Josh Marshall pointed out Condi’s rather strained definition of “backround” in the Khan matter. But, she made another whopper that I, at least, haven’t heard anyone mention:
BLITZER:Let’s talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?
RICE: Well, I don’t know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them…
Was she claiming that the mole operation that Kahn was working on, and with which the British were actively involved, was some sort of independent Pakistani op? Her statement suggests that even though we had received Khan’s laptop and all the surveillance information and were screaming “run for your lives” at the top of our lungs, the Pakistanis had secretly turned Khan and had an ongoing operation of which she was unaware.
Sure. That makes sense. On the other hand, considering her job performance thus far, it’s quite possible that she wouldn’t have known “what might have been going on in Pakistan.” Seems her plate is full just drilling Crusader Codpiece on the meaning of the word “sovereignty.” She doesn’t have a lot of time on her hands for details.
People who spent most of their lives in jobs that involve little brain work appear more likely to eventually develop Alzheimer’s disease, according to new study findings released Monday.
I just wanted to share with you another example of the media unquestioningly adopting bitchy, Republican snark to the detriment of…well, everyone.
Here’s Karen Tumulty in Time:
Bush strategists dismiss those gains by Kerry as a postconvention blip and predict they will soon be erased by what voters see of the Democratic Senator now that he is back in the fray. The real Kerry, they snickered, is the one who asserted last week that he could fight “a more sensitive war on terror” — a statement that couldn’t have sounded more dainty if he had uttered it in French.”
Sentient people know that Kerry wasn’t calling for an encounter session with Mullah Omar. But, nonetheless, I’m sure that there are many stupid people who believe that the word sensitive translates into sissy. Waddaya gonna do? I don’t condemn Tumulty for relaying the GOP operative’s quote. It’s real and it is one of their talking points. However, most people do not know that the quote is taken out of context and readers would have benefitted from knowing that. Perhaps an editor trimmed it for space. Fine. Shitty journalism, but no surprise.
Here’s where she really goes in the tank. She follows with her own words “a statement that couln’t have been more dainty if he had uttered it in French.” Those exact words could have been written by Tom DeLay. She has just issued a copyrighted GOP bumper sticker in her own voice.
Although it would come as a hell of a surprise to Napoleon, Voltaire and Balzac, the french language is now synonymous with “dainty” and to be “French” now means coward in Republican circles. The press finds this simply hilarious. But, lets not kid ourselves. The “french” appellation is merely a new word for “faggot” and everybody knows it. And that’s exactly what Karl Rove wants people to think about John Kerry. In fact, they are planning their convention around this theme.
There is no amount of political correctness in the world that can stop bigots from creating insider code words to descibe the untermenschen they collectively loathe. And the modern Republicans have an especially sophomoric approach to this that seems to appeal mightily to the media. Maybe it’s the “band trip” quality of the campaign trail, but the press seems unable to resist adopting the snarky high school level barbs that the republicans are so good at dishing out. It’s all part of the right’s “derisive humor” technique, something that is completely obvious to anyone who is paying attention and which they readily admit to using. (See every Bob Sommerby post on the 2000 election.)
So, Karen Tumulty thinks the “french” thing is just adorable. She probably got a little case of the giggles when she wrote it and that’s just great for her. But, she is peddling GOP propaganda and everytime she and her snotty little cohorts do this they inject the body politic with toxic Republican bigotry.
Atrios has linked to a freeper thread (since pulled) in which the Borg collectively loses its mind and decides to take to the streets over the idea that somebody’s going to call in the UN to monitor elections.
I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. This is no accident. They are merely doing what they are programmed to do. It comes directly from none other than their favorite leprechaun of the un-dead, Newtie himself:
One GOP lawmaker told The Hill that Gingrich encouraged Republicans to pick issues such as school prayer, strengthening work requirements for welfare recipients and barring the United Nations from monitoring U.S. elections, which all polled at higher than an 80 percent rating.
“There’s a consensus developing among activists that new issues are emerging where [the polling] is decidedly with us,” the lawmaker said. “We can show a contrast.”
