Bush v. The Washington Media

Whatever else one might say about George Bush, it is hard to dispute that he steadfastly believes in and adheres to the decisions he makes like virtually no other American political figure we have seen. And whatever it is that accounts for this refusal to change course in response to even the most intense political pressure -- whether it's personality traits, or a genuine set of principles, or messianic religious convictions about his actions and/or himself -- he is largely immune to the weapons which the Washington establishment, and particularly its press corps, have long wielded in order to force political officials to change course.

This steadfastness and refusal to play by the long-standing rules of the Washington establishment is almost certainly the attribute which most accounts for the increasingly intense dislike of the Bush Administration by the Washington press corps. This trait harshly denies the Washington media an entitlement which they have long held and which they believe is rightfully theirs: to be listened to, respected as holders of elevated wisdom, and to be given the power to force change even among the country's highest political officials.

They have never had and still do not have those powers with the Bush Administration, and they are quite unhappy about it. Seymour Hersch appeared last night on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (via Daily Kos) in order to advance even further the cartoon image of Bush as the Boy in the Bubble -- a borderline insane religious freak who believes that he and his actions are divinely mandated, and who is therefore immune from criticism and thus allows his aides to keep him shielded from any "facts" which might undermine his God-inspired certainty.

Hersch reveals the real source of his frustration when he complains to Blitzer about how wrong and scary it is that they -- Hersh and Blitzer and the rest of the vitally important Washington media drones -- have been denied their rightful role in Presidential palace decision-making:

BLITZER: Here's what you write. You write, "Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the president remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding. "Those are incredibly strong words, that the president basically doesn't want to hear alternative analysis of what is going on.

HERSH: You know, Wolf, there is people I've been talking to -- I've been a critic of the war very early in the New Yorker, and there were people talking to me in the last few months that have talked to me for four years that are suddenly saying something much more alarming. They're beginning to talk about some of the things the president said to him about his feelings about manifest destiny, about a higher calling that he was talking about three, four years ago. . . .

And so it's a little alarming because that means that my (sic) and my colleagues in the press corps, we can't get to him maybe with our views. You and you can't get to him maybe with your interviews. How do you get to a guy to convince him that perhaps he's not going the right way?

So Hersh thinks it's "alarming" that he's been writing anti-war articles for several years now and Bush still hasn't caved in his support for the war. We're supposed to be scared and outraged because Bush doesn't watch Wolf Blitzer interviews and then change his mind afterwards, or that Bush still supports the war even after Hersh writes another article based on anonymous officials who have come to him in order to attack Bush's policies.

And when Hersh complains that Bush is inured to "facts," what he plainly means is that Bush doesn't accept Hersh's view of Iraq. In sum, Bush is supposed to know that he has to listen when the Washington press elite speaks, and his refusal to do so means that he is either pathologically stubborn, certifiably crazy, or a religious fanatic beyond any reason. Certain elements on the Left hungrily eat up this cheap and easy caricature.

Ever since he took office, Bush has refused to play by many of the long-standing rules of the Washington game. He doesn't fire his cabinet secretaries and aides when editorial boards and other politicians demand that he do so. The appearance of as-yet-unproven scandals doesn't cause him to dump whomever is said to be associated with them. He doesn't abandon or soften his positions when polls begin to show an increasing public unrest with those positions or when pundits begin insinuating that weakening political support makes those positions untenable.

And, most significantly, he doesn't go out of his way, Clinton-like, to make sure that reporters -- or anyone else -- feel that their opinions are listened to and cherished. If anything, the opposite is true: Bush has never tried to hide that he has very little regard for the opinions of the Washington media establishment; that he could not care any less about winning their approval; and that the tried-and-true pressure tactics which they have used for decades to force White Houses to change course have no effect on Bush, unless it's to make him dig in even deeper.

The New York Daily News, in an article today that is largely critical of the White House, makes exactly this point:

Even as his poll numbers tank, however, Bush is described by aides as still determined to stay the course. He resists advice from Republicans who fear disaster in next year's congressional elections, and rejects criticism from a media establishment he disdains.

"The President has always been willing to make changes," the senior aide said, "but not because someone in this town tells him to - NEVER!"

For better or for worse, Bush arrived in Washington with a firmly entrenched set of convictions about himself and the world, and the self-important permanent Washington media establishment has not been able to shake those convictions no matter how hard they try. They thus feel irrelevant and impotent and they are not happy about it. They put up with it after 9/11 when a combination of Bush's towering popularity and their own fear-driven worship of Bush's cowboy swagger kept those resentments in check. But as 9/11 fades further into the distant past along with the aura of Bush's invulnerability, these resentments are blooming in plain sight.

Steadfastness or stuborness, like Clinton's eagerness to accomodate the positions of others, can be a good or a bad trait in a President. But for the preening, hubristic, status-obsessed Washington media elite, what matters is the influence and power they have, and in this respect, Bush's refusal to grant them their rightful place is nothing but a source of anger.

The media sees shifting public opinion in Iraq as their big chance to show that their power has not waned. They are committed to milking public discomfort over Iraq in order to show the Administration that they still rule Washington. And the longer Bush refuses to adhere to their demands -- or, as Hersch revealingly complained, the longer they "can't get to him maybe with (their) views" -- the angrier and more frustrated they are going to become.

The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington

(updated below)

Someone e-mailed me several days ago to say that while it is fruitful and necessary to chronicle the dishonest historical record of pundits and political figures when it comes to Iraq, I deserve to be chastised for failing to devote enough attention to the person who, by far, was most responsible for selling the war to centrists and liberal "hawks" and thereby creating "consensus" support for Bush's war -- Tom Friedman, from his New York Times perch as "the nation's preeminent centrist foreign policy genius."

That criticism immediately struck me as valid, and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite -- amazingly enough, I think it's more accurate to say "because of" -- his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America's history.

This matters so much not simply in order to expose Friedman's intellectual and moral emptiness, though that is a goal worthy and important in its own right. Way beyond that, the specific strain of intellectual bankruptcy that drove Friedman's strident support for the invasion of Iraq continues to be what drives not only Tom Friedman today, but virtually all of our elite opinion-makers and "centrist" and "responsible" political figures currently attempting to "solve" the Iraq disaster.

In column after column prior to the war, Friedman argued that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was a noble, moral, and wise course of action. To Friedman, that was something we absolutely ought to do, and as a result, he repeatedly used his column to justify the invasion and railed against anti-war arguments voiced by those whom he derisively called "knee-jerk liberals and pacifists" (so as not to clutter this post with long Friedman quotes, I'm posting the relevant Friedman excerpts here).

But at the same time Friedman was cheering on the invasion, he was inserting one alarmist caveat after the next about how dangerous a course this might be and about all the problems that might be unleashed by it. He thus repeatedly emphasized the need to wage the War what he called "the right way." To Friedman, the "right way" meant enlisting support from allies across Europe and the Middle East for both the war and the subsequent re-building, telling Americans the real reasons for the war, and ensuring that Americans understood what a vast and long-term commitment we were undertaking as a result of the need to re-build that country.

Only if the Bush administration did those things, argued Friedman, would this war achieve good results. If it did not do those things, he repeatedly warned, this war would be an unparalleled disaster.

Needless to say, the Bush administration did none of the things Friedman insisted were prerequisites for invading Iraq "the right way." And Friedman recognized that fact, and repeatedly pointed it out. Over and over, in the months before the war, Friedman would praise the idea of the war and actively push for the invasion, but then insert into his columns statements like this:

And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.

But: Despite the Bush administration's failures to take any of the steps necessary to wage the war "the right way," Friedman never once rescinded or even diluted his support for the war. He continued to advocate the invasion and support the administration's push for war -- at one point, in February, even calling for the anti-war French to be removed from the U.N. Security Council and replaced by India, and at another point warning that we must be wary of Saddam's last-ditch attempt to negotiate an alternative to war lest we be tricked into not invading -- even though Friedman knew and said that all the things that needed to be done to avert disaster were not being done by the administration.

