Glenn Greenwald and others have documented the mass media's aversion to Democratic investigations of administrative misconduct and the resulting tendency for media personalities to ascribe to the masses of American people their own views; that is, inside the beltway media stars believe and openly assert, without any empirical evidence of any kind, that the American people share their own views. Perhaps the media elite believe this because they assume their ruminations are witnessed and uncritically consumed by their audience.
Another feature of today's media is the practice of government stenography, whereby reporters and other news personalities faithfully transcribe information from their trusted government sources and then just as faithfully and uncritically, pass that government information, virtually verbatim, down to us, via newspaper article, editorial pages, or cable teevee screens. The most recent example of this was the capture/kidnapping by Iran of British agents/navy sailors in Iranian waters.
One particular manifestation of media stenography has been the practice of recycling administrative claims from Iraq every few months or so without the media seemingly aware of its own amnesia. Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog has noted two examples of this in just the last few weeks.
The first example concerns reports that Iraqi citizens and perhaps captured insurgents are providing our occupying force with valuable "tips" on insurgent activities and that these tips are increasing. Consider, if you would, this timeline. In the case of "tips" the timeline starts with an October 2003 byline and is most recently regurgitated just over two weeks ago.
A second example concerns reports that Iraqi opposition, whether of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sunni Baathist insurgents, or insider Shiite militias in some cases, is fragmenting. Again, consider this timeline.
And of course we've seen this kind of thing with various killings/capturings of Al Qaeda in Iraq's mythical "number two" and other like-minded "turning the corner" events.
So, while the media continues to carry the administration's water in the case of allegations of wrongdoing and investigations by Congress, it likewise has enabled the administration's campaign of misinformation by uncritically recycling old claims that promise a corner or corners are NOW being turned in Iraq because one or many of the obstacles to "victory" have been or are being overcome.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
What Not To Watch
The Sunday Bobblehead shows, Imus on MSNBC, and the other claims to "news" on cable teevee and in the Wash Post. But then again, you already knew that.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Why Obama? The Audacious Endorsement (Part II)
Because the combination of his race, background, age and charisma make him the candidate best able to both do the job and shatter the existing order.
I believe his age and charisma are the qualities he brings to doing the job of president. Age, because the job of president is no longer for the old and weary. The president, particularly in a combative environment of hostile media, establishment and cultural warriors requires a large degree of stamina and fortitude. Obama strikes me as the best suited among the contenders to perform this role.
With regards to charisma, for much of the same issues relating to age, the ability of a president to project and explain himself in the media world is a much under-appreciated gift, again especially given the small "c" and large "C" conservative dimensions of the establishment and various centers of power throughout the business and religious world that will seek to undermine any change of direction by a Democratic president.
His race and background help to shatter traditional notions of what a president should look like and where he should come from, professionally and experientially. As the Rogue Progressive notes:
Obama is a member of an older generation who can reach out to younger generations in an authentic way that no one else can. He can break his own generation's tenure-based approach to politics, work and life by not being a presidential apprentice for eight more years. This will move us toward a 21st century way of politics, where politicians will rise and sink quicker because the world moves faster and they will be scrutinized for their performance rather than their resume-building skills.
I'd also add that this is an age where large-scale policy reforms and major legislative battles and achievements will be few and far between. Although there are outstanding concerns, domestically, in regard to inner-city poverty, the criminal justice system, and unequal health care and educational resources, the big ticket items in the liberal planning book have mostly been put in place. The job of the new presidency will be more rhetorical and nuanced, raising awareness of new challenges, inequities and injustices, both here and abroad. But Americans of all stripes will continue to be stymied in their dreams of a new American order as international problems continue to impose themselves on the American government's agenda. In particular, the challenges for the 21st century presidency will be those most hinged to the global economy and struggle for natural resources. The next president will not only have to navigate the already conflict-fused, class and culturally divided world of richer North and poorer South in matters of trade and other economic concerns, they will also have to somehow help bring to a conclusion and begin to reverse the collossal messes created in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world by the corrosively beligerent and militaristic neo-con cabal.
In short, the new presidency of the 21st century will have to be even more visionary than in previous eras, even while its ability to orchestrate wholesale changes diminishes. We've seen six years of one vision. Obama is the candidate best equipped to create another one.
I believe his age and charisma are the qualities he brings to doing the job of president. Age, because the job of president is no longer for the old and weary. The president, particularly in a combative environment of hostile media, establishment and cultural warriors requires a large degree of stamina and fortitude. Obama strikes me as the best suited among the contenders to perform this role.
With regards to charisma, for much of the same issues relating to age, the ability of a president to project and explain himself in the media world is a much under-appreciated gift, again especially given the small "c" and large "C" conservative dimensions of the establishment and various centers of power throughout the business and religious world that will seek to undermine any change of direction by a Democratic president.
