September, 2006 archive

With a tip to Atrios.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed efforts by three Republican senators to block President Bush’s plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

(snip)

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Of course, the veracity of the current Federal Administration is well established. Now, pardon me while I go catch that pig that just flew by.

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran’s nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran’s capabilities, calling parts of the document “outrageous and dishonest” and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements.” The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. . . .

The current Federal Administration wants a war.

Nieman Watchdog:

Shock comes in the realization that in a relatively short period of time, American reaction to 9/11 has caused the country to lose its status as the most respected nation on earth to become one of the most suspected.

Awe abounds in foreign columns because their authors don’t foresee the neo-con administration making amends at any point. They fear things will get worse and can’t say if they are ever to get better.

The policies of the “Bush doctrine,” a reversal from previous American administrations, led Italy’s La Stampa to ask, “Are we still all Americans?”

I lived in Pennsylvania for several years. Philadelphia is the dominant metropolis in my part of the world, so Philadelphia news is daily stuff around these parts. Though I won’t be voting in the Pennsylvania elections (since I live in Delaware), I do follow them.

And it’s really disgusting that Little Ricky Santorum whored out his kids in his campaign ads. Not only was it icky, it was deceptive (and that surprises us how?). From FactCheck:

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum shows his children claiming that political opponents have criticized him “for moving us to Washington,” and that “they criticized us for attending a Pennsylvania public school over the Internet.” In fact, the critique was of Santorum, not his children. And the controversy was over money, not Santorum’s family values.

The ad is Santorum’s response to accusations by local officials that he exploited a Pennsylvania program that paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition for his children to be educated via a publicly supported Internet charter school while the family was living in Virginia.

Note that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be reimbursing the school district for a portion of the funds it gave Santorum to support his children’s cyber-schooling from Pennsylvania while he was resident in Virginia.

Susie reminds us that mail to Santorum’s reputed residence in Pennsylvania gets returned as undeliverable.

This November, I will be voting for at least one Republican: Congressman Mike Castle is a man of integrity who represents Delaware well. But, if I still lived in Pennsylvania, I would vote against Santorum as many times as I could. And, Pennsylvania being Pennsylvania, that would probably be several times.

My son’s employer is not getting properly taken care of:

. . . the Bush administration’s strategic miscalculations and gross mismanagement of resources have pushed the all-volunteer force perilously close to its breaking point. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has refused to reconsider his pre-September 11 commitment to transform the Army into a smaller and more agile fighting force, even though one clear lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has been that the Army is suffering more from manpower deficiencies than from the absence of high-tech weaponry. Pentagon officials have lately sought to emphasize the positive–the Army is currently meeting its 2006 recruiting and retention goals, and the readiness levels for forces in combat in Iraq remain stable–but this neglects the underlying reality. The responsibility of Bush and the Republican Congress is to ensure that, even during war, the all-volunteer military is ready for future combat. They are currently failing to do so.

I am old enough to remember the “credibility gap.”

That was the term applied to President Johnson’s positions on the Viet Namese War when it became clear that the facts did not match his statements.

The term lived on into the Nixon years, as it became clear that Nixon was a noxious, lying little twit (though, frankly, he was a much better President than the current holder of that title–had he not been so afraid of losing an election that he already had in the bag, I am confident he would be remembered as a good, if not great, President, for many of his official actions did benefit the polity, unlike his ex officio actions)–and unlike the actions of the current holder of that office.

Dick Polman analyzes the–er–misrepresentations in the current President’s speech of last night. Follow the link for a point-by-point analysis:

Five years ago, few Americans could reasonably question the president’s arguments. Last night was a different story. Anybody with even a rudimentary talent for fact-checking could have a field day. One big reason why the spirit of ’01 has waned is because Bush’s credibility has waned. He did little to repair it last night, by making statements that failed to square with the factual record and political reality . . . .

. . . the current Federal Administration had got it right?

The use of the word “homeland” to refer to the United States of American has always troubled me.

It smacks too much of the “vaterland” of the Germans and the “motherland” of the Russians.

And, face it, with very few exceptions, citizens of the United States of America have other homelands: for my ex, homeland is Italy; for some, it is Ireland; and so on.

Under any other regime, the Department of Homeland Security would have been the Department of Domestic Security.

The choice of the word “homeland,” frankly, gives me the willies for what it reveals about the subconcious of the current Federal Administration.

I voiced these concerns when DHS was created, but that was long before I had this blog, where I can present my opinions to my two or three faithful readers.

Today, I learned that I share those willies with others: Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post:

The word homeland is a vivid but relatively inconsequential example — less a distortion than an infelicitous choice that makes us sound as if we had quaint harvest rituals and a colorful national costume. It strikes an odd note, with its vague connotations of ethnic solidarity and ancient nationalism, and it gives off more than a whiff of us-vs.-them. This nation does have enemies from whom we need vigilant protection, but something more like “domestic security” would have done just fine, with less baggage.

