June 21, 2006

6/21: If There Were A World Cup Of Blogs...

We've got another int'l edition for you today. Whether it's a debate over a purported missle defense shield to protect parts of AK from a North Korean missle, an "approval rating" from Iran (bet Pres. Bush would prefer this method of polling) or the latest 20th hijacker -- which some claim is as ubiquitous a title as Al Qaeda number 3 -- we're all over the map.

In, erm, local news, the debate over selling one's services in the blogosphere -- and what exactly comes with that -- continues to embroil two architects of the left. And who knew some GOPers spent so much money on engagement rings? Well, that's because they're buying more than one. And it looks like at least part of the left is already catching on.

NORTH KOREA: Shields Up

A report from the AP that U.S. officials are weighing using a missle defense system to shoot down a missle test-fired by North Korea received the attention of many bloggers last p.m. and this a.m. Alan W. Dowd updates the progress missle defense systems have made during the Bush presidency. Defense Tech, meanwhile, breaks down the technological abilities of both the North Korean missle and the missle shield. From a later post: "Kim Jong-il ain't exactly quaking in his boots, I imagine." == The left is skeptical of the system and the plan. The Talent Show, under the header "The Worst Bluff Ever": "There's a slight problem with that plan. After untold billions of dollars poured into the Star Wars program since the 80's, we still don't have the ability to shoot down a missile." Talking Dog, calling the plan the "latest 'bad idea'": "Their great new idea is 'Bear-bait unstable nuclear-armed regime on doorstep of two most critical allies in East Asia using method almost guaranteed to result in failure and probable national humiliation.'" Think Progress calls the move a stunt, while The Agonist, who lived in South Korea for a time, laments: "It really is sad when life imitates 'Team America: World Police.'" Even righty Blue Crab Boulevard isn't sold on the idea: "If it works, it reveals our capabilities. If it doesn't. it reveals a weakness. I do not see an upside here."

Others, though, see some merit in the concept. The Adventures Of Chester: "There are several very good reasons to go ahead and down any missiles launched by North Korea: it would provide a real test of our incipient missile defense systems; such a shootdown would reinforce the doctrine of nuclear assurance as it applies to Japan, one of our staunchest allies; and tactically, denyng the North Korean military the advantage gained by telemetry and other such data gathered from the flight could play no small role in retarding the advancement of their military capabilities. But the most compelling reason to shoot down any test missiles is simple and scarier: how does one really know it is a test? This is no [d]oubt what the Japanese are wondering. I was there in the 90s when the North tested their last missile, and it was ... not well received." Noting the capabilities of the Taepodong 2 missle, Captain Ed agrees: "Without a doubt, if the rocket fires, the US will have no choice but to respond in some forceful manner -- and if we're lucky, it will only be a successful demonstration of the missile defense system." Transterrestrial Musings, Tammy Bruce, Stop The ACLU and others concur. All Things Conservative, meanwhile, reaches back into history: "If not for Ronald Reagan, and his vision and leadership, we would now be at the mercy of that lunatic in North Korea. Instead, we have a workable missile defense against the threat. Not only are we still working on a space-based system, but the technology now being deployed was developed due to the efforts started by Reagan. We should definitely shoot down the test missile." == Carpetbagger Report responds to the Reagan post and other righties. == Righty Assorted Babble is keeping up with news of the situation as it develops.

NewsHog questions the MSM's wholesale swallowing of the story, leaked, as he points out, by an anonymous source. And from the MSM, Washington Post's William Arkin calls the whole situation "Much ado about nothing," while Jefferson Morley keeps tabs on what the rest of the world's MSM is saying.

IRAQ: New Guy, Hopefully Headed Same Place As Old Guy

Al Qaeda's new leader in Iraq claimed he killed two U.S. soliders, who were reportedly tortured after being captured. Righty blogs roundly criticized the MSM for paying too little attention to this and too much attention to alleged U.S. crimes. Gay Patriot: "Al Qaeda's remaining leaders in Iraq know that by murdering innocent civilians and relying on a compliant Western press, they will make it appear that despite numerous successes, U.S. and Iraqi forces are unable to control the situation ... That's because their strategy is getting headlines and winning this one not on the battlefield, but in the U.S. media." Belmont Club says the absence of a video of the GIs being tortured and killed "can only mean they found it too dangerous to go further, like a predator who must drop his victim because the beaters were right behind them." == Pro-war lefty Dean's World: "What's most appalling is the fact that those who are in the media know this is what's being done to them. But they just can't or won't make themselves do what it takes: refusing to let bombings be front page news, regularly noting the strategy the terrorist use, providing more positive coverage of war efforts, and etc."

