One of the points I was trying to make in this post last night was that the Newsweek story really might not be playing out the way the howling right-wing mob expects it to.
The mob assumed the press, like a battered wife, would blame itself; Newsweek has done what it's supposed to do, and other press outlets have followed suit. But the pieces I linked last night show that not everyone is with the program.
Add to that the repeated media reminders that Koran-desecration stories aren't new -- see the middle of this New York Times story and, now, the lead of this Washington Post story -- and you've got a surprising amount of resistance. Oh, and some of the editorials have been positively scathing; see the L.A. Times ("The United States has already been convicted in the court of world opinion for its treatment of its prisoners, and that's the administration's fault, not Newsweek's") and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ("This behavior seems so Nixonian, except that the current crew is much better at the press-intimidation game than William Safire and Vice President Spiro Agnew were").
Righties will whine that these are "far left" newspapers. (The Freepers call Minneapolis's paper the Red Star Tribune.) But was there anything this full-throated when Howell Raines and Dan Rather and Eason Jordan were under attack?
I think this one is different. I'm not sure the mob is going to get a scalp this time.
I can't quite figure out why. Is it because Bush is solidly below 50% in the polls and because he and the congressional Republicans have so clearly gone over the line on such issues as Terri Schiavo and Social Security? Is it because the mob this time isn't led by bloggers, but by the White House? Or is it because the rest of the press thought Raines and Rather and Jordan genuinely screwed up, but the Newsweek story is the plain truth -- and only the tip of an iceberg every war reporter knows is genuine?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Before you tear any more hair out about the Newsweek brouhaha, read this (seemingly centrist) UPI article by Pentagon correspondent Pamela Hess and read this editorial from the New York Sun, a paper that's right-wing, but not in the au courant way. While both heap blame on Newsweek and assume the Koran story was false, both lash out at the Bush administration for various failings.
Here's Hess:
Newsweek's error is not the only factor here. The Pentagon and White House regard "mainstream media" (read: "liberal media") as hostile to their interests. It may be, and an anecdotal case can be made to that end. But rather than trying to blunt that perceived hostility, they fan its flames. For instance, the Pentagon has begun leading the Early Bird -- its daily roundup of defense-related news stories -- with newspaper corrections, some as inane as a name misspelling. It led the Early Bird with a story about a longtime and tough Pentagon reporter who was fired not for inaccuracy but for violating his newspaper's sourcing rules. There seems to be a battle line drawn between "them" and "us."
The White House and the Pentagon must develop a better relationship with reporters -- even those they deem hostile -- so they can knock these stories down before they get printed. Had there been more mutual respect between the two sides, Newsweek might have offered the Pentagon more time to dig up evidence to prove the original source wrong. Had the Pentagon more inclination to do so, it would have provided it more quickly. Instead, both sides are left cleaning up the mess after the damage has already been done.
The White House and Pentagon were quick to blame Newsweek for the Afghan riots over the weekend, despite Myers' on-the-record statements to the contrary. What Myers might have known is that most Afghans don't read, much less in English. Even fewer get subscriptions to Newsweek.
(Don't you love that detail about the Early Bird? Talk about the fish stinking from the head: In the administration of a president so petty and spiteful he nearly puts Nixon to shame we have the Pentagon turning the lead paragraph of its news briefing into a daily game of "Gotcha!" For heaven's sake, are there any grown-ups Bushites?)
The editorial in the Sun chastises the White House for a different reason:
...the Bush administration has been so quick to condemn this particular press blunder that it's in danger of committing a blunder of its own. "Disrespect for the holy Koran is something the United States will never tolerate," Secretary of State Rice said last week. It seemed only an afterthought when the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, yesterday made a meek plea for religious leaders to refrain from inciting violence, as if this bout of chauvinistic rage were entirely understandable. Why do we assume these riots were inevitable, especially since it follows a pattern? Every spring since the liberation of Kabul, the Taliban has ginned up anti-American crowds in Afghanistan and Pakistan using pretexts real and imagined. This year the pretext was [a] 10 sentence column in Newsweek.
Interesting point at the end there -- and it jibes, of course, with General Myers's statement last Thursday that the violence didn't originate with the Newsweek article.
But there's more going on in that paragraph. The Sun editorialist has chosen to blame the people actually doing the rioting; the banshees of the right-wing media and blogosphere blamed American liberals first. (By "liberals," of course, I mean mainstream journalists.) To the Sun, the rioters are America-hating religious extremists. The righty bloggers and the rest of the right-wing press say the same thing about the rioters -- but they hate Michael Isikoff more. He is the real enemy.
UPI's Hess goes on for several paragraphs about the documented abuses of power that generated resentment of the U.S. overseas; she regards this as a colossal blunder in the war for hearts and minds. Ironically, the Sun editorialist also chooses to enumerate a few abuses, and urges a bit of respect for Isikoff because it's obvious that those deeds took place:
Nor are we convinced that this episode is simply another chapter in the story of how the mainstream press is unprofessional or anti-American. Mr. Isikoff is a terrific reporter. It'll be illuminating to hear more from his source and why he would misremember what he said, 11 days after the story was published and the Pentagon spokesman launched a probe. It wasn't the first time the allegations had been reported. The story seems to fit a larger narrative of how guards and interrogators at America's detention facilities have sought to pry information from detainees by using their religion against them. When the wounds of the horrific attacks were still fresh, many Americans began contemplating creative ways to humiliate our pious enemies.