In addition to ticking off a bunch of people who care about truth, they’ve ticked off a big business. A big Texas business (emphasis added).

Executives with American Airlines say they are “outraged” at the airline’s depiction in the ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11.

Airline spokesman Roger Frizzell said Monday that the miniseries, which concludes tonight, falsely portrays an American gate agent at Boston’s Logan Airport allowing a terrorist onto a flight despite a warning that he may have been a threat.

“It’s important for the public to know that the ABC dramatization is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11,” he said.

(snip)

“The real facts can be found in the 9-11 Commission Report,” Frizzell said.

The 9/11 Commision Report. Oh, yeah. That’s what this show was reputed to be based on.

And Richard Clarke had somethingto say.

Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screen play are more than the result of dramatization and time compression. There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11.

The exact opposite is true.

Will Bunch. Follow the link the see through the eyes of the children what happened in Sarasota:

On the second anniversary of 9/11, in 2003, I wrote a story in the Daily News that, among other things, mentioned that Bush had spent at least five minutes reading “The Pet Goat” in that Sarasota classroom. It was an indisputable fact, and yet I received hundreds of emails from readers, many asking if I would be fired for reporting such a simple and inconvenient truth. When Michael Moore showed the actual footage in “Farhrenheit 911” months later, much of the nation was shocked to learn for the first time what really happened that day.

Not everyone was so surprised. In fact, the then-second graders that Bush read “The Pet Goat” to that morning clearly saw though the emperor’s new clothes even while all the “grown-up” journalists did not.

Then go here to see what the Other Local Rag had to say about this anniversary day.

I received an email from the Center for American Progress Action Fund summarizing last-minute changes ABC made to The Path to 9/11 .

Here are the highlights:

Our team reviewed the first half of the program as it aired, and your efforts led to several problematic elements being fixed:

• In its advertising to promote the film, ABC stopped making the claim that the film was “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”
• An extended disclaimer ran both before and after the film explaining that the movie contains “fictionalized scenes.”
• A key fabricated scene falsely depicting Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger that had been included in earlier copies of the movie was substantially cut back.

The buzz your efforts created in the press also led to significant victories:

• ABC’s educational distribution partner, Scholastic, significantly revised materials they planned to send to 100,000 high school teachers, incorporating the controversy as part of their teaching tools.
• ABC’s Internet distribution partner, Apple, has apparently abandoned plans to make the movie available for free on iTunes.
• More broadly, our efforts to fight for the truth will permanently be linked to this ABC project. Hundreds of newspapers and television reports described the inaccuracies that were part of the initial version of the movie.

Of course, all that means is that the lies were muted.

You can find the actual 9/11 Commission Report here and judge for yourselves.

Phillybits.

Where I come from the American flag is not a doormat; one stands for it, not on it.

But it can be argued that, in these pictures, it is a stand-in for the Constitution of the United States under the current Federal Administration.

In the course of researching the previous post, I found this:

A list of slang from 1922.

This would seem to be kind of like moving next to a pig farm and then complaining about the smell, except there’s no indication anyone has moved. (Note: An ASBO is sort of a general purpose PFA.)

A Scottish council is pursuing a cock with the threat of an Asbo if it refuses to cap its ear-splitting doodle-dooing.

Borders council says three-year-old Charlie’s crowing exceeds a 30 decibel limit set by the World Health Organisation, beyond which kip is made difficult, The Scotsman reports.

(snip)

A previous attempt to calm Charlie’s show-off instincts with hormone pellets failed. Today, officials are applying for an Asbo demanding that Mr McFarlane silence his gobby charge between the hours of 11pm and 3am.

It seems the council has more sinister plans for Charlie, however. In a court submission, Borders council Asboss Kerr Scott said: “The vet has informed me there is nothing that can be done to quieten a cockerel, other than wring its neck.”

From the Annenberg Center (follow the link below for detailed analysis):

The pro-Bush group Progress for America is running a TV ad appealing directly to Americans’ fear of terrorists, saying bluntly “These people want to kill us.”

That’s true enough. But the ad falsely attributes the recent thwarting of a hijack plot to the President’s warrantless NSA wiretaps, when it was actually British authorities who uncovered it.

The ad also distorts the position of Iraq war critics, implying they propose to withdraw from “the Middle East” and not just Iraq.

And in a bit of bad luck, the ad cites the case of al-Qeda affiliate Zarqawi as evidence of the success of Bush’s anti-terror campaign – one day before the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report saying Saddam Hussein considered him an outlaw and tried to have him arrested.

Meanwhile, over at Nieman Watchdog, James Forrest, Assistant Professor and Director of Terrorism Studies at the United States Military Academy, suggests a way to improve the USA’s domestic security strategy:

Instead of “fueling the fear” — that is, giving an already troubled nation new reasons to “duct tape themselves inside their homes” — the government must do more to educate the general public on what each of us can do to reduce the vulnerabilities we share as a nation. Previous examples of nations who have endured long terror campaigns (including Israel, Spain and the United Kingdom) demonstrate that a well-informed public is a vital part of developing their ability to withstand any kind of terror attack or other catastrophic event.

