts are occurring in Iraq and in, in Lebanon, the major patron of the Shia side in this Iran is becoming increasingly a regional power. It’s able to assert its position in Lebanon, in Iraq. It has claims of, of influence in these places. And also it wants the international community to recognize its nuclear program and accord it its influence in the region.

MR. HARWOOD: And you know, David, there’s a domestic political ramification potentially from what’s going on in Lebanon, too, which is reinforcing the idea that our side can’t win so easily militarily. . . .

MR. GREGORY: And, general, the potential threat from Iran and its greater role as a regional player, what is the fear of the government at this stage about that potential impact?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, I—you know, first of all, I applaud the efforts by Secretary Rice and by others, Steve Hadley, trying to start the beginnings of building an alliance to confront the Iranians. The notion that we can threaten them with conventional air attack is simply insane. First of all, we’re more vulnerable than they are to having the Persian Gulf closed, to leaving 135,000 troops 400 kilometers up into Iraq with a Shia population on our supply lines. Never mind our allies who I think are terrified by this, the—you know, the notion that we would use air power to go after 70-some odd nuclear sites.

The Iranians are going nuclear. It’s going to change the region for the worse in the coming 10 years, and hopefully not provoke the proliferation of WMD, where you end up with an Arab Sunni bomb to counter the Persian Shia bomb. So I think the answer to this one is diplomatic, economic: build alliances, stop threatening military action.

MR. GREGORY: Dr. Nasr, on that point?

DR. NASR: I do agree with the general. First of all, there’s very little—the only difference I would have is that our allies in the region are not going to be able to do much. In other words, the ascendent forces in this region are with Iran. Hezbollah is a pro-Iranian force and in Iraq also, the upper hand is going to be with the Shia militias who are now very pro-Iranian. And Iran has the capability to fight the U.S. if it comes to multiple different arenas: in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan as well. So I do think that we have to have a much more nuanced and much more effective diplomatic strategy of dealing with Iran, in terms of being able to contain and regulate its power. Because a frontal confrontation I don’t think will work, and as we saw with Israel and Hezbollah, it can actually be counterproductive. You’re going to turn Ahmadinejad into a second Hassan Nasrallah, strengthen the Iranian government and you—and not accomplish what you want in terms of curtailing its nuclear capabilities.

MR. GREGORY: You actually suggest direct dialogue, negotiations with the Iranians between the Iranians and the U.S. government at this stage.

DR. NASR: I think that we are—what our strategy’s lacking is having a diplomatic tool. Everything we have in our sort of tool bag is, is, is military threats and threats of sanctions and trying to build a regional alliance—a regional containment strategy around Iran, none of which has worked so far and are not likely to work. And I think we should have a diplomatic strategy vis-a-vis Iran, one that does not outsource U.S. diplomacy to the French or to the Saudis, but rather we deal with Iran as we dealt with China, with the Soviet Union. It does not mean we give them a pass on a host—whole host of things—democratic reform, terrorism.

MR. HARWOOD: And yet you still have within the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party support for more confrontation with Iran. . .

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you, you mentioned conservative commentary turning against the war in Iraq and against this president. George Will writing this week, “Intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism.” And Tom Friedman wrote the following—he’s an early supporter of the war, with The New York Times, wrote this week, “We are on a losing trajectory in Iraq. ... We need to reassess everything we are doing in this ‘war on terrorism’ and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing.” . . .

Is there a kind of what might be called a Walter Cronkite moment, when he turned against the Vietnam War happening now with Iraq?

MR. HARWOOD: Well, that’s the question. First of all, there are no Walter Cronkites in the American media any more. They augment the—the audience is too fragmented. You simply don’t have anybody with that kind of clout and direct access to the American people. However, when elites, especially elites on your side, begin turning against a president or a Congress on a particular issue, that has an echo effect. It reverberates. . .

MR. GREGORY: General McCaffrey, has that been significant, both comparisons to Vietnam and increasing opposition to the war?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, you know, from the start, I’ve done everything I could to say there is no point of connection between Vietnam and Iraq. Completely different strategic connotation. However, the domestic politics of this are starting to look eerily, uncannily, like the late ‘60s. . . .

MR. GREGORY: And, and if things get worse in Iraq, as our own generals have predicted the possibility of civil war, does it become a new kind of moment of truth for this mission and whether U.S. troops stay in Iraq?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Sure. We’re on the edge of it. You know, listen very carefully to this guy General John Abizaid. He’s bilingual in Arabic, he’s thoughtful, he’s very loyal to the administration, as he should be. But this thing is clearly sliding toward the edge. . .

MR. GREGORY: Dr. Nasr, I’ll give you the final word on this, on this question of what’s next in Iraq. What is the tipping point, for you, that you’ll look for?

DR. NASR: I think it’s in the number of dead, first of all, that, that has been escalating. And I think we’re reaching a very close—close to the edge, where essentially, the number of people being killed per day, whether or not we call it a civil war or civil conflict, convinces the people in—on the ground that the political process of trying to build security forces, build a central government in Iraq, is no longer working. That the game is actually being played out by the militias, and they’re the ones who are deciding the fate of that country. And if the U.S. is not really able to control the violence, it essentially means to the Iraqis that its presence is largely irrelevant to the end game. . .

[NB: Shorter version – there is NO WAY things are going to improve in Iraq, NO WAY that Iraqi govt forces are going to be ready to take over a significant responsibility for security on their own. At the same time, our presence there definitely makes the situation worse, because our troops are targets and their presence undermines what little legitimacy the Iraqi govt has. People are leery of using the term “civil war” because they know that means “game over” for any remaining shred of public support here for the war – but by any measure what is going on in Iraq is a civil war. If the Maliki govt falls, as it might, there won’t be any pretense about that any longer.

Popular support for the war here at home will never return to the levels it was at the outset, and more likely will continue to drop. Bush can't increase support for the war -- all he can do is raise the political price for anyone who criticizes the war.

At the same time, Bush will not and cannot admit failure – which is what he has defined troop withdrawal as meaning. The “declare victory and withdraw” strategy can’t work because there are no metrics today or in the future that will allow him to pretend that things have improved – and because the instant U.S. troops leave, all hell really breaks loose. Bush has decided that this war is his legacy, and now he’s stuck. He can’t send significantly more troops now (even if there were troops to send, which there aren’t). He can’t withdraw. He can’t win. He can only hope that things get marginally better there, so he can make it through this next election with his majority intact. Then they run out the clock until the next President cleans up the mess they have created. Substantively, the war in Iraq has already been lost, and people are finally waking up to the fact that in this world, the real world, it can BOTH be true that Saddam Hussein was a thug and a murderer AND that Iraq and the region are much worse off now because of the war we started.]

Baghdad is out of control, despite additional U.S. troops there

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/shiite-pilgrims-slaughtered-us-losing.html

Cracks in the Atlantic alliance

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115614653425017512
The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has 'let him down badly' over the Middle East crisis.

A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'.

The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?" . . .

Laurence Tribe weighs in on the NSA wiretapping ruling

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/various-items_20.html
Tribe points out just how petty and misguided is the obsession with attacking the "quality" of Judge Taylor's written opinion while all but ignoring the infinitely more important issues of systematic presidential law-breaking . . .

The press has completely lost the GOP corruption thread, and it looks as if very little will happen before the election to remind them

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_20.php#009478
[DK] With the November elections just 2 1/2 months away, I think it is very unlikely that between now and then we're going to see the slew of indictments in the various federal corruption investigations that many people, myself included, had been anticipating. . .

Are the Democrats any better? http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115610269627771760

Bonus item: Watch the video!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115614653425017512

***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

 
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

The first Republican comes out in favor of a timetable for Iraq withdrawal – now, by the conventions of the media, this should make it a “bipartisan” position (since the Republicans plus any single Democrat = “bipartisan”)

Does this mean we won’t be hearing “the Democrats are traitors” any more? (I think we know that answer)

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/08/post_298.html#005895
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said the political will of the United States is being stretched to the limit. He promised to offer a time frame for troop withdrawals when he returns next week from his 14th trip to Iraq. . .

Add Shays and Fitzpatrick to other GOPers who have broken ranks in one form or another on Iraq, like Chuck Hagel, Gil Gutknecht and Walter Jones.

More:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115601469613179823

The Will of the People

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/19/134848/055
[SusanG] Senator Conrad Burns [R-MT] decided to continue to come out swinging with trademark Republican dumbassery. . .

Burns defended plans to stay in Iraq as long as it takes, regardless of whether popular support for the war diminishes.

Think about it. This is truly an astounding statement, even considering how accustomed the American people have become under Bush rule to blatant disregard of their wishes. Burns is saying, in so many words, that no matter what the citizens of this country want, he will help continue to ram this fiasco of a war down their throats. . . .

In further dumbassery from the same reported speech - this tidbit filed under "hilarious hypocrisy" - Burns admonished his audience:

"America must stand together," Burns said. "Our squabbles among us should stop at the water's edge."

Noble sentiment indeed, and apparently impossible for a Republican to live up to, since Burns used the opportunity to trot out the same old tired GOP attack phrase against Democratic candidate Jon Tester. . .

The Real Terrorists

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/19/113940/803
[SusanG] It's becoming easier and easier to see why the Republicans are so unconcerned about the whereabouts of Bin-Laden. Apparently capturing him and his fellow conspirators is less important to our national security than ensuring a Democratic defeat in November. In the world according to Republicans, the more words spent trashing the opposition party and its candidates for daring to even question the wisdom of our foreign policy - much less offering specific alternatives - the safer we are. . .

Upping the ante

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/19/ap/politics/mainD8JJJ6600.shtml
President Bush said Saturday that his administration's determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-still-has-no-plan-for-iraq-but.html

People aren’t buying it

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115602799095474624
A Pew Research Center poll released Thursday found "no evidence that terrorism is weighing heavily on voters -- just 2 percent cite that as the issue they most want to hear candidates discuss, far fewer than the number mentioning education, gas prices, or health care." . . .

The failures of post-Katrina reconstruction. The media has mostly moved on to other things, as they will – but a few people are still paying attention

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/ap-documents-failures-of-bush-to-keep.html

Linking “Katrina” and “macaca” – brilliant

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115602126552668959

The emerging conventional wisdom on Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling on illegal wiretapping is that it is sloppily reasoned, ends-driven jurisprudence. Glenn Greenwald, as you might expect, begs to differ

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/ongoing-misconceptions-about-judge.html

Creating a paranoid, racist culture

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/fear-mongering-leads-to-anti-arab.html
[Glenn Greenwald] All of the fear-mongering and political exploitation of terrorism from the Bush administration and its loyal supporters (including the British Prime Minister) is starting to produce predictable results. Passengers are becoming unwilling to fly on planes with Arab males. Yesterday, British passengers on a Monarch Airways flight to Manchester "mutinied" because there were two Arab men on the plane . . .

CNN: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-is-currently-on-cnns-home-page.html

The Republicans are so obsessed with privatization that they outsource activities even when it DOESN’T save money or improve effectiveness

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/business/20tax.html
Within two weeks, the I.R.S. will turn over data on 12,500 taxpayers — each of whom owes $25,000 or less in back taxes — to three collection agencies. . . . The move, an initiative of the Bush administration, represents the first step in a broader plan to outsource the collection of smaller tax debts to private companies over time. . . . I.R.S. officials acknowledge that this will be much more expensive than doing it internally. . . .

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/19/202443/131

Interesting issue: are progressives too preoccupied with beating Joe Lieberman? A debate

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009470.php
[DK] Lamont v. Lieberman is a carnival sideshow, a titilating and distracting spectacle. Rove is the carnival barker. So ignore the hoopla and keep moving on down the midway, folks. The main event is still to come, and it will be in places like Montana, Missouri, and Ohio. We've come too far to get side-tracked now.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115599039373190192
[Atrios] I always get annoyed when people write something like this . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009473.php
Atrios was "annoyed" with my suggestion that progressive dollars could be better spent than on the Connecticut Senate race . . .

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115601147898309420

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8248.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009476

Why Bush needs Lieberman

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/18/why_bush_is_for_lieberman

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/19/2016/78070

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/20/0629/46094

Electoral trends: revolt in the red states

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/19/213312/372

Electoral trends: Repubs losing their big fundraising advantage

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009477

Electoral trends: Repubs having trouble finding good replacements for corrupt candidates who resign

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009475

Does the left need its own Ann Coulter? (and no, Molly Ivins doesn’t count – she makes too much sense)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115603275773357282

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900641.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), former director of security for the Israel Airports Authority Rafi Ron, former presidential counterterrorism adviser Rand Beers and Washington Nationals owner Mark Lerner.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), British Home Secretary John Reid and film director Spike Lee.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Naval Postgraduate School professor Vali Nasr and retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.); Iraqi Industry Minister Fawzi Hariri, former CIA deputy director John E. McLaughlin, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Justice Minister Charles Rizk of Lebanon and Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon.

Bonus item: When conservative pundits disagree. This is funny: they’ve been in lockstep behind Bush for so long, and have relied for so long on the simple rhetoric that disagreement with Bush is traitorous disloyalty, that now when they do have differences all they can do is tag their own contrary positions as “Leftist”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115579920424624038
“There is something disturbingly Leftist about your penchant for shrill, uninformed criticism . . .”

