November 15, 2005
11/15: Might Solve A Mystery, Or Rewrite History! Iraq Tales! Woooo-ooh!
Even more so than yesterday, the preponderance of bloggers' arguments concern Iraq and the wider war on terrorism. The latest development is a New York Times report that Senate GOPers will consider a bill calling for an exit strategy. Pretty much every liberal blog makes sure to note that by this, the GOP is moving toward -- some say stealing -- their position on Iraq. Across the 'sphere, most conservatives are anxious about their own party's resolve. Taking the cue from Pres. Bush, both sides are accusing the other of "rewriting history." And conservatives are raising questions about what Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) claims he told Syrian leaders about Bush's intentions prior to the '03 invasion. However, apart from the Rockefeller issue, the lefty bloggers are the ones on the offensive.
Meanwhile, the debate over Judge Samuel Alito's stated opposition to abortion remains a major topic, lefty bloggers pick up on a recent report questioning the alleged Oreo-throwing incident involving MD SEN candidate Michael Steele (R), blawggers (law bloggers) shake their heads as a prominent anonymous blogger reveals his/her identity in the New Yorker before disappearing from the web, and we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.
IRAQ I: Deserters?
New York Times' Hulse reports that Senate GOPers have introduced a "proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war."
>> From the left -- Steve Soto's header: "Republicans Steal Democratic Plan For Iraq." 
AMERICAblog: "This action by the Senate completely undermines the current White House strategy of attack and smear opponents. If not, he has to also attack the Republicans in the Senate. MyDD's Scott Shields: "Like cockroaches from sunlight, Republicans are scrambling to get away from President Bush, who's driven the relatively young 'permanent Republican majority' right into a brick wall. ... This represents complete recognition that the Democratic ideas about Iraq ... are in line with the rest of the country. (These would be the non-existent ideas that the Democrats supposedly don't have.)" Sploid subheader: "Are they the enemies of freedom, too, Dubya?" War and Piece: "How much has changed. The administration doesn't have a choke hold any more on the system -- and what they're clutching to is pretty tenuous. [British PM Tony] Blair is talking about a pullout too."
>> Right Wing Nut House was among the 1st conservative blogs with a comment: "It isn't just that this is the absolute worst time for Senate Republicans to turn into jellyfish on the war. It is their pathetic belief that this will somehow shield them from criticism or lessen their association with the War in Iraq in any way. ... The Administration will shrug off this nonsense as well it should. But the damage done to Republican Senators will evidence itself next November." Hugh Hewitt: "Anger is growing over the sudden and stunning desertion by Senate Republicans of the president and the battle for Iraq. But don't e-mail me. E-mail and call the three people who can stop this nonsense." He provides phone and e-mail contact info for Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, Maj. Whip Mitch McConnell and Armed Services Cmte chair John Warner. He concludes: "Suddenly we are back where we were when the Congress turned on the Vietnam War. Hopefully some Republicans will emerge to lead the fight against this ill-advised and deeply defeatist onset of the shakes." But conservative Ed Morrissey sees it differently: "It doesn't have to be a net negative for Bush to come to the Senate to present his side of the story," which he could use to "correct many distortions of his record and the state of the effort in Iraq."
Liberal The Carpetbagger Report observes: "It's reasonable to say there is no 'Democratic position on Iraq.' I'm also fairly comfortable with the idea that there's no 'Republican position on Iraq' either. There's a fairly wide gulf between, say, Russ Feingold's position on Iraq and Joe Lieberman's, but isn't there an equally significant difference between Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld?"
IRAQ II: Historical Immaterialism
Blogs for Bush: "It's no different than the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind... Democrats and Republicans both supported these... until election season came around, and the Democrats had to make a choice. They chose to change their minds ... The Democrats will stop at nothing to rewrite history and divide America." Ex-FCC chair Reed Hundt: "I don't think Americans should underestimate the significance of the White House's effort to write the history of the invasion of Iraq. Like the attack on Social Security, a resolute defense and an effective counter-attack will be necessary for lovers of the truth, including one hopes the party-out-of-power."
