Cheney On 4,000 Dead - Bush "Carries Biggest Burden"

By Cernig

Dick Cheney, what a wanker.

I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?" asked ABC News' White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz...

"It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan," Cheney said in the interview, conducted in Turkey. "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have."

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."

Hat tip to Noah Shachtman at Danger Room, who who is just as outraged that Cheney thinks Dubya's burden is greater than those of the families of 4,000 dead. Noah also has a link to ABC's video and no, the above isn't taken out of context.

What a great way to show you support the troops and their families, Dick. Tell them that they volunteered so if their families should suffer..."so?"

Hey, Dubya volunteered too. He didn't have to run for Decider and he didn't have to invade Iraq - he chose to do both. Nor has he ever been anywhere near harms way as a consequence of those decisions. Excuse me while I don't join in your warmonger's group hug, Dick.

Hey, can someone in the press ask John McCain if he thinks the President carries the biggest burden on this one? Pretty please?

More Conservative Id

By Cernig

That "conservative id" that Fester wrote about recently is in full flow now. Via Glenn Greenwald and Sadly No! comes this particularly revealing glimpse into the conservative cesspool:

I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. . . .

Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it. Which would be fine. Except that black people are not a community but a political party. They can squabble with each other in caucus but they absolutely refuse to speak the truth in public. And this is the single biggest obstacle to healing the racial divide in this country.

...you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone.

So far, the best the Right can come up with in defense of this racist screed is that it's just one blogger and he isn't Instapundit's favorite writer on that blog. No, seriously. That's it.

Meanwhile, in closely related news, neo-Nazi and white supremacist Hal Turner says he and Sean Hannity are good pals despite Hannity's claims to the contrary.

In my opinion, based on my first hand experience, I believe Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Hal Turner sort of guy. It seems to me that a big difference between Sean and me is that I am willing to say publicly what I think about savage Black criminals, diseased, uneducated illegal aliens and the grotesque cultural destruction wrought by satanic jews while Sean and many others keep quiet to protect their paychecks.

And Steve Benen points out that Obama's pastor is big news but McCain actively courting the endorsement of a bigoted megachurch preacher who espouses the idea that US foreign policy should be focussed on bringing about the biblical apocalypse by bringing all the Jews to Israel to be nuked...isn't. It must be an example of that moral non-equivalence the Right loves so much.

Postscript: And yes, I find Wright's views utterly abhorrent in broad and in detail. I find that Obama's long-term relationship with him is likewise highly questionable. I'm entirely unsurprised that Obama's Blair-style "all things to all people" schtick doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Still, on balance, I'd rather have him leading the most powerful nation on Earth than someone who actively courts those who advocate Armageddon. Friend of racists or friend of racists who wants nuclear holocaust...that's a no-brainer. It'd be nice to have a choice that didn't involve being friends with racists, though, and Clinton doesn't deliver that either.

John McCain's Forgotten Helping Hand

By Cernig

The UK's ultra-conservative Mail On Sunday picks up on the strange ommission of the guy who saved McCain's life after he crashed in Vietnam from McCain's autobiography.

On October 26, 1967, Mai Van On ran from the safety of a bomb shelter at the height of an air raid and swam out into the lake where Lieutenant Commander McCain was drowning, tangled in his parachute cord after ejecting when his Skyhawk bomber was hit by a missile.

In an extraordinary act of compassion at a time when Vietnamese citizens were being killed by US aerial bombardments, he pulled a barely conscious McCain to the lake surface and, with the help of a neighbour, dragged him towards the shore.

...Nearly three decades later, a Vietnamese government commission confirmed he was indeed the rescuer and, in a 1996 meeting in Hanoi, McCain embraced and thanked Mr On and presented him with a Senate memento.

From that brief encounter to his death at the age of 88 two years ago, Mr On never heard from the senator again, and three years after their meeting, McCain published an autobiography that makes no mention of his apparent debt to Mr On.

...In his 1999 autobiography, Faith Of My Fathers, which laid the ground for his first, unsuccessful run for president in 2000, McCain wrote a Boy's Own-style narrative of his rescue: “When I came to, I was being hauled ashore on two bamboo poles.

“A crowd of several hundred Vietnamese gathered around me as I lay dazed before them, shouting wildly at me, stripping my clothes off, spitting on me, kicking and striking me repeatedly.”

What followed, according to McCain, was five-and-a-half years of torture and brutal beatings as a prisoner of war - an account that has given a steely edge to his candidacy by establishing him as a true American war hero.

But the story is at odds with the version uncovered by Vietnam veteran Chuck Searcy, who lives in Hanoi and is in charge of the Vietnam Veteran Memorial Fund.

Searcy first became aware of Mai On when the Vietnamese hero wrote a letter to him. Searcy passed it to McCain's office and received a response from a McCain assistant saying, 'Mr McCain isn't interested in these fanciful stories.' It was only later that Searchy managed to convince McCain, who met On and gave him a souvenir copy of the Congressional Seal as thanks.

“It was the kind of thing you buy in the souvenir shop in the Senate basement.

“But Mr On, to the day he died, treated it as if it were a Congressional Medal of Honour.”

