FAIR AND BALANCED

A collection of progressive news and commentary, designed to keep readers engaged in the world around them. Feel free to respond by leaving your thoughts -- click on the "Comments" links provided after each blog.

Email don@holofernes.net

Subscribe to my feed

Subscribe to this feed through My Yahoo:

 
Changes in my life have made it difficult to post much of anything. But some things are too important to let slide.

Have you bought into the "so-called liberal media" myth that Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. John Kerry's position on the Iraq War is muddled and unclear? Stop watching infotainment and check out the facts.

See Kevin Drum's outstanding piece on Kerry's stand. Despite what you might hear from CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC, Kerry's position has always been pretty clear.

 
"GROUPTHINK"

From the AP:

U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false "group think" when assessing Iraq's weapons capabilities and ended up giving the Bush administration overstated or incorrect conclusions before the 2003 invasion, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report says.

..........

Intelligence analysts worked from the assumption that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to make more, as well as trying to revive a nuclear weapons program. Instead, investigations after the Iraq invasion have shown that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program and no biological weapons and only small amounts of chemical weapons have been found.

Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

Call Vegas. What do you think the over/under is on when someone starts talking about the "motivating personalities" driving the groupthink? What are the odds that a few months in the private sector begins to jar Tenet's memory?

Is it me, or is there a large pink elephant in the middle of the room? Anyone care to address it?

Remember the good old days when we were beating up the CIA for being too timid on the subject of Iraqi WMD's?

We are at war with EastAsia. We have always been at war with East Asia......

 
FILES? WHAT FILES?

Apparently thee was a most unfortunate (and strategically controlled) fire.

In a letter responding to a federal lawsuit by The Associated Press, the Defense Department said that microfilm containing the pertinent National Guard payroll records was damaged and could not be salvaged. The damaged material included payroll records for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972.


"President Bush's payroll records for those two quarters were among the records destroyed," wrote C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information and Security Review section. "Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."

Can you belive this stuff?

DailyKos says all you need to read.

What a coincidence. And how convenient. And how, um, new.

Un-freaking-believeable.

 
THE HIDDEN TRUTH ABOUT JOHN KERRY

Everything you need to know can be found at this profoundly important website. Americans have a right to know.

As Jefferson is wont to say, "A little bit of 'uh-huh', and a whole lot of 'Oh yeah!'"

 
KERRY-EDWARDS

I must admit to being quite pleased by Kerry's selection of NC Sen. John Edwards as a running mate. I've been fond of Sen. Edwards since last fall, although he was not my pick in the primaries. I think Sen. Edwards's brings much needed energy and vision to the campaign, as well as to the party leadership. He's a smart, saavy communicator, and an outstanding politician. I think they will make a create team in the Kerry Administration (sounds good, huh?).

Further, I think the Repubs' spin that Sen. Edwards is under-qualified is silly at best, perhaps even harmful to them. Quite honestly, Sen. Edwards has more relevant experience to his creidt than Bush had when he ran in 2000. So if Edwards is unqualified now, Bush was unqualified then (and now). Further, he is certainly as qualified as former VP Dan Quayle ever was. My concerns with Quayle were never genuinely tied to his lack of tenure in the Senate. My concern with Quayle, as with Bush, was about his intellectual tools and curiosity (or lack thereof). A bright person who has been tested in life can do this job. Edwards has experienced much in terms of value-based decision making, considering tough odds (how many Harvard MBAs would turn down a $15MM settlement offer, only to win a $25MM settlement by sticking to your guns?). Bush has been protected, handled, and cared for by others his whole professional life. Can you imagine what his administration would have been like without father-figure Cheney by his side? Thats the difference.

God forbid, should a circumstance arise wherein Edwards would be forced to assume the Presidency, this man has the intellectual tools, the inter-personal skills, and the value-driven psyche to step in and lead this country effectively. I have no doubt. And every day as VP will only make him better.

Worst-case scenario, what has Dick Cheney's resume brought us? Ideology-driven foreign policy that has left us in the most strategically insecure position since Pearl Harbor. Experience is useful only when its effective. Given the choice that has been offered us, I say give the new guys a chance -- hands down.

Now lets get to work.