Conservative Jay Caruso at Mr. Blonde's Garage does not think Dem '04 VP nominee John Edwards seriously meant to take responsibility for his Iraq vote in his Washington Post op-ed this weekend (see 11/14 Blogometer). Wrote Edwards: "The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda." Caruso calls it the "'I was duped!!!' defense. His mea culpa has nothing at all to do with him 'taking responsibility' for anything."
In a lengthy post for TPM Cafe, ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson writes: "The analysts believed, incorrectly, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. But there were important caveats. First, Iraq would only have a nuke if left "unmolested" to develop such a capability. Did anyone see the words, 'therefore Mr. President, you must invade'?" He also notes, the analysts made their claims with "moderate confidence."
IRAQ III: My Dinner With Ahmad
In a lengthy post, Arianna Huffington writes about her "surrealistic four-hour dinner" with Ahmad Chalabi at a Japanese restaurant in Tribeca: "Chalabi looked downright laid-back in a multi-colored sweater that can only be described as Cosby-esque. ... Everything about him suggested a man in full: smart, articulate, and, above all, totally present." Huffington invited over actor John Cusack, whose movies Chalabi was quite familiar with. Despite his impressive mien, Huffington concludes, she doubts this time he can "square the circle and get what he wants. Because what he wants is an occupying army that no longer acts as an occupying army -- an army that fiercely protects Iraq from its neighbors while being the smiling cop on the beat in Iraq's explosive neighborhoods. ... There is no way he is going to get Rumsfeld and [VP] Cheney, steeped in the neocon 'you're either at the table or on the menu' ethos, to agree to limit the powers of the U.S. army." TalkLeft comments: "It sounds like his current meme is to protest he's being treated as a scapegoat of the CIA while declaring that human rights abuses, not WMD's, are why he made taking out Saddam his life mission. ... I'm not buying anything Mr. Chalabi has to sell, unless it's a speedy withdrawal of American troops."
PENTAGON: Lucky For Lincoln, There Weren't Bloggers When He Did This
Since last week, Obsidian Wings and Talk Left have been leading lefty opposition to a bill proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to bar Gitmo detainees from using habeas corpus protections in court. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has introduced an alternative amendment. This a.m.'s above-linked New York Times story on the Senate GOP call for an exit strategy also mentions the compromise version of the Graham bill. Liberal News Hog notices: "The New York Times is getting lazy, methinks. Today it squishes two stories into one and doesn't manage to ask the hard questions about either." So does conservative Ed Morrissey, who thinks the changed bill "does seem more like surrender," but adds: "I can see a point in making a distinction for those caught by the CIA and FBI.""
A backgrounder from Obsidian Wings, as linked above: "As best I can tell, it strips the courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee's detention, and that this applies to any cases that have already been brought and are now pending. This would be bad enough if we did not have any reason to distrust the administration. But now, when people have been held for years without any sort of trial or review, when there have been stories of abuse and mistreatment, and when the administration is asserting its right to do whatever it wants with detainees, bound by neither laws nor treaties, is the worst possible time to propose a bill like this."
In what is billed as the last post on the subject -- it may come to a vote today -- Katherine at Obsidian Wings asks: "Why on earth is this being pushed through on an appropriations bill, with no hearings, no debate, on the strength of arguments that are (deliberately or inadvertently) quite misleading? When the Senators providing the margin of victory seem unaware of some key facts and of the legal implications of what they're doing? We're talking about habeas corpus here." Talk Left pointed out 11/12 that there is "at least one online campaign" to support the Bingaman amendment to defeat the Graham amendment, called One Million Phone March to Save Habeas
Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings updated early this a.m. that Graham proposed an amendment to his own amendment, which "still cuts off habeas but it allows more judicial review" than a previous version. A new Bingaman amendment allows habeas, "but it cuts off lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement." Hilzoy: "I should say, despite the negative tone of this post: the situation looks a lot better now than it looked Friday or last night. Thanks to everyone who linked or called their Senators."
