August 2006 Archives

Gary Hart looks back through history and finds some unsettling comparisons between the United States today, and the years when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire.

For those of us who believe history holds valuable lessons, there is instruction to be had from the experience of other great powers. In the particular case of the American Republic it is important to consider the history of other republics. Not the least of these examples is the demise of the ancient Roman Republic and its transition to the Roman Empire.

That history is well known. The civil wars of the mid-first century BC led to the acquisition of dictatorial power by Julius Caesar lasting from about 49 BC until his assassination on the Ides of March 44 BC. Further unrest if not chaos ensued until, in 27 BC, Caesar’s adopted son Octavianus became the first Roman emperor as the first Augustus.

So much for the dates and names. The question is how Augustus became emperor. How did he go about finally ending a republic founded in 510 BC?

That's Sen. Joe Lieberman's (CFL-Conn.) plan for today, reports FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher.

Reuters' Kristin Roberts reports:

The U.S. Marine Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer, the service said on Tuesday.

Gee, I cannot imagine why volunteer numbers are falling.

But, hey, only Republicans support the troops and there is nothing wrong with our Iraq policy and we are ready to go into Iran at any moment.

Yikes.

(Hat tip for all links: ThinkProgress.)

Really, how much longer can the myth of Republicans supporting our troops last? I podcast much of my radio programming, so I didn't hear about this story from last Friday's Al Franken Show until last night. Here's the text of an action alert released by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:

Dear IAVA Supporter,

We are outraged. In the midst of a war, politicians in Washington are cutting funding for the treatment of a serious injury affecting over 100,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Supporting the Troops should be more than a soundbite. Click here to tell Congress to put their money where their mouth is. You can also view a list of the members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations by clicking here.

When a Marine in Fallujah barely escapes an RPG attack, or an IED explodes near a soldier's Humvee, the blast can cause the troop's brain to slam against in the inside of his skull. The result is Traumatic Brain Injury, or TBI, which can cause dizziness, problems with vision, hearing, or speech, memory loss, and even severe brain damage. At least 100,000 troops serving in Iraq or Afghanistan have been affected by TBI.

So, how does Congress respond? By cutting in half the funding for the research and treatment center for TBI. Click here to send a letter blasting Congress for their shameful funding cuts for the treatment of America's wounded veterans.

Veterans' care is not the place to cut corners. The Defense Authorization bills are spending about $400 billion of your money. But TBI research requires only an extra $7 million.

IAVA will continue this fight on the airwaves and in newspapers across the country. Join us in support of Troops suffering with Traumatic Brain Injury - click here to send a letter to your local paper today, to tell Congress to save funding for TBI research. Together, we can make a difference for wounded Veterans. Keep an eye on www.iava.org for the latest updates.

Sincerely,

Paul Rieckhoff
Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Emory University Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine Stuart Hoffman asked several good questions in an Atlanta Journal Constitution op-ed:

Citizens of this country should demand answers to these questions:

• Why does the White House want to kill this program, and why is Congress going along?

• Are Bush administration officials embarrassed by the numbers of brain-injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?

• Do they believe that if data collection is stopped, the problem will vanish?

• What will happen to brain-injured troops when they no longer have access to these services?

We ask our military men and women to sacrifice on our behalf. Are tax cuts really more important than treating our servicemen and servicewomen injured in war?

I don't think so.

Yesterday marked 1,800 days since President George W. Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

Sorry I've missed the past few days. Readers of my wife's blog know our family was thrown into considerable turmoil since Monday.

Short version: our oldest son has a mild form of autism. We figured a public school situation would prove too much for kindergarten this year. We found a local private school which had a good reputation for dealing with quirky kids. It did not work out, our son was expelled on Monday.

While I cannot blame the school for their decision given the particularly bad week my son had, I think their reputation for tolerating quirky kids is just a bit overstated.

The Straight Talk Express once again veers off course and into the ditch. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today lied about America's support for setting a timetable to leave Iraq. Think Progress has the goods:

(Hint: according to recent polls, most Americans think we should set a timetable.)

The so-called liberal media once again works to President George W. Bush's advantage. It happens over and over and over again. Think Progress makes note of an example from the past week:

Yesterday, a federal judge in Michigan issued “a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” The ruling was “a significant blow to Bush’s attempts to expand presidential powers,” but you wouldn’t know that by watching last evening’s network newscasts.

