Benen: THERE'S NO COMPARISON....
Tomorrow will feature two speeches on national security, one of which will matter. This piece, from the Politico's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, frames the two speeches in an unhelpful way.President Barack Obama will attempt to regain control of a boiling debate over anti-terrorism policy with a major speech on Thursday -- an address that comes on the same day that former Vice President Dick Cheney will be weighing in with his own speech on the same theme.
The dueling speeches amount to the most direct engagement so far between Obama and his conservative critics in the volatile argument over what tactics are justified in detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants.
Look, there is no "duel." Setting these addresses up as some kind of book-end speeches is silly.
President Obama is the Commander in Chief in a time of two wars. He'll be delivering a lengthy speech about U.S. national security, his recent decisions on matters like Gitmo and military commissions, and where U.S. policy is headed.
Dick Cheney used to hold office, but he's now a cranky private citizen, who's taken it upon himself to undermine the current administration. He'll be speaking at a think tank about how right he thinks he was, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and why he'd like to see the White House's decisions fall in line with his own.
One of these speeches is consequential. The other will be delivered by Dick Cheney. He may have been vice president, but compared to Obama's address tomorrow, Cheney's thoughts on national security are about as relevant as my thoughts on the issue.
- Greg Sargent: CNN And MSNBC To Carry Cheney’s Big National Security Speech Live
Looks like Dick Cheney’s big national security speech at the American Enterprise Institute tomorrow is going to get wall-to-wall cable coverage — giving a major assist to those who hope that his speech will be seen as “dueling” with the one that Obama is planning to give on the same topic tomorrow.
Both CNN and MSNBC will be carrying Cheney’s speech live tomorrow, in addition to carrying Obama’s, spokespeople for both networks confirm to me, barring the intrusion of some major news event. Fox News will certainly be all over the Cheney speech tomorrow — a major cataclysm couldn’t tear them away from such a big moment. So that means roadblocked cable coverage for Cheney.
Obama is set to deliver his big speech on national security at 10 A.M. Cheney’s is set to follow at 10:45. Politico framed the story of tomorrow’s speeches in advance in a piece called: “Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches.”
This, naturally, raised some hackles on the left, where people pointed out that Obama is the Commander in Chief, meaning his national security views have real-world significance, while Dick Cheney is a private citizen who only has his reputation at stake.
In other words, goes this argument, their speeches will only be “dueling” if folks in the media make the decision to present them that way. Republicans, meanwhile, hope that coverage does proceed along these lines, helping to elevate Cheney and taking down Obama a peg or two.
Looks like the cable nets have already made the call.
Benen: STRONG SUPPORT FOR ROE RULING....
A couple of polls last week on abortion rights surprised much of the political world, especially an odd Gallup poll showing "pro-life" surging past "pro-choice" -- by a healthy margin -- for the first time in recent history.
The polls had a few flaws. Ron Chusid points out a new CNN poll that asked the abortion question in a more salient, and politically relevant, way.
The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?
30% Yes, overturn
68% No, not overturnNow, I realize the obvious danger of dismissing poll results I don't like as "outliers" and embracing poll results I do like as "reliable." That said, these new results from CNN certainly seem more in line with expectations and other Roe-related polls in recent years.
While it's interesting that "pro-life" numbers have improved, at least in some surveys, there are inherent ambiguities. Many, for example, might say they're personally "pro-life," but don't want to see the government mandate their beliefs on everyone else.
It's more important, then, to see that Americans strongly prefer to see the Roe precedent remain in place.
Greenwald:Terrorists in Prison: is there anything the Right doesn't fear?
The "debate" over all the bad and scary things that will happen if Obama closes Guantanamo and we then incarcerate those detainees in American prisons is so painfully stupid even by the standards of our political discourse that it's hard to put into words, and it also perfectly illustrates the steps that typically lead to America's National Security policies:
(1) Right-wing super-tough-guy warriors project some frightened, adolescent, neurotic fantasy onto the world -- either because they are really petrified by it or because they want others to be ("Putting Muslim Terrorists in our prisons will make us Unsafe! -- Keep them away from me, please!!!");
(2) Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic "leaders" such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are -- in our political debates, the more frightened one is, the more Serious and Tough one is -- and/or because they are genuinely frightened of being called mean names by Sean Hannity ("Harry Reid isn't as scared of this as I am, which shows that he's weak");
(3) "Journalists" who are capable of nothing other than mindlessly reciting what they hear then write articles depicting the Right's frightened neurosis as a Serious argument, and then overnight, a consensus emerges: Democrats are in big trouble politically unless they show that they, too, are as deeply frightened as the Right is.
