January 20, 2006

1/20: There's That Man Again

Yesterday, we wrote that there seemed to be no one story dominating the blogosphere. Then, the Osama bin Laden video was made public. Needless to say, we have a dominant story today.

The discussion takes several tracks: First, a general debate over the significance of his message. Second, questions about his motives for releasing the video now, and whether it shows our current military approach is being successful. And third, analysis and debate over how the domestic political situation influenced bin Laden's message -- and how the message will influence future US policy. Also, both liberal and conservatives have qualms with some of the MSM reaction to the tape.

Elsewhere today, conservatives react after conference calls by the 3 House maj. leader candidates. Liberals debate the decision to have new VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) deliver the SOTU rebuttal. And the Washington Post finds itself back in the spotlight.

BIN LADEN: Guess Who's Back?

Most bloggers cite a BBC transcription of OBL's statement. Walid Phares of The Counterterrorism Blog provides his analysis. 1: "That the war in Iraq is going al Qaida's way." 2: "The American people are not informed, and the polls shows its real position towards withdrawal." 3: "There will be soon operations within the US and the West." 4: "al Qaida operations will not be confined to Iraq." 5: "The penetration of Western and US security systems is a [matter] to be discussed in the public debate." And 6: The proposition "for a 'long term armistice" is in itself a prelude to further attacks coming." Also at Counterterrorism, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes: "One hallmark of bin Laden's attempts to appeal to appeasement-minded Westerners has been a populist message that draws a deep divide between the common people and the blood-thirsty warmongers who are allegedly making massive profits off the U.S.'s wars. The latest audiotape not only speaks of this explicitly, but also supports the argument with a reference to the latest opinion polls on Iraq." At The Corner, John Podhoretz reminds us of the pre-WH'04 election OBL tape: "This isn't the first time that Bin Laden has offered America a 'deal.' ... [H]e essentially offered a separate peace deal to U.S. states that voted against the president." He notes disagreement over the translation he uses, but stands by it.

Most view bin Laden's releasing the video now as a sign of weakness. Kobayashi Maru: "Feeling the need to show yourself to rally the troops, and 'offering' truce shortly after sustaining significant surprise casualties amongst your leadership is more likely a sign of weakness than not. Time to press the offensive." The Next Hurrah: "This could be an attempt by bin Laden to stave off the transfer of power and influence and inspiration from him to Zarqawi, which could roughly be like the shift of influence from Lenin to Stalin. At the same time, it may reflect concern that Zarqawi is screwing up the image of al Qaeda in Iraq, with possible negative repercussions through all Muslim societies." The Belgravia Dispatch: "I conclude that we are winning the battle against al-Qaeda. Mind you, I'm not speaking about Iraq, necessarily, or perhaps certain al-Qaeda inspired spin-offs, or the GWOT generally. But the battle against the main, original al-Qaeda group." Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: "Bin Laden clearly recognizes that the central front in his war is the battle for public opinion in the U.S. ... He tried this just prior to the 2004 election. It didn't work then and it won't work now. As I said, bin Laden recognizes the central location of his war. What he doesn't understand is the terrain." Roger L. Simon: "[W]hat Binny is really doing, as he almost always is, is preaching to the Islamic choir. The boy may be somewhere in the mountains of Waziristan but his heart is in Riyadh, battling out family squabbles. Most of us don't grow up, but particularly, and most murderously, Bin Laden." Austin Bay: "Essentially, the new Bin Laden tape says 'please don't wage war on our turf, but let us wage war on yours.'"

Varifrank gives a line-by-line rebuttal to OBL's comments. The Moderate Voice: "This tape will likely be reported through various political prisms (does this story help us? does this story hurt us?) in some quarters since the war on terror has become infected by the most deadly biological weapon on earth -- politics." The Mahablog: "The last time we heard from him, I believe, was on the eve of the 2004 elections. And here he is again, just when Georgie needs a diversion from this little Fourth Amendment problem." GOP Bloggers: "America needs to be united in its determination to be victorious, and right now the Democrats do not appear to think that winning is important."

Many conservative bloggers note what they say is a similarity in OBL's rhetoric and that of the antiwar left. Some also believe that the video is meant to further spark the left. In the Bullpen: "Each time OBL opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like some aspects of an entire political party within the United States, or vice versa. Rightwing Nuthouse: "Osama has the liberals down cold. ... How long before we here some mindless lefty out there prattling on about negotiating with Bin Laden?" Earlier, Ezra Klein said: "Not to show myself a yellow coward who sleeps with a Koran tucked under my pillow, but allow me a thought experiment: what about negotiating with bin-Laden? I mean, this isn't a war of aggression, is it? We're fighting to ensure our safety. And a truce would ensure our safety. So shouldn't we find out what the guy wants?" Klein later updates: "Maybe 'negotiate' is the wrong word. I don't want to have him over for tea, just find out what his demands are."