Yeah, the Sun editorialist downplays the significance of these abuses -- but at least he/she concedes that they took place. The Ranting Right can't admit that, because we lefties have expressed such outrage about the abuses, and no point can be conceded to us, because we are the real enemy.
Here's Hess:
Newsweek's error is not the only factor here. The Pentagon and White House regard "mainstream media" (read: "liberal media") as hostile to their interests. It may be, and an anecdotal case can be made to that end. But rather than trying to blunt that perceived hostility, they fan its flames. For instance, the Pentagon has begun leading the Early Bird -- its daily roundup of defense-related news stories -- with newspaper corrections, some as inane as a name misspelling. It led the Early Bird with a story about a longtime and tough Pentagon reporter who was fired not for inaccuracy but for violating his newspaper's sourcing rules. There seems to be a battle line drawn between "them" and "us."
The White House and the Pentagon must develop a better relationship with reporters -- even those they deem hostile -- so they can knock these stories down before they get printed. Had there been more mutual respect between the two sides, Newsweek might have offered the Pentagon more time to dig up evidence to prove the original source wrong. Had the Pentagon more inclination to do so, it would have provided it more quickly. Instead, both sides are left cleaning up the mess after the damage has already been done.
The White House and Pentagon were quick to blame Newsweek for the Afghan riots over the weekend, despite Myers' on-the-record statements to the contrary. What Myers might have known is that most Afghans don't read, much less in English. Even fewer get subscriptions to Newsweek.
(Don't you love that detail about the Early Bird? Talk about the fish stinking from the head: In the administration of a president so petty and spiteful he nearly puts Nixon to shame we have the Pentagon turning the lead paragraph of its news briefing into a daily game of "Gotcha!" For heaven's sake, are there any grown-ups Bushites?)
The editorial in the Sun chastises the White House for a different reason:
...the Bush administration has been so quick to condemn this particular press blunder that it's in danger of committing a blunder of its own. "Disrespect for the holy Koran is something the United States will never tolerate," Secretary of State Rice said last week. It seemed only an afterthought when the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, yesterday made a meek plea for religious leaders to refrain from inciting violence, as if this bout of chauvinistic rage were entirely understandable. Why do we assume these riots were inevitable, especially since it follows a pattern? Every spring since the liberation of Kabul, the Taliban has ginned up anti-American crowds in Afghanistan and Pakistan using pretexts real and imagined. This year the pretext was [a] 10 sentence column in Newsweek.
Interesting point at the end there -- and it jibes, of course, with General Myers's statement last Thursday that the violence didn't originate with the Newsweek article.
But there's more going on in that paragraph. The Sun editorialist has chosen to blame the people actually doing the rioting; the banshees of the right-wing media and blogosphere blamed American liberals first. (By "liberals," of course, I mean mainstream journalists.) To the Sun, the rioters are America-hating religious extremists. The righty bloggers and the rest of the right-wing press say the same thing about the rioters -- but they hate Michael Isikoff more. He is the real enemy.
UPI's Hess goes on for several paragraphs about the documented abuses of power that generated resentment of the U.S. overseas; she regards this as a colossal blunder in the war for hearts and minds. Ironically, the Sun editorialist also chooses to enumerate a few abuses, and urges a bit of respect for Isikoff because it's obvious that those deeds took place:
Nor are we convinced that this episode is simply another chapter in the story of how the mainstream press is unprofessional or anti-American. Mr. Isikoff is a terrific reporter. It'll be illuminating to hear more from his source and why he would misremember what he said, 11 days after the story was published and the Pentagon spokesman launched a probe. It wasn't the first time the allegations had been reported. The story seems to fit a larger narrative of how guards and interrogators at America's detention facilities have sought to pry information from detainees by using their religion against them. When the wounds of the horrific attacks were still fresh, many Americans began contemplating creative ways to humiliate our pious enemies.
Yeah, the Sun editorialist downplays the significance of these abuses -- but at least he/she concedes that they took place. The Ranting Right can't admit that, because we lefties have expressed such outrage about the abuses, and no point can be conceded to us, because we are the real enemy.
Kuwait's Parliament granted full political rights to women on Monday, making way for them to vote and run for office in parliamentary and local elections for the first time in the country's history.
--New York Times
U.S. first lady Laura Bush will travel this week to the Middle East to press for expanding women's rights....
Her visit to Jordan, Israel and Egypt [was] announced on Tuesday by the White House....
--Reuters
Coincidence?
I'd say no, despite the fact that Laura's not heading to the site of the recent victory for women (or semi-victory -- as the Times notes, there won't be any elections in Kuwait that women can vote in until 2007). Or perhaps there'll be a "surprise visit" to Kuwait -- the Bushies love surprise visits to Middle Eastern countries.
