Continue reading "Check, Please "

So... before the extra troops went in McCain said we needed more troops. Then, as they started to arrive, he said "things are getting better" and "we may be about to lose." I'm not sure what Glenn Kessler's point is here - perhaps it's that in his opinion some of McCain's comments on Iraq have been "rosier" than others. But unless you're the sort of imaginary loon who feels that "in war, everything is rosy" or the sort of real loon who believes that such imaginary people exist (and that John McCain is one of them) that variability (or "honesty" as I call it) won't get you very excited.

I suppose if one feels a need one can apply some sort of subjective "rosiness scale" to each of those comments - but I'd say an "accuracy" scale might be more useful. On that scale I'd say hindsight reveals the "things are getting better" comment as most accurate (I'd even call it "correct" or "right"), the 2003 call for more troops as "debatable"(it worked in 2007, but who can really say with certainty what would have happened in '03 - at best, the answer is hypothetical), and the "we may be about to lose" speculation as least accurate - in fact without the "may" it would be flat out wrong. I'm glad the "rosiest" comment was also the most accurate - a position I hope most Americans share. (I simply can't imagine what sort of person wouldn't.)

But on the surface, are the statements inconsistent? Clearly the oddity is the "about to lose" quote - especially coming within days of the "better" statement. So let's turn to the cited source - Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. for an answer. The passage including the full comment in context begins on page 344, and follows a description of McCain's April, 2007 visit to Baghdad:

At a press conference following his hour-long tour, McCain said that the American public was not receiving "a full picture" of the improvements in security. "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made."

Later, McCain was widely criticized for making such a judgment after touring a market fortified with blast walls and cement barriers, surrounded by a virtual cocoon of American security. One U.S. military official told The Washington Post that McCain's diagnosis of Baghdad security was "a bit of hyperbole."

Condi Rice appreciated McCain's positive comments. She invited him for for a private visit at the State Department at 08:30 A.M., on April 12. McCain seemed tense when he arrived. Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose.

"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," said the man who had been held and tortured for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The senator launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department's role in Iraq. You guys aren't fully in this, he said. You don't act like we're really at war. The civilian side is not doing it's part. Rice listened calmly. His criticisms echoed a lot of State Department bashing.

I'll refrain from comment on whether that's a fair treatment of State or not - that isn't the point of this post, but note that Secretary Rice did counter that - details are in the book. But clearly McCain was noting improvement (not victory) in Baghdad, crediting the military surge for that, and warning State that it would all be wasted if they didn't do their part. That's in line with the bigger strategy of the surge - the military couldn't do it all - as described by President Bush and General Petraeus from the start (and co opted by the opposition as their own exclusive policy point immediately thereafter) and it seems to me to be completely appropriate (important, even) for a senator returning from Iraq to bring those concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State.

But again, what the hell is the point of the "fact check"?

All done!

Continue reading "Exonerated Marine vs Ex Marine "

If you've never read Lieutenant General Mattis' letter to Sharrat, you should take a moment to do so here.

Marine/Vietnam veteran Bing West , in his book The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq offers a recap of Murtha's attack on the young Marines:

On May 17, 2006, a bombastic politician rushed before the the cameras on Capitol Hill to accuse Marines of cold blooded murder in Haditha, unleashing a torrent of scurrilous speculation by a hyperbolic press. A panel of foreign policy experts ranked the 2006 Samarra mosque bombing as the worst setback in the Iraq War. Haditha ranked as the second worst. Al Qaeda was responsible for Samarra; the press and politicians, sacrificing balance for sensationalism, were responsible for distorting and deliberately exaggerating Haditha.
<...>
"They killed innocent civilians in cold blood. They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," Murtha thundered. "But I will not excuse murder. And this is what happened. There' no question in my mind about it."

As a leading advocate for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Murtha advanced his own agenda by acting as judge and jury. Instead of cautioning restraint, other politicians opposed to the war attested to Murtha's credibility. "What I know is here is a guy who served our country," Senator Barack Obama said. "I would never second-guess John Murtha... he's somebody who knows of which he speaks."

Murtha typified the type of politician the mainstream press ordinarily despised - a man who flouted his power, cut backroom deals, and inserted earmarks into appropriations bills that funneled hundreds of milions to special interests, while receiving campaign contributions from those interests that ensured his reelection and and perpetuated pork barrel politics. Murtha abused his office as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations by slipping into the 2009 defense bill $176 million in earmarks - a record in the House. Instead of excoriating Murtha for sleazy politics, the mainstream press deified him because it suited their purposes.

For more insight on Murtha's treatment of serving soldiers, here's a description of a September 12, 2006 meeting between Murtha and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker from Bob Woodward's book The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. On that day, Schoomaker had called on the congressman (and ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee) to discuss the Army's budget:

Schoomaker argued that it was important to win in Iraq. Most people he had met out in the country, he said, wanted to see it through. It was important to succeed.

Murtha launched into a diatribe against the president and the Iraq war. You can be as enthusiastic about the war as you want, he said, but we simply don't have the troops to sustain it for much longer. Public opinion was strongly against the war. How could the president ignore the American people? This is a democracy, Murtha insisted, pounding the table, waving a copy of the Constitution in the air and claiming that Bush had become a "dictator."

Schoomaker suggested that if Murtha thought the president's approval rating was low, he ought to take a look at recent polls. You'll find that the military is the institution that people have the most confidence in, followed by police and firefighters, then organized religion, he said. All these were above or near 50 percent approval. The president was down in the 30s, and Congress was in the 20s or lower. "Congress is even lower than the president, Schoomaker said.

"This meeting's over!" Murtha shouted, red faced and angry as hell.

Schoomaker left quietly.

Me, I just loves me some John Murtha movies:

You can find the original story on that second video here.

In the interest of fairness and impartiality, I should also note that Murtha's opponent in the November election is William Russell.

Congressman Murtha has an opponent. A man who is himself a decorated Iraq war veteran. A man who was in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. A man who has spent nearly 3 decades serving his country in uniform. Lt. Col. William Russell (USAR ret.) is challenging John Murtha – holding him accountable for his words and actions against our U.S. Marines. His web site, russellbrigade.com, takes you into the Pentagon during the events of 9-11. It also gives the people of southwestern Pennsylvania a real vision for economic growth and principled leadership while reminding us of the shame of Mr. Murtha’s unbelievable accusations. The best way to ensure that the Haditha Marines get their full measure of justice is to help the man who so vehemently and falsely accused them into retirement this November. William Russell is planning to do just that.

All done!

Continue reading "Points and Pointing "

If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.

I urge you to read the full links above for background. But recognize that Owens is presenting an opinion piece that's fundamentally a book review - for Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. - I book I'd urge you to read, too. I'm half way through it myself (completion delayed by the Milblogs Conference and time well spent with great friends old and new), and can't address whether the specific claims in the excerpt above are Woodward's or Owens' interpretation of Woodward. (I'll know soon - I'm almost there.) Though he makes no direct claims to objectivity, Woodward generally avoids such outright editorializing (or moralizing, if you prefer) in favor of a more subtle approach to swaying the reader.

Case in point, his treatment of Donald Rumsfeld. On page 129 Woodward describes a September 19, 2006 meting between the Secretary of Defense and retired General Jack Keane:

Few had more command experience than Keane. He had led a full corps of 50,000 soldiers. He'd become a Rumsfeld favorite among the generals - no small feat, given the mutual contempt between Rumsfeld and many of his military officers.
<...>
Like many, Keane found Rumsfeld abrasive, dismissive, and distrustful of the uniformed military leaders. But he believed Rumsfeld was right about the need for dramatic change within the military, especially in the Army. As a member of the Defense Policy Board, an outside group of advisers that received regular top-secret briefings , Keane stayed up to date on Iraq. He shared his frustration with a fellow policy board member, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who urged him to lay out his concerns to the secretary.

And so he does - and in fact he provided a fine explanation of what was "wrong" with the strategy then in place, and presented a description of what we should do differently - a change in strategic focus combined with "an escalation of forces to gain security" - an approach that would be adopted the following year and refered to by the shorthand term "the surge".

But from Woodward's description we are left with little doubt that Rumsfeld was not too keen on the idea - and we can anticipate from Woodward's selection of adjectives ("abrasive, mutual contempt, dismissve, distrustful") exactly what sort of reception the Secretary would provide that (now proven correct) advice.

Or we can infer from that same selection that Woodward doesn't think too highly of Donald Rumsfeld. That argument is reinforced later in the book. By November 2006, various groups were completing studies of "the way forward" in (or out of) Iraq. The groups independently compiled a wide variety of options and the anticipated results of executing each. The Pentagon's "Council of Colonels", for example, offerred a range of considerations from "go big/full court press" (perhaps several hundred thousand additional troops) to "swift withdrawal", and Woodward presents those options to the reader without editorial comment. Immediately following that passage, however, he describes a (November 6, 2006) memo sent by Rumsfeld to the White House, listing possible options for Iraq (presumably independent of the Colonels - but Woodward is silent on Rumsfeld's degree of approval, interaction, or even awareness of the group).