His race and background help to shatter traditional notions of what a president should look like and where he should come from, professionally and experientially. As the Rogue Progressive notes:
Obama is a member of an older generation who can reach out to younger generations in an authentic way that no one else can. He can break his own generation's tenure-based approach to politics, work and life by not being a presidential apprentice for eight more years. This will move us toward a 21st century way of politics, where politicians will rise and sink quicker because the world moves faster and they will be scrutinized for their performance rather than their resume-building skills.
I'd also add that this is an age where large-scale policy reforms and major legislative battles and achievements will be few and far between. Although there are outstanding concerns, domestically, in regard to inner-city poverty, the criminal justice system, and unequal health care and educational resources, the big ticket items in the liberal planning book have mostly been put in place. The job of the new presidency will be more rhetorical and nuanced, raising awareness of new challenges, inequities and injustices, both here and abroad. But Americans of all stripes will continue to be stymied in their dreams of a new American order as international problems continue to impose themselves on the American government's agenda. In particular, the challenges for the 21st century presidency will be those most hinged to the global economy and struggle for natural resources. The next president will not only have to navigate the already conflict-fused, class and culturally divided world of richer North and poorer South in matters of trade and other economic concerns, they will also have to somehow help bring to a conclusion and begin to reverse the collossal messes created in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world by the corrosively beligerent and militaristic neo-con cabal.
In short, the new presidency of the 21st century will have to be even more visionary than in previous eras, even while its ability to orchestrate wholesale changes diminishes. We've seen six years of one vision. Obama is the candidate best equipped to create another one.
In Contempt
In typical Washington-elite fashion, David Ignatius dismisses prosecutor-gate since everyone knows "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and he can fire whomever he wants". But his GOP-talking points on this issue weren't enough to prevent Ignatius from noticing something else about the matter:
The Bush political operatives have become the people the Republicans once warned the country against -- a club of insiders who seem to think that they're better than other folks. They are so contemptuous of government and the public servants who populate it that they have been unable to govern effectively. They are a smug, inward-looking elite that thinks it knows who the good guys are by the political labels they wear.
(snip)
After Katrina, it became clear that the public wanted a change. Americans want to be confident that those in charge of the country's business are members of what I call "the party of competence," whatever their political affiliation. The anguish of Iraq deepened that message, and the 2006 congressional elections codified it. But the Bush administration didn't get it. The purge at Justice came after the November election blowout. They acted as if they were still on a roll.
True to hypocritical form, believing the rules and rhetoric they spout to manipulate others shouldn't be or won't be measured against their own performance, Republican Washington is the mirror image of that which it campaigned against, and which existed only within the fever swamps of its own mind.
The Bush political operatives have become the people the Republicans once warned the country against -- a club of insiders who seem to think that they're better than other folks. They are so contemptuous of government and the public servants who populate it that they have been unable to govern effectively. They are a smug, inward-looking elite that thinks it knows who the good guys are by the political labels they wear.
(snip)
After Katrina, it became clear that the public wanted a change. Americans want to be confident that those in charge of the country's business are members of what I call "the party of competence," whatever their political affiliation. The anguish of Iraq deepened that message, and the 2006 congressional elections codified it. But the Bush administration didn't get it. The purge at Justice came after the November election blowout. They acted as if they were still on a roll.
True to hypocritical form, believing the rules and rhetoric they spout to manipulate others shouldn't be or won't be measured against their own performance, Republican Washington is the mirror image of that which it campaigned against, and which existed only within the fever swamps of its own mind.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Follow the Oil
The Bush Administration may not have a rubber stamp U.S. Congress anymore but that doesn't mean it and its corporate sponsors are lacking for things to do or political bodies to command. Consider Iraq, for instance. Yes, the country and its U.S. military occupiers are mired in a civil war, but amidst all the chaos, there is a government of sorts in Baghdad. And what sort of matters might that body be concerned with?
Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
An Audacious Endorsement (Part One)
A cynicism resulting from the disappointments of elections--and governments--past has made me hesitent about jumping on the bandwagon of any 2008 Democratic candidate too soon. Nevertheless, it hasn't taken long in this only recently initiated pre-primary season to assess the field and arrive at a point of clarity regarding the party's best candidate.
But before coming out of the not so hidden closet to reveal this candidate's identity, it's worth retreating a few steps to consider what exactly it is that Democratic voters should be looking for when choosing their next nominee and the country's next president.
1. Administrative Skill. At the top of the list, undoubtedly, is having someone who's unmistakeably up for the job; someone who can respond well to a crisis, can make good decisions, and can with some degree of expertise, survey the minutia of political drama and be able to ascertain and consistently maintain a vision of things and the country.
2. Political Values. Next to this, at least for us hyper-partisans, is someone who brings the right values to the position. For progressive/liberal Democrats, the ideals that come to mind are those relating to the preservation of fundamental civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, and the freedom of and need for an independent press); protecting the individual from the coercision and abuses of centralized power (church, business, and the state itself) through the enforcement of civil rights, consumer and worker safety, and labor (right to unionize) laws; and helping to ensure that the opportunities, benefits and prosperity of a free society are made available to all those who share with us the gift of humanity, and who by their support and contribution to that society, are entitled to its benefits--in other words, recognizing not just the visible movers and shakers, the privileged of our society, but all those who through their business consumption and civic association, participate in the affairs of the nation (which is all of us).