Somebody -- Karl? Karen? -- obviously decided it was time to rev up the "W Stands for Women" thing again, possibly as a yin counterpart to the yang nastiness we're about to see in the Senate. I'm guessing somebody put the arm on the Kuwaitis, who (as the Times points out) rejected voting for women just two weeks ago. I just hope it isn't rescinded sometime after Laura leaves the region.
--New York Times
U.S. first lady Laura Bush will travel this week to the Middle East to press for expanding women's rights....
Her visit to Jordan, Israel and Egypt [was] announced on Tuesday by the White House....
--Reuters
Coincidence?
I'd say no, despite the fact that Laura's not heading to the site of the recent victory for women (or semi-victory -- as the Times notes, there won't be any elections in Kuwait that women can vote in until 2007). Or perhaps there'll be a "surprise visit" to Kuwait -- the Bushies love surprise visits to Middle Eastern countries.
Somebody -- Karl? Karen? -- obviously decided it was time to rev up the "W Stands for Women" thing again, possibly as a yin counterpart to the yang nastiness we're about to see in the Senate. I'm guessing somebody put the arm on the Kuwaitis, who (as the Times points out) rejected voting for women just two weeks ago. I just hope it isn't rescinded sometime after Laura leaves the region.
This is from Bill Gertz's "Backgrounder" at Geostrategy-Direct.com:
Growing strategic ties between Iran and Venezuela concern U.S. intelligence
U.S. intelligence officials are worried by growing ties between the leftist government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Iran's Islamist regime.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi met recently with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Arnaldo Perez and discussed "U.S. threats," officials said.
The two ministers also declared their common interests in the Americas and the Middle East.
Perez called Iran a "strategic ally" and thanked Teheran for supporting the Chavez government. He also said Iran's "resistance against foreign powers" is an example for Venezuela.
Gertz writes for The Washington Times and wrote the Regnery bestseller Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security; his current publisher is Crown Forum, which also publishes Ann Coulter.
So I assume what we're getting here is an unclassified version of John Bolton's last memo or a preview of Dick Cheney's next speech. Or both.
A quick Google News search does find disturbing evidence of ties between the two countries:
Venezuelan minister of Nutrition and Food Stuffs said here Sunday that Iran's progress in industry specially the food sector is "impressive."
Rafael Jose Oropeza and his accompanying delegation visited the Iran Food Research and Production Company in 'Savajboulagh' near Tehran....
He said that Caracas and Tehran have signed several agreements in the food sector. Some of the Iran Food Research and Production company's output is exported.
Several agreements worth a total of over one billion dollars were signed between Iran and Venezuela in March.
Also, Iran and Venezuela have invested dlrs 34 million in setting up a tractor manufacturing plant. Iran holds a 51 percent stake in the venture...
Food and tractors? That's it. That's the smoking gun. Nuke 'em both.
Growing strategic ties between Iran and Venezuela concern U.S. intelligence
U.S. intelligence officials are worried by growing ties between the leftist government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Iran's Islamist regime.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi met recently with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Arnaldo Perez and discussed "U.S. threats," officials said.
The two ministers also declared their common interests in the Americas and the Middle East.
Perez called Iran a "strategic ally" and thanked Teheran for supporting the Chavez government. He also said Iran's "resistance against foreign powers" is an example for Venezuela.
Gertz writes for The Washington Times and wrote the Regnery bestseller Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security; his current publisher is Crown Forum, which also publishes Ann Coulter.
So I assume what we're getting here is an unclassified version of John Bolton's last memo or a preview of Dick Cheney's next speech. Or both.
A quick Google News search does find disturbing evidence of ties between the two countries:
Venezuelan minister of Nutrition and Food Stuffs said here Sunday that Iran's progress in industry specially the food sector is "impressive."
Rafael Jose Oropeza and his accompanying delegation visited the Iran Food Research and Production Company in 'Savajboulagh' near Tehran....
He said that Caracas and Tehran have signed several agreements in the food sector. Some of the Iran Food Research and Production company's output is exported.
Several agreements worth a total of over one billion dollars were signed between Iran and Venezuela in March.
Also, Iran and Venezuela have invested dlrs 34 million in setting up a tractor manufacturing plant. Iran holds a 51 percent stake in the venture...
Food and tractors? That's it. That's the smoking gun. Nuke 'em both.
As I watch religious-conservative outrage in other countries in response to reports of Koran desecration, then watch our own morally upright conservatives denounce Newsweek for "treason" and demand a purge, as I watch Islamists call for jihad and our godly right-wingers respond with absolutist calls for nothing less than the transformation of the world (occasionally using the word "crusade"), this passage in Anthony Lane's New Yorker review of the new Star Wars movie seems oddly appropriate:
...the Lucasian universe is drained of all reference to bodily functions. Nobody ingests or excretes. Language remains unblue. Smoking and cursing are out of bounds, as is drunkenness, although personally I wouldn't go near the place without a hip flask.... What Lucas has devised, over six movies, is a terrible puritan dream: a morality tale in which both sides are bent on moral cleansing, and where their differences can be assuaged only by a triumphant circus of violence. Judging from the whoops and crowings that greeted the opening credits, this is the only dream we are good for. We get the films we deserve.
Is that our world now? Revenge of the Clash of Civilizations?
