Tue, Nov 18, 2008

Please allow me to introduce myself ....

Over and over, we are told the surge is a success and anyone who opposed it had better hang their head in shame should he or she ever wish to appear in polite society again. Alas, things are undoubtedly better in Iraq than before the surge, but the cost has been -- and continues to be -- enormous. And we are broke. The progress that has been made is so fragile it is unlikely to survive our exit, and so many of the promises of the surge have failed to materialize. So, while it is a qualified success, that hardly proves it was the right thing to do. Indeed, I doubt it.

Perhaps the most obvious failure of the surge has been the inability to provide a political solution in Iraq. Indeed, we appear to be enabling yet another Third World kleptocracy, except that this time, it is American taxpayers' money they are ripping off. Look at this terrific story out of Baghdad in today's Times. How is it possible to think about this story except as organized, condoned bribery, with American money, to get those in positions of power to do the bidding of the Bush administration?:

The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is systematically dismissing Iraqi oversight officials, who were installed to fight corruption in Iraqi ministries by order of the American occupation administration, which had hoped to bring Western standards of accountability to the notoriously opaque and graft-ridden bureaucracy here.

The dismissals, which were confirmed by senior Iraqi and American government officials on Sunday and Monday, have come as estimates of official Iraqi corruption have soared. One Iraqi former chief investigator recently testified before Congress that $13 billion in reconstruction funds from the United States had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste by Iraqi government officials.

The moves have not been publicly announced by Mr. Maliki's government, but word of them has begun to circulate through the layers of Iraqi bureaucracy as Parliament prepares to vote on a long-awaited security agreement.

That pact sets the terms for continued American presence here after the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31, but also amounts to a framework for a steady reduction in that presence. Such a change will undoubtedly lessen American oversight of Iraqi institutions.

Oh and see this profile of the Times bureau in Vanity Fair.

OK, now roll back the clock a few minutes and remember how we almost went to war with Iran over its malevolent influence inside Iraq. In what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was a "reminder" to Tehran, the Pentagon moved an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf in April. Days later, President Bush claimed Iran was continuing to "arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people." He warned that "[if] Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners." That aircraft carrier, by the way, was the same one adorned with a "Mission Accomplished" banner back in May 2003, and the unease created by that memory and the president's thinly veiled threats was only made worse by what those outside the administration were willing to say: In May, former UN Ambassador John Bolton told Fox News that he could "definitely" envision a scenario in which President Bush would bomb Iran before he leaves office, saying, "This is entirely responsible on our part."

All of this hinged, of course, on all of the above actually having taken place. The administration claimed it, but so what? They are stuffed (and staffed) with liars who will say almost anything to start a war with nations whose names begin with "Ira..." We know that, and explained why we didn't trust them in this Think Again column at the time. Alas, the more gullible MSM frequently repeated the charges without qualification or interest in whether there was any truth to them. For example, in reporting the carrier movement, NBC News' Ann Curry said, "[Gates] says it should be a reminder to Tehran, which Washington accuses of smuggling weapons to militants in Iraq." Phrases like "Washington accuses" or "the Pentagon says" were in many such reports, and actual examination of the charges was absent.

That's really too bad, since they turned out to be -- surprise -- false! Here's Gareth Porter, once again:

Last April, top George W. Bush administration officials, desperate to exploit any possible crack in the close relationship between the Nouri al-Maliki government and Iran, launched a new round of charges that Iran had stepped up covert arms assistance to Shi'a militias.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates suggested that there was "some sense of an increased level of [Iranian] supply of weapons and support to these groups." And Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung was told by military officials that the "plentiful, high quality weaponry" the militia was then using in Basra was "recently manufactured in Iran."

But a U.S. military task force had been passing on data to the Multi-National Force Iraq (MNFI) command that told a very different story. The data collected by the task force in the previous six weeks showed that relatively few of the weapons found in Shi'a militia caches were manufactured in Iran.

Surprise, surprise.

Speaking of Iran -- we wondered yesterday if the mainstream media would do some real reporting on the Status-of-Forces Agreement.

CNN reporter Michael Ware told the Wonk Room's Matt Duss yesterday that the deal is a testament to Iran's newfound influence in Iraqi politics:

WARE: Iran has a whip hand, or a key hand at least, within the political framework there. So during these negotiations between Baghdad and Washington, Tehran -- whether we like it or not -- was in the room. Tehran, in some ways, in some fashion, is a party to this agreement. And you'll see that some of the sticking points and some of the nuances within the negotiations were issues that were very close to the heart of Tehran.

Ware reported the same on CNN yesterday, sort of -- he said that Iran was "already well placed to fill any vacuum left by U.S. withdrawal," but did not detail the role they've already had in negotiating the withdrawal agreement. It would have been nice to hear more.

