Yet Another Media Double Standard

As was reported last week, John McCain's supporter and "spiritual advisor", Ohio's Rod Parsley, has a history of language that is far more incendiary than what Obama's pastor has said. But which receives wall to wall media coverage? Why the one that scares white people half to death.

But David Corn ran into a stonewall when he attempted to get some "straight talk" from the McCain camp about Parsley.

Yesterday, I posted a piece at MotherJones.com that disclosed that a megachurch pastor whom John McCain has hailed as a "spiritual guide" has called for the destruction of the "false religion" of Islam. This fundamentalist televangelist, Rod Parsley, who is an important political ally of McCain in the all-important state of Ohio, means this quite literally. In a 2005 book, he writes that there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization" and notes, "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Being a responsible reporter, I called both Parsley and the McCain campaign's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, before posting the story. I had to leave a message for Parsley and didn't hear back from him. And I never got through to Hazelbaker, but I spoke to another communications aide at the campaign. I explained why I was calling: I was about to publish an article noting that a prominent McCain supporter, with whom McCain had campaigned in Ohio last month, advocates a holy war with the aim of eradicating Islam. "Oh," she said. Can I read you some of Parsley's quotes? I asked. Go ahead, she said reluctantly. I got through three sentences, and she said, "That's enough."

"There's a lot more," I told her. I hadn't gotten to the portions where Parsley calls Allah a "demon." I don't need any more, she said, and she asked, "Can you give me a few minutes to get a response?" Sure, I replied. She promised to call me within 15 to 20 minutes.

Twenty minutes went by. Nothing. I called after half an hour passed. This staffer, I was told, could not be reached. Another fifteen minutes. Nothing. I called again. Once more, I was told that this staffer could not come to the telephone. Hazelbaker, too, was unavailable. Yet another fifteen minutes--and another call from me to the McCain press office. I was now informed that the staffer who had promised a response was in a meeting. Would this meeting be over soon? I asked. We don't know, said the person on the phone. Can I get a message to her now? No, she's in a meeting. Can you find out if this meeting will last hours or minutes? No, I cannot. Is Jill Hazelbaker available? No.

I got the picture. Stonewall. No straight talk.

Corn goes on to suggest that maybe reporters covering the Straight Talker himself should press him every day for an answer. Go read Corn's entire piece.

Meanwhile, John Amato says Fox News has been curiously silent on the matter of Parsley. Strange.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain's Man in Ohio

From Right Wing Watch.

Here's McCain's man in Ohio, and his "spiritual guide," as he called him in Cincinnati last week, Rod Parsley.

Read More...

Summary only...

Olbermann Nails It

Wow!

Keith Olbermann, discussing Clinton's remarks comparing her experience to McCain's in national security in contrast to Obama's "giving a speech in 2002".

Olbermann wondered out loud if CLINTON WERE A MCCAIN DEMOCRAT OR A LIEBERMAN REPUBLICAN. Wow.

Would Clinton, he asks, rather have President McCain than President Obama?

"All she has to do now is kiss President Bush on the cheek and she'll be just like Joe Lieberman."

Read More...

Summary only...

Fluffing Obama's Pillow

I guess the media is now taking its narratives from Saturday Night Live.

If you missed it, the weekend comedy show satirized the media treatment of Obama in a sketch where reporters asked Obama during a debate if he needed anything, are you sure, and do you pillows need to be fluffed. Hillary followed up on the line in her debate last night.

Well Obama better get ready to have his pillows fluffed.

After Bill Cunningham's attack yesterday made national headlines, as did McCain's phoney apology, Obama has been subjected to a continuous news loop of the attack being replayed over and over again. All while McCain gets to keep his good name and is praised for repudiating the attack from Cunningham. With McCain's FEC troubles, it's a good thing CNN is giving him all this free advertising.

Meanwhile CNN asks, Has the media been too soft on Obama?