Put another way, these are the premises which Friedman, prior to the invasion, expressly embraced:

(1) If the war is done the right way, great benefits can be achieved.
(2) If the war is done the wrong way, unimaginable disasters will result.
(3) The Bush administration is doing this war the wrong way, not the right way, on every level.
(4) Given all of that, I support the waging of this war.

Just ponder that: Tom Friedman supported the invasion of Iraq even though, by his own reasoning, that war was being done the "wrong way" and would thus -- also by his own reasoning -- create nothing but untold damage on every level. And he did so all because there was some imaginary, hypothetical, fantasy way of doing the war that Friedman thought was good, but that he knew isn't what we would get.

To support a war that you know is going to be executed in a destructive manner is as morally monstrous as it gets. The fact that there is some idealized, Platonic way to fight the war doesn't make that any better if you know that that isn't what is going to happen. We learn in adolescence that wanting things that we can't have -- pining for things that aren't real or possible -- is futile and irrational. To apply that adolescent fantasy world to war advocacy is the hallmark of a deeply frivolous and amoral person.

And it is exactly that sickness that is still -- almost four years later -- the most pervasive syndrome when it comes to our war debates. Greg Sargent and Atrios, among others, have been documenting one instance after the next of serious, sober political "leaders" who (a) recognize that our current course is a failure, (b) acknowledge that no real alternative exists, but nonetheless (c) lack the courage and integrity to advocate withdrawal. John McCain is the worst and most glaring example, as he expressly argues:

(1) It is immoral to stay in Iraq if we don't send in more troops.
(2) We are not going to send in more troops.
(3) I oppose withdrawal and think we should stay in Iraq.

Friedman himself continues to play the same repugnant game, arguing: (1) If we don't do X, we should not stay in Iraq; (2) X is impossible or unrealistic; (3) I do not advocate withdrawal. David Frum has made the same argument -- we will lose in Iraq and create far worse damage if we don't send more troops, which we don't do; nonetheless, we must remain in Iraq.

The reason for this is as transparent as it is despicable -- "withdrawal" is a prohibited belief in Establishment Washington. You can pretty much advocate any course of action other than that. Why is the Baker Commission filled with people who supported this invasion in the first place? Shouldn't it be dominated by -- or, at the very least, be substantially composed of -- people who opposed the war from the beginning, i.e., the people who demonstrated foresight and wisdom and judgment?

Establishment Washington is concerned right now with only one thing - saving their own credibility and reputation. The reason why The Washington Post's David Ignatius said recently that Chuck Hagel was "right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic" -- even though Hagel favored the invasion and many "national politicians" opposed it from the beginning -- is because the Washington Establishment still thinks that those who opposed the war from the beginning don't count, that they're still the unserious, know-nothing losers who should be ignored.

Howard Dean is still a leftist lunatic who is "soft" on national security, as are the Congressional Democrats who voted against the war resolution. Tom Friedman and John McCain and Condoleezza Rice and Charles Krauthammer are the credible, serious foreign policy geniuses.

It is not merely the case that having been pro-war doesn't count as a strike against anyone. That is accurate. But far worse, the opposite is also true. It is still the case in Establishment Washington that having been pro-war in the first place is a pre-requisite to being considered a "responsible, serious" foreign policy analyst. And having been anti-war from the start is the hallmark of someone unserious. The pro-war Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are serious national security Democrats but Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha are the kind of laughable losers whom Democrats need to repudiate.

Establishment Washington really is not interested in how to end this horrendous and despicable debacle we unleashed in Iraq. They are not interested in how to maximize U.S. interests. They are only interested in how to find a way to bring this disaster to some sort of slow resolution that looks as though it is a respectable and decent outcome -- anything that makes it seem like it wasn't a horrendous mistake in the first place. That is what the Baker-Hamilton Commission is about and it's what all of these Beltway analysts are doing by endorsing these premises:

(1) Things in Iraq are disastrous and our current policy there is a total failure.
(2) Our troop presence is not improving the situation; things have gotten steadily worse.
(3) There may be goals that, if theoretically met, would improve things, but those goals can't and won't be met -- either because we lack the resources or because they are just not achievable.
(4) No matter what, we absolutely cannot begin withdrawing, and those who want to do so are radical and unserious.

So what is being done now is exactly what Tom Friedman did before the war -- we continue to endorse a policy (staying in Iraq) even though we consciously know that no good can come from it and that it will produce nothing but bad results, and we justify that based on the fantasy that we could, in theory, improve things. Tom Friedman is a morally bankrupt narcissist whose only devotion is to the self-love of his own genius. He emphatically advocated the war beforehand but included every caveat possible so that, no matter what happened, he could claim to have been right, which is exactly what he has been doing.

But tragically, there is nothing unique about Tom Friedman. What drives him is the same mentality that enabled the administration's invasion of Iraq and, so much worse, it is the mentality that is keeping us there and will keep us there for the indefinite future. We stay in Iraq in pursuit of goals we know are fantasies, because to do otherwise requires the geniuses and serious establishment analysts to accept responsibility for what they have done -- and that is, by far, the most feared and despised outcome.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. But the behavior of our political and media leaders after that, and now, reveal that they are not just bereft of judgment but entirely bereft of character.

UPDATE: In comments, J makes an insightful and important point about people like Friedman who always think that their particular criticism of the administration, the war and other similar matters defines the outermost limit of what constitutes acceptable, responsible and permissible dissent. To be unserious, irresponsible, shrill, etc., means to transgress the limits definitionally established by their views.

UPDATE II: Hilzoy, via e-mail, directs my attention to this article from TAP's Harold Meyerson regarding pundit responsibility for Iraq, in which he says:

“I have to admit I’ve always been fighting my own war in Iraq,” Friedman wrote in the summer of 2003. “Mr. Bush took the country into his war.” Was it too much to ask the nation’s most important foreign-policy journalist to focus on Bush’s war -- particularly because, well, it was Bush, and not Friedman, who was president?

It's amazing enough that people like Tom Friedman failed to understand that point. But what is more amazing still -- and truly both infuriating and tragic -- is that they still don't seem to be able to digest it.

Lower and lower . . . Ralph Peters speaks in the NY Post

Ralph Peters has a vile little column in the New York Post today which makes Jean Schmitt's screeching House speech seem like elegant diplomacy. The gist of Peters' column is that those who think we should look for ways to end our military occupation in Iraq want America to lose, want the terrorists to win, and want our soldiers to die (because the soliders aren't Ivy League graduates and would vote Republican). No, really - those are his points, and he (commendably) makes them expressly, instead of with the standard innuendo.

Unsurprisingly, Peters' filth is all the rage today in the predictable war-crazed circles, where no accusation against those who speak ill of the war is too reprehensible or scurrilous to be celebrated. Here are just a few of the more reprehensible excerpts:

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq.

Planning to leave a country after we've occupied it for 2 1/2 years is no different than a football team that walks off the field at half-time. Both are quitters. How many more years do we have to stay for Peters to think that we've completed the fourth quarter?

Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions:

He's right that we've made remarkable progress -- towards the goals of bringing chaos and anarchy to Iraq, provoking dangerous regional instability and sectarian strife, and providing Al Qaeda with a brand new Afghanistan where they can operate with impunity. Isn't that enough progress for one war?

The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Does it ever occur to people who argue this way that it's possible for other people to think, reason and analyze in good faith and still reach a different conclusion? Does Peters really believe that things are going so swimmingly in Iraq that no person in good faith can think that our military presence there is doing more harm than good - both to Iraq and, more importantly, to U.S. national security?

