November 14, 2005

11/14: Patriot Games

Several debates revolving around Iraq and the war on terrorism continue in the blogosphere, as they did on the Sunday shows and MSM editorial pages. The questions are many: Whether the U.S. practices torture, what intel Pres. Bush had vs. what Congress had, whether we should even be having this argument, what current U.S. sens. and potential WH candidates are saying about it, to what extent the left and right are acting patriotic or jingoistic, and so on. Meanwhile, the conversation over Judge Samuel Alito's SCOTUS nod cooled a bit last week, but it's about to heat back up following the Washington Times report that he stated his disagreement with Roe v. Wade in '85. Plus, don't miss the Google bombing of Bill O'Reilly, the smackdown of Mary Mapes, and a bit of controversy at Pajamas Media.

WMD INTEL: Has Anybody Here Seen My Old Vote, John?

In the 11/13 Washington Post, '04 Dem VP nominee John Edwards said his '02 vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake, and that he accepts the responsibility. AMERICAblog': "This is a very big deal. Edwards is saying what far too few Democrats are willing to say. They got tricked into voting for the war in Iraq, and now they regret it." A commenter at Think Progress thinks Edwards has the right strategy: "Most Americans will relate, because they made the same error of judgement. It will also put them in a much better light in comparison to an ever unapologetic President." Picking up on the argument from Political Animal, centrist Justin Gardner argues: "Congress didn't vote for a war, they voted for the President to use military force. Given that, Dems have wiggle room to say that they were told that war was simply a last resort and Bush didn't honor that promise."

On 11/13's "FNS," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said: "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq..." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Now, what the hell was Rockefeller doing revealing his analysis of American foreign policy and the direction of war strategy to Bashar Assad?? If this is true, Rockefeller should get ejected from the Senate and possibly stand trial for treason." Wizbang's Jay Tea writes in, and Morrissey updates, that prosecution may be possible under the Logan Act.

Prodded by CBS's Schieffer about whether criticism of the war is "unpatriotic," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said: "No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people." Instapundit focuses on the latter sentence: "I think the 'Bush lied us into war' meme is in trouble, and the GOP pushback seems to be a general effort, not a one-off. And I also think that the reason that so many antiwar people want to move from discussion of whether specific behavior is unpatriotic, to the straw man question of whether any criticism of the war is unpatriotic ... is because they know they're on weak ground on the specifics."

In the next segment, outgoing VA Gov./possible WH'08 candidate Mark Warner (D) said: "I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job." Worldwide Standard's Daniel McKivergan points out that Warner did not answer how he would have voted, commenting: "Gov. Warner should be applauded" for the "get over" remark, "but shouldn't a 'Southern centrist' who aspires to be commander-in-chief tell us how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization if he had been in Congress at the time?"

Centrist Jack Grant takes strong exception to Bush's criticism of Dems "rewriting history": "Given that the administration has 'rewritten history' in the reasons for the war in Iraq ... is it not more than a bit disingenuous to accuse others of rewriting history?" He adds: "I believe the administration saw what it wanted to see, and refused to listen to alternative viewpoints. I have seen this so often in my 15 year career in the high-tech industry that it is an old, boring story for me now. Hard data ignored, expert analysis discounted, the story is an old one not limited to governments nor to high-tech. Only the scope of the tragedies created highlight the differences in the indifference. So, who is rewriting history? Everyone."

Tom Maguire quotes Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid, "politician and ironist," responding to Bush's Veterans Day speech by saying: "Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home..." Maguire adds: "Left unexplained -- how the Democrats unrelenting focus on the use of pre-war intelligence is going to substitute for a plan to resolve the situation in Iraq."

