Right Wing Nut House

Would someone please give Matt Stoeller of MyDD a lollipop and tell him to STFU?

There’s a discussion over at The Moderate Voice about whether the Jill Carroll affair damages the credibility of bloggers. I find this discussion irritating, because it cuts to a basic problem with the nonpartisan new media blog pontificators who don’t want to deal with the fact that the right-wing movement is populated by creepy racists. As such, they ignore the AM talk radio circuit and mainstream conservative publications, as if they weren’t part of the charge on Carroll, and pretend like this episode reveals something about ‘the blogs’. It doesn’t.

So let me spell it out. The Carroll thing is a fairly standard storyline that predates blogs. Right-wingers tend to hate a free media. Right-wingers tend to say creepy and racist things. Right-wingers tend to hate reporters who say that all isn’t apple pie in Iraq. This is true on the AM talk radio circuit, at the RNC, in the Oval Office, and on right-wing blogs. I mean the GOP.com blog even has a tag ‘good news from Iraq’.

This has NOTHING to do with blogs. Zero. This has to do with a flat-out racist and warmongering right-wing movement that doesn’t like a woman whose survival cuts against their narrative. So please stop lumping progressives like me in with the right-wing just because we both use a similar web-based publishing platform. NEENER, NEENER, NEENER, NEENER…

(Okay. That list bit was mine. But it isn’t entirely out of place, is it?)

I think at the moment I’m “tending” to throw up.

Actually, this one is an award winner. How many baseless (as in unspecified and unproven), scurrilous, laughably ignorant, witless, jaw-droppingly idiotic charges can one drooling, mouth breathing refugee from the cuckoo land that calls itself the “Reality Based Community” make and still be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 4?

This cannot be serious. There simply is no way that adults of any ideological stripe can read this drivel and say “I think the lad is on to something here.”

Besides being an execrable piece of writing (kinda cliche heavy there Matt, dontchya think?) one wonders what Stoeller had for breakfast. Whatever he ate that causes this much bile to rise in his throat, I suggest he switch to something a little more bland like bacon and eggs smothered in Tabasco sauce. Or perhaps a little Eggs Benedict with a side of raw Hungarian Peppers.

It wouldn’t do any good to try and “rebut” these “charges.” But of course, Mr. Stoeller is not making “charges” so much as he is annunciating a credo. And, like the Islamists he and his compatriots on the left continue to unwittingly and stupidly assist, their beliefs control their lives. Such inflexibility of thought brooks no opposition, no deviation lest their worldview collapse in a heap of broken verities and allow for the truth to blow away all their silly, stupid pretensions of moral superiority.

To quote Bugs Bunny, a philosopher and thinker as brilliant as Mr. Stoeller himself:

“What a maroon.”

UPDATE

Pat Curley has his own thoughts on Stoeller’s idiocy as well as some artwork that describes our buddy Matty to a “T.”

UPDATE

Jimbo in the comments reminds me of the #1 rule in journalistic combat: If you are going to attack someone, make sure you spell his name right.

I apologize to Mr. Stoller for spelling his name wrong. I guess that lets me out as a left wing Hollywood publicist who wouldn’t care about whether his client’s publicity was good or bad just as long as the actor’s name was spelled correctly.

As you can imagine, the loony lefties who visit here constantly spell my name wrong, insisting on spelling it Moron rather than the correct, Irish spelling which is Moran.

I don’t have the heart to tell them that the last time someone consistently spelled my name that way was back in the third grade when I was sitting next to Judy Pignataro who used to pass me notes with nothing but the word “Moron” written on it about a dozen times. The comparison holds up pretty well.

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?

Sheesh! My appearance on C-Span this morning brought the trolls out from underneath the bridge. Here are two of the more printable ones.

You are a scumbag wrote:
Hey assf**k, I’m watching you on CSPAN, and though I’ve never heard of you
before I think I can safely nominate you as one of the biggest walking infected
sphincters on the earth. When Helen Thomas takes a sh*t the stain she leaves in
the bowl has more knowledge, more integrity and higher intelligence than you
do. It most likely smells better than you as well.

Dear Your are a Scumbag:

I guess you didn’t count on a response otherwise you would have thought how your salutation would look being returned to you. Or maybe you just aren’t very smart and don’t think about anything much at all.

I must confess I didn’t know that sphincters could get infected. You must have had some experience with the malady.

As for the image of Ms. Thomas defecating, I congratulate you on having a better imagination than me.

And Helen leaving a stain in the bowl… Is this something you check on regularly or is it more of a once in a lifetime opportunity for you. If a regular occurence, I can understand why you might have a hard time differentiating smells.

