Test Marketing

The New Yorker:

If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up:

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”

True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow.

It’s one thing for the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al to champion a war they support. It’s another to jump like circus animals at the crack of the White House whip. If the propaganda campaign predicted by Rubin’s friend is launched, less subservient news organizations should ask certain questions, and keep asking them: Does the Administration expect the Iranian regime to fall in the event of an attack? If yes, what will replace it? If no (and it will not), why would the Administration deliberately set about to strengthen the regime’s hold on power? What will the Administration do to protect highly vulnerable American lives and interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world against the Iranian reprisals that will follow? What if Iran strikes against Israel? What will be the strategy when the Iranian nuclear program, damaged but not destroyed, resumes? How will the Administration handle the international alarm and opprobrium that would be an attack’s inevitable fallout?

If this really is a return to the early fall of 2002 all over again, then I’m fairly sure that no one at the top of the Administration is worrying about the answers.

Postscript: Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

- George Packer writes about foreign affairs, politics, and books.

Bush: "Is the world better off as a result of [my] leadership?”

The NY Times:

But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. “I made a decision to lead,” he said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?”

LSB: No!

UK troops poised to quit Basra

BRITAIN is preparing to hand over control of Basra to the Iraqi army as early as next month, sparking renewed claims from the US that the British are preparing to “cut and run”.

The Iraqi army is on course to take control of Basra province by the autumn with October seen as the earliest point at which it would be ready, according to Whitehall officials.

It could allow Gordon Brown to announce the handover in his widely anticipated statement on Iraq to the Commons when MPs return from the summer recess.

The handover would enable most of the 5,500 British soldiers to leave Iraq, although negotiations are under way to base some troops in Kuwait.

LSB: Now we're bullying and insulting our coalition partners? Is that the most effective means to maintaining alliances? Gordon Brown is not the lapdog Tony Blair was, and after five years of sacrifice the British have said 'enough is enough.' Brown promised to get the British troops out of Iraq and he's doing it. Let's hope our Democrative brethren (and sisters) will take heed, find a spine, and get the U.S. out of there as well. Seems Bush's friend, Australian PM John Howard, is going to keep his 1500 troops there for a bit longer, as securing an oil supply is a key factor behind Austalia's further involvement. (And just in case anyone is doing the math, that's 160,000 U.S. troops, 5500 British troops and 1500 Australian troops in Iraq - not exactly any type of balance in the coalition; more than 1 million Iraqis - about 4% of their population - are dead and millions more have been sought refuge across the borders in Jordan and Syria. So are Iraqis better off today than they were under Saddam? After spending more than $400 BILLION on this war - and BILLIONS more planned - and with 3000+ war dead and tens of thousands wounded, is the U.S. more secure than when this travesty began? What has this sacrifice actually achieved for us?)

What the Bible Says

"There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity and our enemies are always throwing them up to us usually in a vicious way and very much out of context. What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision." (from Butch Fatale)

-Lynn Lavner, an American comedian and musician from Brooklyn, New York. Much of her material is based around the facts that she is Jewish and a lesbian. She is frequently billed as "America's Most Politically Incorrect Entertainer."

Hypocrisy On Larry Craig Continues

Republicans are trying right now to get away with dismissing this as another "overblown [no pun intended, for sure] media scandal". While running away from Craig at warp speed.

Um, ok guys. You see an "overblown media scandal" was when you tried to impeach Bill Clinton over his personal behavior, and Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Bob Livingston and the rest of your band of self-hating misfits supported it.

Your lead candidate in the presidential race is Rudy Giuliani, who treats marriage like a drive-thru at McDonalds. Then there is dream candidate Fred Thompson, whose girlfriend and FORMER wife was probably not dreaming of having him impregnate her in high school.

You guys love the Bible. Try practicing the Golden Rule and then maybe, maybe, I'll have some sympathy.

- Cliff Schecter

LSB: Enough about Craig and the hypocrisy in the GOP. The point has been made, so let's move on.