BUSH: Patrioter Familias

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way -- and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad. And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they're acting unpatriotically." While certainly not a new argument, it's always a volatile one, and the post drew much debate. To Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, Reynolds was applying the lack of patriotism charge to "Democrats who claim that George Bush misled us into war." Reynolds wrote him to say he only meant that Dems were "pandering" to anti-war activists who are unpatriotic. Reynolds' update strikes Drum as merely confirming his original interpretation, and he adds: "There's undoubtedly political calculation going on as well, but that happens on both sides of the street and is hardly evidence of non-patriotism." Balloon Juice's right-leaning John Cole: "Kevin appears to run in a crowd that is fond of calling the opposition liars at every opportunity, and it would be a refreshing and welcome change if Kevin himself would practice what he preaches and stop willfully distorting those he disagrees with." Ex-Navy SEAL Matthew Heidt bluntly heads a post "Liberals Are Unpatriotic." He adds: "Oh yeah, you read that correctly. All you liberals out there that would rather score political points against the President and Vice President than win this war hate your country."

Daily Kos' Armando calls Washington Post's Hiatt a "Bush media lackey of the first order" and a "despicable McCarthyite cretin" for asserting that Dems are scoring political points off Bush at the expense of winning the Iraq war. Armando calls on Hiatt to resign. Atrios: "Anyone know if Fred Hiatt has signed up to go to Iraq yet? Sure, he's 50, a bit past prime fighting age, but I'm sure he could find something useful to do." At RedState, Leon H defends Hiatt, and semi-ironically lists a few ways how Hiatt and McCarthy are the same: "First, in both cases, the basic substance of their claims was true. Second, the truthfulness of their claims led to overblown hysterical liberal screaming."

In the spirit of the popular Internet saying Godwin's Law -- "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Ain't No Bad Dude's Brian Linse proposes "Linse's Law": "As a debate between pro-war and anti-war pundits grows longer, the probability of the pro-war side accusing the anti-war side of being unpatriotic becomes 1."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: If All The Yalies Who Opposed Or Supported Alito Were Laid End To End, Nobody Would Be The Least Surprised

Washington Times' Sammon reports that when Alito applied to work for the Reagan admin., he made clear in writing his opposition to Roe v. Wade. Ed Morrissey notes: "Just when the anti-Alito forces began to cast their nets elsewhere in hope of landing an issue, it looks like abortion may come back to the center of the debate." He adds, the other issues "look like straw-grasping, and with this new document coming to light, expect them to fall off the radar screen altogether. The abortion game is afoot once more, Watson." So far, Morrissey seems to be right:

>> From the right -- Blogs for Bush: "I say this is good that it came out... I'd like to see this discussed during Alito's hearings." UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge: "I think this clearly vindicates those of us who led the anti-Miers fight." Conservative Patterico's Pontifications: "Fasten your seatbelts! The Alito rollercoaster may have been chugging slowly along without any excitement -- but that may have been merely the beginning of the ride. We're headed for that first hill, and it's a doozy." Brothers Judd heads a post "FOLKS'LL SAY ANYTHING TO GET A JOB..."

>> From the left -- Liberal Fired Up America saves the snark for the Times, which "actually breaks some news for a change..." Atrios: "It's the Moonie Times, but even it gets things right now and then." Pandagon: "Someone should let [Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen] Specter know that he need not bother with the rationalizations about 'super-precedents' or whatever. Either sack up or stop pretending you give a shit about abortion rights. And that goes for every other member of the chamber, as well." Shakespeare's Sister: "I would have thought someone as smart as Scalito would have done more on his application than copy the entry for 'Activist Judge' out of the encyclopedia."

