Iraq and Iran Watch

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

Okay, now for the more serious post. There’s some important news, or at least important fake news, especially on the Iran front.

Dan Froomkin provides an invaluable survey of the Iran news in "A Shaky Briefing on Iran?" He starts by focusing on the ridiculous deep background briefing lapped up uncritically by The New York Times. He links Greg Mitchell’s skeptical dissection as well and Glenn Greenwald’s brutal, on-target critique.

Howard Kurtz also weighed in on the briefing when responding to a reader question in Kurtz’ weekly online discussion:

The Pentagon staged a briefing for journalists at which a "senior defense official" and a couple of experts were trotted out on a background basis. I do not understand why they could not have presented their findings on the record. I don't think it's quite like Iraq, in that this was an officially sanctioned briefing, but it does raise a similar question: If the Defense Department is so sure of its evidence on Iran's involvement, why the anonymity?

There are two U.S. warship groups in the Gulf, and allegedly a third on the way. The Bush administration keeps on denying that there’s any plans or intent to attack Iran. Froomkin notes:

But Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari write in a Newsweek cover story: "At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. 'They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,' says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran."

Hirsh and Bahari conclude that "the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and Newsweek has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years."

And Ewen MacAskill writes in The Guardian: "US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

"The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

"Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. "

Arnaud de Borchgrave writes for UPI: "At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. 'I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers,' said Soroush, 'and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.'

"'I know,' President Bush answered.

"'But does Vice President Cheney know?' asked Soroush.

"President Bush chuckled and walked away."

Froomkin goes on to present a great deal of important information on the éminence grise himself, Cheney.

Digby picks up on the Cheney thread in a valuable post titled "Preserving All Our Options." Digby highlights a key passage of a Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung titled ”U.S. Keeps Pressure on Iran But Decreases Saber Rattling “:

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.

As Digby notes, that really should have been the lede, concluding:

As the Libby trial unfolds we see once again a picture of an extremely powerful Vice President who believes he can do anything.He does not even believe he answers to the president. Considering recent history, it is far more significant that John Hannah is telling people that an attack was a real possibility than it is that Condi's sadly irrelevant State Department is trying to tamp down the rhetoric in public. Everything we have seen for the last six years shows that in these administration battles Cheney always wins. Watch what they do not what they say. They lie as easily as they breathe.

Finally, two other writers add valuable perspectives. Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid explores the growing Sunni-Shiite divide in the Middle East in his article, ”Across Arab World, a Widening Rift” and discussed the article here. Meanwhile, Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival, co-authored an op-ed titled ”The Iran Option That Isn't on the Table.” It argues for precisely the sort of effective diplomacy the Bush adminstration ridicules:

Paradoxically, to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to shelve its containment strategy and embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power. In the meantime, as Iran became assimilated into the global economy, the regime's influence would inevitably yield to the private sector, with its demands for accountability and reform.

Nasr offered some interesting responses to readers in his discussion of the op-ed:

There has been flow of arms from Iran to Shia groups in Iraq but that has so far been to balance the flow of arms that is going to the insurgency from the Arab world. It is important to note that Shia militias are not at war with the U.S. -- more than 80 percent of U.S. casualties are inflicted by the insurgency, and we are having this discussion at a time when insurgent attacks have killed hundreds of Shias and downed five U.S. helicopters.

In response to a reader who quotes the Shehabi conversation with Bush I quoted above, Nasr writes:

I do not know whether this exchange happened or not, but many pro-democracy voices in Iran fear that military confrontation will divert attention from democracy and political dissent to nationalism. Iranians like all people will support their government (regardless of all other differences) at a time of war. They did so in the 1980s when Saddam attacked Iran, which only strengthened Khomeini's rule at the time.

Sadly, this common sense realization is beyond the scope of the Bush administration, since it would be heresy, if they even possess the capacity to consider it. Neocon Michael Ledeen, when not lying about what his position was on invading Iraq, has previously expressed the belief that bombing Iran will make the populace rise up and overthrow the current government. He even tried to reference some polls to support him. This is, of course, absolutely insane, and flies in the face of the entire history of aerial bombing – targeting only strategic resources can influence negotiations, but any civilian casualties from bombing hardens the populace and makes them band together, just as a ground invasion would. For all their love of war, the neocons are simply not good scholars of it, among their many intellectual and moral failings. Kristol, Bush and others in the movement, beyond even their American triumphalism, possess an imperial hubris that dictates that their victims should be grateful to be bombed or otherwise killed, because the cause is just. It brings to mind the “Killing for Christ” mentality of the Crusades, although the current pathology has its own repulsive flavor.

