Three strikes and you're out?

Time for a new team: "For a long time, anyone suggesting analogies with Vietnam was ridiculed. But Iraq optimists have, by my count, already declared victory three times. First there was 'Mission Accomplished' - followed by an escalating insurgency. Then there was the capture of Saddam - followed by April's bloody uprising. Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this showed progress - a fantasy exploded by the guns of August....

Here's another thought. President Bush says that the troubles in Iraq are the result of unanticipated 'catastrophic success.' But that catastrophe was predicted by many experts. Mr. Cordesman says their warnings were ignored because we have 'the weakest and most ineffective National Security Council in post-war American history,' giving control to 'a small group of neoconservative ideologues' who 'shaped a war without any realistic understanding or plans for shaping a peace.'

Yesterday Mr. Bush, who took a 'winning the war on terror' bus tour just a few months ago, conceded that 'I don't think you can win' the war on terror. But he hasn't changed the national security adviser, nor has he dismissed even one of the ideologues who got us into this no-win situation. Rather than concede that he made mistakes, he's sticking with people who will, if they get the chance, lead us into two, three, many quagmires."

ties that blind

It is understandable that the Bush folks want to bury as fast as possible the reveleation by Ben Barnes that he was the official who pulled strings for Junior allowing him to jump to the front of the line for the Texas Natl guard and avoid service in Vietnam... but do they really think they can simply paint him as a "partisan Democrat" when Barnes still has ties to prominent Republicans?

Guess who just...

...said "uncle" to Al Qaeda? : "Can we win? I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."

Too weird by half

The story of the exposure of Israeli spies in the top offices of the current administration gets weirder as you read it. Here is Juan Cole: "Here is my take on the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal in the Pentagon.

It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, Iraq would be taken out by the United States, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying)...."

Check out Cole's latest posts for more, including this quote: "when Tom Clancy and [Gen.] Zinni were running around flogging their book, they were on Deborah Norville. [During the show, Norville] asked Clancy of his impression of Wolfowitz. 'Is he working for our side?' [Clancy] replied."

There is more from Josh Marshall et al on the ties between Iranian dissidents, Israel, and Italian fascists... sounds like a plot dreamt up by Umberto Eco, but remember the old saying "truth is stranger than fiction." So, if things continue to unravel, we may find out that Wolfowitz was fronting for/using several governments in the pursuit of his fevered dreams of middle east conquest.

A sober view

Newsweek takes a look at the dry drunk: "...President Bush has shown great sureness of purpose, even courage, rallying his country from its worst day ever. He has faced down fear, disciplined what he once jokingly described to his sister Doro as his 'inner fat boy,' and emerged resolute in his life and manner.

'But not without struggle and, almost surely, at a cost. Behind his calm and outward patience there is an edginess that can seem prickly, resentful. At times, he appears so determined to stay the course and stick to his convictions that he seems too rigid, fixed in his ways, unable to adjust. One cannot help but wonder: At some level, is he afraid that the slightest wavering might fatally crack his whole hard-earned, painfully constructed persona? Is admitting a mistake for Bush like an ex-drunk's taking just one drink? Bush can be empathetic, emotional and even (dread word) sensitive. But he can also be surly and impatient with weakness. At these moments, he seems more dogged than enlightened, his life more a triumph of will than of understanding..."

Thanks to Dan Froomkin

Kerry and the swifties

Well, we all know by now that the swifties are serial liars. But that is not nearly enough. Time to go on the offense, as Josh Marshall mentioned some days back. Time to highlight the pattern of misleading the public, deliberately and through the use of retainers, that Bush has used throughout his career.

The swifties are only the last example, but other examples included misleading on WMD, on the desire to invade Iraq generally, on the budget, on the desire for screwing with the tax code, for "healthy forests" or "clear skies." Heck, in being selected pres to begin with.

In each and every case retainers have lied, misled and done dirty deeds to fool the public. Time to tie it all together and wrap it with a bow for the public. Time to indict Bush as an enemy of open govt, and hence of any govt of the people, by the people and for the people. This election is about democracy and the future of our type of society -- either open or cloaked in bolshevik lies a.k.a. the republican party line.

Kerry needs to make this clear and make this the case: this election is about Bush and the way he conducts "business."

reminds me of a guy I know

This guy is a real debater, but if you manage to corner him with facts he always takes refuge in the "well you could be right, I could be right, there is no way to tell" malarky. In other words, there is no truth, just various opinions which can't be assessed on the basis of validity.

What is even more amazing, this guy is a scientist by training!

Well it seems that I am not alone as Josh Marshall has encountered the same phenomenon:

"...Republicans seem to have such a hard time distinguishing between ads with a factual basis and ones that include malicious falsehoods. It's such a mystery. I have to assume it's another example of the GOP's embrace of epistemological relativism -- all truths are equal, there is no truth, only opinion masquerading as truth, etc."

FUBAR

Blumanthal tells it like it is: "There was no 'imminent threat' to the United States from Iraq. Then there was no strategy for building a new Iraq.'Hubris and ideology' ruled. Now, 'Iraq is more dangerous to the US potentially than it was at the moment we went to war'.

These are the reluctant judgments of one of the key US officials who participated in the highest levels of decision-making of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Both interviewed by me and in a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs journal, Larry Diamond offers from the heart of the Green Zone an unvarnished first-hand account of the unfolding strategic catastrophe...."

Attack Formation

another brilliant satire from Fiore

Where does the buck stop?

