Face the nation / Rice, Dean, Bumiller

This is the first time I’ve fired up The Tube in about three years. In fact, if I think back, the last time I had the TV on was to watch the twin towers go down. Oh yeah, and watching the Gilmore girls once when I was really sick. It was the only thing on, I swear! So, the casing is covered with dust. And no matter how I twiddle the rabbit ears, the snow on the screen is as heavy as the snow outside—too many tall buildings in Center City, Philly. No, I don’t have cable….

PREVIEW: Dean said that if what Scooter Libby says is true—that his superiors told him to leak—then Cheney “cannnot remain in office.”

MORE TO COME. I’m going to make my way out through the drifts and see if there’s any place open where I can achieve a state of caffeination, and file the rest of this story.

UPDATE Yes! They’re open! In a blizzard that’s still going on! My local, Hausbrandt, totally rules. Plus, they don’t burn their coffee and the WiFi is free.

Dramatis Personae

SCHIEFFER Bob Schieffer, CBS news anchor

ELIZABETH BUMILLER Girl reporter from The World’s Greatest Newspaper (not!)

CONDI RICE Bush’s Secretary of State

HOWARD DEAN Chair of the Democratic National Committee

Condi Rice
In some ways, the snow on the screen was an advantage this morning, because all I had to go on was the voices. I’m sure that Condi looks confident, and her words are well-chosen and on message, but her voice is high-pitched, breathy, and very stressed. I think she questions her own adequacy and the pointy shoes are over-compensation. Then again, maybe it’s just that her feet hurt.

SCHIEFFER The cartoons.

RICE Outrage… Press freedom… Responsibility.. Killing innocent people
is unacceptable. “Sistani spoke out againt this.” Iran by contrast prints
anti-Israel cartoons. These are “incited.” A question of how governments respond
not people.

I have to say that the cartoon controversy strikes me as a very smart move by Iran, obviously designed to make it hard for Bush to get Israeli help in taking out Iran’s nuclear program.

[Troll prophylactic: The Iranian regime, like all theocracies, is a Bad Thing.]

RICE We would draw a distinction between peaceful protests and incitement to violence; that is beyond the pale.

SCHIEFFER Kofi Annan says there’s no evidence of incitement.

RICE These are regimes that do not permit spontaneous demonstrations.

SCHIEFFER Why would Kofi Annan say what he said?

RICE I don’t know. I won’t get into that argument, we have the same view. Governments need to tamp down and not stir up. If publishing cartoons denying the holocaust isn’t incitement I don’t know what it.

The “need to” locution really grates on me, as it must on other. “What X needs to do is…” The Republicans consistently take a rhetorical stance that infantilizes the other; or, in less hifalutin’ language, these guys treat everybody else like five-year-olds. Probably that “strong Daddy” frame Lakoff speaks of. But it gets old, doesn’t it?

BUMILLER What’s our strategy on Iran? Isn’t it inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons?

RICE That’s not our view.. Robust international response in the Security Council… Unity demonstrated in recent weeks… China, Brazil, India, they are all saying to Iran that you can make peaceful use of nuclear power but not weapons…

BUMILLER Is the pressure cornering Iran?

RICE What’s pushing Iran into a corner is Iran’s own behavior.

Last year, people thought the US was problem [I wonder why], but we supported the various proposals to demonstrate to the world that Iran is isolated….

We don’t have a problem with the Iranian people but with the Iranian regime. The regime could take any of the several proposal on the table, have a path to peaceful energy, and be “back in community of responsible states.”

Returning the United States to the “commmunity of responsible states” is exactly what the Democrats want to do and this crowd can’t. After WMDs, Abu Ghraib, prison camps…

SCHEIFFER The Iran question moved to UN, but you slowed down the UN taking action at the request of Russia. More and more, Putin takes positions that differ from the United States. For example, Putin says he’ll invite Hamas to Russia. Are you satisfied with the way you are handling him?

RICE In general, we have good relations with Putin. On Iran, good cooperation with Russi. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. A delay gave time for the Russian proposal. The wanted to look at what the IEAA was saying, we said, it has to go before the Security Council, ultimately we got agreement.

On Hamas, Russian says not Hamas is not a terrorist entity. However, Russia is also a member of the Quartet, which has signed onto a statement that that a Palestinian government must accept Isarel right to exist, give up
violence, and accept a two state agreement. Russia has agreed to this.

SCHIEFFER Israel says this is a stab in the back. Is Russia trying to reestablish its former position in the middle east?

RICE We’re concentrating on making the message to Hamas consistent. How can you have a two state solution if you believe in violence?

BUMILLER Did Bush misjudge Putin when he looked in Putin’s eyes and saw his soul?

RICE The President retains a good relationship with Puian. We are concerned with democratization. This is not the Soviet Union. I was Soviet Specialist [her voice strengthened and became more confident here], what we see bears no relation to the Soviet Union.

But clearly,the use of energy as used in Ukraine, for example, is a problm. Russia is President of the G8 now. We hope for fitting behavior.

SCHIEFFER Does Putin share the values of the G8?

RICE Putin is a Russian patriot who believes in a more open Russia. I don’t see anything positive to be gained by the isolation of Russia. The challenge to the Russian polity is to integrate G8 values.

Bottom line: Condi’s weak. That means Bush likes his cabinet members weak. Probably Condi’s only asset is her relationship with Bush.

Howard Dean
Howard Dean’s voice has deepened and changed since I saw him in 2004. It’s an improvement. Dean too stays on message, doesn’t let the questioners shake him, and doesn’t get irritated, or raise his voice. Here’s a man who can learn, and who keeps getting better at what he does. Somehow, I don’t get the feeling Dean wears pointy shoes—or needs to.

SCHIEFFER What would the Democrats do about Iraq?

DEAN This President is weak on defense. North Korea nothing done for 5 years, Iran nothing done for five years, and the President sent us to Iraq not Iran. In Iraq no armor “and on and on it goes.” As far as Iran, “no option should be off the table.”

Reiteration of the Republican talking point on “options”—which commits nobody to anything—without any expression of support. Nice little piece of jujitsu.

[NOTE: I’m not sure whether Dean actually used that insanely irritating formulation “this President” that the Republicans used for Clinton, but if they aren’t I think they ought to. In every turn of phrase, the Democrats must signal that Republicans are not fit to govern, and have forfeited the respect that their high offices would otherwise have entitled them to.]

BUMILLER Some say that the Democrats are losing their voice. Do you agree?

DEAN We have an agenda:

1. Honesty and open government
2. A strong national defense based on truth
3. Jobs in this country based on energy independence
4. A health care system that works for every American
5. Strong public education.

And he rattles them off, just like that. Nice work. Short and concise. Is this a rollout of the Democratic 2006 message? Readers?

BUMILLER Do you think your message will have a hard time getting traction?

DEAN Senator Reid worked hard with his caucus to secure agreement. If we are the party of change we will win. And we’ll get our troops “out of harm’s way in Iraq” and focus on Iran and North Korea…

Sounds a lot like Murtha…

SCHIEFFER The President and the Vice President suggest that the election should be about national security, and that eavesdropping should be on the table.

DEAN The Vice President was leaking national security information in time of war. The Vice President has no credibility on national security. If it turns out that Libby was ordered to leak for political reasons, “this Vice President may not be a Vice President.”

SCHIEFFER [Brief explanation of Plame affair.]

DEAN The President said two years ago that anyone who was involved in the leak should be fired. Now if it turns out that the Vice President has knowledge of the leak, he should no longer be Vice President.

SCHIEFFER What’s the remedy?

DEAN I suggest that first we need to find out if this is true. If it is true, then the Vice President cannot remain in office.

SCHIEFFER But should he step down? What course of action do you recommmend?

DEAN First, let’s find out if it is true.

SCHIEFFER Impeachment?

DEAN First, let’s find out if it is true. Libby was indicted, and said his superior told him to leak classified information. If that’s true, his superior cannot remain in office. Cheney is Libby’s only superior.

Nice work again. “Let’s find out if it is true” is a statement that is useful for any Republican scandal (and there are so very, very many of them), and it ties into the notion of truth-seeking through evidence and reasoning—see points 1 and 2 in the agenda above. Also, though Schieffer tried to sucker Dean into using the I-word, Dean was having none of it. Finally, it was wonderful to hear Dean say “the Vice President has no credibility on national security.” That exact sentence should be used by all Democrat whenever they’re discussing national security.

It’s also interesting to contrast “let’s find out if it’s true” with Republican behavior during the scandals they themselves ginned up during the Clinton years, when literally anything and everything the VRWC said was treated as gospel, by Lizzie Bumiller, among others, no matter how ludicrous.

BUMILLER Ken Mehlman says that Hillary is too angry. Do you agree?

DEAN I don’t want to talk about 2008, I have to be the referee in that race. Let’s leave Clinton aside. But there are some things Hillary said I can agree with… Recall Clinton said Bush was the worst President…. Bungled the response to Katrina and then mislead the American people, mislead in Iraq, mislead on prescription drugs…

BUMILLER But [laughing contemptuously] is Hillary too angry?

DEAN I won’t talk about the 2008 race. Mehlman was upset because this President’s record of accomplishment is very short.

This “angry” meme is like a constant low-grade infection in the American body politic. I would prefer to see Dean address it head on.

The segue into “mislead” was a pleasure to see, though. Seems like we’ve settled on “mislead” instead of “lie.” Excellent! Because now we can dust off all our old “Dear Misleader” snark.

But Dean might have been more effective if he had said something more like: “With this President misleading on Iraq, Katrina, prescription drugs, and on and on and on, it’s only natural that people might get a little irritated. Some people take being misled very seriously. I don’t know what was in Hillary’s mind and heart, of course. But I agree with what she said about the President continuing to mislead.”

Late Edition / Blitzer, Hegel, Leiberman, Allawi, And Representing Egypt, Israel, the Palestinians...

Gasbaggery indeed.

No longer the latest in Sunday talk, since CNN moved the program up to compete with MTP and “This Week,” Wolf hosted a full house, mainly from abroad, sandwiched around two Senators clearly picked for their Tweedle-de-dum symmetry.

The headline for the two hours is no doubt this comment from Chuck Hagel, cast as a Republican maverick to Joe Lieberman’s version of a Democratic one, an almost casual remark which must have made the good Senator from Connecticut gulp:

We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said and others said it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq…

Wolf’s first guest was the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, being everything you’d expect a Danish Prime Minister to be, handsome, intelligent, measured, and as scintillating as a Hans Christian Lumbye polka.

PM Rasmussen mouthed all the correct words, the sacred twin freedoms of speech and the press; then again, no freedom sans responsibility; no, no, Danes don’t see this as a clash of civilizations; no, no, no, Danes aren’t reluctant to welcome immigrants, and yes, there does seem to have been an over reaction on the part of Muslims around the world.

Next, Wolf ushered on the matched set of Senators, though Hagel was to prove himself a good deal less tweedle-de-dum, both Senators gave a pretty good imitation of the Tweedle twins in responding to the “cartoon uproar.”