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment", he [Rumsfeld] said... He listed some possible options: "an accelerated draw-down"; a withdrawal of U.S. forces from vulnerable positions and patrols; or providing money to key political and religious leaders, as Saddam had done.
<...>
Runsfeld wrote that the "less attractive options" included continuing on the current path, moving "a large fraction of all U.S. forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it," increasing U.S. forces "substantially" or finally setting a "firm withdrawal date". He was all over the map.

As were all those groups - from the Pentagon's colonels to the Iraq Study Group and others. But only for Rumsfeld does Woodward break from objective presentation and inject his own critical analysis. Why? I can't pretend to see into the author's mind. But I would argue that the media hated Donald Rumsfeld, to the point where objective reporting on the man was impossible. (One could argue he was a victim of Alinsky's rule #12 - a tactic applied at one time or another with varying degrees of success to every member of the Bush Administration.)

More to follow...

All done!

Continue reading "Into the West "

For those of you bound for the milblogs conference this weekend, we look forward to seeing you there. For those who can't make it, we look forward to bringing it to you via this humble portal. One way or another, I hope you can join us.

All done!

Continue reading "John McCain: "We have succeeded in Iraq" "

And while The Wars of John McCain includes a lot of words, they are most definitely worth reading.

A few weeks ago, sitting in his suite in a Columbus, Ohio, hotel, I handed the senator a copy of his father’s 1972 Times opinion piece.

“1972?” he asked, reading it. “I hadn’t seen this. I was still in the prison.” He turned to Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is among his closest friends in the Senate, and who had wandered into the suite while McCain and I were talking. “Hey, Lindsey, look at this article. This is from when The New York Times still published op-eds by McCains,” he said with a half-smile.

That, my friends, is good stuff.

You'll find mention of McCain's father and grandfather and sons beyond what little was presented in the biography video at the Republican Convention - and discussion of the wars they fought (or are fighting). And interviews with several of McCain's fellow POWs (though I'm inclined to take issue with the blurring of the distinction between their position and that of John Kerry's felllow Swift Boat vets - those few words could have been cut from the finished product altogether) and fellow congressional Vietnam vets. You'll read some articulate and informed debate on America's final years in Vietnam, and how and why that (and all those other wars) does or doesn't inform John McCain's view of the world today. It is one of the finest, most balanced pieces of writing I've seen on John McCain, and it would be a damn shame if all anyone ever saw was the pictures - at least the ones that don't accompany the story anyway.

And while not referred to by the candidate as such, most of the article deals with McCain's view of his son's war. “The country is in one of our occasional periods of isolationism, a reaction to what [the public views] as failure, even when we are succeeding in Iraq—and we have succeeded in Iraq."

Goldberg notes - accurately - that "McCain rarely discusses his original vote, in 2002, to authorize the Iraq invasion; he prefers to talk about the surge." And that's unfortunate, because in spite of the opposition's steadfast refusal to back away from Iraq is Vietnam arguments (many of which were developed in 2002 - and most of which can still be validated by rapid withdrawal) one of the side benefits of winning is that you can actually say you knew we could do it all along. (Especially if you were right all along about what needed to be done - but in the US Government that group has a population of approximately one.)

There are two things I believe I can't be accused of - one is lack of commitment to finishing what we started in Iraq, and the second is not paying attention to what's going on over there. In late 2006/early '07 I wasn't sold on the idea of a surge (even though I knew I was going to be over there regardless). That's partly because I knew something that only a handful of people in America did - not just that something called the Anbar Awakening was turning things around in that province, but that American forces in Iraq had committed to ensuring the Awakening was going to work. I wasn't happy with McCain's treatment of General Abizaid at the time, and also thought certain people weren't paying enough attention to Afghanistan.

That makes me one of a very few people who can now legitimately argue that I was against the surge because I thught we could win without it and that we needed to pay more attention to Afghanistan. (But I also knew that if we fled Iraq we wouldn't stand a chance against the al Qaeda recruiting boom for the Afghan campaign that would follow.)

But I won't - because I was wrong. And throughout 2007 I came to realize that McCain was right, and that we couldn't calm Baghdad without "the surge". And we did - throughout a long hot summer while Americans were completely focused on Mexico.

How do I know McCain is right in saying we succeeded? Because of the number of people making this point (from the Atlantic):

Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and a former Army officer, who traveled with Obama to Iraq in July, said of McCain: “I think he’s ignoring the consequences of Iraq. First of all, the intelligence and the arguments for Iraq have been proven universally wrong."

Obviously he isn't going to take my advice, but I say give 'em hell, John.

But McCain believes strongly that the only way to ensure Saddam would never pose a threat to American interests was to remove him from power. “Is there anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have pursued WMD?” he asked me. “He told his interrogators he would. Is there anybody who believes that the sanction regime was going to hold, or that the status quo would hold, or that sooner or later they wouldn’t shoot down one of our planes patrolling the no-fly zone?”

This comment was unusual because McCain rarely discusses his original vote, in 2002, to authorize the Iraq invasion; he prefers to talk about the surge. The comment was also striking because it is almost identical to something he said to me around the time of the original vote. “There is no such thing as containment,” he said then. “If we don’t act, we’ll pay the price later. If we ‘give peace a chance,’ Saddam will pursue his ambitions against us, but he will be more powerful, and more deadly than ever.”

His constancy is noteworthy. Nothing in his experience, recent or not-so-recent, has moved him away from his essential belief that the president has a duty to confront perceived threats well before they reach American shores. I asked Kissinger whether he thinks that McCain can be too inflexible on the subject of preemption. He said McCain will not change his mind if he feels that the nation’s defense is at stake. Much of this, Kissinger continued, is related to McCain’s sense of national honor, and personal honor. “He will not do the easy thing,” he said.

I pointed out that McCain has changed many of his positions during his candidacy in order, it seems, to better conform to Republican orthodoxy. Kissinger replied: “Under the pressure of a presidential campaign, it’s possible that he will make adjustments. He may deviate from his positions, but he will not like himself for it.”

In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.

Kissinger learned this at their first meeting. “When I was in Vietnam for negotiations on implementing the Paris Agreement, the North Vietnamese prime minister had a dinner—I was leaving the next day—and he said if I wanted to take McCain on my flight, it could be arranged,” he said. “I told him that I won’t take McCain or anyone else on my plane. The prisoner release would have to happen on a schedule previously agreed. Somehow McCain heard about this and months later, at the White House reception for returned prisoners, he said to me, ‘I want to thank you for saving my honor.’ What McCain did not tell me at that time was that he had refused to be released two years earlier unless all were released with him. It was better for him to remain in jail in order to preserve his honor and American honor than to come home on my plane.”

For McCain, the doctrine of preemption clearly falls outside the realm of mere politics, as does the need to “win,” rather than “end,” wars; the safety of America demands that they be fought, and honor demands that they be won.

Read the whole thing.

All done!

Continue reading "On Guard (Part Two) "

CNN's Campbell Brown and John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds sparred over this issue a few days later - both come off looking like blithering idiots. Barely able to hide her disgust, Brown attempts to get Bounds to acknowledge the "Guard Commander" position does not endow "foreign policy" credentials on the Governor (true). Rather than acknowledge that, Bounds insists that however little experience she may have in the "commander" role, it is more than Barack Obama has (true). But given a golden opportunity to mention that Obama's experience is "a speech in Germany" (or attending elementary school in Indonesia) he blows it. Given a chance to point out that at least Palin visited her troops at Landstuhl when she was in Germany, he passes. Perhaps he didn't know, or perhaps he did - and felt that mentioning the fact would be a low blow. (Some would argue, however, that that's his job.) And suddenly, Republicans are arguing that Palin's Guard Command is foreign policy experience. It doesn't and they aren't - at least not to the extent that Governor Napolitano did prior to Obama's Biden choice - but the rapid response is amazingly unstoppable - and likewise it has begun to denegrate the National Guard.

Many might not have noticed, but Maj. Gen. Campbell did:

As governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has commanded the Alaska National Guard. Joining us live is Major General Craig Campbell from the Alaska National Guard. Major General, tell me, how long have you known Governor Palin?

MAJ. GEN. CRAIG CAMPBELL, ALASKA NATIONAL GUARD: Governor Palin? For about 12 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, what was her job as governor in terms of the National Guard? What was her -- what did she have to do as governor in relation to the Guard?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Governor Palin is in charge, the commander-in-chief for the Alaska National Guard, and she plays the same role that all governors in all 54 states and territories play, running and managing and operating the Guard day to day for the states that they're responsible for.

I'll tell you, in the last few days, I've been watching the press, and I've not been very pleased with what I've been seeing about the chastising of the National Guard by having it diminished by the insinuation that a commander-in-chief of the National Guard doesn't really control the military. The National Guard has 500,000 people in it around this great country, serving in states and overseas. National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, I understand -- I was doing a little research. We've been coming through everything we can find out about the governor. I understand that she went to Kuwait a year ago to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard. By any chance, did you go with her, or do you know anything about that trip?

CAMPBELL: I did not, but I do know about the trip because right after she got elected, when she was sworn in as governor, one of the first things at one of our briefings, she asked me, Where are our soldiers deployed, and how can I go see them? I told her they were in Kuwait. She asked to go. We worked with the Pentagon and got her over there. And the key result of that was when she came home to Alaska, she brought ideas about what soldiers' desires were, what family needs were, and implemented those into law the following year. That's what a commander-in-chief does, is take care of soldiers and airmen, and she does it exceptionally well.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did she do it in any different way than the former governors that you may have served under in Alaska? Is there anything special about her, or is she simply does doing her job?