Naturally, OBL's resurfacing sparks a discussion of domestic security. Secular Blasphemy: "After almost five years, it is safe to say that al-Qaeda's failure to attack the US itself ... is due to its inability to do so. Whether the above is blustering, or whether the terrorists have found a way to breach US security, is too early to tell."

A suspicious commenter at The Jawa Report: "[I]f this guy's still alive -- I want some real tangible [proof] -- Basement tapes don't cut it for me anymore. This is turning in a Jim Morrison or Elvis gag." Crooks and Liars takes the opportunity to cite previous admin statements and conservative MSM articles speculating that OBL is dead or no longer in control of al Qaida.

BIN LADEN, BLOGS VS. MSM EDITION: A Brushback Pitch

Crooks and Liars posts on MSNBC's Chris Matthews having "compared Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden while discussing the newly released tape with" Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Matthews is quoted as saying: "I mean he sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore." Many are demanding an apology, with Hullabaloo providing the NBC contact info.

From C&L: "Talk about pandering to the right wing let alone an outright smear in the worst way. Not only is he making a comparison, but he's calling Michael Moore - "Osama." If he compared a conservative figure to Osama what do you think would happen? Chris Matthews owes Michael Moore an apology and fast." John Aravosis: "If Matthews can just ingratiate himself a bit more, then maybe the Republican establishment will really like him." Peter Daou at Huffington Post: "This is not just about Chris Matthews or Michael Moore or Osama Bin Laden, it's about the willingness of a prominent media figure to slander an opponent of the war." At Daou's Salon.com site, he posts a response from John Kerry. Conservative IMAO: "If anything, I think OBL deserves an apology too. At least Osama has offered another truce, that's more than I can say for Mikey."

Meanwhile, Little Green Footballs takes issue with AP referring to OBL as an "exiled Saudi dissident." Michelle Malkin: "Got that? Osama isn't a mass-murdering terrorist mastermind. He's just a poor, exiled dissident who disagrees with civilization. Also, Hugh Hewitt takes issue with CNN's Jack Cafferty. Political Teen has video.

GOP LEADERSHIP: A Blunt Assessment

House Maj. Leader candidates Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boehner (R-OH) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) also did separate conference calls with some of the leading conservative bloggers. It is a sign of the blogosphere's growing influence that the candidates felt the need to state their case to non-MSM outlets, many outside the Beltway. A quick summary: the blog favorite Shadegg certainly didn't lose many supporters, while Blunt was widely panned both for his performance and for how his camp conducted the call. Listen to the Shadegg call here; Boehner here; and Blunt here.

Captain's Quarters: Shadegg "sounded the least organized and most wide open, and Shadegg himself seemed at times a bit flustered by the wide range of questions," but his responses "seemed genuine, and he had a very engaging air about him." Boehner "was a bit smoother and more collected. The format remained wide open and the call lasted as long as the bloggers had questions." On Blunt: "By far the most structured of the three conference calls, Blunt's also was the shortest and the least informative." In the end, he endorses Shadegg.

QandO Blog's Dale Franks, who says he hadn't planned to make an endorsements, now leans in favor of Shadegg. He says he was "probably closest to me" politically, and cites specific policy areas where they see eye-to-eye. Boehner, though "engaging," was "just ... too glib." He offers a rousing non-endorsement for Blunt, and calls his performance "a disaster." "I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as Majority Leader." More: "[T]he sun will set in a blazing red sky to the east of Casablanca before I'd want Roy Blunt as Majority leader." His criticism starts with how Blunt's camp moderated the call, and picks up from there. John Henke, also at QandO: "It was hard to tell whether the stiff, tightly-controlled Rep. Blunt conference call was a artifact of Blunts' (and his staffs') discomfort with bloggers, or just his style in general."

Suitably Flip is milder in his review of Blunt: "I like Congressman Blunt and I think he's been an effective member of the House leadership to date, but I didn't hear much on this call to move me out of the Shadegg column." James Joyner is impressed with Shadegg, and has a good round up of more reax. Right Wing News gives Shadegg an A ("He hit all the right notes); Boehner a D ("less impressive than I thought he'd be") and Blunt an F ("a hubristic, status quo candidate who really isn't very interested in reform"). Michelle Malkin, on Shadegg: "I was impressed by Shadegg's candor and passionate committment to limited government ... and he's on the right side of immigration enforcement/national security issues."

