More on Mark Halperin's sad little crusade for right-wing blessings

I honestly didn't think it was possible for Mark Halperin's behavior to become any more craven or cringe-inducing than it was during his three-hour submissive inquisition with Hugh Hewitt last night. But I was so wrong.

Today, Halperin is very upset -- very emotionally distraught -- because Hewitt remarked both during and after the interview that he thinks Halperin is "very liberal." Halperin spent three hours in the interview desperately trying to convince Hewitt that he is on Hewitt's side, but that wasn't enough to win Hewitt's approval. Nonetheless, Halperin is willing -- actually, quite eager -- to go to still greater and more horrifying lengths to obtain Hewitt's blessing.

First, Halperin e-mailed Hewitt today to again try to persuade Hewitt that he is not a liberal. Hewitt didn't print the e-mail but wrote about it on his blog, and claimed that Halperin "asked that [Hewitt] apologize for the characterization and remove the description or post" in which he called Halperin "liberal." Hewitt also quoted Halperin's e-mail by writing that Halperin "considers the description a 'a serious affront to [his] professional integrity,' and requested that I "note [Halperin's] strong objection to [my] characterization." Unconvinced by Halperin's pleas both in the interview and again today that he is not a liberal, Hewitt rubbed the comment in Halperin's face again: "Not only do I think that Mark Halperin is very liberal, I don't think it is possible to conclude anything else."

In response, Halperin returned to Hewitt yet again, this time to request that Hewitt allow him to post a statement on Hewitt's blog, in which Halperin expressed how hurt he was that even after he agreed with almost everything Hewitt said during the interview, Hewitt is still calling him a liberal:

Dear Hugh,

I really enjoyed our radio talk and I appreciated the opportunity to appear with someone I respect so much.

I have gotten a lot of positive feedback, mostly from conservatives, including this reaction on Powerlineblog.com.

But, as I have said to you privately, I am beginning to think you are intellectually dishonest on a few points. It seems strange that someone who seems to be trying to bring truth to people would do such a thing, but I can't really explain your behavior any other way. As I said on the show, you and I agree on almost everything we discussed. On most of the points of disagreement, I respect your position and accept our disagreement. . . .

As for your repeated insistence that you could reach no other conclusion but one that says that I am "very liberal," I'm sure if you think it over, you will reconsider. You went to a liberal school and you appear to not be liberal. And I am sure you have heard of people having different political views than their parents.

Again, I respect much about you, but I am mystified by your determination to lump me in with others. Acknowledging the liberal bias that exists in the Old Media -- as John Harris and I do in The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 doesn't necessarily prove that I am not liberal, but I would think you would be open to giving me the benefit of the doubt, when you have no actual evidence to the contrary.

The letter ended: "And I'm still waiting for the offer to appear again on the show. Thanks so much, Mark Halperin." Halperin just can't understand why it is that after he went to such lengths to be such a good boy -- the book, the interview, the confessions all over the place, the Drudge worship -- he is still being punished. He is clearly hurt and bewildered by this. He thought he would be welcomed by them and yet they are still hitting him. Why?

In response to all of that, Hewitt kicked some more dirt in Halperin's face by escalating the mockery: "the condescension in [Halperin's] offense taking is startling. This is the MSM disease, one associated with all aristocracies --that it will not endure criticism or questioning, is easily offended, and quick to cast aspersions on opponents." For good measure, Hewitt added: "His anger with me comes from my opinion that he is very liberal. I don't think it is easy to come to any other conclusion with the evidence at hand." I'm sure Halperin is working on his apology now.

I don't think I've seen self-debasement like this outside of Arlen Specter. Hewitt rudely badgered a pitifully meek and agreeable Halperin for three straight hours in the interview, including subjecting him to a rather disgusting line of McCarthyite inquiry about whether Halperin's "famous radical left wing father [ACLU Director and Nixon enemy Mort Halperin] . . . shaped Mark Halperin’s political values." Hewitt demanded to know:

But given that you come from a liberal, or in Ponte’s view, radical family, doesn’t the American people (sic) have a right to know whether or not you share, for example, those opinions that permeated your household growing up before they absorb your analysis and your protestations of neutrality?

Still, Halperin couldn't praise Hewitt enough. And in his e-mail today, he tried to re-assure Hewitt specifically: "I am sure you have heard of people having different political views than their parents."

Apparently, the most traumatizing and horrifying thing that could ever happen to Mark Halperin is for Bush followers like Hugh Hewitt to think he's a liberal. It is self-evidently very important to Halperin -- on an emotional and deeply personal level -- to demonstrate that he is one of them, or at least not one of those liberals. To achieve this, he made an extraordinary vow to Sean Hannity when trying to win Hannity's approval, in which he pledged that the media would spend the next two weeks compensating for all of their anti-conservative sins over the past decades, and now he is engaged in a truly debased and highly emotional crusade to obtain Hugh Hewitt's affection.

I really question whether someone who has obviously made it such a high priority to obtain a very personal form of right-wing absolution can possibly exercise appropriate news judgment. If Halperin is willing to expend this much time and energy and shower Hewitt with such gushing praise -- and if he's willing to make such a public spectacle of himself when doing so -- all in order to convince Hewitt that he isn't liberal, won't that goal rather obviously affect Halperin's news coverage? Isn't there something extremely unseemly about the political director of ABC News engaging in such an intense campaign to win the approval of one of the most blindly partisan, extremist Bush followers in the country?

Mark Halperin is really showing his true colors here, and it is extremely unpleasant to watch. Part of me really hopes -- just for the sake of Halperin's dignity -- that he sends no more pleas to Hewitt and that he stops seeking benedictions from the likes of Sean Hannity. But ultimately, it's necessary to put one's personal concern for Halperin to the side because this exercise is truly revealing. The need of journalists to please right-wing extremists and convince them that they are good and fair is very pervasive among the national media, and Halperin's highly emotional interaction with Hewitt is placing a high-powered microscope on how that dynamic works. As ugly as it is, it is highly instructive.

Mark Halperin and Hugh Hewitt -- all you need to know about the national media

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

One could argue that Mark Halperin, Political Director of ABC News (and author of a new book with John Harris, The Washington Post's National Political Editor) is the living, breathing embodiment of the "mainstream media." In order to promote his book, he went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show for a three hour interview last night, and Hewitt spent the entire time trying to attack Halperin as one of the symbols of overwhelming, systemic left-wing bias in the "mainstream media."

The ironic problem for Hewitt? Halperin -- like so many of the most entrenched establishment journalists -- not only agrees with Hewitt about virtually everything, but was literally desperate to convince Hewitt that this is the case, that he is on Hewitt's side. In front of an approving Sean Hannity, Halperin last week announced his self-debasing quest "to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances." He escalated that crusade by many levels with yesterday's interview.

So many "journalists" like Halperin seemingly have as their principal objective convincing right-wing extremists like Hewitt that they are good boys and girls and do their job in a way that pleases the Right. The effort is always tinged with self-flagellating confessions that they have not been Good enough -- they have been trying to be more fair to the Right, they insist, but they still need to do much better -- but these assurances are accompanied by pleas for the Right to recognize that they are not as bad as most of the other journalists.

Just survey some of these grotesquely obsequious pleas from Halperin for Hewitt to recognize Halperin as a good boy, along with Halperin's willingness to endorse the most inane right-wing myths in order to win that approval. This really is a vivid view into how the core of the national media thinks and behaves:

First, Halperin pleas with Hewitt to recognize that Halperin shares his core world view, and to convince him, Halperin couples that with some drooling praise for Hewitt:

HH: And so why is she…I think this is going back to media again. I think my giant unified field theory here is that liberal media has destroyed the necessity of the left having to debate, having to reach a message across, because you guys have always papered over the weakness of their arguments. And so, in essence, by creating an echo chamber, and by allowing them to get away with saying silly things, you’ve destroyed the incentive to be smart and facile.

MH: I agree.

HH: (laughing) That’s too easy. I’ve stormed the castle.

MH: Hugh, you and I have agreed on a lot during this show. For the purpose of jacking up your already sky-high ratings, occasionally you pick fights with me where they don’t exist. But you and I agree about that basic premise. I’m keeping notes here on the things we disagree on.

Halperin, on the goodness and innocence of the victimized Karl Rove and the terribly unfair media depictions of him:

MH: Let me say one thing we say in the book about Karl Rove, who I respect and enjoy…I enjoy his company. If you look at the allegations of Karl Rove that have been propagated in Texas and in Washington by the media, the liberal media, and by Democrats, and you look at the allegations, there’s…except for the useful indiscretions to which Karl has admitted, there is no evidence for the allegations against him.

And the ability of the press to paint him as this evil guy, and say that accounts for his success, is fundamental and outrageous. Maybe he did the things he’s accused of, but to have this guy’s image portrayed and defined by things that are accusations that are unproven, we say in the book is really outrageous.

Halperin, trying to convince Hewitt that he is not like those horrible biased lefties who dominate the media, because at least Halperin confesses the sickness:

MH: If, though, you want to in a casual introduction, lump me in with people in my business who are liberally biased and don’t seem to care about it, I think that’s doing your listeners a disservice. They should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media’s been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.

Halperin, begging Hewitt to recognize that his new book is appropriately reverent of the Leader:

MH: Number two, you keep saying how much nice stuff there is in the book about Bill Clinton. The book writes at length, in fact, half the book is about Karl Rove and George W. Bush, and I would believe is one of the most favorable, in terms of judging them, and not treating them as evil, things that have been written about Karl Rove since he came to Washington.

Halperin, desperately displaying his contempt for the handful of White House journalists who are not sufficiently reverent of the Leader, including his own colleague:

HH: Mark Halperin, is David Gregory [Halperin's colleague at ABC News] a buffoon?

MH: Define buffoon for me.

HH: Oh, just use your own operational definition.

MH: I wouldn’t use that word, no.

HH: Is he a journalist?

MH: He’s definitely a journalist.

HH: Does he make you proud of being a journalist?

MH: I think that the relationship between the Bush White House Press Corps, and the Bush White House press staff has not produced a pretty picture for either side. . . .

HH: Does Helen Thomas make you proud?

MH: She…the questions she asks, that represent a point of view, have no place in the briefing room.

In contrast to the undignified and biased Helen Thomas and David Gregory, here is Halperin paying homage to the objective, unbiased journalist Brit Hume (while obediently adopting Hewitt's idiotic nomenclature of the "center-right" versus "the left"):

HH: Do you watch Special Report?

MH: With Brit Hume?

HH: Yeah.

MH: I do.

HH: Do you admire it?

MH: Do I admire it? I like it. It’s an entertaining program.

HH: Why do you think Brit Hume has the trust of the center-right?

MH: Because the center-right is looking for voices who are experienced journalists, who aren’t liberally biased. And Brit is not liberally biased.

HH: Coming right back. That’s exactly right.

Halperin eagerly and self-consciously touting his Red America roots to a disbelieving Hewitt:

HH: And so, I want you to finish off by telling me about your project…Nick Lemann’s got a project where he’s going to add another extra year of power skills, and it’s not going to work, because everyone who enters the place is a hard lefty. You’ve got an ambition, but you’re not transparent. The media keeps hiring from the Harvard Crimson. It keeps self-perpetuating from self-elected elites.

MH: Can I introduce you to my interns from Bob Jones University?

HH: I’m glad that you have one. They must feel like a stranger in a strange world.

MH: No, because within my unit, we’re all about being fair and non-partisan [ed: like Brit Hume].

Halperin, like a battered wife, blaming himself and his colleagues -- and defending Bush and Rove -- for the endless, vicious attacks from the Bush administration on journalists:

The founders saw the importance of a free press. What this country has now is a press that no one likes, and which is weak. And the reason George Bush and Karl Rove found the way to win in dealing with the old media, which Richard Nixon dreamed of doing, but couldn’t do, is because they recognized that we were seen as a spoiled, corrupt, biased, special interest that wasn’t interested in the public interest, and they’ve taken advantage of that.

I deplore it, or I decry it in the sense that I wish everybody was helping build up the media, but I don’t blame them from a tactical point of view, because their supporters do not trust the old media, and do not like the way we behave in the briefing room, the output that we produce, and conservatives are trying to deal with an America more on their terms. And I understand why they’re doing that, and like I said, we are responsible for that, not George Bush and Karl Rove, not Richard Nixon.

Halperin, explaining how Bill Clinton destroyed the dignity of Washington and drowned politics in tactics of personal destruction -- trends which Bush has heroically reversed (seriously):

HH: Did [Bill Clinton] radicalize politics by inventing the politics of personal destruction?

MH: I think what Bill Clinton did, we say in The Way To Win is, he helped usher in this freak show. The politics of personal destruction was part of it, but it was also making the office of the presidency undignified, wearing shorts into the Oval Office, answering boxers and briefs…

HH: That was hardly how he made the Oval Office undignified.

MH: Well, there’s that, too. But we’re talking about early on in his presidency, with the birth of the freak show, in the early 90’s when he got elected. Obviously, he did more to further this along later on through his personal conduct. But the ability of this president, and certainly this first lady, as we write in the book, to restore some of the dignity, personal dignity to the office, has been quite an achievement in the wake of what Bill Clinton did, given the freak show environment in which we live.

Halperin, teaching us who the serious and unserious people are in Washington:

HH: Do you see any evidence of superior brainpower in places like Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha, as opposed to Rove and Cheney?

MH: Those specifically?

HH: Are they on the same playing field?

MH: You want me to compare those specific four people?

HH: Yeah, because you’ve got two leaders…

MH: If I were running for president, I’d hire Rove and Cheney over Pelosi and Murtha.

It goes on and on like that. I had other selected excerpts but reading these engenders a strong urge (one could even say a need) to stop reading them. The intrepid Halperin, for instance, bravely refused to take a position one way or the other on whether The New York Times should have published the story of the President's warrantless NSA eavesdropping program ("In this case, without knowing the arguments that were made, it’s hard to know which it is") and repeatedly affirms the right-wing view that the media is hopelessly stacked against them ("for forty years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake").

In sum, Halperin, in one interview, illustrated the crux of the sickness of the national media -- every tenet of right-wing mythology, embraced. Every opportunity to debase himself before Hewitt in the hope of getting a little head pat as one of the Good Boys, seized. Every left-wing bogeyman, bashed. Every right-wing hero, glorified and praised and treated with intense reverence.

Poor Hewitt and his right-wing comrades. How do you maintain your sense of victimhood and persecution at the hands of the "MSM" when the Mavens and Lords of the "MSM" do nothing but crawl around, agree with you and embrace your entire world-view?

UPDATE: More rave reviews for Halperin from the unbiased, honorable, serious precincts -- this one from the upstanding, objective John Hinderaker:

It was one of the most remarkable interviews I've listened to in a long time. Remarkable, in part, because Halperin came across very well. . . . That kind of honesty deserves to be applauded. As I say, I found Halperin likable and intend to buy his book. Check out the entire interview; it is fascinating and intelligent.

If Halperin is pleasing the John Hinderakers of the world this way, that is as good an indication as one can imagine of what Halperin is -- and, by extension, what most national journalists have become.

UPDATE II: None of this is to deny that many reporters and journalists are more politically liberal than conservative (primarily on social issues). But on the critical, predominant issues -- and especially with regard to the framework for how our national political debates are viewed -- national journalism, as Halperin illustrates, has largely come to embrace the right-wing perspective.

In an excellent comment, Inactivist's Mona outlines some of the ways in which that is true. Two other comments -- from Paul Dirks and Paul Rosenberg -- also add some important observations (without my necessarily agreeing with all of the assertions in any of these comments).

UPDATE III: As Digby documented at the time, "liberal MSM journalist" Joe Klein of Time Magazine also went on Hugh Hewitt's show and did exactly what Halperin did -- pleaded with Hewitt to recognize Klein as one of the Good Journalists by lavishly praising the President and the full pantheon of right-wing icons (proclaiming that Bush is an "honorable man" and "I really like the guy"; proudly showing off the affectionate nickname the President gave him; touting his deep friendship with Bill Bennett; and best of all: "I've always really respected Newt, because he's a man of honor, and he is a real policy wonk, and he really cares about stuff").

By sad and glaring contrast, Klein also sought Hewitt's approval by devoting equal attention and energy mimicking right-wing demonization efforts to bash "the Left" (Democrats have a "black soul" that is anti-military -- Democrats are so "lost" and "off the cliff" that it makes Klein want to "cry" -- Democrats are now "harsh and stupid" -- insisting that he doesn't want to be called a "liberal" any longer because he doesn't want to be associated with people like Al Gore and Michael Moore (Bill Bennett is great, though, and he loves George Bush)).

These are the biased leftist titans of the tyrannical, liberal MSM who persecute the Hugh Hewitts and George Bushs of the world (from their kneeling position, while dutifully reciting, and nodding in desperate agreement with, every right-wing talking point).

UPDATE IV: Eric Boehlert comprehensively documents the deep (and by now depressingly familiar) dishonest tactics which drive virtually every page of Halperin and Harris' new book.

UPDATE V: This sad Halperin drama continues, and worsens, here.

Jim Webb, Marty Peretz and our "serious" national security leaders

(updated below)

One of the most harmful flaws in our political system is the irrelevance of rightness and wrongness. While George Allen was "arguing" in favor of the invasion of Iraq by spewing all of the standard, trite, adolescent GOP talking points about the Threat Posed by Saddam-- almost all of which turned out to be completely false -- Jim Webb, in September, 2002, wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post vehemently arguing against the invasion of Iraq. It is striking just how right Webb was about virtually everything he said, and it is worth quoting at length to underscore what "serious, responsible national security" viewpoints actually look like:

Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns.

Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.

America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself.

The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.

Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . .

The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.

Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. . . An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.

These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake.

It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.

Each and every one of the dangers about which Webb warned has come to fruition. But thoughtful, sophisticated, rational and -- as it turns out -- prescient analysis like this was haughtily dismissed away by the tough-guy political and pundit classes as unserious and wimpy, even when coming from combat heroes. Instead, those who were deemed to be the serious, responsible, and strong national security leaders -- and who still are deemed as such -- were the ones shrilly warning about Iraqi mushroom clouds over our cities; handing out playing cards -- playing cards -- with pictures of the Bad People underneath their comic book nicknames; and making predictions about Iraq which the most basic working knowledge of that country should have precluded.

And such individuals, rather than hiding in shame or expressing remorse for their grave errors, continue to prance around pompously as the Foreign Policy Experts and Serious National Security Adults. Witness Marty Peretz's revolting (though revealing) homage today on his New Republic blog to Bush-worshipping warmonger Mark Steyn as "a brilliant writer, a funny writer and a persuasive one" who "on the real agenda of the time, the challenge to civilization that you won't avoid even if it you ignore it (sic), he is absolutely correct."

In a minimally rational political culture, political figures like George Allen, Marty Peretz, Mark Steyn, and most of the somber pro-war Beltway pundits would be hounded out of public life and would suffer a total loss of credibility, at least for a good long time if not permanently. They were so profoundly and patently wrong about the most important political issue of the decade and, much worse, demonized those who were right. Worse still, most of them continued to defend the war long after its failures were manifest and, through today, remain so unrepentantly wrong (George Allen, April 2006: "'You have to stay the course.' Defeating the 'vile terrorists' in Iraq is 'going to take perseverance and resolve'").

By contrast, in a rational or honorable world, those who knowingly subjected themselves to an onslaught of vicious attacks from all corners for having been so right, such as Jim Webb -- and Howard Dean -- would be heralded as the serious and wise leaders whose judgment can be trusted. In such a world, there wouldn't be a close race between George Allen and Jim Webb. There wouldn't be a race at all, because George Allen wouldn't have the audacity and shamelessness to seek re-election.

But, lamentably, that is not the political world we inhabit. As a result, the political party that, from top to bottom and with very few exceptions, was wrong about virtually everything with regard to Iraq still preens around as the serious national security party that can be trusted, while those who were right are still somehow depicted as the hapless, confused losers whose judgment can't be trusted to "protect" the country (John J. Miller: "The problem with Webb is that he's too liberal"). Those premises have eroded substantially this year, but the fact that they endure at all -- and continue to be particularly strong among the guardians of our political discourse -- is really one of the great and enduring mysteries of our political culture.

UPDATE: The latest Rasumussen poll has Webb leading Allen, 48-46. That same link shows the Democratic candidate leading in every key Senate race (including Tennessee), with the sole exception of Missouri, where the candidates are tied.

UPDATE II: As Markos explains, when undecided respondents were pushed to respond in that Rasmussen poll, Webb's lead increased to 51-46, which suggests that undecided voters (despite, or perhaps because of, the sex novel "scandal") are trending to Webb.

Additionally, I realize that the link above to the Webb Op-Ed is now broken. The link was to Webb's site, which seems to be down, and I could not find any other place where the Op-Ed is available (it is in the paid archives section of the Post). If you know of another link to that Op-Ed, please e-mail me or leave it in comments. (Link above now fixed, thanks to sysprog).

Wolf Blitzer's shock over Lynne Cheney's attack

One of the most revealing incidents in some time is Wolf Blitzer's reaction this weekend to Lynne Cheney's questioning of his patriotism. "Questioning someone's patriotism" is an overused and even trite phrase, but no other characterization exists to describe her attack (L. Cheney: "Running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans. I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question and you didn't answer it. Do you want us to win?").

During the interview itself, Blitzer rather sadly, even pathetically, sought to assure Cheney that he was a Good American, as though she is the Arbiter of Patriotism: "The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There's no doubt about that. Do you think we want terrorists to win?" But he presumably thought about it more overnight, returned to the subject yesterday when she wasn't there, and said this:

Still, I was frankly surprised when she came out swinging on Friday, surprised by what she said about CNN's "Broken Government" series, specifically the excellent one-hour report by our chief national correspondent, John King, one of the most precise and respected journalists in Washington, and CNN's decision to air sniper video provided to our intrepid Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware by insurgents in Iraq, which Anderson Cooper specifically branded, and I'm quoting now, "a single propaganda tape;" surprised at her sniping at my patriotism.

No sentient person could be "surprised" when Bush followers attack someone's patriotism and accuse them of wanting The Terrorists to win. That is what they do. It is who they are. They have been doing exactly that for five years now and one could quite reasonably suggest that this has been their principal political tactic.

As Lynne Cheney noted, her attack on CNN's patriotism was preceded by an identical attack from GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter. And just this week, Bill O'Reilly went on David Letterman's show to promote his book, and when Letterman expressed opposition to the war in Iraq and questioned its worth, O'Reilly demanded to know, in language almost verbatim to that used by Hunter and Lynne Cheney: "And this is a serious question. Do you want the United Sates to win in Iraq?"

But Wolf Blitzer isn't surprised and upset over Lynne Cheney's use of this "ally-of-the-terrorist" weapon. He's surprised and upset that she used it against him. He thought he was exempt, that he has proven to them through many years of obsequious and mindlessly glorifying "journalism" that he is a Good Boy, that he is one of them. It's one thing to label as "pro-terrorist" most national Democratic politicians, American citizens who oppose the war in Iraq, or anyone who criticizes the Commander-in-Chief in any meaningful way. To Blitzer, that is all fine and acceptable and to be expected.

But Blitzer is different. The Cheneys know him and know that he has shown his Loyalty. Why are they doing this to him?:

First, though, some history. I've been covering the Cheneys for many years, including on a day-to-day basis, when he was the defense secretary during the first Gulf War and I was CNN's Pentagon correspondent.

Mrs. Cheney has been a frequent guest on my programs. In recent years, I've often invited her to discuss her new children's books, but she always is open to discussing the news of the day.

The Wall St. Journal published an Op-Ed yesterday, ostensibly by a pseudonymous Iranian journalist (who claims to be prohibited from writing in Iran). The column details the way in which the Iranian upper class is perfectly tolerant of the increasing religious repression by Iranian mullahs, because they believe that their coddled, privileged status immunizes them from real repression, and that, in turn, renders them more or less indifferent to extreme abridgments of civil liberties and basic freedoms:

In other words, the well-to-do Iranian drinks and reads and watches what he wishes. He does as he pleases behind the walls of his private mansions and villas. In return for his private comforts, the affluent Iranian is happy to sacrifice freedom of speech, most of his civil rights, and his freedom of association. The upper-middle class has been bought off by this pact, which makes a virtue of hypocrisy.

The Iranian elites know that there is extreme oppression and a denial of virtually all liberties in their country, but their bloated comforts convince them that there is no real or serious threat, that things might not be perfect but there is no real reason to take any action or complain.

That dynamic, as much as anything, accounts for the neutered, mindless national media we have. Most national media figures -- like Blitzer -- are wealthy, coddled, privileged, and enjoy the material fruits of their elite status. They are a central and highly rewarded component of the country's power structure, duly admitted to the king's court and bestowed with all sorts of comforts and rewards for the role they play.

As long as that is the case, they will be the last ones to feel dissatisfaction, to be moved by a passionate sense that something is going terribly wrong with our country and its government. They are happy and satisfied with their personal situation -- and the ones who enable these rewards are the very political figures they cover -- and they thus perceive little grounds to complain or object. For the same reason, national journalists perceive those who criticize the Government too strenuously and aggressively as being shrill, radical, irresponsible, overwrought, and too mean. After all, things are good. What is there to be so upset about?

It is certainly true that journalists now have multiple incentives to avoid genuine or effective criticisms of the government, and that this incentive scheme causes them actively to downplay or even help conceal governmental deceit, corruption and abuses of power -- even when they are aware of it. But it is also the case that journalists, by virtue of their coddled and satisfied state, are likely to be the last people who even recognize true abuse, corruption and extremism. Why would they be able to see a system that bestows such lavish rewards on them as being anything other than good and just?

Of course, as noted in the post below, attacking and demonizing journalists for political gain is a staple of the Bush movement, but it's not usually as personal as Cheney made it with Blitzer. Blitzer's comfort and coddled status was disrupted -- an extremely rare event -- and it was that fact, and that fact alone, that caused him to take notice and to object.

UPDATE: Dave Neiwert has more on the absurdity of Wolf Blitzer's "surprise."

What the Bilal Hussein detention reveals about the Bush administration

Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press photographer who was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq back in April -- almost six months ago. Along with 14,000 other people around the world (at least), he continues to remain in U.S. custody without being charged with any crime. The U.S. military has vaguely claimed that he has close ties with Iraqi insurgents but refuses to specify what it is specifically that he is alleged to have done, refuses to provide any hearing or process of any kind for him to learn of the charges or contest them, and refuses to respond to AP's requests for information about why he is being held.

Hussein's detention in April was preceded by months of vicious complaints from Bush followers that his photojournalism was anti-American and suggestive of support for the insurgents. Before there were even any news reports anywhere about Hussein's detention, Michelle Malkin learned of Hussein's detention -- she claims "from an anonymous military source in Iraq" -- and blogged about it. She claimed that "Hussein was captured earlier today by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons." It will surprise nobody that, as was conclusively revealed once AP was able to talk publicly about Hussein's detention, many of the "factual claims" on which these accusations against Hussein were based were just outright false.

The power to detain people indefinitely -- meaning forever -- without so much as charging them with any crime is, of course, the very power that Congress just weeks ago vested in the President when it enacted the so-called Military Commissions Act of 2006. While it is customary for soldiers captured on a battlefield to be held as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities, Hussein and many (if not most) of those who have been detained around the world were not captured on any battlefield at all, nor were they caught in the act of waging war against the U.S. Instead, they have simply been arrested in apartments, homes, and off the street and then thrown into prisons with no charges or process of any kind.

What is notable and encouraging in the Hussein case is that AP has become increasingly aggressive about defending press freedoms and objecting to the U.S. Government's lawless detention of one of its journalists. After first attempting unsuccessfully to negotiate with the U.S. military to obtain either formal charges against Hussein or his release, AP, with increasing passion, has been publicly complaining about the treatment of its employee. Within the last couple of days, they escalated their campaign:

The U.S. military's indefinite detention of an Associated Press photographer in Iraq without charges, is an outrage and should be seen as such by the journalistic community, AP editors said Friday.

We are angry, and we hope you are, too," AP International Editor John Daniszewski told a gathering of the Associated Press Managing Editors.

Given the irreplaceable function of journalists to expose and convey truth, especially in war zones, such lawless detentions pose extreme and obvious dangers which require safeguards. But the Bush administration has simply arrogated unto itself the power to detain whichever journalists they want, while accounting to nobody. In the Hussein case, there are, at the very least, compelling grounds to believe that the Hussein detention was motivated by his legitimate work as a journalist:

Daniszewski said that when the news cooperative pressed for further details, the best it could learn was that Hussein was allegedly involved in the kidnapping of two journalists by insurgents in Ramadi.

However, Daniszewski said the two journalists were asked by AP about the incident and that they recalled Hussein as a "hero," who helped evacuate them from harm's way.

Lyon said he reviewed Hussein's images and interviewed his colleagues and found nothing to suggest he was doing more than his job in a war zone. The vast majority of images depicts the realities of war, Lyon said, and "may be an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless."

David Zeeck, president of ASNE and executive editor of The News Tribune, of Tacoma, Wash., called Hussein's detention without charges "contrary to American values."

"This is how Saddam Husseindealt with reporters; he would hold them incommunicado," Zeeck said.

This overt assault on press freedoms internationally is consistent with the administration's incremental attacks on the American media domestically -- attacks which have been met with virtual silence from most of the national media. In that regard, perhaps this exchange is the most revealing part of the latest AP article:

Rosemary Goudreau, editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, asked AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll what papers like hers could do.

"You run an editorial page, as I recall," Carroll said.

Just as astonishing as the Bush administration's attack on the work of journalists is the almost total acquiescence of the American media to those attacks -- so much so that AP is forced to explicitly beg their fellow journalists to editorialize against the administration's lawless and dangerous detention of one of its journalists. If -- as has been the case to an astonishing extent -- American journalists are unwilling to defend their press freedoms, who is going to?

At a time when the Bush administration claims that the centerpiece of its foreign policy is to spread democratic values around the world, the U.S. is rapidly gaining a reputation among international journalists as a country that is overtly hostile to press freedoms and which poses real danges for journalists:

The press is freer in Mozambique than it is in the United States, according to the latest Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by the Paris-based press freedom body, Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF - Reporters without Borders).

The RSF index gives each country a score, based on the degree of freedom for journalists and media organisations. . . .