Warmest Regards,

Me

Then there was this fellow who took issue with the Democrats calling Bush Hitler:

Bill Gardner wrote:
Saw your sorry ass on c-span this AM.When you started moaning about those nasty
libs comparing your hero to Hitler,that pretty little lady from Misouri sort of
broke it off in you didn’t she? Of course that is a bad comparison.Bushie is way
too f**kin dumb to be another Hitler.

Bill is a long time reader here and I’m glad he was able to catch the show this morning. I will first of all say that there is nothing sorry about my ass. It is, in fact, one of my better features as I receive compliments on it from both men and women, the men being more than generous. And since my ass could not be seen on TV, I wonder if you were able to procure that picture of me, Babs Streisand, and Helen Thomas cavorting in that pool of Lemon-Lime Jello from the Oscars party last month. If so, I would say nobody’s ass looks very good with whipped cream and little pieces of pinneapple dripping off of it.

As for your sexist comment regarding Ms. Marsh, (”little lady?” Tsk…Tsk…), please go to the Daily Kos website and using the search function put in “Bush + Hitler” and tell me what you find.

I would challenge you on your Hitler comparison but since you seem to be such an admirer of his, I’ll save you the aggravation.

Finally, there’s this gem:

BEN HASSEL wrote:
YOU MAKE FUN OF HELENS LOOKS,WHAT DOES YOUR MAMA LOOK LIKE?

Dear Ben:

Better than Helen. And she’s been dead for 6 years.

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.

Jill Carroll released a statement through her employer, the Christian Science Monitor, that proves, as Jim Gerghaty says, the efficacy of editors:

During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends–and all those around the world, who have prayed so fervently for my release–through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: That I refused to travel and cooperate with the US military and that I refused to discuss my captivity with US officials. Again, neither is true.

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

I will not name names nor link to bloggers who thought the worst of Miss Carroll. They and their readers know who they are and I trust they will be suitably chastised. And if they have an ounce of integrity, they will write a public apology.

But after the sack cloth has been worn and the ashes spread, it might be a good idea to step back and see what the hell is going on here.

The speed and ferocity with which people piled on Miss Carroll for not immediately disavowing her propaganda statement as well as her first statements to the press which seemed to give her brutal captors a pass reminded me of the jaw-dropping way the left pounced on the Administration in the immediate - and by immediate I mean that lefty bloggers were screaming “incompetence” less than 24 hours after hurricane winds had died down in New Orleans - aftermath of Katrina. The point isn’t to bash the left here but to highlight a problem with blogs that seems to be presenting itself with alarming regularity.

In people’s haste to be first, or different, or just plain ornery and contrary (all the better to get links and readers) a culture of “shoot first and ask questions later” has arisen in the blogosphere that quite frankly, is proving every bad thing that the MSM has been saying about blogs from the beginning. Many of us - including myself - have been guilty in the past of hitting that “Publish” button when perhaps it would have been prudent and proper to take a beat or two to think about what we just wrote and the impact it might have beyond the small little world we inhabit in this corner of Blogland.

Scalp hunting has become the national pastime of blogs. Both lefty and righty lodgepoles have some pretty impressive trophies hanging on them; Dan Rather, Mary Mapes (twice), Eason Jordon, Trent Lott, Ben Domenech, to name a few more noteworthy ones.

But is this what we are? Is this what we are becoming? Are we nothing more than a pack of digital yellow journalists writing pixelated scab sheets vying to see who we can lay low next? If this be the way to fame and fortune in the blogosphere, I truly fear that, like television, the last great technological breakthrough that promised to change the world, we will degenerate into a mindless, bottomless pit of muck and mudslinging, dragging down the culture and trivializing even the most important issues.

This is no idle concern that can be dismissed as the nature of the beast or the way of the world. This kind of thing has to be stopped, an admitted impossibility with 29 million blogs out there. Maybe it’s enough that we are aware of it and that people of good faith and good intentions will, in the end, marginalize the muckrakers and come out on top.

Don’t count on it.

Meanwhile, less than 24 hours after being released from a captivity in which she endured unspeakable fear and hardship for 87 long days, Jill Carroll was forced to come out and issue a press release stating the obvious; someone had a gun to her head threatening to kill her if she didn’t say nice things about the brutes who held her captive. The reason she was forced to issue the statement was largely a result of questions raised by the 24 hour news nets about her captivity - questions that originated on blogs. And in the ever more symbiotic relationship between the great, gaping maw that is cable news and the content rich medium of blogs that feeds the beast, questions raised if left unanswered fester like an open wound until an answer is forthcoming.

Jill Carroll was twice a victim - once of jihadist terrorists who kidnapped her and once of a culture that sought to exploit her tragedy to satisfy personal ambition and ego.

