March 01, 2006

3/1: Are You Gonna Blog My Way?

Today's topics look a lot like yesterday's, but subsequent developments have taken each in new and different directions. For example, Pres. Bush's poll numbers remain news, even as he sat down for an interview with ABC News last p.m. and was in Afghanistan today. Conservatives critics of CBS News' polling methodology are now targeting a Zogby poll showing deep disillusionment among troops in Iraq; liberal bloggers take this poll at face value as well. Whatever the situation in Iraq, the impression abroad is like a yo-yo -- civil war last week, Sunni-Shia reconciliation Monday, then back to civil war with the Washington Post's shocking Baghdad casualty count, somewhere in between today as the Post's numbers seem to be wildly exaggerated. NSA's once-secret eavesdropping program comes back to the fore, with news that the New York Times is suing the DoD for more documents, and other angles are being pursued as well. The energy surrounding the UAE port sale has dissipated some, but this lack of news actually allows one earlier argument to make a comeback. On the other hand, one story that had all but evaporated is back in force, at least for a moment -- the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.

BUSH: Are We Surprised Yet?

Whether you'd describe it as "unannounced" or "surprise," Bush showed up in Afghanistan on his way to India. At Polipundit, Lorie Byrd enthuses: "I love it when he does stuff like this because it really is good for the troops' morale. (That it drives the Dems crazy is just a side benefit.)" Outside The Beltway: "If nothing else, this trip will give a day's attention in the news cycle to the continuing operation in Afghanistan, which has long fallen off the media radar screen. Indeed, even though I follow foreign and military policy much closer than most, I has been some time since I've written about Afghanistan from an operational perspective here."

Elsewhere, Bush's interview with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas provided some fodder on the left. Steve Soto sees some of Bush's statements "as delusional behavior and a detachment from reality." "Sure, some of this is the usual bluster we get from politicians who don't want to admit mistakes or weakness. ... But what does it say about a man who says there will be no civil war in Iraq, and who confuses political capital with political power over a sheepish party that is being led to slaughter this November?" These Impossible Days says Bush reacted to a question about possible Iraqi Civil War "as if the idea of a civil war was Elizabeth Vargas' wild and crazy idea that she had just concocted right there on the set." State of the Day: "I know the president, to some degree, must put on a brave face and keep hope alive, but behind the scenes plans must be made for alternate scenarios. ... They didn't plan for a post-war collapse. They didn't plan for a post-war insurgency. They are not planning for a civil war. What else are these incompetent fools not planning for?" Carpetbagger Report, on Bush claiming he still has political capital: "Maybe inside Bush's bubble, there's 'ample' political capital, but everywhere else, the president's support is practically gone. ... The fact that president believes otherwise is just bizarre."

At AMERICAblog, John Aravosis objects to Bush's characterization of what the WH knew in the early days after Katrina, not to mention his delayed return to DC on 9/11. Aravosis: "And he wonders why he's at 34% in the polls. Because he's a liar who refuses to ever take responsibility for anything." Penndit can hardly believe this line from the interview -- "I think the U.S. is better prepared than woefully unprepared." -- commenting: "Wow, better than woefully unprepared. Feel safer now?" Conservative Flopping Aces considers a segment where Bush says "And, you know, I've been up in the polls, and I've been down in the polls. You know, it's just part of life in the modern era" as possibly "the quote of the day since it was a day of polls."

In an unusually short entry at Huffington Post linking back to his own site, liberal UCLA prof Mark Kleiman writes: "George W. Bush's personal favorability is at an astonishingly low 29%. That's due in part to the labors of people the right wing mocks as suffering from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome.' Now is not the time to let up. Bush could be the anchor that drags the entire GOP under."

