Of Course He Should Accept
by tristero
And of course he wont. After all, the college’s not in Tehran but in Mashad. You wouldn’t expect Ahmanidejad travel some 6 thousand miles or so merely to accept an invitation to, say, Grinnell College, would you?
So the White House should send Cheney.
GOP Freakshow
by digby
Via Kevin Drum, here’s John Fund:
Mr. Giuliani’s deputy press secretary Jason Miller told me the NRA incident was definitely not a stunt. Instead it was a “candid and spontaneous moment” that would humanize the tough-guy former mayor with voters.
Nice try….The fact is that people inside the Giuliani campaign are appalled at the number of times their candidate has felt compelled to interrupt public appearances to take calls from his wife. The estimate from those in a position to know is that he has taken such calls more than 40 times in the middle of speeches, conferences and presentations to large donors.
….[Giuliani] admitted he had taken calls from his wife “before in engagements, and I didn’t realize it would create any kind of controversy.” That’s hardly possible. Giuliani staffers say he has been warned over and over again that the phone calls are rude and inappropriate and have alienated everyone from local officials to top donors to close friends.If it’s a stunt, it’s not one coming from him,” says one Giuliani staffer. “It’s an ongoing problem that he won’t take advice on.”
And in trying to explain his odd behavior, Mr. Giuliani has only dug himself in deeper. On Friday he told David Brody of CBN News that since 9/11, when he and Mrs. Giuliani get on a plane, “most of the time . . . we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other.” He admitted he had taken calls from his wife “before in engagements, and I didn’t realize it would create any kind of controversy.” That’s hardly possible. Giuliani staffers say he has been warned over and over again that the phone calls are rude and inappropriate and have alienated everyone from local officials to top donors to close friends.
Consider a spring incident in Oklahoma City. Mr. Giuliani spoke twice at the Oklahoma History Center, first at a small private roundtable for $2,300 donors and then to 150 people who donated $500 apiece. Ten minutes into the roundtable, Mr. Giuliani’s phone rang. He left the room to take the call, apparently from Mrs. Giuliani, and never returned. The snubbed donors received no explanation. “The people there viewed it as disrespectful and cheesy,” says Pat McGuigan, a local newspaper editor who was asked by the Giuliani campaign to moderate the roundtable.
An hour or so later, Mr. Giuliani was speaking to the bigger group of donors when his phone rang again. While he spoke with his wife, he invited her to say hello to the assembled crowd. “It was remarkable, and was not viewed by the audience in a positive way,” public relations executive Brenda Jones told me.
I’ve been told of many other incidents, from a California fund-raiser to a Florida speech to a gathering with top donors at Bear Stearns in New York. At the Bear Stearns meeting, Mr. Giuliani took a call from his wife and then noting the strained faces of his supporters, he sheepishly tried a joke. “I’ve been married three times,” he explained. “I can’t afford to lose another one. I’m sure you understand.” (Mr. Giuliani’s media office didn’t return a call I made to them on Friday afternoon.)
Mr. Giuliani understands that such behavior is rude–when other people do it. A year ago Hanna Rosin reported in The Atlantic Monthly on a speech Mr. Giuliani gave at a motivational seminar in Iowa before he became a candidate:
Giuliani was up to principle No. 2 (“Follow your hopes and dreams”) when he was interrupted. From down in the audience, just beyond the stage, he heard a cell phone ring. He stopped in the middle of telling a story. “It’s okay, you can answer your cell phone,” he said. “You won’t interrupt me.” The woman whose phone had rung was mortified; he had just embarrassed her in front of 18,000 people. In the “town hall” meetings he used to conduct as mayor of New York, through a radio show, Giuliani was not known for his good-natured populism. He was known for making fun of constituents who called him with what he thought were petty problems. This is the dark Giuliani, and here he was, making an unwelcome appearance.
He shifted to a long digression about the scene in “Dr. Strangelove” where General Buck Turgidson answers a call in the middle of a crisis and whispers sweet nothings to his girl on the phone, as the nation’s political and military leadership looks on impatiently. “Just tell him you love him so I can go on with my speech,” Giuliani said. No one was laughing. Giuliani actually waited for the woman to hang up. Then, after a painful minute or so, he was back in candidate mode, talking about Vince Lombardi and the mind of a champion.
Kevin posits a series of possible reasons why Giuliani might do this, none of which excuse his bizarre behavior.(And I suspect they are all true to some degree, especially #3 — and yes, he should be on medication.)
