August 2004 Archives

Slate's William Saletan actually writes about one of the proverbial elephants in the room:

Pardon me for asking, but where exactly is the heroism in this story? Where, indeed, is the heroism in anything Bush has done before 9/11 or since?

Does he think anything is actually gained by debunking this emerging story line?

Well, yes, of course there would be. Not that this means much. You shouldn't expect many others to notice what Saletan rightly observes:

I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops? Isn't it embarrassing to see Bob Dole, the GOP's previous presidential nominee, praise Bush's heroism while suggesting that Kerry's three combat wounds weren't bad enough to justify sending him home from Vietnam?

Over on Altercation, Charles Pierce makes an excellent point:

You know what I'm really going to hate? The journalism-school think-tank exercises that are going to erupt in, oh, March of 2005 in which the Swift Boat will be earnestly deplored. Don't even bother. Elite political journalism is so utterly corrupted by access, and by the influence of television, that truth is a secondary concern. Just don't even bother. Get ready to fall for whatever the next lie is.

Those conferences may even make some media people feel better. There's nothing like navel gazing when one knows that he or she does not have to face any consequences from such gross journalistic negligence.

You won't be surprised to see that after one night of Convention coverage, FOX News Channel broadcast more of the Republican speeches than they did of the Democratic Convention.

Almost twice as much.

Fair and unbalanced indeed.

So, in another example of how Republicans say one thing and do another, we see that GOPers, who claim they support the troops, now think it is funny to make fun of Purple Heart awards.

Now that's class. (Not.)

Dan Kennedy highlights another example of how the Bush Campaign insults our intelligence.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz reports on the Republicans' Convention strategy:

Republican strategists said they want to use the convention to begin to neutralize public dissatisfaction over Iraq and the economy, which has put Bush's reelection at risk, by shifting voters' focus from their qualms about the state of the country, which Kerry has exploited, to a choice between a president who will portray himself as steady and consistent vs. a challenger whom GOP speakers plan to hammer as the opposite.

I'm especially interested in learning how the following examples show a "steady and consistent" policy:

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

Media analyst Dan Kennedy jumps back in from his vacation to examine the entire distasteful Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Lies situation.

Kennedy finds a bunch of blame to go around:

The media have not necessarily done a horrible job of covering the claims of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, if it weren't for news orgs such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, it might not be as clear as it already is that the vets' claims consist of nothing but ugly lies.

Still, editors and news directors should consider that the way they practice journalism allowed the lies to circulate and propagate, putting John Kerry's presidential campaign on the defensive and costing him a few points in the polls heading into the Republican National Convention.

The outrageous claims of the Swiftvets - that one of Kerry's Purple Heart wounds was self-inflicted, that he and his crew weren't really under fire when he rescued James Rassmann and won the Bronze Star, that he executed a Vietnamese kid in a loincloth in winning the Silver Star (it was actually a Viet Cong soldier with a grenade-launcher) - should have been treated as presumptively untrue from Day One.

But, as Kennedy explains, today's media procedures do not necessarily emphasize finding the truth.

But the Swiftvets and their shadowy backers understood something about the media: if you make an accusation, news orgs will cover it, get a response from the person or persons being accused, and run with it. Truth isn't the issue, at least not in day-to-day campaign coverage. Getting both sides is the name of the game, even if there isn't a single reason to believe one side and every reason to believe the other.

Sometimes there are facts. Reporters should be trying to find them.

Kennedy continues to note how the Bush campaign is trying to pivot this story off of the Swift Boat accusations and into a general discussion about campaign finance. By doing so, the Bushies hope to hide their complicity in this slander of Kerry and muddle the advertising issue.

(Not that many reporters have noticed, but there is a large difference between the Swift Boats 527 and the MoveOn Political Action Committee, as Atrios has explained.)

The bigger difference between the two efforts, though, is the fact that one is based on lies and other in truth. As Kennedy writes:

What the Swiftvets are doing is as dirty and shocking and disgraceful as anything done in modern political history - far worse than the infamous Willie Horton ad that George H.W. Bush's supporters ran in going after Michael Dukakis. Kerry cannot let the lies of the Swiftvets be held up as somehow the same as entirely truthful ads questioning Bush's missing months in the Texas Air National Guard.

