Tweet
One of the many reasons that I adore Dan Froomkin is his ability to cut through the power envy that pervades the Beltway and state the obvious in such a way that all but the most kool-aid addled ought to be able to comprehend. Froomkin has pulled together a series of lessons that we all — ALL — ought to have learned in the run up to the mess in Iraq, just like we ought to have learned them from the mess that was Vietnam so many years ago. Dan is talking to journalists, but the lessons he highlights apply equally to regular folks like you and me. And they apply not just to evaluations of war and peace and national security, but also to pretty much any governmental undertaking and public load of manure that passes for promises and gifts with strings attached.
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
– Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
— Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
— Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion — or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion — may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
— Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
– War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
— Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
— Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
— Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
– Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.
— Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.
There is so much more Froomkin goodness in this article. Trust me — go read it. And then send it to the people you love. To your elected representatives. To every member of the media that ought to be asking these questions not just of the Bush Administration and people in power, but also of themselves. Write a letter to the editor about these issues. Wake someone up and get them to think for themselves again.
In the words of the late Molly Ivins, "The President does not have the sense that God gave a duck, so it is up to you and me." (H/T to TheOtherWA for the link to this great cartoon. Love it, it's just perfect.) It is not just our members of Congress who are charged with providing oversight of our government — it is all of us as well.
Stand up and be counted. Be a skeptic — your nation is counting on you. Molly Ivins was right — it IS up to you and me.
109 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
christy!!!!!!!!
Hillary luvs secrecy. I have been informed.
Froomkin is bookmarked on my politics folder, as are you. His brothers website is also well worth the read. I’ve written Deborah Howell on more than one occasion to tell her that Daniel is the best thing on their internet edition, day after day. Howie couldn’t carry his lap top.
oops, i mean christY!!!!!!!!
sorry about the missssspell.
thanks for all you all do.
am a loyal froomkin fan, ever since last october when i went back online……..his columns are full of meat, always. is my most regular read, and achenblog.
and didn’t know if you saw this post i made in morning thread.
and am serious about mailing coffee off—just mail it to fdl address? the one where we send money?
epu’d
dmac says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:01 am
speaking of good coffee—-
man here, constantine faller, imports ‘triple-seal’(shade grown, etc.) coffee from guatemala, has it roasted in columbus, ohio…and sells it locally…..all of the money goes back into the company and the community through funding other local products-local food sources and sustainability projects….volunteer-run….he is the steward of the company…he is an amazing individual…go to
http://athensown.net/
click on about athens own then dawn chorus coffee
then order coffee to get list, also makes one called turkish which is ground and he mixes cardomom in it………clicks lead to here:
http://www.athensown.biz/product/dawncho rus.shtml
and the coffee really is good. fresh as fresh can be…..orders it as needed……
am getting ready to send some vienna to a friend in texas….last package contained turkish……
d
dmac says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:05 am
and if you want to inquire in person, about the coffee, you can reach constantine at athen’s own phone-
740-448-2696
tell him dayna sent you.
he will also send variety packs of smaller amounts……is worth looking into.
dmac says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:09 am
and christy-
would be willing to mail some for you and/or plamehouse use if someone tells me where to mail it
would be glad to contribute some to all of you. is really good.
email me-
proxima123 at frognet dot net
d
Great vid! Go Dan Froomkin! Go on forever, Molly!
((FDL & liveblogging)))
((((Jane))))
I want justice for all. And I mean ‘all’.
I just finished reading Paul Krugman’s tribute to Molly, flipped over to FDL and what do I find? The same wonderful, sensible type of people bringing more tears to my eyes. I am not sure that I can read Mary’s book just yet. It arrived yesterday.
Great cartoon. Have you noticed that Bush gets smaller and smaller in cartoons (except the ears)?
And Froomkin is right on. What are the chances anyone but Olbermann will even read this? Oh, wait. SPOTLIGHT!!
For six years, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice worked under the cover of a very effective shield: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was the administration’s lightning rod for criticism over its handling of Iraq.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Senate hearing on Jan. 11.
But in recent weeks, with Mr. Rumsfeld gone, Ms. Rice has faced increased, and somewhat unfamiliar, criticism. At a Senate hearing on Jan. 11, she confronted a wall of opposition from Republicans as well as Democrats. During hearings this week on Iraq, several of her predecessors were pointed in their disapproval of her job performance.
If you haven’t done so, read the entire Froomkin article at Neiman. Truly great stuff — and worth every last word of the read.
I’d love to know Ivins’ take on Hillary. Did she have such?