The Republicans just foisted the village idiot on this country for eight years and now they are trying to elect a crazy man. Somebody needs to do an intervention on the whole party.
.
Ineffectual Politics For Dummies
by digby
The Democrats will drop this, I assume, after making a half-assed stab at it today, because they have no pride and no dignity. But it is an awe-inspiring display of Republican arrogance nonetheless:
During the first hour of the October 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to a Media Matters for America item documenting his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as “phony soldiers,” Rush Limbaugh said: “I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America.” Limbaugh continued: “They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them.” Limbaugh later asserted: “The bottom line to all this is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.” But Limbaugh has misrepresented his “phony soldiers” comments; indeed, listeners to Armed Forces Network (AFN), which broadcasts only the first hour of The Rush Limbaugh Show, heard only a spliced version of Limbaugh’s remarks in which he edited out 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion, while falsely claiming that he was providing the “entire transcript.”
[…]
LIMBAUGH: I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America. They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them. As all of you military personnel know, I — since the beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago — have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform — including those who disagree with the mission.
[…]
The bottom line to all this is is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.
A Hillary Clinton front group, they will continue to be used as an accredited source by the drive-by media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say. They will continue to be a source, because this is the ’08 playbook that we saw break down last week — and the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me. I don’t know. The House doesn’t go into session ’til two o’clock. We’ll have to wait and see. Don’t know if they will do that or not.
If they do, it’s just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military ’cause they know they have to because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they’re not pro-military, from [Rep.] Jack Murtha [D-PA] to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] claiming defeat, [Sen.] John Kerry’s [D-MA] lifetime of criticism of the soldiers. So they’re going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose “Betray Us” ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as will this be. [One of their most triumphant phony hissy fits ever — d]
But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers; since you’ll never get an apology from John Kerry; since you won’t get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody who works there — to all of you in the U.S. Military — I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won’t.
Awesome.
I’m tired of defending Democrats against this stuff. They seem to like looking like total assholes and having the public — and especially the military — see them as pathetic Charlie Browns who can’t even defend themselves against a drug-addled gasbag.
They should have removed Rush Limbaugh from the taxpayer supported Armed Forces Radio before, but most especially this week when they had the chance to teach the Republicans a lesson about the perils of fucking with free speech. Taking out their flagship scumbag (something that should have been done long ago) would have been a hard shot, right in the nose, and would have put them in their place. Instead, the Dems chose to beg for their Republican friends to sign a letter asking Rush’s boss to make him apologize for being mean. And what they get in return is this slander beamed directly to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on our dime. Wow.
I’ll repeat what I wrote last week: this election apparently boils down to whether the nation can overcome its inherent revulsion for ineffectual chickenshits to vote once again for a corrupt, failed political movement that’s past its prime. I’m assuming they’re tired enough of Republican failure to vote the other way by simple default. But they are getting no inspiration and there will be no mandate, so don’t get your hopes up. The Republicans will continue to rule the country from the minority.
.
Escalation Special
by digby
Yglesias noted the prevailing CW in Washington that the military is opposed to an Iran campaign (which I thought was true as well, until Seymour Hersh reported the new rationale for bombing yesterday.) He points out that this view may still be true among the Army, but that the Air Force would love to get a piece of this medal-making action:
[I]t’s important to avoid overstating the degree of military opposition to a bomb Iran policy. As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn’t be carrying the mission out anyway. It’d be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won’t compound the error of Iraq; rather, it’ll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.
Exactly. But I think when they were talking about only taking out the nuclear facilities there was far less excitement among the flyboys. After all, it would be a one-off. This bombing of “terrorist” sites has a far higher likelihood of being an extended operation:
A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.”
After what we’ve seen in the last few years, I don’t think we can count on the intelligence being “good”, do you? That’s one of our biggest problems going forward. The US has zero credibility after all the stove-piping and phony UN pageantry:
There is, he added, “a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high.
”
And an additional problem:
Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.
The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.
That makes sense and it points out the huge dangers involved in escalating this war to Iran. Nobody trusts anybody. And everyone thinks Cheney is nuts. That’s how catastrophic errors in judgment are made.
And in case anyone thinks the congress will ratchet this down read this. It’s truly heartwarming to hear all these right wingers express their support for labor and human rights. In Iran. I’m sure we’ll see more heartfelt bi-partisan measures to build the humanitarian case for bombing.
