testing

BUSH IN DENIAL The president can't get a grip

Now, apparently, anyone who supported the president on Iraq but doubts that he is handling it correctly -- or handling it at all -- is simply weak-kneed.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the second-guessing was predictable, given the difficulties in Iraq. "It's hardly unusual in times of war that people get anxious, and that would include people who have supported the president," he said. ...

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a reliable Bush supporter, said the disillusionment is not surprising. "People get weary, especially when they expected a war to be over very quickly," he said in an interview. "Supporters fall off over time. I've been disappointed by some of the people who have fallen off, like George Will, but that's what happens."

First of all, I am not a conservative. Nor did I expect the war to be over quickly.

But what was once an easy cost-benefit analysis -- Saddam is a vicious, brutal dictator with the desire to have WMDs (even if he didn't actually have the weapons), a history of erratic behavior and an ability to cause instability in a region of vital U.S. interest, so he must be removed -- has become fuzzier.

At what point does one say, as Joe Scarborough does, enough is enough?

I don't think we're there yet. But I fear we are getting close.

At every point, at every turn, in every conceivable way, the Bush Administration has turned a worthy cause into the greatest American foreign policy blunder in 30 years. Going to war with Iraq still was, I believe, justified in principle.

But to go to war the way this administration did, with too few troops, no plan to secure the peace, fast-and-loose rules on whether torture was allowed, and a host of other problems we have all become familiar with, cannot be justified.

It was foolish. It was shameful. It was disgraceful.

And it was wrong.

At his press conference today, the president was right in a few respects. America would lose "our soul as a nation" if, after smashing a country to pieces, we left it to fall into hellish chaos. And he is right to say that a "failed Iraq would make America less secure" -- just as leaving Afghanistan to slide into civil war after the departure of Soviet forces more than a decade ago paved the way for the Taliban and, from there, a safe haven for bin Laden.

But the fighting must, eventually, end. At this rate, at some point, we will lose the ability to hold Iraq together, and we will be in the midst of a civil war. And Americans will be dying for nothing.

That will happen if, as the president has so often begged us to do, we "stay the course."

We must change the policy for the better. Or we must withdraw. There is no other option.

To refuse to do so is not responsible. Nor is it merely unacceptable.

It is murder, pure and simple. It is the killing of Americans in cold blood.

Just as sure as if President Bush were the one holding the trigger.

THE PARTY OF REFORM ... MOSTLY Why do Dems keep Moran?
Ah, remember Rep. Jim Moran, who claimed that Jews got us into the war in Iraq?

Well, he's a bit, er, off-message again:

Moran, D-8th, told those attending the Arlington County Democratic Committee's annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner on June 9 that while he in theory might oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of “earmarks” - funneling money to projects in a member of Congress's district - he understands the value they have to constituents.

“When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the s*** out of it,” Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event.

Well, it's good to know that not all Dems buy into those gauzy-eyed notions of reform and keeping the lobbyists from hijacking the government and turning it over to Indian casinos and multinational corporations.

At least the Jews won't push us into another war, right, Jim?

THE 'RIGHT SIDE' OF THE DEBATE What Reagan thought about immigration
An excellent Wall Street Journal editorial (NewsEdge doesn't say that everyday) blows up the idea of Reagan as a wing-nut on the issue of immigration. NewsEdge knew there was a reason he liked a "conservative."

The ed also links to a fascinating speech Reagan gave on July 3. Some excerpts:

The Americans were reminded that Miss Liberty, like the many millions she's welcomed to these shores, is of foreign birth, the gift of workers, farmers, and shopkeepers and children who donated hundreds of thousands of francs to send her here. They were the ordinary people of France. This statue came from their pockets and from their hearts. ... For the first time, they worked in proximity with Americans of Jewish, black, Italian, Irish, Russian, Polish, and Indian backgrounds. "Fascinating," (one of them) said, "to see different ethnic and national types work and live so well together." Well, it's how we like to think of America. And it's good to know that Miss Liberty is still giving life to the dream of a new world where old antagonisms could be cast aside and people of every nation could live together as one. ...
And yet, my fellow Americans, it is not only the friendship of two peoples but the friendship of all peoples that brings us here tonight. We celebrate something more than the restoration of this statue's physical grandeur. Another worker here, Scott Aronsen, a marble restorer, has put it well: "I grew up in Brooklyn and never went to the Statue of Liberty. But when I first walked in there to work, I thought about my grandfathers coming through here." And which of us does not think of other grandfathers and grandmothers, from so many places around the globe, for whom this statue was the first glimpse of America? ...
Well, the truth is, she's everybody's gal. We sometimes forget that even those who came here first to settle the new land were also strangers. ...
Call it mysticism if you will, I have always believed there was some divine providence that placed this great land here between the two great oceans, to be found by a special kind of people from every corner of the world, who had a special love for freedom and a special courage that enabled them to leave their own land, leave their friends and their countrymen, and come to this new and strange land to build a New World of peace and freedom and hope. ...

So go on, W. Win one for the Gipper.