Shame on us all for allowing this to happen.

UPDATE

More Geraghty:

Permit me a Derbian moment of gloom. Carroll issues a coerced statement before she’s released, and some corners of the blogosphere erupt with a torrent of scathing hatred, declaring that Carroll “may as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant”, that she’s a “spoiled brat America-hater” and “she was anti-America when she went over there and I say the kidnapping was a put up deal from the get go.”

This is what we’ve got a blogosphere for? For these kind of (pardon my French) pissing contests? The citizenry around the globe has the greatest mass communications tool in the history of the world, and this is what it’s led to?

My question is what will the blogosphere look like 5 years from now? If things continue the way they are, we’ll be just another cog in the great mass communications bordeom killing machine, titillating and entertaining our readers with our own snarky takes on the dirt dished by the MSM while our blogs are festooned with ads for everything from cold cream to the latest super-absorbent manifestation of Depends.

So much for citizen-journalists…

UPDATE II

Ed Morrissey links here and makes a point that everyone - including me - seems to forget:

Finally, for those who blamed her for being in Iraq in the first place, let me remind you that we have continually harped on the media for being balcony reporters — for not getting outside of the Green Zone and trying to get the true stories of Iraq. Well, that’s what Jill Carroll tried to do, and she got unlucky enough to get kidnapped for her efforts. We need reporters to take those kind of chances, and we should have been more supportive of her all along. Now that she’s home, let’s hope we remember that with the next reporter unfortunate enough to find themselves the victim of violence and not victimize them a second time when they cooperate enough to be set free.

If you haven’t read this gut wrenching column by David Ignatius on how hard it is to cover the situation in Iraq, please do so. It reinforces what Ed was saying.

And Don Surber has chastised me in the comments for not linking to the bloggers who jumped on Jill Carroll so soon after her release.

As I explained to Mr. Surber in an email, I did not link because I did not want to start the petty back-and-forth between bloggers who criticize one another known as a “Blog War.” They’re silly. They’re a waste of time. And I had no intention of getting embroiled in one.

The Mesopotamian:

The situation in Baghdad is deteriorating from day to day. I have warned about this long ago. The “insurrection” is lead by the Baathists, without any doubt, and they are converging on Baghdad and seriously bent on taking over. They are creating havoc in in the capital. Very soon, if this situation continues like this the city is going to be brought to a complete standstill and paralysis. The confusion and conflict between the Americans, the army and the Ministry of interior is producing a situation where the citizens don’t know anymore whether the security personel in the street are friends, enemies, terrorists or simply criminals and thieves. Everybody is wearing the same uniforms. Whole sections of the city have virtually fallen to gangs and terrorists, and this is sepecially true for the “Sunni” dominated neighborhoods. People and businesses are being robbed and the employees kidnapped en mass in broad daylight and with complete ease as though security forces are non-existent, although we see them everwhere.

I don’t know anymore what can be done to rescue the situation. At least, those who are supposed to be in positions of responsibility should stop lying and painting a false picture. It has to be admitted that the city is under siege and has become the front battle line. Emergency measures have to be put in place immediately, otherwise as everbody in Baghdad knows, the whole city is going to fall soon. I regret sounding so pessimistic, but the alarm must be sounded with the loudest volume possible, since what is happening is Baghdad is something really awful.

The reports I’ve seen from StrategyPage and other Iraqi bloggers suggest a situation that is rapidly spiraling out of control.

This is not a pleasant prospect to contemplate but it is better to face facts and try to decide what we can do about it rather than fall back on the same, tired mantras mouthed by some of our more clueless war boosters like “the press isn’t reporting the good news out of Iraq” or “things aren’t really that bad” or even “there is no civil war.”

At the moment there is no good news coming out Iraq to report, things really are that bad, and there is a de-facto civil war raging as I write this with tit-for-tat revenge killings that now number in the hundreds - perhaps more than a thousand. They’re not fighting in the streets at the moment - but that’s only because the Sunnis are running for their lives. The Washington Post:

Sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine, a U.N.-affiliated agency said Tuesday, and shelters and tent cities are springing up across central and southern Iraq to house homeless Sunni and Shiite families.

The flight is continuing, according to the International Organization for Migration, which works closely with the United Nations and other groups. The result has been a population exchange as Sunni and Shiite families flee mixed communities for the safety of areas where their own sects predominate.