CAMPBELL: Well, no, she does it exceptionally well. She is above and beyond what a governor would do. And I've watched and see this for a long time in many states around the country. And you know, there are a few governors that rise to the challenge and they take the National Guard as their own and they really want to provide the services that a commander-in- chief needs.

Sarah Palin does that. She goes to deployments. She goes to returns. When we work the budget -- when we work the budget, for the state, she wants to make sure that the state's putting the right amount of money in to support the soldiers' and airmen's needs in our National Guard. When she does policy, she makes sure that soldiers' families are taken care of in the state of Alaska. This is what a commander-in-chief does, and she does it really good.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does she do her homework? Because, you know, each -- you know, when you start a job, there are lots of challenges, new topics, things you never expected. Is she intellectually curious? Is she a hard worker? Does she do her homework?

CAMPBELL: She is awesome. She is as a fast learner, and she is -- in my opinion, she's on the go 24/7. She's on her Blackberry. I talk to her on the phone. I have meetings with her. And she is a quick learner. The stuff she had to learn about what the military does in the National Guard in Alaska, she learned in rapid-fire fashion, so she was able to utilize (ph) to help the soldiers and airmen in Alaska.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I don't know if you know, but she's taking -- she's taking some heat from some in the media, including at least one magazine cover that wasn't particularly nice to her. Have you seen any of this? Have you heard any of this?

CAMPBELL: Yes, I have. I really have, Greta. And what I find very disturbing is it diminishes the National Guard. It makes the National Guard sound like it's not a real military force and only the president activates the military. And that's so false. Most of what the National Guard does they do for states under the commander-in-chief of their governor.

I have soldiers and airmen deployed right now -- In fact, let me just tell you about this past weekend with the hurricane down southeast. We deployed a C-17 airlifter with the Alaska National Guard. We took two of our Alaska National Guard helicopters and 30 Alaska National Guardsmen, and they went down to respond to that hurricane. and it was by order of Governor Palin because she had had the request from Governor Jindal from Louisiana. That's governor to governor, action of what they need to do for a National Guard. It didn't require presidential approval. It was under the deployment direction of the governor.

That's certainly ebullient praise, but you can decide for yourself whether that contradicts his earlier comments:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

...but I say no. The later interview is certainly far more detailed, and includes actual quotes and not paraphrasings, but still there is no difference between the two. But for some reason Democrats have been obsessed with that earlier quote - more specifically, just the second paragraph, without a direct quote, and without all that "extremely responsive and smart" nonsense that preceded it. Now that someone (specifically, Campbell) has dared to tell more of the story, the rapid response kicks in again:

Realizing that Campbell was severely undercutting one of the campaign’s main talking points, it appears someone leaned on him and got him to change his tune…

Leading the charge, the Democrats' own VoteVets group:

But suddenly--and strangely--the commander of the Alaska National Guard, Major General Campbell, changed his story. By the end of the convention, he was praising Palin's experience, talking on TV about how she had taken control of Alaska's National Guard operations and how she was a "great" leader.

They are particularly incensed that Campbell also just got promoted to a third star: "If nothing else, this series of events raises serious questions about what's going on. And the media would be wise to probe this further." No doubt they will, and no doubt they won't get it right. If they did it would be a first for this month, at least.

Before anyone else gets their knickers in a twist over this issue, it should be noted that "This state promotion carries no financial benefit to Campbell. When serving in state status, the Adjutant General receives commissioner pay and benefits. When serving in active-duty status (federal), the Adjutant General is paid under the federally recognized rank of Major General."

So why the promotion? Because of events subsequent to the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. Among other things, the promotion establishes the Adjutant General as the ranking Guard member on scene in his or her state - an important distinction if other state's (or federal) forces are present for disaster relief:

Palin took the opportunity to promote Campbell ahead of any pending emergency that may occur with the upcoming fall storm season. This allows Alaska to have more of a say in times of state disasters.

“This is about Alaskans serving Alaskans. The promotion is a statement that the Alaska National Guard is the state military force responsible for responding to state issues, at the direction of the Governor,” Governor Palin said. “The decision to promote the Adjutant General to Lieutenant General is based on a fundamental states’-rights stance, for which Alaska has a strong historical position.”

This issue gained momentum with governors following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when the Department of Defense pushed a change in federal law that authorized the President of the United States to mobilize National Guard members to federal service in response to emergencies, without the consent of the governor.

The National Governors Association and the Adjutants General Association of the United States were unanimously opposed to this change, and the following year Congress reversed the law. Concurrently, Alaska Statutes were changed to permit the governor to promote the Adjutant General to the state rank of Lieutenant General specifically for state service.

While Alaska is one of the first states to take this step, others are expected to follow. That excerpt above is from a press release on the promotion issued by Palin's office. But the wording comes directly from a memo from Campbell, dated 28 August, 2008 and found on Andrew Halcro's web page:

Point Paper On Adjutant General State Promotion
Prepared: 28 August 2008

Thank you for allowing this opportunity to provide some background information on Governor Palin’s intention to promote the Adjutant General of Alaska to the state rank of Lieutenant General.

Halcro was one of Palin's opponents in the 2006 governor's race, so kudos to him for publishing the full response. You can read that link for background on issues confronting the Alaska National Guard prior to 28 August, 2008.

Wait - 28 August? That means Palin's decision precedes her selection as McCain's running mate - and has nothing whatsoever to do with any imaginary "behavior change" on the part of the General towards the press during September of this year. (In fact, it dates back far before 28 August - but this example is far more fun, for reasons we'll soon see.)

Back to the Democrats' VoteVets page - because you really aren't going to believe how stupid these people think you are:

See if this timeline is as eyebrow-raising to you as it is to me:

Sunday 31 August 2008: Major General Craig Campbell, Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard, tells the AP that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard...

Wednesday 3 September 2008: Major General Craig Campbell does significantly more damage to Palin's credibility in this piece in the Boston Globe...

Friday 5 September 2008: Only two days later, Campbell's story has completely flip-flopped. Now he's suddenly praising Palin, appearing on Fox News to gush about what a superb commander-in-chief she is...

Monday 8 September: After the weekend--and after his complimentary remarks--Major General Campbell is promoted within the Alaska National Guard to the rank of Lieutenant General.

Well, given that Friday, 28 August: Campbell had already responded to other isues raised by Halcro regarding his pending promotion, I'd have to answer that 'eyebrow' question "no". Given that VoteVets then links (in an update that says only "Whoah. The plot really thickens now.") Halcro's piece that completely destroys their own thesis (apparently they didn't notice THE DATE) I'd have to say it actually makes me laugh out loud.

*****

Okay, fall in, line up, no shoving - facts be damned - let's see who's ready to believe anything and everything they're told.

Crooks and Liars:

Alaska National Guard General gets promoted after retracting damaging Palin statements

This scandal is as easy to follow as it is transparently outrageous.

Really? If it's so easy, how did you fail so badly?

The Raw Story:

Palin promotes general after he changes his stance on her experience

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has promoted an adjutant-general in the Alaska National Guard to Lieutenant General after he reversed course on remarks that seemed to criticize the now-Republican candidate for Vice President.

These morons even link the Halcro piece, too:

The promotion was first noted by VoteVets' Brandon Friedman.

At least one Alaskan National Guardsman has expressed outrage at the promotion. In a posting on the blog of an Alaska radio host, a man who claims to be a member of the Alaska National Guard expressed his ire.

Think Progress had the sense to put their headline in the form of a question: Did Palin Promote Alaska National Guard General Because He Changed His Tone To Support Her Credentials? The answer is "no" of course, but they only provide the question.

The Sniffington Post has the story, too - but in fairness, it''s a complete re-post of the VoteVets primary idiocy.

More to follow, I'm sure. What many of these stories have in common is a demand that mainsteam media report their lunacies as fact. But now that the story has been thoroughly and completely discredited, how long before the mainstream media reports that "questions have been raised" about Campbell's promotion?

All done!

Continue reading "On Guard "

Obviously Guard troops can be called up for overseas duty (or "federalized") in time of war, and in such cases they are clearly under federal control. But as evidenced in the aftermath of Katrina, there's a more complex relationship between Guard and Federal forces stateside - where and when they can be used, who commands, etc. etc. Confusion reigned supreme in 2005, and answers were as clear as Mississippi mud.

But few (and certainly none in the Bush administration) would deny that Governor Kathleen Blanco was in command of the Louisiana National Guard. Regardless of your feelings regarding her performance in that role, and no matter how badly (or rightly or wrongly) the national media wanted to "blame Bush" for all things Katrina, Blanco's perceived (by Louisiana voters) failures in that capacity contributed to this:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) announced last night that she will not seek a second term this November, bowing to a political reality created by her handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

...and led to the election of Bobby Jindal, the man she defeated in the Governor's race four years before.

Such is the importance of the Governor's role as National Guard commander. Hopefully, any other Governors who didn't take that responsibility seriously enough to learn the complexities involved in coordinating with other Governors and Federal Agencies - perhaps in hope that television appearances screaming "HELP" would override the legal/constitutional requirements - learned something valuable from Blanco's experience in 2005. (Or 2007.)

