March 03, 2006
3/3: Here I Am, Blog You Like A Hurricane
As we head into the weekend, the landscape has changed dramatically from the start of the week. The Dubai port deal and the potential for civil war in Iraq were all but the only topics discussed 2/27. By mid-week, the specific port issue gave way to a meta story about Pres. Bush's presumably-related decline in popularity, and today the Iraq debate has moved to heavy criticism about yet another poll, plus a new National Journal report on WMDs. It's been awhile since the last subject was an issue, and it's been awhile as well since Katrina was taking up nearly half a Blogometer. But there's still fallout from the pre-hurricane videos, new videos and new arguments being made. So let's get to it:
KATRINA I: When The Levee Breaches ... Or Was That Tops?
As we noted yesterday, conservative bloggers disputed the AP's assertion that the Katrina preparation videos contradicted Bush's statement that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." They argue that when Nat'l Hurricane Center dir. Max Mayfield said the levees might be "topped," that did not indicate a fear that the levees might be "breached." As other media outlets are reporting the same conclusion as AP, conservatives have stepped up their objections.
Leading the charge is L.A.-based Patrick "Patterico" Frey, who rips into the Los Angeles Times' widely-linked version: "The distinction is critical, because Bush never said nobody anticipated that the levees might be overtopped. He said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees -- a much more serious event. As I have already said, I believe some people did indeed anticipate the breach of the levees beforehand. I was not pleased with Bush's statement when he made it. But this video adds nothing to the story. And the L.A. Times (and the AP) have to completely distort what is said in the video to make it sound like news. Far from showing us that Bush lied, today's story tells us that L.A. Times editors and reporters are willing to lie to their readers." 
Power Line: "CNN and the Democrats -- sorry for the redundancy -- have jumped on the Hurricane Katrina bandwagon. ... President Bush said it wasn't anticipated that the levees would be breached; the famous video that everyone is watching doesn't contradict that statement." Wizbang's Paul -- who escaped N.O. just before Katrina struck -- points out that he's been making the distinction since Sept. '05.
The argument finds another supporter in neoliberal Mickey Kaus, who asks: "Is the despised, self-parodying MSM intentionally glossing over this important difference in order to exaggerate the anti-Bush shock value of the video? I don't know--but I do know that the actual 'topped' quote was hard to find in print, lending some of the stories an eerie, undocumented quality." More: "Shouldn't Bush's press operation, rather than Power Line and Patterico, be forcefully pointing all this out?"
Perhaps the only liberal blogger responding is Kathy Kattenburg at the mid-tier Liberty Street: "[I]n the narrowest, most literal sense, the two words have different meanings. What the bloggers linked above ignore, however, is the fact that overtopping and breaching are connected events; that overtopping can lead to breaching if the overtopping is serious enough" -- she cites and links a USGS report to demonstrate "that, indeed, is what appears to have happened in New Orleans."
Now there is another AP story reports that another video shows LA Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) "hesitantly but mistakenly" telling the Bush admin. "that New Orleans' protective levees were intact" when in fact the Nat'l Weather Service had received reports of levee breaches. Conservatives have long wanted to shift some of the blame from the fed'l to state level, and this tape gives them the chance to do so.
Instapundit: "Think it'll get as much play as today's story?" Generation Why?: "So a full 3 hours after the first reported breach, Governor Blanco was still assuring the Bush administration that the levees were in tact. Was Bush supposed to recognize her incompetence and immediately send in the troops?" California Conservative: "Perhaps it's time for Gov. Blanco to admit some responsibility." NC-based Betsy Newmark takes a different perspective, offering Blanco the leniency that liberals haven't given Bush and conservatives haven't given Blanco: "Gee, do you think that it might have been difficult for everyone to have gotten the complete story of what was happening?"
But Alexandra von Maltzan doesn't think this will change anyone's perceptions of Bush: "As I have said before, the President's failure during Katrina is already too woven into the public's consciousness to be overcome by anything, least of all reason. Now if there is even a remote chance of being able to use the favorite "Bush lied" mantra at any later stage, the party just goes on and on...."
The phrase "Bush lied" has been part of the popular conversation since the start of the Iraq war at least, and lefty bloggers want the point to stick -- the apparent contradiction in the AP video provides the proof they need, and they put the emphasis on it.