 
JULY SURPRISE

Don't miss this important article posted at The New Republic today regarding efforts by the Bush Administration to pressure Pakistan into scoring some major hits against Al Queda before the election.

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs (High Value Targets)before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

I'm not sure if the post-Fahrenheit 9-11 electorate is able to see through such an abvious charade or not. But this is definitely a matter worthy of concern. Remeber the days when foreign policy was driven by principles and values, rather than by politics? But then that was administration of children. This is how the "adults" work.

Joshua Marshall and Kevin Drum have more to say on this.

 
TOUGH TIMES FOR BLOGGING

Just in case you were curious, I have not died. In the almost two-year history of this little project, I have never suffered an entire month of no posts. Lots of things seem to be conspiring against me lately -- work, life changes, etc.... Its fair to say that one month from now I may have to consider ending the enterprise entirely. That would be regretable as I feel like I have offered an important resource for a number of friends and acquaintances -- as well as the occaisional random discoverer.

For now, I will do what I can. A friend recently told me that it was ironic that I was doing less posting now, at a time when it was easiest to pick on "W". I like to think that the purpose of this blog has never been about a daily rant against "W" -- although I'm sure that's what it may seem like. I've always tried to write about what I experience in the world -- what I want people to hear and know. Bush has significant influence on the world around me so he has been a frequent indirect contributor to my content. Hopefully that will change in a few months.

Well, enough navel-gazing. Back to the stuff that fills our hearts and minds. These are important times for us all. Stay tuned and stay engaged.

No, I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet. Have you?

 
TEXAS TUESDAYS

This week's installment of Texas Tuesdays involves Rep. Martin Frost. Frost is a long-time House leader for the Dems whose Dallas-Arlington-Ft.Worth district was a major victim of Tom DeLay's redistricting battle last summer. Frost's connections should help him raise some serious cash, but he will face an uphill battle in a re-drawn district that is difficult by design.

The more money that pours into this district, all things equal, the higher the profile it is in the minds of voters. That will make it more distinct in voters' minds than an otherwise afterthought to the Presidential race. Frost has wisely picked the best opponent possible for taking the approach of raising doubts. Sessions is not the most tenured Congressman, so there's not as much attachment to him as there might have been to say, a Joe Barton in the 5th. Thus far, Frost has taken precisely the approach outlined above, raising doubts about Sessions in order to pry voters away on the order of mass migration. He'll have the money to try a lot of different approaches: TV ads, mailers, voter reg., GOTV, etc.... He won't go quietly into the good night of November, but if he's effective enough in his methods (something that's hyper critical for him), he'll be able to squeak out a win. The more Frost focuses on this as a communication war and less a tactical battle, he'll succeed.

Obviously, the easier path is in front of Sessions. But check back when there's some independent polling done in this district to give an idea of whether or not Frost's communication strategy has been effective.

In an era of increasingly weak-willed Dems, Frost is an old-school Congressional Democrat. He's exactly the kind of guy we'll need to hold the House if we ever win it back. Check him out and give whatever you can to keep him.

Besides, a Frost win would be a nice kick in the crotch to Tom DeLay. What more inducement could you need?

 
CHENEY FACILITATES HALLIBURTON'S NO-BID CONTRACT

I'm sure former Congressman Bob Barr will be first in line to investigate this.

The March 2003 no-bid contract handed out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers promised the company about $2.5 billion for rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. It was replaced in January 2004 by two contracts totaling $2 billion, with Halliburton retaining work in southern Iraq for $1.2 billion.

Time said it located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group. The e-mail was sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official on March 5, 2003.

It said Douglas Feith, who reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, approved arrangements for the contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry "contingent on informing WH (White House) tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's (vice president's) office."

A former deputy defense secretary from the mid-1990s, John White, said the e-mail showed unprecedented political input on Pentagon contracts. An official like Feith, an undersecretary for policy, should not be handling contracts, he said. "I've never heard of anything like this before."

Defend this.

 
BUSH ADMINISTRATION: BILL OF RIGHTS IS OPTIONAL

In a press conference yesterday, James Comey, deputy attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice, made it plain that George W. Bush decided to forego the burdens of the Bill of Rights when naming U.S. citizen Jose Padilla an "enemy combatant" and remanding him into the custody of the Department of Defense:

Two years ago, the president of the United States faced a very difficult choice. After a careful process, he decided to declare Jose Padilla for what he was, an enemy combatant, a member of a terrorist army bent on waging war against innocent civilians. And the president's decision was to hold him to protect the American people and to find out what he knows.

