Wednesday, July 23, 2003
The Buck Doesn't Stop Here
7/23
The question is not just if the president tells the truth but if the truth- finally- will be told about him. - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
What’s Happening: Iraq:
Yes, But What About…? On occasion I’m asked why I’ve ignored this or that issue. The short answer: I fear ‘overburdening’, so I have intentionally skipped or given short shrift to some important threads. A current case in point- Penny TA asked about the Administration’s ‘outing’ of Joseph Wilson’s wife as a CIA ‘asset.’ Good point. Important issue. It’s pretty easy to lay out why this could be viewed as a criminal act. It’s quite a commentary that this is a ‘secondary’ issue, with minimal media interest. As many of us often note, there are so many outrages to witness/counter/reverse…
Irony is Dead; Long Live Irony: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."- Paul Wolfowitz, visiting Iraq
Casualties: An awkward subject to address with any consistency. But, they are, if anything, escalating. Today the report of 2 deaths and 9 wounded. A couple of web sites have been tracking this, reminding us of the many casualties beyond the official, publicized count. While our media report only 35 to have died, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count notes that 87 have died since May 2, following Bush’s comments off the San Diego coast. [278 US/UK soldiers have died since the invasion’s outset.] That’s a striking number of so-called "non-hostile action" casualties. (lunaville.org). Editor and Publisher notes that the casualty rate has been on the upswing.
The Sons. Saddam’s sons were killed when they and two others fought an allegedly 6 hour gun battle with 350 GIs, helicopters, etc. Why do so many of these reports sound implausible? There certainly was no intention of capturing them. Why not? Although there is no sense that they have been orchestrating the attacks, the media, beginning with the front page of today’s NY Times, is optimistic that their deaths will dramatically lower the frequency of assaults on our troops.
The Incompetence: USA Today- really!- has a comprehensive article on the Administration’s failures in Iraq. You can view Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz’s article at http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030722/5342838s.htm.
Rocket Science: An IAEA official explained to Newsweek how they deciphered that the Niger documents were forgeries. "Within two hours [we] figured out [the Niger yellowcake documents] were forgeries," one IAEA official told Newsweek. How did they do it? "google," said the official. The IAEA ran the name of the Niger foreign minister through the Internet search engine and discovered that he was not in office at the time the document was signed.
So who’s responsible for the words coming out of Bush’s mouth? After 9/11, Bush was actually described as articulate and inspirational. Now, they’re not his words. Stephen Hadley, the newest ‘buck stops here’ fella, reports to Condi, so she’s certainly responsible. She reports to Cheney, so he’s responsible. Cheney reports to…uh, Bush reports to … Well, officially, Cheney reports to Bush. So… But, accountability and responsibility are non-existent for this bunch, who then blame the critics or those that warned them of the problems in their manipulative missions.
And how does Condi get away with this June statement:
'We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery She had known since October, the 5th and 6th, to be precise. Perhaps it’ll just be a matter of her previous statements being labeled ‘inoperative.’
Meanwhile, it looks like the FBI will be assigned the blame for 9/11, according to advance word about the 2001 Commission report, which will be released tomorrow.
RNC Warns DNC/media: The Democratic National Committee sponsored a TV ad that blasts the rush to war. They have announced that the test showing of it will be in Madison, WI, thought to be a "safe" i.e. liberal, location to test its appeal. The Republican National Committee has launched a counterattack in advance: "This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement." That’s right; you can’t even attack these guys. Only they can attack and smear…
Tenet: One cleaver dude! He was seen as taking the hit, but since he’s shown himself far more talented at nuance and self-protection. In the closed-door hearings he’s let out more incriminating information, yet seems immune to attack, as he’s already ‘taken responsibility.’ Furthermore, the CIA has counterattacked effectively enough so as to force the Hadley admission.
Press: As I noted in the last blog, they’re doing better. But they still struggle with ‘calling a spade a spade.’ The case in point is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Credit Milbank with being the first to raise the issue of Bush truthfulness. His oft-cited article in October, while benignly phrased, at least opened the door. Yet, still, 9 months later, when Bush makes his statement about Saddam having not let the inspectors into Iraq, Milbank, like others, refuses to label the statement as "strikingly out-of-touch, or "weird" or simply "blatantly false." Instead, we’re told, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure." Eh? Other times we’re told that Bush ‘isn’t a fact-checker’… As Eric Alterman notes/writes, "what liberal media?"
Of course, if we compare the experiences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations-- In the former we had regular press conferences, an ever-vigilant press, a wing of which was constantly threatening and ultimately impeaching the president for lying about a sexual relationship. Now, we have an occasional scripted press conference, an Administration that regularly threatens and intimidates the press and opponents, and a president who is not impeached despite deceiving us into a war and occupation. Gads. So, let me limit my praise of our awakening press.
USA Patriot Act Good news; a win! The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to roll back a controversial provision, allowing the government to conduct "sneak and peak" searches of private property. The vote was 309-118. It’s the first change to the infamous "anti-terrorism" law.