All three major TV networks led their evening news with stories on JonBenet Ramsey’s death and the comments made by arrested teacher John Mark Karr. The networks offered multiple segments and numerous expert analyses to provide in-depth coverage on the legal case. The NSA decision received only a passing mention from two of the newscasts, while ABC devoted a full segment to it.

Still, ABC devoted twice as much time to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story. More egregiously, CBS offered seven times as much airtime to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story, while NBC devoted 15 times more airtime. (emphasis original)

As Daniel Gross points out, D.C.'s corporate lobbyists are showing which way they think the political winds are blowing this year by suddenly remembering (drumroll...) that they can actually hire Democrats.

While Sen. George Allen's (R-Va.) "macaca" racial slur was horrible, I agree with Brent Budowsky that another part of his attack on S.R. Sidarth is at least equally offensive:

A brief word about George Allen. I had never heard the word Macaca until it came out of the mouth of the incumbent Senator from Virginia. And I am even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't exactly say it, or didn't mean it, or didn't know exactly what he meant by it. Whatever.

Senator Allen said something that was far, far worse than that. He pointed to an American of Indian descent, and said: welcome to America. This is the kind of tactic that has no place in America, the idea of demeaning and ridiculing the Americanism of a fellow American, whether the color of his skin is the same as mine, or different.

The entire statement is really intolerable. Allen pointed to a person born and raised in Virginia and assumed his was (gasp) an immigrant or something worse. This was not a mistake. It was a peek into Allen's soul -- and not a pleasant one.

I hope the people of Virginia (a Commonwealth in which I used to live) will have the wisdom not to return such a man to the United States Senate.

MSNBC's David Shuster is often better than this.

But The Daily Howler is absolutely correct to call Shuster on what he did to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) on last night's Hardball:

Quite amazing. On last night’s Hardball, David Shuster was rattling on about “the political war over national security.” Fairly quicky, he got to Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the savant soon said:

SHUSTER (8/15/06): In the case of Senator Clinton, by ratcheting up attacks against President Bush, Clinton is trying to blunt Democratic anger at her for voting to authorize the Iraq war in the first place. But as Clinton steps up criticism of the administration, her Republican Senate campaign opponent is seizing the opportunity to bloody her.

CAMPAIGN AD (videotape): Senator Hillary Clinton opposes the Patriot Act and the NSA program that helped stop another 9/11. She’d leave us vulnerable.

SHUSTER: In Virginia, Republican Senator George Allen is getting attacked over national security from the left...

Do you see the problem with that presentation? In fact, Clinton doesn’t “oppose the Patriot Act,” for which she voted. (Beyond that, it’s a tendentious stretch to say that she opposes “the NSA program that helped stop 9/11.") But so what? Shuster broadcast the inaccurate ad—and never said a word about its inaccurate content. To all appearances, it doesn’t even occur to these people that they’re supposed to challenge or correct bogus statements.

Your so-called liberal media, hard at work making sure the American people think that Democrats are soft of national security, regardless of the facts.

The Horse's Mouth's Greg Sargent rightly takes apart Jon Chait's latest defense of TNR's recent Ann Coulter article.

Relatedly, Jon Chait got very upset yesterday with some people for attacking TNR's defense of Coulter. He singled out Atrios, my TAPPED colleague Charles P. Pierce, and other "partisan hysterics," saying: "They cannot imagine the notion of measuring a piece by any criteria other than ideological correctness." Chait almost certainly knows that this is false. But he wrote it anyway, probably because he'd fallen in love with his own loathsome "ideological correctness" formulation, and couldn't bear to part with it.

The obvious truth is that the objections to the TNR piece were mainly substantive, not ideological. Pierce, for instance, specifically faulted the piece for saying that it's "a little absurd to hold up a person as an expert judge of the 9/11 Commission Report...just because she lost a loved one," when in fact the "Jersey Girls" are held up as experts on 9/11 because, well, they are experts on it. Again, that's a substantive objection, not an ideological one. What's more, Pierce also linked to another piece making a long and detailed substantive case against the TNR defense of Coulter. Why Chait felt the need to mischaracterize the arguments against his mag's piece is beyond me, but he no doubt had his reasons.

