|
|
By Michel, on October 31st, 2006
Meet Mark Halperin, world’s most pathetic journalist. Halperin, who runs ABC’s conventional wisdom assembly line, The Note, co-wrote a book with the Washington Post’s John Harris ironically entitled The Way to Win. Regardless what the book says, Halperin’s winning strategy appears to involve publicly debasing yourself beyond any hope of redemption. Glenn Greenwald, whose stomach is stronger than most, has the gory details.
I honestly didn’t think it was possible for Mark Halperin’s behavior to become any more craven or cringe-inducing than it was during his three-hour submissive inquisition with Hugh Hewitt last night. But I was so wrong.
Greenwald isn’t exaggerating: Halperin, one of Washington’s most influential political reporters and commentators, comes very close to begging a right-wing imbecile for absolution from the sin of liberalism.
Continue reading Blogs on Parade: Bathos, Pathos and D’Artagnan Edition
By Weldon Berger, on October 31st, 2006
 Slate’s Jacob Weisberg is getting a tingly feeling in his political pants over a potential Barack Obama-John McCain matchup in 2008. Since Weisberg’s political appetites are a reliable reflection of Washington’s pundit class, we can all look forward to a steady diet of Maverick reruns until the 2008 primaries begin or one of the senators has a public fit, whichever happens first.
McCain is a long-time crush of Weisberg’s and most of the political press. No matter what the pandering weasel does, the press love him. They love him for standing up to Jerry Falwell; they love him for not standing up to Jerry Falwell. They love him for opposing torture; they love him for caving on the issue (actually they didn’t notice that he caved, but they’d love him even had they done). Now, though, it appears the McCain infatuation has faded enough that Weisberg’s heart is open to another. That’s bad news for McCain because where Weisberg goes, some dozens have gone before.
Continue reading Barack Obama, John McCain and a pundit’s heart torn in two
By Weldon Berger, on October 30th, 2006
Corruption, torture, thievery, sexual improprieties, coverups, lies … if the GOP were a city, anyone taking a last look at it as they fled would turn into a pillar of salt. Maybe that’s why religionists such as Focus On The Family’s James Dobson refuse to turn their backs on the party despite the decidedly un-Christian behavior of its leaders and members: the temptation to take that last glance would be overwhelming. The guiding lights of what Dick Armey, Tom DeLay’s predecessor as House majority leader, called a “gang of thugs” might say that it’s a case of “love the sinner, hate the sin;” given the lack of tolerance the religious right offers sinners on the left side of the aisle, the more accurate answer appears to be that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have given the religious right what they want: a fledgling theocracy.
Historian Garry Wills describes the near-total breakdown in the separation of church and state in a New York Review of Books essay entitled “A Country Ruled by Faith.” Along the way, he documents how the administration and Congress have colluded to hand large chunks of the government along with not inconsiderable sums of cash over to followers of Armey’s gang of thugs.
Continue reading Why Religious Right leaders won’t abandon Republicans
By Weldon Berger, on October 27th, 2006
Oh, the perils of blogging. Joe Lieberman’s communications director, Dan Gerstein, has some fundamental differences with his boss. In March of this year, Gerstein wrote on his now-dormant blog that “I disagree with Lieberman about the conduct of the war in Iraq” and that “I view Bush as one of the worst leaders in American history.”
Lieberman, of course, has been perhaps the most staunch Bush ally on the Iraq invasion and occupation among Democrats, and late last year he chided Democrats who questioned Bush’s judgement, saying that “[i]t is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
Gerstein, who was writing to defend himself and his once and future boss against attacks from a Huffington Post blogger and apparently felt a need to delineate differences between himself and Lieberman to defuse charges that his was a reflexive defense of the Senator, obviously didn’t get the memo.
Continue reading Lieberman message man Gerstein sour on Iraq, Bush
By Weldon Berger, on October 27th, 2006
More than half of Friday’s White House press briefing was consumed by Dick Cheney’s Tuesday endorsement of waterboarding. The various exchanges between reporters and press secretary Tony Snow could be boiled down to this: Reporter: “Do you think we’re stupid?” Snow: “Not really, but what am I supposed to do?”
Here’s what Cheney said in response to questions from right-wing radio talker Scott Hennen.
HENNEN: I’ve had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we’re all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we’ve learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.
…
HENNEN: Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President “for torture.” We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
On the surface, Cheney appears to support waterboarding and to acknowledge that Khalid Sheik Mohammed had been subjected to it. According to Snow, though, Cheney was not referring to waterboarding, water, dunking or even the “whatever it takes” sentiment among Hennen’s audience.
Continue reading Tortured Language: Tony Snow on Cheney and Waterboarding
By Weldon Berger, on October 25th, 2006
In his Washington Post column today, Dan Froomkin flagged a Dick Cheney interview in which Cheney appeared to acknowledge and endorse US use of the technique known as waterboarding.
Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President “for torture.” We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
And thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.
Most human rights organizations regard waterboarding as torture, and the Bush administration have consistently refused to confirm or deny the use of it in US interrogations. Now, Cheney appears to have explicitly acknowledged and endorsed its use, and even identified Khalid Sheik Mohammed as one individual subjected to the practice.
Continue reading Cheney: US uses waterboarding; “It’s a no brainer for me”
By Weldon Berger, on October 23rd, 2006
A note to our readers: BTC News is inviting you to submit questions to be asked of a White House spokesman who has agreed to answer on the record the ones we select. If you’d like to participate, read the invitation and leave your questions in the comments section.
