April 17, 2006

4/17: In-Kleined To Believe Otherwise

A genuine blogswarm has erupted on the left, which is accusing Time's Joe Klein of pandering to the Bush admin., attacking liberals and leftists, fawning over ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and making controversial comments on ABC News' "This Week." The left goes after him with a vengence, and some of their language ain't pretty.

Also in the news this a.m., comments by several more retired Gens -- some in favor of keeping Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld and others ready to let him go -- provides more fodder for both sides. The left rehashes Rumsfeld's role in planning the war in Iraq, while the right begins examining just who these generals are. Interesting pieces of history about the war are seemingly already being written. And finally, deeper issues emerge from Iran's announcement about its nuclear program, and just about everyone is worried. Today, though, it's the technical aspects of that program that engage the blogosphere.

The debate over the future of Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld continued this weekend as ret. Gen. Richard Myers made "supportive" comments about Rumsfeld on ABC's "This Week," according to the Washington Post. Righty Blue Crab Boulevard is on Myers' side: "This rash of critics is bad for discipline and ultimately bad for the country. General officers do not really ever retire and remain subject to military discipline." Don Suber still likes Rumsfeld: "With a few retired generals calling for Don Rumsfeld's head, a few lefties have been in ecstacy. Suddenly every general no longer is a trigger-happy idiot as portrayed in 'Dr. Strangelove' and 'M*A*S*H.' I see it as proof that Rummy stepped on a few toes as he tried to make the military leaner and meaner." Hyscience: "All things considered, I find it difficult to believe that the retired generals have spoken out for any reason other than playing a part in a political agenda, juxtaposed with a hefty dose of sour grapes." Dr. Sanity: "Rumsfeld has done a decent job simply because he has been willing to adapt to the unexpected and the unplanned contingencies. Ultimately he serves at the behest of the President, who will make the decision whether to replace him or not." On the left, Mcjoan employs some sarcasm: "Oh my goodness! How can we survive a breach in military etiquette! I'm sure the families of our dead soldiers would be appalled at this rudeness. That's undoubtedly what is motivating General Myers to speak out so strongly about the this incredible threat to national security, rude retired military personnel." Much is also made of backlash against some of the generals who criticized Rumsfeld in the first place. The News Blog links to Mcjoan's post and concludes that the matter is more grey than black and white: "This is not as simple as good guys and bad guys. Swannack's tactics in Fallujah in 2003 were a massive mistake, Baptiste couldn't handle Sadr City. That doesn't mean they're evil, but liberals have to resist the temptation to make them into instant heroes and Myers, who is a Bush toady, into a bad guy. This is about politics, military politics, but politics all the same." The Belmont Club rounds up reaction and fallout from Ret. Gen. Charles Swannack's criticism. Prairie Pundit also goes after Swannack.

USA Today provides fodder for the right by reporting on generals who come to Rumsfeld's aid. Righty Sister Toldjah spotlights Ret. Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong's defense of Rumsfeld and notes that the latest ex-Gen. to call for Rummy's ouster is none other than ex-Dem Pres. candidate Wesley Clark. She sees it as part of a larger strategy: "Many of you may remember that during the Democratic presidential campaign while the race to win the nomination was hot, there were statements from a few of the candidates that one of the first things they'd do as president would be to fire Attorney General John Ashcroft. Don't be surprised if, in the coming months, we see stepped up efforts on the part of Democratic incumbents in the House and Senate (or those trying to win seats in one or the other) to push for Rummy's resignation, with the more than willing aid of the mainstream press, of course."

Buzz on last week's announcement by Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran continues to seek to improve its nuclear program is still building through the blogosphere. The New York Times notes the part of the announcement that is causing the most concern to international observers and the possible involvement of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Kahn, and concludes that Iran may be far closer to getting a bomb than previously thought. Captain Ed goes over the relevant technology and comes to the same conclusion: "If the Iranians have the P-2 technology, they can create fissile material much faster and in greater quantities than has been reported previously. When they have enough, they will move directly into weapons production, and that will not be in 2015. That could well be next year." The Bull Moose: "To be a member of the sophisticated CW club on Iran you must dismiss the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad as a kook with minimal influence. His threats toward Israel and the West are merely attempts to establish Iran as a regional superpower. And we are only inflating his importance by even noting his utterances about annihilating Israel. Sophisticated observers know better. ... Pardon the Moose, but he is not a sophisticate." Daily Briefing On Iran rounds up the weekend's news. American Future takes a closer look at Ahmadinejad, his behavior and his background.