It's always easier to attack straw men one creates than the actual substance of the argument. Especially when a writer finds his or herself trying to defend the indefensible. Chait certainly has earned Atrios' Wanker of the Day award.

Heck, TNR must be learning from one of the magazine's heroes. President George W. Bush, after all, has made a career of valiantly attacking straw men. He's a macho guy.

Andrew Sullivan would like some evidence about the London terrorist plot broken up last week. He does the media's job -- asking questions, following up, and remaining at least a little skeptical.

Despite some of the blatherings on the radical-right blogosphere, Sullivan is not saying this was a hoax. He has questions. And, rightly, very little trust.

I'd be interested in the number of plotters who had passports. How could they even stage a dummy-run with no passports? And what bomb-making materials did they actually have? These seem like legitimate questions to me; the British authorities have produced no evidence so far. If the only evidence they have was from torturing someone in Pakistan, then they have nothing that can stand up in anything like a court. I wonder if this story is going to get more interesting. I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.

Been there. Done that. Learned my lesson.

A good question. Northwestern University professor emeritus Kenneth Janda provides the numbers in a Chicago Tribune op-ed:

The United States has been fighting in Iraq since March 19, 2003, when President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom with air strikes against Baghdad. Monday marks the 1,245th day of the Iraqi conflict. By that reckoning, Americans troops will have fought in Iraq for as long as they fought Germany in World War II.

Our war against Germany lasted 1,245 days, from Dec. 11, 1941, (when both nations declared war) until May 8, 1945.

Our war against Japan from Dec. 7, 1941, until Aug. 15, 1945, lasted somewhat longer--1,348 days.

So one cannot yet say that the war in Iraq has been longer than World War II.

By another reckoning, the war in Iraq is already over, having lasted only 44 days. According to President Bush, it ended on May 1, 2003, when, standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

During those 44 days, 140 Americans died in the successful conflict called Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the 1,200 days since, however, more than 2,400 Americans have died in Iraq.

So it does not quite seem right to declare the war in Iraq over on May 1, 2003.

Already, the war in Iraq has gone on as long as the war against Germany (and Italy, which surrendered even earlier), and it seems destined to last even longer than the three years, eight months, and nine days needed to defeat Japan.

Nov. 25, the Saturday after Thanksgiving, will mark the 1,348th day of American involvement in the Iraqi conflict. It is not a date to celebrate.

I hope voters will send a message to our leaders a few weeks earlier--on election day.

Another sign that our Republican leadership is not serious about security. The Associated Press' Leslie Miller writes:

The nation's top aviation security official says X-ray images are an effective way to detect bombs in shoes.

A Homeland Security Department study says they aren't.

It's only been nearly five years since the September 11 terrorist attacks and Richard Reid's attempt to use a shoe bomb on December 22, 2001.

Do you feel safer after reading a story like this one? How many more chances are we going to give the Republican Party to play politics with security rather than doing something about it?

(Hat tip: Americablog)

My alma mater, Bowdoin College, was founded in 1794. It's now been 1,794 days since President George W. Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

I guess President George W. Bush's policy continues to follow the thoughts he expressed at a March 13, 2002 press conference:

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...

Jes Gőlbez catches the copy editors having a horrible day at Canada's Sports Leader.

I only caught the second half of last night's Monday Night Football game on ESPN, but I really, really liked Tony Kornheiser's first performance.

Of course, as my wife and friends will note, I am a shameless suck-up for Kornheiser. Have been since I started listening to his radio show a few days after moving to the Washington, D.C., area (about a decade ago).

Of the reviews I've read of Tony K.'s performance last night, I think the San Francisco Chronicle's C.W. Nevius makes the best point:

But there was a role after all. Think of it this way. Theismann is a balloon and Kornheiser is a pin. When Theismann went on and on about Raider quarterback Aaron Brooks and the offense getting on the same page, making adjustments, and mobility in the pocket, Kornheiser went to the numbers. Brooks was 0-4.

"Those aren't good numbers are they?'' he asked.

If Kornheiser can keep pricking the NFL (and Theismann) bubble, he'll be great on the Monday Night Football. I guess I'll have to figure out how to get home in time for kickoff.