Losing faith: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900568.html
While most conservative media figures have not abandoned Bush, influential opinion-makers increasingly have raised questions, expressed doubts or attacked the president outright, particularly on foreign policy, on which he has long enjoyed their strongest support. In some cases, they have complained that Bush has drifted away from their shared principles; in other cases, they think it is the implementation that has fallen short. In most instances, Iraq figures prominently. . .

***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 @ 8:57 AM

 
DECLARING VICTORY

The Designated Thug emerges from his secure underground location to spread fear, lies, and hate – it must be campaign season

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060818cheney,1,859116.story
"If we follow [Democratic] advice and withdraw from Iraq," Cheney warned this week in Arizona, "we will simply validate the Al Qaeda strategy and invite more terrorist attacks." Advocates of withdrawal play into the hands of terrorists, he charged the next day in Montana: "They fundamentally believe that we don't have the stomach for the fight."

Maybe people are becoming inured to this stuff

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8226.html

Should the Democrats try fear-mongering too?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009364.php

What constitutes “success” in Iraq?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/18/cafferty-success-in-iraq/

Good point: when you try to link the war on terror (popular) with the war in Iraq (unpopular), the associations run in BOTH directions

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004773.html

George Bush, great constitutional scholar, says the court decision declaring his domestic wiretapping illegal was wrong BECAUSE illegal domestic wiretapping is a useful tool in the war against terror. Well, that’s just the point, isn’t it?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/someone-give-george-bush-god-damn.html

If you disagree, you’re naive: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015531.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115592420885182517

The Washington Post editorial page dismisses the court ruling too, and Glenn Greenwald lets them have it

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/post-editorial-board-tell-us-how.html
This Editorial, with all of its condescension and self-important open-mindedness to administration law-breaking, illustrates a common character flaw among our political and journalistic elites . . .

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115591305446828154

Unfortunately, the ruling will be overturned: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1174.html

Buzzflash seems surprised by this, but it’s Rove 101 – every defeat is a victory. An anti-war candidate defeats your boy Joe Lieberman in Connecticut? This shows that the Democratic party is being taken over by liberals. A judge rules that your surveillance policies are illegal? This shows that we need more conservative judges on the bench. Rinse and repeat. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nsa19aug19,0,367063.story
GOP Sees Strategic Advantage in Court Loss on Wiretapping . . .

Always declare victory

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6918
Q Mr. President, on Lebanon, how can you say that Hezbollah has suffered such a bad defeat when it's rebuilding -- helping rebuild in southern Lebanon, and it remains intact? And secondly, are you disappointed at all about France's decision to scale back its support of the international force? . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory. I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them.

[Holden] And of course that's exactly what he did on Monday.

The Haditha massacre – I know this is a small story, compared to a ten-year old murder of a little blonde girl. But 24 innocent civilians WERE killed (including several non-blonde children)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801366.html
The Marine officer who commanded the battalion involved in the Haditha killings last November did not consider the deaths of 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, unusual and did not initiate an inquiry . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115592990696229241

Is Donald Rumsfeld on the way out?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004772.html

Lieberman, day one

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/184450/781
Joe Criticized Lamont for "GOP Hire" . . .

Lieberman, day two

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/163434/224
Lieberman Hires GOP Pollster . . .

“Macaca” – Mommy did it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/macaca-controversy-isnt-going-away.html
NEW REPUBLIC'S RYAN LIZZA: Right. They're saying he didn't know what it was. I mean, the interesting twist on all this is his mom is French Tunisian. And this is a word that's used in North Africa to describe --

MATTHEWS: We just had Shimon Peres here, the longtime great man of Israel. He knew the term.

LIZZA: Is that right?

MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah.

LIZZA: That's fascinating, then.

MATTHEWS: I think it's a term that is not so unfamiliar to people.

LIZZA: Look, he grew up in a house where his mom spoke five languages. It's not a big leap of the imagination to think that he --

MATTHEWS: Well, I can understand why he doesn't want to say, "Mommy taught me this word."

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8237.html

It seems to be affecting votes in Virginia now: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/macaca-has-made-it-whole-new-race-in.html

Where those phony “veterans’ groups” come from (thank to David N. for the link)

http://www.patriotproject.com/2006/08/behind_the_fron_2.php

Pharmacists refuse to refill legitimate prescriptions for the morning-after pill

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8244.html

Bonus item: This should keep you chuckling all weekend. Pennsylvania Republicans (of course) loan campaign staffers to the “Green Party” to help them verify petition signatures for their spot on the ballot – signatures which the Republicans helped them collect in the first place (because, you know, the Republicans are such strong defenders of pluralism and respecters of contrary points of view). But that’s not the hilarious part. . . (thanks to Daily Kos for the link)

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15306851.htm
A scuffle broke out Friday between campaign volunteers counting signatures to determine whether the Green Party's candidate for U.S. Senate can appear on the November ballot. . .

***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 @ 10:51 AM

 
JONBENET-FREE ZONE

A treasonous, Bush-hating, gutless liberal judge rules that Bush’s illegal domestic spying is, well, illegal. I think you can guess what comes next. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700650.html
A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001. . . Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned. . .

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. ". . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution." . . .

Congressional Republicans quickly condemned Taylor's ruling, and the Republican National Committee issued a news release titled, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security." Taylor, 73, was appointed to the bench in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. . .

Some Republicans sought to tie the ruling to last week's arrests in Britain and Pakistan of alleged conspirators in a plot to blow up airliners bound from London to the United States. The administration has not offered evidence that the NSA spying program played a role in the case. . .

The full opinion here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001364.php

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/17/171747/891

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/17/132655/905

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8230.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6914
[Holden] The lead editorial in today's New York Times applauds Judge Anna Diggs Taylor decision yesterday that Chimpy's extra-consitutional eavesdropping program is indeed illegal without once mentioning The Times' role in concealing the program from the American public prior to the 2004 presidential election. . .

The predictable response from the Right: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjIyNjMyZGQ3YjM4OTI5NWMzZjdjNTQxMjFkNDljYzY
[NRO] Terrorist-Friendly Ruling . . .

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/?p=546
It appears this Judge is well-familiar with the rhetoric of the moonbats. . .

Treasonous, Bush-hating, gutless liberal Glenn Greenwald analyzes the ruling and its implications

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/08/17/nsa_michigan/

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/breaking-law-has-consequences.html

More analysis: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015528.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-strikes-down-nsa.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/ah-well-that-explains-it.html

Maybe it’s because I lived in Utah for several years, but for me, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is the absolute worst – sanctimonious, posturing, but under that pious exterior a really vicious son of a bitch

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/17/hatch/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch once said that terrorists would do everything they could to "try and elect" John Kerry. That terrorist plot didn't work, it seems, but Hatch says the terrorists are still jonesing for the donkeys. As the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting, Hatch said earlier this week that terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8231.html

[NB: Unfortunately, there is something behind this: if the Dems ever do take over the WH again, they have to be concerned that a major attack (which could come at any time), comes “on their watch” – because for years afterwards all you will hear from the Repubs will be “we kept you safe, while the Democrats let the terrorists hurt you”]

Say whatever you want about Bush, but don’t say that he’s “frustrated”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009445
[NYT] More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/17/BL2006081700708.html
Bush doesn't get frustrated, Snow said. . .

One reporter later asked: "If the president is not frustrated by the situation in Iraq, what is he?"

Snow replied: "Determined."

This is interesting. As we discovered last weekend, the Bush gang wants to project both steadfast determination (“stay the course”) and flexibility (“adapt to win”) about the war in Iraq. Every fiber of their being makes them want to emphasize the former, but the polls tell them people see that as a stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the deteriorating circumstances of the war: hence the new slogan, test-marketed by Ken Mehlman over the weekend. But here we see the difficulties of maintaining both lines: we aren’t going to change policy, but we are

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6905
[Holden] Pony Blow lead off today's gaggle with more push-back.

“There were reports that an unnamed military expert had received briefings at the White House that we are continuing alternatives other than democracy in Iraq. It's just not true.”

Which lead to the inevitable follow-up.

“Q You said that alternative democracy in Iraq weren't being considered. Have they been discussed in any shape or form?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of that. I mean, I've never heard it, as far as I know -- no.

Q I wonder how this came up?

MR. SNOW: You'll have to ask the guys who wrote it. I don't know.

[snip]

Q But beyond soul-searching, is the President contemplating changes in policy? To follow on what Helen was saying, because you have these 21 retired generals, diplomats and others today sending an open letter to the President saying they do want a dramatic shift in that policy. You said again a moment ago, stay the course. You could still achieve your objectives maybe with a different course. Is he considering a policy change?

MR. SNOW: The President always considers changes of course. I've already talked about what goes on in Baghdad. But --

Q Such as what? What would be one policy change he's contemplating in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: What they've already done is they've restructured Operation Together Forward.”

[Holden] Wow, big change there, Pony.

It’s just a matter of time, I say

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009462
[The Guardian] Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases. . .

More disturbing developments: http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/jumblatt-blasts-syria-hizbullah-revs.html

Oh, my

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/world/middleeast/18haditha.html
A high-level military investigation into the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha last November has uncovered instances in which American marines involved in the episode appear to have destroyed or withheld evidence, according to two Defense Department officials briefed on the case.

The investigation found that an official company logbook of the unit involved had been tampered with and that an incriminating video taken by an aerial drone the day of the killings was not given to investigators until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, intervened, the officials said. . .

It says that the logbook, which was meant to be a daily record of major incidents the marines’ company encountered, had all the pages missing for Nov. 19, the day of the killings, and that those portions had not been found, the officials said.

No conclusions are drawn about who may have tampered with the log. . .

Billmon nails Condi’s lies and doubletalk on Lebanon

http://billmon.org/archives/002697.html

http://billmon.org/archives/002698.html

Why does the White House use bomb-screening equipment it won’t put into airports?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/white-house-using-liquid-explosive.html

I think it’s fair to say that certain ideas about Bush have solidified, and will continue to dominate the polls despite the ups and downs of circumstance

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6904
[Pew] His personal image continues to be far less positive than it was a year ago, about half the public says he is not a strong leader, not trustworthy, and unable to get things done. Moreover, the renewed emphasis on terrorism has done little to boost the president’s standing on that issue.

Don’t say we weren’t warned

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009459
[Bush] "Now is the time to move; now is the time to do our duty. I'm going to continue to work with the Congress and call on the Congress to work with the administration to reform [Social Security and Medicare] so we can ensure a secure retirement for all Americans."

The National Republican Senatorial Committee makes it official: Lieberman’s their guy

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/08/nrsc-takes-lieberman.html

Polls: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1159.html
[Ezra Klein] The latest polling out of Connecticut shows Joe Lieberman beating Ned Lamont by 12 points, 53-41 percent. The "actual" Republican in the race, Alan Schlesinger, is being demolished, clocking in at a mere four percent. Even more telling, though, are the internals. Lieberman gets a full 75 percent of the Republican vote, making him, for all intents and purposes, the Republican nominee. . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/17/933/34713

The “Republican Jewish Coalition” too

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009461
[Josh Marshall] TPM Readers from St. Louis and Washington, DC sent us word this evening that this ad had appeared in the Jewish weekly in their respective cities. And it's apparently part of a nationwide ad campaign. As you can see, it's an ad from the Republican Jewish Coalition.

The appeal to tribalism, I guess, doesn't require a great deal of explanation. But what put a smile on my face when I saw this thing was what I can only call the ad's vaguely christological theme. See, even Joe's sad about his martyrdom. And there's the lady in the background on the left having what I guess is a beatific vision.

Anyway, the Joe cult aside, I'm more and more getting the sense that Ned Lamont just didn't get, coming off last Tuesday's win, that he was still very much the underdog . . .

George Allen (R-VA) may be trying to bamboozle everyone else about his racist slur “macaca” and what it means (Jon Stewart was funny – he said, “whatever it means, it SOUNDS racist”). But the people of Virginia aren’t fooled, and they aren’t happy about it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-poll-virginians-know-about-gop.html
[DSCC] A majority of Virginians have heard about Allen’s “macaca” comments and two-thirds thought Allen’s comments were inappropriate. In addition, half feel Allen’s apology to Webb’s volunteer was insufficient and 46% think it will hurt Allen’s re-election bid. Allen’s approval rating is now under 50%.

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6903
[Bush] If you don't prioritize in state government or federal government, they'll figure out how to spend every single dime that they raise from you. But if you can get somebody to prioritize, that leaves money for you to stay in your pocket, see. . . [more!]

I’m sure THIS wasn’t intentional (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=33607
The Federal Pension Protection Act passed by Congress and signed into law today by President George W. Bush contains two key provisions that will extend important financial protections to same-sex couples and other Americans who leave their retirement savings to non-spouse beneficiaries. The bipartisan provisions in the bill are a step forward in equality and stem from a continuous effort led by the Human Rights Campaign. . .

Bonus item: Holden’s right – this IS funny

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6912
A reporter recently observed to Representative Mark Kennedy, the Republican candidate for a Minnesota Senate seat, that his St. Paul headquarters had housed George W. Bush's 2004 campaign. ``Oh, you're not going to use that to tie me to Bush, are you?'' Kennedy said.