Gingrich spelled out his views at a meeting last week organized by House GOP Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), the fourth-ranking member of the GOP House leadership.
Lawmakers who attended Wednesday’s session expressed excitement about Gingrich’s policy proposals and political tactics.
Rep. Phil English, a Republican who represents Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge’s old district in northwestern Pennsylvania, said: “It is extremely useful in depicting Kerry’s position on the political spectrum to raise issues like welfare reform where he’s been on the far-left extreme.”
He added, “We have a very good wedge issue. … It’s worth asking why he is part of a rear-guard action blocking the permanency of welfare reform. Is he not out of touch with cultural issues of the rest of the country?”
I hear they are also thinking of creating a fresh, exciting ten point plan on these cultural wedge issues to put through in the first hundred days. They might call it “The Contract With America.” I think it’s a winner.
I’m sure we’ve all read this fascinating little piece on the “side-by-side” military records of prominent Republicans, Democrats and journalists, thanks to Atrios. One part is particularly telling, in a way the writer never intended:
Here is the list of journalists and pundits called “nonpartisan and right of center”:
David Brooks, NY Times columnist
William F. Buckley, National Review
Pat Buchanan, MSNBC commentator
Ann Coulter, writer & commentator
Lou Dobbs, CNN News anchor
Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editor
Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes host
Brit Hume, Fox News anchor
Rush Limbaugh, Radio talk show host
Bill O’Reilly, O’Reilly Factor host
Michael Savage, Radio talk show host
William Safire, NY Times columnist
George Will, Washington Post columnist
Who of these are non-partisan, I wonder? Being generous, I’ll say that Hume and Dobbs work to maintain at least the appearance of objectivity. The rest are all openly partisan and eight of them (out of thirteen) are rabid, red meat Republicans.
If you were to ask informed Republicans if they trusted the straight journalists listed above and if they generally agreed with the others’ views, they would probably say yes. If there would be a problem it would be because a few moderate Republicans might not feel comfortable identifying themselves with the extreme rhetoric of the Limbaughs, Coulters and Savages. In other words, the worst any Republican would say about this list is that many of the people on it are too extreme, not that they are too partisan. And most would say these people fairly represent their views.
Now look at the list of journalists and pundits called nonpartisan and left of center:
Wolf Bilzter, CNN News anchor
Tom Brokaw, NBC News anchor
Alan Colmes, Hannity & Colmes host
Al Franken, Political satirist
Thomas Friedman, NY Times columnist
Jim Lehrer, PBS News Hour anchor
Bill Maher, HBO, political satirist
Chris Matthews, Hardball host
Michael Moore, Political satirist, filmmaker
Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
Tim Russert, Meet the Press host
Jon Stewart, Daily Show host
George Stephanopoulos, ABC This Week host
Out of these only Colmes, Franken, Maher, Moore and Stewart, five out of thirteen, can be called rabid left wing Democrats and that is a serious stretch with all but the ineffectual Colmes and Franken. Of these, only Colmes has made his career as a liberal talking head. These others are free agents who’ve signed on for the season.
Matthews, Russert and Stephanopoulos have past ties to Democrats, but work hard to prove their “objective” credibility, mostly by being harder on Democrats than Republicans. This is the exact opposite of the Republican pundits (like Scarborough and Buchanan) who maintain their partisan ties quite openly. However, being much, much too generous I’ll put them in the category with Brooks, Safire and Will above because we can never convince a Republican that they are non-partisans no matter how many Democrats they run out of town on a rail to prove otherwise.
Friedman is a bi-partisan wonk type who is only on the list because he writes about foreign policy. He could have gone on either list.
But, Blitzer, Brokaw, Lehrer, and Rather are non-partisan journalists of the type completely missing from the “right of center” list above. They do not, by job description, offer their opinions, as both Hume and Dobbs often do on their programs and certainly not in the way Matthews, Russert, Buchanan, Gigot, Will and Buckley do.