Najaf's police chief tries out some innovative media relations methods:

IRAQI policemen early today rounded up dozens of journalists at gunpoint in a Najaf hotel and took them to police headquarters before later releasing them, an AFP correspondent said.

Firing their guns in the air, the dozen odd policemen, some masked, stormed into the rooms of journalists in the Najaf Sea hotel and forced them into vans and a truck.

An AFP correspondent, who was also forced into a van, said the police pushed and pulled many reporters at gunpoint.

After a two-minute drive from the hotel, where journalists from across the world are based while covering the battle between Shiite militiamen and US-led Iraqi forces in the holy city, the reporters were taken to the office of the police chief.

"You people are not under arrest," Najaf police chief Ghaleb al-Jezari told them.

"You are brought here because I want to tell you that you never publish the truth. I speak the truth, but you never broadcast what we are."

The East Bay Express' Chris Thompson makes a plea to those planning to protest the Republican National Convention: keep it low key or stay at home. After recounting his own experience protesting an earlier convention, he writes:

Here's the difference between then and now: No one was paying attention then. Today, the right-wing media infrastructure is so pervasive, its opposition researchers, broadcast proselytizers, and think-tankers so disciplined and coordinated, that any leftist misstep is immediately amplified through its echo chamber of talk radio and Murdoch media and spread to every breakfast table in America. George W. Bush has raised the stakes in this election higher than at any time since 1932, and the electorate is split right down the middle. If this country is going to be rid of That Man in the White House, there's no room for error. The Democrats knew this in Boston, and their message discipline was as impressive as their candidate is not. But if 250,000 people really are about to take to the streets of New York City, some of them may be so intent upon looting a Starbucks that they will ruin the country in the process. And because the Bay Area is the epicenter of radical leftist thinking, a good many of them will come from right here.

If you guys haven't left yet, here's my wish: Break a leg. Literally. We could afford you in Seattle in 1999; in fact, you pretty much made the scene there. But in New York, a small army of Republican Party apparatchiks, Fox News television producers, and Wall Street Journal editorialists are waiting for you, and they're a lot more sophisticated than you will ever be. They want you to smash windows and intimidate public safety officers here near the epicenter of Ground Zero; in fact, they'll be looking right over your shoulder, rolling videotape. On prime time that night, your bandanna'd visage will be on fourteen million televisions in Florida, Ohio, and every other swing state, and your crude epithets will settle into the brains of every undecided retiree or unemployed steel worker. Of course, you may not care a whit about the November election and may even hew to the ridiculous notion that a Bush re-election will radicalize the public and shorten the days till the revolution. But on the off chance that some of you are still listening, hear this plea: stay home, and knit a sweater or something.

The stakes are high this election. One hopes progressives and the left will find a way to protest without making the right wing's efforts to win this year any easier.

The Bloomberg wire has an interesting story about how the federal budget deficit is making economists and business analysts nervous. As the story opens:

Record U.S. budget deficits threaten to raise interest rates, crimp investment and hurt the dollar, say Republican Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the Blackstone Group, and former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat.

But we can't blame them. The fault is ours.

Until we, the voters, make getting a handle on the nation's short and long-term deficits an issue, few politicians are going to focus on it. As the late Paul Tsongas used to explain, Congress is like a weather vane. It will point the direction the American people blow. I would add the presidential candidates to this mix. Candidates will focus on the issues they think we believe are important.

Now, Bush is clearly a lost cause on the issue. The fiscal damage his policies have done are historic in their generational irresponsibility.

I do wish that Kerry were offering a better plan toward reducing the deficit. It is possible that he will take more steps in the area after he is elected -- similar to the advice former President Clinton took when he crafted a deficit-reduction package that passed without a single Republican vote. At least with Kerry there is a chance of a return to fiscal sanity.