For instance, something like this: (via Firedoglake)

As friends describe it, Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania had been searching his soul for months, seeking guidance on what to do in Congress about Iraq. "I think he was going through what we Catholics call a 'long night of the soul'," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. In 1974, Democrat Murtha had become the first Vietnam veteran elected to the House. A decorated Marine from the mountainous "Deer Hunter" country east of Pittsburgh, he had always been a down-the-line hawk and a favorite of the Pentagon generals....Murtha was the one-man tipping point.

Initially a strong supporter of the conflict, he had voted for it and the money to pay for it. But on his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that the war was unwinnable, but that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse. "We're the target, we're part of the problem," he told NEWSWEEK. Back in Washington, he resumed his weekly pilgrimage to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, visiting severely wounded casualties in rehab and agonizing over what he saw there. "I think those visits affected him deeply," said DeLauro. In a long chat with an Irish colleague, he talked about his congressional hero and mentor, another blue-collar Irishman, Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

Now back to the Peters smear:

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media.

Personally, I think it's stupid and disgusting for either side to claim that the other side doesn't value the lives of our troops. But if one side really shouldn't be claiming this, isn't it the side that sent the troops to their deaths?

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

A person could really choke to death on the odorous, suffocating intellectual dishonesty in this argument. So pulling troops out of Iraq would help Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts, would it? And what has violently invading and then occupying the oldest and one of the most symbolically important Muslim countries in the Middle East for 2 1/2 years done to Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts?

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

What's there to add to that, except to note the pitiful irony of someone who favored sending troops to their death accusing those who were against doing that of not sufficiently valuing the lives of the troops. Say what you will about opponents of the war, but the undeniable reality is that if they had their way, 2,100 troops who are now dead and another 10,000 or so seriously wounded for life would, instead, be alive and healthy.

There are sometimes very compelling reasons to wage war, and the fact that someone favors a war that results in the death of soliders is by no means evidence that the person does not value the lives of those soldiers. But that person really ought to refrain from accusing others -- especially those who opposed such wars -- of not caring about the lives of soliders.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

Translation: The reason that things aren't going as well as we promised is because of the Democrats (who have no power over any branch of government). Things are a disaster with the war we desperately wanted -- but not because of anything we did, but because of the Democrats.

Many have predicted that war proponents would attempt this trick once they were finally forced to admit that their scheme to create Iraq in their own image failed. I guess this is what we now see being trotted out by the self-proclaimed Beacons of Personal Responsibility.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

Yes, you see - Al Qaeda would be over in the U.S. blowing things up, but they are all busy right now in Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, their schedules will be freed up and they'll start looking for other things to do and then they'll come to the U.S. and kill Americans.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

So is Wes Clark. And Jack Murtha is a retired Marine. And John Kerry is a decorated veteran. But that apparently doesn't immunize them from being accused of wanting to surrender to terrorists in order to ensure that the U.S. is defeated, because they don't care about the lives of lowly soldiers and would love to see the U.S. lose to Al Qaeda if it means they can pick up a few House seats.

James Taranto's tough-guy mockery of Max Cleland is depressingly revealing

Max Cleland is voluntarily seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder related to his combat experience in Vietnam. Cleland cited as symptoms that he is "depressed, has developed a sense of hyper-vigilance about his security and has difficulty sleeping."

Cleland, who has become one of many war veterans who are critical of the Iraq war, says that he has been "engrossed" by the war but that the endless violence there has likely contributed to his mental stress by bringing back his own traumatizing combat memories from Vietnam:

"I realize my symptoms are avoidance, not wanting to connect with anything dealing with the (Iraq) war, tremendous sadness over the casualties that are taken, a real identification with that. ... I've tried to disconnect and disassociate from the media. I don't watch it as much. I'm not engrossed in it like I was," Cleland said in an interview with WSB-TV in Atlanta.

Tough guy warrior James Taranto mocks and exploits Cleland's condition in a way that he thinks is really cute and clever. In a post titled "Ignorance on Parade," Taranto says (emphasis added):

How credible is Cleland as "a vocal critic of the Iraq war" when by his own admission his approach to it is "avoidance, not wanting to connect with anything dealing with" it, and trying "to disconnect and disassociate" from sources of information about it?

Taranto's attempt to demean Cleland's credibility as a war opponent relies upon a complete distortion of the facts. Contrary to Taranto's insinuation, Cleland hasn't been avoiding news in Iraq. To the contrary, he's been (to use Cleland's word) "engrossed" by it -- as anyone who follows the news knows -- and only now feels himself, after 3 1/2 years of this war, wanting to avoid the grim news from Iraq because it's understandably causing him to re-live his own experiences in Vietnam. To try to distort that to mean that Cleland is unaware of what is going on in Iraq, and therefore isn't a credible war critic, is dishonest to the core.

But distorting Cleland's comments is the least of Taranto's sins here. There are a lot of people who have actually fought in wars for whom the brutality and slaughter in wars are real. Even for wars that are justifiable, a sane and mentally healthy person would feel substantial emotional distress as a result of the mass slaughter of innocent lives and mammoth destruction which a war entails. The ones who are mentally unhealthy are the ones who, never having been in or even near a war, indulge the vapid luxury of blithely ignoring the human costs of wars because they never pay -- or see or smell or hear -- any of those costs.

To chest-beating warriors like Taranto who so endlessly impress themselves by cheering on wars from afar, the slaughter and brutality of wars is purely abstract -- akin to losing (or gaining) points in a video game that they play while slumped safely on their couch or in front of their computer. Only weak, whiny, spineless, freakish losers like Cleland suffer effete emotional disturbances as a result of the endless bloodbath in Iraq. It's the tough and resolute guys like James Taranto who can call for more and more killing and bombing and invasions and slaughter while sleeping perfectly well at night.

Taranto thinks that it is a sign of his mental health and tough resolve that he can read every day about the death and destruction from the war he advocates without batting an eye, even urging more and more of it without any of the teary-eyed trauma that plagues weirdos like Cleland. Conversely, he thinks that Cleland's inability to be endlessly subjected to the slaughter from this war without being emotionally impaired is a sign of mental illness, something that disqualifies him from being a "credible war critic." But on both counts, the opposite is true. Cleland reacts the way he does to the war precisely because he knows and faces the reality of it, while it is Taranto who disassociates himself from the war and its effects so that he can easily cheer it on and crave more of it -- a self-indulgent luxury in which he, unlike Cleland, can wallow because he has never been near a war.

Wars are very easy -- way too easy -- to advocate when you can disassociate yourself from its effects. Doing so is not a sign of bravery or mental health. Quite the contrary, it is mentally imbalanced, arguably sociopathic, to view wars as some abstract game and to call for more and more of them while being wholly impervious to the tragic destruction they impose on countless human beings. Wars are sometimes necessary and justifiable, but they are always horrendous and tragic, and it is a truly disturbing syndrome that so many people can advocate them so blithely and even happily because they are able to remain immune from the consequences.

For people like Cleland who have actually fought in wars, it is quite common to have the type of reactions Cleland has:

Cleland is receiving treatment at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, Duga said. He said Cleland acknowledged his condition to encourage other veterans to seek help if they feel sick.

The Department of Veterans Affairs' inspector general reported last year that the number of post-traumatic stress disorder cases has increased dramatically in recent years, from 120,265 in 1999 to 215,871 in 2004.

Cleland lost three limbs in military service on behalf of the United States, and now he speaks publicly about his mental struggles with war in order to make it easier for other veterans who could benefit from treatment to seek that treatment. But to Taranto, it's Cleland whose views on war we should ignore because after being "engrossed" by the war for three years, he has finally become so emotionally affected by the endless killings that he finds it difficult to read about it every day.

But Taranto has no such difficulties. He can read about war and slaughter and bombings and never get enough. He has no emotional difficulties thinking about all of that. Therefore, it is Taranto who has credibility on war matters, not Cleland.

