2/27: Deal Or No Deal?

It's a nat'l security trifecta today, as the fate of Iraq, a new FISA proposal and port security are all major stories.

After some good weekend news from Iraq, conservative bloggers are now heaping scorn upon the notion that Iraq could descend into civil war. But this came after some dark thoughts from last week about what civil war or partition would mean; most of the left reactions we saw were responses to conservatives' worries. Neither side is very happy with the new FISA plans, but for different reasons, and even though neither the left nor right is united on what the proposal actually means. Likewise, the port deal continues to confuse. From what we've seen, it's generally the case that conservatives approve whereas liberals do not -- yet a new poll showing strong opposition to the deal has The Corner worried -- and so might NR founder Bill Buckley's latest comment on the Iraq war.

Other than that, we've got Daily Kos lashing out at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), questions about George Soros and Al Franken, skeptical takes of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) weekend appearances, 2 scandals in the midwest -- one real and one fake, a Christopher Hitchens-led rally for Denmark, and your childhood (possibly second childhood) hero starts blogging.

PORT SECURITY: The Not-So-Perfect Storm

Pres. Bush's 45-day cooling-off period may have calmed some nerves, but it hasn't reduced its potency in the blogosphere. Liberal bloggers continue to find fault with Bush's handling of the situation, while conservatives are still listing reasons why it should go forward. Even so, a few on both sides note a recent opinion poll and argue the deal will either die or hurt Bush very badly:

Judd Legum at CAP's Think Progress argues that the compromise is "political, not substantive," arranged by the WH and not Dubai Ports World, wouldn't actually delay the sale, and if it did DPW might sue. He writes: "Reasonable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to have the UAE run operations at U.S. ports. But the proposed 'compromise' is fundamentally dishonest." The Carpetbagger Report doesn't think it will have the intended effect: "If the deal remains unpopular, Bush won't be able to rely on the "out of the loop" defense. His signature, with no congressional input, will make this deal happen. Politically, that's a real risk for the White House." David Sirota points out that OH SEN candidate Sherrod Brown (D) was the 1st to link the deal "to America's corporate-written free trade policy. Not surprisingly, Establishment spokesmen like Tom Friedman are desperately trying to distract attention from free trade's centrality in this scandal."

At NRO-hosted TKS, Jim Geraghty writes: "My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don't spread them in your discussions." He quotes Sens. Clinton and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and the DNC asserting that the U.S. would "turn over control" of the U.S. ports to the UAE, which he argues is a misrepresentation. INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino: "Is Democratic malfeasance worse than Republican hysteria? Probably. It's amusing watching 'tolerant liberal' politicians ideologically contort themselves and stoke irrational xenophobia and rational fear of terrorism into a National Security issue that attacks the President's right flank. Did I write 'amusing?' I meant 'depressing.' Maybe 'resignedly exasperating' would work best." Meanwhile, Sweetness & Light points out that the Nat'l Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia "control[s] berths" at 9 U.S. ports including Baltimore, Houston, Pork Newark and Brooklyn. In the comments, a reader clarifies, "these ports are made up of many berths. For instance, in the Port of NY, the UAE might 'control' nine berths out of a couple of dozen. And yet the reports made it sound like they would control the entire port and its operation. So while the UAE may have control over a number of berths in Brooklyn, so might other companies, including the Saudi company."

But a Rasmussen poll shows that the public opposes the deal by 64% to 17%, and Cong. Dems now have a higher approval rating on nat'l security than Bush, by 43% to 41%. At The Corner, John Podhoretz writes: "The deal is dead. It won't survive after a 45-day extension or a 450-day extension. Congressional Republicans have no choice but to be extremely aggressive and nasty toward the president and the White House, because they will be properly terrified of looking like Bush's lapdogs on a hugely unpopular matter that goes to the heart of the Republican party's political advantage in the United States." A bit later, NR editor Rich Lowry added, "if Bush loses his edge on national security, he has nothing left."

Deal skeptic Mickey Kaus posits that if Bush vetoes the deal and Congress overrides it, that could be the best "logical Kabuki outcome for the GOP": "Congressional Republicans would get what they want -- which is a chance to demonstrate their independence from the President. Voters would get what they want -- which is not to worry about Dubai running American ports -- and they'd be more inclined to return the incumbent Republican majority. Meanwhile, Bush would show friendly Arab governments a willingness to risk his prestige to go to bat for them."

