State Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’
State Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that private security contractor Blackwater “is not expected to face criminal charges” over an allegedly unprovoked shooting in September 2007 that killed up to 17 Iraqis, essentially “ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.” Today, the New York Times reports that the State Department has renewed Blackwater’s contract “for at least another year.” The reason for the renewal? The State Department says it has no other options:
State Department officials said Friday that they did not believe they had any alternative to Blackwater, which supplies about 800 guards to the department to provide security for diplomats in Baghdad. Officials say only three companies in the world meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two do not have the capability to take on Blackwater’s role in Baghdad. […]
“We cannot operate without private security firms in Iraq,” said Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. “If the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.”
Weekly Standard: Americans should be indifferent to the impact U.S. policy has on al Qaeda recruiting.
Weekly Standard: Americans should be indifferent to the impact U.S. policy has on al Qaeda recruiting.
Writing on the Weekly Standard’s blog yesterday, Michael Goldfarb said that he doesn’t “care” if President Bush’s policies have been a “recruiting tool for terrorists“:
As to whether Bush is a recruiting tool for terrorists–who cares? Al Qaeda was recruiting before Bush was in office and they will continue to do so after he’s gone. The important thing is that we keep killing those recruits. Eventually, one side will give up.
Justin Logan at Cato-at-Liberty points out Goldfarb’s flawed logic, noting that it justifies doing anything that is counterproductive because “after all, al Qaeda will continue recruiting whether we do it or not.”
(HT: Matthew Yglesias)
Senate ethics complaint against Vitter dismissed.
Senate ethics complaint against Vitter dismissed.
Last year, after it was revealed that Sen. David Vitter’s (R-LA) telephone number was part of the late D.C. Madam’s records, CREW asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether it amounted to “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.” Today, the committee informed Vitter that it was dismissing the complaint against him because the incident occurred before he ran for the Senate. CREW responded by saying that “the Senate Ethics Committee has once again done what is does best: nothing.”
Only Two News Networks Willing To Explain Their Role In Pentagon Propaganda Program
Only Two News Networks Willing To Explain Their Role In Pentagon Propaganda Program
On April 20, the New York Times published a blockbuster exposé revealing a secret Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Though the analysts often had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies” they assessed on air, their potential conflicts of interest were “hardly ever disclosed to the viewers.”
Four days after the Times’ expose hit newsstands, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wrote letters to the heads of ABC News, CBS News, CNN News, Fox News Channel, and NBC News asking for “specifics about each outlet’s policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War.” Here’s part of what she wrote to ABC News head David Westin:
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed.
Politico reports today that only Westin and CNN’s Jim Walton have responded to DeLauro’s questions. In his response, Westin asserted that ABC News had “acted responsibly”:
From what I know of our reporting involving our military analysts, I am satisfied that ABC News has acted responsibly and has served its audience well.
Both Westin and Walton’s responses lacked any genuine self-examination. But the fact that they were even willing to reply is more than the other networks did, proving that the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz was right when he said “the networks are ducking this one, big time.” In the week after the story broke, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that “out of approximately 1,300 news stories, only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop — both airing on PBS’s ‘NewsHour.’”
DeLauro, along with 40 other lawmakers, are calling on the Pentagon’s Inspector General to investigate the program.
Santorum bristles over Bush administration guidelines against using the term ‘Islamo-fascism.’
Santorum bristles over Bush administration guidelines against using the term ‘Islamo-fascism.’
Last month, the AP reported on new government guidelines advising against the use of terms like “jihadists,” “mujahedeen” and “Islamo-fascism” because “such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility.” But former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is having none of it. In his Philadelphia Inquirer column today, Santorum defends his desire to “abandon the word terror and replace it with Islamic fascism.” He also lashes out at the idea that “democracy and Islam are compatible,” saying that it is “a politically correct version of the truth“:
Our government in this memo is teaching us a politically correct version of the truth. For example, it tells us that democracy and Islam are compatible. But Islam is less compatible with democracy than is Christianity. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” There was from the beginning a recognition of two realms - the sacred and the secular. From Islam’s inception there has been one realm. Islamic law (sharia) is the law of the government.
Hagee Reneges On Retraction Of His Katrina Comments: ‘God Always Punishes Unconfessed Sin’
Hagee Reneges On Retraction Of His Katrina Comments: ‘God Always Punishes Unconfessed Sin’
Two weeks ago, controversial Pastor John Hagee reiterated his prior belief that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because it was “planning a sinful” “homosexual rally.” Asked about the comments, McCain — who sought Hagee’s endorsement for more than a year — was forced to distance himself, calling them “nonsense” nine times.