Both were all in favor of our western freedoms, and of responsibility in their use, in these “combustible times,” as Hagel put it. Both roundly criticized those who would seek to fan the flames of Muslim outrage, like say, Syria and Iran, special emphasis on Iran’s naughty role here from Lieberman, along with the smug observation that in the face of similarly outrageous cartoons aimed at Jews or Christians, neither riots nor violence ensued. No one thought to point out, of course, how difficult it is to think of a recent instance of a Christian or otherwise Western country being invaded by a Muslim one. Indeed, what was totally lacking from these two hours, as from almost every other discussion of this subject I’ve listened to, any impulse to ask what would seem like an obvious question: is there a relationship between the stunning eruption of deadly fury anger by Muslims we’ve seen displayed around the world, and the response of the Bush administration to 9/11, i.e., their version of the War On Terror?

In fact, Lieberman went in the opposite direction:

It should tell us a few things. One is that the war against terrorism is a world war, that the worldwide reaction stimulated by the extremists leading to a point of people shouting, “behead the cartoonist, death to America” — America had nothing to do with it. In fact, our president and secretary of state condemned the cartoon as offensive — reminds us this is a world war.

I want to say one other word. We have said, and I believe we’re right, that this war against terrorism is mostly being fought out within the Muslim world. And the question is to strengthen the moderate voices. Where are the moderate voices? (all quotes are from my notes, no transcript being available yet)

Lieberman did point to a few such voices, and rightly lauded the Muslim-American community for it’s loyalty to American values, even while many were appalled by the cartoons themselves.

And speaking of Iran, Wolf wondered if the “use of force,” was “on the table.” While acknowledging such is always the case in like situations, Senator Hagel came down hard on the side of caution:

But I think we are a long, long way — I hope we are a long way from seriously considering a military option, because I don’t think it would result in the objective here.

While acknowledging the genuine threat a nuclear Iran would pose not merely to us, but to much of the rest of the world, and praising the administration for it’s willingness to work with other countries for a change, and through international channels, lest the administration has any notion that the run-up to the Iraqi invasion is a model for gaining acceptance for the use of a military option, Hagel made it clear, he won’t be on board.

It may well be that the United States is going to have to find some way to engage the Iranians off channel. That doesn’t mean negotiate. That doesn’t mean diplomatically recognize them.

But if we are to get to the core of the issue here, the Iranians are surrounded by, in their minds — reverse the optics for a minute. When you’re talking with people you always have to — Israel with nuclear capacity, the Paks, the Indians. And sure, they’re going to have some sense of their own national security interest. I’m not defending that. And I found it very interesting today, too, and we need to be careful with this and work with those inside Iran on this issue.

Former President Rafsanjani, the former speaker of the parliament, said some things today — yesterday about everybody calm down here, let’s talk this through. That’s the more responsible way to do it. And I think some incentives within the framework of how we deal with Iran is the way we will get to the objective.

Blitzer immediately pointed out that Rafsanjani wasn’t elected, music to Senator Lieberman’s ears. Again, no one ventured to ask what pressures brought to bear by us might have contributed to the election of President Ahmadinejad, but Joe took as his text, the extreme nature of Iran’s new President - this man’s presence in Iran makes it “another front in our war against radical Islamist terrorism, because Ahmadinejad has proclaimed himself, in some sense, the leader of those forces.”

Going to be interesting to see how, with the help of Lieberman, the administration is going to be able to paint a duly elected President of a country which is acting strictly within its own borders as a terrorist and his country, a terrorist state, but I don’t doubt they’ll find a way.

Any doubts you might have had that Lieberman has learned absolutely nothing from our experience in Iraq, you can set aside:

And yes, I agree with John McCain, in the last analysis, if we’re that serious about the danger that Iran with nuclear weapons poses to the rest of the world, and most particularly to us, the United States of America, we’ve got to leave the military option on the table.

Think it’s fair to say that John McCain isn’t exactly a quick learner, either.

It was in the context of Iran that Hagel made his headline-worthy statement about Iraq, when Wolf asked Hagel if he was sure that our intelligence agencies had it right about Iran’s nuclear program.

I go back to the conversation we just had here, the three of us, over the last five minutes, about Iran. We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because, in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said, and others said, it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq, and that limits our options in Iran, it limits our foreign policy options everywhere.

We need to think through where we’re going. We need to think through consequences. We talk about sanctions. Well, sanctions, that’s fine. Where would that lead? Where would that go? We’ve got to bore down here a little bit more in our thoughtful analysis.

Intelligence is a very key part of that. But it’s imperfect. We don’t have all the pieces. One of the — I think one of the results of us having no relationship with Iran, when all of our allies do, is that the intelligence we get is pretty much third-hand. We don’t have any presence in Iran.

To sum up: Chuck Hagel thinks the last thing we ought to be thinking about is doing anything with a military option but leave it on the table, while Senator Lieberman is forging yet another test of foreign policy seriousness by daring America to be unafraid of an option that will probably result in a 100 years war with a billion Muslims. Good one, Joe.

If the subject of intelligence is raised, can the issue of those NSA warrantless wiretaps be far behind? Give Wolf limited credit, he did use the word “warrantless,” but he didn’t use the word “domestic,” although he did use the word, “surveillence.” Once. Come on, you couldn’t seriously have thought he was going to put the two together?

Here’s the context: Hagel is the cover story on the NYTimes magazine this Sunday, which provided the explicit set-up for Wolf to pair off Hagel and Lieberman as Senators who remain stubbornly independent of their parties.

Hagel was a good deal more impressive here than Lieberman, making the point that, though a Republican, his first responsibility is to his constituents, the country as a whole, and to the constitution. Lieberman, presented with that loathsome statement he made about Democrats needing to accept the fact that Bush is president for the next three years, made a meaningless distinction between being critical for partisan reasons, which is bad, and being responsible and non-partisan, which seems to mean, one simply doesn’t criticize the President, especially not on his foreign policy.

Which led Wolf to the NSA:

BLITZER: Are you on board with the president’s decision to go ahead and authorize these warrantless wiretaps without getting any congressional authority?

HAGEL: Quick answer is no. We have a law on the books. It has worked. But more to the point, we are a nation that not only respects our laws, but we are a nation rooted in law. And that foundation has been built by the Constitution of the United States.

For over 200 years, we’ve protected civil liberties of Americans and our national security interests. We can do both. We have done both.

I think we need to accommodate, at a time when technology has changed, threats have changed, a new way to respond to these threats.

edit

But any president can’t just unilaterally, arbitrarily say, We believe we have the authority and the power, and you go around a law that has worked very well.

Interestingly, Wolf didn’t ask Leiberman his view, and the Democratic Senator (I have to remind myself) didn’t indicate he had anything to say on the matter.

Katrina and her discontents rounded out the Senatorial portion of the program; quoting from a Wa Po article that states a Republican report is about to come out which says Michael Chertoff was detached from what was going on, and that the White House failed to engage the President in what was going on - the quote didn’t make much more sense than that, Wolf then asked Lieberman if his Senate committee investigation will show the same thing, to which Lieberman was only too happy to say that yes, that is exactly what he and Senator Collins are finding.

The rest was a perfect example of Lieberman’s conception of not being partisan, which seems to translate into an almost automatic need to exempt the President from any responsibility for his own administration’s actions, i.e., after a long list of the failures of the administration in responding to a predicted disaster, Lieberman’s final conclusion was this:

I’ll tell you, the president ought to be outraged. This — our whole apparatus failed to protect the people of New Orleans. And next time, God forbid, it could be a terrorist attack, and there’s not going to be a warning from the weather service.

We got a lot to do, and we better do it together and quickly.

Couldn’t agree more, Joe, but I wonder how you’ve managed not to notice that this White House has no desire to work together, not with anyone who isn’t already in their pocket.

2nd hour had Allawi talking about Iraq, and three Middle East Ambassadors; summary to follow.

Meet The Press / Daschle, Roberts, Harman and Hoekstra

Breakin’ the Law, Breakin’ the Law!

MTP opens with two video clips, the second one is from Bush’s January 23, 2006 speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan.:

…when people say to me, ’Well, he was just breaking the law’. If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?”

Followed by a very audible “heh” while he leans forward on the podium and smirks at the audience.

This Contra Costa [CA] Times
article has that quote preceded by “It’s amazing..”

Yeah, amazing stuff. Who are the “people” who say to Bush that he was breaking the law? Rove? Andy Card? That would be truly amazing. What Bush means is “when I hear that some people are saying…”

Bush’s embarassingly poor command of the English language coupled with his exaggerated Texas accent and his sarcastic posturing make him sound like a dimwitted Cowboy Movie villain sippin’ some whiskey at the Saloon.

Are You Being Briefed?

Right after the clip, Pumpkinhead [Russert] launches aggressively into the questioning starting with Daschle:

Russert: “…were you briefed and to what extent?”

Daschle’s answer is rambling and far too long. “I can’t get into the details…”.

He tries to make the point that he knows far more now about the surveillance program from the news articles than he knew after he was briefed 2-3 years ago. So, no, he was not fully briefed at all. Good point, but poorly executed.

Tom Daschle’s way of speaking on TV always annoyed me. From the days when he would give the Democratic “response” to the State of the Union. Then, as now, he sounds patronizing. Smiling as he speaks slowly and softly. He needs to hire Howard Dean’s Media Trainer.

I Object!

Russert: In those briefings, did anyone object to the plan?

If this isn’t a GOP/White House talking point already, it will be soon. “If this NSA surveillance program is so illegal and terrible, why didn’t you Democrats say so at the time? Why didn’t you try to do anything about it?”.

Somewhere in his rambling response Daschle mentions Sen. Rockefeller’s letter. A concise response would have been to say “Sen. Rockefeller raised objections to the Vice President and he was ignored”.

Sen. Pat Roberts follows the Right-Wing storyline by saying his recollection of the briefings is that nobody raised any objections. He says the briefers would ask the briefees if they had any questions or concerns.

Luckily for Daschle, Pumpkinhead helps him out by reading Rockefeller’s July 2003 letter.

Tell No One About What You Have Seen Here

Roberts responds with a stream of absolute horsehockey:

Sen. Roberts: Well, you know, that letter was kept in a safe for three years.

What is he trying to imply here? That Rockefeller waited three years to send the letter? This is demonstrably false. That Rockefeller should have taken the letter out of the safe and leaked it to the press sooner?

According to Rockefeller he wasn’t even allowed to tell his fellow Senators about it. It was classified information that had to be kept super-secret.

These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

Roberts goes on to say that Representatives and Senators have a “variety of tools at their disposal” if they’re upset with the program. He mentions that they could “de-authorize the program” or write an amendment. He says that “feigning helplessness” is not a useful tool. Daschle has a look of quizzical amazement on his face, but tries to smile at the same time.

Democrats could never have de-authorized the program all by themselves, without the cooperation of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee (Roberts). It would be especially hard to introduce an amendment on the floor if they were forbidden from even mentioning the program’s existence.