I would like to think that Sen. Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) really doesn't believe this stuff. Alas, the evidence is growing -- and not in the Senator's favor. Here's what Lieberman had to say recently (sorry, still catching up), with emphasis provided by Mark Schmitt:

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Wow. What a deranged and unserious statement. Schmitt takes the Senator on a well-deserved trip to the blogging woodshed:

First, there’s no antecedent to the word "threat" or "enemy" so we have no idea what threat he’s referring to. Is it al-Qaeda alone? Al-Qaeda plus Hezbollah and Hamas, plus Syria and Ahmadinejad? Or that thing out there that Little Green Footballs the President now calls "Islamic fascists"?

Who knows. But under any possible definition of "threat" or "enemy" it cannot possibly be as dangerous than the Soviet Union at the peak of the Cold War, with multiple thermonuclear devices pointed at every one of our cities and towns. And, I don’t know exactly how to score "evilness," but not much matches Hitler. I suppose in some way bin Laden and Zawahiri’s hearts may be as filled with evil as Hitler’s or Stalin’s, but they don’t have the SS and Luftwaffe at their disposal. Maybe they would send us all to concentration camps if they controlled half of Europe, but thankfully, they live in caves and can’t use the phone. Is Ahmadinejad "more evil, or as evil" as Hitler? Maybe the potential is there, with his holocaust denial and all that, but so far it’s mostly talk.

I’m sorry, but this is just a deranged, or at best deeply confused and manic, thing to say. It shows a lack of perspective and reality and responsibility, even in its lack of clarity about what exactly the threat is and how to defeat it. Why does anyone accept that this kind of blather can be considered taking the threat more "seriously"? It’s not. It’s hugely unserious in its trivialization of the great moral challenges of the Twentieth Century and it’s bald politicization of the current challenge.

And that really is the point.

This is about politics. Not about fighting terrorists. Not about making us safer.

Just politics.

Senator Lieberman, alas, has learned well the lessons and follows the priorities set by President George W. Bush. He'll do great as a Fox News Channel "analyst" after his November general election loss.

I was just catching up on the first few parts of Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll's story of her 82-day kidnapping ordeal in Iraq.

It is a fascinating story. You can start reading it here.

The title of this post, however, is directed at I. Macias Jr., of San Antonio, Texas. The Monitor, you see, is giving people the opportunity to ask Carroll questions about her ordeal. I. Macias Jr. offered the following slanderous inquiry:

"Because of your well-known support of everything Muslim, many of your fellow Americans, including myself, believe your capture was not real, but was in fact conducted and staged with your cooperation, and, that you are a traitor to your country as well as to your family and friends. What is your response to those allegations?"

There really isn't a circle of hell low enough for I. Macias Jr.

They must not have been handing out much decency -- or brainpower -- on the day I. Macias Jr. joined the planet.

If someone told you even three months ago that Ned Lamont would beat Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.) in today's primary, you would have had much reason to question the sanity of such a prognostication.

What a difference three months can make. Congratulations to Lamont and all of the people who supported him.

This is now a critical time for Democrats around the nation. This was not a low turnout fluke. Turnout was heavy. Lamont won. Will national Democratic leaders stand with the winner of the Democratic primary?

Early indications look good.

As for Lieberman, despite the suggestions of very smart people, I think it would be a mistake to strip him of his committee assignments in retribution for filing as an independent candidate. Unless Lieberman does something outrageous, it is better to take the high road. I would not rush to give his supporters reason or excuse to rally behind him. Connecticut voters elected him to a six-year term. Not a five-and-a-half year one. There's no need to fight the last battle.

Besides, Lieberman is no longer the problem. It is going to be extremely difficult for him to win a three-way race. The dynamics of the race are quite against him. He'll have less than a week of play as an independent. Then reality will set in. The question now for Lieberman is how stubborn he will be and how much -- or little -- political dignity he will have at the end of the day.

I believe that instead of focusing on Lieberman now, pressure needs to be placed on national Democratic officeholders and national issue groups.

Lamont is the Democratic Party candidate in the general election. It is time for Democrats and the party's faithful to support the choice of the Connecticut voters.

When I learned that PBS Kids Sprout had fired "Good Night Show" host Melanie Martinez over some satirical videos made seven years ago, I was extremely annoyed and insulted by the inane statement issued by the network.

