Altercation

• June 18, 2004 | 11:03 AM ET

The Commission Confirms…
It sounds entirely self-serving to say so, but the 9/11 commission report confirms in detail virtually everything I wrote about the administration’s response to the attack in The Book on Bush, which was written for the most part, last Summer.  I point this out because, as should be obvious, I am no Sy Hersh.  I was able to piece together what happened through openly available sources that appeared in corners of the media but were never picked up by the SCLM or deemed worthy of discussion by the Sunday morning poohbahs or Cable TV scream fests.

The fact is, virtually nobody in the media wanted to face the truth back then: the administration’s response to the attack was—as is just about everything it does—incompetent, ideologically driven, and dishonestly defended.  It was not a case of Divine Intervention as Tim Russert actually posited on “Meet the Press” and we were not fortunate that the Supreme Court intervened to put its boy in the presidency as the New York Times argued in a news story at the time.  Oh and yes, the kinds of people who ignore the truth about this administration in the service of self-serving myths not only of competence, but heroism, are not liberals.  Orwell would not even have gone that far.  Nobody would have bought it.

I’ve got a new Nation column here on the slander campaign against George Soros, in which Tony Blankley is quoted writing to an Altercation reader, “Soros and his family converted from their Jewish faith and survived the Holocaust (there was speculation that they may have collaborated with the Nazi's [sic].”  How incredible is that?  When I contacted Blankley about it, he ignored my question and expressed regrets about his no less egregious comments on “Hannity and Colmes.” 

And here, by the way, is O’Reilly describing Soros’s position on immigration: “Come on in, Al Qaeda.  We'll get bin Laden a condo.  If he doesn't have the money, we'll income-redistribute and get it to him."

Speaking of O’Reilly, he is calling me more names here, thereby putting me in the esteemed company of Soros, Molly Ivins, Bill Moyers and Al Franken.  

The New York Times today lists the Elvin Jones tribute as this Saturday but I received an e-mail telling me that it’s the 26th.  I believe the latter.  Anyway, come say goodbye at Riverside Church, 490 Riverside Drive (120th St. & Riverside Drive) at 11:00 a.m., one of those days.  It’s being presented by the Jones family and I wouldn’t miss it. 

Joe Conason informs me that “The Hunting of The President” is only opening in New York on Friday at the Angelika.  It will be in D.C. next week, then Chicago, SF, LA, Seattle.

On to the main event.

Slacker Friday:

Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA
Doc --
Jeebus Christmas, pal, if you and Fiddle are so close, couldn't you at least have come up with some cigars for the rest of the class?  Or one of those mean-ass young Cuban southpaws for the Sox?

(And, just FYI, Pedro's going to get your boy Bonds a couple of times tomorrow.  Hee-hee!)

Concern has started drifting in like a cold, noxious cloud over the past couple of weeks.  There seems to be a storyline hardening among the Heathers that "we" are really getting along just fine, and that all the obvious emotion of this political year is merely sound and fury -- good title for a book, by the way -- ginned up by our political elites, that "Bush-hating" is out of control, and that the "center" is reasserting itself, and so is "civility."  An implicit track here is that, you know, maybe, it isn't such a good time to consider changing our current Strong Leadership.  You can see it in the reaction to Michael Moore's movie, in the immensely silly Michael Barone column comparing this election to the one in 1864 (and, therein, C-Plus Augustus to Abraham Lincoln), and in the amazing performance of Aaron Brown Thursday night on CNN, when he cited a new Pew poll in which 57 percent of Americans think things are going well in Iraq -- Oy! --and that Bush had edged slightly ahead of John Kerry for the moment. "And, if you check the electoral map, you'll see he's doing a little better than that," Brown concluded.

It wasn't so much what he said, but how he said it.  An unmistakable tone of reassurance.  That we maybe don't have to bother ourselves with the unruly business of self-government, especially those parts where people, you know, yell at each other.  I fear that Kerry's people may be buying this nonsense, too.

The problem with this, other than the obvious one of "It's June, and who the f**k is Aaron Brown, anyway?" is that it leaves the "center" pushed way over on the right, and it consolidates the gains made by 25 years of rightist incivility.  It began with those NCPAC campaigns run by that vicious closet-case Terry Dolan, proceeded through Lee Atwater and his lycanthropic brood (Hey, Karl!), and has emerged with renewed vigor already this year, and will continue to do so regardless of whether the Democratic party decides to play nice or not.  This also, of course, was abetted by the endless herd of think-tank cowboys, endowment commandos, and honorarium-fattened hyenas that foul the national discourse, and also by a subculture of both actual and rhetorical violence -- the stuff that's limned bravely by David Neiwert here, in an invaluable post that takes Tucker Carlson down in the bargain.