Our country has, of course, been guided for the last five years by the pseudo-tough-guys like James Taranto while ignoring (except to mock) the Max Clelands. That's how Jack Murtha is a coward, Wesley Clark is an appeaser, Max Cleland is a weakling -- while George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and the Jonah Goldberg/Rich Lowry gang at National Review's Corner are the crusading warriors who are the only ones with enough fortitude, spine and foreign policy seriousness to lead America in its epic war challenges. Max Cleland is emotionally disturbed by war - what an emotionally disturbed loser he is. Who would ever listen to what he has to say?

Statement of the Edwards campaign

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

Subject: EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 8, 2007

EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN

Chapel Hill, North Carolina -- The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.

Senator John Edwards:

"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."

Amanda Marcotte:

"My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."

Melissa McEwen:

"Shakespeare's Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don't expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I've posted. We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."

_______________________________________________

This was a smart and potentially significant move by the Edwards campaign on several levels, the most significant of which is that it signals that Democratic campaigns aren't going to capitulate to contrived controversies manufactured by the lowest and basest precincts in our political culture. There is more Edwards could have done with this, but still, he stood resolute in the face of an intense and ugly coordinated media/right-wing swarm and rendered it impotent.

Nobody is going to be casting their votes a year from now based on the pre-campaign postings of Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, and the only ones who will ever speak of this again would never have voted for Edwards in the first place, and only raised these issues in the first place with the intent to harm Edwards specifically and Democrats generally. That faction is the last one to which Edwards and other Democrats ought to pay any attention. John McCain will have to spend the next year pandering to the Bill Donahues and Michelle Malkins of the world. There is no reason John Edwards should, and it is good to see that he will not.

UPDATE: The Associated Press' Nedra Pickler writes a much more balanced article on this matter than the one which made its way yesterday into The Washington Post. In today's story, Pickler conveys the important point made by McEwan on her blog that McEwan enthusiastically voted for a Catholic (John Kerry) for President in 2004, which suggests that she is hardly an "anti-Catholic bigot."

It is true that McEwan opposes specific Catholic doctrine applied by some right-wing Catholics to political questions, which -- despite Bill Donohue's best efforts -- is not the same as being "anti-Catholic" (just as opposing Pat Robertson's political agenda does not make one "anti-Christian," nor does opposing the policies of specific right-wing Israelis or American Jews make one "anti-semitic," nor does opposing specific views of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make one "racist"). The language they used was inflammatory -- almost certainly deliberately so -- but that hardly makes it "bigoted."

Pickler also includes -- as she and The New York Times should have done originally -- a small though illustrative excerpt from that Civility Crusader, Bill Donohue: "Donohue also doesn't shy away from blunt language sometimes in his criticism of gays, Hollywood's control by 'secular Jews who hate Christianity' and even the Edwards bloggers, whom he referred to as 'brats' in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC." That (along with Michelle Malkin and the likes of Jonah Goldberg) is who was masquerading as the Guardians of Elevated Political Discourse, and that is why it was so important not to indulge this charade.

UPDATE II: In Comments, Zack says:

This is all a big game to the right, and they were prepared to declare victory no matter what Edwards did. Edward’s careful response seems to have taken away the “anti-Catholic bigotry” from most of them (Donahue excepted, I’m sure), but they’ve now found a new tact.

Sister Toldjah loves this comment:

This is just a great endorsement for Edwards for President. If he doesn’t have the stones to stand up to the nutroots, I’m sure he’ll really be just the perfect man to stand up to Islamic Terrorists and Iran and North Korea. He’ll need a pair of knee pads pronto if he becomes President.

Did you notice how fast they switched gears? They’ve already nearly forgotten about the religious angle that they began with. ….. Yeah, well, okay, maybe he’s not an anti-Christian bigot, but by gosh he sure is a girly-man.

This wasn’t ever about “God-cum” - it was about intimidating those who disagree with them. If one smear doesn’t stick, they’ll just keep throwing them until one does. It’s a game they play to divert attention from the real issues and provide amusement for each other with their insults.

Other than screeching that the Terrorists are coming to get us all and that anyone who disagrees is themselves a Terrorist, the pro-Bush right has no ideas, no policies, no substance. They thrive on deeply personal lynch mob behavior -- waving purple hearts with band-aids, prattling on about John Kerry's joke and Nancy Pelosi's plane, searching for new scalps to satisfy their mob cravings, and depicting their political opponents as weak, girly, traitorous losers. That is the extent of them, and that is all this Edwards hysteria was ever about. And by brushing it aside, Edwards treated it as the petty nuisance it is, rather than endowing it and them with unwarranted credibility.

The idea that the right wing political movement in this country -- led by the filth-spewing likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, the Clinton impeachment obsessives, and all sorts of Daily Treason Accusers -- is committed to high levels of civility in our political discourse and sensitivity to the beliefs of others, and therefore was very, very offended by the commentary of these bloggers, is an absurd and transparent joke.

There is a reason that two of the most bigoted and offensive public figures in our political landscape -- Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin -- led their crusade. That Donohue and Malkin were holding themselves out as the arbiter of proper political discourse and anti-bigotry standards reveals all one needs to know about the corrupt roots of this "controversy."

UPDATE III: Over at National Review's Media Blog, Steve Spruiell speculates (accurately, I believe):

This [Edwards announcement today] contradicts a report on Salon.com yesterday that the Edwards campaign had fired the bloggers.

I've previously been interviewed by Alex Koppelman (one of the Salon reporters who wrote the story), and from my experience with him he seems like a diligent and professional reporter — indicating that Salon's report was probably well-founded. So at one point, it's likely that the Edwards campaign had decided to fire the bloggers, only to reconsider in the face of pressure from left-wing netroots activists.

I also believe (without knowing for certain, though based on numerous facts) that this is, more or less, what happened. In the age where candidates listened only to their Beltway consultants, and national journalists were the exclusive gatekeeper and megaphone for all political opinion, I believe virtually every campaign would have fired these bloggers immediately. Why risk the controversy over low-level staffers, the super-smart consultant-rationale would have suggested.

But now there are multiple and disparate constituencies, and I don't think there is much question that the blogosphere enabled Edwards to keep these bloggers. I do not believe bloggers forced him to do something he did not want to do. I think it's more likely that the blogosphere created the option of keeping them and enabled Edwards to choose that option, though certainly the prospect of alienating all of the liberal blogosphere -- bloggers, readers and donors alike -- was a factor in Edwards' decision, and it should have been. Candidates should listen more to the people supporting their campaign and less to the national journalists and consultant class which previously dictated all of their decisions.

UPDATE IV: Salon's Koppelman and Traister just posted a new article essentially confirming the above theory:

After personal phone calls to the bloggers from the candidate, the Edwards campaign has rehired the bloggers who were fired yesterday, according to sources inside and close to the campaign.

Salon reported yesterday that on Wednesday morning the Edwards camp fired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, the two bloggers whose hiring had sparked an uproar by conservatives. That information was confirmed by sources in and close to the campaign. But almost as soon as the decision had been communicated to the bloggers, a struggle arose within the campaign about possibly reversing it, the sources said, as the liberal blogosphere exploded.

As I said, I think that reflects well on both the Edwards campaign and, even more so, on the emerging ability of the blogosphere to positively influence the outcome of matters such as this one.

Profile of the Neoconservative Warrior

Mark Steyn is one of the most extremist warmongers in our country and is gripped by the fear that the European race will die out as Muslims breed too rapidly and take over. He has also been as fundamentally wrong as one can be about virtually every issue he has touched. Guess who considers him a foreign policy guru? From a New Yorker profile of the Independent Senator from Connecticut, by Jeffery Goldberg:

Lieberman says that he does, at times, feel isolated. . . .