Just a couple hours later, I joined my five-year-old in watching Sprout. On the teevee I noticed a George Carlin-era episode of Thomas the Tank Engine.

I love George Carlin. He's very funny. But, um, if Martinez is going to be fired for something she said seven years ago, how can the network show George Carlin, or a host of other famous people with similar credits on their resumes? After all, many of the actors who have appeared (to their credit) on children's programs over the years can claim dialogue much worse than what Martinez spoke.

So, to vent, I posted the e-mail I sent to the network protesting the firing. I was later stunned to see my blog's hit count reach new records by several multiples as people came to read my post. (Thank you for visiting and linking here.)

I remain saddened and angry by the firing. It is neither fair nor just. Nothing has happened over the past two weeks to change my opinion about this travesty--or to alter my low regard for the pathetic executives who made the decision.

Instead of admitting the mistake, PBS Kids Sprout has dug in. Martinez made her initial public comments about her firing over the weekend. Instead of defending an employee and open artistic expression, an adult with a three-year-old is out of work. Way to play to the Sprout demographic, executives. Brilliant!

PBS, you may not own all of this network, but the travesty stains your reputation deeply. Attempts to pass the buck are not going to work for this observer.

Following up on the controversy, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler hit many high points late last week:

In last week’s column, I concluded that, “Nevertheless, there is something very disturbing” about firing Martinez and that I thought “it would have been a greater bow to freedom of expression and against guilt by association for the program and PBS to stick by her.” I still feel that way, even though it remains unclear what she was or was not asked about at her hiring interview.

It struck me as ironic that at the very time PBS is fighting against new Federal Communications Commission rulings about indecency that the network argues will inhibit documentary filmmakers and freedom of speech, it delivers a subjective punishment to a popular performer for something done seven years ago that was clearly a spoof. To me, it has too much of a whiff of after-the-fact loyalty oaths and purity checks on performers who do lots of different things.

PBS has won many plaudits in the press for its strong stand against constraints on freedom of expression in its pursuit of powerful, realistic and important documentary work. I have no doubt that had they acted differently in the case of Martinez, they would probably have attracted a lot of criticism. But I also think they would have had a lot of backers, and added to the feeling of many people that they had, in this case, too, stood up for something that also was important, but less easy to defend.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn) appears to have a bad memory, or he forgets that recording devices and newspaper archives exist. In today's New York Times, Lieberman says:

“I not only respect your right to disagree or question the president or anyone else, including me, I value your right to disagree,” he said at a community center in East Haven.

How touching. But then, I hit the way-back machine and recall what the Senator said about people who oppose the Iraq war just nine months ago:

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

Oh, yeah. I guess Lieberman respects those who disagree with the president enough to call us de facto traitors leading to our nation's peril. Odd notion of respect the Senator has learned in Washington. Very odd.

Really, making sure there are no gays in the military is far more important than having Arabic speakers in intelligence roles.

I mean, what, you think we're really fighting a war on terrorists here?

(Ed: Asked and answered. We know the administration isn't really serious about preparing our nation for terrorism. After all, in their view, inheritance tax cuts are more important than funding port security. But good to see Good Morning America giving the issue some coverage.)

(Hattip: Americablog)

Sorry, but after this incident involving my two-year-old escape artist happened yesterday afternoon, I wasn't in the mood to comment on anything.

Deadbolt gets installed this morning. He's sleeping happily in his bed.

Congress can't even find the time to support -- even only symbolically -- New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region.

Digby is right: how in the heck did it get to this point for Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.)? Why is it Atrios -- and not the Lieberman campaign -- that digs up quotes of Lieberman asking serious questions about Iraq and Donald Rumsfeld in 2003? Why didn't Lieberman just distance himself from the president a bit to stop the momentum building behind Ned Lamont? Why is it that Lieberman ran an inept campaign that has put his renomination in jeopardy?

What has struck me the most as I watched this campaign unfold from afar, is just how inept the Lieberman campaign has been on almost all levels. He had the money and the incumbency and the professional big time advisors and he ran a campaign that was almost laughably lame. I think it just shows, once again, that the tired, uncreative, tone deaf Democratic consultants are a big part of the problem for the national Democrats. If this is what the establishment produces you can see why we have lost everything.

How many times do Democrats have to lose winnable races before this point finally hits home?