ROCKEFELLER: Bennett Stops Short Of T-Word
At NRO, ex-Educ. Sec./author/radio talker Bill Bennett criticized Senate Intel Cmte ranking Dem Jay Rockefeller, who said on "FNS" (transcript here) that he told the heads of state of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria that he thought Bush "had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq." On 11/14, Captain's Quarters had already suggested he should "possibly stand trial for treason" (see 11/14 Blogometer). Conservative Betsy's Page: "Of course, this is the same Senator who got up on the Senate floor and gave a speech on the 'imminent threat' that Saddam Hussein represented to the United States, as statement that no one in the Bush administration made and which Bush was careful to reject explicitly." Power Line promotes the Bennett piece as well. But liberal Matthew Yglesias writes at TAPPED: "Investigating Rockefeller's trip to the Middle East ... will only shed light on the fact that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq far earlier than it's been willing to publicly admit. That case is pathetically easy to prove, but hasn't gotten the public attention it deserves. You didn't need secret intelligence to figure it out, and the Syrian government didn't need a U.S. senator to tell them either."
Right-leaning Instapundit makes a cautious defense of Rockefeller: "This hardly reflects well on Rockefeller's judgment, and it may well have had some bad consequences, but in fact Senators, for better or worse (usually worse) do this sort of thing a lot. I don't think it's in a league with the [ex-Rep. David] Bonior/[Rep. Jim] McDermott lovefest with Saddam ... Rockefeller wasn't giving PR cover to the enemy."
THE ALITO NOMINATION: The Roe Must Go On
The statement quoted in the 11/14 Washington Times re: Alito's personal opposition to abortion is available from the Reagan Library in PDF, or in normal text as transcribed by Slinghsot.
Lefty Kevin Drum: "Question: In theory, the reason that Supreme Court nominees won't comment on specific cases is because it might "prejudge" future decisions in related cases before arguments had been heard. However, having stated in 1985 that he believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, Alito has already prejudged his view in future cases testing Roe. So: is it OK to ask him if he still holds this view? If not, why not?"
Righty Pejman Yousefzadeh argues this "doesn't necessarily state that he is opposed to abortion, only that he was proud to work on Justice Department cases regarding abortion. Given the Reagan Administration's stance on abortion, however, I am sure that a proper inference can be drawn." But he adds: "It is also good to respond to any charges that Judge Alito is a conservative by saying in pertinent part 'Darn tootin', he is!' Let's not have any attempts to try to pass the Judge off as some kind of moderate. Conservatives should be proud of their advocacy."
DLC's Bruce Reed at Slate's The Has Been: "Alito strained to touch every Meese button" in his application. But "like Roberts, Alito will try to maintain that youthful statements like "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" were taken out of context. He was just telling his conservative bosses everything they wanted to hear so they'd give him a promotion. Judge Alito hasn't done that in at least two weeks."
Right-libertarian Ian Spencer at the Oregon Commentator zeroes in on the part of Alito's statement where he touts the "legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," commenting: "I would certainly hope this last belief has changed sometime in the past twenty years. The government has no 'role in protecting traditional values,' it has a role in following the constitution, which as of yet has no mention of 'traditional values.'"
On another note entirely, NRO's K.J. Lopez jokes that with self-described National Review fan Alito up for a seat, CJ John Roberts a longtime subscriber, perhaps with Altio the SCOTUS will come to be known as the "National Review court."
MIDTERMS '06: C Is For Cookie ... And For Crock?
