An Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has found that military police dogs were used to frighten detained Iraqi teenagers as part of a sadistic game, one of many details in the forthcoming report that were provoking expressions of concern and disgust among Army officers briefed on the findings.
Earlier reports and photographs from the prison have indicated that unmuzzled military police dogs were used to intimidate detainees at Abu Ghraib, something the dog handlers have told investigators was sanctioned by top military intelligence officers there. But the new report, according to Pentagon sources, will show that MPs were using their animals to make juveniles — as young as 15 years old — urinate on themselves as part of a competition.
“There were two MP dog handlers who did use dogs to threaten kids detained at Abu Ghraib,” said an Army officer familiar with the report, one of two investigations on detainee abuse scheduled for release this week. “It has nothing to do with interrogation. It was just them on their own being weird.”
Bad apples rolling around all over the place. Nothing to do with interrogaton. It was just a couple of guys being weird:
In the months before the scandal broke over photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, an intelligence supervisor at Abu Ghraib prison sent a memo to interrogators telling them “the gloves are coming off,” regarding the treatment of detainees, a lawyer for one of the accused soldiers said yesterday.
Paul Bergrin, a lawyer for Javal S. Davis, who is scheduled to appear in court here today, said he received a copy of the memo from “clandestine sources” in the intelligence community and planned to introduce it into evidence today. Its authenticity could not be independently confirmed.
The memo appears to be the first known document to support contentions by several soldiers charged in the case that they were merely following directions from intelligence officers bent on “softening up” detainees for interrogation.
I keep hearing that John Kerry erroneously claimed that some soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam under orders from superiors. That’s impossible. This is America. We don’t do that sort of thing.
President Bush said on Monday that political advertisements run by a broad swath of independent groups should be stopped, including a television advertisement attacking Senator John Kerry’s war record. But the White House quickly moved to insist that Mr. Bush had not meant in any way to single out the advertisement run by veterans opposed to Mr. Kerry.
I wrote earlier that the press doesn’t understand what Bush is doing. He is supposed to simply condemn the ad with a wink and a nod because the CW is that the 527’s give both campaigns a freebie on deniability. They can hardly bear it that he isn’t following their script, so today they jumped on it when he went off his own message and they practically shoved the words in his mouth.
But, Bush does not want to condemn this ad and for good reason. If he did some of his staunchest supporters would think he was a pussy — and that’s the essence of what is going on here. Bush has to tear down veterans because he isn’t one, but he can’t do it himself. Bush just cracked under mildly difficult questioning and blurted out something he didn’t mean to say.
Lawrence O’Donnell had an interesting analysis of this dynamic on Olberman last Friday that I think is interesting:
OLBERMANN: Let‘s talk response tactics, first. One of his crew mates from Vietnam said today that Kerry had been way too much of a gentleman and should have come out swinging earlier. Should he have?
O‘DONNELL: He could not tactically, in the presidential campaign, do it that way, Keith. I actually think both campaigns have handled this perfectly in their ways. What Kerry had to wait for is he had to wait for a linkage to President Bush. It would be unworthy of the nominee, the candidate, to be attacking somebody named John O‘Neill or someone involved in the Swift Boat controversy who no one in the country had ever heard of. John Kerry can only mount attacks against his opponent, George Bush, so what he needed was John McCain to come out and condemn the ads, which John McCain did, and then he needed John McCain to ask the president to condemn the ads, and then he needed, very much needed, the president not to condemn the ads, which the president did not do. Which by the way, parenthetically was a wise tactic for the president and his campaign.
Once that had occurred, Kerry needed one more thing. He needed to condemn an ad himself. And so, MoveOn.org provided that opportunity by doing an ad that was negative on President Bush‘s Vietnam non-military service in the National Guard. John Kerry, the nominee, then immediately condemns the Bush ad. That gives him an opportunity, within 48 hours of that, to call on President Bush to denounce the ad against John Kerry.
