September 11, 2007

9/11: An Iraqless '08?

As much as bloggers from all sides are focussing on Iraq this week, it doesn't appear as though any of the candidates are succeeding in gaining ground on the issue. On the GOP side, Mitt Romney has been quick to close any "apparent" gap that might have opened up between him and the rest of the field on Iraq policy during the 9/5 NH debate. And despite John McCain's all surge-all the time focus, he has said nothing to indicate he had a problem with Gen. David Petraeus' indications he will draw down troop levels by next spring.

On the left, it does not appear Barack Obama or John Edwards are going to say the magic words ("no residual forces") necessary to rally the netroots behind them. Without impeccable anti-war credentials, neither has a chance to stop Hillary Clinton. Moving to the general election, some in the netroots worry that a lack of Dem resolve in Congress, Dem frontrunner insistence on leaving residual forces in Iraq, and summer '08 headlines about Pres. Bush bringing troops home will combine to neutralize current Dem advantage on the issue. If these trends continue, a troubled economy just might be the big issue in '08.

IRAQ: Which Classical Greek Philosopher Will Chris Matthews Compare Markos To Today?

The netroots are not optimistic about chances Dems will significantly effect Pres. Bush's Iraq policy before 1/09. Gen. David Petraeus previews include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "No one trusts Petraeus or his White House-authored "report". The testimony today is irrelevant. They want out. We all expect Petraeus to claim that we've "turned the corner" and that all we need is another "six months". ... The only question is whether Democrats will give Americans what they want -- a tough line in favor of withdrawal -- or whether they'll collapse as they did last Spring."
• Atrios: "This has been said a million times in a million different ways, but the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that Bush's war continues until it's time for him to cut brush permanently. The surge can't have worked because then it could start ending, and the surge can't be not working because then it would a tragic waste of lives and money, so the surge is working just a little bit.. but might work a little bit more soon!"
• The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita: "You are shocked that Bush is still getting his way on Iraq? Hello. Wake up. Don't be distracted by honking and blathering from Democrats. Nothing is going to happen because Democrats don't want the slightest shred of responsibility dangling from their designer-label lapels for Iraq policy in the next 12 months. ... The main thing most Democrats want -- from the US Senate to every state legislature -- is to make sure that this disaster is hanging like an anvil around the Republican elephant's neck when election day comes. That's the game. The rest is shell. Too bad about the dying."

There were also plenty of complaints about the MSM, including:

• The Huffington Post's Karen Kwiatkowski: "No matter the station or the channel -- CNN, FOX, or PBS -- all I heard was lies about our occupation of Iraq repeated mantra-like by a swarm of the mentally lame posing as independent reporters and commentators. ... By God, I felt like an Iraqi myself today. I'm sorry to say it -- I wanted to throw something at frightened occupiers only because I couldn't get close enough to really hurt the arrogant cowards that lead them."
• Fire Dog Lake's Phoenix Woman: "Watch as the MSM continues to pretend that there is no objective right or wrong and that any conflict between Democrats and Republicans, Iraq war opponents and supporters is nothing more than "he said, she said" ... No acknowledgement that Petraeus is Bush's sockpuppet, reciting a "report" written by the Bush White House. No acknowledgement that Bush and Petraeus have done this same dog-and-phony show before. ... And certainly no acknowledgement that the general public isn't buying the Bush-Petraeus con job."
• Media Matters: "Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating."

There was also plenty of specific criticism of Petraeus' testimony. Posts include:

