Yeah, What He Said

Yeah, he would have been much better off if he'd been left there. Go read Flopping Aces.

A Reliable Source?

The New York Times is in a state of high dudgeon right now about the "Bush leaks" story. It's an odd little editorial bearing more resemblance to a post on Daily Kos than to a normal editorial. Let's examine a few things.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

What accepted standards are those? Accepted by whom? Quite frankly if the President of the United States cannot decide to classify or declassify something, who can? Oh, silly me, why it's the NYT itself that is the standard. They accept that THEY are the proper judge of what should remain classified.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

I'm struggling to see how this is different from any president. I just can't do it. I think what I'm hearing here is that the president just doesn't leak enough to make the NYT's job easier. Again, it's the NYT itself that they hold up as the standard.

Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public. (Emphasis added)

I see. So the Times, of course, is able to tell the absolute completeness and accuracy of every leak they publish (gleefully) with absolute certainty that what they publish was not leaked to them for some sort of gain for the leaker. Uh huh. That old Times standard again.

About a month before, Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind.

I've already covered this in earlier posts. This is an attempt to hold Bush accountable for something that would be impossible. And the Times knows they could not possibly meet the standard they require of the president. The Post piece they cite is shoddy and inept, and if the editors at the Times can't tell that, why are they editors? Must be the Times standard at work again.

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon.

I quite agree. The Times should get editorial writers who are capable of actually being somewhat in touch with reality and the Times should get immediate treatment for a raging case of Times Standard Syndrome.

Because your standards suck.

When You Can’t Compete, Destroy

It's been apparent for some time now that traditional media has felt increasingly hostile toward blogs. Some of the media reports about blogging have been dismissive, some crude attempts to denigrate the practitioners, some downright insulting and some fundamentally clueless about the nature of blogs and bloggers. Today I heard of an incident that represents a whole new tack. Personally destroy a blogger by writing a hit piece on him.

Bill Hobbs has been a fairly large presence in the blogosphere. I haven't read him in a while, but used to be an almost daily reader. It seems he used some questionable judgment and posted a crude, stick figure cartoon on his site that showed Mohammed holding a bomb with a crude caption. I, myself, would not have put something like that up, but I also have been pretty clear about my stance on free speech. Nothing much comes of that for a time.

Then a long-time Democratic operative named Mike Kopp happened upon the cartoon and gleefully posted about it, pretending high moral dudgeon. Kopp also made sure to publish where Hobbs worked. Hobbs did apologize and removed the cartoon. Kopp later posts that he is quite proud of what he has accomplished. With one of the most smarmy, self-serving plateful of stereotypical rubbish I have had the misfortune to have read.

Enter John Spragens, a writer of a political column on the Nashville Scene. This past Wednesday, he put out a column making sure that he mentioned Hobb's employer four times in the space of a short column. He also made any number of sanctimonious pronouncements about Hobbs and his actions. He also fearlessly published a screen shot of the cartoon. Just out of curiosity, Mr. Spragens, did you also publish the Danish cartoons?

And Bill Hobbs ended up resigning his job. I doubt it was by choice.

Congratulations, Mr. Spragens and Mr. Kopp. Working together you have ensured that someone with a family lost his job. You've ensured that one of your enemies was taken down. You've also ensured, with absolute certainty, that at some point one of your friends, supporters or even possibly yourselves will be subjected to the exact same treatment. You've also shown exactly how hateful politics and journalism have become.

Hobbs did something in his private life that had nothing to do with his public one, you two gentlemen (and I use that term in the very loosest sense), ensured that Hobbs' private and public lives were conflated. You got him. You must be very proud indeed.

UPDATE: Here's a post from someone much closer to the events in question and who knows many of the people involved.

UPDATE: Story from the Tennessean on this.

UPDATE: I made the prediction above that this would result in the exact same treatment. I rest my case. How's it feel, Mr. Spragens?

UPDATE: Roundups here and here. Glenn Reynolds' thoughts here.

UPDATE: 4/20/2006 - And Spragens is, indeed, proud of what he did.

The Other Shoe Dropped!

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System sent out letters to retirees and active teachers explaining how to name beneficiaries. One page of the letter listed the phone number to contact, but had a wee bit of a typo. When people called the number they heard this recorded message:

"Hi, baby! Do you want to massage my feet or suck my toes?" the woman asks. She goes on to explain that "foot fetish fun is only 69 cents per minute" and offers another number to call "for all the hot, one-on-one triple-X toe talk you can handle."

We have now located the booking agency mentioned here.

We here at Blue Crab Boulevard refuse to take an editorial stance on triple-x toe talk.

Doing Dirty Deeds

The residents of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin thought they were safe. The reign of terror had ended as suddenly as it began. The culprit had stopped his dastardly dumping of dirty Depends. But in this day and age, is anything really over? We have folks still fighting the last election who show no signs of stopping anytime in this century.

The person doing dirty deeds with diapers has resumed his (or her, who knows?) despicable dumping. Residents have reported finding 12 to 15 of the nasty nappies nocturnally left by someone in the ditch along a rural stretch of road. The clever criminal confuses would-be captors by escaping on the nearby interstate. But when the forces of truth and justice finally catch him (or her) they will be dealt with severely. They will be charged with littering.

