But a nice ass is a nice ass.
One presumes that special visitors who are connected enough can hear the whistling theme song to Clint Eastwood's best spaghetti westerns as President Bush shows off one of his prize possessions: The unloaded gun that Saddam was holding when he was escorted out of his spider hole. One visitor explained: "He really liked showing it off. He was really proud of it." For those hoping to get a less formal glimpse of the President's piece, I hear that it is pretty easy to find. Just go past the horse trough, take a left at the general store, burst through the saloon doors, and you'll see it mounted right above the spittoon. One assumes that W also has other such mementoes of his accomplishments such as a lifelike replica of what was once America's moral and intellectual leadership in the world, stuffed and mounted copies of the bill of rights and the separation of church and state, a shredded copy of Strunk and White, and of course an etched-in-stone display of the axis of evil - intellectuality, multilateralism, and Bill Clinton getting a hummer.
Hitchens: "Ahmad and Me." The Hitch has a lot of positive takes about Ahmad Chalabi. The question left wholly unanswered in this analysis is why did the U.S. just raid his house?
This could be the worst article ever written. I guess that's the trouble with featuring an article by the editorial staff. There's no one left to edit it.
John Ashcroft made big news with his terror threat warnings earlier this week. The press conference left Americans with several key questions: Why were we being warned when local and state law enforcement officials indicated that they received no updated intelligence or calls to action? Why were Mueller and Ashcroft warning us of something dramatic while Ridge was downplaying the news and while the administration was making it clear that there would be no change in the terror alert status? And then there was another equally vexing question. Why was Ashcroft making the announcement in the first place? Isn't that now the job of Ridge and the Dept of Homeland Security? Update: At first I was tempted to echo many others and suggest this may have just been an election season move. But according the latest reports, it could have be worse than that.
The election to decide whether a first term president will get a shot at a second often comes down to one key factor: The incumbent. Couple that with a few other issues (the media noise focused on Bush, the early stage of the race, the level to which some on the left are consumed with a hatred of Bush that makes Kerry nearly irrelevant, the lack of a Kerry running mate, a somewhat careful Dem campaign so far, and of course, Fantasia) and it's not at all surprising that many more people are decidedly against Bush than decidedly for Kerry. Taegan over at Political Wire provides an interesting summary of recent polls: Percent still undecided on Bush, Kerry: Zogby: 1%, 21% Quinnipiac: 2%, 16% Newsweek: 8%, 14% Annenberg: 12%, 21% CBS News: 16%, 35% At this point (pre-convention, pre-debate, pre-summer), these numbers probably aren't that bad for Kerry. But it is critical that they change over the next few months. I continue to believe that, while the incumbent is to a certain extent the star of any re-election bid, a just say no vote will not be enough. As I touched upon in my earlier post On The Fence (scenes from the campaign's front lines), it's important that Democrats acknowledge that this definition issue is quite real and quite important. It's also worth noting that the undecided numbers in the Kerry column are decidedly bad news for the President's campaign crew. They've spent an unprecedented amount of dough trying to get people to decide that Kerry will not cut it. So far, the payoff has been, I'm sure, less than they had hoped for. Ultimately, the biggest question facing both sides of the election might be: How could anyone be undecided about anything or anyone at this point? The true believers were decided at birth. The believers have been decided since Florida. The sort of believers have been decided since Iraq. Even the "I caught a bit of the news while flipping between the WWE and Family Feud reruns on the Gameshow Network" have decided by now. The handful of people left are the ones who could determine the outcome of this election. And there's the rub. In the next several months, political insiders must figure out a way to convince the people who they can't possibly understand to see things their way. Now that should be fun to watch.
. . . May 27, 2004
The Law Won
Surprise, surprise. Bernard Law officially got a new gig in Rome. Maybe there's an opening for Spanky the Clown as well?
No soldier has earned the Medal of Honor for more than eleven years. That could change once the full story of Jason Dunham's heroism in Iraq has been told. There is, amid the politics and the policies, a story too often ignored (although it's nearly always the subtext): The kids who are actually over there. This story of a twenty-two year old who requested a longer term in Iraq to "make sure everyone makes it home alive," provides a moment by moment account of a soldier who jumped on a grenade to spare his comrades.
Forget the tired, poor, huddled masses. It turns out we are importing immigrants from around the world who will on average outlive U.S. born residents by more than three years (at least that is until the 'anti-longevity among those with an accent' language gets inserted into the Patriot Act). Immigrants are more likely to be poor and less likely to make regular visits to a doctor. So what gives? It turns out that immigrants tend to smoke less, eat less fast food and spend less time sitting around. But the move to the U.S. is key as well (although, for optimal results, assimilation should stop at the drive-thru entrance). By far the best case scenario is to be born elsewhere and to move to America at some point. I'm going to Tuscany this summer. I wonder if that'll help.
 Recent polls present a good news, bad news scenario for John Kerry. The bad news first. When it comes to deciding which candidate you'd rather barbecue with, President Bush is the clear choice. We're talking about Bobby Flay and Emeril-like numbers here. Now the good news. Kerry is doing extremely well in the the so-called battleground states. Take a look at the graphic to see how the tides have shifted towards Kerry (or at least away from Bush) according to the latest Zogby numbers.
Is one of the architects of the enemy combatant policy about to get rewarded with a judgeship?
Kerry: "All right, I'll accept."
Al Gore: "How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison! "I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe we are facing in Iraq. "Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign immediately! Our nation is at risk every single day Rumsfeld remains as secretary of defense. We need someone with good judgment and common sense. [Rice] ought to resign immediately. She has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy. This is a disaster for our country." Wow. If Gore was this fired up during the last election, things could have been a whole lot different. According to the writer of the above-referenced article, Gore "bellowed" during his speech at NYU. He was like one bellow short in Florida... Note to Kerry: Bellow now, baby. Bellow now.
"We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves." Signed George W Bush (Just joking. It's from the NY Times.)
Are Bush and Blair at odds when it comes to how much power the interim Iraqi government will have?
Did you know that only about sixty percent of those who attend college will graduate within six years? The numbers are even worse for minorities and have remained fairly flat for decades. On the plus side, the Spring Break associated numbers look stronger than ever.
Here are two interesting examples of stories where it's hard to find the actual strory, although the topic areas are of interest and both could be perceived as politically loaded and timed. First, there was yesterday's report that Al Qaeda has grown to 18,000 members and that the Iraq war has led to an increase in recruitment. Last night, I saw an interview with the U.S. head of London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (the group behind the report). You want to know how they came up with the number 18,000? Well, over the years there have been reports that as many as 20,000 people went through bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. And there have since been reports of 2,000 Al Qaeda members killed or captured in Afghanistan, etc. So that leaves you with 18,000. Sound like a front page study to you? And today everyone is leading with the very disturbing warning about planned summer attacks by Al Qaeda. But according to Tom Ridge, the terror threat level is not going to be raised and he also explained: "I can confirm that we have seen for the past several weeks a continuous stream of reporting that talks about the possibility of attacks on the United States. [But it's] not unlike what we've seen for the past several years." What?
