April 10, 2006

4/10: Hersh's Horn

Hersh's Horn

The blogosphere caught fire this weekend with two stories in particular, though others continued to buzz around as well. The left jumped on reports that the Bush admin is developing plans to attack Iran, possibly even using nuclear weapons as a first strike option. The left also made hay of revelations late last week that Pres. Bush authorized disclosure of classified material to the New York Times, and while claims of hypocrisy run rampant, many on the right devoted their posts to parsing the meanings of words, making clear exactly who did what and why it was all, from their point of view, legal.

Immigration continues to be a hot topic after weekend rallies in Dallas, St. Paul and San Diego and rallies planned for today, some of which are already in progress. 100K people are expected on the nat'l mall, and 4/11 we anticipate no shortage of photographs and anecdotes from both sides. Also this weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) apparently refused to rule out an independent bid should he lose the 8/06 primary to businessman Ned Lamont, a favorite of the lefty blogosphere. The left thinks Lieberman is an inch from bailing on the party, while the right sees the incident as an overreaction to the defection of ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA), who keynoted the '04 GOP convention and endorsed Bush.

IRAN: Ready, Set ...

New Yorker's Hersh reports, in this week's issue, that the Bush admin is secretly preparing tactical nuclear strikes against targets inside Iran in hopes to derail that country's own nuclear capabilities. Most bloggers link to Washington Post's write-up. The left notes the piece with an exasperated dose of shock and incredulity. Mahablog offers the top ten reasons Hersh's article should "scare the stuffing out of you." The American Street notes that while "there's a real risk that [Iran] would use nuclear weapons to blow up a country they don't like, ... We're planning to use nukes to blow up a country we don't like." Kevin Drum: "It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear." Hullabaloo: "I suppose it was inevitable. The Bush Doctrine of illegal preventive war has never ruled out the use of an unprovoked nuclear attack. So why wouldn't they use it?" More than one author calls Bush "messianic" in his approach to remaking the Middle East, and Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying is one of them. He concludes: "In many ways, war has already begun with Iran. The conversation has changed. It should give all of us pause that on this day in the 21st Century we are considering the possibility that the greatest experiment in Democracy in the history of the world is about to launch a nuclear first strike against another sovereign state. May our children forgive us." Gun-Toting Liberal, Brilliant at Breakfast, The Heretik and NewsHog agree. The Moderate Voice, to claims that Bush sees Iran as his legacy: "Iraq is already your legacy. Isn't that enough?" AMERICAblog: "He's out of control." Back To Iraq 3.0 doesn't think any plans will ever be implemented, and calls them "Neo-con porn." Outside The Beltway calls any plans to attack "essentially impossible," thanks to political and military factors. Happy Furry Puppy Story Time examines the article in light of Pres. Bush's poor showing in opinion polls. Others commenting negatively on the idea of war with Iran: Bluegrass Report, Middle Earth Journal, Secular Blasphemy (who thinks he knows at least one of Hersh's sources), The Carpetbagger Report, Thomas De Zengotita, Liberty Street, Balloon Juice, Hooman Majd, Limbo, Mia Culpa, Corrente and Poor Man Institute. Fact-esque, perhaps slightly pessimistic, offers commentary on 14 things one should do if they miss the rapture.

The Right gets into the mix a little, with The Real Ugly American offering his own conclusions to the Hersh piece: "YOU [Hersh] ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT." The Officers' Club offers a rebuttal of lefty arguments. Wizbang thinks the plans, and Iran itself, are much ado about nothing: "Perhaps a good metaphor for Iran might be the pufferfish; when they feel threatened, they blow themselves up to look bigger and scarier, but if's all a huge bluff and a couple sharp pokes will shred their bluff." The blog also considers the development of a war with Iran. Jawa Report is one who isn't necessarily averse to a war: "The Iranian nuclear program must be taken out, and if the vicious current regime goes with it, so much the better." Ace of Spades concurs. BrothersJudd considers a little War on Terror P.R.: "It would be preferable to do North Korea first as a warning to Iran, so that it's clear this is about rotten regimes getting nukes, not about Islam in general, or Shi'ism in particular." Finally, Riehl World View thinks everyone is overhyping the entire matter, noting planning and implementing are two seperate things: "To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran's nuclear program would be foolish." Right Wing Nut House agrees. Atlas Shrugs and Brainster comment.