Two weeks ago, I believed that there was very little the United States military could do in a combat capacity to affect the situation, that it was now up to the Iraqis. What I didn’t count on was the apparent resistance of the Interior Ministry (headed up by former Badr Brigade commander Bayan Jabr) to the attempted purging of radical police elements by the Iraqi government who are under the influence (direction?) of Iran and the lengths to which radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would go to maintain whatever influence he wields in the councils of state. The Iraqis are under enormous pressure from American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to clean out the nest of intrigue and possible traitors at Interior while at the same time reigning in the Shia militias.

The reports of both Muqtada al-Sadr’s black clad Mehdi Militiamen and uniformed police working together to haul away innocent Sunnis and suspected insurgents who then disappear and are later found brutally murdered have become too numerous to ignore as simply “anecdotal evidence.” Al-Sadr’s militiamen have infiltrated the police and are apparently working together to fan the flames of violence to God knows what end. It could be a power play from al-Sadr whose hand-picked Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari is under pressure by Ambassador Khalilzad to withdraw his name from consideration when the new Parliament meets, a political development that would do much to calm the situation but which is being stalled by the recalcitrance of Shi’ite negotiators who bitterly resent American interference. Or al-Sadr has lost control of his men and the numerous killings are random revenge murders with no overall plan being followed. Either scenario is extremely troubling for the future.

As for Alaa’s claim that there will be an attempt by insurgents to actually seize control of Baghdad that may be an exaggeration. A more likely occurrence is what our military commanders have been expecting for months; an effort by the insurgency to inflict a Tet-like public relations disaster on the American military by infiltrating the fortified Green Zone and slaughtering foreigners.

Just two weeks ago it was revealed that a plot by people in the Defense Ministry to carry out such an attack was foiled when it was uncovered by the authorities just in time. And then yesterday, we had this curious bit of news from the group that was holding journalist Jill Carroll hostage:

Shortly before her release, her captors - who refer to themselves as the Revenge Brigade - also told her they had infiltrated the US diplomatic compound in Baghdad, and she would be killed if she went there or cooperated with the American authorities. It was a threat she took seriously in her first few hours of freedom.

If the insurgents were ever going to try and emulate the Viet Cong’s effort to prove to the American people that victory was impossible, they couldn’t pick a better time to do it.

Bush’s job approval numbers are horrible. Support for the war is fading. Republicans are getting more and more nervous about November. Democrats smell victory. An attack inside the Green Zone that killed hundreds could very well be the tipping point that would cause a public outcry, finally galvanize the anti-war movement, start Republican lawmakers running for cover, and embolden the Democrats even further in calling for immediate withdrawal.

In short, unmitigated disaster.

Is there anything that can be done to retrieve the situation - and retrieve it in a hurry? Greg Djerejian quoting Tom Friedman: “It’s five minutes to midnight.”

Fire Donald Rumsfeld, and replace him with John Warner or Richard Armitage or someone else qualified soonest. Bulk up our troop presence in Baghdad asap, even if it means rotating some troops out of places like Anbar (especially in locations where we are still more in whack-a-mole posture than clear, build, hold). Let’s have a major show of strength, including large amounts of U.S. troops, in the most problematic neighborhoods (US troops are critical, as confidence in the integrity of Iraqi Army units as impartial arbitrers or plausible peacekeepers simply doesn’t exist yet among much of the Iraqi public. This is why under-informed blather about the Iraqi Army being “solid”, or the militias being simply “pesky”, is just crap, and it’s quite sad prominent right wing bloggers link to such hokum as offering soi disant serious perspective).

Order. Order. Order. It’s desperately needed in the capital, the very linchpin of a stable Iraq, if we mean for the country to remain a unitary state. So we need someone at the Pentagon who, at the very least, definitively comprehends said order doesn’t exist today, alas, and that the battle-space in places like Sadr City is most definitively not under control by non-militia infested forces (as Rumsfeld disingenuously claimed a couple weeks back). Nothing is more important at this hour than beating back the cycle of sectarian violence, as Friedman well explains in the context of his Beirut experience (read his whole op-ed, Times Select subscribers), especially given that a situation already fraught with such immense danger is even more so, with formation of a cohesive national government still elusive.

The prospects of chaos are obviously enhanced by such a vacuum, so all efforts to stave off further sectarian mayhem must be pursued with maximum drive. Stabilizing the situation will require, not only a real show of force on the streets, to provide for enhanced ground up security, but also more efforts from the top-down, where Ambassador Khalilzhad’s interventions to form a government need to become even more urgent. (This might include, if necessary, calibrated series of higher-level interventions by the Secretary of State, President (he’s made such calls in the past) and other very senior Administration officials, perhaps even other interested Foreign Ministers from major powers. Unfortunately, the Arab League continues to wallow in irrelevance, more worried about rising Iranian influence than doing anything even remotely helpful, which is painfully pitiable but woefully predictable, of course).