Regardless, until voters make their concern about the nation's long-term fiscal problems an issue, we should not expect much from our politicians beyond their speaking soothing words.

From the Associated Press:

President Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television ad that mentions the Olympics by name, despite objections from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a spokesman said Friday.

Oh-oh, there's more bad news for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Lies. The Chicago Tribune's Tim Jones writes:

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

I won't hold my breath.

Keith Olbermann writes about the continuing developments of Michelle Malkin's embarassing appearance on Hardball earlier this week:

For a moment there I thought I owed Michelle Malkin an apology.

Very few people who find themselves criticized on television, or even critically characterized, go out and make the criticism sound worse than it was. Evidently, judging by the fact that the same e-mail appeared a few hundred times in our Countdown inbox today (not similar e-mails; the identical one, with different return addresses), Ms. Malkin is one of the very few.

“How dare you call this woman an idiot?”

That’s apparently what she said, while appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s Entertainment Radio Program today. She certainly wrote it on her blog. To be precise: “his (Chris Matthews’) scurrilous charges were repeated by his MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann, who called me an ‘idiot.’”

Well, I felt terrible. In my little naïve old-fashioned way, I feel you preserve terms like that exclusively for men. I was preparing a formal apology. Political differences, fault or innocence, are all secondary. There are codes.

Funniest darn thing happened, though. Checked the tape of the show, re-read the blog. I never called Michelle Malkin an “idiot.”

From the Associated Press:

Attacks on John Kerry's war record may be beginning to have an impact, polls suggest, amid raised voices and new TV ads on a subject at least temporarily dominating debate in the close presidential race.

Democrats are laboring to deflect the questioning of Kerry's record with fresh ads touting his fitness for national command, even as the White House mocks the Massachusetts senator as "losing his cool" over claims he lied to win military medals in Vietnam.

Let's see. President Bush does not condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republicans ad despite being urged to do so by people like Sen. John McCain. Then the White House Press Secretary uses the ads to make a cheap political statement.

Of course, it's just a coincidence. We can be thankful that there is no coordination among the White House, the Bush campaign, and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Lies.

Matt Miller wonders why the Republicans only trot out compassionate policies following natural disasters.

If we don't pause to parse our empathy in the wake of Charley, and ask ourselves, "If we're prepared to act here, where else does that mean we should be prepared to act," we're not doing right by our best instincts.

To take one example, poor children are about as blameless as you can get. Yet millions of these kids lack health coverage and decent schools.

Why can we agree to help Charley victims and let these kids languish?

Duh...

Liz Cox Barrett over on CJR's Campaign Desk reports on how a reporter from a smaller newspaper caught President George W. Bush in a lie by doing something fairly novel: some actual reporting. You know, going to a place and asking questions. Shocking.

The larger media outlets? Well, they chose instead to regurgitate some spin without questioning. Not-so-shocking.

Barrett writes:

It all started yesterday, when CNN, Fox and The New York Times were content to transcribe and transmit President Bush's comment about preferring his Philadelphia cheesesteaks "Whiz with," thereby handing the Bush camp what it was after -- a revisitation in the national press of a year-old John Kerry "faux pas" (ordering his Philly cheesesteak with Swiss).

In contrast to the bigfoots of the national press, Kathleen E. Carey of The [Delaware County, Pa.] Daily Times went beyond mere stenography and did a little leg work on the issue, as well she should. For, while it's certainly not in the top 100 critical campaign issues this election year, it's safe to say that the proper construction of a Philadelphia cheesesteak matters more to Daily Times readers than it does to a national audience.

And the intrepid Carey came up with her own expose. She reported that Bush actually "prefers his steak absent of the usual Cheez Whiz and provolone, accompanied only by cheese of the American variety," information that she obtained from her own Deep Throat, one Caeser Barnabei, the owner of the well-known cheesesteak shop, Jim's Place. Barnabei, who has fed the Bush camp on previous swings through Pennsylvania and provided "70 to 80 hoagies" for the Bush campaign yesterday, confided to Carey that "the Jim's Special is altered to whet the 'W' appetite."