..........

Had we tried to make a case against Jose Padilla through our criminal justice system, something that I, as the United States attorney in New York, could not do at that time without jeopardizing intelligence sources, he would very likely have followed his lawyer's advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right.

He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and hope -- pray, really -- that we didn't lose him.

Comey made these statements after describing a litany of activities which may or may not be true. However, it is worth noting that Padilla has now been held without charges for over two years. Mr. Padilla has only recently been allowed access to an attorney, but only during supervised visits. So essentially nothing that we have obtained from him during his interrogations could ever be admissable in a criminal trial anyway. I guess that means we don't have to bother with a trial now. Bush has already delivered the verdict. Who is next?

How sad is it that we've been reduced to having a Deputy U.S. Attorney General openly justifying the arbitrary suspension of the Bill of Rights? Is this your idea of America? It isn't mine.

The Center for American Progress has more.

 
TEXAS TUESDAY (late again, $%#&$%#!!!!)

Check out the latest installment of Texas Tuesdays, this week highlighting Congressman Chet Edwards:

The race for the 17th Congressional District between incumbent Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards and Republican Arlene Wohlgemuth will be a barnburner. Edwards is a top target of Tom DeLay and national Republicans: a memo from DeLay’s chief political aide to Republicans in the Legislature during last year’s redistricting battle stated, "We must stress that a map that returns Frost, Edwards and Doggett is unacceptable and not worth all of the time invested into this project.”

Despite drawing a district designed to defeat Edwards, the Republicans are clearly worried they miscalculated. The Austin publication Capitol Inside recently reported, “Top Republican strategists are quietly conceding that U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards of Waco might have a chance of surviving the aftermath of the GOP redistricting blitz.” Republican fears are well placed—Edwards is an aggressive campaigner, had over $800,000 in the bank on the last campaign finance report, and has come out swinging in his new district. Edwards brings strong credentials on national defense and veterans issues to the race and has a reputation as an independent thinker who does what’s best for his constituents.

For those of you who missed last week's debut on this blog, Texas Tuesdays is an effort spearheaded by Kuff at Off the Kuff to feature a different competitive Texas race each week. Hopefully this will expose more blog readers to more candidates and help build a broader, deeper grassroots campaign. Check it out. Give money. Lets win some of these races!

 
MEMORIAL DAY

In remembrance of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for something that meant everything.

From Irwin Shaw's Bury the Dead:

CAPTAIN: Men must die for their country's sake -- if not you, then others. This has always been. Men died for Pharaoh and Caesar and Rome two thousand years ago and more, and went into the earth for their wounds. Why not you...?

FIRST CORPSE: Men, even the men who die for Pharaoh and Caesar and Rome, must, in the end, before all hope is gone, discover that a man can die happy and be contentedly buried only when he dies for himself or for a cause that is his own and not Pharaoh's or Caesar's or Rome's...

Freedom requires intelligent sacrifice, not blind loyalty.

 
NY TIMES APOLOGY

Before it gets sucked away by the New York Times three-to-four news day window closing, take time to read this important letter from the editors of the Times regarding its coverage leading up to the war with Iraq. In light of exposed pre-war intelligence failiures and now the purging of Ahmed Chalabi, the Times is reconsidering some of its articles that were discovered to be beneath the preferred journalistic standard of the New York Times.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

In a nutshell, the Times fell prey to two specific phenomena: first, like just about every other media outlet, it decided to give the Bush Administration a free ride post-9/11. Those were the heady, early days of the "War on Terror" (tm), and everyone wanted to stand together.......or something.

Add to this, a second set of cirumstances. The sitting occupant of the White House and his administration come forth arguing that, based on our intelligence, that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs laying around, and could use them against us at any time. Therefore, we had to rid the region and the world of this menace. The Times, like so many news outlets, voters and so many members of Congress (Sen. John Kerry for example), examined the evidence as it was presented to them, and made a conscious decision to accept the evidence on its merits, thus implicitly trusting the Bush Administration for the veracity of its intelligence work.