Is Greg overstating the need for American forces to step in and take the lead in securing the streets? How about this announcement from the Ministry of Defense:

“The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or the police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area.”

This message has been scrolling across the bottom of every TV channel in Iraq for days. In short, even the Iraqi military doesn’t trust its own people.

American casualties have dropped significantly in recent months for two reasons; the military is under orders not to take too many chances and our people have moved out of the cities, away from the ambushes and IED’s that accounted for most of our casualties, and into the countryside in order to ferret out insurgent strongholds in rural areas. It seems pretty clear that this has got to change and that we need to redeploy back to Baghdad.

Bold action in the streets coupled with bold action at the conference table are the only things that can stabilize the situation and give the Iraqi government a chance. And we must lower our sights on what would constitute a victory in Iraq. Instead of staying until a stable, peaceful, democratic government is achieved, it may be time to look at a scenario where violence would be continuing at some reduced level but the situation could be handled by Iraqi security forces. Any stable government that would meet the State Department or The Freedom House definition of “Partly Free” would be a significant improvement over Saddam Hussein’s rule and would still have the potential for reform.

If, as Mr. Friedman says we are at “Five minutes to Midnight” then perhaps it is time for all of us to start assessing what’s going on in Iraq in a realistic manner rather than engaging in wishful thinking. The United States is fast approaching a point in Iraq where the law of diminishing returns makes our commitment ever more problematic. Are we coming to a point where the cost of our staying there outweighs any possible gain to our security or our national interest?

We’re not there yet. But revisit this site in another month or two and that may change.

So many things going on today that there’s no time to give them the “Ricky Treatment” - the soulful, meandering, almost coherent ramblings that are the hallmark of this blog in its ongoing defense of the values found in Western Civilization…

Yeah, so? It’s Friday already.

Anyway, here are some items catching my eye this afternoon..

JILL CARROLL: 15 YARD PENALTY FOR PILING ON?

What is wrong with my fellow right wing nuts?

Here we have this poor woman held captive for three months and the page at Memorandum is full of people criticizing her for 1) wearing Muslim dress, 2) praising her captives for their fine treatment of her, 3) not condemning same, 4) and even some criticism of a statement she made with a gun to her head about how bad we Americans are.

That last was figuratively written as some - Macsmind for one - smell a rat. Mac, a former intelligence professional, is not one to go off the deep end so his blog bears watching on this subject. Alexandra however, is willing to give the reporter the benefit of the doubt as is Rusty Shacklelford.

I can see the Italian communist propagandist Guiliana Sgrena , who gave so many versions of her ordeal that they could have made 3 different Mini-series out of it, having herself kidnapped for political purposes but not a serious journalist like Carroll. Let’s wait a few days and see what she has to say when she gets her feet back on the ground before judging her for any real or imagined transgression.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: STRANGE BUT TRUE

From what I understand, Representative McKinney has been involved in 4 other similar spats with security guards in the House all because she refuses to wear her Member’s pin. Is it asking too much that our guards be able to recognize the 535 faces of lawmakers?

That’s an awful lot of faces. Unless the guards have been given a course in memory retention, the average human can remember 200 - 300 faces , which means that there is a likelihood that Representative McKinney will not be recognized. This is especially true if she changes her hair style, something she complained about earlier.

In defense of McKinney, she is one of only 14 black members of the House which should mean that this visual clue of skin color should make remembering her face that much easier. Unfortunately, the probability is that officers are trained to check first for the pin without even looking at the face. And since she said she was in a hurry, it is also probable that the guard never saw her face at all.

Blaming racism, as her lawyer does here is unfortunate. When what was apparently an honest mistake on the part of the guard is turned into a political hot potato in order to deflect attention from the issue of Representative McKinney’s possible assault charge, everyone loses. It would have been much better if 1) the guards are given a refresher course in memory retention, and 2) McKinney grow up, act like an adult, and wear her damn Member’s pin.

Perhaps then we can get back to the people’s business in the House…

WALKING THE PLANK ON IMMIGRATION

House Republicans are apparently intent on walking a very short plank in their showdown with the Senate over immigration reform. Standing firm on making it a felony to enter the country illegally, the bitter enders seem intent on either getting their way or killing the bill altogether:

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, dismissed arguments made by President Bush and business leaders who say the United States needs a pool of foreign workers. He said businesses should be more creative in their efforts to find help and suggested that employers turn to the prison population to fill jobs in agriculture and elsewhere.

“Let the prisoners pick the fruits,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “We can do it without bringing in millions of foreigners.”

Good thing convicted felons can’t vote, Danny. You’d be in trouble. And most migrant workers - about 1.3 million - are actually US citizens. The seasonal need for additional workers brings about 300,000 illegal immigrants over the borders, a proverbial drop in the bucket.

