ThinkProgress Logo

Media

Goldberg Misreads His Own Blog Post In Order To Attack ThinkProgress

goldbergkennedy.jpegOn September 21, ThinkProgress noted a 2004 blog post by National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg, in which the conservative writer approvingly posted an e-mail from a then-active duty reader that savagely bashed generals as “a gigantic pain in the ass” who are “dishonest.”

In the post, ThinkProgress contrasted Goldberg’s vicarious attack on the credibility of generals with his current chastising of Democrats over their reaction to MoveOn.org’s Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. ThinkProgress suggested that Goldberg had separate standards for conservatives and progressives when it comes to criticism of military generals.

After receiving what he called some “e-pestering,” Goldberg responded today. In a post titled “UnThinking Progress,” he wrote:

Yawn. Well a few points: First, posting an e-mail isn’t an endorsement in the blogosphere. Second, there is a remarkable difference between criticizing a commander in the field during a war as vaguely treasonous or un-American, and questioning the credentials of a civilian running to be president of the United States.

Jonah, here’s a crucial difference: You pro-actively aided an attack on military generals, but now, you’re criticizing some Democrats for merely staying silent about a newspaper ad.

Goldberg’s response is either a misreading of his own 2004 post or a willfully misleading representation of our argument. The e-mail posted by Goldberg was an explicit sweeping attack on all generals, not just Gen. Wesley Clark, who was running for President at the time.

In fact, Goldberg’s post was entitled “A Military View On Clark, Generals Etc,” clearly showing that generals beyond Clark were criticized:

Nothing that Clark has said or done has surprised me in the least. Why? Because he acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment.

Our criticism of Goldberg’s double standard still stands. Instead of attacking us, maybe Goldberg should clarify whether he believed generals were “a gigantic pain in the ass.”

Politics

Clinton rips right wing for ‘feigned outrage’ over MoveOn ad.

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, President Bill Clinton said there was something “completely disingenuous about the feigned outrage” from conservatives over the MoveOn ad. Clinton noted that many of the same conservatives who expressed outrage had likened Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) to Osama bin Laden and had smeared Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) war record. He added:

It was just bait and switch. It was just, oh thank goodness, I can take this little word here and ignore what we’ve done in Iraq and what we’re gonna do — and the outrageous way we gained political power by smearing John Kerry.

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/09/clintonmoveon.320.240.flv]

The House today voted to condemn the MoveOn ad — a full 16 days after it first appeared in the New York Times. The full interview with Clinton airs tonight on CNN at 10 pm EST.

Digg It!

Politics

Boxer-Inhofe global warming rematch.

Today, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing about global warming’s impact on the Chesapeake Bay. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a proud climate skeptic, loudly objected to the fact that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was going to testify, but was quickly put down by the chair of the committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). The Politico’s Ryan Grim reports:

Inhofe, with staff already present, responds that he’ll agree to allow the Maryland senator to stay if Boxer will concede it as a one-time-only deviation.

“Senator, I’m not going to agree to that,” she says. “I’m the chairman of this committee and I’ve spoken to you about this. You knew this was coming. I asked Sen. Mikulski to join us. If that’s not enough, I went back to the parliamentarian. There is absolutely no rule that forbids this.” [...]

Mikulski cuts in. “We need to focus on the issue of global warming and the impact on the bay,” she says, “and not on myself. I yield to the ruling of the chair.”

Inhofe, though, is no longer chair. “Well, the ruling of the chair, if I had a chance to rule,” says Boxer, the chair, “would be that you will be joining us.”

In March, Inhofe threw a similar fit at a global warming hearing, objecting to the testimony of Al Gore. At that time Boxer also shot him down, stating, “Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.”

Climate Progress

Anjelina Jolie and Jane Goodall are in the Building!

angelina-jolie-ap.jpgMy wife insisted that I go to the Angelina Jolie press conference — even though AJ was focused on educating one million children affected by conflict, and not global warming. Fortunately, CGI had a wireless feed from all the working sessions, so I was able to get all the camera phone pix of AJ while I didn’t miss the woman I really wanted to hear, Jane Goodall.

I will say this for AJ — she is very serious about her work with refugees. And even with two hundred press crammed into this room for her, and photographers literally crawling over each other for photos — especially whenever she brushed her hair back — she very graciously brought many of the country experts into the Q&A.

goodall_01.jpgJane Goodall was full of quiet passion, as always. If anyone is a “must hear,” she is (here she is speaking at Google). She has devoted her name and her sober wisdom to Forests Now, whose declaration is “Forests Now in the Fight against Climate Change.”