Christy,
Thank you for such an eloquent post. With Froomkin as subject, you certainly had good material to use.
Great job!
Rat at 12 — I love Froomkin. And he really cut to the chase with this work, and I thought it could use some wider reading. His work on Neiman is always great — so I try to pull out the best posts of his from there whenever I can for you guys.
Froomkins’ words should be a mandatory class taken in high school, along with a unit on propaganda techniques.
I fully, for the next two years-minus, intend to seriously kick some ‘yellow-belly’ Demo butt.
Ack. Turns out the link I sent you, Christy, is to the current cartoon. Here’s an archive link to the Molly Ivins inspired cartoon.
Glad you liked it. :)
OtherWA — Thanks — I didn’t realize the cartoon had changed today from the time I wrote the post until it went up. Eeep! Will fix that above!
Wow, sitting here reading that and I’m thinking, gee, before 2001, I really thought most of our governmental officials did at least a few of these things. Asking questions and stuff – sounds revolutionary these days. What a frikkin’ idiot I was.
I miss you Molly!
Austin seems so much more red and so much less intelligent since we lost Molly and Ann Richards.
We love you Molly.
Watch over us!
PS, of course, I believed some mainstream journalists did some of these things as well. Again, I learned the hard way.
OT: Every Sunday, KPFK in Los Angeles has two one-hour radio interview
shows hosted by Ian Masters. They are streamed onto the Internet –
see KPFK.org. These shows are always excellent. I’m told that this
is today’s lineup:
11:00 to noon (PST) on “Background Briefing”.
1.1a) Ray McGovern is a retired CIA officer turned political activist
and founder of VIPS: veteran intelligence officers for sanity.
McGovern was a CIA analyst under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years
and presented the morning intelligence briefings at the White House
for many years. Also, (1.1b) Graeme Fuller is the former Vice-Chair
of the National Intelligence Council of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
1.2) Dr. James McCarthy is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
Oceanography at Harvard University. McCarthy was involved in two of
the recent international assessments on climate impacts. He served as
co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group II, which had responsibilities for assessing impacts of
and vulnerabilities to global climate change for the Third IPCC
Assessment (2001). He was also one of the lead authors on the
recently completed Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. McCarthy is a
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Foreign
Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
1.3) Craig Unger is the author of the acclaimed book “House of Bush,
House of Saud,” and has served as the deputy editor of the New York
Observer and the editor of Boston Magazine. He has written about the
two George Bushes for The New Yorker, Esquire, and Vanity Fair.
Mr. Unger has new piece in the upcoming March 2007 edition of Vanity
Fair, entiled “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq,” which
concerns the extensive and well-advanced preparations for war against
Iran.
Or possibly
1.3) Dr. Martin Van Creweld is a professor of history at Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, specializing in the history of war, its
political, social and cultural aspects. He is the author of fifteen
books on military history and strategy, including “The Art of War: War
and Military Thought,” “Men, Women and War,” “Defending Israel: A
controversial Plan to Peace,” “The Rise and Decline of the State” and
his latest, “The Changing Face of War: Lessons of Combat, from the
Marne to Iraq” to be published on the 27th of February.
From noon to 1:00 (PST)on “Live From the Left Coast”:
2.1) Chalmers Johnson is an author and professor emeritus of the
University of California, San Diego. He is also president and
co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization
promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written
numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the
consequences of American empire, Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire and
the latest, to be released this Tuesday, Nemesis: The Crisis of the
American Republic.
Oklahoma kiddo @
2
Is that deep background?
D’souza prick is on CSPAN2. If someone had written a book about how rampant capitalism, unchecked greed and exploitation of globalization by huge corporate interests had caused Islamic extremists to attack us on 911, would he/she be getting stroked by the media in this manner?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 9
OKK,
I read the article earlier at the NYT site. One of the most interesting things about the article is the uncomplimentary photo of Sec. Rice. I can’t attest to intent, but the photo makes her look very dark and unattractive. In the past, NYT has usually printed much more dignified pics of Condi.
Eclipse?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..q7GS4QgcRQ
I view of the Libby defense, has Irving thrown his chances for a pardon out the window?
HotFlash @ 22
;0)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 11
Heck yeah. Here ya’ go.
mandrake @ 23
Not by the media that is owned by huge corporate interests.
As to Molly’s take on Hillary — I am not aware of a column, but back in 2000 when Hillary was just beginning her Senate Campaign, Molly was here, gave a presentation, and during the Q & A was asked about it. She had real reservations.
