Right Wing Nut House

There’s going to be blood on the floor of the Tonight Show studio on Wednesday night when Conservative Lout Ann Coulter squares off with liberal loon George Carlin on the Jay Leno show:

Controversialist Ann Coulter and controversialist George Carlin NBC’s will appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this Wednesday.

Carlin will discuss his role in “Cars,” from Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios. The movie is currently the #1 at the box office. Coulter will talk about her latest controversial book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” currently the #1 book at AMAZON.

(HT: Drudge)

I’m surprised that Carlin agreed to be on with Coulter given his penchant for losing his wit when criticized harshly and simply getting nasty. His rants at times border on the mean anyway and if Coulter is smart, she will do some research on some of the comic’s more outrageously mean-spirited rants against Christians, conservatives, Ronald Reagan, and the military.

Carlin won’t have to look far to find material to skewer Coulter with. In contrast however, Coulter never seems to lose her cool in this kind of showdown although her counter-rants are just as mean-spirited and personal.

If I were Leno, I’d wear a plastic poncho during the segment because the bile from those two will be shooting all over the studio.

They were made for each other, those two. Maybe they’ll fall in love like Matlin-Carville and they’ll make a movie about it…

NOT!

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi occurred early Thursday morning, almost 3 days ago as I write this. Do you notice anything missing in press reporting of this huge story?

Usually, within 24 hours of a major event, we have at least a half dozen “flash polls” that gives us a snapshot of the American people’s attitudes toward that particular story. And, if the story is bad news for the President, we usually get the headline “Bush Approval Drops to Lowest Level in the History of Human Civilization” or some other eye catching drivel.

Have the pollsters taken the weekend off? Maybe they’re watching the World Cup. Or maybe the possibility of a significant bump upwards in the President’s approval ratings would spoil the appetites of network news executives prior to their weekend barbecues.

Whatever the reason, the lack of polls on Zarqawi’s death is eerie, almost like The Cone of Silence has descended over the news media, and a temporary blackout on gauging public opinion has been called for. In fact, I was only able to find one poll (part of a poll, actually) and it was done by Investors Business Daily:

The president’s lagging poll numbers got a swift boost from Thursday’s news that U.S. warplanes had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted-terrorist in Iraq.

Polling done on Thursday for the IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index gave Bush a 44.2 rating, up from 39.1 in the prior days of June and 38.9 in May. The last time the Index reached this level was in December, when it hit 44.3.

Readings below 50 are negative. The complete June index will be released on Tuesday.

Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, said the sudden rise in sentiment on a range of issues, including America’s standing in the world, suggests Bush’s bounce is “totally attributable” to Zarqawi.

(Via Drudge)

Is it possible that news executives believe this story isn’t important enough for one of their instant polls? Well, within 24 hours of the NSA phone records story breaking last month, ABC was on the job using their polling resources to get the public’s reaction. And within 24 hours of Saddam’s capture, every major news outlet had polls out that included the significant jump in the President’s approval ratings. There was even a quickie poll overnight about public reaction to the President’s immigration speech last month.

This is the most significant war story since at least the bombing of the Samarra Shrine in February after which, within 48 hours, pollsters were asking the American people about the likelihood of a civil war in Iraq. It begs the question:

Where are the polls?

Not positing a conspiracy theory here, just asking a legitimate question.

Someone close to the top tier of al Qaeda in Iraq leadership has started to blab.

This much is clear after US and Iraqi forces carried out raids against 56 al Qaeda targets in the 48 hours after the death of the organization’s putative leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

U.S. forces conducted at least 56 raids on targets connected with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq organization in the 48 hours after his death.

Citing military officials, The Los Angeles Times reported the raids were intended to capitalize on the killing of al-Zarqawi by disrupting his network of fighters.

After bombing a dwelling where al-Zarqawi and five others were killed Wednesday, U.S. forces carried out 17 raids across Baghdad. Forces hit 39 more sites on Friday, said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

Military officials displayed pictures of items seized in the raids — including weapons, uniforms and ammunition — and said at least 25 people were captured and one killed, the newspaper said. Hover, officials did not provide an assessment of the extent of damage from the raids on insurgent operations.

Given that our intel regarding AQI has been spotty in the past, this many raids in a time span of 48 hours indicates that one or more prisoners have given us priceless information that we have obviously put to good use.

And we can expect more of the same:

A U.S. military search of the destroyed safehouse where the al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed Wednesday yielded documents and information storage devices that are being assessed for potential use against his followers, a military officer said.

An M-16 rifle, grenades and AK-47 rifles also were found, according to the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because results from the search have not been announced. The U.S.-made M-16 was fitted with special optics.

They also found documents and unspecified “media,” which the officer indicated normally means information storage devices such as computer hard drives and digital cameras or other data storage devices.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said 39 raids were conducted across Iraq late Thursday and early Friday, including some directly related to the information they obtained from the strike against al-Zarqawi. Those were in addition to 17 raids carried out immediately after the terror leader was killed.

Can all of this mean that we have AQI on the run?

One has to conclude that while the terrorist group remains very dangerous and capable of mounting devastating attacks against Iraqi civilians, a shift in momentum may be in the offing for coalition forces and this one, bloody element of the insurgency may have been dealt a truly lethal blow.

It will be interesting to see how we exploit this wealth of information gleaned from the al-Zarqawi raid. The more cells we can roll up or, just as important, keep so busy running for their lives that they are unable to mount any attacks, the fewer Iraqi civilians will suffer from AQI’s relentless campaign to foment sectarian conflict.