Jane spoke with great eloquence about global warming and the need to save our tropical forests, not just because of the carbon they contain, but also the biodiversity–”I want children to hear the wonderful voice of chimpanzees” and then she imitated the call of her beloved primate. She pointed out that “orangutans, one of our closest living relatives, are hanging by a thread.” She poignantly quoted a native of the Arctic:

Read more

Politics

Spanish Notes Reveal Bush Was Hell-Bent On War, Despite Claiming ˜Ive Not Made Up My Mind

aznarToday, the Spanish newspaper El Pais published a transcript of a discussion between President Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in February 2003 in which Bush told Aznar that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein with or without a UN resolution:

“We must take him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready.”

Though Aznar asked Bush to “have a little patience” and urged, “It is very important to have a [UN] resolution,” Bush pushed for war throughout the meeting, telling the Spanish Prime Minister, “We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.”

Just a few days later, Bush insisted to the American public that war with Iraq was not a certainty:

BUSH: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]

BUSH: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03]

Prior to going to war, Bush insisted he would get U.N. authorization. He said, “no matter what the whip count is,” the U.S. would go to the UN and “call for a vote.” But it’s clear Bush was never going to let the U.N. get in the way of his quest for war.

To this day, Bush has continued to insist that the “the United States did not choose war — the choice was Saddam Hussein’s.” In fact, as this conversation with Aznar illustrates, Bush had made his decision long before exhausting all other options.

For the full transcript in Spanish, click HERE.

(HT: Editor&Publisher)

Politics

Giuliani tells Talabani: I’ll stay ‘as long as necessary.’

In a private meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in New York City today, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is seeking the Republican nomination for President, “indicated that he would keep a U.S. presence in that country for as long as necessary,” according to his aides. The Congressional Budget Office reported recently that a long-term presence in Iraq, such as Giuliani wants, could cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Yglesias

China and Burma

Foreign Policy‘s Mike Boyer asks Bill Overholt from RAND whether it’s really true that China has a lot of leverage over the situation in Burma. He says, basically, “no”:

China has interests and involvements in Burma, but limited leverage. Burma is not some kind of client state of China. It is a xenophobic, divided, tribalized country with a nationalistic government; it bears more resemblance to one of the less coherent sub-Saharan African states than to most other East Asian countries. It’s not an easy place to influence. Through most of the 1980s there was a Burmese Communist Party, which consisted primarily of the Wa tribe plus Chinese leadership. When the Wa decided to turn anti-communist in the late 1980s and chased the Chinese leadership into China, China’s influence in the country was drastically reduced but there was little China could do without military intervention. So Beijing basically sat by passively when it happened.

So there, I guess.

Politics

Pace’s comments on gays elicits loud protests.

In March, Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace declared, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral.” Today, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) called them “very hurtful comments, very demoralizing comments.” Harkin then offered Pace, who was attending his final hearing before resigning his post, an opportunity to clarify his remarks. But Pace only caused more anger with his explanation

So I would repeat. My upbringing is one that says, sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin. … We should respect those that want to serve the nation, but not through the law of the land condone activity that in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.

Pace’s response created such an outrage from the audience that Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) was forced to temporarily adjourn the hearing: “Let us clear the room!” he shouted, as chaos erupted. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/09/pacegay1.320.240.flv]

Security

Gen. Sean Hannity And Fox News Lay Out Their War Plan For Attacking ‘Ticking Bomb’ Iran

The Fox News network is now in full drumbeat mode, trying to promote a war against Iran.

Last night, armchair General Sean Hannity did his part to beat the Iran war drums. On Hannity and Colmes, the bellicose host devoted half the show to previewing “what a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would look like“:

HANNITY: Mission: Iran Showdown. The objective: destroy and disable Iran’s top nuclear facilities, impact its ability to process and enrich uranium, delay its ability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, all while crippling the ruling regime.

The network also announced that this Saturday at 9 pm, it will air a “Fox News investigative piece” entitled Iran: Ticking Bomb. The show will be hosted by Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/09/FoxWarIran.320.240.flv]

Fox has also been parading one pro-Iran war voice after another.

Earlier in the evening, Hannity hosted former UN ambassador John Bolton to discuss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations. Asked by Hannity “when will America and must America at some time respond militarily,” Bolton responded, “well, I think it’s entirely appropriate.”

Later in the evening, Hannnity brought AEI’s Michael Ledeen and Ret. Col. Chuck Nash on the show to validate the need to bomb Iran. The two analysts are both hawks advocating “regime change” in Iran. Ledeen agreed with Hannity that America should attack “terrorist training camps” in Iran. Nash was open to the military option, but preferred other means.

On Monday, the network displayed a graphic that appears to sum up the fear-mongering feelings about Iran at Fox News: “Is war the only way to stop Mahmoud?

UPDATE: Last month, Brave New Films put together a video showing how Fox’s rhetoric towards Iran is eerily similar to it’s pre-war rhetoric on Iraq. Watch it HERE.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up