Now, I'll be surprised if this story leaves the blogosphere. Had it been about, say, Al Gore, the mistake would lead the news for a couple weeks and would be brought up by conservative pundits on a seemingly infinite number of cable news shows. For many years to come.

That is, when the conservative pundits were not polluting the airwaves with their accusations that John Kerry shot himself to earn a purple heart.

Josh Marshall observes:

Amazing. President Bush isn't even man enough to answer a straight question about these Swift Boat ads. (You'll have to pardon my antiquated and gendered language. But I'm not sure English has any more presentable way to convey the same meaning.) Not only will Bush not answer them. He won't even let his press secretary do so.

As we've noted, these ads are funded by the president's financial backers, put together by his political associates from Texas, and obviously meant to support his campaign.

One of the biggest threats to John Kerry right now could be a negative reaction to protesters. Eric Alterman reprints an article that makes this point. As Todd Gitlin and John Passacantando write in the Nation:

As thousands of Republicans gather to nominate Bush for re-election, and as many more protesters--perhaps fifty times more--gather to express themselves against the damage Bush is doing, Americans of all stripes will be watching. Fair-minded people can understand dignified opposition even when they disagree with it. Rage in the streets is something else altogether. Protesters who spell "Bush" with a swastika, who smash windows, fight the police or try to block Manhattan commuters might as well stay home and send their contributions to the Republicans.

But protesters should remember that their actions will be fed through the so-called (and not really) liberal media. If the story of the Republican Convention is violent protests, then George W. Bush will get another four years in the White House.

The message from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to the Bay Area's residents concerning Bay Bridge cost overruns: "Cheney You."

Brad DeLong points out that most reporters continue to ignore a major legacy of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts:

All cover the story that Douglas Holtz-Eakin's CBO says that yes, the Bush "tax cuts" were tilted toward the rich. But nobody talks about the elephant in the living room--that the deficits produced by these tax cuts are raising the national debt, that the national debt has to be serviced (unless we want to see the economy collapse into hyperinflation), and that the burden of servicing the national debt will raise taxes in the future. What we are talking about is not a tax cut, but a tax shift--a shift in taxes from today's upper class to tomorrow's middle class.

From Behind the Homefront, we learn that:

airport inspectors with the power to summarily deport illegal immigrants have sometimes intimidated and handcuffed travelers fleeing persecution, discouraged some from seeking political asylum and often lacked an understanding of asylum law.

Over at Altercation, Charles Pierce is wonderfully unimpressed with First Lady Laura Bush's decision to lecture us about stem cells.

Generally, I stay away from depositing scorn upon the First Ladies of the land. What happened with Hillary Clinton is proof enough that it can make you nuttier than a fox squirrel. In addition, the incumbent FL seemed inconsequential enough to make being critical rather a waste of time.

Until this week, when they rolled her out to talk about stem cells, and she unctuously explained to the country that, maybe, the benefits of stem-cells were being "oversold." I watched her, all creamy certitude, and for the first time since 2000, wondered: "Where in the hell do you get off, lady?"

But, then again, it is not that surprising coming from an administration that is increasingly at odds with scientists.

Vice President Dick Cheney thinks you are an idiot.

Really. I mean, this can be the only explanation behind his decision to ridicule John Kerry for saying we need to be "more sensitive" in the war on terror. As the Progress Report notes:

In yet another effort to put politics over substance, Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday blasted Sen. John Kerry (D) for his comments earlier this week insisting that America must be more "sensitive" to allies and American citizens' concerns in the "war on terror." Cheney's retort: "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."

Looking beyond the fact that Cheney twists John Kerry's words and takes them well out of context (a cheap trick upon which Bush supporters often seem to rely), the bigger problem for Cheney is that he, the president, and many other Administration officials have also mentioned the need to be sensitive while conducting the war on terror.

So, I must conclude that Dick Cheney thinks you -- along with the rest of the American people -- are an idiot. Because he's guessing that most Americans will listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's distortions and not read Kerry's full remarks or all of the examples of this White House mentioning the need for sensitivity.