Now that the majority of Americans view George Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, you don’t hear much about “Bush haters.” For years, though, anyone who had harsh words for the boy king was tagged with the label and barred from the ranks of serious critics. The lone exceptions were people such as former Bush treasury secretary Paul O’Neil, who were tagged as disgruntled crackpots and barred from the ranks of serious critics.
As recently as this summer, a certified Washington insider who had internalized the term told me that “There are Bush haters and it’s a problem for Democrats … You’re letting the phrase Bush haters be a red cape to you. Sure it has been over-used and used as a weapon by Republicans. There may be a thousand things right or wrong about the term but it is a fact and one that Democratic leaders have to deal with. It doesn’t mean shrinking or selling out – to think so is to embrace Bush’s own sort of with us or against us lack of nuance. But Democrats have to recognize that it exists and deal with it.”
“Lack of nuance?” We were talking about a guy who has screwed up everything. He has quite literally not done anything right other than deliberately subverting the Constitution and shoveling money at campaign contributors, at both of which he’s been a whiz. Nuance?
Continue reading Death to “Bush Haters”: laying a stupid idea to rest
By Weldon Berger, on October 23rd, 2006
A note to our readers: BTC News is inviting you to submit questions to be asked of a White House spokesman who has agreed to answer on the record the ones we select. If you’d like to participate, read the invitation and leave your questions in the comments section.
State department official Alberto Fernandez now says that he misspoke in describing US Iraq operations as arrogant and stupid. In a brief statement on the state department web site, Fernandez, the head of Near East public diplomacy in the department, said that “[u]pon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase ‘there has been arrogance and stupidity’ by the U.S. in Iraq. This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize.”
Right. Had the interview not been conducted in Washington, Fernandez, who is said to be fluent in Arabic, might have been able to invoke the Ambien excuse, as iterated by Colin Powell during an interview with the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.
Question: So do you use sleeping tablets to organize yourself?
Secretary Powell: Yes. Well, I wouldn’t call them that. They’re a wonderful medication — not medication. How would you call it? They’re called ambien, which is very good. You don’t use ambien? Everybody here uses ambien.
Powell’s reference was to knocking himself out at night during a whirlwind tour of Central America. Sadly, the excuse of a medication which can cause “behavior changes, mental confusion, abnormal thinking, depression” and should be avoided when “engaging in activities requiring alertness” is denied Fernandez. So far as we know, anyway.
Continue reading Fernandez recants: US not arrogant and stupid in Iraq
By Michel, on October 21st, 2006
A note to our readers: BTC News is inviting you to submit questions to be asked of a White House spokesman who has agreed to answer on the record the ones we select. If you’d like to join in the exercise, read the invitation and leave your questions in the comments section.
Harsh words about US operations in Iraq aren’t unusual but when they come on the record from a senior US diplomat, something’s up. Alberto Fernandez, who holds down the Near East public diplomacy desk in the state department, told Al Jazeera yesterday that “there is much room for criticism [of US efforts] because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq.”
Fernandez’ comments come amid a near-unprecedented campaign of official and unofficial signals that the US is contemplating substantial changes in its approach to Iraq. Former secretary of state James Baker and others associated with the Iraq Study Group, a collection of diplomats and scholars tasked with developing alternatives to sitting around Baghdad blowing things up and getting blown up, have been offering up a steady stream of on and off the record hints about the policies they’re contemplating, while US officials including defense secretary Don Rumsfeld and US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad have issued ominous statements about the waning US patience with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki’s fumbling attempts to reign in the violence there. The New York Times has a story today citing unnamed senior US officials describing a “blueprint” of security milestones to which the Iraqi government is expected to adhere during the next months and years.
So what’s going on? Has the Bush administration finally come to its collective senses and recognized the necessity for change? Do the president’s remarks about the similarities between the current level of violence in Iraq and the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam signal an existential epiphany on his part?
Continue reading Diplomat accuses US of “arrogance,” “stupidity” in Iraq
By Weldon Berger, on October 20th, 2006
Questions about Iraq? The imperiled Constitution? Health care? The economy? Those cute dogs? The upcoming elections? Continue reading Got a question for the White House? We’ll ask it for you
|
Word of the Decade Ignoranus: An ignorant asshole.
|
Death to “Bush Haters”: laying a stupid idea to rest
A note to our readers: BTC News is inviting you to submit questions to be asked of a White House spokesman who has agreed to answer on the record the ones we select. If you’d like to participate, read the invitation and leave your questions in the comments section.
Now that the majority of Americans view George Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, you don’t hear much about “Bush haters.” For years, though, anyone who had harsh words for the boy king was tagged with the label and barred from the ranks of serious critics. The lone exceptions were people such as former Bush treasury secretary Paul O’Neil, who were tagged as disgruntled crackpots and barred from the ranks of serious critics.
As recently as this summer, a certified Washington insider who had internalized the term told me that “There are Bush haters and it’s a problem for Democrats … You’re letting the phrase Bush haters be a red cape to you. Sure it has been over-used and used as a weapon by Republicans. There may be a thousand things right or wrong about the term but it is a fact and one that Democratic leaders have to deal with. It doesn’t mean shrinking or selling out – to think so is to embrace Bush’s own sort of with us or against us lack of nuance. But Democrats have to recognize that it exists and deal with it.”
“Lack of nuance?” We were talking about a guy who has screwed up everything. He has quite literally not done anything right other than deliberately subverting the Constitution and shoveling money at campaign contributors, at both of which he’s been a whiz. Nuance?
Continue reading Death to “Bush Haters”: laying a stupid idea to rest