3. Communication Skills. Another attribute democrats and Democrats should look for in choosing their executive leadership is someone who can navigate the minefields of political opposition, particularly those with deep pockets or those having media and information control (and the likelihood that these political sources of power are frequently one and the same and bound up within single institutions). Can the candidate and presidential hopeful speak above the noise machine, and appeal directly to the mass public?
4. Paradigm Changing Aptitude. Finally, of especial importance for progressives, can the candidate fundamentally alter the country's political dynamics? Is, or can, he or she be a paradigm-buster?
5. Character. Is the candidate trustworthy, capable of exercising reason, and possessing of reasonably impeccable moral credentials?
With these qualifications and considerations in mind, it is clear to me that the best choice Democrats have is Barack Obama. The first term Illinois Senator of mixed racial heritage is not only the best choice this year, he may be the best choice Democrats have had in a generation, and maybe the most audacious candidate the party will have put forward ever.
In Part Two of this Audacious Endorsement, I will attempt to outline the reasons I believe this to be so.
But before coming out of the not so hidden closet to reveal this candidate's identity, it's worth retreating a few steps to consider what exactly it is that Democratic voters should be looking for when choosing their next nominee and the country's next president.
1. Administrative Skill. At the top of the list, undoubtedly, is having someone who's unmistakeably up for the job; someone who can respond well to a crisis, can make good decisions, and can with some degree of expertise, survey the minutia of political drama and be able to ascertain and consistently maintain a vision of things and the country.
2. Political Values. Next to this, at least for us hyper-partisans, is someone who brings the right values to the position. For progressive/liberal Democrats, the ideals that come to mind are those relating to the preservation of fundamental civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, and the freedom of and need for an independent press); protecting the individual from the coercision and abuses of centralized power (church, business, and the state itself) through the enforcement of civil rights, consumer and worker safety, and labor (right to unionize) laws; and helping to ensure that the opportunities, benefits and prosperity of a free society are made available to all those who share with us the gift of humanity, and who by their support and contribution to that society, are entitled to its benefits--in other words, recognizing not just the visible movers and shakers, the privileged of our society, but all those who through their business consumption and civic association, participate in the affairs of the nation (which is all of us).
3. Communication Skills. Another attribute democrats and Democrats should look for in choosing their executive leadership is someone who can navigate the minefields of political opposition, particularly those with deep pockets or those having media and information control (and the likelihood that these political sources of power are frequently one and the same and bound up within single institutions). Can the candidate and presidential hopeful speak above the noise machine, and appeal directly to the mass public?
4. Paradigm Changing Aptitude. Finally, of especial importance for progressives, can the candidate fundamentally alter the country's political dynamics? Is, or can, he or she be a paradigm-buster?
5. Character. Is the candidate trustworthy, capable of exercising reason, and possessing of reasonably impeccable moral credentials?
With these qualifications and considerations in mind, it is clear to me that the best choice Democrats have is Barack Obama. The first term Illinois Senator of mixed racial heritage is not only the best choice this year, he may be the best choice Democrats have had in a generation, and maybe the most audacious candidate the party will have put forward ever.
In Part Two of this Audacious Endorsement, I will attempt to outline the reasons I believe this to be so.
Friday, March 09, 2007
What We've Been Missing
The Shrill One:
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
For now, the nation’s focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he “would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons.” But it’s already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn’t use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.
In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.
The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”
And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”
Fortunately, Mr. Rove’s smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.
Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.
In the months ahead, we’ll hear a lot about what’s really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we’ll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy.
Of course, all of this investigatin' is terribly, hyperpartisan:
Meantime, the House, after a fast start rushing through noncontroversial items, has slowed to a crawl, filling time with investigations.
So, Wiseman David Broder says "investigations" are about "filling time". In other words, investigations are very UnSerious.
TPM:
What USAgate tells us? Without congressional oversight, bad acts never see the light of day.
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
For now, the nation’s focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he “would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons.” But it’s already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn’t use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.
In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.
The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”
And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”
Fortunately, Mr. Rove’s smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.
Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.
In the months ahead, we’ll hear a lot about what’s really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we’ll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy.
Of course, all of this investigatin' is terribly, hyperpartisan:
Meantime, the House, after a fast start rushing through noncontroversial items, has slowed to a crawl, filling time with investigations.
So, Wiseman David Broder says "investigations" are about "filling time". In other words, investigations are very UnSerious.
TPM:
What USAgate tells us? Without congressional oversight, bad acts never see the light of day.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Making Lemonade out of Lemons
George Will has a new op-ed out today, basically offering an apologia for the relatively non-conservative front-runners for the presidential nomination of the nation's more conservative party.
Most of the column is what you might expect: go easy on Rudy, McCain and Romney because Reagan wasn't a conservative purist while governor of Caleefornya in the '60's; all that really matters for conservatives is the court system, which Rudy, the liberal former mayor of New York City pledges to bolster with "strict constructivists"; Although wishy washy on tax cuts in the past, the new McCain is now committed to making Bush's estate tax and other tax cuts permanent and besides, his conservative scorecard is pretty good; and blah, blah, blah.