UPDATE: Wow, sorry to say that NPR just legitimized Cunningham by giving him an interview and a chance to say aw, shucks, I didn't mean anything by it. He did, however, say that he had a dinner last week with Portman, Deters, and DeWine during which the speech was discussed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't Cry for Bill Cunningham, Victim Extraordinaire

(Updated below)
(Second Update below)

Bill Cunningham was asked today by the McCain camp to introduce McCain at a rally in Cincinnati's Over the Rhine district. His comments made national news when he repeatedly used Obama's middle name "Hussein" and said Obama in 2009 will have "just got back from a meeting with Ahmedinajad, has a meeting next week with Kim Jong Il, and then he's gonna saddle up next to Hezbollah." (my transcribing)

McCain pretended to be shocked, and apologized. But if John McCain bothered to do any research he would know that Cunningham engages in these kinds of personal attacks on a regular basis as a way to generate controversy that will create headlines for himself and WLW. On CNN McCain is being roundly lauded for apologizing and "taking responsibility." John King of CNN reported that McCain's staff had no idea that he would be headlining the event. In fact, the Enquirer reported it as follows:

Cunningham, a conservative Republican who also hosts a Sunday night syndicated radio show, said he was asked Monday “by a McCain operative” to introduce the Republican front-runner at Memorial Hall.

Of course, now McCain wants credit for repudiating the comments that his own campaign knew were coming. Meanwhile, Cunningham is feeling used, and now says that he repudiates McCain, and won't support him in the election. But McCain obviously staged this event very carefully. He waited until Cunningham was gone to enter the hall, and claimed not to have heard the remarks. Now the offensive remarks from Cunningham are making the regular news cycle, all while McCain is shown distancing himself from it. It's all very clever, and it's exactly how the GOP will use surrogates like Cunningham to attack Obama in the coming months while keeping their hands clean.

This is par for the course for Cunningham. He assails the character of Democrats (or other celebrities) and generates controversy, then cries on the air at how unfairly he's being treated, just as he's now crying that McCain had the nerve to repudiate his character assassination of Obama. But Cunningham is a classic shock jock--in fact he helped invent the genre--using the most outrageous language he can, as loudly as he can, seeking to create interest through innuendo and insult. He calls himself "The Great American" and wallows in shallow patriotism and sanctimonious self congratulation all while serving as the shrillest note of the GOP's mighty whirlizter.

I was listening to Cunningham's show in 2004 when he made remarks about John Kerry and the raping of little girls in Vietnam. I called the station but was placed on hold, and finally hung up when it was clear the producer had no intention of taking my call. Last summer Cunningham accused the Reds' Adam Dunn, a power hitting outfielder with poor defensive skills, of being drunk in the outfield after a misplayed ball cost the Reds a game. When the 6' 6" Dunn challenged Cunningham, he relented and became contrite, but the station played up the controversy for days, replaying over and over again the controversial statements that had caused the hard feelings. Likewise, now, WLW will replay Cunningham's remarks again and again until the primary and after, giving the "honorable" John McCain valuable free air time attacking his November opponent while pretending to be above the fray himself.

Cunningham roundly attacks the mainstream media for failing to report on Obama the way they've reported on Bush, but the irony is that WLW in Cincinnati is the mainstream media. It is one of the largest radio stations in the country, certainly one of the top 4 or 5 in the entire midwest, and easily the largest in Ohio in terms of audience, reach, and influence. WLW puts out hours and hours of unabashed right-wing cheerleading day after day, indulging in the most vicious political attacks like the one Cunningham engaged in today, and railing about taxes, Democrats, homosexuals, war protesters and so on. It's red-meat Republicanism in its most extreme form, 365 days a year.

And McCain didn't know what was coming? Puh-leaze.

Update: Here's how Rob Portman praised Cunningham (h/t Crooks and Liars):

Willie, you’re out of control again. So, what else is new? But we love him,” Portman said. “But I’ve got to tell you, Bill Cunningham lending his voice to this campaign is extremely important. He did it in 2000, he did it in 2004. It was crucial to victory then and it’s even more important this year with his bigger radio audience. So, Bill Cunningham, thank you for lending your voice.”

Second Update: As predicted, WLW is using the Cunningham/McCain spat as promotional, running the clip or news about the clip on a repeated basis. In an interesting twist, Cunningham is disputing McCain's assertion that they've never met, claiming on the air that he has dined with McCain on more than one occasion, and that Joe Deters and Mike DeWine were in attendance. Cunningham views himeself as part of the GOP mainstream, and won't tolerate being treated as a fringe member of the party.