Seeing the Forest uses the port deal to make a separate point about Bush: "We invaded Iraq based on less evidence of al Queda and other terrorist ties than there is of UAE ties. Yet, the Bush crowd insists that we have nothing to worry about from handing control of our ports over to the UAE. Let me make this clear: I am NOT saying that UAE is a terrorist state, or even a terrorist-supporting state, I am pointing out the fear-mongering nonsense that Bush and the right spew for the lying, fear-mongering manipulative propaganda nonsense it is."

EAVESDROPPING: Across The Specter-um

As Washington Post's Babington reports, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is introducing new language such that FISA will cover the ongoing NSA program. Bloggers of the left and right respond with opposing analyses, although there is some uncertainty on each side.

Rising star of the left blogosphere Glenn Greenwald writes it is "disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA." More: "What it does is authorize the entire warrantless eavesdropping program itself by directing the FISA court to approve of it every 45 days provided some extremely permissive criteria are met, and in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants."

But Confederate Yankee disagrees: "FISA does not cover this NSA program ... Glenn has never been able to get his head around the fact that FISA is not all-encompassing. After the confidential review of the program that silenced the majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans, Specter must have also ultimately come to the same conclusion that current FISA law does not apply to program of this nature." Conservative Orrin Judd, on Specter: "While it's helpful that he recognizes the program isn't covered by FISA, it's delusional of him to imagine that an act of Congress can cause it to be so covered."

DC atty Marty Lederman disagrees with Greenwald on the specifics. But like Greenwald, Lederman is not happy about it, as "it would bring the program "under the authority of the court" by providing statutory authorization for a program that is currently illegal." More: "It's not simply a a reenactment of the 'FISA framework' -- instead, it's a wholescale dismantling of that framework, a substantive amendment to FISA that would vastly increase the surveillance authority of the President." Lederman calls for the SCOTUS to review the program, and quick: So what's the alternative? How about this: A statute that facilitates prompt judicial review of the legality under current law of the NSA programs." Lederman adds the caveat that he's not entirely sure of his own analysis; no one on the left has objected, and while conservative bloggers obviously disagree, we haven't seen a direct refutation.

Back to Specter's plan itself, The Anonymous Liberal observes that "instead of having to demonstrate that probable cause exists on a warrant by warrant basis, the government would only have to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe the program as a whole will intercept at least one communication involving a foreign power or agent of a foreign power or someone who has communicated with such a person. That's a comically weak standard, so weak that I doubt any conceivable surveillance program would fail to meet it, including dragnet-style data-mining programs." Kevin Drum notes that people who have communicated with someone who has communicated with an agent of a foreign power "certainly includes nearly all reporters and practically everyone with relatives outside the country."

Jane Hamsher: "We'll try to have some kind of Roots project action in Specter's back yard soon." For more on the left-blogosphere's "roots" project, see the 2/23 Blogometer and elsewhere in this edition.

IRAQ I: Getting Better All The Time?

As we'll get to a bit further down, the Iraq debate took a decidedly pessimistic turn late last week in the aftermath of the mosque bombing in Samarra. But now conservative bloggers believe the talk of "civil war" was premature:

The Astute Blogger notes a New York Times report about Sunni leaders agreeing to restart stalled talks on the new Iraqi gov't, and reacts: "Sheesh, that was the fastest descent into civil war and end of a civil war of all time! Or maybe the nattering nabobs of negativism who said that Iraq was declining into a civil war wrong!? Maybe they've been wrong all along? Maybe they just wished it were true?" Gateway Pundit posts wire excerpts and photos of peace rallies in Iraq, heading it: "Unity Protests Break Out in Basra, Mosul, Hillah, Al Kut, Karbala..." John Hawkins also surveyed news from around Iraq over the past weekend, found plenty of reports about Sunni/Shiite reconciliation, and went with the header: "Where's That Civil War In Iraq That The Media Was Promising?" He writes: "The war in Iraq hasn't been the picnic in a rose garden that the press and most of the Democrats seem to think it should be, but it has been largely successful and looks likely to remain so. We are on track to win in Iraq, and relatively soon."

Baghdad-based Iraq the Model posts updates, including corrections to exaggerated violence found in some news reports. TigerHawk argues that the Sunnis are finally realizing that they are not a majority and won't control the country again.

Kim Priestap at Wizbang contrasts this with the MSM's reaction -- "practically gleeful declarations of Iraq being on the brink of civil war" -- including the latest Time cover.

IRAQ II: Buckley-ing The System

National Review founder William F. Buckley writes in the latest issue, "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans."

At Unclaimed Territory, Greenwald puts it side-by-side with similar comments made by DNC chair Howard Dean 12/05 which elicited condemnations from conservative bloggers. Greenwald: "These statements, made within a little over two months of each other, are almost identical. If anything, Buckley's statements are a much more emphatic declaration of defeat."