This is a lesson Democrats repeatedly fail to learn about their “go along to get along with the Bushies” strategy. The GOP/White House gets what it wants, Dems get nothing in return and when things go horribly wrong (like, Iraq, fr’instance) they turn around and say “you guys signed off on this, or at least you didn’t try to stop us, so you’re just as responsible as we are”.

Why Didn’t You Say So Sooner?

Rep. Harman: I talked to absolutely no one about it, because I would have been violating about three federal criminal statutes had I done so.

Pumpkinhead grills the Democrats about why they didn’t singlehandedly shut down the prorgram or why they didn’t raise more objections, sooner, to more people. Harman responds with a good point:

She could not even ask her staff or outside experts to advise her on the constitutionality of the surveillance program under penalty of law. Only after Bush spoke about it after the NYT article was published, she began to have people research the legal issues. That is why the Democrats didn’t speak out in public about it then and why they are doing so now.

Jane Harman looks and talks like someone who you don’t want to mess with. Despite a couple defensive assurances that she supports the program and the war on terra, she was direct and convincing.

Above the Law

Pumpkinhead changes the focus to FISA.

Roberts: The President has the constitutional authority, it rises above any law passed by Congress.

Roberts rattles off the GOP FISA talking points:

- It’s hard work

Roberts makes a hand gesture to indicate the thickness of a FISA warrant application. Daschle shakes his head.

- It’s old

Why not try to revise it to account for modern technology?

- It’s legal anyway because the President has the constitutional authority to operate outside the law in time of “war”

Says who? Why don’t we let the congress and the judiciary branch make that determination rather than take the executive branch’s word for it?

- It’s too slow

Daschle retorts (sheepishly) that surveillance can begin immediately if a retroactive application is made within 72 hours.

- It’s only for intercepting communications between foreign terrorists and people in the US

What about US to US communications? The Senators got close to it in last week’s Abu Gonzales hearings, but I don’t think they ever asked him, specifically if ALL surveillance in the US is done through FISA warrants. This would be a great question for Scotty “Sucka MC” McClellan.

- It’s authorized by the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) signed by Congress after 9/11

Pumpkinhead reads from Daschle’s December 23, 2005 WaPo op-ed where he describes how he and Congress refused to add the words “in the United States” to the AUMF so that the authorization would only apply to operations OUTSIDE of the US.

The online video seems to die about half way through the show and the transcript still isn’t up. So, from memory:

- Pumpkinhead plays the clip of Bush’s Buffalo, NY speech where he says “every time you hear wire… tap, we’re talkin’ about gettin’ a court order” and asks if Bush was misleading the American public. Harman and Daschle hem and haw their way out of responding to the question. A blown opportunity. How can there be any other answer than a resounding “yes”?

- Dick Cheney has asserted that Congress “leaks like a sieve”. Harman got right into the Plame case and Pumpkinhead referenced the Murray Waas article revealing that Dick Cheney authorized Scooter to leak classified information about Wilson’s wife’s identity. Dick has no place saying anything about no leaks.

- Also the issue of the White House and the Pentagon’s selective misuse of pre-Iraq war intelligence came up in reference Paul Pillar’s article. He is the the intelligence community’s former senior analyst for the Middle East.

Russert grilled (lightly, more of a sautee) Roberts about phase two of the Intelligence Committee’s report on how WMD intelligence was used. He reminded Roberts that he had promised on a previous appearance to deliver this report. Roberts reiterated his promise to complete this important report sometime before the sun burns out.

This Week (Stephanopolous) / Rice, Biden, Swann Round Table

Meta-gas du jour: Democrats are absolutely right about the Imperial Presidency, unlawfullness of domestic surveillance, Republican inability to govern—but it doesn’t matter because the Nation Is Not With Them (i.e. doesn’t care, or in the case of surveillance actively supports Der Leader) about these issues, and besides, although Republicans can’t govern for shit, the Republicans Always Win on Message.

Now on to the gory details….

Smilin’ Georgie S. opens with Condaleeza Rice. Either they’ve adjusted her meds or she has “grown into the job” as they say, although of course in the Republican view the job is Giving Good Television, not necessarily being an effective diplomat.

On Iran: We have a real coalition this time! Really! And everybody, not just us, sez Iran must back off the nuke weapons program. If they want peaceful nuclear power they should buy it from Russia or the Europeans, because we can’t trust them with the toys—er, I think she meant “tools”—of basic nuclear research because they might play badly with them and wind up with bombs just by oopsie.

On the Sunday (UK) Telegraph story (which interestingly enough is being reported heavily all over the fucking world except the US) on Pentagon plans for a “devastating strike” in Iran’s nuclear site, she in essence confirmed every word, falling back on the “President must keep all options on the table” line. Message to Security Council: Do what we want so we don’t have to do this. Stop us before we bomb again.

On the Cartoon Riots—Heavy push on Iran, Syria. Riots government-instigated, because nobody does anything in those countries without government control. Unworthy of comment were the peaceful demonstrations—which I note came to Philadelphia yesterday, so Mayor Street had best watch his ass—all over the world. Syria Syria Syria, Iran Iran Iran. Oops, wait a sec while I whap the side of my head, obviously a needle is stuck somewhere.

On Hillary’s quote noting that the US “Can’t seem to catch the tallest man in Afghanistan”—Slight fluster here, Condi annoyed at Uppity Woman. We may not have caught him exactly but he’s On The Run which is just about as good. Weak attempt to play “Clinton should have caught him in the ’90s” card and complete failure to mention any even earlier time when Osama was our buddy and we sent him weapons and stuff. We are shocked, shocked at this lapse.

Closed with a “We look to a hopeful future” bit of blather about spreading democracy and women’s rights. Excuse me while I go swallow then hack up a hairball, which is the only response I can think of to that line.

On to Guest No. 2: Sen. Joseph Biden (D-MBNA). Mr. Talks Great, Votes..Eh, Not So Much. He was on his game today though, so give him a B+:

George S: The public favors Democratic positions on every single issue except National Security. Can you fight this perception?

Joe B: Yeppers. Look at Bush’s own speech (“Axis of Evil”) then look at where we are with North Korea and Iran. Iraq is in chaos. Our ports and shipping aren’t protected. Their focus is out of focus. Bush’s own Inspector Generals’ report on the $9 billion missing in Iraq, his own IG calling the situation “chaos”. Failing grades across the board from the 9-11 Commission. Cutting $1 billion from local law enforcement in the just-released budget. Under Bush’s priorities we are not as secure.

Biden Bullet Point: George S. asks about Iran, is there anything that could have been done.

Biden: There’s something we can do NOW: Prepare the nation for oil sanctions against Iran. Our allies [unspoken dig at Condi’s assertion that they really are “allies”][the word “China” comes to mind] must join in to support the oil boycott to keep Iran from just selling it elsewhere. George S appeared severely startled by this proposal but couldn’t follow up as they were out of time.

[Skipping the Lynn Swann interview as it is of primarily local PA interest. Only item of national note was a query about wtf blacks should vote Republican. Swann first tried to pitch the notion that most blacks are now middle class and should therefore vote their money not their principles, but didn’t seem to even believe that himself. Then he pointed out that you could get WAY more attention as a suck-up token Republican, citing Colin and Condi and that loon Steel of Maryland and a number of Cabinet appointees, some of whom are not even under indictment yet, as examples of the shining future Black Republican Tokens could expect. Of course he did not phrase it quite that way.]

On the Round table, things were not quite as grim as one would anticipate with a lineup of David Gergen, Donna Brazille, and the never-goes-the-fuck-away George Will.

Gergen was his usual milquetoasty self—his major message was that while of course Republicans were wrong on everything it didn’t matter because Republicans always “win on message.” George Will chimed in to agree that Democrats had a good case on the surveillance issue but should drop it because “the country isn’t with them and won’t be,” nobody cares if the Gummit listens in on their phone calls.

Brazille made a much better than usual comeback on this, reiterating that Dems “would bring the battle” and “would fight on national security subjects”.

Um, hint, Donna? This is more of the “yeah, this is what we’re gonna do” crap. You are supposed to use these occasions to, like, fucking DO the crap. In fairness she then tried, using what I hope will be a Democratic Talking Point next week and thereafter, that Bush Could Have Done This Shit Legally But Didn’t.

Gergen blathered something about the Gang of 14 should solve the wiretap business and that Democrats have nothing to offer going forward. This writer took opportunity to massage hand cramp.

George Will, who God help us may be what passes for a Principled Conservative these days, creaked up onto his hind legs to say some Rude Things at this point. The words “Monarchial Assertions” passed his withered lips in reference to his president. The FISA proposals and indeed the Patriot Act essentially allow the executive to shut down the other 2 branches of government.

George Steph jumps in to agree that the country doesn’t care about the government listening in on their communications. (Hmm, does it seem to anybody else that there was quite a project to say this over and over and over again today? Hmmm.)

George Will got in a couple of other PC cracks on other subjects. Noted that the Brownie hearings and other reports confirm that Bush was just lying his ass off with “there was no way anybody could anticipate” a disaster with New Orleans. National Weather Service gave warning 56 hours before landfall of precisely that. And that the “we didn’t know” line after it happened “lacked truthfullness” as there were 28 recorded reports of disaster the first day.

Gergen now notes that a House committee is due to hand in a 600 page report Monday eviscerating the Federal response to Katrina. Hastens to add that while this “calls into question Republican competence”…they’re still Better On Message so Democrats won’t be able to use this against them.

The Funnies were relatively weak this week, although he did run Colbert’s take on Gonzales line that “Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all used electronic surveilance against their enemies.” A good laugh was had by all.

Gasbag Patrol: Meet the Press/ 02-19-06

Meet the Press isn’t my usual gig but somebody else had George Steffie this week so I got stuck watching Russert. And it came on both East and West Coast feeds at the same time because of the Olympics, so I was obliged to be watching, taking notes and absorbing the meta of it all without either sufficient caffeine or an opportunity to review. So if you like a mix of Cranky, Incoherent, Illegible and Japanese Theater Forms, you’ve come to the right place. Read on….[update: rude Wolcott item added!]

Opening “interview” was Tweety vs. Chertoff, Master of the Homeland Security Universe.

[Note: After this babbleburble to NBC he used his superpowers to race over to the DC ABC studio to pretty much repeat the performance word for word on GeorgeSteffie, and I think i saw he was going to perform for Wolfie on CNN later. I think we can safely assume he’s on Major Calm Down, Pay No Attention To Those Drowned People Behind The Curtain, All Is Calm, All Is Bright, Now Shut The Fuck Up patrol this Sabbath.]

As to the interview itself, it was unmitigated horseshit in the traditional Kabuki stylized form.

—Mistakes Were Made.

—Lessons Were Learned.

—Language Is Spoken Entirely In The Passive Voice.

—[Xan pauses to smack self in face as the spell was starting to gain power over her.]

