Dueling Editorials

Today, the Trib's editorial board takes on their counterparts at the P-G.

It's in a discussion of Senator Obama's statement last July at the Youtube/CNN debate that he'd be willing to meet separately (and without conditions) with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. By the way, here's what Senator Obama said. This is what started all those "appeasement" smears:

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

As David Corn points out, the answer wasn't as nuanced as it should have been.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards responded to the same question, saying that diplomacy is important but that it should start out with low-mid level contacts and then maybe move up. Here's Senator Clinton:

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

Fair enough. But as George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State said:

Transcription from Fox "News":

My view is that you don't just talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies, as well. And the diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies ... necessarily, by talking to them if you're tough and you know what you're doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement. I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 at a time when Syria was on the list of countries who are state sponsors of terrorism. And the 16th trip, guess what? Lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in history to come sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time. And, thereby, implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

So what did The Trib have to say? Here it is:

Even top Democrats are distancing themselves from Barack Obama's pledge to, without conditions, engage in talks with our enemies. Mr. Obama has attempted to nuance his position -- low-level diplomacy would precede high-level talks -- but the damage has been done and political foes are correct to exploit it. ... Ever on the wrong side of rational thought, The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler editorializes that "it's hard to argue that a more civil approach to the nation's enemies wouldn't be more successful." So that's what negotiating with terrorists is -- "a more civil approach"? Yet again, logic continues to be on extended holiday at The Bugler.

Note they don't say which Democrats are distancing themselves. Nor do they note the Republicans who think diplomacy is a good thing (like Secretary Baker, above). But look again at what they quote from the P-G:

...it's hard to argue that a more civil approach to the nation's enemies wouldn't be more successful.

And how they criticise it:

So that's what negotiating with terrorists is -- "a more civil approach"? Yet again, logic continues to be on extended holiday at The Bugler.

Now where does that quotation come from?

Here. It's the editorial from Monday the 19th. Here's the passage in full:

During a Democratic debate last year, Mr. Obama signaled his willingness to talk with North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Iran without preconditions. After years of failed unilateral action and cowboy diplomacy Bush-style, it's hard to argue that a more civil approach to the nation's enemies wouldn't be more successful.

It's easy to see the misdirection The Trib is trying to pull off. The point of the P-G's editorial was that a more civil approach (that is to say, diplomacy) has to be more successful than Bush's failed "cowboy diplomacy."

The Trib missed the point (or maybe they were looking to change the subject). In any event, we can't expect the Trib's editorial board to understand such a complicated sentence.

Numbers

From CNN -

Total number of delegates won

Clinton 1,770
Obama 1,953

Pledged Delegates (from primaries and caucuses)

Clinton 1,493
Obama 1,648

Superdelegates

Clinton 277
Obama 305

Needed to get to 2,026

Clinton 256
Obama 73

Delegates still up for grabs

325 (111 pledged and 215 super)

Sen. Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

From the Associated Press:

BOSTON - A cancerous brain tumor caused the seizure Sen. Edward M. Kennedy suffered over the weekend, doctors said Tuesday in a grim diagnosis for one of American politics' most enduring figures.

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma.His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.

[snip]

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year — and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types — such as glioblastomas — or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.

.

McCain 'kind of like Jesus'

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Columbus — Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

She later said, "I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ" and still later added, "I don't know what 'like' or 'compare' mean."
.

The Real McCain

I saw this at the Burgh Report:

Happy Monday!

Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly revisits Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army.

It's been only about a month and a half since his most recent column about "Mookie" and the Army (and here's my deconstruction of it).

He does his usual spin and his point, I would imagine - seeing as it's in the headline, is to point out:

1. How relatively unimportant Moqtada al-Sadr is and
2. How the media isn't saying that.

Indeed, here's his first sentence:

Few foreign leaders have received as favorable news coverage in the United States as has Moqtada al-Sadr, with less factual basis for it.

So let's see what the experts have to say about al-Sadr. At the Council on Foreign Relations, there's a slightly different story. While pointing out some downward trends in the numbers of the militia and the inconsistent revenue stream funding it, the Mahdi army is described (at a page updated only two days ago on May 16, 2008) this way:

Vali R. Nasr, a CFR adjunct senior fellow and expert in Shiite politics, says that by 2008 Muqtada had expanded his movement from being essentially a Baghdad street force into "a major Shiite movement, with parliamentary presence, political presence, as well as now a very large military presence on the street." Nasr says Sadr "now represents one of the two most important Shia blocs in the country." Yet Sadr is not alone in vying for the popular support of Iraqi Shiites. His chief rivals—including the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party—command support from the country's more conservative middle class. Some experts say clashes between Mahdi fighters, Iraqi forces, and ISCI's Badr Brigade are essentially a class struggle.

They also point out that estimates of Sadr's support base range from 3 million to 5 million.

In the course of his column, Jack also quotes Nibras Kazimi of the New York Sun. Not the first time he's used Kazimi as a source. Also not the first time he's described Kazimi with just:

a resident scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

Not the first time he's omitted Kazimi's connection to the Iraqi National Congress (as listed in his bio at the Hudson Institute):

Nibras Kazimi is a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute. He also writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun. Previously, he directed the Research Bureau of the Iraqi National Congress in Washington DC and Baghdad, and was a pro-bono advisor for the Higher National Commission for De-Ba'athification, which he helped establish and staff.

Do I need to point out again how much good research came out of the Iraqi National Congress in the run up to dubya's war? Or what a good idea the de-Ba'athification of Iraq was?

A good example of Kelly's spinning happens here:

The sporadic fighting has gone badly for the Mahdi Army, which has lost nearly 600 men in Sadr City. This is why Mookie agreed to a conditional surrender on May 10. The Mahdi Army will cease all attacks. Iraqi government forces can enter Sadr City to serve arrest warrants and seize medium and heavy weapons, though the Sadrists may keep their small arms.

If the terms are lived up to, the Mahdi Army will have lost its last stronghold in Iraq. But in an amazing reprise of the bogus Basra narrative, some journalists described this conditional surrender as a victory for Mookie.

"Al-Sadr wins another round," said Mark Kukis of Time Magazine. Mookie "is still controlling the agenda tactically and politically," he said.

Here's Kukis' article from Time. Kukis writes about another hastily drawn up ceasefire and adds:

Details of the cease-fire remain largely unclear beyond an immediate end to the battles that have displaced thousands of residents from the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, a vast slum home to more than 2 million people.

In announcing the deal, al-Sadr aide Sheik Salah al-Obeidi said the agreement, "stipulates that the Mahdi Army will stop fighting in Sadr City and will stop displaying arms in public. In return, the government will stop random raids against al-Sadr followers and open all closed roads that lead to Sadr City."

Al-Obeidi, who issued a statement from the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, added: "This document does not call for disbanding al-Mahdi Army or laying down their arms."

The fact that a leading figure in al-Sadr's ranks announced the deal and pointedly rejected the Iraqi government's key demand to disarm suggests that the cleric is still controlling the agenda tactically and politically despite the most serious challenge his power the Iraqi government could muster.

Which is somewhat different from what Jack wrote.

But that's our Jack.

Cracked Windows at Planned Parenthood, Downtown

On Saturday (yesterday) I happened to be walking down Liberty Avenue about 1pm. Passing by the Planned Parenthood clinic, I saw this:

Here's a closer view:

Anyone have any idea what broke the window?

With all the security at the clinic I would assume that whatever happened, the authorities were notified immediately. However, I googled the local news and found no mention of anything.

Anyone know what's going on?

UPDATE: Chris Potter of the City Paper added a comment that I wanted to elevate up to the posting. Here it is:

One of the City Paper staff noticed this as well. But PPWP assures us that it was just a drunken accident on some pedestrian's part.

End of story. Thanks, Mr Potter!

March and Rally for Darfur

The Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition is holding a march and rally this Sunday:


Actually, you'll need to click HERE to sign up.

Melissa Hart Rewrites Her Own Political History

Our favorite former Housemember, Melissa Hart, stopped by The Conversation this week to have a chat with the tie-dyed, long-haired, commie-pinko, hippie freak, Bill Toland.

And Missy tries to rewrite her own political history in the first coupla minutes. The interesting stuff happens early on when Toland asks about the current national political climate. Here's a transcript of that part of The Conversation:

BT: It's been bad so far for republicans. Lost special elections in Mississippi, Illinois and now Louisiana. Is it a bad year for you guys? Are you hoping that'll turn around, I'm assuming, by November?

MH: Well first of all I think the Republican brand has been damaged. I don't know all the specifics of the local issues that were involved in those races. You know our race is a local race. There's six counties here that need to elect a congressman and hopefully that'll be me. My goal is to go back and reemphasize with folks the positions I take on issues. Where I stand. The priorities I have for the region. And how hard I work. A lot of folks are behind me in that campaign.

BT Why do you think that message didn't resonate two years ago?

MH: In 2006 I think it was a national election. You saw just across the board the president being unpopular, the war really putting people on edge – and appropriately. Questions that they had about current leadership. Scandals with some congressman taking bribes. Congressmen sending sexual e-mails to children. I mean, come on -

BT: That does hurt, yea.

MH: - that's not a good thing. People should be held responsible for that. I served on the ethics committee and we did hold them responsible for that. [emphasis added.]

So Melissa Hart now thinks that it was "appropriate" that the war put people on edge in 2006.

But take a look at what she was saying before the 2006 election.

It's June of 2006 and Henry Hyde has introduced House Resolution 861 that declares in part:

that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

That meant, back then, that the House would not favor any date being set to bring the troops back home. In fact the resolution:

declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq

There it is. No timeline for withdrawal and the troops will stay there until Iraq is safe and secure (How's that going, Missy? Just asking.) This Resolution is exactly the sort of stuff that put the electorate on edge back in 2006. And guess who voted in favor of that resolution? That's right. Melissa Hart, along with most of the Republicans in the House. Take a look.

Any wonder why they were voted out of power?

But there's more. Keep in mind that now she says it's appropriate for the voters back then to have been on edge about the war. But in her supporting statements for H.Res 861 (found here at the invaluable C-Span archives) she has a very different outlook on those opposing dubya's war.

Here's what she said:

As I traveled with seven colleagues earlier this year to visit our troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, I learned a great deal about the American spirit, the spirit of our volunteer servicemen and women and what drives them to risk it all. It is the defense of freedom. It is the understanding that vigilance and sacrifice are requirements for our Nation's security.

Back home in the comfort of their living rooms though, many Americans lack that focus. They forgot about Iraq's violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and the mounting incidence of attacks on our Nation leading up to 9/11. They began to loudly dissent and doubt and distract from our mission in Iraq.

One of the generals who I spoke with while I was in Kuwait took the opportunity in a quiet conversation to ask a very pointed question. He said, is America fighting this war, or is it just our military who is fighting this war?

We today, together with all Americans, must answer that general's thoughtful question. We must answer it for him, for ourselves, for the rest of the world, but especially for our enemies, so they know America is truly committed to liberty and the victory of civility and opportunity for all who love freedom and support democracy.

These enemies have long been committed to robbing the world of liberty. The United States and others have been targets of these terrorists many times leading up to 9/11 because of our commitment to the ideal of freedom. These enemies include regimes which harbor terrorists, but most especially those loosely connected terrorist organizations operating outside a national framework who share an ideology of oppression, tyranny, control, hatred resentment. They value no life, no man, no woman, no child.

We Americans cannot continue to be free if we spend all our time questioning our mission. Many Americans want to debate the validity of prewar intelligence or weapons of mass destruction. Whether one nation or another supported al Qaeda, how many troops do we need? Americans have to look beyond the tactical challenges.

We must do as Tony Blair did. The people who are fighting us, he said, know what is at stake. The question is, do we?

Notice the insulting jabs at the people "back home in the comfort of their living rooms" "distracting" from "our mission in Iraq." She's charges that the people questioning the war didn't know what's at stake. She charges that the people questioning the war weren't committed to liberty. She charges that we cannot continue to be free if we spend all our time questioning the mission, and that the debate on prewar intelligence and WMD were just "tactical challenges" we have to "look beyond."

And now those dissents are ok.

She needs to explain her flip-flop.

Bush plays the Nazi Card against Obama/Democrats

From The New York Times:

JERUSALEM — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to liken those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis — a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.

My thoughts on this:

1) Bonus points for playing the Nazi Card in Israel!
2) Considering that Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power, he should know a lot about nazis!
3) Bush is starting to sound like vintage Santorum!
.

Closing in on Rove

From CBS News The Politico:

(The Politico) Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

Conyers said the committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the imprisonment of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, among other things.

"We want him for so many things, it's hard to keep track," Conyers said.

.

"I do it sometimes with all kinds of people" (who do not have penises)

"It's not Tootsie or Toots or Sweetie or Honey or Doll."
Yes, Sen. Obama called a female reporter who was just trying to do her job '"sweetie":


Yes, he apologized:

"Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."

Yes, he's done this before to another women who was just trying to do her job:

While flirting with female factory workers in Allentown, he called one "sweetie," a paternalistic way to address a woman if there ever was one. It might have worked had he been trying to do his best imitation of Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, the telephone operator, but this was no spoof. This was Obama trying to relate to working-class women in a way that went directly south.

And, yes, it is a problem.

Numbers

In all the articles and opinion pieces rightfully condemning those in West Virginia who said that race was a factor in their decision to not vote for Sen. Obama, I don't recall this exit poll stat making much (any?) news:

About one in five Clinton voters said gender was an important factor in their vote. Nearly as many Obama voters said that.

Perhaps we'll see a skit this weekend on Saturday Night Live where an actor playing Barack Obama says, "My supporters are misogynists."

(No, I'm not holding my breath.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"At least I'm not racist" Cartoon

"Misogyny I Won't Miss"

.

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The California Supreme Court struck a historic but possibly short-lived blow for gay rights Thursday, overturning a state law that allowed only opposite-sex couples to marry.

In a 4-3 ruling that elicited passionate responses on both sides of the debate and touched off celebrations at San Francisco City Hall - the scene of nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings four years ago that were invalidated months later - the court said the right to marry in California extends equally to all, gay and straight alike.

Additional Story:
Tears of joy as same-sex marriage advocates get the word

Should we call this "Golf-gate"?

Remember this?

More lying from dubya. Check this out from the Washington Post. First the set-up that everyone knows by now:

The nation is in despair over the war in Iraq and the toll it is taking on our troops and their families. But President Bush shows no outward sign of inner pain.

He is chipper in his public pronouncements. His weekly bike rides and daily workouts have put a perpetual spring in his step. He's always ready with a wisecrack. He just hosted his daughter's wedding at his multi-million dollar estate in Texas. He takes more vacations than any president in history. He has made clear that he doesn't lie awake at nights.

And yet now it turns out that Bush has indeed made a personal sacrifice on account of the war. According to the president yesterday, his decision to stop playing golf five years ago wasn't just an exercise in image control or a function of his bum knee -- it was an act of solidarity with the families of the dead and wounded.

He gave up golf out of solidarity to the troops and their families (and I am sure they are all very grateful).

Only he didn't:

Not only is it a hollow, trivial sacrifice at best, Bush's story doesn't hold water. While he dates his decision to abjure golf to Aug. 19, 2003 -- the day a truck bomb in Baghdad killed U.N. special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and more than a dozen others -- the Associated Press reported on Oct. 13, 2003, that he'd spent a "cool, breezy Columbus Day" playing "a round of golf with three long-time buddies.

"Bush played at Andrews Air Force Base with Clay Johnson, Office of Management and Budget deputy director, Richard Hauser, Department of Housing and Urban Development general counsel and another friend, Mike Wood."

On that outing, he was typically full of what passes for good humor at the White House. The AP reported: "'Fine looking crew you got there. Fine looking crew,' Bush joked to reporters. 'That's what we'd hope for presidential coverage. Only the best.'

"He hit a couple of practice balls before flaring his tee-off shot into the right rough."

By the way, he still rides his mountain bike and works out every day. I guess that doesn't send the wrong message.

By way of the Washington Post article you can find this at worldgolf.com:

Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other president - 453 days to be exact. He’s never attended a slain soldier’s funeral. He’s spent time fishing and endlessly clearing brush on his ranch, and attending his daughter’s lavish wedding, among other things. But golf? Well, that would just send the wrong signal to the thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families.

War supporters take note - put away your golf clubs. It’s just disrespectful.

But of course dubya carries the biggest burden for the war. The VP sed so:

Well, 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. It places a special burden, obviously, on the families. We recognize, I think -- it's a reminder of the extent to which we're blessed with families who have sacrificed as they have. The President carries the biggest burden, obviously; he's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans. But we are fortunate to have the 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. You wish nobody ever lost their life, but unfortunately it's one of those things that go with living in the world we live in. Sometimes you have to commit military force, and when you do, there are casualties.

Yea, making the decision that ended up sending 4,000 to their deaths is so much worse than being among the families of those 4,000. Maybe they should think about taking up golf.

Edwards to Endorse Obama

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor confirms that Edwards will indeed endorse Obama today.

Edwards couldn't have picked a safer time to endorse -- he did it after it became obvious that the nomination was largely a foregone conclusion. And he did it after Obama lost big in West Virginia, among just the sort of voters Edwards is supposed to have sway among.

While it's true that his endorsement could make a difference in Kentucky, the fact that he waited this long -- and did it after dropping repeated public hints that he would stay neutral -- suggests that this was less than a profile in courage on Edwards' part.

Late Update: On the other hand, if the Obama campaign held this to roll out after the West Virginia loss, which seems probable, the timing in some ways was shrewd.

Posted without comment.

Thanks, Crooks and Liars & Blue Gal!

David was away and I had a personal emergency which took me completely from my keyboard for four days so I missed this on Crooks and Liars on Friday night:


I only caught it today because I noticed a fivefold spike in our hits on Saturday and went looking.

I'm guessing that Blue Gal took the image from a screen capture of our header. The original graphic can be found at this post from back in December of 2005.

Gee, That's Nice

From the Politico:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families.

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It's just not worth it anymore to do.’"

That's right. Dubya's given up golf to "acknowledge the sacrifice" of the troops he sent to Iraq.

4,000 dead, tens of thousands maimed, even more suffering PTSD and to balance things out, dubya's decided not to hit a Titleist into a little hole in the grass.

Other dubya news from the same article:

The president said global warming has “been more clearly defined as a problem” during his eight years in office, and when asked if it is real, Bush said: “Yes, it is real; sure is.”

So now do I get to call Mike Pintek and quote dubya at him when he calls global warming a hoax?

PLEASE??