Try not to fall for it.

Ralph Nader may not get that he is hurting John Kerry in this presidential race, but Republican leaders continue to demonstrate that they understand the dynamic. The Associated Press reports:

Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard Egan, the Bush campaign's finance chairman in John Kerry's home state, has personally contributed the maximum amount allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's presidential campaign.

Egan's son John and daughter in law have each also "maxed out," bringing the family's total to $6,000.

"He's an American citizen who is a Republican, just happens to believe in civil liberties maybe," Nader said during the debate on National Public Radio. "I don't even know the man."

C'mon, Mr. Nader. Can you really believe that a person who has raised over $200,000 for George W. Bush is going to give you money because of a concern about civil liberties?

For those of you who believe in the liberal media myth, explain how this story, pointed out by J.R. Taylor on Altercation, supports that theory:

From Lawrence Lessig, "Copyrighting the President," Wired, August 2004

In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, NBC's Sunday morning talk show. In the clip, the president defends his decision to go to war - astonishingly unconvincingly.

Greenwald asked NBC for permission to run the one-minute clip - offering to pay for the right, as he had done for every other clip that appears in the film. NBC said no. The network explained to his agent that the clip is "not very flattering to the president." Greenwald included it anyway. (emphasis added)

While reading this post by Bob Harris over on This Modern World, try to remember Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's declaration that "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

James Carville rightly lit into "Unfit for Command" co-author Jerome Corsi on today's Crossfire:

John Kerry, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, CBS, NBC are all communists. Hillary Clinton is a lesbian fat hog with fake hair. Al and Tipper Gore are terrorists who are part of the Taliban. The pope is senile. And pedophilia is fine with him as long as it's not reported in the liberal press. If you think all this sounds nutty, well, it is.

According to the organization Media Matters For America, all this has been written by Jerome Corsi. Why do we care what Jerome Corsi says? Well, we don't. But as co-author of the book "Unfit for Command" about John Kerry and his service in Vietnam, some people are making the mistake of taking him seriously. In the world of putrid right-wing pond scum, Corsi is one of the biggest bottom-feeders of them all.

Hit tip: Atrios

Paul Krugman dedicates today's column to debunking the spin techniques Bush apologists are utilizing to explain away last week's horrible job creation report.

After quickly dealing with the bad spin, Krugman observes that:

What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?

But as we have learned, ideology trumps any other argument in the Bush Administration. There is nothing more important than a tax cut.

The Associated Press' Matthew Barakat quotes President George W. Bush at a campaign rally today:

"...the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

Perhaps, instead of giving in to this lawbreaking, Mr. President, you could give the IRS the resources it needs to fight tax dodgers.

Also in today's appearance, Barakat writes that:

Bush criticized Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, saying that the "the rich in America happen to be the small business owners" who put people to work.

After all, you might think I would notice all the small business owners making multi-million dollar annual salaries.

Sigh.

(Hat tip: Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.)

I missed it until now, but last week Jeanne at Body and Soul wrote this important post about the ongoing (yes, it's still there) Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

I encourage you to follow the link and go read it. Perhaps you can also wonder why our media and many of our fellow citizens are allowing this scandal to fall down the memory hole.

Professor Juan Cole is all over National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's admission that the Bush Administration leaked Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's name.

But only on background. As if that makes any difference.

As we later learned, Khan had been "flipped" and was working as a double agent against Al Qaeda. A source that has now been lost. A source some think that could have led us to Osama bin Laden. A source, as Professor Cole notes, was in contact with terrorists inside the United States.

Cole reprints the following from the CNN transcript:

' BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?

RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...

BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.

RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.

BLITZER: Had he been flipped, in the vernacular, was he cooperating with Pakistani intelligence after he was arrested?

RICE: I don't know the answer to that question, as to whether or not he was cooperating with them. ' (emphasis added)

Um...what? Just how more incompetent can this group be? It is time for them to go.

And you should go see all that Professor Cole has written about this travesty. The negative consequences of this leak are far-reaching.

Newsweek's Jane Bryant Quinn devotes her latest column to discussing the peak oil idea and its implications.