GWU law prof Daniel Solove considers an 11/13 New York Times piece which cites SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas and almost-justice Robert Bork for having "betrayed" them by opposing their nods. Writes Solove: "I find the suggestion here rather odd. Is Yale Law School supposed to support every graduate nominated for the Supreme Court or running for political office? Is this a duty that a law school owes its alumni? I think not. The faculty and students of a law school should decide on the merits of the Alito nomination without putting a special thumb on the scale because he has a connection to the school." PrawfsBlawg's Rick Garnett, himself a Yale alum, writes that the school's faculty and students don't "owe" Alito their support, but "they should, in my view, support him -- or, at least, not oppose him -- because (a) they are smart enough to know that (b) whether or not they agree with him, Alito is obviously and overwhelmingly qualified and well-suited for the position to which he has been appointed." Crescat Sententia's Will Baude concurs, noting re: the Times, "it is a mystery why one should care what Yale students think of the Alito nomination, other than the fact that we are a bunch of more or less randomly chosen overachievers who aced the LSAT." Worth noting: Baude himself is a law student.

ROE V. WADE: Where Do We Roe From Here?

In the latest Atlantic, Ben Wittes makes the case that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a political boon to the Dems, and would not affect the availability of abortion much: "The day the Court overturns Roe, abortion will suddenly become a voting issue for millions of pro-choice voters who care about it but know today that the right is protected not by congressional politics but by the courts." At The American Scene, Ross Douthat argues: "Over the short term, I think all of these things are true. But the long-term impact on public opinion of moving the issue from the realm of 'constitutional rights' -- which hold a near-sacred position in American political discourse -- to the realm of issues-to-be-legislated shouldn't be under-estimated." Douthat quotes from Mirror of Justice's Greg Sisk, who writes: "As a constitutional right, and a fundamental right at that, abortion was inherently justified. Once Roe were removed as a precedent, those who advocate an abortion license could no longer simply cite the Supreme Court's ruling and regard that reference as obviating any need to discuss the morality of abortion or to consider the societal impact of hundreds of thousands of abortions performed annually." Douthat concurs: "Once you remove the whole constitutionality question from play and throw the actual issue open for debate, there's no telling exactly where public opinion would go next."

PENTAGON: If "Waterboarding" Is Anything Like Boogie Boarding, We Can't Wait To Try It

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that "waterboarding" is not "anything close to 'torture.'" DC-based French journalist Pascal Richie writes at TPM Cafe: "At the beginning of the 21st century, an American daily newspaper comes out in favor of torture. It's neither The Weirdo Sun nor The Bozo Herald, but the Wall Street Journal." American Prospect's Laura Rozen wrote: "I wish I had 100 WSJ subscriptions to cancel. Appalling and history's scum. I will never post another WSJ story here. Ever. Even their website outreach guy sends me about 3 emails a day with their stories." By mid-afternoon of the next day, a commenter at Brainsnorkel noted that Rozen's post "seems to have been truncated. Only the first sentence remains." What appears to be the full post is still available at Brainsnorkel. With a nod to The Onion, Blogenlust puts together a "What Do You Think?" feature asking whether the U.S. should ban torture.

Andrew Sullivan links the WSJ with Pol Pot. In a separate post he wrote, based on WSJ's logic: "Notice that the gold-standard for American conduct is now set by Saddam Hussein!" Balkinization: "The editorial refers to the most extreme CIA-approved techniques -- expressly including waterboarding -- as 'psychological techniques.' ... I suppose I was being unimaginative in thinking of mock burial, and of the 'water cure,' as assaults, and sadistic threats of excruciating death." Right-leaning Joe's Dartblog: "The overarching point in the piece is a good one. But it overreacts to the overreaction of American liberals." The editorial's "crucial mistake": "it allows 'waterboarding' to be lumped in with other things deemed not even 'close to torture.'"

DEAN: His Bark Is Worse Than His Bite?

In the a.m. on 11/13, Matt Drudge reported: "Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studio's green room: 'There's still time for us to go on together Governor.' Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room." For the alleged incident, Drudge nicknames him "Howard the Duck." Sometime Wizbang contributor Mary Katherine Ham quotes Dean saying the Dems will have "specific plans" by '06, adding: "No wonder Dean wouldn't go up against Mehlman. By his own admission, his party is leaving that whole, pesky idea thing for next year."

