March 17, 2006

3/17: The Threatdown

In this too-busy-for-a-Friday edition: Under pressure from conservatives, the Pentagon has released the 1st of what should be many documents the U.S. seized from the Saddam regime, and some pro-war bloggers already think they've found what they were looking for; meanwhile there's a major military offensive happening in Iraq, and the U.S. and Iran have agreed to hold direct talks on how to quell sectarian violence in Iraq; an ARG poll finds that a plurality of registered voters actually support Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure Pres. Bush -- and while bloggers are certainly paying attention, the MSM so far has not; on the terrorism beat, port security comes up again in the form of a House amendment to search all incoming containers, and lefty bloggers are hitting GOPers hard for voting it down -- and did we add that the so-called al Qaeda "chatter" is apparently at pre-9/11 levels?; H.R. 1606, a bill that bloggers on both sides of the partisan divide see as protecting them against campaign finance regulations, is on hold until after next week's recess -- and now some Dem-leaning bloggers are pressuring House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi to back off her opposition. There's also an erroneous report that is still floating around the blogosphere which has not yet been properly debunked -- so we might as well be the ones do it. All that and more:

IRAQ I: The New Pentagon Papers

Ex-Hotliner Steve Hayes' 3/20 Weekly Standard report on DNI John Negroponte's reticence to make documents seized from Saddam's regime publicly available has paid off -- in the last 24 hours, the 1st batch has been posted to a Pentagon website. And conservative bloggers -- some of whom argue still that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had more extensive ties than has become the CW -- are diving right in. The MSM is picking it up too, albeit carefully -- ABC News posts document summaries to its site, with little editor's notes after each paragraph, generally tamping down expectations. One goes: "The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable ... without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."

Power Line's John Hinderaker quotes from 1 document: "So Iraqi intelligence conducted 'covert offensive operations' involving 'poisons' as well as explosives, carried out 'sabotage and assassination' outside of Iraq, and trained agents in 'the use of terror techniques' abroad. Not bad for a single eight-page document." He had initially thought the document was a translation; he updated after readers pointed out it was actually summary -- but he notes that Investors Business Daily made the same error.

The Politburo Ditkat is one of a few sites to quote the following section from the Iraqi docs: "Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following: 1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq. 2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America." Beth at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy reacts: "OK, am I reading that right? Have I just gotten used to expecting nothing? " Ed Morrissey: "What this doesn't suggest -- and we can bet we will see this spin -- is that Saddam Hussein was complicit in either effort. If the Mukhabarat had to go investigate AQ's penetration and recruiting in Iraq, it suggests that the Iraqi intelligence structure was unaware of the situation. It really doesn't much matter. ... What Saddam doesn't do -- and which would have gained him a great deal of clout at the UNSC -- is turn the AQ cells over to a third party. It would be impossible to imagine the US invading Iraq after Saddam had surrendered the AQ terrorists."

The Anchoress: "The WaPo puts the most boring headline on the story" -- "First Declassified Iraq Documents Released" -- "which indicates to me that the documents do not hurt, and may actually help, the president. If they could hurt him, the headline would reflect that. ... My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today. Instead of reporting on Iraqi documents, his commitment and the air assault, they are fixating on... polls. He's making the press look very, very bad." Linking to that same Post story, AJStrata sums it up: "Consider this the final nail in the coffin of the liberal fantasy about Al Qaeda [not having] ties to Iraq." Having sifted through the documents a bit, he adds later: "As I am glancing through the newly released documents it is hard to believe this is a Iraq stash and not an Al Qaeda stash. Either someone in Iraq was on the distribution list for a lot of operations reports or Iraq had someone inside Al Qaeda sending these back for intelligence purposes."

Bluto at The Jawa Report posts a photo taken from the Iraqi files -- it's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It's an interesting find, and gets a few links from other blogger. However, one is The Mahablog's Barbara O'Brien, who rejoins: "OF COURSE Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion. And he was running terrorist training camps in Iraq before the invasion. This is not a secret. Everybody knows this. ... But here is the part the bleepheads of the Right never get through their impenetrable skulls: Zarqawi was operating in Iraqi KURDISTAN, an area of northern Iraq that had become a safe haven for Kurds. He was in a part of Iraq over which Saddam Hussein had no control. He was, in fact, in part of Iraq controlled by our buddies, the Kurds."

Abu Aardvark's Marc Lynch writes that while he and Hayes don't see eye to eye on Iraq's possible al Qaeda connections, he gives him credit for getting the documents out. But he adds, their "value depends entirely on their comprehensiveness, and that they are vetted on a nonpartisan and scholarly basis. If all the released documents support the administration's case for war ... then the release becomes worse than useless." More: "The only prediction I'm confident making: a lot of people are going to dive into these things, and find what they're looking for. ... Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam had nukes! Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam didn't have nukes! I'd advise people on both sides of the issue not to get too excited over individual documents..."