Taken together, the Times, and most of the rest of the United States (including, to a certain degree, yours truly) supported the Bush Adminstration's assertions about Iraq, and then accepted its evidence with little or no attempt at substantiation. As a result, the Times, and most media outlets, essentially became part of the Bush Administration communications effort, largely parroting claims and platitutdes from Bush, Cheney & Co. without any meaningful questioning. Now they've disovered that they, and the rest of the country, were taken for a bit of ride. No WMDs. No "imminent threat". In fact, nothing has turned out at all like we'd been told it would. Ooops. We're very sorry.

This goes to the heart of revisiting why a free and independent press is the foundation of what makes functioning democracy work. I'm reminded of so many arguments I made in high school debate about the threat censorship (either active or passive) plays in a democracy. Credible decisions cannot be made without full information (surely the folks on Wall Street will understand that). Consequently, even during periods of intense national unity, the press must do its job of investigating the factual nature of all claims by the governement.

As Carl Sagan once said, "Real patriots ask questions." All the rest is propaganda.

The apology is a good start, but its more important for the Times to get back to the people's business of investigating and reporting the news as they uncover it -- not just what the Bush Administration (or any administration for that matter) tells them.

Suddenly I'm hearing whispers in my head.....al Queda wants Bush to lose......if Kerry wins, the terrorists win.....sources tell CNN that.....

 
BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND DINNER

One of the more thought-provoking perspectives to surface in response to the charges that the-neocons'-man-who-would-be premier in Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, may have passed highly classified U.S. intelligence to the Iranians -- and the Bush Administration's lightning-fast efforts to cast him aside along with last year's Backstreet Boys CDs -- is that the Iranians may have used Chalabi and his deputy Aras Karim Habib to instigate the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Incredible. Is it that big a stretch to imagine that, seeing how the American neo-cons were wetting themselves with the desire to invade Iraq, the Iranians could use Chalabi and Habib to whip the Iraq-fetishists into such a frenzy as to do the Iranians dirty work for them? The CIA and State Dept. staffers abandoned Chalabi years ago after his so-called intelligence repeatedly turned up thin -- not to mention his glaring inability to organize an effective opposition movement against what was supposedly one of the most domestically unpopular leaders in the world. Its interesting that at every U.S. suggestion that Chalabi initiate a coup against Hussein, Chalabi would respond that only an American-led invasion would be sufficiently effective. There are some who believe that Chalabi actually sabotaged coup attempts on more than one occasion. But then, why should he get his hands dirty when Dick, Don and little George can be trusted to carry the water for him. His good friend Richard Perle told him along that it was "in the bag".

As one blogger I read recently stated, the next time some wingnut conservative calls you a traitor for arguing against the war in Iraq, you can respond by saying, "Well, at least I haven't been passing classified documents to the Iranians."

Its a good thing Chalabi was able to attend Bush's last State of the Union address. Who might Bush have invited otherwise -- Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen?

 
OKLAHOMA'S EMBARRASSMENT

If Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe (R) doesn't shut his mouth soon, I may have to start an "Inhofe Watch" weblog with which to keep track of him. The verbal diarrheajust won't stop:

"I think he (Sen. John Warner, R-VA) should stop the hearings at this point; we've heard enough," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a committee member. "We have a war to win, and we need to keep our talents concentrated on winning the war as opposed to prisoner treatment."

Rrriiiinggg

Hello? Sen. Inhofe? This is the cluephone, with an important call for you.

Here's a thought. If the success of our war in Iraq (is this the "war" he means? there seem so many to choose from these days) depends largely upon the cooperation and faith of the Iraqi people (which it most certainly does), doesn't protecting Iraqi prisoners from cruelty of our soldiers (and their leaders) rank as at least a somewhat important component of our strategy for success?

I know, I know. I use a lot of big words that are probably beyond Sen Inhofe -- and none of them are likely to be found in his morning GOP talking points.

Sheeesh! People like Inhofe make me embarrassed to go back home.

 
CNN OUTRAGE

Check this out. I've sent an email. Please do the same.

This is exactly why I just can't watch television news anymore.

Tell me another one about the "So-Called Liberal Media"........