Michael O'Hanlon's Phony Outrage

Have I told you lately...how much I love Think Progress? Let me count the ways...

Yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining his strategy to get out of Iraq. The Washington Post reports that Iraq war supporter Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was “livid” after reading Obama’s op-ed:

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”

In 2004, however, O’Hanlon’s sentiments were strikingly similar to Obama’s. In an op-ed titled “Set a date to pull out,” O’Hanlon wrote that “our own enduring commitment to success in Iraq is beginning to work against us.” “Some will see this as cut-and-run,” he said. “It is not.”

O'Hanlon is more angry at the fact that no one calls him as often as they used to and that he doesn't get to go on television when he feels like it. He's gradually drifting, along with dozens of other neoconservative hacks and Republican Bushniks, into a hellish obscurity. O'Hanlon will soon be fighting for space in the Moonie Times, and he knows it. They all know it--and they knew it the moment McCain blurted out that we could stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

What O'Hanlon doesn't get is that the Iraq War is long since decided, and the US needs to leave. Nothing is going to change unless we can draft a 500,000 man Army out of thin air to stabilize the country entirely, take out Maliki, install a Sunni strongman, and turn the country into what it used to be, a bulwark against Shia Islam. Too late, suckers. Iraq is destined to be a client state of Iran, and we drove them there. Your phony surge accomplished nothing, other than kicking the can down the road, and the greatest military debacle in American history is permanently hung around the necks of the Republican Party.

--WS

Someone Help Mr. Bolton From the Stage...

Sheer ridiculous wankery from John Bolton...

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

It's hard to count just how many ways that Bolton is wrong when he speaks like this in public. No credible news organization should look to him for analysis or commentary, at least not the ones who value what they put out as far as content is concerned. Bolton reads and sounds like the last Neocon standing, a relic of 2003 that simply can't find anyone to take him seriously anymore.

His statement is wrong on so many different levels--but yes, it would technically be true to say that many Arab nations would like to see Israel "disarm" Iran and "destroy their nuclear weapons capability." Except that there are a whole host of other reasons they would be horrified and would react accordingly against it--namely, I don't think OPEC would sit there and do nothing. I don't think Jordan and Syria would allow their airspace to be used for any kind of overflight, at least not without serious protest or military force. The fledgling Iraqi government would likely collapse into hysterics over such a thing.

Does anyone seriously think Israel could do such a thing? Well, no, because, for starters, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons capability--hence, the disconnect in Bolton's logic. He knows they don't have one, but he cannot make his case if he has to sit there and patiently explain just how far away they are from having one. They have a series of initiatives and programs headed in that direction, and there's a good chance they could get there in five to ten years with a massive effort and an influx of money, and with support and technology they don't currently possess. However, there are at least a handful of other nations around the world that you could say the same thing about. But no one talks about Algeria or Taiwan like this, do they? No one talks about the fact that Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Spain, Romania, or South Korea could probably beat the Iranians in the race to get a weapon if they put forth that same herculean effort. How seriously do you take a country like Iran when they're largely incapable of doing anything other than talking and repressing their own people?

So we're to believe that Arab countries would celebrate an aggressive projection of Israeli military force into a distant country, one that "succeeded" in destroying dozens of facilities, and left Iran defenseless? Because in order for Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear program, it would involve sending thousands and thousands of sorties over hostile territory into hostile territory, it would involve systematically destroying the Iranian air defense systems which use some fairly modern SAMs and SAM systems, and it would take months. Months of attacks, months of assessing damage, and months of determining what the end state of the situation was. As in, did we get it all? Did we get everything?

All while expecting Iran to do nothing in response to this.

Last time I looked into this, Iran was a founding member OPEC. They're not the end all, be all, but they're part of an organization which is running the table right now on energy prices. When was the last time anyone stood up and said, "you know, Iran is part of OPEC." Why do we never hear anyone point that out? We hear the likes of Bolton, we hear the proxies and the shills, and they always conveniently fail to point out that Iran is a member of OPEC.

So is Bolton being ridiculous? Yes, of course. Should Israel do nothing? Of course not--but how do you explain this to the Neocons? They're not totally wiped out, unfortunately. They're like the last shithouse rat looking to bite someone just to see if they can still pull it off.

Until we are rid of them, we are cursed with their presence in the media.