She didn’t particularly like the idea of Senator Moynihan essentially offering the seat to her as his replacement. Molly thought NY needed to have a campaign to determine who should be NY’s next Senator, and there were several, one in State Government and two in Congress who had long been serious about running when Moynihan retired, and she though Hillary rather big footed her way into NY Politics, without having shown much evidence over the years that she had a major interest in the State of New York.
I don’t know if she ever developed these ideas into a column, but can’t remember seeing anything, just her careful response in a Q and A.
I suspect there is vast Molly material all over the country — video of her presentations, call in programs, all sorts of things that need collecting someplace. I suspect she appointed a literary executor — and the place to start might be with that person, and any arrangements that have been made for a literary archive. Collecting it, processing it, indexing it, and hopefully getting it on line is fairly expensive, but doing it might just be a nice memorial.
mandrake @ 23
Can someone please ask D’Souza where he gets the idea that al-Qaeda hates exactly the same things that he does (since it’s nowhere in their writings or speeches), and if so, doesn’t that make him an al-Qaeda sympathizer?
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
This is a curious statement since it can mean both itself and its opposite:
1) You can’t be skeptical enough
2) You can’t be very skeptical.
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
As both I and John Casper like to harp on, it’s all about the Powell Doctrine. If you can’t justify a war under its terms, then don’t do it.
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
In essence, this is: Expect your government to lie to you. This is hard for some of us who were brought up to believe that while the government wouldn’t necessarily tell us the whole truth it would tell at least some of it. It is sad but now I would go further than Froomkin. You should expect both government and the media to flat out lie to you. This is in large part why the blogosphere and sites like FDL have grown up. If the government were telling the truth, if media were doing their jobs, the blogosphere would be unnecessary.
a bit OT (last thread ran out on me):
Darth Cheney’s “you can’t handle the truth” moment may come on the stand if he testifies. He will simply say he ordered Libby to burn Wilson and “the wife.” He has the authority under EO 13292. Open and shut. Case closed. Go ahead, Dick, I double-dare ya.
Funny thing–nothing Froomkin is saying here is at all new. Once upon a time (cue the music), this is what the press was expected to do as a matter of course.
That Froomkin would have to remind the press of those basics is, in itself, a sad commentary on the state of journalistic affairs these days.
I trace this back to the earliest days of the Reagan administration. Johnson cared about the press only to the extent they could help him. Nixon was an unreconstructed bastard, and the press didn’t feel badly about jabbing him. Ford, contrary to revisionist history, wasn’t worth taking seriously, and Jimmy Carter was the Al Gore of his time–smarter than the press and not afraid of trying to move policy in directions he thought it should go–and the press excoriated him for that.
But, when Reagan arrived, here was someone to whom the press could feel superior and of whom they could feel no real personal animosity (that despite the fact that Reagan, in asking the press to help him, was inviting them to turn Peter Finley Dunne’s dictum upside-down).
In that way, Reagan was the precursor of Bush–there are many, many similarities in the press/President dynamics of the Reagan years to now. The difference is that Reagan didn’t completely screw up the invasion of Grenada (although the lack of planning in that is very much like the lack of planning for Iraq).
Thanks, Wigam. Listening to Ray McGovern now.
TheOtherWA @ 34
Great stuff!!
one of the (many) reasons for being a TiredFed these days:
Froomkin above:
“You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
– Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.”
While this is unquestionably true of the Bush Admin (including the many appointees), imagine how we feel inside the government about the legacy of mistrust these folks will leave us? We have worked long and hard, only to have them throw it all away. Part of their plan to strangle it in the tub, I guess.
I remain hopeful. When Al Gore is inaugurated, I will have to come up with a new handle. I shore wont be Tired no more.
What a fabulous Froomkin piece.
How refreshing to see that someone gets it. Really gets it. Can we clone him?
Hugh @ 31
It was a fundamental aim of the Founders that [1] the private lives of individual citizens were to be left private absent compelling independent objective showing of exigent necessity for the breach thereof by the state (e.g., principally as set forth in the 4th Amendment and its antecendent deliberative documentation) and [2] that the official activities of those elected and appointed to serve the public were to remain public absent compelling independent objective showing of exigent necessity for them to be kept secret. The principal accomplishment of the Bush 43 administration will have been the utter and total inversion/perversion of these central constitutional aims.
_
mandrake @ 27
Thank you. That’s what I needed.
Molly on Hillary, a year ago:
http://www.alternet.org/story/31109/
… and I swear I didn’t see the other cite of this before I posted. Oh well… always worth reading Molly twice.
Susan in Iowa @
8
I’d like to ask KO if it’s possible to have a regular segment or feature where he takes calls from viewers for his guests.
