alternative hippopotamus

A very interesting dialogue with Amy Sullivan last night at Drinking Liberally. I wanted to pass on one of her comments about how the refs have been worked at nominally critical press organs- here, I’m really thinking of the Washington Post- to err on the side of the Bush administration.

Here’s how she put it: If an article is too conservative (whatever that means these days) liberals will react, sure. But no where near as strongly as conservatives will react if an article is too liberal. She also suggested that this may have shifted slightly in recent times, but is still essentially the case.

Take this article in today’s Post: A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed. The title sounds pretty critical, but let’s look a little more closely:

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

This passage illustrates a number of ways the Washington Post, consciously or unconsciously supports Bush:

1. False dichotomy. In this case “to act” vs. “to ask permission.” Hamdan v. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with either action or permission. What the President did was wrong. We knew it, he knew it. The only question was whether he could stack the Supreme Court with enough Unitary Executive whackos to slide by.
2. Misleading rhetorical florishes. Here, using words that function to flatter Bush’s shortcomings. I’d take “ethos” and “inspiring leader” as examples. Indeed, I’d have to wonder if anyone would apply the word “inspiring” to Bush, unless they mean it in a general causative sense. For instance, you could say Bush’s inattention during Katrina inspired chaos and despair. In terms of chaos and despair Bush is certainly our most inspiring president ever.
3. Mischaracterizing the position of critics. For instance, characterizing critics as responding “viscerally” when Bush confuses himself with Napolean, Caesar, or Ghengis Khan. Tell me, O WaPo, just how should we respond when Bush rips up the constitution? With an ironic sense of bemused detachment? Funny, the word I would have used would be “appropriately.”

I noticed this post by Anonymous Liberal linking Suskind’s One Percent Doctrine with Cheney’s rationale for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, that’s not what Suskind says.

The One Percent Doctrine is a general rhetorical framework for justifying a broad range of (IMO Orwellian) Executive branch activities.

Suskind gives a more specific reason for the Iraq invasion: (p. 123)

“The primary impetus for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings on the Gulf in this period, was to make an example of Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States.

“In Oval Office meetings, the President would often call Iraq a “game changer.” More specifically, the theory was the United States- with a forceful action against Hussein- would change the rules of geopolitical analysis and action for countless other countries.”

This is the first text (at least that I’m aware of) that expresses the view that Iraq was primarily about a show of power. Reminiscent, I would say, of Cheney’s role in the Plame affair. By that I mean that the response to Wilson’s article was out of proportion not because Scooter was hot around the collar, it was out of proportionby intent. It was a demonstration to administration critics that if they go public their lives and careers will be ruined. It was a show of power.

I was reading this article on the upcoming elections in Mexico, and couldn’t help but notice this line: (emphasis mine)

As the election approaches, opinion polls give the candidate of the Party of Democratic Revolution a slight lead over Felipe Calderón of the governing centre-right National Action party.

I don’t know enough about the candidates to comment, but will say those party names sound way cooler than Democratic and Republican. Way cooler. Could it be that part of the relative complacency of American voters is a result of the blase names? Isn’t there something about the elephant and the donkey party icons that screams out, or more to the point, mumbles, politics as usual?

I did some poking around and thought, of registered American political parties, these were the coolest I’d run across:

Aloha Aina Party, Action 4 Justice Party, Marijuana Party, Personal Choice Party, Pirate Party USA, Rent is Too Damn High party, and finally the We the People Party.

The above image was taken from Little Lulu’s House of Propaganda and Disinformation.

The point appears to be that the NYT is causing troop deaths by publishing stories like the one on SWIFT. When the Wall Street Journal or LA Times publishes similar stories, it’s not such a big deal. But, when the NYT does it, it really rankles. (Ron Suskind’s “One Percent Doctrine” also has a section on SWIFT. But, I’m pretty sure Malkin would like to shut him up, too, so I won’t bother using him as an example of additional entries in the public record)

Malkin’s post is even more brazenly pointless than it first appears. As Glenn Greenwald points out, what the NYT published has in the public record since December of 2002. As Glenn quotes State Department official Victor Comraes saying:

Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news.

But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries.

So, it’s not that this is a leak of classified or sensitive information. The issue is that no one had made it a headline before. That means the NYT has really screwed the pooch as far as terrorists who don’t pay attention are concerned. Like one of these types:

• The lazy terrorist. He doesn’t like to read, or look things up on the internet. Instead, he’ll read the headlines in the Times, and of course Doonesbury. Look, even terrorists need a chuckle now and then.
• The forgetful terrorist. He just can’t seem to remember what the government is monitoring. Is it my phone calls, my emails, my international banking transactions, or all three. For the life of me I just can’t remember. That’s why I subscribe to the New York Times.