This constitutes a newsworthy crime spree in rural Wisconsin, apparently.

Retired Generals Endorsing Rumsfeld

Captain Ed has the details of three retired generals endorsing Rumsfeld and criticizing the generals who have decided to inject themselves into politics.

"I think what we see happening with retired general officers is bad for the military, bad for civil-military relations and bad for the country," retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Mr. Bush, said in an interview with The Washington Times. He said he would elaborate his views in an op-ed essay.

…….

This is an impressive cadre of voices speaking on Rumsfeld's behalf, and if they continue to express their support for the SecDef, it may help re-sell Congress and the American electorate on Rumsfeld and his leadership. I look forward to reading the op-ed essay promised by General Myers on this point. I hope more of Rumsfeld's former senior officers speak out, and hopefully more media outlets report on it. I notice the Washington Post failed to report it, but interestingly, the New York Times did, although they missed Gen. DeLong:

I agree with General Myers; this orchestrated campaign against Rumsfeld is bad for the country.

Segregation In Omaha

The New York Times has an article on the move by Nebraska to break up the Omaha school distract into three racially distinct school districts. They get it partially right, but blame it primarily on whites.

It's actually not so much racially based as it is made out to be. That's not to say that some people aren't motivated by the racial component, I'm sure some are. The story touches on the underlying reason. The Omaha Public Schools (OPS) has been trying to annex several areas that have separate school districts. They have been absurdly heavy handed in their approach to it. The smaller districts have been fighting not to be swallowed into the very mediocre OPS system.

The main proponent of this segregation move has been Ernie Chambers. The article paints him more-or-less favorably. I doubt there are many people outside of his constituency that would speak glowingly about Chambers. He's pretty commonly thought of as an obstructionist demagogue. I suspect Mr. Chambers is pushing this for the exact opposite reason he's stating. He must know this will not pass constitutional muster. I think he's counting on that and a backlash to make the seizure of the smaller districts (and their tax revenues) a reality.

But that's just a guess. 

Fran O’Brien’s Coverage In The WaPo

Today's Washington Post has an article about the pending eviction of Fran O'Brien's Steakhouse. (Hey, Bradley! It's sourced, OK?) It really doesn't look good at all.

But Hilton spokeswoman Lisa Cole said the hotel's position on the lease has nothing to do with the dinners. She said its decision was based strictly on business considerations.

I for one don't intend to patronize Hilton or any of it's other branded hotels. It's just a business decision, you know.

O'Brien's intends to hold two more Friday night dinners. In the meantime, the Italian Embassy has called O'Brien, offering its digs for the dinners until he comes up with another plan.

Thank you, Italy.

When The Left Attacks

I almost feel sorry for Joe Klein right now. Recently he was quoted as saying, "Well they won't if their message is that they hate America–which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years", by Eric Alterman. Klein claims he was misquoted and that what he actually said was, ""the hate America tendency of the [Democratic Party's] left wing" had made it harder for Democrats to challenge Republicans on foreign policy."

In the Huffington Post, Klein explains why he believes there is a difference between liberals and leftists:

The default position of leftists like, say, Michael Moore and many writers at The Nation, is that America is essentially a malignant, imperialistic force in the world and the use of American military power is almost always wrong. Liberals have a more benign, and correct, view of America's role in the world and tend to favor the use of military force if it is exercised judiciously, as a last resort, and in a multilateral contect (sic)–with U.N. approval or through NATO.

As of this writing, there are 153 comments to Mr. Klein's post. It's a regular love fest over there. Some of the insightful comments:

♦ You hate America. Asshole! F*** you! (Expletive deleted)

♦ …I would argue that it is the right-wing, Christo-fascists who hate America, not leftists who speak out against bad foreign policy decisions by the GOP.

♦ Evidently Mr Klein has struck an exposed nerve here ; the outcry is vigorous to say the least . That tells me that there is some truth in what he says which is hard for some to bear .

♦ "That tells me that there is some truth in what he says which is hard for some to bear."

Seablood: And your post tells me you're probably about as much of a vacuous idiot as Klein.

And on and on for seven pages. (BTW, before anyone accuses me, of course those comments were cherry-picked, but the entire comment thread is almost universal in condemning Klein. Anyone who says anything even moderately in support of Klein is piled on) The comments are all tagged as "abuse".

The folks at HuffPo don't much care for Klein, that's apparent.

Klein may have actually underestimated the problem.

Reframe This - Redux

Iran is at it again.

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

So, essentially we see a repeat of the Iranian tactic of hostage taking. Had Jimmy Carter reacted forcefully to the taking of American hostages, this would not be part of their strategy. There is a very distinct reason why the "students" did not try to take hostages at the Russian embassy.

I particularly want to thank the American press for providing the script for the Iranian government:

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

How does this get reframed exactly?

So, essentially we see a repeat of the Iranian tactic of hostage taking. Had Jimmy Carter reacted forcefully to the taking of American hostages, this would not be part of their strategy. There is a very distinct reason why the "students" did not try to take hostages at the Russian embassy.

