JABBS

Fox News Remains Ratings King, But Ratings Slid In 2006

2007-01-04T08:19:00.000-05:00

Fox News Channel's prime-time lineup saw its ratings slide in 2006.

About 20 percent fewer viewers -- and 25 percent in the precious 25-54 age group -- watched Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly Factor and the rest of Fox News' nightly shows.

Fox News remains the ratings king, with 1.4 million viewers nightly.

MSNBC -- led by buzzworthy Keith Olbermann -- was the only cable news network to see its ratings climb last year. MSNBC, ranked third among the four news channels, was up 6 percent for the year, but up a whopping 22 percent in the fourth quarter, when the network's prime-time line-up was revamped to focus primarily on the midterm elections.

Most of those viewers seem to have come from Fox News. As JABBS noted last month, Fox News' ratings were down 24 percent from October 2005 to October 2006, and were down 19 percent from November 2005 to November 2006 -- the peak of election season.

At the time, Fox News executives spun that their ratings declined because of a slow news year. Others have rightly suggested that the ratings drop mirrors a change among voters, and a rejection of the conservative analysis that makes up Fox News' nightly lineup.

Savage: Man-Made Global Warming Doesn't Explain End Of Ice Age

2007-01-04T07:46:00.000-05:00

On last night's edition of Savage Nation, conservative radio ranter Michael Savage chastised a caller for suggesting that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

His reason? If man was to blame, then how did the ice ages end, long before man-made emissions?

It's a false premise relying on "truthiness" -- a gut feeling, rather than a concept based on scientific research.

It's like comparing a falling tree punching a hole in your roof and a hole forming in your roof because you used substandard material. Both events caused a hole in your roof, but the first was a natural occurrence, and the second was a man-made occurrence. One has nothing to do with the other.

How cozy it must be inside that bubble -- free of science.

Savage won't tell his listeners that the National Academy of Sciences has unequivocally concluded that "Human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” or that a 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries -- stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

It's cozy in the bubble, where Savage can lash out at "ecofreaks" like Al Gore. Savage would never tell you that Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, got a thumbs-up for conveying the science correctly from 19 climate experts.

Administration Official Tells NBC News That Troop Surge In Iraq Is "Political Decision"

2007-01-04T01:19:00.000-05:00

"(O)ne administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today."

-- NBC News Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, Jan. 3

The above sentiment would be consistent with comments made in November by CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.”

Abizaid -- perhaps not coincidentally -- submittted plans to retire two weeks ago, and will leave his post in March.

That's what happens when you have a foreign policy that is one part failed neocon theory and one part empty catch phrases and other conservative spin -- like "I will listen to my commanders on the ground."

The truth is, Bush listens to his commanders when they tell him what he wants to hear. Otherwise, such commanders suddenly retire.

***

Liberal journalist Robert Parry wrote yesterday that the political decision of a troop surge should be called: "Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy, with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President."

I hope he's wrong -- I still have hope that some combination of military and diplomatic efforts can get the U.S. out of Iraq with the fragile democracy intact. But I fear Parry's right about Bush's motives.

Forget Conservative Talking Heads And Radio Ranters. Broad Majority Of Americans Support "Liberal Ideas"

2007-01-04T00:44:00.000-05:00

The conservative talking heads and radio ranters would have you believe that "cut and run" liberals, with their "San Francisco values" plan to lead the country astray.

These fringe conservatives represent the know-nothings, creating fictional "liberal" straw men that they can knock down. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Mark Levin, and you know who to get angry at: "Hillary Rotten Clinton" or "Schmucky Schumer." Laugh with them at Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi, make fun of Barack Obama's name, misrepresent what they stand for, and hope you share their anger.

But just because these yahoos say they represent "mainstream" values doesn't mean anyone has to believe them. Americans just need to know the facts, and frame the subject accordingly.

A new poll from CNN helps. It gives more strong evidence that the "liberal" ideas mocked by conservatives are, in fact, mainstream views. In issue after issue, Americans are siding with Pelosi, Obama, Feinstein and the rest, and not George W. Bush or his conservative Congressional counterparts.

Consider some poll results:

-- Raising the minimum wage: 85 percent favor, 14 percent oppose.

-- Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84 percent favor, 15 percent oppose.

-- Creating an independent panel to oversee Congressional ethics: 79 percent favor, 19 percent oppose.

-- Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 75 percent favor, 21 percent oppose.

-- Implementing all anti-terrorism recommendations of 9/11 Commission: 64 percent favor, 26 percent oppose.

-- Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research: 62 percent favor, 32 percent oppose.

It should be noted that all of the above are issues the new Democratic majorities in Congress plan to address.

***

It would be easy (and I'm paraphrasing Levin) to just scream at the conservative pundits, "Get off the radio, you big dope!"

But we know that isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. Free speech -- even ridiculous, mean-spirited, ill-informed speech -- is something that we must all defend.

As Michael Douglas, as President Andrew Shepherd said in the 1995 movie The American President: "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

They want you to try to stop them, so they can change the subject from what Americans want, to some fake battle over "liberal media bias."

Instead, shut these people up is with facts. Defends "mainstream" values, not as defined by Mark Levin, but as defined by a wide American majority.

Soldier Asks What Will "Next Story" Be To Keep Troops In Iraq

2007-01-03T08:14:00.000-05:00

U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial,'' said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?''

-- Associated Press report, Dec. 30

***

That's a very good question. Does anyone have an answer?

The most recent "next story" given by President Bush for staying in Iraq was "to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time."

Of course, the "Bush Doctrine" on fledgling Middle East democracies doesn't extend to the Palestinians, Lebanese or Egyptians. That's what happens when you have a foreign policy that is one part failed neocon theory and one part empty catch phrases and other conservative spin.

***

Just 16 percent of Americans think the federal government reflects the "will of the people." Just 11 percent agree with the latest neocon theory -- the "McCain Doctrine" -- which calls for the U.S. to increase troops levels in Iraq. Bush is expected to follow through on this gameplan.

The administration spin -- the "next story" -- is that by increasing troops, the U.S. can gain control over violence in Baghdad, then speed up the handover of territory to Iraqi forces.

It sounds good on paper, but the Bush Administration has been wrong so many times on Iraq, Americans have the right to be skeptical.

Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary in the Reagan Administration, offered two reasons to be worried that this "next story" will not be the last: "If you send another 20,000 more troops, casualties are going to go up, you're going to increase the Iraqi's dependence on us."

And of course, there are s problem with stretching the military so thin -- ranging from anxiety, depression and acute stress to suicide. But such concerns rarely get in the way of neocon theory.

Happy New Year, America

2007-01-01T00:29:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year, America.

For my New Year's resolution, I ask that you watch this five-minute video. Send the link to your friends and loved ones. Send it to your Representatives in Congress and your Senators. Send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Help its message travel around the world.

Watch this video, and think about the 3,000 troops who have died in Iraq. Think about their friends and loved ones, who no longer have a brother, sister, father, mother or friends to hold.

Watch it, and be thankful that you have someone to hold.

***

Happy New Year to our leaders. May they have the wisdom and strength to do what's right and good -- not with empty slogans but with deeds, not for their egos but for their countrymen and women.

It's a lot to ask. More than we've received in recent years.

Happy New Year to our troops. The war will not end in 2007, but perhaps this will be the year when we can seriously begin planning your return home, so that you may once again hold close your loved ones. Be safe.

***

Too often, asking for peace is chastised as weak or naive, something to stereotype as the fancy of hallucinatory hippies dancing in some San Francisco park. It's easier to laugh at the peace groups, or look the other way. It's harder to consider peace a viable option when war is afoot.

But a large majority of Americans want to see a change, quickly, in the path the U.S. has taken in the Middle East. Overwhelmingly, the American people do not believe their government represents their will.

They want peace. They don't want weakness. They don't want appeasement. They don't want to "cut and run" or embolden the terrorists, or some other empty catch-phrase uttered by conservative radio ranters. They just want a solution in the Middle East that doesn't require another 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers.

Rice Explains Why U.S. Won't "Just Talk To Iran" Or Syria

2006-12-30T01:40:00.000-05:00

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice argued last week that the U.S. can't "just talk to Iran" or Syria.

Why? Because if "the Iranians and the Syrians want to act to stabilize Iraq, they can do that without talking to us," she told Margaret Warner of PBS' NewsHour.

Sort of circular logic, doncha think? We don't need to talk to them because they don't have to talk to us if we or they want a stabilized Iraq?

Rice also fears that any diplomacy would lead to the Iranians and Syrians seeking "some kind of trade." But that merely represents the Bush Administration (read: neocon) belief that diplomacy equals appeasement. Just because the Iranians or Syrians may want something does not mean that we have to appease their wishes.

"(T)he idea that we somehow have to tell them what to do in order to stabilize Iraq when they, in fact, are the ones who are destabilizing Iraq?" Rice said. "They know what they're doing. They can stop it on any day."

That's true. But they have been given no reason to fall into line. While the U.S. has failed to consider diplomacy, even when Syria has asked for it, Iran has tried to flex its muscles as a regional power. The longer Iraq remains a mess, the better the chances that Iran (with Syria in tow) can influence its future.

"They are, by the way, talking to the Iraqis about how to (stabilize Iraq). They are, by the way, members of the International Compact for Iraq," Rice said.

You would think a red flag would be raised, or warning bells would go off. The longer we leave Iran and Syria alone talking with Iraq, the harsher the price will be. If Rice is worried about Iran or Syria seeking "some kind of trade" now, how will she feel if Iraq's government allies itself with those countries -- and turns against the U.S.?

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-29T00:29:00.000-05:00

When people were asked in an Associated Press-AOL News poll to name the villains and heroes of the year, Bush topped both lists, in a sign of these polarized times.

Bush won the villain sweepstakes by a landslide, with one in four respondents putting him at the top of that bad-guy list. When people were asked to name the candidate for villain that first came to mind, Bush far outdistanced even Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader in hiding; and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is scheduled for execution.

The president was picked as hero of the year by a much smaller margin. In the poll, 13 percent named him as their favorite while 6 percent cited the troops in Iraq.

***

Perhaps one reason people don't like Bush -- beyond the failures in Iraq, the bungling of Hurricane Katrina, etc. -- is that the man just doesn't seem to work very hard, even in the face of catastrophes.

As the Associated Press noted yesterday: President Bush worked nearly three hours at his Texas ranch on Thursday to design a new U.S. policy in Iraq."

Three hours. Phew. Guess he had to make time for those photo-ops clearing brush.

It reminds me of the image of Bush flying over the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina -- spending far too little time on the problems at hand. This was before he was given a DVD briefing him on the situation, and long before he had his photo-op showing off how much he cared.

Campaign 2008: Four Years Ago, The "Liberal Media" Trashed Kerry Because Of His Wealth. Here We Go Again ...

2006-12-28T23:59:00.000-05:00

Here we go again.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" picked on John Kerry's wealth, trying to suggest that it was a metaphor for someone out of touch with the needs of mainstream America.

Now, if this MSNBC image is any indicator, John Edwards will be the candidate picked on for his wealth.

It won't matter, I guess, what the personal wealth is of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or whomever else wins the Republican presidential nomination. The "liberal media" loves a storyline when it finds one, and "wealthy Democrat" may once again be too good to pass up.

***

During Campaign 2004, the New York Times published at least three splashy stories detailing John Kerry's wealth, as well as describing mannerisms that would suggest he was wealthy.

The Times prattled on about Kerry's highbrow pronunciations, described a campaign assistant as a "butler," and told us that "some Democrats" were worried that Kerry liked to vacation among the wealthy in Nantucket.

Those same articles offered contrasting images of President Bush as someone who "despite his own family's legacy of wealth and political power, manages to come off as a simple-hearted Texan," failed to discuss the help Bush had gotten along the way in creating his own fortune -- such as how he used borrowed money to make a killing as part owner of baseball's Texas Rangers -- or how his family had long vacationed among the wealthy in Kennebunkport, Maine, long before he was providing the made-for-spin image of clearing brush in Crawford, Texas.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" had a story to tell. Kerry was wealthy, and out of touch with the common man. Bush was wealthy, but in touch with the common man.

To make those stories work, the "liberal media" had to paint a picture. Kerry had a butler and correctly pronounced words. Bush liked to clear brush and eat barbecue.

***

Fast forward to the current election cycle.

Here we go again, America. John Edwards is the new candidate to annoint as "wealthy." Let the stereotyping and storytelling begin.

Campaign 2008: Did You Know That His Full Name Is Barack Hussein Obama?

2006-12-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama, the popular Democratic Senator from Illinois and possible 2008 presidential candidate, doesn't use his middle name as say, John Quincy Adams or William Henry Harrison did. He doesn't even refer to it -- as say, George W. Bush does with his middle initial.

But conservatives want you, the voter, to associate Obama with his middle name, in the hopes of scaring you into thinking anyone named Hussein must have ties to terrorism, or at the very least, brutal Iraqi dictators.

It all began last month, when GOP strategist Ed Rogers ridiculed Obama on MSNBC's Hardball, making sure to note that Obama's middle name is "Hussein." Now, references to "Barack Hussein Obama" are commonplace on conservative websites.

Forget that "Hussein" -- Arabic for "good, small handsome one" -- is a popular name throughout Africa and the Middle East. Forget that in Obama's case, it's a family moniker passed down from his Kenyan father and grandfather.

Conservatives want to scare you. And if that means saying "Hussein" early and often, so be it.

***

If the middle name isn't enough to scare you, then conservatives hope Obama -- which of course, sounds like Osama -- will do the trick.

Right-wing Web site Freerepublic.com has featured a photoshopped image of "Senator Osama Obama," and Rush Limbaugh has for some time called him "Obama Osama."

Other conservatives, like CNBC's Larry Kudlow, have "accidentally" referred to Obama as "Osama."

***

Will all the conservative scare tactics work?

The Chicago Tribune asked that question this week. The answer, apparently, is "not always."

"People have unconscious, emotional reactions to names," Cleveland Kent Evans, a psychologist who studies the practice and effect of naming, told the Tribune. "And there's a lot of psychological research that shows people do a lot of unconsciously prejudiced things. But most people do not think of themselves as biased. And when those things become conscious, when they realize they're in danger of doing something against their values, it may be more likely that they're going to behave the opposite way."

In other words, if the conservative talking heads and radio ranters play the scare card too often, it's bound to backfire.

This may all be moot if Obama decides not to run for president. But clearly, conservatives are scared enough to lay the ugly groundwork in hopes of derailing him.

Syria Ambassador To U.S. Says He Wants Dialogue On Iraq's Future

2006-12-27T23:15:00.000-05:00

Syria’s ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha, told the Wall Street Journal that Syria wants to engage with the U.S. on Iraq’s future.

Moustapha noted that Condoleeza Rice is the first Secretary of State since 1974 "to have no working relationship with Syria whatsoever.”

Three of Rice’s predecessors as secretaries of state — James Baker, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell — have argued recently in favor of engaging Syria. Another former Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, shuttled between Damascus and Jerusalem to negotiate a truce between Israel and Hezbollah in 1996.

But, Moustapha said, Rice "won’t listen to her former colleagues. ... (S)he has made up her own mind: Engagement with the Syrians does not benefit."

Maybe it's not fair to blame Rice. She is only carrying out the Bush Administration (read: neocon) gameplan, which argues that diplomacy with a country with ties to terrorism is equal to appeasement.

The last we heard from the State Department on Syria was more tough talk -- which has worked so well with the "Axis of Evil" and would-be members like Syria. State Department Deputy Tom Casey said last month that the problem "is not what they say; the problem is what they do."

But only a fool would think that there is no benefit from a face-to-face conversation with the "enemy." Only a fool would think that by sitting down with Syria, we would not be able to talk tough -- that to sit with them would make the U.S. the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's England.

As JABBS noted in July, the fact that the Bush Administration hasn't talked with Syria has had only negative effects. The U.S. has had no ability to set the terms on issues from "foreign fighters" crossing over the Syrian-Iraqi border to Syria's continued assistance of Hezbollah.

Syria is not to be commended for its ties to terrorism. But to look the other way -- as the Bush team has chosen to do -- is only hurting the long-term stability of the Middle East.

And Now For Something Completely Different ...

2006-12-27T21:54:00.000-05:00

"In any event, we find widespread agreement among Republicans that U.S. troops must be leaving Iraq at the end of 2007 to avoid catastrophe in 2008."

-- Evans-Novak Political Report, Dec. 27

If this prediction came true, that would certainly be "good news" for the country, even if it provided a short-term boost in the polls for the GOP. But it's hard to envision the neocons that have President Bush's ear advocating troop redeployment under Bush's watch.

More likely, Bush will propose redeploying the additional troops brought to Iraq -- the so-called short-term "surge" -- and try to spin this as the first step in the road to victory there, whatever "victory" means.

Bush "Encouraged" By Moderates' Gains In Iran, But Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2006-12-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

President Bush was encouraged by moderates' gains in this month's Iranian elections, according to Jewish leaders who met with him earlier this month.

Bush has been surprisingly mum about the elections, in which allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost ground among the main political groups, which analysts have said was a setback for the fiery leader and a possible sign of growing frustration among Iranians.

Bush did say at a press conference last week that Iranians "can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have."

But why hasn't Bush spoken out more about the elections? Or better yet, why hasn't Bush used the election results as an opportunity to try to reign in Iran through diplomacy?

I'm paraphrasing the late Israeli leader Abba Eban, but Bush, it would seem, "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity" when it comes to diplomatic solutions for the Middle East.

***

It would be easy for Bush, or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on his behalf, or some coalition of U.S. leaders -- James Baker and Colin Powell come to mind -- to reach out to Ahmadinejad and quietly say that if he continues to isolate his country on the wrong side of the "Axis of Evil," only bad things can come to him and his country.

Another angle would be to reach out to our "moderate" Middle East friends to bridge the gap with Ahmadinejad.

The key is that diplomacy does not equal appeasement, as the conservative talking heads and radio ranters will tell you. British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who last month said that Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East -- understood as much when he said that it is absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to appeasement.

While the U.S. has stayed on the sidelines, Ahmadinejad has tried to flex his country's muscles, reaching out to Iraq and Syria.

And the U.S. reaction has been to continue to polarize Iran. The Bush Administration says Iran is interfering with Iraq, and this week announced it had linked Iranians detained last week in Iraq with shipments of weapons to groups in Iraq.

We should remain tough with Iran, and try to seal off Iranian help to Iraqi insurgents. But being tough and having a dialogue are not mutually exclusive. Again, the Bush Administration has to stop believing neocon advisors who insist that diplomacy equals appeasement.

The election results in Iran have opened a door. Bush can score political points here at home -- given that just about everyone outside the neocon universe thinks the U.S. needs to open diplomatic channels -- and it might actually help contain an increasingly unstable Middle East.

Biden, Agreeing With Overwhelming American Majority, Says He'll Oppose Effort To Increase Troops In Iraq

2006-12-26T23:12:00.000-05:00

Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said today he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call.

And of course, he's right. Conservative television pundits and radio ranters spin that only "cut and run" liberals with "San Francisco values" oppose Bush's gameplan for Iraq. But the truth is that a poll this month from CNN found just 11 percent of Americans supported the idea of sending more troops to Iraq.

Biden is going against incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who said earlier this month he would be open to a short-term increase in troops.

Why is Reid wrong? As liberal pundit Rachel Maddow noted recently, Reid is incorporating a "triangulation" strategy -- trying to find a middle ground between an option almost no one favors (a surge in troops) and one that a majority supports (beginning redeployment within a year). The result is mush. Maddow correctly said that Reid should stop acting likely a minority party representative, and recognize why the Democrats regained control of both Houses of Congress.

***

Biden warned that congressional Republicans — not Democrats — would suffer in the 2008 elections if they do not join him in speaking out against Bush and opposing troop increases in Iraq.

That remains to be seen. But a number of Senate Republicans up for election in 2008, including Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) clearly oppose the plan to add more troops. It's not beyond reason to think these two have one eye on their re-election campaigns.

Pentagon Considers Fast-Tracking Citizenship For Immigrants Willing to Serve

2006-12-26T00:54:00.000-05:00

The military is considering a proposal to put more immigrants on a faster track to U.S. citizenship ... if they volunteer to join the armed forces.

President Bush asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week to come up with a plan to expand the military. But recruiters are finding it increasingly difficult to find recruits.

But does the U.S. really want to grow our military by adding foreigners?

The Pentagon still has to decide on specifics, such as English proficiency, but the wheels are clearly turning. The loophole that would be used is a a recent change in law -- thanks, Republican Congress -- that gives the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the U.S. if it determines it is vital to national security.

As the "war on terror" is vital to national security, ipso facto the U.S. must have immigrants in the armed forces.

Already, the Army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, told the Boston Globe.

***

There are critics of the proposal, including some within the Army who told the Globe that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire."

The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict.

Here are some questions I'd like answered:

-- If the proposal is accepted, would our borders suddenly become more open to "foreign fighters?"

-- Would the U.S. limit immigration for humanitarian reasons -- refugees, political prisoners, etc. -- to increase the number of immigrants who had a history of weapon use?

-- While changing the mix of immigrants may provide a short-term gain for the military, wouldn't it cause a long-term deficit for the U.S. as a whole?

Pentagon Cited For Weak Oversight Of Contractors In Iraq

2006-12-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon is not providing adequate oversight of private companies that support American military operations in Iraq, according to a report issued last week by the Government Accountability Office.

This shouldn't be a surprise for close watchers of the Bush Administration, which in spite of spin to the contrary has proven to be among the least fiscally sound governments in American history.

Because of a shortage of managers on the front lines to oversee contractor support, there is no accountability or assurance that the military is getting the services it has paid for.

Amazingly, the Pentagon does not know how many contractors currently are working in Iraq and living on the American bases that have sprung up around the country, the GAO noted. The Army admitted in October that it was struggling to complete a census of the contractors used in Iraq, and that its data would ultimately not meet the standards requested by the Office of Management and Budget.

Recruiters Go Far And Wide In Effort To Grow Military

2006-12-24T22:07:00.000-05:00

Even before President Bush asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week to come up with a plan to expand the military, recruiters were having a hard time finding people willing and able to join the armed forces during war time.

In October, recruiters in the New York metropolitan area were caught on tape lying about the odds of a recruit winding up in Iraq, or about the ease with which someone can leave the military. It was reminiscent of the happy talk from recruiters canvassing shopping centers in Flint, Mich., in the documentary Farenheit 9/11.

A story in today's New York Times paints another picture, perhaps equally desperate.

One recruiter, Sergeant Roger White, explains how he found a 39-year-old woman in a shelter who once worked as a chemical specialist in the Army. He convinced her to re-enlist.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is apparently hoping some recruits will ignore their parents' wishes, or avoid telling them they signed up. Luis Vega, for example, told the Times that he had enlisted without telling his parents.

He plans to ship out in April.

Happy Holidays, Sen. Allen

2006-12-24T18:52:00.000-05:00

It's been an awkward few months for soon-to-be-former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who this fall, at age 54, learned that his maternal grandfather was Jewish.

At the time, he took "great pride" in his newly discovered ancestry, then made a comment that some found insensitive to Jews, and others found simply odd.

"I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops," he said.

No longer a presidential candidate after his "macaca" moment, Allen told the Associated Press that he plans to explore his newfound Jewish heritage.

But in the next breath, he implied that he hoped to run, and win, another race for office.

"Every time you win," he said, "you're reborn."

It's an interesting choice of words -- "reborn." Is that code for his "good ol' boy" supporters? A nod to evangelical Christians that in spite of his heritage, he's not the least bit Jewish? Something he thought up while dining on a ham sandwich or some other non-kosher meal?

If we learned anything from this fall's election season, it's that quipping is not one of Allen's strong suits. Between thoughtless comments like "macaca" or "Things like that happen," in response to his staffers assaulting a protester, and odd-ball comments like "I still had a ham sandwich for lunch," Allen would do well to learn the power of "no comment."

Sign Of The Times? Fox News Ratings Tumble In October, November

2006-12-23T00:35:00.000-05:00

Fox News is still the cable news king, but its ratings are clearly tumbling.

Fox's ratings were down 24 percent from October 2005 to October 2006, from 1.7 million viewers to 1.3 million.

The news didn't improve for Fox News in November. Heightened viewership because of the mid-term elections, Donald Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon, and increased discussion over Iraq War policy boosted CNN and MSNBC, but did little for Fox.

In prime time for the month, Fox's average total audience fell 19 percent when compared with a year earlier, to 1.35 million total viewers. CNN posted a 15 percent gain to average 826,000, and MSNBC's average audience grew 29 percent to 505,000.

***

Fox executives have spun that its ratings decline is the result of a slow news year. I suppose that's true, if you equate "slow news year" with "lack of happy stories for conservatives."

Think of the stories that grabbed headlines this year that folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson looked to dismiss quickly or avoid altogether:

-- Declining support for the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War.

-- Republican ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

-- Sen. George Allen's "Macaca" moment.

-- House Republicans not properly handling Mark Foley's improper interactions with House pages.

-- Americans rejecting Bush Administration policies by sweeping in Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

And on and on ...

Fox News still has the inside track on covering "culture war" topics like the "War on Christmas," and the "controversy" surrounding the recent children's movie Happy Feet.

But it appears less and less people are interested in such things. Fox News is still on top, but the tide appears to be turning.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-22T23:24:00.000-05:00

No doubt the left often disagrees with Tucker Carlson.

But on the Dec. 20 edition of his MSNBC show, Carlson made comments that were just plain goofy.

Follow along as Carlson has this odd back-and-forth with New Republic senior editor Michael Crowley and former Bush media advisor Mark McKinnon:

CROWLEY: But as far as Bush admitting we‘re not winning, he was starting to look like that guy, remember Baghdad Bob, who said, you know, the sands of Iraq are soaked with the blood of Americans. You know, this was as the Marines were rolling into Baghdad. Bush was — Bush could not maintain the state of denial anymore and fiction. It's what everyone knows and at some point the president has to seem like he knows it too.

CARLSON: Well I don‘t know. I disagree. I mean, I hate the war passionately, but I like that about Bush. I like the fact that he was in this kind of Teddy Rooseveltian way. You know what I mean, almost like you don‘t believe what your eyes tell you. I‘m the guy who knows the deep truth and the deep truth is victory. I mean, I think it‘s important — failure is so scary.

MCKINNON: Yes and it‘s not an option. It just can‘t be and so he is committed to finding and securing a way forward that amends the strategy and he is doing that now. But failure is not an option as he said and it shouldn‘t be. And it shouldn‘t be communicated that way from the president of the United States.

CARLSON: I like a tiny bit of B.S. I know nobody agrees with me.

***

A couple of follow-up questions for Carlson:

-- For most of us, when "you don‘t believe what your eyes tell you," you could be described as unrealistic, even delusional. Why is this a good quality in a president? Should the lives of our troops be at the mercy of someone who fits this description?

-- If some B.S. is good, is a lot of B.S. great? Back in March, you agreed that the Bush Administration has a "pattern that the rhetoric does not match the reality on the ground." A pattern of false rhetoric would seem to be more than a "tiny bit of B.S."

Maybe this goofiness from Carlson is why his show has abysmal ratings and was moved from prime-time.

Poll Finds Just 16 Percent Of Americans Believe Republican-Led Federal Government "Reflects Will Of The People"

2006-12-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that just 16 percent of voters believe that the Republican-led federal government reflects the "will of the American people."

The percentage is about half of the number who believed -- in the pre-Bush era -- that government represented its interests.

It makes you wonder -- who are the 16 percent of Americans happy with their federal government? I'm guessing multi-millionaires, who have benefited from Bush's huge tax cuts. And corporate executives -- specifically defense contractors and those in the energy sector. They have had a good ride, too.

But for most Americans -- regardless of political affiliation -- there is not much positive to say after six years of Republican control of Washington.

Consider some of the issues in which large majorities differ with President Bush:

-- A majority of Americans (86 percent) say it is important to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The Bush Administration has repeatedly said that this is not a priority.

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) are calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war." Bush refuses to do so.

-- A majority of Americans (69 percent) want to see troops withdrawn immediately, or a timetable to be established for such a withdrawal. Bush refuses to consider either option.

-- A majority of Americans (83 percent) support hiking the minimum wage. Bush would only support the measure if tied to a tax break for businesses or a deep cut in the estate tax.

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed a bill on the matter in July, in spite of bipartisan support.

***

Truth be told, it's hard to believe most conservatives are happy with the actions of the Bush Administraton.

A variety of scandals -- Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney -- didn't sit well with party regulars. Fiscal conservatives can't be happy with the swollen federal debt. Social conservatives have failed to see any change in abortion rights during the Bush era. The Defense of Marriage Act has gotten nowhere. The Mark Foley scandal was embarrassing, as was the Republican-led House Ethics Committee's decision not to punish anyone, even after finding wrongdoing.

And the Bush Administration didn't win any fans on the religious right by appointing an openly gay man, Mark Dybul, as its Global AIDS Coordinator. Worse for them, First Lady Laura Bush was photographed as "smiling" during the swearing-in ceremony. Even worse, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice referred to the mother of Dybul's partner as Dybul's "mother-in-law."

***

If you've read this blog, or dozens others like it, none of the above should be new. It's been a frustrating six years. We've known for years that President Bush and Congressional Republicans failed to represent our values. Now we know that they have failed their own party, too.

Business Never Better For Contractor That Failed Badly In Iraq

2006-12-22T14:19:00.000-05:00

Parsons Corp. was given roughly $200 million to build 150 primary health clinics in Iraq. Just 20 were finished before Parsons was terminated, and the Army Corps of Engineers says just seven are operational.

A policy academy building Parsons constructed for $75 million was so flawed that human waste rained from the ceilings. Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said 13 out of 14 Parsons projects that his office examined were flawed.

For this, the company has taken bipartisan hits on Capitol Hill, and its contracts are being audited by the Defense Department. "This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America. Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) at a September hearing.

Chief Executive James F. McNulty told the Washington Post that he has personally been under intense pressure to explain the company's performance to potential clients and to the public.

But he said the firm continues to rack up contracts even as it comes under assault.

"We've lost no business over it. In fact, the very people who are criticizing us are giving us more work," McNulty told the Post.

Here's a question for the incoming Congress: Why?

***

The Defense Department Inspector General is looking at the Parsons contracts under a broader audit related to spending and financial management for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The audit is scheduled to be completed in March.

Meanwhile, oversight is expected to increase dramatically next year with Democrats taking control of Congress, and several key lawmakers have announced their intention to ramp up hearings.

The feeling among Democrats: the Republican-led Congress was too soft on companies like Parsons.

Will Burns Use Campaign "Surplus" For Legal Defense Against Ties To Abramoff Scandal?

2006-12-22T00:34:00.000-05:00

The unsuccessful re-election campaign of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), ended with a $292,969 surplus, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Rules limit what may be done with the remaining money. In some cases, leftover campaign money may be spent on legal fees. The FEC reviews such expenditures case by case.

TPMMuckraker.com, citing FEC disclosure forms, reported in October that Burns had spent $91,500 of campaign funds on defense attorney Ralph Caccia of Powell Goldstein http://www.pogolaw.com/.