But although McCain appeared to believe the story, it was one he would later seem to ignore in his autobiography and there was no more contact between the two men.

When Mr On died in 2006, an email was apparently sent to McCain's office requesting a message of condolence for the family. There was no response.

Whether or not McCain believed Mr On is unclear.

The punchline?

But [McCain's] refusal to acknowledge [On's] heroism is likely to fuel other, more damaging allegations that McCain exaggerated elements of his PoW ordeal in Hoa Lo prison.

Phung Van Chung, 70, who was a Communist Party official at the time, claims McCain was quickly singled out for softer treatment, adding: “I found out he was the son of an American admiral, so the top people wanted to keep him as a live witness so they could use him for negotiations.”

Nice.

Playing, Or Being Played?

By Cernig

Via Rising Hegemon, from whom I've stolen my post title, comes a fascinating and deeply disturbing tale of conservative manipulation of the Democratic nomination race, switching sides and feeding smears against both Clinton and Obama to keep the Dem circular firing squad going.

Wayne Barrat of the Village Voice dots his i's and crosses all the t's as he systematically and comprehensively documents how the Republican noise machine is trying to ensure it's chosen McSame faces a fatally weakened Dem oponent come November. They started with attacks on Clinton, switched to Obama when he showed signs of growing too strong, and are now ready to pitch in and undermine whichever candidate shows any signs whatsoever of winning a plurality of popular support.

Since few Democratic voters—theoretically—should be affected by anything this cabal has to say, its impact on the nominating process has been, at best, indirect. But the right's talkers have helped to shape the way the election is covered. And even if they've only affected the margins, it's precisely those margins—in states like Missouri, or in district delegate fights, or in the narrowing popular-vote contest—that matter. Perhaps the more important point for Democrats is why these drum beaters have been so universally on the same beat.

In every case, these rightwing mouthpieces have ignored their own previous overt race-baiting to accuse the Clintons of being closet racists, have ignored their own open misogyny to accuse Obamites of sexism and generally muddied the waters every way they could.

Limbaugh, Novak, Kristol, Bennet, York, Hannity, George Will - all have their gamesmanship exposed by this must-read column. They're all on the same page of the GOP playbook. It's the page headed "Divide and Conquer".

Read it, then think again about what Libby wrote the other day.

Barnett On Fallon Resignation

By Cernig

Kevin Drum had one, fairly establishment-mainstream view of Admiral Fallon's abrupt departure and the spin being put on it at White House behest today:

There's a limit to how much public freelancing can be tolerated from a regional commander — or any other military officer. Although most liberals are probably sympathetic toward Fallon's views, it's worth keeping in mind that a year from now the shoe is probably going to be on the other foot. Do we really want the commander in Iraq in 2009 telling the press that President Obama's withdrawal plans are likely to lead to chaos and need to be slowed down? Even if that's his heartfelt professional opinion?

I don't think so. Bottom line: I'll stick with civilian control of the military, even if I don't happen to like the current civilians. It sounds like Fallon crossed the line once too often.

It's a take Matt Yglesias disagrees with - but also one Tom Barnett, author of the Esquire piece that catalyzed what seems to have been a long-running background turf fight, would take issue with. Barnett today writes:

the rules changed with this administration.

It's the secrecy by which decisions are made that has poisoned the well. If "outing" any opposition to the administration's line puts that person at risk, then is the journalist's choice simply to ignore the internal debate to spare the public such knowledge?

Cause if it is, then we're offering descriptions of our own government that historically are better leveled at authoritarian regimes, where America constantly needs to be careful shining a light on dissidents lest they fall under attack by authorities.

If we place our military leadership in that category, then this country is in a world of trouble.

The public's right to know of internal debates on matters as crucial as to whether or not we go to war with Iran is sacrosanct in my mind. Wars of choice have to be national choices, not just leadership choices.

Barnett should know if the rules changes under Bush - after all, he worked for him.

I have to say, my own preferences for the nation as a whole to exercise command and control of both civilian and military leadership agree with Barnett. The nation can only do that if it is well informed on differences of opinion and nuances of debate - something we've been very short on with the bush administration. then, both civilian and military leadership has to be willing to listen to and take direction from "the people" - again, something we've been short on this past seven years.

Meanwhile, we're being told by the administration that any suspicion this all means attacks on Iran have gotten more likely is just "ridiculous". Over at FP Passport, Mike Boyer notes an Israeli intel assessment that says 2008 is the "Year of Iran" and says we shouldn't relax just on the administration's say-so.

With Dick Cheney departing for the Middle East next week, this assessment is worrisome. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said that the Israelis would not consider unilateral action against Iran. But they would likely leap at the chance to conduct coordinated strikes with the U.S. And Cheney's ear is reportedly sympathetic to the argument that diplomacy with Iran is futile. "Full-scale" war with Iran is probably militarily out at this stage, but strikes conducted by air and sea -- with the Navy taking the lead -- are still a very real possibility before the Bush administration is through. And that does make Admiral Fallon's departure worthy of concern.

Indeed it does - let's hope Dem leaders actually carry through on their wish to have Fallon testify to a congressional hearing and ask him some pointed questions about it all.