All this concern erupted when the left started hitting back a little, and developing institutions and vehicles through which to do it.  Well, for the moment, f**k civility.  The center cannot be allowed to remain where it is.  It has to be shoved back and shoved back hard.  And if that means calling out ABC for criticizing Michael Moore's methodology while continuing to employ --nay, PROMOTE -- a corporate fabulist like John Stossel up through its news division, or if it means striking back at the people who go on television with their perpetual wounded victimhood and call people "Nazis," well, I'm sorry, Aaron, that's just the way politics is going to have to be for a while.  Take a pill and go sit in a dark room until the vapors pass.

Name: Stupid
Hometown: Wilcoville
Hey Eric, it's Stupid to draw a lesson about politics from a young-adult novel.  I wasn't alive in 1959 when Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" was published, but apparently it caused a stir, some feeling the book advocated fascism.  Heinlein envisioned a society where you couldn't vote unless you had served in the military.  Service was open to all (the book makes pains to show racial and gender diversity), but basic training was difficult, even life threatening, while civilians apparently had a cushy life.  What fascinated me was Heinlein's rationale: allegedly "in the past" special interest groups had perverted democracy and nearly destroyed the Earth. Military service "proved" that a person was willing to put the public good ahead of his personal interest and thus could be entrusted with the vote. 

I was reminded of this when a friend challenged me on Kerry's energy independence plan.  While far better than what Dick Cheney whipped up, it's not so great (e.g., maddeningly vague, some hidden regressive taxes).  And tapping the strategic oil reserves in the short run is simply wrong (though it's better than the Saudi's drug pusher-like chimera of a price drop).  The thing is, my gut feeling about Kerry is good.  The relevance of his military service mirrors Heinlein's over-the-top concerns about special interests: Kerry repeatedly risked his comfortable life for the sake of his country.  It's objective evidence of good faith that's hard to come by these days.  When he's in less guarded (or less calculating) settings he consistently makes sense, be it energy, education, or Israel/Palestine, at the risk of alienating supporters.  Plus he's a wonk, and wonks understand the importance of nurturing science and technology (even Newt Gingrich qualifies here).  Ralph Nader is right (gasp!): Kerry should trust his instincts more and his handlers less. 

By the way, does anyone else suspect the Clintonites of pushing anyone but Edwards for Vice President, maybe as a condition for their enthusiastic support?  If Kerry looses, Gephardt/Nunn/IowaDude would not be a threat to Hillary in 2008.  Edwards would be - young, name recognition, and positioned to the right/center.  Don't let them bully you JK!  

Name: Lisa LaFlame
Hometown: Houston
Eric,
In his stated justifications for invading Iraq, Bush and his cabal never once mentioned Russian intelligence warnings as evidence of Hussein's intent to harm the United States.  Why is this only now being brought to public attention?  This announcement by Putin today seems a bit oddly timed and I'd have to wonder how much he's getting paid for his services.  Further, Dick Cheney said yesterday that the 9/11 commission doesn't have all the information that he does regarding the connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda!  Why not?!  Is this to say that they've been spending millions of our tax dollars convening a special investigation, but didn't give that group all the available information?  Public record shows Bush stated there was a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda in his war justifications, and he alluded strongly to a connection between the two and 9/11.  Later, when the news got out that there was no connection between the two, in the span of one week, we had Cheney still insisting there was a connection, and Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush saying there wasn't and that they had never intended to imply there was.  Earlier this year we saw Cheney again making a connection between the two and Bush publicly rebuking him, saying there was no connection.  Now the 9/11 commission puts out the report saying there is absolutely no connection, and Bush and Cheney are both saying there was!  Sorry for the confusing recounting of events, but which one is it?

Name: Mark D
Hometown: Chicago
Sal wrote yesterday that when he listened to the new Wilco CD, "it conjure[d] up memories of the great SCTV skit where Eugene Levy, as Perry Como, lies in a bed with the blanket up to his neck, while a microphone is propped up to his mouth."  I just wanted to add that in this skit, Levy as Como sings "I Love the Nightlife" by Gloria Gaynor.  In addition to sounding pretty close to how Como would render a disco favorite, Levy adds an extra touch, singing the line "I like to booogie" as "I like to bogey."  I don't know if the sketch appears on any of those recent or older SCTV releases, but it is a classic moment.  Way to go, Sal!  We can't get enough of those obscure references.