He could not have done that until he had all those ducks in a row. And then he also needed the investigative journalism that the “New York Times” and the “L.A. Times” and others have done to create a sensation, at least, of linkage to the Bush world and then blame the ad on President Bush.
John Kerry needed every one of those elements to be in place before he could level his attack and have it aimed specifically at one person, George Bush, his opponent.
OLBERMANN: And as the Kerry camp obviously tries to make this debate less about his service, what strategically does the president do next, A, to prevent that, B, to not look like he wrote the commercial and somebody‘s just been laundering the attack for him?
O‘DONNELL: It‘s very, very difficult to get a president to respond to anything. You see tonight, are footages of the president‘s spokesman responding to what Senator Kerry said. That‘s why the Kerry language now is getting more and more intense. They are trying to smoke out President Bush. They are trying to force it to the point where the traveling White House press corps must ask President Bush to respond to this.
President Bush really doesn‘t want to tactically, and tactically really should not, because the question to President Bush now that the Kerry campaign is trying to frame is, why don‘t you condemn the ads? President Bush doesn‘t want to condemn the ads because he then is, in effect, condemning a certain group of Vietnam veterans. He‘s not one of them, himself a Vietnam veteran, so it‘s difficult for him to do. He‘s also now doing better with veterans in polling in the current situation.
So, the best thing for President Bush to do is simply to say “I don‘t criticize John Kerry‘s record” and leave it at that and he‘s going to be forced on this question of “are you going to condemn it” and he‘s just going to have to continue to say no.
O’Donnell doesn’t comment on one of the elements of the counterattack — Bush’s history of dirty campaigning beginning to come back to haunt him. That’s the other side of the story. The NY Times story continues:
The president spoke on a day when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in another indication of its web of ties to the Republican Party, acknowledged that a woman who helped set it up and works for it is an officer of the Majority Leader’s Fund, a political action committee affiliated with the former House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas.
The name of the woman, Susan Arceneaux, is given as the contact person on the post office box that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lists as its address. She is treasurer of the Majority Leader’s Fund. Records show that like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group receives significant financing from Bob Perry, a Texan who has long supported Mr. Bush, and his company, as well as Sam and Charles Wyly, prominent Texas Republican donors. Sam Wyly, under the name “Republicans for Clean Air,” took out advertisements in 2000 criticizing the environmental record of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Mr. Perry has donated $200,000 to the Swift boat group, records show, and Merrie Spaeth, a Republican strategist who has been advising the Swift boat group, was a spokeswoman for Sam Wyly’s advertising campaign in 2000.
Every day of the tit for tat is risky for both sides. But, I tend to think that Kerry losing the veterans is a lot less fatal than Bush losing the independents who don’t like dirty campaigning. We’ll see.
Can you believe it? Not only is that completely ridiculous, but Bush didn’t really even condemn the ad himself. He went off message for a second under the extremely unusual experience of the press putting the tiniest bit of pressure on him. Please. Does this really sound like he’s condemning that ad?
QUESTION: But why won’t you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?
BUSH: I’m denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That’s what I’ve said.
I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but to use for other purposes as well.
I, frankly, thought we’d gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to once and for all get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising.
And so, I’m disappointed with all those kinds of ads.
QUESTION: This doesn’t have anything to do with other 527 ads. You’ve been accused of mounting a smear campaign.
Do you think Senator Kerry lied about his war record?
BUSH: I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.
But the question is who best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who’s got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?
QUESTION: Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of those 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.
QUESTION: When you say that you want to stop all…
BUSH: All of them.
QUESTION: So, I mean…
BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Absolutely. I don’t think we ought to have 527s.
I can’t be more plain about it. And I wish — I hope my opponent joins me in saying — condemning these activities of the 527s. It’s — I think they’re bad for the system. That’s why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold.
I’ve been disappointed that for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money — billionaires writing checks. And, you know, I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them as well. And I just don’t — I think they’re bad for the system.