'FAIR AND BALANCED' Even when one side is obviously correct
It's good to see Fox is back on board with its right-wing masters:

"Last November's documentary on global warming gave a platform to those who believe that the effects of global warming are catastrophic and the causes largely man-made," FNC's David Asman blogs. "Now, FOX is again ahead of the curve, presenting another side to the issue with 'Global Warming: The Debate Continues.' Our first special featured folks who fear the worst from global warming. But global warming is far too complex an issue to be viewed from just one side. This time, we speak with scientists who are skeptical of what they view as alarmist fears about climate change."

The show will be followed by another documentary, "Round Earth: The Controversy Rages."

Because, after all, the shape of the earth is far too complex an issue to be viewed from just one side.

PAGING GEORGE ORWELL Tracking Bush's 1984 impulses
Everyone's favorite descendant of possibly illegal immigrants now wants to put reporters who embarass the government in the pokey:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. ...
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is
protected." ...
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she presumed that Gonzales was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which she said has never been interpreted to prosecute journalists who were
providing information to the public.
"I can't imagine a bigger chill on free speech and the public's right to know what it's government is up to — both hallmarks of a democracy — than prosecuting reporters," Dalglish said.
Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.

This could really work out well for Chatterbox Cheney. All he has to do is make sure all his hunting trips are classified information. That way, anyone who reports on them can be locked up.

In the meantime, he and Loose Lips Libby can go outing CIA agents whose husbands they disagree with. And when they get caught, they can just claim they declassified the information, so everything's cool.

This stuff is scary beyond words.

'TO GET THINGS DONE' A reason to vote for your senator ... unless it's not
Ah, remember when U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint was running against Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum for the Senate in 2004? Remember what he said about influence?

Something like this:

After [Dick "Chatterbox"] Cheney left, DeMint played up his strong links to the White House and what it would mean for South Carolina.
"It's important to be part of the Republican majority to get things done for the state," he said.

Now, Knowlegis, which is a type of consulting firm, has released its influence rankings for all members of Congress. Here's a bit about the 100-member Senate (with one vacancy):



Thank goodness South Carolinians chose the guy with clout.

THE REAL 9/11 Bring it home, Oliver

Oliver Stone has apparently made a 9/11 movie. The movie seeks to definitively prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, China, the U.N., Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the British monarchy.

Okay, so NewsEdge made everything after the first sentence up.

But admit it. You were thinking the same thing.

DO AS I SAY DO Did AGAG's grandparents 'sneak across the border'?

It seems our attorney general isn't sure whether his grandparents are legal or illegal. Via Think Progress:

CNN's WOLF BLITZER: Give us your — tell our viewers who aren’t familiar your personal story, how you got to where you are, your grandparents, your parents. They struggled, they came here. I don’t know if they came here legally or illegally. But give us the story.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, three of my grandparents were born in Mexico. ...
BLITZER: When they came to Texas, were they legally documented, were they un-legally documented?
GONZALES: You know what? It’s unclear. It’s unclear. And I’ve looked at this issue, I’ve talked to my parents about it and it’s just not clear.

[EMPHASIS, AS ALWAYS, BELONGS TO NEWSEDGE]

Okay, but he hasn't said anything about illegal immigrants, right? No big deal, right?

Not so fast:

In a post 9/11 world, we must know who is coming into our country and the reasons why. We have worked hard to secure our airports and seaports, and we have put in place the infrastructure to share information about threats more effectively within the federal government, and between federal, state, and local officials, but the security of our citizens also depends on our ability to control the border. No one is served by an immigration system that allows large numbers of people to sneak across the border illegally. ...
Workers who come out of the shadows and enroll in the Temporary Worker Program should incur some sort of penalty for violating the law, such as a monetary fine and a requirement that they pay back taxes. Upholding the rule of law is too important for it to be otherwise.

"No one is served" by illegally immigration.

Except, maybe, Alberto Gonzales.

RECOVERING WETLANDS The new WMD
Well, it seems that America's wetlands are recovering.

That is, of course, if you count the ponds on golf courses.

The Washington Note fills us in.

NEWSBUSTERS WATCH Even when the media's fair, they're not
Once again, our friends over at NewsBusters are on the brink of a meltdown. This time, it's over TIME Magazine's attempt to pick "America's Ten Best Senators." So let's take a look at what they found, using a study linking these senators to their records from the American Conservative Union. As breathlessly reported, the numbers are:

Thad Cochran: 81%
Kent Conrad: 20%
Dick Durbin: 7%
Ted Kennedy: 3%
Jon Kyl: 97%
Carl Levin: 7%
Richard Lugar: 79%
John McCain: 83%
Olympia J. Snowe: 50%
Arlen Specter: 45%

Now, one might suspect that the headline would be that TIME seems to have spread their choices across the ideological spectrum. Why? Take a look at the score of the nominees, when put in order:

3...7...7...20...45...50...79...81...83...97

The middle of the survey falls between 45 and 50 percent. Right about where the middle of the political spectrum would be, maybe a smidge to the left. But what's the headline on the NewsBusters post? "Time Tilts 'Best Senators' List Toward Liberal, 'Maverick' Media Favorites."

And these people attack newspapers for using misleading headlines.