A Failure in Leadership
Reports undercut claims that abuses were "aberrations."

aiding and comforting the enemy: the SCLM

SCLM stands for So-Called Librul Media. Read an expert takedown of their role in setting the topic of the campaign: "...Campaign Desk has written many times about the perils of 'he said/she said' journalism, the practice of reporters parroting competing rhetoric instead of measuring it for veracity against known facts. In the wake of the first SBVFT spot early this month, cable news programs for the most part offered viewers two talking heads, one on each side of the issue, to debate the merits of the claims. Verifiable facts were rarely offered to viewers -- despite the fact that military records supporting Kerry's version of events were readily available. Instead of acting as filters for the truth, reporters nodded and attentively transcribed both sides of the story, invariably failing to provide context, background, or any sense of which claims held up and which were misleading. And sometimes even that was asking too much. According to Media Matters, the Aug. 4th editions of FOX News Channel's 'Hannity & Colmes' and MSNBC's 'Scarborough Country' both reported and aired the ad without mentioning (1) that despite the ad's claims, those featured in it did not serve on Kerry's boat, (2) that the SBVFT was wrapped in Republican ties, dating all the way back to former Nixon protege John O'Neill, or (3) the fact that the doctor who claims to have treated Kerry in the ad was not the medical official who signed his medical records.

Why was the press complicit in keeping afloat a story so easily debunked?..."

Thanks to Atrios

PS -- you gotta love this bit at the end of the piece:
"...The most telling comment on that front may well have come from the unlikely duo of Jon Stewart and Ted Koppel, who shared a telecast during the Democratic convention. Koppel, by way of introducing his own viewers to Stewart, complained that 'a lot of television viewers -- more, quite frankly, than I'm comfortable with' -- get their news from Stewart's 'Daily Show' on Comedy Central. Stewart, almost as if trying to reassure Koppel, responded that his fans were watching him not for news per se, but rather for a 'comedic interpretation' of the news. Koppel was unmoved. People watch Stewart 'to be informed,' Koppel insisted gloomily. 'They actually think they're coming closer to the truth with your show.'

With that, Stewart pounced. 'Now that's a different thing, that's credibility; that's a different animal.'

Yes, it is."

GOP -- why do they hate America so much?

From the New York Post Online Edition: "New Yorkers yesterday slammed House Speaker Dennis Hastert for claiming the Big Apple was guilty of an 'unseemly scramble' for cash after Sept. 11 -- and one city councilman demanded he return his FDNY cap.

'I want to let Hastert know we want our FDNY cap back,' fumed Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., referring to the baseball cap given to Hastert three years ago when the powerful Illinois lawmaker toured Ground Zero shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

Vallone, along with a slew of other officials and residents, blasted the Republican leader's claims in his new book, 'Speaker,' which were reported on the front page of yesterday's Post.

Hastert wrote that at the time of the attacks, it was impossible to calculate the cost, continuing, 'but already we heard voices asking, 'Who's going to pay for this? How much will it cost?' '

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-Bronx) labeled Hastert's remarks 'really sad.'

'Hastert is not complaining about the cost of rebuilding Iraq, yet he complains about rebuilding New York?' Serrano said."

Thanks to Daily Kos and Dave Sirota, who has a bunch of other quotes from the GOP ripping on NYC's supposed "culture of waste..."

Florida wants reconstruction money after Charley, does that reflect a "culture of waste"? Or is it only when New Yorkers need reconstruction? Those NYers are such slackers, after all, they do pay more in fed taxes than they receive back.

Why does the GOP hate America so much?

A Chill in Florida

Bob Herbert stays on the trail of the stealing of Florida: "'...A Democrat can't win a statewide election in Florida without a high voter turnout - both at the polls and with absentee ballots - of African-Americans,' said a man who is close to the Republican establishment in Florida but asked not to be identified. 'It's no secret that the name of the game for Republicans is to restrain that turnout as much as possible. Black votes are Democratic votes, and there are a lot of them in Florida.'

The two ugly developments - both focused on race - were the heavy-handed investigation by Florida state troopers of black get-out-the-vote efforts in Orlando, and the state's blatant attempt to purge blacks from voter rolls through the use of a flawed list of supposed felons that contained the names of thousands of African-Americans and, conveniently, very few Hispanics...."

Ain't it the truth?

"There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.

Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but they have provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection....

CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error....

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue...."

Thanks to Josh Marshall

File under "why am I not surprised"

Rumsfeld, Officers Share Blame, Panel Says
Experts' Review Finds Abu Ghraib Abuses Not Limited to a Few

twisting words

"The 2004 presidential campaign sometimes resembles the children's game of "telephone." Here are some quotations as they came out of Democratic nominee John F. Kerry's mouth -- and how President Bush and Vice President Cheney later recounted them...."

Deja vu

"Four years ago, as George Bush struggled in the polls, supporters of his bid for the Republican presidential nomination unleashed a ferocious attack on rival John McCain, questioning his commitment to veterans and his fitness to serve.

After the charges took root, Bush distanced himself from the veterans group that made the attacks, called the Arizona senator's service 'noble' and cruised to a nomination-saving victory in the South Carolina primary.

Monday, in a series of events that some observers say are eerily familiar, Bush distanced himself from a veterans group running fierce attacks on John Kerry's military record and called his rival's service in Vietnam 'admirable....'"

thanks to Dan Froomkin

My commentary? You know what they say about slugs, they always leave slime in their trail.

The Rambo Coalition

must read column from Krugman, where he gives some compelling insight into "Rambo patriotism": "...One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains...."

objectivity = he said/she said?

Click here for funniest analysis of swift boat media scandal

moral cowardice

A must read post from Josh Marshall on Bush's moral cowardice and how the Dems need to hammer on the issue, both as a means of playing defeinse and converting it to a potent offense: "...The current debate about these two men's military service has put the spotlight on physical courage. But that really is a side issue in this campaign, if we're talking substance. The real issue isn't physical bravery but moral cowardice.

President Bush is an examplar of that quality in spades. And it cuts directly to his failures as president. Forget about thirty years ago, just think about the last three years...."