Peak oil is the idea that the world will soon reach its oil producing peak and then begin a long slide of lower production. As Bryant Quinn writes:

My fellow Americans, drop the fantasy that we'll return to cheap gasoline, and pump it for as long as our withered hands can steer an SUV. As the prophet saith, the end is nigh. Demand for oil is running high—in fact, we're gobbling up the stuff. But world production grew by only 0.6 percent a year for the past five years. At some point, supplies will shrink, not grow...

Am I crying wolf? If so, I'm in the company of some pretty big guns in the oil biz—geologists, merchant bankers, analysts and petroleum engineers. They note that the major companies aren't building new U.S. refineries, investing in drilling or enlarging the tanker fleet—suggesting that they don't expect much new oil to appear. Saudi reserves, which the world depends on to fill every energy gap, remain a state secret; outsiders wonder how big they really are.

As you might expect, a campful of critics call this "peak oil" theory nuts. They expect new finds or technologies to keep the black stuff flowing. And maybe they're right. But what if they're wrong? A permanent shrinkage in supplies would so severely damage today's oil-based economy that it makes no sense to wait and see. We need energy options, just in case. If shortages don't develop, we'd still be ahead of the game, with more diverse and cheaper sources of energy for future growth.

We know that oil is a finite resource. We know that oil-related activites are one of the reasons the leaders of terror networks seek to harm our nation. We know that there are significant environmental gains to be had through lower oil useage.

So, pick your favorite reason or reasons. This is an environmental, economic, and national security issue. The conclusion is clear any way one looks at the problem: it is well past time to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

The Washington Post's Robin Wright "reports" about the fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell will not attend the 2004 Republican National Convention:

The most popular Republican in the country will not be speaking at the Republican National Convention. The party's number one asset, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, will not even be there -- and may not be in the United States, according to U.S. officials.

Throughout the Bush presidency, Powell has consistently scored better than his boss in public opinion polls, often by 20 points or more. In an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll in May, Powell was viewed favorably by 69 percent of respondents -- compared with 49 percent for President Bush and 39 percent each for Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

But in keeping with tradition, Cabinet officials do not speak at the conventions -- or other campaign events. So Powell will not appear. (emphasis added)

Perhaps Robin Wright could do us all the favor, then, of going to the 2004 Republican National Convention Primetime Speakers Schedule, look at Tuesday, August 31, and explain what Secretary of Education Rod Paige is doing there under First Lady Laura Bush and above California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This correction should be a doozy. And, if the Post is to have any credibility with the correction, they should include a list of cabinet officials who have spoken at previous Republican National Conventions.

I would also like to know whether Robin Wright took this spin directly from a GOP operative. Who was the source for this nonsense? Is this another triumph for the so-called liberal media?

Last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann named this the top sound bite of the day.

President George W. Bush answering a question from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Mark Trahant:

Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

The video is, if anything, even more embarrassing. The White House transcript quoted above leaves out a couple of pauses and the audible laughter before the "And, therefore."

There are 87 days until election day.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire links to this interesting chart posted by Julius Civitatus that compares President George W. Bush's poll ratings with the announcement of terror alerts.

Correlation, of course, does not prove causation. And as Julius Civitatus notes in an update:

Update: for the record, we are not claiming that all these alerts are politically motivated. We are sure a considerable amount of these alerts were legit and caused by real and immediate information of potential threats. What is important to note is that many of these "immediate" terror alerts were later on discredited (in some cases they used old data, in other cases the announcements were less immediate and less urgent that we were lead to believe, as the press reported.) Those are the cases that could be interpreted as politically motivated, especially when they seemed to coincide with political news and events unfavorable to the administration.

The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh has written an excellent column about our nation's horrible fiscal situation. The column also serves as a review of Concord Coalition President Peter G. Peterson's new book Running on Empty.

Our generationally irresponsible fiscal policies are the result of decisions made by both Republicans and Democrats. But, I do think the scale of blame tilts toward our conservative friends. As Peterson writes in his book:

"This administration and the Republican Congress have presided over the most reckless deterioration of America's finances in history."