TiredFed @ 36
People like you are like our troops, fighting for America and us regular folks, with no support and active hindrance.
I’m pretty discouraged today, but probably not as much as you and you’re still hangin’ in. Maybe if we just keep throwin’ mud, some of it will stick. And we’ll also have this mountain of mud that we can just walk up and punch ‘em in teh nose. As TRex said the other night, this is the plan.
Late last night a man named Mr Gravel, I think a former Senator from WA (showing my 42 yrs of age here) was speaking as a presidential candidate to the meeting this weekend of Democrats on cspan. He had a lot of excellent points with a strong voice. I hope we Americans are able to hear more of his message throughout the primary season.
Redshift @ 30
BADDA-BING!
I will NOT support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. Ever.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 44
I’m with you. She’s not that far off from being a Bush clone, IMO.
How Bill can support her in the race is beyond me.
HotFlash @ 28
The subject matter of such a book would be WAY too close to the truth about what really happened.
I have an ax to grind. Gore for prez in ‘08.
latts @ 40
;0)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 48
I have an ox to Gore. Al/Feingold for pres in 08
rumi @ 50
How sweet it is. ;0)
Oklahoma kiddo @
39
Molly Lives ………… beautiful.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
How to make it happen?
We (most of us lined up behind Lamont). We need now, to perhaps think about ‘08?
Eureka Springs, AR @
43
Mike Gravel is brilliant. OTOH, he’s a nutcase….
BTW, ex-Senator from Alaska, defeated in 1980 by Frank Murkowski.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
It doesn’t matter if they want to run or not.
btw, the Froomkin article is excellent so can we please stop calling people that think this way, me for one, conspiracy theorists and tinfoilers
Eureka Springs, AR @ 43
That would be Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska. Mike Gravel had the distinction, IIRC, of being the only other Senator (along with Wayne Morse of Oregon, whose career was destroyed because of it) to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Gravel’s got some ideas grounded in common sense, and a number of others which aren’t, at all. But, he’s not a serious contender. He’s in no position to influence the main front-runners.
Rat @ 46
Bill is a political animal and so is she. He is going to support her for that reason. He wants to see her be President. They are doing what they do best and the only thing, I think, that really has any meaning in their lives except perhaps Chelsea.
Much as I don’t care for Hillary, they are infinitely more fascinating than the privileged Bush clan who have not had to be creative in order to survive and thrive. People say all the time they don’t want a dynasty, but Bill was certainly born of humble means and while Hill came from much better circumstances, they both made it pretty much by their own smarts as opposed to relying on who their Daddy was, which is what I call a true dynasty when you consider how much the Bush boys have reaped just from being who they are.
I have been so disappointed in Hill for so long. And yet, if by some miracle she becomes the nominee (I don’t believe it will happen), will I feel forced to vote for her like I did for Kerry? Of course, I like to tell myself now that, oh I’m so damned mad, I’d rather vote for Pee Wee Herman, but I will probably cave out of sheer guilt and sense of obligation.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 48
Grind it baby, grind it!
;)
mandrake at 27-thanks for the molly link
The issue of global warming is um, heating up. I think it is going to get more and more play as the months before teh election decrease.
With all of the current/mounting attention on Gore, the movement to draft him will become powerful. I believe he will become teh man for our time.
Meanwhile, back at the gaggle, see Froomkin, above. Yes, if by air. But Not in my name. Go get ‘em dogs.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think I prefer the new, beefier Gore. I like my men to have a little something to hold onto. ;)
dmac @ 60
We have so much talent and good people in the Democratic party.
I dunno. They seem like genuinely nice guys. Think a major guilt trip would work on them?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 54
Well, Howies is starting up, I kicked in for Charlie Brown yesterday and I’ll contribute more when he decides he’s going to run.
We have some possible candidates in MI who didn’t make it last time but may be running again. I am seeing R’s outflanking Dems *on the left* wrt the war (gives me the willies) and even what I consider core issues such as a woman’s choice.
Here’s a question for anybody. What questions would you ask a prospective candidate and what answers would they have to give for you to support them?
mandrake @ 62
On the other hand, given all that our candidate would be up against, it might be better if he looked (as well as sounded) like a lean, mean fighting machine.
rumi @ 50
The thought of having those two at the helm, well it just leaves me all a-tingle.
Feingold makes me feel like a silly groupie. There’s just something ’bout that combination of smarts and conviction that is just soooo stimulating. Rowrr.
mandrake @ 58
Draft PeeWee?
rumi @ 65
If somehow I could tempt Feingold with my feminine wiles. Hmmmmm, doubt it would work but wouldn’t hurt to try. Just doing it for my country, ya’ know.