What’s Happening: Afghanistan: The Telegraph (UK, Ahmed Rashid) provides the latest on the resurgence of the Taliban, a revival that is not at all denied by the American command. The U.S. media still have some catching up to do. Having crossed from Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban "are claiming large swathes of the country, the American commander of coalition force in Kabul said yesterday." Meanwhile, the new Afghan National Army (ANA), numbering 5000 is entering the fray. That’s ANA, not ARVN…
Liberia: Over a month ago Bush demanded that Charles Taylor leave Liberia. He’s still there, as the carnage continues. We’ve apparently backed off flirtations with an outright, full-scale intervention and instead are looking to peace keepers from West Africa to precede us. As reported at allafrica.com, Kofi Annan joined leaders from West African countries in urging a significant American role in the needed intervention.
AmeriCorps: The House and the Bushies are blocking a needed infusion of cash to rescue AmeriCorps, which has warned of drastic cuts to such popular initiatives as Teach for America, City Year and Save the Children if $100 million isn’t appropriated in the next few weeks.
Bush Support Slipping
Zogby [www.zogby.com] reports that Bush has lost his once big lead amongst Arab-Americans. In 2000, Arab Americans voted for Bush 58.5 to 22.5%. Currently, he would lose to ‘a Democrat’ by 52 to 10%. While the Arab vote is not particularly large, it has particular import in Michigan, where it is considered a "swing constituency". Michigan is widely considered to be a toss-up state.
Yahoo (Ron Fournier) had a piece that focused on republicans who were alarmed bout Bush’s falling popularity. Some are nervous about his re-election chances. Note that a CNN-Time poll finds that 47% view Bush as a leader they can trust, which is down from 56% in March. Getting there…
Zogby also noted Gephardt to be leading in Iowa with 32%, followed by Dean, then Kerry.
The California Field Research Institute poll shows Dean to have made dramatic gains, while Liberman and Gephardt have faded. Kerry remained ‘stable’, basically tied with Dean.
Kerry’s steadiness in the polls may have significance for next year: He may be more resilient than stagnant. It’s been fascinating watching Kerry try to be more angry, as the feisty Dean moves up. Many see this change and much of his candidacy as calculating and "political." Here in Massachusetts, most of us know Kerry better than the other candidates and, like many in Vermont, are most critical of our seemingly waffling candidate. Of course, the oddity is that Kerry may have been "correct" in so carefully crafting his position. He actually reflects a broad segment of the populace that supported the invasion, but now harbors doubts about the justifications, evidence and credibility of the Administration. In other words, he’s well positioned and may well survive the ups and downs of the campaign.
Meanwhile, General (Wesley) Clark’s web site is reported to be the second most trafficked of the candidates or almost-candidates.
-R
The question is not just if the president tells the truth but if the truth- finally- will be told about him. - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
What’s Happening: Iraq:
Yes, But What About…? On occasion I’m asked why I’ve ignored this or that issue. The short answer: I fear ‘overburdening’, so I have intentionally skipped or given short shrift to some important threads. A current case in point- Penny TA asked about the Administration’s ‘outing’ of Joseph Wilson’s wife as a CIA ‘asset.’ Good point. Important issue. It’s pretty easy to lay out why this could be viewed as a criminal act. It’s quite a commentary that this is a ‘secondary’ issue, with minimal media interest. As many of us often note, there are so many outrages to witness/counter/reverse…
Irony is Dead; Long Live Irony: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."- Paul Wolfowitz, visiting Iraq
Casualties: An awkward subject to address with any consistency. But, they are, if anything, escalating. Today the report of 2 deaths and 9 wounded. A couple of web sites have been tracking this, reminding us of the many casualties beyond the official, publicized count. While our media report only 35 to have died, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count notes that 87 have died since May 2, following Bush’s comments off the San Diego coast. [278 US/UK soldiers have died since the invasion’s outset.] That’s a striking number of so-called "non-hostile action" casualties. (lunaville.org). Editor and Publisher notes that the casualty rate has been on the upswing.
The Sons. Saddam’s sons were killed when they and two others fought an allegedly 6 hour gun battle with 350 GIs, helicopters, etc. Why do so many of these reports sound implausible? There certainly was no intention of capturing them. Why not? Although there is no sense that they have been orchestrating the attacks, the media, beginning with the front page of today’s NY Times, is optimistic that their deaths will dramatically lower the frequency of assaults on our troops.
The Incompetence: USA Today- really!- has a comprehensive article on the Administration’s failures in Iraq. You can view Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz’s article at http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030722/5342838s.htm.
Rocket Science: An IAEA official explained to Newsweek how they deciphered that the Niger documents were forgeries. "Within two hours [we] figured out [the Niger yellowcake documents] were forgeries," one IAEA official told Newsweek. How did they do it? "google," said the official. The IAEA ran the name of the Niger foreign minister through the Internet search engine and discovered that he was not in office at the time the document was signed.
So who’s responsible for the words coming out of Bush’s mouth? After 9/11, Bush was actually described as articulate and inspirational. Now, they’re not his words. Stephen Hadley, the newest ‘buck stops here’ fella, reports to Condi, so she’s certainly responsible. She reports to Cheney, so he’s responsible. Cheney reports to…uh, Bush reports to … Well, officially, Cheney reports to Bush. So… But, accountability and responsibility are non-existent for this bunch, who then blame the critics or those that warned them of the problems in their manipulative missions.
