Tuesday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Practitioners of genocide keep getting busted: “Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted war criminals for his part in the massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995, was arrested Monday in a raid in Serbia that ended a 13-year hunt. Serge Brammertz, the prosecutor of the United Nations war crimes tribunal in The Hague, hailed the arrest as an important step in bringing to justice one of the architects of Europe’s worst massacre since World War II. He said Mr. Karadzic, 63, the Bosnian Serb president during the war there between 1992 and 1995, would be transferred to The Hague in ‘due course.'”

* Torture comes with consequences: “Prosecutors in the trial of Osama bin Laden’s former driver cannot use as evidence some statements the defendant gave interrogators because they were obtained under ‘highly coercive’ conditions while he was a captive in Afghanistan, a military judge ruled Monday evening.” (thanks to Sarabeth)

* Bob Novak is backing off his report about John McCain announcing his running mate this week, telling Fox News today that the leak may have been “a dodge” by the campaign to grab some headlines from Obama.

* Thank goodness for all of those miraculous tax cuts: “The current U.S. economic expansion is the first in 60 years that may end before many Americans have recovered from the last slowdown. Annual family incomes adjusted for inflation have grown just 0.8 percent since the end of 2001 even as the economy expanded an average 2.7 percent a year, leaving households little cushion to absorb higher food and fuel prices.”

* This is beyond outrageous: “Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.”

* Republicans blasted Obama today for flying into Jordan in an Osprey aircraft, which Obama has opposed in the past. There’s just one problem — McCain also criticized the Osprey, and also flew in one during his Iraq trip in May.

* It looks like Obama enjoyed a very enthusiastic greeting from U.S. troops and State Department officials in Baghdad last night.

* There’s already some talk in media circles about a “backlash” against Obama traveling abroad. I have no idea why.

* Bob Herbert: You want a scary thought? Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney but without the vice president’s sense of humor. In her important new book, ‘The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,’ Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney’s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror. She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: ‘No one stood to his right.’ Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: ‘He doesn’t believe in the Constitution.'”

* The right is still whining about the NYT failing to run McCain’s hatchet-job op-ed. The complaints still don’t make any sense.

* The Austin American-Statesman was right to apologize for this.

* McCain suggested today that Obama refuses to acknowledge the successful work of the troops in Iraq. McCain, again, is lying.

* Eric Boehlert: “The AP has a Ron Fournier problem.”

* I meant to make fun of David Brooks today, but ran out of time. Steve M. is on the case.

* Fox News’ Chris Wallace wanted to go on the foreign trip with Obama. The campaign blew him off, and now his feelings are apparently hurt. (Note to Wallace: to get treated as a legitimate journalist, you have to work for a legitimate news outlet.)

* After his comments sparked considerable controversy, right-wing shock-jock Michael Savage said today that his attacks against autistic children had been “take[n] out of context.” They weren’t.

* As a result of the story, Savage has lost Aflac as a show sponsor.

* TV preacher Pat Robertson, still insane.

* And Richard Cohen devoted an entire column today to complaining about young people getting too many tattoos. The Washington Post paid him for this, and published it. Next week, he’ll probably explain why he wants those darn kids off his lawn.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

This just hasn’t been a very good few days for the McCain Mutiny. Can’t get face time. Hammered on stupid comments. Looking quite the fool.

So, how’s that Karl Rove thing working out for ya, John?

  • Yeah, McCain is gulity of getting what he asked for since he was the one goading Obama to visit Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe this trip will take some more steam out of the old McCain fiction express.

  • At least Cohen admitted “I have written awful columns”. He just didn’t know it was today.

  • * Bob Novak is backing off his report about John McCain announcing his running mate this week, telling Fox News today that the leak may have been “a dodge” by the campaign to grab some headlines from Obama.

    I’m shocked – shocked! – that someone so experienced can get “fooled” twice by the same bunch of wingnuts. If that is going to be Novak’s excuse it is merely proof again that experience doesn’t assure judgment.

    * And Richard Cohen devoted an entire column today to complaining about young people getting too many tattoos. The Washington Post paid him for this, and published it.