;)
rumi @ 65
Practically speaking, they will have to demonstrate they can win, ie bucks and polls, plus that secret ingredient, being the ‘right sort.’ So, do we send money? Or just buy his movie? I do not trust the Dem nomination machine, it does not work transparently.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 45
You and me both. I am disgusted by the way the MSM keep trying to cram her down our throats. They are positively salivating at the prospect of Clinton Part Deux.
Well admittedly, I am a sucker for brilliant “librul” nutcases. As montag mentioned and I agree he wont be a serious contender but his voice in the primary season could prove very helpful when explaining to those who have not been listening why exactly we need to get out of this war as we know it.
Thanks to both of you for background info.
Since it is unlikely Gore or Feingold will be on a ballot I would cast my vote for Kucinich if the primary elections were held this week. And I don’t think he is a nutcase.
montag #33,
I agree. Ford was an empty suit but everyone knew it at the time, and it wasn’t like he was ever elected. Reagan was another empty suit and rode into office on the anti-Carter vote. But the reaction of the media was completely different, they bought into his hastily manufactured “mandate” and hailed him as the Great Communicator (since he could and did read pretty much anything that was put in front of him). His policies of tax cuts and increased military spending quadrupled the national debt and was portrayed by the press as something of a miracle (which it would have been if it had, in fact, worked). Carter got about a dozen people killed in his failed rescue attempt of the Americans held by the Iranians. Reagan got nearly 20 times as many killed in Lebanon. Carter was repudiated; Reagan was lauded for his pragmatism. Then there was Iran-Contra and the poisonous argument that because the Nixon “impeachment” had been so hard on the country no similar action against Reagan could be seriously entertained (a line which the media again swallowed whole). Another line that they uncritically accepted was that Reagan won the Cold War even though its end was the culmination of 40 years of American foreign policy. Bottomline with Reagan: the media magnified his triumphs even when they didn’t exist and consistently overlooked his failures, even to the point of ignoring the growing signs of his worsening dementia.
In many ways, Bush is the heir of Reagan, an empty suit whose many failures the press and the Congress facilitated and still can’t face up to or stop. Conservatives love to blame Clinton (someone unlike Reagan and Bush they do think was worthy of impeachment) but if Clinton had been guilty of 1/50th of what Bush has done, he would have been ridden out of office on a rail. That Bush continues to be deferred to despite his low approval ratings, the failure of his policies, the illegality of his power grabs, and the corruption that surrounds him tells me that our system is broken. In a mature political system with a responsible press, people like Bush shouldn’t be possible. That he is there and that he was proceeded by the likes of Reagan indicate that this was not a one off or an aberration but that there is something in the system which favors the fictitious and the empty.
But seriously, Feingold has said he won’t run and I believe he was serious and sincere.
HotFlash @ 66
I don’t really see the war as a left/right issue, except in the sense that support for it is built around an authoritarian core (questioning Dear Leader is treason!) Republicans who come out against the war are trying to separate themselves from the cement shoes that the Bush Administration will be by ‘08, not moving left.
Well, we know it’s a tremendous sacrifice to make but I know we’d all appreciate it. It might have aggravate your tingles a tad but it’s better to focus that energy.
;)
mandrake @ 75
I find it a reflection on those who are running that so many are, frankly, hoping against hope that individuals who have declared themselves as not running will change their minds….
montag @
57
He also just turned 78. His two main claims to fame are 1) reading the entire Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, during which reading he broke into tears a record number of times, and 2) almost winning the 1972 Dem VP nomination. McGovern organized support behind Thomas Eagleton because he regarded Gravel as less stable than Eagleton. LOL, but perhaps true.
I met or interviewed Gravel several times while he was senator. But my most vivid memory of him was another crying episode. I was at the Juneau airport, in May, 1978, on my way back home near Anchorage from taking a course at the Alaska Police Academy in Sitka. Gravel was yelling at the Alaska Airlines counter people about something. I eventually figured out that he had a very large Fred Machetanz painting he was taking back to Anchorage and refused to either part with it or pay for an extra first class seat.
He eventually went from pouty to petulant to outright tears, before he parted with the frigging thing and we got into the air 40 minutes late.
