Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Postmodern Heroics

Josh Marshall points out an egregiously incorrect column by Deborah Orin in which she not only claims that John O’Neill served with Kerry, but that Kerry was actually known by his comrades as an outright coward who had “very little nerve for facing serious combat.” This takes the charge to a new level. It’s not just that he got medals he didn’t deserve but that he actively avoided dangerous situations in order to save his own skin. I wonder how long it will before someone accuses him of fragging.

It has struck me lately what a terrible indictment of the military these charges are and how once again the Republicans have absolutely no limits in terms of how fully they are willing to trash the American institutions they allegedly love in order to win. What these people are saying is that the US Navy awarded some of its highest medals for bravery to a coward. The many officers who signed those glowing fitness reports and awarded those citations are either liars or they are incompetent. The word of his shipmates, even the man whose life he saved, are worth nothing. You can’t believe military documentary evidence. It was all bullshit, every last piece of it.

And because of this it can now be said that all medals awarded for bravery are suspect. A superior military record is no longer a recommendation. Who can ever believe the government on this issue, now? If they were willing to reward the undeserving Kerry, for reasons about which we can only speculate, then obviously the entire system for awarding valor in combat is corrupt.

There used to be some things that Americans could count on. Having a certain reverence for combat medals was one of them, regardless of political party. It was something you just didn’t fuck with, certainly not openly. We’ve always known that the good old boy network existed, that “connected” guys got better assignments and that in the Vietnam era, strings could get pulled to get into the guard or get stationed in Germany or something. But, even in the worst dark days of the conflict, I don’t remember anybody saying that medals were being handed out to cowards. And people said a lot of terrible things about the military in those days.

Once again, we are seeing that the baby boomer Vietnam generation (of which I am on the later side) continues to play out its little psychodrama. During the sixties, the young liberals had disdain for the military. Now, in flaccid middle age, it’s the conservatives who are taking it apart. Our excuse was that we were young and passionate and stemmed from an honest belief that the government was lying to us. And it was. We grew out of the idea that the military itself was a corrupt institution, but we have paid a political price for more than thirty years for taking that attitude. And that price was exacted by the very same people who are now essentially accusing the military of extreme dishonesty. Irony doesn’t begin to cover this.

The conservative attack on the military is, on the other hand, so small minded, so parochial. For puny, partisan reasons they are accusing the military of widespread corruption — merely to excuse the behavior of their less than stellar candidate. In order to save that worthless little child-man, they are basically telling the American people that the US Navy rewards cowards and covers it up. They do not care that they are setting the stage for people to think that heroic deeds in combat have no concrete meaning. GOP Post modern politics rescues the cipher and further degrades our democracy.

Too bad for the men and women who are risking their necks as we speak for Junior’s Big Adventure. Any act of bravery on which the military might bestow a medal is now subject to interpretation. Nothing is sacred to these people.

Update:

If anyone cares to see how totally corrupt the Navy must have been, Eriposte has the full scoop. Dozens of officers would have had to lie or have been completely incompetent for all these charges to be true. Not the least of whom are some of the Swift boat vets themselves who said very different things at the time.

Watch Your Backs, Spooks

Porter Goss, Junior’s choice for CIA director, is a loyal guy, but it isn’t you he’s loyal to.

Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action

Rep. Porter Goss said Thursday that the uproar over allegations that White House officials purposely identified a covert CIA agent appears largely political and doesn’t yet merit an investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he chairs.

Goss, who was a CIA agent himself from the early 1960s to 1971, said he takes such leaks seriously, but he distinguished between a willful violation of federal law and an inadvertent disclosure.

Goss also said no one from the intelligence agencies has raised the issue with him since syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified the agent in a column July 14.

“I would say there’s a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security,” said Goss, R-Sanibel. “But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful — and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else — willful disclosure, and I haven’t seen any evidence.”

Goss said he would act if he did have evidence of that sort.

“Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I’ll have an investigation,” Goss said.

Let’s just say that when push comes to shove, old Porter is a partisan Republican first and a guardian of the CIA second. Be warned.

I’m assuming that he will be confirmed with no problem. Miller and Lieberman and probably a few other Democrats will vote for him.

But, President Kerry is going to have to turn around and fire him. He has to because this guy will stab him in the back the first chance he gets:

Critics say Goss’s political antics reveal a partisan streak that compromises his ability to be a fair and diplomatic CIA chief. Most recently, he interrupted debate on the House intelligence authorization bill by displaying a sign with a 1977 quote from John Kerry that called for cuts to the intelligence budget.

Kerry cannot have someone like this working for him in such a sensitive job. I would assume that the Republicans are very well aware of this fact. This may be only the first of numerous landmines that are being laid in case of a Kerry victory.