--WS

No, there is no "NAFTA" Super Highway...

Think Progress nails a very troubled and confused Lou Dobbs:

Last night on his CNN show, an edgy Lou Dobbs hosted Media Matters fellow Paul Waldman to discuss the report’s finding. Waldman asked Dobbs to provide evidence of the “myth” he often promotes — that there is a “secret plan” to build a “NAFTA Superhighway” from Mexico to Canada. Having trouble providing evidence, an exasperated Dobbs said finally, “You’re charging nonsense.” “I reject it, I reject you, and I reject your position,” he angrily added. From the exchange:

WALDMAN: So the question is, do you have — do you have actual evidence that there — that there is a plan that is going to take this all the way from Mexico to Canada? What is the evidence there? […]

DOBBS: The evidence is straightforward. … We haven’t enough time for this. … You are a left-wing advocacy group. You’re charging nonsense … I reject it, I reject you, and I reject your position!

I cannot say enough good things about Think Progress. Please consider visiting and supporting their site. They are doing some of the best work on the Internet.

McCain States The Obvious While Evading The Truth

McCain's Media Mancrush Continues:

Hey, thanks for taking that clear moral stand, but maybe next time you should admit you're afraid of being called a pussy by people who, in any other era of American politics, would be laughed out of public life.

McCain answers the right question the wrong way:

I’ve made it very clear, I’ve made it very clear in my statements and in my support of the Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, etc., that there may be some additional techniques to be used, but none of those would violate the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act…And we cannot ever, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now, if we had a working media, the clarification would be--do you support torturing people who are not American citizens? Would you authorize the torture of a detainee, irregardless of their nationality? Do you think that it means anything to specify that you won't torture an American when we have, in fact, one particular member of al Qaeda who was born in the United States?

You know, guys like this:

(AP) An American member of al Qaeda warned President Bush on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape.

Wearing a white robe and a turban, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki, said al Qaeda would not negotiate on its demands.

"Your failure to heed our demands ... means that you and your people will ... experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq and Virginia Tech," he said in the seven-minute video.

Gadahn, who has been charged in a U.S. treason indictment with aiding al Qaeda, spoke in English and the video carried Arabic subtitles. The video appeared on a Web site often used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of al Qaeda's media wing, as-Sahab.

So, guess what wingnuts? Your boy McCain was in the midst of another softball round of lovingly asked questions--and he said, point blank, he won't torture Americans. Good for him. It's a great start.

But if we ever get our hands on Aham Yehiye Gadahn, well, your President McCain isn't going to be able to turn his goons loose on him now.

h/t to thinkprogress...

Yeah, It Kinda Does Matter

McCain Media Mancrush Mashup Moment

Does it really matter that John McCain can't tell the players without a scorecard read to him by Joe Lieberman?

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

This is a little like not being able to tell the Dutch from the Germans. Perhaps not a little.

A LOT like not being able to tell them apart. If the media doesn't start pointing out that the Republican nominee for President doesn't have the first clue who we're fighting in Iraq because he didn't get the briefing on who the fuck these people actually are, how is he going to have the judgement to know what to do when the fight gets tough? Who is he going to negotiate with when al-Maliki is thrown to the wolves, for example? Is he capable of figuring out that Sadr is not exactly a Sunni insurgent? That there are Shia in the parts of the country where one finds Sunni?

Homosexuality A Greater Threat Than Islamic Terrorism?

Some raging, ignorant dingbat has her say:



Thanks for the history lesson--sorry I didn't learn anything, what with your inability to make sense or string together a series of coherent thoughts. I'll protect my children from the kind of indoctrination you represent, lady, if you don't mind.

Alberto, Abandoned

[Updated @ 6:30 p.m. to include video]

For someone who never had a glove laid on him in that grilling last week, Abu G. sure is without defenders. Even Fox News Opinion Sunday could find no one willing to carry the banner for AG².

In fact, Newt Gingrich openly refused to defend him from accusations that he perjured himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. “It’s very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question.” said Gingrich. “Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.”

Later in the broadcast, Chris Wallace admitted that no conservative would willingly come on the program to defend the Attorney General to the administration-friendly Fox viewers. “We invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.”

Will the president still stubbornly maintain that his consigliore has his full confidence?

If so, aren’t we well over the “fitness to serve” line?