...the Lucasian universe is drained of all reference to bodily functions. Nobody ingests or excretes. Language remains unblue. Smoking and cursing are out of bounds, as is drunkenness, although personally I wouldn't go near the place without a hip flask.... What Lucas has devised, over six movies, is a terrible puritan dream: a morality tale in which both sides are bent on moral cleansing, and where their differences can be assuaged only by a triumphant circus of violence. Judging from the whoops and crowings that greeted the opening credits, this is the only dream we are good for. We get the films we deserve.
Is that our world now? Revenge of the Clash of Civilizations?
Monday, May 16, 2005
The Guardian minces no words:
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
...A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together....
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime"....
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system....
The story, alas, has ome silly sentence:
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure.
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
...A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together....
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime"....
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system....
The story, alas, has ome silly sentence:
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure.
By the way, is it really possible to imagine that in the near future Iraq will settle down to a stable state of contented pluralism -- given the fact that the committee working on the new constitution has 55 members and only 2 are Sunni Arabs?
I understand Shiite and Kurdish resentment, obviously (at the nature of the Sunni regime in the Saddam years, at the insurgency, at the election boycott) -- but none of this is supposed to matter, right? It's not supposed to matter because, as we're so often told, people just love democracy and love freedom and gravitate toward democracy and freedom and pluralism and peaceful coexistence like a dog to another dog's butt. Tribalism and lingering resentments aren't supposed to matter once everyone steps into the big happy sunshine of freedom.
Well, in reality, Condi Rice, as the linked story notes, had to point out to the Iraqis that woefully underrepresenting the Sunnis might not be a wise long-term strategy. That's how bad things are in Iraq, I guess: A member of the Bush inner circle is acting as the voice of moderation.
I understand Shiite and Kurdish resentment, obviously (at the nature of the Sunni regime in the Saddam years, at the insurgency, at the election boycott) -- but none of this is supposed to matter, right? It's not supposed to matter because, as we're so often told, people just love democracy and love freedom and gravitate toward democracy and freedom and pluralism and peaceful coexistence like a dog to another dog's butt. Tribalism and lingering resentments aren't supposed to matter once everyone steps into the big happy sunshine of freedom.
Well, in reality, Condi Rice, as the linked story notes, had to point out to the Iraqis that woefully underrepresenting the Sunnis might not be a wise long-term strategy. That's how bad things are in Iraq, I guess: A member of the Bush inner circle is acting as the voice of moderation.
Well, they're bedfellows, though I can't say for certain whether it's particularly strange. The Boston Globe reports:
A company largely owned by the Saudi government has spent more than $1.5 million since 1998 lobbying Congress to shield the chemical industry from liability for damages caused by MTBE, a potentially cancer-causing gasoline additive that has seeped into water supplies across New England, according to federal documents....
... the industry -- helped by the House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas -- has maintained that it should not be obliged to pay for damages caused by a product used to meet a federal requirement for cleaner-burning gasoline.
DeLay is the chief proponent of a provision in the sweeping federal energy bill to relieve the MTBE industry of most liability for cleanup....
The Saudi company in question is called SABIC. To be fair, I should note this:
Delay has several companies that either make or use MTBE in his district. Those companies have contributed to his campaigns, although SABIC -- barred by law from contributing because it is foreign-owned -- has not done so, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
On the other hand:
The company, which has a member of the Saudi royal family as its chairman, has an office in Houston and a research and technology center in Sugar Land, Texas, DeLay's hometown and political base.
Oh. OK. Well, clewarly they'd be on the same side on this issue no matter what, but I bet that could come in handy for something....
A company largely owned by the Saudi government has spent more than $1.5 million since 1998 lobbying Congress to shield the chemical industry from liability for damages caused by MTBE, a potentially cancer-causing gasoline additive that has seeped into water supplies across New England, according to federal documents....
... the industry -- helped by the House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas -- has maintained that it should not be obliged to pay for damages caused by a product used to meet a federal requirement for cleaner-burning gasoline.
DeLay is the chief proponent of a provision in the sweeping federal energy bill to relieve the MTBE industry of most liability for cleanup....
The Saudi company in question is called SABIC. To be fair, I should note this:
Delay has several companies that either make or use MTBE in his district. Those companies have contributed to his campaigns, although SABIC -- barred by law from contributing because it is foreign-owned -- has not done so, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
On the other hand:
The company, which has a member of the Saudi royal family as its chairman, has an office in Houston and a research and technology center in Sugar Land, Texas, DeLay's hometown and political base.
Oh. OK. Well, clewarly they'd be on the same side on this issue no matter what, but I bet that could come in handy for something....
In an article in today's New York Times, Chan Chandler, the pastor who denounced Kerry voters from the pulpit at East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina, insists once again, through his attorney, that his preaching wasn't simply anti-Democrat:
John J. Pavey Jr., Mr. Chandler's lawyer, said that his client was speaking from a Christian, not a partisan, point of view, and that he also condemned two Republicans who support abortion rights, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Excuse me?
I expect a theocrat who's undoubtedly absorbed a lot of Religious Right (and Karl Rove) propaganda to say that McCain is pro-choice. But why is The New York Times presenting this as fact?