PKK Makes $700 Million Yearly From Drugs, Smuggling

By Cernig

The Turkish government has said that the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror group has a yearly income of 400-500 million euros (up to $750 million) obtained from drug dealing, human trafficking, smuggling and donations.

Speaking on the second day of an international conference on terrorism organized by the Turkish military at the Centre of Excellence -- Defense against Terrorism (COE-DAT) in Ankara on March 10 and 11, Saygun said: “It is obvious that the PKK is a terrorist organization and, with its mafia-like structure, it is also an organized criminal organization. This fact has been proven by several international reports. The terrorists’ organization obtains its income mainly from drug dealing, in addition to arms smuggling, money laundering, racketeering and other illegal means.”
He said the PKK obtains 200-250 million euros from drug dealing, 100-150 million from its various smuggling activities and 15-20 million from donations.

Saygun indicated that the PKK provides arms not only to its members but also to the terrorists of other organizations. He said this shows how the PKK has become an international criminal organization and that it underlines the need to fight the PKK’s crimes internationally. “The mentality that supports the terrorist organization should not forget that this organization controls 80 percent of the drug dealing in Europe and poisons the European public.”

At the conference Saygun said reports from the UN and other esteemed international organizations indicate that the PKK kidnaps children -- including girls -- in Europe to give them training in arms and ideology.

He complained that even though Turkey has been sensitive to make a distinction among groups and not to label everybody terrorists, some Europeans do not show the same understanding. “Some in Europe wrongly identify everybody of Kurdish origin with the PKK,” he said.

Speaking about the harm caused by terrorist organizations in general, Saygun said: “Terrorist organizations claim they represent ethnic groups or great belief groups. So they carry out their activities in the name of the ideologies of Islam, people’s independence, minority rights, Jihad, democratic rights and freedoms, thereby seeking legitimacy for their activities. We should not fall into this trap.”

Not just terrorists responsible for over 60,000 deaths but a massive criminal organistation which has done untold damage to lives throughout the Middle east and Europe. Yet the Bush administration has consistently soft-stepped and fence sat when it comes to the PKK, willing to trade their presence and activities for a quiet Kurdish North in Iraq these last five years.

One offshoot of this group - the PJK - is one that rightwing American extremists like Ken Timmerman cozy up to simply because it is seen as fighting the current Iranian regime. Timmerman isn't just the reporter who wrote a puff piece on the PJK, he's also executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which he founded with neocon Bush administration insider Peter Rodeman.

But both Bush administration and neocons alike should be careful about their allies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may well be the way the Right like to run foreign policy but it's just as true that "if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Their Inner Lieberman

By Cernig

Pachacutec over at FDL today has a long hard look at bloggy progressive support for Dem candidates, which leaves him waiting for the other shoe to drop.

we have no progressive candidate. We have no Wellstone, no Feingold, no ideologically based movement person. My question is this: which of these candidates is more likely to reveal an inner Lieberman of some form once in power? I don't have an answer. People can believe what they choose to believe, but both candidates have Liebermanish historical tendencies and both propel narratives reminiscent of Lieberman, the earlier years.

Thier "inner Lieberman". That deserves to enter the lexicon. It puts very well what my own problems are with both Obama and Clinton.

The rest of the post is an empassioned and well-argued appeal to bloggers and their commenters to drop their antagonistic rivalry - so conducive to the catapulting of Republican propaganda - and return to a position of holding all candidates' feet to the fire for the better of the progressive movement rather than one candidates electoral chances.

The ultimate question I will have for supporters of either candidate during these days of pie fights will be, whoever gets power, what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins? If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?

It's an admirable position and one I and the rest of the folks at Newshoggers will endevour to hold - even those of us who have already endorsed one candidate. But I fear we'll be drowned out by the campaigns themselves and by far larger trafficked blogs who have chosen to descend into the mire alongside their chosen campaign team. They too have their "Inner Lieberman" to contend with.

Wherein I Worry More About Obama

By Cernig

Josh Marshall pegs it - Obama's campaign at the moment is suffering under the Clinton assault, tag-teamed as it is by the Republicans laughing gleefully at the Dems' discomfort.

Samantha Power's resignation is just one case in point - although I'm far more concerned about her claim in a BBC interview that Obama's Iraq withdrawal policy is just flimflam than about her calling Hillary Clinton a "monster".

As David Corn points out:

Non-News Flash: Aides to presidential candidates routinely refer to the competition in harsh terms, particularly when they talk to reporters off the record. More than once, a top Clinton person has told me that s/he believes Obama is a self-righteous fraud--or worse. It was, of course, always off the record. But if I had reported any of these remarks, I could have gotten the pop The Scotsman has received for disclosing Power's comment.

The Scotsman newspaper quoted Power as saying: "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything." I would not be at all surprised to learn that the conservative-supporting Scotsman newspaper deliberately burned Samantha Power when she thought she was speaking off the record. Only those who follow Scottish internal politics would know they're not above some very dirty anti-Left tricks in election season and that ethos may well have spilled over into their coverage of the American race. It's cost Obama not just an advisor but made him appear weak and manipulable. Not good for him.

But the Iraq matter is entirely more serious.

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

"It’s a best-case scenario," she said again.