Note to press corpse: If you would have tried to get Bush off his robotic message on real issues with even a smidgen of this energy these last three years, we might not have large numbers of people being blown up in Iraq as we speak. Sleep well tonight.
Christopher Hitchens thinks that John Kerry shouldn’t have released that picture of himself and William Rood in Vietnam because the fact that he is carrying a rocket launcher makes him look like a “complete poseur.” That’s french for phony.
If that was phony, what then could possibly be the french word for this:
To embroider a phrase from Mr. J, I weep for my profession when I see that God is just.
It has been made abundantly clear — most recently, by Mr. Rood of the Chicago Tribune and by the invaluable Joe Galloway of Knight-Ridder — that these Swift Boat characters are dealing in public lies. The day before, it was the NYT. The day before that, the Washington Post. We’ve had people outed as Republican operatives, disparaging war wounds they never saw, asserting as fact things they never witnessed, and ultimately calumnizing their own heroism. By all standard measures, this story should be over, and these people consigned to that same Phantom Zone where was dispatched that poor guy who wrote “Fortunate Son” in 2000. Can any fair person maintain that John O’Neill and the rest of the Chuck Colson Flotilla have any more credibility at this point than poor Hatfield had?
However, they live.
Why?
Television.
The print media, God love it, has done so thorough a debunking of these guys that you’d expect to hear a couple of them on Art Bell’s program late one night. But because the “issue” and the “controversy” make good television theater, they must be kept alive. Which is why, the next time you see, say, Norah O’Donnell, down by the phony barn on the phony ranch, and she tells you how remarkable it is that the ads are “having an effect” despite the fact that the actual buy was so low, you should feel free to excuse yourself and go vomit in the corner. The original ad contained substantially less truth than the Hitler Diaries, but it was run anyway, over and over again, in news pieces about the “issue” and on argument shows dealing with the “controversy.” In other words, television news gave up a substantial portion of its “news hole” this week to information that the people running the news operations had to know were demonstrable lies.
This is what you get. This is what you get when you get bullied by Mr. Murdoch’s toy network into running an interview in which a woman makes unsubstantiated charges of rape against a sitting president, and this is what you get when you get played like a tin piano by a decades-long dirty-tricks campaign that culminated in an impeachment, and you couldn’t report on the former because you were in the tank to the people bringing the latter. This is what you get when you loan your hard-won credibility to hacks and charlatans. This is what happens when you sell your craft out to celebrity, when being good on television is more important than being good at your job, when unconscionable slander is reckoned as genius because it moves the Nielsen needle. This is what happens when sneering schoolyard invective is reckoned to be actual talent because it comes with a Q rating. (Have a nice day, Tucker.) This is what happens when you run scared. Truth, literally, comes to matter not at all.
And, come Friday, with the Swift Boat ad in tatters in most major newspapers, what did HARDBALL do? It ran a segment attempting to rehabilitate the credibility of Michelle Malkin, a complete fake whose new book on the internment of Japanese-Americans has been stomped into a mudhole by the scholars who have done the real work on her topic, and who had come on the very same program the night before and made an idiot of herself. And who was adjudged to be worthy of being on national television to defend her?
John Fund.
It is to weep.
I don’t know about the print guys either, Charles, but maybe they just act this way when they go on TV:
DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST: Oh, sure. I mean, I think we’ve been completely used in this by both sides. Just a few dollars, really, being spent in terms of the overall campaign war. In one of these cases, we’re talking about an ad that hasn’t even run yet, and then we’re also talking about a response ad that Kerry put out on the Internet, which they basically spent nothing for, but it’s getting attention on all the networks.
So we’re completely allowing this whole issue to dominate the news. I mean, part of that’s just that it’s being August and there’s not a lot else going on before the convention.
Yes. The Kerry people are ruthlessly using the poor media to get out their message rebutting the attacks that the poor media was so willing to shill for the Bush administration.
