ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

PGDW#3: Let the Disinfotainment Begin!

So what exactly is National Review Online‘s blog Planet Gore, and why is PG such a unique combination of disinformation and (unintentional) entertainment that I’ve started PGDW (Planet Gore Disinfotainment Watch)?

We can find the answer in PG’s very first post, “Welcome to Planet Gore, NRO’s Global Warming Blog,” by Peter Suderman on February 14 (how sweet) of this year. I’ll give the entire post since we, unlike the global warming Denyers, work very hard not to take words and phrases out of context:

From Al Gore and Laurie David to the UN’s IPCC report and Nancy Pelosi’s special global warming committee, global warming is one of the most talked-about and contentious public policy issues of the day. We are constantly told, as Rep. Henry Waxman recently claimed, that “it is one of the most important public policy issues facing our nation and the world.” But the hyped-up rhetoric doesn’t always accurately reflect the complexity of the issue. That’s where Planet Gore comes in. NRO has gathered a team of experts to report and comment on the myriad scientific and economic issues surrounding the global warming debate. So check back regularly for informed news and views about climate change, alternative energy, environmental activism, and of course, Al Gore’s carbon footprint [emphasis added for your entertainment].

Whoa. A whole “team of experts.” Perhaps this team of experts could actually include an example of “hyped-up rhetoric” in their inaugural post. The only quote they give is Waxman’s, which is hardly much rhetorical hype, unless PG’s expert would have us believe that global warming is very talked about and contentious, but not important. If so, why bring in a whole team of experts for a blog on an unimportant subject? This kind of illogic is standard fare on PG, as we’ll see.

Ironically, PG is itself a source of hyped-up rhetoric. In the first post I have already debunked–written just one (!) day after this post–PG uses the phrase “global warming Chicken Littles.” Is that phrase a genuine effort to “accurately reflect the complexity of the issue”? Or is it hypocritical hype?

Security

White Houses Uses Gen. Petraeus As PR Flack To Promote War Czar

Ever since President Bush announced his escalation policy, war supporters have relied on the credibility of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, to deflect criticism. Earlier this month, President Bush mentioned Petraeus by name no less than 12 times in a speech arguing for his strategy in Iraq, at one point saying, “the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus.”

But the manner in which the administration has rolled out Petraeus to help sell its war policy at home is threatening that credibility. In a fact sheet released to reporters yesterday about Bush’s new war czar, both Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are quoted in a manner more suited for use on a book jacket:

Gen. David Petraeus: “Doug Lute knows Iraq, the region, and Washington, and he’ll be a great addition to the team that is striving to achieve success in Iraq. He is also a doer.” (General David Petraeus, 5/15/07)

Amb. Ryan Crocker: “I look forward to working closely with LTG Doug Lute in the coming months. His knowledge and experience will make him a valuable partner to our efforts in Iraq.” (Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker, 5/15/07)

Yesterday, ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked White House spokesman Tony Snow if his press office had solicited quotes from a uniformed military officer, and if so, whether that was appropriate. Snow dodged both questions, instead offering a sarcastic remark. “[I]t’s clearly a burning issue so we’ll look into it for you.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/petraeussnow517.320.240.flv]

The Lute press release is another example of Rep. John Murtha’s contention that the White House has been using Gen. Petraeus as a political prop.

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Politics

PBS’ NewsHour dumps right-wing talking head.

Responding to an onslaught of reader complaints about right-wing talk-radio host Melanie Morgan’s shrill appearance on the May 8 edition of PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NewsHour executive producer Linda Winslow said today that Morgan would not be asked back to the show. “We can’t do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun,” said Winslow. “What we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again.”

Security

Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits

bushtroopsh.jpg The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27.

ThinkProgress noted last night that the White House opposed the pay raise for troops:

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. [...]

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

The White House says it also opposes:

a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”

additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees

price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents

House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,” noting that Bush’s problems with the bill are over measures that benefit “the very people who sacrifice the most in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and who serve at home and overseas.”