Meanwhile, liberal Oliver Willis finds a post on the Free Republic message board saying: "HOWARD DEAN IS A DANGEROUS AND DEMENTED SOCIALIST CROOK UNPATRIOTIC UNAMERICAN LIAR, ARREST HIM NOW." As Willis puts it: "The conservative movement is reacting to Bush's impotence with characteristic hysteria."

MIDTERMS '06: A Chicken In Every Pot, And A Blog In Every District

A diarist at Daily Kos starts a new blog to cover the IL 10 race, Tenth District Blog. The anonymous poster challenges others: "Let's have a blog for EVERY single congressional race in 2006." The idea is in keeping with the liberal netroots' desire for the DCCC to challenge every seat held by a GOPer. DavidNYC likes the idea: "I don't think this can really be a "project" per se - I don't think it would be fruitful to try to go around organizing 435 different blogs. Rather, I simply think that people should be encouraged to start up blogs on their home districts, especially if one does not already exist."

MEMOGATE: Mapesgoat Or Ma(ry)lefactor?

Hugh Hewitt, on ex-CBS prod. Mary Mapes' "Reliable Sources" interview: "Mapes also clung to her new narrative that those attacking the documents were 'anonymous.' This is completely bogus, given that Powerline led the charge and all three contributors there were and have always been public."

Power Line's Scott Johnson appeared on the show after Mapes. Later on 11/13, co-blogger John Hinderaker wrote: Mapes told Howard Kurtz that having the authenticity of the Bill Burkett documents questioned by us and others was "terrifying." In a sense, I can believe her. She took a huge risk in hopes of helping to elect John Kerry President."

Despite being "paid off by Viacom to leave and then given a book deal to explain her pathetic lies about a politician in hopes of undermining an election," Don Surber writes, on 11/11 the Washington Post "gave this pathological liar more space than the Afghanistan war yesterday. See here and here and here and here. She is not news."

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: You Have To Campaign To Blog Before You Can Blog To Campaign

In a diary for MyDD, ex-Jon Corzine GOV campaign blogger Matt Stoller writes: "Money is going to be much much less important in politics, because you won't have to buy TV time to talk to voters, though field will matter. Parties will gain in power, since a party will contain the social infrastructure to spread a candidate's message. However the parties themselves will look different and be much more transparent about how they operate, simply because they will need to be. And two, coalition politics will become essential. No longer will well funded candidates be able to stare down potential opposition, and no longer will politicians see 'being on message' as the be-all and end-all."

Andrew Sullivan announces that his long-running blog will soon move to the homepage of Time -- to which he frequently contributes -- in a deal similar to the one that brought Mickey Kaus' Kausfiles to Slate several years ago. He advises readers: "As for the deal, I can simply assure you that I have retained exactly the same editorial control as I have had since the beginning. This is a blog. I won't be running posts before any editors before they appear. I will continue to write simply what I believe or think, however misguided I may be. ... You will still like it for the same reasons or hate it for the same reasons; or, as many of you keep telling me, both."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, who on 11/13 celebrated his 5th anniv. as a blogger; he has placed a special banner at the top of the site and, in the context of Sullivan's move to Time, mentions Kaus as the model for his site and discusses why he has remained independent.

Longtime Swing State Project co-blogger Tim Tagaris, who recently agreed to go work for the DNC, starts blogging for the party's official Kicking Ass blog today.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Have You Clicked On Luke Ford Lately?

On 11/16, Pajamas Media (PJM) officially launches, and has announced it will change its name. In recent weeks, it has met with some criticism (see 11/8 Blogometer), some of it from those who had originally planned to participate.