But the United States has been falling steadily. In the first year the index was published it was in 17th position. Last year the US was in 44th position, and this year it is ranked as number 53 alongside Botswana, Croatia and Tonga.

RSF explains that this decline arises from the deterioration in relations between the Bush administration and the media "after the President used the pretext of "national security" to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his "war on terrorism".

RSF also points out that US federal courts refuse to recognise journalists' cherished right not to reveal their sources. This includes "even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."

RSF notes, in particular, the cases of freelance journalist Josh Wolf, imprisoned by the US authorities when he refused to hand over his video archive; of Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj held without trial at the US military base of Guantanamo since June 2002; and of an Associated Press photographer, Bilal Hussein, held by the US in Iraq since April this year.

Compare the first RSF press freedom rankings from 2002 (when the U.S. was near the top of the list) to the latest rankings (in which the U.S. falls below countries such as Ghana, El Salvador, Namibia, Chile, Israel, and virtually every European country). This list cannot be dismissed away by Bush followers as the work of some sort of left-wing, tyranny-blind international group, since the bottom of the list is filled with exactly the countries one would expect to find there, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and Iraq. In Iraq alone, anti-press-freedom incidents like Hussein's detention, perpetrated by the U.S. Government, are becoming commonplace:

Not all the threats faced by Iraqi journalists come from the insurgents.

In September, Kalshan al-Bayati, whose reporting had been critical of security forces in Tikrit, was arrested twice by the Iraqi army for alleged terrorist links, and remains in custody. . . .

According to CPJ, at least eight journalists have been detained for weeks or months by Iraqi and coalition forces. They include employees of CBS News, Reuters, the AP and Agence France-Presse among others. At least four of the detentions have exceeded 100 days, Campagna said.

The Bush administration and its followers have long equated the reporting of facts which reflect negatively on the administration with subversiveness and even treason-- a twisted, authoritarian mindset illustrated most recently by Lynne Cheney's accusation to an absurdly surprised Wolf Blitzer that CNN wants the terrorists to win because they broadcast video footage of insurgents shooting at American troops. That premise leads inexorably to the conclusion that journalists who report facts that undermine the administration's claims are not just unfriendly but criminal, that they are not just helping the Enemy but are the Enemy itself.

It is always worth underscoring the fact that these observations are compelled by what we know. There is a whole universe of Bush administration actions that we don't know. As Ron Suskind pointed out in an interview published this weekend by Der Spiegel, when asked: "You quote former CIA director George Tenet in your book as saying after Sept. 11: 'There is nothing we won't do, nothing we won't try.' Are there any other dirty stories?"

Logically, I would have to say yes. You're dealing with an oddity here, a secret war. Wars tend to be very public things, they are visible. There are correspondents traveling with the troops and you get daily dispatches. This is a new conflict, fought largely in secret. The public is only informed a kind of "need to know basis." Based on that, I would assume that there remains something of an undiscovered country of activity in terms of what we have done over the past five years.

This is precisely why I believe that commencing real investigations of the administration's conduct over the last five years is so imperative, perhaps uniquely so. What we know has been done is damaging and extreme enough, but it is almost certain that what we don't know is even worse (which, as Suskind suggests, is precisely why we don't know it).

The detention of Bilal Hussein -- the lawlessness of it, the naked attack on a free press and dissent of every kind, the insistence on blind faith in the administration's claims -- illustrates not only how we are now perceived around the world, but more importantly, what we have become as a country. With a true accounting and reckoning, that damage can be contained and then reversed, but it is clear that the time for that is rapidly running out.

Howard Kurtz's fear of facts

(updated below)

Howard Kurtz, media critic for CNN and The Washington Post, wanted to write a column about what he calls the "rather low state of this campaign season," and these are the five examples he provided to support his claim:

A GOP ad against Senate candidate Harold Ford -- featuring a white seductress who says she met the black lawmaker at a Playboy party and that he should call her -- is so odious and racially tinged that Ford's Republican opponent, Bob Corker, denounces it.

Republican Wyoming congresswoman Barbara Cubin tells a wheelchair-bound Libertarian candidate after a debate: "If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you in the face."

Hillary Clinton's opponent says she used to be ugly -- and why did Bill marry her, anyway? -- but now looks okay thanks to millions in plastic surgery.

Rush Limbaugh says Michael J. Fox is exaggerating his Parkinson's in political ads.

A John Kerry spokesman calls carping liberal bloggers "cowards."

As we all learned to inquire from Sesame Street -- which of those examples does not belong on that list? The column is about mud-slinging in order to win political campaigns (the headline is "Down in the Mud"), and Kurtz's first four examples, appropriately enough, are ones in which partisan political figures spew repugnant personal insults against their political opponents in order to win elections -- which is the topic of Kurtz's column.

But then he tacks on an example at the end in which some spokesman for John Kerry, who isn't on any ballot, calls an anonymous blogger whose identity nobody knows a "coward" for insisting that Kerry donate more of his horded cash to Democratic candidates. That has nothing to do with Kurtz's topic, nor does it have anything to do with the lowly state of political campaigns or dirty ads. That incident might be an interesting example to illustrate the tensions between establishment politicians and bloggers, or to examine the competing views of Internet anonymity. But the Kerry-blogger exchange has nothing to do with the slimy, insult-driven state of political ads or the midterm campaigns, nor does it even arguably compete in the slime department with the other examples he provides.

The reason Kurtz added that incident is painfully and depressingly obvious -- it's because he had no examples of Democratic campaigns doing anything remotely equal to the acts of Rush Limbaugh, Barbara Cubin and Hillary Clinton's opponent, but he was afraid to point out that fact. So, instead, he cowardly strove to contrive the appearance of superficial "balance" and decorative nonpartisan objectivity, even at the expense of actual objectivity and factual reporting. Under the rules of the type of vapid and corrupt "journalism" which Kurtz practices, the overriding mandate is to criticize both sides equally and blindly even if only one side is guilty of the crime in question.

And therein lies the gravest illness of modern journalism -- the refusal on the part of people like Kurtz to report on matters honestly and factually. When reporters have as their central mandate that they must criticize each side equally -- even if doing so causes them to report on matters dishonestly -- it encourages one side to sink as low as possible, to be as deceitful, corrupt and dishonorable as possible, because the media will never report that fact and will never identify the guilty side as doing anything different than the other side. In the world of Howie Kurtz, both sides are always equal and identical and the same, even when they aren't.

It is just objectively true -- verifiably, demonstrably true -- that Republicans are running far more personal and scurrilous attack ads than Democrats are in this election cycle. Michelle Malkin went on John Gibson's Fox show yesterday -- let's repeat that: Michelle Malkin, John Gibson, Fox -- to discuss the repugnant state of political ads and they discussed only Republican examples, because those are the most glaring and abundant, by far. That Michelle Malkin and John Gibson can honestly confront an anti-Republican fact that Howard Kurtz is afraid to acknowledge and thus actively conceals speaks volumes about our national media.

There is no journalistic justification to avoid acknowledgment of this fact. It doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans are craven and evil and Democrats are angelic and noble. It is just a fact of political life that whichever political party which has the disadvantage concerning the most significant political issues will have more of an incentive to drag races into the gutter and have them focus on slimy personal assaults. In this case, Republican policies (particularly Iraq) and Republican political figures (starting with the President) happen to be deeply unpopular, and Republicans -- rationally enough -- are therefore seeking to have the election decided on less substantive grounds.

Even George Allen, ironically enough, described this dynamic in his interview this week with Captain Ed:

One of the most unfortunate aspects has been that we have been diverted for talking about the issues Virginians care about. Campaigns are supposed to be about a robust discussion of the issues so that voters can make educated and informed choices. I have said that I brought some of this on myself, but much of this is baseless allegations. It seems that those who are scared about running on issues try to change the subject because they know that if this election is decided on issues, we’ll win.

The fact that Allen delivered this sermon at the same time that his campaign was urging reporters for weeks to write stories on Jim Webb's novels -- finally settling on Matt Drudge to do the dirty work -- is as good an example as any of the lowly state of our political system. But Allen's abstract point is nonetheless correct -- candidates whose views on the issues (such as the Iraq War) are deeply unpopular will seek to have the election focus on other things, such as filthy personal assaults.

And in this election, it is the Republicans who are deeply unpopular on the issues and political substance, and they are therefore driven to drag the campaigns into the personal gutter because that is their only hope for winning. It also happens to be true that Republicans -- through the carousel of Lee Atwater, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the Clinton sex scandals, and Karl Rove -- have perfected the art of personal assaults as a campaign device, but they have extra incentive to use such tactics now.

None of that is to say that Democrats are innocent, just that, for whatever reasons, Republicans in this campaign are far more active in the mud and filth department than Democrats are. That's just a fact (a fact which Michael Grunwald, Kurtz's colleague at the Post, honestly reported the day after Kurtz's column, in an article noteworthy because of how honest it was: "The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters").

But establishment journalists like Howard Kurtz will actively work to obscure and distort facts if those facts reflect too poorly on one side -- and, given their particular fear of being labelled part of the "liberal media," the fear is heightened substantially when the fact reflects poorly on the Bush movement. They would rather present a false and inaccurate (though superficially "balanced") account than a factual and accurate version, because they think that's what journalistic objectivity requires. False, dishonest "balance" is prioritized over accurate reporting. Howard Kurtz is the perfect person to serve as the referee for the way journalism is practiced in this country because he has such a deep understanding of its truth-distorting, shallow rules and adheres to them as diligently as anyone.

UPDATE: There is much more worth reading on this topic from Billmon, here.

Peggy Noonan and the rotting pundit class

One of the more corrupt pundit phenomena is the way in which the most loyal and worshipful Bush followers, who spent the last five years praising the President and doing everything possible to enable his most radical policies, are now suddenly pretending to be so deeply dissatisfied with his rule. Now that the Bush movement is collapsing, they all want to pretend that they knew all along that things weren't going well and that the President was deeply flawed. Suddenly, they're not a part of any of it and bear no responsibility for it because, all along, they felt the President wasn't doing the right thing and, besides, he was never really loyal to their political beliefs.

Here is Peggy Noonan in The Wall St. Journal today, trying to demonstrate how objective and intellectually honest she is by claiming that even well-connected Republicans think that Republicans deserve to lose this election. For this, Noonan blames the President: "They want to fire Congress because they can't fire President Bush." When trying to explain why Republicans are dissatisfied with the President, this is what she says:

Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they're tough on incompetence. They see Mr. Bush through the eyes of experience and maturity. They hate a lack of care. They see Mr. Bush as careless, and on more than Iraq--careless with old alliances, disrespectful of the opinion of mankind. "He never listens," an elected official who is a Bush supporter said with a shrug some months ago.

Along the way the president's men and women confused the necessary and legitimate disciplining of a coalition with weird and excessive attempts to silence Republican critics. They have lived in a closed system. They now want to open it but don't know how. Listening is a habit; theirs has long been to suppress.

But in 2004, when arguing for President Bush's re-election, this is what Peggy Noonan said in The Wall St. Journal about George Bush (a passage I remember so vividly because it may very well be the most horrifying and cringe-inducing piece of punditry ever):

I was asked this week why the president seems so attractive to the heartland, to what used to be called Middle America. A big question. I found my mind going to this word: normal.

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?"

He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk.

Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

Someone said to me: But how can you call him normal when he came from such privilege? Indeed he did. But there's nothing lemonade-on-the-porch-overlooking-the-links-at-the-country-club about Mr. Bush. . . .

George W. Bush didn't grow up at Greenwich Country Day with a car and a driver dropping him off, as his father had. Until he went off to boarding school, he thought he was like everyone else. That's a gift, to think you're just like everyone else in America. It can be the making of you.

So, in just over two years in Noonan's world, George Bush went from being the responsible, concerned, trustworthy, humble neighbor-Everyman who realized that he was just another regular guy like the rest of us, to an arrogant, hubristic know-it-all tyrant who listens to nobody, stomps out dissent, and is completely irresponsible with his duties. And she now depicts Bush in this way while pretending that she never stumbled all over herself with oozing praise that was the very antithesis of what she is now describing.

The most corrupt and worthless pundits are those who never do anything other than spout the most conventional and recent partisan wisdom -- even if it directly contradicts what they had repeatedly said in the past -- and who always pretend that they possess the superior wisdom even when they have been so plainly wrong about everything. It's that dynamic that explains how hordes of Bush followers in the public sphere (such as Noonan) who spent years loyally defending his every step -- and demonizing those who opposed him ("criticizing the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war") -- are now posturing as hard-nosed critics who, all along, realized that Bush wasn't a "real conservative" and was too flawed for the job.

One thing that you can say about Bush is that, by and large, he doesn't change. Any basis for criticizing him has been glaringly apparent for quite some time. All that has changed is the fact that he is now wildly unpopular and that his failures are too glaring for most to deny. Because of that dramatic change -- and for no other reason -- these Bush-worshipping pundits are desperate to shed their Bush-following skin and pretend that they have been open-eyed realists and critics all along.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one's errors and changing one's mind. When it is genuine, that is a commendable attribute which ought to be encouraged. But that isn't what is happening with the Peggy Noonans of the world (including the serious, moderate Beltway pundits who spent the last five years lecturing all of us on the importance of Supporting the President). They aren't admitting anything. To the contrary, they are pretending to be something that they are not -- namely, wise, objective, insightful analysts who all along have long seen the flaws in the President that have caused his presidency to collapse.

They are not analysts who have changed their minds or bravely recognized their errors. They are just self-serving, deceitful rats jumping a sinking ship that they long helped to keep afloat. Worse, they are doing so while pretending that they were never really on board (Noonan: "it's clear now to everyone in the Republican Party that Mr. Bush has changed the modern governing definition of 'conservative.' He did this without asking. He did it even without explaining"). If Bush's popularity skyrocketed tomorrow, their gushing praise would instantaneously return.

The only objective they have is to always appear to be omniscient, wise and right, and they will say anything to preserve that appearance. It's important not to allow these always-wrong individuals -- burdened with such horrendous political judgment and willing to follow such a radical political movement with blind loyalty -- to use these inauthentic, last-minute conversions in order to obscure how wrong they have been.

The disasters facing our country didn't happen because George Bush, the individual, was flawed. They have happened because the entire movement which propped him up and glorified him for so long is craven, corrupt and radical. It is critical that they not be permitted to jettison Bush (now that he has outlived his purpose) while pretending that he failed to adhere to what they wanted.

The networks' refusal to accept ads for The Dixie Chicks documentary

(Updated below - Update II)

The new documentary, Shut Up & Sing, chronicles the hostile and sometimes threatening conduct directed towards The Dixie Chicks after one of the group's members criticized the Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush, during a 2003 concert. The documentary is being distributed by Harvey Weinstein's film company, and a preview for the film can be seen here.

According to Matt Drudge (a phrase that does not roll out of one's mouth easily), both NBC and the CW Television Network (the joint venture of CBS and Warner Brothers that combines the WB and UPN Networks) are refusing to air ads promoting Shut Up & Sing on the ground that the ads are "disparaging" to our President:

In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and The CW Television Network Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech . . .

NBC responded to a clearance report submitted by the Weinstein Company’s media agency saying that the network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”

The CW Television Network responded that it does “not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”

According to Drudge, David Boies, presumably representing the Weinstein Co., said that "it is disappointing and troubling that NBC and The CW would refuse to accept an otherwise appropriate ad merely because it is critical of President Bush," while Weinstein himself said that “it’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America."

Leave to the side for the moment the fact that this controversy is far more likely to help the film than hurt it. Far more important than that issue is the emergence of a very disturbing trend whereby television networks are refusing to broadcast political advocacy material that will offend the Republican power structure in Washington.

In 2004, CBS and NBC both refused to broadcast an ad from the United Church of Christ which touted its acceptance of all people, including gays and lesbians, into its congregations. CBS said it rejected the Church's $2 million ad campaign "because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies -- and is, therefore, too 'controversial.'" During that incident, CBS all but acknowledged that its decision was based upon the White House's potential disagreement with the ad's message:

Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations . . . . and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.

The ad did nothing other than promote the Church by featuring its policy of inclusiveness:

The debut 30-second commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services.

Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment to Jesus' extravagant welcome: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here.".

That was all there was to that ad. But because that message of inclusiveness was deemed by CBS to possibly diverge from the decree of the President on the topic, CBS refused to broadcast it.

Similarly, for the 2004 Super Bowl, CBS refused to air "an ad underwritten by the grass-roots political organization Moveon.org criticizing the ballooning budget deficit under George W. Bush" -- the ad which was selected by MoveOn members as the winner of its ad contest. And various ABC and CBS affiliates refused to run an ad in 2002 produced by Arianna Huffington and Lawrence Bender urging Americans to avoid SUV's on the ground that high gasoline consumption finances terrorist states.

The networks' claim is that they prohibit controversial political advocacy ads because allowing such ads would bestow an unfair advantage in political debates to those with the financial resources to afford to purchase such advertising. But that is just ludicrous, since the networks are awash with all sorts of overtly political ads, corporate ads that convey implicit political values, and politically charged programming content. Worse, the targets of the rejected ads are typically the most empowered and well-financed groups in our country, and it is just laughable for the networks to claim that allowing ads critical of them will put them at an unfair disadvantage in political debates.

Once corporate-owned networks start selecting which politically-tinged ads are "too controversial" and which ones are not, it is inevitable that messages which please the political leadership which regulates those corporations will be allowed, while messages that displease those political leaders will be rejected. That is plainly what is happening.

To see that very disturbing dynamic in action, just contrast (a) CBS' capitulation to demands from conservatives that it not broadcast The Reagans at a time when both the network and its parent company, Viacom, had all sorts of critical legislative and regulatory matters dependent upon Washington Republicans, and (b) ABC's steadfast refusal to cancel Path to 9/11 even once it was revealed that the film contained patently false scenes that blamed the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks -- a film objected to by the powerless Democrats but loved by the in-power, Disney-regulating Republicans. As Law Professor Paul Campos pointed out during the MoveOn.org ad controversy:

Decisions of this sort are more than monuments to hypocrisy and double standards. Because those who have the right to broadcast over them have in effect a monopoly on the television airwaves, the television networks are regulated closely by the federal government. By law, the networks hold their broadcast rights in trust, and are thus obligated to do business in a way that is mindful of the public interest.

CBS doesn't serve the public interest when it rejects an otherwise appropriate advertisement because, in the opinion of the network's managers, the ad's message is too politically controversial. This is especially the case when the network broadcasts equally controversial political advertisements, during the same program for which the rejected ad was intended.

Given that CBS is regulated so heavily, and that indeed at this moment major legislation is pending that critics argue will unduly enhance the network's market share, is it possible that "too politically controversial" really means "harmful to CBS's corporate interests?" One need not be a cynic to suspect that, as a great American journalist used to put it, "that's the way it is."

The very idea that it is in the "public interest" to prohibit ads that criticize the Leader is ludicrous on its face. The President is constantly given free airtime to argue his views and propagandize on virtually every issue, and the networks endlessly offer forums for his followers and surrogates to defend him. And the networks' argument is particularly absurd now, given that networks are awash with cash from offensive, obnoxious, and repugnant political ads of every kind.

What possible justification is there for a network to prohibit the promotion of films which are critical of the nation's political leaders? Worse, the networks' recent history of ostensible avoidance of "controversial" political material seems extremely selective and one-sided. "Controversial" in this context seems actually to mean "likely to trigger displeasure among the Leader and his supporters."

The networks are still a very powerful public opinion instrument, and allowing them to become political propaganda venues -- where messages that "disparage" the Leader are prohibited while all sorts of pro-Leader messages are allowed -- has the potential to be quite harmful. We seem to be well on our way to that result.

UPDATE: As part of his superb report on political bias in the national media, eRiposte conclusively documents how this alleged network prohibition on "controversial political ads" virtually always operates to suppress political views that are critical of the administration and its allies.

UPDATE II: For those arguing that networks are private corporations free to do whatever they want, Rambuncle has a very clear explanation in comments as to why that is not the case. And see this comment from Ames.

Rank ignorance posing as expertise

It should surprise nobody that armies of "conservatives" have become overnight experts in New Jersey Constitutional law and have pronounced the 66-page decision (.pdf) from the New Jersey Supreme Court to be a tyrannical embodiment of judicial activism. But in issuing these condemnations, none of them mentions a single provision of the New Jersey State Constitution or any precedent applying it that supports their righteous conviction that the decision was legally erroneous; they just know intuitively, deep in their soul, that it is.

Others are arguing that it would simply be "better" if courts stayed away from gay marriage rulings and left it to legislatures to decide. Typical of this latter form of condemnation is James Taranto's reaction: "We'd also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts." Tom Maguire makes essentially the same observation: "My personal opinion is that gay marriage or civil unions is fine if enacted by the state legislature but wrong if crammed down by judicial fiat."

This just isn't how the law works, and it is always so ironic -- and more than a little contempt-inspiring -- when people who proclaim to oppose "judicial activism" condemn a judicial decision based not on what the relevant constitutional law requires, but instead based on their personal opinion of the policy outcomes (or based on some informal "belief" about what courts should and shouldn't be "involved in," independent of what the Constitution requires). Such individuals are engaged in the very crux of the crime of judicial activism which they claim to despise (that is, deciding legal questions based not on law and precedent but on their own personal preferences).

Either the New Jersey State Constitution -- as defined by the governing precedents applying it -- compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It's not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we'd sort of prefer -- given our subjective druthers -- the court leave to the will of the majority.

At the very center of our constitutional republic is the principle that the overarching obligation of courts is to nullify any and all laws that conflict with the guarantees of the Constitution. Or, as Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former." Courts in these cases have only one question to answer -- do the relevant constitutional provisions (in this case, Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey State Constitution) bar the law in question? -- and if so, courts are required to nullify that law. There is no discretion or political judgment involved, and they are not permitted to simply decide that they won't involve themselves in such matters.

Thus, arguments which claim that "courts should stay out of debates over marriage laws and leave it to the legislature to decide" or "it would be better if these decisions were democratically resolved by majority vote" are -- even if true -- completely misguided and incoherent. Courts have no right to "stay out of" debates over laws if those laws violate constitutional guarantees. It's just that simple.

For that reason, in order to know whether yesterday's ruling is an example of great scholarly judicial care or unhinged judicial activism, at the very least one would need to be familiar with: (a) the interests claimed by New Jersey to justify the state's exclusionary marriage laws; (b) the arguments advanced by plaintiffs to support the claim that the law is violative of the state Constitution; (c) the provisions of the New Jersey State Constitution on which the plaintiffs rely; and (d) the history of how those provisions have been interpreted and applied by New Jersey State courts and the relevant precedents on which the court relied.

It is impossible -- at least without falling into total recklessness -- to simply look at the result of a court case, decide whether or not you like it, and then pronounce it as either judicially sound or judicially irresponsible. Yet that is what virtually all of these commenters are doing who are condemning the New Jersey Supreme Court for "judicial activism." They do not even purport to have even a casual familiarity with any of the issues one would need to know about in order to form a responsible opinion. They really have no idea what they are talking about.

The decision is 66 pages long. I've read it twice. But if you ask me what my view is as to the legal correctness of the decision (either the part which compels equal treatment of same-sex relationships or the part which refused to find a same-sex marriage right under New Jersey constitutional law), I would not be able to opine on that question, because I don't know enough about the scope and reach of Article I, Paragraph 1. Opining on the correctness of the New Jersey decision without that knowledge is nothing other than idiotic.

I have well-developed opinions about whether gay marriage is desirable and just from a policy perspective. And I have a fairly well-developed view of whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the exclusion of gay couples from the institution of marriage. But the New Jersey State Constitution is its own document with its own guaranteed protections, and it grants broader and more extensive rights to New Jersey citizens than the U.S. Constitution grants to American citizens generally. Condemning this decision without knowing about the scope and reach of those New Jersey constitutional provisions is just indefensible.

This doesn't mean that only lawyers or constitutional law experts can form opinions about the court's actions. Anyone can read the judicial opinion, then go read the precedents on this provision, and inform themselves about what the New Jersey State Constitution does or does not guarantee. But -- as is true for any other topic -- a basic understanding of the relevant issues, so plainly lacking in all of these overnight experts, is required to be capable of anything more than baseless demagoguery.

This happens every time there is a controversial court decision like this, and the irony is overwhelming. We're subjected to all of these people parading around in protest of "judicial activism" who are doing nothing other than forming their opinions based on whether they like the outcome or whether they would "prefer" -- based on some tingly internal feeling -- that courts stay out of these issues.

Maybe it would be better in some political, societal or cultural sense if gay marriage and related issues were decided by legislatures and referenda rather than courts. A reasonable argument can certainly be made that it would be "better" for advocates of gay marriage if they win by convincing their fellow citizens rather than via judicial rulings which hold that denial of marriage rights is unconstitutional.

But that is just not how a constitutional republic works. Constitutional guarantees exist to limit majority will, and courts must nullify any laws which conflict with those guarantees -- even if it would be "better" in some vague political sense to leave it to the majority to decide.

To know whether the court here acted properly, one must know whether the New Jersey State Constitution grants the rights which the court here concluded (unanimously) that it grants. Any condemnation of the opinion that is not based on that factor -- such as all of the condemnations linked above -- are themselves the very embodiment of an unhinged judicial activism that has nothing to do with the rule of law (other than to subvert it).

UPDATE: Scott Lemieux notes that this strain of intellectual dishonesty -- condemning judicial rulings without bothering to ground such condemnation in any relevant legal analysis -- is prevelant even (perhaps especially) among many law professors, including some who love to sermonize (when it suits their agenda) about the Critical Importance of relying on solid legal reasoning when reaching legal conclusions.

Bush followers demand escalation in Iraq

Bush followers have finally been forced to accept as fact that the Iraq War has become widely unpopular among Americans. But a consensus among them has emerged that the war's unpopularity is not a repudiation of the war itself, but instead, is reflective of a belief that the war must be prosecuted more aggressively, with more resources, and with less restraint and caution. In their view, the problem isn't that Americans have realized that the war isn't worth the costs or is based on false pretenses, but instead, it's that Americans believe that victory is so urgent in Iraq that they're angry that we're not doing enough to achieve it.

Yesterday, the President -- as he has been doing regularly over the past couple months -- met with eight Bush followers who masquerade as "journalists," including Tony Blankley of the Washington Times, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn and Michael Barone. As Byron York (who was also there) reported, one of the principal themes was that Americans are dissatisfied with the war in Iraq because we aren't going all out to win (emphasis added):

The frustration in the room stemmed not so much from internal divisions and paralysis in the Iraqi government, or lagging indicators like oil and energy production. Rather, it came from the fact that American forces simply do not seem to be winning the war — on anyone’s terms — and that most Americans are disinclined to leave the troops in Iraq without some clear movement toward victory.

“The American people were solidly behind this when you went in and you toppled the Taliban, when you go in and you topple Saddam,” columnist Mark Steyn said to the president. “But when it just seems to be a kind of thankless, semi-colonial, policing, defensive operation, with no end — I mean, where is the offense in this?”

The President himself said that he believes dissatisfaction with the war is based on the view that we aren't being aggressive enough in fighting it:

Most of all, though, Bush said he realizes that the American people share that frustration, too. “People, most of them, are out there saying, ‘What are you doing? Get after ‘em,’“ Bush said. He’s heard it himself. “I’m from Texas,” Bush continued. “My buddies are saying, are you doing enough, not are you doing too little. They want to know, are we winning. They want to know, this mighty country, are we doing what it takes to win?”

Similarly, Ralph Peters wrote yesterday in his New York Post column that the solution to our woes in Iraq is to start doing a lot more killing, with a lot less restraint (emphasis in original):

Iraq deserves one last chance. But to make that chance even remotely viable, we'll have to take desperate measures. We need to fight. And accept the consequences.

The first thing we need to do is to kill Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now a greater threat to our strategic goals than Osama bin Laden.

We should've killed him in 2003, when he first embarked upon his murder campaign. But our leaders were afraid of provoking riots.

Back then, the tumult might've lasted a week. Now we'll face a serious uprising. So be it. When you put off paying war's price, you pay compound interest in blood.

We must kill - not capture - Muqtada, then kill every gunman who comes out in the streets to avenge him.

And in the Vice President's interview with the right-wing radio host I referenced in the prior post, the same point was stressed:

I've heard from a lot of listeners -- that's what we do for a living, talk to good folks in the Heartland every day -- and I've talked to as many who want an increased military presence in Iraq as want us out, which seems to be the larger debate, at least coming from the left -- cut and run, get out of there. One fax said, when you talk to the Vice President, ask him when shock and awe is coming back to Iraq. Let's finish the job once and for all.

This is all just from the last 24 hours. For months, the standard neoconservative complaint has been that their Great War was failing because it wasn't being prosecuted with enough violence, enough force, enough troops, enough killing. If only we would step up and act like we want to win, things would be great there.

This seems a critically important issue to note. Escalation of this war -- not a draw-down of it -- will become the new strategy after the election. There are simply no other choices. What we are doing now simply isn't working, so much so that not even the White House bothers to deny that any more. At the same time, the President yesterday made expressly clear what has been obvious for some time -- we aren't leaving Iraq. And we don't have nearly enough additional troops to make a meaningful difference in the troop strength we have there or to enable new strategies by increasing our military presence.

What other real option is there for trying to change the course of the war there other than to try to bomb and kill our way to "victory"? That is clearly what the President's hardest-core supporters are demanding, and the history of this administration is that it ultimately adheres to the views and demands of the extremists who comprise its base (largely because those who control the administration are themselves extremists in that mold). Nobody knows for certain, but it is a clear possibility that our post-election strategy in Iraq will entail a substantial escalation in violence, attacks, killings and resources. That is what the President's supporters believe is the missing ingredient to allow them to finally achieve Victory in this great war.

The Dick Cheney "interview"

Consistent with his standard practice, Dick Cheney yesterday submitted to an "interview" with yet another far-right, Bush-worshipping talk radio host (Scott Hennen), and Cheney was asked what might be the most ironic "interview" question ever:

Q. I want to ask you about after the election, lastly. David Limbaugh has written a devastating book on today's Democratic Party that depicts them as partisans that are essentially bent on undermining our national interest in the war on terror. And given that record, and a potential change in congressional control, his view -- and he argues in this book -- is that you'd have a disastrous situation that would tie your hands, the President's hands, the administration's hands in the critical prosecution of this war.