I particularly want to thank the American press for providing the script for the Iranian government:

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

How does this get reframed exactly?

UPDATE: My Thanks to Stop the ACLU for linking this. Please do take a look around.

Conflicting Information?

In today's New York Times there is an article by Edward Wong that details the release of another terrorist video tape. Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a message apparently recorded in November of last year, encourages support for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Nation of Islam, I ask you to support your brothers, the mujahedeen in Iraq, and our brother, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, about whom I didn't see anything but good things the whole period I knew him," Mr. Zawahiri said in the video, as translated by the SITE Institute, an organization that tracks terrorists' messages. "I know him to be true, and how he is defending Islam with all his powers."

Yesterday, a story came out that some US officials believe Zarqawi has admitted strategic defeat and is withdrawing from Iraq. The two reports do not necessarily contradict each other. 

If Zarqawi is, indeed, trying to disengage, the release of the tape could be a part of a disinformation campaign. Despite the media's constant stream of negativity a few weeks ago, no civil war has erupted. The news reports lately seem to be indicating a shift in the focus of terrorist attacks, with fewer attacks on civilians and increasing attacks of Iraqi police and military units. That would potentially indicate a change in overall command of the terrorists, since Zarqawi's tenure in command has been mostly marked by attacks directed at civilians.

Spot On

Bruce Kessler over at Democracy Project has the take on where we are as a nation. "We've won in Iraq; now, let's not lose". The media keeps framing Iraq as another Vietnam, coverage is very slanted and very one-sided. The left keeps up ceaseless attacks fueled by a pathological hatred.

The most appalling thing about the Democrats’ and their media allies approach to Iraq is their obsession with 2003. It’s as if all they’d be able to talk of after Normandy in 1944 was the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

He's equally hard on the other side of the political spectrum:

The most appalling thing about the Republicans’ and alternative media allies approach to Iraq is their obsession with a future reshaped Middle East, or playing defense against the latest Democrat produced slanted negativism. It’s as if all they’d be able to talk of after Normandy was the design of the United Nations, or who the guests should be at victory parades.

The US has accomplished quite a lot more in Iraq than the media tells the public. A blatantly slanted media, the continued attacks from the left and the inept response from the right have all combined to give a horribly distorted picture of the US to the rest of the world. Our enemies are emboldened seeing America in internal disarray.

WaPo On Bloggers

Today the Washington Post has an article on a "liberal" blogger. Overall, it's very sympathetic in tone. However, the article does not paint a pretty picture of the blogger.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

It goes on in the same vein for five web pages. They even quote some of the comments she gets from her rants. What I come away from the article with is a sense of how full of hatred she is. I think there's a terrible sadness to someone who lives their life  so steeped in venom.

Update: Response to the WaPo Article from O'Connor here, from Glenn Greenwald here, Mahablog here, Betsy Newmark here and Captain's Quarters here. Greenwald's take in interesting. Even though he gets into the "yeah but they do it to mode", he points out that this boils down to an attack on blogs and bloggers by the MSM. His last sentence: "The scariest part: none of this is unusual. It is not an unrepresentative picture of how much of our "journalism" is produced". Which is one of the things we here at the Boulevard have been trying to point out. O'Connor herself is quite proud of the article.

UPDATE: And Tim Blair weighs in.

Fear-Driven Sensitivity

Michelle Malkin has a really good column out on the cowardly decision by Comedy Central not to allow South Park to show a cartoon image of Mohammed. It does not present a pretty picture of the network at all. Nor is there any way to really cast this other than as a bad case of fear-driven sensitivity. Which illustrates one important thing. You see, Comedy Central is owned by Viacom which also owns CBS. Now, the folks at CBS had no problem running "news" reports based on blatant forgeries in an attempt to influence the last presidential election. Viacom has no problems running anything that offends Christians, they're proud of themselves about that:

And when Catholics complained recently about an episode mocking the Virgin Mary, Comedy Central proudly stated: "As satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right."

Nice words. Completely hollow and meaningless, but gee, they sure sound great, don't they?

Civil War In The Middle East

Captain Ed reports developments in the buildup to a civil war in the Middle East. Not in Iraq, but in the Palestinian territories. He's not exactly impressed with how the Palestinians have reacted to the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

This shows again the brilliance of Ariel Sharon in pulling out of Gaza. He allowed the Palestinians to create a laboratory to demonstrate their inability to rule while freeing Israel of a drain on its blood and treasure, a drain that would never have wound up in their possession anyway. He removed the Israelis living in the isolated settlements and left the Palestinians to their own devices.

And look how the Palestinians have reacted. They have destroyed much of the economic development that the settlers established as well as the agricultural projects funded by the West to help the Palestinians become more self-sufficient. Instead of creating a civil authority, the two terrorist groups that pass for political parties have turned Gaza into a series of armed camps, ready to break out into open warfare at any moment. Sharon knew that Fatah and Hamas could not possibly govern but only impose petty fiefdoms based on proximity to their arms. Now the world knows it, too.