AND SOMEONE needs to tell the Obama campaign to rethink their ad buy. After Cunningham was on the radio this morning repeating his smears, an Obama ad played during the break. What an outrage.

Here's how it was reported on CNN:

A supporter of John McCain, speaking at an official campaign event in Ohio attended by the Arizona senator, called Barack Obama a “hack, Chicago-style Daly politician,” and told the crowd “all is going to be right with the world when the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand, and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya around the table of Barack Obama.”

“At some point in the near future the media, the stooges from the New York Times, CBS (The Clinton Broadcasting System), NBC (The Nobody But Clinton Network), The All Bill Clinton Channel (ABC), and the Clinton News Network at some point is going to peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama,” said controversial conservative commentator Bill Cunningham, an Ohio native.

Read More...

Summary only...

Law and Order Republicans

It used to be that the GOP thought of themselves as the law and order party.

My, how things change. Two items today:

1. In violation of House rules, John Boehner uses a url that isn't tied to his own name. And when the House administrative officer tells him to fix it, Boehner tells him to bugger off. If the House administrative officer had any cojones, he'd shut Boehner's site down.

2. John McCain told he can't exit the FEC. McCain says, to heck with the rules, I'm opting out anyway.

I humbly suggest a new slogan.

The Republican Party: Rules are for the other guys.

Read More...

Summary only...

It's not just McCain: Lobbyists and Legislators are Too Cozy

Update: Lots of others making the same points better than I.

In Henry IV, one of Shakespeare's villains says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." If Shakespeare were writing today, he might have said "lobbyists."

American media is so obsessed with sex that it overlooks the real importance of the John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. It's not really about whether McCain and Iseman were sleeping together. While it's fun for some to tut-tut about the septagenarian having a romp with a woman thirty years his junior, the more important question for our democracy is why are John McCain and other legislators so easily bought with flattery and charm of lobbyists selling their influence to the highest bidder? McCain's story is no different than John Husted's or Mike Turner's.

Over and over again we see stories of people in the legislature having cozy personal relationships with people trying to influence their votes. This is what should outrage voters--the friendly relationships that grant the rich and powerful access and influence that the rest of can't dream of having.

Look at just a couple of the recent examples, starting McCain's long history of bumping and grinding with lobbyists.


First, read the CPI's invaluable 2000 report on McCain. It reads like a dummy's guide to St. John the Deceiver. Here's just an excerpt, dealing with the Keating S & L scandal. Notice the first graph below on McCain's close personal relationship with Keating:

McCain got more than just campaign money from Keating. McCain, his family, and their babysitter flew on Keating-owned or -chartered jets nine times, including three trips to Cat Cay, Keating’s vacation estate in the Bahamas. And in 1986, Keating cut Cindy McCain and her father into Fountain Square Shopping Center, a strip mall that American Continental Corporation built and managed, for a $359,000 investment. (emphasis mine)

It was just a matter of time before Keating called in his chits. When he did, it was over Lincoln Savings and Loan, a thrift in Irvine, California, that he’d bought in 1984. It turned out that Keating was raiding the assets of Lincoln’s depositors to finance posh real estate projects such as The Phoenician, a $300 million, 654-room hotel and spa in Scottsdale, Arizona, and his own lavish lifestyle. By 1986, Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, grew worried that Lincoln had strayed too far from its core mortgage business, and began to clamp down. Keating turned to his friends in Washington for help.

On March 19, 1987, Keating appealed to McCain in person to meet with federal regulators on his behalf. At first McCain balked, but then, on April 2, he joined Senators Alan Cranston of California, John Glenn of Ohio, and Dennis DeConcini of Arizona in DeConcini’s office to meet with Gray. On April 9 the four senators, joined by Don Riegle of Michigan, sat down in San Francisco with four more regulators from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Following the meetings, the board delayed its seizure of Lincoln Savings and Loan for two more years.

When the federal government finally took over Lincoln in 1989, the bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the most expensive S&L bailout in U.S. history. About 17,000 small investors also lost a total of $190 million.

Here in Ohio, the leader of our State House was caught doing the very same things. John Husted was caught by Ohio papers travelling back and forth on fishing trips and to college bowl games as the guest of corporate lobbyists. These revelations amounted to little more than a minor embarrassment for Husted, who simply explained that the lobbyists in question were friends of his and that should settle it.