Until recently, I thought the single most embarrassingly stupid event of the last decade's national security debates -- the kind that will make historians look back with slack-jawed amazement -- was the joint dissemination in the run-up to the war by the Bush administration and the American media of playing cards that featured all of the "Most Wanted" Iraqi Villains and their cartoon villain nicknames. Saddam Hussein was the Ace of Spades; Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash -- Mrs. Anthrax -- was the Five of Hearts; Ali Hassan al-Majid -- Chemical Ali -- was the King of Spades; sadly, Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha -- the dreaded "Dr. Germ" -- didn't make it to the deck, but she certainly had her day in the American media sun (AP: "Iraq's 'Dr. Germ' Surrenders to Coalition" -- CNN: "U.S. military holding 'Dr. Germ,' 'Mrs. Anthrax'").
If you weren't on board with all of that -- if you weren't hiding under your bed shaking when these cartoons were shown on the TV -- that meant that you were neither Tough nor Serious. Just as is true now, the Tough and Serious people were the ones who became frightened by the comic book villians. All of that led to reports like this from CNN:
U.S. commanders said that they have no intention of resting until the mission is complete and they have the top prize, Saddam -- the ace of spades in the notorious deck of cards.
Saddam's sons Qusay, the ace of clubs, and Uday, the ace of hearts, died in a raid in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. . . .Key to tracking down Qusay and Uday was the capture of the ace of diamonds, No. 4 on the list, Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, . . . Still unclear is the fate of No. 5 -- the king of spades -- Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" . . . . U.S. military officials said they still want to capture or kill those who remain at large and put the entire deck of cards out of business.
And this from CNN:
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: Let's go to the Pentagon for details of that capture of another player in the Pentagon's deck of cards. CNN's Patty Davis is on the story -- Patty.
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Kelli. Another big fish now in U.S. custody. The U.S. Central Command says it is retiring the six of clubs from that deck of most wanted Iraqis. Now he is Lieutenant General Husam Muhammad Amin Al-Yasin.
Now, Lieutenant General Amin was the liaison for the U.S. weapons inspectors before the war, a key figure in Saddam Hussein's weapons program. He held briefings, giving Iraq's point of view about those inspections and could very well have valuable information about, for the U.S. about any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Now clearly a very big get for the U.S. On the deck of cards now, 13 of the 55 now in custody.
How can "journalists" who said such things even show their face in public? If there were transcripts of you saying things like this on national television, wouldn't you want to go immediately leap off the nearest bridge? Yet not a single American media organization ever questioned why they kept warning Americans about Chemical Ali, Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ once there were no chemical weapons found in the entire nation of Iraq.
Despite all that, we never tire of the specter of the Big, Bad, Villainous, Omnipotent Muslim Terrorist. They're back, and now they're going to wreak havoc on the Homeland -- devastate our communities -- even as they're imprisoned in super-max prison facilities. How utterly irrational is that fear? For one thing, it's empirically disproven. Anyone with the most minimal amount of rationality would look at the fact that we have already convicted numerous alleged high-level Al Qaeda Terrorists in our civilian court system (something we're now being told can't be done) -- including the cast of villains known as the Blind Shiekh a.k.a. Mastermind of the First World Trade Center Attack, the Shoe Bomber, the Dirty Bomber, the American Taliban, the 20th Hijacker, and many more -- and are imprisoning them right now in American prisons located in various communities.
We've been doing that for two decades. What are all the bad and scary things that have happened as a result? The answer is: "nothing." Take note, Chris Cillizza and friends: while it's true that "not a single prisoner has escaped from Gitmo since it was created," it's also true that no Muslim Terrorists have escaped from American prisons and our SuperMax prison "has had no escapes or serious attempts to escape." Actually, the only person to even make an escape attempt from a SuperMax is Green Arrow, who hasn't succeeded despite the help of Joker and Lex Luthor.
- Dan Froomkin adds:
Here's one thing that hasn't changed in the Obama era: Republicans are still able to come up with scare tactics that turn Senate Democrats into a terrified and incoherent bunch of mewling babies.
It's hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than the suggestion that bringing some of the terror suspects currently incarcerated in Guantanamo to high-security prisons in America will pose a threat to local communities.
It is nothing more than a bogeyman argument, easily refuted with a little common sense. (Isn't that what prisons are for?) But that's assuming you don't spend your every moment living in fear of Republican attack ads questioning your devotion to the security of the country. Or that you have a modicum of respect for the intelligence of the American public.
Ah well. Old habits die hard, I guess. And Senate Democrats apparently remain an easily frightened bunch, after eight years of faint-hearted submission.