(As an afterthought, I find it particularly sad, amusing and telling some news from the AP mentioned in Froomkin’s column. Cheney is currently refusing to meet with Defense Minister Jumio Kyuma on his trip to Japan, because Kyuma dared to call Iraq a “mistake.” In other words, in the Cheney doctrine, not only is the Cold War model of talking with one’s supposed enemies weakness, but even America’s friends must receive the silent treatment if they dare criticize you by stating a clear fact. Remember, this is the man who recently claimed that the biggest impediment to success in Iraq was not the daily murders or sectarian violence, but the fact that domestically, the Bush administration was being criticized. Try selling that to the next Iraqi to lose a family member in a bombing, or to a soldier who loses a comrade to an IED, Dick.

Of course, even if America was the totalitarian dystopia of Cheney’s fantasies, Iraq would still be a meat grinder and a complete “charlie foxtrot.” The fate of the world seems to rest in the hands of fascist, idiot children. Invading Iraq is already a cautionary tale for the ages, the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, all the more so because it was completely avoidable. Not content with that, however, with their intentions toward Iraq, the Bush administration seeks to make Iraq merely the second worst foreign policy blunder in American history. If ever God were to talk to Bush, now would be the time.)

Proof of Iran’s Perfidy Provided by Anonymous Experts!

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

The New York Times reported on Friday, 2/9/07 that “The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.”

This stunning scoop was dug out by the Times by attending a presentation arranged by the Bush administration.

Absolutely certain about their evidence, the senior defense official and two experts insisted that the monumental import of their officially sanctioned briefing would be undermined if they were named or went on record.


The first source explained: [name redacted] “Oh no, no, no, D----- mustn’t say his name, mustn’t, mustn’t! Iran is bad, very, very bad. D----- came to warn you. NO! You mustn’t take photos of the shells! Can’t bring in your expert to verify the evidence! But D----- knows! D----- knows, but shouldn’t be telling you this! Not to that liberal bastion of peerless reporting, The New York Times! Oh, Bad D-----, Bad D-----!"


The second deep background source explained, “Iran is scary, bad! They is causing all sorts of evil things in Iraq. Me-sah know without Iran, Iraq be peachy-keen!”

When asked about the statistics showing that the vast majority of American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents versus the Shiite militias the administration claims Iran is supplying, he replied, “No, no, no! Sunni insurgents our enemies. Shiite militias our enemies. Shiite government our friends. Shiite Iran our enemy. You must keep up! Hussein was new Hitler in 2002, now is Ahmadinejad!”

But is Iran really a threat, an imminent threat? Expert consensus holds that Iran is probably at least ten years away from a nuclear weapon. Our expert forcefully argued, “Me-sah hear from good friends Michael Ledeen and Bill Kristol, we must attack Iran, sooner, not later. Them two never wrong. Me-sah know, we must attack Iran before they get nuke. Ten years a long time to wait. What if we forget?”


Finally, the third source, a senior defense official, harumphed, “Of course we’re not preparing for war with Iran. But here’s something you won’t hear on those liberal weekend political talk shows. You ask me, can we afford to attack Iran? I say — can we afford not to?”

One knowing smile later, he went on: “For over twenty-five years, Iran has been a hypothetical threat. Iran has long been at the forefront, a world leader, in hypothetical weaponry. In fact, while we sit here, wasting time arguing if Iran is a threat, right this very minute they’re sitting on a huge stockpile of hypothetical weapons. Caspar Weinberger warned us all about it back in the 80s. Yes, in terms of conventional weaponry, the American and Israeli arsenals dwarf Iran’s, but when it comes to hypothetical arsenals, Iran is one of the biggest threats in the world, a far greater danger to our national security than even Japan, or Canada.”

After pausing to let this sink in, he scoffed, “Look, the peaceniks and hippies may believe in elves, faeries, and everything just magically getting better on its own, but we’re very serious in this administration. We live in the real world.”