Meanwhile, in one of the most grotesque displays of nauseating bias I have seen in a while, the press is trying to portray Zarqawi’s last moments in the most “heroic” way possible. They have picked up on the theme that even though he was dying, the terrorist mastermind was trying to get away and, in a dramatic account of his final moments, struggled against capture:

Iraqi police reached the scene first, and found the 39-year-old al-Zarqawi alive.

“He mumbled something, but it was indistinguishable and it was very short,” Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said Friday of the Jordanian-born terrorist’s last words.

Iraqi police pulled him from the flattened home and placed him on a makeshift stretcher. U.S. troops arrived, saw that al-Zarqawi was conscious, and tried to provide medical treatment, the spokesman said.

“He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was the U.S. military,” Caldwell told Pentagon reporters via videoconference from Baghdad.

Al-Zarqawi “attempted to, sort of, turn away off the stretcher,” he said. “Everybody re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he’d received from this airstrike.”

I like John Hinderaker’s take on this:

But the journalists who participated in the press conference, apparently by satellite, seemed to think they were on the trail of a Cover-Up. I saw most of the press conference early this morning. News of Zarqawi’s brief survival immediately led to questions about whether he had been finished off by the troops, and whether our soldiers had tried to render first aid. At one point, a reporter asked whether the published photos of Zarqawi’s face had been Photoshopped to make them look more like Zarqawi. I don’t think Caldwell had any idea what the guy was talking about; he said Yes, we decided to clean up Zarqawi’s face before photographing him. This led to a follow-up question about whether the photos had been digitally enhanced.

At this and other points in the press conference, Gen. Caldwell had the look, I thought, of a normal person who wonders whether he has been transported into a world of lunatics. It seemed that some of the reporters, at least, thought they were on to another “scandal”–Zarqawi murdered by U.S. troops! In cold blood, as Jack Murtha likes to say.

I am almost beside myself with disgust over this display. Words fail me when I contemplate the concern shown over this piece of human excrement compared to our own troops or even the Iraqi people who were butchered at his hands.

It is no longer a question of asking “Whose side are they on?” We know. We know.

UPDATE

Allah has some interesting updates over at Hot Air. Apparently, Zarqawi’s wife and infant son were also killed in the attack (via Times of London). And there is a question about whether or not Zarqawi’s long time spiritual advisor was also killed in the attack.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about both stories in the hours ahead as the press is still trying furiously to find an angle that will deligitimize the killing of Zarqawi and once again, make the Iraq storyline about the heartless American occupiers.

UPDATE II

Leave it to the two funniest people in the blogosphere to take the Zarqawi killing and make it into pure, comic gold.

Jeff Goldstein has an interview with the now dead terrorist that had me laughing so hard I almost emptied my bladder.

And the inimitable Scott Ott has the best political satire I’ve seen in a while: “Democrats Vow to Fight On After Zarqawi Loss.”

(HT: Doc Sanity)

What the heck is the matter with the BBC?

This story on another “massacre” by US troops in Ishaqi was covered extensively by both the AP and the Middle Eastern press back in March. Here’s the story as it appeared in the Lebanon Daily Star (archived):

Eleven members of an Iraqi family, including five children, were killed in a U.S. raid on Wednesday, police and witnesses said. The U.S. military said two women and a child died during the bid to seize an Al-Qaeda militant from a house. A senior Iraqi police officer said autopsies on the bodies showed each had been shot in the head.

[...]

Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at Tikrit General Hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives.

The U.S. military said in a statement its troops had attacked a house in Ishaqi, the town 100 kilometers north of Baghdad, to capture a “foreign fighter facilitator for the Al-Qaeda in Iraq network.”

“There was one enemy killed. Two women and one child were also killed in the firefight. The building … [was] destroyed,” the military said, adding the Al-Qaeda suspect had been captured and was being questioned.

Major Ali Ahmad of the Iraqi police said U.S. forces had landed on the roof of the house in the early hours and shot the 11 occupants, including the five children. “After they left the house they blew it up,” he said.

I covered it on this site back on March 15, asking if the incident at Ishaqi could be the Iraq War’s My Lai:

The incident does sound like a tragic repeat of other actions where insurgents or terrorists take cover in houses either sympathetic to them or where they simply barge in and use for shelter, guns being a fairly persuasive argument that they should be invited to stay. And as we’ve also seen in urban warfare, when someone is shooting at you, it becomes an impossibility to be very selective about targets.

The fact that the military evidently got the terrorist and are questioning him lends a little more credence to the story being told by CENCOM. Let us now see how big a deal this becomes on the left over the next 24 hours.

In fact, the AP report was wildly different from what the Daily Star was reporting (no link):

Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor flattened the house and killed the 11 people inside.

An AP reporter in the area said the roof collapsed. Eleven bodies, wrapped in blankets, were taken to the Tikrit General Hospital, relatives said.

Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures at the hospital accompanied by grieving relatives. The victims were covered in dust and bits of rubble.

Note that the AP was not reporting that the civilians were “shot in the back of the head.”

A few days later, the entire story began to fall apart:

The soldiers’ version differs somewhat in detail. After coming under fire, the troops called in a gunship, which struck the house with rockets. Searching the wreckage, the troops found the Al-Queda shooter still alive, along with four bodies – another man, two women, and a child. A tragedy of war, rather than an atrocity.

By the next morning, the number of bodies in the wreckage had multiplied, appearing to verify the villager’s version. Local police investigated, and it was their report that brought the incident to the attention of the media nearly a week later. Curiously, Coalition headquarters had no idea that anything was out of the ordinary before being quizzed by reporters.

This was a clear case of al Qaeda propaganda as the “added bodies” demonstrates. And then there was this little detail not found in the BBC story:

But at the same time, the Ishaqi scandal had begun to unravel. Quite a few internal contradictions had popped up – the old lady’s age was 75 in one story, 90 in another. The child four months old, or, then again, six months old. One version had the victims tied up, another handcuffed – with neither cuffs nor rope apparent in any of the photos presented as evidence.

