September 25, 2006

9/25: National Nothing New Estimate

All sides looking at 9/24 U.S. intelligence agency conclusions see little new to report. For the left, the news confirms what they've been arguing since '03: the Iraq war was a distraction from the GWOT, it has hurt U.S. standing abroad and, in fact, has resulted in an increase in the number of terrorist recruits. Those on the right take a longer view: U.S. policy towards Iraq, both before '03 and after, has been always been a jihadist recruiting tool.

Blogger commentary on leaked portions of the 4/06 N.I.E. on Iraq (including: "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks") was heavy over the weekend. Lefty reactions include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "for months and months the administration has reacted to the report not by trying to improve its policies, but rather by covering up the NIE. Same sorry old story, but it's an absolute disaster for the country. ... The invasion of Iraq has been a gigantic, years-long rolling catastrophe for American security.
• Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "Do yourself and your country a favor this morning. Call up your representative and senators ... and tell them you want the April National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") released to the public. Now. Before the election
• DemFromCT at DailyKos: "The idea that Bush is making the WoT worse by increasing terrorism should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not only less prosperous than we were five years ago, Bush's policies are making us less safe, less respected, and less successful on the world stage."
• Trey Ellis at The Huffington Post: "His own NIE says Bush is the Terrorists' Best Friend. When will the Democrats? ... Democrats still poll lower than Republicans in their ability to battle terrorism because the Democratic response, by and large, has been silence. Instead of running away from the issues of terrorism and torture the Dems need to wake up and press a coherent response to terrorism across every news cycle from now till November.

Michelle Malkin has a colorful and representative take from the right: "If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo. Have they not been paying attention over the last year? All it takes is a few cartoons or a dropped Koran or a defiant apostate or a Muslim woman in a bikini or a papal speech quotation to set off The Religion of Perpetual Outrage."

Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt also doubts "the world would be at peace" had the U.S. "simply not invaded Iraq." Outside the Beltway's James Joyner wants to know why he should listen to "the same intelligence agencies who failed to predict" a whole laundry list of major recent world events. Finally, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff and Captain's Quarters have similar thoughts on the logical fallacies of the NIE conclusions.

Under a header, "The Need for New Democratic Leadership," Matt Stoller at MyDD calls the torture "compromise" insane and shames Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) "for being too afraid to pick a fight with John McCain." DailyKos' georgia10 is "heartbroken" over the deal and is pained "to watch our nation legalize torture with Democrats (so far) offering nothing more than a shrug."

TChris at TalkLeft argue for a filibuster of the bill, and Matthew Yglesias links to an op-ed from Soviet labor camp survivor Vladimir Bukovsky and writes: "While you can obviously imagine or gerrymander or stipulate a situation in which torture might yield useful information, in practice the systematic authorization of torture creates an army of butchers, not a crack investigative team."

Iraq war supporter and fierce Pres. Bush critic Andrew Sullivan asks: "Ask yourself this question: In the days after Abu Ghraib was exposed, did you believe that within a few years, the Congress of the United States would be formally decriminalizing exactly the techniques depicted in many of those photographs - and allowing the president to use his discretion to order them?"

On the right, National Review Online's Cliff May defends torture: "Between chopping off limbs (something Saddam Hussein did routinely but which we are now told we were wrong to do interfere with) and subjecting terrorists to sleep deprivation (something every new parent and resident physician experiences) there is a wide gulf. But the MSM apparently can't see it. It's all torture and it's all immoral and of course entirely useless. ... I suppose some on the left believe that war is like sports: It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. But others may believe it does matter whether we win or lose."

Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's 9/24 interview for FOX News Sunday was mostly received warmly on the left. Crooks and Liars has the most complete clip here. Positive lefty reacts include:

• Talking Points Memo Reader DK: "Clinton is simply the most gifted politician of our times. I have my issues with Clinton, but I sometimes forget not just what a tremendously effective communicator he is but how much he just plain gets it.
• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "And in case Democratic members of Congress or their staffers happen to be reading this morning - this is called effective and immediate pushback. More of this, please."
• Todd Gitlin at TPM Cafe: "We would have a different politics in this country if more Democrats followed Clinton's lead. When the sycophants ask you a question, dare to ask them why they're asking that question of you and not of Republicans."