But Will's apologia for Romney is the most striking in its blatant disinterest in political principle:
Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?
Yes, indeed. Although my head's still spinning from the endless right-wing spin about the need for and essentiality of "character" in our presidents during the Clinton '90's, and from the endless right-wing spin about Kerry flip-flopping not even three short years ago in the most recent presidential election cycle, Will now says that whether Romney's conservative conversion is "political calculation" or "moral epiphany" should not bother conservative primary voters, and presumably, neither should it trouble general election voters later on.
OK. Whatever.
Fortunately, for the first in many years, Democrats have two very good candidates in the race, and several other just "good" ones, from which to choose. Who will receive the much-coveted Senator Jay Billington Bulworth endorsement? You'll have to stay tuned. But for now, rest assured the choice will be an audacious one.
Most of the column is what you might expect: go easy on Rudy, McCain and Romney because Reagan wasn't a conservative purist while governor of Caleefornya in the '60's; all that really matters for conservatives is the court system, which Rudy, the liberal former mayor of New York City pledges to bolster with "strict constructivists"; Although wishy washy on tax cuts in the past, the new McCain is now committed to making Bush's estate tax and other tax cuts permanent and besides, his conservative scorecard is pretty good; and blah, blah, blah.
But Will's apologia for Romney is the most striking in its blatant disinterest in political principle:
Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?
Yes, indeed. Although my head's still spinning from the endless right-wing spin about the need for and essentiality of "character" in our presidents during the Clinton '90's, and from the endless right-wing spin about Kerry flip-flopping not even three short years ago in the most recent presidential election cycle, Will now says that whether Romney's conservative conversion is "political calculation" or "moral epiphany" should not bother conservative primary voters, and presumably, neither should it trouble general election voters later on.
OK. Whatever.
Fortunately, for the first in many years, Democrats have two very good candidates in the race, and several other just "good" ones, from which to choose. Who will receive the much-coveted Senator Jay Billington Bulworth endorsement? You'll have to stay tuned. But for now, rest assured the choice will be an audacious one.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Focus on your own family
Harold Meyerson:
Yet the very conservatives who marvel at the efficiency of our new, more mobile economy and extol the "flexibility" of our workforce decry the flexibility of the personal lives of American workers. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day.
American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh.
Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.
Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.
Yet the very conservatives who marvel at the efficiency of our new, more mobile economy and extol the "flexibility" of our workforce decry the flexibility of the personal lives of American workers. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day.
American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh.
Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.
Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
You ought to be happy, you liberal SOBs, that I am only a talk-show host. You ought to thank God that I have no avariciousness in my soul. You ought to thank God that I'm not power mad like you liberals, because if I ever ran for office, I can guarantee you, you wouldn't be in business too long. I can guarantee you you'd be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power. I'd have you people licking lead paint, what you did to this country.
----------
Conservative Talk Show Host, Michael Savage
He may be a bit, um, unhinged, but if you'll pony up two million more signatures, he'll run for president. (h/t Atrios)
Did You Get That Memo?
Talking Points Memo has been covering the "fired prosecutors" hearing on Capitol Hill.
An enterprising commenter notes that one of the fired prosecutors apparently failed to put cover letters on his TPS reports.
Should've known. That'll get ya every time.
An enterprising commenter notes that one of the fired prosecutors apparently failed to put cover letters on his TPS reports.
Should've known. That'll get ya every time.
"Where are these other guys?"
The jurors who convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby believed Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff was set up as a fall guy, a juror said Tuesday, but they had no alternative to finding him guilty in the leak of the identity of a classified CIA operative.
“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Dennis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.
“It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
-------
Where are these other guys? In the White House I think.
“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Dennis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.
“It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
-------
Where are these other guys? In the White House I think.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Lame Duck
Although Ann Coulter was warmly received, there apparently wasn't much mention of the CiC at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) festivities.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (h/p TPM);
There was a lot of fervour and a lot of talk of recapturing the spirit of Ronald Reagan, by consensus the greatest of US presidents. Young men and women who would have been babies during the Reagan presidency talked in small groups about America becoming great again if only conservatives would go back to basics, back to Reagan's emphasis on American strength and American greatness.
But what was most striking about this conservative jamboree was that President George Bush was hardly mentioned. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, gave the speech at the official dinner on Friday night and, at the conference at least, Cheney remains a hero.
Not so, it seems, the President. Not only was there hardly any mention of his name, but there were no photographs of Bush on display - and everyone from Cheney to the disgraced former House majority leader Tom Delay received their photographic due.
As for the Iraq war, it was virtually ignored. Giuliani and Romney both half-heartedly said they supported the Bush troop increase and then they both quickly went on to say mistakes had been made in Iraq. That was more or less it.
Conservatives know who the villains are - Clinton and Obama and Gore and the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi - but who their heroes are is far from clear. Except that George Bush is no longer one of them.