Scottie’s Little Helpers

Via the Stakeholder, we get this exchange from the Gaggle:

Q Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the revelation of the deepest mole that we’ve ever had in al Qaeda? The publication of that man’s name by The New York Times — how damaging is that to our war on terror?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry — which specific instance are you referring to?

Q The New York Times published the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep mole we’ve ever had within al Qaeda.

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not sure where it was published, first. Obviously, it was published recently — the capture of this individual. It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And sometimes we aren’t able to go into as much detail we would like to because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a responsibility to keep that in mind.

Q Scott —

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Terry.

Q Do you think The New York Times shouldn’t have published the name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Terry.

Q Senator Kerry has been making light, or making fun of the President saying ‘we’ve turned the corner, and we’re not going back,’ given the fact that the job growth has been weak, and the energy prices are rising. Is that something that the President is not going to say anymore? Is he reconsidering that, given that the jobs are —

Can someone please explain to me why “Terry” just went on with his prepared question instead of following up what should be something of interest to the entire press corp? It sure sounded to me as if Flounder was trying to spin it to look as if the press was at fault for pressuring the admnistration to provide evidence that it’s terror warnings were on the level.

“Terry” (Moran?), instead of forcing Flounder to explain what he meant by that just barrelled on with his canned question.

This happens all the time at press conferences and happens just as often in one on one interviews. The journalists do not seem to be following the give and take. In the one on one’s you see Judy and Wolf and Little Russ just sitting there with glazed eyes obviously waiting for the interview subject to end his rambling so they can get to the next question.

I’ve sometimes wondered if the TV journalists are distracted by the producer in their earpieces, but that doesn’t explain why “Terry” and his ilk just let opportunities to follow up go by as in that gaggle today. Are these people so egotistical that they can’t allow themselves to be seen aiding and abetting a competitor?

The press corp are a bunch of braying sheep when the GOP blastfax comes in, but they can’t operate in tandem to put the pressure on Flounder a little bit — even when the subject concerns their very own selves. What a sad comment.

Neocon Resurrections

From the “they have always been wrong about everything” files, Lawrence Korb writes that “Team B” should be benched. No kidding.

His piece in the week-end’s LA Times very succinctly tells you everything you need to know about the failed track record of the neocons. Truly, they have always been wrong about everything and most often they are spectacularly wrong.

He brings up one specific little bit of history that I’ve written about before, as have others, but it bears repeating because of what is now happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling’s book, “The Terror Network,” which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups’ terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting “revolutionary violence worldwide.”

This book was the beginning, middle and end of the neocons understanding of terrorism. It fit in perfectly with their black and white worldview of good and evil nation states. From that point on they could not see “terrorism” as anything but a weapon in the hands of totalitarian dictators.

This explains their absurd and stubborn belief that 9/11 simply had to have been perpetrated by Saddam and their ongoing certainty that “rogue” states remain a greater threat than islamic radicalism joining forces with a weakened failed state. As always, they simply refuse to give up their bedrock belief system in light of the evidence right before their eyes.

It’s true that they have been discredited recently, but I would not start writing the epitaph just yet. Their worldview is bipartisanly seductive, placing the US at the center of righteous democratic progress against the tyrant. And, for all its starry-eyed idealism it requires no interference in unpleasant and unheroic matters like Sudan. Likewise, Iraq and Afghanistan can be seen in their minds as successes — the terrible rogue state was vanquished and the totalitarian dictator was punished. Failed states aren’t a threat.

Except, of course, they are. And they are a very messy and dangerous problem. We really should not be in the business of creating even more of them, but it’s looking more and more as if that’s exactly what we’ve done. And in the age of islamic radicalism that was a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Neoconservatism is like a vampire cult. It is very difficult to kill. Being discredited means nothing to them. It’s happened time and time again and yet they keep coming back. They must have a stake drawn through the heart of their failed world view and I don’t know what it will take to make that happen. Indeed, they are re-forming as we speak into the Committee For The Present Danger Redux.

James Woolsey, a former CIA director, is chairman of the group, which he says in its third incarnation aims to combat what he calls “a totalitarian movement masquerading as a religion.”

[…]

The past struggle against communism differed in some ways from the current war against Islamist terrorism. But America’s freedom and security, which each has aimed to undermine, are exactly the same.

Don’t throw away your garlic just yet. They are still out there.

Coming Forward

Man, they’re coming out of the woodwork.

Last Wednesday we had the Scumbags For Truth, followed quickly by the Alabama Mail Room Veterans for Bush on Friday. Today we find the sickening truth behind that alleged hamster “rescue” from the Swift Boat Veterinarians For Truth.

Bush-Cheney 2004 is playing for keeps.

Rice Puddinghead

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.

I Won’t Say It

Jobs with Little Mental Challenge May Up Alzheimer’s

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.

J’Accuse:

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.

Glory Days

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.

Pundit Deficiency

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.