And then there's the case of Ohio 3rd Rep. Mike Turner, whose GOP cronies in Dayton first created a slush fund to pay for his consultants under the table, then most recently directed a million dollar no-bid contract to his wife.

Stories like this happen day after day after day in Washington and Columbus. When it's a good looking blonde and a presidential candidate, it makes front page news. But the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day, instititionalized corruption doesn't seem to generate the same kind of interest.

Read More...

Summary only...

Explosive NYT story on McCain Sex Scandal (Updated)

Wow. Sex scandal hits McCain. Just now, on the Times' site. Bad news for St. John.

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Picture of her with W:



Update: McCain has issued a strong denial, but the NYT is standing by their story, claiming that it was indepedently corroborated. So far nothing on McCain's site. MSNBC pointing out that there isn't a denial of the relationship in McCain's rebuttal. Jay Severin calls it a "non-denial denial."

Update II: Howard Fineman, on Dan Abrams' show, explains why the Times sat on the story. My paraphrase: The New York Times started investigating last fall. McCain campaign got involved, asking the NYT what they were up to and what they were looking for. McCain spoke to Bill Keller...he denied any sexual involvement with Iseman. Bob Bennett, the famous DC lawyer, was brought in to argue with editors on McCain's behalf. The Times held the story under the pressure within last week another publication (New Republic) was working on new story about why NYT hadn't gone with the story. The Times went with story at that point.

Update III: McCain's statement tonight: "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election."

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

He forgot to say, "I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Ya think the RNC is just glad it was a woman? /snark/

Read More...

Summary only...

Old White Guy vs. (Hillary/Obama Winner)

Does John McCain really want to play the experience card and remind everyone that he's the old white guy in the race?

Especially when all his gray hair and wisdom, his eons of very serious foreign policy experience, get us brilliant analysis like this (and all the nose blowing and nose wiping in this video is just an added bonus of his age and experience):



Update: Sigh. I guess I'm obliged to report that the Old Timer polluted my beloved Yellow Springs today with a visit to Young's Dairy. He ordered a Egg Nog Bull Shake, appropriately enough, but I thought he was full of bull already. I hope the goats gave him fleas.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain v. Obama: No Contest

I just watched Obama give a rousing, stirring, and I would say historical speech, when all of sudden I was confronted with John McCain mumbling platitudes about big government for consumption by the right wing base.

Well, John, you just keep that act up until November and see how many states you win. Not a lot. You might win Arizona, but that'll be a tossup.

Read More...

Summary only...

Jerks Like John McCain

McCain, being interviewed by Dana Bash, just now on CNN: said he would have a campaign bus "for jerks like you."

Wolf asked Dana why he said that and she said, "that's just John McCain humor."

Jerks like John McCain find that funny, I guess.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain has no interest in education

Thanks to Michele McNeil, I saw the piece in the National Review whining that McCain has no interest in education.

Of course, it's written by a Fordham guy, Mike Petrilli, so what he really means is, "McCain won't go all crazy for charter schools, which means he must now care about education."

The concern is, then, that if McCain doesn't care about it, then he'll give way to people like Petrilli to act out their radical anti-public schools agenda.

Then Michele goes on to give me heart palpitations by imagining Mike Huckabee as Education Secretary, or in this case, the Preacher to the Teachers. (Thanks, for that, Michele. My heart's almost back to a normal rhythm now. I'll be fine.) Huckabee sounds good with his touchy feely talk about arts education, which I certainly agree with. But that's just window dressing for his radical agenda to redesign public education with vouchers and charters and bible based biology books.

Seriously, if you haven't read Michele's blog you're missing out. Why don't you people ever listen to me?

Read More...

Summary only...

State of McCain Campaign: Day One

Yesterday was John McCain's first day of being the presumptive nominee with Romney dropping out. Let's review what happened:

Fox News called him a Democrat.

James Dobson said he would not support McCain in the general election.

Rush said he would raise money for Hillary. After years of calling her a femi-Nazi, he still likes her better than McCain!

And McCain was jeered at CPAC. Roundly, and effectively.

And Obama and Clinton haven't even gotten started on you yet. Heh. This is going to be FUN.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain's big moment... planned?

It's pretty sad that McCain's big moment so far in his campaign comes from....

this?