Clearly Bobby Jindal did. Here's a quote from Alaska's Adjutant General, (then-) Major General Craig Campbell, Alaska National Guard:

I have soldiers and airmen deployed right now -- In fact, let me just tell you about this past weekend with the hurricane down southeast. We deployed a C-17 airlifter with the Alaska National Guard. We took two of our Alaska National Guard helicopters and 30 Alaska National Guardsmen, and they went down to respond to that hurricane. and it was by order of Governor Palin because she had had the request from Governor Jindal from Louisiana. That's governor to governor, action of what they need to do for a National Guard. It didn't require presidential approval. It was under the deployment direction of the governor.

Seems like a long way to go (although Gustav was expected to be a "big one") but perhaps some day Louisiana can return the favor.

But that brings us to today - and the odd position that Democrats find themselves in regarding the importance of Governors, and their role as commanders of their state's National Guard. This began with the introduction of Governor Palin by John McCain, about which his campaign released a statement containing this line:

As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

That launched the New York Times (and others) into rapid response mode:

However, a review of Palin's 20 months in office shows that aside from overseeing the National Guard's state-level emergency missions, as all governors do, the first-term governor played no role in any territorial defense or other national defense operations involving military forces.

I'm not exactly sure who was ever arguing otherwise, and unless Russia (or Canada, I suppose) invades Alaska, that fact won't change (and then only briefly, 'til the Feds take control).

For the record, I don't see the "Commander of the National Guard" responsibility as equivalent to Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, but other than direct military service (or US Secretary of Defense, if one wants to argue purely from the civilian control of military POV), it is the only "stepping stone" job thereto. Likewise, it is Palin's title. John McCain was once a prisoner of war, later a unit commander, then a House member and later a Senator. Barack Obama was once a community organizer, later a Senator from Illinois. Joe Biden was.. well, in the Senate forever. They is what they is, and listing their qualifications isn't the same as claiming that one specific accomplishment makes them Presidential material.

But Sarah Palin is Governor of Alaska, and commander of that state's National Guard. Does that matter? Should that information be withheld from voters? Should any information be withheld from voters?

There are those who would answer that final question "yes". We'll meet them in part two.

All done!

Continue reading "Questions Have been Raised "

Update: Golly - it happened in Wyoming just last year, and in Minnesota a few years ago.

More: Holy Cow!

Gov. Janet Napolitano remains Arizona's most popular elected official and would top Sen. John McCain in a matchup for his Senate seat, according to poll results released Tuesday.
<...>
Several factors figure to influence any Napolitano decision about running for Senate. Perhaps most immediate is the presidential campaign, which, if a Democrat wins, could eventually result in a Cabinet or other appointment for Napolitano. If she resigns her office, Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer would serve the remainder of Napolitano's term as governor.

That story is from 2007, by the way.

But,

If Arizona Sen. John McCain is elected president, his vacant Senate seat would have to be filled by a Republican appointed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Perhaps she could switch parties and pick herself, and everyone would be happy!

Meanwhile, in a big important State,

With Sen. Barack Obama setting his sights on the White House, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is keeping an eye on Obama's Senate seat.

If Obama wins in November, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will have the responsibility to fill Obama's vacant seat.

“I wouldn’t say no if asked,” Jackson, an Illinois Democrat, told Congressional Quarterly.

Jackson is a national co-chairman for Obama’s campaign, but he has competition to succeed Obama in the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a disabled Iraq war veteran who lost a House bid in 2006 is often mentioned as a possibility, as are Illinois Reps. Rahm Emanuel, Jan Schakowsky, and Luis V. Gutierrez. Blagojevich could even appoint himself.

What Power these Governors have! Even if they lack the experience to be President, at least they can pick Senators.

Speaking of Governors:

If Palin wins election as John McCain's vice president, [Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean] Parnell would move up to governor and state Attorney General Talis Colberg would become lieutenant governor.

So Ted Stevens would not get to pick a replacement Governor.

All done!

Continue reading "WaPo links Palin's son to al Qaeda "

Here's an AP story on all the Candidate's sons

Citing security restrictions, the Army will not say where in Iraq Palin's or Biden's units are being sent. Both units are scheduled to be in Iraq for 12 months.

The same story adds this speculation about Palin's deployment:

Palin's unit is believed to be headed to Diyala, among the most dangerous of Iraq's 18 provinces. It extends from the northeastern suburbs of Baghdad to the Iranian border. Diyala has proven to be difficult to control because it is heavily mixed with Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds.

Diyala was the fourth most violent of Iraq's provinces, averaging more than 3.5 attacks each day, according to figures from June. It has not been returned to Iraqi control and probably won't be before next year.

And offers only this about Biden's

"Republicans always seem to imply that Democrats are somehow unpatriotic or want to be easy on the terrorists," said James Pfiffner, a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy. "But I think that Biden's son demonstrates that you can disagree with a policy and still support doing your duty."

Beau Biden, who is Delaware's attorney general, is a captain in the Delaware National Guard and will work as a military lawyer in Iraq.

This isn't about the difference in missions - those who deploy to Iraq do what they do, and all are needed. The difference is in the level of detail provided - and there's a huge difference between "Bill will be a cook in Iraq" and "Bill will be a cook in Iraq working the lunch shift in the DFAC on the northwest corner of FOB (insert name) about 200 meters west of the main gate". A determined reporter can find out a lot of information about a unit's deployment (thousands of troops + tens of thousands of relatives x an infinite number of friends = opportunity). Knowing the risk involved, how much they choose to publish is determined by their own sense of decency balanced against their perception of the public's need to know. If you somehow benefit from knowing exactly where Track Palin will be in Iraq, and exactly what he's doing, then the reporters can declare "mission accomplished". If you need to know exactly where Beau Biden will be they have failed.

Meanwhile, this bit of ugliness awaits elevation to "legitimate" news.

Update: Mrs G requests I clarify the title to this entry. It's a twist of the WaPo title "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska". By "links" I mean to imply that the WaPo story tells the al Qaeda goons exactly where they'll be able to "link up" with the Governor's son. The WaPo, on the other hand, uses the same word to imply that his mother is a blithering idiot. Hope this clarifies.

Related:

Jonathan Adler, on the Post story:

Most egregiously, there is no indication on the web-version of the story that it was corrected, not even a note at the end of the piece. Whatever one thinks of the Post's reporting here, it should at least acknowledge that it changed the story's text to fix an error. If we bloggers are expected to disclose substantive revisions to our blog posts, shouldn't the MSM be held to the same standard?

All done!

Continue reading "10:28 "

FOX

CNN

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

All done!

Continue reading "10:06 "

ABC News

FOX

All done!

Continue reading "9:59 "

CBS News

BBC

All done!

Continue reading "9:43 "

ABC News

FOX

CBS News

BBC

All done!

Continue reading "9:03 "

FOX

BBC

All done!

Continue reading "8:46 "

NBC News

ABC News

All done!

Continue reading "Foreign Policy "

Palin Signs AGIA License Bill Start Development on Natural Gas Pipeline

August 27, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin today signed House Bill 3001, authorizing the state to award an AGIA license allowing TransCanada Alaska to start developing a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from a treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay to the Alberta Hub in Canada. The Governor signed the bill at the Alaska AFL-CIO’s biennial convention.

“After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance,” Governor Palin said. “This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.”

More at the link. Accoding to Bloomberg, "The link will ship 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day through Canada to U.S. markets. TransCanada expects to hold an auction for capacity to help determine the size of the line in July 2010, the company said Aug. 1. The project could be operating by September 2018."

With that kind of money on the line, one might expect (ahem) competition. According to the Canada-based Financial Post, one would be right:

With Alaskan oil production on the decline, natural gas would keep the state's coffers flush. Jobs and cheaper fuel for Alaskans would be part of the package.

More important, there is enough gas trapped under the tundra here to help the United States fend off an energy crisis that politicians have called one of the greatest threats to their country. Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor and, as of yesterday, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, wants to get it out of the ground as soon as possible.

But before that can happen, Alaska must resolve a $30-billion battle that pits Ms. Palin against energy giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips Inc., two pillars of the state's economy. Calgary-based TransCanada Corp., Canada's largest pipeline company, is caught in the middle, enjoying legislative and some financial support from the state to build the 2,670-kilometre-long line that would ship four billion cubic feet of gas a day beginning in 2018.

But TransCanada is up against a rival pipeline project that would be built by BP and Conoco, the very oil companies TransCanada needs as its customers. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest corporation, potentially holds the power to crown a winner by virtue of its sizeable gas production, but it has not yet picked a side.

It is a political poker game, and even though all the major parties say they are willing to work with one another, there is a plethora of ways they could stonewall the process.

"This project is important to Americans, important to the market, important to the economy, to our domestic energy independence," says Mr. Gibson.

Like Mr. Gibson, Sarah Palin is a fierce champion of the gas line and its role in the big energy picture. "We're taking steps towards dealing with an energy crisis that affects Alaska and the entire North American continent," she says, sitting in her Anchorage office, ordained with a large bearskin rug, the head propped up and claws attached resting on a chesterfield, the animal shot by her father. "Alaska finally can be in a position of producing and contributing to a solution here."