And how does Condi get away with this June statement:
'We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery She had known since October, the 5th and 6th, to be precise. Perhaps it’ll just be a matter of her previous statements being labeled ‘inoperative.’
Meanwhile, it looks like the FBI will be assigned the blame for 9/11, according to advance word about the 2001 Commission report, which will be released tomorrow.
RNC Warns DNC/media: The Democratic National Committee sponsored a TV ad that blasts the rush to war. They have announced that the test showing of it will be in Madison, WI, thought to be a "safe" i.e. liberal, location to test its appeal. The Republican National Committee has launched a counterattack in advance: "This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement." That’s right; you can’t even attack these guys. Only they can attack and smear…
Tenet: One cleaver dude! He was seen as taking the hit, but since he’s shown himself far more talented at nuance and self-protection. In the closed-door hearings he’s let out more incriminating information, yet seems immune to attack, as he’s already ‘taken responsibility.’ Furthermore, the CIA has counterattacked effectively enough so as to force the Hadley admission.
Press: As I noted in the last blog, they’re doing better. But they still struggle with ‘calling a spade a spade.’ The case in point is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Credit Milbank with being the first to raise the issue of Bush truthfulness. His oft-cited article in October, while benignly phrased, at least opened the door. Yet, still, 9 months later, when Bush makes his statement about Saddam having not let the inspectors into Iraq, Milbank, like others, refuses to label the statement as "strikingly out-of-touch, or "weird" or simply "blatantly false." Instead, we’re told, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure." Eh? Other times we’re told that Bush ‘isn’t a fact-checker’… As Eric Alterman notes/writes, "what liberal media?"
Of course, if we compare the experiences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations-- In the former we had regular press conferences, an ever-vigilant press, a wing of which was constantly threatening and ultimately impeaching the president for lying about a sexual relationship. Now, we have an occasional scripted press conference, an Administration that regularly threatens and intimidates the press and opponents, and a president who is not impeached despite deceiving us into a war and occupation. Gads. So, let me limit my praise of our awakening press.
USA Patriot Act Good news; a win! The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to roll back a controversial provision, allowing the government to conduct "sneak and peak" searches of private property. The vote was 309-118. It’s the first change to the infamous "anti-terrorism" law.
What’s Happening: Afghanistan: The Telegraph (UK, Ahmed Rashid) provides the latest on the resurgence of the Taliban, a revival that is not at all denied by the American command. The U.S. media still have some catching up to do. Having crossed from Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban "are claiming large swathes of the country, the American commander of coalition force in Kabul said yesterday." Meanwhile, the new Afghan National Army (ANA), numbering 5000 is entering the fray. That’s ANA, not ARVN…
Liberia: Over a month ago Bush demanded that Charles Taylor leave Liberia. He’s still there, as the carnage continues. We’ve apparently backed off flirtations with an outright, full-scale intervention and instead are looking to peace keepers from West Africa to precede us. As reported at allafrica.com, Kofi Annan joined leaders from West African countries in urging a significant American role in the needed intervention.
AmeriCorps: The House and the Bushies are blocking a needed infusion of cash to rescue AmeriCorps, which has warned of drastic cuts to such popular initiatives as Teach for America, City Year and Save the Children if $100 million isn’t appropriated in the next few weeks.
Bush Support Slipping
Zogby [www.zogby.com] reports that Bush has lost his once big lead amongst Arab-Americans. In 2000, Arab Americans voted for Bush 58.5 to 22.5%. Currently, he would lose to ‘a Democrat’ by 52 to 10%. While the Arab vote is not particularly large, it has particular import in Michigan, where it is considered a "swing constituency". Michigan is widely considered to be a toss-up state.
Yahoo (Ron Fournier) had a piece that focused on republicans who were alarmed bout Bush’s falling popularity. Some are nervous about his re-election chances. Note that a CNN-Time poll finds that 47% view Bush as a leader they can trust, which is down from 56% in March. Getting there…
Zogby also noted Gephardt to be leading in Iowa with 32%, followed by Dean, then Kerry.
The California Field Research Institute poll shows Dean to have made dramatic gains, while Liberman and Gephardt have faded. Kerry remained ‘stable’, basically tied with Dean.
Kerry’s steadiness in the polls may have significance for next year: He may be more resilient than stagnant. It’s been fascinating watching Kerry try to be more angry, as the feisty Dean moves up. Many see this change and much of his candidacy as calculating and "political." Here in Massachusetts, most of us know Kerry better than the other candidates and, like many in Vermont, are most critical of our seemingly waffling candidate. Of course, the oddity is that Kerry may have been "correct" in so carefully crafting his position. He actually reflects a broad segment of the populace that supported the invasion, but now harbors doubts about the justifications, evidence and credibility of the Administration. In other words, he’s well positioned and may well survive the ups and downs of the campaign.
Meanwhile, General (Wesley) Clark’s web site is reported to be the second most trafficked of the candidates or almost-candidates.
-R