The climax came when the still-mystified Coalition staff were hit with an accusation that they had skipped a meeting with local officials to discuss the incident.

“There was no meeting scheduled with any Coalition investigators today,” said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson. “There appears to be a distinct pattern of misinformation surrounding this entire incident.”

The entire incident as an unprovoked, cold blooded massacre by the American military was debunked just days after being reported. This is why it never reached the kind of critical mass that the Haditha massacre has reached.

The BBC purports to have some “new evidence:”

The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.

The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces.

It has been cross-checked with other images taken at the time of events and is believed to be genuine, the BBC’s Ian Pannell in Baghdad says.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Needless to say, for the BBC to fall for this only shows how far some people are willing to go to promote an agenda against America and the war.

What happened in Ishaqi was a tragedy of war. If our military retreated every time they were fired on by civilians either trapped by or sympathetic to the insurgents, needless to say we would make very little progress in tamping down the rebels. And if we were to retreat in such situations, incidents where the insurgents used civilians as cover would increase substantially.

The article says the US is investigating the incident. I have little doubt that they will discover that like many other similar reports swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the media and the left, this report has al Qaeda disinformation written all over it.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin links to an ABC News report that confirms a military investigation absolving the troops of wrongdoing:

ABC News has learned, however, that military officials have completed their investigation and have concluded U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement.

A senior Pentagon official told ABC News that the investigation concluded that American forces in this case properly followed the rules of engagement and that allegations of intentional killings of civilians were unfounded.

A statement from the military responding to the allegations of massacre at Ishaqi - for a second time - will be made later today.

And Alexandra, in her usual demure and understated way, skewers the BBC with a post whose title says it all: “Get Me Another Marine Murder Story In Iraq And Get It Now!”

***SEE UPDATE III BELOW FOR THE LATEST***

Now that all three Telecom giants who were mentioned in the original USA Today article have strenuously denied giving the government access to the kind of data mentioned, we should begin examining the possibility that the story may have gotten key elements of the NSA telephone program wrong.

This does not mean the program doesn’t exist. In fact, Senator Hatch came out yesterday and virtually confirmed that part of the NSA story:

Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

President Bush, meanwhile, insisted the government does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the compiling of phone records, or whether that would amount to an invasion of privacy.

Meanwhile, Verizon has joined Bell South and AT&T in denying they turned over their call records to the government en masse:

One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

This is false. From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses - its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses. Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies - wireless or wireline - provided customer records or call data.

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple “calls across town” are being “tracked.” In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls. In any event, the claim is just wrong. As stated above, Verizon’s wireless and wireline companies did not provide to NSA customer records or call data, local or otherwise.

I think it could very well be that USA Today got several aspects of the story wrong. And the reason is that their source was probably unfamiliar with details of the program and just assumed that the Telecoms had cooperated. Or, it could even be that their sources had no direct knowledge of the technical aspects of the program and were guessing. Either way, it points to a disturbing trend in recent days as two news outlets - ABC and USAT - have written scare stories that have now proven to be at the very least, overblown and perhaps even factually wrong.

In ABC’s case, Brian Ross breathlessly wrote on the ABC blog The Blotter that the phone calls of ABC reporters were being “tracked.” How they got this news is like reading something right out of the Watergate era:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.

I wonder if they met in a basement parking garage?

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

This was the scare quote;”…whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.” The fact is, that was pure speculation - and not even good speculation a that. What they found in a follow up report was the legal (but admittedly troubling) practice carried out under the auspices of the Patriot Act that allow the FBI access to phone records without a warrant through the use of so-called “National Security Letters:

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being “tracked.”

“Think of it more as backtracking,” said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

So Ross was wrong in most of his original piece that swept the internet like wildfire and instead we find that the FBI (not the NSA or CIA) is conducting a legitimate investigation using tools in the Patriot Act that were passed by Congress and signed by the President. (Note: I’m not sure if the NSL’s specifically were upheld in the various cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act). In short, absolutely nothing illegal or untoward was occurring. But if you happened to be reading lefty blogs a couple of days ago, with headlines like “This is the End,” you would have thought the Republic had fallen.

ABC News reporters calls were not being “tracked.” And now we have these categorical denials from the major Telecoms about the NSA story in USA Today.

Is this a case of scare mongering by the major media?

Unlike the first NSA story that leaked back in December, where there were literally a flood of leaks about the program following its initial release by the New York Times, there has been hardly a peep from our cadre of leakers about this aspect of NSA terrorist surveillance. No deep background explanations. In fact, very few follow up stories have been written by major media outlets. All of this leads me to believe that there is something either incomplete or just plain wrong about this story. And my guess would be that USA Today got the data collection angle wrong.

Of course, we’ll probably never know for sure given the secrecy of the program. But unless the Telecoms are just plain lying, I don’t see how you can reconcile what was written in USA Today with the statements made by the companies.

UPDATE

More breathless baloney from ABC News blog this morning:

The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.

The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases.

In the immortal words of Secretary of Defense Albert Nimzicki from Independence Day, “That’s not entirely accurate.”

First of all, there should be no doubt that what the FBI is doing is perfectly legal. We can all be leery of many aspects in the Patriot Act but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law of the land and any aspersions cast otherwise is biased reporting.

That said, is what ABC News says the truth? In the immortal words of John Wayne’s unforgettable character Jacob McCandles from the film Big Jake, “Not Hardly.”