This is little more than an ad hominem attack on the left, symbolized here through the NYT. Like Bush, Malkin understands that hate sells. Naturally, hate of people who are different from your readers. Or, if you have self-hating readers, that could work, too.

It happened at off-times, at a small coffee shop just up the road from where he was speaking, a popular bookstore and discussion venue known as Politics and Prose.

He tells us that P&P is where you meet the reality-based community. The notion has a certain potency to it, as the man who is speaking coined the term “reality-based community.”

But the actual work happened up the road at Bread and Chocolate. Bread and Chocolate is open early. And those who had briefed the president, in the hundreds he says, wanted to tell their story to Ron Suskind in the intimacy of a far corner table at the Chevy Chase Circle haunt. Something had gone wrong, these insiders would tell him, and Suskind was listening.

Don’t underestimate the president, Suskind warns us. He knows how to undercut whoever he’s speaking to. Suskind tells us that this is a quality that leaders must have.

He also says, tongue-in-cheek, that the other side is the faith-based community. They have bookstores, too, and they are also well-attended. The crowd at P&P, easily over a hundred, either chuckles at this remark, or shakes their head.

Suskind gives us a different kind of warning about his book. We know that several big stories are coming out in these pages. The briefing in Crawford where Bush brushes off warnings of Bin Laden, with a “you covered your ass.” The head of Al Queda’s number 3, or as he puts it, one of twenty number 3’s, being delivered by courier to the White House. Cheney’s central role in all this. Bush’s detachment. But the warning is of a different nature: Suskind empathizes with all of his characters. And readers will find that emotion, empathy, in the least expected places.

Ron Suskind loves stories. He’s very good at telling them. He says that empathy is ultimately the key to mercy. Maybe that’s the story we need to hear right now.

I love the smell of napalm in the blogosphere. (I don’t really. It’s just that someone had to say it.)

If you haven’t been following the latest, here’s the beef:

1.) A group of blogtopia (thanks, Skippy!) big-hitters form a mailing list called “Townhouse.” My invitation seems to have been lost in the mail.
2.) Jerome Armstrong pleads to a 2000 SEC violation. Financial settlement still in litigation. In a private mail, leaked to the New Republic, Kos says to the bloggers: “My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. ”

That rubbed me the wrong way, as did the leak of Kos’s email (see here). But, I figured, time to drop it and work on this very interesting blog post I’ve got that proves conclusively that the disciple pictured in The Last Supper was actually Dick Cheney. Working title: The Shooter Code. Interesting stuff.

But, wait, there’s more.

3.) At the New Republic Jason Leopold, I mean, Zengerle, leaks a couple of the Townhousegate emails including this from Steve Gilliard: “I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?”
4.) Glenn Greenwald points out that this email was never sent out on the Townhousegate list.
5.) The Commissar points out that Gilliard says he may have sent an email like that, a month earlier, but not on Townhouse. Then again, he may not have. Commissar also coins the term “omerta email” for the original Kos message, which amuses me.
6.) The Kossiaks get their digs in against TNR. Choice excerpt: “Not right-wing, then, but neither can they be counted on as progressive, and more important, nor can they be counted on at all. A punditocracy that alternates between dismissive and aggressively hostile of the grassroots, of activists, and of voters (at least, when they use electrons in a fashion other than what God and the New Republic intended) is not one that the grassroots, activists, or voters particularly need to value the opinions of.”
7.) Meanwhile, TNR shoots back, just below the beltway: “It feels a bit demeaning to defend oneself against Kos. But I am one of the neo-con owners, and I am titular editor-in-chief. ”
8.) ???
9.) Profit.

Update: Zengerle has some ’splaining to do after Glenn gets email from Steve Gilliard (after the jump)
(more…)

I had hoped to give my take on the Frontline special “The Dark Side.”

When the special first aired I was playing host to an after party for Air America Host Sam Seder with the rest of the Drinking Liberally crew. I figured I could catch the online version, or better yet the repeat that was supposed to be on at midnight on Maryland Public Television, but wasn’t.

Alas, the provocative conclusion, “A Covert Campaign” doesn’t seem to be online. Weird.

Here’s the blurb for the final segment: “No WMD is found in Iraq. In June 2004, Tenet resigns. Tensions grow between the CIA and Cheney loyalists. The ‘Scooter’ Libby investigation uncovers what appears to be a covert campaign waged against the CIA by the Office of the Vice President.”

It’s been yanked from youtube, as well. This may be the final straw where I break down and get Tivo.