Not every one on the left was ready to praise Clinton. Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post hopes Clinton watches the interview "over and over again" so he can learn that his "tireless "bipartisanship" has been of no benefit to him, of no benefit to the country, and has only benefited George Bush and the right-wing." MyDD's Matt Stoller seconds Huffington's sentiments, he argues that Clinton's "bipartisan above-the-fray attitude, which excuses his wife's fundraising events with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, is going to slam head-on into the reality of the right-wing extremism that people like Murdoch put forward. Clinton stopped fighting the right when he left office, but they didn't stop fighting him. I'm glad he's back in it, but I hope he's really back in it."

Righty bloggers linked to video of Clinton's FOX interview just as eagerly as those on the left. Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham called the episode "The Clinton Freak-Out" while National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez labeled it "Bill Clinton's Tom Cruise moment."

Many on the right felt Fox's Chris Wallace managed to lead Clinton into some un-truths. Patterico's Pontifications tracked down Fox News questioning of Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld to dispute Clinton's assertion that Fox never asked the Bush administration similar questions. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty notes a Clinton contradiction with his own Justice Department over bin Laden's connection to Somalia. And Power Line's John Hinderaker disputes Clinton's assertion that conservatives criticized his obsession with bin Laden (not on the right, ABC's Political Punch also disputes Clinton's assertions that conservatives leveled "wag the dog" criticisms of his cruise missile actions.

Captain's Quarters, however, argued it was time to cut Clinton some slack: "We can argue for years about how much he tried, and for what reasons. In fact, we have -- for five years -- and it's time to give it a rest. The rise of Islamofascism didn't occur just on Clinton's watch, and his presidency was not the only one that demonstrated weakness and fecklessness to the jihadists.

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit bemoans Rev. Jerry Falwell's remarks that a Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "presidential run would energize his constituency more would one by Satan." BDP writes: " Our side complains about the "Bush=Hitler" references, and rightfully so. But we shouldn't compare our political opponents to Satan. For being so called "religious" leaders, Falwell and his buddy Pat Robertson don't always act like it. And on a strictly political level, it further advances the untrue stereotype that all religious conservatives are intolerant."

IA's Caucus Cooler reports Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "picked up" Bush/Cheney '04 Iowa Chair Dave Roederer to chair his IA efforts in '08. CC comments: "Big Pick up for Straight Talk. Roederer is very well liked and respected throughout Republican circles It's tough to be liked by everyone in politics and Dave's done it."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the registration numbers and final vote totals from CA-50's 6/6 special election and concludes: "It is true that Democrats did turn out in very solid numbers in CA-50, so one is tempted to think that the Democratic base is fired up. That even seems to be the difference in the highly contrasting likely voter models currently floating around, as likely voter screens that measure voter intention instead of voter history favor Democrats. If Democrats turn out at the same relative level to Republicans around the country as they turned out in CA-50, and as intention-based likely voter model screens are measuring, then we are pretty much a lock to take the House."

Chris Bowers at MyDD proudly unveiled MyDD's DCCC and NRCC Independent Expenditures Page which has all DCCC and NRCC independent expenditures since 7/1 "in an easy to read, web-accessible format. If you need to see the history of committee spending in a district-by-district basis, this is the place to look."

In anticipation of Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) 9/25 address on nat'l security, cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) posts an open letter to Lieberman on the official site. Highlights include: "At a time of war, our state and our country needs people in Congress who are willing to speak frankly with the public and who are willing to fulfill their constitutional obligations to hold the executive branch accountable. Our troops serving in combat and the millions of citizens concerned about this war deserve no less."

Mcjoan at DailyKos has audio of Lamont's new radio ad, titled "Calling in Sick" and writes: "As funny as it is, it makes a very good point. Beyond the Iraq Debacle, one of the primary reasons why the Connecticut voters were so ready to defeat Joe in the primary was because he's abandoned his constituency. This ad asks, very effectively and humorously, what is Joe doing in the Senate if he doesn't care enough to show up to vote?"

Summing up lefty blogger sentiment, Swing State Projectcommenter "progressivemuslimnj" writes on Sen. Daniel Akaka's (D-HI) primary victory over Rep. Ed Case (D-HI): "I'm sure this is too good to be true, but are we lucky enough that if Case loses this primary, it will be too late for him to also run for re-election in his House seat, and we can be rid of him all together?"