Defense Tech and Arms Control Wonk take an interesting look at some of the weapons an attack might use.

PLAME: Leaks, And The Leaking Leakers Who Leak

New York Times cites a senior admin. official confirming that Bush ordered the declassification "of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics." But the official said that Bush didn't designate ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, "or anyone else, to release the information to reporters." Talk Left: "So, is Bush throwing Cheney under the bus?" Kevin Drum: "The scapegoating is starting to heat up. Can we expect a rebuttal from an anonymous official on Cheney's staff anytime soon?" Captain's Quarters: "It takes the decision to pass it along privately out of Bush's hands and into Cheney's, which makes sense if Libby was the conduit. Had Bush been the one to release the information, he probably wouldn't have done it through Libby but perhaps [WH CoS] Andrew Card or [Dep CoS] Karl Rove ... who probably would not have done it so clumsily." AMERICAblog: "A 'knowledgeable' attorney gave AP some insight that tries to paint Bush in the best possible light. But, it doesn't really matter how it happened. The bottom line is that Bush risked national security for pure partisan politics." Skippy The Bush Kangaroo plays out a scenario where Cheney resigns and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is tapped for VP.

Earlier, Gateway Pundit is surprised that "the media is now appalled that the President has defended himself!" He then details what he sees as ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's misrepresentations in his post-war public statements. Flopping Aces: "Recall how the left and the MSM constantly harp on the fact that Bush is too secretive. Now they are upset because he wanted classified information put out into the world, the same information that helped him make the decision to go to war." The Talking Dog: "[W]e need not hear the President's or the Vice-President's 'explanations'. We know what they did. They have had over three years to explain. They have a functioning press apparatus, and a most sympathetic media, for the most part. Their story is out. We know what happened. We have no need to hear from them." Firedoglake: "Dear George, it's called not telling the whole truth, covering your ass, manipulating and, yep, lying. If you tell only a partial story, if you try to shade the whole of the picture, you aren't telling the whole truth. What you did was attempt to manipulate the public and save your ass at the same time by only talking about the things that propped your false stories up."

Meanwhile, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush should fully explain any declassification/leak. Donklephant: "It's understandable that Arlen wants answers. The Republicans are taking quite a hit on this one, as well as other Bush missteps. In short, this is damage control for the fall elections, which don't look good for the GOP right now."

IRAQ: Zarqawi Getting Too Many Column Inches?

A Washington Post report this a.m. highlights a U.S. military "propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Rantingprofs: "If there was one single argument we should have been pounding the Iraqis with, an argument we should have been making using every medium at our disposal, fliers, radio, television, whatever was available, it was that the real foreign occupier was Zarqawi and the boys -- they were the ones who were coming in from outside the country with the intent of imposing their own view of how Iraqis should live, and doing so through brutal violence." Of note, the post also criticizes the MSM for skepticism over U.S.-led information campaigns while ignoring what the author sees as terrorism's goal, which is also informational. Noting that one of the military's psyops videos made its way onto Fox News, Blogenlust, who observes that 37 Zarqawi lieutenants have thus far been captured, has an interesting perspective: "Clearly, what matters here is intention. If a psychological operation was intended for Iraqis but somehow found its way to the airwaves of Fox News, it's not a problem because we weren't supposed to see it anyway. In a sense, we're just collateral damage. Unintended casualties in the war for the hearts and minds of Iraq. Victims of our overwhelming success in Iraq." The Jawa Report thinks the real propaganda campaign is against the U.S. military, conducted by the MSM. Lefty Attytood disagrees: "It's just one more layer of the lies -- like the forged Nirger uranium documents -- aimed at constantly confusing and bamboozling the American people about our real purpose in Iraq." Booman Tribune: "You, ordinary John and Jane Doe American citizen, have been the target of the most massive disinformation campaign ever conducted by our military at the behest of our so-called President."