And the Times of London repeats an Iranian gov't report that 40K suicide bombers are ready to hit Western targets should the U.S. strike. Jihad Watch notes that the person threatening the UK is a high-ranking gov't official. Commenters at the site want to know what Britain is doing about it.

Time's Klein appeared on ABC's "This Week" and, according to Crooks and Liars (which has video), began by "sounding fairly reasonable in the discussion about Iran and then veered off into neocon, kool-aid drinking lunacy. George Stephanopoulos was even caught off guard by Klein's statements. Does he seriously believe that including nukes whether we attack, discuss or threaten is not seen as a doomsday scenario? We are talking about nukes Joe, freaking nukes." Raw Story has a partial transcript. Digby thinks Klein is "insane," and can't understand what he sees as a new rush to war: "I find it simply mind-boggling that after the unbelievable intelligence manipulation and incompetence that led us into the Iraq anyone in this country is willing to trust George W. Bush to launch another 'pre-emptive' war." MyDD isn't Klein's biggest fan. Trey Ellis goes further: "The center and the right need to be reminded that this nation was founded by left-wing revolutionaries who loved this country and the Liberties it promised more than life itself. Were they to go back in time, Rush and O'Reily would surely be Redcoats. Joe Klein - without a doubt - would be Benedict Arnold." Atrios: "I don't expect George Bush to say 'nukes are off the table.' But I do expect that liberal pundits, who are free to, you know, give their actual opinion instead of joining in the administration's posturing (for good or for bad), understand that nuking Iran is, in fact, bugshit crazy, and would alter the world in ways their most feverish nightmares ... can't come close to conjuring."

Washington Post's Babington offers one look at a possible outcome in '06: "Intense and widespread opposition to President Bush is likely to be a sharp spur driving voters to the polls in this fall's midterm elections, according to strategists in both parties, a phenomenon that could give Democrats a turnout advantage over Republicans for the first time in recent years." Dem bloggers see the opportunities for their party multiplying. Bark Bark Woof Woof: "The advantage to the Democrats is that the Republicans will dismiss the anger the electorate feels as just Bush-hating by the liberal media and left-wing-looney bloggers. More fool they. Once again they are confusing anger with hatred and blinding themselves to the simple fact that the current administration has demonstrated with breathtaking efficiency how easy it is to destroy trust and goodwill among not just the party faithful but among those voters who could have easily been brought into their majority but got frightened off by the extremists and the incompetents. If Terri Schiavo didn't give them pause, then the response to Katrina did. And that doesn't even begin to cover the disillusionment over the war in Iraq, something that recalls all too eerily the lessons taught in 1968." Lefty Just a Bump in the Beltway, though rooting for Dems, isn't happy: "Watching the Bushies fail isn't going to be pleasant when suffering and death of others is the byproduct." The Next Hurrah calls Bush "a reminder of that painful mistake at the voting booth... the one that makes Bush voters 'not interested in politics anymore' when you talk to them."

Also this weekend, US News' Barone writes at Real Clear Politics: "Will Democrats win control of the House in November? ... It seems possible, certainly." He offers two scenarios, each of which favor a different party. Righty Mark Noonan sees low turnout in last week's CA 50 election as evidence that Barone's second hypothesis is correct. Decision '08 agrees.

Today's Easter Egg Roll at the WH, for which a number of gay and lesbian families waited in line to get tickets over the weekend, sparked controversy. Some called their actions an inappropriate protest. CBS News summarizes the reaction. The WH also apparently changed some of the rules, so that gay families and those who were first in line for tickets 4/15 won't get anywhere close enough to make any kind of protest at all. Republic of T, who'll be attending today's event, notes that his tickets aren't for any event where FLOTUS Laura Bush is likely to be present. Blog for America dissects the day's schedule. PageOneQ's Michael Rogers exchanged emails about the change with WH Dep Press Sec. Dana Perino, who claimed that ticket policies hadn't been altered to prevent GLBT families from attending or gaining the limelight. Lefty DarkSyde: "I have to wonder, WWJD?" Bark Bark Woof Woof, Pam Spaulding, Tennessee Guerilla Women and Dependable Renegade all comment. Ex-Gay Watch keeps an eye on one anti-gay group's reaction to the event. And noting two stories in 4/16's New York Times, lefty BAGnewsNotes dissects one traditional marriage group's signs.

As has probably been surmised already, thanks to reaction to his appearance on "This Week," (see Iran story, above) Joe Klein has taken a beating from the blogosphere lately. Klein's 4/14 post at Huffington Post, in which he differentiates between "leftists" and "liberals," drew harsh and immediate criticism from 9 pages of commenters. A typical, yet toned-down, comment: "Thanks for confirming that you're a complete idiot." Fellow HuffPo writers also get in on the Klein-bashing, including Eric Alterman, Trey Ellis, R.J. Eskow (twice), Jane Smiley and Greg Saunders.