UPDATE: VoteVets chairman and Iraq veteran Jon Soltz adds:

Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren’t sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we’ve heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn’t provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.

Digg It!

Politics

Conyers and Nadler want answers from Gonzales.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today, asking him to answer questions raised by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s extraordinary testimony on Tuesday. Some of their key inquiries:

— Was the classified program referred to by Mr. Comey the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as it existed prior to the changes made according to the Justice Department’s recommendations and, if not, what was the classified program that Mr. Comey was referring to?

– Who was involved in deciding to seek approval from Attorney General Ashcroft from his hospital bed and who made the telephone call to arrange your visit to his bedside;

– What was the basis for the Administration’s decision on March 10-11 to continue with the program despite the Department’s objections, how long did it so continue?

– What was the basis for the Department’s objections to the program? What changes were made to the program to resolve the Department’s objections?

Yglesias

The Energy Security Myth

Rounding out my day of energy policy, I also went to a small lunch event at Cato where Eugene Gholz talked about his paper (with Daryl Press) on “Energy Alarmism: The Myths That Make Americans Worry about Oil”

Many Americans have lost confidence in their country’s “energy security” over the past several years. Because the United States is a net oil importer, and a substantial one at that, concerns about energy security naturally raise foreign policy questions. Some foreign policy analysts fear that dwindling global oil reserves are increasingly concentrated in politically unstable regions, and they call for increased U.S. efforts to stabilize—or, alternatively, democratize—the politically tumultuous oil-producing regions. Others allege that China is pursuing a strategy to “lock up” the world’s remaining oil supplies through long-term purchase agreements and aggressive diplomacy, so they counsel that the United States outmaneuver Beijing in the “geopolitics of oil.” Finally, many analysts suggest that even the “normal” political disruptions that occasionally occur in oil-producing regions (e.g., occasional wars and revolutions) hurt Americans by disrupting supply and creating price spikes. U.S. military forces, those analysts claim, are needed to enhance peace and stability in crucial oil-producing regions, particularly the Persian Gulf. . . .

Our overarching message is simply that market forces, modified by the cartel behavior of OPEC, determine most of the key factors that affect oil supply and prices. The United States does not need to be militarily active or confrontational to allow the oil market to function, to allow oil to get to consumers, or to ensure access in coming decades.

I find this thesis convincing, but I don’t think it really gets to the heart of the matter, which doesn’t have to do with the “stability” of the Persian Gulf as much as it does with the fear that the Gulf’s oil reserves might be politically unified. The US didn’t want Iran to conquer Iraq, the US didn’t want Iraq to conquer Kuwait, and now the US is concerned about a “Shiite crescent.” When I brought this up Gholz indicated that this fear is basically unrealistic. That, in turn, I agree with. Still, the upshot is that the real debate in this regard turns on an empirical point about the actual present-day configuration of the Persian Gulf region rather than a theoretical claim about energy security.

UPDATE: “Basically unrealistic,” I should say, at the moment. Obviously, Saddam Hussein did in fact conquer Kuwait in the not-too-distant past and could quite plausibly have overrun Saudi Arabia had the Saudis not gotten foreign military backing.

Politics

VIDEO MONTAGE: Bush and Blair’s Farewell Love Fest

This morning, President Bush and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair held their final press conference together in the Rose Garden. The two men perhaps most responsible for the war in Iraq spent virtually the entire time heaping praise on one another.

“You’ve been unyielding, unflinching, and determined,” Blair told Bush, confessing at one point, “I totally agree with what the President was saying, we have the same position exactly.”

Bush contrasted Blair with the “hot-air artists” and “blowhards in the political process,” saying, “this good man is a courageous man.” “Will I miss working with Tony Blair?” he asked. “You bet I will.”

Watch our video montage of the love fest:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/bushblairmontage.320.240.flv]

Transcript: Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up