Now, only the naive expect most politicians to keep their election promises. Heck, Dubya promised more diplomacy and less militarism during his presidency. But this one really does cut to the heart of Obama's current support base and to his own claim - which is far more than just a policy promise - to be different from the usual run of political hacks.

Yet again, I'm forcibly reminded of Tony 'all things to all people" Blair, and the disasterous misadventures of Iraqi occupation and surveillance state. America so doesn't need to be taken in by that kind of con job. Obama needs desperately to restore some credibility, at least for me, if he's not to be seen as what the Clinton campaign wants to paint him as - a snake-oil statesman.

There's a possibility that the other story of an Obama advisor going off the reservation might provide that. ABC's Justin Rood:

In a new interview with National Journal magazine, an intelligence adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign broke with his candidate’s position opposing retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies being sued for cooperating with a dubious U.S. government domestic surveillance program.

"I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity," former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview. "They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context."

"I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's the right thing to do," added Brennan, who is an intelligence and foreign policy adviser to Obama.

That wasn't just a personal opinion, Brennan made clear to Harris. "My advice, to whoever is coming in [to the White House], is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what's out there, identifying those key issues," including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he said -- the law at the heart of the immunity debate.

"They need to make sure they do their homework, and it's not just going to be knee-jerk responses," Brennan said of the presidential hopefuls.

Last month, Obama voted to strip language in an intelligence bill that would have granted to Verizon, AT&T and other companies the immunity Brennan favored. The firms have been identified in lawsuits as having cooperated with a National Security Agency program to intercept phone calls and other communications data within the United States.

What does Obama think? "Sen. Obama welcomes a variety of views, but his position on FISA is clear. He and Brennan differ," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Now, in the first instance Obama has only himself to blame for hiring a close associate of George "slam dunk" Tenet as his intel bod. Tenet handpicked Brennan as the Bush administration's director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center back in 2003 after "consulting with Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge." Brennan had previously been Tenet's chief of staff.

That's clearly the wrong man for Obama's campaign: someone who was approved by Tenet and the rest of the Bush administration as the man in charge of all terrorist intel analysis - which in the Bush administration was always going to be an appointment where the incumbent needed to be "right" politically too.

But Kevin Hayden sees the bright side:

It’s important to have commanders in chief who seek advice from experienced hands. But it’s also critical that they be capable of weighing that advice so they can make sound decisions - including rejecting advice they consider to be flawed. Obama is already demonstrating he can reason independently on the issue of retroactive telecom immunity, choosing Constitutional support over the thin argument that telecoms thought they were acting legally.

The only compromise available is if the government assumes the liabilities of the telecoms and takes the legal consequences that someone should bear for the illegal actions it instigated. And Obama has chosen to remain on the right side of the law, which is an attribute I applaud him for.

So one cave - to the opposition - and one internal tough and principled stand. You can see why I'm worried.

Rezkorama - The Coming Swift Boating Of Obama (Updated)

By Cernig

Right wing apparatchiks and bloggers are making ready to smear the eventual Democratic nominee, whether or not there's any substance to their smearing. They obviously expect Obama to be the eventual opponent for McCain because their preparations include a new website called "Rezkorama", which is anonymously registered but has clear ties to prominent conservative bloggers, including those behind the "Victory Caucus".

As Glenn Greenwald explained yesterday, Rezkorama is to be the Whitewater of the coming presidential campaign.

It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea.

Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters unarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all.

Today, via our traffic stats at Statcounter, I noticed incoming traffic from a link to Libby's post on Clinton's Vetted Interests from a new website, Rezkorama, which is an aggregator of stories and blogposts which might broadly be taken as being about Democratic corruption - no mention of McCain's own problems with lobbyists at all. Not recognising it, I decided to take a look - and then got curious enough to try to find out who was behind it.

Rezkorama.com was set up as a domain via GoDaddy by "Domains By Proxy", an anonymous domain registering company based in Scottsdale, Arizona. It's servers, however, are listed as NS.TRUTHLAIDBEAR.COM and NS2.TRUTHLAIDBEAR.COM.

The folks at Truth Laid Bear, who run the infamous "blog ecosystem" rankings, also did development work for Hugh Hewitt and Frank Gaffney's ludicrously hyped Victory Caucus - which likewise registered it's domain names through the same Arizona anonymizer owned by GoDaddy CEO and torture fan Bob Parsons.

The guy behind Truth Laid Bear, Rob Neppell, is a member of The Heritage Foundation's New Media Advisory Board and of the Victory Caucus. He, Hewitt and others were once described by the White House as saying what they're told to say.

It appears that Bush has now passed them on as part of his endorsement of McCain.

Update The NYT's Caucus blog reports that the RNC are in on the smear act too, buying up a couple of score of domain names which could be used to attack either Clinton or Obama and cyber-squatting on domains that could serve to attack McCain. It's going to be a dirty general election.

Update 2 You'll never guess where most of Rezkorama's referrals are coming from on this, it's first day in action. Hugh Hewitt's Townhall.com, according to SiteMeter. Hewitt has a post touting the creation of his Victory Caucus pal up today - and admitting that the site is the work of Rob Nepell. So much for anonymous domain's eh? Maybe they should've thought more about the hosting servers.