Hey, maybe the AARP leadership backed a bad deal? What's the point of getting a paltry discount on prescription drugs when their base prices are soaring at more than twice the rate of inflation?
Those self-hating Americans who have criticized the Bush administration and other Republicans for ruining our relationships with international leaders and ceding our leadership role in areas such as the environment and weapons reductions, take note. You can now buy and chew a pack of gum in Singapore. And it's American gum. And this kind of deal doesn't happen by accident. We're back baby!
Earlier this week, the Bush administration made the decision to replace Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as the top military man in Iraq. The timing is odd given the upcoming transition of power. But it's less odd given the prison scandals and the flow of bad news from Baghdad. I actually saw a Republican congressman on Hardball explain that the replacement of Sanchez should be viewed as yet another example of the depth of talent we have in the military. I still think this thing will touch Rummy before it's over. It's already being reported as a more widespead problem than we've been led to believe and it's rapidly moving up the chain. Stay tuned.
. . . May 25, 2004
The Image Problem
To paraphrase Billy Joel: If that's MoveOn then I'm moving out... Even with W's record low approval ratings, John Kerry hasn't seen much of gain in the polls. That's probably to be expected at this point. Iraq is sucking up all the media attention, it's still early, and people may not know Kerry all that well yet. But there are major risks associated with the lack of self-definition. Others can define you. I'm not talking about the Bushies. They spent $60 million trying and it didn't work all that well. I'm talking about groups like MoveOn.org. I know they've raised a ton of money and done some great work. And the spirited grassroots momentum among Dems is a pleasure to see. But I don't want MoveOn to lead this election. I want John Kerry to lead it. Here is a clear example of why. MoveOn is set to release an ad that will feature the Statue of Liberty with an Abu Ghraib-esque hood over her head.  Fellow Democrats and Kerry campaigners, is that really how you want this battle to be fought? MoveOn.org's executive director Peter Schurman explains that, "there's nothing inappropriate about making sure Americans know about the scandal. It's the most patriotic thing we could do at this point." Schurman is wrong. The image is inappropriate, idiotic, childish and a major tactical mistake. Frankly, it distracts from a very important and very appropriate questions being raised by the ads. Why did the scandal happen? Why does Rummy have a job? It also robs the Democrats of the high ground (if there is one) in terms of political television ads, effectively erasing the disgusting use of 9-11 images by the Bush team. Listen to the distorted thinking of, Pacy Markman, one of the brains behind the making of the ad: "We didn't put images from 9/11 into our ads. When it comes to exploitation we take a back seat to the Bush campaign." Congratulations. You're the second biggest asshole around. Come on. This is a marketing executive? The ad will also will satisfy extremists while turning the stomachs of those undecided voters who should be the key target of any ads. The goal of negative political ads is to present the opposing side with something to defend. This image does just the opposite. Kerry needs to own this campaign. It will be a team effort, but it has to be a team behind one leader. And when appropriate, that leader has to tell team members when to put a cork in it.
From Slate: "Since it is clear that we cannot leave until they stop killing us, and equally clear that they will not stop killing us until we leave, I propose the following exit strategy: 1) Kill all the ones who are trying to kill us, in such a way that none of those who presently do not want to kill us suddenly start wanting to kill us. 2) At the moment of the death of the last person who wanted to kill us, race quickly out of the country before some additional person suddenly decides he/she wants to kill us, thus necessitating our continued presence in Iraq, in order to kill him/her. 3) Having left Iraq quickly, do not look back, so as not to witness individuals claiming they would have liked to kill us, which would then necessitate a return to Iraq, in order to etc., etc. (See No. 2, above.) People of Iraq, I say to you: Stop trying to kill us, so we can leave. But also, do not fear. We are in it for the long haul, although we cannot stay with you indefinitely. No, as soon as you stop trying to kill us, believe us, you will never see us again. Therefore, trust us, people of Iraq, have faith, we assure you: As long as you continue trying to kill us, we will never abandon you."
From London's International Institute for Strategic Studies: "Galvanized by Iraq if compromised by Afghanistan, al Qaeda remains a viable and effective network of networks."
Take a look at this opening line from an NY Times news analysis piece: "President Bush's speech on Monday night kicked off a critical five-week period in which the White House must not only make good on its pledge to return self-governance to the Iraqi people but also convince the American electorate that the benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein have outweighed the costs in blood, money and battered prestige." Isn't it sort of amazing that the President wasn't required to accomplish that before we started the war? Sure, we couldn't have predicted that some of the aspects of the war and its aftermath would have been this mismanaged. But we certainly knew that the war would cost the lives and limbs of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And we certainly knew if was a long term assignment. And it could not have been any more clear that the decision to go to war without the support of many allies would cost us a hefty dose of prestige. Last night's speech by the President did little to improve opinions here or in Iraq. The major complaint seems to be the lack of specifics and the failure to answer key questions (something that Tony Blair tried to address today). But there were other problems as well. Once again Bush used his time to reconvince Americans (and Iraqis) that terrorists are in the wrong. There was once again a distinct effort to tie together the war in Iraq and the war on terror - yet there has been little evidence that the former is not a major distraction from the latter. There was also no effort by Bush to take responsibility for some of the errors in Iraq, from Abu Graib, to poor planning, to delayed infrastructure rebuilding to a security system that somehow left the country's interim president vulnerable to an attack. I am not trying to echo the repeated calls for Bush to apologize. Merely for him to acknowledge what is going on and to send a message that he's not trying to bullshit the world. We already knew what Bush was telling us last night. The terrorists are bad and liberty and freedom beat oppression any day. But today, the world needs to hear about security, not liberty. This is not simply, at this point, a story of good vs evil. It's a story of good leadership vs bad.
Remember to sign up for my weekly update (featuring a column and updates from the blogs). Subscribe to my NextDraft newsletter here.
We've come to expect the same old refrain from many on the right. You're not allowed to criticize the war and if you do, then you're being unpatriotic and failing to support the troops. And above all else, all the bad news is the fault of the liberal media.
Now the same old nonsense is rearing its head in relation to the latest deluge of bad news from Iraq.
This argument is almost always wrong. The press essentially stood by and watched a barely-elected president with little foreign policy experience take us into an optional war. But forget that. Let's just focus on the news of recent days.
Is anyone really childish and naive enough to believe that all the stories coming out of Baghdad are due to an over aggressive and increasingly liberal press? Come on. What we are seeing is heavy infighting between the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and others connected to the administration. It is a leak-o-rama stretching from Baghdad to Broadway. If anything, the press is acting as a sort of massive PR department for the leakers from various organizations.