***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 @ 7:37 AM

 
SCATOLOGY

Sometimes you just have to use the word: Bullshit!

http://web.archive.org/web/20040212054855/http://www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html

There are more and more indications now that the threat and the immediacy of the British “liquid bomb” plot were greatly exaggerated to make it look like a major blow against terror networks – when it may have been little more than a bunch of kooks with a half-baked plan

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
[Andrew Sullivan] So far, no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up several airplanes across the Atlantic. No evidence has been produced supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent. Forgive me if my skepticism just ratcheted up a little notch. . .

Then we have the following comment from Craig Murray. Craig Murray was Tony Blair's ambassador to Uzbekistan . . .

“None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. . . . In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. . . . Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth. . .

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why?”

More: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115575629703351246
[Atrios] It's increasingly likely that the whole British plot wasn't much more of a big deal than the idiotic nonsense in Florida awhile back. Certainly as of yet there's nothing to indicate that FULL PANIC MODE AT THE AIRPORTS and cable news' return to 24 hour OH MY GOD THEY'RE GOING TO BOMB THE SHOPPING MALLS mode had any justification whatsoever.

And, hey, it got all the pundits talking about how much of a boost this would be for Bush. . . Even though it wasn't.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009440
[Josh Marshall] Over the last few years, there have been several occasions when -- for all my skepticism about the Bush administration's politicization of terror alerts -- I've been surprised at how my skepticism, even cynicism, about terror alerts just can't keep pace with the administration's bad faith.

I'm not ready to say the London bomb plot is another bamboozlement. It at least seems clear the Brits were involved in a serious investigation. But even this case now seems to be turning out to be less than met the eye. And there are real grounds to question whether Bush and Blair jumped the gun for reasons other than counter-terrorism. We'll see. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009441
[Josh Marshall] It now seems that even this London bomb plot may not be all it's cracked up to be. But it did give me a moment of that gut level fear. And in that moment, as much as I've thought what I've thought about Iraq, I'm not sure I ever felt as clearly how completely beside the point Iraq is from the real threat we face of deracinated Islamic radicals (in the Muslim world and sprinkled about the West) trying to perpetrate mass terror attacks. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8222.html
[Steve Benen] Just a few years ago, this would have been considered the height of cynicism. Now, given the administration's stunning record of acting in bad faith, it's practically irresponsible not to wonder. . .

And, sure enough. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601186_pf.html
[AP] Home Secretary John Reid, Britain's chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses . . .

Two top Pakistani intelligence agents said Wednesday that the would-be bombers wanted to carry out an al-Qaida-style attack to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 strikes, but were too "inexperienced" to carry out the plot. . .

The detainees in Britain and Pakistan had not attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had relied on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs, the officials said.

Their comments offer a different perspective from that given by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "Certainly in terms of the complexity, the sophistication, the international dimension and the number of people involved, this plot has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-type plot," Chertoff said Friday. . .

Wow. After all this, the purple fingers, the succession of Washington-approved leaders, the Bush triumphalism about "spreading democracy" . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html?pagewanted=2
Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month . . .

World of reality

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html
“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official. . . “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

World of the WH briefing room

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6892
Q Is there a civil war going on in Iraq? . . .

MR. SNOW: No, number one, there is not a civil war going on. . .

And the other thing that's happening is that there has been -- there has been some improvement at least in the situation on the ground, slightly. . . .

Q He doesn't think he needs the support of the American people on the Iraqi endeavor?

MR. SNOW: I think what's going to happen, as people learn more and more -- as you saw just last week, there was an 11-point pivot just on the basis of the fact that things that people had not seen in terms of behind-the-scenes operations to thwart terror, suddenly said, oh, boy, we do have something -- boom, 11-point jump. I think as people begin to see more --

Q I'm talking about Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, as people begin to see more of what's going on -- and Major General Caldwell is doing detailed briefings -- and one of these days maybe will bring some of the slides and things that he has -- giving you a better sense from ground level what's going on. I don't think -- I think the American people see headlines, they hear about these appalling acts of violence, and they are rightly concerned. What they don't see are the operations ongoing, the apprehensions of terrorists, the seizure of weapons caches, all of which are going on on a daily basis. . .

[NB: Bullshit!]

Military, foreign policy experts warn Bush, back off from Iran

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/143447/224

Here’s a word we won’t be hearing any more: Islamo-fascism

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6888
[Holden] After the Saudi's took their little boy to the woodshed he stopped using the term . . .

Oops

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3266
[McClatchy News] A U.S.-backed plan to defeat Islamist militants in Pakistan's autonomous tribal areas has backfired badly . . .

Bush thinks the UN peacekeepers will need to “seal off” the Syrian border with Israel. Uh, George. . . .

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002438.html

The Deputy Prime Minister of Britain tells what he thinks of the Bush administration

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/235954/106
“Crap”

Woo-hoo: a new book on Karl Rove from the authors of “Bush’s Brain” – and it looks like a doozy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/karl-called_b_27280.html
[James Moore] Karl is pathological and has spent so much of his life distorting the truth that he presently has difficulty discerning the difference between what he believes is real and what actually is true. . .

Rove’s protege

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/bush-a16.shtml
[David North] In his book Bush at War, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post reports being told by the president, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel I owe anybody an explanation.”

In fact, the president’s audiences may be excused for wondering whether Bush himself really knows why he says most of what comes out of his mouth. . . [read on!]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/president-bush-miffed-that-iraqis.html
[AJ] Everybody knows he's out of touch, but wow. Just . . . wow. . . [read on]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
[Dan Froomkin] The White House made a big to-do about President Bush's meeting Monday with four outside experts on Iraq. Spokesman Tony Snow held the meeting up as proof that the president is interested in -- and consistently exposed to -- different points of view, and even dissent.

But the only thing that meeting demonstrated is that true dissent is still not welcome at the White House . . .

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/15/scarborough-is-bush-an-idiot/
[Joe Scarborough!] “Is Bush an idiot?”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1157
President Bush’s job approval rating dipped two points in the last three weeks, despite the foiling of an airline terror plot and the adoption of a cease–fire deal between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. . .

Another new book I won’t have time to read: Lawrence Wright’s masterwork on Al Qaeda, “The Looming Tower” – a summary

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115575302364255041

Don't miss it: Terror Hippies

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115579476831601893

George Allen (R-VA) and his people keep trying to explain his openly racist comments as meaning something other than their face value – and each explanation is sillier than the last one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501210.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/171011/759
[Hotline] According to two Republicans who heard the word used, "macaca" was a mash-up of "Mohawk," referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement, or "shit."

Said one Republican close to the campaign: "In other words, he was a shit-head, an annoyance."

[SusanG] Umm. Okay. I guess it's time to put that little incident behind us. "Shithead" seeming so much more ... senatorial and all. Keep on talking, guys.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/allen-campaign-just-keeps-making.html
[Joe] Apparently, in their world, calling Mr. Sidarth a shithead is somehow acceptable. Makes this whole thing even more suspicious. And, makes Allen look very Senatorial. Don't his evangelical supporters frown on this kind of talk?

[NB: As every child learns, it is always better to admit to a lesser crime, seeming to be candid and contrite, than to acknowledge what one actually did. Sounds like Allen has learned this lesson]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8220.html
[Steve Benen] Where to begin. First the Allen said he didn't know what the word meant (apparently, the senator has no qualms using words without understanding their meaning). Then the defense was that "macaca" was in reference to Sidarth's "Mohawk" hairstyle. Now the explanation has evolved into a more elaborate hair-based nickname. . . See how innocent the whole incident was? As Michael Froomkin paraphrased Allen, "I just happened to pick a nickname for the sole dark face in a white crowd that just happens to be the same as a common racial epithet. Could happen to anyone, right?"

[NB: The clincher is the added line Allen threw in -- “Welcome to America.” He’s tried to explain that away too – but when you combine the two it becomes crystal clear what he said and what he meant. . .

The other clincher is that this is a particular term of insult to North Africans – and Allen must know that: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608170001]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2CF1229D
[Reed Forbush] Struggling to contain the furor over his "Macaca" remarks, Sen. George Allen plans meeting this afternoon with leaders of northern Virginia's Indian-American community. Members of the press: you're not invited. Members of the public: You're not invited, either. No word yet on whether the young volunteer, S.R. Sidarth -- and his video camera -- have been asked to attend. . .

[NB: Because offending Indian-Americans is what this controversy is about. . . And when this hand-picked audience excuses him, they will declare the controversy “over”]

Allen’s history of race trouble: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/detailed-look-at-gop-senator-george.html

The Green Party in Pennsylvania should have known better, for many reasons, than to sign a deal with the devil, Rick Santorum (R-PA). Not the least of it is, he’s a fool

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/105856/650
[SusanG] So let's get this straight: Not only did the Republicans pay for the Green candidacy, not only did they staff the Green candidacy, now it appears, if the writing expert is correct, Santorum staff members may have committed fraud for the Green candidacy? . . .

How Tom DeLay (R-TX) screwed the Texas Republican party

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001350.php

Undoing DeLay/Norquist’s K-Street Project?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601598.html
Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections. . .

[NB: And will they fire them again if the Republicans win?]

The kind of people they are (part 1)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/12522/5462
[McJoan] Bill Sali is bad news for the Idaho GOP. He's been a divisive figure in the legislature, even within his own caucus. Here's what a few Republicans have had to say about him . . .

The kind of people they are (part 2)

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/rep-kline-avoids-being-sued-in.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In order to avoid being named as a co-defendant in the defamation lawsuit brought by a Haditha Marine against Jack Murtha, Republican Congressman John Kline issued an apology for statements he made accusing the Marines of murder and of lying about their actions. . . Kline's apology . . . is rather equivocal regarding his own culpability and he seeks to blame others for his actions. He mostly insists, of course, that his statements were taken out of context. . .

I cancelled my subscription to The New Republic a long time ago. It was once a provocative source of sharp political analysis and contrarian thinking. Then Martin Peretz took it over – and now it’s defending the likes of Ann Coulter

http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/08/the_king_is_a_f.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115576890378214138

http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/08/from_the_magazi.html
[Lance Mannion] The writer Elspeth Reeve is a liberal who hates liberals, which is why she works for the New Republic. . .

PBS admits a mistake

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009444

Growing Democratic concerns about Lieberman

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/16518/9092

More: http://hill1.thehill.com/thehill/opencms/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081606/news1.html

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/08/update-on-senate-democrats-supporting.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8215.html
[Steve Benen] Let's say the comments to The Hill were a shot across the bow. Dems want Lieberman to know they're concerned, and that there may be consequences for his anti-Democratic rhetoric. . .

Lieberman wants the party to simply stay out of Connecticut altogether, and focus resources elsewhere. With this in mind, the message from the Dem leadership should simply be: "Joe, if you keep undermining the party, you'll lose your seniority and we're making Connecticut a top 2006 priority."

I believe Dems don't really have a choice. Lieberman can't be rewarded for disloyalty.

Bonus item: Hilarious – we’re sorry for supporting Lamont!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john__mc_060816_notes_from_the_angry.htm
[John McDonald] It seems that my "liberal" friends and I who supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race have been encouraging Al Qaida terrorists, so much so that they immediately hatched a plan to rush onto jumbo jets and light their Gatorade on fire. If I had only known, I would never have dared to express my constitutional rights at the voting booth. I've thought about trying to change my vote, but I figure if it's really important, George or Dick will change it for me anyway. Maybe they can just throw it out.

Apparently by supporting Lamont, some Democrats are sending a message that America is in danger of being taking over by an "angry left fringe" who are planning to give Osama Bin Laden the keys to the Capitol. Gee, I just thought that I was agreeing with the 60 percent of American people who think that maybe going to war in Iraq for bogus reasons wasn't really such a good idea . . . [read on!]

***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 @ 8:22 AM

 
MAKING A BAD SITUATION WORSE

Civil war

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.htm
July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, reinforcing criticism that the Baghdad security plan started in June by the new government has failed.

An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures. The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly double the toll in January. . .

“Strife”? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501044.html

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6872
[McClatchy News] Their worst fear, one that some American soldiers share, is that top officials don't really understand what's happening. . .

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/civil-war-violence-reaches-new-heights.html

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3262

The Lebanon cease-fire sure looks like a “defeat” for Hezbollah, doesn’t it?

http://www.slate.com/id/2147836/
[Eric Umansky] The Washington Post leads with Hezbollah reiterating it won't disarm or really withdraw. USA Today leads with Secretary of State Rice saying in an interview with the paper that the muscled-up U.N. force can't force Hezbollah to give up its guns. . .

Citing "senior officials involved in the negotiation," the WP says Hezbollah and the Lebanese government have hammered out an impressive don't-search don't-show policy: "Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches."

As for the much-anticipated international force, the LAT notes that U.N. officials "continued to haggle" about whether the soldiers will even have the authority to fire on guerillas who fighting or smuggling weapons. The Post notices that no country has yet agreed to send troops. . .

While expressing hope that Hezbollah will agree to "lay down their arms voluntarily," Rice said one of the U.N. force's key roles will be to enforce an arms embargo, a point she reiterates in a WP op-ed. President Bush repeated the line, saying part of the U.N.'s mission "will be to seal off the Syrian border." Except as the Post mentions inside, the current head of the U.N. force said he's planning no such thing and instead will be sending customs consultants to work with the Lebanese.

The Journal gets a sit-down with Lebanon's finance minister, who called the postwar period and the rebuilding effort "the real war." The Post watches Hezbollah's relief effort in action and hears from an "informed source" (as opposed to the other kind) that Hezbollah "planned to spend $150 million, already provided by Iran, in coming days." (In her WP op-ed, Rice notes that the U.S. has committed a whopping $50 million.)