Update 3 In comments, Rob Neppell writes in response to the question of why use a domain anonymiser, saying that it's "A good question honestly -- I suppose old habits just die hard..."

Fair enough. I think in all fairness, in today's climate of smears, Rob can probably see why I wondered. But the question has been asked and answered and I'm not going to impune his direct statement. The Rezkorama website now includes attribution - "Concept: Hugh Hewitt Technology: Kithbridge" - that wasn't there this morning.

The bigger question is whether Rezkorama will actually serve a decent purpose - which it can only do if there really is a connection between Rezko and Obama that still needs to see the light of day - or whether such partisan-backed ventures simply smear by association.

The future for Mark Penn

by shamanic

If Hillary Clinton manages to pull out the nomination and wins the White House, might I suggest that her first act as president be to have Mark Penn shipped off to Gitmo for some "enhanced vacationing"?

Even for the notoriously slimy business of politics, Penn is really something else entirely. Do it, Hillary. No one will mind. Quite the contrary, you would have the thanks of a grateful nation.

Mukasey Jaunts To Gitmo

By Cernig

Attorney General Michael Mukasey had an afternoon jaunt to Gitmo on Wednesday, presumably to make sure prosecutors there would toe the administration line in the wake of several embarassing resignations. There are no reports that he tried waterboarding himself to see if he thought it was torture.

Amazingly, military tribunals are only expected to hear charges against some 80 detainees - out of the 275 still held at Gitmo and over 800 who have passed through Gitmo's gates in total. Even a ten per cent charge rate seems...inadequate recompense...for such a loss of American prestige and such a trampling on the rule of law.

Thirty four international law organisations, including Britain's Law Society, have signed a joint letter to Bush to express their condemnation of the situation in Guantanamo Bay. "We feel that it is inherently unfair to have one justice system for American citizens and another for so-called 'enemy combatants', particularly when such a system has no basis in international law.", UK Law Society president Andrew Holroyd said.

Clinton Doesn't Back Blackwater

By Cernig

Remember I wrote that I was troubled by Obama's plan to keep mercenary outfits like Blackwater in Iraq as replacements for withdrawing US troops? At the time i said the Clinton campaign had so far been silent on the issue. Well, like a shark smelling blood in the water, Clinton's been quick to take a big bite:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.

The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.

But it's quite possible that the Clinton campaign put that blood in the water themselves. Danger Room notes:

The timing of the announcement is particularly curious. It comes less than a day after the investigative journalist and Blackwater critic Jeremy Scahill published a piece in The Nation reporting that, if elected, "Obama will not 'rule out' using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq." The campaign also informed Scahill that Obama would not be signing on to legislation banning the use of contractors in war zones by 2009.

...I spoke with Scahill about the coincidental timing. "For over a week I tried to get Hillary Clinton's campaign and Senate staff to issue a policy statement reflecting her position on her potential future use of PMCs in Iraq if she won the presidency. Silence. Then, the day after my story comes out revealing that Obama will not "rule out" using them, all of a sudden Hillary Clinton becomes the most important political figure in the US to call for a "ban" on Blackwater et al." Scahill said. "Where was her call for a ban after [Blackwater's controversial shooting of civilians at] Nisour Square?"

Far more at Danger Room too, including a mention that Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute - an Obama staffer - thinks the timing sniffs a great deal.

At the end of the day, it’s only a five sentence statement of intent, coming after her being 8 years on the Armed Services Committee, a full year after Obama issues his bill on contracting, 7 months after the Blackwater shootings, and 6 months after Obama’s bill becomes the core of much of the latest round of reforms in the Defense Authorization act. Maybe she’s trying to get some pop by doing this 5 days before the OH and TX primaries. But, if a back and forth happens on the topic of private military contracting, it is going to be very hard for her to argue any depth on the issue and, even more so, avoid the political timing label. Obama just has to point to his track record on the issue and say, “Why did you just suddenly discover this issue now 5 days before the votes, and, more importantly, where have you been for the last years?”

So, would the Clinton campaign be so nasty as to sign on to a stricter bill just to be in a position to attack Obama? Ask the daisies.

When Matt Outed Harry

By Cernig

Being a Brit, I suppose I should write a few words about the cross-pond scandal of Matt Drudge outing Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan.

I'm a wee tad conflicted on the Harry end - I'm no great fan of the concept of having royals in general and would rather think of Harry Windsor as just another second lieutenant from a privileged background who will either turn out to be one of the good guys or one of the banes of the squaddies lives, depending on whether he has sh*t for brains or not. He gets no slack from me just for being a Windsor - but that said, kudos for going within a million miles of the shooting when he could've used his birthrate to stay safe in the UK. His uncle Andrew got the same kudos in the Falklands.

Still, I understand why he has now been withdrawn. As the BBC's Jon Williams explains, and 2nd Lt. Windor's nickname "Bullet Magnet" suggests, it's not just about him.

this was never just about Prince Harry's safety, it was also about the security of the soldiers serving with him. No editor wants to be responsible for increasing the risk they already face from the Taleban. Nor do I think our audiences would have thanked us for doing so.