He was famous locally for seriously suggesting putting a dome over Mt. McKinley as a spur to tourism……
He also had some good ideas, and predicted aspects of climate change and global warming fairly accurately. He was a leading advocate for the U.N. Law of the Sea concept, and an ardent advocate of detente. I don’t believe he was detroyed because of his correct position on Tonkin. He went down in a strange primary – local stuff, and the victor lost to Murkowski in the general.
mandrake @ 58
I have no wish for Hillary to be president, but I wonder where all this “no dynasty” talk was in 2000? If Hillary is elected, it will not be a dynasty because Chelsea doesn’t appear to have political ambitions, whereas the country is crawling with Bush relatives who are no less qualified than W (as if anyone could be.) It just seems like this meme is a way of taking appropriate antipathy toward the Bush family and turning it into an anti-Clinton argument.
Redshift @ 76
Just what’s taking them so long. Jeez, John Warner is being like this genteel southern gentlemen dancing slowly and delicately around this bully of a president as if he is were a tender Camellia bud, easily crushed and bruised by the slightest criticism. This is getting very tiresome. GROW SOME WARNER! And fast. Yeesh.
montag @ 78
Yes, it’s desperation that we dream. Hoping something better comes around later in the game.
HotFlash @ 71
Yeah, this is mostly fun conversation but there is another wildcard in the works. I haven’t gotten familiar with the details but the changing of primary election dates will somehow be a factor overall, I think, in who does get the nomination.
Maybe we can push some issues as Froomkin has suggested by getting more questioning/discussion of everything in the system.
I was reading a book last night, fiction, that had an interesting premise. In order to go to war, the commander in chief had to be the first to die.
I wonder if our leaders believed in the necessity of war enough to make that commitment.
HotFlash @ 66
Who who who??? Please tell me Nancy Skinner will run again in MI-09.
Mandrake – Senator Warner was on CNN yesterday afternoon pleading to European countries to join with ships our armada in the Persian Gulf.
A simple clear direct appeal.
Scared the bejeasus out of this pup.
Redshift @ 80
Yes, there is no comparison. The Bush family is a dynasty. Bill and Hill are a powerful political couple, one having been president, the other with presidential ambitions. Indeed, it is a fascinating anomaly, but it’s something altogether different than the Bush clan. I guess the similarity would lie in the amount of power the Clintons have amassed amongst themselves and how much influence Bill can have on Hill’s campaign. In that respect, I can see the comparison, because both have powerful people behind them. But the Bushes have the Saudis which I think trumps just about everybody else.
It boggles my mind that people actually put faith and trust in W.
My fantasy scenario is that Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize, announces he’s running, and wins in a landslide by pledging to lead the world in the fight against global warming.
Short of that, I can’t see how any of the present candidates can restore America’s standing to it citizens or the world.
rumi @ 77
I do not know how much Russ would appreciate it but it would certainly be gratifying for me to serve my country in such a noble fashion.
:p
Eureka Springs, AR @ 86
That’s just great. Why am I not surprised?
OT: An hour-long interview with Chalmers Johnson is now coming in the next few minutes, streamed live from KPFK.org.
EPUed again. Damnit, when I finish writing a post and the next thread has 80 posts in it, I need to stop mulitasking.
About Vilsack’s TDS appearance: I must not have been watching closely enough to hear him say that he thinks the Iraqis are not grateful enough for what we’ve done to, ahem, FOR them. I’m repulsed by that argument, which I’ve heard from many-a-neocon, including The Unilateral Decider and his sidekick, DeadEye Cheney. Whenever I discuss the Iraqi quagmire with people who claim the Iraqis who are fighting us are all “terrorists”, I give them this theoretical scenario:
Imagine your modest country was invaded by one of the most powerful militaries in the world. They quickly overthrow your goverment, dismantle the military and fire or arrest the police. Rather than focusing on protecting the people, the occupiers instead let the cities and villages fall into anarchy, focusing their attention on taking control of your country’s riches. Would you just sit back and watch? Wouldn’t you be somewhat upset and concerned for your safety and future?
The occupiers arrest and detain thousands of people, putting some in local prisons to suffer torture and humiliation. Some of your neighbors disappear, and you find out they’ve been sent halfway across the world. Many disappear without a trace. The occupiers label anyone they decide to detain or arrest as “terrorists”. Neighbors start to tell stories about other neighbors, just to get in the good graces of the occupiers, therefore endangering the safety of others simply protecting themselves and their own families. Wouldn’t you get a gun and try to protect yourself and your family? Wouldn’t you feel somewhat compelled to try and fight for your freedom, to fight for your country, to fight for your survival?
Personally, I have no idea what I would do. It is such an incredible scenario, I can’t imagine it happening to me, in my country, in my city.