Even William Safire can see this is what's happening: "The three factions controlling Iraq - long suspicious of one another - are now on the brink of open tribal warfare. Not the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds - I mean the Pentagon, State Department and C.I.A."
We can argue about why these organizations are going after one another right now or about the timing of the stories involving Chalabi and the secret prison outside of Baghdad and the efforts to implicate the CIA in the Abu Graib scandal. But to just jerk up one's knee and pretend this is about a liberal media with an antiwar bias is just so wrong it hurts.
One pat answer does not answer every question all the time.
A clear strategy for Iraq sounds like a much-needed addition to America's foreign policy (although generally these things are planned out before the war). But it doesn't sound like good enough television to make the networks alter their primetime line-ups.
Tracking foreign visitors, every step of the way.
Slate: "What has the Pentagon's third man done wrong? Everything."
The Bush twins exit college and now will enter the fun-filled world of campaign trails and dynastic politics. Now if we could just remember which one is Mary Kate and which one is Ashley.
What gives with all this bicycle riding? First we heard several stories and saw several pictures of Kerry riding his bike. Then Bush rode his bike (wearing a helmet and a mouthguard, which sort of creates a slightly different cowboy image - the phrase bring it on doesn't sound quite as intimidating through a mouthguard) and promptly fell off. Drudge then broke the massive story (quickly picked up by the journalistic brainiacs over at the Washington Times) that Kerry may have made a "did he take the training wheels off?" joke at the President's expense (in fairness to Kerry, I heard he was actually referring the Bush foreign policy). The White House indicated that the President's fall was due to muddy conditions caused by recent rain. One problem, it hasn't been been raining in Crawford. (Maybe members of the liberal media were wreaking havoc with the sprinkler system). What I don't understand is, why bicycles? During this period of the campaign, every move is well planned. So what message are the candidates' handlers trying to send by releasing pictures of their man riding his bike? Is the angle fuel efficiency? Powerful quads as a means to healing the nation's economy? This election is turning into the battle of the perineums. It's dangerous business. Bush now knows that. But a fall here and there is hardly as bad as things could get. The can of worms is now open. Tomorrow, Dennis Kucinich could decide to pull out of his driveway on a unicycle and absolutely blow this thing wide open.
The unlikely promotions of General Boykin.
Anyone who has an experience level, say, of watching a few episodes of Law and Order or playing a few rounds of Who Stole the Cookie From the Cookie Jar can tell that Ahmad Chalabi is a liar.
His vocal critics have been around for years. He is a wanted man.
So now, are we really expected to believe that the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. just suddenly realized that maybe this guy is not totally on the up and up?
Consider this angle. What if we think of Chalabi not as an enemy to the Bush team but rather as long time member of it in relatively good standing. Under this theory, we are not forced to imagine that one obvious liar could drag the U.S. into a war and could share secrets with the Iranians right under our noses.
Chalabi told the Bush team (and the country on Sunday morning talk shows) what they wanted to hear. Really, it was what they needed (at a minimum) to hear in order to somehow sell an optional and pre-emptive war.
Now, the Iraq situation is spinning (at least in terms of public opinion) out of control. The prison stories are huge and they'll only get worse. The public (here and abroad) wants heads to roll. But Bush isn't yet ready to give up a key insider like Rummy. So why not shift the attention to another member of the team? How about a guy who is already surrounded by a shadow of doubt? How about a guy who has been saying things that really piss off W and the neocon government within a government in Washington?
Why not discredit the guy who has already been discredited a thousand times? The media is eating it up (hear anything about that secret prison near the Baghdad Airport this weekend?). Bush is only giving up a soldier who he no longer needs anyway, and one whose absence would never interfere with Rove's image of a President who is loyal above all else.
What was Chalabi's first response to the charges against him? He asked to go before Congress and answer any questions (and demanded Tenet do the same). Does that sound like a guy who has been doing his dirty work outside of the view of the administration or with their full blessings?
There is a major political power struggle going on in DC right now. And Chalabi might very well be part of it. And dropping him from the team will make the administration look like it suffered one of the worst dupes in American history. Does a willingness to suffer that perception mean the truth is even worse?
Is this right on the mark? I'm not sure. But it makes a lot more sense that being asked for one second to believe that the most knowledgeable people in the world thought Chalabi was a man to be trusted.
Zinni Outtakes: "Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda. "I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result. I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do."
From CBS: "On Friday, Stahl reported that senior intelligence officials stress the information Chalabi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is of such a seriously sensitive nature, the result of full disclosure could be highly damaging to U.S. security. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior U.S. officials, says Stahl." As long as no one humped an intern. This is bigger than big. And notice the source. It's the CIA again.
Hey, does it seem interesting to anyone else that the CIA has been the source on several stories that seem to reflect negatively on Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and the administration? Think maybe they're tired of being scapegoated by the Pentagon and then fed to the lions by their Bush-cozy boss?
Ever wonder who was getting ready to be the fall-guys in the Abu Graib fiasco?
Think the infighting we're seeing and the off-balance moves coming from Camp Rove could be the result of some timely poking and prodding by those uniquely qualified to do so?
Think the administration within the administration is starting to find out they're not necessarily above having to level with the American people?
Think about this. Do you really believe that the Bush WMD claims were all made due to bad intel from the CIA? Doesn't that ignore all of the other evidence to the contrary?
Remember, only one CIA official was calling the WMD issue a slam dunk (and it is amazing, when you think about it, that he still holds the top spot at the agency, no?).
Consider the pace with which we've heard about the Chalabi spying allegations (with the CIA as a source), more prison scandals being unearthed, and the Sy Hersh piece in the New Yorker which included the line:
"A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A."
Think maybe someone decided to wrest control back?
CIA pops up here. Crack in the administration. They pop up there. Another crack. Here a crack, there a crack.
Who else could've made the untouchables so touchable so fast?
Just a thought.
Reminder. This is bigger than you think.
John Kerry may delay his official acceptance of the nomination so he could potentially keep raising and spending dough. Maybe he should just keep delaying it long enough to see if W would lose unopposed.
Word is out that one of the feds who testified against Martha Stewart has been charged with perjury related to his testimony in the case. Even without having a law degree from a top institution, I still feel qualified to suggest that it may be troublesome, in a case in which one is being prosecuted for lying to federal officials, if the federal officials are determined to have been lying about you while under oath. You mean Rummy could soon be out of a job and Martha back in one? Next thing we'll hear is that Howard Stern is stepping in to take over the President's Saturday morning radio address. Wait a second. Martha possibly off the hook. Kerry still looking for a running mate. Hmm.
The news is out that the prison abuses were more widespread than originally suggested. That could be small news compared to what we may soon learn. A friend of mine is extremely familiar with the region and has told me there is much more to come. Pay close attention to these early stories, because they could be just the beginning. And did Rummy know? The mainstream news sites are already hinting that the answer could be yes.