NR's Ramesh Ponnuru points out that Buckley "has been skeptical about the Iraq venture for some time," and that this is a "refinement and extension of Bill's position in response to new circumstances." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey notes that Buckley's argument "highlights the difference" between so-called neocons and paleocons: "Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world." Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush agrees: "Mr. Buckley was never a fan of liberating Iraq. From what I've gathered reading him over the past few years, Mr. Buckley seems a man who doesn't believe in a mission, as such, for the United States other than to look after its own, and only help out others as it fits in with strictly American interests. This is an intellectually valid position to hold ... but it is, for me, just a touch too cold." Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog: "It's hard at this point to say that he's wrong. Even though he is. If Iraq spirals completely out of control, there will be a very strong temptation to write off the entire Islamic world as irredeemably backward and hopeless." He writes, Bush's "supporters will have to accept some version of the 'culture matters' argument. We will have to contain and destroy militant Islam directly, rather than letting its own contradictions destroy it from within while its more modern Islamic rivals destroy it naturally from without. That will be a cruel period in history. But there is not yet reason to give up hope altogether."

For Greenwald, these arguments fit into his theory -- much debated in the blogosphere (see 2/24 Blogometer for links to our coverage) -- that "when forced to choose between conservative principles or loyalty to Bush, Bush followers will expressly toss conservatism overboard and disclaim an association with its principles."

ReidBlog: "This had to be a tough editorial for the neocons at National Review to reprint, but they can't exactly say no to their spiritual father. ... They didn't feature the Buckley piece on the NRO web-site, of course. You have to do a search on the site to find it." Liberal Fallenmonk: "When you have lost William F. Buckley Jr. then the light at the end of the tunnel is the 12:40 from Topeka!" Bring It On!: "Get out your best dresses girls, the boys may be coming home!" Isen.blog: "Is this the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Iraq war? ... How much longer can the occupation last without the old right's support?"

Conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh, on partitioning Iraq: "One of the potential tragedies of the situation, of course, is that so many of the boundaries in the Middle East -- Iraq's included -- are artificial in nature, having been imposed by foreigners. There is not and should not be any real historical integrity in keeping these boundaries, and indeed, by abandoning them, we may be able to achieve greater stability. ... But if Iraq is allowed to split apart, it will inevitably be seen in the short run as a catastrophic failure on the part of the United States and all those involved in the reconstruction effort. And so, regardless of the long term benefits it may bring to allow Iraq to split apart, we are pretty much committed to keeping it together." Aziz Poonwalla thinks it would be a bad idea, and wouldn't necessarily stave off a civil war: "But worse, it would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the base motivation for the Iraq war was never about freedom and democracy, but rather The Great Game redux. The result would be a true setback for the cause of what President Bush called in his State of the Union speech the 'calling of our time.'"

On 2/23, Vodkapundit's Stephen Green made a pessimistic argument for optimism in the case of civil war: "An Iraqi Civil War would be a disaster. Every bit of reconstruction, every small gesture of friendship between peoples and sects, every last chance of keeping Iraq viable and whole... well, that's probably all gone. ... If we're looking at an Islamic civil war, then vast numbers of good people will die, from Libya to Oman. Luckily, they won't have to be our people." More: "I'd like to think that the Middle East can do what the West did, without all the suffering. But if it takes regional fratricide, then so be it. Also on the plus side: a Middle East at war with itself would probably be too busy to wage war on us. Other than police actions to keep the oil flowing, we might finally be rid of the whole damn place." Liberal TBogg asks the question: "What happens when the 101st Fighting Keyboarders get bored with advocating American Brand(TM) freedom and democracy for the Middle East?" He quotes extensively from Green's post, as if an answer to his question. Athenae at First Draft finds the "our people" line especially chilling: "In another fifty years, we'll ask ... why do they hate us? Perhaps this is the answer, as well as the impetus for the question. They're not our people. They hate us and so we hate them and on and on, forever and ever. For Thine is the kingdom." Tim Dunlop compares Green's statement to Bush's line about "defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country," adding: "So this is what the fiasco they have wrought boils down to: the probably forlorn hope that as long as lots of them are being killed, lots of us won't be." Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money takes issue with Green's claim that "Christianity was a violent religion until the Thirty Years War." Farley lists the wars and death tolls of Western wars since, and notes the rise of Naziism and Communism as evidence the West was still tolerated tyranny long after the war. Conservative Charlie Munn disagrees with a few points of Green's post. Green follows up, acknowledging Munn while dismissing TBogg et. al: "If only those on the left would do more than insult and inflame (but let's not inflame the Muslims!), then maybe they'd be an actual part of the national debate."