Summation: Brownie is a Disgruntled Ex-Employee is why he is saying those rude things; I was right to order him to stay in Baton Rouge because he was out riding around in helicopters and I couldn’t get hold of him when *I* wanted to; those umpty-zillion trailers sitting in a bog in Hope, Arkansas [gee, wonder who decided to stage this debacle in Bill Clinton’s birthplace?] are NOT going to waste but if they are it’s the fault of those rotten State’N’Local Officials, and besides if we don’t use them on the Gulf Coast we will haul them again halfway across the country to help victims of wildfires. Or something. Really. Trust us. Oh, and our new motto? “We’ll Do Better Next Time!” (yeah, direct quote.)

And oh, there’s no problem with letting the United Fucking Arab Emirates run security in our nations largest East Coast port cities, because Our Procedures Were Carefully Reviewed. I swear to God that’s exactly what he said, twice no less.

Tweetie can do a half-decent interview sometimes, but this was not one of those occasions. In fact it was beyond worthless. I got the distinct feeling that both “questions” and responses (they were not anything you could call “answers” that’s for sure) were written out by both of them in advance and simply read off the papers in front of them. Japanese Noh theater has more spontenaeity and Kabuki has vastly better makeup and costuming, so I recommend you watch those next time instead.

The roundtable was a little more interesting. Mary Matalin [whose overall role in Dick Dangerous’ Doddering Debacle is discussed over at E&P] was cranking the wheel of the Titanic as hard as she could to make the story about How Mean The Washington Press Corps Is. And how Out Of Touch they are, because they are effete coastal snobs who just Don’t Understand how Things Are Done on rural Texas fiefdoms like the Armstrong Ranch.

Even the state Democratic chairman, she tried real hard to say at least six times, said that Everything Was Done Just Right. (The attempt to make this a Bipartisan Cover-Up was quite ignored by all, but perhaps the Texas Dems need a new chairman who can avoid giving aid ’n’ comfort ’n’ all. Just sayin’.)

David Gregory, who was seated next to her, gave some smiles while she was talking that indicated he has a new sharpening job on the ol’ professional fangs, and Maureen Dowd was actually on her game today.

Matalin’s backup on the Forces of Darkness side was some schmuck I had to google as I had never heard of him: Paul Gigot, who runs the Wall Street Journal’s notoriously pro-fascist editorial page, and also runs TV shows into the ground repeatedly (his current one failed on CNBC, and just recently failed on PBS, so of course has been picked up by Fox, that bastion of welfare for the wealthy. Cruel details here).

Anyway, Gigot’s take was that this story was only a story because of the extreme hatred of Dear Vice Leader by the DC Press Corps, which should have been talking about something of greater importance all week like the need to invade Iran, or how Al Gore is clearly the Antichrist for making a truthful speech in Saudi Arabia. He was thereafter pretty well ignored too for being a bozo.

David Gregory at this point made his ritual apology for hurting Wee Scotty’s wee feelings by actually asking for, like, answers to questions. Then he pulled the fang covers back off and the real rumble began.

Russert read off some polls, concluding with the one that has 58% of the public thinking Vice Dear Leader is too secretive about things. Maureen Dowd picked up the ball and drove for the basket:

Cheney acts like The Phantom (I am assuming she meant the comic-strip guy with the purple body suit, not the Of The Opera guy since we have no indication Cheney can sing and don’t really want to find out.) He moves in secrecy, he works in hiding. The shooting incident allowed the public to see how he operates in real time.

[She sets up…she shoots:]

Dick Cheney and the Administration work in secrecy, blowing off the rules of democracy, they filter the news to their liking. This [shooting] incident shows bad political judgement by a control freak.

[She scores!]

Oh my, Matalin is so very not amused. This is not going as she had planned it. Russert follows with another poll, the same one we’ve seen for months, noting that the overall approval rating for Vice Dear Leader is stuck in the ditch at 29%. Is DVL, he asks, going to be much help for Thug candidates this fall?

Her response…how to describe this? Ever seen a cat do something really stupid, like jump onto a desk not realizing there’s a piece of paper there, so the cat slips and falls ass-over-teakettle onto the floor, and immediately starts to [bathe] [bathe] [bathe] furiously so as to not let on that anything untoward happened?

That’s what Mary did, except she went [sneer] [sneer] [sneer], rattling off examples of How Powerful Vice Dear Leader Continues To Be that I couldn’t write them down fast enough to recount here. But nothing untoward happened, really!

And she finally calmed down enough to be coherent to hiss at Maureen that it was just outrageous to blow the wounded feelings of the DC press corps into the statement that Vice Dear Leader, or Dear Leader himself, was contemptuous of the hallmarks of democracy! David Gregory was just being pissy because he wasn’t the first one called. This is much ado about nothing. Talk about something else.

Russert showed a clip of Hillary Clinton, who he said [tiresomely and inaccurately] was the “presumed candidate’ in ’08. Hill noted, quite consisely, that this was the way this Administration works, to withhold information “on matters large and small.”

Matalin: Hillary blew a chance to be sympathetic! Let’s talk about how bad Hillary is, why don’t we?

Miss Matalin, it seems, is new to the English language because she is not acquainted with the term “metaphor.” Both Dowd and Gregory attempted an impromptu ESL class to point out that this is the way the Dear Leaders, one and all, deal with everything they do, they evade the press and when they do talk they evade the truth.

[I paraphrase here as it got a bit McLaughlinesque for a minute and no transcript is yet available. I think it was at this point that Matalin used the “press is on a jihad against Cheney” line, which drew unexpected hooting that she didn’t seem to expect. That’s about as close to a blood-libel line as you can get, accusing the press, or anyone for that matter, of being in the pocket of Osama et al. Dowd, from off-camera, could be heard to say “Have you been saving up for that line?” Betcha money that when a transcript is available, that won’t be in there. That’s why you gotta watch these shows….]

A question, possibly from Russert: If the Armstrongs had said, we can cover this up, keep any information at all from getting out, would they have tried it?

Matalin: Nononononono! We were just waiting to get the Good Facts so people wouldn’t be confused by Bad Partial Facts.

Russert at this point noted that “there was a push” (apparently from Administration sources) to “encourage” people to talk about the Gore speech in Saudi Arabia. No followup.

The wrapup saw Gregory noting that the whole incident revealed some clear signs of “tension” between the Dear Leader(s) offices as well as the White House press corps. This is “healthy.” Grigot managed to advocated “fighting secrecy” but this should be done only on important stories, not unimportant ones. Matalin basically said the same thing and again advised us that the Vice President of the United States Shooting a Man in the Face was an unimportant story of no consequence.

Glad we could clear this up for you. Join us next week when our guest will be Der Gobernator off Kahleefonia, Ahhhnold! (True guest tease, but rude accents added. Try the veal, and don’t forget to tip your server!)

***

I must append this goody from James Wolcott on the same show discussed here, which goody I didn’t see until this had been posted already. I am glad I stayed away from such, um, unkind matters as Miss Matalin’s dress, demeanor and general appearance, because Wolcott does it so much better than I could ever hope to do:

Mary Quite Contrary

I only caught the bitter end of Meet the Press so I’m not sure what provoked Mary Matalin’s pout-fest (I’m sure Arianna will issue a full forensics report later), but she made quite a petulant spectacle of herself, shaking her head from side to side in silent, lemon-puss disagreement whenever Maureen Dowd and David Gregory made mildly critical comments about Shotgun Cheney. (Another prominent deployer of The Disapproving Headshake is sister conservative Kate O’Beirne, who wields it to upstage other panelists and ensure herself additional face-time: after her reaction shot, the host invariably calls on her next to vocalize her mute dissent. “Kate, I noticed you nodding your head…”—as if anyone could not notice!) Even without the immature pouting and pissy expression, Matalin would have been a car wreck in repose: With a bad haircut topping a mistaken facelift and a ghastly floral pin that looked like spray-painted aluminum, she looked like the Beltway’s Madwoman of Chaillot. Maybe defending the defensible is getting to her, and the acid reflux has gone to her brain.

Hee hee hee..

Meet the Press / Casey, Murtha

Tim Russert AKA Pumpkinhead AKA Timmeh AKA Lil’ Russ, was extra feisty today.

He threw a couple Bush quotes cleverly rephrased as questions at Gen. George Casey who got nailed, and then did his best to defend his Commander In Chief’s lies with the Jedi Mind Trick “these are not the droids you’re looking for” defense.

Murtha is always a blast to watch in action. He shot back without hesitation whenever Pumpkinhead recited standard GOP talking points that send other Democrats into fits of hemming, hawing and tourette’s-like outbursts of “subject needs more investigation”.

Casey segment quotes from my notes, not transcript. Murtha segment quotes are from the transcript which appeared about 3 hours after the show.

Talking points are in bold, borrowing Lambert’s technique.

Segment 1: General George Casey

Casey: [Last week’s] Operation Swarmer was designed to keep pressure on Al Qaeda, and the Iraqis that support them. Weapon caches were found, people were detained.

Pumpkinhead mentions an upcoming Time article: “How Operation Swarmer Fizzled”.

Casey: We picked up one or two of the high value folks we were looking for.

These are not the Major Combat Operations you’re looking for

Watch for the setup…

Pumpkinhead: Will there be any more major combat operations in Iraq?

Casey: Um, yeah. After their sound defeat in Fallujah, they’ve learned what happens when they mass against us.

Pumpkinhead plays the clip of Chimpy’s “mission accomplished” speech on the aircraft carrier: “major combat operations in Iraq have ended”.

Nailed! [/Colbert]. Casey beats a quick retreat, contradicting what he said seconds earlier.

Casey: Swarmer was not a major combat operation. It was conducted in an almost deserted area. It might have looked worse than it was.

Casey: Let’s put Iraq in perspective and let’s not pay so much attention to what happened in the last 3 weeks, think about the great things that have happened in the last 3 years: Saddam is on trial, the political process is moving along. With each election, the level of participation increased, the level of violence decreased.

That is a flat out lie, isn’t it?

This is not the Substantial Troop Reduction you’re looking for

Casey: It has happened, we’ve downramped X formations so we have 7 to 10,000 less. The process has started.

Pumpkinhead: So when you say substantial reductions, you’re talking 10,000, 15,000 troops?

Casey: I use the world “fairly substantial.” I don’t think we’re done and I didn’t put a time frame on it.

This is not the Civil War you’re looking for

Pumpkinhead: Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said yesterday that Iraq is in a civil war.

Casey: I don’t think he is correct. Civil war is not happening, is not imminent or something that will happen. But the situation is “fragile”.

Pumpkinhead: US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad wrote an article in the LA Times saying the 2003 invasion of Iraq opened a Pandora’s box. If the US pulls out sectarian violence could turn into civil war.

Casey: We’re working on it.

This is not the Timetable you’re looking for

Pumpkinhead: President Chimpy has said he plans to turn over most of Iraq to Iraqi troops by the end of 2006. But President Chimpy previously said that setting a timetable would send the wrong message to the enemy.

Casey: It’s not a timetable. It’s a benchmark, a very achievable benchmark but I don’t see it as a timetable.

This is not the fantasyland war planning you’re looking for

Pumpkinhead quotes Casey’s statements from November 2005: “What the Iraqis need is time. They need a few more years to work through their differences. Our presence here gives them that time. ..”