You know, I think this may not actually be a matter of lack of character or conscience. I think it may be more like a medical problem. They can’t help themselves. They jones for action and the Repubicans know how to give it to them. Blood in the water makes them high. They aren’t journalists, they just pretend to be. They are junkies, hooked on trivia, stimulation and scandal. They enable these tabloid smear tactics because the corporations provide them with their works and the Republicans give them their fix. They cover for their addiction to GOP nasty by finding false comparisons between the two parties so that the public won’t cut them off from their source.
The swift boat veterans who hate John Kerry have all come forward to tell the story of his Machiavelian ability to fraudulently, and in concert with large numbers of naval officers all the way up the chain of command, gain for himself a spotless record of heroism and valor during Vietnam.
John Kerry claims that this is a dirty trick on behalf of the Bush administration. But, what he fails to mention is that this was merely justifiable retaliation for a sickening smear set forth by some very ugly undercover Democrat operatives who some months ago went on the shadowy National Public Radio to call into question president Bush’s heroism in Operation Blount during his valorous stint in the National Guard.
Those days were frought with stress and pain for all concerned. Who knew who was the enemy and who was not? People had taken to the streets in Washington DC, while the battle raged in far flug locales. It was men like Lt. George W Bush who manned the front lines, taking the heat to protect democracy. Why should his supreme sacrifice for his country be fair game for those who would stoop to destroy the reputation of an American hero for mere political gain? Is nothing sacred?
This campaign season, there have been questions about whether George W. Bush fulfilled his obligations to the National Guard as a young lieutenant in the early 1970s. For weeks, reporters scoured Alabama in search of pilots or anyone who might have remembered seeing Mr. Bush at the time he was serving in the National Guard there. There is one place in Alabama where Mr. Bush was present nearly every day: the headquarters in Montgomery of US Senate candidate Winton “Red” Blount. President Bush has always said that working for Blount was the reason he transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard. NPR’s Wade Goodwyn has this report about Mr. Bush’s time on that campaign.
WADE GOODWYN reporting:
In 1972, Baba Groom was a smart, funny young woman smack-dab in the middle of an exciting US Senate campaign. Groom was Republican Red Blount’s scheduler, and in that job, she was the hub in the campaign wheel. Ask her about the handsome young man from Texas, and she remembers him 32 years later like it was yesterday.
Ms. BABA GROOM (Former Campaign Worker): He would wear khaki trousers and some old jacket. He was always ready to go out on the road. On the phone, you could hear his accent. It was a Texas accent. But he just melded with everybody.
GOODWYN: The candidate Mr. Bush was working for, Red Blount, had gotten rich in Alabama in the construction business. Prominent Southern Republicans were something of a rare breed in those days. Blount’s support of the party led him to be appointed Richard Nixon’s postmaster general. In Washington, Blount became friends and tennis partners with Mr. Bush’s father, then Congressman Bush. That was how 26-year-old Lieutenant Bush came to Montgomery, at his father’s urging . . . It was Mr. Bush’s job to organize the Republican county chairpersons in the 67 Alabama counties. Back in 1972 in the Deep South, many rural counties didn’t have much in the way of official Republican Party apparatus. But throughout Alabama, there were Republicans and Democrats who wanted to help Red Blount. It was the young Texan’s job to find out what each county leader needed in the way of campaign supplies and get those supplies to them. Groom says this job helped Mr. Bush understand how even in a statewide Senate campaign, politics are local.
. . . Murph Archibald is Red Blount’s nephew by marriage, and in 1972, he was coming off a 15-month tour in Vietnam in the infantry. Archibald says that in a campaign full of dedicated workers, Mr. Bush was not one of them.
Mr. MURPH ARCHIBALD (Nephew of Red Blount): Well, I was coming in early in the morning and leaving in mid-evenings. Ordinarily, George would come in around noon; he would ordinarily leave around 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening.
GOODWYN: Archibald says that two months before the election, in September of ’72, Red Blount’s campaign manager came to him and asked that he quietly take over Mr. Bush’s job because the campaign materials were not getting out to the counties.