On 11/8 PJM critic -- and onetime PJM business partner -- Dennis the Peasant pointed out that one of the advisers, Luke Ford, blogs about the porn industry -- though not at the site we just linked. (When we mentioned his involvement on 11/8, we referred to him as the "Matt Drudge of porn," after a 7/98 OJR article about him.) Dennis: "I don't have a problem with pornography in its place... which isn't in the middle of a business venture I'm trying to sell to mainstream, middle-America advertisers. Can you imagine selling a $1,000,000 ad contract to, say, Dell Computer and then having them call you up one day because they have just found out one of your 'influencers' is associated with the porn industry?"

In an 11/9 comment to the DTP post, Ford himself wrote: "I've withdrawn from Pajamas Media. It was fun while it lasted. Meanwhile, I am now accepted ads for lukeford.net, my true home and my true self. Any other site is but a simulcrae of the Luke Ford blogging experience." Ford's profile has since disappeared from the PJM site.

On 11/10, Matt Welch provided more detail, including further comments from Ford, whom he is friends with. Welch concluds: "I just hope that Pajamas acted as it did because it somehow didn't realize that Luke was still writing about porn, which if true would just mean that they were remiss in not conducting basic due diligence, and that they have a prudish take on what is acceptable. Any other explanation I can think of (and I'll post 'em as I get 'em) suggests something considerably worse."

Tony Pierce -- well-known for his indifference to spelling and punctuation -- comments: "what hurts me the most is that it appears Charles Johnson, a man who ive respected for years, is allowing this to happen. yes he wont return my emails, yes many of his commenters are reactionary predictable flagwavers, but ive met the man and just like Luke, Charles is more complicated and real than people give him credit for being."

The Poor Man Institute rounds up some of these links and points readers toward others criticial of PJM.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Google Factor

On 11/10, lefty watchdog Media Matters highlighted a quote from FNC's Bill O'Reilly on the 11/8 edition of his radio show. Criticizing SF for banning military recruiters from high school and college campuses, O'Reilly said: "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." On 11/12, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo suggested the idea of a "Google bombing" O'Reilly by linking to his website with the phrase "terrorist sympathizer" -- so when somebody searches Google with that term, O'Reilly's site would come up. A number of liberal blogs join in, appearing to denounce the practice -- while linking "terrorist sympathizer" to the site anyway.Richard at The Peking Duck, Why Now?, and Bark Bark Woof Woof. WTF Is It Now and a commenter at The Poor Man Institute participate without the snark. As of 11/14 a.m., the Google bomb has already succeeded.

On 11/11, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington announced: "We are selfishly delighted that the Los Angeles Times has made the shortsighted decision to cancel Bob Scheer's column after 12 years. The L.A. Times' loss is our gain. Starting next Wednesday morning, loyal readers of Bob Scheer's weekly column will now find it at the top of the Huffington Post homepage."

LANDSCAPE: By George, They've Done It Again

Jonathan Singer at Basie! interviewed WH'72 Dem nominee George McGovern, who says: "I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what 'blue' and 'red' mean. They used to call us Democrats 'reds' because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I'm glad the Republicans have assumed that label now."

Michelle Malkin points to a Detroit Free Press story on the botched ballot-handling in the Detroit mayor's race: "If Republicans were in charge of Detroit's elections, this mass disenfranchisement would be front-page NYTimes news, the Congressional Black Caucus would be on red alert, and Louis Farrakhan and Howard Dean would be blaming Bush's racism for the debacle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Commencing Commentary On The Commentariat

What responsibility should a blogger have for what is said in their comment sections? Liberal Frogs and Ravens defines the 2 extremes as "The World Exists to Serve Me" contingent and the "It's My Blog and I Can Do What I Want" crowd. The debate harkens back to the kerfuffle involving Bitch Ph.D., Info Theory's Paul Deignan and others (see 11/10 Blogometer). Daily Kos' Armando points toward more discussion of the matter.

LEST WE FORGET: Worst. Interview. Ever

The Mapes pile-on continues at WuzzaDem, where she is interviewed not by Howard Kurtz or Bill O'Reilly, but by the Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons."

Posted by at November 14, 2005 12:35 PM