Do you agree with that premise, that's what would happen if the election changes congressional control? And how do we change that tone, change that debate from this awful -- the people in the Heartland just do not like the tone in politics today.

A couple questions earlier in the interview, Hennen asked Cheney: "Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?" Cheney explained that, in essence, Democrats and The Terrorists are working together to defeat the U.S. in the Global War on Terror: "when you see the kinds of things that happened this year, for example, when the Democratic Party in Connecticut purged Joe Lieberman, in effect, drummed him out of the party on the grounds that he had supported the President in the global war on terror, that sends a message to the terrorists overseas that their basic strategy of trying to break the will of the American people may, in fact, work."

And when Cheney was asked whether "the terrorists" are trying to engage in more violence now in order to influence the midterm elections -- meaning that they are trying to make Americans support Democrats (because, presumably, they want Democrats to win) -- Cheney replied: "I wouldn't be surprised. It sounds right to me. " Cheney also blamed the increased violence in Iraq on the desire of The Terrorists to see the Democrats win: "I think they're very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do" and " I think they are very conscious of the electoral timetable in the United States. "

So, just to recap: Rush Limbaugh's brother has a great new book showing how Democrats want The Terrorists to win and they want to undermine the U.S. all for their own selfish political gain. Cheney agrees that The Terrorists are doing what they can to ensure that Republicans lose the midterm elections because both they and the Democrats have the same goal: they want the U.S. to lose the war on terror. And also - it's really terrible how we have such an angry and mean-spirited tone in our political dialogue, and we in the Heartland don't like that kind of tone and want it changed. And Hennen knows this because "that's what we do for a living, talk to good folks in the Heartland every day."

Hennen and Cheney also shared their affection for waterboarding. Hennen told Cheney: "I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives" and Hennen asked: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" In reply to the latter question, Cheney replied: "It's a no-brainer for me" -- a statement understood, reasonably, to be the first open acknowledgement by a senior Bush official that we use waterboarding -- and Cheney agreed with Hennen that the torture debate "seems a little silly given the threat we face."

Somehow, this one short interview captures so much of the dysfunction and corruption at the heart of the Bush movement. Cheney, with rare exception, is willing to be "interviewed" only by the most sycophantic followers like Hennen, because our Leaders are to be praised, not questioned. The rabid sectarian violence in Iraq isn't a sign that their war policies have failed -- nothing is ever evidence of their mistakes or failures -- but instead is merely the by-product of the Terrorists' efforts to influence our elections so that their allies, the Democrats, win and are in a better position to undermine Bush's war on terror.

Our highest government officials now talk openly and enthusiastically -- almost playfully -- about taking people and "dunking them in water" -- meaning strapping them to a board, wrapping their faces in cellophane, and causing them to feel as though they are drowning to death -- only to then sermonize about the need for serious leaders to spread our civilized and democratic values around the world. And finally, Bush followers accuse their political opponents of being allies of The Terrorists and working to defeat the U.S. in its War -- indeed, that has become one of their core "arguments" -- and then afterwards piously lament that "the Left" engages in such angry and mean-spirited political dialogue and that people "in the Heartland" (who are always on their side) so very much wish the tone of politics would improve.

Most politicians are, to one degree or another, artificial, manipulative and hypocritical. One can argue that that's just the nature of what they do, particularly close to an election. But the mindset of the Bush movement is far beyond any of that. It is detached from reality in the most fundamental way, and the willingness to disregard and deny even the clearest of facts is literally without limits. It is difficult to overstate how urgent it is for our country that some serious limits be placed on what has been their unlimited and unchecked rule and how completely that need overrides all other considerations.

I think there is a tendency for many political commentators (myself included) to think about political matters in a more partisan-driven way than is typical as this election approaches, but there is good reason for that. Try to imagine the damage that will be done if they can act at will, without any real limits, for another two years, knowing that they face no other election and no real obstacles. What would be a more important political objective than doing what one can to prevent that?

* * * * * * *
My Salon article on the New Jersey gay marriage ruling is now available here.

The President's vow today to stay in Iraq

(Updated below - Update re: NJ same-sex couple ruling)

The President's Press Conference, devoted almost exclusively to Iraq, just concluded, and the internal contradictions and incoherent claims are literally too numerous to chronicle. But there really are only a few points worth making:

First, the President repeatedly defined "losing" as "leaving before the job is done" -- "the job" being the creation of a stable, unified Iraqi government that can defend itself. And we're not leaving before the job is done, which means that we are staying forever -- or at least as far as the eye can see into the future (or until the President leaves office).

Bush's advisors have him throwing around buzzphrases designed to suggest that our commitment is something other than permanent. For instance, we are giving "benchmarks" to the Iraqi government to accomplish certain objectives (but they are purely suggestive and nothing will happen if they fail to meet them; also, "benchmarks" are, as the President explained, totally different than -- worlds apart from -- "timetables," which only Defeatocrats and cut-and-runners use). Additionally, the President wants everyone to know that we are patient but our patience is not infinite (but we are willing to stay no matter how long "it" takes -- "it" being the creation of a stable, unified Iraqi government -- because defeat means leaving before the job is done, and we will not be defeated).

Just as speculation, it seems to me that the President's political advisors are forcing him to include in his standard "we-will-win-no-matter-how-long-it-takes" cheers some phrases that make our commitment at least sound finite. But the President is a true believer -- we will stay in Iraq forever if we have to because we can never leave -- and that instinct overwhelms the mitigating phrases. Following closely on the rear of the "flexibility" buzzphrases are clear proclamations that we are never leaving "until the job is done."

In sum, it is clear from what the President said that we are staying in Iraq for the equivalent of forever, which means the next several years at least. And it is almost certain -- at least based on what he said -- that we will send more troops there and become more mired in the conflict, not less so (he said, for instance, that we will send more troops to Iraq if the Generals want them, and there can't be much question that once the election is done, we will learn that "the commanders on the ground" -- who know they aren't leaving any time soon -- will suddenly want more troops).

The Democrats should happily take this Press Conference and use it to drum home the point that the President's will -- if it remains unlimited by a rubber-stamping Republican Congress -- is that we are going to stay in Iraq forever and almost certainly become further mired in the disaster. That is exactly what Americans don't want to hear about Iraq, but it was the unmistakably clear message delivered by the President. We are staying forever because defeat means "leaving before the job is done."

Second, the President's remarks illustrated more vividly than ever before the towering incoherence at the heart of this whole project. According to the President, the reason that it is so important that we "win" -- meaning creating a stable Iraqi government -- is because American security depends upon the creation of an Iraq that is a "partner of the U.S. in the war on terror." But there is a complete disconnect -- and there always has been -- between stabilizing the Iraqi government and having a "partner of the U.S. in the war on terror."

The only "partner" this Iraqi government is going to have in the "war on terror" is Iran, not the U.S. (especially if we ever actually left), and the fact that it relies for its very survival on the lawless Shiite militias and death squads which are supposedly the Enemy -- and that they expressly refuse to disband them (because they can't and don't want to) -- reveals just how absurd is the idea that our security will be enhanced by entrenching this Iran-loving, Shiite fundamentalist, death-squad-deploying government. And why would the Iraqi government risk everything it would need to risk in order to expel Al Qaeda from operating within its borders? Isn't far more likely that, especially given its other vulnerabilities, they would reach some sort of accord of co-existence?

Put another way, even if stabilizing this Government were something other than a sad and transparent pipe dream -- even if we could achieve that goal by spending hundreds of billions of dollars more and squandering thousands and thousands of more lives -- we will have nothing to show for it other than having replaced a regime that hated Iran and Al Qaeda with a regime that is Iran's strongest ally and quite possibly tolerant of Al Qaeda (or worse).

That's the most tragic part of what we have done -- we can't possibly achieve the goals we ostensibly have. And if we ever did manage to do so, the situation we will have created will likely be worse than it was before the invasion. That might be the very definition of a strategic disaster -- starting a discretionary war in which you can't possibly achieve your goals and, even if you did achieve them (i.e., best case scenario), you create a situation making matters worse for yourselves (while generating unprecedented resentment in most of the world).

Finally, if the Republicans lose this election, there is going to be another bloodbath and Civil War -- this one within the Republican Party -- as they all turn on each other, seeking to identify and stigmatize the culprits who led this country into this unparalleled disaster. Alexander Haig had some strikingly aggressive and bitter comments on CNN that I think is just a small sign of what is to come if the Republicans lose:

AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that's essentially political. It's not just purely military. It's political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration...

BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about?

HAIG: Well, I'm talking about...

BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word "neocon" and they don't know what you're talking about.

HAIG: Well, they're a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who. . .

BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to?

HAIG: I'm talking about Wolfowitz. I'm talking about Richard Perle. I'm talking about some newly-made ones. I'm talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal. These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they've been against NATO . . . .

BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon?

HAIG: I think so.

BLITZER: So he's part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever?

HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn't.

Blame-casting efforts like this one have been going on for some time among Republicans, but they have simmered more or less quietly. If the Republicans lose, efforts to assign blame amongst themselves are going to explode. Neocons, in particular, will be very vulnerable to the most vicious attacks, and that is only just and right.

But the reality is that the Republican Party itself bears responsibility not just for the strategic disaster we have wrought in Iraq -- a disaster that will take years if not decades to recover from (and that's if it ends sometime soon) -- but also for the entire Bush debacle, the destruction of our country's credibility, and the grotesque distortion of its character. Anyone who supported this President, particularly in 2004 when it was glaringly evident what he was, is culpable. With very rare exception -- way too rare to matter -- it was "conservatives" and Republicans who embraced this President eagerly and enthusiastically and enabled his empowerment and the pursuit of these policies.

The vicious civil war they will have amongst themselves might be enjoyable to watch and well-deserved, but it will also be deeply dishonest. Anyone (including in the pundit and political classes) who supported this presidency and the Bush movement -- regardless of which specific policies motivated that support -- are all to blame for what this administration has done to our country, and it's important not to allow these last-minute, ship-jumping conversions to obscure just how pervasive and widespread the culpability is.

UPDATE: Just to pre-empt what I know will be the (fair and accurate) response that there are Democrats who acquiesced in (and at times affirmatively enabled) much of this, that is absolutely true. And there is no defending that. But the reality is that the Bush movement was spawned and propped up by the self-proclaimed "conservative" movement and the Republican Party itself (with a very active assist from a national media that alternated between sleepwalking and mindless cheerleading), and it is important not allow those institutions to jettison Bush and those who enabled these measures in order to insulate themselves from responsibility.

UPDATE II: I will have a detailed article up at Salon very shortly regarding the implications of today's ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that its state constitution compels that same-sex couples receive all of the legal rights and privileges of married couples. The decision was a "compromise" decision, since the court also ruled that there is no constitutional right for gay couples to be "married," and held that whether to treat such relationships as marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or anything else is a decision for the legislature. I will post the link to the Salon article as soon as it is up.

In the meantime, I have a summary of some of the relevant issues over at C&L, here.

Fringe v. mainstream views

(updated below)

One of the most successful tactics used by Bush followers over the last six years -- and by the right-wing before that -- is to convince not just themselves, but also Democrats, that "mainstream, normal Americans" reject the views of Democrats, particularly on national security. Right-wing pundits reflexively operate from the premise that they represent mainstream Americans and that the views of "the left" (meaning critics of the Bush administration) are on the fringe, and Democrats can win elections only by hiding or diluting their beliefs. Many in the media, and large portions of the national Democratic political structure, seem to have internalized those assumptions.

The extent to which those premises are false cannot be overstated, and it is worth recognizing just what a seismic shift has taken place in American political opinion. A couple of days ago, Glenn Reynolds conducted a poll of his readers, asking them to vote on whether they want (a) Republicans to control both houses of Congress; (b) Republicans to lose one house; or (c) Democrats to control both houses. These are the results:

Republicans keep both houses - 78%
Republicans lose one house - 14%
Democrats take both houses - 8 %

Almost 80% of his readers want Republicans to maintain full control over the Congress. Compare those results to virtually any poll released over the last three months -- or even over the last year -- and it becomes quite apparent what a small minority these right-wing pundits and bloggers represent. From this morning's Washington Post:

Two weeks before the midterm elections, Republicans are losing the battle for independent voters, who now strongly favor Democrats on Iraq and other major issues facing the country and overwhelmingly prefer to see them take over the House in November, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . .

The independent voters surveyed said they plan to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by roughly 2 to 1 -- 59 percent to 31 percent -- the largest margin in any Post-ABC News poll this year. Forty-five percent said it would be good if Democrats recaptured the House majority, while 10 percent said it would not be. The rest said it would not matter.

Or compare the ongoing, steadfast support of the war in Iraq among most right-wing pundits with the views of most Americans from across the ideological and cultural spectrum:

It's two weeks away, and the 2006 midterm elections look like a referendum on Iraq, a war in which President Bush and his party have lost not just the political center but significant chunks of their base.

An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

And compare their maniacal, virtually exclusive obsession with The Terrorists to the priorities of most Americans:

Twenty-seven percent of registered voters call the war in Iraq the top issue in their vote; 19 percent say it's the economy; 14 percent terrorism; 13 percent health care; 10 percent immigration; and 8 percent ethics in government.

The people who proclaim that The Terrorists pose an imminent an existential threat to our Republic and that the "war" we are waging against them is of unparalleled historical importance are wildly overrepresented on television, in newspapers and in the blogosphere. That is, unquestionably, a fringe view, as is the notion that staying in Iraq until we achieve "victory" is some moral and strategic imperative. Those are the views of extremists, of people who constitute a small and shrinking minority of the country. The more exposure their views get, the more they are rejected.

Among opponents of the Bush administration, one frequently finds high levels of cynicism and doubt -- all sorts of reasons are offered up as to why the array of media, political and economic factors prevent a fair hearing of anti-right-wing views and why the cards are so stacked in their favor. But Americans have gradually though fundamentally changed their minds about this administration, its core beliefs, and its followers. What were unchallenged and unchallengable beliefs back in 2002 and 2003 are now fringe ideas desperately clung to by a loud though discredited minority, and rejected as patent falsehoods by most Americans.

Whatever else might be true about how dysfunctional our political and media institutions are, it is indisputably true that huge numbers of Americans have drastically changed their political views on the most critical issues facing our country. That, by itself, ought to constitute proof that the Bush movement and its various appedanges are far from invulnerable, or that the deck is hopelessly stacked in their favor.

And those who strut around as defenders of mainstream American values and beliefs -- and who baselessly claim the mantle of serious foreign policy thinkers whom Americans exclusively trust -- have been exposed as fringe and radical figures who represent a shrinking minority. Regardless of whether Democrats take over the Congress in a couple of weeks, we are clearly witnessing the collapse not just of the Bush presidency -- that has been a fait accompli for some time -- but also the wholesale rejection of the defining premises on which it has been based.

UPDATE: To appreciate the depth and intensity of Bush's unpopularity among Americans, consider this aspect of the latest Newsweek poll, which -- as Greg at The Talent Show astutely points out (h/t Crust) -- shows that a majority of Americans favor impeachment of the President, while only 44% oppose it. That figure, regardless of one's views on the merits of impeachment, is rather extraordinary, since, as Greg says, "this far exceeds the numbers of a President that actually was impeached."

The Democrats may be infuriatingly passive and afraid and the national media hopelessly inept and biased, but Americans have clearly figured out -- largely on their own -- just how radical, inept and deceitful the administration is.

UPDATE II: How do Bush followers respond to this onslaught of data? With the same methods they used for several years (and still do) to pretend that things were going "remarkably well" in Iraq -- namely, by simply refusing to accept facts and insisting that they are the by-product of liberal bias. From Hugh Hewitt:

I get a lot of e-mail asking me why I point to polls like the one favoring Steele when I discount some polls favoring some Democrats.

Because this question comes mostly from lefties, I will pause to explain in as uncomplicated a fashion as possible.

Polling methodology and models favors Democrats.

So polls that show Republicans tied or ahead I see as indicating a race in which the Republican is in the lead.

Polls that show a Republican within striking distance I see as a poll indicating a dead heat.

It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, even for a lefty.

That is the mindest that has been running our country for six years now. That is how we heard for so long that violence in Iraq was wildly overstated by a Bush-hating media that exaggerated the bombings and the kidnappings and failed to report on the much more significant stories of all the school houses that were being painted and the candy dispensed by Marines to smiling Iraqi kids. There is really no other way to describe this mindset other than by quoting Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Bush followers present a real challenge to satirists like Colbert because -- as shown by this intended satire, which is actually an almost verbatim recitation of Hewitt's claim, they are often beyond satire, particularly when it comes to their reality-denying abilities.

American values under the Bush administration

Bill Dedman has a new investigative report on MSNBC regarding the Guantanamo "interrogation" of Mohammed al-Qahtani, the currently alleged "20th hijacker." This is what the U.S. Congress voted two weeks ago to legally authorize and sanction:

Mohammed al-Qahtani, detainee No. 063, was forced to wear a bra. He had a thong placed on his head. He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer. He was told that his mother and sisters were whores. He was told that other detainees knew he was gay. He was forced to dance with a male interrogator. He was strip-searched in front of women. He was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks. He was doused with water. He was prevented from praying. He was forced to watch as an interrogator squatted over his Koran.

These are not al-Qahtani's allegations and they are not in dispute. Rather, they are "among the findings of the U.S. Army’s investigation of al-Qahtani's aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

The way in which the Abu Grahib abuses were dismissed as the isolated, rogue acts of a few deranged low-level soldiers is one of the administration's worst deceits, which is saying a great deal. Most of these abusive techniques were expressly approved at the highest levels of the administration, after numerous intelligence officials and FBI agents vigorously complained about them:

In interviews with MSNBC.com — the first time they have spoken publicly — former senior law enforcement agents described their attempts to stop the abusive interrogations. The agents of the Pentagon's Criminal Investigation Task Force, working to build legal cases against suspected terrorists, said they objected to coercive tactics used by a separate team of intelligence interrogators soon after Guantanamo's prison camp opened in early 2002. They ultimately carried their battle up to the office of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who approved the more aggressive techniques to be used on al-Qahtani and others.

It was widely recognized even back then that these tactics were illegal (as the Supreme Court in Hamdan would essentially and ultimately rule), but nobody -- not even those objecting to these tactics -- were bothered by that. In the Bush climate, even knowing illegality has never been viewed as anything more than a petty inconvenience to be managed away:

Although they believed the abusive techniques were probably illegal, the Pentagon cops said their objection was practical. They argued that abusive interrogations were not likely to produce truthful information, either for preventing more al-Qaida attacks or prosecuting terrorists.

The officer in charge of Guantanamo during these abuses was Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was sent in 2004 to Iraq to import these interrogation techniques there. It was several weeks after his arrival in Iraq when the Abu Graib abuses were revealed. On his very first visit to Abu Grahib, Gen. Miller demanded that "interrogators adopt 'emerging strategic interrogation strategies and techniques' being used at Guantanamo."

Most revealing is the source the U.S. military used to develop these abusive techniques:

The al-Qahtani plan went much further. The law enforcement agents began to hear a new term, SERE, an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. SERE training is provided to U.S. Special Forces and other military personnel to prepare them to withstand torture if they become prisoners of war. It includes mocking of their religious beliefs, sexual taunting, and a technique called water-boarding, which induces water through the nose to make a prisoner feel like he's drowning.

Intelligence interrogators had the idea to "reverse-engineer" SERE, to use its techniques to pry information out of the suspected al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists. Pentagon e-mails seen by MSNBC.com show that at least a half dozen military intelligence personnel from Guantanamo, including at least one medical adviser, went to Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sept. 16-20, 2002, for SERE training. It was an experiment, apparently not unlike what the CIA had been trying on the few high-value detainees kept at secret locations.

In other words, by studying the torture methods used by America's enemies -- those uncivilized, evil regimes and groups we are always hearing about -- we learned how to torture people and then decided to copy their torture techniques. As always, the "rationale" of the Bush administration is that in order to defend our values and culture from the evil forces seeking to destroy us, we have to become as much like them as possible and copy their behavior.

It seems virtually certain that the entire top level of the Bush administration was fully aware of the techniques being used at Guantanamo. They took frequent trips to Gunatanamo and met with Gen. Miller. One particular trip that MSNBC learned about took place in October, 2002, when various key Bush administration lawyers -- including Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and John Yoo -- visited Guantanamo. That was the same group which, just a couple of months before that trip, had created the now infamous "torture memo" authored by Yoo in August, 2002, which sought to both re-define and justify the administration's use of torture.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to the defense that in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, military and intelligence officials would be tempted to use unusually aggressive, even extreme, interrogation methods on the person who was likely intended to be the 20th hijacker. That isn't a defense of those methods, but it makes its use more understandable.

But that isn't what happened here. These extreme and vile techniques became standard operating procedure for how we interrogate detainees. Far worse, five years after September 11, the U.S. Congress -- right out in the open -- voted expressly to authorize the use of most if not all of these techniques and empower the President to use them at will. Put another way, our country, after five years of distance from 9/11 and after much debate and deliberation, decided to enshrine this behavior as legally authorized and reflective of our new national values.

The article points out that the use of these techniques has likely precluded the prosecution of al-Qahtani, because any information acquired from him would be inadmissible due to the techniques used to interrogate him. But that seems to matter little. They can and will simply detain him indefinitely and never prosecute him.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the treatment to which U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was subjected by the Bush administration and, to do so, relied upon the allegations he made as part of his motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against him. It's usually wise to assign a healthy amount of doubt to claims that are nothing more than allegations in a judicial proceeding, but in the Padilla case (and in the case of other claims of mistreatment by detainees), it would be foolish not to believe the allegations.

The torture techniques Padilla described are the same techniques described by detainees around the world, and were the same techniques expressly authorized by the highest levels of the Bush administration. It would be shocking if detainees like Padilla -- whom the administration accused of being the Dirty Bomber -- were not subjected to those techniques. Torture has become a part of what our country is and does -- not in isolation or as part of abusive, rogue misconduct -- but as a consciously chosen value that we endorse. Setting aside semantic disputes over whether the right word for this is "torture," these "techniques" are ones we use systematically, deliberately, and now, with the full authorization of our laws.

When I wrote yesterday about the urgent need for aggressive, compuslory investigations, I did so with issues like these in mind. At the CAP event I did yesterday with Sidney Blumethal, he recounted that former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Larry Wilkinson, told Blumethal that the U.S. has roughly 35,000 detainees worldwide in its custody. What we have done to these detainees, who knew about it and authorized it, and the way in which we have operated almost entriely beyond the reach of the law are vitally important questions -- of historic significance -- that have barely been examined. In those rare instances when bits and pieces of this behavior have leaked out -- such as Abu Grahib -- government officials who face no real checks and scrutiny were able to dishonestly dismiss it all away as some bizarre and unauthorized aberration.

A serious accounting is due with regard to the conduct of our government -- not because such an accounting satisfies vindictive urges or is politically beneficial. It is because Americans have the right -- and the obligation -- to know what has been done by our Government and in the name of the United States, and to take action in response to it. Our Congress hasn't wanted to know what has been done -- to the contrary, it has been eager to help conceal it -- and the media, with some rare exceptions, have been unable and/or unwilling to uncover it. But these things can't remain hidden forever, and the sooner they are revealed and discussed openly, the better.

The cleansing effects of investigations

When I litigated cases, the part of the lawsuit which I liked best was the discovery phase, where parties and witnesses could be compelled by subpoenas and similar instruments to disclose information and documents and to testify under oath. When a lawsuit begins, each party has their own version of events, but nobody really knows who is telling the truth or what really happened, since only incomplete information is available and, as a result, nobody can really be held accountable for the untruthful claims they advance.

But the discovery process almost always uncovers critical, hidden facts that reveal what really happened, and it is virtually always the case that there are documents or testimony even more incriminating than can be predicted. People resist, and lie under oath, and try to conceal things even in the face of disclosure obligations, but compelled disclosure has a way -- sometimes slowly and incrementally, but inexorably -- of uncovering the truth and exposing wrongdoing.

In my view, more than anything else, this will be the value of a Democratic takeover of at least one of the houses of Congress. As much wrongdoing as we have learned about on the part of Bush administration already, it is almost certainly the case that there is much, much more that we don't know about, but ought to.

Beginning even before the 9/11 attacks and worsening substantially since, the administration has operated behind an almost impenetrable wall of unprecedented secrecy. More than preemptive wars, tax cuts, or presidential lawlessness, secrecy is its guiding principle, its core belief (hence the incomparable hatred that spews forth at those, such as reporters, whistleblowers, and former allies who reveal their secrets). Their allies who have controlled Congress for the last five years have not only failed to fulfill their oversight and investigative duties, but have actively helped shield the administration from any real scrutiny.

What Bush followers fear most is a Congress that has the power to investigate and uncover their conduct. President Bush's father said this recently:

Earlier this month, the elder Bush was reported to have told the audience at a Republican fundraiser in a Philadelphia suburb that "if we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these [congressional] committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country."

He was also quoted as saying, "I would hate to think . . . what my son's life would be like" if their Republican Party lost its majorities.

And a Reuters article this morning, entitled "Bush faces political nightmare if Democrats win," said this:

If Democrats win control of the U.S. Congress in the November 7 election, it would turn the Capitol upside down and create a political nightmare for the already embattled President George W. Bush.

If his Republicans lose the majority, Bush would hear newly empowered calls to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and would suddenly face promised Democratic-led congressional investigations with subpoena power into the unpopular war. . . .

They say their oversight hearings would focus on what critics see as "waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars" in Iraq, homeland security and relief after Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, who would be Government Reform Committee chairman if Democrats took control, said: "It's an important part of Congress's duty under the Constitution to do vigilant oversight. Republicans failed in that regard in the past six years."

A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.

It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured. But full-fledged hearings will shine a bright light on what the administration has really been doing, and that will enable the public to get a full picture of the true state of affairs.

The Bush administration's reliance on deceit and obfuscation in its propaganda efforts is virtually limitless. Karl Rove spoke at a fundraiser this week for Tom Reynolds (which was televised by C-SPAN) and expressly said that the Democrats oppose having the Government listen in when Osama bin Laden calls the United States, and Dick Morris thinks that the only way for Republicans to win this election is to start doing things like this:

The GOP needs to focus on the concrete ways in which a Democratic victory would threaten our safety. Here's one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate - and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too.

Then, when he's about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying "This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress." The announcer can then say, "If the Democrats win, the National Security Agency will never be able to listen in as the terrorists are plotting to attack us."

The notion that those opposed to illegal warrantless eavesdropping are opposed to eavesdropping on terrorists is not just political spin, but is an outright lie. That is just not the position that anyone has. It genuinely never ceases to amaze that our political system is so broken, and our national journalists so profoundly fail in fulfilling their central function, that the most widely regarded political consultants think (correctly) that they can get away with such blatantly dishonest claims like this. But they can get away with them, and do, in large part because the secrecy behind which the administration operates ensures that nothing about what they do is clearly understood. A healthily functioning democracy depends upon transparency and a well-informed citizenry, and that is exactly what we have lacked for virtually the entire Bush presidency.

Investigations, hearings and subpoenas will change all of that. For those who work in the White House, the whiff of the rule of law is becoming stronger. There is a virtual tidal wave of Republican officials and their allies in Washington being investigated, arrested, and even imprisoned. Court decisions, such as in Hamdan and in ACLU v. NSA, have begun finding that the actions of the administration are illegal. They cannot ward off accountability forever. Our system of government was designed to maximize protection against abuses of power, even by political parties who have managed to seize control of most of the government.

They know that their conduct cannot withstand the scrutiny of truth-finding processes and that is why the stakes in this election are so high for them. Nobody thinks that a Democratic takeover of Congress is going to result in fundamental legislative changes or policy over the next two years, but what it will do is enable Americans to learn the truth about what the administration and its allies have really been doing for five years, and that will have a far greater and more constructive impact than any single policy change or bill.

* * * * * *
Posting may be light for the next couple of days because I am travelling. As a reminder, I will be participating in this event today, hosted by The Center for American Progress, beginning at 12:30 p.m. EST, in Washington. Tomorrow, I will be doing an in-studio segment with Alan Colmes beginning at 11:00 p.m. EST and will post more information about that and other events once it is available.

Ken Blackwell and Sean Hannity demonstrate the GOP's commitment to privacy

(updated below - updated again)

We learned this week that the one thing Republicans find absolutely despicable is using someone's private homosexuality for political gain. Politics might be a contact sport, but they simply cannot tolerate the disclosure of a politician's private sexual behavior. For instance, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on Thursday that Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell is now attempting to win his election for Governor by working with Fox News' Sean Hannity and another right-wing radio talk show host to publicize innuendo that Blackwell's Democratic opponent, the married Ted Strickland, is gay:

Ken Blackwell’s gubernatorial campaign today distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency.

In a news statement emailed to Statehouse reporters, the campaign reprinted a transcript from Wednesday night’s Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes television show. The show’s co-host, Sean Hannity, is a Blackwell supporter, who will be in Blue Ash for a Blackwell rally today. They also sent out a digital video version.

Cunningham, who hosts a talk radio show on WLW radio, was a guest on the program. During the TV broadcast, Cunningham questioned the Democratic congressman’s sexuality -- even after Strickland declared Wednesday: “No, I am not gay, although it is none of their business in the first place.”

At one point in the Fox News interview, Cunningham said: “After the (1998) election Ted Strickland flies off to the shores of Naples, Italy in order to enjoy a little fun with this 26-year-old boy toy" . . . .

“Sean Hannity is campaigning today with Ken Blackwell in Cincinnati. So propping up a Blackwell supporter on a television that is hosted by a Blackwell supporter does not make for legitimate news,’’ [Strickland campaign spokesman Keith] Dailey said. “These guys are desperate. They’re losing horribly in the polls. People are turning away from this kind of negative politicking. It seems to just draw the nastiness out of them more. ”

On Wednesday night, Sean Hannity put Cunningham on Fox's Hannity & Colmes in order to disseminate the innuendo that Strickland is gay, the "proof" being that he took a trip to Italy with his 26-year-old "boy toy" Congressional aide. And now, the Blackwell campaign itself is sending these "reports" of Strickland's alleged homosexuality to reporters throughout Ohio.