In another conversation, he told me that he was reading “America Alone,” a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism.

“The thing I quote most from it is the power of demographics, in Europe particularly,” Lieberman said. “That’s what struck me the most. But the other part is a kind of confirmation of what I know and what I’ve read elsewhere, which is that Islamist extremism has an ideology, and it’s expansionist, it’s an aggressive ideology. And the title I took to mean that we Americans will have ultimate responsibility for stopping this expansionism.”

Goldberg also includes this seemingly insignificant but quite revealing incident from Lieberman's past:

Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”

That is about as vivid a profile of the neoconservative warrior mentality as one can get: paranoid and frightened guys who derive personal and emotional fulfillment by giddily cheering on military destruction from a safe and comfortable distance -- who see war as a fun video game to play, through which one can feel the pulsating sensations of power and triumph -- combined with an obsessive focus on, really a paranoia of, the threat of Islamic fantacism to the seeming exclusion of every other issue and danger.

Combine those two traits and one not only finds the principal sentiment that drove us into Iraq and will keep us there for the foreseeable future, but also the primary reason why a majority of Americans now believe that the U.S. will soon be at war with Iran. Lieberman also smears unnamed colleagues who are opposed to the "surge" by claiming: “A lot of Democrats are essentially pacifists and somewhat isolationist," even though there is not a single Democrat, at least not in the Senate, who could be accurately described that way. Lieberman now even wields the lowest smear tactics used by people like Mark Steyn.

Joe Lieberman believes, accurately, that he can openly praise Mark Steyn's foreign policy "theories" (embraced just as enthusiastically by the right-wing blogosphere and Marty Peretz) because -- while everyone to the left of The New Republic is deemed to be a fringe, untouchable radical -- there is no such thing as a right-wing pundit too extreme or pernicious to be declared out of the mainstream.

Seriousness v. Superficiality

Even though it is only mid-January, I am absolutely certain that Peggy Noonan, in today's Wall St. Journal, wrote what will be the year's most ironic column. After sharing her dislike for the President's speech ("One couldn't find the personal geography of the speech") and expressing some muddled, rationale-free resistance to the "surge," Noonan laments that the real problem with the country is that the Democrats are so "superficial":

The second is the power vacuum that will be created in Washington if the administration is, indeed, collapsing. The Democrats of Capitol Hill will fill that one. And they seem--and seemed in their statements after the president's speech--wholly unprepared to fill it, wholly unserious in their thoughts and approach. They seem locked into habits that no longer pertain, and absorbed by the small picture of partisan advancement at the expense of the big picture, which is that there nation is in trouble and needs their help. They are sunk in the superficial.

In the very next paragraph -- the very next one -- this is her complaint about the Democrats:

When Nancy Pelosi showed up at the White House Wednesday to talk with the president it was obvious she'd spent a lot of time thinking about . . . what to wear. She wrapped herself in a rich red shawl. Dick Morris said it looked like a straitjacket. I thought she looked like a particularly colorful mummy.

Seriously, how is it even possible that this thought did not occur to Noonan as she wrote her column: "My criticism of the Democrats is that they are so superficial and unserious, and to prove that, I'm now criticizing Nancy Pelosi for her clothing choices. I seem to be exhibiting, as completely and transparently as possible, the very flaw which I am attributing to Democrats." Wouldn't just a minimally functioning human brain compel that recognition?

In any event, Noonan's "argument" here illustrates a larger point. As always, "serious" means "one who (a) takes every and any position on the war except for withdrawing, or (as in Noonan's case) (b) takes no position at all but who expresses much concern and emphasizes how Serious these Matters Are." As an addendum: repeatedly advocating positions that directly contradict previously advocated positions (or even misrepresenting one's prior, now-discarded positions) is no bar whatsoever to Seriousness status, provided that withdrawal is never, at any time, one of the advocated positions.

Conversely, "unserious" (or, in Noonan's lexicon, "superficial") means "advocating an end to the war now, rather than in some vague, distant, indiscernible, never-to-arrive future." That is what Pelosi has done. Hence, Pelosi (unlike Noonan, who has no position) is "superficial" and "unserious."

Among the political and punditry establishment, there has emerged a consensus that there is only one way to show that one is a truly respectable, mainstream, Serious Thinker about the war. It is to do this:

(1) acknowledge (reluctantly) that the war is going very poorly and wrinkle one's foreheads to show grave concern over the problem;

(2) oppose escalation (but respectfully, acknowledging what a serious, thoughtful -- even resolute -- option it is);

(3) oppose withdrawal (categorically, dismissively, snidely, as though any person with a grain of responsibility would never think of such a thing, given how patently reckless it is).

Engaging in that exercise is the only way to avoid being either a pro-Bush "escalator" or an unserious, irresponsible McGovernite Defeatocrat. That is why, for instance, Jason Zengerle and Joe Klein's rhetoric (and that's all it is) has provoked such strong reactions. It's because -- just like Noonan's grand angst-ridden deliberations here -- they are such pure personifications of the desire to strike the pose of seriousness and substantive analysis and thoughtful advocacy while saying nothing about the war that is even remotely serious or substantive or thoughtful. They are advocating nothing.

Thus, in the same column where Noonan criticizes Pelosi for being "superficial" (even though Pelosi's plan -- withdrawal -- has been clear for some time ), Noonan herself never takes any position at all about Iraq. The non-superficial Noonan writes a whole column about Iraq. What does she think should be done? Who knows? Clear positions are for the superficial partisans.

She says things are going badly. She's against the surge (maybe). And while she says that military and intelligence planners "must be instructed to draw up serious plans for an American withdrawal," that is not in order to withdraw, but only because doing that "might concentrate the mind" of the Maliki government. The closest Noonan comes to an affirmative expression of belief about what the U.S. should do in Iraq is this, her concluding paragraph:

What is paramount, it seems to me, is a hard, cold-eyed, even brutal look at America's interests. We have them. I'm not sure they've been given sufficient attention the past few years. In fact, I am sorry to say I believe they have not.

But what does that mean? It means nothing. It's meaningless and superficial. It is empty rhetoric. But that is all that ever spews forth from the serious, very-very-concerned, responsible commentators -- "we need to think very carefully about all of the serious implications of this war and look long and hard about how best to minimize the damage."

In reality, Noonan -- like all Serious Commentators -- favors (without saying so, but it is the logically necessary meaning) that we should stay mired in a war that (as she acknowledges) is patently failing, but neither change course nor leave. At bottom, what it amounts to is an argument that is premised on this "thought": "What we're doing is horrible and counter-productive and we should keep doing it indefinitely."

None of this is new. This twisted game has been going on since before the invasion. Those who emphatically opposed the war were the frivolous, unserious hysterics who should be ignored. Those who strutted around with infinite "concerns" and serious qualms and who never took a real, definitive, clear position about whether they favored the invasion or not, were (and still are) the intellectual heroes, the ones who could see all sides, the thoughtful, complex non-partisan guardians of political wisdom who were too afraid and principle-free to say clearly what they believed.

That is still the prevailing orthodoxy among the Washington establishment, the playbook for showing that you are a serious, thoughtful, careful, non-ideological thinker who is truly and deeply concerned about Iraq. But the concern never translates into any actual ideas or advocacy for action -- and it thus results in our staying in Iraq forever without even bothering to defend that position. Nothing is more superficial or unserious -- or intellectually bankrupt -- than that.

Joe Lieberman's declaration of war on Iran

(updated below)

In his Washington Post Op-Ed today, the Great Warrior Joe Lieberman predictably endorsed sending more troops to Iraq, in the process dutifully spouting (as always) every Bush/neoconservative talking point. But Lieberman had a much larger fish to fry with this Op-Ed, as he all but declared war on Iran, identifying them as the equivalent of Al Qaeda, as the Real Enemy we are fighting:

While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Everything that is happening in Iraq is the fault of Iran and Al Qaeda:

This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center.

