Tuesday morning quick hits

Got Propaganda? Media Matters has done that thing they do, and compiled and analyzed the data points on the Pentagon's program of manipulating public opinion using retired military officers as willing propaganda tools to cram Bush's pet war down the throats of the American sheeple. They found that between early 2002 and and the point at which Bob Gates terminated the propaganda efforts in recent days, these retired officers parroted the party line on network and cable news shows over 4500 times. (A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here.)

As we now know, many of these retired officers were employed by defense contractors and granted undue access to Donald Rumsfeld and the procurement process. There are twenty retired officers and twenty wiki pages just screaming for a line to be added: His reputation has suffered since being exposed in a New York Times article on April 20, 2008 as a Pentagon propagandist who was willing to be used by the Bush administration to sell the invasion of Iraq in exchange for access.

Rove still refuses to testify under oath in the Don Siegelman case. He has offered to talk to the members of the House Judiciary Committee "privately and off the record," but that option doesn't establish a clear record as such a meeting would lack a transcript. Rove's refusal to appear before Congress in this matter, which cost a man his freedom for political reasons, is the latest assertion of executive overreach to undercut the congress and establish the presidency as a unitary, all-powerful office.

It doesn't get any better than this...you know how the republicans rolled out their rebranding effort yesterday, with the catchy theme "The Change You Deserve," and you thought that sounded strangely familiar? It's because it is the advertising tagline of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals anti-depressant Effexor. How staggeringly appropriate, given the depressing landscape the republicans face this fall.

I've only been saying this for two years...

And the polls have been saying it for a year.

The military - and just as importantly, military families - are sick of the war in Iraq. When you consider that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine has somewhere between four and ten first degree relatives, that becomes a sizable constituency. A poll of active duty military and their families, conducted by Bloomberg and the LA Times from November 30 to December 3 reported that only 36% support the war and the administrations handling of it. In 2004, that number was 64%. The population in general exhibits 32% support, so the military is more in line with the people than with the president. Remember, the oath is to the Constitution. The president is not mentioned. (Unless you apply a liberal interpretation to the part about domestic enemies.)

In their own words:

Kent Fletcher, an Iraq war veteran, says he enthusiastically voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, he is a registered Democrat who questions the need for the war, the way it has been managed and the treatment of returning veterans.

``Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat and the culmination of my career was that war and it wasn't necessary,'' says Fletcher, 32, a financial analyst in Bluffton, South Carolina, who served almost 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.

[snip]

In 2005, Fletcher, the Marine who switched party affiliations, published an editorial in the Huntington, West Virginia Herald-Dispatch newspaper scolding critics of Bush, who he said were also insulting the U.S. fighting forces.

``You don't have to spit on an Iraqi war veteran physically to spit on one metaphorically,'' he wrote. ``We are part and the same with the president's administration.''

Fletcher is now a member of Votevets.org, a group that promotes political candidates, particularly veterans who are critical of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies.

That shift in Fletcher's view may reflect a broader trend in the military about dissent. The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds that 58 percent of military families -- the same margin as the overall population -- believe it is appropriate for retired military personnel to criticize Bush even in a time of war.

These negative feelings are not dissipated in the least when they look around and see veterans being denied the care they need, or wounded soldiers asked to return portions of their enlistment bonuses when they are unable to fulfill their service contracts. They are not heartened when 12 month tours become 15 month tours, they aren't happy about serving with 20% waivered troops. They don't like being called "phony soldiers" by some redneck junkie who dodged the draft by virtue of a pimple on his ass, and they really don't think much of a Senate Minority leader who dismisses casualties in aWol's clusterfuck with a glib "Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

I would like to point out that that bastard Mitch McConnell said those callous and thoughtless words at a time when Ft. Campbell (which is in his state) lost three soldiers in a bomb attack the previous day.

And as the tide turns and the military shifts their support, the Wurlitzer is cranking up to spew forth the dolchstosslegende. The farther out on the lunatic fringe, the more vehement they become. Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldiers crack...Michael Savage calling retired General Kerr a "Phony General" and an "old queen" and casting aspersions on all G.I.'s in the process. "Now you wonder why we're still in Iraq five years later. General Keith Kerr. He wasn't just racking up cue balls at the pool table," Savage ranted hysterically.

At this point they are flailing wildly. Their day is done and they know it, but they are desperately trying to reanimate the monster for one last go at the village. In their desperation they spew venom and hatred, and instead of shoring up support, they drive support away.

That is why I propose we take them out of their AM radio ghetto and put them on prime time for the duration of the writers strike.

Let the rest of the country have a taste of the Kool-Aid that the 24%-ers are swilling, and see if the fuckers have any sponsors left two weeks in.

Cranking Up the Mighty Wurlitzer

As they always do when they have no facts or precedent to make their case, the right-wing noise machine has been cranking non-stop in an effort to smear Nancy Pelosi and her trip to the Middle East.

None of the sources criticizing Pelosi has mentioned the five Republican congressmen who were in the Middle East this week and who also met with the Syrian president.

To hear them tell it, Ms. Pelosi is setting up a shadow presidency and only wants to embarrass the idiot in the oval. The ABC website actually implied criminality might be charged.

Please.

I would like to refer those screaming the loudest to 1997, when two different Speakers of the House truly did usurp presidential authority:

From Digby:

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.

And from Glenn Greenwald:

This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:

New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.

Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.

Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.

Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's.

Desperate, ain’t they?

Meanwhile, I just love this bit from a Saudi paper:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminds us of the ambitious office worker surrounded by dunderheads who can't or won't get the job done. So she rolls up her sleeves and says for all the world to hear: 'Well, it looks like I'll have to do it myself.'

This is, of course, a non-issue. Just like the military jet was a non issue. I’m not a hyper-sensitive feminist, seeing misogyny in every shadow, but there just might be an element of that in this instance.

It’s a faux scandal because they have nothing real to object to. So they crank up the slime machine and slander the most competent politician working today because she is speaking truth to power, and it is scaring power shitless.

Good for her. I just think it's terribly sad that Speaker Pelosi had to give up her time off with her large Catholic family to do the job that Condi-the-incompetent has failed miserably at lo these many months.

Not Such a Cunning Stunt...

[Updated, sorta - Skippy had a much better picture, so I stole it promptly and swapped 'em out.]

Ann Coulter: CLASSLESS

First advertisers disappeared from her website. Then newspapers, to their credit, started dropping her column. The latest is the Shreveport Times. In dropping the poisonous harpie of the rabid right, the Times joins papers in Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Michigan. Media Matters has a list of all the papers which currently carry her column, and the contact information for the opinion page editors who decide what runs.

If you contact the press, follow the same rules for contacting your elected officials. Hold the snark and hostility. Be respectful and concise, and clearly and firmly, using positive assertive language, state your case in 100 words or less. Rant in my comments section if you want to rant. Don't rant to a congressional staffer or an opinion editor.

My local paper, to the credit of the editorial board, dropped her like a prom dress when she made the "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" remark.

She has every right to be a stunning cu craven, malignant, soulless harridan.

I just don't think that a social cancer like Ann Coulter should be rewarded for being one of the top-ten worst Americans of all time, Tim McVeigh included so black is her soul.