One of the talking points being pushed by supporters of Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.) reminds us that he was the party's vice presidential nominee just six years ago -- how could things have changed so much in such a short period of time?

Over at TAPPED, Charles Pierce reminds us of a comparable event that happened in the long ago era of 1999, a time so long ago that our pundit class could not possibly be expected to remember it:

Anyway, one of the things you will hear, probably from Republicans, unless somebody's managed to use the jaws of life to get Al From away from a hospitality buffet table, is that poor Weepin' Joe is only six years removed from being the Democratic nominee for vice president, and what possibly (sniff, sniff) can have happened to that party full of hippie ingrates in the meantime. In this case, it's important to remember that, in 1999, in an Iowa presidential straw-poll that was enough of a votes-for-sale Kabuki that it would have embarrassed Huey Long, the eighth-place spot was secured by one J. Danforth Quayle who, the older folks will recall, actually was vice president of the United States. And there he was, seven years later, finishing behind four ruminants in the livestock barn and the corndogs at the concession stand.

Of course, just like the conservative challenges to sitting Republican officeholders (see this Michael Tomasky post about the Rhode Island Senate race), this is the type of fact that must not be repeated in political conversation.

Here's a surprise: the oil companies are smearing Al Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Steve at Crooks and Liars has the details.

Now, of course, the oil companies are trying to be sneaky and cover their tracks. Thankfully for us, their minions are incompetent at the propoganda thing. As Wall Street Journal reporters Antonio Regalado and Dionne Searcey explain:

In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn’t answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith’s Yahoo account indicate it didn’t come from an amateur working out of his basement.

Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.

A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI’s computers.

Yes, it is hard to imagine how that could have happened. Gee.

The September 11 Commission Co-Chairmen have written a book. If you actually care about the truth behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, you will not be pleased by what you read.

The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani — and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

So, in other words, we don't know the truth. And the commission failed in its duty.

The time to raise the issues of stonewalling, to fight for the answers, to demand accountability was while the commission was meeting and before it issued its "final" (ha!) report.

Not now. Years later. To push a book.

It's been nearly five years since the September 11 terrorist attacks. We obviously still do not have a true accounting of that day.

Does that really not matter?

Update: Americablog's John in DC is also outraged.

Why should believe Kean and Hamilton now, or at the very least have any respect for them, when they tell us that they basically sold us out in the final 9/11 report because they didn't have the backbone to do anything about it when it mattered? Now, that it's too late, they're coming clean? In August, no less, when the press is on vacation, along with all of Washington and most of America?

Real profile in courage, guys.

What Brad DeLong writes:

Let me urge everybody who isn't going to read Tom Ricks's Fiasco to at least listen to Ricks explain his themes and judgments on Michael Krasny's "Forum" program on San Francisco's KQED. The first 40 minutes of the show are extraordinarily good radio. And Ricks is--for all my complaints about how I wish he had told America more of this stuff and less "he said, she said" two years ago when it would have mattered more--an extraordinarily incisive and keen-witted analyst of America's armed forces and of the Pentagon.

Click here to download a MP3 or to hear a streaming feed.

My son first asked me to type out a googol. So, I did:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000

Then he took over the keyboard and told me that I had to love him this much:

110000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00440000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000055550000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000

I will do as I am told. :)

Our Defense Secretary has more troubles with the truth. As Think Progress notes:

Testifying before the Senate today, Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that he has “never painted a rosy picture” about Iraq. Rumsfeld insisted that he has been “very measured” and told Clinton “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”

Think Progress then lists just a few of the rosy scenarios spun by Rumsfeld over the past few years.

Which leads me to ask a simple question of the Secretary, quoting from Witness For The Prosecution:

...Are you lying then or are you lying now? Or, are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual liar?"

If the President won't fire him, Congress should impeach.

Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal has written a great analysis of a recent NPR poll of the 50 most competitive Congressional races.

The results are fascinating. If the election were held today, the results of the NPR survey indicate a much different overall outcome than in 2004 or 2002. Republicans won 55% of the vote cast in these districts in 2004 and 58% of the votes cast their in 2002, but the Republican candidates are currently preferred by only 43% of the voters in the NPR survey.