IRAQ II: Bloggers Know A Thing Or Two About Swarms ...

Op. Swarmer in Iraq, planned by the U.S. military but led by Iraqi forces, is getting perhaps less commentary than we might have thought. It is getting plenty of links, primarily from bloggers on the right, but from those we saw, most just noted with approval that it was going on. What we found a bit more of was press criticism:

Bill Roggio counters pundits who claim Swarmer is just "theater": "If the Iraqi Army and Coalition wished to conduct a show of strength, there are easier, safer and cheaper ways to do so. An armored assault immediately comes to mind, and the Iraqi Army possesses their own armored units, which would be an impressive and accurate show of the Iraqi flag as opposed to riding shotgun on U.S. Blackhawks. But claims the dog was wagged makes for far more entertaining reporting, and far shallower reporting, too." Stop the ACLU is very cynical about press coverage of Swarmer, noting "this little jab" from the Washington Post: "But the crackdowns have failed to ease a raging guerrilla campaign that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi security forces and civilians." And adding: "Good luck to our troops. We can already see who the MSM are rooting for. I'm sure the MSM will try to wrap this into their ever hopeful civil war talk."

With all the latest developments, conservative Macsmind exults about Swarmer: "This on top of Rumsfeld INCREASING troop strength. ADD to this, Iran is next on the chopping block. Not to leave out those 'pesky documents' that show Saddam DID have contact with Al Qaeda, prior to our invasion in 2003 -- AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE ALL ALONG. I can hear the leftist MSM now ... 'But, what? We had him on the run!! Doesn't he know his poll numbers??' 'He can't possibly be talking about attacking Iran!!!'"

IRAN: Just Coffee Talk, No Big Whoop

Iran and the U.S. will soon open negotiations on Iraq; there's some optimism on both sides of the Iraq debate, although not everyone agrees what this exactly means:

Juan Cole, an Iraq war opponent and generally a pessimist on the situation, is rather encouraged: "Such talks have been sought by US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the first Bush administration official in Iraq who seems to know what he is doing, and some important part of whose activities are likely to bear positive results. Note that the Neocons would never have agreed to talk to the Iranian government, which they just want to bomb."

War supporter/Bush admin. critic Andrew Sullivan: "It is not in Iran's interests to see Iraq descend into civil war, and for the conflict there to broaden into a regional Shiite-Sunni conflict. And so, as I put it the other day, 'sometimes the darkest days are inevitable -- even necessary -- before the sky ultimately clears.' Here's hoping -- but still not confidently expecting -- that those skies may be clearing."

Conservative QandO isn't thrilled, but can go along with it: "It appears a little tit-for-tat negotiation might be in the offing. Why would the "chief nuclear negotiator" be interested in discussing ways to halt sectarian violence in Iraq? Seems to me he'd only be interested if he thought he'd somehow be successful in wringing an agreement out of Washington to back off a bit on the present policy of confrontation over nukes. Frankly (and pragmatically) this is probably something we should seriously consider. If estimates are correct, Iran is quite a way off in terms of nuclear weapons whereas our need to dampen the sectarian strife in Iraq is pretty immediate." Alexandra von Maltzan: "Iran wants to talk about Iraq. Ask yourself, why? Could it be that Iran has realized that it has overplayed its hand? That it has just needled the Great Satan one too many times by blowing up the shrine and hoping to throw Iraq into civil war? We don't know, but we do know, that something major is up and that Iran knows it."

At Donklephant, Denise Best notes that a U.S.-Iran standoff "has been in place for more than a quarter of a century," and in fact: "History is brimming full of seemingly hopeless standoffs among warring factions that took centuries to resolve into more peaceful coexistence i.e. France, England, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire." More: One has to wonder, is there a place for technology to speed along the process of marrying interests to create ties that strengthen, rather than choke, relationships among today’s world power brokers?

Liberal Edward Copeland: "Maybe that will be the U.S. exit strategy -- just give up and give Iraq over to Iran." Fellow liberal Tristero at Hullabaloo has a different take: "Hooyah! Iran is now the new Iraq."

TERRORISM: Chatterbox

Header at Gateway Pundit: "Al Qaeda Chatter at Pre-9-11 Levels." Wizbang, which noes the bomb scare prior to the Marquette-Alabama game yesterday, carries a similar header. Ex-Washington Post reporter Douglas Farah adds at The Counterterrorism Blog, "the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments."

Instapundit, on the "pre-9/11 level" chatter: "I'm not sure what that means, but unless they're saying "this whole terror thing sucks, let's quit," it's probably bad news." Rusty Shackleford guesses, "in light of today's offensive against Samarra, perhaps the AQ gang got wind of something?"