Name: Steve Ferra
Hometown: Safety Harbor, FL
Sal's Alter-review of the new Wilco was spot-on.  Tweedy really is trying
too hard - he's sucked most of the life and joy out of his music with this set of songs, and while I appreciate the effort to scale down the sound and not try to make YHF II, the album comes off as mostly half-baked demos and B-sides. 

But the real problem here may be the fact that Jay Bennett is no longer in the band.  It was no coincidence that Wilco's music took a huge leap with Being There, when Bennett joined the band.  He might have been an a*****e, and judging from the I Am Trying to Break Your Heart documentary, perhaps there was no way Tweedy could maintain his sanity while keeping Bennett in the band.  But Bennett was a significant creative factor in Wilco, and Tweedy may have needed Bennett to stay focused creatively just as McCartney needed Lennon.  Whether Bennett's sacking is indirectly or directly responsible for the downturn in song quality, his absence is palpable.

• June 17, 2004 | 11:44 AM ET

I saw Bill Clinton speak last night at the premier of the new documentary, “The Hunting of the President.”  He was supposed to speak for about five minutes and then take questions from Harry Evans before a panel preceding a party.  But the topic was the right-wing cabal that manipulated the mainstream media and eventually, the Constitution, to tie up the American government over a matter of private consensual sex, and so Clinton went on a bit.  All told he spoke for about forty minutes, and there was no panel but the party went on as planned.  The movie opens this weekend.  It’s amazing how stupid our political class was back then—though of course, it’s not looking very smart this morning either.

I discuss the Bush Administration’s attempt to mislead the nation with regard to 9/11 and Iraq in this Think Again column.

I suppose it’s appropriate on a day when a bomb kills scores of people and injures hundreds of others and eighty percent of Iraqis want us to leave right away and the administration has been revealed to be lying about not only the reason for war but its own responsibility for violating the Geneva Conventions —along with just about everything else—that it takes Monty Python to do justice to the level of combined venality and incompetence with which America now stands revealed before the world.  Anyway, Terry Jones has some thoughts about torture here.

Ron Brownstein has more on 27 ex-military men and diplomats who served presidents of both parties and now hate America.

The Veepstakes:  All things considered, I’d go with Edwards.  Not only does he help you in battleground states, and improve your chances of retaking the Senate, all of which is argued here (if you scroll) but here’s the key argument:  the media love him.  Their disdain for Kerry is almost equal to their contempt for Gore.  This was one of three factors that made 2000 close enough for the Supreme Court to steal the election for Bush—the other two factors being Nader and Gore’s own crappy campaign. 

Anyway, Kerry is going to go through much of what Gore went through but with Edwards, he can fight back in many ways simultaneously: with genuine populism; incredible charisma, and lots of good old fashioned Southern charm.  Kerry has none of these things.  He could use all of them.  Nobody else, save the elusive Mr. McCain, comes with as many positives and so few negatives.

Quote of the Day, I:  O'REILLY: Yes? I mean I've got to tell you how it helped me, all right, and this is serious.  I -- nobody would have sex with me, number one, because I was sweating all the time.  This is true.  I played in sports.  I was sweating.  I was really pathetic.  So, even if I wanted to have sex, which I did, I couldn't have it, all right, unless I paid for it and I didn't have any money. (THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:49) September 23, 2003 Tuesday
Transcript # 092306cb.256)

Quote of the Day, II:  "I profoundly despise all those who eat the bread into which the blasphemous buffoon has urinated."  
-Inna Grade on I.B. Singer

Fun with George and Dick. 

Alter-review:  The new Wilco, by Sal:

WILCO- A GHOST IS BORN

While I do believe "less is more," I do not believe that "nothing is everything."  OL, that may not be an actual expression, but that's sort of how I feel about Wilco's new CD, "A Ghost Is Born."  I love this band!  And I love their entire output.  But on the new CD, the band sounds like they gave up trying, and yet I could still see the glowing, five star reviews as if they were going out of style.

Their first record, "A.M.," put them on the map with their rootsy rock and sing-along, barroom choruses.  Their follow-up, "Being There," successfully experimented with heartbreaking melodies and off the hook arrangements.  And "Summerteeth," one of my favorite records of all time, could easily be the "Pet Sounds" for a new generation!

Then came tragedy and controversy and "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."  Missing were the guitars and backbeat of their debut, "A.M.," and the harmony of "Summerteeth."  Still intact though, were the experimentation and the melody, as well as some of Jeff Tweedy's finest lyrics, not to mention one of the saddest songs ever written, "Reservations."