Andrew Sullivan didn't express anger at the terrorists, but at torture in general, wondering "whether even Donald Rumsfeld will describe what has been done to two young American soldiers as a 'coercive interrogation technique.' Maybe the news of captured, tortured and murdered Americans will jog their conscience." Or it will make calls for "torture-reciprocity" by the Bush admin. louder. "And so the cycle of depravity and defeat deepens." Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "I do think that claims that Al Qaeda is torturing our soldiers because of some policy-manual for Guantanamo are implausible, to say the least."

WAR ON TERROR: Not Too SusKind To Bush. But Then Again, Bush Wasn't Too Kind To Abu Zubaydah.

Blogometer stayed up late last p.m. to read Ron Suskin's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine." It has lots of interesting, insider info about the CIA's success at foiling Al Qaeda, hints about the political motivation behind raising the terror alert levels, insight into how the gov't misjudged Al Qaeda (and almost willfully), extended disquisitions on presidential rhetoric, an unflattering portrayal of Condi Rice, a portrayal of Bush that's the anti-Barnes: His team protected him from the "fact-based" policy-making process. Bush is all instinct. Etc. Etc. And nary a reference to Karl Rove.

The title comes a phrase used by VP Cheney to describe the assumption that counter-terrorist planners in the US government should ACT even if there's only a one percent chance that the information they have is complete or correct. That the US hasn't been attacked domestically since 9/11 does not impress Suskind.

Amygdala's interest was piqued by Suskind's contention that Abu Zubaydah was a "low-level fruitcase" (the blogger's words) but nonetheless served a political talisman for Cheney. ThinkProgress headlines "Torture Of Mentally Ill Prisoner Led Administration To Pursue False Leads." More from Josh Marshall,Brad DeLong and Eric Umansky. The conservative Riehl World View finds contradictions in how unnamed sources looked at A.Z., and concludes: "Suskind and others may have been able to get away with a book like this before the new media. I predict there's going to be enough information which didn't originate with the Bush administration to make Suskind's book look more like swiss cheese, than red meat for the CIA and the Left, both so obviously intent on hurting the Bush administration."

Also in GWOT news, via the AP, Al Qaeda recently released footage of the man they claim was supposed to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11/01. The man was killed in an '04 fire fight with Saudi police. Lefties took the opportunity to jump on the admin for failures they see in the global war on terror. Brilliant At Breakfast: "Remember when Zacarias Moussaoui was "the 20th hijacker"? How many 20th hijackers have there been? I'd say it's about as many as there were Columbian druglords "responsible for 80% of the cocaine coming into this country" during the Reagan years: as many as was necessary to keep people afraid and keep them willing to sacrifice their civil liberties." John Aravosis is skeptical of the tape's timing: "Why is it that this video of the 20th 9/11 hijacker has suddenly appeared now? And wait a minute, I thought we were told that Moussaoui was the 20th and we found justice. Don't tell me that he was just another nutcase like Abu Zubaydah who was propped up to give the appearance of a big success in the so-called war on terror." == Righty Outside The Beltway links to the video and refutes Aravosis.