After McCain was put on the spot over Hagee, the ultra-conservative pastor put out a statement seemingly retracting his comments on the cause of Hurricane Katrina:
“As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses,” Hagee said in a statement issued through his public relations firm. “But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us.
But in a conference call yesterday, Hagee appeared to renege on his retraction, reportedly saying “God controls hurricanes and ‘God always punishes unconfessed sin’”:
When a woman on the call asked why he seemed to have backed away from his Katrina comments in face of criticism, Hagee said he hadn’t. As for the Katrina, he said, God controls hurricanes and “God always punishes unconfessed sin.” You do the math.
Though McCain has distanced himself from some of Hagee’s comments, he has yet to reject the pastor’s support. He now says it was a political “mistake” to seek Hagee’s endorsement, though he is still “glad to have” it.
Kirchick gets his facts wrong on the ‘reality-based community.’
Kirchick gets his facts wrong on the ‘reality-based community.’
In a Politico op-ed yesterday, Jamie Kirchick accused liberals of embracing “religious extremism.” Kirchick opened his argument by attacking the fact that some liberal bloggers call themselves the “reality-based community,” which he cast as a “direct response” to the “faith-based community” represented by President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. But Kirchick has his facts embarrassingly wrong. Here’s the actual source of the netroots “reality-based community” moniker:
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”[1]
Last week, Kirchick had another embarrassing error when he attributed John F. Kennedy’s famous “bear any burden” quote to Harry Truman. Publius has more on Kirchick’s Politico op-ed here.
Russert: ‘In Time,’ McCain Will ‘Receive The Same Scrutiny’ From The Media As Obama And Clinton
Russert: ‘In Time,’ McCain Will ‘Receive The Same Scrutiny’ From The Media As Obama And Clinton
In a New York Times/CBS News poll released earlier this week, 28% of Americans said that the media have been “easier” on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) compared to just 12% and 22% who believe they have been “easier” on Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), respectively. A new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that McCain has received significantly less media coverage than the Democratic candidates.
During MSNBC’s primary coverage last night, Hardball host Chris Matthews described the “way the media works,” saying that the media “block the sun” and “completely ignore John McCain’s problems” while the Democratic primary campaign continues. Matthews’s colleague, Tim Russert, defended the media’s performance, saying that it is a “long campaign” and the media will get to McCain’s problems “in time”:
RUSSERT: We get flooded with e-mails, Senator McCain making a mistake on Shia versus Sunni, making mistake about the first Persian Gulf War and the second vis-a-vis oil. His own relationship with Pastor Hagee and why isn’t that talked about and reported on the way Reverend Wright’s relationship with Senator Obama is talked about. But all that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it will be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media’s light, he’ll receive the same scrutiny.
Watch it:
Russert — who recently told Don Imus that McCain has been given a “grace period” to get his campaign in shape — isn’t the only journalist to defend McCain’s soft gloves treatment.
In an online chat last month, the Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray told readers who wanted a greater focus on McCain to “just wait” because he will “will get his fair share of scrutiny” after “the primary battle is over.” Another Post reporter, however, tried to defend the media’s derelict coverage:
ABRAMOWITZ: I don’t think McCain is being cut a break by the press for verbal miscues: When he confused the Sunni and the Shia, the press was on it immediately.
As Media Matters has documented and Russert seemingly acknowledges, major media outlets routinely fail to report on McCain’s “verbal miscues.”
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
McCain on equal pay: ‘I don’t think you’re doing anything to help the rights of women.’
McCain on equal pay: ‘I don’t think you’re doing anything to help the rights of women.’
Last month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made it easier for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims. At the time, McCain explained his opposition to the bill by saying that instead of equal pay protection, women simply needed “education and training.“ Asked about his opposition to the bill at a townhall today, McCain told a 14-year old girl that he didn’t think protections for equal pay would do “anything to help the rights of women“:
McCain singled out a 14-year old woman who questioned why he opposes eliminating the statute of limitations on lawsuits over workplace discrimination, arguing it amounted to opposing “equal rights for women.”
“If you eliminate the statutes of limitations, and you make it unending, you may be violating the rights of the individuals who are being sued, whether they’re a man or a woman,” the senator responded. “I don’t think you’re doing anything to help the rights of women, except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession.”
McCain has a long record of failure on women’s issues, earning him a 0 percent rating from NARAL ProChoice America six years in a row, from 2001-2007.