Casey: It depends how you define major american presence, it’s going to be a gradual decrease.

Pumpkinhead: In April 2003 General Tommy Franks said to set a plan to withdraw all troops by the end of the year. Did you ever think we would still be here with 130,000 troops, all the dead?

Casey: Uh, kinda. I thought we would be there for a couple of years.

These are not the “Last Throes” you’re looking for

Pumpkinhead: Do you believe the insurgency is in it’s last throes?

Casey: We’re seeing some shifts in the insurgency. We’re seeing more of a willingess to sit down and talk about things.

These are not the Negotiations with Terrorists you’re looking for. This was funny. Transcript is now up.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re having negotiations with the insurgents?

GEN. CASEY: No, I said we are, we are seeing people coming forward and being more willing to talk. I’m, I’m not negotiating with any insurgents.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re having conversations with the insurgents?

GEN. CASEY: I’m, I’m not having any conversations with insurgents, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Then who are they talking to?

GEN. CASEY: They’re talking to political folks, people who, who talk to us, and passing messages.

The American People don’t realize that this isn’t the bloody, pointless, never-ending disaster they’re looking for

This is not the eroding support for the War among the American Public, the Iraqi Public and the US Military you’re looking for

Pumpkinhead cited a Wall Street Journal Poll conducted March 10-13, 2006. Support for the war is in the tank. Support for bringing troops home is growing.

GEN. CASEY: …I’ll tell you, just those, those numbers, I believe, come from perceptions of what they see on the ground here. And that’s—it’s a difficult nut to crack. Last week, I went out and drove around Baghdad for three hours, just to get my own sense of what’s, what the people of Baghdad were feeling. There’s a lot of bustle here, Tim, in Baghdad. There’s a lot of economic activity, storefronts crowded, goods stacked up on the street. And, and the traffic cops are wearing white shirts and neckties, not armored vests.

Well, that’s changed my perception. Iraqi traffic cops have snappy new uniforms. Mission accomplished.

The General completely ignored the polls.

MR. RUSSERT: Can you continue to conduct a war without the support of the American people?

GEN. CASEY: Well, that’s—obviously, Tim, that’s a, that’s a political judgment there.

Final analysis: Casey got pummeled. How has it become the job of a General engaged in a war abroad to be a PR flack defending Bush’s propaganda points?

###

Segment 2: Rep. John Murtha is in the house. Hoo-rah!

This might look like I just copy and pasted the whole transcript. Well, almost, but I think it’s useful because Murtha swats down every single GOP talking point from the last three years (and there’s lots of them) like a champion.

How is it that this previously unknown Representative from “Deer Hunter” country can outperform every single high-profile Democrat (with their fancy consultants and media trainers) I’ve ever seen on a talk show?

I’ve got a theory: telling the truth is easy. Murtha bases his points on facts and their unavoidable logical implications. Lying and avoiding the question, on the other hand, is hard work. Pansycrat Dems’ talking points are carefully crafted to triangulate between their personal interests, those of their corporate campaign contributors, and a mortal fear of Brit “The Cryptkeeper” Hume.

Iraqi forces will control 75% of Iraqi territory by the end of 2006

Murtha anticipates [pre-pa-ration, hello?] this Right-Wing talking point before Pumpkinhead even brings it up and proceeds to beat it down:

REP. MURTHA: … And what, what they’re trying to do is paint it as if there’s progress in order to be able to get out.

… Now, for instance, they said not long we’re going to have 75 percent of the country controlled by Iraqis. Well, I, I flew for an hour and 15 minutes over desert, wasn’t a soul—and that’s, that’s the territory I guess they’re talking about…

In other words, huge areas of Iraq are uninhabited desert. Turning more uninhabited desert over to Iraqi Forces isn’t “progress”.

There is no insurgency, it’s the work of the terrorists

REP. MURTHA: … Twenty-five thousand insurgents are fighting with each other inside the country for supremacy. That’s the definition of a civil war. There’s less than a thousand al-Qaida.

Iraq = Nazi Germany

Pumpkinhead refers to Donald “Kung-Fu Hands” Rumsfeld’s article in today’s WaPo.

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Rumsfeld in his article says this: “Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis.”

REP. MURTHA: …And when he says turning it over to al-Qaida—and that’s what he means, he, he’s inferring it’ll be turned over to al-Qaida—I don’t believe that for a minute. The Iraqis will get rid of al-Qaida the minute that we get out of there. And 60 percent of the people in Iraq belive the sooner we get out, the more stable Iraq will be, and that’s what all of us want.

Elections solve everything

For instance, I’ll give you an example: In, in 1967, I came back from Vietnam. There was an election in Vietnam right after that, and the president of the United States said, “This is it, we legitimized the government. From now on, the, the Vietnamese can take it with their own government.” We lost 38,000 people after that.

Democrats won’t admit they made a mistake in voting for the Invasion of Iraq

MR. RUSSERT: So your vote for the war was a mistake?

REP. MURTHA: It was a mistake. It was a bad mistake. And, and most of us believed that—and the first war with—the ‘91 war, I led the fight to go to war.

…

Now, this, this president, we thought, “OK, we continue an inspection process, we give him a club.” And, and I, I believed we had a threat to our national security. When I found out we didn’t have a threat to our national security, we violated one of the principles I’ve always adhered to: You’ve got to have a national threat to our security before you go to war; then you’ve got to have overwhelming force, which we didn’t have; and then second, you’ve got to—third, you’ve got to have an exit strategy. We violated all those principles.

The World is a better place with Saddam out of power

MR. RUSSERT: Would the world be safer with Saddam still there?

REP. MURTHA: The world would be safer if we kept him under control as we were keeping him under control all during the Clinton administration. And, and to use that as an excuse to go to war, we got, we got dictators in North Korea, we got dictators in, in a lot of different countries in, in parts of Africa. We can’t police the world, and we can’t nation build anymore. We cannot afford to do that. We discredit ourself and we destroy our credibility and our resources trying to do that.

Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror

REP. MURTHA: … You know who wants us in Iraq, Tim? Iran wants us in Iraq, China wants us in Iraq, al-Qaida wants us in Iraq. Why? Because of our human resources that are being, being hurt so badly, and our financial resources. We will have spent $450 billion dollars in the war in Iraq and, and Afghanistan by the end of this year. And, and Afghanistan’s starting to slip because of the poppy-growing and because of the drug-growing. So we have diverted ourself away from terrorism by, by getting involved in a civil war.

Why didn’t Democrats speak up earlier if they knew Iraq was a bad idea/situation?

MR. RUSSERT: When did you first write the president about your misgivings?

REP. MURTHA: Well, it was two and a half years ago I wrote to him, and I said, “Mr. President, you only have a few months to get things straightened out. We need more troops over there and, and you need to train the Iraqis sooner. You, you need to energize,” meaning you need to start the process of getting people working, “and, and you need to internationalize. You need to go to, to the other countries and get them to support us.” Seven months later, I got a reply back from the assistant secretary of defense. Now that’s frustrating that, that I would get an answer back that long.

Democrats don’t have a plan for Iraq

REP. MURTHA: Here, here’s what you should do, Mr. President. First of all, you should fire all the people who are responsible for that, which gives you international credibility.

MR. RUSSERT: Including his secretary of defense?

REP. MURTHA: Well, he, he should—well, let’s say he should offer his resignation, because he certainly…

MR. RUSSERT: And it’s sure to be accepted?

REP. MURTHA: I would accept it, that’s exactly right.

MR. RUSSERT: What about the vice president?

…

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, certainly the vice president has been the primary force in running, running this war, and many of the mischaracterizations have come about. You and I talked before the show about some of the things he said on your show, right before the war started. None of them turned out to be true. This is why the American public is so upset.

OK, I say fire some people, that’s the first thing.
…
But then, then, then we go to, to how do we get our troops out of there? You redeploy to the periphery so that we, if we have to, we can go back in.
…
Mr. President, let’s go back to fighting the war on terrorism.

[from later on in the program: ]

Now, I don’t know how many they’ll withdraw, but here’s the problem with the plan they have vs. my plan. My plan is redeploy as quickly as possible to protect our troops. Their plan is you draw out the withdrawal, which means you’ve got less troops on the ground that are more vulnerable to attack, because the IEDs and the convoys are the ones where—are being attacked. So I’m, I’m convinced that, that my, my plan is the only plan that, that will work and protect the American troops.

The Military enthusiastically supports the mission

Let, let’s reduce our presence in Iraq, let’s start to rebuild the Army, because the Army’s broken as far as I’m concerned. And the military commanders know this.

I talk to the military commanders all the time. I know what’s going on in the military. And, and most of the military in Iraq, 70 percent of our troops say we want out of there, and 42 percent say they don’t know what their mission is for heaven’s sake.

MR. RUSSERT: Does the Pentagon support what you’re saying?

REP. MURTHA: Well, the Pentagon doesn’t support it publicly, obviously, because of what happened to General Shinseki.

MR. RUSSERT: Have they told you privately?

REP. MURTHA: Oh, absolutely. I mean, so many of them have said, “Keep saying the truth, keep telling the truth.” All kinds of military commanders have said that too—they know. They don’t even have to tell me.

There was a sliver of a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda I can’t believe pumpkinhead trotted out this dead horse.

MR. RUSSERT: The administration will say yes, maybe there’s no direct link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, but there were contacts between the Iraqis and al-Qaida.

REP. MURTHA: Oh, well, come on. I mean, that, that’s just an excuse to try to justify the war. They’ve changed their position six times on, on this war, why we went to war, and the public’s not buying it any longer. The public doesn’t want rhetoric

We can’t bring the troops home because Iraq would turn into a bloodbath

MR. RUSSERT: If we got out quickly and left behind a blood bath, what would we do? Just watch the slaughter?

REP. MURTHA: Look, what, what happens if we stay there? Let, let me tell you, a year from now, just like I said when I got—when I came back from Vietnam. A month later—now imagine this—a month later they have an election and, and we lose 38,000 people seven years later.
…
When they say on, on the television or send us a letter telling us how well things are going, I said to the staff, go look at the economics statistics, tell me what the unemployment level, tell me the water production, tell me the oil production, tell me the electricity production, tell me the unemployment figures, and then we’ll know whether we’re making progress. Tell me the incidents.

Iraqi forces are getting close to completely taking over security

I mean, they—their measurement of the brigades is back and forth. They’ll say the brigades one month is 90 people, now there’s less than one brigade that can operate independently.

Let’s take Operation Swarmer. Now, they said a lot of Iraqis, more than half of them were Iraqis. American helicopters, American planning, American logistics, American artillery, American medical evacuation—everything was American. I mean, they don’t—the American people see it. They see these American helicopters. Do you think they fool the Americans when they say that? And one of the commanders said 75 percent of the country is going to be under control of the Iraqis and 75 percent of it is desert? I mean, give me a break. That’s part of the problem.

Opposition to the war is purely partisan

This should not be political. When I go by the graveyard over there at Arlington, it doesn’t say Democrat or Republican, it says American. When I look at the graveyards, the veterans graveyards all over the world, it doesn’t say Democrat or Republican, it says American.