As for allegations that the Office of the Vice President is driving Iran policy just as it did (and does) Iraq policy, an OVP spokesperson, who insisted he shall not be named, declined to comment.

The Many Faces of Dick

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

You may be saying, “Hey, man, what’s up with your Cheney posts? First he’s Voldemort. Then he’s Colonel Jessup. Now he’s Vader? Make up your mind!”

To which I reply – “Who the heck are you?!? You mean someone actually reads these posts?”

But the truth is, dear reader – if thou be not phantom, but more real than — oh, Bush’s budget numbers, Cheney’s WMD, and ethics in this White House — there are many sides to our most cuddly of Vice Presidents. He contains multitudes. He is legion.

Yes, the right wing bloggers say, “Hey, loony left! Make up your mind! Is Cheney Satan himself, or merely an emissary of Satan?”

To which I reply — “Quick! Hillary Clinton murdered someone again! Get on it before Malkin and Rush beat ya to it, and maybe Glenn Reynolds will link you!” Heh.

Can Cheney’s full, dark majesty be captured with just one icon of evil? I say thee nay! When Cheney puts the lives of young men in peril, then he is Voldemort. When he sneers at human rights, the rule of law and lobbies aggressively for torture, then he’s Colonel Jessup down at Guantanamo. But when he wants to kick back, relax and pursue unchecked executive power, then he’s Darth Vader. (Umm, without the 11th hour conversion, of course. And Natalie Portman’s waaaaaay out of his league — except maybe as the object of a kidnap plot by the Dick Cheney League of Super-Villains.)

Besides, who can pass on “Darth Cheney”? It’s part of common parlance, not only on the left, but in the MSM and on late-night talk shows. It yields roughly 400,000 results on Google. "It-boy" himself Jon Stewart combined Darth Vader and Sauron for a bit (damn! I forgot one! A later post!). And let's face it, you know Cheney himself likes the nickname.

So yes, the metaphors and analogies shall keep coming for the wonder that is Dick. As long as he continues to lie, break the law and plunge the Office of the Vice President to unprecedented lows, the very least we can do, as patriots, is deride and ridicule him.

You Can’t Handle the Lies!

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

Another Froomkin item spurs me to post! What can I say, the guy is good!

In his Wednesday, 2/7/07 column, ”Cheney Doesn’t Share,” he ponders:

No Cheney Cross?

With so many new questions emerging about Cheney's conduct -- and the unique experience of watching him be cross-examined in federal court having been dangled in front of the press corps for months -- it comes as a grave disappointment that Cheney may end up not testifying after all.

But Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "Attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby are backtracking on their plans to call Vice President Dick Cheney and Libby himself to testify in the CIA leak trial.

"Libby's attorneys seemed certain in December when they announced that Cheney would testify at his former aide's perjury and obstruction trial.

"But with prosecutors close to resting their case, attorneys are quietly backing away from that claim.

"In documents filed in federal court this week, Libby's attorneys said Cheney was 'potentially' a witness."

This gives me the perfect excuse to muse about Cheney on the stand. Would he lie if he was reasonably sure he could get away with it? Would he tell the truth? (How sad that the answer’s legitimately in doubt.) Cheney may well have the worst judgment of any major public official in decades, but he is smart about covering his tracks. But think about it. He’s shown he doesn’t care about his image. He doesn’t care about lying, not only to the public, but even to high-ranking members of his own administration! He doesn’t give a damn about the rule of law, due process or the Constitution. He’s ferociously in favor of torture. He doesn’t care what the intelligence says. He doesn’t care what any data says. He doesn’t care about the financial well-being of our country. (Beyond Halliburton’s no-bid contracts, Paul O’Neill relates the tale that Cheney said that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. [These further taxes for the rich] are our due.”) Cheney has repeatedly shown he doesn’t value transparency, yet alone any check on his power. He regularly insults his critics in extremely degrading terms (and with straw men aplenty). Most disastrously, he has consistently shown he doesn’t give a damn about learning from any of his avalanche of mistakes and misjudgments. (The Froomkin column linked above has some great tidbits on Cheney.)

Deep down, Cheney must want to let loose and tell everybody off. He must want to repeat his “Go fuck yourself” line, delivered to Senator Patrick Leahy, to Patrick Fitzgerald. He must want to tell everyone to go to hell. He’s itching for a Colonel Jessup moment, just like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. Can’t you see it?