And Tom Schaller:
I attended CPAC today to hear two of the "big three" Republican contenders (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) and one of the second-tier candidates who hopes to break through (Sam Brownback). I'll say more about them, especially Giuliani, later. But some quick observations about CPAC that simply need to be noted.
First, you almost never George W. Bush's name. Not among attendees, not in the speeches by candidates or others. It's as if there is no Republican president in the White House about three miles from the hotel where the conservatives who elected him are meeting. Fascinating, and revealing.
Second, it's also as if there's no war in Iraq. By my unofficial count, Giuliani mentioned Iraq just once by name -- and that in an offhand reference to a criticism of Democrats' non-binding resolutions. (A fair enough criticism, at that.) Brownback? Two references. Romney mentioned Iraq the most, taking it head-on by advocating for Bush's escalation plan. At CPAC, such Bush-and-Iraq double-mentions are as common as safeties in football.)
It's painfully obvious that conservatives are in near-total denial. There is a Republican president, and he is -- as everyone from The New Republic's Peter Beinart a few weeks ago to then-Washington Monthly's Josh Green a few years ago -- more, not less, conservative than Ronald Reagan. And there is an Iraq war going on, which has killed 4,000 Americans (counting contractors) already and will almost assuredly have a total, long-term price tag of at least $1 trillion.
Pretending these are not realities doesn't make them go away. But, boy, are the conservatives doing their level best to avoid the two big elephants in the room.
Who'd a thunk it? W and Operation Iraqi Freedom were once endless sources of pride for the conservative faithful. I wonder why that's changed. At least they still have Ann Coulter.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (h/p TPM);
There was a lot of fervour and a lot of talk of recapturing the spirit of Ronald Reagan, by consensus the greatest of US presidents. Young men and women who would have been babies during the Reagan presidency talked in small groups about America becoming great again if only conservatives would go back to basics, back to Reagan's emphasis on American strength and American greatness.
But what was most striking about this conservative jamboree was that President George Bush was hardly mentioned. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, gave the speech at the official dinner on Friday night and, at the conference at least, Cheney remains a hero.
Not so, it seems, the President. Not only was there hardly any mention of his name, but there were no photographs of Bush on display - and everyone from Cheney to the disgraced former House majority leader Tom Delay received their photographic due.
As for the Iraq war, it was virtually ignored. Giuliani and Romney both half-heartedly said they supported the Bush troop increase and then they both quickly went on to say mistakes had been made in Iraq. That was more or less it.
Conservatives know who the villains are - Clinton and Obama and Gore and the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi - but who their heroes are is far from clear. Except that George Bush is no longer one of them.
And Tom Schaller:
I attended CPAC today to hear two of the "big three" Republican contenders (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) and one of the second-tier candidates who hopes to break through (Sam Brownback). I'll say more about them, especially Giuliani, later. But some quick observations about CPAC that simply need to be noted.
First, you almost never George W. Bush's name. Not among attendees, not in the speeches by candidates or others. It's as if there is no Republican president in the White House about three miles from the hotel where the conservatives who elected him are meeting. Fascinating, and revealing.
Second, it's also as if there's no war in Iraq. By my unofficial count, Giuliani mentioned Iraq just once by name -- and that in an offhand reference to a criticism of Democrats' non-binding resolutions. (A fair enough criticism, at that.) Brownback? Two references. Romney mentioned Iraq the most, taking it head-on by advocating for Bush's escalation plan. At CPAC, such Bush-and-Iraq double-mentions are as common as safeties in football.)
It's painfully obvious that conservatives are in near-total denial. There is a Republican president, and he is -- as everyone from The New Republic's Peter Beinart a few weeks ago to then-Washington Monthly's Josh Green a few years ago -- more, not less, conservative than Ronald Reagan. And there is an Iraq war going on, which has killed 4,000 Americans (counting contractors) already and will almost assuredly have a total, long-term price tag of at least $1 trillion.
Pretending these are not realities doesn't make them go away. But, boy, are the conservatives doing their level best to avoid the two big elephants in the room.
Who'd a thunk it? W and Operation Iraqi Freedom were once endless sources of pride for the conservative faithful. I wonder why that's changed. At least they still have Ann Coulter.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Lose Your Senate Seat, Get an Op-Ed Column
Michael Tomasky and David Sirota are flabbergasted that Rick Santorum, the Pittsburgh-bred, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who lost his fight for re-election last fall by Reagan-landslide proportions and who now lives in VA, is being handed a platform for his views by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the newspaper for a city that voted 84-16 against Santorum just four short months ago. It's about as god-awful goofy as inviting some liberal Senator from a big city to write an op-ed for a small-town, regular American newspaper.
But I don't find this surprising at all. For one thing, teh Republic Party is popular. It's the president's party after all. B, the media is liberal; hence the need for outspoken conservative voices, which we are in dire need of today when our country faces existential challenges from radical Islamicists. III, Santorum was recently selected to head up an important new program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a non-partisan, Opus Dei Catholic, neoconservative "think tank" in Washington, D.C., our nation's capital. The important new program will be known as America's Enemies. According to the Center's webpage, America's Enemies will
work to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world.