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall on Petraeus' civilian death count numbers: "But no one asked the general why the White House and/or the Pentagon won't release the actual data, where it comes from and how it's counted. ... I don't pretend that these statistics are the be all and end all of what we should be looking at in Iraq. They're not. But they have taken on an outsized focus because they're the only thing the administration has seen fit to focus on. And yet we're asked to take on faith how the numbers are assembled even though there's ample evidence -- both circumstantial and direct -- that they're distorted to suit the administration's agenda.
• TPM Muckraker's Spencer Ackerman on Petraeus' defense of his 9/04 op-ed claiming progress in training Iraqi security forces: "In Petraeus' telling, all was going well with the Iraqi security forces until the 2006 al-Askariya mosque bombing in Samarra and the sectarian slaughter that ensued. That's a quite a simplified version of events. What it omits is that sectarian murder occurred all throughout 2005 with the imprimatur of the elected Shiite government."
• Marshall, again, also on the 'Samarra Dodge': "I won't say that this wasn't a major catalyzing event. But administration officials have increasingly seized upon it as a critical turning point of the occupation, which it quite simply was not. ... But this argument doesn't square with any of the available facts. Pretty much everything we see began to happen in 2003, actually very soon after the invasion proper. It was all visible by the fall of that year. And every metric has been more or less downhill ever since."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis on Petraeus' claim that "no one would have dared to forecast" improvement in Anbar: "Not an outright lie, but still he's twisting his own words. He spun Anbar positively in January, now he's trying to pretend like the positive developments in Anbar are some kind of huge surprise that we had no inkling of back in January."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The surge was always intended primarily to target Baghdad, and in Baghdad U.S. troop strength approximately doubled, from 17,000 to 34,000. Frankly, with an increase like that, you'd expect some pretty tangible results. ... And yet, at best, we've seen only a modest drop in violence in Baghdad. So what we're seeing is not a case of too few troops to make a difference. It's worse. We increased troop numbers dramatically and deployed them more effectively, and it still barely made a noticeable difference."

Others focussed on the lack of political progress in Amb. Ryan Crocker's testimony:

• Ed Kilgore: "Wasn't the whole point of the "surge" to make quick progress towards a political settlement in Iraq possible? Doesn't everyone pretty much admit that no such progress has been made, whether or not the security environment has improved? If that's right, and it is, then how much does it really matter (other than for humanitarian reasons) whether or not violence has gone marginally up or marginally down, or (as seems likely) has been temporarily shifted from one battleground to others?"
• Matthew Yglesias: "[I]t's really not clear why the details of General Petraeus' presentation on the military state of play in Iraq matter at all. The question of the surge, and of the military presence more generally, is whether or not the presence is creating a situation where the presence will no longer be needed in order to avoid the Potentially Catastrophic Consequences of Withdrawal. As long as we have a situation where the day after we leave, the Catastrophic Consequences of Withdrawal will come to pass, then we may as well just leave tomorrow."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Ryan Crocker's testimony was far less cogent than Petraeus' because he has almost nothing substantive to point to (except some photo-ops in the last couple of weeks). And when he does make an assertion - that the current situation reminds him of America's civil rights struggles, for example - one tends to shudder at its inappropriateness, or gape at its vagueness."

In other Petraeus related posting, a Daily Kos diarist tracks these 'Hardball' questions directed at DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas by Chris 'Tweety' Matthews: "Tweety: Well done, Markos, well done, because that's something that Colin Powell said a couple of months ago - I heard him say that - that there's gonna have to be this reduction in force anyway by the end of next spring and all he's doing is declaring that a policy." and "Tweety: I know, you served in the Marines [ed. note: Markos served in the Army]... Let me tell you, you are Archimedes here. You found the lever and you are working it to move the world, sir. You are moving the Democratic Party. Thank you sir for joining us."

Also at Daily Kos: video of Hip Hop Caucus pres. Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. being 'attacked' by six capitol police outside the Cannon Caucus Room.

IRAQ II: Code Pinko

The lion's share of conservative blogging on Petraeus' testimony were concerned by MoveOn's full page New York Times ad tagging him "General Betray Us." Reactions include:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis quotes Rolling Stone: "For God's sake, it's not even clever. A bad pun driving a despicable message. Listen: General Petraeus may well be carrying water for the Bush administration - But to impugn the patriotism of a man who is doing what the commander in chief has asked him to do - try to win the war in Iraq - is as despicable as Dick Cheney questioning the patriotism of those Americans who want us to redeploy from Iraq."
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) at RedState: "On a day when partisanship should be put on hold to the extent possible, the leftist group MoveOn, whom I know y'all have dealt with before, bought a full page ad in the New York Times that disgracefully attacks a decorated four-star commanding general and questions his commitment to his country."
• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "It was childish beneath the dignity of adult Americans, much less a four-star general in the U.S. Army, a commander entrusted with the operation and care of our nation's soldiers."
• The Corner's Michael Yon: "The responsible parties are those at the New York Times who accepted money and prostituted their pages to print tabloid-level rants. There are some excellent writers from the New York Times who have covered Iraq: Rich Oppel; Dexter Filkins; John Burns; Michael Gordon. But one more advertisement like the one that was published on 10 September - the one that Times editors must have known to be filled with falsities - and I will not read the New York Times again for a long time to come, if ever."
• Confederate Yankee following up on ABCNews reports MoveOn paid $65K for the ad: "And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad. ... If Tapper's numbers are correct, MoveOn.org paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays "sticker" prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I believe the repulsive ad by MoveOn.org in the New York Times this morning is a defining moment for the left and all the Democratic senators, representatives and presidential candidates who have accepted MoveOn.org money and support in the past. For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings."
• Ace of Spades: "I seriously hope the MoveOn crowd remains tone deaf enough to continue this line of attack. It will be entertaining to see the dem candidates distancing themselves from MoveOn.org."
• Captain's Quarters: "It's drearily predictable. It's also absolutely despicable. It's character assassination of the lowest order. Demeaning the military in this fashion damages the nation and gives comfort to our enemies. I question MoveOn's patriotism and their timing."