People who oppose the war are pessimists and this hurts the war effort

MR. RUSSERT: David Ignatius of The Washington Post has written a few columns from Iraq and here’s his latest.
“ …For a change, pessimism isn’t necessarily the right bet for Iraq.” What if we got out quickly, prematurely, and in fact, you were wrong.

REP. MURTHA: Tim, I haven’t been wrong yet. I, I put—take that back, when I voted for this war I was wrong. After that, I recognized I had to make a change in direction. I had, I had to make some, some strategic and tactical decisions which were entirely contrary to the way I normally operate. Normally, behind the scenes, you can get these kind of things straightened out. But when you have an, an administration that’s so isolated, insulated from the public, insulated from reality—this is not a rhetorical war, you have to make progress, and none of the things that I measure are progress.

The Media doesn’t report all the good things that are happening in Iraq

MR. RUSSERT: Some in the administration say the media is distorting the good news that’s coming out of Iraq.

REP. MURTHA: Well, they said the same thing about Vietnam. They said the same thing over and over and over about Vietnam. They said, “We’re winning the war in Vietnam.” That—you could go back and get quotes from Vietnam, and you’d see the same kind of, of, of reports, “The media’s the one that’s distorting; everything’s going fine in Vietnam.” Well, everything’s not going fine in Iraq. They have to realize that. When the whole world is against you, when our, our international reputation has been diminished so substantially, when all the countries in the, in the region say, “We’d be better off without us being in Iraq,” when the people themselves in Iraq say it, and American people say it, I mean who is right?

Americans percieve Democrats as weak compared to Republicans on Security issues

MR. RUSSERT: Why are the Democrats at a lower trust level than Republicans on the war?

REP. MURTHA: Well, let me tell you this, Tim. He’ll find out in November where the trust level is. He’ll find out if he doesn’t change course, if he doesn’t change direction, the Republicans in Congress will get a rude awakening and they know it. They see the unhappiness of the American people.

Iraqi insurgents are Saddam loyalist “Dead Enders”

REP. MURTHA: … You heard it already, you’ve heard them say, “OK, here’s the goal for withdrawal.” A benchmark, they call it. Just like they called the insurgency “dead end kids,” [LO freakin’ L] then they call it sectarian violence—it’s a civil war.

The US can and will attack Iran

MR. RUSSERT: If the president decided that military action in Iran was necessary, should he come to Congress first?

REP. MURTHA: He—there’s no way he’s going to take military action in Iran.

Iran is, is three times as big geographically, there’s 58 million people vs. 26 million people in, in Iraq, and, and there’s no way. A fanatical government—I mean, the, the president of the United States does not have a military option. He can say he has a military option; he does not have a military option.

MR. RUSSERT: But he should come to Congress if he is…

REP. MURTHA: Oh, absolutely. As a matter of fact, we, we have allowed our, our influence, our, our separation from, from the president to be—in the last couple of presidents when it goes to war. The, the Congress is the only one that can authorize to go to war. He has to come to Congress before he does anything, let alone go to war.

Jack Murtha was brilliant for the whole show, but he let me down in the final exchange: he thinks the Feingold Censure resolution needs more investigation in committee. Nobody’s perfect, but there is no doubt Rep. Murtha can kick some Sunday Gasbag ass.

Meet The Press / Warner, King, and Arnold

Something terrible is happening to me. This is the third TV show I’ve watched in the last month: First, Face the Nation, then the Olympics, now Press the Meat… I can just feel my neurons shrivelling up… But, duty calls! What are a few million brain cells compared to Corrente readers’ need to know?

Timmeh frames PortGate as an “uproar” in which “the President stands firm.” (Hat tip, Peter Dauou, for “the storyline trumps the story.”) And after hearing from Peter King (R-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) on PortGate and Iraq “on the brink of civil war,” we’ll hear about how it feels to govern California with a 33% approval rating from Arnold (R). Gosh, couldn’t Timmeh’s bookers find one single Democrat? Or, perhaps, in good kabuki fashion, the black-clad invisible scene-shifting kuroko spirited them all away. Our SCLM at work!

PortGate

RUSSERT: What’s the deal with the 45 day investigation?

KING: I’ve read same reports, the process to set up the investigation is “almost wrapped up” and will be announced soon. Has to be real investigation.

RUSSERT: If the investigation is full and thorough [snicker], will that satisfy you?

KING: We’ll have to see.

RUSSERT: You said the deal “brings the fox into the chicken coop,” that the UAE has been brought into our security perimiter. Is there anything anyone can say that will make you comfortable?

KING: It would have to be shown that nobody in the UAE government has ties to the Taliban or AQ. Only 3 or 4 years ago they did. Now it’s said they’re an ally, but only 4 1/2 years ago they were the enemy.

RUSSERT: What if there were were United Stated monitor within the company? [Here comes the face-saving “compromise”! Will the moderate Republican fall for it?]

KING: Yes, we could impose monitors like courts have done over unions in the past, for example. But the UAE government can shift as they have done in the past.

RUSSERT: [Invites Senator Warner to share his feelings.]

WARNER: The President has taken the right steps. We’ll review all the intelligence given to the CFIUS panel [Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States]. I’ve talked to the staff, Leader Frist. There will be a “coming together in Congress,” a consensus as we take a good look at this over the next 45 days.

Last night I contacted the DBW [Dubai Ports world] CEO, and I went to see him. He shared a copy of the agreement now being delivered, and it spells out willingness of this company to give every means of support to work this thing out on a “non-precedential basis.” [WTF?]

This company is doing business with 30 nations, they have an excellent record.

This is a bigger issue than this commercial agreement. [money] We are in a global situation diplomatically that involves our economic standing [money] and our military security [money].

I read the intelligence, the reports, I talked to the Pentagon. We dock 500 ships in emirates, we use their airfields for suport of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since 9/11, they have been full partners in the war on terror. We are depending on the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait. We cannot mess this deal up. [But I thought we were building bases in Iraq proper? So what do we need the emirates for? Oh, wait…]

RUSSERT: One concern has been manipulated manifests that already get only limited scrutiny. Money for 9/11 strikes was transferred through UAE, the operation was planned in the UAE, two of the hijackers were from UAE, and after 9/11 the FBI complained about the lack of cooperation from the UAE. Governor Kean of the 9/11 panel says this deal is a bad idea, and that UAE officials tipped off OBL when we could have nailed him. Your thoughts?

WARNER: In our hearts, we need to support to troops [gags at the shamelessness], and the UAE essential to that. If they felt they were being mistreated, where else would we get the support?

KING: We can’t compare the UAE to Tony Blair. Did the review check whether the UAE government stil has the people who tipped off OBL? For convenience, they side with us now, but they can can shift back. The emir’s relatives could be with AQ and we haven’t looked.

RUSSERT: Bush says turning the deal down will “send a terrible signal” [money] that it’s OK for a company from one country but not another when the company plays by the rules.

KING: Nobody has more regard for Bush than I. But I lost 150 people on 9/11 and he implies I’m a racist. There is no demagogery here. This is serious. You can’t treat UAE like Great Britain [“Great British,” snicker. Can’t someone adjust His meds?]. Great Britain is not a Johnny-come-lately.

RUSSERT: Is there any anti-Arab bigotry here?

WARNER: We need to show strong leadershup in Congress and dispel bigoty. [gags at the shamelessness] We recognize that there strong feelings, but we have to recognize the global context [money], future business deals with other countries, don’t want to choke off other opportunities. We need to show leadership. make a persuasive case that the deal will go through.

KING: I’ll hold off leg if the 45 day investigation goes forward, if we see details, and it’s a full investigation. [Snicker]

WARNER: We’ve got to stop using the words “foreign ownership.” They’re not buying the port, they’re just getting leases to operate the terminal, the cranes. We’re not selling our ports.

KING: But they do have access. They are inside.

RUSSERT: The Democrats repeateedly tried to put more security money into ports, and they say that every time the Republicans say No. Do you regret voting No?

KING: Almost 100% is “screened,” though it’s not “examined.” [It depends on the meaning of “is”] Between 5% and 15% are examined. My committee is holding hearings…

RUSSERT: So the Democrats are right.

KING: No! [Ouch!] You don’t just throw money at it! We can’t examine everying that comes in. [Yes you can, for $7 a container, as demonstratede in Hong Kong.] Their idea is to throw money at it.

WARNER: One good thing about this controversy is that it is causing us to review port funding.

RUSSERT: That’s going to take money.

WARNER: A lot more money.

Summarizing The Republican Talking Points on PortGate, they are:

Selling our ports (oh, excuse me, the operation of the ports) is A Good Thing because it:

1. Supports globalization, which is all-important

2. Supports the troops, because otherwise our good allies, the UAE, will throw us out of our bases there.

Further:

3. Real port security is very expensive and we should spend as little as possible on it [whereas torture is cheaper]

And of course:

4. The purpose of the 45-day period is to grease the moderate Republicans. Once again.

Iraq Clusterfuck

RUSSERT: Do you believe Iraq is on brink of civil war?

WARNER: Not at this time, according to traditional defintions. There is a “high level of secular conflict.” [Snicker] The good news is that the elected representatives, that is, the PM, the religious, they’ve all come together and said let’s “take a grip” on this. The tribal leaders have joined. Our President phoned them. They all realize civil war could happen. Also, we’ve accelerated the training of Iraqi forces.

RUSSERT: If there is a civil war [cui bono], what happens to the troops?

WARNER: The troops should not be involved. We have in place today sufficient Iraqi forces, the 50 batallions. We should give support only.

RUSSERT: You supported war. There were four basic assumptions going in:

1. There would be EWM

2. We would not need large numbers of troops to occupy Iraq.

3. We would be greeted as liberators.

4. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds would unite as Iraqis.

Was the administration wrong on all four counts?

KING: No. We could not allow Saddam to defy UN resolutions. [Hastily moving on.] We are at a defining monent. The Sunnnis realize they will be slaightered and need us to prevent that. Sistani is doing well in calming things. It’s a “tough time.” Hopefuly they can hold together now, having “looked into the abyss,” avoid a civil war and form a government.

RUSSERT: If things are the same at end of year as they are now, what will you say?

WARNER: Things will improve. We have liberated that country. “The key is to keep the pressure on the elected leaders and tell them you’ve got to get your act together.” They can’t perceive that we have given them an open ticket so they can dither around. We don’t want to see more mosques blown up! They need to take charge.

Summarizing The Republican Talking Points on Civil War in Iraq, they are:

1. Bush is never wrong.

2. If there is a civil war, it’s the Iraqis fault.

3. In fact, by the November midterms, everything will be the Iraqi’s fault, because they couldn’t get their act together after we liberated them.

Der Gropenführer
This portion of our show is not so easy to take down. I confess I used to have a certain affection for Rummy, because his verbal stylings were so classically Rummmy-esque. I know, I know. And I confess to the same feeling watching Arnold. Even though I know Arnold was put into power because those weasels at Enron caused the California power “crisis” by rigging the market, and I just can’t imagine what Maria was thinking (was she thinking?) I just can’t help admiring the guy for being, well, so classically Arnold-esque. Here is a man who acts according to his true nature (which seems not to have a lot to do with any, erm, fixed system of beliefs, but let that pass).