The NYT's rebuilding piece offers a wider picture and is today's must-read: Hezbollah men were canvassing neighborhoods, cataloging needs, and offering $10,000 straightaway to those who lost their homes. With the Lebanese government having ignored the Shiite south for decades, one Lebanese professor said, "Hezbollah's strength is the gross vacuum left by the state." Hezbollah, she said, isn't a state within a state, but rather "a state within a non-state." The upshot, concludes the Times, is that the "beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah."

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/middleeast/16hezbollah.html
Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature . . .

Heh, heh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/15/BL2006081500571.html
Another 'Mission Accomplished' Moment?

[Dan Froomkin] President Bush's startling assertion yesterday -- that at the end of 33 days of warfare between Israel and the Hezbollah militia, Hezbollah had been defeated -- once again raises questions about his ability to acknowledge reality when things don't turn out the way he intended. . .

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/08/cluelessness_wa.html
[NYT] More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009433
[Josh Marshall] Bush Secret Decoder Ring / Dictionary for Insiders.

Central Front in the War on Terror = Geographical setting of Failed Bush Policy

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004759.html
[Tom Friedman] “If we’re in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you 'tough guys' fight the Iraq war with .... just enough troops to lose? .... Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don’t understand it. It is just so phony — such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won’t will the means. What a fraud!”

Why should a successful British/Pakistani investigation that prevents a terror attack accrue to Bush’s benefit or buttress his arguments for warrantless domestic spying domestically and unending military adventures abroad?

http://voanews.com/english/2006-08-11-voa56.cfm

[NB: Notice that despite VOA’s adding the term “U.S.” to the headline, there is nothing in the story to suggest that the U.S. had ANYTHING to do with uncovering or preventing the plot]

George Will attacks Bush, defends John Kerry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html
The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work." . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8208.html

The national Democrats are starting to grasp the national security issue as a winner for them – by playing offense and not defense

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8212.html

Their new ad: I love it http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1145.html

Their new ad: I hate it http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1140.html

Inadvertent candor: so now we know two things we already knew before. One, the key to Republican policy is, “if the Democrats are for it, we must be against it.” They HATE bipartisanship

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1139.html
[Bill Kristol] Here's a suggestion for the president: When the State Department asks him to embrace the path of diplomacy-über-alles, he should ask himself this question: What would the Bugs Bunny Democrats think? If they would approve, then the president should kill the initiative. . .

Two, after 487 excuses for the war in Iraq, the Republicans finally admit that it’s all about oil

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=70655
[Ken Mehlman] And finally, think about this. We know that 9/11 taught us how dangerous it was when you had a failed state in Afghanistan. Imagine a failed state on the second largest oil reserves in the world. That's what would happen if we cut and run in Iraq. . .

The Democrats are realizing that an election perfectly set up for them to make monumental gains in Congress could now be thrown into jeopardy because of one man – Joe Lieberman (I-CT) (like David Sirota, I’m no longer using “D” to describe him, and besides “I” is so perfect for him)

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/hill-lieberman-could-be-stripped-of.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8207.html
[Steve Benen] It's supposed to be a done deal, at least as far as the party is concerned: whether Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont wins the Connecticut Senate race, the seat stays "blue." Lieberman has said he's running as an independent, but he'll caucus with the Dems if he wins re-election in November.

Maybe the DSCC should ask for that in writing. . .

Karl Rove is being awfully friendly; the WH and the RNC won't back the Republican candidate; "Vets for Freedom" is coming to Lieberman's aid; Lieberman is lashing out at the left … and Dems are sure Lieberman will caucus with the Dems come January?

Indirectly, Lieberman may end up helping – while posing as a “moderate,” and decrying “partisanship,” his campaign strategy has in fact been extremely polarizing (calling those who voted against him friends of the terrorists, etc, and openly adopting Republican positions and slogans). This has forced the issue with some fence-sitters and former allies . . . and the more gleefully the Republicans embrace Lieberman, the more ANY Democrat or skeptical independent has to think twice about supporting him

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115568436853248775

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8213.html

Now Lieberman is playing race politics too

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115569845135866414

George Allen (R-VA) makes a bad situation worse, offers a token non-apology apology, then denies that he meant anything by calling a dark-skinned Democratic campaign worker a “monkey” (TWICE, and then adding “welcome to America”)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/ive-just-confirmed-that-macaque-is.html
[John Aravosis] And now George Allen is giving the standard non-apology apology. He's sorry if the other guy was offended

No, Senator Allen. The proper response is "I'm sorry," period. Or even better, "I'm sorry I called you the French word for 'nigger.'"

Worse yet, Allen didn't even bother apologizing to the guy he slurred. He gave his apology to a reporter. Classy.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115568914961523388
[Atrios] Obviously George Felix Allen, Jr. really doesn't have much choice. He can't actually come out and say "I told this guy "welcome to America" because I didn't think someone who looked like that could be American. And, then, well, I called him a monkey which aside from the obvious racism is also a popular racial epithet among white supremacists."

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/15/193311/003

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009422

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115568794639574550

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8205.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1143.html

Here’s how you do it, Senator Allen: CNN’s Chuck Roberts apologizes to Ned Lamont in person – good move

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2B73519D

Sometimes you wonder if the people paid to report the news even FOLLOW the news

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115566193897405746
CNN just now: “His [Bush's] job approval ratings have risen as well.”

[Atrios] Last 5 polls I'm aware of:

Gallup: 37 down from 40.
CBS: Unchanged at 36.
Newsweek: 38 up from 35.
Fox: Unchanged at 36.
Harris: Unchanged at 34.

More: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160001

What goes around. . . Paula Jones precedent may force Bush officials to testify in the Valerie Plame lawsuit

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/paula-jones-case-could-force-cheney.html

Bonus item: “Is It safe?”

http://billmon.org/archives/002687.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 @ 7:37 AM

 
CIVIL DISCOURSE

Unity governments

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/world/middleeast/14cnd-iraq.html
The speaker of Parliament said today that he was considering stepping down because of bitter enmity from Kurdish and Shiite political blocs, revealing the first major crack in Iraq’s fragile unity government since it was formed nearly three months ago.

The speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, is the third-ranking official in Iraq and a conservative Sunni Arab. Shiite and Kurdish legislators have banded together to try to push him out . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/nyregion/12adbox.html
"So much needs to be done, but so little is actually getting done in Washington because our politics have become so partisan and polarized. My 30 years of experience has been about bringing people together. I’m Joe Lieberman, and I approved this message because it’s time for a new politics of unity and purpose.” . . .

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/10357.html
British Home Secretary John Reid said terrorism now poses “the most sustained severe threat since the end of the second world war”. . . . It was more than mere rhetoric on the part of Reid. It was an attempt by the Blair government to remind the nation of the need for national unity of the kind that was forged during World War II.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/washington/13bush.html
[August 13] In Wake of News, a Plan: Uniting Party and President

One week ago, President Bush and his political aides were facing the most daunting election-year landscape of his presidency. . . Their party was splintered over Mr. Bush’s proposed immigration overhaul and uncertain about the political effect of violence in Iraq. . . .

That picture of Republican disunity eased dramatically this week with the defeat on Tuesday of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut and the news on Thursday that Britain had foiled a potentially large-scale terrorist plot.

The White House and Congressional Republicans used those events to unleash a one-two punch, first portraying the Democrats as vacillating when it came to national security, and then using the alleged terror plot to hammer home the continuing threat faced by the United States.

By the time the president’s top political strategists met at his ranch on Friday for an annual summer fund-raiser, the events had given them an opportunity to pull together the Republican Party as it headed toward the home stretch of the campaign, rallying once more around Mr. Bush’s signature issue, the fight against terrorism. . .

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0434409/C56.jpg

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/14/152732/485
[August 14] Republicans Divided On Iraq, Accountability . . .

Sy Hersh: Bush gave Israel the go-ahead to attack Lebanon early this summer

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/hersh-cheney-bush-gave-israel.html

More: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact

Bush insists that Hezbollah has been “defeated” in Lebanon. Since NO ONE believes that is true, he sounds pretty disconnected from reality (again). But when you hear his explanation, it gets even worse

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115559245952020941
[Bush] The world got to see -- got to see what it means to confront terrorism. I mean, it's a -- it's the challenge of the 21st century, the fight against terror.

A group of ideologues, by the way, who use terror to achieve an objective -- this is the challenge.

And that's why in my remarks I spoke about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help liberty prevail in the Middle East.

And the fundamental question is: Can it? And my answer is: Absolutely, it can. I believe that freedom is a universal value. And by that, I mean I believe people want to be free.

People want to be free. One way to put it is I believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a peaceful world. That's what I believe...

[Digby] Could somebody please keep him away from Karen? This is just embarrassing.

Even Israel isn’t calling it a victory: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401266.html

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/08/who_won.php

Hezbollah WASN’T defeated, of course, but we’re not supposed to say so. The current talking point (with an assist from Joe Lieberman) is that it undermines the war effort to talk about how badly things are going in the Middle East and what mistakes have been made. But apparently it’s only undermining the war effort when DEMOCRATS say it

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/defeatism-and-attacks-on-commander-in_14.html

Projecting “strength” – this is the mantra of the hyper-macho gang running foreign affairs today. But the current quagmire shows that being reflexively hawkish isn’t the same as being “strong on defense” – in fact, if you fight the WRONG wars, and fight them in the WRONG way, you are hurting national defense. Can’t the Dems find some way to make this case?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8203.html

More: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11874

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/dems-wont-let-gop-own-security-issue.html

A case in point: the neo-con dream of EXPANDING the war in the Middle East to include Syria and Iran isn’t “strong on defense” – it’s just crazy. But here’s their thinking: they will never have a President again so easily bent to their way of thinking; never have a President whose combination of arrogance and spiritual righteousness gives him such an expansive view of historic destiny; never have such control over policy with a VP and SecDef that no one ever says no to; never have such a pliant and accommodating Congress. They want to go in there and blow up all the Islamic enemies of the West, and they see that this is the best chance they will ever have. So their only answer as things fall apart in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan is “we haven’t been tough enough.” But more of the same isn’t a policy – it’s a mania

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009339.php

Here’s a serious question: if all the right-wingers are insisting that any talk of troop withdrawal from Iraq is “cutting and running,” which only will strengthen the terrorists – what will they say when Bush (eventually) is forced to do just that?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bill-kristol-says-that-george-bush.html

My head hurts: of all the stupid, nonsensical reasons why we still don’t have enough troops in Iraq to do the job, this has to be the dumbest

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6863
[Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace] "More U.S. and coalition forces could get the job done quicker, but that would mean dependency much longer for the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi government” . . .

How much more time, one Marine asked, should the Iraqi government be given to achieve the political unity necessary to stabilize the country?

"I guess they have as long as it takes," Pace replied, quickly adding, "Which is not forever." . . .

One Marine wound up his question about the pace of U.S. troop deployments to Iraq by asking, "Is the war coming to an end?"

Pace didn't answer directly.

Watch Tony Snow weasel out of giving a Bush endorsement to the Republican nominee in Connecticut, and this after the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY refused to endorse him! Man, Joe Lieberman is the best thing to happen to the Republicans since electronic voting

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115550355626581101
Q Does the President support the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut?

MR. SNOW: The President supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November.

The full text is even funnier: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6868
Q Wait a minute. I realize he supports democracy, but I'm wondering, does he actually support his own party's candidate?

MR. SNOW: I know that's not news --

Q Why aren't you committing -- why wouldn't the President commit support for the Republican candidate in that --

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Why do you ask? Is there something about the candidate that I should know about that would lead to judgments?

Q I'm just asking you --

MR. SNOW: No, that's just a --

Q -- it seems like a very natural thing, why wouldn't he support a member of his own party? Is it because he's well behind in the polls? Is it because the President likes Joe Lieberman? What's -- why not?

MR. SNOW: There may be -- there are a whole host of reasons the President -- I'm just not going to play.

Q It's not really a game --

MR. SNOW: It's not a game. It's not a game, but I'll -- okay, I'll tell you what. I'll refer you to the political office to give you the full judgments on that. . . [read on]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009338.php
[Kevin Drum] “Why do you ask?” . . .

When was the last time George Bush declined to support a Republican candidate for anything? When was the last time any president declined to support his party's nominee for a major office?

So suddenly, Bush is a great defender of the democratic process, and whatever it yields. But then why do they condemn the democratic process when Ned Lamont gets more votes than Lieberman?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/14/BL2006081400528.html
[Dan Froomkin] By insinuating that the sizeable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy, Vice President Cheney on Wednesday may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.

Cheney's comments came in a highly unusual conference call with reporters, part of an extensively orchestrated and largely successful Republican effort to spin the obviously anti-Bush message of Ned Lamont's victory over presidential enabler Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. . . [read on!]