Our Real Enemies on the "battlefield" in Iraq are Iran and Al Qaeda:

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

The real danger if we "lose" in Iraq -- if (perish the thought) -- is that it will enable Iran to commit still more terrorist attacks (like all the ones they've been sponsoring in order to kill Americans, such as 9/11):

Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents.

One might question why someone who is one of the most vocal advocates of the Iraq Disaster would seek to expand the war to include Iran, a country much larger and more formidable on every level than Iraq. After all, things aren't going that well in Iraq, and it might seem to a simplistic and Chamberlain-like appeasing coward that the absolutely most insane idea ever is to try to expand "our war" to include Iran. So what would motivate Lieberman to do this?

Initially, it must be emphasized that whatever his reason is, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sentiments expressed by Israel's newest cabinet minister, Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) when he visited the U.S. earlier this month and gave an interview to The New York Times:

“Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem,” which he called “the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War.” [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: “The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea.”

Joe Lieberman's desire for the U.S. to view itself as being at war with Iran also has nothing whatsoever to do with this:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president. . . .

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s," Olmert said in his speech at the Yad Vashem memorial.

Back in late 2001 and early 2002, U.S.-Iranian relations were at their best state, by far, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The two countries were cooperating extensively in Afghanistan. New diplomatic channels had been created. Iran was eager to make one concession after the next in order to achieve rapprochement with the U.S. And foreign policy experts including Colin Powell were hailing the prospects for a new cooperative relationship with the Iranians.

In November, 2001, Powell shook hands with the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City. PBS’ Frontline described that event as “a simple yet historic gesture that seemed the most tantalizing hint of rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran since the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979.”

But also in January, 2002, the Israelis intercepted a ship filled with mostly defensive (though some offensive) arms destined for the Palestinian Authority, which they claimed came from Iran. And the Israelis began a full-scale campaign to prevent Iran-U.S. rapproachement.

By the end of that month, David Frum wrote George Bush's State of the Union speech declaring Iran to be a charter member of the "Axis of Evil," and relations between the two countries have been quite hostile ever since. Even after that occurred, the Iranians continued to make extraordinary overtures to better relations, but they were all unceremoniously rejected by the Bush administration.

Sen. Lieberman's call for the war to include Iran has absolutely nothing to do with strategies such as those articulated by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in January, 2002, in a Report entitled Destabilizing Implications of Iranian-U.S. Rapproachment for Israeli and Global Security. That Report warned of what it called “multiple signs of this developing U.S.-Iranian relationship over the last three months." Insisting that "any Iranian-U.S. rapprochement" is "premature and potentially destabilizing," its core strategy was clearly described:

If Iran only posed a threat to Israel, while offering new diplomatic opportunities to the U.S. and its NATO allies, then it would be possible to anticipate a threat perception gap between Jerusalem and Washington.

However, Iran's continuing support for international terrorism through Hizbullah -- an organization with proven global reach from South America to Saudi Arabia -- and its declared interest in achieving a nuclear-strike capability demonstrates the severe hostility and broad geographic scope of involvement of the Iranian regime.

When Sen. Lieberman warns of Iran's "terrorist agents," what he means, of course, are Hezbollah and Hamas, groups that are dedicated to fighting against Israel, not the U.S. But the tactic of those who want to conflate Israel's enemies with American enemies -- and thereby draw the U.S. into fighting those who are hostile to Israel -- is to ignore any such distinctions and to pretend that supporting anti-Israeli groups is evidence of support for the people who flew those planes into American buildings on 9/11.

That is one of the principal deceitful tricks that was played with Saddam Hussein (the "support for terrorism" of which he was supposedly guilty was payments to the families of Palestinians carrying out attacks against Israel, not terrorist attacks against the U.S. -- a distinction which was never made, but instead, was purposely obscured). Here Sen. Lieberman is invoking the same deceitful little game to try to underhandedly suggest that Iran is an Ally of Al Qaeda and a Supporter of "the Terrorists," purposely blurring all distinctions in the hope of driving a deeper and more hostile wedge between the U.S. and Israel's worst enemy.

But we nonetheless must be very clear at all times that Sen. Lieberman's desire that the U.S. "recognize" that the war has already "expanded" to include Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with the strategy by right-wing Israelis to convince the U.S. that Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to the U.S., so that the U.S. will act against Israel's most formidable and threatening enemy. Those two matters are completely unconnected -- when they converge, it is pure coincidence -- and to suggest otherwise is conclusive evidence of poisonous anti-semitism and bigotry of the worst sort.

In fact, anyone who would even raise the possibility of such a connection is engaging in the worst type of irresponsible debate, as the Leader himself instructed us earlier this year:

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Clearly, Sen. Lieberman just happens to believe that it would be a really good idea for us to start a new war with Iran (or, more accurately, to "recognize" that we are already at war with Iran and start acting like Churchillian men and fight them). After all, everyone knows that Iran has invaded all sorts of countries, threatened to invade the U.S., poses a grave risk to our sovereignty, helped plan the 9/11 attacks, is best friends with Osama bin Laden, and is ruled by madmen way beyond the realm of reason and are even building concentration camps as we speak.

What rational, brave patriot wouldn't agree that the U.S. should wage war against Iran? The only possible reason to suggest that Sen. Lieberman, in his war dances against Iran, might be driven by considerations other than American interests could only be the by-product of an ugly, bigoted mind. Such people must be -- and most assuredly will be -- scorned with a venom reserved for few others. Just ask Jim Baker. Or Jimmy Carter. What Sen. Lieberman's Op-Ed painfully and conclusively demonstrates is that the people who brought us the war in Iraq are nowhere near done with their wretched work.

UPDATE: For the sake of clarity, and to avoid being misunderstood, I want to add one point here that really merits its own separate discussion. If I were an Israeli, I'd very likely perceive Iran as an enemy (and vice-versa). And as I've argued many times before, one can reasonably argue that the U.S. should have a policy of supporting its most important allies and/or other democracies, including Israel. The U.S. provides security guarantees for all sorts of countries. That's all fair game for open discussion.

But few things are more threatening to Israeli interests than deceitfully securing American policies based on pretext or by concealing the real agenda. People can be fooled only for so long, and people who feel deceived generally backlash against the deceivers. The argument is not that people like Joe Lieberman do too much to help Israel but that, though that might be their motive, they achieve the precise opposite result.

The Bush administration's provocations towards Iran

(updated below)

By Glenn Greenwald - Over the past several days, there have been reports of increasing U.S. military activity in the Persian Gulf aimed at Iran, and today The New York Times confirms that "the United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran." The buildup includes "a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year."

There is no doubt that these moves are intended to signal to the Iranians (as well as to what the Times describes as "Washington’s allies in the region who are concerned about Iran’s intentions") that we are capable of an offensive military strike against Iran:

Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative.

One purpose of the deployment, they said, is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran.

Bush officials cite two "justifications" for these maneuvers: (1) to enforce any sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council as a result of Iran's refusal to comply with its resolutions (sanctions which have not yet been imposed), and (2) to deter Iran from a military blockade of oil shipments in retaliation for not-yet-imposed sanctions.

The President was not even asked about his intentions with regard to Iran at yesterday's Press Conference. He was asked whether he would follow the ISG's recommendation to negotiate with Iran concerning Iraq, and the President gave his standard bizarre answer that he would negotiate with the Iranians once they agreed to suspend their nuclear research program -- i.e., once they agreed in advance to do everything we would demand that they do in negotiations. The Iranians have responded in-kind by saying that they would negotiate with the U.S. only once we left Iraq.