Kevin Hayden at The American Street considers what the CBS poll numbers would seem to mean: "Out of 100 voters, 25 are Republicans who still support Bush. 9 are Democrats and Independents who support Bush. 10 are Republicans who don't support Bush. So more Republicans -- in actual total numbers -- dislike Bush than the total Dems and Indies who approve of him." Kevin Drum thinks that much as cong. GOPers might want to run from Bush, they'll have a hard time of it: "This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards."

EAVESDROPPING: A Ploy Named Sue

As Reuters reports, New York Times is suing the DoD for access to more documents related to the NSA wiretap program they reported on in 12/05. It's a puzzling development to nearly all the conservative bloggers who pick up on it; most of them think the Times is playing a game of some sort.

Header at Baldilocks: "Visions of Watergate Dancing in Their Heads." She summarizes: "The New York Times is suing the Pentagon ... for acting as if there's a war on." While Rob Port asserts that "the Pentagon needs to comply with the law," he also thinks the Times hasn't given them time enough: "There are no doubt reams of pages of documents that must not only be dredged up and copied but also reviewed so that classified information can be redacted. After all, its not like the Times can be trusted to, you know, obey the law and keep classified government information secret."

Liberal hawk Roger L. Simon is more alarmed: "If the Times succeeds with this suit, which I doubt, it will be a whole new era in government secrecy. Intelligence work, as we know it in our country, would virtually cease."

AJ Strata thinks the New York Times' source on the NSA hearings might be Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and writes: "One cannot wonder about the timing of this act with the ongoing investigation into the NSA leak and indicators the NY Times' source is one or two high profile Democrat Senators. This act is a monumental waste of money. Even if they do find a rubber stamp liberal judge at a low level to give this case some life it will not survive. It is an idiotic move -- unless it is some kind of lame diversion attempt."

>> At Democracy Arsenal, Nixon enemies lister Morton Halperin approaches Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) NSA/FISA bill suspiciously: "There is increasing evidence that there is more than one NSA program and that the program(s) not yet discussed publicly are far more extensive than the 'terrorist surveillance program' described" by Bush and AG Alberto Gonzales. More: "One can only assume that whoever drafted this text is aware of what is really going on and is seeking to have Congress authorize all of the new NSA programs without the administration ever describing and defending what it is doing. This underscores the need for a full inquiry by the Congress."

>> Per a "truly amazing" recent Survey USA poll, Glenn Greenwald notes that the plurality of a majority of U.S. states -- including several red ones -- think it is "clear" that Bush's NSA wiretaps broke the law. And he wonders why Dems are still looking for ways to work with Bush on it: "If we had a Democratic President and there were polls showing that a plurality of people across the country, in every region, had concluded that the President 'clearly' broke the law -- and that a majority of Americans overall believe he did so as well -- would Republicans be taking advantage of that fact as aggressively as possible, or would they be running away from that issue in fear?"

JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Rushdie Limbaugh?

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which ran the controversial Muhammad cartoons last fall, has now published "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism." Signatories include longstanding fatwa target Salman Rushdie and fellow targets Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, French "American Vertigo" author Bernard-Henri Levy, Canadian feminist Muslim Irshad Manji and a half-dozen others. Right-libertarian Agora -- which started in mid-Feb. to cover the Jyllands-Posten controversy -- makes itself the de facto hub for all bloggers linking to the piece, and adding the ominous comment: "I think we'll be seeing people die in the coming days. You know, from 'reactions'..." The Agora blogger reprints the Manifesto in full, includes an exhaustive list of right-leaning bloggers adding their assent -- many of them reprint the manifesto in full -- and even lists a couple liberal bloggers who disagree. One is ReidBlog, who sees things differently: "What a bunch of overblown, self-important, pretentious, indulgent rubbish. The people protesting those ridiculous, offensive cartoons aren't all Islamists, folks -- they're mainly ordinary Muslims who were freaking pissed off that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons." Belmont Club's right-leaning Richard Fernandez signs on: "This represents a substantial -- but not a total -- departure from the strategic idea of treating Islam as a religion of peace and focusing on a narrow group of miscreants within it as the true enemy. The Manifesto shifts the definition of the enemy from a group of people to an ideology."