FITZGERALD: Did you order Libby to leak Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity to the press?

CHENEY: You’re damn right I did! And I’d do it again! Who cares if Wilson told the truth? It made us look bad, and we had a presidential election coming up! You think junior was going to win on his merits? And who cares if I had Libby lie to that flake Judith Miller about the NIE? We had to get the message out! Russert says he doesn’t remember the conversation that way? He’ll remember whatever the hell I tell him to remember, and remember his place most of all! The Constitution clearly states I can do whatever the hell I want! I’m in charge here! Who’s going to stop me? You? You? YOU? Do any of you really got the balls to take on “Big Time” Cheney?!?


Alas, as I mentioned above, Cheney is a smart fellow — when it comes to hiding his cards, to getting away with it, with surviving. His testimony would be completely fascinating, offering valuable information for the trial, but even more valuable insight into how the most powerful Vice President in history operates. But at this point, his testimony might hurt Libby, and if so, obviously the defense will not call him. It’s unlikely he’ll have a Colonel Jessup moment. But it doesn’t hurt to dream.

Death Eaters of the GOP

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)


(Hmm. Cheney's lost a little weight, hasn't he?)

My favorite item of the week so far comes from a “Literary Metaphor Watch” category in a Dan Froomkin column. He reports:

Nicholas Kristof asked readers to offer literary or historical parallels to the Bush administration and Iraq. He writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "A reader named Melissa S. e-mailed to say that she explains Iraq policy to her 8-year-old son in terms of Harry Potter characters: 'Dick Cheney is Lord Voldemort. George W. Bush is Peter Pettigrew.' Don Rumsfeld is Lucius Malfoy, while Cornelius Fudge represents administration supporters who deny that anything is wrong. And, she concludes, 'Daily Prophet reporter Rita Skeeter is Fox News.'"

Donkey O.D. has the full text here.

On a more serious note, to match the core of Kristof’s piece, the Bush administration has shown a lethal inability to learn from history, most tragically, the costs of war and the mistakes to avoid when waging one (top of the list would be not to start a war of choice). However, as Kristof reminds us, the Bush administration and the neocons also seem to be ignorant of essential themes raised in the arts (more on this to come in a later post).

When Gorbachev was in power, not long before the break-up the Soviet Union, he arranged to see the production of Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya in repertory at the famed Moscow Art Theater. Afterwards, he called up the Artistic Director of the theater to talk about the play, saying something like, “Vanya is just like me,” and proceeded to talk about himself in relation to the play for anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour. How amazing.

Personally, I don’t care what Bush reads or sees, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Harry Potter or the Bible, I just want him to think and to truly reflect. Most accounts indicate he rarely if ever does. I would also like to see him feel, specifically, feel compassion for others and to have the imagination to consider the consequences of his frighteningly powerful actions and inactions. Bush “read three Shakespeares,” including Hamlet, last year, and if it’s true, good for him. What was really needed was to ask him what he took away from them, to discuss the works with him. I suspect reporters were wary of embarrassing Bush, but it could be done with tact and it would have been very revealing. In the meantime, if Bush is to grapple with some of the complexities of the modern world and moral quandaries, it might be a step in the right direction for him to read a little Harry Potter.


"Mr. Vice-President, if you could just stop devouring that baby for the photo - we're trying to show your lighter side."

Froomkin: How the Press Can Prevent Another Iraq

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)


Over at Nieman Watchdog, where he is Deputy Editor, Dan Froomkin (also of The Washington Post) has a fantastic list of guidelines for the press. Frankly, this list shouldn't be necessary, but it undeniably is. If only all of the press took them to heart! However, bloggers certainly can practice these principles (as many already do), and press mainstream journalists to do the same.

Given their track record, every time a member of the Bush administration makes a claim, at this point how can any journalist not question whether it's a lie? It boggles the mind. They have not credibility, which means the burden of proof is on them. Some reporters are very good at fact-checking public statements, but it's hardly an universal value. Access does not equal accuracy, and frankly, it often seems to hurt it. Knowledgeable sources are one thing, but why court a shill or a proven liar? It's not as if D.C. lacks in opinions to pad out a column! It often seems that, when it comes to the mainstream press, the rule of thumb is "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twenty-seven times, shame on - hey, will you come on my show this Sunday?" It's true that "Politics is the blood sport of Washington," but among the chattering class, softball runs a very close second.