Oddly enough, Palin's husband works for one of those companies in competition with the project:

Ms. Palin gets a daily reminder about the sector's impact on the state. From her Anchorage office she has a full-on view of the ConocoPhillips building and its red, white and black logo. Moreover, her husband, Todd, works for BP in a "blue-collar union" job on the North Slope. (She denies this puts her in any conflict position). The governor is adamant about the role of the new pipeline in the state's future.

But the Governor isn't afraid to take on Big Oil - using tactics that Democrats have enthusiastically approved:

Ms. Palin has her own weapon in her arsenal should a stalemate emerge. Exxon, Conoco and BP hold the majority of natural gas leases on the North Slope, but the state has the power to cancel them if the producers do not get the resources out of the ground when it is "reasonably economic" to do so. It's a weapon the state used as recently as this month when it cancelled all of Exxon's leases in the Port Thomson oil and gas field, save for a 15-acre unit, for failing to develop the zone. Exxon and the state are now fighting in court, and on Thursday it said it moved equipment into area.

If all goes well, there will be many "winners" from this pipeline...

Mr. Palmer notes the massive project is not just good for Alaska. About 1,550 kilo-metres, or almost 60%, of the pipeline will run through Canada, generating "large" income tax and property tax benefits to the federal government, provinces, territories and First Nations, Mr. Palmer says. "In addition, there will be a very large reduction in tolls projected for Western Canadian producers because Alaskan gas should refill partially empty Western Canadian pipes. Our estimate has been that in the first 15 years, that's a toll reduction of some $10-billion."

And the "loss" of Governor Palin to a Presidential campaign is not expected to derail the project she's set in motion:

Both TransCanada and Denali said Ms. Palin's race to the White House will have no effect their plans. Mr. Palmer, however, noted governors or legislatures can always pass new laws, but "this summer, the administration, as well as the legislation, ratified AGIA and strongly supported it after a very significant review period. We're confident the state of Alaska will remain supportive."

Next: the Senator from Illinois. Even though he's not an executive, folks whose memories aren't too short will recall that Barack Obama has gained some recent experience dealing with America's northern neighbor on economic issues, too:

Obama faces tough questions on NAFTA, integrity

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - On the eve of contests he hopes will force Hillary Rodham Clinton from the presidential race, Barack Obama faced a barrage of attacks yesterday about his integrity, foremost among them whether he engaged in double-speak about his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Much of the criticism was initiated by Clinton. But it assumed a life of its own as Obama struggled to explain why a Canadian government memo quoted one of his aides as saying Obama's opposition to NAFTA was for political show.

He also fended off accusations he has withheld information about his relationship with real estate developer Antoin Rezko, who went on trial in Chicago yesterday charged with federal corruption.

Obama has made honesty and transparency a cornerstone of his campaign to change "politics as usual" in Washington.

Both Obama and Clinton have said they would seek to unilaterally end NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not agree to renegotiate portions seen as unfavorable to U.S. workers. Obama has repeatedly taken Clinton to task for initially supporting the trilateral pact, which her husband signed as president.

But on Sunday, the Associated Press released a leaked memo from a Canadian Consulate official in Chicago saying that in a Feb. 8 meeting, Obama's senior economic policy adviser told him Obama's tough NAFTA stance was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Economically depressed Ohio, a state where Obama dramatically reduced Clinton's lead, opposes NAFTA.

In a news conference here, Obama insisted the memo was inaccurate and noted the aide did not "reach out" to the consulate but was invited there.

Update/Bumped/HEH - Anchorage Daily News, August 7, 2008:

Obama is on board with the natural gas pipeline

Presidential candidate Barack Obama is touting the Alaska natural gas pipeline.

Obama included the project in the energy plan he announced this week, calling for working "with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process."

That brought the Democrat kudos from Gov. Sarah Palin, who some pundits are pushing as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican John McCain.

Two of Obama's top advisers repeated the theme in a teleconference with Alaska reporters Wednesday. They said Obama would encourage a federal partnership with Alaska to further the project and try to prevent Exxon Mobil from having a "disproportionate influence over the timetable over the construction of this pipeline,"

So add "endorsing Palin's project" to Obama's foreign policy resume. Make that double heh.

More: What the hell, "triple heh" from the same story. How will the "federal partnership" work? Obama doesn't know - he'd let Palin figure that part out:

They were vague about how the partnership would work and how Exxon's influence might be blunted, saying that would have to be worked out with the governor.

2008-09-01 14:11:37

All done!

Continue reading "The Mac "

"At the time," Kaus says, "the Official MSM Story line centered on budgetary problems (still not Iraq!), but McCain himself admitted the truth to New Yorker's Ryan Lizza".

Checking that New Yorker piece reveals it's from December, 2007. This doesn't change anything McCain said therein, but I want to clarify any confusion that may arise from the separate "At the time" (summer, 2007) portion of Kaus' statement. Lots of water passed under the bridges of the Tigris and Potomac between those two points in time.

Back to summer. If there was an "official MSM Story line", Anna Marie Cox followed it (or developed it) in her July 02, 2007 Time report: Is John McCain's Candidacy Cooked? No why's, just an examination of financial dire straits, including this evidence: "In order to stay in the race, the McCain camp cut dozens of staff positions on Monday while many senior staffers took pay cuts." But for the record, there's nothing wrong with not providing reasons in an early story on any topic. Report "x" before deadline "y" knowing that first guessess are usually wrong and "obvious" assumptions frequently are, too. Over one year later any reasons could still be called arguable (see Kaus, Mickey).

But if there was an "official MSM Story line", Reuters, broke from it on July 10 2007: Top two aides quit McCain's 2008 campaign

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican John McCain's top two aides left his struggling U.S. presidential campaign on Tuesday, dealing a sharp blow to the Arizona senator and casting doubt on the future of his 2008 bid.

McCain said he would continue his White House run despite the departures of manager Terry Nelson and longtime chief strategist John Weaver, which were announced as McCain took the Senate floor to defend President George W. Bush's strategy in Iraq.

Reuters cited two reasons for that in paragraph three...

Once a front-runner in the Republican field, McCain has fallen behind as his staunch backing for Bush on the unpopular Iraq war and on an overhaul of immigration laws cost him support among both moderates and conservatives.

But chose to emphasize the war and ignore immigration thereafter:

Tuesday's announcement came as McCain, who visited Iraq last week, reiterated his support for Bush's new war strategy and the Senate reopened debate on the issue.

While Democrats are pressing for a plan to withdraw troops and several Republicans have defected from Bush over the war, McCain said it would be a mistake to abandon Bush's strategy now.

"I believe that our military in cooperation with Iraqi security forces is making progress in a number of areas. In other areas they are not," McCain said. "This strategy is the correct one."

But three days later, official MSM Story line stalwart CNN didn't mention reasons in reporting the continued downhill slide: McCain campaign running out of money:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – CNN has learned the already-dire situation for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has actually gotten even worse, with two sources close to the candidate saying the campaign only has a paltry $250,000 left.

But McCain hadn't yet hit bottom. Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic, July 16 2007: It's Official: McCain's Press Staff Resigns

Sen. John McCain's top three press aides resigned this morning, Republicans close to the campaign said and one of those aides confirmed.

The campaign's research director and two other press staffers also stepped down.

While Ambinder didn't mention Iraq or immigration in his piece, his comments section reveals some indication of the public discourse on the Iraq/immigration issues at the time. (Ron Paul supporters make a significant contribution - eagerly pointing out that their guy wants borders locked down and the US out of Iraq.)

That same morning, NPR's Morning Edition joined Reuters in veering from the "official MSM Story line": McCain Nearly Broke, but Stays Course

Sen. John McCain, the Republican from Arizona vying for the presidency, vows to remain in the race despite a campaign in disarray and nearly broke.

NPR emphasized Iraq...

At the American Legion hall in Claremont, New Hampshire more than 100 people showed up around 8:30 a.m. Frank Fahey was among them.

"I'm here to see if he can resurrect his campaign because I certainly want to be with a winner," Fahey said.

Winning seems like a dream for McCain as his campaign sinks in the polls and hemorrhages staff. He'll launch a bare-bones insurgent effort, traveling the state on his Straight Talk Express bus and numerous holding town hall meetings.

That approach worked for his campaign in 2000, but whether it can holdup now will depend on him.

"I don't think it's the same John McCain that we saw back in 2000," said Fahey, who has a lot of new questions for McCain.

When Fahey gets the chance, he addresses McCain pointedly: "Senator, there is no question you are an American hero; I voted for you the last time around. However, there's a perception created that you have become too close to President Bush and you have supported him too often."

"I should have called on your wife," McCain quipped, drawing laughter.

"Now as far as how close I am to Bush," he continued, "one of life's great ironies for me is that I was the vociferous critic of the way the war (in Iraq) was being conducted. I gave several speeches saying if we don't change what we're doing we're going to have a disaster. And so now I'm the guy who's responsible? 'Life is unfair,' as (former President) Jack Kennedy said."

McCain did call for the resignation of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 3 ½ years ago. But that's been buried under the headlines about McCain's ardent defense of the war.

Another question was about the widespread perception that his campaign was over.

McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war, said he had no doubts he could recover.

"I've had tough times in my life. This is day at the beach compared to some other others. We're going to be fine," he said.

...but:

NPR: Even more than the fundraising problems, it is McCain's views that have put him in this situation. He readily acknowledges his position on Iraq cost him support among Independents and his position on immigration cost him with Republicans.

Which (sans McCain's acknowledgement) is pretty close to Reuters more vague claim a few days earlier: "McCain has fallen behind as his staunch backing for Bush on the unpopular Iraq war and on an overhaul of immigration laws cost him support among both moderates and conservatives."

That summer, the war may have been costing McCain support among nervous conservatives who were anxiously trying to find some other national security issue they could be tough on (enter "border security") in case Iraq collapsed - and arguably overall was costing him "independents" (it gained him some of both, too - Americans are like that). But by December the war issue was less an albatross around his neck as violence levels fell - and "immigration reform" - for multiple reasons, was on the way out as an election issue.

But if by December the war wasn't costing McCain support...

Instead of trying to run a by-the-numbers conservative campaign, he is emphasizing issues on which he has taken what he believes to be principled but unpopular positions. He is the only one in the Republican field who seems eager to talk about Iraq. “My friends, here’s the news,” he told a small crowd in Seneca, South Carolina, a few days after returning from Thanksgiving with the troops. “We are winning in Iraq. We are winning in Iraq. We are winning in Iraq.”

That's from the lengthy New Yorker piece cited by Kaus as proof that McCain's "I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war" quote is 'bogus'. So contra Kaus, we see that in December McCain thought - rightly or wrongly - that his Iraq position was principled but unpopular. As for any claim that he believed immigration alone was responsible for his summer financial woes, that can only be drawn from this partial (unusually edited and out of context) quote in the same piece:

"It was immigration" that hurt his campaign, he said when he continued, after a series of apologies on both sides. "I understand that. I was told by one of the pollsters, 'We see real bleeding.' "

At this point one thing should be clear - there is no valid argument that the MSM attributed McCain's problems to "financial woes" without addressing cause - during the summer or afterwards. Likewise McCain acknowledges both of the oft-cited reasons for those financial woes. But McCain's "base" in the Republican Party has always been the moderate wing of the Party - not the "Conservative Base" that up until 2008 was assumed to be required for a Republican to capture a Presidential nod. McCain never appealed to that base. His position on immigration was one of many reasons for that, and his position on Iraq - even if they found it appealing - could not completely overcome that in the Primaries. Many were willing to "hold their nose and vote McCain" in the General, but only the selection of Sarah Palin cemented their support. Has that been forgotten already?

Meanwhile, as both Reuters and NPR acknowledged last summer, and as conventional wisdom indicates is true - his unswerving support for HIS TROOP SURGE (because he was far ahead of Bush on that one) cost him support from HIS base - the moderates in the Republican Party and independent voters, too. Folks can argue now that "the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated” or "it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams” or even "we knew all along our guys could get 'er done!" but among this year's remaining Presidential candidates only that middle statement is true - unless you're John McCain.

All done!

Continue reading "It's Sunday... "

Let's talk about Religion and Politics and War

"that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan"

Pray for guidance - a Christian will apply that advice to anything. That's in large part because Christians are never convinced that mankind (or an individual man or woman) acts in accordance with God's will - but Christians desire to act in such a manner. (A theological argument can be made against free will - but that's another issue altogether.) Many Americans probably don't know this, but one of the best known Christian prayers includes the phrase "thy will be done". (You can Google it, but it's true, I swear on a stack of Bibles.) Praying that you're doing the right thing is exactly the opposite of assuming that you're doing the right thing. People who pray for guidance are acknowledging that they are capable of acting in opposition to God's will, and likewise not convinced that they are acting in accordance with God's will.

So if you are a Christian, if you know any Christians, or if you understand Christianity you understand that quoted comment at the top of this entry. If you hate Christians you'll hate that comment. If you fear Christians you'll fear that comment. And if you feel that the separation of Church and State means that Christians have no place working in government jobs you'll feel that anyone who utters it is disqualified for any Government job, up to and including Vice President of the United States (or the job one heartbeat higher).

Over at The Sniffington Post they're salivating over the discovery that Sarah Palin is a Christian (no, really!?!). Not since the Democratic primaries have I heard an attack on a candidate's religion - or lack thereof. (Obama is a Muslim! Obama's Pastor is a whack job!) but I suspect that having been denied two well-planned attacks (Romney is a MORMON! Liebermann is a JEW!) the Sniffpo crowd is whipping out some prepared remarks, changing a name and a few keywords, and misfiring on this one instead (ready, fire, aim!).

Here's the comment above in context (there's video at the link). I'd add that the Governor - speaking at a church - also notes that she isn't using prepared remarks, so if this reads like someone talking rather than writing that's why.

My oldest, my son Track, he's a soldier in the United States Army now. He's an infantry man - and so Track sends his love also to his former nanny Christie. And Track - pray for our military - he's going to be deployed in September to Iraq - pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God - that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers, your prayers are protection over our soldiers.

(Previous entry on the Palin's son joining the Army here.)

Requesting prayers for her son, his fellow soldiers, and their leaders. Offensive? Disqualifying for high office? I guess that's an individual call. Every vote is sacred, says I - and every voter can make up his or her own mind. Many might even pray for guidance before doing so. That's fine by me.

But here's the Sniffpo interpretation of the scripture - their instructions to the choir on how to feel about this:

Speaking before the Pentecostal Church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

I'm a lot more disturbed by people who twist a member of a religious group's meaning with a goal of fomenting resentment of that religious group than I am by members of religious groups.

And when I was in Iraq I was always happy to open a care package from members of an American Church* that included a note that "our thoughts and prayers are with you" along with the cookies.

I knew just what they meant.

*We never got packages from Atheist groups.

Postscript here.

All done!

Continue reading "Trashed in Colorado "

Update: Hmmm...

But Democratic convention organizers claimed the flags were not going to be discarded — but instead were snatched from the site of Obama’s historic address to carry out a “cheap political stunt.”
<...>
Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, released a statement saying McCain should applaud the fact that thousands of American flags were “proudly waved” at their convention.

“But instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play out a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism,” he said.

Obama has faced attacks on his patriotism since the beginning of the Democratic primary race and has set up a Web site specifically designed to fight such charges.

The McCain campaign has denied questioning Obama’s patriotism, and even released a statement Friday calling Obama’s most recent comments on the matter “hysterical.”

Obama said Friday that Republicans are trying to make the election a personality contest, and that “what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, ‘Maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’”

All done!

Continue reading "Mayors and Organizers "

No. Here's a new bumper sticker, coming soon: Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor. Do Obama supporters really want to reinforce that "Messiah" thing? Given the known answer to the "do they really want to emphasize the experience issue?" question, I'm going to guess "yes". After all, if anyone points out the messianic aspects of the Obama campaign, the accused can respond by accusing the accusers of shouting antichrist...

And so on, and so on, and so on....

Can we ever get around to issues? Well, maybe - here's how. Time Magazine has already done an article detailing Palin's time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. (Short version: no one liked her, she did what she wanted, not what they wanted, and got re-elected "by a landslide".) Now they can do a piece on Obama's time as a "community organizer". They can tell Americans exactly what it is that Community Organizers do, who pays their salaries (or how they get money for food), etc. etc. Then they can turn to Obama specifically. What were his goals? What did he accomplish? Are there any before and after pictures of the communities he organized? Are there folks available for interview whose lives were improved by his efforts? Are they proud to see where he is today? How do they expect their lives to change if he becomes President?

If the candidate is willing to participate, they could get a heck of a cover shot, Obama in the streets he knew so well, surrounded by those whose lives he touched those many years ago. Who wouldn't drop the cash for a magazine story detailing Obama's career as a Community Organizer? (Here are some starting points, if you're interested.)

Not only would that sell, it would finally put to rest these sorts of claims from an Instapundit emailer (I added the hyperlink in the quote below, by the way):

My casual discussions with ladies around the hospital where I work indicates that they have never heard of ACORN and have never heard of Bill Ayers. I suspect that they don't know anymore about Tony Rezko either. But everyone seems to know about Bristol Palin's fiance.

Has there ever been a time in the history of our presidential politics where the press has so willfully chosen to do what they can to elect a specific candidate to the presidency?

All done!

Continue reading "Republicans and War "

Before I deployed to Iraq last year I did an interview with Politico in which I speculated on the American public's view of the war in Iraq:

"...those at one end of a spectrum want to ignore it, and those at the opposite want it to be something it isn't. Both groups wish it would go away. As a guy just interested in presenting facts, I believe my efforts are less and less appealing to the average American every day."

Democrats are at that "opposite end". They need to know all they can about Iraq, if they didn't, they could accidentally say something true about the war. Republicans are the other end, and they demonstrated that as Lindsey Graham tried and failed to get them to cheer for "victory".

It's also possible that knowing a lot about politicians and nothing about Iraq they don't trust a politician enough to endorse - even by cheering - anything one says about the war their country is waging half a world away. That's a wise decision, because with all the favorable facts available to him, Graham chose to display his ignorance instead: "Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and never once sat down with General Petraeus."