An 11/13 Baltimore Sun report casting doubt on SEN candidate/LG Michael Steele's (R-MD) claim that Dem opponents hurled Oreos at him is just beginning to catch notice. Independent Conservative goes to transcripts of Steele's comments on the matter (via Political Pit Bull) and decides the "discrepancy" is based on differing the memories of Gov. Bob Ehrlich's comm dir. and Steele himself. IC concludes: "It occurred as everyone was leaving. Afterwards the goons could have easily picked up the cookies they tossed in order to cover their tracks! If it had occurred before, then the cookies would have been crushed by people walking around during the debate." But the left considers Steele caught red-handed: Daily Kos: "Looks like the crowd treated Ehrlich and Steele harshly, but no Oreos were thrown. In fact, while Steele was interviewed several times after the debate he failed to mention what would've been a key point to make in the post-debate spin." Pam's House Blend: "If you had half a brain, you GOP dunces, you would have just hired some Freepers to show up posing as lefties and pelt the Oreos for a nice photo op." As far as we can tell, the 1st blogger to question the Oreo incident was Oliver Willis (see 11/3 Blogometer).
Noting via Hotline On Call that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) -- who badly trails challenger Treas. Bob Casey (D) -- has challenged Casey to 10 debates, DavidNYC at Swing State Project searched Nexis for other instances of incumbents asking for debates with their challengers. He finds 2 recent cases: ex-L.A. mayor James Hahn, who sought debates with now-L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in '05, and MA state Rep. Rich Grucela in '00, who did hang on -- but just barely.
IN THE STATES: Tap Dancing
The Inside Edge reports, the "rumor making the rounds over the last 48 hours" is that Gov.-elect Jon Corzine will name ex-Newark councilor Cory Booker (D) to the open NJ Senate seat. Dem insiders point out Corzine would get to nominate the state's 1st black sen., and it would help Newark mayor Sharpe James "avoid a rematch" with Booker.
Meanwhile at Blue Jersey, Rep. Bob Mendendez (D-NJ) comm. dir. Matthew Miller makes "the case" for why his boss should be tapped for the seat. His argument is based on Menendez's "personal story" and what appointing him would say about NJ Dems, his "electability," "money in the bank, and the ability to raise more."
ANONYBLOGGING: David Lat Knew All There Was To Know About The Crying Game
New Yorker's Toobin reveals in a story posted to the web on 11/14 that the pseudonymous female law blogger Article III Groupie (A3G) at Underneath Their Robes -- which counts judge/blogger Richard Posner as a fan -- is really "thirty-year-old Newark-based assistant U.S. attorney named David Lat." Lat cooperated with the story. Letters of Marque finds it weird that Lat was cross-gender blogging; a similar debate is had at Volokh Conspiracy.
When we visited his site late last p.m., it was up and mentioned the piece. This a.m., it seems to be down. The Right Coast asks: "Come on, blawgers, you must be curious. I repeat, Underneath their Robes has gone under cover! Is this the FBI at work? Has Lat been fired for blogging? Just what is going on here? This is a story, isn't it? Can someone please email him and find out what is going on?" Among those curious about A3G's whereabouts: Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court, Brendan Loy, and Wonkette.
Evan Schaefer posts a screen shot of Underneath Their Robes as it looked shortly before going offline. Blawg Review collects a few of A3G's postings, including the 1st one on 6/5/04 and one from 2/3/05 when Toobin 1st wrote in to say he was a fan -- an e-mail Lat posted.
At deadline, "David Lat" was the 7th most popular search on Technorati.
PAJAMAS MEDIA: Just For The Record, Are These The Kind Of Pajamas With The Little Booties On Them?
Pajamas Media announces via PR Newswire that it has "closed its first round of private financing in the amount" of $3.5M. ... The investor group is led by Aubrey Chernick, angel investor and technology entrepreneur, and also includes Jim Koshland, a leading member of the Silicon Valley venture capital and technology community, and a DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary venture capital investment partnership. Unaffil. with Pajamas Media is a Blogspot-hosted blog, PJ Media Unfiltered, which provides a "digest of RSS feeds" The latest profile added to the Pajamas Media site is of company co-founder Roger L. Simon himself.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Enemies -- A Love Story
The feud between FNC's Bill O'Reilly and lefty blogs/media sites continued last p.m., as O'Reilly defended his "Coit Tower" comments (see 11/14 Blogometer) and indicated he would list on his website the names of the "smear sites" who are part of the "anti-military Internet crowd." CAP's Think Progress heads its post on the matter: "O'Reilly Resorts To McCarthyism, Plans To Publish Online Enemies List." Crooks and Liars -- which has video of the relevant O'Reilly segment -- beseeches readers to e-mail the site and have C&L added to the list (which as yet is not online).