Lehigh understands this problem. He explains why the irresponsible Republican tax cuts have proven not to be tax cuts at all:

And [Peterson] makes a point that should be, but sadly isn't, self-evident: Unless offset by long-term spending reductions, tax cuts are not tax cuts at all. Instead, they simply shift the cost of current programs on to future taxpayers. That's so because if the government must borrow to spend now, the dollars spent must be repaid later. (emphasis added)

The Republicans never had any intention of cutting spending to pay for these tax cuts. Despite conservative rhetoric, it is clear that they know that the American people would not accept the spending reductions that would be required to balance the budget.

So, instead they cut taxes and increase spending. It's okay with Republicans as long as they can send the large and ever-growing check to our children and grandchildren.

You know. Family values.

MSNBC reports:

The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location. Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.

After Valerie Plame, I don't think so.

How serious is this? Paul Beaver, a former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters that:

If it’s true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation’s intelligence agent, who appears to be working in the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw. It’s also a monumental foreign relations blunder.

Are Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge sliming a Boston Globe reporter? Boston Phoenix Dan Kennedy outlines the strong evidence that Limbaugh and Drudge are unfairly attacking Michael Kranish as part of the conservative media's effort to put down John Kerry's military service.

You can read Kennedy's posts here and here. As Kennedy observes:

Too bad for Kranish that he got caught up in this mind-bogglingly sick offensive to denigrate Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Update: Kennedy this morning adds one more post about this saga. No apologies yet from the right's media titans.

None really expected either.

During an interview yesterday with the Associated Press, Senator John McCain urged President George W. Bush to condemn a new ad that attacks John Kerry's Vietnam service.

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

As McCain notes, this ad is similar to the tactics that Bush supporters used against him during the 2000 Republican primaries. He should take it personally.

That said, I hope that a Bush refusal to condemn the ad would have consequences. For example, McCain could cancel his scheduled speech during the Republican National Convention later this month if Bush does not condemn the ad.

A Bushism and/or inadvertent stumble into the truth? Here's what President George W. Bush had to say during Thursday's signing of the defense budget bill:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The national debt increased by $42.233 billion during July 2004, from $7,274,334,972,199.15 on June 30 to $7,316,567,571,232.89 on July 30.

Generational irresponsibility in action!

Condemning arguments that make torture appear legal? Sounds to me like a worthwhile position to take. The Washington Post's Scott Higham reports:

Nearly 130 lawyers, retired judges and law school professors and a former director of the FBI yesterday condemned a series of U.S. government legal opinions holding that the torture of terrorism suspects might be legally defensible.

The lawyers signed a statement asking the Bush administration and Congress to investigate why the memos were prepared by administration lawyers, and whether there is a connection between the opinions and detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other detainee facilities.

Isn't it interesting how that preoccupation with investigations ended on January 20, 2001?

A Washington Post editorial today rightly argues that a record federal budget deficit does not merit a celebration.

THE BUSH administration announced last week its revised figure for this year's budget deficit: $445 billion. This, or so the spin goes, is good news, because the original forecast was even higher -- $521 billion. But outside budget experts had warned that the forecast was inflated, which tarnishes any celebration of the new number. Not that the administration was deterred. "This improved budget outlook is the direct result of the strong economic growth the president's tax relief has fueled," crowed Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten.

Mr. Bolten's argument makes little sense: Economic growth has been no faster than the administration anticipated when it predicted the higher deficit. In any event, $445 billion marks the highest deficit ever (though the administration seems to be setting the stage for a new round of better-than-expected numbers just before Election Day). Only in the administration's upside-down economic world could a deficit $70 billion higher than last year's be hailed as progress.

The editorial goes on to explain why the Bush Administration is being misleading when it argues that the deficit will be cut in half in four years, and also explains how everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the first baby boomers will reach the early eligibility age for Social Security in less than 39 months.

Don't worry, though. In President Bush's world, all of this justifies another irresponsible tax cut. Even though, as Atrios points out again today, we are still waiting to see the promised employment growth that supposedly "justified" the previous rounds of tax cuts.