Conservatives also made an efforts to tie Code Pink anti-war protesters to Dems:

• Michelle Malkin: "Here it is the face of the Democrat Party. They've done virtually nothing to disassociate themselves from it. They made their bed. Lie in it. Ambassador Crocker was also interrupted by the Pinkos. Cindy Sheehan was arrested. Amateur hour in the House continues."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Code Pink Quotables: "How can you thank him (Petraeus) for his service when we're slaughtering Iraqis every day?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The hearing was, in multiple respects, a fiasco which cannot reflect well on the already-unpopular Democratic leaders of the House."

Some on the left defended the MoveOn ad. Matthew Yglesias: "the basic point of the MoveOn ad -- that it doesn't make sense for the public or the congress to make policy on the basis of secret data that's at odds with publicly available assessments as well as work by the GAO, CIA, and DIA -- is eminently sensible. Petraeus' slides are just random pictures with no sourcing, it's ridiculous." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Republicans are making a big mistake by spending all their TV time this morning complaining about accusations that Gen. Petraeus is cooking the books in his assessment of progress in Iraq? Repeating the accusation, even if it's only to denounce it, is still repeating the accusation."

Others didn't: "What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic."

IRAQ III: When Does A 'Draw Down' Become A 'Withdrawal'?

Rep. Gary Ackerman's (D-NY) questions to Petraeus ("If Iraq is part of the overall war on terror, and the war on terror cannot be won in Iraq alone, how can we think of drawing down our forces at this stage?") generated the most substantive discussion among conservatives. Thoughts and the exchange and other opinions on Petraeus' call for a 'draw-down' include:

• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "It may be politically expedient to talk about drawing down, but it doesn't make national-security sense if the war is broader than Iraq. If I could, I would ask: Does the recommendation that we draw down assume that we will reach some sort of diplomatic settlement with Iran? Other than the politics, I don't understand the rationale of draw-down."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Andy, on the rationale of the draw-down Petraeus discussed today, part of what's going on I assume is that Petraeus is accommodating the Joint Chiefs who are very worried about the strain on our forces."
• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "My impression is that the projected drawdown is not in reaction to Capitol Hill politics but instead reflects the need to balance competing military priorities, i.e. more to do with the Pentagon than with the Congress."
• back to McCarthy: "Iran is the catalyst of terror not only in Iraq but well beyond. The national security of the United States is primarily about winning the overall war on terror, not stabilizing Iraq. We have 160,000 troops on Iran's doorstep, and yet Iran provokes. Regardless of whether the tune is being called by politics, the Joint Chiefs, the President, or the man on the moon, how does it help us suppress Iran, or win the overall war, to draw down our troops in Iraq while Iran is unaddressed?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Ackerman was trying to make a debater's point -- since we're planning to draw down our forces, Iraq must not really be part of the war on terror. ... Iraq's role in the fight against global terrorism does not imply a particular fixed level of troops in that country, particularly given the competing demands on our forces."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzafdeh: "I have very strong doubts that by next summer, the situation will have improved to the point where the surge can come to an end and if they are, it will be because of the strain their continued deployment would place on the American military.
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The most fundamental question, I think, is whether the troop surge is producing results. If it is, then the Democrats' defeatism is misplaced and most likely politically motivated. If it isn't, then we've tried everything and should either get out or, more plausibly, give up on Iraqi democracy and install a relatively friendly tyrant. ... If we assume the statistics are reasonably close, it seems clear that the surge is succeeding, so far."