While it may be hugely satisfying to make illegals into felons, the fact is you can’t round up 11 million people and put them…where? Concentration camps? Not enough room in the jails. And thanks to several controversial court opinions, you just can’t load them onto a bus or plane and send them back where they came from without a hearing.

Yes enforce the law as it is on the books. No to amnesty. No to “guest workers.” And a great big yes please to doing a better job of securing our borders.

Read also, VDH on the subject. Well done as usual.

UPDATE

Kender points out in the comments one other thing I strongly support - jail time for employers who knowingly hire illegals.

Hard to prove but would be an excellent incentive for employers to get fanatical about making sure they hire legal residents.

I will be appearing on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” on Sunday morning April 2 from 8:30 AM - 9:15 AM Eastern Time.

You might want to remember to set your clocks the night before one hour forward due to daylight savings time (where applicable).

My left wing foil for the show will be Taylor Marsh, a relatively sane liberal who is a great writer and excellent blogger. Steve Scully will host.

“Our Lady of perpetual Moonbats…Pray for us…”

Today’s column by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post is an interesting read not only for its attempt to twist the facts in order to fit a disingenuous narrative of what happened in the lead-up to the War in Iraq but also, achieves the dubious distinction of making Richard Clarke an unbiased source for relating what the President was thinking regarding Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The latter point in and of itself is typical of a curious kind of myopia that liberal commentators have developed about both Mr. Clarke and that other poster boy for proving perfidy in Administration intentions about going to war Joe Wilson. Why the left has latched on to a preening peacock and a prevaricating poseur in order to “prove” that the President lied about going to war with Saddam is one of those mysteries of the universe that we’ll probably not solve in our lifetimes.

In truth, Cohen has always been at the lower end of the Loon-O-Meter when it comes to the kind of one-dimensional thinking most liberals use to critique the Iraq War. But today, the columnist throws caution (and logic) to the four winds and jumps into into the vat of Kool-Aid without his water wings:

…So common is the statement “Bush lied” that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted “to go to war” from the moment he “stepped into the White House,” and the president said, “You know, I didn’t want war.” With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

“I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House’s chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no — “But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this,” Clarke told him — it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. “‘Look into Iraq, Saddam,’ the president said testily,” Clarke writes in his book, “Against All Enemies.”

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.

And Cohen bases his thesis that the President had Saddam “on his mind and in his sights” following 9/11 based on the storytelling of Richard Clarke who says the President reacted “testily” when our hero tried to tell him that it was al-Qaeda and not Iraq who carried out the attacks.

Less than 24 hours after the Towers fell, and the President should close his mind to the possibility that someone besides al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks? If the President did indeed react “testily” - a pejorative that a more objective observer would question - could it be because bureaucrat Clarke was constructing a narrative of the attack that would have him as the point man in advising the President rather than the Neo-con cabal at the Pentagon who were agitating for the overthrow of Saddam?

There is little doubt in reading Clarke’s book that the former Counter-Terrorism official felt slighted by the Bush inner circle. His access to the President was restricted. And he was further humiliated (in his own mind) by having to go through National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in order to make his voice heard. Consciously or unconsciously, Clarke was taking out his frustrations on a President who simply would not listen to his brilliant analysis and dire warnings of catastrophe. The reality of the situation was that Clarke rubbed everyone the wrong way and was a pretentious lout to boot. No one likes a Cassandra. And Clarke would play that part perfectly.

Cohen doesn’t stop with Clarke to prove his point about the President’s “fixation” on Iraq. He quotes from Bob Woodward’s excellent book Plan of Attack in which the President ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to come up with an invasion plan for Iraq around Thanksgiving, 2001. This brings up an interesting point about the genesis of the pre-emptive war doctrine and the Wilsonian vision of a democratic Middle East that started to dominate the President’s thinking by at least the first half of 2002.

It will be interesting to read a book in the future that details the arc of decision making that went into formulating the Bush Doctrine. Some will point to the President’s evangelical outlook and try to marry it with a proselytizing impulse to bring freedom to peoples under the oppressive yoke of religious fundamentalism and corrupt kleptocrats. This is a shallow analysis in that it ignores the singularly American tradition regarding the natural rights of man. When Bush talks about all people wanting freedom, he is referring back to the founding of the United States, that certain rights are “self-evident.” These rights exist independent of governments and that people are born into freedom by virtue of their humanity and a just, caring God. While not entirely secular in origin, the natural rights argument could in no way be confused with any kind of evangelical Christian drive to spread the “Good News” about the savior.