On Matt Drudge, I'm not in the least conflicted. What a low, unprincipled, headline-chasing slimeball.

Try a thought experiment. Replace "Harry Windsor" with, say "James McCain" and imagine his dad is president. Now imagine Drudge had leaked the location and unit of said presidential son on deployment in Iraq. Can you imagine the outrage? Drudge would be finished, if not in jail.

Barack Blair Obama

By Cernig

I've been waxing vocal about Hillary's dirty tricks campaign this past couple of days, with the thesis that it actually hurts her more than it hurts Obama with voters who are pig-sick of such nonsense. So I really should note that the Obama campaign's recent grade-A nonsense about Hillary's mandate system for universal insurance meaning "they'll be coming after your wages". Criticisms of this attack on the grounds that it is simply regurgitating Republican talking points seem fair to me.

I've news for the Obama campaign - news that explains why every other Western nation has true universal healthcare and a universal mandate to contribute to that service via taxes or some other contribution format that amounts to the same thing. A truly universal healthcare system starts from the ethical premise that "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs". It's a basic plank of liberal thinking and I would say a basic plank of civilisation, a demand that those who wish membership in society put into it what they are able as well as get from it from they need to remain a functioning contributor. If you don't want to contribute to the general social wellbeing to the limits of your ability as determined by that society, don't bother calling 911 or sending the military to do your ideological grunt-work. You have another option which is perfectly acceptable - opt out. Build a compound somewhere in the backwoods and don't come running to the rest of us if things don't work out in your libertarian utopia. If not, then of course they'll be coming after your wages! Just pick the method you prefer - and remember that a tax may well mean you end up paying less for more than you already do by the insurance premiums that you already pay.

This kind of fancy footwork on such basic issues from the Obama campaign is why I've described him as the American Tony Blair - an astute political machinator carefully re-framing as "bi-partisan" whatever stance he thinks will win him most votes, whether or not it agrees with what should be the core beliefs of his policymaking. He's trying to be all things to as many of the people as possible all of the time. It's a successful strategy for a politician who wants to win a national election but it gives no confidence that once in office he will have any ethical touchstones whatsoever. As we Brits discovered too late with Blair, he just wanted power.

But if the Clinton campaign want to attack Obama, they have to do so on specifics - as in the case with their defense of his attack on her healthcare plan. The Clinton's already have a reputation for dirty campaigning and to avoid being dragged down by that repuation Clinton will have to be cleaner than the rest - some thing she has failed to do so far.

I'll help with another case in point.

Yesterday diarist Helenann at Daily Kos responded to general smears about Obama's alleged lack of legislative experience by listing the 570 bills Obama had sponsored or co-sponsored, of which 15 had become law.

Fair enough as far as it goes but she didn't give any details on what kinds of policy prescriptions were contained in those bills. So I picked one I thought might be informative - a bill signed into law to amend the Patriot Act - and looked. I found that S. 2167 was a bill to "amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to July 1, 2006." It was sponsored by Sen. John Sununu [R-NH] and had 31 co-sponsors including Obama. The summary of the bill says:

Amends the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 to extend from December 31, 2005, to February 3, 2006, provisions of that Act and the "lone wolf" provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. (The lone wolf provision redefined "agent of a foreign power" to permit issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) orders targeting terrorists without a showing that they are members of a terrorist group or agents of such a group or of any other foreign power.)

Now, if I'm reading that "Lone Wolf" provision correctly it says that the administration doesn't have to prove someone is a terrorist, it just says they are and everyone agrees to believe them. Which makes a mockery of probable cause when asking for FISA warrants since warrants to tap terrorists' phones are always going to be granted but the administration doesn't have to prove the person named is a terrorist if he might be a "lone wolf".

One wonders why Obama and a whole slew of Dem Senators including Dodd fell over themselves to co-sponsor a bill to extend such a provision for even a measly three months, given their later stance on the importance of FISA warrants and the rule of law. Clinton was also a co-sponsor of the bill but she could argue that her position is internally consistent over time and legislation - even if it isn't all that liberal. Obama's clearly is not.

Clinton Accuses Obama Of Campaigning Like Rove

By Cernig

Huh?:

Accusing the Obama campaign of using tactics “that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” Senator Hillary Clinton angrily denounced Senator Barack Obama on Saturday for sending flyers to Ohio voters that she called misleading and false.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference after a morning rally, holding the flyers and shaking them in the air as she spoke. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

The flyers were handed to Mrs. Clinton by a woman who attended the rally and then approached her on the rope line after Mrs. Clinton’s speech.

It was not the first time the Clinton campaign has seen the flyer, which cites an article from Newsday that says Mrs. Clinton believed Nafta was a “boon” to the economy. Mrs. Clinton said the newspaper has since corrected the article. (Reporters from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, stopping short of a correction, but saying that “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading.”)

“Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Lets see...the Clinton campaign have tried to make hay out of accusations that Obama's a terror-symp and that Obama's a plagiarist - never mind that Mrs Clinton has also "plagiarised" and met former terrorists. And now Clinton is comparing Obama to Dubya, despite a Clinton spokesperson last year saying it was “the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering” for one Democrat to compare another to Bush.