McCain has asserted that he supports legal abortion only when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
Project Vote Smart reports that McCain got a 0 rating from Planned Parenthood in the years 1995-2003 and a 0 from NARAL in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004.
Here's how McCain answered key questions posed by the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire in 2000, when he was running for President:
Do you support a ban on "partial birth abortion"?
McCain:Yes.
Do you support mandatory parental consent for teenagers seeking abortions?
McCain:Yes. Mandatory parental notification should be determined by the individual states, but is a policy that I support and strongly encourage. Our nation's children should not be kept from their parents when making any important life decision, particularly one with such broad ramifications as an abortion.
Would you support a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion?
McCain:Yes.
Even writers who question McCain's bona fides on the issue admit that, on core abortion issues, he votes right-to-life:
McCain has twice voted to override President Bill Clinton's veto of a bill that would have ended partial birth abortions. He also voted in favor of a law that would have prevented family planning clinics that receive federal funding from counseling women on abortion.
However:
However he has come under criticism for votes for fetal tissue research, failing to vote on a crucial pro-Roe v. Wade amendment, and being the major backer of a bill that would stifle pro-life organizations' participation in lobbying and elections.
McCain has hedged on overturning Roe v. Wade -- but so has President Bush, whose anti-abortion credentials aren't questioned.
But none of this gives the Times any reason to conclude that McCain "support[s] abortion rights." This, I suspect, is yet another case of a "liberal media" reporter being so bowled over by the moral certainty of a right-wing absolutist that it didn't seem necessary to do any actual fact-checking.
John J. Pavey Jr., Mr. Chandler's lawyer, said that his client was speaking from a Christian, not a partisan, point of view, and that he also condemned two Republicans who support abortion rights, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Excuse me?
I expect a theocrat who's undoubtedly absorbed a lot of Religious Right (and Karl Rove) propaganda to say that McCain is pro-choice. But why is The New York Times presenting this as fact?
McCain has asserted that he supports legal abortion only when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
Project Vote Smart reports that McCain got a 0 rating from Planned Parenthood in the years 1995-2003 and a 0 from NARAL in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004.
Here's how McCain answered key questions posed by the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire in 2000, when he was running for President:
Do you support a ban on "partial birth abortion"?
McCain:Yes.
Do you support mandatory parental consent for teenagers seeking abortions?
McCain:Yes. Mandatory parental notification should be determined by the individual states, but is a policy that I support and strongly encourage. Our nation's children should not be kept from their parents when making any important life decision, particularly one with such broad ramifications as an abortion.
Would you support a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion?
McCain:Yes.
Even writers who question McCain's bona fides on the issue admit that, on core abortion issues, he votes right-to-life:
McCain has twice voted to override President Bill Clinton's veto of a bill that would have ended partial birth abortions. He also voted in favor of a law that would have prevented family planning clinics that receive federal funding from counseling women on abortion.
However:
However he has come under criticism for votes for fetal tissue research, failing to vote on a crucial pro-Roe v. Wade amendment, and being the major backer of a bill that would stifle pro-life organizations' participation in lobbying and elections.
McCain has hedged on overturning Roe v. Wade -- but so has President Bush, whose anti-abortion credentials aren't questioned.
But none of this gives the Times any reason to conclude that McCain "support[s] abortion rights." This, I suspect, is yet another case of a "liberal media" reporter being so bowled over by the moral certainty of a right-wing absolutist that it didn't seem necessary to do any actual fact-checking.
Well, Newsweek's trying, but this CNN story suggests that nobody's buying:
Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan were skeptical after a U.S. magazine backed away from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay....
"We will not be deceived by this," Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan.
"This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won't accept it."
On Sunday, a group of clerics led by Aman vowed to call for a jihad, or holy war, against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators reported to have desecrated the Quran.
He said the call for a holy war still stood....
"It's not acceptable now that the magazine says it's made a mistake," Reuters quoted 42-year-old writer and journalist Hafizullah Torab as saying. "No one will accept it."
Sayed Elyas Sedaqat, who heads a cultural group in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, where the protests began last Tuesday, said: "Possibly, the American government put pressure on the magazine to issue the retraction to avoid the anger of Muslims."
In neighboring Pakistan, a religious party said it was going ahead with a call for protests on May 27.
"Newsweek is backtracking, but it's not just their report," said Ghaffar Aziz, a top official of the Jamaat-e-Islami party. "All innocent people released from U.S. custody have said on the record that there was desecration of the Koran."...
By the way, at the end of this post, Juan Cole quotes an e-mail he says he received from a former U.S. military officer who once attended Special Forces training school and saw a Bible being kicked around there at a mock POW camp. Make of that what you will.
*****
ALSO: Raw Story has a roundup of previous reports that refer to Koran desecration (in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and other sources) here. I'm not sure why this one inspired violence when previous reports didn't.
Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan were skeptical after a U.S. magazine backed away from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay....
"We will not be deceived by this," Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan.
"This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won't accept it."
On Sunday, a group of clerics led by Aman vowed to call for a jihad, or holy war, against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators reported to have desecrated the Quran.
He said the call for a holy war still stood....
"It's not acceptable now that the magazine says it's made a mistake," Reuters quoted 42-year-old writer and journalist Hafizullah Torab as saying. "No one will accept it."
Sayed Elyas Sedaqat, who heads a cultural group in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, where the protests began last Tuesday, said: "Possibly, the American government put pressure on the magazine to issue the retraction to avoid the anger of Muslims."
In neighboring Pakistan, a religious party said it was going ahead with a call for protests on May 27.
"Newsweek is backtracking, but it's not just their report," said Ghaffar Aziz, a top official of the Jamaat-e-Islami party. "All innocent people released from U.S. custody have said on the record that there was desecration of the Koran."...
By the way, at the end of this post, Juan Cole quotes an e-mail he says he received from a former U.S. military officer who once attended Special Forces training school and saw a Bible being kicked around there at a mock POW camp. Make of that what you will.
*****
ALSO: Raw Story has a roundup of previous reports that refer to Koran desecration (in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and other sources) here. I'm not sure why this one inspired violence when previous reports didn't.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Projected employment impact in the eleven states of the Confederacy as a result of the Bush adminsitration's military base realignment list:
19405 net jobs gained.
Projected employment impact in the rest of the United States as a result of the Bush adminsitration's military base realignment list:
32089 net jobs lost.
Remind me again: Who won the Civil War?
(Based on U.S. government statistics available here (PDF); inspired by this article in The Christian Science Monitor.)
*****
UPDATE: Right-wing blogger Don Singleton, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, thinks this is just ducky, and slavers in anticipation of a new Civil War:
And if the Yankees keep giving us trouble, we will be ready for them.
I guess that's what they call "Southern charm."
Anyone want to explain to me why I shouldn't worry that this might really happen in the next couple of decades?
19405 net jobs gained.
Projected employment impact in the rest of the United States as a result of the Bush adminsitration's military base realignment list:
32089 net jobs lost.
Remind me again: Who won the Civil War?
(Based on U.S. government statistics available here (PDF); inspired by this article in The Christian Science Monitor.)
*****
UPDATE: Right-wing blogger Don Singleton, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, thinks this is just ducky, and slavers in anticipation of a new Civil War:
And if the Yankees keep giving us trouble, we will be ready for them.
I guess that's what they call "Southern charm."
Anyone want to explain to me why I shouldn't worry that this might really happen in the next couple of decades?
Katha Pollitt in The Nation on Religious Right opposition to mass vaccination of young girls against the human papilloma virus -- which could eliminate 70% of all cases of cervical cancer:
I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex -- pregnancy, disease, death -- abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan.
Well put.
I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex -- pregnancy, disease, death -- abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan.
Well put.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
U.S. 2, GILEAD 0
...Dr. W. David Hager, appointed to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee after ardent opposition from women's reproductive health and rights groups, including the Feminist Majority, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that he "will no longer be on the advisory committee after June 30."
An expose in The Nation published online yesterday revealed that Hager claims to have been asked by the FDA to write a minority opinion for the FDA commissioner explaining why over-the-counter status for the emergency contraceptive Plan B should be rejected.... The Nation story also featured a lengthy interview with Hager’s ex-wife, who alleges that Hager sexually abused her repeatedly during their marriage, which was corroborated with both on and off the record sources....
--Feminist News Service; via Pandagon
*****
Texas' cheerleading reform bill -- the one lampooned on late-night comedy shows as governmental lunacy -- appears to be benched for good in the state Senate, with nary a yell or a jump.
The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.
"We will not be hearing it," committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.
"We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them," said Shapiro, R-Plano....
--Fort Worth Star-Telegram, via Free Republic
...Dr. W. David Hager, appointed to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee after ardent opposition from women's reproductive health and rights groups, including the Feminist Majority, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that he "will no longer be on the advisory committee after June 30."
An expose in The Nation published online yesterday revealed that Hager claims to have been asked by the FDA to write a minority opinion for the FDA commissioner explaining why over-the-counter status for the emergency contraceptive Plan B should be rejected.... The Nation story also featured a lengthy interview with Hager’s ex-wife, who alleges that Hager sexually abused her repeatedly during their marriage, which was corroborated with both on and off the record sources....
--Feminist News Service; via Pandagon
*****
Texas' cheerleading reform bill -- the one lampooned on late-night comedy shows as governmental lunacy -- appears to be benched for good in the state Senate, with nary a yell or a jump.
The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.
"We will not be hearing it," committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.
"We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them," said Shapiro, R-Plano....
--Fort Worth Star-Telegram, via Free Republic
OK, kids: Do you know how many female judicial appointees have been confirmed in the Bush years?
41.
African-Americans?
15.
(That's out of a total of 208 confirmed; 10 nominees have been filibustered and 4 have had their nominations withdrawn -- 2 white men, 1 white woman, and 1 black man. No Bush judicial nominee has been defeated in the full Senate.)
I'm just pointing this out because when Bill Frist brings the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the Senate floor, every right-winger in America will say in unison that the Democrats' opposition to these extremists is a sign that Democats hate women and (in the case of Judge Brown) blacks.
Want to see the details? Go here, scroll down, insert the selection criteria, and do your own count.
41.
African-Americans?
15.
(That's out of a total of 208 confirmed; 10 nominees have been filibustered and 4 have had their nominations withdrawn -- 2 white men, 1 white woman, and 1 black man. No Bush judicial nominee has been defeated in the full Senate.)
I'm just pointing this out because when Bill Frist brings the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the Senate floor, every right-winger in America will say in unison that the Democrats' opposition to these extremists is a sign that Democats hate women and (in the case of Judge Brown) blacks.
Want to see the details? Go here, scroll down, insert the selection criteria, and do your own count.
Though some Democrats were concerned about the image of their wealthy candidate frolicking among the fabulously wealthy here on an island where the average home sells for $1.4 million, Mr. Kerry insisted not only on coming, but also on trying to kite-surf, a dangerous combination of waterskiing and parasailing with basic equipment costing about $2,500....
It was ... a sharp contrast to President Bush's frequent brush-clearing forays on his sweltering ranch in Crawford, Tex.
--Jodi Wilgoren, "A Few Obstacles Don't Keep Kerry From Seaside Break," New York Times, 6/21/04
A $14,000 shotgun, a $2,700 mountain bike, and five fishing rods were among the $26,346 in gifts President Bush accepted last year, according to his financial disclosure form released yesterday, which also listed millions of dollars the president has invested in US Treasury notes and certificates of deposit.
...The disclosure, for example, said Bush's 1,583-acre ranch was worth between $1 million and $5 million. The president reported having at least $4.95 million in Treasury notes, $750,000 in certificates of deposits, and $217,000 in checking and money market accounts.
--Deb Reichmann, "Present and Accounted For -- Bush, Cheney List Gifts," AP (via The Boston Globe) today
It was ... a sharp contrast to President Bush's frequent brush-clearing forays on his sweltering ranch in Crawford, Tex.
--Jodi Wilgoren, "A Few Obstacles Don't Keep Kerry From Seaside Break," New York Times, 6/21/04
A $14,000 shotgun, a $2,700 mountain bike, and five fishing rods were among the $26,346 in gifts President Bush accepted last year, according to his financial disclosure form released yesterday, which also listed millions of dollars the president has invested in US Treasury notes and certificates of deposit.
...The disclosure, for example, said Bush's 1,583-acre ranch was worth between $1 million and $5 million. The president reported having at least $4.95 million in Treasury notes, $750,000 in certificates of deposits, and $217,000 in checking and money market accounts.
--Deb Reichmann, "Present and Accounted For -- Bush, Cheney List Gifts," AP (via The Boston Globe) today
Friday, May 13, 2005
See Joe.
See Joe get kissed by Dubya.
See Joe help Dubya with Senate votes.
Vote, Joe, vote!
See Dubya stab Joe in the back.
The Pentagon delivered its biggest blow to Connecticut, recommending the shutdown of four military facilities, including the U.S. Naval submarine base in Groton.
The decision would slash nearly 8,600 jobs more than in any other state....
Sen. Joe Lieberman called the recommendation "irrational and irresponsible."
"It insults our history and endangers our future," said Lieberman, D-Conn. "It is right here in southeastern Connecticut where the heart and soul of America's submarine force lives."
See Joe pout.
Pout, Joe, pout!
See Joe get kissed by Dubya.
See Joe help Dubya with Senate votes.
Vote, Joe, vote!
See Dubya stab Joe in the back.
The Pentagon delivered its biggest blow to Connecticut, recommending the shutdown of four military facilities, including the U.S. Naval submarine base in Groton.
The decision would slash nearly 8,600 jobs more than in any other state....
Sen. Joe Lieberman called the recommendation "irrational and irresponsible."
"It insults our history and endangers our future," said Lieberman, D-Conn. "It is right here in southeastern Connecticut where the heart and soul of America's submarine force lives."
See Joe pout.
Pout, Joe, pout!
I see that David Corn noticed what I noticed while listening to NPR this morning -- that Tom DeLay's little shindig last night featured some music that was not exactly conservative:
What was most amusing about the evening was the song chosen for the sing-a-long portion of the festivities. A bluegrass band coaxed the audience into singing, "If I Had a Hammer." Did they not know that the song had been cowritten by a fellow accused of being a commie?
Pete Seeger and Lee Hays wrote the tune in 1949, when both were members of the Weavers, a folk group. "Why was it controversial?" Seeger reflected years later. "In 1949 only 'commies' used words like 'peace' and 'freedom.'"
Seeger was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1995, and Corn notes that, among other things,
The committee asked him ... whether he had sung "If I Had a Hammer" at a testimonial dinner and whether the song was related to the trial of a Communist leader. Seeger hung tight, replying, "Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is my business...But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other people who have sung them."
After Seeger testified,
he was sentenced to one year in jail for contempt of Congress. But the in 1962, the verdict was overturned. Still, for years he was blacklisted and banned from performing on network television.
So it was so heartwarming to see DeLay and the other conservatives singing out Seeger's song.
Lobbyists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your ethics restrictions!
What was most amusing about the evening was the song chosen for the sing-a-long portion of the festivities. A bluegrass band coaxed the audience into singing, "If I Had a Hammer." Did they not know that the song had been cowritten by a fellow accused of being a commie?