.
Dissociation
by tristero
It’s a weird experience reading Hersh’s article on the plans for war in Iran. They couldn’t sell the idea of the nuclear threat. So now they’re gonna sell the war with a different reason. The mind boggles.
Let’s go over that again. One excuse doesn’t work, so they come up with another. And if that one doesn’t fly, you can bet your bippy they’ll find a third. The important thing is: sell the war.
Got it? That means there is no real reason to go to war with Iran. If there was, they wouldn’t be switching reasons when they don’t poll well. Bush and Cheney just want to do it. That’s all. They just want to.
I can’t believe this is happening. And I have no idea how this can be stopped. This is sheer madness, not only on Bush’s part. A press that isn’t howling loudly about this, a political class that isn’t speaking up as one to prevent this, and finally, a public that can’t be troubled to protest warmaking on a whim – the country is as insane as it was in the fall of ’02.
And that is really fucking scary.
Hissy Jiujitsu
by digby
Harry Reid speaks on the Senate floor:
If we take the Republican side at their word that last week’s vote on another controversial statement related to the war was truly about patriotism, not politics, then I have no doubt that they will stand with us against Limbaugh’s comments with equal fervor.
I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers. Anything less would betray a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate.
He’s asking senators to sign a letter of complaint to Rush’s employers. I’m sure we’ll see Republicans rushing to sign on. Meanwhile, as Jane Hamsher points out, they fail to do the one thing the Senate could appropriately do to Rush Limbaugh, which is remove him from Armed Forces Radio, since he has repeatedly insulted the…Armed Forces.
Here’s how the House Republicans are responding:
House GOP Sponsor Resolution to Commend Limbaugh
110TH CONGRESS
1st SESSION
H. RES. —Commending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad. Thanking Mr. Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 1, 2007
Mr. KINGSTON submitted the following resolution
RESOLUTION
Commending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad. Recognizing Mr. Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.
Whereas the need to show support for American troops serving and fighting both here and abroad during a time of global conflict has never been greater, with the need to communicate an uplifting message of encouragement to American soldiers eternally important, in addition to the morale-boosting value of personal visits to region by highly-regarded individuals;
Whereas daily radio broadcasts reaching tens of millions of civilians and soldiers both in America and abroad by way of the Armed Forces Radio Network are conducted five days a week by Rush Hudson Limbaugh III;
Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world;
Whereas Mr. Limbaugh made a week-long visit to meet with troops based in Afghanistan in 2004;
Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has raised and donated millions of dollars to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides college scholarships to the children of Marines and veterans of other branches killed in action;
Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s website features an “Adopt a Soldier” program which provides them with free subscription access to his online program features;
Whereas during the original invasion in 2003, pilots of five different aircraft flew an American flag in Mr. Limbaugh’s honor during their bombing and refueling runs; and
Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s commitment to American troops serving both here and abroad remains as strong as ever: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) recognizes Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his support of the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation and for providing free subscriptions for active-duty servicemembers;
(2) recognizes Mr Limbaugh’s desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever soldiers are stationed; and
(3) commends Mr. Limbaugh’s tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support.
I wonder how many Democrats will sign on?
Meanwhile, as Greenwald pointed out yesterday, FoxNews contributors are writing, “our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them,” and “our generals are betraying our soldiers . . . again,” and nobody says a word. Odd, don’t you think, considering that the media couldn’t talk about anything else just last week?
The media, of course, will say that they were only reporting on it because the republicans made a big deal out of it and the Democrats aren’t doing the same. But what they aren’t telling anyone is that the Republicans made a big deal out of it by calling them up and mau-mauing them with threats and intimidation if they didn’t flog the story. We know how that works, we have testimony about it: Scooter or Karl or Ed or whomever else is in charge of hissy kabuki this week calls up Chris Matthews or Wolf or their bosses and demands they cover the story — or else. And they do it. That’s how the game is played.
I haven’t seen a thing on the cable gasbags shows today on this Rush thing. Maybe Olberman will cover it. Matthews is too busy obsessing about the boob-flashing, nagging wife, Hillary’s irritating “cackle.”
.
Shattered Glass Houses
by digby
MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing.
Another compelling moral argument brought to you by the people who run Guantanamo.
H/T to PS
.