Forcing Larry Craig's resignation while embracing David Vitter

Can we at least dispense with the fiction that the Moral Values Senate caucus giving rousing applause to David Vitter is motivated by anything resembling actual principles when forcing Larry Craig to resign? - GG

Glenn Greenwald:

When Hugh Hewitt admitted that he wants Larry Craig to resign but does not want the adulterous, serial-prostitute-hiring David Vitter to do so, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn from many different corners -- on the ground that this inconsistency is obviously attributable both to anti-gay animus and rank political self-interest (Vitter's replacement would be chosen by a Democratic Governor, whereas Craig's would be chosen by a right-wing GOP Governor). Even some right-wing blogs noted the absurdity of that position: "Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?"

Yet that contradictory and nakedly unprincipled posture has now become the official position of the GOP leadership, led by its pious "moral values" wing. A whole slew of very upstanding Family Values Senators are parading around making a flamboyant showing of pressuring Larry Craig to resign (knowing that it will entail no political cost), all while remaining completely silent about David Vitter's at least equally "undignified" and confessed adultery and lawbreaking (acts which, just like Craig, he concealed from his family and colleagues in the Senate until he had no choice). …

Whatever else one wants to say about the "family values" wing of the right-wing movement, the absolute last thing that it is is a principled, apolitical movement. And – as the starkly different treatment for Craig and Vitter conclusively demonstrates – these vaunted "moral principles," for which we are all supposed to show such profound respect, are invoked only when there is no political cost to invoking them, and worse, typically only when there is political benefit in doing so.

Social conservative Ross Douthat, in a Bloggingheads TV session from yesterday, explained this important (though almost always overlooked) dynamic perfectly in the context of discussing Larry Craig:

The reason that gay rights became a political issue in a way that various other frankly more important issues having to do with marriage and family life did not – particularly issues about divorce and heterosexual divorce rates and single parenthood – is that, clearly, it is easier to demonize gay people. And it is much more of an electoral winner.

Obviously, I think the broader conservative concern about family values in American life is correct. I think the way it has manifested itself in our political life is that nobody wants to be the guy out there telling people – hey, you know, your heterosexual marriage or your out-of-wedlock children are the problem. It's much easier to say – here is this particular manifestation that you can easily set aside and say I'm not gay.

The only kind of "morality" that this movement knows or embraces is politically exploitative, cost-free morality. That is why the national Republican Party rails endlessly against homosexuality and is virtually mute about divorce and adultery: because anti-gay moralism costs virtually all of its supporters nothing (since that is a moral prohibition that does not constrain them), while heterosexual moral deviations – from divorce to adultery to sex outside of marriage – are rampant among the Values Voters faithful and thus removed from the realm of condemnation. Hence we have scads of people sitting around opposing same-sex marriage because of their professed belief in "Traditional Marriage" while their "third husbands" and multiple step-children and live-in girlfriends sit next to them on the couch.

They're all willing to cheer on the "rules of traditional marriage" which do not impose on them in any way (marriage must have a man and a woman – no problem there). But no "Family Values" politician could possibly survive politically by seeking to enshrine with the force of law all of the other equally important prongs of "Traditional Marriage" (all of that dreary, outdated "until death do us part" business which would deny the "right" for Values Voters to dump their wives and move on to the "next wife" when the mood strikes, or remain shacked up with their various girlfriends and the like).

It goes without saying that no gay candidate would stand a chance of receiving the presidential nomination from the party that stands for Traditional Marriage. And indeed, the Idaho Family Values Association (entitled to great respect), in the wake of the Craig scandal, just called -- explicitly -- for the Republican Party to purge all gay politicians from the party:

The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig's situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.

But they would never call for the exclusion from the Party of political figures who dumped their wives and are on their "second marriage" or "third marriage" -- actions at least equally deviant from principles of "traditional marriage" as anything Sen. Craig did and which wreck the lives of Our Children far more -- because so many of their pious supporters engage in the same behavior, as Idaho's traditionally high divorce rates (.pdf) demonstrate. Indeed, the highest divorce rates are found in the parts of the country where the so-called "Traditional Marriage" movement thrives most strongly, namely the Christian Values regions in the South. Hence, no "Christian, family values" politician could faithfully adhere to a political position of "traditional marriage" and "traditional values" because to do so would be to alienate and condemn a huge portion of the members of that movement.