Pete Seeger and Lee Hays wrote the tune in 1949, when both were members of the Weavers, a folk group. "Why was it controversial?" Seeger reflected years later. "In 1949 only 'commies' used words like 'peace' and 'freedom.'"
Seeger was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1995, and Corn notes that, among other things,
The committee asked him ... whether he had sung "If I Had a Hammer" at a testimonial dinner and whether the song was related to the trial of a Communist leader. Seeger hung tight, replying, "Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is my business...But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other people who have sung them."
After Seeger testified,
he was sentenced to one year in jail for contempt of Congress. But the in 1962, the verdict was overturned. Still, for years he was blacklisted and banned from performing on network television.
So it was so heartwarming to see DeLay and the other conservatives singing out Seeger's song.
Lobbyists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your ethics restrictions!
The anti-desecration unrest in Afghanistan and Pakistan is now spreading to the Palestinian territories.
Oh, goody. Sure glad we decided to show those Gitmo ragheads who was boss.
Meanwhile, apparently those silly Uzbeks heard Bush's call for freedom and democracy in Central Asia (in his speech in Georgia) and took it a bit too seriously. Fortunately, the government of Islam Karimov -- our ally and a big fan of boiling dissidents, understands that Bush wasn't really advancing an inviolate principle:
Soldiers opened fire on thousands of protesters in eastern Uzbekistan on Friday after demonstrators stormed a jail to free 23 men accused of Islamic extremism. At least 50 people may have been killed in clashes with police and security forces, a protest leader said.
Protesters fell to the ground as the troops surrounded the crowd of some 4,000 and started shooting outside the city's administration building, which had been seized by the demonstrators. An Associated Press reporter saw 10 people who apparently had been hit, including at least one dead, and participants in the rally said two more had been killed....
I'm not a big fan of the Karimov government. On the other hand, I'm not sure I really want to start rooting for the other guys:
The 23 businessmen who were on trial are members of Akramia -- a group named for their founder, Akram Yuldashev, an Islamic dissident sentenced in 1999 to 17 years in prison for allegedly urging the overthrow of Uzbekistan's secular government in a pamphlet published in the late 1990s. He has proclaimed his innocence.
... authorities claim [Akramis] are linked to the outlawed radical Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a group that seeks to create a worldwide Islamic state and has been forced underground throughout most of formerly Soviet Central Asia and Russia.
Uzbek authorities blame Hizb-ut-Tahrir for inspiring deadly attacks and bombings last year that killed more than 50 people in Uzbekistan. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, however, claims to disavow violence and has denied responsibility.
The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban, also fought for establishment of an Islamic state in the valley in the late 1990s. Concerns are high that Fergana could be a flashpoint for destabilizing wide swaths of ex-Soviet Central Asia.
Occasionally, we on the left try to tell right-wingers that the world is complex. For this we are accused of "moral relativism." They tell us that the world is easy to understand -- it consists of (a) good people who love freedom and (b) evildoers.
OK, folks -- then who's who?
Oh, goody. Sure glad we decided to show those Gitmo ragheads who was boss.
Meanwhile, apparently those silly Uzbeks heard Bush's call for freedom and democracy in Central Asia (in his speech in Georgia) and took it a bit too seriously. Fortunately, the government of Islam Karimov -- our ally and a big fan of boiling dissidents, understands that Bush wasn't really advancing an inviolate principle:
Soldiers opened fire on thousands of protesters in eastern Uzbekistan on Friday after demonstrators stormed a jail to free 23 men accused of Islamic extremism. At least 50 people may have been killed in clashes with police and security forces, a protest leader said.
Protesters fell to the ground as the troops surrounded the crowd of some 4,000 and started shooting outside the city's administration building, which had been seized by the demonstrators. An Associated Press reporter saw 10 people who apparently had been hit, including at least one dead, and participants in the rally said two more had been killed....
I'm not a big fan of the Karimov government. On the other hand, I'm not sure I really want to start rooting for the other guys:
The 23 businessmen who were on trial are members of Akramia -- a group named for their founder, Akram Yuldashev, an Islamic dissident sentenced in 1999 to 17 years in prison for allegedly urging the overthrow of Uzbekistan's secular government in a pamphlet published in the late 1990s. He has proclaimed his innocence.
... authorities claim [Akramis] are linked to the outlawed radical Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a group that seeks to create a worldwide Islamic state and has been forced underground throughout most of formerly Soviet Central Asia and Russia.
Uzbek authorities blame Hizb-ut-Tahrir for inspiring deadly attacks and bombings last year that killed more than 50 people in Uzbekistan. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, however, claims to disavow violence and has denied responsibility.
The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban, also fought for establishment of an Islamic state in the valley in the late 1990s. Concerns are high that Fergana could be a flashpoint for destabilizing wide swaths of ex-Soviet Central Asia.
Occasionally, we on the left try to tell right-wingers that the world is complex. For this we are accused of "moral relativism." They tell us that the world is easy to understand -- it consists of (a) good people who love freedom and (b) evildoers.
OK, folks -- then who's who?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)