Right-wing pundits this week spent several days expressing such intense outrage over the outing by Mike Rogers, claiming that the conduct of this single, obscure blogger somehow shows how depraved and evil The Democratic Party itself is. Many of them literally claimed that Democrats deserve to lose the election because of the actions of Rogers. A certain loyal gay Republican rather sadly claimed that the Mike Rogers outing incident shows that Republicans have now become the pro-gay party ("it is conservatives sticking up for gay people and their privacy").

Glenn Reynolds actually said yesterday that he voted for Republican Bob Corker over Democrat Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race in large part because of the Mike Rogers outing incident: "ultimately the combination of Ford's "F" rating on gun rights and the sleazy 'outing' behavior of the Democrats was such that I just felt I had to vote Republican in this race" and "not long ago I was thinking that a Democratic majority in Congress wouldn't be so bad; but the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd, coupled with the Dems' steadfast refusal to offer anything useful on national security, has convinced me that they just don't deserve a victory with those tactics."

Ken Blackwell was chosen to be the nominee of the Republican Party for Governor in Ohio. He has the support of the entire GOP national political establishment, is an elected Republican official, played a crucial role in George Bush's 2004 victory in Ohio, and has been widely considered a rising Republican star. After Rush Limbaugh (who has long spread insinuations that Hillary Clinton is gay), Sean Hannity (who this week also promoted and defended a new book claiming that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is an online porn addict) is the most popular GOP pundit in the country.

Exploiting politicians' private sexual behavior generally, and the practice of "outing" specifically, is a tactic used by some of the most important Republican and conservative political figures. By contrast, Mike Rogers is an obscure Internet blogger and I'm not aware of a single prominent Democrat who supports him or has any connections to him. Yet we are told that hatred for outing is a reason to vote against Democrats, because Republicans would never engage in such lowly behavior and have nothing to do with it (Ramesh Ponnuru, to his credit, has condemned Blackwell, though not Republicans generally or "the Right," as a result of this incident).

The lesson we learned this week can be summarized this way:

* Mike Rogers (along with, as Scott Lemieux put it, "a poster at Daily Kos . . . Ward Churchill and the immortal Some Guy With A Sign Somewhere") = Leader and Symbol of the Democratic Party, whose outing activities reflect on all Democrats generally and the Party itself.

* Ken Blackwell, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh = obscure nobodies who have nothing at all to do with Republicans generally and whose use of people's private sexual behavior for political gain says nothing at all about the Republican Party.

I realize that, especially as an election approaches, one can't expect logical consistency, but depicting the GOP as the party which values privacy and considers sexual behavior -- especially gay sexual behavior -- off limits politically ought to be beyond anyone's capacity to delude themselves and others. But as was demonstrated rather conclusively this week, it isn't. Really, nothing is.

UPDATE: As Tim Grieve notes, the Strickland outing rumors are being disseminated in a coordinated fashion by the Blackwell campaign itself: "Blackwell's campaign YouTubed a clip of Cunningham's appearance with Hannity, then posted it to its Web site and e-mailed it to supporters and reporters. And then the campaign invited Cunningham and Hannity to speak at a campaign event."

UPDATE II: An actual, real libertarian, Radley Balko, has a great post with some similar arguments on this topic, along with some excellent additional observations.

UPDATE III: Credit where it's due: Kirsten Powers recognizes that the rationale on which criticism of the Craig outing is based compels criticism of the Blackwell/Hannity conduct regarding Strickland.

John McCain unveils his Grand Plan for Victory in Iraq

(Updated below - Update II - Update III)

When pro-war advocates talk about Iraq these days, what they say is not only misguided and false, but almost always incoherent. In explaining why we ought to stay, they are reduced to a form of babbling that sounds almost adolescent -- like a petulant teenager who wishes so badly for something that they just stomp their feet and insist that they are going to have it. Here is the very serious, responsible, straight-talking national security guardian John McCain, "explaining" his view of Iraq to Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about an area where we‘ve all been involved, you especially, in talking about Iraq and how we can win this war or deal with it. You‘ve called, just in the last couple of days, for 100,000 more troops on top of the 140,000 we have as a compliment there.

When I read that on the clips this morning, I went to General Barry McCaffrey, whom you know so well, and he said we‘ve got only a total of 19 brigades that we could actually put into combat right now. We have 17 committed, two of those brigades to Afghanistan, 15 brigades already in Iraq. He says we simply don‘t have the capability to sustain another 100,000 troops in Iraq. You disagree?

MCCAIN: I said we need 100,000 more ...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MCCAIN: ...members of the Marines and the Army. We need additional troops there, but I think we need to expand the Army and the Marine Corps by 100,000 people.

MATTHEWS: More recruitment.

MCCAIN: I didn‘t say we need 100,000 -- more recruitment. And by the way, I‘m sure that people in this audience know the members—many members of the Iowa National Guard. They have served with courage, with bravery, with sacrifice and enormously wonderful performance. But it‘s a heavy strain on the Guard.

MATTHEWS: Would they please stand up? I know we have some here. Would the people of the National Guard of Iowa please just stand up nonofficially here? Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you for your service.

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: Some of these young people have been to Afghanistan or Iraq two or three times already. We have put an enormous strain on them. They have performed magnificently, but we can‘t keep it up. We‘ve got to expand of the Marines. . . .

MATTHEWS: But why isn‘t it working? I mean, so few people here— we‘ve got a couple of thousand of young people here, and a very, very small percentage have expressed a commitment, even by standing here. Doesn‘t that mean we might have to think of the draft again?

MCCAIN: I don‘t think we need to think of the draft again because I don‘t think it makes sense in a whole variety of ways. But I guarantee you, if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve, virtually every one of them would stand up because I have the greatest confidence in the young people of America.

So, to recap McCain's position: (1) in order to win in Iraq, we need to expand our military by 100,000 more troops; (2) we don't have anywhere near 100,000 troops to send to Iraq, and nobody suggests that we do; (3) a draft is absolutely unnecessary.

I don't think McCain even knows what to say about Iraq at this point -- the Straight Talker refuses admit that it was wrong because he was one of the loudest cheerleaders for it, but there are also plainly no viable options to change what is occurring -- so all he does is babble incoherently about it. As best I can tell, his position is that we need 100,000 more troops to win, and that young Americans one day are going to realize this and there will be a spontaneous and massive wave of volunteers eager to go to Iraq and fight in combat there because they will realize -- like McCain and the President do -- just how Very Important it is that we win.

So we'll just wait until that happens. But the first test of McCain's Grand Plan wasn't very auspicious. Matthews and McCain were appearing before an audience of college students at Iowa State University, and after McCain unveiled his grand serious Plan for Victory -- relying on spontaneous bursts of volunteers for combat in Iraq -- Matthews asked those in the audience who supported the war in Iraq to stand up. Large numbers of them bravely stood in support of the War. Matthews then asked those who plan to join the military to fight in Iraq to stand up. A tiny fraction of them did. Matthews then observed:

MATTHEWS: All you people standing up are planning to participate in the war in some way? Really? Everybody here.

MCCAIN: Thank you very much, my friends.

MATTHEWS: Because I asked a minute ago how many were going to join the military. I wonder what your participation would involve.

MCCAIN: Chris, your bias is starting to show. . . .

MATTHEWS: I want the people that are standing up. Somebody yell out why are you standing if you‘re not joining the military. OK, you were one of those. Keep going, anybody else? Of course, look at all the people in the back. I asked before if anybody was joining the military. And now you‘re standing up in support of the war but not in terms of a plan to actually participate in a war. I don‘t get the connection. Would somebody explain it?

McCain complained that Matthews' line of questioning meant that his "bias is starting to show." Apparently, if one demonstrates that McCain's Plan for Victory is based on absurd fantasy, that is "biased." A reporter should only sit by and heap praise on McCain as the responsible, serious Leader that he is.

So, John McCain's bold, straight-talking Plan for Victory in Iraq is to wait for Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Beinert and Glenn Reynolds to realize how Western Civilization Hangs in the Balance in Iraq and that only more troops can save us. And once they realize that, they are going to stand up bravely and risk their lives in combat in Iraq -- waves and waves and waves of them -- and that will fortify our military presence there and we will win. Waiting for a big thunderbolt from the sky to strike down the Insurgents seems like a more probable and rational plan.

Advocating this war because one believed -- mistakenly -- that it would produce certain positive results imposes a certain level of culpability for what has happened. But continuing to advocate this war while knowing -- as McCain and so many like him do -- that (a) it is achieving nothing positive and (b) there are no viable and realistic options for achieving anything positive, places one in a different moral universe entirely.

John McCain's insistence that we're going to win in Iraq because the additional troops that we need to win are going to magically and spontaneously appear in a sudden outpouring of patriotic courage is a disgusting joke, but, as Americans have largely realized, that is what the Iraq war has become. Only the national media and the hardest-core Bush followers continue to cling to the fantasy that the people who brought us this disaster and continue to justify it with incoherence and fiction of this sort are the serious, responsible foreign policy leaders. Their foreign policy views are adolescent and completely incoherent - the very opposite of responsible and serious.

UPDATE: For an example of the serious, respopnsible, tough-on-national-security approach which the Republican Party is taking on Iraq, this is what GOP Senate nominee in Minnesota (and current GOP Congressman) Mark Kennedy said when asked about Iraq in an interview he did yesterday with John Hinderaker:

HINDERAKER: Let's talk about the war in Iraq. What's the difference between you and your opponent, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, when it comes to the war in Iraq?

KENNEDY: You know, I've been consistently focused on adapting to win - whatever it takes to make sure that we prevail against an emey that has stated that their goal is to - y'know - eliminate us from the face of the earth.

My opponent came out on Meet The Press and twice said that the approach should be a diplomatic and political solution - that we should negotate with people who would just as soon kill us as look at us. We need to make sure we prevail, but we can't just get there by wishing it would go away. We have to make sure we support our troops and do what is necessary to achieve victory.

HINDERAKER: How about the economy?

Does anyone even know what that means? Mark Kennedy's serious, responsible plan for winning in Iraq seems to amount to nothing more than this: "support our troops and do what is necessary to achieve victory." That answer -- which he has presumably formulated over the course of many months -- is basically the foreign policy equivalent of a junior high cheerleader squad. The Republican plan for Iraq is to keep things exactly as they are. That view can be characterized by many adjectives, but "serious" and "responsible" aren't among them.

* * * * * * *

This Monday, October 23, in Washington DC, the Center for American Progress is hosting a panel discussion on the Bush presidency and presidential powers, featuring myself and Sidney Blumethal. The event begins at 12:00 noon. Details are here. It is open to the public and attendence is free. Most of the discussion will entail interaction with attendees. C-SPAN coverage is possible, though not yet confirmed. Anyone in the DC area who would like to attend is encouraged to do so.

UPDATE II: Several people have argued in comments that my description of McCain's plan is not exactly what he advocated. As I made clear in the very first sentence of the post, and in numerous sentences after that, my principal criticism of McCain -- and of virtually everyone these days who claims that we should stay in Iraq but change course -- is that what they say is incoherent and always unclear. They are never specific about what we ought to do because there is no viable alternative, so they pretend to have a "plan" but -- like McCain -- only babble incoherently. I set forth my understanding of what McCain was saying because it seemed to be the only viable interpretation of his incoherent remarks (which is why I said: "As best I can tell, his position is . . .").

Despite my requesting that they do so multiple times, none of the people in comments claiming that my description of McCain's plan was inaccurate have said what his plan actually is (if it's not what I said it was). And as sfHeath documents in Comments, McCain's own website strongly suggests that my understanding of his "plan" is accurate (McCain on Iraq: "we must increase troop strength if we are to win this war . . . We must begin now to increase substantially the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps by at least 100,000"). Whatever else is true, McCain's plan depends upon adding 100,000 troops to our military, but he never says where those troops will come from. If he doesn't want to send those 100,000 troops to Iraq, what are they for? And what do they have to do with winning in Iraq? Nobody can tell what he means, which is the point.

Regardless of the numbers, McCain is clearly a proponent of adding additional troops to Iraq, but never says where we will get those troops either, what they will do, or how many we need (if, in fact, he isn't claiming -- as Matthews (and I) understood him to be -- that we need 100,000 troops in Iraq). Unveiling a plan for Victory in a disastrous war where nobody has any idea what you're actually advocating is not the behavior of a responsible or serious leader.

UPDATE III: C&L has the video of the entire exchange here, which is worth watching just to see how the bold, brave, patriotic war supporters instantaneously become much less bold and brave when Matthews asks them to stand if they intend to become part of McCain's wave of new volunteers.

Is protection from threats the highest political value?

When President Bush signed the so-called Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law this week, he dismissed away objections to its Draconian and tyrannical provisions with one very simple and straightforward argument:

Over the past few months the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Every member of Congress who voted for this bill has helped our nation rise to the task that history has given us.

That paragraph from the President's remarks is an excellent summary of the philosophy of the Bush movement. Because the threat posed by The Terrorists is so grave and mortal, maximizing protections against it is the paramount, overriding goal. As a result, no other value really competes with that objective in importance, nor can any other objective or value limit our efforts to protect ourselves against The Terrorists. That's what the President is arguing when he said: "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat." All that matters is whether we did everything possible to protect ourselves.

That is the essence of virtually every argument made by Bush supporters on virtually every terrorism-related issue. No matter what objection is raised to the never-ending expansions of government power, no matter what competing values are touted (due process, the rule of law, the principles our country embodies, how we are perceived around the world), the response will always be that The Terrorists are waging War against us and we must protect ourselves. That is the only recognized value, the only objective that matters. By definition, there can never be any good reason to oppose vesting powers in the government to protect us from The Terrorists because that goal outweighs all others.

This form of thinking is also what explains the fact that anyone who opposes their policies is seen by them as allies of The Terrorists (rather than advocates of competing values). As the President said, the only real question will be: did "Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?" Given that this is the sole objective that is recognized, this means that every person can essentially be categorized as either (a) someone who does take the threat seriously and wants to do what is necessary to defeat it, or (b) someone who does not.

But our entire system of government, from its inception, has been based upon the precise opposite calculus -- that many things matter besides merely protecting ourselves against threats which might kill us, and beyond that, we are willing to accept an increased risk of death in order to pursue those other values. That worldview -- that maximizing physical safety to the exclusion of all else leads to a poor and empty way of life, and that limiting government power is so necessary that we do it even if it means accepting an increased risk of death when doing so -- is what lies at the very core of what America is.

The Bill of Rights contains all sorts of limitations on government power which make us more vulnerable to threats that can kill us. If there is a serial killer on the loose in a community, the police would be able to find and apprehend him much more easily if they could simply invade and search everyone's homes at will and without warning. But the Fourth Amendment expressly prohibits the police from doing that -- it requires both probable cause and a judicial warrant before they can do so -- even though that restriction makes it more likely that we will be victimized, even fatally, by criminals.

Imagine the Bush movement present during pre-founding debates over the Constitution. Is there any doubt that Bush followers would have argued against the Fourth Amendment restriction on police powers by stressing that violent criminals can kill our children, that we must do everything to protect ourselves against them, and that those who favor search warrant requirements for the police are pro-murderer? If you're not doing anything wrong in your home, what do you have to hide?

Our country is centrally based upon the principle that we are willing to risk death in order to limit government power. Numerous other amendments in the Bill of Rights are identically based on that same principle and, of course, that is the central belief that drove the founders to risk death by waging war against the most powerful empire on earth. We have never been a country that ignores other objectives and asks only, as the President put it, did "Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?" There have always been numerous other values beyond mere protection which are at least as important and that have to be fulfilled in order to be convinced that we acted properly.

The President's comments are as historically inaccurate as they are contrary to core American principles. Historically, the worst mistakes made by America -- those instances in which it has most radically departed from its principles and aspirations -- have come not when Americans failed to take seriously enough some external threat, but to the contrary, when government leaders exaggerated the threat and induced overreactions among citizens. That is the question that will almost certainly be asked by historians. As History Professor Joseph Ellis wrote earlier this year in The New York Times:

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. . . . .

But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.

Our history is not -- as the President's argument assumes -- composed of a failure to take seriously enough external threats, but is instead composed of external threats being exaggerated in order to justify grave excesses and an abandonment of our core values. The scare tactic of telling Americans that every desired expansion of government power is justified by the Terrorist Threat is effective because it has immediate rhetorical appeal. Most people, especially when placed in fear of potentially fatal threats, are receptive to the argument that maximizing protection is the only thing that matters, and that no abstract concept (like liberty, or freedom, or due process, or adhering to civilized norms) is worth risking one's life for or accepting heightened levels of vulnerability to fatal threats.

A couple of months ago, Dean Barnett, writing on Hugh Hewitt's Townhall blog, wrote a post (which I started to write about back then but never finished) which expressed the mindset that lies at the core of the Bush movement (emphasis added):

The most important thing any conservative writer can do today is convince people who think that we’re perfectly safe that we’re not. Personally, I desperately want to reach those who think once Bush leaves office, the republic will be safe. I badly want to communicate with the vast majority of Americans who are benignly indifferent to politics and convince them of the peril we face. I doubt there’s a way of knowing how successful I am at these things - I’m pretty sure progress in such matters is measured in inches, not miles. Anyway, I'm trying.

Barnett says that his goal is to "convince people who think that we’re perfectly safe that we’re not." But nobody thinks we're "perfectly safe." Nothing in life is "perfectly safe." Perfect safety is an illusion, something that is wasteful to pursue, and when pursued to the exclusion of all else, creates a tragically worthless, paralyzed way of life. On a political level, pursuit of "perfect safety" as the paramount goal is precisely what produces tyranny, since one will be motivated by that value system to vest as much power as possible in the government, without limits, in exchange for the promise of maximum protection.

That is the mindset being used to justify endless expansions of presidential power and a radical abandonment of our country's values. Eliminating all risk of the Terrorist Threat is what matters, and nothing else can stand in its way. Hence, torture, indefinite detention, warrantless eavesdropping -- the whole array of authoritarian powers sought by this administration -- are justified because none of the abstract principles and values that are destroyed by vesting such powers matter when placed next to the scary prospect that The Terrorists will kill us. That is the precise opposite of the American ethos, but -- as the President's remarks this week illustrate, appropriately voiced when our country legalized torture and indefinite detention -- it is the predominant mindset under which the country is being governed.

Introduction to Logical Reasoning 101

Yesteryday, I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples -- including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years -- which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics.

As was painfully clear to anyone who can read, I did not make an argument about whether outing is justified -- either in general or specifically in the Larry Craig case. My post had nothing to do with whether outing is a legitimate tool and I expressed no opinion whatsoever on that topic. I might think that outing is the most evil act in the world, or I might think that it is the greatest good, but either way, it does not impact or have anything whatsoever to do with the argument I made -- that their condemnations of outing are completely inconsistent with the way their political movement operates.

In the face of that clear and obvious point, various Bush followers began replying to my post by ignoring the point I did make (that their whole political movement is based on tactics like the Craig outing). Instead, the first few who responded "understood" my post to consist of a defense of outing and I thus became the example of a pro-outing advocate and a symbol of its evils.

From there, this "understanding" that I was pro-outing was passed along from one to the next like some rapidly mutating groupthink virus, so that by the end of the day, in Bush Follower Land, I was the symbol and most vocal advocate of outing (along with Mike Rogers, the actual outing advocate who outed Larry Craig and who -- like Ward Churchill and Deb Frisch before him -- has overnight been catapulted from obscurity to become the embodiment and Leader of both "the Left" and "Democrats"). Thus, by the end of the day, one could read this in an anti-outing screed on Hugh Hewitt's blog, by Dean Barnett:

I’m sorry if this topic causes embarrassment to Larry Craig and his family, but I assume by now they’ve figured out that politics in 2006 is a thoroughly rotten business. Still, there’s nothing new under the sun. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought a duel when their personal animosity reached a tipping point. In short, the Republic will survive the odious presence of Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwald. . . . .

In the Greenwald/Rogers worldview, it is simply impossible to be gay and oppose gay marriage. . . . THE MOST DEPRESSING THING about Greenwald and his ilk is that their sincerity is unquestionable. They truly believe that they have a monopoly on decency and goodness and that no person of good faith could possibly disagree with them.

The irony is that it’s always people like Greenwald and Rogers who blast President Bush for having a simplistic Manichaean world view that divides the world into good and bad. Look in the mirror, guys.

It goes on and on like that, railing against the "Greenwald/Rogers" threat to all that is good in the world that comes from outing. Even though I've never outed anyone nor defended anyone's outing, I'm now Mike Rogers' Chief-Comrade-in-Outing, all based exclusively on the post I wrote yesterday which had nothing to do with whether outing was justified. Barnett's sermon became the Genius Post of the Day in Bush Follower Land -- the one they all cited, urging their readers to go visit and behold the brilliant "takedown of the thuggish, pro-outing Left."

There is a very basic principle of logical reasoning that is apparently evading the leading lights of the Bush-following punditry world. It is expressed as follows:

Where Group A condemns Behavior X, and Commentator B points out that Group A itself routinely engages in Behavior X and therefore has no standing to condemn it, Commentator B is neither praising nor criticizing Behavior X -- only pointing out that Group A is simultaneously condemning Behavior X and engaging in it.

Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? It shouldn't be, to anyone. It entails nothing more complicated than taking someone's espoused rationale and applying it to their own conduct and arguments. But it seems that, at least in some circles, this is a concept that cannot be digested, because this is not the first time I've seen swarms of Bush followers incapable of understanding it. Current official blogger of the George Allen campaign, Jon Henke, once tried (fruitlessly) to explain this to his fellow Bush supporters on yet another occasion when they completely misunderstood an argument based on this same inability to grasp this same basic principle of logical reasoning.

The reason why this matters is because, at least in my view, the cynical and manipulative advocacy of moral standards by Bush followers -- accompanied by their repeated and endless violation of those same standards -- is one of the most corrupt traits of their movement. And adopting their reasoning arguendo (meaning assuming it to be true only for purposes of the argument, not actually adopting it) and then applying it to their behavior or other views is an indispensable -- and very commonly used -- analytical method for demonstrating that. When one does that, one is not actually adopting the reasoning as valid -- only applying their reasoning to them in order to demonstrate the inconsistency. Are there really people who don't understand that?

With those premises in place, I want to respond specifically to one of the posts written yesterday based on the "understanding" that I advocated outing -- this one, by "liberal" Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers. One of the tactics which Fox News innovated and then perfected was to cast the appearance of ideological "balance" by featuring carefully chosen "liberals" who are either: (a) quite stupid, (b) extremely annoying, (c) the embodiment of the worst stereotypes of liberals, and/or (d) driven by the primary goal in life of being patted on the head by Bush followers for being one of the "good, sensible liberals" and who consequently spends most of their on-air time praising Bush followers as wonderful, brilliant, patriotic Americans and bashing the "bad liberals" to show that they one of the good ones.

It's the Susan Estrich/Joe Klein Model, and that's the role Kirsten Powers has eagerly assumed -- she goes on Bill O'Reilly and giggles with him and Michelle Malkin about all the crazy and radical liberals that hurt the Democratic Party, praises Bush followers for how tough they are on terrorism, etc. etc. And her posts are frequently cited by right-wing blogs with the prefix: "even-liberal-Kirsten-Powers-finds-this-behavior-disgusting." So that's Kirsten Powers and the role she plays. In any event, her post yesterday responding to my "pro-outing" argument -- praised by Michelle Malkin and Hot Air -- says this about my post:

Update: this is a ridiculous argument in defense of outing gay (or allegedly gay)Republicans. Since when does bad behavior justify other bad behavior? "Their entire political movement over the last 20 years has been fueled by sleazy sexual innuendo; dragging private sexual behavior into the public arena..." Oh ok! So, let's do it too! It's sleazy and disgusting...so by all means let's start outing gay people.

And all the examples listed in this blog deal with extramarital affairs. The outing of gay people is about what exactly? What is their "moral" crime that is akin to adultery? Don't liberals believe that being gay is ok? Ahh...yes. But being gay and not thinking like liberals think is apparently "immoral." Who says so? The Liberal Police. Who will they target next?

When I first began blogging, I operated from the premise that debates even with the hardest-core Bush followers could be fruitful because indisputable facts and unassailable logic can break through even the most fortified partisan allegiance (on either side). With that quaint assumption in mind, I engaged in many earnest debates with Bush followers during the first few months of blogging. Many months ago, I reluctantly abandoned that belief as the naive nonsense that I discovered it to be, and now use Bush-following blogs almost exclusively to illustrate points about the Bush movement and rarely to engage in actual debate. This "argument" by Powers illustrates why.

Powers makes three "points," as best I can tell: (1) I'm advocating outing on the ground that the GOP does similar things and, Powers points out, two wrongs don't make a right; (2) my only examples of the right wing's exploitation of people's sexual and private lives "deal with extramarital affairs"; and (3) it might be acceptable to expose adultery because adultery is immoral, but being gay is not, and therefore the Craig outing is wrong whereas the GOP's treatment of the Clintons is not wrong. This is the same way she "reasons" when she goes on Fox -- which, of course, is why they put her on.

In order: (1) I wasn't defending outing, only pointing out that while one lone person outed Craig, the entire right-wing political movement in our country routinely uses these same tactics; (2) many of the examples I used had nothing whatsoever to do with adultery (such as Ann Richards' alleged lesbianism, John McCain's illegitimate black child, Jonah Goldberg musing on Bill Clinton's abandoned child and the lovelessness of the Clintons' marriage, the insinuation by Ohio Republicans that Ted Strickland is gay, Cindy Sheehan's online porn addiction, and on and on and on); and (3) if Larry Craig did what he is reported to have done -- namely, had sex with men while being married to his wife -- that is adultery, so nothing could be more incoherent than Powers' "argument" that it is acceptable to "out" someone (such as Bill Clinton) for committing adultery, but terrible to out Larry Craig because he did nothing wrong.

As I pointed out yesterday when documenting the false claims about the torture and detention bill which Mort Kondracke made so emphatically to Fox viewers, a significant impediment to fruitful political dialogue in this country is that many people receive incomplete or outright misleading information. But another impediment -- which one can't really do all that much about -- is just basic denseness of the sort illustrated here.

I don't have any hope that this post will change that (although I do have hope that the basic logical principle, set forth above in bold, might be understood somewhere). But this post nonetheless seemed necessary because, in its absence (and probably even still), the phrase "who thinks that it's acceptable to reveal people's private sexual activities" is going to follow my name around in certain circles. It therefore seemed necessary to make clear how false that is. And since responding to these types of Bush followers is usually a waste of time and energy more than anything else, I thought it would at least be fruitful to try to illustrate some points about how Bush followers reason, just as a way to have this exercise be something other than a complete waste of time.

What Fox viewers are told about the torture and detention bill

(updated below)

The so-called Military Commissions Act of 2006 (.pdf), signed into law yesterday by President Bush, is replete with radical provisions, but the most dangerous and disturbing is that it vests in the President the power to detain people forever by declaring them an "unlawful enemy combatant," and they then have no ability to contest the validity of their detention in any tribunal. The President now possesses a defining authoritarian power -- to detain and imprison people for life based solely on his say-so, while denying the detainee any opportunity to prove his innocence.

But for those who rely on Fox News for their information about what the government is doing, not only do they not know that, they think the opposite is true. This is what Mort Kondracke said yesterday about the Military Commissions Act, while he sat next to Fox News anchor Brit Hume and Fred Barnes, neither of whom contested what he said:

MORT KONDRACKE: Well, as to that human rights watch spokesperson, it's just false that this is — you can lock them up and throw away the key is not correct. I mean, these detainees have a right to go to a military — they have been tried in a military tribunal. The case goes on appeal to the U.S. district — the Circuit Court of appeals for the District of Columbia, second highest court in the land, which reviews the evidence. And so there is judicial review of a conviction, at least, and so, you know, it's just flatly false.

What is "flatly false" is what Kondracke told Fox viewers about the Military Commissions Act. It is true that the Act creates military commissions and establishes rules for those commissions in the event that the President wants a certain detainee tried, convicted and punished (almost certainly execution). Not even the Bush-led U.S. will openly execute detainees without a finding that they are guilty of terrorism. The commissions exist so that the Executive branch can impose sentence (such as the death sentence) on detainees who are found guilty of engaging in terrorism (or some other war crime).

But there is no right for detainees to be tried before a commission, and there is no obligation for the President to bring any detainee before a military commission. If the President does not want to obtain a finding of guilt and impose punishment, he has no reason to bring them before a military commission. He can just keep them detained forever without any finding of guilt and without any punishment being imposed (just as many of the Guantanamo detainees, and even U.S. citizens, have been kept in cages for years with no finding of any kind of guilt).

The Act even allows U.S. citizens to be subjected to this treatment (though the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi likely requires for U.S. citizens some opportunity to challenge the detention) because even American citizens can be declared to be "unlawful enemy combatants" under the statute (see Sec. 3(a)(1)(1)). All anyone has to do is read the Act and it is immediately and undeniably apparent that it does not provide the right to be tried that Kondrake told the Fox audience it provides.

I frequently encounter sentiments along the lines of: "how can any Americans, even Bush supporters, think that it's acceptable for the President to have the power to imprison people for life with no process of any kind?" A significant reason why things of this sort do not provoke more protest is because large segments of the Bush supporting public rely on the likes of Mort Kondracke and Fox News to tell them what is going on with their government, and the reports they receive are often extremely incomplete, misleading, or -- as in this case -- outright false, propagandistic defenses of the Bush administration. They simply don't know what the Bush administration is doing because the individuals on whom they rely -- including those, like Brit Hume, who hold themselves out as objective journalists -- are themselves ignorant or actively mislead them.

This is not some obscure mistake on Mort Kondracke's part. As he himself pointed out, the power to detain people indefinitely with no process is one of the principal objections made by opponents of the bill. How can he -- along with Brit Hume and Fred Barnes -- not know that the bill provides the President precisely that power? Yet Kondrake told the Fox audience that the bill gives the President no such power, while Hume and Barnes sat there and never corrected it (I don't know if some pseudo-"balance" person like Mara Liasson was there or not). That our so-called "journalists," even on Fox, are looking into the camera and giving such emphatic, false assurances to millions of Americans about one of the most critical issues of our time explains a lot about our current political predicament.

* * * * * * * *

Next Monday, October 23, The Center for American Progress is hosting an event in Washington called "Perspectives on Presidential Power from Inside and Outside the Beltway." The panelists will be myself and former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumethal, and it will be moderated by CAP Senior Fellow Mark Agrast. It is free and open to the public.