There’s a number of reasons that I rarely if ever spend time at Kos. First, I find his personality grating. Second, he tends to express himself in terms that are, how do I put it… Napoleonic. Third, I don’t care for elitism, whether it’s conservative or liberal, corporate, artistic, or grassroots. As far as I can tell Kos is a grassroots elitist.

This is why this business about the “Townhouse” bugs me. I’ll let Kos describe it in his own words:

People talk about the need for the left to work together and have a unified message in the face of a unified conservative noise machine. So a google group was created called “Townhouse”, and it included many bloggers and other representatives of the netroots as well as a large number of partisan journalists and grassroots groups. It allowed us to discuss policy, issues, tactics and coordinate as much as you can ever get a bunch of liberals to coordinate.

There was one big rule for this list, an important cog in the growing Vast Left Wing Conspiracy — everything discussed was off the record.

A few points up front. First, groups can’t function if there isn’t a basic level of understanding and trust, and certainly confidentiality violations make any kind of off-record discussions impossible. Whoever agreed to confidentiality, and then violated that agreement so they could “get” Kos should be outed, or better still, identify him or herself. (Say, it would be interesting if it turned out to be Zephyr Teachout, wouldn’t it?)

The New Republic is on rocky ground when it uses someone’s leaked confidential email to attack their ethics. If there was a way that I could read TNR less than I already do, which is never, or cancel my non-existant subscription I would do so.

What mitigates the ethics in this case is that Kos was using the “Townhouse” for things other than grassroots organizing, or as he puts it: “the need for the left to work together and have a unified message.” Apparently, Jerome Armstrong, his partner in writing (the underwhelming, IMO) “Crashing the Gates” plead out on an SEC charge from 2000. Kos was asking other bloggers who participated in the “Townhouse” not to write about it, at least for a while:

So far, this story isn’t making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn’t do anything to help make that happen.

My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I’ll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on.

Why did Kos ask the “Townhouse” not to write about it? Because it would be bad for the progresive blogosphere? No. Because it would hurt the Democratic Party? No. Kos asked them not to write about it, because it would make Jerome look bad, and detract from his promotion of “Crashing the Gates.”

Unfortunately, none of “Townhousers” wrote about it. I say, unfortunately, because it’s not clear whether they didn’t write about it because they didn’t see it as an important issue, or out of allegiance to the Cool Kid’s Club.

I do hold major progressive blogs to a higher standard than Malkin, Powerline, Insty, and NRO. Why? Because I suspect they are essentially Republican message vehicles. Because we’re trying to be the truth tellers here. Because replacing the Right-Wing Noise machine with a Left-Wing Noise machine, doesn’t solve the problem: The Noise.

Warren Bell (former sitcom writer turned NRO hack) tells us Bush has appointed him to CPB:

I intend to open my confirmation hearing thusly: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, three words: No. More. Elmo.” Seriously, I am deeply honored that the President has appointed me to this prestigious post and I am eager to serve my country in any way I can. I want to thank K-Lo and everyone at NRO, without whom I am sure I would never have come anywhere near the radar of the White House. Additionally, if readers want to send me their general thoughts and opinions on PBS and NPR, I would be glad to read them. Other than getting rid of high-pitched-talking red monsters, I have no agenda.

Coming soon: The News Hour with Jonah Goldberg.

Seriously. I’m looking at this guy’s resume, and it’s kind of light. Add to that his rabid partisanship, and I’m not seeing what would make him a better candidate for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting than, say, Ann Coulter.

Wordnet defines echolalia as follows: (psychiatry) mechanical and meaningless repetition of the words of another person (as in schizophrenia).

Since this definition doesn’t fit what I want to say in this post, I will change it slightly. echolalia is: (rhetoric) the use of mechanical and meaningless repetition to avoid saying anything particular, and to push your brand, as in advertising, certain Protestant religions, and Republican talking points.

In case anyone wonders if it’s valid for me to create my own definition, I’ll remind you that everything changed after 9.11. Even words and phrases. The notion that words and phrases have an actual, precise meaning gave way to a more democratic post-9.11 practise, where they were instead taken to mean whatever meaning their author wanted.

And, as a result, we are safer from the terrorists, whether they are dead or alive. We have spread democracy. We have fought them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here. We are winning the War on Terror, and prevented weapons of mass destruction from aiding brutal dictators in a spider hole.

And we didn’t cut and run. Not once did we, as the phrase origin’s indicate, slash our “ship’s anchor chain and outrace overwhelming enemy fire.” This was likely a result of our superior firepower and number of troops. Also, Iraq is in a desert, and it seemed silly to use ships there.

So, try not to blame America first. And pass me the jar of democracy, and a butter knife so I can spread it.