He will be gone within several days. You heard it here first.
And like so many other public figures before him, it will be the lies that bring him down.
Listen closely. This is not some random attack from the so-called liberal media. Stay tuned.
The White House is trying to stay out of mess in which Denny Hastert lectured John McCain on the issue of sacrifice (and more).
Fox News (yes that Fox News) is reporting that Ahmed Chalabi may have been a spy for Iran. This would be one of the biggest political dupes in history. It would have to be the end of the Bush tenure. Amazing what you can get away with when you tell someone what they want to hear. Now the administration is trying to downplay Chalabi's importance in terms of the intelligence leading up to the war, etc. Desperate. Absurd. Hold tight.
Hey, if you can get Tom DeLay to accuse you of being caught up in partisan hatred, you may have hit a nerve. Can the Republicans make the nation believe that blaming Bush and blaming America are synonymous?
They may have been the last people on the planet, but it looks like the top brass in the Bush adminstration have finally had enough of Ahmed Chalabi. His house was raided in Iraq today. What pushed the U.S. over the line? It could have been the increasingly unhelpful comments made by Chalabi including this recent statement: "The U.S. security plan for Iraq has failed. There is no alternative except to adopt a definition of sovereignty that includes full control over the security forces." Then again, maybe it was the previous decade of deceptions.
Based on a quick perusal of the some of the personals at various dating sites, it looks like Lynndie England is back on the market.  I am a:Private Public First Class Seeking:Multiple partners up for anything, Whining a Plus. Interested In:Dating, Exhibitionism, Inflaming World Hatred, Systematic Humiliation and Degradation, Water Torture, Sean Hannity Age:Twenty-One Location:Fayetteville, N.C. (but willing to travel) Country:Love it or leave it punk Occupation:Former Liberator Looking for in a Relationship:Information Looking for in a Mate(s):Humility, Intelligence a Major (and General) Turn-On Turn-Offs:Insurgents, people who insist on removing the sack from their heads, guys who puke when under duress. Quirks or Habits:I have a slightly non-traditional definition of doggy-style. Relationship Status:You let me worry about that Have Children:Soon Want Children:If it's anything like having prisoners Cigarettes:Only during beatings Last great book I read:The Corrections, Mary Matalin's Guide to How to Handle Your Man, Heart of Darkness, Anything by Bill O'Reilly Favorite on-screen sex scene:Tie between Ed Norton and Brad Pitt in Fight Club + All of the movie Midnight Express. Celebrity I resemble most:Cross between Jeff Dahmer and Jimmy Fallon Best or worst lie I've ever told:Who's Rumsfeld? If I could be anywhere at the moment:All up in your shit, or Crawford, TX The five items I can't live without:Handcuffs, Hoods, KY Jelly, Toby Keith CDs, Direct Orders from My Superiors. What's Sexy?Authority is sexy; Total domination of defenseless and innocent prisoners in third world countries is sexier. In my bedroom, you'll find:Posters of Shawn Cassidy and David Brooks, Colin Powell's credibility, a well made bed, Saddam's WMDS, Ann Coulter
Over the past several days, Colin Powell has been out trying to convince allies (and Americans) that the scenes at Abu graib were isolated incidents. It makes sense that Powell would be sent on this mission. He is always the guy (with his status as the most trusted person in the administration) they send in when doubts are rising about a certain policy.
I still remember when word first dropped that Powell would be given the Sec of State post in W's administration. In general, I felt relieved that we'd have a good guy in a high position. As a Democrat, I thought, oh no, that's a good move by the Bush team.
But at this point, when Powell goes out and tries to convince people that we are (as he said to a group of graduates last week) "Doing the right thing," do people still believe him? Could this administration's most unlikely legacy be the discrediting of Colin Powell.
The perception of Bush as dumb has possibly been overplayed in recent years. Is his real problem that he thinks he's smart enough to have all the answers? Bush "has prided himself on a decisive management style, but the unfolding Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal has raised questions about whether he relies too much on like-minded advisers, too readily equates dissent with disloyalty, and is too averse to admitting mistakes. "There is little debate at cabinet meetings or other private councils, which mainly serve as forums that let Mr. Bush restate his goals and hear each official's report, according to past participants. Leaks and public disagreements aren't tolerated. His circle of advisers is small, and he isn't a 'walk around' manager who tries to canvass opinions from a variety of officials." And that's a take from The Wall Street Journal.
Dean joins Kerry on the campaign trail: "I certainly admired you for kicking my ass in Iowa."
Jeremy Sivits becomes the first person convicted in the Iraqi prison scandal. He'll serve a one year sentence.
Like so many others, William Safire seems to have become obsessed with discrediting his political foes at the expense of being smart.
Another step backwards on on the roadmap to peace in the Middle East. Around the world, are we getting a multipart lesson on the ways not to fight terror?
. . . May 18, 2004
The Latest Numbers
Kerry: 1.6 million Bush: 1.5 million What do these numbers represent? The number of people who visited each candidate's website last month. If this becomes an important statistic, one of these guys should consider Paris Hilton as a running mate. Her site is doing way better traffic.
Tomasky: "The meta-story here is that we are watching the total collapse of conservative morality."
Looks like Chalabi is off the payroll. (And you thought that this administration would never fire anyone...)
Robert Reich on Clinton: "Undoubtedly he was and is a gifted politician. He triangulated, and by that we all understood he was taking positions that were equidistant between Republicans and Democrats. He thereby blurred the distinction between Democrats and Republicans. He didn't help define what the Democrats believed in. He got reelected and that was no small feat ... But the Democratic message was squandered. The Democratic moment was wasted." Interesting take from an insider. I actually think there was something else (related, but subtly different) at work here. The Clinton years were all about personality. There was the other side that was attacking. And then there was Clinton. His scandals were personal. His charms were personal. And unfortunately for the Dems, personality-driven programs of any kind are almost impossible to duplicate (that goes for non-profits, political movements, entertainment, and certainly radio talkshows). It's not just that Clinton shifted to the middle. The Party could've done that with him had it so desired. It's that he shifted alone.
USA Today and MTV wonder how Bush and Kerry would do if they had to send out their post-college resumes in this market. According to the survey, both men may have failed the "ten-second" resume review. In other words, they may have had to fall back on politics again. My favorite part of the article is its first line: "One candidate earned debate honors and spoke at Yale's commencement. The other was president of his fraternity and participated in intramural sports."
On Tuesday, John Kerry blasted President Bush for failing to do more to address gas prices as the average price per gallon in the U.S. now tops two bucks. Kerry also criticized W for leaving streaks on his windshield. The gas issue could be another tricky one for W. If the prices stay relatively high through November, he looks like he's doing nothing and the perception of the economy could worsen. But if gas prices drop in the month before the election, Bush risks confirming the perception that he has struck backroom, election-related deals with the Saudis. My friend Mike is convinced that the name of the program No Child Left Behind is really a thinly veiled anti-abortion message (and a plug for the Left Behind book series) being sent to evangelicals and others on the far right. If these gas prices get any higher, it might become the new name of a national carpool list.