Header at The People's Republic of Seabrook: "Our Glorious Leader lied? Again?" Under the header "George Bush Is A Liar. He Lies He Lies He Lies. Seriously, He Lies A Lot. It's Becoming A Problem," Stephen Elliott writes for the Huffington Post: "Watching this video footage showing Bush in another outrageous lie made me ill to my stomach. At what point are the people that voted for this man going to get to work undoing the damage they have done? Where is the congress with the guts to impeach this fraud?" Matt Stoller at MyDD takes this in a slightly different direction: "Bush didn't just let down the people of New Orleans, Bush let down his own FEMA director who was pleading with him for more resources. Bush didn't take charge and back his own people. He was disloyal to his own cronies. Why? Because he was sitting alone in that room in Crawford and he was afraid to ask a single question. He was a liar, yes, but he was a liar because he was a coward."
Washington Post online columnist Dan Froomkin: "Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions."
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "George Bush is not competent enough to be president of the United States. If another September 11 is being planned right now, we are dead as a nation with this man in charge. It is seriously time that Republicans joined Democrats in figuring out what to do about this man, because he is putting all of our lives in danger."
One interesting side effect of the AP videos is a pan-ideological (if not blogosphere-wide) rethinking of FEMA dir. Michael Brown's handling of the situation. He's been a punch line for months -- think "heckuva job" and "fashion god" -- but now his taped statement that Katrina could be "the big one" has put his leadership in a whole new light.
Joe Gandelman goes so far as to write an open letter to Brown on behalf of the group blog he leads, The Moderate Voice: "We were wrong. And we owe you an apology. In watching the recent videos of videoconferences immediately before and during Katrina, we were struck by one fact: in these tapes you are the one virtually clamoring for government action. ... This is not to say that say you, local and state officials are off the hook for some of the mind-boggling failures during the storm. But it's not accurate to suggest that if you hadn't been there, a lot of what happened wouldn't have happened. Because the tapes and transcripts show you were trying to get the government to move faster." Liberal Marc Cooper concurs, asking: "How has Chertoff survived this?" On the other hand, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler claims credit for not blaming Brown in the first place.
Conservative Jeff Goldstein, who picks up from the LAT piece mentioned above, which "rather than give 'Brownie' his good name back and disturb the forging of the narrative of Republican-run federal failure ... goes with a story" continuing the breach/top confusion.
But RedState's Augustine notes that the LAT does note: "The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was needed." Think Progress singles out a different tidbit from the same LAT story, commenting: "What you won't hear on TV is that the media have had this tape for six months but haven't done anything with it. ... The contents of the tape are clearly newsworthy. Which media organizations obtained the tape and why wasn't it aired?"
The controversy over week's Zogby poll -- reporting that a majority of U.S. troops in Iraq want the war over soon (see 3/1 Blogometer) -- came to a head last night as righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt brought pollster John Zogby on the air. The result was a brief, contentious interview which Zogby ended early by hanging up. Afterward, Hewitt's producer Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson posted a transcript and MP3 of the interview at Radio Blogger. And Hewitt summed up afterward: "The 'poll' is quite obviously crap when one sees the questions, and Zogby's refusal to answer basic questions that do not go to security underscores his defensiveness. The survey instrument is shot through with absurd choices while missing obvious questions, such as 'How important is success of this mission?' and 'Describe your morale?' It would have been interesting to ask if the troops have heard of Cindy Sheehan, or their opinion of the antiwar activists, though of course an antiwar activist paid for this circus."
Mystery Pollster's Mark Blumenthal has been following the criticisms here, here, here and here. In his latest post, he concludes: "John Zogby insists it is enough that those of us who have heard more about his survey's methodology conclude that it was "honestly and objectively done." I think he misses an important point. Consumers of Zogby's Iraq troop poll data also need to understand where it fits on the continuum between strict probability-based sampling and non-random convenience sampling. Zogby certainly believes that 'security concerns' prevent further disclosure, that we do not 'need to know' more. Perhaps. But without knowing more, it is hard to decide whether to trust the results. "
James Joyner laments, "while I have frequently defended Zogby's work in the past ... and once considered him the best in the business based on a couple of noteworthy dead-on predictions ... I am increasingly troubled that he seems to put out polls deliberately aimed at getting results favorable to his clients. That's not what legitimate pollsters do."