Since promoting fear and secrecy seems to be a “family value” of the Federal Administration knows, I suspect that they are unlikely to heed his recommendations.

I present this with the proviso that I had no position on the CBS film about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. For one thing, I was going through a divorce which consumed a lot of energy; for another, I can’t remember the last time that I watched a major network television show that didn’t involve a ball of some kind.

But I do have a thing about liars and lying. And with presenting as fact something directly contrary to the historical record.

Furthermore, as I have said in a comment to another post here, freedom of speech does not mandate an obligation to publish. The Constituion of the United States of American says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

This provision, which is reflected in most, if not all, state constitutions (I’m too lazy to do the research) restrains the government; it does not compel individuals or the press.

The argument used by some liberals that the CBS film about the Reagans had to be shown because not showing it somehow violated freedom of speech was, frankly, hogwash. Any similar argument advanced to support the broadcast of “The Path to 9/11” is, similarly, hogwash.

Just as a newspaper has no obligation to publish every letter to the editor or every story off the AP wire, a broadcaster has no obligation to air a show. It is the government which is restrained from prohibiting individuals, the press and, by extension, broadcasters, to express themselves.

Freedom of speech is not compulsion to speak.

A newspaper and a broadcaster–and bloggers, too–are obligated to ensure that what they publish is as accurate as possible and that the line between fact and opinion is clearly drawn–and area where many bloggers, I fear, have a lot to learn.

And now to excerpts from Mr. Polman’s comments (emphasis added):

The current flap over the upcoming ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 is a textbook case of partisan hypocrisy. And that label applies to liberal and conservatives alike.

Let’s start with the liberals — not all liberals, of course; I am referring to activists and bloggers — since they’re the ones who are ticked off at ABC. Their outrage is directed at various fictionalizations of the 9/11 saga that the Hollywood types have either dreamed up or improvised.

(snip)

Looking at this case on the merits, it’s clear that the liberal camp does have a legitimate beef; even ABC has admitted taking some dramatic liberties with the known facts. But I don’t recall the liberal camp acting with similar concern back in 2003, when a CBS docudrama about Ronald Reagan was planning to take some dramatic liberties in its depiction of the former president.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Liberals thought that the Reagan show should air just as the miniseries producers intended it to air — in the name of freedom of speech.

(snip)

Most conservatives, however, are also selective in their outrage. They don’t seem very concerned that the Hollywood types (whom they generally dislike) have filmed fictionalized scenes that depict a former president in a negative light.

(snip)

Yet the scene was very different in October 2003, when they were so outraged that Hollywood had filmed fictionalizeed scenes depicting their favorite former president in a negative light. Back then, when a major network acted in this fashion, it was viewed as fresh evidence of liberal-media perfidy.

As Ed Morrow of the National Review said, “Attempts to distort our history must be resisted. Historical truth is simply too valuable to be made a plaything for biased filmmakers rewriting it to fit their politics.” . . .

If it ain’t getting better, just make it look like it’s getting better (emphasis added):

U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren’t counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country’s sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution.

That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

But it eliminates from tabulation huge numbers of people whose deaths are certainly part of the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Not included, for example, are scores of people who died in a highly coordinated bombing that leveled an entire apartment building in eastern Baghdad, a stronghold of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Peter Bergen in today’s Washington Post:

. . . Indeed, the U.S. military and NATO are now battling the Taliban on a scale not witnessed since 2001, when the war here began, and are increasingly fighting them in remote areas such as Larzab where the Taliban once roamed freely.

When I traveled in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, the Taliban threat had receded into little more than a nuisance. But now the movement has regrouped and rearmed. Bolstered by a compliant Pakistani government, hefty cash inflow from the drug trade and a population disillusioned by battered infrastructure and lackluster reconstruction efforts, the Taliban is back — as is Afghanistan’s once forgotten war.

Trudy Rubin:

But the maximum level of confusion in the 9/11 speeches revolves around the claim that “Iraq… is the central front in our fight against terrorism.” Yes, Iraq has become a training center for jihadi terrorists – which it wasn’t before Saddam fell. But the reason for Iraq’s descent into postwar hell is the administration’s arrogance and incompetence – which, of course, the president does not admit in his speeches.

This denial creates a black hole of moral and intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the Bush rhetoric. I happen to agree with the president that if we pull out of Iraq now we will provide a bonanza for al-Qaeda in terms of bases and recruitment. But since he won’t take responsibility for his mistakes, the president has little chance of rallying a majority around his Iraq policy.

Why should Americans believe he will do better in the future? Especially when his team denounces critics as “appeasers” – and he paints a simplistic picture of the coming struggle.

Suburban Guerrilla.