Think Progress: Gingrich: Only Republicans — Like Me — Are Allowed To Accuse The CIA Of Misleading Congress
This morning, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich went on ABC’s Good Morning America and called on Democrats to pressure Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to resign her position as Speaker. He claimed that she has “disqualified herself” for the leadership spot, because “if I were a person trying to defend this country, I’d have very little confidence that the Speaker of the House had any regard for what we were doing.”
Host Diane Sawyer challenged Gingrich, noting that he never criticized Rep. Peter Hoekstra’s (D-MI) repeated criticism of the agency, including this statement in 2007: “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.” Gingrich struggled uncomfortably and repeatedly attempted to change the subject:
GINGRICH: Well, in that case, he’s writing a specific letter asking them to change something they were doing. He did not say the CIA routinely lies —
SAWYER: “Lies,” he said —
GINGRICH: — to the Congress.
SAWYER: Well, he says “lies.” He says “what it does and then lies to Congress.”
GINGRICH: And I think they actually had to come back and testify.
Watch it:
But more hypocritical than his silence in response to Hoekstra’s criticisms of the CIA is the fact that in 2007 Gingrich himself accused the CIA, among other U.S. intelligence agencies, of not just misleading Congress but actively undermining the President of the United States. In response to the release of the 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program — Gingrich said that he believed the NIE and its authors were “damaging to our own national security”:
[The NIE] is so professionally unworthy, so intellectually indefensible and so fundamentally misleading that it is damaging to our national security.
The NIE appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the policies of President Bush by members of his own government by suggesting that Iran no longer poses a serious threat to U.S. national security because we apparently have credible reports that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
While Gingrich claimed to be aiming his criticisms at “partisan State Department bureaucrats,” the reality is that the NIE was compiled and authored by the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council, in which the CIA plays an integral role. It was regarded as the “intelligence community’s most authoritative and coordinated written assessment” of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Yglesias: Rep Blumenauer Challenges George Will to a Debate on Portland
Hot in my inbox, a statement from Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who represents Portland in Congress and is one of the main leaders on transportation policy in the House, responding to George Will’s cranky anti-Portland column:
“In his article, Mr. Will proves that he is mired in a one-dimensional past, one that the city of Portland has successfully overcome. He opposes policies that will provide Americans with more choices while saving them money, creating jobs and protecting the environment. In Portland we have been able to increase productivity, boost our economy, and invest in our city’s resources by taking a well-rounded approach to transportation. Secretary LaHood shares this comprehensive view on transportation options for our nation—its not about behavior modification its about giving Americans the freedom to choose more than just the highway or byway.
Rather than pontificate about practicality from a far, I challenge Mr. Will to come experience Portland, and then debate the facts, the future and the visions we offer. I am proud to defend the Portland model so painstakingly developed and implemented over the last 1/3 of a century. Maybe he will understand why young well educated people move here without jobs and older, well established business and professional people won’t leave for jobs that pay more. We will be happy to buy his plane ticket and give him a bottle of Oregon pinot to die for.
I’m mostly wondering what Newsweek intends to do about the large, material factual error in Will’s column. When Will penned an error-ridden Washington Post column on climate change, the Post steadfastly refused to issue a correction and key Post personnel defended Will’s right to lie in the Post’s pages. Strangely, during the weeks of ensuing controversy the Post ran several opinion pieces that, accurately, pointed out that Will was misleading people and some of the Post’s news personnel offered similar comments. Still, Will’s editors and the Post opinion section continued to stand solidly behind the principle that accuracy isn’t important to them—at least as long as George Will is the author.
Newsweek is an editorially separate entity, but also owned by The Washington Post Company. Perhaps the Post’s decision to greenlight lying led Will to believe he could get away with similar misrepresentations in Newsweek. I’ll be interested to see if that proves to be the case.
GritTV: GRITtv Live at Noon: Torturer in Chief? The Media Pick Pelosi Over Cheney
| Wednesday May 20, 2009 10:30 am |
We all know that in the run up to the war in Iraq the media ran with the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now the question of torture, and specifically the possible use of torture to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, has been drowned out by the Washington drama of what Nancy Pelosi knew and when. In fact, none of the country’s five major newspapers has reported on an item that appeared in the Daily Beast on May 13—that Vice President Dick Cheney's office "suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection." Leave that to the blogs.
Well, today, we have the best in the business when it comes to deconstructing the mainstream media. Its lapses, omissions, and outright distortions. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters and the author of Bloggers on the Bus, Mike Lux author of The Progressive Revolution and founder of Open Left, and Katharine Zaleski Senior News editor at the Huffington Post on the media coverage of the past week, the blogosphere, and the future of progressive media.
No comments:
Post a Comment