Given the following...

Last week, Hillary Clinton's campaign was forced to admit that her aide had planted a question about global warming with a college student at a "town hall" in Newton, Iowa. When she was later asked about this apostasy, Clinton gave a verbal shrug. "In campaigns, things happen and you just go on," she told the Associated Press.

What she didn't say is that every candidate and every reporter expects a regular share of the questions asked in these events to come from people planted in the audience -- puppets, stooges or well-meaning volunteers, some who act overtly and some who sneak through covertly. This ever-growing practice has come squarely into focus because of Clinton's blunder in Newton, adding to her campaign's reputation for producing the most meticulously staged events in the field. But her misstep points to a larger issue: the widespread manipulation of the classic "town hall."

...and given the alacrity with which his campaign used the b-word thrown in with some good old-fashioned liberal media mythologizing (meanwhile, if you can believe it, Howie Kurtz said that the McCain campaign made a good point!!!) to raise campaign cash...

...and given the desperate situation in which the McCain campaign finds itself...

And finally, given McCain's refusal to disavow the remark while staying "above the fray" by saying he respects Senator Clinton...

... is it a stretch to believe that this entire thing was somehow, I don't know, PLANNED? Or am I just too suspicious?

By the way, here's Howie Kurtz's take on CNN's reporting. Go to about 2:49 in the video. "But his campaign has a point. That little incident was pretty badly hyped by Rick Sanchez." (my emphasis)

Read More...

Summary only...

What about those signing statements?

During the GOP controlled congress, those Presidential signing statements were pretty useful documents. Has the president forgotten about those now that the Democrats control the Congress?

If you'll recall, the president issued a signing statement, for one example, after a "compromise" anti-torture bill. Remember the one John McCain fought so hard for? And then the President basically nullified the law with a signing statement that said, "I don't have to follow this law"?

Here's what Glenn Greenwald wrote about it at the time:

By themselves, signing statements have no legal or constitutional significance. The issuance of signing statements changes nothing. They do not create presidential powers nor do they confer rights of any kind. They are really nothing more than declarations of presidential belief, documents which state how the President understands a particular law.

In that regard, I believe these signing statements actually perform a critically important service. They bring out into the open the theories of monarchical power which this administration has adopted. By expressly stating in the signing statements that he has the right to violate these law, the President is explicitly acknowledging that he has seized these powers. The signing statement itself is not the instrument by which he has seized those powers, but is merely a reflection -- an overt acknowledgment -- of the fact that the President has, in fact, seized those powers. It is the powers themselves, and not the statements in which they are asserted, that are so significant.

Mahablog wrote about it, too, here.

I've always been very suspicious of those signing statements. I have been suspicious that the White House really believed they were acting legally.

Try to follow my logic here. Logic, speculation, whatever you want to call it.

What if the WH came up with signing statements as a way to get political cover for their Republican colleagues on the Hill, while still not really following the law that they just signed only to give their colleagues political cover? You follow me?

In other words, maybe the John McCains of Washington said, "Look, this torture issue is killing me in my state. You gotta let me send up an anti-torture bill you can sign so we can put this issue to bed." And the White House said, "OK, send up a bill and I will sign it, but I'll issue a signing statment that says I don't have to follow it. And we'll both be happy." And maybe the WH knew this wasn't legal, or constitutional, but figured, as long as the GOP Congress doesn't challenge us on it, we're OK. So they colluded on it: the WH wouldn't embarrass the GOP-Congress by vetoing the bill, and the Congress wouldn't embarrass the President by challenging his signing statement. And everyone got what they wanted, and everyone was happy.

I've been thinking about this a lot since the Democrats passed a spending bill with a withdrawal timeline. Why doesn't the President just sign the bill, get his funding, then issue a signing statement that just says "As commander in chief, I don't have to follow the timeline." As Greenwald says, this statement of presidential belief holds no weight legally, in spite of the President's insistence. It is only through the collusion of a Republican Congress that the signing statments have any meaning at all.