But now, on "A Ghost Is Born," it just seems like it's all experimentation.  Andy Langer's article in the current issue of Esquire mentions five albums you should buy instead of the new Wilco.  While I don't feel the CD should be tossed aside, I just don't feel compelled to get on the Wilco bandwagon and call it brilliant just because it's the new Wilco CD!  Andy Langer has a point.  There are much better records out there, but thanks to the hype, you'd never know it.

The opening track is a killer, with a dual guitar attack that could have easily fit on Television's classic "Marquee Moon."  "Spiders (Kidsmoke)" is another riff-heavy track that lasts for over ten minutes.  Both tracks are completely different from anything the band has done before.  But as a whole, it feels very empty and unsatisfying.  Listening to it conjures up memories of the great SCTV skit where Eugene Levy, as Perry Como, lies in a bed with the blanket up to his neck, while a microphone is propped up to his mouth.  Yeah, "less is more," but this new record just leaves me cold and sleepy.  

Wilco is so far ahead of 99.9% of the other bands out there, that they're like the hare to everyone else's tortoise.  But even the most relentless experimentation can only go so far if there aren't strong songs behind it.  "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" had the songs.  "A Ghost Is Born" doesn't.

SAL
NYCD

Correspondents' corner:

Name: Clay Landon
Hometown: Los Angeles
Dr. A,

I know you're a historian and I'm just a humble American Literature major graduating this Sunday but I have to ask--did the Civil War actually occur?  Because I think someone should tell Clarence Thomas.  Here's his read on our Constitution:

*It protects a state's right to have an official church.

*'Commerce' should be understood to mean the transfer of goods across state lines, therefore states cannot have tariffs.

*The word 'witness' in the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony in court, not in the police station, therefore Miranda doesn't apply to police interrogations.

He's got a lifetime appointment, he's 54 years old and he's reading the Constitution like 1787 was just last year.

Here's the link.

• June 16, 2004 | 11:16 AM ET

This just in:  “Panel Sees No Cooperation By Iraq-Al Qaeda on Attacks”  I wonder if anyone will mention this to Dick Cheney.   I’m sure he’ll want to call Tim Russert et al and apologize immediately for all the false information he’s been spreading since, approximately, September 12, 2001.

Quote of the Day:  “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror”.
-President George W. Bush, September, 2002

A Regan Era Golden Oldie:  Remember how loveable and optimistic Ronald Reagan was?  Remember how he did nothing but make us feel good about ourselves and restore respect for America; our moral values and our position of leadership in the world?  I was reading the galley pages of When Presidents Lie yesterday and came across this episode.  Funny how it didn’t make it into any of the SCLM coverage last week.  Tim?  Chris?  I’m here for you guys if you need it.  Footnotes are free:

U.S. leaders from Eisenhower and Dulles through Nixon, Ford and Kissinger ignored the regime’s brutality in deference to its anti-Communism.  But the Carter administration complicated its position by denouncing the regime’s human rights record, ultimately leading Guatemala to reject U.S. aid as inexcusable interference in its internal affairs.  By 1982, during the Reagan administration, the killing appeared to be reaching a kind of gruesome climax.  Under the dictatorship of General Efrain Rios Montt, a born-again evangelical Christian, the army massacred as many as 15,000 Indians on the suspicion that they had cooperated with, or might offer aid to, anti-government guerrillas.  Entire villages were leveled to aid the counterinsurgency and countless peasants were forcibly relocated to aid the counterinsurgency.  At one point, as many as 40,000 survivors tried to find refuge in Mexico, Army helicopters strafed the camps.  It was at this propitious moment that President Reagan took the opportunity to congratulate Rios Montt for his dedication to democracy, adding that he had been getting “a bum rap” from U.S. liberals in Congress and the media.  Moreover, in the midst of this killing rampage, the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, Frederic Chapin announced, “The killings have stopped…. The Guatemalan government has come out of the darkness and into the light.”  In fact, the number of civilians killed by death squads doubled to roughly 220 a month by late 1983.  In a secret report to his superiors, Chapin decried the “horrible human rights realities in Guatemala,” and argued that a consistent policy demanded that either the U.S. “overlook the record and emphasize the strategic concept or we can pursue a higher moral path.”  The Reagan administration ignored his advice.  Though Congress would not authorize additional aid, U.S. funds still reached Rios Montt through Israel and Taiwan, in addition to the still-secret amounts available via the CIA.  Following an election in 1985, the U.S. embassy publicly declared that the “final step in the re-establishment of democracy in Guatemala” had taken place," and accordingly restored all of its aid moneys.