MIDTERMS: 1600 Pounds Of Gorilla

The Nation's Marc Cooper attended the David Horowitz-sponsored Restoration Weekend for conservatives in Phoenix, and reports back at The Notion that GOPers there were quite worried about the midterm elections. He quotes Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on immigration: "I encourage Republicans to not repeat what happened in California in 1994 [with Prop. 187]. It works for one cycle and then you pay a price for a decade." And Club for Growth pres. Pat Toomey: "We have to acknowledge we have a President who is not popular ... The war in Iraq is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and a major downturn could drown anything we do." Cooper adds: "By the way, I had a terrific time."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas announces in a 2/25 post, "Hillary is in my spam folder": "That's it. Four fundraising emails in the last three days from the Hillary operation and that was it. I could unsubscribe, sure, but it's easier to add her address ... to my spam filter. She's got some stupid "contest" between the "Paul Begala Team" and the "James Carville Team" ... Hillary is in a fight? For 2008, perhaps. But it's absolutely clear that the GOP is not throwing everything at her. In fact, their efforts to find a candidate to challenge Clinton border on pathetic. Perhaps it's time for her to use some of that fundraising prowess to help out other Democrats? She's got $17 million and no real prospect of being seriously challenged."

IN THE STATES: Turn On Your Heartland, Let It Shine Wherever You Go

In the early p.m. on 2/24, Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) appointed 2 judges to be special justices on the KY Supreme Court, weeks before the court is about to hear arguments about corruption in Fletcher's admin. AG Greg Stumbo (D) wants the new justices to recuse themselves; the vacancies they are filling were created when the chief and another justice recused themselves from the case. In the mid-p.m. on 2/26, ex-Dem consultant and Bluegrass Report publisher Mark Nickolas filed a complaint with the state's jud. conduct commis. "asking them to forcibly recuse both men if they fail to do the right thing and honorably step-down on their own." In the linked blog entry, Nickolas posted his press release and the 6-page document in Microsoft Word format. Thoughts from Kansas: "The idea that he thought no one would notice or care is astounding." Nickolas updates this a.m. with more, including a comparison to the trial of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX).

Rumors have been circulating lately that IA Sec/State and GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) briefly attended Drake Univ. law school, but dropped out due to poor grades, and went on to get a masters in education instead. Left-leaning Drew Miller called up the Culver campaign to hear their side, recounts the relatively mundane details, adding: "I don't think this is newsworthy. I'm just putting it out there so that, when it inevitably comes out, people will have the whole story instead of just the damaging parts." This post was prompted by an earlier one by the right-leaning Who's Makin' Bacon?, asking: "How important would it be to my fellow bloggers -- and my ones of readers -- in the upcoming election if they knew that one of candidates, say Nussle or Culver for example, flunked out of law school. Should that be an issue in the campaign?" The anonymous WMB editor adds: "I could have rushed a post" -- WMB links to a Miller post he indicates is doing that -- "but I didn't want to damage my credibility by being wrong. So I posted my question with the hopes of letting itself sort itself out. And now it has."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Oh, That Conservative Media

Lefty bloggers have been arguing as of late that the guest lineups on the Sunday shows are tilted toward the GOP. Now frequent Tim Russert critic Arianna Huffington points out that "Meet the Press" on 2/26 was more like "Meet the Republicans" -- the guests were Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA). Writes Huffington: "Perhaps the phone lines are down on the other side of the political divide. But I have to admit, it's not unenjoyable watching Republicans disagree, as their party continues to implode while being led by a lamer-by-the-day-duck President." Under the header "NBC Plays Pravda," Oliver Willis adds: "Even the old Soviet Union would have pretended a little better than that. Who knew GE would make Stalin seem like such a champion of media balance."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Pumped Up Yet?

Left-leaning Joe Scott notes Schwarzenegger's "MTP" appearance as well as his speech at the CA GOP convo over the weekend: "On an ominous note, his biggest convention applause line was not about borrowing billions to rebuild the state's public works. It was mention of conservative Sen. Tom McClintock, his main GOP 2003 opponent in the recall campaign. That McClintock, a candidate for lieutenant governor, disagrees with Schwarzenegger on many policies demonstrates just how much the governor needs 80% of the party vote to win. The governor said he has it now, but ... Russert correctly said it is just 66%, to an inaudible reply."

NETROOTS: Beware Of Roving Bands Of Callers

At Daily Kos and Calling All Wingnuts, lefty activist Mike Stark proposes an "action" for 2/27. He declines to post it on the web, lest the details be too easily obtained by opponents, but he writes: "It will be an email action list of people willing to call and push an coordinated agenda on talk radio shows. I only need about 15-20 people per action, so don't feel like you are signing your life away ... you won't have to commit to every action." He adds, "if I had a list of 100 people and 20 could commit to an hour of hitting redial and waiting on hold, we could send shockwaves through the talk radio industry."