Score a victory for the Democratic Congress. Just by being there, they have killed the signing statements. The Democratic Congress has proved what the signing statements really were: just a symbol of the immoral collusion between the Congress and administration. The fact that Bush is considering a veto shows that the signing statement mentality is dead.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lindsay Graham and Baghdad Economics

Ever since John McCain had his Baghdad publicity stunt last weekend, most of the press and the blogging has focused on John McCain's pathetic publicity stunt in an attempt to provide cover for his ridiculous lie about how safe the streets of Baghdad were. We all know by now, thanks to the Larry Johnson piece that I linked to yesterday, what kind of military presence was required to make things look normal.

There was another element to the whole story that I found disturbing. If you watch the CBS video of the press conference, you can see Senator Lindsay Graham bragging, "I bought 5 rugs for 5 bucks." Indiana Rep. Mike Spence smiles behind him in the video as he says it.

A little background: I used to sell rugs. It's been a long time, but I sold all kinds of rugs: Persian, Chinese, Indian, and the mass produced machine made rugs popular in the U. S. So I'm not an expert, but I have a little sense of the market in the U. S. for imported rugs from that part of the world.

We also get some background from yesterday's article in the Times on the market visited by the U. S. delegation. To the Times' credit, the reporter, Kirk Semple, took the time and initiative to speak directly to some of the vendors in that market and get their reactions. Predictably, they weren't too impressed with the heavily guarded American politicians responsible for the devastation wreaked upon their city. In the course of his reporting, Semple mentions one anonymous American who bought a rug, what the price was, and what he paid. Take a look:

During their visit on Sunday, the Americans were buttonholed by merchants and customers who wanted to talk about how unsafe they felt and the urgent need for more security in the markets and throughout the city, witnesses said.

“They asked about our conditions, and we told them the situation was bad,” said Aboud Sharif Kadhoury, 63, who peddles prayer rugs at a sidewalk stand. He said he sold a small prayer rug worth less than $1 to a member of the Congressional delegation. (The official paid $20 and told Mr. Kadhoury to keep the change, the vendor said.)

Now these prayer rugs sold in a public market in Baghdad are probably, safe to say, hand woven. We don't know from the story if they were hand knotted, or simply woven rugs, kalim style. We'll give the Senator the benefit of the doubt that they were the cheaper, simpler kalim style rugs. Those have no pile, simply a flat, woven rug, like a very course piece of cloth with serging on two sides and tasselled on the other sides. That wouldn't be a very comfortable rug to kneel on, but so be it. We know from the Times that these rugs were about $1, but an American paid $20, and if it were a cheap, small, woven kalim style rug we can almost imagine it going for that in an American store. So this American probably, to his credit, paid about what he thought it was worth, rather than what he thought he could get it for.

We also know, then, that Lindsay Graham had the opportunity to buy one of these, and actually bought five of them, and paid the $1 asking price. And was pretty smug about it.

He had the air of one of those tourists getting off a cruise ship and buying a cheap trinket in Mexico or the Dominican for next to nothing. But there's a big difference: he's not a tourist, he's a representative of the United States government on official business. And he's touring this market at great expense to the United States taxpayer and to the safety and security of the the vendors themselves.* And he throws down five bucks?

And to make matters worse, Mike Spence says it was like a summer market in Indiana. Well I have attended a lot of markets in Ohio a few miles from the Indiana border. And I don't know what the hell is going on across the border, but there's never been any kind of military presence at any summer fair or farmer's market I've been to. A lot of tomatoes, corn, and flies, but no humvees or blackhawk helicopters circling overhead. No snipers in the distance.

Does anyone else think this is shabby and cheap? Embarrassing even? Even if Graham paid a fair price, should he have forked over a little extra?

*As evidence of this, check out this post from TPM.

**Before publishing this, I went to Ebay and typed in "prayer rugs." And I have to admit, I found them in all price ranges (starting price) from $1 to $500. But to me, the larger point remains: What could Graham have afforded to pay for them, not what could he get them for.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain in Baghdad

This weekend trip to Baghdad by McCain was such a naked publicity stunt that it's hardly worth commenting on, except that the stunt backfired so miserably that it demonstrated how badly things are going in Iraq. It bothers me that McCain used the military so callously simply to lend credence to his offhand remark about being to walk in Baghdad. Once the comment was out in the public and widely criticized, McCain decided to answer the criticism by using, I don't know, thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayer resources to pull off his stunt. Not to mention the lives of US soldiers he put at risk.