>> Zogby's poll isn't the only one drawing attention -- the Fox News poll showing Bush down in the polls gets plenty of attention, too. Writes Sister Toldjah: "Republicans shouldn't change their tunes simply to garner votes on this or any other issue (of course some will, but that goes without saying) in an election year. ... I'd rather my candidates stick to their guns and lose an election than to switch gears in order to win it." The Left Coaster: "Oh yeah, 81% of those polled think that Iraq will end up in a civil war. ... Where did all the cultists go?"
INDIA: Never Get Into An Arms Race With Ganesh
Bush's nuclear agreement with India generally draws criticism from the left and praise from the right.
While it's not necessarily an either/or proposition, Liberal Oasis would "scuttle" the U.S.-Indian nuke deal before the U.S.-UAE port deal: "If the immensely unpopular port deal goes through, it'll make it easier for Dems to retake Congress, where they can quickly pass some comprehensive port security legislation and at least mitigate the risks of foreign government control of our ports. Whereas the nuke deal severely weakens the international effort to stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Asia, and that damage is not as easily undone." Chuck Dupree at liberal Bad Attitudes: "I guess I have to say I find this new agreement somewhat scary. Basically the President seems to be announcing a de facto unilateral repeal of the Nonproliferation Treaty. If, as the article says, we're going to help India have nuclear power, why not Pakistan? Iran? North Korea? Not, of course, to say that India is an enemy, as most Americans think North Korea is (insert your favorite Team America quote here); but American and Indian interests often diverge."
Right-leaning foreign policy academic Daniel Drezner gives the deal a thumbs-up:
Conservative Blackfive offers a different assessment: "This is an brilliant foreign policy initiative, made with a country we ought to be very good friends with. ... It also shows that when we negotiate with potential nuclear states, and offer the possibility of real US help with nuke energy, it can actually happen." More: "It also gives us the opportunity to show the 137 million Muslims living there that partnership in the Great Satan Power coop may not be the worst thing." "If I had to make Bush's case to the rest of the world, I'd say, "Look, there's no way India is going to renounce their weapons, and if you lived in their neighborhood you wouldn't either. That said, they've agreed to open up their civilian nuclear program up to outside oversight, and they haven't aided or abetted anyone else's weapons program. So this deal acknowledges that the genie is out of the bottle in New Delhi, but keeps the bottle closed for everyone else."
National Journal's Waas reports, citing knowledgeable sources, that two "highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly" to Bush before the war "cast doubt on key public assertions" made by admin officials "as justifications for invading Iraq."
The Brad Blog calls it "the most damning and direct evidence to date that Bush out-and-out lied this country into war." Firedoglake's ReddHedd concludes that Bush "either knew that Saddam posed no immediate threat to the United States and repeatedly lied to the American public ... or (2) he doesn't bother doing his job, and had no idea what information was contained in multiple sensitive national security briefs that he was given over a long period of time, and no one in the Administration bothered to clue him in on this." Steve Soto claims the info was reported previously on The Left Coaster, but nevertheless adds: "There goes the 'I was misled by the intel community' defense."
On 3/1, Iraq vet Zachary Iscol wrote a post for Huffington Post criticizing opponents of the Iraq war: "I have been home from my second tour in Iraq for roughly a year and I am deeply disturbed by the spiteful nature and viscous partisanship that has hijacked our nation's discourse of the 'long war' on terror and our war in Iraq. ... In an age when headlines can move markets or determine the outcome of a war, our success in Iraq will depend upon our ability to abandon partisanship and engage in a more informed and constructive dialogue of the many challenges our nation faces." Readers at the liberal site didn't take kindly to it, and that's reflected in the comments following the post. Ankle Biting Pundits collects some of the more vitriolic comments directed at Iscol.
Relatedly, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald both noticed NR's John Derbyshire calling the war a lost cause at The Corner. Greenwald asks: "Isn't it going to become increasingly difficult for Bush followers to shift the blame for their disastrous war project onto "liberals" when so many conservatives are declaring the whole thing to be a smashing defeat?"
PATRIOT ACT: Wasn't This Supposed To Be Controversial?