The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), P.L. 109-177, and its companion P.L. 109-178, amended the five NSL sections to expressly provide for judicial review of both the NSLs and the confidentiality requirements that attend them. The sections have also been made explicitly judicially enforceable and sanctions recognized for failure to comply with an NSL request or to breach NSL confidentiality requirements with the intent to obstruct justice. The use of the authority has been made subject to greater Congressional oversight.

I’m not a lawyer but I remember when they re-authorized the Patriot Act, they made some slight adjustments that allowed for judicial oversight. ABC News has no idea of such a review took place in their case which means their statement is incorrect.

As for their use “only” in terrorism cases, that is an overstatement as the statute talks about “national security” not terrorism with regard to NSL’s.

UPDATE II

CBS News Blog is wondering about the NSA telephone story too:

Are we watching a story fall apart before our very eyes? Something is certainly going on with that USA Today front-page splash about the secret NSA program to collect and analyze all the phone calls made within the United States. The story, published last week, sparked a fierce debate about privacy and the government’s ability to spy on Americans. It drew rebukes from even administration allies. There were no blanket denials made by the administration and no protestations of inaccurate reporting by those in the know. And there were no denials made by the phone companies named in the story as having provided information to the NSA – at least until now.

[...]

It is curious that these two companies took several days to issue these denials (the story broke last Thursday and the companies did not deny it then). A BellSouth spokesperson said the company wanted to do a thorough review to ensure that no such agreement had been made. It’s also worth considering there have been several class-action lawsuits filed in the wake of the USA Today story, so that could have something to do with the denials.

Still, we’re entering some rocky territory, especially for a story about a “secret” program based entirely on anonymous sources. Given the administration’s refusal to confirm or deny the report, the company denials and the anonymous sources, it may be time to ask how we’ll ever get the truth out of this story.

Does anyone else find it laughable that CBS seems to be in a snit because the Administration won’t confirm or deny the existence of a top secret program?

Is he serious?

UPDATE III

Think Progress has unearthed a “Presidential Memorandum” dated May 5 that would direct DNI John Negroponte to release the Telecoms from their legal obligation to be truthful in their transactions and activities. The Memorandum was published in the Federal Register and refers specifically to giving Negroponte the authority to waive certain sections of the law for purposes of “national security.”

This could mean that the companies have been given leave to conceal the truth about their cooperation with the NSA in the telephone records program. Then again, since I’m not a lawyer, it could mean that the government just wanted the latest ringtones available for download.

Either way, someone should look into this with a little less of a partisan eye than the good folks at Think Progress who have been known in the past to let their enthusiasm get the better of them. (Where’s Lawyer Volokh when you need him?)

Either way, a first class piece of sleuthing on their part to dig that out.

“Beware of Neocons Bringing Up Nazi Germany” was the working title of this post but I chucked it in favor of a header more reflective of my mood this morning.

It is indeed disheartening to read this piece in the Weekly Standard by Mr. Kristol, a usually clear headed, incisive thinker, who raises the specter of Hitler’s march into the Rhineland as a simile for our situation with Iran:

IN THE SPRING OF 1936–seventy years ago–Hitler’s Germany occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister denounced this as “unacceptable.” But France did nothing. As did the British. And the United States.

In a talk last year, Christopher Caldwell quoted the great Raymond Aron’s verdict: “To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it.” Aron further remarked that Blum had in fact seemed proud of France’s putting up no resistance. Indeed, Blum had said, “No one suggested using military force. That is a sign of humanity’s moral progress.” Aron remarked: “This moral progress meant the end of the French system of alliances, and almost certain war.”

William Shirer said basically the same thing in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which, given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, is certainly true. But it is also true that trying to compare French reluctance to stop the Germans from re-militarizing what, after all, was their own territory with trying to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb is a bit of a stretch. It had been 18 years since Versailles and the treaty by that time was seen as a disaster. Even without an integrated Europe, war reparations (suspended by the allies in 1930) along with depression had emasculated the German economy. By 1936, some politicians saw a weak Germany as a drag on their own economies (and a poor buffer against the Soviets). Hitler marching into the Rhineland killed the treaty once and for all, a turn of events that the shortsighted French did not view unkindly.

I understand what Mr. Kristol is struggling to say; that IF France and Great Britain had acted, Hitler would almost certainly have been deposed by the Wehrmacht allowing Europe to avoid World War II. Let’s not quibble with metaphors. Let’s quibble with the notion that taking action against Iran has the real possibility of igniting a war, not stopping one.

If we think we have problems in Iraq now with the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, they are nothing compared with the trouble that several hundred thousand Shia militiamen would cause if we bombed Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, who has promised to unleash his militia against Americans if we bomb Iranian nuclear sites, is just waiting for an opening like this. At a time when other Shia parties are seeking to marginalize the young firebrand, he would suddenly become a hero to ordinary Iraqis (despite their reservations about Iranian influence in their country). Of course, our military can handle al-Sadr but at what cost? And what if other Shia militias including the Badr Brigade join in? We’d be faced with an entirely new situation on the ground, every hand raised against us, one that the left would spin as a second Tet Offensive.

In short, disaster. Kristol may argue that it would be worth it if we could take out Iran’s nuclear program sooner rather than later despite the fact that the Iranians are years from achieving success in building a bomb but I don’t see the rush. Kristol does:

Given Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s recent statements and actions, it should be obvious that it is not “a sign of humanity’s moral progress”–to use Blum’s phrase–to appease the mullahs. It is not “moral progress” to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.