And it isn't just the Islamacistics we have to worry about either.
“It’s a stark name,” says Santorum. “But we wanted to be candid about the fact that America really does have enemies and to point out that the nature of these enemies is much more complex than what people realize. It’s not just Islamic fascism, but also Venezuela, North Korea, and, increasingly in my opinion, Russia.”
So, it's clear that without any radio stations to speak of, and no cable teevee stations from which to carry their vital message, and unfairly under-represented in the nation's capital, today's conservatives are vastly marginalized in the media and government. In this environment, it's only fitting that a defeated standard bearer be granted a podium on behalf of teh Republic Party. This is especially true when the subject is America's Enemies. The only problem I see so far is a reluctance on the part of the former Senator to direct his and his Center's energies at the full range of America's Enemies--namely American Liberals, Old Europe and other traitors among the renegade injured soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who have been opening their yaps to the liberal media.
Maybe the former Pennsylvania Senator who only won 16% of the vote in the city of the newspaper for which he'll now be writing will be quick to link up with the Victory Caucus, another new ideological juggernaut of patriotism and chicken-hawkism that is aiming its rhetorical weapons at America's internal enemiesm, rather than its foreign enemies who after all, live really far away and speak other languages. And since he gets to stay in the city he used to work in, Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, he'll benefit from the presence of one of his former Senate colleagues, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who could give him some tips about getting guest gigs at the Wall Street Journal and who might also encourage Santorum to link up with one of Joe's favorite outfits, the Committee on the Present Danger.
Anyway, with a little more thoughtful, civil consideration, I'm sure Michael Tomasky, David Sirota, and other mean liberals will welcome the former Senator to the liberal media kingdom. Even if he is from western Pennsylvania, now lives in VA, works in Washington, D.C. and will publish in a Philadelphia newspaper.
But I don't find this surprising at all. For one thing, teh Republic Party is popular. It's the president's party after all. B, the media is liberal; hence the need for outspoken conservative voices, which we are in dire need of today when our country faces existential challenges from radical Islamicists. III, Santorum was recently selected to head up an important new program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a non-partisan, Opus Dei Catholic, neoconservative "think tank" in Washington, D.C., our nation's capital. The important new program will be known as America's Enemies. According to the Center's webpage, America's Enemies will
work to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world.
And it isn't just the Islamacistics we have to worry about either.
“It’s a stark name,” says Santorum. “But we wanted to be candid about the fact that America really does have enemies and to point out that the nature of these enemies is much more complex than what people realize. It’s not just Islamic fascism, but also Venezuela, North Korea, and, increasingly in my opinion, Russia.”
So, it's clear that without any radio stations to speak of, and no cable teevee stations from which to carry their vital message, and unfairly under-represented in the nation's capital, today's conservatives are vastly marginalized in the media and government. In this environment, it's only fitting that a defeated standard bearer be granted a podium on behalf of teh Republic Party. This is especially true when the subject is America's Enemies. The only problem I see so far is a reluctance on the part of the former Senator to direct his and his Center's energies at the full range of America's Enemies--namely American Liberals, Old Europe and other traitors among the renegade injured soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who have been opening their yaps to the liberal media.
Maybe the former Pennsylvania Senator who only won 16% of the vote in the city of the newspaper for which he'll now be writing will be quick to link up with the Victory Caucus, another new ideological juggernaut of patriotism and chicken-hawkism that is aiming its rhetorical weapons at America's internal enemiesm, rather than its foreign enemies who after all, live really far away and speak other languages. And since he gets to stay in the city he used to work in, Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, he'll benefit from the presence of one of his former Senate colleagues, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who could give him some tips about getting guest gigs at the Wall Street Journal and who might also encourage Santorum to link up with one of Joe's favorite outfits, the Committee on the Present Danger.
Anyway, with a little more thoughtful, civil consideration, I'm sure Michael Tomasky, David Sirota, and other mean liberals will welcome the former Senator to the liberal media kingdom. Even if he is from western Pennsylvania, now lives in VA, works in Washington, D.C. and will publish in a Philadelphia newspaper.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
No Access For You
TPM points to this report in the Army Times that the soldiers at Walter Reed have been told by the brass to stop talking to the press regarding conditions at the hospital, the status of their medical evaluation paper work, and one presumes, anything else of substance.
But it also appears that recovering soldiers at Walter Reed won't be encountering any media anyway. The AT report says that--
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.
So, a media that hasn't been able or willing in most cases to do its job holding the government accountable, is now being super-double secret probation stifled from investigating how the military and this administration treats its injured vets.
Perfect.
But it also appears that recovering soldiers at Walter Reed won't be encountering any media anyway. The AT report says that--
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.
So, a media that hasn't been able or willing in most cases to do its job holding the government accountable, is now being super-double secret probation stifled from investigating how the military and this administration treats its injured vets.