In her rally speech, Clinton touted her own experience and obliquely compared Obama’s to Bush’s when he first ran for president in 2000.

She said Bush “promised change as a compassionate conservative and the American people got shafted and we’re going to have to make up for it,” she said. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Not to condone Obama's campaign if he's using slanted quotes - but that's a huge dose of "pot meets kettle" to swallow from the Clinton campaign.

Will they both please just cut it the f**k out?! But especially Clinton. I'm one of those who would be most sceptical of Obama's experience and his Blair-style "all the people all the time" rhetoric if she'd just give me room to do so. But every time her campaign indulges in another outrageous Republican-class smear, I end up defending Obama by proxy just by pointing out how ridiculously hypocritical she's being. Sheesh.

Update More from Joe Gandelman.

When The (Former) Terrorist Kissed Hillary

By Cernig

What kind of world is it when Democratic partisans are attacking John Podhoretz for his defense of a Democratic candidate? A topsy-turvey born out of a win-at-all-costs mentality where smearing your current rival is more important than party unity, that's where.

But Larry Johnson asks the question of news that Obama once visited Weather Undergrounder William Ayers: "What politician in their right mind would visit a known terrorist?...Is there anyone else other than Obama?"

Well, Larry and Taylor, there's this:



The accompanying London Times article - from December 8th 2007 not years ago - reads:

When the puckered lips of Martin McGuinness made contact with Hillary Clinton’s soft white cheek yesterday, a loud “Mmm-wwakk” noise could be heard across the hotel lobby – and, perhaps, beyond if American voters were listening closely enough.

Mrs Clinton had briefly stepped off the presidential campaign trail to meet the Rev Ian Paisley, the Northern Ireland First Minister, and his deputy, Mr McGuinness, who were in Washington on a week-long American charm offensive.

The two men, once sworn enemies, were later heading over to the White House for their first joint meeting with President Bush, where they were expected to ask for help in attracting investment to Northern Ireland.

The guy on the right is Mr McGuiness, who on one occasion was labelled the "IRA godfather of godfathers". McGuiness was certainly more than "some college kid spray painting railroad bridges with graffitti". He was tried and convicted of belonging to that terrorist organisation after after being caught with a car containing 250 lb (113 kg) of explosives and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition and at the time said he was "very, very proud" of his membership of the IRA.

(The guy on the left, by the way, was never a terrorist but is widely regarded as an odious bigot as well as funder and enabler of the opposite side's terrorists and as such has almost as undesirable a past.)

Mr. McGuiness, like Mr Ayles, has never apologised for his terrorist past - but time moves on and yesterday's terrorist has become today's statesman and messenger of peace. That's a good thing - and something he shares with several other Clinton buddies such as IRA leader Gerry Adams and Menachem Begin, the former head of Irgun. Talking to former terrorists is very often a good thing. But Johnson, Marsh and others are painting themselves into a corner by stating bluntly that talking to American former terrorists is always a bad thing.

So what's it to be, Larry and Taylor? Were Hillary and Bill wrong to share a podium with unrepentant foreign former terrorists or is it that you think American lives count more than, say, Irish ones? Or is it just that in your zeal to smear your favorite's rival you've lost all sense?

I suspect the latter.

Look, I mistrust Obama - he seems to me to have read Tony Blur's handbook on how to win elections by appearing to appeal to all the people much of the time far to closely. But this kind of dirty campaigning is even more abhorrent to me and, I suspect, to millions of voters. Cut it out.

Clinton's Hand In Cookie Jar On Obama Smear

By Cernig

Dear Mrs. Clinton,

When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't try to blame the dog. The dog will turn and bite you.

AP:

Hillary Rodham Clinton says reporters, not her campaign, uncovered evidence of Democratic rival Barack Obama sharing speech lines with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

She made the claim Tuesday despite the fact her campaign posted video clips on YouTube illustrating similarities in the speeches and has suggested in several instances that the shared lines amount to plagiarism.

Any suggestion that the story had a life of its own, apart from the Clinton campaign, is disingenuous.

The Politico:

Under fire for uncredited echoes of another candidate’s speeches, the Obama campaign sought Tuesday evening to turn the tables on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) by highlighting her clearly false claim that her campaign had not fueled the controversy.

Clinton, in remarks to the ABC affiliate in Honolulu that were reported by the Chicago Tribune, asserted: “Look, it’s not us making this charge. It’s the media.”

But on Monday, the Clinton campaign announced a conference call “to discuss a recent speech delivered by Sen. Obama” and included a YouTube link that showed Obama remarks side by side with similar comments by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

The HuffPo's Ari Melber:

Hillary Clinton flatly denied that her campaign was attacking Barack Obama for using the words of another politician, telling reporters on Tuesday that her campaign had not made the charge.

...Obama Campaign spokseman Bill Burton shot back on Tuesday evening. "Senator Clinton knows full well that her campaign held a conference call with reporters to fan these flames and the fact that she suggested her campaign had nothing to do with it is exactly the kind of evasive tactic voters are rejecting," he said in a statement.

