Ach! Now that I’m being paid to blog, I’m so busy writing blog posts that I don’t have time to read Ari Berman’s article on Mark Penn in The Nation and blog about it in a timely manner. Ari’s a friend and I know we both don’t like Mark Penn, though, so it’s almost certainly good.
(More substantive remarks TK)
In the months after September 11, President Bush declared victory over the man he once pledged to capture “dead or alive” and began turning his focus to Iraq:
I am deeply concerned about Iraq. … I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]. … We shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. [President Bush, 3/13/02]
The results have been predictable: As the U.S. has been mired in an Iraqi civil war, bin Laden has slipped away from the crosshairs and is using his freedom to help al Qaeda resurge all over the Middle East. U.S. News reports this week that “bin Laden already has a safe haven in Pakistan — and may be stronger than ever” as al Qaeda “retains the ability to organize complex, mass-casualty attacks and inspire others.” Bin Laden is behind much of this resurgence:
The broader movement inspired by al Qaeda has only grown bigger, largely because of the group’s powerful propaganda machine. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have been able to fill in the gaps between their megaplots with a rising stream of smaller-scale, homegrown attacks.
Now, well over five years after 9/11, some administration officials are conceding they may have been too hasty in declaring victory over bin Laden:
Privately, U.S. officials concede that they had overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda’s network. The captures of successive operational commanders, including 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, amounted only to temporary setbacks; they were replaced with disturbing ease. “We understand better how al Qaeda is withstanding the offensive that was launched against it in 2001 and later,” says a senior U.S. government official.
Bush is using the rise of al Qaeda as fodder to promote his misguided escalation plan in Iraq. He now claims that al Qaeda has made Iraq a central front in the war on terror, but al Qaeda leaders view Bush’s Iraq strategy as more opportunity to launch attacks against U.S. troops. “Iraq has, of course, been an undeniable boon for al Qaeda, both as a battleground and a rallying cause,” U.S. News adds.
Media Matters “analyzed the race/ethnicity and gender of the hosts and guests on the major prime-time cable-news programs” for the weeknights surrounding the Imus controversy. They found that “cable news remains an overwhelmingly white and male preserve.” For all three weeks, MSNBC was the worst offender, as “93 percent of the guests on the network were white the week prior to the controversy, 70 percent were white during the controversy, and 82 percent were white in the post-controversy week.”
As everyone knows, Phoenix versus San Antonio isn’t just a playoff contest, it’s a grand clash of visions. The Spurs, led by “The Big Fundamental” epitomize the ethic of Playing the Right Way that’s beloved by cranky old men but not so much by fans. The run-and-gun Suns, by contrast, are an aesthetic pleasure but, perhaps, Not Built for the Playoffs.
Far be it from me to actually disagree with this characterization, whose basis is clear enough to anyone who follows the NBA, but one wrinkle does strike me as missing from this narrative. Steve Nash, the Phoenix leader, is a quintessential Play The Right Way point guard — pass-first guy whose scoring game is dominated by the traditional Play The Right Way skill of accurate jump (and free throw) shooting. San Antonio, by contrast, has Tony Parker as its floor general. A small, quick shoot-first point guard who relies on penetration to score. He’s a classic Play The Wrong Way player. So how can he be running the offense for the quintessential Play The Right Way team?
An article in the Spanish-language newspaper El Diario La Prensa today notes that the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) has accepted CNN host Lou Dobbs as a national lifetime member. A lifetime membership costs $1,000; Dobbs donated $5,000. NAHJ president Rafael Olmeda tried to justify Dobbs’s membership:
“We cannot pretend that illegal immigration is not part of the story. Lou Dobbs, in my opinion, tells this story in an incomplete, not constructive, way. But he has the right to disagree with me,” reaffirmed Olmeda in writing after a 36-minute conversation on Friday afternoon. (trans.)
Dobbs’s reports are more than just “incomplete” and “not constructive.” They often contain inaccurate, biased, and misleading information.
Last night, CBS’s 60 Minutes caught Dobbs in one of these lies. Following “a report on illegals carrying diseases into the U.S.,” his show reported that there were 7,000 cases of leprosy in the United States in the last three years. CBS found out that there were actually 7,000 cases in the past 30 years, and “nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.” When host Lesley Stahl confronted him on this error, Dobbs simply replied, “If we reported it, it’s a fact.” Watch it:
Last year, the NAHJ put out a statement condemning the phrase “illegal immigrant,” noting it “can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end.” Dobbs continues to use that term.
Transcript: Read more
Mark Cuban seems to have curiously little to say about Dallas’ first round meltdown against Golden State.
“When [former CIA director George] Tenet hit the talk-show circuit last week to defend his stewardship of the CIA and his role in the run-up to the war, he did not mention that he is a director and advisor to four corporations that earn millions of dollars in revenue from contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. Nor is it ever mentioned in his book. But according to public records, Tenet has received at least $2.3 million from those corporations in stock and other compensation.”
It’s been argued to me that the unpopularity of Mitt Romney is stemming from his comparatively low name recognition. I’m prepared to give that some credence, but it’s worth diving into the data. For one thing, the questions do specify partisan affiliations, so even if you have no idea who Mitt Romney is you’ve still got something to base your choice off of.
So it seems noteworthy that asking “Do you lead more toward Edwards, the Democrat; or Romney, the Republican?” — this is Romney’s worst matchup — inspires fully 25 percent of self-identified Republicans to declare for “Edwards, the Democrat” on route to a shocking 61-27 route. You would think that the number of die-hard “I’ll vote GOP no matter what” Republicans would be higher than 27 percent. Even in Romney’s worst matchup, Hillary Clinton is getting 54 percent of the vote, which is outstanding considering how high her negatives are.
This Sunday, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B?” Watch it:
The Washington Post reported in March, “During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn’t work? The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. … Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration’s position, Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) recalled. ‘Plan B was to make Plan A work.’” Satisfied with that answer, Rep. Boehner?
Ben Smith points out that Joe Biden’s been waging war on the “war on terror” usage for some time now.
Powered by NewsWhip
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