The Republicans could pick a stronger candidate to run in Connecticut, but they don’t want to

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_13.php#009413

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/14/bush_refuses_to_back_gop_candidate.html
Tom Swan, Ned Lamont's (D) campaign manager, responds: "It is not surprising that Joe remains Bush’s favorite Senator, he is looking to run the exact same campaign that Bush did in 2004. Fortunately, the voters of Connecticut were smart enough to reject it then and we are confident they will again. It is alarming to see how far Joe will go, undermining every candidate across the country from his former party, to cling to his spot in Washington."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/14/lieberman_reacts_to_bush_not_backing_schlesinger.html
[Lieberman] "I certainly have not sought and will not seek President Bush's support. . . But the President’s statement of neutrality. . . is encouraging . . .”

http://mydd.com/story/2006/8/14/192219/483
[David Sirota] From now on, I am going to be referring to Joe Lieberman as De Facto GOP Nominee Joe Lieberman and I urge everyone else covering this race to do so in the interest not of partisanship, but out of respect for objective accuracy. Over the last few days, it's very clear that is what Joe is. RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is refusing to endorse the actual GOP nominee in Connecticut, and is instead heaping praise on Lieberman. Same thing for the White House, which is also refusing to endorse the actual GOP nominee in Connecticut. Lieberman has been telephoned with a supportive call from Karl Rove, GOP candidates accross the country are rallying to endorse him, and a Swift Boat Vets-ish front-group run by neocon leader William Kristol and Bush Iraq War spokesman Dan Senor is beginning to air ads on behalf of Lieberman. Meanwhile, Joe is parroting Vice President Cheney's talking points overtly implying that Connecticut voters are Al Qaeda sympathizers, and now attacking leading U.S. Senate candidates necessary to win back the Senate for Democrats.

But even if you don't believe Lieberman is the De Facto GOP Nominee in Connecticut from all of that, consider this new MSNBC story about GOP donors rallying to fund Lieberman's general election campaign. . .

Lieberman likes to posture about “civil discourse,” but this says it all (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2006/08/if_this_is_civi.html
“I frankly don't see what is so very f-cking "civil" about Lieberman accusing anyone who voted against him of giving aid and comfort to a greater evil than the Nazis and a greater menace than Stalin.”

More on Joe’s “civility”: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/14/131135/918

And today: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17052200&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Dan Gerstein, a longtime Lieberman aide whom the senator named as his new communications director . . . posed "a question" for Lamont.

How could he expect to convince "moderate Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly, unaffiliated voters" that he "would be anything other than a rigid partisan rubber stamp in the Senate," the Lieberman spokesman asked, "when the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?"

Look, it’s bad enough when Republicans (or Lieberman) want to call Ned Lamont (D-CT) and his supporters “terrorist sympathizers.” But it’s OUTRAGEOUS when a news anchor refers to him “the Al Qaeda candidate” (no, not on Fox – CNN!)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/cnn-anchor-chuck-roberts-calls-ned.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/fraudulent-words-and-imag_b_27188.html
[Arianna Huffington] I mean, you had your own headline anchorman, Chuck Roberts, describe Lamont as the al Qaeda candidate. This is an equally deceitful, fraudulent, fabricated statement. There should be zero tolerance for all those deceits, whether in images or words.

KURTZ: Well, what Chuck Roberts said, according to the transcript, was that some are calling Ned Lamont the al Qaeda candidate. But it's certainly not a formulation I would have used.

HUFFINGTON: You cannot find a single person who called Lamont the al Qaeda candidate, except Chuck Roberts. . .

More: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608140003

Senator George Allen (R-VA) calls a young (dark-skinned) Democratic campaign worker a “Macaca”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115559029299377045
[Atrios] [I]t is actually an established racial/slur, specifically directed at North Africans. If you search the nastier corners of the internet you'll find it's in surprisingly common usage. . .

More on “macaca”: http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2006/08/frameshop_macac.html#more

Caught on video: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/14/192310/391

The Allen campaign “explains”: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_atrios_archive.html#115558801832716030
[Atrrios] Wadhams said Allen campaign staffers had begun calling Sidarth "mohawk" because of a haircut Wadhams said the Webb staffer has. "Macaca was just a variation of that," Wadhams said.

[NB: Uh-huh. Mohawk. (Look at the picture)]

Late last night, an “apology” of sorts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html
Allen said that the word had no derogatory meaning for him and that he was sorry. "I would never want to demean him as an individual. I do apologize if he's offended by that. That was no way the point."

Asked what macaca means, Allen said: "I don't know what it means." . .

[NB: Allen, whose mother is Tunisian, knows EXACTLY what the term means]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/senator-george-allen-r-va-accused-of.html
[John Aravosis] Allen has had his own personal share of racist eruptions over the years, so this is nothing new. . . .

I think this qualifies as a LIE

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/14/mehlman-stay-course/
Yesterday on Meet the Press, former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman tried to claim that conservatives are “not coming in and saying ‘Stay the course’” in Iraq . . . But despite Mehlman’s statement, plenty of conservatives are saying “stay the course”. . .

[NB: A long list follows, including Bush]

But there’s a new phrase Mehlman wants us to start using. Can you figure out what it is?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8202.html
"Look, the fact is that our mission in the war in Iraq is critical. We agree on that; we agree it's wrong to cut and run. But look, we're not coming in and saying 'Stay the course.' The choice in this election is not between 'Stay the course' and 'Cut and run,' it's between 'Win by adapting' and 'Cut and run.'

"Let me tell you what we're doing. The fact is, before the successful Iraqi elections, the number of troops went up from 137,000 to 167,000. That's adapting to win. Recently, the increased troops in Baghdad, adapting to win. We changed how the training of Iraqi forces occurred to involve more Iraqis. That's adapting to win.

"I acknowledge that when you're facing any war, the enemy is smart, the enemy thinks, and particularly in this kind of war, it requires you to adapt to win. We're going to adapt to win."

Bonus item: Why the NYT’s decision to suppress the warrantless spying story so as not to affect the 2004 election is so troubling

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1123.html
[Charles Pierce] I happen to think that's one of the worst excuses short of bribery for holding a story. If you think you've unearthed news to which people have a right, then you're supposed to affect the election. People have no greater right to any news than they have to that news which informs their choice as to who will lead 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 @ 8:04 AM

 
WINNING THE BATTLE, LOSING THE WAR

How we’ve strengthened Hezbollah

http://www.slate.com/id/2147653
[Joshua Kucera] The Wall Street Journal, WP and NYT all run analyses coming to the same conclusion: Hezbollah has come out the winner in the conflict up to now, its success forcing the U.S. and Israel to scale back their goals of military destruction of the group that the Post headline calls "THE BEST GUERRILLA FORCE IN THE WORLD.". . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004740.html
[Boston Globe] Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans. The document also raised the intelligence community's concern that, if the United States were to attack Iran over its nuclear program, Iran might use Hezbollah to strike US targets once again. . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004742.html
[Robin Wright] "Although the outcome will be long debated, big losers at this stage appear to be Israel's government, the Lebanese people, and the Bush administration's struggle against terrorism and its campaign for democracy, these observers said."

More: http://billmon.org/archives/002678.html

I said this would happen (not that it was hard to foresee): given the surge of support for the “war on terror,” we will see an aggressive move now to re-equate the war in Iraq with fighting Al Qaeda, etc. – because opposing one is opposing the other, you see

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/13/kristol-cheneys-claim/
Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney called Ned Lamont’s win in the Connecticut primary “disturbing” because “the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”

Today on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol called Cheney’s remarks “indisputably correct.” Kristol said that anyone who advocates redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is helping al-Qaeda. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14273400
[Ken Mehlman] The fact is it’s not the right-wing extremists, as he said, who talks about Iraq being central to the war on terror, it’s the enemy. If you listen to what Osama bin Laden says, if you listen to what Mr. Zawahiri says, they both say their goal is to drive America out of Iraq the way we were driven out of Vietnam and to use that as a base to launch further attacks. . . .

When issue after issue after issue, whether it’s not giving the terrorists a victory in Iraq—whether it’s the tools we need at home to figure out what the terrorists are doing, to make sure we’re successful—on every one of these issues, unfortunately, the party of Pelosi and the party of Dean and the party of Harry Reid has followed what Nancy Pelosi said less than a year after 9/11, which is she doesn’t think America is really at war. . .

And the fundamental question Americans are going to have to answer is, “Do you believe we’re at war?” And if you believe we’re at war, then it’s important to use every tool possible to win the war on terror, not to weaken coordination between law enforcement—the Democrats did by trying to kill the Patriot Act—not reducing our ability to interrogate the enemy, as they’ve done, and not oppose efforts to surveil the enemy, which is exactly what, if you look at the reports from London, the British officials were able to do to stop the attack. . . .

And finally, think about this: We know that 9/11 taught us how dangerous it was when you had a failed state in Afghanistan. Imagine a failed state on the second-largest oil reserves in the world. That’s what would happen if we cut and run in Iraq, which, unfortunately—which is what the Democratic Party has now made their orthodoxy.

But here is the simple fact that needs to be hammered away repeatedly

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14323311
[Newsweek] America's sometimes heavy-handed attempt to stomp out the terrorists with military force has reaped a whirlwind of anti-American hatred in the Middle East and turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground. . .

Does the Bush gang REALLY care about terrorism?

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007602.html
[Teresa Nielsen Hayden] Bush & Co. don’t care about terrorism . .

[NB: The way I would put it is not that they don’t care about terrorism, but that they care about other things more. . . ]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8191.html
[Steve Benen] It's stunning how much more we could be doing, at hardly unreasonable costs, but the administration chooses not to. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/12/173810/788
[Hunter] Inexplicably, the Bush administration has been and continues to actively fight against some of the most effective measures around for preempting potential terrorism -- more effective security, explosives detection R&D and deployment. . .

One of the most dangerous qualities of this administration is incompetence in the fight against terrorism. They have been so focused on expanding presidential powers, selling Iraq, re-selling Iraq, demonizing opponents of Iraq, and trying to use other regional chaos as excuses for broadening the failures of Iraq that they seemingly have no actual time in their day to fight the real battle -- real, bona fide terrorism of the sort that the world can expect to face. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/busted-bamboozlability-_b_26978.html
[John Seery] George W. Bush has lost the war on terrorism. . .

What does it mean to lose a war on terror?

It doesn't mean that terrorists have defeated our armed forces. It doesn't mean that a foreign ruler will now be occupying our territory and subjugating our people. It doesn't mean that terrorists have free reign to blow up as many of our buildings as they wish. It means something else, something perhaps far more debilitating to our country.

George Bush and his advisors--despite all of their accusations against their Iraq war critics along the same lines--never understood the unique nature of such a war. They continued to understand the post 9/11 world through the lens of a state-regime system. Pursue regime change, and blow up sponsoring states. . .

But terrorists well know that they are engaging in asymmetrical warfare. They know that they cannot blow up as many of our buildings as we can of theirs (if we can find them). They know that they cannot match firepower for firepower. Terrorism, at its heart, is an ongoing psychological battle.

What do terrorists want? What would constitute "winning" for them (short of the complete dismantling of our civilization)? Terrorists want to terrorize. They want us to live in fear. They want to get inside our heads, not just our subway stations. They want us to lose our innocence, our sense of casual safety. They want to disrupt our everyday routines, so that we have to entertain the possibility that they might strike at any moment. They want us to dwell upon the specter of their hatred, so that we become haters, too.

Rape is an apt analogy. Rape is a form of domestic terrorism. Rape is not about sex. It is about oppression, not just physical but psychological, emotional, and spiritual oppression. Rape survivors may experience horrendous trauma long after the rapist is caught, tried, imprisoned, or even killed. That is because the rapist has stolen something that is hard to get back: a precious sense of trust and safety that can and should attend loving intimacy with another. The lingering fear--no, call it terror--that a rape survivor encounters and tries to overcome is that she/he must now and hereafter live in the rapist's version of a dark, cynical, and ever violent world.

George W. Bush, along with Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, played right into the terrorists' hands. Bush has acceded to the terrorists' fear mongering and in fact has become their accomplice (or dupe) in spreading and deepening their message of terror. . . His administration has suspended many civil liberties and deftly defied the U.S. Constitution. Junked the Geneva Convention. Tortured prisoners. Oversaw criminal acts at Abu Ghraib. Ignored due process at Guantanamo. Engaged in domestic spying without court supervision. Flushed billions down the toilet in Iraq. Weakened our military readiness. Set much of the world against us. The Middle East is now ablaze in terrorism. At home, we live constantly in "elevated fear" levels (whether color coded or not). Our internal politics have become poisonously divided, not united. Osama bin Laden is playing George Bush like a cheap fiddle. . .

The Republicans now want to ride the terror bandwagon back to electoral victory. If you're frightened to death about our national security, they tell us, vote Republican. . . Dick Cheney has been making the same case about anti-war dissenters. Just yesterday, he insinuated that Ned Lamont supporters are secretly serving the cause of al Qaeda. Cheney claims that the best evidence that the administration's convoluted Iraq policy is working is that America hasn't been attacked--physically--since 9/11. How naïve can he be about the distinctive nature of a war with terrorists? . . .

Howard Dean gets it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14273400
MR. DEAN: The way to help this country is to limit Republican power. They have failed in, in the budget, they’ve failed in Iraq, they’ve failed at—with Katrina. I just got back from North Dakota; there’s not—more than a war on terror going on in this country, there’s a war on the middle class going on. . . .

You know, I think that was an unfortunate statement that Joe made. That’s exactly the same line that Ken Mehlman and, and Dick Cheney are using. . . But we believe, along with the majority of the American people, that this war was a mistake and that—and that it’s, it’s a complete lack of leadership for the president of the United States to say, “Well, we’re going to leave this to the next president.” That is not leadership. This guy got us into this mess; he needs to get us out of this mess. . .