It's not far-fetched to think Burns will use some or all of his surplus on additional legal fees. Burns is not wealthy. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics put Burns' net worth at no more than $340,000 -- 88th in the most recent Senate.

The U.S. Justice Department is conducting a congressional influence-peddling investigation related to the activities of convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff, along with his clients and associates, gave $150,000 to Burns' campaign committees. Burns later returned some of the money and gave away the rest.

Burns spent much of the year trying to distance himself from Abramoff, at one point telling a Montana television station that he wished Abramoff had "never been born." But Abramoff, writing in Vanity Fair earlier this year, noted, “Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used (Abramoff’s restaurant) Signatures as their cafeteria.”

Once Again, "Loophole" Allows Government To Violate Propaganda Laws

2006-12-22T00:08:00.000-05:00

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, amended in 1972 and 1998, prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences.

But in two recent examples, the government has found "loopholes" in the law, allowing it to allow propaganda to inadvertently reach U.S. audiences.

TV and Radio Marti are spending $377,500 of taxpayer dollars over the next six months to air propaganda on South Florida broadcast stations, in spite of laws that prohibit the distribution of propaganda within the United States.

The spin -- the "loophole" -- is that the intended audience for Radio Mambí 710 AM and WPMF-TV are residents of Cuba. That the Cubans have a radio station on the same frequency should be overlooked.

The situation is remarkably similar to a loophole that came to light back in January, when a 2003 Pentagon document was released that said that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP (psychological operations) increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience," most often because of the Internet.

Just consider: today's loophole is tomorrow's precedent. A government that inadvertently propagandizes Americans without being held accountable now may decide to look for more "loopholes" later. And that's dangerous.

***

The connection to these events is the Republican leadership in Washington.

Larry Hart, a spokesman for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the TV and Radio Marti, told the Miami Herald, ''We believe we have the authority to do this.'' Wby? Because Hart had met extensively with the Republican-led Congressional committees overseeing TV and Radio Marti.

The Pentagon document was approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Pentagon's response when the document came to light? Larry Di Rita, a senior adviser to Rumsfeld, rejected the "premise" offered by critics that as long as the American public is not "targeted," leakage of propaganda to Americans doesn't count.

But Di Rita told the Associated Press that the Pentagon has no guidelines regarding the loophole. That also means the Pentagon has no real idea how many Americans are receiving their propaganda.

And that, too, is dangerous.

Bush's Reason #53 For Why The U.S. Went To Iraq: "To Help Young Democracies Survive The Threats Of Radicalism And Extremism"

2006-12-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

From yesterday's press conference:

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER SHERYL GAY STOLBERG: But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision.

To some, that sounds a little silly. Bush essentially says, "I still agree with myself." Not very newsworthy, especially from this president.

But pay attention to what Bush said next:

BUSH: But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary. And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

Is this why the U.S. went to Iraq, Mr. President? "To help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism?"

Seems that may be why the U.S. is there now, but it couldn't possibly be the reason the U.S. decided to "take Saddam Hussein out," right? Wasn't the reason ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the need to be pre-emptive, rather than risk Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons and creating a "mushroom cloud"?

***

If the Bush Administration is so concerned that fledgling Middle East democracies "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism," why hasn't the U.S. been a leader in helping administer the "Roadmap" toward lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and in the process help the fledgling Palestinian democracy?

While the Bush administration -- as conservative pundit William F. Buckley said -- was "engulfed by Iraq" -- the terrorist group Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Would such election results have occurred otherwise? It's hard to say.

What we do know is that spin is not a foreign policy. Words without actions do have ramifications. Just ask those who bought Bush's spin that the "Roadmap" was a step toward the U.S. brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and helping the fledgling Palestinian democracy "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

The same can be said for Egypt, where the U.S. allowed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to stomp on Egypt's fledgling democratic movement?

As the Washington Post wrote recently in an editorial, Mubarak, with "tacit consent of the Bush Administration ... is continuing his campaign against the democratic movement that sprouted in his country last year. His latest target is the fledgling independent press. ... Last week Mr. Mubarak's ruling party reaffirmed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, to 'affront the president of the republic' -- or insult parliament, public agencies, the armed forces, the judiciary or "the general public interest."

What did the U.S. do to help this fledgling democratic movement "survive?" Nothing.

As Nir Boms, vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East, wrote in the Washington Times, "President Bush rejected a bill that sought to tie some of the American assistance to Egypt with democratic reforms. ... (W)hen Mr. Nour was arrested, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Francis J. Ricciardone, declined to comment, giving a subtle green light for (Mubarak) to accelerate his crackdown."