I realize that much of our media has moved on to other, largely trivial matters. Information about the torture at Abu Ghraib prison continues to be released, however, and it is important news for Americans to consider.

Tom Tomorrow, for example, links to a new report in Rolling Stone.

After reading it, ask yourself how most of our media could have forgotten about this scandal. One, I fear, for which we will be paying the price for years to come as those harmed and their families seek retaliation.

I'm sure Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has an explanation for the information included in this story by the Washington Post's Dan Eggen and Dana Priest:

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

But when Jon Stewart and the Daily Show pick up on the pattern (as they did at the top of Monday's show), the time may have arrived to demand some straight talk.

The Concord Coalition has released its latest Report on Fiscal Responsibility. The news is not good.

Concord generously gives our political leaders a "D" in response to their irresponsible fiscal policies. As the report notes:

"The budget deficit continues to ratchet upward and there is no consensus on what, if anything, to do about it. At best, Washington policymakers seem content to tread water in the rising tide of red ink. At worst, they are cynically professing concern about the deficit while pursuing tax and spending policies they know will only dig the fiscal hole deeper. One thing is clear: specific plans to actually reduce the deficit are not on the agenda. Such complacency is not warranted."

Nick over at Blogborygmi provides photographic evidence indicative of a bad day at The Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Based on the comments, it appears I missed something similar in my hometown paper last month...

Update: As it happens, my cluelessness has led to an "only in the blogosphere" moment.

Tonight at dinner with my wife, I commented on the newspaper's error. (I realize that sounds a bit, um, geeky. But it flowed naturally through the course of the conversation. Really. Trust me.)

I then commented on the comments to this post. Noting that the person who commented before I did had pointed out a similar error in her hometown paper. Upon checking the paper, I was a bit excited to realize that it was also mine.

How interesting, I thought, that someone else from California's East Bay and Contra Costa County would read Nick's blog.

Well, really, it turns out that this result is not all that surprising. KD, the person who commented before me, is...um...my wife.

Duh. That sorta explains a lot.

Thanks to my cluelessness, she had a good laugh and another story I am sure I will never be allowed to forget. And Nick, who not being clueless figured this out immediately, added what KD and I think is a top-notch comment about this situation.

I will now go to the box, and feel shame. Two minutes for being a dumbass.

From Atrios:

"If you want change in this country, you ought to vote for President Bush."

--Matthew Dowd, Bush/Cheney Strategist, Fox News Sunday.

Sorry, Mr. Dowd. I'm not buying your illogic. I think I'll seek change by voting for John Kerry this November.

Seeking change. You know. By changing presidents.

The Washington Post's Dana Priest reports:

An al Qaeda commander who initially told interrogators that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization later told CIA officers his statement was not true, according to intelligence officials.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan captured in Pakistan on Nov. 11, 2001, later "changed his story, and we're still in the process of trying to determine what's right and what's not right" from his information, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "He told us one thing at one time and another at another time."

One of the most important: did al-Libi give his false testimony, telling interrogators what they undoubtedly wanted to hear, while being subjected to "enhanced interrogation" torture methods approved by the Bush Administration?

In five short points, Brad DeLong takes apart a recent Gregg Easterbrook article that (unfairly) attacks physicist Stephen Hawking.

Bill Maher writes a good line about the television network's irresponsible decision not to cover more of the party conventions:

The media treat these conventions as if they're pointless interruptions of their real job, which is covering the Scott Peterson trial. No drama, no excitement.

That change from the FCC, unlikely as it is, would help end today's deplorable situation where large segments of our public either tune out of the process or remain uninformed. As Maher writes:

I'm not asking you to pore over issues and read everything that's out there; we can't even get our president to do that. But the conventions are one of the only times when the election isn't reduced to a war of sound bites and attack ads, one of your last chances to form an opinion that means something.

Americans don't get taught anything, but they get asked their opinions every day, so we get the impression that having an opinion is the same as knowing something. Which it isn't.