How long? How many? Who knows?
The more we see certain breakdowns in Iraq, the more it all adds up. The key war planners in the administration believed (and they've hardly hidden this position) that the coalition troops would be welcomed as liberators - which surely they were by a large portion of the population.
But for those who are backing the insurgency, the "major combat" part of the story was only the beginning. They were planning for this period. We were not. So it makes perfect sense that our troops would find themselves somewhat unprepared to deal with car bombings and suicide attacks (not that there's an effective preparation for either) and that our most embarrassing performances have been in prisons where reservists were interrogating prisoners to get information that we (and more importantly they) never thought they'd need.
Think this insurgency (the killings of top Iraqis, the prison breakdown, the extended tours of duty, the growing public opinion resistance to U.S. troops) is depressing and upsetting to watch on the news? Think of how it must feel to the soldiers who are risking their lives in the name of freedom for the Iraqi people.
Lately, I've been wondering, where is Tommy Franks? His retirement as head of the U.S. Central Command was largely expected, and the guy certainly can be forgiven for wanting to take some time off after running back-to-back wars. And the Pentagon's decision to appoint the Arabic-speaking Gen. John Abizaid as Franks' successor seems like an appropriate move.
But Franks left before the war was over. It's now clear that he left way before the war was over and did so in era when many members of the military reserves are pushing two years on the ground in Iraq. Did Franks simply put off his post-Afghanistan retirement for a few months so he could lead the charge in Iraq? Or did he see the writing on the walls in Baghdad and Falluja and decide it was a smart time to step down?
Or did he really believe that the job was basically done?
After reading this article, I'm beginning to think that the nation's drug czar should pay a visit to David Brooks' office at the Times. Courtney Love's editorials make more sense.
Bono promotes the pragmatic self-preservationist dogma I've discussed here many times. On fighting diseases in Africa: "It's cheaper than fighting wave after wave of the terrorists' new recruits." Hey, aside from violence (which is often justified and necessary), what is our strategy in the war on terror? The phrase " war on terror" should give you some idea about the breadth and scope of the plan. We just may have picked the wrong age for shallow stupidity.
Talking Points Memo: "As I said earlier this morning, here's the latest update from my friend in Iraq, a retired military intelligence officer, now working as a security contractor in Iraq." (good stuff)
Kaplan in Slate: "One ambiguity does remain. The NBC story reported that "the White House" declined to carry out the airstrikes. Who was "the White House"? If it wasn't George W. Bush - if it was, say, Dick Cheney - then we crash into a very different conclusion: not that Bush was directly culpable, but that he was more out of touch than his most cynical critics have imagined. It's a tossup which is more disturbing: a president who passes up the chance to kill a top-level enemy in the war on terrorism for the sake of pursuing a reckless diversion in Iraq - or a president who leaves a government's most profound decision, the choice of war or peace, to his aides."
Amid all the news last week, one item of note was lost in the shuffle. Media junkies have long tried to answer one of the modern era's most difficult questions. Who is more irritating, Alex Trebek or Aaron Brown? The two met face to face during political pundit week on Jeopardy, and it was as expected, a clash of titans. In the end, Aaron Brown won by just the saliva in his lips. It was actually too close to call until during the brief interview portion of the show, Brown made a distinction between journalists and civilians. Close observers could see the anguish on Trebek's face as he knew the title had just slipped away.
Stewart:Even if you don't, you won't have trouble surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a naked pile of enemy prisoners and don't give the thumbs up, you outdid us. "I know we were supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we were handed, so sorry. But here's the good news, you fix this thing, you're the new greatest generation, people. What piece of wisdom can I impart to you about my journey that will somehow ease your transition from college back to your parents' basement?"
 All we really needed to make this a perfect storm was to find out that Roger Clinton was her escort. Man, why am I going to the Democratic National Convention to hang out with Springer when I could have gone to Cannes instead? And I had just the outfit...
Remember the good old days when large donors just got a night in the Lincoln Bedroom (and maybe a plate of ribs) and that was it?
Newsweek: "As a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers - and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation - methods that the Red Cross concluded were tantamount to torture." + New Yorker: "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scanda lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of elite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror." Is torture ever OK? I think in some cases it might be. But don't expect the Bush administration to open the issue up for dialog anytime soon. Because there is a bigger story here. It's a story of a small number of political leaders who have taken the law, ethics and the course of American history into their own hands. From the torture at Abu Graib to the doctrine of preemption, are we being led down a road that ultimately makes us a nation more aggressive and less effective?
Biden on the Veep Question: "I would still urge John Kerry to pick up the phone and call John McCain. He'll say no, probably. But I think John Kerry has an obligation to do that for the way he wants to heal, and I know John will listen. He'll say no, but I want to tell you, I'm counting on him being a more loyal American than he is a loyal Republican." If Kerry calls McCain and McCain does say no, I wonder if Kerry shouldn't then call Biden?
While there is certainly something historic (politically and culturally) about the first gay weddings taking place in Massachusetts, I'm tempted to make less of a big deal out of it. Why? Because like most things that take place in a relationship between two people, it probably will not have much of an impact on anyone else. In a lot of ways, this is a bigger day for the strong opponents of gay marriage than it is for the rest of us. They feel that they are somehow losing something. That the meaning of their vows will be changed. That notion seems like nonsense to me. I don't much care what others think about my marriage and I'd hope that the gay couples getting married today feel the same way (I know it's not much of a wedding toast, but you get the idea). In the near term, the marriages will only be recognized in certain states. This may introduce an era of geographic arguments in which members of couples will be wary about saying the wrong thing as they approach a state line. But this limitation too will pass. On a purely legal level, it just seems so painfully obvious that today is a step in the right direction. The Globe has had two blogs running; one in favor of gay marriage and one opposed. In the opposition blog, the writer introduces this historic  day by explaining: "Well, today is D-Day for gay marriage, which seems to be stealing the thunder from the day's 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education." That sentence is wrong on two counts. For one, this is not a D-Day for gay marriage. The violence metaphor is all wrong. Do the people in the pictures look like they are in the middle of a terrible battle? The point is that this is not D-Day for couples. It's We-Day. And second, the Massachusetts marriages are not stealing thunder from Brown v Board, they are celebrating it. As Andrew Sullivan writes: "The long march of African-Americans to civil equality was and is deeply different from the experience and legacy of gay Americans. But in one respect, the date is fitting, for both Brown and this new day revolve around a single, simple and yet deeply elusive idea: integration." + From earlier: Electablog's first draft of the Marriage Amendment and George Saunders' My Amendment.