    Which actually helps McCain’s argument with the NYT quite a bit. “Hey, if you major dailies have enough room and low enough standards to print Cohen, there’s just no excuse for rejecting my non-newsworthy poorly-written tripe.”

    Finally, on a much more serious note, while it is important that the MSM cover the sexual abuse in the military, the coverage now only demonstrates again that Garry Trudeau is much, much more than just a cartoonist and how far out in front of the curve he was, doing an entire (and very well done) story arc on the difficulties in addressing and recovering from such abuse back before he took his sabbatical.

  • “Republicans blasted Obama today for flying into Jordan in an Osprey aircraft, which Obama has opposed in the past. There’s just one problem — McCain also criticized the Osprey, and also flew in one during his Iraq trip in May”

    Yeah, I’m sure it wasn’t because the military planners decided it was the best aircraft for the mission.

    Obama was walking down the flight line, saw a MV-22 just sitting there, and then started jumping up and down saying “Ooo!!! I want to fly in THAT!!!”

    Now McCain, I can see…..

  • I’m glad you didn’t find the time to make fun of Brooks, if your criticism would have been based on that single passage in his column about schools no longer teaching a religious ethic of self-restraint. I disagree with that part too, but I found his column as a whole to be quite well thought-out and ideologically balanced; hardly the conservative screed that Steve M makes it sound like. Brooks’s primary point is that the shifts that led to the culture of personal gratification via credit-assisted spending beyond our means that is causing so much financial pain as the bills finally catch up with people can’t be pigeonholed into strictly liberal or conservative causes, and in that I think he’s quite right. Steve M’s approach of taking a single three-line passage from Brooks’s column and acting as if that’s the entirety of his argument is disingenuous in the extreme; I hope that your criticism, had you made it, would at least have acknowledged Brooks’s broader point.

  • * Fox News’ Chris Wallace wanted to go on the foreign trip with the Obama. The campaign blew him off, and now his feelings are apparently hurt. (Note to Wallace: to get treated as a legitimate journalist, you have to work for a legitimate news outlet.)

    It’s going to be even sweeter when President Obama is deciding on the White House press corps badges.

    Good line, Former Dan.

  • the culture of personal gratification via credit-assisted spending beyond our means that is causing so much financial pain as the bills finally catch up with people can’t be pigeonholed into strictly liberal or conservative

    Actually, I think there is a very good case to be made that it can, in fact, be laid much more at the feet of modern conservative culture than assigned to any thing “liberal.” Moderation and deferred gratification were once considered bedrock values. But living within one’s means went out the window most prominently during the Reagan years, where our leader, setting an example for the nation, continually told us (through word and deed) that debt spending was fine. Like Professor Harold Hill and his “think method,” if we were happy enough about our material goods, the consequences of buying them on credit would magically disappear. Conserving, cutting back, lowering the thermostat and wearing a sweater, putting solar panels on our house — those were so Carter-esque, they cause us malaise and should be avoided.

    Chapter two of course was the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 war – unlike any other way, where we shared in common sacrifice, we were instead instructed that it was our patriotic duty to spend – to buy Hummers and travel to New York. Anything else meant the terrorists had won. Concerned that the economy may be a little weak after 9/11 and so you don’t want to freely spend? What kind of wimpy, commie, self-fulfilling prophecy is that? Spend, dammit, spend!

    And yes, some Democrats (mainly from states with large financial institutions) went along, massive financial deregulation that lead to everyone over the age of 12 getting no less than 2 credit card applications per day, 6 days a week whether they should have another card or not was mainly a Republican creation, from the Contract on America calling for near total deregulation of everything to the Bush/DeLay turning the entire government over to corporate lobbyists.

    No, I think it false equivalence to say that the culture of credit-drive self-gratification is neither liberal nor conservative. It is very much part and parcel of the broader E. Coli Conservatism – whatever is good for commerce, health and welfare of the people be damned.

  • The NY Times duo: Brooks and Dumb.

    It must be hard to find time to make fun of Kristol and Brooks when Camp McCain is providing so much material.