Here's Froomkin's short, essential piece, in its entirety:
________________________________
How the press can prevent another Iraq
COMMENTARY | February 02, 2007

Journalists, and through us the public, have a grave responsibility to not be complicit in another march to war on false pretenses. So what lessons should we have learned from Iraq?
By Dan Froomkin

Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it’s looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were. (Feel free to add more in comments.)

You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
• Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
• Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
• Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
• Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.

Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
• War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
• Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
• Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
• Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?

Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
• Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.
• Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.

Watch for Rhetorical Traps
• Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair.
• Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them.
• Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.

Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials
• Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.
• Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
• Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)

Look Outside Our Borders
• Pay attention to international opinion.
• Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?
• Keep an eye out for how the international press is covering this story. Why should we be so different?

Understand the Enemy
• Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.
• Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.
• Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
• Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.

Encourage Public Debate
• The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate.
• Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively.

Write about Motives
• Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
• Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives.
• If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.

Talk to the Military
• Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.

_____________________

Incidentally, Froomkin’s column today, 2/6/07, ”Bush Daring Dems on Iraq” has a splendid “Iran Watch” section (it also links the Fallows piece I liked earlier).

Fallows on War with Iran

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)


(Americans can rest easy that wise leaders are at the wheel of their foreign policy.)

Atlantic Monthly editor and writer James Fallows penned a series of articles on Iraq often described as “prescient.” Starting with “The Fifty-First State?” in November 2002, his five feature articles are collected in Blind Into Baghdad: America’s War in Iraq. It’s a quick and excellent read that puts the lie to the notion that the Bush administration wasn’t strenuously and accurately warned about the dangers of invading Iraq. Written before and during the war, Fallows’ research undercuts many other pieces of propaganda and revisionist history. Exactly how prescient was Fallows? The December 2004 piece in the book is titled “Will Iran be Next?”

Here it is, February 2007, and the Bush administration and the neocons are still angling for war with Iran, as they have for years if not decades. The saber-rattling from the most dangerously inept political movement in American history has been loud, for months now, perhaps because it’s a harder sell. Many a commenter has noted that the Bush administration mistakenly believes that what they think is best for Bush is also what’s best for America. And haven’t we been here before?

Back on September, I wrote:

Regardless of what one thinks about the rationale of going to war with Iraq, it would be almost impossible to argue that the Bush administration did not want to go to war with Iraq. It was obvious they did.

And thus it is with Iran. If we avoid war with Iran – and possibly Syria as well – it will not be because of the Bush administration. It will not be due to wisdom or sound judgment or common sense on their part. It will only be due to another behind-the-scenes revolt by the top military brass or some external factor the Bushies don’t choose to dismiss as is their usual wont.

[...]

It would be nice to think that “cooler heads will prevail.” And perhaps they will. But it seems highly unlikely those “cooler heads” will come from inside Bush’s inner circle. The Bushies will act out of macho insecurity, or a desire for more power, or because God spoke to them, or because they are assured they are right and good and true. But they will not act with the best interests of America or the world in mind.

If anything, the situation has gotten worse since September. The saber-rattling has grown into a din at this point, as cacophonous as the cognitive dissonances in the Bush-Cheney-neocon ideology. They fear history’s harsh judgment over Iraq and are clamoring for one more shot at glory. No sacrifice by others, of others, is too great for their ignoble goals. To them, recklessness is courage, hubris is vision, and the systematic denigration of rational decision-making is the height of wisdom. Their desire to bomb Iran is so obvious even the mainstream media is picking up on it.

It’s appropriate that Fallows published this on Groundhog Day, since it really does seem like we’re reliving the same events. From his 2/2/07 piece “Where Congress Can Draw the Line: No war with Iran,” Fallows writes (emphasis mine)

Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change.

By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.

Read the rest here. James Fallows’ site is here.

When wise men and women face a crisis, they often look inward. However, Bush and his movement want to create this crisis, and when Bush looks inward, he surely doesn’t see a narcissistic, petulant, obtuse man, but only a great, misunderstood man, touched by God simply because he is entitled to be so. When our president is as obstinately, proudly unreflective as Bush, the only salvation is external. He can never be trusted to make the right decision of his own free will. As Fallows says, Congress must act immediately to block the Bush administration, and it’s up to their constituents to pressure them to make sure it happens.