In other news, Ret. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold has become the third former general to call for Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation with an essay in Time Magazine, joining Ret. Gen. Paul Eaton and Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni. Bloggers link to the New York Times version of the story. Brilliant at Breakfast: "If the chorus of retired officers against their own boss while they were on active duty escalates, things are going to get very interesting indeed." World O'Crap "defends" Rumsfeld and VP Dick Cheney, although we doubt his sincerity. Taylor Marsh, Cloudy Thinking and Drifting Through The Grift all support Newbold.

IMMIGRATION: Need A Break? Hit The Mall At 4 PM With 100K Buddies

Yesterday's demonstration for immigration reform in Dallas drew between 350K and 500K, according to police estimates and reports by the Dallas Morning News. Today, rallies and protests are planned in dozens of cities, and up to 100K are expected on the Nat'l Mall in DC. Michelle Malkin, who will be covering today's rally in DC, posts photos of weekend gatherings in Dallas and St. Paul, MN, and alerts readers to some problems counter-demonstraters have faced with police. TBogg doesn't like Malkin very much. Right Wing News, noting a sign calling on "honkies" to go back to Europe: "So, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback, George Bush, &Bill Frist ... Can you explain to us again why in the world we'd want to put the sort of person who was carrying this sign on the "path to citizenship?" Also, could you explain again why we're better off having this person here in a guest worker program than a decent person who respected our laws enough to wait in line to enter this country legally?" Freedom Folks comments on the DMN story. DailyKos has diaries from the weekend's protests.

Poliblog thinks organizers may want to find another way to make their voices heard: "These events strike me as wholly counter-productive for those seeking expanded immigrant rights, given the visceral reaction that they cause in those opposed to reform. Further, such events allow for the display of malcontents and troublemakers along with those who simply want their opinions heard." Power Line identifies International A.N.S.W.E.R. as one of the groups involved in the protest organizations and takes issue with their guiding philosophies.

On the DC protest, Tom Bridge observes that organizers are expecting 100K people, though their protest permit is for just 600. He also requests photos from the rally, which he'll be attending. Cam Edwards will not be attending, but he would "love to see Immigrations and Customs Enforcement out as well" as DC police. Little Green Footballs also asks for photos.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: This Calls For A Howie Kurtz Explainer

Washington Post editorialized 4/9 on the latest round of leak allegations: "It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove [that Iraq claims were false] would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard: "[The editorial] represents a bold and almost unprecedented demonstration of support for President George W. Bush by one of America's leading liberal newspapers. Frankly, I had to check and double-check the web address while pinching myself to make sure I wasn't seeing things." Joe Wilson responds, to Daily Kos: "While I respect the separation of news and editorial function it might be helpful to the Post's readers if the editorial board would at least read the news before offering its judgments." There are some comments at WaPo's Post.blog.

Jane Hamsher calls the editorial "such an unmitigated piece of BushCo. propaganda, such a giant bag of bs it deserves to be taken apart, piece by piece and beaten into the ground." Eriposte at The Left Coaster: "It's not just that they get the facts wrong, but by a fair accounting this editorial involves deliberate lying that also specifically excludes contradictory information, much like what George Bush did - and the editor who wrote this is clearly guilty of journalistic malpractice." Protein Wisdom, on the other hand, calls the editorial "refreshingly honest in its framing of this latest attempt by some in the anti-war and media establishment to push another 'scandal,' especially in its restating of the facts of the Plame/Wilson case." PoliPundit: "The media coverage of Wilson was lengthy and fawning. The reporters never pointed to any of the many inconsistencies in Wilson's stories."

Taylor Marsh: "So, let me get this straight. It's "a good leak," according to the Post, because it gives the American public information. But what about the information that bolsters Wilson's assessment that the uranium from Niger claim was bunk? Wouldn't that part be good for Bush to include in the leaked information? I mean, as long as we're providing information to the public." Musings of the Great Eric says debate shouldn't be about "the apparent legalities of declassification by the President, and certainly not spinning it as a good thing. The important points here are that Bush lied, brazenly, for no other reason the political gain, jeapardizing national security to prop up an already suspect rationale for war. That's the core of the issue." Legal Fiction: "The troubling issue here is that Bush declassified only those parts that helped him and continues to this day to conceal those parts that show that he either didn't read, or deliberately exaggerated, what the intelligence said about Saddam's nuclear efforts (either way, it's unacceptable). Relying on words like 'part' and 'some' indicates, to me, that the Post is well aware of this selective declassification but chose to ignore it." Josh Marshall: "For whatever reason, the Post has chosen to throw in its lot with the flurry of mendacious rhetoric and the white-washed investigations, all of which amount to a grand pen and paper and word game truss barely holding together the body of official lies that is still barely governing the capital. They've made their deal with power. They should justify it on those grounds rather than choosing to mislead their readers."