The U.S. coalition in Iraq took a major blow today a Ezzidin Salim became the second member of the Iraqi Governing Council to be killed. From Bremer: "The terrorists who are seeking to destroy Iraq have struck a cruel blow with this vile act today. But they will be defeated. The Iraqi people will ensure that his vision of a democratic, free and prosperous Iraq will become a reality." And our good friend Mr. Chalabi (he of the welcomed with open arms promises) has chimed in as well: "The U.S. security plan for Iraq has failed. There is no alternative except to adopt a definition of sovereignty that includes full control over the security forces." This has got to be another pretty serious blow to military personnel who could have used a better week right about now.
There are a few things that can, it seems, turn smart to stupid in an instant. Some of these include: - Crack Cocaine. - The Desire to Get Laid. - Partisan Politics The last item on the list seems to be especially potent. Every event somehow gets manipulated to support the pre-determined opinions of people on one side of the aisle or the other. I've discussed the blinding nature of partisanship before, first in The Hate and later in The Politicization of Pat Tillman. Let's examine it again in the coverage of Nick Berg and its relationship to the coverage of Abu Graib. There are plenty of ordinarily smart people who are arguing that the fact the Abu Graib story is getting more ink is a result of a liberal press, against the war, against Bush, and somehow, by extension (and this is always the subtext), with the terrorists. According to the argument (you can see several examples gathered over at Instapundit's site), the press has determined that Abu Graib is the important news item even though a large majority of public news seekers believe that Berg is the much bigger story. How does the partisan-thinker come to this conclusion? Simple. Look at the traffic to news sites in the hours following the breaking of the Berg story. And then look at phrases most searched for at the top search engines - which include Nick Berg video, Nick Berg, Berg beheading, etc. Of course, according to this logic, the liberal press should also be chastised for failing to give enough coverage to Paris Hilton's sex tape, Britney's ass, Beyonce's midriff and the major news that Pam Anderson just became an American citizen (Koppel and the New York Times both ignored that one, the Socialist bastards). Come on. We know why there was a surge in traffic when the Berg story broke. We understand full well the sick curiosity that brought people by the millions to search and news sites in the hours after the brutal offense was first reported. Anyone who removes the partisan blinders can plainly see that the search for a glimpse of the Nick Berg video is anything but an affirmation that this story deserves more coverage than it's getting or that it is somehow more important than the Abu Graib story. A fanatical, violent, brutal, murderous, terror leader beheading an innocent person in Iraq is upsetting and horrible. I have a rage-induced knot in my stomach as I'm writing this. But it's hardly a man bites dog story. Americans abusing prisoners, many of whom would later be seen as innocent of any charge, is.
Regular violations including psychological coercion, unsafe facilities, and physical punishment. Am I talking about an Iraqi prison? No. I'm talking about the conditions in overseas factories that manufacture products for the Gap. Anyone who lives in the Bay Area is all too familiar with the seemingly permanent protestors who picket the Gap with their placards complaining of sweatshops and unfair working conditions. After several years, Gap executives decided to look into the problem and the company released a report on their own labor failings. And in this act of self-flagellation, they didn't pull any punches. Few if any of their factories are in compliance with basic labor regulations or what the Gap had previously defended as ethical sourcing. And you know the old argument that the people in these countries could never have dreamed of jobs this good? Well, it turns out that in many cases, the Gap factories were paying workers at a level below the local minimum wage. (You can read the Gap's full report here). This report is absolutely critical for a variety of reasons. First, the Gap's willingness to do the study and then release it to the public will put incredible pressure on other major U.S. companies to do the same. It will also help to inform a public that often would rather not know the details about a pair of pants as long as they fit well and don't wrinkle easily. But there's a bigger picture here. It's not Republican and it's not Democrat. And it's certainly not just altruism. Let's call it Self-Preservationist Pragmatism. Designing a social structure in which other countries merely provide the workers to do the jobs we don't want under conditions that we wouldn't accept is not only bad form, it's dangerous. Exporting jobs, under some circumstances, is fine. Exporting frustration, rage and rebellion is wrong. Not just morally wrong. Wrong in the sense that it could come back to haunt us. Upon releasing the report, the Gap's recently appointed CEO explained: "We feel strongly that commerce and social responsibility don't have to be at odds." The same could be said about America and the world.
. . . May 13, 2004
Running on the War
One side-effect of running as the so-called War President is that one might not get a lot of credit for anything else (which is fine, unless the war is polling poorly). The country's economic numbers (at least a few of them) have gone up in recent weeks. The President's approval rating when it comes to managing the economy has suffered a sharp decline. At this point, W might be better off running as the Trade Deficit President. Man, the decision to strongly link Iraq with the war on terror (now that Iraq is trending south) is also looking pretty suspect when viewed from a Rove-ian perspective.
Friedman: "I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq - from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence - because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad."
There were many problems with the abuses at Abu Graib. First, the Red Cross has estimated that between 70%-90% of the prisoners were not connected to the insurgency or to any terror group. Second, the pictures released created what has become an international scandal. Third, both the Geneva Convention and most people's idea of decency were obliterated. But let's face it. It's not always that simple. If the CIA had taken a person into custody who just might have information related to an impending terror attack, what are the limits? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is believed to have helped in the planning of the 9-11 attacks. In order to try to extract information from him after he was in custody, the CIA used a technique known as water boarding in which the prisoner is repeatedly pushed under water and threatened with drowning. Too much? What about a gun to the head? What about a series of beatings? Humiliations? It's not so easy to determine how far is too far when you're talking about a guy who you know is a terrorist and who you think may have the details regarding new terrorist attacks. If you thought there was the slightest possibility of stopping the next 9-11 attack, how far would you go? These are probably questions that are worth asking (along with seeking a better understanding about whether or not torture is effective in extracting accurate information). What is acceptable? What do we gain through torture (in terms of intelligence) and what do we lose (in terms of our culture)? The use of physical coercion to gain intelligence has been around since humans first began swinging sticks at one another. We need to take a hard, analytic look at these issues - before another crisis and without all the political mudslinging. We also need to make sure that politicians and the public are fully aware of the ugliness of war. The pictures coming out of Iraq have been shocking and disturbing. But let's keep things in perspective. By most accounts, more than 15,000 civilians have been killed during this war. Hundreds of Americans have been killed. Thousands of Americans have been seriously injured and many more will suffer from a lifetime of psychological trauma. That's how war works. For those who send people to war to feign shock about any of this is much more offensive than anything that happened at Abu Graib. This debate (which will have a significant impact on the way we and others perceive the progression of our culture) should be held in public, not in a royal palace or a dark cell somewhere halfway across the world.