Is Obama the Antichrist? Newsweek has a look. (Really).

That would be a story if it was a widespread belief -- the author, Lisa Miller, does say it's a "widely shared" belief, but she isn't able to actually quantify it. As A. Serwer notes at TAPPED, the Antichrist label has also been attached to Barney the Dinosaur, John F. Kennedy, and Pope John Paul II. We expect stories examining those possibilities to be forthcoming.

Howard Kurtz, always on the lookout for liberal bias in the media, is rankled by newspapers that are printing extra copies of post-election day papers to sell to eager consumers. He's looking pretty hard.

Poorly constructed CNN.com headlines usually aren't worth a mention, but when the network uses them to make t-shirts like this one ... it's pretty tempting.

That headline, "Repent for Obama vote, Catholics told," is attached to a story about one particular Roman Catholic church in Greenville, South Carolina. Obviously, the headline creates the impression that Pope Benedict himself issued the edict. The t-shirt is available in small, medium, large, and extra large -- men's or women's!

Alter-reviews:

I wrote this here on Friday.

The film The Secrets, which is playing at the Israeli film festival in New York but is about to open elsewhere, stars Fanny Ardent along with a group of mostly young Israeli first-time actresses in a movie of incredible beauty, sensitivity, and sensuality. It is about two young extremely orthodox Jewish girls who meet at a seminary in Safed -- one of the only female seminaries for orthodox girls in the world -- and it illuminates their world and the conflicts within it -- as well as the various kinds of love and commitments to mercy and forgiveness we all face -- as powerfully as anything I've seen in years. The Israeli film industry is experiencing an incredible moment of creativity and political audacity, and amazingly, most of my favorite movies this year have been Israeli.

Vanity Fair's oral history of Motown is here.

Correspondence Corner:

Name: A Sullivan

Hometown: Washington, D.C.

Dr. A, I trust you've seen this article in The Washington Post reporting widespread efforts by the Bush administration to do to the federal bureaucracy what they've done to the Supreme Court: strangle it with people to form permanent ideological roadblocks.

I can't address the people mentioned in this particular article, but please note: the people the Bush administration foisted on the federal workforce were chosen only for their loyalty. Therefore, they were often uninformed and uninformable. The only factor in their decisions has been their ideology.

Name: BC

Hometown: Helena, MT

I completely agree with Will Thomann regarding working with the right. I can't see how we can make anyone accountable if we can't do it with the eight years of disaster that the GOP has foisted on this nation. To then let them either navigate where we go the next four years or have any other say in how this country is governed without some kind of awareness on their part of their past behavior is just rewarding bad governance.

Name: Jacquie Mardell

Hometown: Santa Clara, CA

FWIW, my local paper, the San Jose Mercury News, carried the McClatchy article about Sunday's Iraqi Parliament vote word-for-word this morning on the front page below the fold.

Name: Bob Tallman

Hometown: Crestwood, KY

Mr. Zornick asks:

"But while the foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton are certainly worthy of discussion, are they really any more pronounced than differences that may exist between, say, Obama and John Kerry or Bill Richardson, who are also being considered?"

I'd say yes. While I agree with Sen. Clinton's views on most matters, foreign policy is not one of them. And it is a very important matter indeed. She appears to me to be one of the leading hawks within today's Democratic Party. I would not say the same about the Senator or Governor, or the President-elect.

It is not just the one vote, it is the history of votes on foreign policy and defense matters. I am having difficulty seeing how Sen. Clinton helps President Obama "change the mindset that got us into this [Iraq] war."

Both Sen. McCain and Dr. Kissinger like the idea. That worries me.

Name: Mark Dolce

Hometown: Chicago

Thank you for your link to Bruce Springsteen's list of the 20 greatest singers, not just for Bruce's list, but because it clearly showed which tools and knobs of the musical universe do not deserve my attention for putting THEMSELVES on the list. James Blunt, you helium-inflected, ludicrous lunkhead, I'm talking to you.

Name: Jim Rollner

Hometown: Littleton, CO

Eric -- I've been reading your blog since your MSNBC days, and today was the first time (that I noticed, anyway) that the great band Yes merited a mention (props to Ron Curtiss).

I love 'em, have seen them in concert every chance I could, and hold them in esteem similarly to that you hold Springsteen.

I fear you'll end up trashing them just like you do McCartney, but if you're willing to give them a chance, check out "Close To The Edge," "Awaken," and "Gates of Delirium" -- if all you know is "Owner of a Lonely Heart" or "Roundabout," these tracks will be an eye opener.

If those win you over, they're currently on tour on your end of the continent (with a tribute singer in place of leader Jon Anderson, who's struggled with health issues of late), and deserve to be seen live on stage, where they do their best work. If you go, tell 'em to come to my area!