Mr. ARCHIBALD: George certainly didn’t seem to have any concerns about my taking over this work with the campaign workers there. My overall impression was that he didn’t seem as interested in the campaign as the other people who were working at the state headquarters.
GOODWYN: Murph Archibald says that at first, he didn’t know that Mr. Bush was serving in the Air National Guard. After he found out from somebody else, Archibald attempted to talk to Mr. Bush about it. The president was a lieutenant and Archibald had been a lieutenant, too; he figured they had something to talk about.
Mr. ARCHIBALD: George didn’t have any interest at all in talking about the military. In fact, when I broached the subject with him, he simply changed the subject. He wasn’t unpleasant about it, but he just changed the subject and wouldn’t talk about it.
GOODWYN: Far from Texas and Washington, DC, Mr. Bush enjoyed his freedom. He dated a beautiful young woman working on the campaign. He went out in the evenings and had a good time. In fact, he left the house he rented in such disrepair–with damage to the walls and a chandelier destroyed–that the Montgomery family who owned it still grumble about the unpaid repair bill. Archibald says Mr. Bush would come into the office and, in a friendly way, offer up stories about the drinking he’d done the night before, kind of as a conversation starter.
Mr. ARCHIBALD: People have different ways of starting the days in any office. They’re going to talk about their kids, they’re going to talk about football, they’re going to talk about the weather. And this was simply his opening gambit; he would start talking about that he had been out late the night before drinking.
GOODWYN: Archibald says the frequency with which Mr. Bush discussed the subject was off-putting to him.
Mr. ARCHIBALD: I mean, at that time, I was 28; George would have been 25 or 26. And I thought it was really unusual that someone in their mid-20s would initiate conversations, particularly in the context of something as serious as a US senatorial campaign, by talking about their drinking the night before. I thought it unusual and, frankly, inappropriate.
GOODWYN: According to Archibald, Mr. Bush would also sometimes tell stories about his days at Yale in New Haven, and how whenever he got pulled over for erratic driving, he was let go after the officers discovered he was the grandson of a Connecticut US senator. Archibald, a middle-class Alabama boy–who, by the way, is now a registered Democrat–didn’t like that story.
Mr. ARCHIBALD: He told us whenever he was stopped, as soon as the law enforcement found out that he was the grandson of Prescott Bush, they would let him go. And he would always laugh about that. “
Lambert’s got a barn burning post up today that’s well worth reading. But I take issue with one of the central points of his thesis which basically comes down to the a belief that the Democrats only have themsleves to blame for the political situation we are now in. I disagree. It’s not because of self-inflicted wounds — it’s because we are dealing with a particular brand of thuggish assassin that is difficult to reconcile with democracy.
Clinton was being hounded about all kinds of trumped up garbage long before Monica came into the picture. He would have been tarred as the corrupt whitewater, chinese espionage, lincoln bedroom hippie whether he gave himself that “self-inflicted” blowjob or not. And he fought back like a champ but it doesn’t matter when you are dealing with people who have no use for truth or reality. You don’t have to actually do anything with these people. They’ll just make shit up. Smear tactics, which are by definition untrue, are the most lethal tool in the character assassins’ arsenal and the Republicans are worse than the Borgias when it comes to using them.
I don’t mean to be too critical, but I think it is a serious misreading of the challenge we face to put the blame for the state of our politics on the alleged shortcomings of our own leaders. We are at a big disadvantage in this game because we have at least a modicum of decency and while I agree that we very likely are going to have to give that up, I don’t think it’s a failure of nerve to at least have tried to keep our political system from totally turning into a sewer. The path on which we are now forced to go is one that is bound to taint all of us. I’m not sorry we have taken it reluctantly.
But, I am very nervous that if this attitude remains, and it is quite widespread, we are going to see Democrats once again making the Republican case for them when Kerry gets in office by joining the chorus and calling him “french” for trying to govern in an extremely hostile environment.