It is this same self-interested, cost-free moralism that explains how it could be that, with the exception of Mitt Romney, all of the leading presidential candidates in the Party of Traditional Marriage have personal lives that reflect everything except for those values, with all their wrecked marriages and multiple wives and long adulterous records and various "step-children" and the like. And even more revealingly, the leading lights of the Traditional Values movement -- from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich to Bill O'Reilly -- have some of the most morally depraved lives of any public figures, making most Hollywood celebrities seem chaste by comparison.

But their moral depravity is of the heterosexual variety, and thus perfectly tolerable, because to condemn them or repudiate them would be to make huge numbers of the Values Voters faithful feel condemned as well. And no political moralizing is possible if its mandates require real sacrifice or restraint from its adherents. That is and always has been the great sham that defines the exploitation of moral issues for political gain. It does everything except apply its alleged principles consistently. … (More)

Who'll Be The Next Republican Hypocrite To Be Dragged Out Of The Closet Screaming About Media Witch Hunts?

DownWithTyranny:

…[Y]esterday BlueNC gave Rep. McHenry's closet door a nice, loud jolt. In a scandal that will prove to be far bigger than South Park's outing of Tom Cruise (covered in great depth and detail by Wikipedia), it looks like there is a connection between McHenry [DWT: “other than 3 nut-case freshmen, McHenry's got the most reactionary voting record in Congress”] and a murderous Republican homosexual love triangle/escort service.

The murdered gay Republicans include Ralph Reed's purported ex-lover, Ralph Gonzalez (former head of the rabidly homophobic Georgia Republican Party), David Abrami and McHenry guy-pal Robert Drake, the shooter. All three were found last week in a murder-suicide in an Orlando apartment.

According to right-wing website, the North Carolina Conservative "All three men were active in Republican politics." They mention that Drake is "an associate" of McHenry's but don't define that. He is alleged to be an associate of quite a few younger men, some of whom are gay and some of whom are just gay-for-pay.

More sordid GOP details are available.

Cartoons vs. security policy

This would be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous:

But even such tight control could not lways filter out the bizarre world inside the [Green Zone] barricades. At one point, three visiting members of Congress] were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq’s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children’s cartoons.

When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, “But this is my favorite television show,” Moran recalled.

[Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.)] confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity.

“I don’t disagree it was an odd moment, but I did take a deep breath and say, ‘Wait a minute, at least they are using the latest technology, and they are monitoring the world,’ ” Porter said. “But, yes, it was pretty annoying.”

In other words, during an official meeting with U.S. lawmakers, the man responsible for coordinating Iraqi intelligence would rather watch a cartoon than discuss national security policy. And the Republican lawmaker in the room doesn’t see anything wrong with that.

- Steve Benen

Gallows humor in Iraq

To be absolutely clear, there is nothing funny about attacks on Americans. Ever.

That said, this has a certain gallows-humor quality to it. First the set-up…

A military cargo plane carrying four members of Congress took evasive action and dispatched flares to avoid ground fire Thursday night after taking off from Baghdad. The lawmakers said three rocket-propelled grenades were fired at their plane, a C-130, over the course of several minutes as they left for Jordan.

“It was a scary moment,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who reported seeing a bright flash outside the window just after he took off his body armor.

…and then the punch-line.

Despite the scare Shelby [Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.)], Martinez and Cramer [Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer (D-Ala.)] said they believed the recent troop buildup had helped stabilize parts of the country.

Thankfully, no one was hurt and the plane was able to reach its destination without further incident. But c’mon. Despite an attempt on their lives, these lawmakers still believe the surge is producing encouraging results?