By now everyone has heard the "rest of the story" that the snipers immediately returned to the area after McCain was gone. But Larry Johnson at TMP Cafe tells us even more. He describes how the area was swept ahead of time and then proceeds to let McCain have it. You have to read this:

John McCain and Lindsey Graham put American soldiers' lives at risk just so they could have a photo op. That's the bottomline. Why didn't they do a ride along on a real patrol? Perhaps they could have joined the U.S. team that responded to an ambush of an American patrol yesterday? Of course a total of six U.S. soldiers died in that operation. Shit! You can't take real risks. No sir. Instead, U.S. military resources are devoted to making propaganda. U.S. soldiers were ordered into harms way just to ensure a congressional delegation could walk around, look serious, and perpetuate the lie that more U.S. soldiers must come to Iraq and die. That was a propaganda event and fucking General Petraeus ought to be ashamed.

U.S. soldiers entered the neighborhood before the delegation arrived for its stroll. They searched for explosives, sent informants into the crowd, set up a perimeter, and secured the area before the Senators showed up with their 100 armed guards. And for what? To keep McCain, Graham and others safe. What happened to the Iraqi utopia John McCain so confidently insisted was there for eveyone to see? If the "true" picutre of Iraq was simply a matter of getting the news cameras pointed in the right direction then why did he need a security detail? If the peace and prosperity the Iraqi people are celebrating in safe neighborhoods is genuine then why wear body armor?

Read More...

Summary only...

Meatball Surge-ry

If you remember M*A*S*H, meatball surgery was the term Hawkeye used to describe their wartime medical practice. When the press talks about a "surge", using the administration's terminology, I can't help but think of the term "meatball surgery," but not to compare Bush to the resourceful Hawkeye. Of course, to Hawkeye, it meant making something out of nothing. Applied to Bush, meatball surge-ry applies to the improvised, make-it-up-as-you-go way he's run this war.

NPR (All Things Considered) had a great piece on the use of the word "surge". Finally some of the MS is starting to get it... the manipulative word games this administrations plays. There's no transcript so you'll have to listen to it. The NPR piece especially does a good job of showing how the word "surge" is chosen because of its uplifting and powerful connotations. Most tellingly, the piece identifies the key point of using the word: it signifies something temporary. What's to say it will be?


TPM tells us that the WH really doesn't want to answer the question, what makes this great plan to solve the Iraq crisis any better than the previous plans?

Q Is there something different about the way this plan was put together that makes it more likely to succeed than, say, [Garner], or Bremer, or the Pentagon, State, Allawi, et cetera -- was it a procedural --
MR. SNOW: Ask me Thursday. I mean, there are a lot of elements here -- again, a lot of the -- I can give you a much better answer when we have it, because I can start laying out for you different ways in which things are done. I can't do it yet. But I'll be able to give you a better answer --

Q You can't say something like you've reached further to more outside experts, or talked to different levels of commanders, or something like that?

MR. SNOW: All of the above and more.

What's more, the military is telling Bush that only 9,000 troops are available while McCain says we need 20,000, Bush seems to want 15,000, but no one seems to know for sure how many troops Bush is talking about and for how long.

I'm glad Pelosi is saying that she will force Bush to justify the troop increases, because there has to be some rationale as to why this will decrease violence.

I don't see any historical models that would indicate that increased troops will stop a terrorist movement or an insurgency. Can anyone tell me when that has worked in the past?

When has more troops succeeded in stopping a terrorist insurgency?

By definition, a guerilla movement retreats in the presence of overwhelming force, refusing to meet it on its own terms. The insurgency can't defeat ateh US military presence in Iraq, so it attacks at the fringes, using whatever techniques are available to it. Will increased troops help that problem? How?

We learn from Jimmy Carter's new book (I'll be discussing it Sunday) that the Isrealis put 50,000 troops in Gaza during the withdrawal, and it still wasn't enough to stop the violence.

When has terrorism been stopped by overwhelming force? Did it work in Northern Ireland? Or was it a political solution in Northern Ireland that created peace? Did troop levels succeed for the Soviets in Afghanistan?

What makes Bush think it will work for the US in Iraq?

Read More...

Summary only...

There's a man in the habit...

Pierre capped off a week of terrific writing with this editorial in today's Daytona Beach News-Journal on the straight talker's capitulation on the torture bill.