Informed Democrats look at this list and see five entertainers who speak the truth, three pundits trying very hard to get Republicans to see them as objective and five buckets of lukewarm spit who are easily played by the right wing. Unlike the Republicans whose only complaint (among a minority of voters) would be that the list is too right wing, the problem for us is that most of the left of center list isn’t left at all.
This list clearly shows the huge deficit we face in the punditocrisy. They have a full employment act for full time partisan screamers, talking heads and screeching pens. We have to depend on Alan Colmes, Jim Lehrer and Wolf Blitzer.
For assholes like the Fox Allstars who claim that Kerry only spent four months in Vietnam and that makes him a pussy, it should be known that while it is true he only spent four months getting shot at and saving lives and winning medals for bravery in swift boats — he had previously done a full tour onboard the USS Gridley stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin. Swift boat duty was his second tour.
Nice work. You are such a dear. You make my job easy.
Love,
Karl
P.S. I’m especially grateful that you didn’t mention that we’re using the “lost years in the Senate” as a major talking point in the campaign. Your article made our coordinated campaign rap on Kerry’s accomplishments sound downright reasonable. And the long part at the end where you framed “Vietnam” and “son of a millworker” as running away from their records instead of positive character shorthand was just perfect.
Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I’m the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you’ve been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?
THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it’s sovereign. You’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.
The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its “orange alert” this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror.
[…]
“The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse,” said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane’s Defense publications. “You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it’s so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?
“It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It’s not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it’s on the front pages every time there’s a development, is it?”
A source such as Khan — cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents — would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.
“Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover.”
Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, said allowing Khan’s name to become public was “very unclever.”
“If it is correct, then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future” if Khan’s identity had been protected, he said.
Britain, which has dealt with Irish bombing campaigns for decades, has a policy of announcing security alerts only under narrow circumstances, when authorities have specific advice they can give the public to take action that will make them safer.
Home Secretary David Blunkett, responsible for Britain’s anti-terrorism policy, said in a statement on Friday there was “a difference between alerting the public to a specific threat and alarming people unnecessarily by passing on information indiscriminately.”
Kevin Rosser, security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said an inherent risk in public alerts is that secret sources will be compromised.
“When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations,” he said.
This alert was such obvious bullshit. Laura Bush going to sit amongst the targets on Monday is really all you need to know. Scaring the hell out of everybody is bad enough. But, now it turns out they blew a chance to infiltrate an actual al Qaeda cell and figure out what current plots might be going on.
I do have to take issue with one comment that Kevin Drum made in this post. I don’t think there’s any excuse for this, least of all that the critics of the administration “panicked” them into making a mistake. This is national security during a hotly contested presidential race. It’s part of the job description. If Bill Clinton could deal with the “wag the dog” nonsense while he was being impeached, I think these guys should be able to keep their fucking mouths shut when Howard Dean gives them a hard time on CNN. They are supposed to be able to handle the pressure. If they can’t, that’s a big problem that has nothing to do with the critics and everything to do with them.
A Pakistani man whose arrest led the authorities to uncover the terrorist reconnaissance of financial institutions in the United States was also communicating with people believed to be behind a potential plot to disrupt the fall elections, a senior intelligence official said on Saturday.
The arrest last month of the man, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, has prompted an investigation in the United States, Britain and other countries to locate those behind the surveillance operations. Now the authorities say they believe his arrest is helping unravel the earlier threat to carry out an attack this year inside the United States.
[…]
Still frustrating investigators is the uncertainty about whether the surveillance in 2000 and 2001 was part of ongoing plot. So far, the officials said, no clear evidence has been obtained that indicates whether the plot was ever abandoned.
Increasingly however, the authorities suspect that the Qaeda figures known to be involved in the surveillance were active members of the terrorist network and operated in a clandestine manner suggesting that they wanted to carry out attacks inside the United States.
Investigators are counting on people already in custody, or others whom they hope to apprehend, to help solve the mystery of whether the plot is still active.
It might have been nice to keep Khan working as a mole for a while so they could catch the guys who were planning more terrorist attacks, don’t you think?
Why, you’d almost think they didn’t want to stop terorist attacks from disrupting the election.