    Will Rogers said something like: “It’s really easy to be a humorist – I’ve got the government working for me full time.”

  • 2Manchu said:Obama was walking down the flight line, saw a MV-22 just sitting there, and then started jumping up and down saying “Ooo!!! I want to fly in THAT!!!”

    🙂 Sounds like a New Yorker cover.

  • So Michael Savage (nee Wiener) the herbologist thinks autism is a crock?

    Bwahaha. Hahaha!

    He can go AFlack himself.

    McCain bitching about Obama’s mode of transport is proof he found the bottomless pit of patheticness and jumped right in. Geronimoooo!

    And what can I say about Prat Robertson? As the months go by and Israel doesn’t nuke Iran (because they’re neither batshit crazy nor directed by BushBot) will he say they must be on the side of the terrorists?

    Plus you have to love the way this murderous cretin doesn’t know or care that radiation from a nuclear strike would kill more people than just the Iranians. Like civilians in the countries on either side of Iran for example. And what do you know, the U.S. has a few soldiers in that region. Brilliant idea Pat.

  • Howard Fineman: “[T]he American people may be repelled at the sight of a man touring the planet in presidential style who has yet to even be nominated by his own party. There is something a little off about Obamapalooza,…

    The American people may be repelled by the sight of a man touring the news broadcasts in expert style who has yet to even demonstrate that he knows what the fuck he’s talking about?

  • Okay…in retrospect, that didn’t across so well.

    Needless to say, Fineman is trying to create perceptions, rather than limiting himself to reporting on them.

  • That Eric Boehlert piece on Ron Fournier is a thing of beauty. That ought to be required reading for anyone who ever utters the phrase “liberal media” ever again.

  • As a result of the story, Savage has lost Aflac as a show sponsor.

    Note that Aflac takes offense at Savage’s comments regarding autism. He also called asthma a hoax. Asthma effects about 8% of children in the United States; autism less than 1%, but they have a bigger fan club.

  • The St. Paul Police Department is having trouble signing up enough cops to patrol the Republican convention.

    Yeah well would you want to spend a few days trying to keep order while you dodged guys who look like this, or this?

    “Come out of the stall with your hands and pants up!”

  • Ya Orange.

    There are lots of nervous republican worried about partisan profiling at the St. Paul airport.

    I hear that many of them may fly into Milwaukee, Duluth or Rochester and rent a car to drive to convention.

    Just a rumor anyway.

  • CJ: If you watched Keith, you would see Fineman, almost every night, pinning McCain to the mat on his latest idiocy. I don’t agree with this comment, sure, but to say ‘he is trying to create perceptions’ — implying ‘against Obama’ is simply nonsense.

    I think it is this sort of comment that is causing me to be the ‘grumpy uncle’ here. But will some of you kindly realize, please, that a person can disagree with you without having ulterior motives. This is precisely the sort of assumption that gets me so annoyed when I hear it from religious types, the assumption that ‘atheists really know ‘THE TRUTH’ — that there is a God — and only pretend not to believe so they can ‘enjoy their immoral lives.’ But I expect this from ‘believers,’ not from the sort of people who comment here.

  • Seeing as this is an open, end-of-day, shoot-the-shit kinda thread, I thought I’d make a request.

    There’s an article – which I believe Steve has already linked to – by retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr about what has been the real driving force behind the drop in violence – talking to previous insurgents:

    http://vetsforobama.org/2008/07/14/marketing-a-myth-how-john-mccain-actually-got-the-surge-wrong/

    There’s also a pretty good article today in the WaPo about the strategy:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/23/iraqi-tribes-reach-security-accord/

    McCain is talking about ‘the surge, the surge, the surge’. It’s pretty much all he has left of his foreign policy. Unfortunately for him, the military people on the ground in Iraq ascribe most of the drop in violence to the tribal accords, not the surge. Now I know (thanks to Lt. Gen. Gard) that Dubya actually opposed the policy and the military went ahead and did it anyway.

    My request is this: Is it possible for Steve or any other talented bloggers here to sniff out McCain’s stance on talking to insurgents and getting them onside? It seems kind of important to me.