I have stagger back for a moment, as I consider for a moment that in the United States we are talking about laws allowing torture. But I digress.

Reading Pierre's editorial, I can't help but think about McCain's codependent relationship with Bush. He is abused over and over and over again, but still comes back for more. Remember how Rove push-polled him in South Carolina with the disgusting race-baiting about his wife and daughter?

I used to teach a story by Sorrentino called "There's a man in the habit of hitting me in the head with an umbrella." It's an absurdist work, but how appropriate for our times. It is very brief, published here, and it tells the story in understated, matter of fact style of a man who is followed by another man who continually hits him on the head with an umbrella. The man goes through all range of emotions, ultimately finding that he can't live without the abuse.

Reminds me of McCain, that's all. What a perfect relationship. Bush the sadist, McCain the masochist.

Read More...

Summary only...

The program

Well, Bush has his blank check.

On a rare morning when I can buy a hard copy of the NYT and enjoy the smell of fresh newsprint rather than clicking through story after story, I read all about the "compromise" Bush reached with his morally challenged rebel Republicans--all while leaving the Democrats completely on the sidelines.

How far we've fallen.

Digby has a typically brilliant post complete with some brilliant excerpts describing what should be obvious to all, namely why torture is wrong.

So I can't add anything about that to what Digby and many others have said. Torture debases us all.

What amazes me in all of this discussion and in the Times articles this morning is what is unspoken. The Times has a graphic describing (in some incomprehensible flow chart) the definitions of various terms such as severe mental pain or suffering.

But in reading over it, I can't help but wonder why a man who says that the Geneva Conventions article banning "outrages on human dignity" is "vague" would feel constrained by a law "severe physical pain or suffering". Remember that these are people who once defined those kinds of terms as the pain caused by organ failure. So in the sadistic hands of Abu Gonzalez, would the administration still feel that it has the legal authority to, say, rip the fingernails off of a detainee who was less than cooperative? Maybe, in the parlors of the Marquis de Gonzales, that is not considered "severe physical pain." Who's to say? Perhaps chez White House such techniques fall under the realm of exquisite agony.

Throughout the Times articles, the president's statements, and the entire public discussion of the torture issue, the unspoken boundaries of the discussion don't allow for the specifics that Bush claims to beg for when he complains the Geneva Conventions are vague. Repeated use of the term "the program" has created a weird Kafkaesque quality to the whole debate. When are the reporters, the three wise men named McCain, Graham, and Warner, and the public at large going to demand, "What's the program?"

I mean, sure we have a general idea from the reporting of Sy Hersch who described the screaming of little boys in front of their parents to get the parents to speak, we have various books on the American gulag, we have the story of Maher Arar, but there is no official account of what is being done in our name.

So while Bush demands specificity of others, why not demand the same of him? Tell us, Mr. President, what you are doing in our name and then we can discuss whether it is or should be legal. Let's have a list of the specific "techniques" you plan to use, and then let's discuss them one by one.

Sleep deprivation? Anal rape? Smearing of menstrual blood? Desecration of the Koran? Beatings? Forced feedings (as described horrifyingly in the Digby post mentioned above)? Threats against one's family and children, such as the threats made against Khalid Sheik Muhammed as described in Ron Suskind's the One Percent Doctrine?

What is also not discussed in this debate, another huge gaping hole the size of Hurricane Katrina in the middle of this debate, is this: why should we believe that the President will follow this law anyway? We already know from various credible reporting and investigations by the European Union that the US has rendered suspects to various torture havens in clear violation of the law. Is this part of the "program", and is this now legal?

The thousands of hostages held by the US around the world... what of them? We don't know, because the new legislation doesn't consider them except to the extent that it denies them the opportunity to ever seek their freedom. As the Times reports, the worst suspects will receive trials, while the rest are denied habeas corpus.

Finally, it may all be a moot point. From the Times:

Martin S. Lederman, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown, said the bill continued to allow the harsh treatment of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency.

“They appear to have negotiated a statutory definition of cruel treatment that doesn’t cover the C.I.A. techniques,” Professor Lederman said. “And they purport to foreclose the ability of the courts to determine whether they satisfy the Geneva obligations.”

(Go and read Adam Liptak's piece. It's excellent.)

Read More...

Summary only...