Anyhow, Timmeh frames this one as Arnold “trying to mount a political comeback.” Reminds me of that old joke about Taft [faint rimshot]….

RUSSERT: So, what’s the deal with PortGate?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: We see complaints, so we must study further, the issue is globalization, and we need to do business everywhere. Globalization is mixed together with terror, though. “People are freaked out and rightfully so.”

“The number one responsibility of government is to protect the people.”

RUSSERT: So, in principle you have no objection to the deal with the UAE.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Not principle, but security must be take care of.

RUSSERT: In Long Beach, the Chinese and many other nations operate port facilities.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: We control the security, not the Chinese, so I feel confident. Also, in the relations with Chertoff, he has always responded well.

RUSSERT: In Iraq, California has lost 242 dead, 1857 wounded. There are 20,000 serving, of whom 5,000 are from the National Guard. Are you concerned The Guard is being depleted?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Sure, it has an effect When anyone dies, it is terrible. THose are the terrible moments when are gov, and you have to visit funerals [Wow, why don’t Presidents do that?]

RUSSERT: You’ve said, “We are one storm, one earthquake away from disaster.” The Guard is deplated, troops are quitting, 22% attrition rate, California has missed every recruiting standard. Are you concerned that the California Guard is not ready for floods or earthquakes?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Not concerned about that, I’m concerned levees aren’t being built fast neough, that’s why I declared an emergency. Thousands of people and homes are at risk; it could be worse than NOLA.

Our ultimate job is to protect the people.

RUSSERT: In the Washington Post, we read the that the governors are challenging Bush on National Guard funds. Do you join in that challenge?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Yes, we need the Guard to incarcerate undocumented immigrants, we need the border patrol. That’s why we’re still mad that California gets back 79 cents of every dollar in taxes it sends to Washington.

RUSSERT: Was Iraq a mistake?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: No, in hindsight, if we had not gone in we would not have had “all that hassle.” Only now it has “mushroomed into somethihng not intended.” Easier said than done. You can’t just pull out. Difficult, no difference between Iraq and VietNam or Korea, we are glued to the situation. We have got to get out as quickly as possible but also in a sensible way. [This would have been an ideal time to ask Arnold if he agrees with Murtha, but of course Timmeh does not do so.]

RUSSERT: Could you get swept up in an anti-Republican tide?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Yes, that is always a concern. But my concern is doing the best job for the people of CA. Then its up to the people to judge. [An accountability moment!] As Reagan used to ask, Are you better off now than four years ago? Yes, 500,000 new jobs, paid down our debt, was 92 now is 75 billion dollars.

RUSSERT: Will you run as a Bush Republican?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: I will run as an Arnold Republican. I always promised I would serve everyone. I love being a public servant. My father 25 years ago said it was most honorable job.

RUSSERT: The ballot measures you were pushing all tanked.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: It was worth the fight for the reforms to take place. I was sent to Sacramento to fix the system and did this. Of course I made mistakes. I was in a hurry. But this is my style. When you are in public service maybe need to take more time. I was right, because it is very important to do education, redistricitng. Sometimes, you try to lift 500 poinds and you can’t lift. There is no shame in losing, the shame is in not trying. People always try to put me in a box, left or right. They can’t do that. I just want to do what’s right for the people of California.

RUSSERT: You won’t be calling the Democrats girly men.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: That is not necessary now.

RUSSERT: Your polls say 35% approval, disapproval 53%l Why?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Some people pay attention to polls. The numbers I pay attention to are the unbelieveable decrease in the structural deficit, 500,000 more jobs, increase in salary and wage. I pay more attention to progress and success.

RUSSERT: Ppoele have sensed an evolution. Every year brings a new Arnold. Now
California is going $6.4 billion into debt, now there is an operating deficit, there are new bonds issues, fee increases. All within two months of losing the referendum. The Orange County Register asks: “Does the governor have any principles?”

DER GROPENFÜHRER: People are confused about the difference between spending and investing. And 80% of the Republicans are with me.

RUSSERT: The latest poll says 66%.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: No, 80. But let’s not get involved in the numbers.

We need to rebuild CA. Nothing in thirty years [Gosh, why?]. Need more classroooms, need to fix levees, highways, all neglected for years.

RUSSERT: Spend, spend, spend!

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Invest, invest, invest! [And steal the Democrat’s clothes at the swimming hole.]

RUSSERT: Here’s a candid speech you gave at the Press Club: “…On the job training, I did not go to school to be a governor.” Are you concerned about Democrats playing that tape over and over?

DER GROPENFÜHRER: It’s for everyone. Nobody can prepare for the job until you are there. The key thing is that you have a vision. We have the greatest state in the nation. Let’s keep it the best! When I was in Japan, first thing, “Please unload our ships faster.” They will be unloaded somewhere, so we had better make sure they are unloaded here. We are the center of the Asian market which is exploding. I encourage everyone, let us rebuild for the future.

RUSSERT: You will spend $120 million on your re-election.

DER GROPENFÜHRER: Those numbers never come from me, I never discuss those numbers. But you are correct, electoions are very expensive

I never take money from unions or Indian gaming tribes. Most important thing is that you can never be bought. What’s wrong is that money comes in and favors go out. But TV is very expensive, we need to support people like you — perhaps you could take a salary cut. [Nice shot!]

RUSSERT: [Parting chit chat.]

DER GROPENFÜHRER: You look nice and trim, your abs look good, keep up the good work.

Summarizing Der Der Gropenführer, they are:

Standard issue Republican talking points the same as Warner and King

1. Globalization, which is all-important

2. Bush is never wrong.

3. The same noxious, infantilizing view of the Leader’s duties as Bush has: “Protect the American people.” (No, fulfill your oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and the country can protect itself! From tyranny, especially.)

The following talking points are Arnold only, and they’re interesting, because, gosh, they sound like Democratic talking points:

4. Public service is honorable. (Imagine Bush saying this. Well, Bush is an AWWSA. So imagine Bush saying it and meaning it.)

5. Taxes can be used for investment. (Ditto.)

Whether Arnold has any credibility on points 4 and 5 is, of course, an open question.

All in all, an interesting performance by a still-dangerous performer. And if there’s a way for him to run for President, he will. Remember that the Republicans have no respect for custom, the laws, or the Constitution, so if they want to find a way to run Arnold, they will. And the press will frame it all as a complicated question, and then ask the Federalist Society for their informed professional opinion. Not that I’m paranoid.

The Chris Matthews Show / O'Donnell, Milbank, Neal, Sullivan

Quotes are from my notes not the transcript.

First Topic: Portgate

Norah O’Donnell, who mostly batted her giant eyelids and displayed her in-depth knowledge of what Republicans in DC are thinking, echoed the Wingnuttosphere’s sentiment that the biggest scandal is that Bush misunderestimated the public’s reaction to the news coming out. He is infallible after all, what gives?

“Off-base” as in Political Base, “tone deaf”, “Harriet Miers Moment” were some of the terms she used to describe the WH’s handling of Portgate.

Chris “Tweety” Matthews was a Good Republican and forced the Race Card talking point on the conversation at least three times. Even though the panelists dismissed it instantly and moved on to other subjects. But that didn’t stop Tweety.

Isn’t this just an “Anti Ay-rab thing?” He did use the redneck pronunciation, perhaps for effect, perhaps he is one at heart.

Amy Sullivan from Washington Monthly was never afraid to “break up the flow” by disagreeing with the other panelists and making strong points. I wonder if she will ever be asked back. Nice black stillettoes, BTW.

She said there is a reason the port issue is resonating with the public: Bush and the GOP have been pushing fear and “security” issues relentlessly. So it’s only right that the Dems highlight Portgate.

Tweety: so the Dems are saying “Whether we’re right or wrong on this issue we’re gonna hit ’em.” Way to frame it, dude.

Dana Milbank from the WaPo: “facts are murky”. Thanks for that hardcore reporting. He agreed with Amy that taking on the Chimp on security is a winner for Dems in this instance.

Terry Neal, WaPo: But Democrats never seem to take advantage of opportunities

The Whole Panel: Har de Har Har! Guffaw!

Terry Neal, WaPo: Maybe that’s an understatement

The Whole Panel: Chuckle!

Wow. What must it feel like for Beltway Dems to embody a running joke for the media? Don’t they ever get tired of it?

Norah brought up what I think is another fake talking point, that Portgate is ripping the Republican party apart. I’ll believe it when I see GOP congresspeople voting to override Bush’s veto. It will never come to that in a million years. They will work out a deal, but in the meantime the GOP congresscritters can play to the base by looking like they’re not taking orders from Bush.

Tweety: I’m going back to the ethnic… What if it had been a belgian company

Dana: We can’t trust the flemish with our ports

The Whole Panel: Har de Har Har!

Out of nowhere Tweety interjected that the Democrats have put their brains together and are working on a plan to pull 80,000 troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Really? First I’ve heard of it. Coming from Matthews it’s hard to tell if it’s disinformation or not.

Not to be constrained by an actual discussion, Tweety ended the segment with a video clip of Schumer denying the Race Card Talking Point followed by, get this, Matt Freaking Damon in a clip from Syriana.

Tweety’s point (an adjunt to the Race Card meme) being that the critics of the port deal are making the same mistake Matt Damon made in the video clip: he was “putting down the wrong arabs”

It’s a Tweety Jedi mind trick: “these aren’t the Ay-rabs you’re looking for”.

Second Topic: Abortion Ban in South Dakota

Tweety referenced a poll saying that 66% vs. 25% of Americans are against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Tweety: the Republicans are jubilant!

Amy Sullivan: not so much. “I doubt anyone’s doing cartwheels in the White House”. South Dakota is one of reddest states in the country. As the poll showed, their feelings are not shared by the nation as a whole.

“This is the dirty Secret of republican politics”, they must appear to be trying to outlaw abortion, but it is not in their strategy to succeed because (the poll again) there would be a backlash from the majority of Americans who are not fundie abortion nutballs. This is pretty one of the big points “What’s the Matter With Kansas” makes. I doubt if anyone has ever raised it on Matthews show before, or will do so ever again.

Dana Milbank: The GOP strategy is to chip away at the right to abortion in little pieces to prevent the backlash that would occur if it were outlawed in one fell swoop. Like partial birth abortion.

Amy Sullivan: partial birth is not “chipping away” it’s “a fake issue”. There are very few of them performed.

Tell Me Something I Don’t Know Segment

Most of the panelists were boring, but Norah dropped the “bombshell” that Ken Mehlman (Chair of the Republican National Committee) has announced he will help McCain fundraise.

Tweety added that Terry McAuliffe (former head of the Democratic National Committe) is in, too. Wha?

Closing Monologue: The Global Pinball Machine

Tweety ends the show with a bizarre swipe at blogs complete with footage of an out of control pinball machine. And as an example of blogs he has a screen capture of Michelle Malkin’s page and a blog I’ve never heard of “Random Thots” (sic).