MISCELLANY: Getting Hitched

• In late Jan., Tom Blumer of OH-based Bizzy Blog asked: "Are Al Franken's ridiculously outsized earnings (including a LOT of money up-front) from a network that is funded by one guy a 'clever' way of circumventing campaign-finance law and underwriting a possible Franken run for the US Senate in Minnesota?" Now, he writes there and at MRC's NewsBusters, that the whole of Air America Radio's financing from investors such as George Soros is indistinguishable from "money laundering" to benefit Dem candidates: "So almost $22,000 a day ($8 million in losses spread over a year) is being funneled into AAR by George Soros and the gang to promote candidates they would otherwise be limited to donating some multiple of $2,100 to ... while at the same time giving these candidates air time and web site promotion to raise money from others."
• Christopher Hitchens' 2/24 pro-Denmark rally outside the Danish embassy, which was attended by Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, Cliff May and numerous others. Pictures are available at Vodkapundit, Crossing Wall Street, and another site (whose name we can't repeat). Wonkette also posts pictures, and snarks: "Seriously, did you ever think you'd see these guys carrying signs around protesting shit? Is Thomas Friedman gonna write an op-ed mocking them now? Because these are the people who got together and officially declared protesting to be Ridiculous and Futile back in the go-go '90s, aren't they?"
• At the Club for Growth Blog, Andrew Roth points out the Beltway media's presence in the blogosphere (including us), and asks: "But what I'm wondering is where are Roll Call and The Hill? They should be in the blogosphere... and they should have be in yesterday. Customers looking for news coverage in the nation's capital are demanding real-time information so the blogosphere is ideally suited for these two newspapers. Ahead of the 2006 elections, they need to get with it and start offering blogs to their audiences. Times-a-wastin'."
• Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was featured on the 2/26 episode of C-SPAN's "Q&A" with Brian Lamb. The transcript is here; video is also available on the show's website. He also had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the UAE port deal on 2/25. In these appearances (and several times per day for weeks, if not months, now) Reynolds is promoting his forthcoming book, "An Army of Davids."
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story on 2/26 about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) popularity in straw polls held at sites including Daily Kos and MyDD. The article quotes MyDD's Chris Bowers, GWU prof Carol Darr and RNC eCampaign dir. Patrick Ruffini.
• At MyDD, Jonathan Singer interviews MT SEN candidate Jon Tester (D).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Gestalt Of Don Knotts

Conservative Danny "Jack Lewis" Carlton writes: "Don Knotts' career path -- from playing the "likable, average guy" in the '50s, to Barney Fife in the '60s, to "throw-away parts" in the '70s -- "illuminated our changing culture." He argues that by the '70s, the younger studio heads had lost the "general philosophies and world's view of the 50s" and "attempted to escape what they believed was a false world view, only to adopt a philosophy that was truly false, in the worst sense. They convinced themselves such illogical untruths as peace could be obtained by simply rejecting war; poverty could be eradicated by redistributing the wealth; violence could be ended by taking guns away from the law abiding; and morality was a meaningless concept useful only as individuals voluntarily chose it for themselves. The trouble with rejecting reality is that you then have to create your own. Thus during the seventies, when the 60s generation moved into positions of influence and power, we saw the rise of the perfect people. ... And thus the real Americans, the Don Knotts, were quietly pushed to out of view and the incestuous bubble of the Hollywood culture took on a life of its own, and began redefining who we are. ...When Don Knotts was cast as Ralph Furley in 'Three's Company,' he became the same character, but was portrayed as someone to avoid, to shun, to laugh at when he wasn't looking." More: "And now Barney is gone. The man we loved so much because in him we saw a glimpse of ourselves, but would never dare mention that to anyone."

LEST WE FORGET: U Can't Blog This

In a jarring, possibly space-time disrupting collision of early '90s culture and early '00s technology, it turns out that Stanley Burrell -- better known to the world as MC Hammer -- has been writing a blog of his own, the MC Hammer Blog. Started last week and updated almost entirely from his T-Mobile Sidekick, Hammer's blog is essentially a photoblog of being on the road with his family, meditations on faith, baseball and hip-hop, plus audio files and videos of recent performances. His comment section is open to all readers, but Hammer knows what he's doing: "Comments on my blog are most welcome, but please keep them related to the topics of my posts. I reserve the right to delete any that I consider inappropriate."