EAVESDROPPING: Censure-ational!

An ARG poll finds registered voters favor "passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders" by a margin of 48% to 43%. For the left, which wants Dems to back Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure proposal, this is verifiable evidence that the Dems are making a big mistake by not signing on. While the poll has so far gotten plenty of attention from bloggers, the MSM has barely reported on it at all.

Matt Singer: "Keep in mind, that for the most part, the drum beat hasn't even begun. For Clinton's entire Presidency, there was a drum beat for impeachment and they only got the support of roughly a third of the nation. Without any help, 2/5 of voters have decided that this President deserves equal treatment." Matthew Gross: "The public is way ahead of their representatives on this one. Imagine what the numbers would be if Democrats stood together ... on the issue, and actual surrogates went out on the air to make the case on behalf of Feingold."

But that's not happening, and it leaves liberal bloggers simply asking where the Dems are on this one. State of the Day: "The key number here is that 70% of Democrats are in favor of censure. Not to mention 48% of voters overall. ... C'mon Dems, jump on board the censure train. The American people are already going for the ride; why don't you join them?" The Carpetbagger Report: "Will this affect the debate on the Hill? Will Dems start warming up to the resolution once they see the numbers? Do nearly one-in-three Republicans really support censure, or is this just considered a less-severe option than impeachment? Will news networks start conducting some additional polling on this?" Daily Kos' Georgia10 points out: "There are no polls to support the contention that censuring the President for his lawlessness would negatively affect Democrats."

At MyDD, Chris Bowers compares Google News searches for "Feingold censure" and "'American Research Group' censure" -- the former has 1000+ results, while the second has only a few hits. When we followed the links this a.m., Google News showed bloggers linking to the story but only 1 MSM source -- an opinion column by David Sarasohn of The Oregonian.

Hotline On Call reported early last p.m., just as Rightwing Nuthouse predicted, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist will "will force a floor vote on Sen. Russ Feingold's censure resolution after Congress returns from its next recess ... to put Dems on record." Frist "believes that the best tactic for Republicans heading into a midterm where the environment favors Dems is to heighten the contrast on issues where Americans perceive Dems to be weak." Marshall Wittmann: "Here is the bottom line -- the American people are not going to penalize the President for being overly zealous in preventing a destruction of an American city. That is what the Republicans know and they are gleeful about a debate on this issue. And they are co-dependent on the Democratic left to keep this issue alive." The Moderate Voice: "So it hasn't reached critical mass in the country yet. But those who've supported Feingold's resolution feel a sweet sense of vindication."

PORT SECURITY: Seriously!

As Think Progress reports, the House GOP voted down an amendment by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) to provide $1.25B in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum ties the issue of port security to a nuclear Iran, arguing, "if you were truly concerned about" the chance Iran could ship a weapon to the U.S., "you would support more than preemptive action against Iran. You would also support funding to increase security at American ports." Noting the GOP "almost unanimously" rejected the amendment, he writes: "I think this tells you just how seriously they take the actual threat of a nuclear Iran." He advises reporters, the "next time a Republican politician tells you that a nuclear Iran is intolerable, the first question you should ask is whether said politician supports funding for serious port security." Ed Kilgore, Seeing The Forest, AMERICAblog, and others concur. Oliver Willis heads a post: "They Were For It, Before They Were..."

Having read Drum's take, Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger writes, "I was kinda concerned when I read" about it -- "Then I looked at the bill itself -- which would require 100% of cargo to be "scanned using the best-available technology" by American personnel and more. Danziger continues: "Come on Kevin -- you know that's not a serious security proposal, it's a trial balloon. You can't implement this proposal without shutting down global trade."

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: 1606 Blocks

Campaign finance bill H.R. 1606, backed by a bipartisan group of campaign-focused bloggers, has stalled for the moment, as its rival bill, H.R. 4900 will get a further airing. No action will be taken until recess is over Mary Katherine Ham explains: "Reformers still want their substitute to be offered on the floor, too, despite the fact it hasn't been through committee, so 1606 was pushed back until after recess because reformers and freedom-lovers couldn't come to a compromise." Election Law's Rick Hasen gives a rundown of the facts with links to bloggers involved, adding: "I would link to posts by those opposing 1606 and supporting the CDT alternative, 4900, but I haven't found any such posts or press releases yet."