    If it transpires that McCain supported increased troops but opposed the measure that actually made the difference to the security situation, then he’s effectively and officially screwed beyond redemption.

  • Olbermann had a fascinating bit tonight:

    CBS News had an interview with McCain, in which he revealed his complete and utter ignorance (and arrogance) over facts on the ground in Iraq, and for some reason, they chose not to air that bit. McCain is charging that Obama doesn’t understand what’s going on, and reveals himself to be the clueless one … and it’s not even worth airing? WTF?

    Here’s the relevant segment:

    Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

    McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml

  • Oddly enough, this backwards chronology is a widespread conservative talking point.

    Kevin Drum:

    OBAMA ON THE SURGE….Over at the Corner, Andy McCarthy berates Barack Obama’s explanation for the reduction in violence in Iraq (“What you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops”):

    Does Obama think the Sunni Awakening and the Shia militia stand-down are somehow separate developments from the surge and the brilliant performance of American forces? If he really thinks that, it’s dumb.

    Hmmm. Let’s roll the tape:

    * February 2006: Muqtada al-Sadr orders an end to execution-style killings by Mahdi Army death squads.

    * August 2006: Sadr announces a broad ceasefire, which he has maintained ever since.

    * September 2006: The Sunni Awakening begins. Tribal leaders, first in Anbar and later in other provinces, start fighting back against al-Qaeda insurgents.

    * March 2007: The surge begins.

    Say what you will about the surge, which does indeed deserve a share of the credit for reducing violence and increasing security in Baghdad. But it pretty obviously wasn’t related to either the Shia militia stand-down or the Sunni Awakening, since both those things began before Petraeus took over in Iraq and before the surge was even a gleam in George Bush’s eye. American troops played a role in the Sadr ceasefire and (especially) the Awakening, but the surge itself didn’t — and without them, the surge would certainly have failed. Obama has it exactly right.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014144.php

  • TCG @ 18…how do you read that crap? I feel dirty if I go to RedState or any of those other crazy sites. How can people be so divorced from reality to say Bush is morally correct. Spare. Me.

    Proof positive that there are far too many loony people in this country.

  • Torture comes with consequences:

    Actually, the point is that torture doesn’t come with consequences. You might think that torture is a nice shortcut to getting a confession–i.e. that a confession is a consequence of torture–but you’d be wrong. Anything that happens as a result of torture is regarded–in the best case scenario and from the prosecutor’s standpoint–by the law as though it never happened at all. The whole point is that anything confessed as a result of torture is presumed, generally correctly, to be unreliable at best, and therefore to have none of the consequences intended by the torture.

  • And now CNN’s Anderson Cooper is highlighting the same clip as Olbermann. With a “Breaking News” banner, even, and Joe Klein and David Gergen in reaction.

    Hmm, this blunder could actuallyhave the legs it deserves. Coming fast on the heels of the “Iraq-Pakistan border” screwup, it’s starting to look like the media smells blood in the water.

  • Zeitgeist: Like Professor Harold Hill and his “think method,”

    Now. now. Let’s not denigrate the good professor.
    Beyond his bonhomie there was some substance there.
    Rumor has it he brought the Buffalo Bills together and taught them how to sing too:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbBITrZa6Ok

  • Joanne

    Those peeps got problems. I know I live in a Red State.

    But reading RedState is like cultural anthropology.

  • 21.
    On July 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm, John Barleycorn said:
    Zeit , Kudos ! # 9
    Prose , passion and truth.

    I’ll second that. You put that together real nice, Zeitgeist. Right up to the hilt but hardly any mess at all.

    There can’t be too many columns on Addington. Cheney’s the part of the melanoma that you can see but Addington is the rot beneath the surface. He is the seeking tendril of metastasizing corruption looking for every weakness to exploit and ruin.

    Cheney and Addington must have raised a glass to themselves when they knew it would work just fine for them to be their very own discovery at the end of the V.P. “search”.