Wrong - here's an outstanding story on General Petraeus from The New Yorker. Even this brief excerpt is waaay to long for any delegate to the Republican National Convention to ever read - but folks with even a passing interest in war or politics will somehow clear that hurdle:

In July, Senator Barack Obama went to Iraq and saw the General; he was rewarded, courtesy of Petraeus’s energetic press aides, with an iconic photograph, printed in many dozens of newspapers, which showed the Senator aboard a command helicopter, smiling confidently at the General’s side.
<...>
At the September, 2007, hearings on Iraq’s progress, Petraeus’s questioners included Senator Barack Obama, who noted that under the hearing’s rules he had only “seven minutes,” which he found “a little frustrating,” because the war was “extraordinarily complex.” Obama continued, “The question, I think, that everybody is asking is: How long will this take? And at what point do we say, ‘Enough’?” The Senator’s formulation evoked Petraeus’s own question, on the sixth day of the war: “Tell me how this ends.”

Petraeus opposes a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, because he fears this might lead to a revival of intense violence in the country. At the hearing, Obama asked him, “If we’re there—the same place—a year from now, can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario?” Ryan Crocker, who accompanied Petraeus that day, offered an answer, but the Senator’s time expired before Petraeus could utter a single word in reply.

Obama’s questions gnawed at the General. The issue was fundamental: What was a minimally acceptable end state in Iraq, from the perspective of American interests?

Obama and Petraeus have some similar talents—they are calm under pressure, cerebral, and adaptive. Their professional relations, however, have not been intimate. After the MoveOn episode, Senate Republicans introduced a resolution, transparently crafted for political effect, to condemn the “General Betray Us” advertisement; this ploy forced Senate Democrats either to cast a vote that would alienate one of their party’s most important grassroots organizations or to cast one that would appear to question Petraeus’s integrity. Obama skipped the vote. Some of Petraeus’s aides took note of his decision disapprovingly. This year, Obama twice telephoned the General and expressed support, and he also praised Petraeus publicly. Still, he was not among those senators who made regular visits to Iraq. Late last spring, after Obama emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee, McCain criticized him for failing to visit the war front or to consult with Petraeus. (McCain had been an early supporter of increased troop deployments to Iraq, a view that brought him into a natural alliance with Petraeus.) Obama scheduled travel to Afghanistan and Iraq; he was accompanied by two Senate colleagues who are military veterans, Chuck Hagel, a Republican, of Nebraska, and Jack Reed, a Democrat, of Rhode Island.

For Petraeus, because “the clock ran out” at the September, 2007, hearing, he recalled, the Senator’s arrival offered “an opportunity” to answer Obama’s question about the way out of Iraq. The main briefing for the three senators took place in a conference room at the U.S. Embassy complex. Petraeus and Crocker had mounted large storyboard charts on easels; for about thirty minutes, Petraeus ticked off bullet points with his laser pointer.

The General later described to me what he sought to convey to Obama about the prospective pace of U.S. troop reductions: “There are very rigorous plans. And they’re being executed. And we actually met the goals that were in much of the security lines for the summer of 2008. Here’s what they are for the summer of 2009—and for the end state, the eventual end state.”

Petraeus spoke about the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who had called a series of ceasefires against U.S. troops during 2007 and 2008. Some analysts have argued that Sadr’s pullback did more to reduce violence in Iraq than U.S. actions. Petraeus told the three senators, he recalled, that these ceasefires had not been undertaken “out of the goodness of their heart” but because U.S. and Iraqi forces had struck at Sadr’s militias and killed many of his commanders and recruits as well as Iranian fighters who worked with him. This battlefield action, rather than Sadr’s ceasefires, had deepened and sustained the lull in Iraq’s violence this summer, Petraeus argued.

The General also reviewed classified charts that outlined the Joint Campaign Plan’s priorities, divisions of labor, and timetables. The plan’s basic prescription, he said, is to move successfully through Iraq’s national elections, scheduled for late 2009, and then to begin a major transition: to get U.S. forces as quickly as possible to a role of pure overwatch. Exactly when this might be achieved, though, and how many troops might be required to make it work, is deliberately omitted from the plan.

The biggest difference between Obama’s goals for Iraq and the current Joint Campaign Plan is the Senator’s pledge to withdraw all American “combat brigades” within sixteen months. (Under his plan, a “residual” U.S. force would remain, to support Iraqi troops and conduct counterterrorism operations.) By contrast, in the Petraeus-authored design, which McCain has endorsed unequivocally, U.S. troop reductions would not be firmly dictated by any timetables but would be “conditions-based.” As the briefing ended and a discussion with the senators began, Petraeus made clear that he hoped to make further troop reductions in the near future, but he reiterated his belief that military commanders in Iraq needed flexibility to manage the pace of these reductions.

Reed cited the declaration made only days before by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, effectively endorsing Obama’s withdrawal deadlines. “You’re going to have timelines—that’s what the Iraqi political leaders will say to their publics,” Reed told Petraeus, as he recalled the thrust of his remarks. “The reality here is there will be some type of timeline or deadline”—and Petraeus and other commanders needed to start adjusting to that.

Obama told Petraeus, in Reed’s recollection, “that his responsibility as a prospective President was not limited to Iraq alone.” Among other American interests that had to be considered, Obama said, was a need to rebalance American forces in the region to reinforce the war in Afghanistan. This would soon be Petraeus’s responsibility, as CENTCOM commander, but the General did not declare his views on that subject.

Immediately after his meetings with Petraeus, Obama described for Terry Moran, of ABC News, what he considered to be the critical issue discussed in the briefing. “The question for me was: Does he consider the gains reversible when it comes to Al Qaeda in Iraq, or some of the Shia militias?” Obama said. “And, if so, what kinds of resources are required to make sure that we reach a tipping point where they can’t reconstitute themselves? And I think what came out of the conversation was a sense that this is not a science. It’s an art.”

Obama also said he refused “to get boxed into what I consider two false choices”; namely, that he should either embrace a “rigid timeline” or pledge, in advance of becoming President, to do in Iraq whatever Petraeus tells him is best, “which is what George Bush says he’s doing—in which case, I’m not doing my job as Commander-in-Chief. I’m essentially simply rubber-stamping decisions that are made on the ground.” The Senator’s distinction involves some intellectual acrobatics, but his meaning seems clear enough: Obama prefers his announced timeline, but he is not wedded to it.

You can argue against Obama's position on Iraq - or you can lie about whether the Senator ever sat down with the General and in so doing destroy your own credibility. Graham chose the second option. Maybe it's not such a bad thing that no one was listening to him. Maybe it even explains why.

Update: Follow up post here.

All done!

Continue reading "Democrat Response to Palin Speech "

The press are so easily impressed my an actor...She should win an academy award not the Vice Presidency. Sent by sue b | 3:52 AM ET | 09-04-2008

The forcefulness of the speech is notable. Force is not a good thing.
Sent by Sherrie Connelly | 2:56 AM ET | 09-04-2008

...and - to be honest, vague. Unless there's a mailing list they're on but I'm not then I'm not sure why these folks believe I would know exactly what aspect of her speech was "acting" (I assume beyond normal levels for a political speech) or exactly why "force" is bad. (I used force to open a peanut butter jar just the other day.)

"Michael", on the other hand, was disturbed by Palin's unscientific view of global warming, and her lack of an inspiring "aura" like Obama's:

In considering Gov. Palin and her comments, bear in mind that if McCain is elected, she has a good chance of becoming president. The speech was professionally delivered and written by someone else. It was heavy on attacking Obama, with no new ideas (other than drill like a drunken sailor) or original thought. Country first, perhaps, but we are in a very interconnected world, with serious problems. We cannot ignore global warming any more than John McCain could opt to ignore his melanoma. When it comes to medicine we take scientific information seriously. Why not respect science in other cases? It can also be said for Obama that his aura of leadership really inspires. This is important, and I sensed no such inspiration in Palin's speech. Sorry, but I'm not ready to roll the dice on President Palin.
Sent by Michael Rich | 2:58 AM ET | 09-04-2008

And "kyle" is concerned about losing the votes of the "Women not wearing their thinking caps" who could be "brainwashed" if Obama doesn't give Hillary some money to pay off her "dept":

this is a letter i'm about to send via email and u.s. postal to high profile Dems and the Obama staff members, each of them:

As a voter of Obama in the primaries, I have a worry but also a hope:
that if he pays off Hillary's dept, he will further cement needed votes
that McCain plans to steal with Palin on his ticket.

After her speech, it now is paramount that Obama does so.