Donald Rumsfeld showed up in Baghdad today where he spoke to the troops: "In recent months we've seen abuses here under our responsibility, and it's been a body blow for us. It doesn't represent America. It doesn't represent American values. It doesn't represent the values of you here in this room." Rummy denied that his visit was intended to ease the scandal: "We're not on an inspection tour. If anyone thinks I'm there to throw water on a fire, they're wrong." People should be less paranoid. It's May. He had a week off. Where else would you go except Baghdad? Rumsfeld also was sure to remind soldiers where the buck stops: With the Press. "We hear a lot of criticism in the press, but the fact of the matter is that people every year line up to come to the United States of America. They want to become American citizens, and the reason they do is because they know, as Abraham Lincoln said, that the United States is the last best hope of humankind. I've stopped reading the newspapers." Isn't this garbage getting a little old at this point? Here's a thought. Forget the newspapers. Just read the Taguba and other reports in a timely manner.
A little help in John Kerry's quest to define himself courtesy of The Onion.
I think the DNC and the Kerry campaign should stop spreading around a petition to urge the firing of Donald Rumsfeld in the wake of the Iraqi prison scandal. I understand the spirit of the effort. I also respect Kerry's duty to explain how he would be handling the situation (and if that means he'd fire his top man in the Pentagon, it's worth letting voters know about it).
But I still think the petition as a fundraising and email gathering tool should be stopped now. There are three key reasons for this. Actually, there are probably more, but I'll stick the ones that only relate to the angle that this is, plain and simple, bad politics.
1. It's Disingenuous: No one thinks that a Kerry-backed petition will influence the Bush administration in any direction other than away from the Kerry position. The petition, if anything, makes Rummy more secure in his job. Those passing around the virtual petition must be aware of this simple fact. So why start it in the first place?
2. Not Politics: From the beginning of the scandal, many Republicans (including Rumsfeld himself) suggested that calls for the Secretary's resignation were merely another example of political mudslinging. This analysis was of course wrong. The specific case of the Iraqi prison abuses, and the broader mismanagement of the post-major combat efforts in Iraq, go well beyond political point scoring and personal attacks. The only thing that could possibly change that would be if the Dems piled on and reduced this to a political fight. This was an opportunity to rise above that fray.
3. It's the Kerry, Stupid: The biggest obstacle for the Kerry campaign thus far is that the campaign has been too focused on President Bush. Bush's numbers go down. Kerry's stay flat. If John Kerry is going to introduce himself to the American public, the campaign must be about him. People who are signed up for the Kerry email or who visit the Kerry site already dislike Bush and Rumsfeld. The challenge is the get the focus on Kerry. A simple "No" vote will not decide this election. Using precious email and web real estate to further push voter's attention towards the Bush team is a step in the wrong direction (even if it results in thousands of newly collected email addresses). The message should not be: Fire Rumsfeld.
It should be: Hire Kerry.
Kerry on Potential Picks for Secretary of Defense: "I have any number of people that I would make secretary of Defense, beginning with our good friend John McCain."
Some the details are still being worked out, but it is clear that bloggers will be given press credentials to the upcoming political conventions. This will be another validation (along with the increasingly prevalent trend of mainstream publications referring to items that originated in blogs) of the blog form. According to one naysayer guarding the credential gate: "Anyone with a computer and home publishing can call themselves whatever they want. If it's a retired couple that just decides they've got an opinion, that doesn't make them a news organization. It just makes them a retired couple with an opinion and a website." Hey, let's put it this way. If Bill O'Reilly gets to go, then so do I. Indeed, I'll be at the Dem Convention in July (through an interesting scheduling quirk, I'll be covering the Republican Convention from a villa in Tuscany).
President Bush has been back on the campaign trail talking about education and other domestic issues. At times, it seems absurd to even try to gain traction in such areas when everyone's mind is on something else. But the fact is that both candidates are faced with this dilemma.
Thanks to the Reform Party, Nader is now on the ballot in seven states. Wondering about the cheering you hear from Karl Rove's office? Two of states on the list are Michigan and Florida.
I didn't think we needed to spend much time on this. But it listening to everything from radio talkshows to misguided senators, it's clear that we need to review.
Al Qaeda and other terrorists are really, really bad. Many of them find themselves part of entire segments of dysfunctional societies that have long suffered from a communal sociopathology. As a group, they're crazy. And they're fanatics. And they're murderers. At this point, we should not be shocked regardless of the new line of human decency that has been crossed by the actions of madmen.
But we're not terrorists. That's important to note.
By examining the abuses at Abu Ghraib, no one is arguing that the American military has somehow behaved more poorly than terrorists or than Saddam's henchmen. The opinion being voiced that the beheading of an American hostage is evidence that we are less to blame for the Iraqi prison abuses is flawed intellectually (which we have come to expect) and morally.
We have different standards for our own behavior regardless of the savagery of those with whom we do battle. That's part of what we're fighting for. Making the point that our behavior is superior to that of terrorists is an example of some very bad goalsetting.
What's the logic being employed? Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims. But I just nibble on mine.
And let's get this part right as well: Many Arabs are embarrassed by the actions taken in that video precisely because it makes much of the world view their entire culture as barbaric.
Looking for an appropriate reaction to what we've seen and heard on the news in the last couple of days? Anger works. Sadness makes sense. Determination is a must. But the sense of cultural moral superiority should've been present a long time ago. And that sense is precisely why, when it comes to our own behavior, we need to be more vigilant, not less so.
Because if the last several years have taught us nothing else, at least we are now all well aware that when that vigilance is absent, things get awfully ugly.
Note: I have merged my other two blogs. You can now find pop culture, media and web news over at Davenetics* Pop + Media + Web. Please take a look and add Davenetics to your bookmarks and/or RSS readers. Thanks.
Should the higher-ups in the Pentagon be held responsible for what went on at Abu Graib, even if they didn't give the orders?
There is no doubt that folks as far up the chain of command as Richard Myers were well aware - for months at least - of the abuses that were going on in Iraqi prisons.
Take a look at this exchange between Myers and Senator Dayton during last week's Sentate hearings. Dayon was somewhat fixated on Myers request that CBS wait a couple of weeks before airing the pictures that broke this story wide open. While Dayton was trying to find a smoking gun on the freedom of the press issue (really a non-issue here), he may not have even noticed that Myers clearly indicates that he had been aware of abuses for months. Yet nothing had been done to rectify the situation until after the CBS story.
Myers: This was not to suppress anything. What I asked CBS News to do was to delay the release of the pictures, given the current situation in Iraq, which was as bad as it had been since major combat ended, because I thought it bring direct harm to our troops; it would kill our troops. We talked about it, and I said, "I know this report will eventually come out. But this -- if you can delay it for some period of time -- it would be helpful."
Dayton: What period of time is that?
Myers: I did it based on talking to General Abizaid and his worry was like mine, and he convinced me that this was the right thing to do. There was no -- this report has been around since January. What was new were the pictures. I asked for the pictures to be delayed.