The Veepstakes: Page Six says it’s Sam Nunn.  Thank God that means it won’t happen.

From the ridiculous…  Don’t miss this erudite, important essay on Leo Strauss and his impact on our national elite’s vision of the world, by Nicholas Xenos.

Other Quote of the Day:  "If there was an exhibit about Mary J. Blige, I might go,'' said Ms. Jones. 

Alter-review:  I caught a beautiful set last week at Irridium by Joe Lovano, Hank Jones, Paul Motian and George Mraz.  The show was in support of Lovano’s new CD, "I'm All For You" (Blue Note), though it was very much a group affair on stage, with Mr. Jones playing some of the loveliest licks I can remember hearing this side of Art Tatum, and each player doing a marvelous job of complementing one another’s strengths while exhibiting his own at key moments.  Lovano is turning into quite a force in jazz, demonstrating tremendous versatility and imagination in his musical studies and directions taken—like Wynton Marsalis—he’s enlarging the canon by embracing what’s most inspirational in it and building from there.  This was particularly evident in the performance of “I'm All for You" which is based on "Body and Soul," but manages to go beyond it without losing track of its original inspiration.  There’s a WSJ review here, too.

Correspondents’ Corner:

Name: Ajay Chandra
Hometown: Edinburgh, UK
Eric,
Re Marc Garlasco.  I just listened to a Web-archived interview with Garlasco (listen from 8th min), and he doesn't sound like he has an axe to grind.  (Note, the interview is on Islamic Broadcasting Network, which might ding Garlasco's credibility for some people, though by the same logic, Bush is anti-American because he was interviewed about Abu Ghraib on Al-Arabiya.)

For instance, Garlasco praises the pre-planned U.S. air attacks for steps taken to minimize civilian deaths and he says the "only" war crimes (12/12/03 interview before Abu Ghraib disclosures) from the military confrontation were those of the Iraqi army (e.g., using human shields, hiding in hospitals and mosques).  His main complaints were: [1] Army cluster sub-munitions have a high dud rate of 16% (times 2 million) that kill civilians and children; and [2] targeting the satphones of high-value persons gives a 100m radius target which isn't precise enough to justify the civilian casualties inflicted.  He even contrasts the Iraq war (Bush) favorably with the Kosovo campaign (Clinton) in terms of not using Air Force cluster bombs.

Find it here.

Garlasco may have become more shrill since December, but he seems fair and credible in the interview.  "Withheld" may be right that putting pressure on the Iraq military command was valuable; it may have even saved more lives than were lost and that's worth studying.  Garlasco notably does not characterize the satphone strikes as 'murder' or 'war crimes'.  On balance, he indicates the initial war was executed competently.

Otherwise, it's all good.

Name: Paul Corrigan
Hometown: Lexington, MA
Great post over at Brad Delong's site that you may want to link to. 

Federal Spending as a Share of GDP:

21.6%: Last Carter budget (FY 1981)
20.7%: Last Reagan budget (FY 1989)

-0.9%: Change over Reagan terms

21.0%: Last Bush I budget (FY 1993)
18.3%: Last Clinton budget (FY 2001)

-2.7%: Change over Clinton terms

20.4%: Forecast FY 2005 budget

+2.1%: Change over Bush term*

Name: Dan Troy
Hometown: Davis, CA
The only downside to the new SCTV DVD is that since ordering it through Amazon.com, my recommended items list has been glutted with cultural Canadian castrophes such as Rush and Alanis Morrisette CDs. 

Name: Charles Westmoreland
Hometown: dirty
When's the last time you or anyone you know has been arrested by Ashcroft? Thought so.

Name: LOU TORRES
Hometown: TEMECULA
THE PATHETIC THING IS YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN GARBAGE, IF YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT EVERY THING YOU WRITE (WHICH MOST COMES FROM OTHER BOTTOM DWELLERS IE. GORE,ETC.) WHY ARE YOU A LOWLY STAFF WRITER OR SHOULD I SAY COPIER.

• June 15, 2004 | 12:07 PM ET

There is something bracing about reading an unvarnished truth in the New York Times, even if it is in a Paul Krugman column. 

“No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history.” 

The thing is, even this understates the case.  Remember John Ashcroft is the man who claims to have it in his power to arrest you, Mr. American Citizen, and hold you incommunicado in prison forever if he wants.  He has apparently passed along a memo to the president claiming the right to torture and kill you as well. 