Right-leaning Brussels Journalalso criticizes the manifesto for calling Islamism "a new totalitarian global threat": "There is no doubt that Islamism is a threat to freedom and human dignity. However, as we have warned before, some people -- undoubtedly brave, but nevertheless mistaken -- are prepared to destroy certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of education, in their fight against Islam and religion in general."

PORT SECURITY: Ancient Homeland Security

One fact has been mentioned in days past -- Andy McCarthy made the argument at The Corner last week -- but is gaining momentum even among conservative bloggers who had reconciled themselves to the deal, is that UAE-based Dubai Ports World enforces a boycott on Israel. Its resurgence is in part driven in part by a report in the Jerusalem Post.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler writes, "if a nation tries to call foul and unfair on anybody regarding trade deals and discriminatory behavior, it helps a great deal if they themselves live according to the standards that they insist to be treated in accordance with, and Dubai fails the smell test on that one, big time." Right-leaning Mary Madigan at Exit Zero: "Israel is a major source for innovative products, including medical technologies that have improved the lives of people worldwide. In the Middle East, they're the only local source of innovation. The UAE, like other members of the Arab League, won't allow these products into their country. I guess the UAE isn't as modern as they pretend to be." Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker thinks there could be a legal issue: "Probably doing business with Dubai Ports World would not be construed to be in support of the Arab Boycott, but there may be a legal argument" stemming from a '77 law signed by then-Pres. Carter "to be made." Liberals Taylor Marsh and Michael Stickings cite the boycott as an issue as well. And Egypt-based pro-American The Big Pharoah thinks this could be "the final nail": "I am so disappointed at how this issue developed. A recent poll found that 70% of Americans are against the deal. A quick look at the cartoons published in American print media show how nowadays anything Arab is being associated with Osama Bin Laden. And what have we done to correct this? Nothing."

Democracy Project has serious questions about the poll, as it "purposely leaves open too many questions, which combined with the performance and nature of the Zogby polling organization, raises many doubts as to the poll's reliability." The questions asked aren't revealed, "nor the preparatory statements to the questions." Also missing is survey methodology, and the specific demos of the military members in Iraq. And, "not a single visitor to Iraq from any media or political party, including critics of the Iraq war, has reported any such negativity among the troops there. ... Similarly, among the 1,246 military blogs, one would have to search hard and long to find such corroborating negativity."

But an Israeli business mag, Globes, reports that DPW does indeed deal with an Israeli shipping company. Conservative port sale proponent The Anchoress: "Again, it just seems to me UAE is a better friend than many understand."

Based on the ABC News interview, Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis notes Bush's argument that the Coast Guard's objections were all part of the process, commenting: "He makes a good point. I doubt many minds will be changed though."

MIDTERMS: Sen. Joementum (R-CT)?

Hartford Courant reports that Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) is endorsing Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for re-election, and in fact the whole CT GOP might do the same. LamontBlog, an unofficial blog supporting Lieberman's likely primary challenger, businessman Ned Lamont, writes: "This is an absolute gift to the Lamont campaign if Lieberman isn't going to actually run on the GOP line. If Joe is planning on running as a Republican, what can I say? More power to him. But he needs to get the hell out of the Democratic party first." Connect Left: "The endorsement puts the final touches on Joementum's DINO crown. I wonder why the good people of Connecticut put up with this?" Daily Kos posts links to sites where readers can donate to Lamont, and comments: "Do we need any more evidence of how important Lieberman is to the Connecticut Republican Party? Lieberman provides them cover. They'd wither and die without him around."

LOBBYING REFORM: Ethic Cleansing

A dismayed Josh Marshall reports that of 2 ethics bills, the Dems' bill "went down on party lines, 10-8" while an earmark/lobbying reform bill supported by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) "passed unanimously. In other words, in one short committee meeting, the Republicans completely co-opted the issue." Likewise, a plan by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to create an ethics enforcement commis. has picked up just 2 co-sponsoring Dems. Writes Marshall: "The Democrats want to run as the party of reform? Then they can't afford days like today."