Dayton: Did you discuss delaying -- calling CBS to ask them to delay their report, with the secretary of defense, or the vice president or the president?
Myers: Of course not.
Dayton: None of those.
Myers: Of course not.
Now, remember that even several days after the CBS story broke, Myers still insisted that he had not read the Taguba report. He and Rumsfeld also suggested that they hadn't seen the photos until the night before the Senate hearings.
But if the report had been around for months, shouldn't someone have done something about it? Amid the apologies and the shock being expressed by the Pentagon, it's probably worth asking that question.
Remember good old Lt. Gen. William Boykin? He is the guy who was videotaped giving an evangelical speech in which he explained that his god was superior to that of Muslims. Well he's back. And he's connected to the Abu Graib prison scandal.
Wonkette: Cracking the Karl Rove Code.
Senator James Inhofe: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment ... These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals." Ever sort of feel outraged by the fact that some senators are actually senators?
Andrew Sullivan: "A Kerry-McCain ticket, regardless of the many difficulties, would, I think, win in a landslide. Will it happen? Still unlikely. But Abu Ghraib has shortened the odds; and the arguments for such a dramatic innovation just got a lot stronger."
Taguba: "We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level ... [There was a] lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision."
Another poll, another set of results that are seemingly at odds with one another. Take a look at some of the stats: 46% approved of Bush's performance in office (an all time low for his presidency) 44% said the war was worthwhile 54% said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake 41% indicated that they think Bush is doing a good job handling the war 37% are satisfied with the way things are going in the US (103% were satisfied with the way things are going in the US when compared to the way things were going in Abu Graib) One would naturally assume that these are the numbers of a president on his way out the door. After all, the Bush candidacy is Iraq and Iraq is the Bush candidacy. Yet, Bush remains in a statistical dead-heat with John Kerry and he comes out a winner in a three way race that includes Ralph Nader (By the way, we're keeping a list of all of you who plan to take time off from work, drive to your polling place and then offer a protest vote for Nader. Without getting too specific, beware of Pintos driving in reverse). So what gives? How can voters continue to become increasingly dissatisfied with the Bush performance, but also still think it makes sense to vote for him? There are probably three key reasons. Two of them I mention here on a regular basis. The third one isn't mentioned enough anywhere in the media. First, the partisan split in this country is extreme and people's basic voting patterns will not be shifted by something as insignificant as job performance, elective wars, misleading statements, or wanton mismanagement. People would be more likely to vote O.J. into the Oval Office than to vote for someone from the opposing party. Second, John Kerry hasn't made enough noise yet. That's partially his fault and partially the facts on the ground in this campaign. It's tough to grab the headlines when you're competing with naked human pyramids. The third reason? Jesus. There is a huge population of evangelicals in this country that will vote for President Bush because he is one of them. Because he reads the Bible every morning, not the newspaper (well, maybe the sports section). Because Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Because he believes that religion should be central to political life, not pushed to the margins. Because he  has broken the world down into good and evil. Because he has diverted money to faith-based (translation, Christian - check the numbers) programs. Because he appoints judges who believe that the Bible is first and the Constitution is second. Because he stands up against abortion and gay marriage. Because he believes only those who have been reborn can truly understand what he knows and will walk with him on the path of everlasting salvation. Because he has no doubts about the war or anything else because God wanted him in the White House during these trying times. Bush's performance numbers could drop below zero (something they've pretty much done in the blue states) and it wouldn't shake the voting patterns of this block. These voters (and there are millions and millions of them and they are extremely well organized) are about as likely to vote W out of the White House as they are to vote Jesus out of the Church. + If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch the entire episode of Frontline: The Jesus Factor online. It's impossible to understand W's presidency without understanding this angle.
Sy Hersh: "How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib."
There is simply no getting around the fact that the wars on terror and in Iraq are in part, a battle of ideas. If we kill three terrorists but seven new ones sign up, how are we faring? If we beat down the insurgents in Iraq but in the process turn much of that country against us and our goals, would you consider that a victory? If we force data out of prisoners through aggressive tactics, but someone takes pictures, was the data worth the effort? None of these questions are easy and as we've seen all too often in recent months, the right answers (if they exist at all) can be elusive. There is no doubt that by any reasonable standard, terrorists deserve to be hunted down and killed. But the rest of picture is not always so clear. For example, does hunting down and killing those terrorists actually help the broader effort of winning the war on terror? An example: When the world first saw the images of the contractors whose burned bodies dangled from a bridge in Fallujah, our reaction was one of disgust and anger. The actions of the perpetrators were evidence of a segment of a society gone mad and called, loudly, for retribution. That's certainly how we saw it in America. And according to a friend who was covering the war on the ground in Iraq, that's pretty much how most Iraqis saw it. Many Iraqis were embarrassed and sickened by the images being broadcast throughout the world. Then, following the President's comment that "I want heads to roll," U.S. troops retaliated and looked to control Fallujah. In the process, hundreds of civilians were killed. The insurgents had to like that. Why? More support for them, more anger at the Americans. And in the terror business, anger is the leading form of currency. It is on a certain level why one drags bodies through streets and then dangles burnt corpses like bait on the end of string. Was the U.S. justified in going after the insurgents to retaliate for the brutal killing and hanging of the contractors? Yes. Did that retaliation ultimately cost more American lives and hurt American interests in Iraq? Yes. And there you have it. A new occupied territory with the U.S. as Israel and the Iraqi insurgents deploying strategies honed by their Palestinian counterparts. Or is that Russia and Chechnya? Think it's a coincidence that Hamas and Arafat launch suicide bombings every time a peace-related deal is nearly reached? Of course not. Everyone knows that the goal of those suicide bombings is to prevent peace. And yet every time, it works. Building something is a lot more difficult than keeping something from being built. For all the tough talk and the doubt-free policies, the fact is that things are probably going about the way Osama bin Laden hoped that they would (assuming he's an optimist). As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek: "There is precious little good news from Iraq, or from the wider war on terror. In fact, things couldn't be going better for bin Laden if he'd written the script." And now that script has pictures. In the piece excerpted above, Fineman does not offer a solution. And I will not offer one here. That could be one of the key challenges facing the Kerry candidacy. There may not be a decent answer in Iraq today. Bring in international troops? Why would they agree to come? Pull-out? Unthinkable. Longer tours, more troops? Unfair, politically impossible. Poll numbers indicate that more and more Americans are frustrated with Iraq and with the overall performance of the Bush administration. Yet, Kerry's numbers have remained fairly flat. Maybe people just don't know him yet. But maybe people are waiting around for Kerry to offer up a logical solution to Iraq, a better way to fix the current problems. And that may be the best thing the Bush campaign has going for it right now because history hasn't yet come up with an answer for these kinds of questions and it's unlikely to happen between now and November.
Low morale. Long stays. Increasing danger. A growing ins | 