Meanwhile, under Homeland Security orders, journalists from England, Sweden, Holland and other friendly countries are being detained at U.S. airports, strip-searched and deported as well.  The most pathetic thing is, for all their police-state tactics, they are doing a terrible job of protecting us, and terrorism is a greater threat than ever. Just ask the newly corrected State Department report (though it was buried everywhere but “The Daily Show.”  I ask you, have we ever faced as great an internal peril to our most fundamental freedom since the heyday of J. Edgar Hoover?

Tom Curley, President and CEO of the Associated Press gave a scathing interview to Bill Moyers last week on NOW based on a speech he gave sounding the alarm about the intense addiction to government-enforced secrecy on the part of the U.S. government that has been justified under the guise of 9/11.  Of course we agree, but we wish Curley would have had the courage to take on the fact that much of this campaign is in the service of an extremist right-wing agenda that has had as its aim the weakening of the press’s ability to keep the government accountable, and to scream “liberal bias” whenever an uncomfortable truth is reported. 

Take for instance this AP story:

"ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had ‘long-established ties’ with al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.”

This assertion has not “been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.”  It has repeatedly been proven a disingenuous lie and a canard that was perpetrated in order to take us into this disastrous war under deliberately false pretenses.  Of course it’s impossible to prove a negative—and some Iraqis cannot but help but have run into some terrorists somewhere, sometime—Christopher Hitchens seems to think it proves the point now that Al Qaida has taken up the cause of Iraq as a result of our invasion—but in refusing to call a proverbial spade a spade AP has done what Tim Russert, Judy Miller and many, many others have also repeatedly done: they have willfully contributed to the deception of the American people on behalf of a leadership that is deliberately seeking to fool them.  One hardly needs a free press or a First Amendment if this is the best it can do.

David Sirota has more and alas, MSNBC.com is also running this crappy story—which improves slightly as it goes on, but not nearly enough to justify itself.

P.S. NOW also had this Tom Delay story in great detail on its Friday night show. That’s here.

Alterman vs. O'Reilly, round one.

This is very good and this is kinda sad.

Alter-review:  The new le Carre is terrific per usual, and contains some truths about the people running this war that do not make it into our media.  In fact it contains some truths about our media that do not make it into our media.  (Even Judy makes an appearance.)  It’s called “Absolute Friends.”

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Rich Gallagher
Hometown: Fishkill, NY
Dear Eric,
It's becoming increasingly difficult to find the precise numbers, but according to CNN the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq is 833 as of June 9.  Curiously, MSNBC.com's numbers are lagging CNN by a week.

Disturbingly, the death rate in Iraq continues to be high (16 American soldiers in the first nine days of June). Even allowing for the fact that the coverage of Reagan's death dwarfed everything else for the last ten days, it's scandalous that the media aren't paying more attention to the continuing casualties in Iraq.

The Supreme Court's decision to toss the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit on a technicality is probably a break for Kerry.  While I agree that the words "under God" should be excised from the Pledge, it is a hot-button, emotional issue which would only have helped Bush if it had become an issue in the campaign.

Name: Matt Daniels
Hometown: Brooklyn, NY
Eric,
Thanks for continuing to put a fine point on the war insanity.

1- An accurate, or at least thorough, account of Iraqi civilian deaths is available at IraqBodyCount.net.

2- "Kerry actually has all of the policy abilities of Clinton": could you illustrate that statement, please?  I actually have all of the Russian-speaking abilities of a native Muscovite; I just haven't gotten around to learning Russian yet.

I wish we'd stop deceiving ourselves about our candidate and instead build on his real strengths.  Let's admit it, Kerry's interest in policy over 20 years has been nil.  Yet he's distinguished himself in other ways -- for example, by his bravery in uncovering Iran-Contra (as a foil to the know-nothing President we've just interred).  His real skills are those of a prosecutor, and they would be indispensable in the real work of making America safer, the reorganization of the CIA and FBI.

Instead of reality, we get fed domestic- and foreign-policy banalities that run counter to Kerry's record and expose him to further charges (and the actual anxieties, valid or otherwise, of real live American swing voters) that he's a waffler and an opportunist.

Name: M. Aldridge
Hometown: Springfield
LOL!  Are you really a "liberal commie faggot, pus bag socialist, low down  miserable, twisted, scum bag opportunist, whose mind has turned to a blob of black gelatin?"  Are you really a "terrorist loving, anti-American, blame America first douchebag?"  Are you really a "freak of nature, sad little man (or pathetic weak little man) who crawled out from under Clinton's desk?"  Or, are you a "scum sucking weasel without a sense of dignity and a poster boy for abortion who is a communist menace and enemy of God and America who has homosexual friends?" 