- Steve Benen

FOXNews Attacks Single Mom Katie Couric For Going To Iraq

PERRspectives:

As ThinkProgress reported today, Fox News attacked CBS rival and single mother Katie Couric for her upcoming trip to Iraq. But while Neil Cavuto, John Gibson and the gang at Fox grew hysterical about Couric, they remained silent about 26 year old Michelle Ring and other single mothers fighting for the United States in Iraq.

The issue for Fox, of course, is that anyone else’s coverage of Iraq inevitably brings the facts of Bush’s Baghdad fiasco directly to American television screens. But in a new low even for Fox, Couric (whose husband passed away from colon cancer in 1998) was accused of placing her children at risk all in the name of ratings. As guest Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for American put it:

“She’s saying my ratings are more important than my children. That’s the bottom line.”

If only Fox News would focus such concern on all of the American single mothers who are fighting - and dying - for us in Iraq. That would include women like Michelle Ring of the 92nd Military Police Battalion based in Fort Benning, Georgia. Ring, who joined the Army in 2005, recently reenlisted with the hope of becoming a military police officer. Ring was killed by mortar fire on July 5th while on guard duty.

Bush’s Homophobic Surgeon General Nominee Charged With Conflicts Of Interest - Funnels Millions From Church

Via Talk2Action:

George Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General has drawn a lot of heat for among other things, his crack-pot anti-gay views as a leader in the United Methodist affiliate of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. But a new report may finally sink his already controversial nomination in a sea of conflicts of interest that have marked his career.

Dr. James Holsinger has also been a longtime leader of the Confessing Movement in the United Methodist Church. The Confessing Movement is a rightwing “renewal group” affiliated with the Washington, DC-based Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), whose purpose for a generation has been to divide and disrupt the historic churchs of mainline protestantism in the interests of advancing neoconservatism and the religious right.

Holsinger was elected to the highest court in the Methodist Church a time when the IRD-affiliated church “renewal” groups had launched efforts to use church judicial systems to enforce their notions of orthodoxy, particularly on matters related to homosexuality.

Now, an investigation Rev. Andrew J. Weaver, Ph.D. and Lawrence H. McGaughey, Esq., and published at Media Transparency, shows that Holsinger used the sale of a United Methodist Church-owned hospital in Kentucky, as a cash cow for his personal ambitions. It took years of litigation by the church to find out what had happened to its money, only to learn that Holsinger had diverted millions to endow professorships at the Chandler Medical Center at the University of Kentucky where he served as Chancellor and fundraiser-in-chief. Read more…

OPINION: The War Criminal in the Living Room

The media is silent, Congress is absent, and Americans are distracted as George W. Bush openly prepares aggression against Iran.

US Navy aircraft carrier strike forces are deployed off Iran.

US Air Force jets and missile systems are deployed in bases in countries bordering or near to Iran.

US B-2 stealth bombers have been refitted to carry 30,000 pound "bunker buster" bombs.

The US government is financing terrorist and separatist groups within Iran.

US Special Forces teams are conducting terrorist operations inside Iran.

US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries.

Bush's war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year. The American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq.

Bush is too self-righteous to see the dark humor in his denunciations of Iran for threatening "the security of nations everywhere" and of the Iraqi resistance for "a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power." Those are precisely the words that most of the world applies to Bush and his Brownshirt administration. The Pew Foundation's world polls show that despite all the American and Israeli propaganda against Iran, the US and Israel are regarded as no less threats to world stability than demonized Iran.

Bush has discarded habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justified torture and secret trials, damned critics as anti-American, and is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time. The vast majority of "kills" by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.

Now Bush wants to murder more. We have to kill Iranians "over there," Bush says, "before they come over here." There is no possibility that Iranians or any Muslims who have no air force, no navy, no modern military technology are going to "come over here," and no indication that they plan to do so. The Muslims are disunited and have been for centuries. That is what makes them vulnerable to colonial rule. If Muslims were united, the US would already have lost its army in Iraq. Indeed, it would not have been able to put an army in Iraq. (More)

- Paul Craig Roberts