I’m sorry, but I believe this to be utter nonsense. The situation two or three years from now may, in fact, be enormously improved. At the same time, how much will things really change in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, our “friends in the region” who would be “more disheartened” if we go the diplomatic route for the present? And if - an admittedly big if - we can get the Europeans to go along with a sanctions regime that has some real bite, the rickety Iranian economy (more than 20% unemployment) along with a restive populace may moderate the Iranian regime for us. At the very least, we can work like hell to deny the Iranians materials that would assist them in building a bomb. Centrifuges don’t grow on trees. Denying Iran the elements to manufacture them would probably be a good idea.

And how much more “confused” can our allies be than they are now? I daresay holding off on the military option unless it was absolutely necessary would have our friends more apt to assist us in sanctions. As far as Russia and China, I mentioned in another post that they need the west a lot more than they need Iran. Any overt undermining of the sanctions would not be taken lightly by us or our allies. Rhetoric in Iran’s defense is one thing. Actually encouraging the mullahs in their bomb making plans by circumventing sanctions is something else entirely.

Finally, Kristol draws what I believe to be an erroneous conclusion about our Iraq adventure:

The strategist Eliot Cohen was correct when he told the New York Times last week, “I don’t get a sense that people in the administration are champing at the bit to launch another war in the Persian Gulf.” They’re not. No one is. But it is also the case that a great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities, even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped.

“Great nations” should also know not to bite off more than they can chew. Our power is not unlimited. The consequences of an Iran strike have been detailed elsewhere including my own take here. Mr. Kristol, who seems to be advocating a “sooner rather than later” strike against Iran (presumably after sanctions fail) must also know the potential consequences of bombing Iran.

Therefore, one wonders about his last statement regarding our difficulties in Iraq. Can’t we be “serious about [our] responsibilities” while at the same time cognizant of our shortcomings? Seems to me, that was exactly our problem in Iraq. Too few troops, too optimistic about handling the insurgency, too little effort at both reconstruction and training the Iraqi army - and here we are today. Iraq is still something of a mess and time is running out to turn the situation around before the political will to stay and finish the job evaporates completely.

Far be it from me to criticize Mr. Kristol’s intent or question his base assumption that Iran with nukes is a very bad thing and needs to be blocked if at all possible. But I’m coming around to the notion that when you have no good choices, there can be no good outcomes. If this make me a defeatist on Iran so be it.

UPDATE

William Arkin of WaPo has this breathless piece of merde regarding war planning full of ominus sounding acronyms, changing metrics, invasion scenarios, and war games.

Wake me when we start shifting military assets closer to the war zone. Tap me on the shoulder when we start getting overflight permissions from the half dozen or so countries where our planes will have to overfly (places where people will be falling all over themselves to leak that fact to the press). Kick me in the shins when we start shifting half the US Air Force around.

We won’t be able to hide preparations that envision at the very least 700-1000 sorties to take out the known Iranian nuclear sites. And if ground troops are involved, you’re talking about a buildup comparable to Desert Storm - about 4-6 months.

Arkins point - that we should throw an arm around the Iranian’s shoulder and tell them that we are, in fact, planning for war and that they better play ball with the international community and stop enriching uranium is well intentioned but myopic. And his analogy with Iraq is curious. Saddam may have believed we sent 160,000 troops to sit in the desert in order to get suntans but no other rational human being did. Everyone on the planet knew we were going to invade.

The problem with all the talk of “war planning” is that it makes us weaker, not stronger. We have time for alternatives to war. If decision time were six months away I’d say go ahead, sit down with Iranian representatives and show them what we can do if you think that will help. But such is not the case and talking about war plans now only plays into the mullah’s propaganda campaign at home and abroad.

We have a good three years to get our stuff together - build a coalition, initiate meaningful sanctions, and plan for the worst. The leaks in recent weeks about our military options have served their purpose of warning the Iranians that we mean business. Arkin suggests we go public by having Rumsefeld say that yes, we are planning for war with Iran. I think this wrongheaded and may in fact have the opposite effect Mr. Arkin visualizes.

For now, the Administration is playing it just right.

As much as I’ve ragged on them in the past, there’s a soft spot in my heart for the Washington Post.

As a national newspaper (much moreso than the New York Times - especially lately) the Post provides unparalleled coverage of international events. Their foreign correspondents are without peer in distilling news from abroad into readable, timely articles that give both context and information with a minimum of bias.

With several pronounced exceptions on the Iraq War that I’ve pointed out, their coverage has been a cut above that of most papers in the War on Terror. I’ve taken issue mostly with their stable of liberal columnists and their national security coverage which is dependent on unsourced leaks from disgruntled intelligence agency personnel and one reporter - Walter Pincus - who may be in league with Ray McGovern’s moonbat crew; the Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS). In addition, their political coverage has been lacking a certain perspective on the national agenda, as well as supplying a healthy bias against Republicans, which has made the paper quite the shallow read when it comes to domestic issues. (Occasionally, they run a nice think piece in the Sunday edition but day-to-day coverage is lacking).

Their editorial page is, for the most part, reasonable although here again their bias in favor of the Democratic party is pretty obvious. But Washington is a “company town” and that “company” is the permanent, unelected government of bureaucrats who scurry hither and thither, gossiping and chatting the day away, passing information on to Post reporters who gleefully report the foibles and fables of the elite. For whatever reasons, people who are Republicans in Washington end up on “K” Street while people who end up in the agencies tending to the welfare state are Democrats. There are a lot more of the latter than the former to be sure. Washington is the most Democratic city in the country, even moreso than Chicago. It is simply the nature of the beast that they would reflect the bias of the vast majority of their readers.

During the 1980’s when I lived in the Washington area, I looked forward every Sunday to getting a copy of the Washington Post and spending the entire morning poring over the sections, gleaning information from a variety of sources while taking great pleasure in some fine writing and penetrating analysis. I understand the Sunday edition has shrunk considerably over the years which saddens me but, given the state of the newspaper business, I’m hardly surprised by it. It just seems a shame that a resource so valuable should lose some of its luster due to a falloff in readers.