Scott Shields at MyDD counsels: "I honestly believe the problem here is that, God bless 'em, the Democrats just want to do what's right. So if some Republican comes up with a piece of legislation that brings them 60% of the way," but that's "bad public policy. There's a lot of corruption Republicans can figure out how to shoehorn into that remaining 40%. And it's also bad politics. There can be no cooperation with Republicans on ethics."

IRAQ: (Fighting) Man (Or Woman) On The (Baghdad) Street

A newly-released Zogby poll is the "first ever" of U.S. troops on the ground in a war. Pollster John Zogby writes up his findings for Huffington Post, leading with the factoid, "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year."

To Crooks and Liars and plenty others on the left, it's a wake-up call: "If anyone still doesn't believe that [Dem PA Rep.] John Murtha was speaking for the troops, there's this." But others focus on other findings. Seeing the Forest, Thomas Leavitt notes that 85% of U.S. soldiers believe U.S. mission in Iraq is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks": "It also appears that the troops in Iraq are unaware of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq post-dates the invasion (one would think that the numbers might shift even more dramatically, if they did)." The Liberal Avenger, being acknowledgedly "assholish": "Maybe they aren't really our best and brightest?"

Conservatives disagree, among them Dan Riehl: "I don't get this at all -- and I absolutely don't trust it. Why the hell is a center for Peace studies" -- the co-sponsor is Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies -- doing a poll like this? And the fact is I don't care if it's a trustworthy poll via Zogby, or not. What the hell is anyone doing polling troops in the first place? A military isn't a got-damned democracy." Pundit Guy's Bill Nienhuis, too: "It's all suspect as far as I'm concerned."

Anti-war Knappster predicts the fallout on the right: "The War Party diehards will publicly stomp on their own cranks as they usually do, but this time really hard. Look for them to blame the troops and start whining about how Patton wouldn't have given up and how all the boys and girls in uniform..." Fellow war critic Jim Henley doesn't think it'll come to that: "I think [war supporters] have a much easier time squaring the circle than he suggests. It's a simple matter of saying, 'Soldiers have always grumbled; it's what they do. Now they can grumble to pollsters. American soldiers in particular have a glorious history of grumbling through every one of the nation's successful wars.'"

>> The Mahablog highlights how difficult is even for a blogger to know which direction things are headed; she takes a screen shot of the automated blog aggregator Memeorandum, which shows how the "old news" and "new news" are "bumping into each other." As she puts it: "Old News: The violence in Iraq is subsiding. New News: Um, maybe not." At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh catches up with the new news: "There continues to be a great deal of violence in the wake of the recent mosque bombing, which may mean that American forces will have to clamp down on security the way they did for both successful Iraqi elections. Such a clampdown and the attendant lack of violence that would result would further pull Iraq away from the possibility of civil war. Indeed, it is somewhat hard to understand why a security clampdown cannot become more of a regular occurrence rather than a policy employed for specific and especially toughy situations."

>> KRT's Strobel and Landay are reporting the Bush admin. got word from its intel source in '03 that an insurgency with "deep local rots" could lead to "civil war." Pro-war Steven Taylor laments: "One would think that after the optimistic version of the immediate aftermath of the invasion did not play out, that a more sober mindset would have set in. But alas, this appears not to be the case." To centrist Joe Gandelman, "it seems like yet another indication that the administration had these vast info resources at its disposal but only would consider ones that fit into an established world view." Lefty Juan Cole recites Shelley's "Ozymandias" as a tribute to the WH and its "empire."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: The Third Casualty Of War Is Casualty Counts?