According to the Times, Bush officials "view recent bold moves by Iran — and by North Korea as well — as at least partly explained by assessments in Tehran and North Korea that the American military is bogged down in Iraq and incapable of fully projecting power elsewhere." There is undoubtedly truth in that. For an administration which has operated on the bellicose premise that "weakness is provocative," it has hard to overstate the extent to which the Iraq disaster has -- quite rationally -- emboldened countries around the world against the U.S. and diluted the deterrent threat of our military force.

Any action which brings us even a small step closer to military confrontation with Iran should be, by definition, the most attention-generating news story. Any military conflict with Iran would be so disastrous for the U.S. that it cannot be adequately described. In contrast to the weakened, isolated, universally reviled Saddam regime, the Iranians are smart, strong, shrewd and supported by scores of vitally important allies around the world. And that's to say nothing of the resources that are being drained away, and the ever increasing U.S. isolation, that occurs every day that we continue to occupy Iraq.

It's unclear whether the President really believes that a military confrontation with Iran is inevitable if they do not stop their nuclear program (which they will not do, particularly if we refuse to negotiate). He has given speeches in the recent past in which he spoke of Iran exactly the same way he spoke of Iraq in late 2002 when, in his mind, an attack on Iraq was already a fait accompli.

It's possible that that rhetoric was designed to satiate his hungry, crazed warmongering "base." And it's also possible that it was designed to simply convey to the Iranians that military force is possible despite our occupation of Iraq.

But it's equally possible that he really does believe that some sort of war with Iran is inevitable -- even if it is "just" an air attack -- and recent news events suggesting that public opposition to President Ahmadinejad is growing may trigger the President's messianic complex and lead him to the belief that the U.S. is "called upon" to help bring democracy to that country. And many of the people who convinced the President to invade Iraq have long harbored dreams of regime change in Iran as the Ultimate Success, or at least the Next Step in the Epic War of Civilizations.

The warmongers who unquestionably still have the President's ear immediately transformed the recent debate over whether we should negotiate with Iran (prompted by the ISG) into an argument that Iran is our Real Enemy, not just in general but specifically in Iraq, and that Iran should be attacked, not negotiated with. Those wild-eyed war-loving elements are tempting to dismiss because of how obviously extremist and detached from reality they are, but they continue to occupy places of high influence with the President (both inside and outside of the White House).

Worse, there are convincing signs that the President is one of them, i.e., that he now irreversibly shares their world view that War with Islamic Extremism requires a progressive series of wars with various states, the next of which is Iran. One thing that is so clear that it ought to be beyond doubt: if the President is convinced that some sort of military action is necessary or even warranted, nothing -- not public opinion nor his supposed "lame duck" status nor the sheer insanity of the proposal -- is going to stop him.

Few things have been as disturbing as the President's now immovable belief that he is Harry Truman -- fighting a necessary war even in the face of widespread opposition from weak and blind people in his own country and around the world -- but destined to be vindicated by history. And, as he sees it, the more he fights against anti-war headwinds and the bolder he is in the risks he takes, the greater his vindication will be.

Geopolitical considerations do not determine what the U.S. will do vis-a-vis Iran. The President's personality does.

Even if the President and/or his top advisors are less than clear about their intent with regard to Iran, it may not matter. Military build-ups of this sort, plainly aimed at one country in particular, can easily produce miscalculations or lead to unintended provocations. As but one of countless permutations, if the Iranians -- governed, we are unconvicingly told, by irrational and crazed Hitlers -- perceive that moves of this sort suggest that military confrontation with the U.S. is inevitable, then they can become incentivized to strengthen their position, particularly while the U.S. is weakened in Iraq, which can in turn cause the U.S. to escalate its actions, etc.

Or a restless anti-mullah movement can be quieted by uniting the country behind conflict with the U.S. It is an incomparably dangerous game and the consequences are almost certainly beyond our capacity to predict, let alone manage.

There are also all sorts of constitutional questions about the type of Congressional authorization required in order to interact militarily with Iran, but those would almost certainly be swept aside by an administration that would claim that it already has such authorization either inherently or as a result of Iran's involvement in our war in Iraq. If the President were really intent on war with Iran, it is very difficult to envision Congressional Democrats, or really anything else, stopping him.

None of these issues is clear and I would not describe anything as inevitable when it comes to Iran. But at a time when the country is vigorously opposed to our ongoing occupation in Iraq -- opposition which is being steadfastly ignored by a Washington Establishment that is about to increase our troop presence there -- any actions of the sort we are currently undertaking to militarily provoke Iran should be at the top of the list in our political debates.

While there may be all sorts of nice, clean, abstract theories which even Democrats can embrace about why a military build-up is wise and necessary as a show of force against Iran, it must be kept first and foremost in mind that it is the Bush administration that is overseeing the build-up and will decide whatever steps are taken as a result. That is reason enough not only to justify urgent opposition to these events, but to make such opposition a matter of unparalleled importance.

* * * * * * * * *

UPDATE: Digby -- whose blogging, more than anything else, convinced me of the unique potential of the blogosphere, which, in turn, motivated me to begin this blog -- is asking for reader donations to sustain and help support the truly invaluable blogging that takes place on Hullabaloo. Last year, I donated to Digby myself and encourage anyone who is a fan of Digby's blogging to do so.

Some bloggers have a larger daily readership, but few have as much impact and influence on the content of our political dialogue as Digby does. And that, in my view, is a very good thing that ought to be maintained and encouraged.

* * * * * * * * *

Atrios, whose blog has been down ever since he was hoodwinked by Blogspot into accepting the "quick, easy and painless" upgrade they have been offering (which I have been steadfastly resisting), is blogging temporarily here.

Determined to be wrong

By Hume's Ghost

Today's Washington Post has an article about ex-CIA officer Tyler Drumheller's claims that his warnings that Iraq intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq was flawed were ignored. The story begins

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

And the rest of the piece goes on to explain the problems that Drumheller had with the intelligence and his inability to make any impact on the use of these claims. It ends by noting that seven months after Colin Powell's U.N. speech, for which Powell had been told by CIA Director George Tenet that the mobile labs claims were solidly backed, Tenet called Powell to let him know that the intelligence used to make the claims was not credible.

This seems to be a recurring theme for this administration. It just doesn't seem to hear objections until it's too late. It has an uncanny ability to not hear information that discredits its beliefs. The intelligence used to back the mobile biological labs claims came from Curveball, an Iraqi informant housed in Germany, with German intelligence acting as a middle man for the United States. There were widespread doubts about Curveball's credibility, and he has been discredited as a fabricator, but again, the administration conveniently managed to not find out about that until after the invasion had occurred.

On May 29, 2003, President Bush declared that US and Kurdish forces had discovered the mobile biological labs. For the next year and a half, administration officials continued to cite the discovery of these labs as proof of Saddam's WMDs and justification for the invasion. But, alas, in September 2004, the Iraq Survey Group investigated and concluded that labs were used to generate hydrogen to be used in weather balloons.

Yet, on May 27, 2003, two days before President Bush's announcement, a team of technical experts which had been sent by the Pentagon to investigate the labs after two military teams of weapons experts identified the labs as mobile weapons units (based off of the descriptions of Curveball), had issued a report which concluded unequivocally that the labs could not be used to produce biological weapons. The team made this conclusion within four hours of investigating.

When the team came back to the US, they were asked to revise their (correct) conclusion to "soften" it to allow for the possibility that the trailers could be used for producing biological weapons. The team refused and stood by their conclusion, at which point the report was classified and shelved. Amazingly, once again the administration managed not to hear information that conflicted with claims it used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

This is but one example. Take the time to look through the intelligence claims used to justify the war and what emerges is a systematic intent to not consider information that might say something the administration did not want to hear.