RedState's Blanton quotes Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) in The Hill saying large blogs "might well have to file ... but that's the point. If the Internet becomes more important, the types of financial abuses that occurred within the campaign-finance system in general [are more prone to occurring]." Blanton adds: "That my friends would be bad for free speech. What this would do is say the more popular a blog becomes the more it's speech must be regulated. So don't get tired of us beating this drum. It's important and we need your help." A commenter writes: "I'll tell you what I am tired of. When I call my congresscritter's office, that sweet little staffer who answers the phone absolutely blows me off. There is absolutely no question in my mind that not only does she not pass on my message, she doesn't give a flying rat's @$$ if I like it or not." Another RedStater inquired who the person's "critter" was -- House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt, not a popular figure on the site.

At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas responds to the same Allen statement, and points out that House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi is among those "fighting hard" to defeat 1606: "For all the talk about 'protecting bloggers,' we now have proof that their agenda is none of that sort. This is intended to squash citizen media. Pelosi and company are complicit, no matter how much they lie about their intentions. ... When they can point to an example of this undermining of the entire campaign-finance-reform legislation -- an undermining so drastic that the blogosphere's freedom must be compromised -- then we'll talk." Matt Stoller has a "Simple and Non-Legal Explanation" that ends up being actually quite long, and requiring an update. But bottom line, he asks readers to contact Pelosi's office as well: "Bother Nancy Pelosi." Atrios endorses Stoller's explanation, and adds: "The legal discussions get a bit complex, but basically there are people who think the Daily Kos should be treated differently the Slate.com or TNR.com. I have no idea why."

REPUBLICANS: Some Politicians Don't Get Blogging -- And Names Will Be Named

At Human Events' Right Angle blog, Robert Bluey reports, "I've been to plenty of Capitol Hill events over the past four years, and today's quasi-presser for bloggers -- staged by the Senate Republican Conference -- was by far the most bizarre. As I attempted to live blog the event -- I gave up on after the first senator spoke -- it struck me that Senate Republicans (with the exception of Majority Leader Bill Frist and Sen. John Cornyn) really have no idea about blogging." For example: "Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) looked befuddled, saying, 'Someone ask a question.' Bond quickly recovered when a staffer handed him a script that had been prepared for the event. It may have been a savior for Bond, but it was an instant turnoff for me."

Wary that his criticisms could be taken too harshly, he adds: "With that being said, I'm sorry if the SRC staff perceives this as unfair badgering, but I hope my criticism is viewed constructively, not as a cheap shot toward their boss, [PA Sen. Rick] Santorum. I also hope they don't exclude me from future events."

And he closes out by offering advice: "What's the best lesson Hill staffers can learn from today's event? Involve bloggers in the planning of your events. Unlike the herd of Capitol Hill reporters who travel in packs, bloggers don't think the same way. Engaging them -- as Rep. Jack Kingston's staff did for the March 3 blog workshop -- will make everyone happier, and probably result in better coverage for your congressman or senator."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Self-Corrections

We revisit a point we raised briefly on 3/16, namely that primarily lefty bloggers mistakenly believe, and keep repeating the claim, that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has already come out in support of Feingold's censure resolution. Problem is, Hotline hasn't seen a single press release or news report to back this up. Meanwhile, the Bergen Record today quotes Menendez saying: "I think we've got to get the facts first. One of the challenges is getting the oversight necessary so the facts can become public. ... If the facts rise to that the president has violated the law, then [censure] may be an appropriate action of the Congress." Considering there are Dem sens. who have expressed more confidence in the notion that Bush's actions violated the law but still don't back censure, Menendez is clearly not one of the chief backers of the proposal -- not yet, at any rate.

The erroneous claim originated with a post by Jane Hamsher, where she mentioned (with link citations) that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are behind the censure resolution, then added (without a link citation) "and so has Menendez." But we could find nothing to buttress this claim. As we noted yesterday, Blue Jersey expressed some skepticism, but hasn't addressed it since, and as yet remains the only blog to do so.

Yet numerous bloggers, including some influential ones, still attaching Menendez's name to the list of censure supporters. Among them: Chris Bowers at MyDD, Blue Mass. Group, Booman Tribune, State of the Day, Preemptive Karma, Dependable Renegade, and probably others Technorati hasn't picked up.

As Glenn Greenwald asked in Feb. when conservative bloggers kept repeating an erroneous report claiming Cindy Sheehan broke the law when she was removed from the SOTU, "when does the 'self-correcting' blogosphere start to self-correct?" If it happens, we'll be sure note that in an update (though we should make it clear, we're not trying to harp on anyone here, and we aren't e-mailing those who slipped up; it's about the phenomenon, not the individuals).

First correction: State of the Day. Second: Blue Mass Group.

LEST WE FORGET: The Truth Behind The Lies That Are Behind The Truth

Still on the comics kick, we'd like to add that Bad Reporter, by Don Asmussen of the San Francisco Chronicle, is brilliant pretty much week in and week out.

Posted by at March 17, 2006 12:20 PM