Lunch begins at 12:00 p.m. and the panel discussion goes from 12:30-2:00 p.m. Most of the discussion will be interactive with those who attend, so if you are in or near D.C. and can attend, it should interesting. It is being held at CAP -- 1333 H St. NW, Washington, DC 20005.

UPDATE: Nobody in comments is disputing that Mort Kondracke was clearly and unquestionably wrong in claiming that the Act gives detainees the right to a military tribunal. That is simply not in reasonable dispute. The President has the power under the Act to detain all detainees indefinitely (other than, arguably, U.S. citizens) without providing any access to any court, tribunal or commission. What Kondracke so emphatically told Fox viewers about the Act was wrong. Exactly the objection which he said was "flatly false" is, in fact, entirely true.

But there is some dispute over the scope of the powers vested in the President with regard to U.S. citizens. Some say that the Act does not clearly expand the President's detention powers with regard to U.S. citizens and others claim it does. I believe it does, for reasons I set forth in this comment (the entire discussion in the comment section on this issue is excellent -- with many knowledgeable people participating -- and should be read by anyone interested in the issue).

Bush followers outraged over the political use of homosexuality and sex -- seriously

(Updated below - Update II - Update III)

Scads of right-wing bloggers are scandalized and outraged today because it has been reported that GOP social conservative Senator Larry Craig routinely engages in anonymous sex with men. Why, they are just furious that anyone would introduce issues of someone's private sexual affairs into the public arena, and particularly can't believe that someone would try to use a person's homosexuality as a political weapon. Most movingly, they lament that exploiting private sexual behavior this way will drive good people out of political life.

I really hadn't intended to write about this Larry Craig story when I read about it this morning (I was and am working on a post on the President's very inspiring signing ceremony yesterday), but then I became exposed to this disgustingly pious concern being paraded about by all sorts of right-wing pundits over dragging sexual innuendo into the public arena and subjecting political officials to unpleasant personal attacks that would drive good people from office, and how can anyone let that raging, violent hypocrisy just go uncommented upon? Their entire political movement over the last 20 years has been fueled by sleazy sexual innuendo; dragging private sexual behavior into the public arena for fun, profit and political gain; and exploiting the gay issue to drive people to vote for them.

Are they aware of the history and behavior of their political movement when they deliver these sermons or, like the chaos and civil war they brought to Iraq, do they block those facts out and create a different reality for themselves? Are they cognizant of any of this:

From Joe Conason's definitive account in Salon of how the odd "distinguishing spots" on Bill Clinton's penis became a major news story in our country:

On October 8, 1997, [lawyer, GOP activist and current NRO contributor George] Conway sent a long E-mail message via America Online to Matt Drudge. "Subject: Your Next Exclusive" is the caption on that message. "Remember me?" it begins. "I'm Laura [Ingraham]'s friend. We talked once about Kathleen Willey ... This is being given to you, of course, subject to your not disclosing the source." (Conway forwarded the same message to Ingraham the following day.)

The main topic of the October 8 message was not Willey but the "distinguishing characteristic," a matter nearly as sensitive as the Willey allegations. Like Coulter, Conway must have realized that with the leak of its details to Drudge, any further settlement negotiations could again be disrupted.

From page 182 of David Brock’s book Blinded by the Right:

For the next few years, Conway ... spoke to me about little else but Clinton’s rumored sexual habits, and the supposed size and shape of his genitalia.

Mark Styen, January 13, 2001, An A to Z of the Clinton Presidency

D IS FOR DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: His was the first First Penis to have an official statement issued on its behalf, following its formal examination by Captain Kevin O'Connell of the National Naval Medical Center as Exhibit A in Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit. 'In terms of size, shape, direction, ' announced his lawyer Bob Bennett, 'the President is a normal man.'

P IS FOR PUSSY: Some years back, asked what he and the President talked about during their frequent afternoons on the golf course, Clinton confidant Vernon Jordan replied succinctly, 'Pussy.' Presumably this is a reference to Kathleen Willey's late cat, who mysteriously disappeared after she went public with her accusations against the President.

Q IS FOR QUEEN, BEAUTY: Mr Clinton has had relationships with at least three winners of the Miss Arkansas competition: Sally Perdue, Miss Arkansas 1958; Lencola Sullivan, Miss Arkansas 1980; Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Miss Arkansas 1982.

S IS FOR THE SMALL-BREAST DEFENCE: When Kathleen Willey accused the President of assault, Monica was indignant: how could the President be unfaithful to her? Fortunately, Mr Clinton was able to reassure her that Mrs Willey's story was completely unbelievable because he'd never grope a woman with such small breasts. If you study the women who disrobed for Playboy and Penthouse, this appears to be one of the less risible Clinton defence arguments.

Matt Drudge, the right-wing Walter Cronkite, "exposing" John Kerry's secret affair with an intern during the 2004 campaign:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX

THU FEB 12, 2004 11:45:28 ET XXXXX

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS:

KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

**World Exclusive** **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. . . .

Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry is planning a response to a DRUDGE REPORT exclusive which first revealed the frantic behind-the-scenes drama surrounding a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry! . . . .

The nature and details of a claimed two-year relationship, beginning in the Spring of 2001, between a young woman and Kerry is at the center of serious investigations at several media outlets.

Rush Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton's lesbianism

I've got some interesting, juicy details on this book on Hillary by Ed Klein, but I'm not going to be the first to mention them. I'm not going there. It will come out eventually. It has to do with sexual orientation, and I'm not going to be the one. That's the book that everybody says is going to be presenting a firestorm. . . .

"I mean, where are the real men in the Democratic Party? Where are the real men? Hillary Clinton's one of them, but where are the others?"

Rush Limbaugh, on Hillary Clinton's role in Vince Foster's murder

OK, folks, I think I got enough information here to tell you about the contents of this fax that I got. Brace yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just been told will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel this afternoon. ... What it is is a bit of news which says ... there's a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park.

Jonah Goldberg on Bill Clinton's secret child that he abandoned

My views of him as a man are fairly unremarkable. Few people dispute that the guy is a hormonally challenged selfish jerk. . . .So now we are on the verge of finding out, according to the Drudge Report, whether Bill Clinton is a deadbeat dad. Will it change things? I don't know. But if the last year is any indication, it won't. The president's defenders at this point just don't care . . . I don't know if Clinton fathered that child. But would anyone be surprised?

Jonah Goldberg on the lovelessness and abusive nature of the Clintons' marriage

So I guess what astounds me is that in all three categories she is either a stunning failure (see list in above item) or an even more stunning fraud. Her marriage was supposed to usher in this new paradigm of equal partnership between spouses — two for the price of one. It cannot be under-emphasized the degree to which they claimed theirs was a loving, real marriage. Where? What love? What reality? Who in America wants their marriage to be like the Clintons'? Gail Sheehy writes in the upcoming Vanity Fair that Hillary is an addict. She loves saving her husband when he gets himself into horny-goat trouble. He may not be hitting her but can anybody say "battered-spouse syndrome?" . . . .

Sheehy says friends of the First Lady believe that Hillary is the only person in America who wouldn't get a cigar joke. Um, what? So, she's fully forgiven him and yet she doesn't know the full extent of his piggishness. Talk about transactional immunity. This is not an open, loving marriage. This is the Jerry Springer show with nicer clothes.

Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard, May 25, 1998

the dominant issue of the 1998 election will be Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone; his perjury; his cover-up; his obstruction of justice; and, yes, his sexual misconduct.

The Boston Globe (via Daily Kos), March 21, 2004, on how George Bush beat John McCain in South Carolina:

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that [McCain had a black child]. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaining with his adopted [dark skinned] Bangladeshi daughter.

James Moore, writing in Salon (via Digby), on Bush's defeat of John McCain in South Carolina:

Flying down to South Carolina after the upset defeat of Bush in the New Hampshire primary, Rove and Bush were said by a reliable source to have had a frank conversation about what was necessary to defeat Sen. John McCain, who had just defeated Bush in New Hampshire. . . .

Before the votes were cast, McCain was accused by Rove-managed surrogate groups of fathering a mixed-race child out of wedlock, being married to a drug addict, not being an attentive husband, using his wife's family fortune to buy his U.S. Senate seat and, worst of all, turning his back on Vietnam veterans; and all of this happened while George W. Bush was at rallies urging his primary opponent to please engage in a civilized debate on the issues.

James Moore, writing in Salon (via Digby), on Bush's defeat of Ann Richards with the aid of lesbian rumor-mongering:

Ann Richards was a socially progressive and inclusive governor of Texas, appointing a few gays and lesbians to state boards and commissions. In 1994, Rove pinpointed this as an issue certain to help George W. Bush win election in a conservative state. Of course, Rove was not about to let his candidate broach the subject himself. Instead, he worked through Republican operatives in East Texas. Rumors soon began to circulate through coffee shops and agricultural co-ops that implied Gov. Richards, an unmarried woman, might be a lesbian. Without identifying the topic, she acknowledged she was being hurt. "You know what it's about," she told reporters, dismissively, after being asked about the rumors. "And I'm not talking about it."

Tim Dickinson, writing in Rolling Stone, documenting the GOP's absolute refusal to use homosexuality as a political weapon:

When it comes to the politics of distraction, Bush's decision to stoke fears among religious conservatives about gay sex is part of a historical pattern among Republicans. In fact, the last time the party fought a battle over ''traditional'' marriage -- attempting to uphold state bans on interracial marriage during the 1960s -- the political landscape was eerily similar. Sixteen states had laws on the books outlawing marriage between whites and blacks, and seventy percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Those are almost precisely the numbers that Bush marshaled to justify his call to ban gay marriage. . . .

The turning point from race-baiting to gay-baiting came in 1984, when Jesse Helms framed his Senate campaign -- then the most expensive in history -- as a struggle between ''the patriotic'' and ''the homosexuals.'' At the time, emotions against integration and busing were on the decline in the South, and Republicans needed a new scare issue to frighten voters. ''One of Helms' political architects told me at the time that it was not about 'values' -- it was about provoking a visceral, gut-level response,'' says Bob Hall, who studied the campaign for the Institute for Southern Studies in Durham, North Carolina. ''It's not rational -- it's Snakes on a Plane.'' Helms, he adds, ''proved the value of gay-baiting in a campaign -- even against a moderate opponent. He helped embed it into the culture of the right-wing political operatives.''

Gay-bashing has been part of the GOP's political bread and butter ever since. ''The gay issue has taken the place of the race issue for the Republican right,'' says Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. ''This is true not only in the South but nationwide.'' . . .

''Homophobia is replacing the set of flag and race issues of a generation ago,'' says Kevin Phillips, the one-time Nixon strategist who coined the term ''Southern Strategy'' to describe the GOP's leverage of racial prejudice to wrest the South from Democratic control. ''It's the last refuge of the scoundrel.''

That Bush followers are drowning in the most transparent and rancid hypocrisy is hardly news. But what incidents like this demonstrate is just how detached so many of them are from the rational realm and just from basic reality. Listening to Bush followers decry the political use of homosexuality and private sexual behavior would be like listening to a Bush follower say something like this:

Hi, I'm a fervent supporter of George Bush, and I vehemently object to preemptive wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, deficit spending, and the use of terrorism to justify expansive government power. Those things are immoral and reprehensible and the Democrats' use of those things is destroying our country.

If a person said something like that, they would widely be deemed to be crazy, but that sentiment is indistinguishable from the righteous outrage pouring forth over the "left's" exploitation of sexual behavior for political gain and the destructive invasion into the private sexual lives of political figures. How can any adherent to the Bush-led Republican party possibly protest tactics of that sort with a straight face? It is truly inconceivable.

The Limbaugh-led right wing of the Republican Party pioneered the repugnant tactic of winning elections by claiming the virtues of sexual morality and depicting their political opponents as sexually depraved. The GOP depends upon, courts and embraces support from the likes of James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Cliff Kinkaid who care about little other than private sexual morality and the immorality of the homosexual. Just yesterday, Newt Gingrich argued that "Republicans are right to favor traditional American conservative social values, and the left is completely wrong to put San Francisco left-wing values third in line to be President,"and Tim Graham said in The Corner that Democrats should lose because liberals have a "sexually omnivorous agenda."

As should be painfully obvious, the issue with Larry Craig -- or with pointing out the wildly promiscuous recreational-drug-aided sexual behavior of Rush Limbaugh, or Newt Gingrich's multiple, overlapping broken marriages -- isn't to apply our moral standards to their private lives, but is to apply their own publicly claimed moral standards, as well as the core tactics of the GOP, to document that they live in utter contradiction to the sexual morality they relentlessly embrace for political gain (an exceedingly simple concept which the intellectually honest La Shawn Barber patiently tries to explain to her fellow Bush supporters, as does Pam Spaulding, a little less patiently). Why does it even need to be pointed out that the issue isn't the sexual morality of Larry Craig, Rush Limabugh and Newt Gingrich, but their vile hypocrisy, equally embodied by the anger being expressed by Bush followers over the use of sexual issues for political gain?

While many Bush followers are aware of this fact and cynically pretend not to understand it, others (I think the majority) are genuinely incapable of understanding that point because they block out the reality that the political movement to which they pledge their loyalty has made private sexual morality and exploitation of people's private lives a central political weapon. Just as they spent three years blocking out the extreme violence, chaos and civil war they brought to Iraq (and some still do), they just refuse to recognize facts that undermine their desires.

Watching Bush followers angrily objecting to the use of sexual behavior and homosexuality for political gain -- or listening them oh-so-solemnly lament how the Good People are being driven away from politics because of the personal, invasive treatment to which they are subjected -- is about as jaw-droppingly astonishing as any spectacle one can fathom. This is a political movement built upon claims of moral superiority in the sexual and private realms. It is truly difficult to express the level of contempt and scorn that is merited when the most fervent supporters of that same political movement pretend to be offended and angry when it is revealed that the lives being led by their political leaders are grossly inconsistent with the sexual and moral values they claim to monopolize.

UPDATE: Here is video of Sean Hannity, just two nights ago, defending Melanie Morgan and her co-author's claim in their new book that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is "addicted to online porn." Let's hear some more from Bush supporters about how terrible it is that the "left" is using private sexual behavior for political gain and exposing people who enter the public arena to such terrible, invasive scrutiny.

And here is what is happening in a North Carolina Congressional race for governor:

[Republican nominee] Vernon Robinson, who has run a series of brash advertisements about the two-term Democratic congressman, charged that Miller wants to import homosexuals to the United States and supported scientific studies that would pay teenage girls to watch pornography.

"Those are San Francisco values, not North Carolina values," said Robinson, repeating a common theme of his campaign.

A bemused Miller countered by blasting Robinson for a campaign mailer that implicitly suggested the congressman was gay and criticized Miller for being "childless." Miller's wife had a hysterectomy more than two decades ago.

Whatever else you might want to say about them, Republicans simply will not use people's private sexual behavior or demonize homosexuals for political gain. They are outraged by such despicable tactics. Absolutely outraged.

UPDATE II: Nick Gillespie documents how Republican Ken Blackwell is trying to win the Ohio Governor's race by having the Ohio State GOP Chairman suggest that Blackwell's opponent, the married Democratic Congressman, Ted Strickland, is a homosexual (via Mona). Isn't it about time to hear some more sermons about how disgusting it is that "the Left" (meaning a single gay activist on the Internet) injects private sexual behavior and homosexuality into politics?

UPDATE III: Jonah Goldberg -- who, along with his mom, played a significant role in dragging the political dialogue in our country down to the lowest and most toxic levels of the sewer (see above for just a couple of samplings) -- expresses his very solemn concern over what the Foley scandal and the Craig outing might portend for our political arena. He calls such tactics "wicked" and compares them to McCarthyism.

Just ponder that for a second -- Jonah Goldberg, spawn of the Clinton sex scandals, who regularly mused in public about the lowest rumors and innuendos about the Clintons' private lives, lecturing everyone on the dangers of exposing and using the private lives of politicians against them. The word "hypocrisy" is nowhere near sufficient to describe their reaction to the Craig outing. It is far beyond that.

Today's tour around the mind of the Bush follower

(updated below)

(1) Newt Gingrich argued yesterday that Republicans should remind the electorate that "Republicans are right to favor traditional American conservative social values, and the left is completely wrong to put San Francisco left-wing values third in line to be President by electing Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to speaker of the House."

Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco left-wing values":

"Upon graduation in 1962, she married Georgetown University graduate Paul Pelosi." "Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."

Newt Gingrich's "traditional American conservative social values":

In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming to Pen Book by Bill Sanderson, available on lexis].
Newt (57) and Callista (34) were married in a private ceremony in a hotel courtyard in Alexandria, Va. in August, 2000. . . .

"He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce."

The consistency in reasoning is at least impressive. Those who evaded military service during wars they cheered on are brave, courageous, resolute warriors. Those who fought for their country in combat are cowards and appeasers.

Those who repeatedly dump their wives for new and better versions, and run around engaging in the sleaziest and most unrestrained sexual behavior, are stalwart defenders of traditional American and Christian values. Those who stay married to their original spouse for their entire lives and raise a family together are godless, radical heathens who represent "San Francisco values" and seek to undermine the country's moral fiber and Christian traditions.

(2) Jeff Stein, the National Security Editor of Congressional Quarterly, has an Op-Ed in this morning's New York Times pointing out that a large percentage of the policymakers and Congressmen he interviews -- including those who make policy with regard to the Middle East -- lack the most basic understanding of the region, including basic facts such as the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. That gaping lack of knowledge does not, however, prevent them from forming extremely didactic views of that region and even advocating all sorts of policies up to and including wars.

As if to provide Stein with the most perfect illustration he could possibly imagine for his Op-Ed, Powerline's Paul Mirgenoff -- who opines on the Middle East as much as, if not more than, any other topic he writes about -- posted this little item yesterday (emphasis added):

Gosh, even after Iran?

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert opened the latest session of the Knesset by inviting Lebanese Prime Minister Saniora, the "moderate" whose army is supposed to help protect Israel from future attacks by Hezbollah, to enter into peace talks. According to the Jerusalem Post, Saniora rebuffed Olmert's offer within hours, promising that Lebanon would be "the last Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel."

Of course, the vast majority of Iranians are Persian, not Arab; their language is not Arabic, and Iran is not considered by anyone (other than Paul and similar warmongering types) to be an "Arab state." Iran is no more of an Arab state than Israel or China are. In fact, Iran's relationship to other Middle Eastern states is defined largely, if not principally, by the Persian-Arab distinction.

I don' t think it's necessary to become an expert in the history, culture and politics of the Middle East in order to form opinions on the basic policy questions our country faces. To the contrary, experts exist precisely in order to enable citizens to become informed on such questions and form meaningful opinions. And everyone can forget facts or make mistakes.

But if -- as Paul routinely does -- one is going to pompously opine to 80,000 people a day on grave matters involving war and peace in the Middle East -- and particularly if one is going to relentlessly spew warmongering rhetoric against numerous other countries -- it seems like the responsible thing to do to at least familiarize oneself with the most basic facts about the countries on whom war is being waged and the region for which radical and belligerent new approaches are being advocated.

What Paul's fact-free worldview seems to reflect is a widespread sense among many warmongers that people in the Middle East (outside of the Israeli borders) are all just part of one undifferentiated, expendable mass that we can deem, more or less, to be the Enemy on whom we can wage one war after the next without much regard for the consequences there. Subscribing to the simplistic and patently false belief that Muslims are all part of one gigantic, common network -- Saddam Hussein is the ally of Sheik Nasrallah who is the ally of Osama bin Laden who is the ally of Saudi princes who are the allies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- is so misguided precisely because it blurs these critical distinctions -- all with the goal of creating one massive worldwide Enemy on which we must wage eternal and limitless war (see UPDATE below).

(3) Investigations and arrests of key Republican political operatives have become so numerous that they are genuinely difficult to keep track of, so it is understandable that many Bush supporters are so eager to find a Democratic scandal to enable them to argue some sort of balance. As understandable as that desire is, this Harry Reid "scandal" is predicated on some of the most irrational and misguided claims imaginable.

That's not to say that Reid did nothing wrong. Reid personally owned a parcel of land that he transferred as part of a sale to a limited liability corporation that he co-owned. It is true, as he acknowledges, that his disclosure forms were technically inaccurate in failing to report that transfer (the disclosure forms he filed continued to list Reid personally as the owner). Reid has the responsibility to ensure that those disclosure documents are accurate and it appears that they were not. But the inaccuracy was purely technical in nature, and not even arguably corrupt, since nobody can claim that reporting the transfer to the LLC would have revealed any information which Reid would want to hide.

The attempt to transform a technical inaccuracy into some sort of grand corruption scheme is dependent upon this incredibly misleading claim, as illustrated by Captain Ed:

Besides, the man made $700,000 in profits in 2004 on that one sale of land that, according to his disclosure statements, he didn't even own at the time.

The Washington Post article linked to above uses this same formulation, which has become the standard anti-Reid mantra: "The Associated Press reported last week that Reid gained the 2004 windfall even though he had not owned the property for the previous three years."

This claim is staggeringly misleading. One of the most basic instruments for how our economy functions is ownership of assets through legally created entities, such as corporations and partnerships. Particularly in closely-held entities (Reid co-owned the LLC with only one other individual), it is extremely common that when the entity sells an asset, the proceeds go to the shareholders or partners.

That happens every single day. One could ominously observe for every such transaction that "the shareholders made profits on the sale of assets that they didn't even own," and that would be technically true -- since it is the entity that owns the assets, not the individual shareholders or partners -- but to promote that description of a purely innocuous transaction with the intent to make it seem unusual or ominous is truly misleading.

One can argue, if one really wishes, about how serious of an infraction it was for Reid to fail to report the transfer of this land from his personal ownership to an LLC of which he was the co-owner. But the scandalmongers here know that that failure is marginal and unlikely to generate any interest. So, instead, they try to add a whiff of financial impropriety with this dark suggestion that Reid profited from the sale of property "he did not even own" -- even though that happens every day as one of the most basic features of how financial transactions are structured. It seems that the truly unethical behavior here is from those trying to promote this as some sort of serious scandal based on misleading rhetorical tactics such as this one.

UPDATE: Shortly after this was posted, Paul posted a "CORRECTION" to his "Iran is an Arab state" argument -- and then wrote a whole separate post -- and in both instances emphasized that he realized his error all on his very own ("when I woke up this morning I realized, with horror that . . . Iran is not an Arab nation").

As for the Reid matter, Doctor Biobrain points out in Comments that the proceeds received by the LLC from the sale of land are automatically deemed (for tax and accounting purposes) to be personal income to Reid, even if the proceeds remain in the LLC. By definition, profits received by an LLC are attributed to the individual LLC shareholders. To suggest that there is something untoward -- or even unusual -- about individual LLC shareholders receiving the profits from the sale of land owned by the LLC is itself dishonest, since not only are such transactions entirely common and proper, our tax laws are premised on the assumption that the beneficiaries of the profits generated by sale of an LLC-owned asset are the individual owners of the LLC.

The deceitful ritual of the "independent GOP Senator"

(updated below)

When I first began blogging, I believed -- and frequently argued -- that the best strategy for imposing real limits on the excesses of the Bush administration was to attract the support of the group of GOP Senators who did not appear to subscribe to the most extreme elements of the Bush agenda. I was operating on the assumption that certain excesses would be so intolerable and repugnant to their worldview that they would be virtually compelled, by their own consciences and sense of personal dignity if nothing else, to take a real stand, partisan allegiances notwithstanding. From Iraq to torture to warrantless eavesdropping and many things in between, it has been conclusively established that those assumptions were fundamentally false.

Articles like this one (from The Washington Post's Jeffrey Smith, reporting on how "moderate" GOP Senators deceitfully enabled the torture bill to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights) and this one (from AP's Nedra Pickler, reporting that two GOP Senators have oh-so-boldly announced that we need a "different course" in Iraq without saying what that might be) illustrate the misleading ritual in which "independent GOP Senators" engage over and over. They continuously preen around with rhetorical symbols of independence and a willingness to oppose the President, but by their actions, they not only fail to block any of the administration's worst excesses, but worse, they are usually their key enablers.

The dynamic is most vividly seen in the much-documented humiliations of Arlen Specter, but, with the rarest of exceptions, it's really how all of them -- John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, John Warner -- regularly conduct themselves. Nothing has been less significant than the "independent-minded" GOP Senate caucus because it really does not exist in any substantive way.

The above-linked article from the Post reports that during the debate over the torture bill, Arlen Specter had two proposed amendments to provide habeas corpus rights to detainees -- the more "extreme" version, which he introduced (and which failed by a 48-51 vote), that allowed full habeas corpus rights to detainees, and a more "mild" version which would have limited detainees to a maximum of one habeas challenge, and which would be triggered only after a full year in detention. The "mild" habeas version was never introduced by Specter and therefore was never voted on.

The Post article reports that -- unlike the "extreme" Specter amendment -- the more "mild" version had the support of a majority of Senators. For that reason, Specter "was pressured into discarding [the] less extreme and more politically palatable amendment at the Bush administration's request, in favor of [the more extreme] alternative more likely to be defeated." The Post article suggests that Specter introduced a habeas amendment which he knew would fail, while refusing to introduce his habeas amendment which would have passed. Specter, of course, leaps to the defense of Bill Frist and the White House and -- while admitting that Frist "allowed" him to introduce only one habeas amendment -- claims that he chose the more extreme version on his own because he did not believe the more "mild" version went far enough in granting rights of habeas corpus.

The Post has sources which claim that Hagel, Snowe and Collins would all have voted in favor of Specter's more mild habeas corpus amendment had it been introduced, and that would have enabled the amendment to pass. The Post article expressly claims that "a Republican aide directly familiar with Hagel's position confirmed that the senator supported the less extreme alternative." But Specter told the Post that he called Hagel after speaking with Smith about the article and Hagel denied (to Specter) that he would have supported the "mild" amendment. Meanwhile, Hagel's spokesman just refuses to say how Hagel would have voted, and Snowe and Collins also both refuse to say what their position is on this most critical issue.

Whether we vest in the President the power to detain people forever without any right to challenge their detention is one of the most profound political questions of this decade, at least. It defines who we are as a country and has unparalleled significance in terms of how we are perceived around the world. Whether we will put people in a black hole forever and deny them any ability to prove their innocence -- as our Congress just empowered the President to do -- implicates the most fundamental principles of what kind of country and government we have.

Yet these "moderate, independent" Republican Senators of conscience can't even bring themselves to say what their position is on these issues. Do they support habeas corpus rights at all? Would they have voted in favor of Specter's more "mild" amendment? Are they angry about Bill Frist's maneuvers to block Specter's amendment from coming to the Senate floor, even in light of the standard GOP mantra about the need for "up-or-down" votes? Would they support efforts now to amend the torture bill to at least provide detainees with the one-time habeas right, to kick in after one year of detention, so that there is at least some chance for detainees who are wrongfully detained to avoid being imprisoned forever?

They won't say. They prefer to be coy and silent on one of the most vital issues of our time because to do otherwise would force them to stand in opposition to the administration on a critical question. And that is something they simply will never do, even if it means enabling one of the most extremist pieces of legislation in the last century to be enacted. Every time, when the choice is forced, they opt for partisan allegiance and blind support for the administration over everything else. They are different from the Jon Cornyns and Pat Roberts and Jeff Sessions and Bill Frists of the Senate only cosmetically and, worse, they are far more important in enabling the Bush movement to implement its most radical measures by creating the deceitful appearance that these policies are supported by "moderates."

The AP article linked above reports that two of the serious, courageous independent GOP Senators -- Hagel and John Warner -- announced over the weekend their bold discovery that our current "course" in Iraq isn't working. But, as always, they did this in the most meaningless, self-serving way possible. Hagel, on CNN, "said it is time to change course, but 'our options are limited.'" Warner stated the obvious -- that "there has been an 'exponential increase in the killings and the savagery that's going on over there'" -- but then said this: "We have to rethink all the options, except any option which says we precipitously pull out, which would let that country fall into a certain civil war at that time, and all of the neighboring countries would be destabilized."

So, do Hagel and Warner agree with Democrats like Jack Murtha who want a phased withdrawal? Do they object to characterizations by the Republicans of anti-war Democrats as "cut and run" surrender-happy cowards? What specifically is the administration doing wrong? What do they think ought to be done differently? They won't say, because their overriding objective is to lavish themselves with the virtues of independence while avoiding doing anything to criticize the President or to oppose administration policy in any meaningful way.

Just like they know that denying habeas corpus is hideously wrong, these pseudo-independent GOP Senators know the Iraq Was is failing, so they want it to appear as part of some sort of Platonic "historical record" that they were one of the bold, independent GOP Senators to stand up and say so -- three-and-a-half years later in the case of Iraq, and only in the most deliberately inconsequential way in the case of torture and habeas corpus. But their objections, as always, are meaningless because their paramount consideration -- partisan allegiance -- prevents them from saying or doing anything meaningful.

As always, all of this play-acting is designed to fulfill the only real objective these "moderate, independent-minded" GOP Senators have -- to self-servingly cast the appearance of independence and to distance themselves from the administration's grossest failures and excesses while, simultaneously, remaining blindly loyal and doing everything possible to enable those same failures and abuses. Over the last five years, particularly when it comes to policies ostensibly justified by The Terrorists, the Senate has fully acquiesced to the dictates of the White House. They have neither stopped nor meaningfully limited anything. And at the epicenter of this disgraceful record of Congressional abdication has been this group of "moderate, independent GOP Senators." Nobody has done more to enable the worst aspects of the extremist Bush agenda than they have.

UPDATE: Just to get a sense for how thoroughly in lockstep Republican Senators march, as contrasted with the frequently divided Democratic Senate caucus, observe the following votes on some of the most significant matters the Senate has decided over the last several years:

Vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court: Republicans (56-0) -- Democrats (22 -22)

Cloture vote on Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court: Republicans (54-0) -- Democrats (19-25)

Vote on Authorization to use military force in Iraq: Republicans (48-1) -- Democrats - (29-21)

Cloture vote on Bankrupty Bill: Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (14-30)

Cloture vote on nomination of Priscilla Owens to appeals court: Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (25-18)

Toture/detention bill: Republicans (53-1) -- Democrats (12-33)

Genuine Republican independence in the Congress is a myth. It doesn't exist. They have spent the last five years as a pitifully obsequious appendange to the Bush agenda.