But this is part of an even larger pattern of not being able to confront reality which conflicts with its political ideology. This is why it might be the most anti-scientific administration is US history, since science is the best method that humanity has to investigate and determine objective truth. But wishful thinking does not change inconvenient truths, and eventually reality must be confronted. A point summed poignantly in this eSkeptic from Oct. 10, 2004

The troubles in Iraq are not so much proof of the failure of the neocon vision for democratizing the Middle East, as they are a reminder of the disastrous consequences of removing empiricism from deliberation. All the problems that have popped up in Iraq were predicted long ago—from troop strength to the resilience of the insurgents—and available to anyone who cared to look. The administration not only chose to look away but actively swept them under the rug. When CIA war games were discovered to be training personnel to deal with the eventuality of civil disorder after the fall of Baghdad, The Atlantic Monthly reported the Pentagon forbad representatives from the Defense Department from participating because “detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing costs and potential problems.” Our refusal to face reality hasn’t been giving democracy much of a chance.

“Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue,” George Will wrote recently. “Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.” Bush has finally met his match. The Universe is the one foe more steadfast than he is. It cannot be bullied or intimidated. The laws of physics know no compromise. This is a game of chicken Bush will lose. If he doesn’t take his foot off the accelerator, then the only question is: how will we recover from the crash?

Various items

(updated below - including with a real poll, from Newsweek, on the NSA program)

A few items of note:

(1) The formal release date for How Would a Patriot Act? is this Monday, May 15. Amazon and the other online retailers should begin shipping the book to those who pre-ordered, and it should start appearing in stores this week. The promotional and marketing campaign for the book will start in earnest this week as well. The book is back in the Top 100 on Amazon and has been rising steadily on Barnes & Noble again.

Yesterday, The San Francisco Chronicle published a lengthy article on its front page which profiled the book, this blog and the rising influence of the blogosphere generally. This is obviously the perfect time for the book's release for many reasons. I genuinely believe that these issues of executive power and the administration's systematic lawbreaking and fear-mongering are ripe for real public discussion and understanding. I'm very excited about the opportunity to talk about these issues as far and wide as I possibly can.

(2) Following-up on the post from yesterday regarding that highly suspect insta-poll from The Washington Post which purported to show that most Americans favor the newly disclosed NSA program, Jane Hamsher details that much of the corruption of that poll is accounted for by the standard practices of the Post's pollster, Richard Morin, who has a history of producing skewed, pro-Republican polling data.

(3) One aspect of the new NSA story which merits significantly more attention is just how revealing and intrusive the information is which is being collected and stored. Knowing the identity of every single person whom you call and from whom you receive calls can be almost as illuminating and privacy-destroying as listening in on the calls themselves. And as Kevin Drum points out, this claim that the data provided by the phone companies does not reveal the identity of the participants on the call is simply frivolous. There are so many ways for the Government to discover the identity of the callers by knowing their telephone numbers that this defense is not even serious.

I'd be willing to bet that a very sizable portion of the American public speaks with people they don't want others knowing about. To put into the Government's hands the ability to know the identity of every person with whom we speak on the telephone is so dangerous and intrusive that it's hard to believe most Americans will glibly give up this level of privacy to the Government. We'll see.

(4) Apparently, the number 29% does wonders for enabling politicians to find some courage and resolve:

Senate Democrats intend to use next week's confirmation hearings for a new C.I.A. director to press the Bush administration on its broad surveillance programs, engaging Republicans on national security grounds that have proved politically treacherous for Democrats in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, nominee to head C.I.A., reacted Friday after Senator Susan Collins said microphones were "eavesdropping" on them.

Lawmakers and senior Democratic officials say they believe a combination of Democratic gains on security issues and a loss of public confidence in President Bush gives them new strength to question the National Security Agency operations that the administration says are essential to preventing another domestic terror attack.

As a result, Democrats say they will not hesitate to aggressively question Mr. Bush's choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who is the former director of the N.S.A., at a hearing set for next Thursday.

"We have to raise the issues," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who met Friday with General Hayden. "The American people expect someone to do it. Certainly the administration is not doing it. We are all they've got."

Sen. Reid is typically less cautious and more combative than most of the caucus members he leads. Several months ago, I was on a conference call with him and ten or so bloggers. Reid's belief that the pro-Bush contingent in Washington is a criminal enterprise, corrupt to its core, struck me as very sincere. He also explained that he was going to have to leave the Senate some day one way or the other - because of retirement, electoral defeat, death -- and, as a result, he refused to back away from views he believed in due to some fear of losing an election. That, too, struck me as sincere.

I think that's what explains his willingness to be more combative. He isn't attached to his Senate seat, willing to do anything to cling to it, whereas most of his colleagues are. People who aren't attached to their little prizes are much more free to act on principle and conviction.

(5) When I read this article reporting on polling data that shows that Americans overwhelmingly believe that The Devil Bill Clinton did a better job than the Epic Savior Hero George Bush in every category of governance, I genuinely thought to myself that that article could really send many Bush followers into a state of serious mental depression, or worse.

It's one thing to have read almost every day that the vast majority of Americans dislike and disapprove of the Leader and that more and more Americans abandon him by the day. But to have to read that Americans overwhelmingly prefer Bill Clinton to George Bush in every area -- including foreign affairs (by an embarrassing margin of 56-32%), national security (46-42%), and on the question of "which man was more honest as president" (46-41%) -- must be truly difficult for those remaining Bush followers. And, indeed, it did lead one pro-Bush blogger, The Anchoress, to announce:

I’ve decided that if I’m going to keep blogging, I’m going to have to leave off writing or reading about politics for a little while, because it’s all making me sick. . . .

And so, for a while, I’m off the subject. We’ll talk sex, religion, baseball, opera and even - Lord help us - television. But to stay in the middle of the deleterious snakepit of politics…no…there be monsters.

I think for the summer, my little boat will sail in the other direction.

I actually think this is a serious danger for the Republicans this November. They have been so used to winning everything, being able to manipulate public opinion, using "the War" to generate support for everything they wanted. Now that none of it is working any longer, now that their standard tactics fail, their credibility is shattered, and their Grand Hero is exposed as a fraud -- as a weak, impotent, borderline-sad figure -- I think many of them will be so disillusioned and discouraged that they will simply want to tune politics out. For many people, it is simply (and understandably) depressing to have to read day after day that your views are being increasingly rejected by the country and your admired leader is disliked, distrusted and disapproved. One solution is to simply walk away from it altogether. That's what The Anchoress chose, and I think many Bush followers will choose the same.

UPDATE:

(6) Now that Americans have actually had time to hear about the newly disclosed NSA data-collecting program, a new poll from Newsweek shows that a majority is opposed:

Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

Even a quarter of Republicans are against it:

According to the Newsweek poll, 73 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans think the NSA’s program is overly intrusive.

Worse for the White House -- but great for the country -- a lopsided majority think that the administration is attempting to sieze excess power:

Nonetheless, Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

I don't even recall seeing that question asked before, but it is very encouraging to see a majority of Americans answer this way. The country does not trust George Bush and is therefore unwilling to vest expanded power in his hands.

(7) Consistent with its desperate desire to avoid any judicial adjudication of the legality of its conduct, the Bush administration has once again invoked the "state secrets" doctrine, this time to attempt to force dismissal of the lawsuit against AT&T brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. That lawsuit alleges that AT&T violated various provisions in the law by collaborating with the NSA to allow the agency access to the telephone conversations and releated calling data of Americans without the warrants required by law.

As always, what the Bush administration fears most are judicial rulings as to whether its extremist policies are legal, precisely because it knows they aren't. In this case, it's the warrantless surveillance program they are attempting to shield from judicial adjudication, but they have played the same game with a whole host of other lawbreaking measures. It is precisely because they have thwarted any investigation into their conduct and any judicial review of it that it is so imperative that there be some mechanism for subjecting their behavior to meaningful scrutiny. Having Democrats obtain subpoena power in November is one to achieve that (h/t EJ in comments for both new items).