This is where we go wrong. If Bush has proven anything, it’s that we are in an era in which actual ideology and policy, even power — even winning — isn’t the point to the Republicans. They are about the fight. It’s the game, the argument, the battle. They get off on the political combat. For them, the action is the juice, win or lose. (And one of the reasons they’ve been so successful at co-opting the media is because the media thrives on the same juice.)
Just fighting back isn’t going to solve that problem. Indeed, over the long haul, it’s likely to result in failure if that’s all we do. They love fighting a lot more than we do. And losing doesn’t dull their bloodlust, it engages it. We need to think of a more sophisticated battle plan.
Off the top of my head, the first one to come to mind is divide and conquer. Perhaps it’s time we formed a religious group that is anti-abortion and for school prayer, but is adamantly against corporate materialism. Or a libertarian GOP front group that wants to purge the party of the religious right. Perhaps if we could set off a civil war among the Republicans we could cure them of their love of political battle. Civil wars often do. But, that’s just an idea. Whatever we do, I think hand to hand combat and bomb throwing is a loser for us over time. It just feeds them.
I don’t dispute that appeals to reason have been exhausted. And I don’t say that Kerry shouldn’t fight by any means necessary in this election. It’s vitally important that we get institutional power out of their hands. (Indeed, many may secretly want us to. The fight is not as satisfying when you hold all the power and we have become quite adept at cleaning up their messes.)
But, blaming ourselves for the state of play or deluding ourselves into thinking it’s just a matter of “being tough” is to misunderstand what we are facing. It’s a primitive force with post-modern tools in its hands and we’d better start looking at this thing for what it is instead of seeing ourselves as simply inept. Winning won’t change anything. As long as the fight continues, they are getting exactly what they want.
Everybody should feel a tiny bit better about the swift boat smear — for this morning, at least. Here are the headlines as of this morning on the Google News site.
Bush campaign fires adviser on veterans issues
Bush Campaign Aide Resigns Amid Controversy Over Campaign Ads
Kerry returns fire over Vietnam
Bush drops adviser tied to group
Swift Boat member skips rally over fliers at Bush campaign office
Kerry Camp Tries to Thwart Negative Swift Boat Ads
Kerry, Dodging Charges Over Vietnam, Returns Fire
Veteran backs Kerry on Vietnam
First-Hand Account Backs Up Kerry on Vietnam War Controversy
Vietnam vet backs Kerry’s war deeds
Hatred drives anti-Kerry claims
Big Backing For Kerry In Ad Wars
Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties
Ad Fight Bogs Down White House Race
Tribune editor says critics got it wrong
Kerry calls on Bush to stop personal attacks
Swift boat vet goes public to back Kerry
Another war veteran backs Kerry’s story
Kerry fires back over Vietnam charges
Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure
Witness confirms that Kerry rescued soldier under fire
Participant in mission, documents support Kerry’s war claim
Vietnam veteran comes to Kerry’s defence
Bronze Star battle stokes hot tempers
Anti-Kerry ads have GOP links
For today at least, it’s advantage Kerry. But, it’s just a tiny skirmish in a bigger battle.
It is possible that we are seeing a little ropa-a-dope here in which Kerry takes some blows throughout the dog days of August when he has little money to spend on his own. He appears to be building a case against Bush’s dirty campaign tactics. Over and over again for the next week heading into the convention, I suspect he will step up the calls for Bush to stop the madness. They’ll refuse. The bored and predictable media will hopefully be asking all these GOP conventioneers if they disavow the ads, so the issue of dirty tricks and Republican funding stays on the front burner. Then on September 1st as they head out of their NYC lovefest,and the country is really paying attention, Kerry hits them right between the eyes.
He explains to the press that he tried and tried to be reasonable. He asked them politely to stop the smears and the dirty tricks. They wouldn’t listen. The Bush campaign has no one to blame but themselves. He had no choice.
It’s a metaphor for mature leadership.