Election reveals true colors

Glenn Reynolds said yesterday that reports of Harold Ford's attendance at a Playboy party will help him in the election, because -- "post-Foleygate" -- voters want to be reassured that a candidate isn't gay (emphasis added):

Likewise, charging someone with partying with Playboy bunnies seems like pretty weak tea. I was talking about that with a Republican friend the other day, who said it was the best thing he'd heard about Ford so far. He's not alone: Few people will really be offended by that, and other voters will find partying with bunnies to be amusing and perhaps even appealing, and if nothing else it undercuts potential voter worries that Ford is a goodie-two-shoes or -- post-Foleygate, a risk for any unmarried male member of Congress -- gay, which would seem to do his campaign more good than harm.

The grotesque notion that the lesson of the Foley scandal is that gay men -- as opposed to Republicans or white middle-age males -- cannot be trusted around underage pages is being disseminated by the most toxic hate-mongerers and religious exploiters in the Republican Party, and it is entirely unsurprising to see Reynolds repeating it here.

Reynolds previously promoted John Hinderaker's defense of Denny Hastert, in which Hinderaker argued that Hastert had no reason to take notice of Foley's behavior with pages because Hastert knew Foley was gay and therefore would not have been the slightest bit surprised to learn that he was preying on teenage pages. Making this argument overtly, rather than through passive-aggressive links, is reflective, I think, of a general desperation infecting Bush followers as this election, and the collapse of their movement, rapidly approaches.

Does Reynolds have any basis whatsoever for asserting that "voters" see Mark Foley's behavior as reflective of gay men generally -- rather than reflective of Republicans or white males or Christians -- and that the Foley scandal has therefore made voters less likely to vote for a gay candidate and crave evidence of the candidate's heterosexuality? No, of course he doesn't. To the extent data exists on this question, it reflects exactly the opposite. Reynolds -- as is so often the case -- is just spouting his own incoherent and deeply irrational thoughts and ugly biases and then pretending to be above them by sitting back analytically and oh-so-knowingly attributing them, with no basis whatsoever, to "voters."

It isn't "voters" who are making a connection between Mark Foley and the issue of whether gay people are entitled to equal treatment. It's the likes of Glenn Reynolds (cursory support for gay marriage notwithstanding) who are doing that, quite deliberately, in the hope that the old reliable strategy of demonizing gay people will strengthen the cultural tribalism on which they depend and will save them in this election.

Reynolds is just following in the footsteps of the Tennessee Republican Party, which has been running commercials suggesting that Harold Ford isn't a true Christian because he attended a Playboy party. Trying to win elections by concocting a choice between the sexually moral and immoral is -- even when it's accurate -- about as desperate as it gets. But in light of the private sexual behavior of those whom the religious wing of the Republican Party has chosen as its leaders, that tactic is so dishonest and hypocritical as to be laughable. But inflaming racial, religious and sexual tribalism is what the Bush-led Republican Party knows and instinctively does.

Much attention is paid to the utter ineptitude and deceit which characterizes the way this country has been governed under one-party Republican rule for the past five years, but almost as destructive is the way they campaign and keep themselves in power. In light of the towering, transparent failures of their movement, these sorts of diversionary tactics, sexual morality parades, and hate-fueled sideshows appear insignificant and therefore don't seem to be working this time. But that doesn't mean they are inconsequential.

The virtues of passion and anger

The New York Times has an article this morning on the surprisingly strong challenge to 20-year incumbent GOP Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon being mounted by Joe Sestak, a former Naval officer and Clinton White House national security aide. Polls show the race even -- a startling state of affairs for a district that has sent the bizarre Republican Weldon to Congress for two decades -- and these two paragraphs from the article reveal not only why Sestak appears to be doing so well, but why Democrats are as well:

When Joe Sestak announced he was running for Congress, national Democrats and media consultants told him not to talk about pulling troops out of Iraq, arguing it would only encourage the image of Democrats as weak on national security.

Nine months later, having ignored their advice, Mr. Sestak has put a 20-year Republican incumbent on the run for the first time, turning a bid by a political novice into a real race. Polls show that Mr. Sestak is running even or better with his opponent, Representative Curt Weldon, and that the war more than any other issue is propelling voters toward him.

The single most erroneous and destructive premise among the Beltway political class -- which includes the Democratic consulting class along with their intellectual twins in the David-Broder-led punditry circles -- is that anger and passion are the enemies of successful political movements. They preach a mindset of fear and defensiveness -- never articulate a view too strenuously and never be driven by principle or passion because to do so renders one an unmoderate extremist who will alienate normal Americans.

Whatever else you might want to say about them, the Bush-led Republicans embrace their radical ideas enthusiastically and are never shy about advocating them. But the mentality of the Democratic consultancy and pundit class have, outside of that extremist GOP crevice, stripped our political system of any real conviction, passion, belief, and resolve.

Democrats so rarely mold, shape or drive public opinion because their consultants and pundits operate from the premise that passion and principle are to be avoided at all costs. Stripped to its essence, the core advice of these consultants, which most national Democrats have been embracing, is to follow, not lead. But Americans -- understandably -- want to elect leaders, not followers, and that is why nothing has been more damaging to the Democratic Party brand than the self-consciously clever, soul-less, fear-driven advice of their consultants to abandon their own beliefs.

The Democratic consultants who told Joe Sestak not to advocate troop withdraw from Iraq -- even though, as a military veteran and national security expert, that is what he believes is best for his country -- suffer not only from a serious character defect but also towering strategic stupidity. Everyone other than the most self-deluded Bush followers recognize that the core impetus for the collapse of the Republican Party's popularity is the public's anger and disgust over the deceitful way we were led into Iraq and the subsequent ineptitude and dishonesty that has characterized our ongoing disastrous occupation. Yet even on that issue, Democratic consultants and the Richard Cohens and Fred Hiatts of the world counsel against taking strong or clear positions.

Why would anyone advise a Congressional candidate -- let alone a military veteran and national security expert -- to sound as much as possible like the embarrassingly unpopular George Bush when talking about the equally unpopular war in Iraq? It's because they have an intrinsic and by-now instinctive fear of their own political views and have adopted, as their guiding principle, the mandate that all strongly-held (and, even more so, clearly articulated) convictions must be avoided at all costs.

The principal reason this happens is because the extremist wing of the Republican party (the foreign policy neoconservatives and domestic moralists) has been preaching that the defining views of Democrats are repugnant and alien to mainstream, normal Americans. And that view has been fully internalized by Beltway Democrats and the pundit class. Time and again, that is the message that is sent -- that Democrats can't advocate their real views because most Americans reject those views -- even when it is so plainly false.

But all of this happens precisely because Republicans want Democrats to be afraid of advocating their views and to think that they have to run away from them. The Rovians know what the hapless Democratic consultancy mystifyingly fails to see -- that anger and passion are the keys to political success. Several months ago, I wrote a post about the virtues of anger in response to a worried, fretful column by Richard Cohen lamenting (based upon some mean e-mails he received) that the anger among blogs and the Democratic base "spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats." This is part of what I wrote:

Most successful political movements need passion. Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action. Conversely, those who are entirely devoid of anger are often lifeless, limp, uninspiring figures who seem to be drained of soul and purpose. . . . .

Republicans tell Democrats to repudiate their "angry base" so that eager-to-be liked-and-desperate-to-be-considered-reasonable Democrats like Joe Klein, Marshall Whitman, Joe Lieberman and Richard Cohen will attack other Democrats and depict them as radical, deranged freaks. Because when a bulk of Democrats are so eager to curry head-pats from the Right that they spend more time attacking the symbols of their own party than they do attacking the Right, that is a good thing for Republicans.

It breeds divisiveness among Democrats, confuses their message, and destroys the symbols of their own party . . . That is why the Right encourages this idea among Democrats that anger is fatal and to be avoided - even as they perfect the art of using it themselves. They know from lots of experience that a political party that coalesces around its impassioned anger can be very successful. The sooner Democrats figure that out, the better off they will be.

The David Broders, Richard Cohens, Joe Kleins and New Republic editors and the consultants molded in their blurry, murky, shapeless image have truly come to believe that Democrats can win only by hiding and diluting their real views and especially by running away from any real challenge to the extremist Bush movement. As a result, the Beltway Democratic political class has transformed itself into amorphous, apologetic, defensive symbols of nothing.

But numerous candidates like Joe Sestak, Jon "Repeal-the-Patriot-Act-now" Tester, and scores of candidates running on an aggressive anti-Bush platform are succeeding because they are galvanizing -- rather than trying to suppress -- the passion and anger of Americans over how our country has been run. Democrats are poised to win their first national election in what seems like an eternity for one principal reason -- the electorate is angry at what is going on in our country and is moved by passion and anger to change it.

Every poll, and the consensus of political analysts, is revealing that at the heart of the Democratic political advantage are extreme emotions and passions, not muted technocratic preferences or some yearning for a plodding, GOP-accommodating centrism. It is self-evident that people who are dissatisfied with Republican rule -- which is a solid majority of the country -- want a political movement that is different than the Bush-led political movement in clear and unapologetic ways and will oppose and battle it, not try to copy it.

Anger and passion are indispensable weapons for overcoming indifference and motivating political action. Particularly in a non-presidential election -- but, really, always -- people need a reason to care about the outcome. If a political party can't even muster enough conviction in its own views to articulate clear ideas -- if candidates like Joe Sestak had listened to the listless, fear-based advice from consultants "not to talk about pulling troops out of Iraq, arguing it would only encourage the image of Democrats as weak on national security" -- then Democrats are not going to motivate anyone to even care enough if they succeed, let alone take action to promote that outcome. Why would anyone?

The related problem is that the fear-driven advice to avoid strong positions because those positions are unpopular becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy over and over and over. When Democrats are continuously told to avoid taking a stand for their positions, their positions will inevitably be unpopular because they have failed to advocate them forcefully. Viewpoints become popular when persuasive leaders make a passionate and persuasive case for those viewpoints. If the public sees one party viciously attacking Position X, while the other party defensively and half-heartedly says that Position X is not as awful as it seems and, besides, they only half-believe in Position X, the public will inevitably conclude that Position X is wrong and even toxic. What other conclusion can one draw if nobody is willing to advocate that position?

The ethos of the Democratic consultant and Beltway political class is one of the lowly follower -- operating on the assumption that public opinion is static and immovable and one must therefore be enslaved to it rather than trying to shape, change and control it. But those who are enslaved to public opinion -- or to anything -- will appear to be weak and fearful people who are the very antithesis of leaders, and it is that perception, not any specific views, which has enabled the GOP to depict Democrats as weak, whiny losers. Listening to those consultant voices and reducing themselves to meek and apologetic followers -- transparently stripped of passion and conviction and purpose and driven only be fear and base self-preservation -- has been the single gravest problem of Democrats over the last six years.

If Democrats win in three weeks, it will be for one simple reason -- because the country has been so awakened and stirred by anger and intense dissatisfaction with our system of one-party Republican rule that they will be motivated to turn out incumbents in large numbers and even change their normal voting patterns. Nobody disputes that this passion is one that is oppositional in nature. It is driven by a disgust for the views and behavior of Republicans, not by an embrace of Democrats.

But there are lessons to be learned about the value of passion and emotion, including anger. This passion could be a positive one as well -- one that motivates and inspires support for a political movement rather than merely a disgust-driven desire to punish. But for that to happen, the bland, fearful, status-quo-loving Democratic pundits and consultants need to be ignored (as Joe Sestak obviously chose to do), and those who want to be elected need to embrace their real beliefs in the attempt to trigger public passion and anger, not run away from it in fear.

Today

I'm unable to post today so I wanted to bring to your attention several superb posts that, had I been able to post, I likely would have written about:

* Hilzoy has what might be the best and most comprehensive analysis of the North Korean situation as any that I've read.

* There are some genuinely amazing and depressing reports from Iraq over the last couple of day which, even more than usual, really convey how (hopelessly) dire things are there, and Swopa at Needlenose (whose analysis of Iraq is often as good as (at least) any pundit you will read in any of our country's major newspapers) has an excellent assessment of those developments.

* Republicans pretended to welcome news of North Korea's nuclear test because that issue at least has the benefit of changing the subject for them. But A.L. suggests a political commercial that really does convey the greatest irony of our current political landscape -- that national security is deemed by the mindless media to be the greatest strength of the Bush-led Republicans even though that is the area where they have exhibited the most ineptitude and done the most damage.

* This Alternet article by former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges (h/t Billmon) discusses the possibility that an attack on Iran is much more imminent than is widely believed. I do think that an attack on Iran, for reasons I've set forth previously, is more likely than not over the next two years (particularly if Republicans maintain control of Congress), though I am unconvinced that this will occur over the next few weeks. Hedges' article is still highly worth reading for its reporting on recent developments and its discussion of the grave dangers of such a conflict, regardless of when it might occur.

Finally, in a day or so when I have a little more time, I will write a follow-up post to the blog support request I wrote the other day, but for the moment, I just want to express my deepest appreciation and thanks for those of you who responded and, really, for everyone who participates in any way in this blog. I believe that what motivates most bloggers is the belief that the work they do can have some genuine and positive impact -- that is certainly what motivates me -- and knowing that there is that level of support for the work I am doing is genuinely encouraging and extremely gratifying.

Peggy Noonan's poetic love of dissent, civility and grace

(Updated below - Update II - Update III)

Peggy Noonan has a new column in the Wall St. Journal solemnly lamenting the "fact" that, unlike the right, "the left" in America has no tolerance for dissenting views and does not understand the values of free speech or civility in political discourse. She cites four examples to "document" her thesis -- the recent protests by some Columbia University college students at an appearance by one of the Minutemen; criticisms allegedly voiced by unnamed "blog critics" and unnamed CBS employees over the airing by CBS News of a Columbine parent who blamed legalized abortion for the Columbine shootings; Barbra Streisand's use of a bad word when responding to a heckler at her concert; and an argument over gun control which Rosie O'Donnell had with Elizabeth Hasselback on The View.

From these examples, Noonan rhetorically asks: "There's a pattern here, isn't there?" She then proceeds to answer her own question this way:

Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.

We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular? Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.

And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.

And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.

The examples of "the right" engaging in the type of dissent-quashing campaigns -- not in isolated examples from frivolous celebrities or college kids, but en masse, as a movement, from some of their leading pundits and activists -- are literally too numerous to chronicle. It was "the Right" which lobbied furiously, and successfully, to block Juan Cole's appointment to the Yale faculty because they dislike his views on the Middle East and Iraq. They previously demanded the firing of Ward Churchill for his views on 9/11, and are currently demanding the termination of Kevin Barrett from the University of Wisconsin because of his hostility towards George Bush and his view that 9/11 was caused by the Bush administration. The Right wants to amend the Constitution to criminalize flag burning.

It is "the right" which constantly harasses television networks not to broadcast television programs which offend them. David Horowitz has built his career over the last several years on his campaign to limit academic freedom through legislation. Peggy Noonan herself vocally complained about CBS' decision to air The Reagans.

Even more absurdly, Noonan is sad -- so very, very sad -- that "the left" not only lacks tolerance for dissent, but worse, they don't appreciate the virtues of "grace" and civility in political discourse:

What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died.

What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.

Remember that all of these sweeping, melodramatic sermons are based on the examples of some Columbia college kids, unnamed CBS employees, Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell.

Peggy Noonan is part of a political movement whose most influential leaders routinely accuse their political opponents of being allies of The Terrorist. Ask Michael Reagan what should be done with Howard Dean (he "should be hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!"). Or ask the graceful, dissent-loving John Hinderaker what he thinks of Jimmy Carter (he "isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side"). Ask the civil, graceful Mark Levin about Bill Clinton's mental health ("Bill Clinton is nuttier than a pecan pie"). Or listen to Byron York reference anti-anxiety medications and wonder about the "emotionally volatile" Howard "Dean's emotional intensity and whether such intensity should be a disqualifying characteristic for a potential president."

In fact, virtually every leading Democratic political figure at one point or another has been accused of not just merely being a terrorist sympathizer, but mentally ill. Ask Charles Krauthammer about what psychological medications Al Gore needs to be taking, repeated by graceful, dissent-loving John Podhoretz (“It is now clear that Al Gore is insane . . . There is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely"), or Oliver North ("Somebody needs to check this guy's medication. This guy has got a problem"), or David Frum ("a National Psychological Council would be a good idea after all -- and maybe it could start by advising [Al Gore] ought to seek out for his own good a cool and quiet darkened room"), or the graceful, civil Sean Hannity ("He's [Al Gore's] really nuts").

As wind sweeps through your hair, just behold the civil grace and the love of political disagreement that is so tragically missing on "the left" but that is in such abundant, ample, graceful display over there on "the right." It's so moving. And none of that even digs as low as one could to the graceful, dissent-worshipping likes of Michelle "Liberals-are-Unhinged" Malkin, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann "Liberals-are-Treasonous-and-Godless" Coulter.

Whenever these sorts of "points" are made -- comparing the extremism and hatred of dissent on the left and the right -- one thing you will notice is that the examples used for "the left" are virtually always totally obscure and inconsequential figures dragged into the public eye (Deb Frisch, Ward Churchill, tens of random Columbia college kids), anonymous and unnamed individuals ("blog critics" or buried Kos or Democratic Underground commenters), or frivolous entertainers who have nothing to do with the Democratic Party (Harry Belafonte, Rosie O'Donnell, Barbra Streisand).

By contrast, one never needs to dig and search that way to find examples of such dissent-hating behavior on the Right. Instead, the examples are found easily and abundantly among the leading and most influential pundits and political figures of the Right (see above). That's because the type of dissent intolerance which Noonan is so poetically and profoundly lamenting is found in isolated, inconsequential clusters on "the left," but it is one of the core strategies, a defining tactic, of the Bush-led Right.

Really, what could be more laughable and hypocritical than for someone who is a follower of the Bush movement, like Noonan, to write a column sermonizing about the need to tolerate dissent and to conduct ourselves with grace and civility in political debates while preening around as though they are on the side of dissent, grace and civility? I think the answer to that question is "nothing."

UPDATE: I neglected to mention the multiple instances of dissent-loving behavior on the part of the Bush administration itself, whereby those with t-shirts expressing anti-Bush views were removed from events or rallies, or even arrested. As I am reminded in comments, I also neglected to mention the recent incident where a Colorado man (accompanied by his 7-year-old son) was arrested by the Secret Service for "assaulting" Dick Cheney because he told Cheney the Iraq War was "reprehensible."

But, as Noonan's column makes clear, none of this compares in significance or meaning to the leftist tyranny reflected by Rosie O'Donnell's raising her voice to Elizabeth Hasselback during their gun control argument or the omnipotent world political leader Barbra Streisand's outburst towards a heckler at her concert.

UPDATE II: Pardon me for failing to mention one of the most inspiring defenses of dissent and civility from the Right -- this demand from graceful Ben Shapiro on Townhall that Al Gore, John Kerry and Howard Dean all be prosecuted for sedition:

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.

Indeed. Why does "the left" so hate dissent and civility?

And then we have this person, who holds herself out as a psychologist and abuses her license by spending every day purporting to diagnose those who disagree with her political views as suffering from various mental illnesses. But she wants you to know that she agrees wholeheartedly with Peggy Noonan's column today, and to underscore her agreement with Noonan, she says -- all in one post -- that the left has suffered a "rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy," that "it has transformed itself into a vehicle enabling for the implementation of evil throughout the world," that "the left has degenerated into a movement that has not only abandoned reality, they have jettisoned reason and critical thinking," that "the left" is composed of "bleeding narcissists," and, finally, "the mind of the left has turned to mush."

That is someone who claims, with no irony, to agree with Peggy Noonan's plea for civility and grace in our political discourse (the virtues of "listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity"). How can someone say they agree with Noonan's column and then, in the same post, proceed to spew out one venomous insult after the next without being cognizant of the contradiction? How does that observation escape someone? Then again, Peggy Noonan wrote a column today purporting to be so upset by the lack of dissent tolerance and civility, and pointed to the left in order to make her case, so anything is possible.

UPDATE III: Needless to say, Glenn Reynolds is very impressed with Peggy's argument and dramatically describes it this way:

THE SOUNDS OF SILENCING: Peggy Noonan looks at recent efforts to crush dissent.

Just compare that description to the examples Noonan cites and see if you can avoid boisterous laughter. This need among Bush followers to depict themselves as persecuted is truly endless. Barbra Streisand. Rosie O'Donnell. "Crushing dissent."

The GOP war on the private sphere

(updated below)

With the bulk of the nation's political attention devoted to the Bush administration's radical terrorism and war policies, the relentless domestic invasions into the private realm of adult Americans usually go unnoticed. But underneath the media radar, the administration and its Congressional allies have been actively placating the religious "conservative" wing of the Republican Party through all sorts of liberty-infringing and highly invasive measures. On every level, it is difficult to envision a political party more hostile to individual liberty than the current Bush-led Republicans.

One of the leading items on the agenda of religious conservatives is their desire to prevent adult citizens who want to gamble from doing so -- not by persuading them of the evils of gambling, but by abusing the power of the federal government to make it a criminal offense for those adults to choose to gamble. Two weeks ago, Congressional Republicans, led by Sens. Bill Frist and John Kyl, attached a broad anti-gambling provision onto a bill designed to enhance port security, which means that nobody could vote against it. That provision "prohibit[s] gamblers [i.e., adults] from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers," and it also dramatically enhances the enforcement powers of the federal government to arrest and imprison adults who choose to spend the money they earn by sitting in their homes and gambling online.

As reflected by the observations at National Review's Corner of Andrew Stuttaford (a genuine believer in individual liberty), Republicans have now almost completely abandoned any belief in limitations on the power and reach of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives, while Democrats, imperfect though they are, have taken the role of insisting upon the right of citizens to be free from unwarranted federal government intervention. Here is Stuttaford, quoting Barney Frank:

[Frank]: "If an adult in this country, with his or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we prohibit it because it doesn't add to the GDP or it has no macroeconomic benefit. Are we all to take home calculators and, until we have satisfied the gentleman from Iowa that we are being socially useful, we abstain from recreational activities that we choose?... People have said, What is the value of gambling ? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn't that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do."

[Stuttaford]: Barney Frank talking sense, Senator Frist not. Draw your own conclusions.

Barney Frank is typically held up (for less than noble reasons) as the face of contemporary big government liberalism, yet Frank's formulation here -- "If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do" -- is an expression of the core, defining libertarian principle, which previously defined (at least ostensibly) small-government conservative ideology. Those principles are ones which the Republican Party, under power-crazed authoritarians like Bill Frist, not only clearly reject, but actively work to undermine in virtually every realm.

The Bush administration and its GOP Congressional allies have been waging a similar war against the evils of adult pornography. The Mark Foley-sponsored so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006" has as one of its principal, hidden purposes the imposition of a regulatory scheme designed to make it as prohibitively expensive and burdensome as possible to produce and distribute adult pornographic products or to maintain adult websites.

The First Amendment bars them from doing what they really want to do, which is criminalize the production and distribution of any material they consider to be pornographic (just like they have criminalized gambling). As a result, they are attempting to accomplish the same objective via the indirect strategy of imposing so many record-keeping and other bureaucratic requirements on companies that produce pornography -- compliance is virtually impossible without hiring attorneys and new employees strictly to work on record-keeping -- that companies can no longer afford to do so and are scared out of operating or are driven out of business.

What makes all of this even more indefensible is that these provisions are not only being enacted, but that federal law enforcement resources -- substantial amounts of them -- are being devoted to enforcing these new laws even though we are currently fighting an Epic War of Civilizations. FBI agents are not being used to search for IslamoFascistJihadists sleeper cells because they are too busy satisfying James Dobson by searching for poker players and spending the day at the homes of single-person pornographers ensuring that their record-keeping is in compliance with the Byzantine requirements of Mark Foley's new law. Anti-gambling activities have increased dramatically as of late: "Federal officials have made recent arrests involving offshore companies operating Internet gambling sites."

And in the lead-up to the November election, the FBI has also been dispatching agents to various pornography companies around the country to conduct so-called "2257 inspections," a reference to the provision of Mark Foley's new law (as well as a prior one also co-sponsored by him) which has been dramatically expanded in numerous ways over the past year. The FBI has been forcing agents to spend literally all day at small, obscure companies that are not suspected of any wrongdoing. And the FBI has announced that they intend to conduct numerous additional inspections from now until November. The work is so frivolous that FBI agents have refused the assignment and complained bitterly about being tasked to such matters during the War on Terrorism.

The same people who relentlessly insist that this war against The Terrorists which we are fighting is so grave and of such overriding danger that we have to dismantle the Constitution and vest unprecedented domestic powers in the President to fight it, are simultaneously causing the FBI to devote its resources to finding and arresting adults who choose to spend their time and money on gambling and adult pornography, all because James Dobson and Bill First think those activities are immoral and irreligious and, therefore, the Federal Government can and should use its vast law enforcement powers to dictate how adult citizens conduct themselves in their private lives.

It has been obvious for quite some time, and certainly since the Schiavo travesty, that the Bush-led Republican Party is the very antithesis of individual liberty and a limited federal government. The administration and its Congressional loyalists not only seek unlimited state power in name of combating terrorism but also in the name of enforcing private morality.

UPDATE: Several commenters have suggested that one impetus for this bill, if not the primary impetus, was a desire to protect the offline gaming industry from the competitive threat posed by online gambling. I understand that view, and have written before about one of the lowest forms of political manipulation imaginable -- the way Ralph Reed mobilized his anti-gambling moralist base by making them think the anti-gambling legislation he advocated was achieving some moral good when, in reality, it was all designed to protect the interests of Jack Abramoff's casino clients, who were paying Reed high fees.

But in this case, the anti-gambling legislation seems clearly aimed at the religious "conservative" component of the GOP and, as this interesting article covering the new law suggests, Bill Frist's presidential ambitions (and his need to curry favor with that voting segment) in particular. Additionally, this new post from Andrew Stuttaford makes a convincing case that Las Vegas and Native American casino interests strongly opposed this bill.

Questions about the first treason indictment in 50 years

(updated below)

"Treason" is an accusation that is tossed around casually and frequently by Bush followers. Many of them seem to think that the bulk of the Democratic Party and large swaths of the non-Fox press corps are guilty of it. But treason is actually one of the most rarely charged crimes. Nobody has been indicted for treason in the U.S. in more than 50 years, and there have been only 30 or so treason prosecutions in all of American history.

Not a single American was accused of treason through the entire McCarthy era, during the Korean and Vietnam wars, nor at any time during the last four decades of the Cold War nor in connection with the rise of McVeigh-type anti-government militia movements of the 1990s. As intended by the Founders, the U.S. Government, regardless of which political party controls it, has traditionally exercised great discretion and restraint when it comes to charging Americans with that crime.

But yesterday, the Bush Justice Department announced that it has obtained an indictment that includes one count of treason against Adam Gadahn, the American citizen and former California resident who was raised and home schooled as a Christian and later converted to Islam (other reports suggest that his upbringing also included Judaism). Gadahn has appeared in several Al Qaeda videos, declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and urged jihad against the United States. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty called a news conference yesterday to announce the indictment, and this is part of what he said:

Adam Gadahn is an American citizen who made a choice -- he chose to join our enemy and to provide it with aid and comfort by acting as a propagandist for al-Qaeda . . . Today's indictment should serve as notice that the United States will protect itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . . Betrayal of our country will bring severe consequences.

Even if one assumes that a case for treason can be made against Gadahn (an assumption that, as noted below, is more precarious than it might initially seem), what possible purpose is served by the administration's treason indictment?

Gadhan has already been indicted on charges of providing material support to terrorist groups. They obviously have no idea where he is and are unable to apprehend him, or else they would have done so by now with or without an indictment. Gadhan has long been considered a fugitive who "has been sought by the FBI since 2004."

Moroever, if there is one thing that is clear, it is that the Bush administration does not believe it needs an indictment in order to detain whomever they want, including American citizens (see Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi and John Walker Lindh). And beyond that, the newly minted (and soon to be signed) "Military Commissions Act of 2006" expressly authorizes the President to seize and detain whomever he wants as an "illegal enemy combatant." The indictment does not add anything substantive and does not enable the administration to take any action that it otherwise could not take. If they ever apprehended Gadhan, they could always indict him for treason then.

So what is the motivation for the Bush administration to obtain the first treason indictment in more than 50 years? The always excellent Dan Eggen does his job as a journalist by including this passage in the Washington Post article he co-wrote with Karen DeYoung, suggesting one obvious motive:

McNulty dismissed questions from reporters about the timing of the indictment, which comes as the Bush administration and other Republicans are seeking to focus attention on national security issues for the midterm elections. McNulty said that authorities are concerned over the growing number of videos from Gadahn and hope to use publicity to capture him.

By now it goes without saying that virtually everything the administration does -- particularly when it comes to terrorism -- has a domestic political component to it. The administration seizes on virtually every event it can to call news conferences in order to sound the alarm bells about The Terrorists and to trumpet the tough action they are taking against them. I don't doubt that this is part of the motivation here. But the political benefits seem rather marginal and, in any event, there were available pretexts short of a treason indictment that could have been used just as effectively to trigger the press conference (for instance, they elevated Gadahn to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List and announced a reward for him, and they also could have simply unveiled the prior sealed indictment).

The Justice Department's excuse as to why they obtained and then trumpeted a treason indictment is that they want to bring more publicity to Gadahn in order to increase the chances of finding him. But that claim is absurd on its face. Gadahn is almost certainly in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and a day or so of media coverage in the U.S. is hardly likely to lead to his capture. Nobody has had more publicity than Osama bin Laden, but that has not helped apprehend him. Moreover, there were, as indicated, numerous ways to publicize Gadahn's case short of a treason prosecution. And then there is the question of timing; why charge him with treason now? Gadhan has been appearing in these videos for years.

One notable aspect of the Bush administration's treason accusation is that the only basis for it seems to be Gadahn's appearance in the Al Qaeda videos, not any actual involvement in any terrorist plots. As the Post reported, "McNulty said the government had no information indicating that Gadahn was directly involved in planning or carrying out terrorist attacks." Additionally, the unusually stringent evidentiary burden for treason convictions imposed by the Constitution makes a conviction in this case highly questionable, at least. As law professor and treason expert Peter Margulies told Eric Lichtblau at The New York Times:

There’s a real issue here as to whether they have met the two witnesses requirement. You need witnesses who are actually familiar with the terms of cooperation of the person charged — whether they were coerced, whether they were paid — and that seems to be lacking here in this case.