And those on the right "are bored with the NASTY left wing, Godless-do-whatever-you-want-to-do-mantra from people like you"?

For many of us, you say what needs to be said.

Name: Withheld
Hometown: Withheld
Wrote to you earlier about homeland security issues.  I also have some knowledge on this stuff:

I worked with the TST guys at CENTCOM during the war.  None of them has ever heard of Garlasco and DIA in D.C., where Garlasco apparently was based, was not involved in the immediate TST process during OIF.  He may have had a secondary involvement, but was not a primary actor or decision maker.  He also appears to be the singular driving force behind the "controversy" over the leadership targeting.  Most of the articles about this either cite him or Human Rights Watch as sources.  But, from what I can tell he is HRW's primary source.  In the intelligence business, we call this circular reporting. 

Now, I'm not saying that the leadership targeting was 100% effective.  However, some lower tier targets (not deck-of-cards guys) were killed or captured in the early stages of the fight.  And leadership targeting appeared to have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the Iraqi regime because they had to spend most of the war on the run or in hiding instead of directing their forces.  Can't lead when you're dodging JDAMs and TLAMS.  I'd call that at least a partial success.  Of course, all casualties in war are a great tragedy, but it's not like we were fire-bombing Dresden. 

I'm not sure what his problem is, but I think this Garlasco guy has an axe to grind.  Perhaps the real story here is the circumstances of his leaving the DIA and joining HRW because after having seen him interviewed several times, I reached the following conclusions: 1) He is overstating his involvement. 2) He seems washed-up...but he's in his 30's.  Too young to be washed up, and too young to be much of a decision maker.

Withhold my full name and e-mail address if you post.

Thanks.

Name: Nicholas Pisano
Hometown: Destin, FL
Hey Eric,
Old Navy guy again.  I am a little amused by all of the debates lately on whether Reagan's fantastical and intellectually challenged policies or Clinton's blowjob did more harm to the country.  These arguments have significance, of course, beyond their subjects.  The obvious response should be similar to the one used during the Presidential election of 1884 (quite a nasty little campaign that is worthy of 2000 and 2004) in which Grover Cleveland was accused of fathering an illegitimate child while James G. Blaine, Cleveland's opponent, was known to have corruptly profited from public office but lived an impeccable private life.  A Cleveland campaign supporter wrote to a newspaper at the time: "I gather that Mr. Cleveland has shown high character and great capacity in public office but that in private life his conduct has been open to question, while, on the other hand, Mr. Blaine, in public life has been weak and dishonest, while he seems to have been an admirable husband and father.  The conclusion that I draw from these facts is that we should elect Mr. Cleveland to the public office which he is so admirably qualified to fill and remand Mr. Blaine to the private life which he is so eminently fitted to adorn."

The problem conservatives run into if they accept this tact when it comes to Reagan is that he wasn't all that great of a guy on a personal level either

Name: Donna B. Taylor
Hometown: Colquitt,Georgia
My son,husband and son-in-law are in the U.S. military.I totally disagree with your views. If you were over there fighting,then maybe someone would listen.What you need to do, is listen to someone that has been there like the men in my family. My son is in the Marines with 1st. battalion,5th Marines. He is currently around the Fallujah area and he is serving his country, doing what he says is just.Why not support our men and women,instead of putting them down at every opportunity.PRESIDENT BUSH IS NOT A LIAR.He is a good,GOD FEARING man as should all be;and he is doing what is right and just for his country. Maybe intel was wrong, but he is not.GOD BLESS our nation,our military,our President and last, but not least,"GOD BLESS AMERICA".

Name: Don DeLong
Hometown: Paw Paw, Michigan
Most of us in the Midwest live closer to what is happening to our country, but, on a less abstract level than those of you who like to play the intellectual games and listen to yourselves talk.  I had a Kerry sticker on the back window of my truck.  (Some liberals do have trucks!)  When my wife and I left a restaurant, rather late in the evening, I found the window had been smashed out where the Kerry sticker had been.  When it gets to this level, in your world, your thinking will change drastically.

Name: Anonymous
To Hell with Reagan  -   How about Ray Charles instead?

• June 14, 2004 | 12:36 PM ET

How do you like your war, now?  Putting the matter far too delicately, the New York Times notes that the war began with the murder of “significant” numbers of innocent people in a series of air strikes against targeted individuals, not one of whom was successfully taken out.  The article is here and is further evidence, as if any were needed, that to trust the competence of this administration to carry out this delicate and difficult task—even if one granted them good intentions—was folly indeed.