I can imagine, however, that if these things happened to me, I would not be “grateful” to the occupiers. I imagine that I, and all of the people I know, would be terrified of them. We would not feel free to express my anger and my fears, because we wouldn’t be in a democracy, would we? A foreign force who puts our country’s riches above the people’s safety would be a nightmare. That, my friends, is what we’ve brought to Iraq.
How dare anyone say the Iraqis should be grateful.
Millineryman @ 88
I know how you feel, but I try reeeally hard to put it into perspective. I just concentrate real hard for a minute or two on what we have now. After that, pretty much anything looks like an improvement. I just scraped some stuff out of my cat boxes that could do more to restore our international reputation and foster world peace than what we currently have.
Redshift @ 76
My point. Many voters aren’t about left/right, they are against the war. The Dems who *should* have been against the war are, well, Hillary anyone? And in MI-10 the R congresscritter has a big ‘not sure about this war‘ on her website, despite how she has voted every time. Rumor has it she’s aiming for Carl Levin’s seat in 2008. She’s got a good chance, she was elected Sec of State with the highest number of votes ever in any MI state-wide election. The other MI senator, Stabenow, voted for torture MCA 2006, and quite unnecessarily, I might add.
Anti-war folks who voted Dem are going to be pissed enough to vote for (the new) Anti-war Candice. She’s also ‘not sure’ about Bush’s CAFE stds, what with uenemployed auto workers being a big part of her demographic. Not a word about how hybrids from Japan are the big sellers, but hey, if you have to get a little real to win an election, that’s just the price you pay. It’s only words. BTW, ‘Michigan voter’ and ‘low information voter’ are nearly synonymous, at least in the part I come from. Which is Candice’s part.
If Dems do not claim the anti-war stance loud and proud the R’s will grab it. Remember, “No one wants … “?
mandrake @ 93
Face The Snark upstairs, fyi.
LandOfTheFree @ 92
I don’t mean to misrepresent what Vilsack said because I don’t believe he said exactly that they were ungrateful, but the attitude was one of impatience, acting as if it is their fault that things have not progressed as we had liked and it’s time to cut the cord, that type of talk, which turns me off. The scenario you outlined above is one which I really would like to see at least one candidate take into account when he/she opens his mouth about Iraq.
Hugh @ 74
Uh, huh. As I’ve said often enough to be boring about it, this is our generation’s Roarin’ Twenties, and anyone who’s happy to continue the sleigh ride gets a pass. Both Reagan and the two Bushes wanted to make things as good as possible for this generation’s Vanderbilts and Mellons and Rockefellers….
That phenomenon of empty suits fronting for the real wheelers and dealers has happened before–particularly in the time of Harding and Coolidge (Hoover was an anomaly, a smart man who was sufficiently inflexible, ideologically, that it made him do a whole host of stupid things–I think of Hoover as an idiot savant–savvy about mining engineering and hopeless stupid about much else). McKinley was another wonderful example of the phenomenon.
Television, I think, gives a patina of sophistication and intellectualism to ideas which are still rather crude and unsophisticated and more resemble the tactics of organized crime than anything else. The inhabitants of the first Roarin’ Twenties were spared that gloss, and perhaps, when circumstances dictated it, saw it for what it was.
LandOfTheFree @ 85
Denison in Mi-10, I hope. Candice Miller (R, MI-10) may be running for Carl Levin’s seat. He’s retiring, so it is said.
Maybe Jim Marcinkowski in MI-08, no idea abt Nancy Skinner. Isn’t she connected with the Illitch’s? God, we need publicly financed elections!
mandrake @ 81
I actually think Warner may be wise. He struck a compromise that he can convince a lot of Republicans to agree with.
The compromise between Levin and Warner apparently went like this (per news reports… they’re cleverly leaving the details of the resoultion under wraps until debate in the Senate tomorrow):
- Levin gives up the language saying that an increase in troops i.e. escalation is “not in the best interest of our nation”,
- Warner gives up the language that an increase in troops is okay if situation on the ground warrants it.
Seems to me that Warner and the Republicans gave up a lot more in this compromise.
While it pisses me off that the resolution is non-binding and rather symbolic in nature, if Warner and Levin can get 70 Senators to agree to it (and word on the street is that it is possible), it sends a very clear message to Bush and to the people: We got your bi-partisan spirit right here, Mr. President. A vast majority of Congress is not going to support the McCain escalation plan, and in fact will cast a vote on record to oppose your war management strategy.
First, Republicans go on record to say this, further isolating the President from the mainstream members of his party. Then, perhaps, when the Senators get overwhelming support from their constituents, they have more reason to stand in the way of endless war appropriations, and therefore head toward ending the war.