Why the sudden love note about the Post? I read this editorial this morning and remembered why the Post is still a fairly honest voice in our national debate. We might not like some of the news they write but that’s not their fault; events can be unwelcome and they are, after all, just the messengers.

I’m glad to see the Post out front of the pack in their web coverage as it appears most of their features are also published on their webpage. And while their initial experiment in blogging may have been a total disaster, word is out that they are looking to hire both a liberal and conservative blogger - which should make for some interesting back and forth between the two if nothing else.

Yes, I spend a lot of time and effort criticizing the Post and other print media. But that’s only because I love the tradition that newspapers represent. They offer a thoughtful take on the world around us that television news cannot match. And they are vital to the national debate in that they offer editorial space to all sides of an issue, allowing one’s thinking to churn, to ripen, and finally crystallize into an intelligent, intellectually defensible position. Television news cannot do that for you. Only a newspaper can.

It’s Sunday. And I miss my Washington Post today…

The revelations involving NBC’s attempt to “out” NASCAR fans as anti-Muslim bigots by having men who “look Muslim” wander around during a race in order to raise the ire of of race fans toward representatives of the Religion of Peace says something profound about the red state/blue state divide in America and the conundrum facing liberals as they seek to claw their way back into power in Washington.

The utter contempt toward ordinary Americans exhibited by NBC in this case would be shocking except that it is representative of a mindset that permeates the journalistic elite in New York and Washington as well as the political and cultural elites along the Potomac and the ivory towers of academia. The fact is, these groups have about as much interest in the lives of ordinary Americans as they do in the study of some primitive New Guinean tribal culture. We are anthropological curiosities to them, best suited to keeping our mouths shut and voting “correctly.” Beyond that, our strange beliefs as Christians, our focus on families (”dysfunctional,” of course), our dangerous flag-waving patriotism, and our silly, sappy, sentimentality when it comes to our feelings about this country are mercilessly derided as simple-minded, unsophisticated, and just plain stupid.

Herein lies the dilemma for Democrats and liberals in general: How do you cover up the fact that you feel such haughty disdain for the very people you absolutely must convince to vote for you so that you can regain power in Washington?

We got a dose of this scornful contempt in the immediate aftermath of the election in 2004. The caustic remarks dripping with sarcasm about “Jesusland” voters being too stupid to know where their own interests lay and the long, thumb-sucking magazine pieces accusing Bush supporters of being afraid of gays, of blacks, of Muslims, of any and all things “different” which dovetailed nicely with their pre-conceived notions that the NASCAR culture is, at bottom, in favor of re-establishing Jim Crow and throwing the sodomites in jail while making sex illegal and chaining women to the kitchen.

There are even efforts in blue states to stop “trading” with people and companies who live in ordinary America, as if people who live, work, play, go to church on Sunday, take off their hat when the flag goes by, and get choked up when they hear the national anthem live in a different country than the urban sophisticates who dominate the culture and to a large extent, the national conversation. We are told what is proper to believe, what we should watch on television, what cartoons are blasphemous, and which European countries are better than we are. We are instructed in what is “good” and even what is funny and what is not.

And when red state America rebels against this cultural tyranny by voting the way they think rather than the way they are told to, they are belittled as morons, mouth breathers, hicks, hillbillies, and dolts.

And liberals wonder why they can’t win an election for dog catcher in most areas of the country?

In truth, as we head into the silly season in politics, Democrats are going to have to find a way to put a lid on this attitude of loathing toward ordinary voters lest they be discovered for the insufferable elitist louts they truly are. This will prove to be more difficult than they think given that their base makes their feelings known toward ordinary voters every single day on the web. With cries of “American Taliban” echoing in their ears, somehow I don’t think evangelical Christians are going to feel too kindly toward a party that thinks them capable of the kinds of crimes against women and gays that these webnuts assure us hovers just below the surface of the “theocrats” beliefs. In their conspiratorial fantasies, the Republicans are conspiring with Christians to throw progressives to the proverbial lions while waiting for the rapture with a brew in one hand and a bible in the other.

In another context, it would be amusing. But since the KosKooks are dead serious about this, it poses an enormous problem for the Democratic party who, thanks to the stupidity and arrogance of the Republican Congress, have a shot at taking back both the House and Senate in November. How does one go about rhetorically satisfying a base that sees apostasy in saying anything nice about their cultural enemies in red states while sounding a soothing note to those very same voters in order to get them to swallow the blue pill on election day?

The Democrats are going to need help. In this, they can count on their allies in the media who view red state voters in exactly the same way as the netnuts; culturally backward ape-like creatures whose worldview must be shaped correctly by carefully managing what news is fit to be disseminated and what news should be finessed. This dance with the truth will be vital if the true feelings of the left toward their fellow citizens is going to be subsumed by the mainstream Democratic message of “change.”

What that change represents will also be finessed. It just wouldn’t do to inform the public that the first order of business for a newly seated Democratic House will be to start impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States. Beyond that, changing Iraq by cutting and running and altering the war on terror to one similar to pursuing bank robbers will also be in the cards. Along with their complete contempt for the nature of red state voters, Democrats show a disdain for their intelligence by hiding their web-driven agenda behind platitudes and sophistry.

“Exposing” red state America may be satisfying to the elites in a cultural context. But I don’t think the NASCAR dads, security moms, or evangelicals who voted for Bush 62 million strong in 2004 will appreciate the spitefulness their cultural “betters” direct their way when they once again fail to do as they’re told and vote for a radical liberal agenda.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has a round-up of reaction to the Dateline story, including an interesting email from Ramsey Poston of NASCAR to NBC:

“This is outrageous for a news organization with the reputation of NBC to stoop to the level of attempting to create news instead of reporting it. Any legitimate journalist should be ashamed.”