Elsehwere, UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge writes under the header "Roy Blunt: Just Vote No." "Electing Blunt GOP majority leader would be a vote for the status quo: big government conservatism, expanded entitlement spending, runaway deficits, and K Street-linked corruption. The GOP needs to use this vote as an opportunity to send a signal to the public that things will be different."

BLOGS VS. MSM: Lights Out

On Wednesday, we lead with the swarm enveloping the Washington Post. Yesterday came news from WashingtonPost.blog that they were turning off the comments feature. From WashigntonPost.com exec ed Jim Brady: "[T]here are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this."

Democratic Underground has some of the comments archived, and John Aravosis doesn't see "a lot of hate speech or profanity." More: "The Washington Post is treading into dangerous territory here with regards to its reputation with an entire generation of pundits, opinion-makers, and readers. It's one thing for our president to try to skew the facts and stifle debate, it's quite another for what used to be one of the nation's greatest newspapers to start showing the same immature anti-intellectual qualities." Atrios: "The Post said they wanted a discourse, but part of the reason people were rather angry was that Howell was not providing honest discourse. So, they blame their readers." MyDD has some fun with the development.

DEMOCRATS: Kaine You Believe This?

We learned 1/19 that Kaine will deliver the Democratic response to the SOTU later this month. Many on the left, though not necessarily slighting Kaine, question whether he should be the face of the party that night. A favorite choice had been Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). Arianna Huffington: "Talk about clueless. The Democrats don't seem to know what the Republicans do know: that the GOP is losing ground on its core issue of national security. That's why Bush is planning to shift his State of the Union focus away from Iraq and onto an attack on rising health care costs. ... [T]he Democrats will never become the majority party until they can prove to the American people that they have a better plan for keeping us safe. And that means having someone like Jack Murtha give the State of the Union response -- someone with the authority to make the point that, on every level, Iraq is the wrong priority."

Swing State Project: "I like Tim Kaine, and I think he's certainly a good choice. But I think Murtha is the better choice, because he's associated with an issue we really need to lead with, and because we need to strike while the iron is hot." PSotD: "He isn't a national leader. He isn't a national name. He hasn't done anything on a national scale. His political track record isn't extensive." Markos Zuniga likes the Murtha idea, but says Kaine isn't "a bad idea, either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "The Rise Of The Blogs"

Daniel Glover takes a look at the blogosphere in the latest edition of National Journal magazine. The piece is also posted for free at his Beltway Blogroll site. The piece begins by discussing Bush's '05 60-day campaign to sway public opinion on Social Security. "This strategy might have worked brilliantly in another era, when presidents dominated the news from their bully pulpits, and critics -- especially those outside officialdom -- fought for a few paragraphs or minutes of airtime for rebuttal. But in the Information Age, Bush's foes had a powerful new tool known as the Web log at their disposal, and they seized it to great effect." More: "Blogs have had a noticeable impact on American society since at least 2001. ... But only recently have blogs become a force within policy-making circles." It concludes with a quote from DeLay spokesperson Kevin Madden, who says of blogging: "Anybody who hesitates does so at their own peril." There's more, including interviews, at the main page.

In a separate piece, National Journal's Sangillo [sub required] does a "Who's Who" of bloggers. Lefty: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ("Kos is more than a one-person blog; it's almost its own little empire"); Duncan Black ("a one-stop shop for populist angst"); Kevin Drum ("one of the few mainstream media outlets that have thrived in the blogosphere"); Josh Marshall ("one of the first political bloggers out of the blocks"). On the right: Michelle Malkin (whose blog "soared in popularity last year, partly because she is willing to take on difficult issues"); Glenn Reynolds (who, "delves deep into lower-profile policy matters"); the Power Line trio ("one of the leading blogs for hard-line conservatives"); Ed Morrisey ("especially prolific, sometimes writing up to nine essays a day"). And lastly, under the heading "Unpredictable," is Andrew Sullivan ("he is vociferous once he makes up his mind").

LEST WE FORGET: Look Out, Oprah

Philly Daily News blog Attytood took note of bin Laden's reference to William Blum's "Rouge State: A Guide to the World's Openly Superpower," calling it the "first selection" in the Osama Book Club. "It turns out that Osama bin Laden's power to move American book sales is even greater than his power to move American-based terror cells." Captain's Quarters makes a similar remark.

NOTES AND ERRATA

Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

Posted by at January 20, 2006 12:34 PM