Feel a little jumpy these days? I knew that you would.

He brings up the furor over the anti-muslim cartoons and the outrage over Portgate, subliminally equating the two by putting them together as examples of a grave threat to civilization.

Where did the uproar come from? It came from heat-seeking radio talk types and quick-to-burn bloggers who spread the word, and the anger.

First, the WaPo calls bloggers Naked Savages, now, according to Tweety, we’re the Human Torch from the Fantastic 4.

We’ve managed to wire the world electronically. But in the process we’ve wired the world politically. So we’re stuck in a global pinball machine, where the smallest slight can bounce from one end of the earth to the next, flashing lights, ringing bells, and maybe, in one of these games, causing the whole global table to tilt.

An open, global exchange of information by actual people via the internets. The Horror! We’re all doomed!

This Week/ McCain, Levin, Round Table

Once again my first one (long, detailed, with links, people’s names spelled right, etc.) got eaten on trying to save, so this is gonna be Short and To the Point. You there, in the back, applauding—don’t make me call Security on your ass.

McCain: This fuss about the Ports is a distraction from the big things we should be talking about, like IRAN’s NUKES! And riots in Nigeria and terrorist attacks on Saudi facilities. And did I mention IRAN’S NUKES! And those who object to Dubai running our ports are just a bunch of stinky racists. “Dubai is freer than China” was a phrase I kept hearing, it seems to be a Rove Talking Point this week.

You should all shut up about objections to Dubai running our ports because Dubai has our collective national balls in their lockboxes because they let us have military and air bases there which are Vital to the War on Terra. And also if we piss them off they, and the rest of the Arab World, will disinvest from the American economy which would be Bad. [Ed. note: He got through this whole discourse without ever once mentioning Our Godawful Trade Deficit. This proves he is a Great Geopolitical Thinker and should be the next Republican nominee for president.]

Iraq is Coming Along but will Take Time because they Have Problems. Talk of US withdrawal is Foolish because that’s what Al Qaida Wants Us To Do. They (al Q) don’t care about Iraq, they don’t care about Saudi Arabia, they want to Destroy the West. [Ed. note: Yeah, he’s probably right on this point, but it seems that our present strategy is to destroy ourselves first so as to save Osama the trouble. But I intrude on the Great Thinker here.] Mistakes Were Made [not sure if he was talking Iraq or the Hamas election here but it hardly matters] but We Must Prevail.

Carl Levin: This “45 day investigation” is not just a good idea, It’s The Law. [Kinda like seat belts, eh?] After the 45 days of investigation there has to be a report, Congress must [do something; I think he said “Congress must approve” any ruling from the investigating body but I didn’t hear him say that any actual vote would be taken, or by whom].

Levin said that “Even Karl Rove” said that the deal can’t go through before the 45-day thing happens. This of course, if true, means that Our Highest Executive Official has spoken.

On Dubai specifically, Levin noted that their status as “good guys and Bosom Buddies” is of rather short duration, and they were pretty much bottom-feeding scum suckers before that. Buddies of the Taliban, trans-shippers of the nuclear-weapons materials of [our other new Bosom Buddies] Pakistan’s AQ Khan, home of 2 of the 911 hijackers, financiers of the others, banker to Al Qaida, etc.

Yeah they spun on a dime after 9-11 and the “you are with us or against us” speech, but that just means they can spin back just as fast.

On Iraq: Here Carl threw a marker on the table-we should give the Iraqi elected officials “6-8 weeks” to put together something, anything, that they can call a government or we should start packing our bags for home. A “government of national unity” would be swell but get something on paper NOW or we’re booking. There can be no military solution—Levin said he had been told this by “military leaders” but if he named any names I didn’t catch it—without a political solution.

When asked if we can intervene in an Iraqi civil war, Levin said, “nope.” We can’t solve the problem for them. They must creat their own nation. Keeping our troops there indefinitely gives them a blank check.

Round Table:

Torie Clarke [former PR handmaiden to SecDef Rumsfeld, now hawking a book];

EJ Dionne, [token “liberal” which he isn’t very];

Fareed Zakaria [who I used to think was One of the Good Guys before the war, as he was wildly against it; but these days, not so much][looked very haggard this week, don’t know if he’s unwell, jet lagged or what. But he’s still, imho, hot] [Xan wipes drool from chin, keyboard] and

George Will [who is fading into near irrelevance these days, and surprisingly seems to realize it]:

Torrie’s pitch was that the Higher Levels of the executive branch blew the PR on the ports deal because of a “different information environment.” They should have had “greater awareness” of what the Committee of Low-Level Flunkies In Charge of Letting Foreigners Buy Up America was doing.

[As best I can tell this is a Reverse Outrage Fatigue argument they’re trying here. We complain of being unable to follow up on each particular way they’re fucking us over because the scandals come too thick and furious…so now the fuckers are trying to use the same complaint? This is Rovian in its red-cape-waving, ratfucking way, but it didn’t seem to get much traction on this show. Watch for it to show up elsewhere.]

There was more but I’m gonna try to save this now because I have to get to work elsewhere and I’m tired. Hillary Clinton and George Will both got in some good licks in this segment [bet you never expected to read THAT line, didja?] and I will do an Update about it if opportunity presents.

Face The Nation / Murtha, Lugar

Something we really need in this country is Media Education. Educate every citizen about how Corporate Media really works and what goes on behind the scenes. One misperception is the idea that politicians and news anchors are honestly expressing their heartfelt views. When in fact they all have carefully studied talking points, and they have been trained to appear honest so as to be more convincing. They all have agendas, motivations and they all know anything they say on the teevee can be used against them.

That said, it’s really hard to believe that Rep. John Murtha is not speaking from his heart. Either that or he’s a heckuva actor. With 37 years in the Marine Corps and over 30 years in Congress, it’s hard to believe he is motivated by ambitions of achieving higher office through corporate campaign contributions. Murtha speaks in direct plain language, cites evidence and gets fired up about things he cares about.

[Quotes are from my notes, not transcript.]

Bob “Crankypants” Schieffer: Do you believe General Pace who said this morning on Meet the Press that the War in Iraq is “going very, very well”?

Murtha: Why would I believe him? This administration has constantly misrepresented what is going on in Iraq.

Murtha said that when the Administration makes these statements he asks his staff to get latest the State Department report on Iraq and get the facts. There is 60% unemployment in Iraq, 80% of Iraqis want us out of there, 47% think it’s acceptable to shoot US soldiers.

He said that the troops are doing everything they can, but they’re caught in the middle of a civil war.

The US public is “way ahead” on this issue, 70% of the troops want to pull out of Iraq.

Al Qaeda and Iran and China want us to stay in Iraq, because we’re depleting our resources. We’re diverting our resources from the war on terrorism which is global.

The US pretends to be able to tell Iraqis and the Iraqi government what to do. But “Our man” Chalabi got 1% of the vote, Allawi got 8%.

Before the US invasion there were no terrorists in Iraq. If we get out, the Iraqis will get AQ out. They know who and where they are. The Iraqis don’t like having foreign jihadists in their country. But we’ve unified the Iraqis and the jihadists against us by our presence.

Bombshell:

UPDATE: Schieffer mentioned rumors that the Administration plans to pull troops out of Iraq in early 2007, after the midterms. [He’s obviously been reading Corrente] I must have hallucinated that part. It’s Murtha who brought it up. He’s the one who’s been reading Corrente.

Murtha: Other Democrats tell me “you’re helping the Republicans [by talking about redeployment] because if the GOP sets a schedule to get out it will help them in the elections.”

Shystee Prediction: the Administration and the GOP will beat the Dems to the punch on announcing a plan for pulling out of Iraq.

Karl Rove sure as hell reads the polls and he knows that staying in Iraq is politically untenable. Whatever Neocon fantasies about forcibly democratizing the Middle East Republicans might entertain, maintaing one-party dominance in the US is a much higher priority, if not the only priority.

That the Beltway Dems would be chastising Murtha for taking a position on Iraq that the majority of the voters support is… mindboggling? disgusting? pathetic? enraging? It shows a contempt for the public’s opinion and lack of will or understanding about how to win elections and about what is good for US citizens.

After years of going along with the Bloody CharlieFoxtrot [military speak for ClusterF**k] that is the Iraqi occupation, the Dems might have already missed the opportunity to ride the wave of public opposition to the war. And they show no intention of getting a clue. When you start to think about why, that’s when you really get nauseous. Do Beltway Dems just not get it or do they not want to get it because they have other priorities?

Schieffer briefly brings up PortGate. Isn’t this just some irrational fear?

Murtha: “All we have to fear is fear itself”. These guys [Bushies] have used fear as a club!

No mention by either of them that the deal has already gone through.

Iran’s Nucular “ambitions”:

Murtha: Iran knows we can’t deploy ground troops against them, we’ve depleted our resources in Iraq.

Schieffer: But if we withdraw won’t that look like we’ve been defeated, won’t that boost our enemies’ morale?

Murtha: That’s the fear they try to sell to the american people. If we get out, Iraqis will take Al Qaeda out, that is what is important to us.

Dick Lugar

The contrast in style and substance between Murtha and this guy are like night and day. Lugar basically avoided answering any of Schieffer’s questions and stuck to his talking points:

- Civil war in Iraq? Maybe…

- It’s up to the Iraqis to decide if they want to be iraqis or sunnis, shias, etc… They’re going through transitional period, of course it’s going to be ugly. [The implication that it’s not really the US’ problem and we don’t have any control over the situation]

- We have to give the Iraqi government assurances that we will stay.

Lugar: There is still hope for Iraq. Among Repugs there is general support for the president and the troops. Sure everyone reads polls. But politics is a fickle business. If things go well the polls will tick up.

Schieffer: sounds like my golf game, if I can just improve my stroke everything will be better.

Schieffer’s Final Word

Bob’s glad that the tapes of Bush being thoroughly briefed about the potential for humanitarian disaster in the wake of Katrina came out.

But didn’t we know this already? That FEMA was stacked with political hacks?

We really should just move on. “We have to stop the tape and go live.” “People want to know what happens now.”

Hurricane seaon is months away and there is still no plan. Can’t we just get over these squabbles about responsibility for thousands of dead or missing Americans?

Late Edition / Khalilzad, Kemp, Edwards, Dean, Warner, Levin, Chambliss

Wolf Blitzer AKA Ghostface Blitzah’s is one of the worst Sunday talk shows. As opposed to say, MTP where guests get almost 20 uninterrupted minutes, Ghostface only allows 3 minutes per topic. Yes, Blitzer’s interviews are short and to the point, but you have to sit through two hours, almost half of which is ads, to get to them.

Quotes/summaries from notes, not transcript, which should appear here eventually.

Iraq

Ghostface Blitzah: Who killed peace activist Tom Fox?

US Ambassador in Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad: The terrorists did. They want nothing good. Today was a good day in Iraq… As far as the formation of a coalition government is concerned.

Jack Kemp: The ambassador is doing a heckuva fabulo