It’s hard to say which is the best representation of what this war is doing to and has done to this country.  Is it the lies that were told to get us into it?  Is the fact that we are picking up innocent people off the street and torturing them?  Is it that we have suspended the most basic civil liberties in our own country?  Is it that the work of professional intelligence agencies has been corrupted?  Is it that we have drawn resources away from the fight against Al Qaida which has completely regrouped?  Is it that we are creating more terrorists?  Is it that more than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured?  Is it that thousands of Iraqis have been killed but nobody is keeping an account of the numbers of their deaths?  Is it that we are now more hated around the world than we have ever been?  Is it that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security?  Is it that we are doing all this while starving the most crucial homeland security programs?  Is it that everyone who told the truth about what was being planned has been dismissed and seen their characters attacked?  The usually soft-spoken and moderate intelligence analyst and author Thomas Powers does not exaggerate when he notes that Bush and the neocons have "caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history." 

Congrats to everybody involved…

Speaking of which, here’s 26 more disgruntled Reagan, Bush, Clinton military and diplomatic ex-officials who either hate America, are soft on terrorism, like Saddam, or are seeking book deals and/or jobs in the Kerry campaign.  Got that Mr. and Mrs. SCLM?

Speaking of Salon, The Washington Post busts Ralph Nader [June 13, 2004] months after Salon [March 13, 2004] does.

Bill Clinton is about to do the same thing to John Kerry with his book that Ronald Reagan did to George W. Bush by dying: remind everybody of everything the old guy was and the current guy is not.  Kerry actually has all of the policy abilities of Clinton—which in any semi-serious country, should be all that matters—but none of his political talents.  Reagan shared many of Bush’s extremist views, but laundered them through a sunny disposition.  What’s more, he could recognize a mistake and reverse course.  The fact that Bush is incapable of doing so, is what may save the country from four more years of his misrule. 

Significant majorities of the Americans now believe Iraq was not worth it, that the president did not tell the truth to get us involved, that America is on the wrong track and that Bush should be replaced.  All that’s left for Kerry to do is to look tough and strong enough to be an acceptable alternative despite the mountains of mud that will undoubtedly come his way—coupled with enough Nader supporters to come to their senses and realize that (once again) a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.  Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Annals of the SCLM from David Sirota:

"One other political point, the Republicans achieved control of the United States Congress for the first time in 70 years, of both houses, under Ronald Reagan."
- Tim Russert, 6/10/04

FACT:

In 1994, six years after Ronald Reagan left office, "The Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954."  Both houses of Congress were never controlled by Republicans during Reagan's term.
- Encyclopedia Britannica

And Atrios on Rush on Divorce.

And  Atrios again on Sam ‘n Cokie and Geroge Will and “Debategate.”

Stop the Presses Department:  Note to Times editors, two appreciations of Christopher Ricks on Dylan (and here).  OK.  I can live with that.  But three articles about the reruns of "Sex in the City" not having any dirty stuff (and here and on the Web site an AP Report here)?  What the #$%^?  I mean who gives a “^&*# anyway?  Good God, send one of these reporters to the Justice and tell them to get ahold of that Ashcroft memo saying it’s OK to torture people…

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Courtney Henderson
Hometown: League City
I have to agree with your statement that getting a blowjob does not make one a bad person.  There is nothing I appreciate more than a good blowjob.  But you're just obfuscating the facts.  What we're talking about here is cheating on your spouse, having illicit sex at work, all while being entrusted to focus on the business of the country and set a decent example.  Presidents are not professional athletes - we DO have a right to expect more of them.  These types of behavior DO MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON.  Take off the blinders.

Name: Steve Ruger
Hometown: Also from Philly
Re:  The letter from Andy Levin of Philly.

In Clinton's case, he was a man who could negotiate with leaders over the telephone while receiving a BJ.  Now we are stuck with a President who can't even watch a football game and eat a pretzel at the same time!

Print this Email this Blog this  IM this

MORE FROM COMMUNITY

Community Section Front

The Week in Political Cartoons Clicked: Is green enviable? Cosmic Log: Dig deeper into archaeology Daily Nightly: Read the latest entries ZeitGeist: Baseball-playing bear! First Read: The day in politics News Hole: The blog of Countdown Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Weblog Field Notes: ‘Super Bowl ring minted for a true giant’ World Blog: China's children - surviving the aftermath Community Section Front   Add Community headlines to your news reader: