59 Years Ago Today...

Japan surrenders. Thank you, Pacific veterans.

The Strib joins the (tiny) Chorus

Well, the Star Tribune has finally printed a story about the Swift Vets attempt to present their opinions about John Kerry's Vietnam service. Predictably, the emphasis in the story was on the controversy surrounding the claims and the reactions (mostly by critics of the SBVT) to them instead of actually investigating their substance (and veracity). This behavior pretty much conforms to the rest of the media reporting on the subject.

In my opinion, this creates a credibility problem for the mainstream press. They fell all over themselves demanding every last detail of President Bush's Air National Guard service when Democrats tried to use it to discredit him. Now, when a group of vets who served in the same unit as Senator Kerry criticize the way he describes (outright lied about, in their view) his service, there is no rush to investigate their claims and Kerry's. This just reinforces an already existing perception that the media is both liberally biased and in the tank for John Kerry. The media would be doing us (and themselves) a major service by paying the same kind and amount of attention to this story about Kerry's service as they did to Bush "AWOL" story.

Steve Sack's Sack Full o' S---

Once again, the Star Tribune lives down to my expectations, this time via a cartoon by Steve Sack, depicting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a group of GOP elephants in a barge dumping garbage into the water under the banner "Operation Smear Kerry" (Unfortunately, no link available at this time. It will probably show up online in a few days.). I guess this is Mr. Sack's audition for the Ted Rall scholarship at the Stupid Cartoonist's Institute. It fails at that too, if only because Sack is a much better artist. In terms of content, it lacks the true malice necessary to aspire to Ralldom. What it does not lack, however, is ignorance and hypocrisy.

Let's start with the ignorance first. What factual justification could he have for this cartoon? Since no one has actually debunked the claims of the Swift boat vets, how does he know what they are doing is a smear? So far, the Kerry camp's reply to the Swifties has been ad hominem attacks and legal threats. Perhaps he should have waited for his compadres in the press to actually, you know, investigate the Swifties' claims? Maybe, before drawing this cartoon he should have actually looked into their claims and the motives for making them, like this letter (via the Captain) from John O'Neill sent to TV stations in reply to a threat from the Kerry campaign to sue if the stations ran the Swifties' ad attempts to do. But that would involve work and even intellectual honesty, qualities often missing from the Star Tribune editorial pages. It's much easier and faster to suck down a Kerry Kool-Aid instead.

Hypocrisy. Sack (and the Star Tribune) spent some considerable effort reporting and opining on the bogus Bush AWOL 'scandal'. In fact, here's a Sack cartoon on the very subject. What is it about the Swift boat vet's claims that allow them to be so easily dismissed, as Kevin Drum does by calling them lunatics? Thier claims are at least as good as the ones that got the press in a tizzy for weeks trying to prove President Bush was AWOL. Is the swift boat vets' Vietnam experience somehow less valid or less valued than Kerry's, so they can be discounted? Or, doesn't our objective press want to investigate credible claims against their favored candidate?

Every one of those lefty bloggers and newspapers that were demanding every effort be made to verify Bush's Air National Guard Service should be demanding that the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth be given the same type of attention. Anything else is a demonstration of their hypocrisy.

"Nice" going, Star Tribune!

Here's another fine example (free registration may be required) of a cutesy-attempt-to-be-funny, but ultimately crappy editorial from the Strib. In it, they try to use the fact that Dr. Stephen Hawking has changed his mind about the properties of black holes to score cheap points against President Bush and St. Paul mayor Randy Kelly for allegedly flip-flopping. In the case of Mayor Kelly, it was his announcement that he was supporting GWB for re-election this November. As far as GWB is concerned, the Strib considered his desire to be a "Peace President" to be a flip-flop. Let's examine:

In the case of the Mayor, he couldn't have flip-flopped on this issue because he never said he would support John Kerry in the first place. Sure, he's a Democrat, but I don't see the Strib castigating Republicans who support Kerry for choosing the candidate for the other side, so that can't be it, could it?

In the case of President Bush, well, all presidents want to be a "Peace President". Nothing new there. I suspect that Bush prefers that we arrive at that peace through victory in the Middle East. I'm not sure we can say the same about his opponent.

Thanks, MnDOT

I'd just like to take a moment to mention my total lack of appreciation for the efforts of the malevolent, sadistic bast- er, fine traffic engineering professionals at the Minnesota Department of Transportation in making my daily commute to work from St. Paul such a thing of pleasure this summer.

They have provided me with plenty of time to catch up on various in-car activities that for some reason I had fallen behind on, such as listening to traffic reports that tell me I'm stuck in traffic. I have to curse bow to the kind of evil genius that timed our summer construction such that not one, not two, but all four major routes across the river into St. Paul from the southern suburbs have construction-related constipation at the moment, thus turning a 20 minute trip into a leisurely hour's drive. Is it not too much to ask that these things be staggered, thus not creating miles-long traffic jams on both sides of the river bridge on I-35E, Hwys 5, 52, and 61?

Positive Campaigning, Democrat Division

I saw an article in the August 2nd, 2004 edition of the East Side Review ,a weekly newspaper delivered to our neighborhood here in St. Paul, that highlights one of the things I hate about the political season.  I've reproduced a few paragraphs of the article here (typos are mine, there was no link available). 

  

Politically motivated graffiti has been popping up on stop signs throughout the suburbs of North St. Paul, Maplewood and Oakdale, and overlapping into the Battle Creek area of St. Paul.
  Vandals have been painting "Bush" at the bottom of stop signs to create the phrase "Stop Bush". The graffiti appeared last Thursday morning on main thoroughfares around the area.

 

This turns out to be more than a petty prank, since there is a problem with removing the graffiti:

    The type of ink or paint used must be removed chemicals, making the signs unable to reflect light and extremely difficult to see at night. As a result , all signs with graffiti must be replaced.
    "Basically, they're ruining the signs," said Mark Bartholomew, North St. Paul public works superintendent.
     Signs, which cost $50 apiece, and when city workers' time and equipment are factored in, the total amount to replace each sign comes to at least $70 and could cost as much as $100.

One would think that if these folks had any respect for the taxpayers of this area, they wouldn't indulge in stupid acts of vandalism that undermine the point they are trying to make.  Even if the point is stupid and juvenile.

No Steps Taken Yet

After reading this Star Tribune editorial, I must regretfully disagree with the Elder at Fraters Libertas. The Strib won't take the first step until they actually say "We were wrong and we apologize".They are very free with irresponsible accusations (when they can accuse Republicans), it's about time they actually apologized for one. C'mon you editors, suck it up and do the right thing.

Well, another hiatus

Once again, I've had some posting problems. One set due to being out of town on a short but fun visit to the Windy City, and the other problem being a change to Blogger that broke my (up to now) trusty Mozilla browser. Now armed with a newer version 1.7, it's time to give it another try.
I do want to offer congrats to Governor Pawlenty for taking the Star Tribune to task about their recent editorial criticising him for visting our National Guardsman in Kosovo. My favorite part:

Half a world away, in a country few Americans can find on a globe, more than 800 Minnesota citizen soldiers are hard at work. They're keeping the peace in a country that has been torn by war, dictatorship and genocide.

These men and woman keeping the peace are not full-time soldiers -- they're volunteers in the Minnesota National Guard. And they're the bulk of the U.S. peacekeeping force that stands between the people of Kosovo and violence.

The First Lady and I are going to Kosovo to thank these brave, selfless men and women and the families they leave at home. The public is understandably focused on places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We should not forget, however, the tremendous service that members of our military provide in other places such as Kosovo.

That's why it was so disheartening to read the Star Tribune editorial that criticized our trip to Kosovo this weekend. I normally don't bother to respond to the criticism I receive from the Star Tribune editorial writers. Their perspective is hopelessly imbalanced, increasingly shrill and often just simply inaccurate or incomplete.

They have an angry and dismissive attitude toward conservatives or Republicans -- unless, of course, the Republicans are the sort who are nearly indistinguishable in their views from Democrats.

Although I agree with the governor's assessment of the lack of quality of the editorial writers work, important part is where he reminds the Strib about priorities:

The trip to Kosovo requires that I be gone one business day. I left Thursday evening and return this evening. To criticize being gone one business day to thank our troops when nothing has happened at the Legislature for months is ridiculous and represents a new low even for the editorial writers of this newspaper.
...(paragraph about Minnesota domestic stuff snipped)
One thing is for sure -- I won't be letting the men and women of the Minnesota National Guard and their important mission in Kosovo take a back seat to partisan theater at the State Capitol. I would also hope that, when it comes to supporting and thanking our troops, the Star Tribune editorial writers would at least pretend to be fair for one day.

Well said, Governor.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The above is to remind the Star Tribune what President Bush really said in his 2003 State of the Union address, because in this July21 editorial they seem to think he said something else....

From loud -- and erroneous -- claims that a link finally had been established between Niger and Iraq, you'd think the entire case for invading Iraq had finally been validated. That's hogwash.

Everyone recalls the issue: Prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration claimed -- most famously in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech -- that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Later, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times saying Bush was wrong and that the CIA knew it. The basis for Wilson's claim: He had traveled to Niger at the CIA's behest to investigate the claims and found them baseless.

The real problem is that Joseph Wilson lied about how he got the task of investigating uranium claims in Niger, and he misrepresented what he reported to the CIA, then publicly accused the President of lying. Earth to Star Tribune: Wilson lied, move on to something else.

Dana Milbank's Point of View Problem

I saw this Washington Post story in this morning's Star Tribune and was planning on commenting about it, but Captain Ed beat me to it (and probably did it better anyway). The only thing I have to add is a question: Why did the Star Tribune print this non-story? The only thing that comes to mind is that they printed it for the same reason that Milbank wrote it: to imply to the public that a president they both hate discriminates against women. Why else does the story not supply comparable figures for previous administrations? My completely unresearched guess is that Milbank didn't want to provide a basis for comparison becuase it might work against what he was trying sell.

From Today's Star Tribune

There were two items of interest to me in today's Strib. The first (free registration required) is a piece by Jim Boyd about how there should be a compromise on abortion, to wit that elective abortions be banned after five months. What interests me is how he justifies the proposal. First, explains how he is personally pro=life, but:

In my personal life, I am strongly prolife. As I look back on the birth and growth of three sons, and now the efforts of young people to birth my grandchildren (the newest due today, the last arriving a month ago), I can't conceive of a scenario in which I would have embraced optional abortion (optional meaning without the life of a woman hanging in the balance).

Now here's the but:

And yet, it is not my right -- nor the right of any American -- to use the state to impose that prolife value on another during the early months of pregnancy. That's because the belief that life begins at conception is not a belief arising from reason and science, but a belief religious people take from their understanding of God. In a land based on the rights of humankind, such religious beliefs do not have a place in the laws that govern human behavior.

The same test applies to definitions of marriage, to the use of stem cells in scientific research, to most questions of sexual behavior and to many, many other issues that vex the nation because of this latter-day confusion over secular state vs. religious nation.

So, in his view the idea that life could start at conception can only be a religious idea that can have no basis in reason and science. Well. How breathtakingly arrogant, condescending, and patronizing. I don't suppose the fact that conception is the 1st point in the process where all the genetic material that defines the new human being is present (and starting to build the new body) has any scientific meaning, at least not in his view. After making such a definitive statement, it wouldn't be too much to ask to back it up with say, facts, or reason, or some sort of logical argument? Apparently not. (But isn't it his personal belief?-ed Sure, but he's the one claiming that it's based on science and reason, so it behooves him to back up his beliefs with, say, science and reason!) So where does life begin for Mr. Boyd?

And yet reason also tells us that somewhere in about the middle of pregnancy, a unique human life does emerge, a life deserving of the rights of humankind the state is organized to protect. We can't nail down precisely when this new life appears; the closest we can come is the age of "viability," when a fetus has developed the ability, with proper nurturing, to live outside the body of its mother.

So much for reason. All he has demonstrated that he doesn't know when life begins any more than I do. I've chosen a more conservative position, he has specified a moving target. If technology advances to the point where a fertilized egg can be grown to childhood outside of the womb at one week, does that mean that life really begins at conception, then? (Yes,that makes abortion a moot point, but this is a hypothetical question used to make a point, so spare me the nitpicking.) I think his actual criteria is, When is it OK to inconvenience a woman who does not want to be pregnant?

The 2nd item is one concerning my least favorite filmmaker/propagandist/liar/manipulator, Michael Moore. This story describes the way Moore misrepresents Congressman Mark Kennedy in Farenheit 9/11 by omitting his actual answers to questions about family serving in Iraq. I don't have much to add as the article speaks for itself, but I do have one question. If this is the kind of dishonest filmmaking that Moore is known for, why did the Star Tribune endorse his movie?

Yet Another Screed from the Star Tribune

Today's lead editorial in the Strib accuses (with little proof) the Senate GOP of protecting the president's backside over the intelligence problems in Iraq. (Note the Star Tribune editorial board never complained about the Democrats covering president Clinton's backside during his troubles...). The occasion for this piece apparently is the release of the Senate Intelligence committee report about Iraq. As the conclusions of the report (the full report is too large for me to download over a dial-up connection) do not even address the Strib's complaints (the next part of the investigation will), it is hard to find any meaningful content in this little screed. This report attempts to document and analyze the intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war. The only thing in this mess that approaches an argument is the Star Tribune's complaint, before it jumps directly to the blame Bush vitriol, is that the investigation should not have been in two parts, but a single investigation along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. Yep, that fine example of a fair, impartial, non-politicized investigation (/sarcasm). The Strib conveniently forgets that a complete investigation probably wouldn't have been completed by the November election. To me, it makes more sense to address the intelligence gathering/analysis failures first. Why? Because it seems to me that any president's decisions are only as good as the information he/she/it bases them on. Therefore, getting reliable, complete (as possible) intelligence is absolutely vital. Placing the political blame is rather secondary. Of course that doesn't fit the Strib's agenda - getting John Kerry elected in November.

Oh, and by the way if you guys at the Star Tribune want to learn how to write a proper, entertaining screed, just look to your own James Lileks.

While I've been away...

I've been on hiatus the last month or so for a couple of reasons, mostly due to troubles controlling asthma but also due to a lack of ambition to write anything. That's one of the good points of having a blog that no one reads - I can step out anytime and no one will notice. (So why this bloviation if no one reads it? -Ed).

Quite a lot has happened in the last month and a half, so I'm going to quickly spout opinions on a selected portion of events.

First, Iraq. Sovereignty has been more or less restored to the Iraqi people, and now the real struggle for the future of Iraq has begun, its outcome to be ultimately determined (as has always been the case) by Iraqis. Saddam Hussein has been turned over to the Iraqis and will be put on trial. Robert Scheer takes another opportunity to make a jackass of himself in this piece in the LA Times (free registration required). He seems upset that Saddam was not charged with the actions that precipitated the invasion of Iraq. Well Robert, despite your rock-solid but clueless convictions, I would like to point out that an Iraqi court probably has a different idea about what the important crimes are. They are probably more concerned about his role in populating the mass graves being found all over Iraq and the torture and rape of his own citizens than they are about his support of terrorists and attempts to build WMD. Keep in mind that Saddam's trial does not parallel the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal all that much. At Nuremberg, the Nazis were primary charged with crimes against the peoples of other nations (excluding the German Jews murdered in the Holocaust). In Saddam's case, the crimes he is charged with are primarily crimes against his own people. It is perfectly just and appropriate that he be tried by Iraqis and punished as they see fit. Claiming that the Iraqi government is just a US puppet (without much evidence) does not change this. In any case, Saddam is getting magnitudes more due process of law than any of his victims.

The Kerry campaign demonstrates more unfitness for high office by his endorsement of the vile, uncalled-for personal attacks at a fundraiser at Radio City in New York. The Democratic Party needs to get its crazies under some semblance of control. For all their complaining about the way the GOP and conservatives treated Bill Clinton, they have gone far beyond that. Various high-profile Dems have accused the president of being a deserter(disproven), a liar (so far unproven), a drug abuser (again with no proof), a dummy, a puppet, etc. since Bush became the GOP nominee for 2000. If Kerry actually has some leadership ability, he should be using it to chastise these intolerant Hollywood hatemongers and morons instead of endorsing their remarks. Example of the stupidity - Meryl Streep castigating the Bush administration for "dropping megaton bombs" on Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq. Since there were no nuclear weapons used in Iraq (fortunately), there were no "megaton" weapons used. My suggestion to Ms. Streep is that she acquire an education before spouting off on foreign policy. She would be less likely to sound like a twit that way.

The Senate report (in pdf format) on the intelligence efforts in Iraq was released today. Conclusion: the intelligence community screwed the pooch and gave the President bad information and analysis. The spin from some Democrats - Bush/Cheney pushed the CIA to produce the erroneous results because they wanted to wage war. Republican spin - Although the intelligence was inexcusably bad the invasion was still correct policy, but we had better fix the intelligence problem. To me, the important bit is the 'Fix the intelligence' part. How do we fix it? I don't have the slightest idea, other than put more emphasis on getting people in on the ground and relying less on technical intelligence gathering.

The death of former President Reagan seemed to generate lots of reverence and respect just short of worship from conservatives and the predictable vitriol from the folks on the left. Personally, I don't know where to rate him as president, other than I think he was above average, especially compared to the folks who served just before and just after him. I think it's really too early to pass historical judgment on his Presidency just yet. I suspect that history will be kind to Ronald Reagan.

Ah, now for my friendly local newspaper. The Star Tribune did indeed live down to my expectations during my hiatus, publishing the usual Bush-hating editorials while ignoring inconvenient facts. The item that most bemused me, however, is a piece by Lori Sturdevant (free registration required). In it, she seems shocked and surpised that two Republicans running in a Republican primary for State Senate would actually um, sound like Republicans and like, mostly agree on how to govern the state. Shocking! She also takes a cheap shot at the Republican leaders in state government, implying they are unable to do the business of government. I suggest she take a look at a Senate DFL leadership that decided that obstruction and inflexibility was the order of the day. They blocked the bonding bill and the budget deal in the last legislative session, and are making a special session impossible through their intransigence.

Thanks...

For various reasons that are unimportant at this time, I never served in the military. This means that I cannot completely know or understand the sacrifices made by the people who serve in our armed forces. So rather than bloviate at length, all I've got to say this Memorial Day is:

For those who stood a post, who have placed their lives on the line in defense of our nation, for those who have chosen to serve where I cannot, thank you for your service.

Praising the Factually Challenged

The Star Tribune ran this mentally-deficient editorial about Michael Moore's latest "documentary", Fahrenheit 9/11 today. The first paragraph gives one a pretty good notion why I called it that:

We haven't seen Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," and so cannot praise or criticize the film on its merits. But enough is known about its ambitions and general thrust to establish that this is something Americans should have a chance to see, and so congratulations are in order -- not only to Moore, but to the Cannes International Film Festival jurors who gave it their top award on Saturday.

The Palme d'Or is of dubious commercial worth, it is said, but in this case it has removed any doubt that deals will be struck to distribute Moore's latest project in the United States, as they already have been struck for every other territory on the planet. Certainly the prize has already increased audience interest in advance of the film's release later this summer. And, as a side benefit, it has added to the deserved embarrassment that Michael Eisner, the Disney chairman, is suffering for having tried to suppress it.

Don't they do any research before they write these things? First they recommend this film without, by their own admission, having seen it and judging on its actual merit. Apparently ambition and the point of view it expresses (trashing the current US administration) is enough. Second, they repeat the discredited story about Disney attempting to suppress this work of 'art'. The facts are a bit different. Disney told Miramax (and Moore) over a year ago that it would not permit Miramax to distribute the film. Moore was always free to peddle his movie elsewhere, so Disney was not trying to suppress it. They just didn't want their name associated with it. Given Moore's strained relationship with the truth, that sentiment is understandable. The Star Tribune even admits that Moore is a less than honest filmmaker:

His "Bowling for Columbine" was shot through with fakery, from the staged gun giveaway at a Michigan bank to the soundly discredited notion that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had gone bowling before slaughtering their high-school compatriots. Nor did it probe deeply into the most troubling aspect of American gun violence: its disproportionate visitation on people who are not white and not wealthy. Moore built the film to look like a documentary, and so no matter how vigorously he rejects that label, he can't easily excuse the liberties it took with facts.

But no critic has yet tagged such a distortion in "Fahrenheit 9/11," which, by all accounts, moves in a very different direction.

The reason that no critic has tagged any distortions in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that people interested in actually critiquing the film haven't had a chance to see it yet. The audience at Cannes was not likely to be one critical of his efforts, given that is an attack on George W. Bush.

The editorial goes on to list events in the movie it heard about in an attempt to make the case that it is factual. Then it makes the following comment about Moore's effort:

Yes, Michael Moore makes polemics in the form of popular films. So what? The points he is raising deserve to be raised, and they demand answers from a president and an administration who remain dedicated to evading the ugliest truths about this war with a combination of secrecy, denial and blithe changes of subject.

Setting aside the unwarranted shot at administration (they don't bother to tell us what "ugliest truths" are being evaded for one thing), the editorial writers go on to praise this factually-challenged clown for making polemics. Since the Star Tribune has now officially endorsed the presentation of distorted facts and misrepresented events as useful and desirable, I'll be looking forward to a positive review of Ann Coulter's next work. I just won't hold my breath while I'm waiting.

Why Abu Ghraib is more important than Nick Berg's execution

Earlier this week my less-than-favorite newspaper published an editorial explaining why the Abu Ghraib is much more important than the story of Nick Berg's execution at the hands of Arab terrorists. Since I disagree with their take on things, I'd like to make a few comments about it. The complete editorial can be found here (free registration required). What follows are quotes from the editorial (in italics), followed by my comments.

Editorial: Berg, Abu Ghraib/Why the focus is on the prison

Not even the barbaric beheading of Nicholas Berg, seen in sickening photos and video worldwide, has derailed the scandal over U.S. abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. That has left some Americans puzzled, especially those who found in the gruesome murder of the innocent young idealist from Pennsylvania a justification for Abu Ghraib. Why focus on the abuse, they ask, when what happened to Berg was infinitely worse and wholly unjustified.
For some, the question is disingenuous; they want the focus away from Abu Ghraib for political reasons, and Berg's death became a lever they could use. But some truly are puzzled about why such energy is going into the prison scandal. There are several reasons, some of them mundane, some more complex.

The main problem here is the attempt to discredit the people asking the question. First is the implication that a significant number of Americans believe that Nick Berg's murder justifies the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I haven't seen that opinion anywhere, so how did the Star Tribune get the idea that kind of opinion is widespread enough to matter? They are also implying that the people who are most questioning of the focus on Abu Ghraib are those who approve of the abusive conduct there. Rather a nasty thing to say about folks who disagree with them, what?

At the level of mundane is this: The prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib weren't the same people as those who killed Berg. They weren't even from the same country. Berg was butchered by Al-Qaida, the real enemy in the war on terror.

The fundamental answer is simpler: Americans are not like Al-Qaida, and we're not like Saddam Hussein. The United States simply doesn't behave as they do, and efforts to find some moral comparison between the prison abuse and the murder of Berg suggest that it should.

Moreover, Al-Qaida doesn't worry about its reputation, but the United States must. It was Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, after all, who lamented that the Abu Ghraib scandal will take decades to undo in the Arab world. That damage has serious implications for the American economy and American security.

This part isn't totally unreasonable, except they continue to propagate (along with the Democratic Party) the idea that Al Qaida is the only enemy. The Bush administration has made it clear all along the enemy is all terrorist organizations with international reach. From President Bush's address to both houses of Congress on September 20th, 2001:

"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

Then they continue on with the following:

But there's another reason this story is gathering, rather than losing, steam: Top civilian and military officials in the U.S. government, many of them Republican, are fueling it. They were sickened by the abuse and the stains it has left on institutions they care about, and they are fed up with the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration. They have resented for a long time the cabal of neoconservatives who call the shots in this administration and who are responsible for the failures in Iraq.

The editors at the Star Tribune seem to think this story is fueled by government disgust with 1.) the Bush administration and 2.) neoconservatives. First, they just state (without a shred of supporting evidence) that the Administration is incompetent and arrogant, as if those opinions are established fact. The voting public will decide that in November. Second, I don't think they would recognize a neoconservative if one walked into their offices, introduced him/her self, and presented them with 'Neoconservatism for Dummies'. After this stuff, they present a semi-chronological account of the events in Iraq, basing some of it on the Seymour Hersh story in the New Yorker. They finish up with the following:

The most fanatical supporters of Bush have started beating the drum that the whole mess is a creature of liberals and the media, who would like to see Bush lose more than they would like to see the United States win in Iraq. Some also add that the International Committee of the Red Cross is a liberal outfit whose reports on prison abuse can't be trusted.

All of that is patent nonsense. Abu Ghraib and the failing Iraq occupation get conflated into a general charge that the Bush administration has shown itself to be wholly incompetent. Much of the harshest criticism is coming from old-line conservatives and Republicans. That's why Abu Ghraib remains in the news: Washington leaders of various political stripes are finding common ground in rising up against the neoconservatives and their delusions of grandeur that have bequeathed the United States the looming disaster it now confronts in Iraq.

The last couple of paragraphs is a contentless attack on the Bush administration. The Star Trib responds to criticisms of the media's handling of this affair by accusing their critics of being fanatical Bush supporters. Well, the Star Trib editorial board is a group of fanatical Bush haters, given the content of their editorials. That hardly makes them objective observers. They then say Abu Ghraib plus the 'failing' Iraq occupation proves Bush to be incompetent. (Of course, the well-executed invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq can't be evidence to the contrary.) They state their opinion of the occupation (that it's failing) as fact, when jury is still out on the question. And then we have the standard 'evil, deluded neocons' argument. Sloppy,sloppy, sloppy.

More Thoughts on Abu Ghraib

A report in yesterday's New York Times indicates that several aggressive methods used by interrogators at the prison. It also reports that these methods were approved by officers that lacked the authority to do so, as that authority rests with General Ricardo Sanchez. The last disturbing fact appears to be that some of the deaths of Iraqis in U.S. custody prisoners/detainees may be homicides.

I draw the following things from the article.

• That we have a problem with some of the military intelligence people in Iraq. Obviously, killing people in our custody (even by accident) is not acceptable conduct. The individuals responsible must be found and appropriately punished.


• There is no evidence as yet that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were condoned by the senior commanders. If this continues to be true, the calls for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation are misplaced. It is completely unreasonable to expect the head of the Department of Defense to control the actions of low-level people in the field. That's what their commanders are for. If Rumsfeld approved a policy of torture and abuse or willingly turned a blind eye to it, then he should be canned as incompetent and possibly tried as a criminal.


• The source of this information is the US military, not the press. The military has discovered and is in the process of investigating the abuses and punishing the offenders. The press' contribution to this process has been just about zero. So why are we being bombarded with this story on a daily basis? What, in the eyes of the media, more should the government be doing about the problem? So far, the only things mention by our media 'watchdogs' is to fire Rumsfeld.

Another question - why has the media downplayed the discovery of sarin in Iraq and the beheading of Nick Berg? It would seem the discovery of a chemical weapon belies the claim that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs. As far as the Berg story, why is it the misconduct by prison guards gets a hundred times more attention than deliberate barbarity committed as matter of policy by our enemies? The Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote an editorial on why they thought Berg's beheading was not important that basically was self-serving bilge plus a cheap attack on Republicans, 'neoconservatives' and the Bush administration. More about that later.

I'm Back

After a brief hiatus due to illness, I'm back here writing again. Respiratory illnesses suck.

Kudos to the Star Tribune

Well, given the amount of space I spend on criticizing the Star Tribune, it is only fair that I complement them when they do something that I do like. In this case, the Strib reprinted a Los Angeles Times piece by Kay Hymowitz critical of that artistic icon of the Left, Michael Moore. My favorite part:

Michael More recently announced that Disney had refused to distribute his new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11". As with all of Moore's pronouncements, you might want to season this one liberally with salt.

Moore - who poses as a heroic truth-teller an who in a speech last year after winning an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine" bemoaned these "fictitious times" - is a virtuoso of fictions himself.

She then goes on to describe some (there wasn't enough space for all) of the misrepresentations and lies made by Moore in the "documentary". Given the bent of the Strib's politics, I applaud their willingness to print something uncomplimentary to someone on their side of the political aisle. Now if they could just apply the same standards to their own editorials...

Newsmagazine? You Must Be Kidding...

While channel surfing a bit after my evening bike ride, I found that one of my favorite programs, Law and Order, has been pre-empted by NBC's Dateline program. The important news story that caused the pre-emption? Two hours about the end of Friends (an "obscure" show that has been running on NBC oh, forever). This event signifying the complete takeover of the news department by NBC's marketing division, I declare that at NBC, journalism has now ended.