The U.S. Government has every right to prosecute individuals who work with or provide direct assistance to Al Qaeda's efforts to attack the U.S. I have no objection at all to Gadahn's indictment on other charges. And every country, including the U.S., has the right to prosecute citizens for treason who wage war against it or who aid its enemies.

But treason accusations are extremely serious and have a very high potential for abuse. That is why the Constitution imposes such a high burden for proving it and independently imposes such rare restrictions on Congress' power to legislate in this area. As Find Law notes (h/t James Joyner):

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed . . . . Beyond limiting the power of Congress to define treason, the clause also prescribes limitations upon Congress' ability to make proof of the offense easy to establish and its ability to define punishment

The Founders constitutionally elevated treason above all other crimes in several respects (see Art. III, Sec. 3). That was done for good reason. Aware of its potential for abuse, they wanted to make it very difficult to prosecute Americans for treason and to ensure that treason was asserted only in the clearest and most necessary cases.

Treason ought not to be asserted unless there is a good and real reason for doing so and, independently, there is a high probability for obtaining a conviction. Neither circumstance seems present here. And treason certainly ought not to be used as a political plaything, a pretext for calling press conferences, or as some dramatic backdrop for the issuance of stern warnings from our Government that "the United States will protect itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and that "betrayal of our country will bring severe consequences."

Pursuing the first treason prosecution against an American citizen in more than half a century is a very serious step with potentially significant consequences on numerous fronts. Consequently, it ought to be justified by some compelling reasons. There don't seem to be any compelling reasons here, but there do seem to be -- as always -- some clear signs of exploitation and mischief. This administration demonstrates, yet again, that there is no American tradition or custom that they are unwilling to ignore and violate if doing so provides even the smallest political advantage or otherwise enhances their power.

UPDATE: I want to clarify the argument here in response to several of the comments. As I made clear, I have no objection to the Government indicting and prosecuting Adam Gadahn. I think they ought to. And that includes for treason if a conviction can be obtained and there is a reason to charge him with that crime.

I am questioning (a) why they added a treason charge when they don't have him in custody and aren't going to any time soon; (b) why they did this now; (c) whether treason can really be supported given the charges against him (which is not to question whether he is a "traitor" in some ethical or political sense -- clearly he is that -- but whether the evidentiary requirement imposed by the Constitution can be met); and (d) what the administration's strategies and motivations are in adding this charge. Responding that he is a scumbag who works with Al Qaeda doesn't address any of that.

Counting Iraqi deaths

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

The news item that is certain to (and ought to) dominate our political discussions for the next several days at least is the report that "a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred." The findings are so extraordinary because of how radically they depart from other estimates:

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The report is being published in Lancet and was conducted "by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health." Nobody disputes that the survey used scientific methodology to reach its findings, although everyone recognizes there is inherent uncertainty in counting the number of civilian dead in a war zone, and even the researchers themselves acknowledge a huge margin of error. The same research team published a similar report in Lancet in 2004 claiming that 100,000 Iraqis had died, though this newest survey has a much larger and more representative sampling than the prior one.

Independent of disputes over absolute numbers, what seems conclusively clear is that -- contrary to the endless claims from our government and its followers -- the trend in Iraq, after 3 1/2 years of our occupation, continues to worsen significantly, with violence steadily increasing in recent months. That appears to account for at least some of the disparity between this newest report and older claims by the Bush administration, since this current report includes:

a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Needless to say, Bush followers have become overnight expert statisticians and are able -- with certainty no less -- to declare these numbers to be wildly inflated and unreliable (some try to provide some reasoning, while some don't even bother). As always, facts which reflect poorly on the Leader and his wars are, for that reason alone, false and inherently "biased," and can be disregarded with the wave of a hand (which is, incidentally, as good an explanation as any as to how and why we are in the dreadful situation we find ourselves in Iraq).

I have no idea whether the new Lancet study is accurate or how sound its methodology is. For what it's worth, statistics-loving Kevin Drum acknowledges the inherent uncertainty involved but seems convinced of the study's core methodological accuracy, and Juan Cole has some analysis as to why the findings seem convincing. That there are such wide disparities is unsurprising. Different sides in every conflict, and particularly in wars, typically look at things in self-serving ways and issue claims designed to bolster their view.

Whether entirely accurate or not, there is no question that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians at the very least who have died as a direct result of our invasion and, in that regard, the study underscores a critically important point about the nature of our ongoing occupation. In most wars, the number of dead on the "other side" is a secondary consideration. If anything, the objective often is to inflict as much damage as possible on the enemy's population in order to force their government into submission. In many traditional wars, especially modern wars, a high death toll would be an indicator of success, not failure.

But the opposite is true with the war we are waging in Iraq. Ever since the "threat" rationale for the war vanished (that Saddam had WMDs which would be used against us), the principal, if not exclusive, "justification" for the war was that it would improve the situation of the Iraqi people. Achieving that, so the argument goes, is both morally right and a significant boon to our own security, since improving public opinion of the U.S. in the Muslim world is critical to enhancing our influence and undermining Al Qaeda recruitment efforts. That rationale transforms Iraqi anger towards our war effort from what it would be in most normal wars (an irrelevancy, or even something to be desired) into the greatest impediment to "victory."

In that regard, the fact that enormous numbers of Iraqi civilians are dying as a result of our war effort is -- regardless of the exact number -- one of the greatest indictments of the wisdom (let alone morality) of the entire endeavor. Similarly, recent polls conducted by our own State Department and independent polling groups all show that "a strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence." Worse, "77 percent of those polled [said] the United States intends [to] keep permanent military bases in the country." If Iraqis want us gone and are completely distrustful of our motives for being there, what possible good could can anyone reasonably claim is being achieved?

The fact that there were no weapons to eliminate made the war useless. The fact that we have created extreme, uncontrollable chaos -- which provides a vacuum which the Iranians and Al Qaeda are happily filling -- makes the war dangerous. And the fact that huge numbers of Iraqi civilians continue to die as a direct result of our ongoing occupation and want us to withdraw immediately makes the war completely counter-productive even when measured against the objectives which the administration currently claims are the ones which justify the war in the first place.

We are not even close to leaving Iraq or even decreasing our troop levels by any meaningful amount. If anything, a Republican victory in three weeks would make it highly likely that the neoconservative dream of still more troops would be fulfilled. The trend of violence and death in Iraq is unquestionably worsening, and not only do we achieve nothing by staying, but the situation in Iraq worsens every day -- not just for Iraqis but for our own security. The invasion of Iraq is one of the greatest strategic disasters in our country's history, and this new survey, independent of morbid and inconsequential quibbles over its accuracy, underscores why that is the case.

UPDATE: As lib4 noted in comments, the Bush followers' newfound insistence on statistical exactitude is in marked contrast to the barrage of entirely unverifiable and speculative assertions which were casually tossed around by war advocates prior to the war. We were subjected to a barrage of melodramatic claims about the "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis murdered by Saddam in torture chambers, and we continue to be subjected to similar post-war claims like this one from the President, "reporting" that we "discovered mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men and women and children clutching their little toys, as a result of [Saddam's] brutality." It seems highly doubtful, to put it mildly, that we statistically verified that there were "hundreds of thousands" of people in mass graves who were murdered by Saddam.

This was a war that was "justified" by patently false representations and the most reckless (if not deliberately misleading) manipulation of the available data. For the same war advocates responsible for that recklessness now to insist upon mathematical precision before information ought to be considered constitutes intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. The one fact which has remained barely acknowledged, let alone examined, is the number of Iraqis killed as a result of this war. It is, quite obviously, the politically motivated and self-serving desire to keep that topic hidden and ignored -- rather than any rational objections to the methodologies here -- that is motivating the all-too-predictable attacks on the study (launched, absurdly, within a mere few hours of its release).

UPDATE II: Two of the overnight pro-Bush epidemiologists who are objecting to this study -- Mark Coffey of Decision08 and TheRealUglyAmerican -- have made appearances in the comment section to explain why this peer-reviewed study using standard scientific methods is, as Coffey pronounced, "ridiculous on the face of it." But it is clear that they do not actually understand what the study is examining.

They (and other of the above-linked Bush followers) seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that the 650,000 death toll is the number of Iraqis who have died violent deaths since our invasion. That is not what the study is purporting to measure. The study is comparing the mortality rate of Iraqis during the time of our occupation (including deaths by any cause, such as disease, famine, or anything else) to the mortality rate prior to the occupation, and based on the post-invasion increased mortality rate (13.1 deaths per 1,000 persons post-invasion versus the pre-war 5.5 figure), calculates that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died during the occupation than would have died during the same time frame in the absence of the invasion.

While it is true that the study claims that roughly 600,000 of the "excess deaths" are due to violence, that includes not only violence from American troops but also random crimes, government violence, and sectarian conflicts. It is unfathomable that anyone would think that they can whimsically dismiss away that figure as "ridiculous on its face" based on anything other than a desire that it not be true (or at least that it not be known).

UPDATE III: Even a quick review of the pro-Bush blogosphere reveals what a tender nerve has been struck by this study. They can't hurl enough furious invective at the study's proponents and those reporting its findings, but it's not entirely clear why that is. In fact, the more one thinks about this study, the less remarkable and surprising its findings seem to be.

After all, it's self-evident that if you invade a country which was essentially stable, and you then proceed to bomb it, shatter its infrastructure, remove its government, and replace all of that structure with anarchy, chaos, and civil war, the mortality rate is going to increase dramatically. Beyond just the number of people who will die directly from the fighting, it is much harder to stay alive -- and much easier to die -- in a chaotic and violence-plagued society than in an orderly and structured one. That's just obvious. And if you then perpetuate those conditions of chaos and violence over the course of three-and-a-half years -- where the mortality rate increases over that time -- the number of "excess deaths" (meaning deaths that would not have occurred had the stability not been overturned) is going to accumulate and eventually be quite high. That's what has happened in Iraq.

I've never perceived Bush followers as being shy about admitting that the wars they cheer on cause lots of civilian deaths. Usually, they wave away those sorts of concerns with inspiring and cleansing phrases like "birth pangs" and tell you that while it's really too bad that so many civilians have to die, it's all really worth it. Usually, in response to effete, whiny concerns that their wars are resulting in the deaths of huge numbers of innocent people, one hears the defiant Stalinist resolve about the need to break some eggs in order to make beautiful democratic omelettes.

Yet here, they seem to be a in veritable panic, screaming with their hands over their ears that this study is all just fabricated lies from Bush-hating ideologues. It seems emotionally important to them to deny the study's conclusions and the only explanation as to why that would be -- at least the only explanation I can see -- lies in the sheer numbers. The phrase "600,000 excess deaths" packs a pretty big wallop. Even the most morally monstrous person would not want the responsibility of having advocated a war that resulted in the deaths of that many human beings (or at least would not want to be perceived as has having that responsibility). And thus, even though they have nowhere near the information, knowledge or expertise they would need to deny the conclusions of this study, they are doing so vigorously, even hysterically.

It's one thing to whimsically order up some wars knowing in the abstract that you're going to eradicate some distant, fuzzy innocent lives by doing so. Usually, our society is poilte enough not to talk about such things too much, let alone to crudely count the bodies, so war advocates won't be harassed too much by the deaths they cause.

But here it has been quantified -- their war has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings who would be alive today in the absence of their invasion. That number -- 600,000 -- just sounds so mammoth, almost Holocaust-like in magnitude (hopefully, it goes without saying that I'm not to comparing the Iraq war to the Holocaust, but merely pointing out why I think this study prompted such an intense reaction).

Like children who want what they want without having to pay any price for it, these Bush followers refuse to accept the consequences for their war. So with blind irrationality, they insist that this study is false without having any real idea of whether it is, all because they want it to be false, because they are incapable of accepting the consequences (including, perhaps predominantly, the political costs) for their actions. A refusal to recognize unpleasant facts is hardly a new phenomenon for them, but in this instance, the need to deny facts seems particularly acute.

One other observation: if it could be demonstrated that the findings of this study were accurate, would that change the mind of a single war proponent? Would they suddenly stand up and announce that the war was not worth the costs? I don't think there's much doubt about the answer.

UPDATE IV: Lindsay Beyerstein has an astute and interesting post on the methodologies used in this study.

Supporting this blog

One of my principal objectives over the last several months has been to find an economically feasible way to continue to devote the bulk of my time to this blog. I typically blog 7 days a week -- always at least 6 -- and usually spend between 10 and 12 hours a day, sometimes more, on work relating in some way to the blog. Activities such as writing and guest blogging for magazines, along with blog ads, help, but they only produce supplemental income. Periodic support from readers is necessary in order to be able to sustain a blog full-time. Nobody likes to ask: I know I don't. But reader support just is essential to enable someone to blog more or less full-time.

I've had conversations over the last couple of months with various magazines and websites about the prospect of moving my blog to their site, something I would consider only because it provides a model for making blogging more economically viable. But that is something I strongly prefer not to have to do, because I really want to preserve the independence of this blog. Even with an agreement to be able to blog however I want and as much (or as little) as I want -- which is the only type of framework I'd consider -- being merged into some other entity inevitably creates expectations about content that slowly chips away at true independence.

The other alternative is to try to build the site into a super-high traffic blog in order to maximize ad revenue. Traffic for this blog has steadily increased almost every month since it began, but blogs that are within this traffic range (20,000-40,000 visitors per day) can produce some supplemental income but not income that sustains a full-time blog.

At this point, in order to generate blog-sustaining ad revenue, a blog has to be within the highest traffic range (70,000-150,000 visits per day). But blogs within that range are almost all, without exception, group blogs with multiple posters ensuring frequent updates covering every topic, or Atrios-like blogosphere "shepherds" with numerous posts throughout the day designed to guide people to selected posts and news items. To try to transform this blog into a super-high-trafficked blog -- not through natural growth but by changing how it operates -- would change the character and nature of the blog and, for that reason, is an option I do not want to pursue.

I've become a true believer in the blogosphere as a medium. Its ability to affect political discussion and to effectuate political change is unrivalled. It not only scrutinizes national journalism like nothing else can, but also supplements and, at times, even supplants the national media in fulfilling its central function of providing an adversarial force against government power. One of its most potent attributes is its collaborative effort -- the ability to draw on and work with commenters here and other bloggers is an enormous advantage over every other medium. I really believe that the greatest impact can come from devoting my time to my independent blog rather than to other competing activities, and that is the reason I want to be able to continue to do so full-time. But to do that, I need to ensure that it is financially viable and that requires support from readers.

I genuinely appreciate everyone who has supported the blog in the past. Beyond the support, it is truly gratifying to know that people believe the work that is done here is valuable enough to warrant support. The best way to contribute is to click on the "Make a Donation" button at the top of the left-hand column of the blog, where you can use paypal. If you prefer, please e-mail me and I will send instructions on how you can do so by mail. I really do appreciate everyone who participates here and there are other ways to help support the blog if you're unable to contribute (such as clicking on ads and patronizing advertisers).

As I said, I'd prefer (strongly) not to have to write posts like this, but the reality is that projects like this need to be funded in order to be effective and to allow one to devote the time and energy to them which they require.

The Bush administration's torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla

(updated below)

The Bush administration's May, 2002 lawless detention of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla -- on U.S. soil -- was, as I recounted in my book, the first incident which really prompted me to begin concluding that things were going terribly awry in our country. The administration declared Padilla an "enemy combatant," put him in a military prison, and refused to charge him with any crime or even allow him access to a lawyer or anyone else. He stayed in a black hole, kept by his own government, for the next three-a-half-years with no charges of any kind ever asserted against him and with the administration insisting on the right to detain him (and any other American citizen) indefinitely -- all based solely on the secret, unchallengeable say-so of the President that he was an "enemy combatant."

To this day, I have trouble believing that we have a Government that claims this power against American citizens and has exercised that power and aggressively defended it -- and even more trouble believing that there are so many blindly loyal followers of that government who defend that conduct. The outrage that it provokes when thinking about it has not diminished even a small amount and does not diminish no matter how many times one reads, writes or speaks about it. It is as profound a betrayal of the most core American political principles as one can fathom.

The Bush administration finally charged Padilla with a crime (after 3 1/2 years of detention) only because the U.S. Supreme Court was set to rule on the legality of their treatment of Padilla, and indicting Padilla enabled the administration to argue that his case was now "moot." The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration -- that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations. Since then, the federal judge presiding over Padilla's case (in the Southern District of Florida) has repeatedly expressed skepticism over the Government's case against him and has, on several occasions, admonished them to provide more specific information setting forth exactly what Padilla is alleged to have done.

Last week, Padilla's lawyers filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment against him on the grounds that the Government has engaged in outrageous conduct -- specifically, that they tortured him for the 3 1/2 years he remained in captivity, particularly for the almost 2 full years that they denied him access even to a lawyer. Via David Markus, a South Florida attorney who has been reporting on the Padilla proceedings on his local blog, Padilla's Motion to Dismiss is here (.pdf). Markus excerpts a substantial part of the description of Padilla's captivity, which is the first detailed account I have read of the treatment to which Padilla was subjected while in detention.

I'm excerpting parts of it below (read the full excerpt at Markus' blog or in Padilla's brief). It is worthwhile to note that all of the treatment described by Padilla has been described by numerous other detainees, and from what I can tell, all of the treatment he describes are part of the "interrogation and detention techniques" which the President now has the legal authority to invoke pursuant to the so-called Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- enacted by our Congress just ten days ago. Thus, everything Padilla describes is now perfectly legal in the United States -- even when applied against individuals charged with no crimes of any kind.

As Markus notes, this is how the Argument section of Padilla's brief begins:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 89 (Walter Kaufmann trans., Vintage Books 1966) (1886).

Padilla's Brief details the treatment to which he was subjected:

In an effort to gain Mr. Padilla’s "dependency and trust," he was tortured for nearly the entire three years and eight months of his unlawful detention. The torture took myriad forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to live. The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity.

For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same.

He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla’s cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.

His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell – nine feet by seven feet – had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.

In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep. This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla’s cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. . . .

Other times, his captors would bang the walls and cell bars creating loud startling noises. These disruptions would occur throughout the night and cease only in the morning, when Mr. Padilla’s interrogations would begin. Efforts to manipulate Mr. Padilla and break his will also took the form of the denial of the few benefits he possessed in his cell. . . .

Mr. Padilla’s dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.

A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig.

He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla.

Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Throughout most of the time Mr. Padilla was held captive in the Naval Brig he had no contact with the outside world. In March 2004, one year and eight months after arriving in the Naval Brig, Mr. Padilla was permitted his first contact with his attorneys. Even thereafter, although Mr. Padilla had access to counsel, and thereby some contact with the outside world, those visits were extremely limited and restricted. . . .

The deprivations, physical abuse, and other forms of inhumane treatment visited upon Mr. Padilla caused serious medical problems that were not adequately addressed. Apart from the psychological damage done to Mr. Padilla, there were numerous health problems brought on by the conditions of his captivity. Mr. Padilla frequently experienced cardiothoracic difficulties while sleeping, or attempting to fall asleep, including a heavy pressure on his chest and an inability to breath or move his body.

In one incident Mr. Padilla felt a burning sensation pulsing through his chest. He requested medical care but was given no relief. Toward the end of his captivity, Mr. Padilla experienced swelling and pressure in his chest and arms. He was administered an electrocardiogram, and given medication. . . . .

The cause of some of the medical problems experienced by Mr. Padilla is obvious. Being cramped in a tiny cell with little or no opportunity for recreation and enduring stress positions and shackling for hours caused great pain and discomfort. It is unclear, though, whether Mr. Padilla’s cardiothoracic problems were a symptom of the stress he endured in captivity, or a side effect from one of the drugs involuntarily induced into Mr. Padilla’s system in the Naval Brig. In either event, the strategically applied measures suffered by Mr. Padilla at the hands of the government caused him both physical and psychological pain and agony.

It is worth noting that throughout his captivity, none of the restrictive and inhumane conditions visited upon Mr. Padilla were brought on by his behavior or by any actions on his part. There were no incidents of Mr. Padilla violating any regulation of the Naval Brig or taking any aggressive action towards any of his captors. Mr. Padilla has always been peaceful and compliant with his captors. He was, and remains to the time of this filing, docile and resigned – a model detainee.

Mr. Padilla also wants to make clear that the deprivation described above did abate somewhat once counsel began negotiating with the officials of the Naval Brig for the improvements of his conditions. Toward the end of Mr. Padilla’s captivity in the Naval Brig he was provided reading materials and some other more humane treatment. However, despite some improvement in Mr. Padilla’s living conditions, the interrogations and torture continued even after the visits with counsel commenced.

In sum, many of the conditions Mr. Padilla experienced were inhumane and caused him great physical and psychological pain and anguish. Other deprivations experienced by Mr. Padilla, taken in isolation, are merely cruel and some, merely petty. However, it is important to recognize that all of the deprivations and assaults recounted above were employed in concert in a calculated manner to cause him maximum anguish.

It is also extremely important to note that the torturous acts visited upon Mr. Padilla were done over the course almost the entire three years and seven months of his captivity in the Naval Brig. For most of one thousand three hundred and seven days, Mr. Padilla was tortured by the United States government without cause or justification. Mr. Padilla’s treatment at the hands of the United States government is shocking to even the most hardened conscience, and such outrageous conduct on the part of the government divests it of jurisdiction, under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, to prosecute Mr. Padilla in the instant matter.

All of that was done by the Bush administration to an American citizen detained on U.S. soil -- without any charges ever being brought against him, let alone convicted of any crime. All along, the Bush administration insisted it had the right to abduct and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and deny them access to any courts or even to any lawyers, to either contest the validity of their detention or the legality of their treatment. That is still the Bush administration's position, and the Congress less than two weeks ago purported to give the President the legal authority to do virtually all of that.

The case of Jose Padilla is one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time. It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding. But there has been no retreat from this behavior. Quite the contrary. The atrocity known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a huge leap forward to elevating the Padilla treatment from the lawless shadows into full-fledged, officially sanctioned and legally authorized policy of the U.S. Government. The case of Jose Padilla is no longer a sick aberration, but is instead a symbol of the kind of Government we have chosen to have.

UPDATE: Please read this perfectly expressed comment from a police officer concerning this whole matter.

What is left once diplomacy is eliminated?

(updated below)

One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration's foreign policy -- arguably its most disastrous hallmark -- is the literal elimination of diplomacy as a foreign policy instrument for dealing with hostile nations. They actually believe, and overtly argue, that diplomacy and negotiations are worthless when it comes to many countries which are acting against American interests.

Glenn Reynolds approvingly cites to this post from National Review's Michael Rubin, in which Rubin essentially declares negotiations to be a useless option for of our most pressing foreign policy problems:

Let’s be fair: To condemn the Axis of Evil speech is to condemn Bush for prescience. He didn’t create the Axis of Evil; rather, he voiced the problem. And if that shocked European diplomats, well too bad. If it’s a choice between national security and enabling European diplomats to remain secure in their illusions, I’d hope both Republicans and Democrats would favor the former.

Clinton administration attempts to engage the Taliban and the North Korean regime were folly. Any attempt to do likewise with Iran would be equally inane. Certain regimes cannot be appeased. Dialogue is no panacea.

When Rubin refers to "certain regimes" as ones with whom we cannot have any dialogue, he seems to mean most regimes which are hostile to the U.S. For instance, we know that Iran and North Korea can't be negotiated with. Saddam Hussein's Iraq could not be. Syria, with whom we refuse to have any dialogue at all, is on that list. So, in essence, there is no point in trying to negotiate with our enemies because to engage in diplomacy is simply to "appease" them.

After quoting from the Rubin post, Instapundit himself adds that "diplomats tend to overvalue dialogue," and he then cites to an interview Diane Sawyer conducted yesterday with Donald Gregg, the Ambassador to South Korea under Bush 41, in which Gregg argued that it was a mistake for the Bush administration to refuse North Korea's repeated requests for direct negotiations. In response, Reynolds says that the Gregg interview "made me very grateful that he no longer has a hand in formulating U.S. policy." Thank God that someone who thinks we should negotiate is out of government. After all, refusing to negotiate with North Korea has worked so very well.

It is this "reasoning," as much as anything else, that has placed us in the weak and vulnerable position we are now in. Where a country like North Korea is engaged in conduct that we would like to stop, we have three options:

(1) wage war against them;

(2) engage in diplomacy and attempt to reach a negotiated solution; or

(3) do nothing.

If we remove option (2) from the list -- as Bush followers want to do in almost every case and as the administration repeatedly does -- it means that only options (1) and (3) remain. And where option (1) is not viable -- as is the case with the U.S. vis-a-vis North Korea (mostly because we already chose option (1) with two other countries and are threatening to do so with a third) -- then the only option left is (3) -- do nothing. That is exactly what we have done while North Korea became a nuclear-armed power, and we did nothing because we operated from Rubin's premise that diplomacy and negotiations are essentially worthless, which left us with no other options.

This toxic notion that hostile countries can't be negotiated with -- or that attempts to negotiate with them are thinly disguised gestures of weakness, appeasement and surrender -- seems to be grounded in the belief, one could almost say the neurosis, that every country is Nazi Germany and every leader is Hitler and therefore are beyond reason. But none of the countries whom we are told can't be negotiated with has displayed that type of irrationality or self-destruction. To the contrary, Kim Jong Il -- like Saddam Hussein -- seems obsessed with self-preservation and with perpetuating the power of his regime. The same could be said for Syria's Bashar Assad, just like his father before him. And whatever else one wants to say about them, the Iranian mullahs seem to be among the most rational and calculating actors on the world stage.

They may be oppressive and tyrannical and even evil. But that doesn't mean they are irrational or beyond the realm of reason. What seems irrational is the refusal to negotiate with them, because we then have no good options. We can't wage endless war. In fact, we can't even successfully wage the current wars we are fighting given our limited resources. And even if we could, doing so doesn't seem to enable us to achieve our objectives (see e.g., Iraq and, more and more, Afghanistan).

Diplomacy and negotiations -- including with irrational and oppressive regimes -- have been the key to maintaining stability and peace since the end of World War I, at least. Ronald Reagan fought against the same anti-diplomacy factions now in order to negotiate with the Soviet Union precisely because it was the only real option. Once you decide that negotiations are a worthless instrument, you're left with only two options -- endless war-making, or standing by and doing nothing in the face of growing dangers.

That is why that those are the two things we have had over the last five years. We stood by and did basically nothing while North Korea developed a nuclear capability because, having eliminated diplomacy as an option, that was literally the only possibility there was. That decision led directly to Sunday's nuclear test. Ponder the level of irrationality required for someone to believe that this was a good and smart approach that ought to be repeated -- not just with North Korea, but also with Iran and beyond.

UPDATE: Tim at Balloon Juice sees the connection between the Bush administration's inflated sense of certainty in its own Rightness and its irrational, destructive refusal to negotiate with regimes they dislike.

UPDATE II: A couple of commenters have argued that there is a fourth option -- U.N. sanctions -- but sanctions are properly seen as a negotiating tool and thus a subset of option (2). Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement." The argument that is advanced is that countries such as North Korea and Iran are so irrational, deceitful and evil that they can never be trusted to comply with the terms of any agreement -- whether the agreement is brought about by negotiations or sanctions. Only regime change, via military force, provides the necessary assurances.

Thomas Sowell and the Virtue of Seriousness

The brilliant, serious, somber conservative scholar, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has written a Very Important and Serious Piece which was published yesterday. Dr. Sowell solemnly implores us to recognize the Need to be Serious. The article is pointedly entitled "Frivolous Politics" -- which, as Dr. Sowell teaches, is something we simply cannot afford to indulge in these Serious Times:

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media.

In the late 1990s -- when Osama bin Laden was busy building his Worldwide Jihadi Army to wage war against Western Civilization in order to enslave us all under his Caliphate Empire -- Sowell, the Serious Scholar, devoted the vast bulk -- really, virtually all -- of his scholarly attention to Susan McDougal, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, the secret connections between the Clintons and Arkansas drug dealers, and the mysteries surrounding Vince Foster's so-called "suicide":

Thomas Sowell, August 11, 1998, on the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship

Monica Lewinsky reportedly broke down in tears in her attorney's office while being rehearsed in the kinds of questions to expect in the grand jury room. For six months she has been under heavy pressure, as she tried to protect the president who called her "that woman."

It would have been so much easier for Clinton than for her to have admitted what happened and spared everyone six disgusting months. His admission could have been in general terms, without having to go into gory details in a roomful of strangers, as Monica Lewinsky has had to do. Instead, Clinton put her in legal jeopardy to save his own hide.

What could be more selfish or more gutless than a man hiding behind a woman, especially a woman young enough to be his daughter?

Thomas Sowell, December 17, 1998, urging Bill Clinton's impeachment

ONE OF THE MOST DISTURBING aspects of the whole presidential impeachment crisis is the number of people who seem to think that this is about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. What they did in the past and how they will deal with it in the future are things that can be left to them ---- and to the tabloids.

What matters is not their past but this country's future. . . .

Today are our representatives too squeamish even to vote to send the case to the Senate? If so, what will our descendants say? And will they even have the freedom to say it?

Thomas Sowell, October 1, 1998, on the Seriousness of the Starr Report

When Clinton lied, was Starr supposed to let it go at that or was he supposed to start collecting evidence to the contrary? And when Clinton tried to stop him from getting evidence and testimony that contradicted the lies, was Starr supposed to roll over and play dead or go into court and start issuing subpoenas?

What was the special prosecutor supposed to do when the president committed perjury and then tried to weasel out of it by redefining the word "sex"? Let Clinton make a mockery of the law or start talking specifics? . . . .

Desperate efforts to blame Starr for something, somehow, somewhere, suggest that the hostility to him has been looking for a way to vent itself, without spending a lot of time looking at facts. What then is Kenneth Starr's real crime?

He has told us the truth when we were satisfied with lies.

Thomas Sowell, June 11, 1998, on What Really Matters

It is not what Monica Lewinsky did or didn't do with Clinton that is the issue. The issue is whether she tried to get Linda Tripp to commit a felony -- thereby committing a felony herself. Monica Lewinsky's father has protested that his daughter is being used as a pawn by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. She was used as a pawn, all right, but by whoever sent her out on a mission to tamper with a witness.