Johncombestblog draws attention to 9/24's San Francisco Chronicle article on Dem efforts in rural Houston, MO, where Aud. Claire McCaskill (D) held a campaign spot under a bright red "McCaskill & Son" mill in '05. The problem is Johncombestblog has recent photos of the mill covered in Sen. James Talent (R) signs.

Reader DK at Talking Points Memo calls attention to the "fine legal distinctions" that make "campaign finance laws such a mess." DK looks at the 527 Softer Voices, which raised $650K from just two sources and spent more than $750K supporting Sen. Rick Santorum (R). DK explains: "Until this past week, the contact person and custodian of records for Softer Voices--the person who signed their IRS filings--was Cleta Mitchell, a partner at the DC firm of Foley & Lardner LLP and ... wait for it ... legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The progressive Agonist wants to assure his readers that ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) is not the "Conservative Democrat" everyone thinks he is. The Agonist has looked at Webb's positions and finds him to be "someone that progressives can be comfortable with." The Agonist reasons: "People in the military are used to living in a socialized economy. Subsidized housing, health care for everyone, a generous pension plan and so on. ... It seems to me that when people like.... Webb wind up in the civilian world, and especially as over the last few decades it has become a meaner, poorer civilian world riven with class differences, that they wonder if what they had in the military, the values they learned, can't be applied outside the military as well."

Steve Benen takes to The Huffington Post to highlight Media Matters defense of The VoteVets.org commercial running in VA that FactCheck.org described as "just plain wrong." Benen notes that while the Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) amendment in question never did mention body armour like the ad claims, Landrieu cited "helmets" and "force protection" as recipients of funds from the legislation.

Over at Raising Kaine, Eric has put together a thorough collection of video from the race and the Richmond Democrat has a round up from ABC's This Week roundtable including: "The first item of discussion was George Allen's performance in last Monday's debate, moderated by [George] Stephanopoulos himself, and Allen was savaged by each of the pundits in turn. All agreed with the conventional wisdom that the question was a bit offsides, but that Allen's answer was a colossal blunder. [Frank] Rich, who is Jewish, noted that Allen's remark about ham sandwiches and pork chops was tone deaf, showing Allen's ignorance--not all Jews keep kosher--and reliance on offensive stereotypes.

On the right, The A-Team has a video titled: "Jim Webb - Wrong Then, Wrong Now" featuring "ll of Jim Webb's greatest spectacularly wrong assessments of the major issues of the last 20 years ranging from the end of the Cold War to Operation Desert Storm." The A-Team also has a lengthy post not linking to many statements from unnamed DailyKos commenters and asks: "One wonders if Jim Webb will have the courage of conviction to disavow these despicable statements or if he will whistle past the graveyard and hope the independent voters in Virginia do not discover what sort of unsavory characters with whom Webb's campaign has climbed into bed."

Kausfiles looks at Senate maj leader Bill Frist (R-TN) 9/24 This Week performance and argues First was signaling a GOP cave on the proposed 700-mile fence. Kaus writes: "It's easy to let the fence bill drop and blame Democrats. Wink, wink. But a forceful majority leader who actually wanted either a) a vote or b) a sharpened issue against the Dems wouldn't give up just like that. He'd call a press conference to demand that the Democrats allow a vote."

Power Line's Scott Johnson adds: "There is a cynicism in Kaus's instincts that I hope is not warranted, especially given the high regard in which we hold Senator Frist, but it is a cynicism that has been amply warranted in Kaus's past analysis of the politics of immigration reform." Red State has audio from an interview with "free market" immigration plan proponent Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

Atrios is sick and tired of the Washington Post/Economist elite policy consensus and yearns for something new:

If there is an opening for a candidate to pull together a new coalition of voters it would involve social conservatism combined with economic populism, the mirror image of the center right elite consensus. Imagine a Pat Buchanan who could convince people he could feel their pain [adding: It isn't that this type of populism I imagine would be liberal per se, but it would be anti-immigration and anti-trade in contrast to the center right consensus, and though I don't think Pat Buchanan himself would advocate anything to genuinely help the poor and middle class my hypothetical candidate would - at least for "the right kind of people."] I don't think that would have a supermajority consensus - or even majority - support either but it would at least have a constituency greater than a few thousand people who live in Washington, D.C.

LEST WE FORGET: This Would Hurt A Lot More, If Not For '04

Yankee fan Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online surveys the current scene and quips: "Why does the Dems' current euphoria remind me so much of Red Sox fans in August?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 25, 2006 12:30 PM