MRC's News Busters calls attention to the fact that, late last week, CNN's Lin mistakenly referred to French teens of African descent "African-Americans." The author of the post, David Lanza, comments: "When the MSM seeks to use euphemisms to ignore the real issue, they run the risk of sounding stupid and bringing ridicule upon themselves." La Shawn Barber: "Some people are too PC for their own good."
On 11/14, New York Times' Carr criticized NYC gossip blogs Gawker and Jossip for their irreverent coverage of suspected rapist/NYC magazine writer Peter Braunstein. Jeff Jarvis complains that Carr's quotation of him gives the wrong impression of his thoughts on the matter, and fisks a substantial section of the column. Jossip responded: "We heart David Carr. We really, really do, even if he doesn't heart us back." Late 11/14, Gawker posted a respectful obit of media writer Brenda You.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Nyhansanity
Today the Blogometer talks to centrist Brendan Nyhan, who writes an eponymous blog.
What is your full name?
Brendan James Nyhan
What is your age?
27
Where did you grow up?
Mountain View, California -- the heart of the Silicon Valley.
Where do you live now?
Durham, North Carolina
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I'm a political science graduate student at Duke. I previously worked in two campaigns: Joe Hoeffel's PA-13 race in 1998 and Ed Bernstein's Senate campaign in Nevada in 2000. After that, I co-founded the non-partisan watchdog website Spinsanity with Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer. Our work was syndicated on Salon and in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and our book "All the President's Spin" was a New York Times bestseller in 2004.
When did you start blogging and why?
At the end of 2004, we decided to stop publishing Spinsanity -- the strain of keeping the site up while working at full-time jobs had become too much. So I decided to start a blog where I could write about politics at a more leisurely pace.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
One of my favorite themes has been bashing pundits like Mickey Kaus and Ron Brownstein who are hyping Internet-based third party presidential candidacies. This is an area where political science has a lot to say -- the structural disadvantages faced by a third party candidate are nearly insurmountable.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I tend to do my writing in the mornings before starting my real work -- maybe three posts per day on average.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias are my favorites. For non-political blogging: Gawker, Defamer and Overheard in New York.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Jon Chait of the Los Angeles Times/The New Republic is consistently excellent.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"Meet the Press" is about the only show I ever watch.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
WashingtonPost.com and TNR Digital. Other than that, however, I tend to follow blog links to MSM content rather than going to their sites directly.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Andrew Sullivan, Tapped, Instapundit, Matthew Yglesias, Crooked Timber, Daniel Drezner, Chris Mooney, Atrios, the Freakonomics blog and Marginal Revolution.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I get the New York Times delivered at home. Embarrassingly, I don't subscribe to any North Carolina papers, so I'm fairly ignorant of my local news.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
The old media will learn that blogging well is a lot harder than it looks. And the new media will learn about the hard economic realities of trying to make a profit from content.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When The New Media Is Old
Jeff Jarvis comments on Time and Andrew Sullivan agreeing to movie his blog to their site: "Good for Andrew. But they got it backwards. They should have left Sullivan right where we was and sold advertising there. That would have extended their reach to a new audience. They're thinking the old way: trying to draw people to their site and brand and buying content to do it. The new way would be to build your audience and brand and ad revenue all over the web, at all the best places, piggybacking on the audience and reputation that is already there."
LEST WE FORGET: Three Strikes Policy
Balls, Sticks & Stuff maintains that Alito is "unfit to hold a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, a charge based solely on the fact that he is a Phillies fan." Now they've dug up more evidence: Alito's baseball card from Alito's from his attendance at a '94 fantasy camp. BS&S adds: "Now, remember who was on the Phillies roster in 1994?...I'm efforting to determine if Alito accepted financial advice from Lenny Dykstra..."
Posted by at November 15, 2005 12:21 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