The Bush Administration is turning its back on Iraq and breaking a promise our nation made to help reconstruct the nation after our invasion. The Washington Post's Andy Mosher and Griff Witte write:

A flailing Iraq reconstruction effort that has been dominated for more than three years by U.S. dollars and companies is being transferred to Iraqis, leaving them the challenge of completing a long list of projects left unfinished by the Americans.

While the handover is occurring gradually, it comes as U.S. money dwindles and American officials face a Sept. 30 deadline for choosing which projects to fund with the remaining $2 billion of the $21 billion rebuilding program. More than 500 planned projects have not been started, and the United States lacks a coherent plan for transferring authority to Iraqi control, a report released Tuesday concludes.

What a surprise. "Lack[ing] a coherent plan" is nothing new for this White House. It's almost like the Bush Administration has read, and is now implementing, a "Creating a Radical Islamic State for Dummies" book. These broken promises, and the poor performance in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure that preceeded them, will hurt our national security in the coming years.

But we should not look only at the White House for failure here. Hello, Congress? This also represents a huge institutional (and Constitutional) failure for all of you.

"This story is a very disappointing one. Everywhere you look, goals have not been achieved," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who will hold a hearing on the reconstruction today. "I don't think we can ever get back the billions of dollars that have been lost to poor planning, outright fraud and corruption."

That's true. The money may be gone.

But, Senator, can you explain why your party opposes creating a Truman Commission today to investigate contracting and war profiteering? Senator, this happened on your watch. You had oversight responsibility. Expressing a little disappointment now does not negate the years you and your Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill have looked the other way.

Worse, it does not overcome the fact that you continue to allow war profiteering and this tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars by not conducting real oversight of this crisis.

What the hell? Did the Pentagon lie to the 9-11 Commission about its actions on the day we were attacked by Al Qaeda? Dan Eggen writes in the Washington Post:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

HOW ABOUT WE TIE THAT END UP? Just what else did you leave out there untied, Mr. Chairman?

Look, this is unacceptable. The Bush Administration did not want the 9-11 Commission. But the American people did. We need an accounting of the events of that day -- if only so we don't make the same mistakes in the future.

Mr. President, the buck stops with you. After all, you are the commander-in-chief. How about you use those powers.

(Hat tip: Americablog)

Like Larry Kestenbaum, I've generally avoided the memes passed around the blogosphere. Like him, however, I find this one too interesting to pass up.

Looking at this list, it is clear I have a fondness for comedy, science fiction, and Aaron Sorkin.

Instructions: Bold all of the following TV shows which you've ever seen 3 or more episodes of in your lifetime. Bold and Italicize a show if you're positive you've seen every episode of it. If you want, add up to 3 additional shows (keep the list in alphabetical order).

24 3rd Rock from the Sun 7th Heaven Adam-12 Aeon Flux ALF Alfred Hitchcock Presents Alias Allo Allo American Idol /Pop Idol/Canadian Idol/Australian Idol America's Next Top Model/Germany's Next Top Model Angel Arrested Development Babylon 5 Babylon 5: Crusade Battlestar Galactica (the old one) Battlestar Galactica (the new one) Baywatch Beavis & Butthead Beverly Hills 90210 Bewitched Bonanza Bones Bosom Buddies Boston Legal Boy Meets World Buffy the Vampire Slayer Bug Juice Chappelle's Show Charlie's Angels Charmed Cheers Columbo Commander in Chief Coupling Cowboy Bebop Crossing Jordan CSI CSI: Miami CSI: NY Curb Your Enthusiasm Dancing with the Stars Danny Phantom Dark Angel Dark Skies Davinci's Inquest Dawson's Creek Dead Like Me Deadliest Catch Deadwood Degrassi: The Next Generation Designing Women Desperate Housewives Dharma & Greg Different Strokes Doctor Who (new Who) Doctor Who (series 1-26) Dragnet Dragontales Due South Dungeons and Dragons (old cartoon) Earth 2 Emergency! Entourage ER Everwood Everybody Loves Raymond Facts of Life Family Guy Family Ties Fantasy Island Farscape Fawlty Towers Felicity Firefly Frasier Friends Futurama Get Smart Gilligan's Island Gilmore Girls Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. Green Wing Grey's Anatomy Growing Pains Gunsmoke Happy Days Head of the Class Highlander Hill Street Blues Hogan's Heroes Home Improvement Homicide: Life on the Street House I Dream of Jeannie I Love Lucy Invader Zim Invasion Iron Chef (Japan) Iron Chef (USA) Hell's Kitchen JAG Jackass Joey John Doe Kath and Kim LA Law Laverne and Shirley Law and Order Little House on the Prairie Lizzie McGuire Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman Lost Lost in Space Love, American Style M*A*S*H MacGyver Magnum P.I. Malcolm in the Middle Married... With Children Melrose Place Miami Vice Mission: Impossible Monk Moonlighting Mork & Mindy Murder One Murphy Brown