Hurtling Forward Into The Past
by digby
The Vietnam Iraq analogies abound these days and for good reason. It would seem that many of those who failed to fight in the war of their youths, (and who grew up with the images of bravery and sacrifice of WWII) have spent their lives looking for a chance to have other young men prove their warrior bonafides for them once again — this time taking some sort of ghastly credit for it. President Bush has said he regrets not being over there with them:
Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he’d like to be there but “One, I’m too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.”
(As Dan Froomkin pointed out, Bush is the Commander in Chief but he’s only spent 15 hours in country. But hey, he wouldn’t want them to “notice him.”)
And now after the failed propping up of governments, the escalation, the changing strategies, it appears we are looking at the “bombing of Cambodia” chapter, the consequences of which are likely to be as catastrophic as the original, if in different ways. Despite the jarring and somewhat desperate right wing “revisions” of the era, that decision was decisive in the awful events that followed:
In March 1970, while Sihanouk was traveling abroad, he was deposed by a pro-American general, Lon Nol. The Nixon Administration, which viewed Sihanouk as an untrustworthy partner in the fight against communism, increased military support to the new regime.
[…]
Meanwhile, with assistance from North Vietnam and China, the guerrillas of the Khmer Rouge had grown into a formidable force. By 1974, they were beating the government on the battlefield and preparing for a final assault on Phnom Penh. And they had gained an unlikely new ally: Norodom Sihanouk, living in exile, who now hailed them as patriots fighting against an American puppet government.
Sihanouk’s support boosted the Khmer Rouge’s popularity among rural Cambodians. But some observers have argued that the devastating American bombing also helped fuel the Khmer Rouge’s growth. Former New York Times correspondent Sydney Schanberg said the Khmer Rouge “… would point… at the bombs falling from B-52s as something they had to oppose if they were going to have freedom. And it became a recruiting tool until they grew to a fierce, indefatigable guerrilla army.”
We know what happened next. And we know that the single most likely outcome of a bombing campaign against Iranian “terrorists” will be the recruitment of many more terrorists. No matter what, the puerile idea that we will subdue the Iranians with our turgid,swollen “shock ‘n awe” is 100% guaranteed to fail. People simply don’t behave the way these neocons think they do (or say they do anyway.)
Perhaps there could be a scenario when such an outcome would be deemed worth it anyway. But this proposed campaign has nothing to do with national security. It doesn’t even have to do with nipping Iran’s alleged nuclear program in the bud. This is about the neocon slogan, “real men go to Tehran,” George W. Bush’s need to save face long enough to slither out of town and Dick Cheney’s inscrutable desire to blow up the middle east. Bombing Iran to “send a message” will only send one message: the United States is a rogue nation whose people cannot control its leaders.
How much innocent life will be lost as a result is anybody’s guess.
[T]he raids exacted an enormous cost from the Cambodian people: the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs , killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 civilians.
[…]In April 1970, without Lon Nol’s knowledge, American and South Vietnamese forces crossed into Cambodia. There was already widespread domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam; news of the “secret invasion” of Cambodia sparked massive protests across the US, culminating in the deaths of six students shot by National Guardsmen at Kent State University and Jackson State University. Nixon withdrew American troops from Cambodia shortly afterwards. But the US bombing continued until August 1973.
It’s hard to believe that this could happen twice in my lifetime, but it looks as if we’re going to do it. But history never repeats itself exactly and I fear that the ramifications this time are going to be much worse. After all, the people who are running this country right now are not the same people who, for all their faults, John F. Kennedy described as being “tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage–and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.” The leadership during that time were not better people, and in some respects held beliefs that were more antithetical to democracy than what we see today. But they were deeper, more mature, more complex. The leadership who are running the country right now are either committed to a neocon, comic book version of reality or are afraid of their own shadows. They are operating from a completely different perspective.
Vietnam was a disastrous mistake that set this country back on its heels. Iraq/Iran is something of a different scale of error altogether and the consequences of our actions there could be far more dangerous for all of us.
In 1970 people took to the streets in massive numbers when they heard about Cambodia. Richard Nixon got re-elected two years later. The bombing continued until 1973. Nixon resigned in 1974. The Khmer Rouge went on to commit one of the most horrific genocides in history. And that was in a world which I just described as being led by deeper, more mature people than today (which isn’t saying much.)
Considering the recent passage of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and the Democrats’ refusal to draw any clear line in the sand, is there any scenario we can imagine in which this recurring nightmare will have a substantially better ending this time?
.