In this sense, Bush is a natural inheritor of the Reagan legacy and the belief that Communism was an evil not because of what it did to prevent people of faith from exercising their belief in God but rather because of how it tried to destroy the individual’s natural right to freedom by setting the state up to be the final arbiter of what rights a person might exercise.

This is important in trying to understand why, so soon after 9/11, the Bush Administration’s thoughts were turning to Iraq. The outlines of the Bush Doctrine were already being drawn. The President was thinking about the future and how to prevent an even more devastating attack that, if successful, could destroy what had taken more than 200 years to build. Unless one is willing to posit the notion that the President of the United States went to war in Iraq to personally enrich himself and his friends with monies from war contracts and oil, then the only other explanation that makes sense is that Bush was serious about making Iraq an example by which democrats all across the Middle East could rally to and help reform their own governments.

This notion - breathtaking in its audacity and, in hindsight something of an overreach - has never been acknowledged by the left as the proximate cause for war with Iraq despite the President talking about several times before the invasion. Saddam Hussein was an enabler, financier, and as we’re finding out with the release of the Saddam papers, a booster of terrorism throughout the Middle East and probably the world as well. If some kind of coherent strategy were to be followed after the destruction of the Taliban, the end of Saddam would have to figure in to it.

Cohen trivializes this momentous decision by according the President precious little credit for any kind of forward looking thinking:

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush’s gut — not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep — and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush’s specific reason or reasons, the one thing that’s so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn’t want the war he got

By brushing aside the Bush Doctrine with a slap at the “Neo-cons” and trivializing the decision even more by playing amateur psychologist regarding the President’s motives for revenge, Cohen shows that he just doesn’t get it. Like many liberals, the idea of a sustained effort to defeat al Qaeda and the historical forces that drive their murderous ideology is an anathema. Trying to “understand” the brutes and deal with the “underlying causes” of terrorism is their battle cry. In this respect, it points up competing notions about the significance of 9/11. How much did or should 9/11 change America? Many of us believe it was a shattering event that demanded a response that encompassed a grand strategic vision that would change the planet. Others think it a horrible tragedy that the Republicans are using for political purposes and thus, a more reactive policy is in order, responding to terrorist threats as they arise (or happen) rather than pre-emptively combating the menace.

And to say that Bush didn’t try to find a way out of the war is stating the obvious. The Woodward book makes clear the President would have much preferred that Saddam take the way out offered by several nations and abdicate (no mention of that fact by Mr. Cohen, of course. It wouldn’t do to interrupt his earth shaking change of heart). Saddam was a gone goose once 150,000 Americans were ready sitting in Kuwait waiting to invade. The question in the President’s mind was whether Saddam would take the hint and go or stay and make a fight of it. After 15 UN resolutions and violating the 1991 cease fire accords on a daily basis for 11 years, Saddam was out.

It is amazing that anyone thought otherwise, that there was a hope for….what? Cohen, along with the President and everyone else did not want to have to fight to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was the option Saddam took, not the President. To suddenly discover the President “lied” when he said he “didn’t want war” is being disingenuous. It was always up to Saddam whether he would exit the stage peacefully or not. But exit he would.

I don’t think it ever occurred to Mr. Cohen that the President would honestly balk at taking an action that would result in the death of thousands of people. In this, he is no different from any other liberal who, when they look at the President, sees horns and a tail.

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

(Emma Lazarus, 1888)

“. . . . [W]e declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” (”For the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing.”)

(From El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan)

A land of dreams. A land of myths. America began as a rumor, a subject of court gossip in the great halls of 15th century Europe where it was whispered that some Genoese navigator had discovered new lands across the ocean sea. In the ensuing 500 years as tens of millions flowed to her shores, America swallowed the new arrivals with relative ease, assimilating them with a combination of brutal exploitation and wondrous opportunity - powerful forces that stoked the fires of the melting pot and imprinted American values, customs, and ideals on the peoples of every race, color, and creed.

But something has gone horribly wrong. Not just with immigrants from Mexico although currently being the largest group of new arrivals, they come in for the harshest criticism. It is the same with Russians, Poles, Slavs, Balkanites, Africans, Asians and many more who make it to our shores and then disappear into the great morass of bureaucratic ineptitude and inertia. The fact is, it is ridiculously easy to skirt our immigration laws.

Overstayed your visa? No problem. A huge underground industry has grown up that supplies illegal immigrants with documentation so that they can live and work in the United States as well as apply for benefits related to everything from health care to unemployment compensation. No one knows how large this illegal document industry is but estimates are in the 1-2 billion dollar range. This doesn’t include the monies stolen from the American taxpayer in illegal benefits.