The problem is, the president has failed to defend America. Since he has been in office, the number of nuclear weapons in North Korea has quadrupled, Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons, Osama bin Laden has set up shop in Pakistan five years after the fact. I think one of the 9/11 chairs just said it very well: If your top priority isn’t defending the American homeland, then you’re not doing your job. And I think President Bush is not doing his job on defense or domestically. . .

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about something Senator Lieberman also said in the wake of the UK bombing plot. This is how it was reported in The Washington Post on Friday: “Campaigning in Connecticut, Senator Joseph Lieberman ... said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be ‘taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.’” Your, your reaction?

MR. DEAN: I think that’s—I think that’s outrageous. I mean, that’s the same—again, the same thing Dick Cheney, who’s been widely discredited by most Americans as essentially a propaganda machine, has said. It’s ridiculous. That is saying to the Connecticut voters that you don’t care about American security and saying to the Connecticut voters that they like al-Qaeda. That is a ridiculous thing. The Republicans hope, once again, to win an election based on fear. They—you know, fear-mongering, whining and complaining and name-calling is not going to lead America. . .

Well, first of all, if you want to fight and win on the war on terror, the fact is Iraq is a distraction. Iraq never had anything to do with the war on terror and that’s just a fact and that’s what the 9/11 Commission said. So it’s not enough to listen to the right-wing folks that claim that we’re fighting the terrorists off the shore so they don’t come on the shore. That is hooey. The people who fought the terrorism best in the last couple of weeks have been the British, who uncovered this plot. We need to upgrade our airport security and we’ve tried to do that in the Democratic Party, and our additions to the budget in Homeland Security have been turned down by the Republican majority. We need a real tough fight on terror, but we need to be tough and smart, not just talk tough. . .

This is head-shaking material: NBC’s “Meet the Press” fails to confront Republicans with the results of THEIR OWN news investigation, that the U.S. pressured the Brits to rush the timing of the arrest of the liquid bombing suspects

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608130002

Bush official, on the payroll, has gigs at Fox, PBS, and elsewhere as a “conservative strategist” and commentator. Nice deal, if you can get it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300647.html

The press has a narrative: the Democratic party is “fragmented,” the Republican party is “unified.” They know this is true, and they repeat it at every opportunity. They get very nervous and twitchy when facts seem to go against this narrative, so they are always grateful for a chance to seize upon some new development to argue that things have gotten back to “normal” (for them). A case in point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/washington/13bush.html

Joe Lieberman decries Democratic “partisans and polarizers”. Hmmm. . . . so what does he think about these guys?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/13/204526/178

Lieberman currently leads Lamont in poll

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/13/in_connecticut_lieberman_leads_three_way_race.html

Post-Connecticut reflections on blogs, progressive activism, and the New Populism

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/12/201415/276
[SusanG] Let's make it even simpler, shall we? The oh-so-mysterious message to elected officials is: People are sick unto death of war, of unresponsive representation, of incompetence, of corruption, of ever-more-intrusive government, of a spiraling deficit, of lobbyist-owned and corporation-sponsored politicians, of a power-hungry president, of six years of attempts to pass stick-up-the-ass moralizing legislation telling us when and how we can die and when and how we can reproduce. Get out of our personal lives, get the hell out of Iraq and do your freaking job - run the government competently, economically and fairly. Period.

It's not about blogs, which are, after all, no more than an upgrade to the traditional town hall or public square. The story should be about what is being said in them, and the ordinary people who are talking and organizing there - people who are waking up to the fact that democracy is a do-it-yourself affair, no matter what the lobbying firms, corporations, DC insiders and other parasitical hangers-on in the press think. . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/14/42110/6232
[Matt Stoller] I don't really see us as either the New Left or the New Right, though if I had to pick I'd say we're more New Right in terms of our structural orientation. We're less policy focused and more tribal in our understanding of politics. We're much more pragmatic and politically cautious, eschewing stupid and counterproductive attention-grabbing protests, somewhat similar to the way the New Right took Barry Goldwater's extremism and made it palatable. To the extent that I have a political hero, it's probably Grover Norquist, not Ralph Nader, and a lot of the new progressive organizers I know model themselves and what they are doing after the right-wing's collaborative model rather than the left-wing single issue mindset.

At the same time, there's something very different about the progressive movement that's emerging today. We're not an aggregation of single-issue voters, and we don't operate through fear. Our rhetoric is hot, but it's not irresponsible or atomizing, and it's two-way. Unlike proposition 13 in California, which passed with low turnout in the late 1970s, our key fight in Connecticut was a high-turnout fight based on substantive public and private debate.

In other words, there's a pluralistic element to what the progressive movement is doing that is quite populist and democratic. We are fundamentally arguing for a tolerant and pluralistic society, and we're doing it aggressively and somewhat viciously. That's why it's so hard to pigeonhole. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/13/184413/938
[McJoan] Rural populations are shrinking dramatically, and have been for decades. So a political revolt in rural America today certainly wouldn't have the reverberations that it did a century ago. But, as Stapilus points out, in a handful of select areas, particularly in the West, it could have an impact . . .

I'd argue that this potential rural revolt Stapilus is talking about has started in some places. I think it might have been in effect in Montana in 2004, bringing in not only Schweitzer, but also a Democratic legislature. It could also be behind Tester's surge. Two more Congressional districts to watch for this dynamic are Idaho's first where Larry Grant has forced the GOP to consider this one of their most endangered seats, and Wyoming's at large seat where Gary Trauner has the GOP equally worried.

If the national political revolt that has started rumbling in the cities and burbs rolls into rural areas, expect to see it play out in eastern Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300766.html
The Iraq war and Bush's low approval ratings have created trouble for Republicans in all regions. But nowhere is the GOP brand more scuffed than in the Northeast, where this year's circumstances are combining with long-term trends to endanger numerous incumbents. . .

Bonus item: Theocracy watch – photographic edition

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3248

More: http://www.irregulartimes.com/holywarriorbush.html
General Boykin said of George W. Bush that, "He was appointed by God" to be leader of the United States.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1102-06.htm
'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

***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 @ 7:50 AM

 
TOO CYNICAL?

Here is the clearest evidence yet that the Bush gang manipulates the timing of terror announcements for political purposes: the Brits were not ready to arrest the liquid bombing suspects, but the US pressed them to

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452
NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports. . .

At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account. . . Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. . .

[NB: Yes, MAYBE the U.S. was just being hypercautious, but given that these were British flights to the U.S., wouldn’t the Brits have been just as careful? After all, THEY’VE been attacked recently]

Was this not true? http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1842371,00.html
The arrests in Britain followed the detention of terrorist suspects in Pakistan, it is believed, within the past fortnight. According to some government sources, after the arrests a message was sent to the suspected terror cells in Britain telling them: "Do your attacks now." In effect, it was a "go" order to the British bombers.

According to these sources, the message was intercepted and decoded by either British or US intelligence in the past 72 hours, spurring counterterrorism officials to intensify the investigation against the alleged plotters. . .

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/12/dems_better_explot_uk_terrorist_plot_or_theyll_lose
[NYT] "The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it. . .”

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/nbc-us-pushed-brits-to-act-faster.html

I agree: time to push back on the Bush gang’s politicization of the terror issue

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A23652D8D
Senate Democratic leaders on Friday accused Vice President Dick Cheney of playing politics with terrorism and contended that voters won't buy Republican arguments that the GOP is stronger on national security.

"They've run this play one too many times," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a conference call with reporters. "The American people simply do not recognize any validity in what they're saying."

Republicans, in turn, accused Democrats of political posturing.

"It sounds to me like Senator Reid is trying to accuse us of politicizing while he, himself, is politicizing the issue," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208069,00.html
[Bush] Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face. . .

[NB: See? What’s “unfortunate” is that some have suggested that the Bush gang has been politicizing the issue. Poor George, so concerned that anyone would even think to SUGGEST such a thing]

And it’s going to get worse: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/12/14101/3089

You can also expect Bush to use the investigation of terror suspects in Britain as an excuse for his expansive view of government surveillance here

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208069,00.html
[Bush] We're dealing with a new enemy that uses new means of attack and new methods to communicate. This week's events demonstrate the vital importance of ensuring that our intelligence and law enforcement personnel have all the tools they need to track down the terrorists, and prevent attacks on our country. . .

How the media enables this lie: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115540940092394733

How the NYT helped re-elect George Bush by sitting on the NSA warrantless wiretapping story

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002985837

In the latest polling, Bush is fairly popular on the war on terror (post-arrests), but very vulnerable on Iraq – so you can expect a massive push to try to re-equate the two

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14317706
[Newsweek] According to the poll, conducted through phone interviews with 1,001 Americans, 55 percent disapprove of how the president is doing his job, while 38 percent approve. . . But a majority, 55 percent, approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and homeland security (40 percent disapprove), an 11-point boost since May, returning the president to levels not seen since early 2005. . .

But terrorism is the only issue they have going for them, according to the poll. Right now 53 percent of Americans would like to see the Democrats win control of Congress, compared to just 34 percent who want the Republicans to retain control. Most worrisome for the GOP? Almost one in 10 Republicans, 9 percent, hope the Democrats win. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/gops-only-hope-for-06-save-marriage-of.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/12/democrats_way_ahead_in_more_polls.html
Harris Interactive Poll: If elections for Congress were held today, 45% of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 30% would vote for the Republican. Women favor the Democratic candidate by a 50% to 28% margin. . .

The mistake we keep making: thinking that terror groups are crazed and irrational, when all the evidence is that they are clever, disciplined, and creative in their schemes. What next?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115535477562378102

That’s some cease fire

http://voanews.com/english/2006-08-13-voa15.cfm
After nearly five hours of debate and discussions, Israel's cabinet voted to approve the U.N. cease-fire resolution which was passed by the U.N. Security Council on Friday. . .

"We will test the implementation and we will have to see whether the Hezbollah forces are out of southern Lebanon, and the international forces enter with full force to preserve the tranquility in Lebanon," [Tourism Minister Isaac] Herzog says. . .

Meanwhile, there has been no lull in the fighting . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/world/middleeast/12wire-hezbollah.html
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Saturday that the Islamic militant group will abide by a U.N. cease-fire resolution but will continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in south Lebanon. . .

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/lebanon-accepts-un-ceasefire-hizbullah.html
[Juan Cole] I saw Michael Hudson on CNN saying that he thought the fighting would nevertheless continue for some time. He said that the government of Ehud Olmert would be under pressure to bring some sort of victory home, to burnish what was otherwise from the Israeli side an undistinguished and inconclusive war. Likewise, he said, as long as Israeli troops were occupying Lebanese soil, it is hard to imagine that Hizbullah would just give up its weaponry. Rather, Hezbollah will hit them.

So, the war will likely continue. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2147649/fr/rss/
[Emily Biuso] Israel's top military commander said his forces will likely fight Hezbollah for at least another week. . .

You can bet on it: John Bolton will be credited with brokering the cease fire (on the eve of his confirmation hearings)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/12/205819/682

But it was the French: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009332.php

Did the U.S. greenlight the attack on Hezbollah as a precursor to an attack on Iran?

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/08/13/08/04/a-cheap-war/


What, no Paul Bremer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html
The former Iraqi electricity minister and several other current and former senior government officials have been charged with corruption . .




Dick Cheney won’t release records on his meetings for “national security” reasons – but when it comes to helping out his pal Scooter Libby, that’s different (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.libbydefensefund.com/news/06/0812.htm

Will Democratic pressure grow on Joe Lieberman to drop his third-party bid? Will it make any difference? (thanks to Atrios for the links)

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/2008ers.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/12/romney_kerry_spar_over_fight_on_terror/
Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, blasted Lieberman for suggesting on Thursday that leaving Iraq would be “a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes."

“Joe Lieberman's fear campaign is off to a quick start, and it won't be long until Republican money starts completely funding his campaign," Swan said in a fund-raising appeal sent yesterday.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who backed Lamont after he won the Democratic primary on Tuesday, also rejected Lieberman's remarks.

“Connecticut voters certainly aren't supporting terrorists," Reid said. “Joe has to play on the field of Connecticut; this is Connecticut politics. The people of this country and the people of Connecticut want a change in direction."

More: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2006_/2006/08/josh_marshall_is_right.php
[Steven Teles] Once again, Lieberman is running against the Democratic party, rather than against the real threat at this time, which is the continuation of Republican party rule in Washington. The more I consider the matter, the more shameless Joe's unwillingness to accept his loss gracefully seems to me. . .

Bush’s Medicare plan – working just as intended

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/08/the_medicare_dr.html
[Mark Thoma] The Medicare prescription drug plan is providing large benefits to the group targeted by the legislation - health insurance companies. It's unsurprising because the insurance companies played a large role in writing the new rules. However. . . many seniors, especially the poor who are most in need of help, have seen their drug costs go up. . . [read on]

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/washington/13medicaid.html

This may seem like a technicality, but it’s WRONG – and I’ll be waiting for the Bush gang to find some way to exploit it in the future (cf. signing statements, etc)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/washington/12deficit.html
A federal judge Friday threw out a private group’s effort to block a $39 billion deficit-reduction bill that was passed in different versions by the House and Senate.