In conservative action items, Michelle Malkin and Instapundit both urge readers to sign the Victory Caucus pledge urging GOPers "to resist calls for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and to support America's troops under the new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, as they implement a bold new strategy designed to bring a successful completion to their mission."

RedState chose to focus on the MoveOn ad, urging readers to call Dems and get their comments on the ad.

IRAQ IV: Are You An Enabler Too?

Fire Dog Lake, Open Left, and Glenn Greenwald teamed up to create Stop the DC Establishment petition which reads:

By signing this petition, you are demanding that reporters acknowledge Petraeus's long record of errant judgment in Iraq. You are also demanding that politicians to heed the public will and vote against this occupation, by refusing to vote for any bill that funds the war that does not contain binding timelines for withdrawal that compel Bush to remove troops. Anything else enables the occupation of Iraq until at least the end of Bush's Presidency. Enough is enough. The noxious stew of DC 'experts', journalists, and political leaders of both parties that keep troops in Iraq needs to hear our anger.

The petition will be delivered to "the Democratic leadership in Congress." Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher pitches: "It's time for the media to cease treating his statements with open-mouthed credulity, and for politicians in both parties to stop being rolled by the elaborate PR campaign he is leading on behalf of the administration." Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "While it's fun to think that Iraq is Bush's war, the reality is that the war is enabled by Democrats, Republicans, DC press, think tank experts, and a whole slew of lobbyists which together comprise a noxious DC establishment. They puff up figurines like Petraeus, they shovel billions into the sand and into the hands of dishonest military contractors, and they live in comfortable sinecures at places like Brookings."

DEM FIELD: Don't Disarm Their Biggest Issue

Open Left's Chris Bowers warns Dems that GOPers are more and more able to "thoroughly blur the differences between the two parties" on Iraq. Bowers notes that "among both members of Congress and Presidential candidates, the vast majority of Democratic plans to re-deploy out of Iraq leave substantial amounts of residual forces in the country" and that "according to a Diageo Hotline poll from July (PDF), only 37% of Americans believe Rudy Giuliani would continue the war in Iraq, while 37% believe he would end it within a year or less ... In every case, a majority of Americans are unaware that major Republican presidential candidates want to continue the war in Iraq at its current level. The blurring has already begun."

Bowers concludes: "The escalation will end next summer, simply because we will run out of troops to deploy to Iraq. However, it could still look like withdrawal has started, and that Republicans are in favor of it. ... We are not yet in a position where the differences between the two parties has been truly blurred on this issue, but it isn't hard to see how that could happen in the future unless we change our tactics now."

DODD: Gauntlet Thrower

Chris Dodd's leadership on Iraq is continuing to win netroots praise. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Dodd challenging Barack Obama to reject Levin-Reed and comments: "Dodd throws down gauntlet to Obama ... We know that all the candidates want legislation with a deadline, but the question is whether Hillary or Barack would vote for a supplemental that does not include such deadlines. It's a damn good question."

EDWARDS: Business Finisher

MyDD's desmoinesdem explains why she likes to hear John Edwards focus on New Orleans: "I do not have a clue how much talking about NOLA, and poverty generally, helps the Edwards campaign. For every Iowan who tells me they appreciate Edwards' efforts to focus our attention on these issues, there is an Iowan who tells me Edwards is being foolish or naive, because most voters don't care about poor people. ... One thing I do know: when John Edwards has visited New Orleans, the national media have had no choice but to cover the story, and in doing so, they have reminded Americans that we have unfinished business there."

OBAMA: So Close...

Early indications are that Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech will fall just short of meeting netroots standards. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to early previews of the speech and asks: "What about timetables? Nothing on that...

A Daily Kos Obama supporter who worries "Obama has lost almost all of his edge on the Iraq issue" spells out what she would like to see in Obama's new policy: "1) What does he say should be done NOW, not in 2009, to start bringing troops home. Just saying "they need to come home" is a platitude, not a plan; 2) What will his reaction be to the Petraeus and Crocker testimony? How will he challenge the sell-job conducted by the administration? 3) How will his policy proposals differ from his legislation? His legislation was about withdrawing troops under Bush, not necessarily what he would do himself. Also, we should look for specificity and commitments; 4) How will he use this to separate himself on a forward-looking basis from other candidates? Everyone knows he got it right from the beginning, but now he has to show his superior judgment all over again. Especially important is drawing a clear distinction between himself and Hillary. Will he do this? "

OBAMA II: Yes, Who Would Jesus Vote For?