Upon the PATRIOT Act's renewal, QandO's McQ praises legis. sunsets: "Congress will never pass the perfect piece of legislation. The Patriot Act is certainly no exception. So while it is fine for [Rep. James] Sensenbrenner to take some pride in the fact that no violations of civil liberties have been found to have resulted from old version of the bill, we should also be happy that it had to be renewed, and that renewal process made the law less likely than before to violate our civil liberties." Outside The Beltway: "The irony is that most of the civil liberties objections people have about post-9/11 enforcement measures are not in the Patriot Act -- and that the Act itself has probably not done much to stop terrorists." Resigned header at Reason's Hit and Run: "USA PATRIOT Is Here To Stay."
Via AP, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will not wait for the 45-day period to "scuttle" the UAE port deal. Hunter: "I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal." RedState's Leon H Wolf: "I kind of thought we agreed on a 45-day period to, you know, mull this whole thing over. Not find ways to kill it before we get out of the gate. Duncan Hunter has a more than modest talent for grandstanding and soundbite-creation, and the media are going to eat this up for 30 days. This was a shaky situation from the get-go, but Hunter, et al are rapidly making into a no-win situation for ANYBODY in the GOP." Steve Soto, staying on top of the news: "Here comes the intraparty battle within the GOP over the Dubai ports deal that I have heard about the last two days. ... Get the popcorn."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: High And Dry?
Early 3/2 p.m., various Web sites began speculating as to whether NBC's David Gregory was under the influence when he called in to "Imus In The Morning" to discuss Bush's India trip. The I-Man himself believed he was drunk at the time. To see the video, click here. NBC officially denies it, and he apparently was coherent enough to blog at NBC's Daily Nightly. But not everyone is convinced.
FishbowlDC's Garrett Graff: "Now even though that wasn't the strongest denial ever (and didn't come from Gregory himself), we'll give it the benefit of a doubt. Thus the only remaining option is that he was high." At TVNewser see the talk as part of a right-wing plot, pushed by the likes of Drudge. NewsHounds notes that it was a topic of discussion on "The O'Reilly Factor." Mike Krempasky: "David Gregory needs a nap. ... Either that -- or a trip to rehab." Confederate Yankee: "While I'm not an expert in speaking Drunkenese, I don't think Gregory sounded drunk. I would be interested to see the results of a drug test to make sure it wasn't something else, however. Bad curry, perhaps?"
>> Hullabaloo's Digby gives CNN pres. Jon Klein some free advice: "Can someone tell my why Jack Cafferty doesn't have his own show on CNN? They should put him up against O'Reilly. He's the guy who's riding the zeitgeist right now. Between him and Lou 'I'm having an aneurysm' Dobbs, CNN could siphon off some of the Fox News "Dad who is always mad" audience they've coveted for so long. GOP and Bush worship is so 2004.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Risky Business
New York Observer reports at its Media Mob blog, a 10-month study cmte formed in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco has released a 39-page report describing the Times as "a newspaper at risk" when it comes to diversity. There's more to the story than the "risk" angle, but that's where conservative bloggers take it -- NewsBusters snarks: "It apparently isn't just George Bush who doesn't care about black people." Discriminations: "Curiously, and I believe inconsistently, the NYT's preferred response to this 'perception' of 'diversity' run amuck is... more 'diversity.'" Don Luskin points out that the board "defined diversity in terms of employees' race, gender and sexual orientation. Religious and political differences were not accounted for." And comments: "I get it. Let's be sure we have enough people of color -- just as long as they're not Republicans. That would be a little too diverse."
Crooks and Liars: "Our Kansas Roots effort last week was a real success. We managed to get lots of letters about the illegal NSA wiretaps published in local Kansas papers where the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) no doubt felt their heat, and now we're asking everyone to do the same thing" for cmte members Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Firedoglake and Vichy Dems provide multiple phone numbers for both Snowe and Hagel.
One new blog devoted to the cause is New Nebraska Network.
MISCELLANY: We Hope Someone Asked "What Does Blog Stand For?"
- National Journal's Marc Ambinder and Danny Glover were on the Hill today for a blog workshop organized by the office of Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA). Roll Call covered it on 3/2; we'll surely have more on Monday. Before the event, Kingston aide David All circulated guidelines for blog interaction (PDF) as well as a suggested blogroll (PDF) for aspiring politician-bloggers.