The lawsuit, filed by Public Citizen, argued that because the two chambers passed slightly different bills, the version signed by President Bush on Feb. 8 was unconstitutional. . .

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/sunday-talk-shows-open-thread_13.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.); Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont (D).

THIS WEEK (ABC): Chertoff; Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.); Latin musician Jon Secada.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Chertoff; Lamont; Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Chertoff; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman; Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, chair and vice chair, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Chertoff; Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahmoud; former NATO supreme allied commander Gen. George A. Joulwan; former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak; journalist Seymour Hersh; and Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

Rick Santorum (R-PA) really will say anything, won’t he?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/12/114731/022
The disruption of an alleged terrorist plot to blow up airliners shows the importance of intelligence gathering and the need to pursue the "traitors" who recently leaked information about classified government programs, Sen. Rick Santorum said Friday. . . [read on for a list of “traitors”]

Bonus item: if we talked about Republicans the way they talk about us

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/233749/736

***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 @ 9:29 AM

 
EXCESSES

Can we ever achieve safety by continually banning more and more carry-on items on aircraft?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001312.html
[Eugene Robinson] Shoe bombs didn't work, and now we shuffle through the metal detectors in our socks. Liquid explosives didn't work, and now we will fly with unbrushed teeth. We can be sure that somewhere in some anonymous apartment, maybe in Paris or Frankfurt or Karachi, a group of unknown conspirators has absorbed the failure of the London plot and already begun to develop a new approach to mass murder. . .

Maybe the discovery of the airliner plot will bring us back to the real world. There are deadly enemies out there, and one way to fight them, as the British demonstrated yesterday, is through intelligence. One way not to fight them, as the Bush administration continues to demonstrate, is through reckless military action that may kill terrorists but also kills innocent civilians and thus creates a new generation of terrorists -- doubtless including some bright young man or woman who will come up with a new idea for downing civilian airliners.

We will end up boarding our flights barefoot, barehanded and buck naked except for a hospital gown they'll make us put on at the airport. And, at this rate, Osama bin Laden will be watching CNN from his cave, smiling contentedly.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/aug/10/fluid_dynamics
[Matt Yglesias] Call me crazy, but I don't see what kind of sense a ban on liquid travel on airplanes is. . . [read on]

Oh, good: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-cutting-bomb-detection-budget.html
[AP] While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology. . .

Always correcting for the LAST terror threat – never anticipating the NEXT one

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/washington/12homeland.html
The Department of Homeland Security has taken significant steps since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to make it much harder to turn a plane into a flying weapon. But a nearly obsessive focus on the previous attacks may have prevented the federal government from combating new threats effectively, terrorism experts and former agency officials say. . .

I have serious doubts about whether this “cease fire” vote in the UN will actually stop hostilities in Lebanon, or whether it is just a fig leaf to allow the US and others to say “we tried”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/world/middleeast/12nations.html
The Security Council agreed unanimously on Friday on a measure calling for a full cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, deploying 30,000 Lebanese and United Nations forces in southern Lebanon and calling upon Israel to withdraw its forces “in parallel.”

After rejecting earlier versions, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel accepted the resolution. But, under a deal an Israeli official said was approved by the United States, Mr. Olmert will wait until Sunday to obtain his cabinet’s approval. Until then, he will expand his monthlong military campaign against the Hezbollah militia and its rocket arsenal. . .

[NB: “EXPAND”]

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/israeli-response-to-un-ceasefire-call.html
[Juan Cole] A "cessation of hostilities" means that Hizbullah has to stop its attacks, but Israel doesn't have to stop its attacks or withdraw from Lebanon. . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/bizarre-end-to-bizarre-war-in-lebanon.html

http://billmon.org/archives/002674.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/aug/11/hate_to_say_i_told_you_so

We know the Rovean strategy is always to portray weaknesses as strengths, to go on the offensive at every opportunity. So of course the White House is saying they see the Iraq War as a winning issue in the fall – despite the fact that 62% of all Americans think it was a mistake. The Democrats should call this bluff and go right after them

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/joe_liebermans.html
[Charles Pierce] Why shouldn't there be an emboldened left-wing of the Democratic Party, particularly if it results in a demand to change course in the middle of the greatest foreign-policy cock-up of the age, a change that today seems to have the support of 60 percent of the American people? . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060810/cm_uc_crjcox/joe_conason20060810
[Joe Conason] The propagandists charge that opposition to the war in Iraq is an obsession of the far-left fringe, and that the Democrats will be destroyed by any attempt to extricate our troops from the quicksand. Every reputable survey of public opinion refutes that assertion. Support for the Bush administration's conduct of the war, and for the president himself, has been declining steadily since the end of 2004. And every anchorperson, pundit and squawking head seeking to suggest otherwise is either inexcusably ignorant or purposely lying. . .

ABC News and The Washington Post jointly conducted a poll last week that asked whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Bush administration's handling of "the situation in Iraq." Thirty-six percent approve, while 62 percent do not. . .

That same ABC/Washington Post poll found 59 percent felt the war had not been worth the cost, 64 percent felt the Bush administration had no clear plan for victory, and 53 percent felt the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased. By a plurality of 38 percent, respondents said that a congressional candidate who supports the Bush policy would be "less likely" to get their vote. Most remarkably, although 66 percent said that Democrats have no clear position on the war, a slight plurality of 43 percent said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to do "a better job" in Iraq.

A CBS News poll came up with much the same result in late July. So did a Gallup poll taken around the same time. And similarly negative results have appeared in polls taken for Fox News, the Associated Press and the Harris Organization, among others. If more than half of the public supports withdrawal from Iraq, and nearly two-thirds disapproves of the president and his policy, isn't that the "mainstream" position?

To be "strong on national security" does not mean supporting the misconceived and incompetently executed policies of the Bush administration. American security in years to come will depend on undoing this government's grave mistakes, which have weakened this country's military posture and undermined support for us around the world. Terrorism experts across the spectrum, from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat, agree that the "struggle against violent extremism" has suffered from the foolish decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

Evidently, the neoconservatives hope to escape responsibility for their debacle by complaining that the rest of us lack sufficient zeal. So they now pretend that Democrats and progressives, who overwhelmingly supported the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban and still do, want to abandon that effort. . .

More like this please

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101606.html
The aggressive Democratic response to this week's foiled terrorist plot reflects a widely shared view among party strategists that intensified attacks against President Bush represent the best chance to offset what historically has been a clear Republican advantage whenever national security issues become more prominent, Democratic officials said yesterday.

Less than three months before midterm congressional elections, many Democrats are trying to simultaneously express skepticism about Bush's Iraq war policy and project a message of resolve and strength against terrorism. . .

Here’s part of the problem: the press and pundits, who have their own responsibility for enabling Bush’s war lies (and for whom the war has been damn good for business), also find it difficult to admit flat out that the war was a mistake

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/prob_w_pundits
[Eric Boehlert] In the wake of Tuesday's Connecticut primary, it's hard to say which group came across looking more desperate . . . The Lamont media flailing truly was remarkable. How else to describe longtime Lieberman pal and DC corporate lobbyist Lanny Davis, trolling online through liberal comment sections in search of random anti-Semitic slurs in order to prove thoughtful progressives opposed to Lieberman were really filled with "scary hatred." . . . Meanwhile, the New York Times's David Brooks lashed out at the "liberal inquisition" unfolding in Connecticut, the type of phenomenon that could be understood "only [by] experts in moral manias and mob psychology." ABC's Cokie Roberts sang from the choir sheet this Sunday morning, announcing a Lamont win would mean "a disaster for the Democratic Party."

Roberts's ABC colleague Jake Tapper labeled Lieberman's challenge as a "a party purge of a moderate Democrat"; a cliché repeated constantly among the talking heads. Los Angeles Times columnist Jonathan Chait ridiculed grassroots Lamont activists by suggesting "their technique of victory-via-purge is on display in Connecticut." Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, who in a recent radio interview refused to say whether he actually wanted Democrats to gain control of Congress in November, denounced the "thought-enforcers of the left" supporting Lamont, whom Peretz mocked as "Karl Rove's dream come true." . . .

The Beltway's simplistic, yet overheated, argument went like this: By voting out a pro-war, conservative Democrat, Connecticut voters (i.e., the "elitist insurgents") would taint the party nationally by advertising Democrats as being soft on national security. That mindset, trumpeted by Time's Mike Allen, among others, represents an absolute refusal by MSM to divorce themselves from the notion that Republicans own the issue of national security and that Americans only trust conservatives to deal with foreign policy. . .

Aside from the hollow analysis, what accounted for the pundits' unusually hysterical hyperbole? Part of it was that the pundits took the race personally. Meaning, they really like Joe Lieberman. . . If nothing else, that kind of blatant, public back-rubbing helped draw back the curtain on a dirty little Beltway secret that news consumers aren't supposed to know: Journalists go easy on politicians they like. . . .

What also drove a lot of the animus was the growing tension between the Beltway insiders and the bloggers, who continue to grab more political authority at the expense of ink-and-paper pundits who are scrambling to maintain theirs. It was no coincidence that Brooks and Broder and Klein and the crew at The New Republic have all in recent months taken public whacks at the progressive netroots. . .

Revealing, too, is the fact that MSM pundits and reporters don't focus on Lieberman's arrogant decision to abandon the Democratic party in order to hang onto his seat in November by running as an independent. . . (Imagine if every political loser took out an "insurance policy.") . . . Pundits who normally revere process and pounce on politicians who try to selfishly change the rules in the middle of game, simply shrug their shoulders at Lieberman's stunning campaign vanity.

But what I think is essential to understanding the Lieberman media phenomena is that, for the most part, the pundits who assailed Lamont's rise during the campaign were the same ones who signed off on the disastrous war in Iraq and now appear spooked that voters in Connecticut finally decided to hold Lieberman, the de facto Democratic co-sponsor of the invasion, responsible for that foreign policy debacle. They're spooked because for the last three-plus years there's been something of a gentleman's agreement that nobody inside the Beltway, whether at the White House, Congress, the Pentagon, or inside the corporate media world, has been asked to pay any sort of professional price for backing the disaster that is Iraq. But suddenly Democrats in the Nutmeg state have decided enough's enough. That's not a trend Beltway insiders want to see spread nationally, which is why so many pundits were eager to marginalize Lamont and his anti-war backers as "crazies" and "elitist" "bomb throwers."

The problem for pundits is that the November elections will offer a lot more referendums on the war--and nervous name-calling might not be enough to stem that tide. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/1801/33929
[McJoan] So to the DC pundits, opposing the Iraq Debacle is a political liability? Yet again, in defiance of every public opinion poll conducted on Iraq, the traditional media has completely bought in to the desperately spun Rove narrative that the GOP can win by running on the Iraq Debacle. Remarkable.

What the chattering classes, used to whipping out their steno pads and sharpening their pencils to duly record every sneering utterance of Rove and Cheney, seem to be blinded to is that Connecticut has presented a remarkable opportunity for the Democrats, not the Republicans. . . .

More: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608120001

WE are the terrorists

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/prob_w_pundits
Earlier in the [Lieberman/Lamont] campaign, Washington Post columnist David Broder dismissed Connecticut's progressives as "elitist insurgents." Over at the Rothenberg Political Report, Beltway mainstay Stuart Rothenberg was in a tizzy that Lamont's win would "only embolden the crazies in the [Democratic] party," the "bomb-throwers." (Like Broder, Rothenberg opted for terror terminology to describe the democratic process unfolding in Connecticut.) . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/185344/622
[Cal Thomas] The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing. . .

More rhetorical excesses: are the Islamists Fascists? Nazis? Communists?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/105828/413
US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"

U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions. . . . "The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals," said Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/151158/734
[Joe Lieberman] "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War," Mr. Lieberman said.

[Kos] More evil than the guys who gassed 6 million Jews?

More dangerous than the guys who had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us and could've snuffed out all life on the planet at the press of a button?

Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. . .

[Mark Schmitt] I'm sorry, but this is just a deranged, or at best deeply confused and manic, thing to say. It shows a lack of perspective and reality and responsibility, even in its lack of clarity about what exactly the threat is and how to defeat it. Why does anyone accept that this kind of blather can be considered taking the threat more "seriously"? It's not. It's hugely unserious in its trivialization of the great moral challenges of the Twentieth Century and it's bald politicization of the current challenge . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115533539571230910
[Digby] I guess the wingnuts are finally doing what they have been wanting to do since 9/11: demonize all muslims, especially Americans, who disagree in any way with Bush. (Welcome to our world!) Yglesias points out that this is a very stupid thing to do since you can't deal with Islamic fundamentalism without the help of Islamic moderates. . .

It appears that warporn works the same way regular porn often does; the more someone watches it the wilder the stimulation they need. The right's bloodlust can't be sated with fevered thoughts about al Qaeda and Iraq anymore. (And those wars haven't really given them much of a release.) They need "the big one."

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8185.html

So, let’s see: if opponents of the war are terrorists, and terrorists are Nazis, then WE must be Nazis, right? Right?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_08_06.php#009401
Democratic National Committee spokesperson Karen Finney slams the Republican Party for a picture which appeared on the Republican National Committee Web site of Howard Dean with what appeared to be a Photoshopped Hitler moustache. . .

See it: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001326.php

[NB: I say it once again – they won’t stop until we stop them]

Isn’t it ironic?