My Family My Favorite Martian My Life as a Dog My Mother the Car My So-Called Life My Three Sons My Two Dads Mysterious Cities of Gold NCIS Night Court Nip/Tuck Northern Exposure Numb3rs One Tree Hill Oz Perry Mason Picket Fences Pirates of Darkwater Pokemon Power Rangers Prison Break Profiler Project Runway Psyche Quantum Leap Queer As Folk (US) Queer as Folk (British) ReGenesis Remington Steele Rescue Me Road Rules ROME Roseanne Roswell Saved by the Bell Scarecrow and Mrs. King Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? Scrubs Seinfeld Sex and the City Six Feet Under Slings and Arrows Smallville So Weird South Park Spaced Spongebob Squarepants Sports Night Star Trek Star Trek: The Next Generation Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Star Trek: Voyager Star Trek: Enterprise Stargate Atlantis -- New season Stargate SG-1 -- New season Superman Supernatural Surface Survivor Taxi Teen Titans Teletubbies That 70's Show That's So Raven The 4400 The Addams Family The Andy Griffith Show The A-Team The Avengers The Beverly Hillbillies The Bionic Woman The Brady Bunch The Cosby Show The Daily Show The Dead Zone The Dick Van Dyke Show The Flintstones The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air The Golden Girls The Jetsons The L Word The Love Boat The Mary Tyler Moore Show The Mighty Boosh The Monkees The Munsters The Mythbusters The O.C. The Office (UK) The Office (US) The Practice The Pretender The Prisoner The Real World ROAR The Shield The Simpsons The Six Million Dollar Man The Sopranos The Suite Life of Zack and Cody The Twilight Zone The Waltons The West Wing The Wonder Years The X-Files Third Watch Three's Company Top Gear Twin Peaks Twitch City Upstairs, Downstairs Veronica Mars Wings What Not To Wear (US) What Not To Wear (UK) Whose Line is it Anyway? (US) Whose Line is it Anyway? (UK) Witchblade Will and Grace Wonderfalls Young Hercules

I added Dragontales, Murder One, and The Practice.

Brad DeLong answers his 16-year-old's question about who he would say are the worst government officials to have held office in our nation's history. As you might imagine, the current administration is well (not-so-well?) represented. Although a commenter asks whether the current Secretary of State has done enough to surpass Henry Kissinger...

Eric Alterman rightly accuses the so-called liberal media of not covering an urgent story.

One of the problems with the word “news” is that it contains the word “new.” If something is not “news” it’s “history” and deserves to be ignored until it can be forgotten. All you’ve got to do if that’s in your interest is wait out the news cycle. Better yet, if no news cycle ever emerges. I was reminded all this while working on my book when I came across this story from February 2004 in the Guardian. Titled, “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us,” it tells of a secret, suppressed Pentagon study warning that “warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

"'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'"

What is the Bush Administration doing to protect you from this massive threat predicted by its own Department of Defense?

It’s suppressing the news, hoping you don’t find out; attacking those who present similar warnings, and, as in almost all cases, abdicating its Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. Where are the so-called liberal media? You tell me.

Another interesting question: where is the Democratic Party?

Leadership is hard. It requires work. It requires developing arguments to convince people to change their minds.

Three decades ago, the extreme right-wing of this nation decided to do the tough work. To take stands. To move the political center of our nation to the right.

The center is not going to move back from the right as long as liberals and progressives shy away from the debate.

Daniel Gross reads a recent Washington Post story about President George W. Bush's attempt to return to a domestic agenda and asks:

What's missing in this article? How about some discussion or mention of what President Bush's domestic agenda is. Judging from this account, it consists of raising funds and public relations stunts.