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

For Dick Lugar, Party Trumps Principle

This is why I put a 24-hour-hold on reporting anything that comes close to looking encouraging if it comes from a party apparatchik Republican. They always backpedal and retract and spin and explain what they really meant to say – probably after a visit from Karl’s boyz, but that’s just speculation…

Yesterday evening, Think Progress posted the following:

In a major speech on the Senate floor, Lugar said that “victory” in Iraq as defined by President Bush is now “almost impossible.” The current course of the war “has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond,” he said.

Lugar warned that “persisting indefinitely” with Bush’s escalation strategy “will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.” He specifically rejected claims that withdrawing U.S. forces will increase instability. Downsizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq would “strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities,” Lugar said.

And today, MSNBC tells us that I was smart to hold off on praising him, because he intends to take the sniveling cowards way out, and has no intention of backing up his bold rhetoric.

Lugar won't switch vote
However, [Lugar spokesman Andy] Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

In January, Lugar voted against a resolution opposing the troop buildup, contending that the nonbinding measure would have no practical effect. In spring, he voted against a Democratic bill that would have triggered troop withdrawals by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pull out in six months.

Next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to force votes on several anti-war proposals as amendments to a 2008 defense policy bill. Members will decide whether to cut off money for combat, demand troop withdrawals start in four months, restrict the length of combat tours and rescind Congress' 2002 authorization of Iraqi invasion.

Expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass controversial legislation, the proposals are intended to increase pressure on Bush and play up to voters frustrated with the war.

…the proposals are intended to increase pressure on Bush and play up to voters frustrated with the war. Fisher says that like it’s a bad thing! In reality it is the only thing. Change ain’t gonna happen until this president is forced to deal with the reality that is “dealing with” ~30 Americans a week – and the only way he is going to be forced into facing facts is if members of his own party insist that he do so.

Dick Lugar should hang his head in shame. And he should also attend the funeral of every Indianan who falls and explain to the grieving family members why he puts party and politics above the lives of their loved ones.

[Crossposted at WTWC & OOIBC]

Please Stand By...

I am having difficulty with the satellite receiver (again!) and resorted to dial-up, so I am hanging out at FireDogLake for the liveblogging of the Monica Goodling testimony and checking the Goodling thread at Think Progress regularly too, because those liberals over there know how to get properly pissed!!!

Back after the bloodletting...

Meet Anne McLeod

Walter Reed is a mess. But everyone is focusing on the wrong mess.

Mold and mildew can be cleaned up. Stained carpets can be replaced. Walls can be painted and structures can be repaired.

But abuse and neglect...That is not so easy to whitewash.

The crass and craven perfidy is staggering in it's scope. Last week, I was very close to flabbergasted when I heard Secretary Harvey state that he hoped the Washington Post was satisfied, having managed to "ruin some careers." (A few decades of being affiliated with the military has made me not so easy to knock over with a feather when I hear of an outrage, if you know what I mean.)

I wanted to go through the radio and do an injury to the feckless, cowardly mother fucker.

But today, someone else (without my penchant for rhetorically dousing offenders with gasoline and tossing a match on 'em then busting out the s'mores fixin's) delivered a body blow to Harvey that should have knocked the wind out of all the upper brass. Sometimes a defter touch is demanded. Anne McLeod, wife of an injured Iraq War National Guard Soldier had the right tone, timbre and inflection.

The thing of the matter is, Mr. Harvey made a statement the other day that really bothers me. He said he hopes the Washington Post was satisfied because they ruined careers. First, let me come on record by saying, I don’t care about your career as far as anybody that’s in danger. That doesn’t bother me. All I’m just trying to do is have my life, the life that I had and that I know. My life was ripped apart the day my husband was injured, and having to live through the mess that we lived through at Walter Reed has been worse than anything I have ever sacrificed in my life.

Go to Think Progress to watch video of her testimony.

I dare you to watch it and not tear up, even if you have never had any connection to the military.

This is a topic that is not going away. So let's take a page out of the right's playbook, as written by Frank Luntz. When this subject comes up, use these words in framing the debate:

• Abuse
• Neglect
• Suffering
• Cruel
• Heartbreaking
• Disgraceful
• Depraved indifference
• Families
• Inhuman treatment
• Perfidy
  

Those words focus the debate where it belongs:

On beings, not buildings.