The Brody File has threevideos up from Barack Obama's 9/8 faith forum in Cedar Rapids, IA. Brody reports: "You could say the point of these faith forums is to ultimately bring more people on board to vote for Barack Obama. While that is true, the people putting this on have an even larger goal and an even bigger heart. They really want to engage in a discussion of the issue in the first place and really delve into the deeper meaning of how someone's faith can play a role in shaping one's politics. In the video above, they pose the following question: 'Who would Jesus vote for?'"

GOP FIELD: Advantage Rudy

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin surveys GOP website for 9/11: "If you go to the Rudy website you will not see his usual political messaging and photos. There is a message "we will not forget" and a quote from his October 2001 speech at the UN ... Given Rudy's unique role in the 9-11 proceedings, it seems on balance a wise move. ... The other GOP contenders' websites today are telling. Romney's looks like it does every other day--a sunny and smiling photo rotating with banners for his ad contest. Too glib, too frivolous for the events yesterday and today? McCain's is dedicated to fighting Islamic terrorism with a timeline documenting his efforts to correct the failing war strategy. And Thompson's has an initial entry page with his photo and announcement video, but lacking any instantaneously clear message other than 'I'm here.'"

HUCKABEE: Would You Like Some Sunshine With your Pat Robertson?

AmSpec's James Antle tracks Ross Douthat's defense of Mike Huckabee's social conservatism and adds: "Frequently, the positions taken by the religious right poll better than the religious right itself. That's because prominent religious rightsters are often seen as intolerant, given to extreme or offensive public pronouncements, hostile or alien to mainstream culture, and enmeshed in a religious subculture that many Americans don't relate to. Huckabee, a gifted speaker with a generous personality who usually chooses his words carefully, doesn't play to type. It is possible the American people would accept a platform championed by a candidate like Huckabee even though they would reject if it were associated with, say, Pat Robertson."

PAUL: Truthers Of The World Unite!

The Corner's Stephen Spruiell posts video of "9/11 Truthers for Ron Paul Picket NR World Headquarters!" and adds: "It's not everyday that I show up for work and find protesters in front of the building, but that's what happened today."

ROMNEY: Surprisingly, We Can No Longer Access The Site

Mitt Romney took hits from Captain's Quarters, Race 4'08 and Soren Dayton for supporter Warren Tompkins 'phoneyfred.org' site. Dayton was the roughest on Romney: "This is another in a long list of thuggery and illegality of Romney associates and campaign staff. Including Romney's former Director of Operations Jay Garrity, Romney's former national finance co-chair, Romney's other indicted former national finance co-chair, etc. And then the Romney campaign threatens voters if they do things like ask questions."

THOMPSON: I Say, I Say, That's Just Not Nice

Fred Thompson took heat from conservatives for insisting Osama bin Laden receive 'due process' before he was killed. Ankle Biting PunditsBull Dog Pundit blogs: "Quite simply, this is pathetic." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez comments: "I think Senator Thompson might change his answer for next time." AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin adds: "Yes, we want check and balances, we want some legal oversight and I agree that when pushed to its limits executive authority may be lost or circumscribed but do we have to Mirandize OBL? A jury of his peers? The mind reels."

Also, Andrew Sullivan has decided Thompson reminds him of Foghorn Loghorn.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Penny For Your Gedanken

An Andrew Sullivan reader writes: "The problem with the pro-life movement isn't merely that it is prohibitionist, but that its fundamental position cannot be formulated in any fashion that is coherent to someone, except that they first accept some bit of magic that turns a few cells into the moral equivalent of a person. ... The philosophical gedanken often used to exhibit the absurdity of this position is whether, caught in a burning fertility clinic, and able to save only one, you would choose to rescue a child? Or a tray holding thousands of viable embryos, ready for implantation into would-be mothers?"

LEST WE FORGET: Forget The Children, Women And Embryos First!

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru responds to the above Sullivan post with a reader email: "[W]ould it be too flippant or simplistic to simply refer to the old "women-and-children-first" maxim? Even though the maxim may be dated (and is now considered by some to be sexist, I'm sure), I think it is clear to most it that never implied that it is permissible to kill adult males."

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 11, 2007 12:50 PM