Women not wearing their thinking caps will be brain washed into voting for a ticket that will over turn their rights, not only a anti choice candidate BUT a potential VP (and president her self) that is even against choice in case of rape and incest.

as McCain has pointed out already,
he may be the one to replace 3 justices on the Supreme Court.

make a copy or send your own message to your senator....the time is now!
Sent by kyle | 3:54 AM ET | 09-04-2008

While "Beth-Ann" has created her own Republican Policies to oppose:

The McCain/Paulin 2008 Domestic and Foreign Policies

1) Economic plan--Sen. Obama is Evil
2) Energy Plan--Obama is a dumb blonde
3) Housing Crisis--Sen. Obama has horns
4) Unemployment-Democrats suck
5) Middle class tax--Obama is socialist
6) Foreign Dictators-Obama's too pretty to lead
7) Social security-Obama is not American, he graduated at the top of his law school class.
8) Medicare plan--Obama/Dems/Europe are the new axis of Evil
9) Global warming-Obama is a teacher's pet
10)Belief in Evolution-Obambi is a ZERO, get behind the McCain HERO
11) Sex Education, STD prevention: Did someone say sex? Sex should be banned, birth-control should be banned. Obstience only eduction.
12) Expansion of Executive Power--Obama is too skinny to lead
12) Religious Testing for Government positions-We are all Americans today (well, except Obambi)
13) Separation of church and state: We have no proof that Obama is NOT a terrorist
14) Role of Supreme court, Congress, and Declaration of War-He will sell Our country to Russia
15) Immigration: Obama hates baseball and says he's "allergic" to Apple pie!
Sent by Beth-Ann | 4:15 AM ET | 09-04-2008

She's very witty - compared to the rest. And I love her call for "eduction". I think Americans can benefit greatly from eduction.

Next, Palin is an evil danger to our country:

This woman is evil. Our country is in danger. someone PLEASE stop this before our country gets out of control...oh wait..it has already been out of control for 8 years. Do I have to move to canada if Caribou Barbie gets elected?
Sent by eileen dorn | 2:26 AM ET | 09-04-2008

They never keep that promise. A few minutes later "Kathleen" starts out okay, but can't keep her sanity beyond 1.5 sentences:

McCain's choice for running-mate shows complete distain for the people outside his own party. Palin is no fence-builder who can be trusted to lead the entire nation; instead I fear she would dance gleefully around a fire upon which burned all the liberals and Democrats, environmentalists, women's rights advocates, and non-Christians of this nation. If Obama becomes President, I know he'll be respectful of the beliefs of those who now support McCain. It's not a mutual respect. If McCain wins, I'll be applying for citizenship in Canada as a political refugee.
Sent by Kathlean Wolf | 2:31 AM ET | 09-04-2008

Canada is awful close to Alaska, though.

"Valle" seems to combine all the feelings of hate expressed by the others with the imaginary positions technique employed by "Beth-Ann":

"Saint" Palin shoots wolves from the sky, guts moose publicly and gleefully, treats her opponents (Lydia Green) cruely and without regard, yields power abusively, wants to tear up the alaskan wildlife refuge, thinks global warming is the name of a beauty salon, lies about her political activities, beleives Alaskas proximity to Russia gives her foreign poicy expertise, and beleives no woman has any right what so ever to choose her reproductive destiny. And worst of all, she and MCinsane will probably win. It makes my heart sick. And by the way, how can she be so pro life and so hell bent on killing everything else?
Sent by Valle | 3:32 AM ET | 09-04-2008

But perhaps - after all that - the most amazing comment is this one from L. Schexnider, who assures us that the liberal-burning, hell bent on killing everything but babies, global warming-causing, evil, dangerous Palin and her Republican cohorts have only one weapon to use against real Americans - FEAR!

It is so unfortunate that the Republicans have but one weapon: fear. Fear Obama because he's a Muslim; fear Obama because he's eloquent; fear Obama because he's got an Ivy League education; fear Obama because he speaks of hope and change! Um, I may be wrong, but arent' those the same qualities our forefathers possessed when they proposed our separation from England? Maybe the Republicans should take their own advice and be fearful of no change at all.
Sent by L. Schexnider | 2:32 AM ET | 09-04-2008

I'm not sure either, but if "L" is right I imagine our Ivy League educted, eloquent Muslim "forefathers" might be turning over in their graves (and perhaps annoying our foremothers in the next casket over). Or maybe "L" didn't mean what "L" wrote.

Finally, if "Judy Smith" is arguing in favor of Democrats, she might want to read her comrades' comments next time before adding her own thoughts:

Haven't we had enough "force", name calling and demeaning of people who do not agree with you? It has been 8 years of this and it hasn't worked. We need real change.
Sent by judy Smith | 3:14 AM ET | 09-04-2008

This isn't from the keyboard kommandoes at the Sniffington Post or Daily Kooze. Again, that's ten of the first twelve comments, unedited, from NPR readers. (The other two appear to be from Republicans). Perhaps NPR commenters aren't representative of "mainstream" Democratic thought and are merely a lunatic fringe of the Party. I've got nothing against against NPR and don't hold them responsible for that content - and I'll repeat, I enjoy NPR radio myself. They simply posted the Obama response and let others have their say - a big reason I love America.

But I am thankful that Mudville commenters - regardless of their political leanings - are a much more thoughtful, intelligent, and freethinking lot than this strange and sad crew.

All done!

Continue reading "Religion, Politics, and War... "

I think the folks that have a problem with Sarah Palin's religion have less problem with her belief in the Bible than with her by-example refutation of this philosophy:

The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy--everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever.'

I don't think that book is taught in classrooms anymore either. All done!

Continue reading "Good Night, Gustav "

Good Night, Dennis

If you missed them over the weekend, scroll down the main page here and you'll see several discussions on the landfall of Hurricane Dennis - reports from Cuba and the United States. Forecasted to slam the Florida coast as a category 3 or 4 storm, the post-landfall photos and video reveal damage consistent with a strong tropical storm with sporadic gusts to hurricane intensity. Coincidentally, this is exactly what wind sensors in the path of the storm detected - on shore and off.

Whether Dennis was a strong tropical storm or a weak hurricane is debatable. What's obvious now is that at and before landfall it wasn't a cat 3 hurricane - not even cat 2. A bad forecast? Not in all regards. Strong tropical storms do cause damage - As Dennis approached the Pensacola area flooding occurred in the rain bands over Apalachicola miles away from the center. Tornadoes likely formed inland. So arguably from the point of view of those in coastal communities the public interest was served - as far as people were made aware that something was going to happen, and they were prepared for the worst. And kudos to the National Hurricane Center, who nailed the expected path of the storm from a few days away.

But what about next time? Sensational type reporting - and exaggeration of minor storms into major stories - contributes to the lack of response on the part of many to a major storm when one does come along. People who erroneously believe they've survived a cat 3-4 storm will be in for a rude surprise when a real one moves in.

Because here's where things become dicey. As we noted before Dennis made landfall, no matter what would actually happen the media would report the Hurricane Center's landfall intensity forecast as if it had occurred - without regard to what was actually happening. (This is true only for forecasts of strong storms - they'd love to castigate the Hurricane Center for missing one - and that contributes to the problem too.)

Media hysteria is a small part of the feedback loop that accompanies one of these events. Consider this: the Hurricane Center makes a forecast. Media reports proclaim it as reality - although the NHC doesn't rely on those reports to evaluate it's performance it certainly makes it more difficult for them to stand up and say things were other than reported.

This is a good example of poor media coverage - an AP report from landfall at Guantanamo Cuba: Packing devastating 145 mph winds, Hurricane Dennis tore down a guard tower at the U.S. detention camp for terror suspects as it stalked Cuba's south coast and moved Friday toward the heart of the largest Caribbean island.

Sound impressive? The "guard tower" was actually a life guard platform knocked over by surf on the beach.

And here are some quotes from stories that appeared as the eye was moving on shore, before anyone knew what was going on.

Reuters: As it came ashore, Dennis was a Category 3 hurricane on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, a hurricane with winds of up to 130 mph (208 kph) capable of causing serious damage.

This made it as strong as Hurricane Ivan, which killed 25 people, caused $14 billion in damages and destroyed or damaged 13 oil drilling platforms in the Gulf in September. Earlier Sunday, Dennis was a stronger Category 4 storm.

The AP: The storm crossed land near the same state-line spot where Ivan arrived, pounding beachfronts already painfully exposed by denuded dunes, flattened neighborhoods and piles of rubble that threatened to turn into deadly missiles.

This sort of reporting is pure sensationalism. And it creates an illusion that the storm was as predicted - even though real data shows otherwise.

And the real problem kicks in when those who are responsible for the forecast - and who know what really happened - decide to stick to their guns and declare themselves right. No one expects weather forecasters to be right all the time - when they're wrong it's hardly newsworthy. There was no crime committed here, not even negligence. And no doubt with state of the art (or science, if you prefer) techniques and tools forecasters did the best job humanly possible. But by not admitting to the reality of what happened they excuse themselves from the responsibility of determining what did go wrong - and how to do better next time. Instead we get explanations like "it moved faster" or "improved building codes" - claims that will set us up for a disaster of epic proportions some day.

And here's the type of question that will never be answered: Aircraft measurement of winds indicated a strong storm. If those measurements were accurate, why didn't those winds reach the surface? Will they next time?

Given time you could come up with enough such questions to keep a platoon of university researchers busy for years, but instead we'll get nothing. Everything went exactly right. Science suffers, and knowledge isn't expanded.

Now let's move to the global scale. Is global warming real? The number of strong hurricanes this year will be a data point cited as evidence for or against global warming claims. Unfortunately, it's a tainted data set. I'm not taking a position on that topic here either way - just pointing out that it's unfortunate that bad data will be part of the equation.

Anyway - as Hurricane Dennis fades from the news and lingers only as a data point in the global warming record books we'll bid farewell to weather reporting in Mudville.

Til next time...

All done!