This is directed to a “news show” that has been exposed time and again in the past of trying to manipulate images in order to make a story more “dramatic.” I hardly think they can feel any shame since any pretensions to being legitimate journalists went out the window years ago.

UPDATE II

Do my liberal friends think I’m exaggerating?

Check out this column in today’s WaPo from Harold Myerson about the DeLay story:

Let us not think that Tom DeLay’s decision not to seek reelection was prompted by merely temporal concerns. The Rev. Rick Scarborough, DeLay’s sometime pastor, told the New York Times that The Hammer confided in him last Saturday that “God wanted him to get out of that race.”

The broader question is whether such a deity still rules in Washington. As gods go, He was surely more ethically flexible than most. Lesser gods might frown upon bribery, fraud, greed and the abrogation of the democratic process, but this one was willing to overlook such trifles if they strengthened the Republicans’ hold on the House and were performed in a spirit of piety.

Yes DeLay is a very bad man who was mean to Democrats, kicked dogs, beat little children, and probably ate human flesh. But please note Mr. Myerson’s dripping sarcasm when talking about DeLay’s prayers and the snide comments about religion in general. I’m sure Myerson is giving a good chuckle to his elitist, snobby friends. But if one were to ask a person of faith what they thought of Myerson’s humor, somehow, I don’t think they would find it quite as amusing - even if they were a Democrat.

I will take a back seat to no one in my efforts to expose what I see as bias on the part of the mainstream press when they report on a host of issues. A simple search of this site will show that I have devoted hundreds of posts to this subject and given much time and attention to destroying faulty logic, knocking down strawmen, and generally giving our MSM brethren a hard time.

But the way so many bloggers jumped on the Jill Carroll story this past weekend - both right and left - has compelled me to examine many of my own assumptions about how we in the blogosphere treat the press and how unless things change there is the real possibility that in bringing down the media, we may be destroying ourselves as well.

First of all, I am not a journalist. I do not want to be considered a journalist. I do not want to become a journalist. With two brothers who are making a living as journalists, I have a great deal of respect for the craft as it is practiced by those who take journalism seriously and who live by its codes and precepts. But for me, I am a scribbler, a polemicist, a rabble rouser, a 52 year old grossly opinionated fat man with a loud mouth and sharp pen. Sam Adams is my hero. Tom Paine is my role model.

Clearly, you will not find a journalist anywhere in that description. A journalist - even one who publishes their opinions on a regular basis - takes extraordinary care to make sure all the facts contained in a story are accurate and true, employs a writing style that is as clear and concise as possible with little hyperbole and less emotion, and crafts a finished product that adheres to the standards of the publication he is writing for.

That lets me and most bloggers out. By and large, most bloggers write for themselves or at least, write about what interests them. With few exceptions, most bloggers are verbose, rambling hither and thithter, sometimes hitting their intended target and sometimes trailing off into the ether with no salient points made and little meaning or context in their post. Any MSM editor looking at the average blog post - mine included - would shudder. For this reason (among others) reporters and columnists with a few notable exceptions, look down their noses at blogs and bloggers while decrying the attacks of these anklebiters who have the temerity to brag about how they will someday replace them.

This is becoming less and less likely as blogs mature. Not because there aren’t bloggers who are conscientious about getting their facts right or because there is a dearth of talented people in the blogosphere but rather because the nature of journalism and the nature of blogging are diverging. Both are changing at a rapid pace. And while there will always be a symbiotic relationship between the two, rather than merging as many prophets of the New Media have been promising, they are both evolving to reflect the realities of commerce - something perhaps unforeseen as recently as a year ago.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for people like Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis who have been proselytizing how “citizen journalists” of the New Media will crash the gates where content is disseminated in dribs and drabs and open the floodgates of information that will revolutionize the way news is received and digested. Their thesis - that content will no longer be king but rather sharing information in a linked community of like minded individuals will be where the center of gravity settles when the dust of the new media revolution clears - is based on good analysis and solid logic. It may even come to pass.

But that revolution will have to be seen separately from the issue of what is to become of what we now call blogging. I mentioned in a previous post that the national pastime of blogs had become “scalp hunting.” This relentless pursuit of people in politically motivated witch hunts is only a symptom of what has gone terribly wrong in the blogosphere: At bottom, it is no longer a question of blogs being crusaders for truth, justice, and the American way but rather a race to see whose ox can be gored next. The importance of finishing first in that race is that the rewards can be very enticing; readership and links. In some cases - and the Carroll case is illustrative - the wilder the charges and more radical the language used, the more attention one is afforded by the amorphous mass of bloggers and readers of blogs who will soon be the determining factor in what promises to be vast amounts of money flowing into Blogland.

I can hear my detractors now. “But I don’t blog for the money, I blog because it gives me personal satisfaction.” I believe you and wish you well. Now please get out of the way while the other 80% of us who harbor delusions of grandeur about making a living blogging continue to run the race to the bottom over your prostrate hides.

As a practical matter, what this means is that the kind of character assassination we’ve seen recently is only going to get worse. That’s because the amount of money pouring into the blogosphere is only going to go up for the foreseeable future. It should be interesting to see to what lengths people will go to get a piece of that action.

Face it. Even if “only” 9-10 million people ever read blogs on a regular basis, that is 9-10 million people gathering basically in one place. Advertisers are not stupid. Those kinds of numbers attract people trying to sell something as bees to butter. And despite the improbability of more than a couple of dozen bloggers ever striking paydirt with their on-line efforts, many thousands will enter the fray and try their luck at reaching for the brass ring just the same.