NRO's MediaBlog: "We've got hundreds of thousands marching over illegal immigration. We've got a new government struggling to take shape in Iraq. We've got a bribery scandal at the nation's biggest gossip rag, for God's sake! Yet the blogosphere and the D.C. press would rather engage in a banal, point-scoring debate over the proper procedure for declassifying government documents." Right Wing News: "The fact that this story is getting so much linkage on the right and causing so much angst on the left just goes to show how rare editorials supporting the Bush administration on any controversial topic actually have been, which in turn just proves how liberal these big papers really are. When they actually get behind the Bush administration on something, it causes a sensation because it so seldom happens."

IN THE STATES: Joementum Goin' Indie?

ConnecticutBLOG writes about Lieberman's "stunning answer" when asked if he'd consider running as an indie for his re-election bid. Lieberman: "I'm not gonna rule out any other option for now because I feel so strongly that I can do better for the State of Connecticut for the next six years in the United States Senate that I want to give all the voters a chance to make that decision on Election day in November." From the blog: "Joe Lieberman is such a proud Democrat that he wouldn't rule out jumping ship and run on another party's ticket if he loses the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. In other words, he'll will not support the Democratic nominee (Ned Lamont) if he loses the primary. Is this in the best interest of the party or the best interest of Joe Lieberman (why does the word hubris come to mind)?" Swing State Project looks at CT election law, and concludes: "[I]f Joe loses the primary, in order to run as an independent in the general, he'd have to file petitions the very next day." Matt Stoller: "The likeliest path forward for him is to test his strength at the convention, and based on that decide whether to run as a D or an I. From his perspective, he probably has a better chance in the general against Lamont than he does in the primary, so dropping out and running as an independent might be the most rational move, though it would be costly. So watch the convention carefully." Atrios: "There are special circumstances where the Party implicitly supporting an independent, such as in the case of Bernie Sanders, makes sense. But Joe's basically telling the primary voters of Connecticut - Democrats - that he doesn't respect them." Captain's Quarters: "CTBlogger expresses his shock that Lieberman isn't more loyal to the Democrats, but all that's happening is that Lieberman is reflecting the loyalty shown him. It's a shot across the bow of the party activists working to undermine him. If Lieberman does decide to run as an independent, he will split the party vote and may wind up helping the GOP capture a seat they had not considered. They might even run a serious candidate in the general election under the circumstances." Riehl World View: "They already lost Zell Miller. Nationally-minded Democrats like Hillary will not want to give the impression of an ever shrinking tent with a Presidential election in just over two years."

Also in the news, Rep./GOP Conference Vice Chair Jack Kingston (R-GA) will host a conference call with bloggers today at 2 p.m. dealing with immigration, the Academic Bill of Rights, energy independence, Iraq, Iran and the economy.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He's Still Got His Fat Soap

In international news, Italy held its general election 4/9, and with the result likely favoring the opposition party over current PM Silvio Berlusconi. TransAtlantic Assembly has details. As The Hotline pointed out after earlier world elections, a possible world-wide "kick the bums out" feeling has already shown up as incumbent parties have lost in Canada, Germany, Spain and the Palestinian Territories. Bad news for GOPers? Wait and see.

LEST WE FORGET: Shotgun!

When your inner child needs to come out, say, just after a shopping trip or leaving a bar with friends, Paul Davidson is there to back you up. He's perfectly okay with anyone, not just those under college age, calling "Shotgun" when they see the car. Fortunately for those of you with friends who grew up in different parts of the country, where rules for calling said front seat may differ, he offers definitive rules by which to live. And for those of you with dirty feet, rule six offers a warning: "Putting your dirty shoes up on the dashboard in the car, while enjoying the shotgun-status, is grounds for the driver to pull over, revoke your shotgun-status and give it to the person he/she likes better."

Posted by at April 10, 2006 04:39 PM