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joecongress0810.artaug10,0,6172204.story
GOP Reaches For Joe's Coattails

Suddenly the Democrats' nightmare scenario becomes plausible: They are a seat or two from gaining a House majority in November, but so many Connecticut Republicans go to the polls to vote for Joe Lieberman that the state's three vulnerable GOP incumbents win re-election.

"Whether he wants to or not, Joe's being on the ballot will juice Republican turnout," said former Democratic Rep. Toby Moffett, who is advising the party's candidates. "Does he want to go back to Washington as the guy who helped Republicans retain their majority?" . . .

Yep, this fall you will see more Republicans invoking their support for Lieberman than you will invoking their support for George Bush

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/83152/3735
Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend - growing opposition to President Bush. . . An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections - 19 percent. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/123622/733
[Kos] I wonder when Adam Nagourney will write the story about how divided Republicans are. So divided, in fact, that they're actively distancing themselves from their president. . .

Maybe that McCain/Lieberman "Unity Party" rumor isn’t so far-fetched after all

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/joe_liebermans.html

OK, let’s try a little rhetorical excess of our own: the neo-cons are madmen – literally insane with blood lust and delusional visions of world hegemony (how’s that?)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/alterman
[Eric Alterman] Taking what might be considered the moderate neocon position on the Israel/Hezbollah war, the editors of The New Republic demand that the Bush Administration "move ruthlessly to prevent Iran from acquiring the deadliest arsenal of all," while their contributor Michael Oren calls only for an Israeli, rather than an American, attack on Syria. Next door at The Weekly Standard, William Kristol sees no point in playing coy. Having already called for an American attack on Syria twenty months ago, he is now beating his bongo for an immediate "military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." Concerned about retaliation against American citizens in the form of terrorist attacks around the world? Don't worry. Any and all "repercussions," he promises, "would be healthy ones." Kristol even imagines that such an attack could cause the Iranian people "to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power," as if the natural reaction of people who see their country attacked, their families killed and their property destroyed is to side with the people who are bombing them (just like in, um... Iraq). . .

Today, despite the lack of available troops owing to these delusional predictions, neocons are looking to Israel's war in Lebanon as an excuse for attacks on Syria and Iran--coincidentally, also Israel's enemies. Also coincidentally, four years ago many neocons were looking to exploit an attack on America as an excuse to attack Israel's enemies. Writing in the Wall Street Journal in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Seth Lipsky called for US attacks "from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq to Syria to the Palestinian Authority." Echoes of today's war cries go back even further. Kristol insists that Israel's problems with Lebanon demonstrate that "what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization." Twenty-four years ago, in a now infamous Commentary essay titled "J'Accuse," Norman Podhoretz accused those who dissented from Israel's catastrophic invasion of Lebanon "of faithlessness to the interests of the United States and indeed to the values of Western civilization as a whole."

One does not need to take a position on the wisdom--or lack thereof--of Israel's current invasion of Lebanon to question whether Israel's interests are in fact identical to America's. Kristol can title his editorial "It's Our War," but Hezbollah was not shooting missiles into Manhattan. . . .But whenever one raises the issue of just how large Israel's perceived well-being looms in the minds of those who seek to risk America's blood and treasure for actions that happen to be at the top of AIPAC's wish list, one is immediately accused of either anti-Semitism or, as the case may be, self-hatred. New York Times columnist David Brooks, for example, has argued that those who use the very term "neoconservative" are anti-Semites, "full-mooners" living on "Planet Chomsky." TNR senior editor (and William Kristol's writing partner) Lawrence Kaplan claims that "invoking the specter of dual loyalty to quiet criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse."

Things can become a little confusing when the same neocons who insist it is ipso facto anti-Semitic to ask what role Israel plays in their calculations instruct American Jews that they are paying too much attention to their own country's best interests and not enough to Israel's. Writing in--of all places--The Weekly Standard, David Gelernter attacks American Jews for their "self-destructive nihilism" in remaining "fervent supporters of an American left that is increasingly unable or unwilling to say why Israel must exist." (This is nonsense about the vast majority of the left, of course, but ignore that for a moment.) Gelernter argues that "grassroots Democrats are increasingly dangerous to the Jewish state (not to mention the American state)." Note that the question of the "American state" is literally a mere parenthetical to Gelernter's principal concern--the well-being of Israel. Over at National Review's "The Corner," Mona Charen can be found making the same sneering argument. She calls American Jews "stubborn and downright stupid" because they "despise George W. Bush and will donate time and money to any Democrat in 2008, while Bush is indisputably the most pro-Israel president in the history of the United States." Again, it's highly "disputable," but never mind that. More to the point is the fact that Bush's presidency--a complete and utter failure by virtually any empirical measurement--is also deemed irrelevant. It's Israel alone that matters, according to these anti-American conservatives. (And woe unto American Jews when Christian America starts paying attention to their unpatriotic perfidy.)

What's most immediately worrisome about the neocons' long march through our institutions of government is the possibility that they may succeed a second time. According to Sidney Blumenthal's reporting in Salon, neocon staffers for Dick Cheney and the NSC's point man on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams (Norman Podhoretz's son-in-law), "have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries." They are looking, according to this NSC source, "to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war."

Four wars simultaneously? Led by this crew? After what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it me, or are the people who run this country dangerously out of their minds?

In other news. . .

Of course: it’s what they do

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/washington/12bush.html
White House officials said Friday that the fallout from the discovery of the British bombing plot could help the administration advance its agenda in Congress. The officials cited in particular battles over supervising the program of eavesdropping without warrants and how to try detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html

The corrupting influence of earmarks (Why haven’t the Dems proposed a ban on them?)

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004739.html

Gov. Ernie Fletcher (Crook-KY), relies on a novel legal dodge – executive immunity

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=5269496&nav=0zHF

Fire up the BBQ

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/with-america-under-imminent-attack.html
[John Aravosis] With America under "imminent attack," Bush stays on vacation and holds a BBQ at his ranch for rich Republican donors . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101834.html
On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.

Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.

The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural shift in the presidency and the news media. . . [I]ncreasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not. . . .

Bonus item: “Birth pangs”

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3243
Health offices in Alexandria found that 128 newborn babies were given the name "Nasrallah." . .

***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 @ 8:56 AM

 
PLAYING POLITICS

You can hear the glee in their voices

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/white-house-official-gleeful-that.html
[AFP] US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections . . .

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break . . .

Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice. . .

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official . . . adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1098.html
[Adele Stan] President George W. Bush could have moved to reassure the American people, in his statement from Green Bay, that their well-being is first and foremost in the minds of public officials -- that the government will leave no stone unturned in its quest to maintain the safety of American citizens. Instead, the president decided to play politics.

The first public words out of the mouth of the president regarding a plot that his spokesman said was "a direct threat to the United States" was that the plot constituted a "stark reminder" that the nation is "at war with Islamic fascists." . . . It also comes the day after, as mentioned on MSNBC by Andrea Mitchell, a "well-coordinated" political attack by Vice President Dick Cheney on Democrats in the wake of the Lieberman defeat . . . To what won't these guys stoop?

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8174.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/okay-so-going-after-us-on-lieberman-is.html

[NB: Everyone, as a matter of routine, decries “playing politics” with terrorist attacks – but then why hasn’t it been condemned that from Sept 12, 2001, the Bush gang and the Republican party (and now their new pal Joe Lieberman) have done nothing but exploit this issue, manipulating public fears and using the most despicable forms of demagoguery to attack their opponents?]

Was it a coordinated attack? (by the GOP, not the terrorists)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/cheney-gave-his-liebermanal-qaeda.html
[Joe] In today's NY Times, Dick Cheney warned that the Lieberman loss would embolden "Al Qaeda types." It is reasonable to assume that Cheney, like Bush, knew about the unfolding scandal in Great Britain.

Think about this for a minute. It shows how evil the Bush/Cheney team really is. Knowing that this story was about to break, Cheney invoked Al Qaeda in purely political terms. Once again, Cheney is using terrorism for political purposes. . .

Clearly, Cheney's motives were pure partisan politics. He choreographed his statements to be out there when this story broke. It's sick.

Instead of fighting terror, the Bush team is continually playing politics -- even with top secret info. That's one reason why Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, is on trial. Bush and Cheney breach security -- and use classified info. for political reasons.

Ken Mehlman's been on a terror tirade lately. Did Ken Mehlman know about the alleged terror plot, too?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/coincidence-that-rnc-seemed-ready-for.html
[Joe] Check out the timeline put out by the DCCC. Seems like the political operatives were ready (and excited) for the terror story. Hmmm.

So, will anyone in the media find out if anyone at the White House told anyone at the RNC about the terror threat before the rest of us knew? . . .

More: http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/005138.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/washington/11politics.html
[Adam Nagourney] Republicans seized on the arrests of terrorism suspects in Britain yesterday to bolster a White House campaign to turn national security issues to their advantage this fall, arguing that the nation needs tough Republican policies to protect Americans from threats from abroad.

Officials in both parties said they viewed the arrests as critical in determining how they would approach the fall campaign, with Republicans saying it could be a turning point in a year in which they have been on the defensive over the war in Iraq and other issues.

The developments played neatly into the White House-led effort, after Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, lost on Tuesday to an antiwar primary challenger, to remind voters of the threats facing the nation and to cast Democrats as timid on national defense.

[NB: “Played neatly” – no accident, Adam, since they were PLANNED that way]

Here’s the problem

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8172.html
[Steve Benen] Earlier, I mentioned a series of far-right bloggers who connected the terrorist plot in London, remarkably, to Ned Lamont's Senate campaign. As Glenn Greenwald noted, it was just the beginning — several top conservative writers are using the thwarted plot to justify…well, everything they already believe. . .

If I didn't know better, I'd say there are a number of conservative bloggers who reflexively try to exploit terrorist threats for political gain immediately upon learning of them, whether the facts support the notion or not.

In this particular case, I'm not quite sure what the plot helps the right prove.

To be sure, this is still very much a breaking story, and none of us have all the details about the attackers, their plot, their capture, etc. But most of the conservatives' arguments are immediately flawed, even at face value.

No one, for example, has argued that the war against terrorists is "passé." On the contrary, the left generally believes there needs to be an effective international policy that combats and prevents terrorism — but the administration's approach is not only hopeless, but actually making the problem worse. . .

As for the Patriot Act and Gitmo, it's probably worth noting that the plot was foiled by British intelligence and law-enforcement officials. Whether the NSA is secretly keeping your list of phone calls to your uncle has nothing to do with today's successful intervention. . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/10/terror_plot/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] This naked exploitation of terrorist threats for political gain occurs every time a new terrorist plot is revealed, no matter how serious or frivolous, no matter how advanced or preliminary, the plot might be. Each time a new plot is disclosed, administration officials and their followers immediately begin squeezing the emotions and fears generated by such events for every last drop of political gain they can manufacture.

But this effort is as incoherent as it is manipulative. Nobody doubts that there are Muslim extremists who would like to commit acts of violence against the U.S. and the West. No political disputes are premised on a conflict over whether terrorism exists or whether it ought to be taken seriously. . .

Opposition to the war in Iraq, for instance, is not based upon the premise that there is no terrorist threat. It is based on the premise that that invasion undermines, rather than strengthens, our campaign to fight terrorism. . . . If anything, warmongering in the Middle East exacerbates that risk by radicalizing more and more Muslims and increasing anti-U.S. resentment. And the more military and intelligence resources we are forced to pour into waging wars against countries that have not attacked us, the less able we are to track and combat al-Qaida and the other terrorist groups that actually seek to harm us. There are few things that have more enabled terrorism than turning Iraq into a chaotic caldron of anarchy and violence -- exactly the environment in which al-Qaida thrives.

Nor is opposition to the president's lawbreaking somehow undermined when it is "revealed" that there are terrorists in the world who are trying to attack the U.S. Opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, for instance, is predicated on the fact that a constitutional republic that exists under the rule of law cannot tolerate a president who defies the law at will, and is further based on the indisputable fact that the president is fully able to eavesdrop on terrorists in compliance with the law, i.e., by obtaining warrants. Screeching about terrorist threats as though it justifies such illegal conduct is a complete non sequitur. Nobody opposes surveillance of terrorists.

But Bush followers who exploit terrorist threats for political gain and to gin up support for the president's policies are not pursuing rational arguments. They leap at the chance to manipulate terrorist stories because they want to ratchet up the fear levels, precisely because fear obviates rational analysis and increases the willingness of citizens to cede more power and control to the government, to place more blind faith in political officials in exchange for a feeling of protection. . .

Over the next several days, at least, we will repeatedly hear Bush and his supporters attempting -- implicitly and overtly -- to transform this terrorist plot to into political support for Bush policies. That is a game they have been playing for several years now, and it is what accounts, more than anything else, for their victory in two consecutive national elections. But it is an intellectually dishonest and corrupt ploy, and the collapse of Bush's popularity strongly suggests that Americans have become increasingly immune to being told that they should support the president's extremist policies and overlook his profound failures, all because there are terrorists in the world who want to commit violent acts.

The plain fact is that military incursions HAVE worsened the terrorist threat while doing NOTHING to suppress terrorist movements (whatever other benefits one thinks they might have – ousting Saddam, etc). Every interdiction that has successfully prevented terrorist attacks or dismantled terrorist groups has come through investigation and law enforcement, NOT military actio