Consider if you will the desire to become a professional athlete. The chances of any one high school player making it to the pros is extraordinarily low. Only 1 in 736 high school players today (0.14%) will eventually make it to the professional level in sports. And yet, 80% of American high school athletes think they can make it to that level. Ask many of those young people and they will say they play for “love of the game” first. But dollar signs are always in the back of their minds.

Which brings us back to journalists. Journalists are paid to write stories about the day’s events or offer analysis and opinion which will attract readership thus attracting those who wish to sell something to the already gathered eyeballs. In short, journalists are not paid to necessarily attract readers as much as they are supposed to contribute to the overall accuracy of what is being reported and the honesty of opinion offered thus upholding the integrity (or “brand”) of the publication.

The key word is integrity. And sadly, as I see it, many bloggers simply don’t have it, don’t want it, and refuse to consider it. The Blogospheric Model says that these people will lose in the long run because people will stop reading them. Oh really? Since I refuse to link to her, you will have to guess who I mean when I say one particular blogger’s stats skyrocketed after she not only refused to apologize for smearing Jill Carroll but had the gall to ask everyone else to apologize to her. This blogger suffers no consequences. And since this is not the first time this particular person has transgressed against decency and integrity in this fashion, and the fact that her blog continues to grow, it would seem to give the lie to the Blogospheric Model that everyone confidently predicted would be the “self correcting” mechanism that would make the blogosphere superior to the mainstream media.

I don’t buy it anymore. The blogger mentioned above is not the only individual with integrity issues in Blogland. The question is if the self-correcting model was worth anything, why are they still writing and attracting readers and links?

One might also consider that a mainstream press reporter making a similar error in judgement would have been fired and would have a hard time getting similar employment in the future. Does this mean that the mainstream press is still superior to blogs in this regard? Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I would have to say yes.

Of course the press has their own problems with bias and opinion masquerading as analysis and fact. How much of this is driven by a desire to adhere to a particular agenda and how much is sheer laziness is debatable. I would say that there is ample evidence that bias at the New York Times is driven by an anti-Republican, anti-Bush agenda to the detriment of news gathering and reporting. Is it a conscious manifestation of bias or an indication that the corporate culture at the Times is corrupt? It doesn’t matter because the effect is the same.

The taking down of Ben Domenech would not have occurred a decade ago. The way blogs jumped down the throat of Jill Carroll would probably not have occurred two years ago.

Anyone want to place any bets on what Blogland will look like this time next year?

There were several excellent things about my appearance on C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning that I would like to share with all of you.

First and foremost, we got to see most of downtown Chicago thanks to that marvel of the internet, Mapquest. It appears that the site is run by people who are the absolute worst drivers in Christendom. They are above all speeders in that invariably, any time frame they give you to reach your destination is off by a ratio that involves the inverse square directly being proportionate to how fast you are driving. Hence, if they are off by 15 minutes in their calculations, you should add 30 MPH to your driving speed in order to achieve the miraculous driving time achieved by Mapquest calculations.

Secondly, their drivers are blind. One would ordinarily think this an actual detriment to driving but not our intrepid Mapquest employees. Hence, when they tell you to turn the wrong way down a one way street in order to reach your objective, it is easier to forgive them if you remember they can’t see this kind of insignificant detail due to their minor handicap.

It’s a very good thing that downtown Chicago is a loop because no matter where you drive, you always seem to end up back where you started - especially if you’re lost. We got to within about 4 blocks of the studio where the live feed was going to be broadcast and dang it, we just couldn’t get any closer. Good thing we made it downtown 35 minutes early (no traffic thank goodness) because we spent the next 30 of those minutes driving around looking for a way to get to the one way street that the studio was on. Oh well…we managed to hit all the high spots: We went past the Sears Tower and the Wrigley building. We even got a glimpse of Lake Michigan. All in all, a fascinating tour.

After that, the TV appearance was anticlimactic. Everyone was so nice. The C-Span host Steve Scully was a doll. He picked out this bit I wrote about Helen Thomas:

First of all, referring to Helen Thomas as “indomitable” is like calling a pig in a dress a prom queen. Thomas may be a lot of things – loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, kooky – but “indomitable” as a descriptive should be reserved for battleships, cancer survivors, and some race horses; not doddering old reporters who waddle around the press room talking about the glory days when Jack Kennedy prowled the White House looking for his next sexual conquest in the steno pool.

For a moment, I was worried he was going to pull an Oprah on me and Helen Thomas would magically appear on the C-Span set furrowing her already furrowed brow in my direction and clucking her disapproval. Thankfully, no such “gotchya” moment occurred. But I wonder now what the hell he wanted me to say? It’s a pretty good turn of a phrase if I do say so myself. And since they didn’t do it to my lefty foil, the lovely and talented Taylor Marsh, one must assume that either my snark is so much better than Marsh’s (not so; she can be just as loony as me when the opportunity presents itself) or, someone at C-Span was trying to make a point about conservatives (much more likely).

Good thing they didn’t pull up that old post I did calling John Kerry a traitorous lout. Now that would have been embarrassing (for Kerry).

All in all, a pleasant way to spend a Sunday morning. I got to see the city. I had a good time talking about issues I write about everyday. And I found out that Taylor Marsh was in the Miss America pageant as “Miss Missouri” not too many years ago. (Note to Republicans: Marsh is the kind of voter you are losing. She’s pro-defense, pro-gun, and from what I can gather, a JFK Democrat not a McGovernite. Can’t talk about a “permanent majority” unless voters like her even consider voting Republican once and a while).

I’ll put up a link to the show when C-Span has it.