Then, in this week's issue of Time, Klein explains "Why Newt Is So Fun To Watch." Klein: " It's almost always a joy listening to Gingrich when he's on a tear. And he's almost always on a tear of some sort. I caught up with Newt as he wandered around New Hampshire last week, which is what people who think they're running for President do." Outside The Beltway thinks Gingrich's legacy isn't all that strong: "Yes, he led a 'revolution' that helped create Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress for the first time in decades. And he passed various feel-good measures. But how much real change is there? Most of the meaningful reforms that he helped pass, like making unfunded mandates illegal and putting strict term limits on House leaders, have already been undone." Lefties, though, take after Klein himself. Firedoglake: "That Klein does not see any of Newt's shortcomings is no surprise; Klein shares most if not all of them with his warmongering brother-in-arms."

Also this weekend, 4/15's Washington Post profile of My Left Wing author Maryscott O'Connor provoked plenty of response from across the blogosphere, including a lengthy response from Maryscott herself. Crossposting at DailyKos, Maryscott first acknowledges that the article got its facts right, especially the characterization of her as angry: "My anger is also real. It is, to be sure, only one facet of my existence ... I write about politics and social issues because I am angry; because I care deeply and I see wrong in the world, it angers me." O'Connor says she does not view herself as a spokeperson for the left. In fact, she does not want to "win hearts and minds" or "convert the undecided." Instead she hopes her blogging helps create a "left wing, liberal, progressive, religious, irreligious, profane, politically aware, interpersonally connected" community of people." Lefty travellers at Huffington Post were quick to attack WaPo. Billmon makes two different attacks on the Post piece. First he claims that the anger of My Left Wing and the profanity on Rude Pundit are just "schtick" and that the Post failed to clue their readers in on the joke. But his larger complaint is that the piece is just a "smear job" motivated by Post vengence for "with Left Blogistan for the take down of Baby Ben, for the impudent e-mails about the omsbudswoman from hell, for the passionate defense of Dan Froomkin, for the outrage over the Post's editorial defense of the sliming of Joe Wilson, etc. etc."

Some on the right took the opportunity to tee-off. John Hawkins at Right Wing News says simply: "Dude, she's completely and utterly out of her mind." Captain Ed takes a more sympathetic line noting that the piece read more like a "parody of bloggers and blogging rather than a day-in-the-life feature article." More: "If I were a liberal blogger, I would cringe with embarrassment after reading this article," and he feels the article shortchanged real thinkers on the left "like Jeralynn Merritt at TalkLeft, Ezra Klein, and even John Aravosis at AMERICAblog."

Hugh Hewitt extends this line of thought in an explicit warning to the Dem establishment: "The left has become disfigured because the excess that dominates the lefty blogs is absorbed by rank-and-file activists and encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership, which embraces, posts at and praises the blogs that are among the angriest and most vulgar/profane/hate-filled. The collapse of the left's ability to engage in politics will continue and in fact accelerate unless and until the leaders of the Democratic Party rebuke the party's activist base and its spokesmen, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon."

The Telegraph reports that Opus Dei-connected monthly magazine Studi Cattolici has printed another cartoon of Mohammed, this time in hell, cut in two, and burning. Righty Michelle Malkin sees this as a sign that "some Catholic thinkers are opening their eyes to the insanity of the jihadists." But she is also disappointed by news that other Catholics are gearing up to stand with Italian muslims in protest of the cartoon's publication. More to the left Ann Althouse questions the magazines motives for the publication ntoing that the only possible intent could be to stir up more "fuss."

That's the reaction of one poster to a new announcement from a VA-based blog. While many bloggers, especially on the left, have pioneered online fundraising techniques and other ways to support their chosen candidates and countless others fashion themselves "pundits" in some way or other, Not Larry Sabato has actually put a real-live poll in the field. While it's not perfect yet (he's testing Harris Miller vs. Jim Webb in the VA Dem primary in NoVA only), it's a start, and the beginning of what may be a future trend. For now, NLS offers this teaser: "We are already seeing a large gender gap, a large racial gap and two issues dominating the primary electorate."

For everyone who was forced to share a field, locker room, or campus with dirty-cap-wearing, stick-carrying, Skoal-stuffing lacrosse players, this Slate rant is for you.

Posted by at April 17, 2006 03:01 PM