IRAN: Bet Bush Wishes This Were The Way The U.S. Were Polled

The UK's Guardian cites a political scientist at Tehran Univ. who claims that Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad currently boasts 70% approval ratings. Rantings of a Sandmonkey points out that the prof. just pulled the number from thin air. Then again, he doesn't doubt its accuracy: Ahmadinejad's popularity "has nothing to do with the nuclear issue at all. It's about his payouts. The dude, the moment he got in power, doubled all the salaries of the government employees. The reason why he could afford that? Well, the Iranian nuclear crisis -- which he started -- is causing the oil prices to go up, providing him with the cash necessary to cover those costs. It's the same technique that [Venezualen Pres. Hugo] Chavez is using: By creating a crisis, he destabalizes the oil prices and brings them up, thus increasing his cash inflows." The Big Pharaoh goes through reasons for Ahmadinejad's popularity, and has some ideas about what would bring him down. The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford: "Ahmadinejad may be a religious nutter, but he understands that nationalism (at its essence something that that is tribal, not ideological) trumps theocracy as something to unify a people any day, and that's the game he's playing, and he's playing it well." == Captain Ed thinks Ahmadinejad's latest delay (he said his country would need until 8/22 to review the latest US/EU diplomatic offer) is just that -- stalling for time. A Blog For All agrees: Why the delay? "Is it to provide yet more time for the Iranian scientists to perfect their enrichment technologies to begin producing sufficient weapons grade uranium for nuclear weapons?"

WH '08: Kerry's Kool-Aid

John Kerry, who is driving the Dems' Iraq agenda these days, has relaxed, in his resolution, the targeted withdrawal date for troops.

Bark Bark Woof Woof confusingly refers to a media obsession with an "alleged internal debate" among Dems while ignorning the GOP's intention to "march in lockstep over the cliff with the administration." Their mantra is, "It really doesn't matter if we've royally screwed up everything we've touched; the important thing is that we did it together, as one united party, all drinking the Kool-Aid out of the same cup. Wouldn't you really rather have us in charge so we can keep on doing it?" He also doesn't like Kate Zernike's use of the adjective "some" (without defining who those "some" are) to describe Dems who complain about Kerry. Conservative McQ at QandO calls Kerry a "running joke" who, "if he continues to push [the date] back" will "eventually be right." Other comments on Kerry's iconoclasm from BlueCrabBoulevard, Greg

Liberals are waking up to the fact that the two GOP frontrunners -- ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- have complex marital histories. Sen. George Allen's on his second marriage, too, but you wouldn't know that from the coverage. Anyway -- they're reacting to a Washington Monthly article written by Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen. Benen summarizes: "Here's the gist: for the first time, three admitted adulterers -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich -- are planning to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Whereas infidelity was considered a dealbreaker in GOP circles just a few years ago, now the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta. It's an unusual development that, as far as I can tell, has gone unnoticed by the media. At the same time, however, the Clintons' marriage remains literally front-page news." Digby suggests "The CW seems to be that Clinton rules only apply to Democrats. Republicans are allowed to hypocrites because, well... just because." And the only politician who meets the forgiveness criteria set out by James Dobson in the article is... Bill Clinton. Other liberals engage in predictable "Jesus Freaks Are Hypocrites" bandinage, like AlterX. More soberly, the "gut" of OTB's James Joyner "tells me that the McCain and Giuliani affairs won't much matter and that Gingrich's will probably keep him from running. Neither McCain nor Giuliani present themselves as standard bearers of the social conservative movement and both have the "hero thing" to bolster their moral standing." Finally Ron Chusid notes Benen's...er...suggestion(?) that liberal bloggers keep talking about this. == What say you, conservatives? We'll treat your answers respectfully, of course. But the questions deserve your attention, too.

IMMIGRATION: Is This Even A Surprise?

AP's Espo reports that a House-Sen. compromise on immigration is unlikely to move forward this year, according to Cong. GOP leaders. == Most righties applaud the House for refusing to take up the Senate side of the bill. Captain Ed: "It looks like the GOP wants to win its base back rather than attempt broad-based legislation. In this case, that may well prove successful. The midterms have more risk for the House than anywhere else, and the Democrats have aimed their main efforts at capturing the lower chamber. This may be an acknowledgement of too much risk in November and offering a tough stance on immigration in order to drive conservatives back to the polls." John Hinderaker: Killing the bill is "both good policy and good politics. As we've said before, no bill is much better than a bad bill." Blue Crab Boulevard: "The House is suddenly developing a spine." Randall Parker: "A defeat for Bush on immigration would be a great victory for the American people." == Others on the right see the latest setback as deadly for the GOP come 11/06. Norbizness: "Remind me again what any incumbent Congressperson from the GOP is going to run on in the upcoming election?" More, on immigration: "Oh well, so much for riding that pony."