Perfect.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Why Our News Media Sucks
Ezra Klein
Why Punditry Sucks in 96
This is nothing personal to Jonah, but why is he going on NPR today to talk about global warming? Does he actually, uh, know anything about global warming? Forget whether his opinion on it is accurate, given the universe of possible participants in a debate about climatological science, a generalist political journalist from The National Review doesn't sound like the most enlightening choice. Indeed, I shouldn't be on talking about global warming either. Not only haven't I read, but I can't even understand, most of the scientific literature on the issue. NPR's listeners deserve better.
This is, in fact, a pretty generalized problem. I was on CNBC recently talking about the President's health care proposals, and not only did the host have no clue what she was talking about, but the generic political consultant I was matched against was similarly out of his element. The difference between a standard deduction and a tax credit seemed totally misunderstood, and no one had any clue what reform plans were floating around Congress. It was embarrassing. There's no way the audience was elevated by that discussion. And yet, these shows can attract experts. And they can choose journalists, non-profiteers, and others who focus in the relevant issue area. But all too often, they just choose...anybody. Balance overwhelms expertise, media skills -- a function of being repeatedly broadcast on the media -- trump analytical ones. It's a shame.
Why Punditry Sucks in 96
This is nothing personal to Jonah, but why is he going on NPR today to talk about global warming? Does he actually, uh, know anything about global warming? Forget whether his opinion on it is accurate, given the universe of possible participants in a debate about climatological science, a generalist political journalist from The National Review doesn't sound like the most enlightening choice. Indeed, I shouldn't be on talking about global warming either. Not only haven't I read, but I can't even understand, most of the scientific literature on the issue. NPR's listeners deserve better.
This is, in fact, a pretty generalized problem. I was on CNBC recently talking about the President's health care proposals, and not only did the host have no clue what she was talking about, but the generic political consultant I was matched against was similarly out of his element. The difference between a standard deduction and a tax credit seemed totally misunderstood, and no one had any clue what reform plans were floating around Congress. It was embarrassing. There's no way the audience was elevated by that discussion. And yet, these shows can attract experts. And they can choose journalists, non-profiteers, and others who focus in the relevant issue area. But all too often, they just choose...anybody. Balance overwhelms expertise, media skills -- a function of being repeatedly broadcast on the media -- trump analytical ones. It's a shame.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Uh, we got a little problem here. Yeah (Updated)
Seems you totally fabricated that Lincoln quote. Yeah.
Glenn Greenwald: (subscription required)
Frank Gaffney, one of the country's most influential and well-connected neoconservatives, has a column in today's Washington Times in which he argues that the debate taking place in Congress over the war in Iraq constitutes treason. Gaffney specifically argues that the condemnations of Douglas Feith from Levin "really should be a hanging offense."
Gaffney begins his column by purporting to quote Abraham Lincoln. Gaffney claims that Lincoln said:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
This quote has become a favorite weapon for those who want to criminalize criticism of the Leader and the War. Jack Murtha's opponent in the last election, Diana Irey, cited this quote while discussing Murtha's opposition to the war.
But this quote is completely invented. Lincoln never said it. This "quote" was first attributed to Lincoln by J. Michael Waller in Insight Magazine, in a 2003 article revealingly entitled: Democrats Usher in an Age of Treason. But as Waller himself now admits, the quote attributed to Lincoln is completely fraudulent. Waller wrote in an e-mail to FactCheck.org (h/t William Wolfrum):
The supposed quote in question is not a quote at all, and I never intended it to be construed as one. It was my lead sentence in the article that a copy editor mistakenly turned into a quote by incorrectly inserting quotation marks.
It was Waller, in The Washington Times' Insight Magazine, urging that anti-war Congressmen be hanged -- not Abraham Lincoln. But to justify their plainly un-American assault on our most basic constitutional liberties, neoconservatives like Gaffney simply invent quotes, attribute them to Abraham Lincoln, and continue to use them long after they have been debunked.
(snip)
UPDATE III: It is notable that the Gaffney Op-Ed still remains unchanged, with no retraction or acknowledgment of error. It seems highly likely (though admittedly not definite) that The Washington Times is now aware of the fictitious nature of the Lincoln quote. Multiple readers here have indicated that they sent e-mails to the Times. I also called the Times and left a voice mail message (a couple of hours ago) for Commentary Page Editor Mary Lou Forbes, detailing the error and directing her to this post as well other sources for finding the proof that the quote is fake. And yet, the quote remains.
UPDATE IV: I spoke with Mary Lou Forbes, the Commentary Page Editor of the Times, who said that she contacted Gaffney about the e-mails she received and that he has now confirmed that the quote is fictitious. Forbes said Gaffney intends to "run a correction at the bottom of his next column."
When I pointed out that this did not really seem to be a sufficient correction, and suggested that they ought at least to append a correction to the top of the online version, she said that she had not thought of that -- pointing out that she was "an old print journalist" -- but said that perhaps it was a good idea and that they might do that.
-------
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Yeah. We'll get right on that. Yeah, our columnist lied through his keyboard and we haven't corrected it. But there's really no problem. Yeah.