But who the hell knows? A presidential campaign is a seat of the pants operation that has to be able to change from day to day as circumstances require. They calibrate this stuff carefully according to polling and focus groups in important regions. They may find that Bush is falling behind in which case there is no reason to nuclear. If, however, this smear operation really erodes Kery’s support among undecideds (the base is with him no matter what) then I think we’ll see some ads directly attacking Bush on his leadership.
I would love to see that, but only if it helps the cause. Emotional satisfaction is nice but ultimately irrelevant. Fighting back does not mean flailing about aimlessly, it means landing blows. And sometimes that means waiting for the right opening.
But, if it comes down to showing Junior reading “My Pet Goat” then I say let-er-rip. That’s the essense of the choice in this election and it’s at the bottom of Rove’s plan to tear down Kerry’s war record and his senate career and the snotty asides about “frenchness.” This election is really about the underlying discomfort many people feel with Bush’s leadership. If it ends up that Kerry has to spell this out to the idiot swing voters in Ohio in no uncertain terms then that’s what he’ll do.
Combatting smears is very, very difficult. It is almost impossible, as a matter of fact, when you have a compliant media that wants to be “fair and balanced” to the point where they would give Hitler equal time to make his case against the jews.
Everybody acts like there is some magic formula and there just isn’t. You slog through it by the the force of your own strength and talent like Clinton did, you try to change the subject or you go completely nuclear on the other guy. That’s it. All three strategies have big risks attached. There is no easy way out and even if it works, people rarely appreciate you for it.
When Howard Dean said to a shocked and appalled Candy Crowley at the Democratic convention that this wa going to be the dirtiest campaign in history, he was right. But, there’s more to fighting a smear than simply fighting dirty. You have to fight better and smarter. That’s the challenge. Over these next two months we’re going to see if Kerry has the right stuff. This is where the game really begins.
One More Thing:
There are two sites that are tracking the swift boat story very thoroughly and in different ways:
Bookmark eriposte and Daily Beast for the full compendium. And I think we can continue to help by sending this stuff to the media and getting it disseminated through the big message boards like DU, Smirking Chimp, Bartcop etc.
That despicable old fuck Bob Dole is on Blitzer complaining about Kerry’s purple hearts and backing up the Swift Boat liars.
What gall:
IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole’s part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?
I had developed a ittle fondness for the scumbag over the past few years because he seemed kind of a doddering anachronism that reminded me of the old school Republican assholes. But, I stupidly forgot that he was one of the original hatchet men, the Prince of Fucking Darkness during the 70’s and he’s still in form today.
Damn, every single time I get the least bit sentimental and let down my guard on one of these wingnuts they remind me that none of them have any goddamned shame.
Can Michele Malkin be any more stupid? I don’t actually think it’s possible:
Blogger Rusty Shackleford highlights American hackers who took down a website apparently owned and operated by Abu al Zarqawi.
Rusty comments:
The CIA/FBI are making a major mistake allowing these sites to be kept up. The reason? This is war. In a war you take away propaganda outlets from the enemy. Yes, they may help us track down al Qaeda elements, but that is just the point. Tracking down and arresting al Qaeda is a police function. Treating the War on Terror as a police matter is Clintonesque and is what got us 9/11. We need to shut all these sites down. They are valuable tools for the enemy…
He adds that the hackers, who identified themselves as “TeaMz UsA,” missed a page on Zarqawi’s site:
Unfortunately the crew at ‘TeaMz UsA’ missed a page. I have the URL and am more than glad to share it with any hacker who thinks they can take down the page. Just e-mail me anonymously at mypetjawa-at-yahoo-dot-com. Calling all hackers with a little free time this Sunday afternoon…
Yeah. I want to trust Malkin and the 101st keyboarders to take charge of counter terrorism.
I don’t suppose it occurred to any of these morons that the CIA and the FBI may have had a reason for leaving these web sites up and running? I think they might expect a little visit. Malkin should get one too. You are supposed to report terrorist activities to the authorities, not take the law in your own hands. In fact, it’s a crime and a big one.