Thomas Sowell, 9/15/98, angry that the silly Sudan strike against Al Qaeda distracted us from Serious Matters

Already we are seeing growing evidence that the recent air strike against a pharmaceutical company in the Sudan was by no means what it was claimed to be -- but the people who were killed will not be brought back to life by any revelations that this was a way of getting the Monica Lewinsky scandal off the front page.

Thomas Sowell, raising Serious Questions about Whitewater and Vince Foster's suicide, May 25, 1998

President Clinton began abusing his power from the moment he took office. His unprecedented firing of all U.S. attorneys in 1993, including those investigating his Whitewater dealings, set back that investigation, just as his later ignoring of subpoenas and other stalling tactics have frustrated and mocked the law for years. Yet the media want the special prosecutor to hurry up and close the investigation.

The White House's flouting of the law continued when Clinton aides spent hours ransacking Vincent Foster's office on the night of his death, despite notices from law enforcement officials to leave things as is until they arrived. The later mass amnesia among these aides when they were called before Congress was in sharp contrast to the vivid memories of F.B.I. agents, not to mention a secret service agent in the White House who testified under oath that he saw records being removed from Foster's office.

Thomas Sowell, on the Serious Questions involving the Death of Vince Foster, March 22, 1998

What innocent explanation can there be for the ransacking of Vincent Foster's office for hours on the night of his death, after law enforcement officials had asked that the office be left undisturbed until they arrived to investigate?

The same people who are now demanding that corruption and sex scandals are frivolous distractions from the Very Serious Wars we must fight were the same ones who spent the 1990s protesting that missile attacks on Al Qaeda distracted attention away from the all-important Starr Report, Vince Foster "suicide," and investigations into Arkansas air strips. Thomas Sowell had a weekly column that was widely read and, like so many of his ideological comrades, he spent the bulk of the last two years of the 1990s (at least) -- not one or two columns, but most of his columns -- writing about investigations into presidential semen stains and Susan McDougal's real estate deals.

To go back and read what people were actually talking about in the 1990s -- not just talking about, but obsessing over to the exclusion of all else, on the front pages of our newspapers and dominating our news broadcasts on a daily basis -- is to be reminded (if one needs reminding) of how Clinton opponents forced this country to do little else in our political lives for many years other than drown in the trashiest gossip. It really is amazing that our country continued to function at all. What kind of a country spends that amount of time talking about things like that?

And for the hardest-core Clinton opponents, they actually did that, nonstop, for the eight full years of the Clinton presidency -- for eight years, Rush Limbaugh and his copycats and followers talked about almost nothing other than the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, penile spots, sexual uses of cigars, Hillary's lesbianism, Hillary's affair with Vince Foster, Henry Cisneros' payments to his mistress, Paula Jones and Bill Clinton's private appetites.

But now, people like Sowell are here to tell us that a tawdry sex scandal involving teenage Congressional pages being freely used as sexual playthings with the knowledge and acquiescence of virtually the entire House leadership (who thereafter repeatedly lied, and continue to lie, about their knowledge and involvement) is an irrelevant and frivolous distraction from what Really Matters, and only the most Non-Serious person would talk about something like that.

The archives of Thomas Sowell's columns are like a museum -- really, more like a shrine -- highlighting the frivolous, lowlife obsessions that passed for political debate in this country for a good long time. And now people like Sowell are lecturing us on the need to be Serious and warning us of the perils of being distracted by corruption and sex scandals from the Important, Serious Matters of the Day. And they oh-so-knowingly scold the Clinton administration for not paying more attention to the Growing Islamic Menace. And they parade around as Serious Adults concerned with the Gravely Important things. And they do all of that with no irony.

I watched the very serious Dick Morris last night gravely discussing with the very serious Sean Hannity -- while scary film footage of North Korean marching troops and rolling tanks played over and over and over -- about how Americans are now going to realize just how irrelevant the Foley scandal is because nothing matters except The North Korea Nuclear Threat. They compared it to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Morris said that ignoring this threat would be like allowing Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia without consequences. They proclaimed that nobody can talk about any other issues now because the "North Korean crisis" now so predominates, and Americans will realize that they don't have the luxury of talking about something as petty and frivolous and irrelevant as some sex scandal. Our Very Survival is at Stake and We Need Protection and Must be Serious.

Bush followers consider Thomas Sowell to be a very important, profound and serious scholar. Sowell clearly agrees. And yet they all spent years dragging our political dialogue into the lowliest and most frivolous gutters, ignoring every serious issue in order to play in a never-ending sandbox of drooling gossip and tawdry, C-movie fantasies. As immune as one becomes to the shamelessness of Bush followers, there is still something a bit jarring about watching them deliver Seriousness Lectures -- without any shame at all -- whereby they angrily protest that a frivolous sex and corruption scandal is distracting from the Important Issues of the Day. The audacity of it is almost impressive.

Tom Tomorrow's Hell in a Handbasket

I knew very little about Tom Tomorrow's Hell in a Handbasket when I began reading it. I was given a copy during my own book tour, during a time when I was unable to concentrate on much else besides the starting time for my next event, and so all I knew was what I could see from flipping through the book -- that it contained a series of Tomorrow's political cartoons.

I began reading the cartoons from the beginning and was immediately struck by how perfectly they capture the absurdities that lie at the heart of our political dialogue. The focus of the first part of the book is the propaganda techniques used by the Bush administration and its followers not only to "justify" the war in Iraq, but also to mock and bully war opponents by depicting them as weak, cowardly losers who want to snivel and cower when confronted by the Terrorists.

There are few topics more important than the methods used to lead this country to invade Iraq on such blatantly false pretenses. We still have not, in my view, had a full accounting of all of the deceitful techniques used to accomplish that and the profound institutional failures which permitted and enabled it. But Tomorrow's cartoons -- for reasons that are difficult to discern with exactitude -- really do illustrate those propaganda methods as effectively as any written analysis I've read.

It was only after reading 25% or so of the book did I realize that the book was not (as I had assumed when I began reading) composed of new cartoons created recently for the book. Instead, the book is a compilation of cartoons Tomorrow has written over the years, and the beginning cartoons -- the ones whose prescience and insight I found so impressive -- were actually first published back in 2002, at a time when very few people were truly aware of the depths of the Bush movement's capacity for deceit and manipulation. Tom Tomorrow saw exactly what the administration was up to as early as 2002, when President Bush enjoyed approval ratings in the high 60s and even 70s and most of the country was easily manipulated by appeals to the Strong, Moral Warrior-President protecting us all from the grave Terrorist menace.

That is one of the most striking and valuable contributions of this book. In the aftermath of 9/11 -- not just the immediate aftermath, but for at least the next couple of years -- people who were saying the things Tom Tomorrow was saying were viciously stigmatized. Virtually nobody of any real political prominence was voicing any serious criticisms of President Bush -- particularly when it came to matters of war and terrorism -- and the few who were doing so were widely scorned as far leftist, pacifist crazies who were too weak to confront the Terrorist threat, if not subversively sympathetic to it. Support for President Bush's policies -- and, most of all, his desire to invade Iraq -- was not only viewed as the only reasonable position, but was also seen as the hallmark of patriotism, courage and even mental health.

The prevailing political climate in 2002 was such that the previously unknown Howard Dean almost instantaneously became the Democratic front-runner for President not because he espoused some far left ideology (he didn't) or because he had created some innovative political strategy (he hadn't). Dean's candidacy was propelled in the first instance by the fact that he was one of the very few prominent political figures who was willing to stand up and criticize President Bush and his war policies in an unapologetic, non-defensive, and unafraid manner.

At a time of tense, even fearful reverence for the President, Dean disregarded all of the rhetorical manipulation and bullying tactics and insisted on his right to criticize the President and his policies as loudly, aggressively and clearly as he thought was warranted. That previously common act was so notable in the aftermath of 9/11 because anything other than the most respectful praise for the President was viewed as suspect, even subversive. More than anything else, that is what differentiated Dean and made him such a heroic figure to so many people -- he was clearly un-intimidated by the President, his followers and their tactics, and that is what distinguished him not just from other politicians in both parties, but also from the equally reverent and intimidated 2002 national media.

It was in that climate that Tom Tomorrow created many of the cartoons featured in his book, and that is one of the book's most impressive and valuable features. It is worth remembering that the people who were most ostracized and demonized back then turned out to be right about most of the critical issues of the day -- in particular, the true nature of the Bush presidency, the endless, naked manipulation of the terrorist threat for political gain, and the corrupt rationale used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Hell in a Handbasket is a vivid testament to the fact that there were people who recognized what was really going on back in 2002 and, at a time when it meant being scorned and relegated to a small and hated minority, nonetheless were voicing those insights.

The cartoons insightfully illustrate the false warrior poses struck by Bush followers and the cheap bullying tactics they used to obscure their deceit and ineptitude; the giddy, mindless dissemination of that propaganda by a media desperate to be liked by the prevailing powers and bullied into an eager submission; and the meek and naive (and, in some instances, ongoing) cooperation in all of this by the so-called "liberal hawks," who happily took the lead in bashing and demonizing opponents of Bush and/or the war in order to convince Bush followers that they were good, sensible and fair (along those lines, Elton Beard makes a convincing, if not conclusive, argument that the very concept of "liberal hawk" is oxymoronic and cannot really exist).

What is most striking and accomplished about Tom Tomorrow's cartoons is that they convey how ludicrous and extreme our political dialogue has become without veering much at all from what that dialogue actually is. He is able to incisively capture the idiocy and deceit that lies at the heart of our political debates without distorting what is being said. Unlike most cartoonists, he relies very little on hyperbole, unstated inferences or cheap insult in order to mock his subjects because his subjects are sufficiently ludicrous and corrupt on their own and do not need to be exaggerated in order to be exposed.

The format of the cartoon can make anything seem somewhat frivolous and absurd. For exactly that reason, it is an ideal format for examining the political events and political debates of the last five years. Our political dialogue has degenerated well into the realm of the absurd, and the cartoons in Hell in a Handbasket convey that absurdity in a visceral though highly accurate way.

UPDATE: See this recent Tom Tomorrow cartoon for an excellent illustration of his ability to capture how our political dialogue works.

Why isn't the Ken Mehlman lie a bigger story?

(updated below)

I want to return to what I think is an extremely important incident that occurred late in the day last Friday, when events typically get lost in the news cycle. As Think Progress documented, at some point during the day on Friday, the GOP decided to go on television and tell an outright lie -- namely, that when Denny Hastert learned the previous Friday about the IMs exchanged between Mark Foley and Congressional pages (as a result of the ABC story), Hastert delivered an ultimatum to Foley: either resign or be expelled. Thereafter, so the new GOP mythology claimed, Foley resigned.

This story is complete fiction. It never happened. It was just made up by Republican operatives in order to defend Denny Hastert and make him look like some sort of hard-nosed, no-nonsense tough guy who took extraordinary steps against Mark Foley. But there is no doubt that this never happened, and anyone who is saying that it did is, by definition, lying -- and is lying clearly and demonstrably.

It wasn't just some obscure pundit or GOP backbencher who told this lie. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, went on national television and claimed that Hastert did this:

MEHLMAN: The fact is, what Denny Hastert did is something that we haven’t seen done in thirty years in this town in Washington DC, and that is he said to a member of congress, either you go or we’re going to make you go. That happened the moment that Denny Hastert found out about this.

Former RNC Chair Ed Gillepse repeated the same story: "As the father of a 16-year-old son, I appreciate him going to Mark Foley and saying, 'You either resign or you’re going to be expelled.' That would be the first time in thirty years."

This is not a claim that can be debated or spun. They're claiming that Hastert threatened Foley with expulsion unless he resigned. That either happened or it didn't. And it simply did not happen. Hastert has made clear from the beginning of this scandal that he only learned of the IMs last Friday when they were reported by ABC. Hastert has claimed that he would have demanded Foley's resignation or expulsion had he known about the IMs. But in fact, Foley resigned before ABC made the IMs public and received no such ultimatum from Hastert.

Shouldn't it be a huge story in itself that Ken Mehlman went on national television in the middle of one of the largest political scandals and made completely false claims about the key issue -- what Denny Hastert did or did not do about Mark Foley? People who make up stories that aren't true and then repeat them in order to defend themselves are just outright lying. Why is Mehlman able to do so in such a brazen and obvious way without consequences?

What is even more striking about the whole matter is that Mehlman is lying about extremely recent events that we all remember, including the journalists covering the story. It is so painfully obvious that if Foley resigned only after receiving a hard-core "resign-or-be-expelled" ultimatum from Hastert, that is something we would have heard about immediately, not after a week of Republicans desperately flailing around for something to say in defense of Hastert. And we all remember Hastert's interviews and statements in which he said that he would have taken action against Foley had Foley not resigned. It is just unbelievably clear that he gave no ultimatum to Foley. As Billmon put it:

But now the Rovians have turned the timeline completely on its head, and are claiming Hastert demanded Foley's resignation because of something the Speaker himself says he knew nothing about.

This may seem a trivial matter, given all the other lies, big and small, that have come rattling down the propaganda assembly line over the past six years. Foley himself is just a sideshow geek compared to the three-ring circus that gave us the war in Iraq. But if there's been a more brazen attempt to rewrite history -- last week's history! -- I can't remember it.

True, the Rovians are desperate, but this clearly reflects their belief that they can say anything, any fucking thing at all, and not be called on it by the corporate media, at least not in any kind of time frame that matters. And as far as I can tell, they're right -- they haven't been called on it, except by Think Progress and the wild-eyed bloggers and the other tattered remnants of the left opposition.

This scandal is not and has never been exclusively -- or even primarily -- about what GOP House leaders did in 2003 or 2005 regarding Mark Foley. That is a big part of the story, but bigger still is the blatant lies they have been telling ever since this scandal began. And there is none more deliberate or obvious than that told by Ken Mehlman on Friday to a national television audience.

However immune we have become to misleading statements from political officials, however low our standards of behavior and expectations for our political leaders may have sunk -- no matter how cynical one has become -- shouldn't clear, brazen, outright lies of the type which Ken Mehlman told about the Denny Hastert Ultimatum be considered wrong and intolerable and something for which serious consequences are required?

If we have even the most minimally breathing journalistic life force and the most minimal standards left for behavioral requirements from political officials, this just has to become a huge story. Why should Ken Mehlman be able to go on national television and blatantly lie to everyone about what happened last week at the center of this scandal and not only get away with it, but have nobody really notice?

UPDATE: GOP Congressman Jack Kingston, on Fox News with Chris Wallace this weekend, spread the tall tale:

KINGSTON: Well, I think that if there was a staffer or two who decided to maybe protect Mark Foley for reasons unknown, I think the speaker would do to them what basically he did to Mark Foley, which was, "Get out or be fired," because, you know, the threat to Mark Foley, if he stayed around, he would have been expelled.

If someone wants to call Congressman Kingston's office and ask if it really is true that Denny Hastert gave this ultimatum to Mark Foley and what the basis is for that claim, the contact information is here.

Invading Iraq and the North Korean threat -- a historical reminder

On many occasions in the past, I have quoted from this Howard Dean foreign policy speech delivered at Drake University in February, 2003 in order to demonstrate (a) just how prescient he was regarding Iraq (and how painfully wrong about everything his "serious" critics and demonizers were) and (b) the huge gap between Dean's depiction by the media as a far left anti-war pacifist and the actual, highly pragmatic case he was making as to why an invasion of Iraq would weaken U.S. national security and render us less able to deal with other, more important threats -- such as those from North Korea.

This morning, Mona at Inactivist has an excellent post making that very point -- contrasting Dean's urgent warnings about North Korea as one reason (of many) not to squander our attention and resources on the far less pressing Iraqi "threat," with the White House's ongoing effort to minimize the North Korean threat in order to justify their Iraqi obsession at the expense of all else. Here is just part of what Dean said, the month before our invasion:

We must remember, though, that Iraq is not the greatest danger we face today. Consider, to begin with, North Korea.

The Administration says it is wrong to draw a parallel between the situations in Iraq and North Korea, because those situations are quite different. I agree.

Iraq has let UN inspectors back in. North Korea has kicked them out.

Saddam Hussein does not have a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea may already have them - and is on a clear path to acquiring more.

Saddam Hussein has missiles that can go 40 miles farther than the 90-mile range allowed by the UN. North Korea has tested a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile that might be able to reach California, Oregon, and Washington.

I marvel at the discipline of this Administration in sticking to its message - that Saddam is the greatest danger - regardless of world developments.

We have the most dangerous situation in East Asia in a decade - perhaps in five decades, and the Administration is treating it as a sideshow. The reason is that North Korea doesn't fit into any of the Administration's preconceived little boxes.

They haven't wanted to talk to North Korea because a solution requires negotiation - and sitting at the bargaining table is something Bill Clinton used to do. They do not see themselves as negotiators; they see themselves as pre-emptors. But preemption on the Korean Peninsula is a much different proposition than it is in the Persian Gulf. . . .

In recent weeks, it has become clear that the North Koreans have broken the agreement. They have begun moving the fuel rods to a new location, and threatening to unseal them. They could also re-start their reactor and produce more and more plutonium.

Within months, North Korea could become a confirmed nuclear power. Unlike Iraq, it has an advanced missile program, which would make its possession of nuclear arms even more dangerous.

The Administration's response to all this has been to say that "every option is on the table." Now, I have been in public service for quite awhile, and I'll let you in on a little secret. When government officials say, "every option is on the table," it's because they haven't got a clue what they intend to do.

It would be unfair for me to suggest that negotiating with North Korea is a simple matter. By all accounts, it is extremely difficult. No one can guarantee a successful outcome. But you can guarantee failure if you do not even try. And this administration has not tried.

Instead of a serious policy, they have wasted time, alienated our allies and engaged in a pointless war of words with Pyongyang.

Even now, the Administration seems to want to avoid anything that would shift the world spotlight from the dangers of the Persian Gulf to the even greater perils of the Korean Peninsula.

I think we can do better. . . . You would not know it from the Administration's approach, but time is not on our side. North Korea will be far easier to contend with as a threatening power than as a declared nuclear power.

Together with our allies, and others in the region, we should challenge Pyongyang to return the fuel rods to their previous location, and allow international authorities to inspect and re-seal them. North Korea must also continue its moratorium - secured by President Clinton, I might add - on tests of long-range missiles.

In return, the U.S. can pledge to take no military action against the North and agree to resume direct, high-level talks. Both sides should agree to maintain these pledges as long as talks are ongoing. The discussions should be wide-ranging and designed to give North Korea a chance to reduce its isolation and begin moving in the direction of a normal society. North Korea is a far greater danger to world peace than Iraq.

Contrary to the propaganda campaign enabled by the passive, mindless 2003 media, most anti-war advocates (such as Howard Dean) did not oppose the war in Iraq because war itself is wrong or even because preemptive war in response to a truly imminent threat is wrong. They opposed it because the evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat was so shady and unconvincing and that the case that no other options short of war existed was so unconvincing (anyone with doubts about that should just go read Dean's speech -- "Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness").

More importantly, Dean pointed out that there were far greater threats to U.S. security than Saddam Hussein -- and he particularly emphasized the threats posed by North Korea and Al Qaeda, which would be neglected -- if not outright ignored and worsened -- by the mammoth, unpredictable and highly dangerous project of invading Iraq and attempting to re-build it into a stable democracy (see e.g. the resurgent Taliban, the uncaptured Osama bin Laden, the takeover of much of Iraq by Al Qaeda and Iran, and yesterday's North Korean nuclear test). The only way to see the Bush movement as "serious, weighty, tough" foreign policy thinkers, and the only way to see Democrats like Dean as "frivolous and weak on defense," is to completely ignore (or distort) history and to operate from the premise that being terribly wrong is a sign of seriousness and wisdom and being completely right is a sign of frivolity and weakness.

And it is worth noting -- in fact, it is critical to ingest -- that the President pronounces himself more certain than ever that he is right about his foreign policy approach. The same approach that brought us the unparalleled disaster in Iraq, North Korean nuclear tests, a neglected and therefore resurgent Taliban, and an Iran that is seemingly determined to acquire nuclear weapons is what will continue to guide our country's behavior over the next two years if the President can continue to operate with a free hand. Only in the up-is-down world of the American media political dialogue would Republicans be deemed "strong and tough" on national security and foreign policy be considered their strong suit. It is almost impossible to have been more wrong than they have been, and to weaken this country more than it's been weakened over the past five years.

"The world's most dangerous regimes" with the "world's most destructive weapons"

News of the North Korean nuclear test is not the sort of event that lends itself to instantaneous comprehensive analysis, but there are some facts that have been quite clear with regard to North Korea for some time and, this morning, are clearer still. Independent of how well or poorly the Clinton administration dealt with North Korea -- and there is room for reasonable debate on that question -- there is no getting around several facts: (a) the North Korean threat has grown substantially during the Bush presidency; (b) the course we have followed for managing that threat has failed on every level; and (c) our ability to credibly threaten any military confrontation is virtually nonexistent.

The President, in his 2002 State of the Union address, famously identified North Korea as a charter member of the "axis of evil" and, when doing so, this is what he vowed:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. . . .

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. . . .

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Whatever else might be true, the President has had six years to operate with a completely free hand -- meaning nothing but rubber-stamping support from Congress -- concerning North Korea. The President vowed that he would not permit exactly this situation to emerge -- namely, that one of the "world's most dangerous regimes" would acquire "the world's most dangerous weapons." And yet that is exactly what North Korea has blithely proceeded to do under this administration.

It is impossible to contest the fact that the administration has done nothing to improve the situation. Quite the contrary. Negotiations with North Korea have regressed, not progressed. In response to our empty and hollowed belligerence, the North Koreans have become more belligerent, not more cooperative. They have acquired greater weapons capability right in front of our faces. And now they have tested a nuclear weapon.

Our credibility to act in the world -- both diplomatically and militarily -- has to be close to, if not at, an all-time low. We are already fighting two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) which, by all accounts, have significantly depleted our military resources. And we have been overtly threatening -- and flirting with a passing of the point of no return -- to fight a war against a third country (Iran). We plainly don't have enough troops to devote to our current wars in order to win them, let alone start new ones. And we have close to 40,000 American troops on the border between North and South Korea who are veritable hostages in any military confrontation.

Independent of all of that, we have plainly created an incentive system where every rational leader -- not crazed, Hitleresque, world-domination-seeking leaders -- but every rational leader, would assess that it is in his country's interest to acquire a nuclear capability. Of the three "axis of evil" members, the one which was, by far, the weakest militarily was the one we invaded and shattered. But with the strongest of the three, North Korea, we have proceeded very gingerly, issuing plainly empty threats and bellicose rhetoric but doing little else.

The message we have sent with our foreign policy is clear -- if you are a militarily weak nation, we may invade you or bomb you at will, but if you arm yourselves or, better still, acquire nuclear capability, we will not. That has become the incentive scheme produced by having the world's only superpower announce to the world that it has the right to preemptively invade other countries.

Time and again, the President has demonstrated that he is capable of seeing a complex world only in the simplest Manichean terms. Someone is either Good or they are Evil. And if they are Evil, it means you cannot deal with them or negotiate with them or rely upon diplomacy. By definition, Evil understands nothing but force and threats of force. The only thing that works with Evil is to crush it, not to manage or compromise and negotiate with it.

But the Evil of Pyongyang is one which -- as it well knows -- we lack the capability to crush. And since the President sees no other options -- since his worldview permits no other approach -- we have done nothing instead (other than inflame their incentives to become a nuclear-armed nation). And the nuclear test yesterday is the fruit of that approach.

Whenever anything bad happened in the first several years of the Bush administration (with North Korea or anything else), the administration and its followers instinctively blamed their predecessors in the Clinton administration. But they have now controlled the country for the last six years and when a situation worsens so preciptously as it has in North Korea, no reasonable debate is possible about who is responsible for those developments.

Increasing desperation

There is a palpable desperation among Republicans as a result of the Foley scandal and related election troubles, which is giving rise to a significant increase in their willingness to peddle blatantly dishonest and irrational claims in order to save themselves. Let us begin with Bill Kristol, who uttered what I think is the single most despicable statement yet in the Foley scandal, when he was asked by Brit Hume on Fox News what Democrats might do if they takeover the House:

KRISTOL: Well, Democrats care about the children, Brit, and so I think they should pressure states to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 so that it's clearly illegal for people like Mark Foley to hit on 17-year- old pages. . . . They could certainly pass a resolution supporting the Boy Scouts in their effort to keep people like Mark Foley from becoming scout masters, I think the Democrats could really do a lot of good for our children.

The controversial Boy Scouts policy to which Kristol is referring, of course, is one which bans gay men generally -- not "people like Mark Foley" -- from being scoutmasters, but Kristol's statement purposely recognizes no such distinction. Kristol is overtly arguing that the Mark Foley case proves that gay men cannot be trusted around young children. Many of the basest right-wing commentators have subtly implied that equivalence, but none has so overtly equated the two as explicitly as Kristol did Thursday night.

It's precisely that sort of "reasoning" that ought to lead one also to inquire whether the spying cases of AIPAC's Larry Franklin and Jonathan Pollard suggest that Jews have too much loyalty to Israel to be trusted in high government positions and with access to classified information, or whether the corruption cases of Jack Abramoff and Marc Rich prove that Jews have a desire for unwarranted profits and therefore can't be trusted around money.

Kristol would be the first to shriek quite loudly if the "reasoning" he invokes were to be applied in other contexts, but his desperately desired war with Iran -- that which matters to Kristol above all else -- is being jeopardized by this Foley scandal (a Democrat-controlled House or Senate would make approval for such a war much more unlikely). And so, like so many of his political comrades, Kristol seems to have departed completely from the realm of reason as a result of this scandal [Kristol also has the dubious distinction of being the first pundit (at least that I have seen) to expressly argue that the Foley scandal will be politically harmful to Democrats].

And then we have what can only be called the outright lie being disseminated by Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespe, among others, both of whom claimed on television yesterday that when the heroic Denny Hastert learned of the IMs last Friday, he gave Mark Foley the ultimatum of either immediately resigning or being expelled from Congress. Gillespe and Mehlman both trumpeted Hastert's heroism by claiming that it is "the first time in 30 years in this town" that such a tough ultimatum was given to a Congressman by a Speaker.

In fact, as Think Progress documents, the whole story is a complete fabrication. Hastert himself admitted that Foley had already resigned by the time Hastert even learned about the ABC report, and Hastert gave no such ultimatum to Foley. The whole thing is complete fiction -- just invented out of whole cloth -- and the GOP's leading political spokesmen are now shamelessly reciting it as fact. What they are saying happened never actually happened. It really is just that simple. This willingness to go on television and just outright lie -- in a way that can be clearly demonstrated -- ought to be a story in itself.

Then we have the truly ludicrous effort by Republican Congressmen to claim, as I heard many do last night, that the "only chapter left to be written" in the Foley scandal is an investigation into whether Democratic leaders -- Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and others -- knew about Foley's IMs with pages long before last week. There is zero evidence to suggest they did, and nobody claims there is any such evidence. It is an accusation that is grounded in nothing other than fantasy and desire.

Nonetheless, GOP Congressmen and similar types are insisting that it is imperative that we "find out." Demanding investigations into speculative accusations for which there is literally no evidence is just moronic. That "reasoning" would mean that we ought to investigate whether Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks, whether Dick Cheney received bribes directly from Jack Abramoff, and whether Karl Rove has been blackmailing Senators by eavesdropping on their conversations.

After all, there may no evidence for any of that, but we need to find out if it's true. This demand is so inane, so irrational, that it is a classic case for when the media has the responsibility not to tolerate it (and, as Josh Marshall points out, that responsibility seems particularly strong given that reporters know who the sources are for this story and thus know that the insinuations are false).

All of this is, of course, designed to distract from the ongoing revelations not only of past GOP knowledge of Mark Foley's activities, but also -- more importantly, in my view -- current and continuing deceit about what happened, all in order to conceal what they knew. This new article in this morning's Washington Post really is nothing short of a true bombshell, as it reports that a high-ranking GOP staffer is confirming Kirk Fordham's claims that he repeatedly alerted Hastert's top aide, Chief of Staff Scott Palmer, about Foley's behavior with pages, and that Palmer even met with Foley about it long before any prior reports suggested.

That means that (a) Palmer lied when he categorically, even angrily, denied that Fordham told him anything about Foley; (b) Hastert's chief of staff had much more information about Foley's behavior with pages than just a handful of "naughty e-mails"; and (c) Hastert's office had information about Foley at the highest levels even long before Hastert learned of the 2005 e-mails. Palmer is not just some aide to Hastert. As the Post explains:

Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert.

As much attention as has been devoted to what GOP House leaders did and did not do with regard to Foley, more attention needs to be paid to what is, in my view, the more important issue -- that ever since this scandal began, Hastert and the other key GOP figures at the center of the scandal, including Hastert's Chief of Staff, have blatantly lied repeatedly about what happened. And they stil are.

To this day, Hastert claims not to recall ever being told anything about Foley despite multiple Congressmen insisting that they told him and despite his most trusted aide being involved in countless conversations and meetings (which the aide has been falsely denying) about Foley's inappropriate behavior with pages. Even if one believes that their failure to do more about Mark Foley is insufficient grounds for them to be removed from office, surely their continuous lies about what they did and what they knew constitutes such ground.

There is, I think, a growing desire in many quarters for this scandal to end. I can understand that sentiment and -- as someone who has spent the last seven days looking way too closely at the likes of Denny Hastert, Tom Reynolds, Mark Foley, Ken Mehlman, and Scott Palmer -- I even share it. The last thing one wants to do is continue to think and read about them.

But there is simply no justification for walking away from this story while Denny Hastert and his top aides continue to lie about the key issues in this scandal, especially now that the GOP, in a unified and coordinated fashion, has simply invented fictitious talking points about what Hastert did. Most people's opinion of Hastert and company with regard to what they did in the past concerning Foley is solidified, but proving just how demonstrably dishonest they have been -- and continue to be -- is a task that still needs to be completed and is, on every level, worthwhile.

* * * * * * * *

The favorite magazine of everyone's father, Playboy, has published its list of Top 10 political blogs, and this blog is included on the list. A list like that is obviously extremely subjective, and there are some obvious omissions and one horrible selection ("Rathergate" happened in 2004; how much longer can they keep milking that?). Pam Spaulding, a contributor to Pandagon, which made the list, has the story here and the list itself here (.pdf).