--------
Update: the link to the inflammatory Gaffney "column" is now directing web surfers to an equally proposterous but older Gaffney column from February 6, but his most recent column leading with the bogus Abe Lincoln quote isn't showing up. Don't know if it has just been moved or if rather than correcting the record the paper's website has just decided to delete the stupid thing altogether.
"Weak is as weak does"
At TAPPED Tom Schaller says
One more, non-Post observation: Peter Beinart makes an interesting case that weakness (thought of in the sense of the most basic stereotypical gender norms) is, ironically, more of an asset today than it was back in 2002. Still, weakness is as weakness does. And the 2002 war vote, instead of making her look tough on defense, makes Hillary look like somebody too weak to stand up to a president and, thus, perhaps, too weak to be one. [emphasis mine-SJB)
I don't think the issue of "weakness" and the 2002 Iraq war vote was a matter of not being able to stand up to the president.
The issue was the member's voting calculation in light of media pressure and their own presidential ambitions amidst a time of fear and war-mongering. To the extent a Senate member's "yes" vote on the war was driven more by these calculations than their own independent judgment, then that member in my view demonstrated a profound "weakness" in their vote.
One more, non-Post observation: Peter Beinart makes an interesting case that weakness (thought of in the sense of the most basic stereotypical gender norms) is, ironically, more of an asset today than it was back in 2002. Still, weakness is as weakness does. And the 2002 war vote, instead of making her look tough on defense, makes Hillary look like somebody too weak to stand up to a president and, thus, perhaps, too weak to be one. [emphasis mine-SJB)
I don't think the issue of "weakness" and the 2002 Iraq war vote was a matter of not being able to stand up to the president.
The issue was the member's voting calculation in light of media pressure and their own presidential ambitions amidst a time of fear and war-mongering. To the extent a Senate member's "yes" vote on the war was driven more by these calculations than their own independent judgment, then that member in my view demonstrated a profound "weakness" in their vote.
Tim "I Hate Gay People" Hardaway: Just Shut Up
Well, maybe he doesn't really 'hate' gay people. Maybe he meant to say he 'hates' the sin but not the sinner.
Listening to his remarks on ESPN's Mike and Mike this morning I first thought the person speaking was mimicking what a person who hates gays would say; It sounded like a caricature of someone speaking, not the real comments of a sane, humane person.
Listening to his remarks on ESPN's Mike and Mike this morning I first thought the person speaking was mimicking what a person who hates gays would say; It sounded like a caricature of someone speaking, not the real comments of a sane, humane person.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Our Media Stenographers
I was milling around on the Internets last night when a headline scrolled across the top of my screen that said something like "Ant-American Cleric Flees to Iran". When I clicked on the link, the story told me that the "anti-American cleric" in question was Al-Sadr, one of the most influential Shiite leaders in Iraq.
Wow, I thought, this has to be considered good news, right? Highly interested in this development, I surfed the liberal swamp of dirty, commie hippy web-blogs for further info but no one had anything to say yet, given how recent the story appeared to be. Even Juan Cole hadn't reported or analyzed this report yet.
Then this morning I see a headline that provides a twist to last night's original account. Now the headline was saying that the U.S. military was asserting that Al-Sadr had indeed fled to Iran even though there were now some counter-reports disputing this claim.
Oh.
And then I turn to Juan Cole who had by this time gotten on the story.
And it seems that, with a little depth of investigating, things may be a little more complicated than they at first appeared:
This USG report about Muqtada broke after midnight Baghdad time, so there has not been time for the Arabic or Persian press to react. I'll know more Thursday morning.
Sadr aides denied to the LA Times that Muqtada is in Iran, saying he is in hiding in Iraq.
Some are taking exception to the word "fled."
The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.
It might be useful to construct a timeline for Muqtada's recent activities.
Read the whole thing.
Aren't you glad there are people besides the Very Serious People in our Media Elite to evaluate this kind of stuff?
Wow, I thought, this has to be considered good news, right? Highly interested in this development, I surfed the liberal swamp of dirty, commie hippy web-blogs for further info but no one had anything to say yet, given how recent the story appeared to be. Even Juan Cole hadn't reported or analyzed this report yet.
Then this morning I see a headline that provides a twist to last night's original account. Now the headline was saying that the U.S. military was asserting that Al-Sadr had indeed fled to Iran even though there were now some counter-reports disputing this claim.
Oh.
And then I turn to Juan Cole who had by this time gotten on the story.
And it seems that, with a little depth of investigating, things may be a little more complicated than they at first appeared:
This USG report about Muqtada broke after midnight Baghdad time, so there has not been time for the Arabic or Persian press to react. I'll know more Thursday morning.
Sadr aides denied to the LA Times that Muqtada is in Iran, saying he is in hiding in Iraq.
Some are taking exception to the word "fled."
The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.
It might be useful to construct a timeline for Muqtada's recent activities.
Read the whole thing.
Aren't you glad there are people besides the Very Serious People in our Media Elite to evaluate this kind of stuff?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)