With 96% of illegal immigrants able to procure these documents and become part of the workforce, this unprecedented outbreak of lawlessness has had predictable consequences; fewer and fewer of these illegals are on a path to citizenship and assimilation. The various schemes put forth to rectify this situation including the latest “guest worker” program have had no impact on solving the problem and may, in fact, encourage more people to illegally enter the country.

With no stake in the future of America, no need to learn English, no desire to make America their adopted land, there is no compulsion to inculcate American ideals in their children who are automatically citizens by virtue of being born here.

Anyone who doesn’t think that this aspect of illegal immigration doesn’t have consequences I would direct your gaze to the picture above of the upside down American flag being deliberately flown below the flag of Mexico. Is anyone seriously making the argument that this one image, so wrenching in its implications for our future, doesn’t accurately reflect the feelings of those children, most of whom are citizens? They are future voters. And I shudder to think of what they would be willing to vote for if the growing reconquista movement is able to successfully play upon and manipulate the current coalition of greedy businesses, weak politicians, diversity crackpots, multicultural tyrants, and guilt-ridden leftists who have made it plain that America is a land without recognizable borders and that citizenship, in the end, doesn’t mean squat.

John Fonte, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute:

We have arrived at a tipping point in American history. Make no mistake about it, these demonstrations are a challenge to what Aristotle and Straussian political theorists call a “regime” or “way of life.” We are witnessing the assertion of raw power (from and on behalf of non-citizens) that challenges our own citizenship and our very constitutional order. Illegal aliens who are here without the “consent of the governed” (aided and abetted by amoral corporate and ideological elites) are demanding that the views of the overwhelming majority of the American people (for border control and immigration restrictions) be ignored. This is an attempted social coup; war by other means.

A “social coup” indeed. The image of that upside down American flag is a declaration of war not just on the citizens of America, but on our values, our ideals, and our most cherished hopes that have sustained this country for more than 200 years.

It should go without saying that the reality of America has rarely lived up to its promise. Slavery of Africans, ethnic cleansing of the native Americans, and especially the way newcomers have been treated in the past upon their arrival have made the words contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution ring hollow. But almost important as this reality is the promise that our society can and does work to constantly better itself. The “No Irish Need Apply” signs in the days of our great grandfathers have disappeared along with similar disdain for subsequent waves of immigrants from Europe. The forces of assimilation worked their magic on those peoples to transform their progeny into citizens who are indistinguishable in all the important ways from the native born.

For others, the transformation was more painful but was made nonetheless. Overcoming the obscenity of racism (as well as other cultural obstacles), Asian-Americans and recent African immigrants have proven that the melting pot model of assimilation can be stretched to include those whose cultural values were vastly different from the Europeans who came before them.

The drive to assimilate has done more to make the words “All men are created equal” resonate with meaning than all the Supreme Court decisions, civil rights laws, racial pressure groups, and crusading journalists put together. By standing up for and exercising their rights as citizens, ethnic groups in the past have changed the American social and cultural landscape. By becoming citizens and taking part in the grand experiment that is American democracy, they have fought for and won important battles to make their vision of America - not their native land - a better place to live.

That is the stake that assimilation gives new citizens; the future happiness of their children. But today’s illegals, while wanting the same happiness for their offspring, don’t care about the context in which that goal is achieved. Hence, infusing their children from birth with the values of American society takes second place to maintaining their separateness from the rest of us. Part of this has to do with their status as illegal immigrants. But it has more to do with a belief that America is not a place to dream but rather a place to milk. The opportunity afforded those willing to work is seen as a means to take and give nothing in return.

This is why the image above is so disturbing. It shows that their children, despite many being citizens, have taken the same attitude as their parents toward American opportunity. Many apparently see themselves as the vanguard of a movement to “take back” California and the American southwest for Mexico. At the very least, it shows a lack of understanding of what America is all about, a failure of education both at home and at school. At worst, it presages a period in American politics that could lead to civil unrest and a fracturing of the American polity.

For 120 years, the Statue of Liberty has been the image of inclusion and opportunity for immigrants. It is sad almost beyond words that the image of the upside down American flag displayed in an inferior position to the flag of Mexico could become modern shorthand for the feelings and even the hopes and dreams of immigrants today.

UPDATE

Cao has an excellent round-up from the passionate right on the flag issue as well as the immigration bill before the Senate.

Michelle Malkin has dozens of pictuers of the illegal, forged, and fake documents used by “undocumented” workers. Quoth Malkin:

Next time you read or hear reporters mindlessly refer to the “undocumented,” send them here and ask why they continue to use such an inaccurate, biased, loaded, and plain annoying term.

I eagerly await their reply.