Are You Ready for Some... Caliendo?

To prep for the Super Bowl, I have some of Frank Caliendo's work, including his Madden impressions, up over at Blue Herald here.

U.S. Think Tank Offering Cash to Dispute U.N. Climate Panel

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

LONDON (AFP) - A right-wing American think tank is offering 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released by the UN's top scientific panel, media reported.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobil according to the Guardian, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasising the shortcoming of the UN's report.

AEI also reportedly offered additional payments, and to reimburse travel expenses.

The report, due to be released Friday in Paris by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), is likely to give a bleak assessment of the damage to the future of the environment.

It is the culmination of four days of debate between more then 500 scientists at a closed-door meeting in Paris, who have been poring over the first review of the scientific evidence for global warming in six years.

AEI's letters characterize the IPCC report as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and request articles that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs," The Guardian said.

Kenneth Green, the AEI visiting scholar who sent the letters, confirmed to The Guardian that the thinktank had approached scientists and analysts to pen essays that would be compiled into an independent review of the IPCC's report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarized," Green was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

"One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

Of course, lying doesn't have a lot of utility for intelligent policy, either.

Here's the original article. It's so short I just posted the whole thing. (And how ironic his name is "Green!") This move is hardly surprising, nor an isolated incident. Conservative think tanks (almost all are conservative) are normally a bit more subtle, and have actually fired some "scholars" who have shilled in columns for direct corporate pay and a specific quid pro quo. However, all conservative think tank "scholars" do get paid indirectly by large corporations anyway, through massive general donations to their think tank. While nominally that does give some independence to the think tank, in actual practice very few conservative think tanks ever criticize their funders, let alone any corporation (unless perhaps it was to go green or something). The primary purpose of conservative think tanks is to make respectable the indefensible. In many cases, conservative think tank "scholars" could never hack it in academia, because they can't form coherent, compelling arguments based on empirical facts and actual research. AEI and Heritage are probably the worst of the lot, although Hoover is currently giving them a run for their money (in more ways than one!), thanks to the hate-mongering pseudo-scholarship of Dinesh D'Souza (a more detailed post on him is in the works).

I've been meaning to do a post on conservative think tanks for some time as part of a brief series, but this story is an important catch. This move is not an aberration. It is the purest expression of the conservative think tank's purpose. Man-made climate change is a scientific fact. There is no "debate" about it in the scientific community, and there's hasn't been for some time. The evidence on climate change is so overwhelming, so unimpeachable, and knowledge of the issue is finally becoming so mainstream, that the corporations that oppose the dissemination of this information must resort to outright bribery to try to swat it down. The American public good is not helped by AEI. The world populace is not helped by AEI. The climate sure as hell isn't helped by AEI. Considering that compliance with CAFE standards is not unduly expensive and can actually lead to increased profits (and some sort of compliance is likely inevitable), AEI's bribe doesn't even really help industry, ultimately. This move only helps, in the short run, some of AEI's benefactors. (That's not to mention the key roles AEI and Heritage played in selling the war on Iraq.)

One of the central lies in the manufacture of "experts" by conservative think tanks is that these are smart and disinterested people engaging in honest research, exploration and discussion. They are definitely not disinterested (and rarely smart, for that matter!), and news programs should not treat them as such. They are paid shills who accept money to purposefully mislead the public. As Al Gore quotes in An Inconvenient Truth, Upton Sinclair observed, ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

There's a serious exploration and discussion to be had for many issues in America and the larger world. However, we should never forget that, with only a handful of exceptions, conservative think tank "scholars" are not part of those honest and important endeavors.

Update: Here's The Guardian article, with a few key excerpts (emphasis mine):

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

[...]

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

I would prefer "confused VIPs Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy," but that "intellectual Cosa Nostra" line is a keeper!

(NOTE: I posted thison Friday, 2/2/07 over at Blue Herald. Blogger's upgrade has just become mandatory, and that delayed me cross-posting. Google owning Blogger will doubtlessly help blog searches, but here's hoping they good a good job with everything.)

Rightwing Cartoon Watch #13 (2-1-07)

After a hiatus, here's the super-sized, lucky 13th installment of Rightwing Cartoon Watch!