Clinton's claim is demonstrably false. Her campaign has aggressively and openly pushed the plagiarism attack, including a national conference call by senior campaign aides on Monday. Her aides also circulated a YouTube clip comparing footage of Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick.

Initially, Clinton operatives apparently did attempt to conceal their involvement.

Hells, even I figured out pretty quickly who was behind this one.

Obama has enough holes in his campaign to exploit - fairly - without trumping up such tosh. But backpedalling on what was obviously a smear attempt just makes you look even more sleazily guilty. If you're looking for an explanation of tonights result in Wisconsin, perhaps you should look no further.

Regards, Cernig

Wolfson Still Pounding Obama Plagiarism Story

By Cernig

A few minutes ago, the Corner's Byron York posted this:

Top Clinton campaign officials Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson are holding another conference call with reporters now. Wolfson is pointing to a "pattern" of alleged plagiarism by Barack Obama, suggesting that reporters look at a blog entry by ABC's Jake Tapper which suggests another example of Obama lifting material from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. In that blog entry, Tapper points to a statement from Obama quoted in USA Today in 2007: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations." Tapper then quotes Patrick, speaking to the 2006 Massachusetts Democratic convention, saying, "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

"We are seeing a pattern here," Wolfson told reporters a short time ago. "And here is another example of where the words match exactly."

I still think Wolfson and the Clinton campaign are doing themselves no favours with this line of attack. No politician or comedian (the two professions being closely related) ever stops to credit his writers or other originators of a good line in mid-flow. And Patrick has said he is just fine with Obama's borrowings. It's a snark hunt in the classic sense, a hunt for something that doesn't exist. At most, it shows Obama as a good bit more of a human politician, rather than the Saint he's been painted as by some. But the very fact of this kind of dirty campaigning, joined with other factors pointing at Clinton as being the Grinch Who Tried To Steal The Nomination by unfair means, comprises a growing negative narrative which is far more long-term damaging.

And why the f***k is a rightwing shill-shelter like the NRO first on the net with this? Is the Clinton campaign deliberately talking to rightwing reporters to try to hammer Obama, helpfully handing the McCain campaign its ammunition direct from Wolfson's hand?

Obama, "Plagiarism" and YouTube Attack Ads (Updated)

By Cernig

The top story on Memeorandum right now is all about Obama's use of words and ideas from a 2006 speech by Deval Patrick, the current Democratic governor of Massachusetts. Comparisons to Joe Biden's infamous plagiarism, which sank his '88presidential run, are being made. The BigHead DC blog is claiming the scoop and saying it "discovered" the similiarity but the NYT's version makes it clear that this was an orchestrated attack on Obama "highlighted by a rival campaign that did not want to be identified".

The NYT also has the Obama campaign's answer - from Deval Patrick himself.

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

Indeed, it's a tad ridiculous to attack Obama for using words neither he nor Patrick, but rather speechwriters, came up with.

Clips of both speeches have been dropped on YouTube in a concerted attack on the Obama campaign which neatly avoids being attributable in the way that a traditional attack ad would be. YouTube users like "wtmv" and "chrisoh7" joined yesterday apparently only to upload these videos. The latter's commenters, however, are mainly long-term Hillary Clinton supporters. Someone has found a way to make anonymous attack ads without even the chain of "ownership" of a 527 group. One has to wonder whether McCain's campaign is even close to being that net savvy.

Update The Swamp identifies the origin.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign wants everyone to see a campaign speech made in 2006 by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick just before he won that office and a recent speech by Sen. Barack Obama.

And various outlets are linking to a Boston Globe story from last April which noted the identical rhetoric in Obama and Patrick's campaigns. Back then, though, it made not a ripple. Of course, back then Obama wasn't as serious a threat to Clinton and the Clinton campaign hadn't yet unveilled its nastier side fully.

Update 2 The Politico finally names a name - Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson has directly accused Obama of plagiarism.

But as my good friend Kyle Moore points out, Gov. Patrick's hearty endorsement of Obama's using his words leaves the Clinton campaign with a definition problem:

pla·gia·rism –noun

1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

Right, so it’s only really plagiarism if it lacks the authorization of the source, right? Hmmm

It seems clear that the Clinton campaign conceived and orchestrated this attack on Obama from word one, including the anonymous YouTube drops. While it's true that Obama will take a hit here, simply because his rhetoric is revealed as calculated rather than spontaneous, the Clinton campaign may well end up taking a bigger hit as it throws any semblance of fair campaigning out the window - and with it possibly Democratic unity should Clinton win the party's nomination.

McCain Kisses Base Ass On Torture

By Cernig

Yes, the great maverick puckered up and planted a big one on the collective posterior of extreme Right torture fandom today.

Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, containing a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding.

Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

Apparently, McCain's experience as a POW is only for telling stories at campaign stops. But at least Lockheed - the company that owns the company that provides priately contracted interrogators at Gitmo - will be happy and keep McCain's campaign funds flowing.

In the annals of political flip-flopping, this is one of the headliners. Such an utter lack of principle as to be able to turn on a dime and deny what he himself has been saying for years means no-one who isn't part of the goose-stepping Right - especially leader's of other Western nations - will ever believe a word out of his mouth again. Ferchrissakes, don't let this man anywhere near the Oval Office.