From the left, skepticism about the GOP's true intentions continues. Greg Saunders: "Immigration reform is dead for the time being because the Republicans in the House refuse to consider a bill that provides a path to citzenship for illegal immigrants (or even the President's back of the bus "guest worker program"). Then again, my description of the House Republicans' stance on the issue is a little misleading, since it implies that they actually give a shit about the issue. If they cared at all, they would have done something about it over the past five years." == The Moderate Voice's Jeremy Dibbell thinks it's time to get the job done.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Koola Sounds Like A Drink At The Riviera's Bar

Will the MSM ever pick up on this story? Will this story ever move beyond guilt-by-association accusations? Over to you, Adam Nagourney. Jim Geraghtyhas a timeline of "Kos-Armstrong," as he puts it. He writes: "When you hire Armstrong for consulting, do you get something besides good advice? Is Zephyr Teachout's mentality correct, that while it's 'consulting' on paper and in the records, what campaigns really want is good buzz from Markos and the support (financial, volunteering) of Kos readers?" Crank at Redstate piles on. Allah: "It sure looks like candidates are paying him to pull the string on Kos's back -- although why they'd want buzz from a guy who's as adept at picking political winners as his partner is at picking IPOs, I have no idea." Sensible caution from OTB's James Joyner: "As to the Kos-Armstrong payola charge, we'll need a lot more evidence before getting too carried away." Also: "The real question is the nature of the relationship between Armstrong's clients and the DailyKos blog. That Corzine was given a DailyKos diary is hardly evidence of anything sinister; there are thousands of diarists, few of whom are multi-millionaires. The seemingly odd touting by Kos at every opportunity of Mark Warner is really the only red flag but there could be a non-financial explanation. Regardless, the Kos angle is the one that bears watching." Piling on from RightVoices, an Ohio-obsessed Mickey Kaus, wondering about the Hackett switcharoo from the Commissar,Kaus on TV, news about Armstrong's accepting SEIU money from Riehl and childish gay baiting (they're not gay, btw) from Michael Rogers. == THe final word from Markos: "I haven't consulted since 2004. I don't plan on consulting in the future. I don't want to consult. Why would I consult when I have the sweetest gig in the world? I mean, I get paid to blog and write! Why would I mess with that formula? My only sources of revenue are this site (advertising and subscriptions), some freelance writings in places like the American Prospect, and CTG (eventually. It takes publishers ages to send out royalty checks). At some point in the future, SportsBlogs will be a source of revenue, but it's nowhere near that point yet. No politician, campaign, issue group, nor any other organization has directly or indirectly paid me for anything." (Check out the comments.) Glenn Reynolds sticks up for Kos.

Just Asking: If Kos is so beholden to Armstrong, why would he support James Webb? Webb wasn't the candidate of choice in Mark Warner's world.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: As Al Would Say, "Uh... No Peg."

We love Mystery Pollster. Turns out that, natch, "U.S. military officers are more Republican and conservative than the general population and their conservatism extends to social and domestic policy. The best known studies largely pertain to elite military officers. A more recent effort indicates that the larger pool of regular enlisted personnel may not be quite so Republican or conservative." So Peggy Noonan must tred in rarified circles.

LEST WE FORGET: Fat Jokes

What's with this sudden profusion of Karl Rove fat jokes? First there was Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), and then there was a bizarre cartoon that the Democrats' communication shop sent around yesterday. Since when is it ok to criticize political actors based on their appearance?

And is Karl Rove really that fat? Can he not burn off those Darby-fed calories? Fat implies, you know, largeness of frame. Karl's frame is small. He's not big-boned. What he is is jowly. Pudgy and jowly. And a little beyond balding. The jowlicular curves of his face bear a striking resemblance to the jowl-frame of Jesse Helms. His facial features are bunched up close to the center; the jowls form apron-y cushions around the perimeter. (BTW: our favorite jowls: a tie between world-is-ending Pastor John Hagee -- when he tells us about the Rapture and swings his arms, his face responds as if were a different person -- or... goodness gracious, this guy.)

Anyway, the point is, Karl Rove isn't fat. No more than John Murtha is fat. Murtha is more squat, actually. So let's hope these jokes jump the shark. Before, that is, they fall on it and crush it to death. Dead Sharky.

Posted by at June 21, 2006 12:53 PM