A major development in our previous edition was the 2/28 Washington Post report that deaths from Sunni-Shia violence since the mosque bombing topped 1300K. But now significant doubt has been cast on those numbers -- other newspapers and agencies have much lower body counts; as E&P reports via AP, the Post "cited figures from the Baghdad central morgue, but an official there told The Associated Press that as of Sunday night they had received only 249 bodies tied to the violence." FishBowlDC plays it cautious: "Seems like no one can quite figure out how many Iraqis have been killed following the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. ... Is this an example of excellent reporting by the Post? Or misleading?" Conservative Ed Morrissey: "It looks as though the Post simply got their astronomical number wrong, which detracts from the reporting and undermines its credibility." He also ties it in with Bush's 34% in the CBS poll and its "major sampling problem." Liberal Publius at Legal Fiction: "I'd appreciate hearing from someone with some actual expertise on this -- but it seems like we're all blind to what's really going on in most of the country on everything from the recent sectarian violence to the consequences of our own bombings." And then later in the day, Publius finds out that the numbers may be too high: "Let's hope so. I think the general point still stands though."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Arianna's Latest Incarnation -- The Carlsons' Meddling Neighbor

Arianna Huffington points out that while MSNBC's Tucker Carlson has been "unfailingly supportive" of indicted ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby on TV recently, "there is one thing that Tucker Carlson has failed to mention: That his father, Richard Carlson, is on the advisory committee of the Libby Legal Defense Trust, the GOP-heavy-hitter-laden group that has so far raised $2 million." She offers her "full disclosure" -- that she knows R. Carlson personally to be a "very charming and gracious man. In fact, he's blogged on the Huffington Post. And if he wants to give his money to Scooter Libby, that's certainly his right. See, Tucker, transparency is as easy as that."

Crooks and Liars posts video of the Washington Post's Dana Milbank on "Countdown" last p.m., observing: "Dana finished his Countdown appearance talking about Anna Nicole Smith's court room visit and poked some fun at a Supreme Court Judge. Will [Post ombudsman] Deborah Howell be censoring him again? Keith made a joke at the end of the segment suggesting just that and it's confirmed -- Deborah Howell is now the punchline to a joke."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Push It To The Limit ... Walk Along The Razor's Edge

At Hit and Run, Reason editor Nick Gillespie encourages Bush to push it as far as he can go: "His buttery-smooth slide [down the polls] puts me in mind of a friend whose weight bumped up to around 265. My pal, an ambitious sort, figured he might as well push on up to 300 .lbs and then start the slim down in earnest -- when else would he have the opportunity to tip the scales at such a Brandoesque tonnage? In a similar ... way, Bush might as well drive as deep as Rommel did into Egypt and see if he can sink his numbers down to the single digits. That'd be a legacy for sure (and let's face it, Social Security reform is deader than, well, Rommel at 1:26PM).

LEST WE FORGET: Bull Session

According to atty John Welch, author of The TTABlog (covering the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board), Austrian energy drink company Red Bull has been denied use of the word "bullshit" as a "trademark for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, and as a service mark for hotel, restaurant, bar, and various other services. Welch links to a copy of the decision, In re Red Bull GmbH [21 pp, PDF]. At the appeal, Red Bull submitted a copy of Princeton philosophy prof Harry Frankfurt's best-selling essay-length book "On Bullshit" as well as the critically acclaimed Showtime series "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" Apparently the TTAB wasn't impressed. Red Bull even argued the TTAB's '88 decision in favor of "Big Pecker Brand" should apply, but again TTAB shot that down, arguing that "the primary meanings of 'pecker' to the general public are innocuous, rather than vulgar."

This TTABlog is a new one to us, but ite really repays extended perusal -- for the dry judgmentalism of post titles like "'GENTLE LIPS' and 'GENTLE GEL' Confusingly Similar for Lip Balm, Says TTAB, Unconvincingly," for the wacky antics of "frequent TTAB litigant" Leo Stoller, and even Welch's forays into lyric, as with "The TTAB Blues."

Posted by at March 1, 2006 12:49 PM