    It’s hard to believe right now that C&A would be content with the damage done. They have certainly discussed contingencies for circumstances far more f’ed up and poisoned then they are even now. It would be a shame to let all that planning go to waste.

  • Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

    Interesting article on HuffPo yesterday: Oil Prices in Steep Decline: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

    But something far more sinister is afoot in the steep descent in oil prices. Our national sense of outrage at the egregious actions of the oil industry, of oil producers, risks being mollified. Just when we become deadly serious about alternative fuels suddenly, magically, the price of oil retreats and we go back to the gluttonous consumption habits that were such a major contributing factor to the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

  • I will discuss this more fully tomorrow, when the exact quote is available, but according to Keith an Obama spokesman has stated that ‘only the most egregious crimes’ of the Bush Administration will be prosecuted. If this is accurate, then here is yet another case where I have to strongly disagree with Obama — despite the general impression that I am in all cases I am an ‘Obama Apologist.’ Certainly there were petty violations that can be ignored, but ANY serious law violations need to be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. Both to restore the rule of law, and for the sake of history.

    Now I am not going off the deep end, like so many of you did on FISA and claiming that ‘Obama is no better than Bush.’ In fact, I can understand the reasoning as it was expressed, I just disagree (and am not sure philosophically how this squares with Obama’s equally wrong position on the death penalty). But — again, once the actual quote is available — and, if necessary, clarified — it will make me keep a close watch on the Obama Administration.

    More tomorrow, but if anyone has a link to the exact quote, I’d appreciate it.

  • From http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

    What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

    So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

    Also see the same story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html

    While retribution needn’t be a focus for the Obama administration, I think it would be a fine idea to turn a bunch of special prosecutors and/or blue-ribbon committees loose on the Bush Administration to independently investigate Bush misbehaviors: one for torture, one for wiretapping, one for no-bid contracts, at least a couple to look into election fraud (New Hampshire phones, Diebold misbehavior), one for general lying, one for dragging us into an unprovoked invasion, one for the US attorney scandal, one to investigate sale of access via presidential library funding, one for the failure to keep proper records, a committee to examine the unconstitutionality of the unitary executive theory, another to investigate Cheney’s energy policy meetings, a third to produce a report on what went wrong with New Orleans, another to report on the unconstitutionality of presidential signing statements, and so on. Basically, just keep hauling their asses before one committee after another for a decade or so.

  • Novakula says that leaking false information would be reprehensible. He should know — he’s an authority on the subject.

  • * Bob Novak is backing off his report about John McCain announcing his running mate this week, telling Fox News today that the leak may have been “a dodge” by the campaign to grab some headlines from Obama.

    This is classic lazy journalism.

    Political coverage could improve a good 10-20% if all media would refuse to cover “announcements of announcements”

    A candidate telling us he or she will be announcing something on a particular day is a request for an appointment. NOT NEWS.

    Telling someone you MAY be announcing something on a certain day is a suggestion that you not schedule anything on that day, just in case. It is NOT NEWS.

    Telling someone you may announce something some day, but you’re not sure when. Is just a waste of your time that should make you ponder the depths of narcissism required to make you think you should care. It is most DEFINITELY NOT NEWS.

    Following the string of logic, may I advise the media that they should not consider it news when a candidate announces he or she will be doing something newsworthy over the course of the campaign and, to play it safe, count on following me around 24-7. Kindly bring the donuts with sprinkles.

    Lastly, the biggest pet peeve of mine is a candidate that announces that they’ll be announcing their run for president when they’re been raising money and flying to Nashua NH for the past year. Not only is this NOT NEWS, I would be grateful to the first reporter that raises an eyebrow and asks incredulously, on camera, “And that’s IT? Nothing ELSE?” In response to their reply, whatever it may be, turn around, throw one hand in the air and loudly mumble, “Feh!”

    We’ll be a better nation for it.

  • 2Manchu@6

    Right, and Obama wouldn’t have looked like a total tool telling his military hosts:
    “I can’t fly in that! I opposed it’s funding! Get me something else!”

    Note to GOP:
    If it’s not in his control, it’s not hypocrisy.

  • Comments are closed.