I wish we could get 51 (or 70) Senators to support Feingold’s resolution, but we won’t. Not now. More of them would support McCain’s, and we can’t afford that. But, this compromise strikes an interesting dilemma for Republicans.
Signing the Warner/Levin resolution is incongruous with voting for McCain’s plan. They are really mutually exclusive. However, voting for the Warner/Levin resolution does not, however, ideologically exclude someone from supporting Feingold’s proposal.
As someone once said, “you’re with us or you’re against us.” The vast majority of the American people are with us. They don’t want escalation, they want the war to end. This legislation forces more Republican Senators to go on record – are THEY with us, or are THEY with the President?
Re: Dynasty
It’s not the family members so much as the family members.
With the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld plus a whole cast of similar characters, and even among the Clinton Democrats, we’ve already endured dynasties for decades. Hopefully a new generation, unburdened by the Great Games of the Cold War era, will have the vision needed to set the planet on a path of better enlightenment for all. The pursuit of peace and happiness is something all cultures have in common.
It’s the kind of thinking, the Audacity Of Hope, that ~maybe~ Barack Obama can bring – if he can survive the system.
Here’s hoping anyway :)
Hi Christy- Very intersting stuff!
Re Motag and Hugh @ 74: So many people miss the point about what Iran-contra was really all about. Particualily the press! Yes, Carter was lambasted for trying to save the hostages before the election. But no one really talks about the fact that the whole deal with Kohmeni(sp?) was to keep the American Diplomates hostage until after the election so that Regan et al could win!! It was gross manipulation of world events for domestic political gain and we, the press and regular folks like, forget how often the GOP do this. It was Treason then and what is happening now is Treason too. And it really burns my britches!
Ed*ard Teller @ 79
LandOfTheFree @ 100
I actually think Warner may be wise. He struck a compromise that he can convince a lot of Republicans to agree with.
The compromise between Levin and Warner apparently went like this (per news reports… they’re cleverly leaving the details of the resoultion under wraps until debate in the Senate tomorrow):
- Levin gives up the language saying that an increase in troops i.e. escalation is “not in the best interest of our nation”,
- Warner gives up the language that an increase in troops is okay if situation on the ground warrants it.
Seems to me that Warner and the Republicans gave up a lot more in this compromise.
While it pisses me off that the resolution is non-binding and rather symbolic in nature, if Warner and Levin can get 70 Senators to agree to it (and word on the street is that it is possible), it sends a very clear message to Bush and to the people: We got your bi-partisan spirit right here, Mr. President. A vast majority of Congress is not going to support the McCain escalation plan, and in fact will cast a vote on record to oppose your war management strategy.
First, Republicans go on record to say this, further isolating the President from the mainstream members of his party. Then, perhaps, when the Senators get overwhelming support from their constituents, they have more reason to stand in the way of endless war appropriations, and therefore head toward ending the war.
I wish we could get 51 (or 70) Senators to support Feingold’s resolution, but we won’t. Not now. More of them would support McCain’s, and we can’t afford that. But, this compromise strikes an interesting dilemma for Republicans.
Signing the Warner/Levin resolution is incongruous with voting for McCain’s plan. They are really mutually exclusive. However, voting for the Warner/Levin resolution does not, however, ideologically exclude someone from supporting Feingold’s proposal.
As someone once said, “you’re with us or you’re against us.” The vast majority of the American people are with us. They don’t want escalation, they want the war to end. This legislation forces more Republican Senators to go on record – are THEY with us, or are THEY with the President?
You’re right, they are being cautious. I’m just griping cuz it feels good.
From the “don’t believe anything they say” Dept., before the war, Pentagon officials predicted they hoped they would be “able to withdraw U.S. troops in as little as 30 to 90 days after Saddam‘s ouster”.
http://courier-journal.gannett…..7660.shtml
Sorry Montag – spelled your name wrong!!!
Mea Culpa!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
My bumpersticker for the past year
Motag @ 33…
I can’t figure out what the hell they’re teaching in J-schools these days; or what managing editors are doing to earn their paychecks, for that matter. Froomkin’s cautions are Journalism 101. In fact, they’re high school journalism. How can such incompetents be hired for major, high-profile beats by national news outlets? They’d be fired from a local weekly if they tried that crap.
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
I would have added this bullet to Froomkin’s list: When you ask an administration official why he thinks some plan will work, don’t accept the answer, “It has to work.”
We hear this all the time, and it’s a dodge, nothing more than wishful thinking. I could give the same answer to why I think I’ll win the lottery tomorrow, and it should give us just as much confidence.