- At his personal blog, ex-Hotliner/ex-"Hardball" prod. Howard Mortman has been post a series of posts titled "Blogs The Famous Media Reads." Featured so far -- Bloomberg's Roger Simon, Salon's Walter Shapiro, Wall Street Journal's John Harwood, ABC News' Jake Tapper, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, and The Hill's Jeff Dufour.
- Atrios and TBogg agree with John Podhoretz's caustic assessment of "Atlas Shrugged." Atrios explains himself: "Once upon a time I had the weird experience of hearing JPod saying almost nice things about me on NPR. I figure I've owed him the return favor, so here's a shout out to JPod."
- Cenk Uygur at HuffPo and Scott Shields at MyDD both focus on mine safety and the Bush admin.
- Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte explains a new strategy by penny-pinching Salon: "I thought y'all would appreciate this -- Salon is setting aside certain blogs to be no-site-pass-necessary blogs. Basically, the blogs on the list can link to article at Salon as so long as our readers click through on our blogs, they won't have to sit through an ad to read the article. Pandagon is one of the blogs, so yea us!"
- For someone whose ideas are discussed often enough in the blogosphere, it was about time New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell got himself a blog.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Foer And After
We were a bit too busy over the last week to cover Franklin Foer's ascension to editor of The New Republic, so let's play catch-up. Foer is a popular guy on the left and right, although most liberal observers disagree strongly with its support of the Iraq war, and some fear he won't be as valuable as editor as he has been a writer.
One who wishes TNR would reverse course on Iraq is Kevin Drum from The Washington Monthly: "Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen, and as long as they decline to learn the obvious lesson from our current adventure in Mesopotamia they're just not going to find a very big liberal audience. And that's too bad, because an awful lot of good stuff is being held hostage between their covers by their stubborn insistence that the U.S. military can remake the world." TMFTML is less kind: "You know, whatever. How about making sure I can get your piece-of-shit-look-how-not-liberal-we-are-no-one-could-have-anticipated-all-of-our-dead-and-limbless-kids-in-Iraq magazine on the Friday that it's published, instead of a week later, okay, Frankie?" Ex-TNR editor Andrew Sullivan: "After the bloodbath that accompanied my own departure from the editorship, I'm delighted this transition has gone so amicably. ... I don't share Kevin Drum's assessment that TNR simply needs to abandon its support of the Iraq war to regain momentum and readership. I think its principled maintenance of a muscular internationalist liberalism is critical to its soul."
In the Times' write-up linked above, Markos Moulitsas notes, Foer "hilariously talks about the 'momentum' of the now-concluded [Peter] Beinart years. Any more momentum of that sort and the magazine will fold in four years hence. (Not that such a shuttering would surprise me any or elicit any tears.)" Atrios, on Beinart's plans to do more "long form" writing: "Foer is certainly an improvement over Beinart. Return to longer form writing? Um, how about, you know, enlisting?"
Liberalism Without Cynicism: "TNR isn't really 'neoliberal.' It's much better described as 'liberal-neocon.' ... New Republic liberalism, like the neoconservatism with which it flirts, has always been about power. And that's what makes it so much fun." More: "My own take on the Foer editorship is mild disappointment. That's because Beinart was, in my view and based on my zealous reading of the mag over the past few years, a damn fine editor but a generally lousy columnist," whereas now Foer "might cut down his writing time, while freeing up Beinart ... to write more columns. At The Corner, conservative Ramesh Ponnuru makes a couple similar points: "He's a good choice for TNR -- a smart, lively, honest commentator who commands respect even from people who disagree with him. My only concern is the same one I had when Beinart became editor: that his new duties would leave less time for him to write."
If it's Oscar coverage you want, the Blogometer is the wrong place to be. Fametracker, on the other hand, is exactly where you should be. In today's edition they hand out their own kind of kind-of Oscars, let reanimated Kark Malden quintuplets make Oscar picks, predict the televisual fate of this year's big movies, and place odds on the likelihood of Oscar hosts to come.
Because it's Friday, we're throwing in a freebie -- Not Fooling Anybody -- an oldie but a goodie. Well, it's an oldie where we come from.
Posted by at March 3, 2006 12:50 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