Name: M. George Stevenson

Hometown: Bronx, NY

My dear Dr. A:

As a recovering Yes man -- clean since 1978 -- I was made curious enough by Ron Curtiss' recommendation of their obscure cover of Paul Simon's "America" to dip into my elderly stash to rehear their equally ear-bending cover of Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim's "Something's Coming," which is just a slippery slope away from getting sucked back into the ultimate prog rock oblivion: The Nice's 6-plus minute cover of Bernstein/Sondheim's "America."

Help.

Name: Mickey Ehrlich

Hometown: Brooklyn, NY

In Henry Loomis' obituary in the Times, there was no mention of his relationship with Kennedy's USIA director, none other than Edward R. Murrow. In Alexander Kendrick's estimable Murrow biography, Prime Time (Little Brown, 1969), he notes that Loomis first came to blows with the administration and the USIA director during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion for the tone that the Voice of America "had been compelled to adopt in its broadcasts. He charged that it had been made to 'distort' the situation and had thereby 'failed to sound convincing.' "

Murrow was an uneasy, but generally dutiful propagandist and he achieved some small victories in the post, like making broadcasting and journalism experience a requirement for hiring at the Voice of America. Murrow resigned in 1965 because he was too sick from cancer to continue and Kendrick posits that it was no coincidence that many high profile USIA employees, including Henry Loomis, found they couldn't continue if Murrow didn't.

3:39pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Mon, Nov 17, 2008

Sunday Morning Coming Down

I never watch these things, but boy this is fun: Genuine expertise and critical intelligence vs. ignorant blowhardery: Want to see it in action? Does that exchange remind you of anything? (How sad that we missed Cokie's undoubtedly erudite contribution. I thought we were rid of her, like, six years ago. Even the thoroughly discredited Robert Novak is still mouthing off.) So, there you have it. The world has changed since November 4, but not the Sunday shows. Here was the lineup of Sunday show guests yesterday:

  • 7 appearances by Republican current elected officeholders,
  • 3 appearances by Democratic current elected officeholders,
  • 2 appearances by Republican former elected officeholders,
  • 1 appearance by a Bush Cabinet secretary,
  • T. Boone Pickens,
  • Ted Turner.

It's not only that there's a heavy Republican tilt, as has been the case for years (recall the Media Matters study) but that many of the Republicans featured have no immediate relevance. Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele? They have voices in the party now, but hold no elected office. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal does, but his current impact on national affairs, as governor of a medium-sized Southern state, is fairly small. In the face of tanking auto companies, deepening economic crisis, the SOFA accord, etc, and the Sunday show bookers could only muster three Democratic current elected officeholders. These are serious problems, and not only has Gingrich/Steele's prescriptions been discredited, they have no power to implement them.

So this is a story: "After nearly one year of negotiations, the Iraqi Cabinet voted 'overwhelmingly' Sunday to approve a security agreement requiring 'coalition forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by the summer of 2009 and from the country by the end of 2011,' the New York Times reports. 'An earlier version had language giving some flexibility to that deadline ... but the Iraqis managed to have the deadline set in stone, a significant negotiating victory.' Earlier this month, the Times reported that Barack Obama's victory spurred the Iraqi political process toward finalizing a withdrawal agreement."

This is, of course, a huge development. The Cabinet vote may be a good reflection of how the Iraqi Parliament votes, and if they pass this too -- the war's over, folks. Spencer Ackerman: "The Bush administration intended the SOFA process to entrench the occupation. Instead it gave the Iraqi government the means to end it. And that's the best-possible way for the war to end: with the Iraqi government -- the one we've disingenuously told the world we're in Iraq to support -- showing its political maturation to get us out the day after tomorrow. And out actually means out. The SOFA demands that every last U.S. serviceman is on a plane by December 31, 2011. Obama's plan for a 30,000-troop residual force? Officially overtaken by events. As I say, the impact of this appears not to have sunken in. The Iraqis have forced an end to the war."

We wrote last week that the SOFA talks were way underplayed in the mainstream media -- let's see if this story gets the attention and deep analysis it should this week. It's a vindication for those who want to see this war ended, and a stinging indictment of Bush's Iraq policy.

The New York Times featured a front-page story yesterday, headlined "Downturn Drags More Consumers Into Bankruptcy" by Tara Siegel Bernard and Jenny Anderson. They write: "Plummeting home values, dwindling incomes and the near disappearance of credit have proved a potent mixture. While all the usual reasons that distressed borrowers seek bankruptcy -- job loss, medical bills, divorce -- play significant roles, new economic forces are changing the calculus of who can ride out the tough times and who cannot."

Actually, Bernard and Anderson could have been more exact: half of all bankruptcies are usually related to medical bills, according to a study by Harvard researchers published in the medical journal Health Affairs.

It's a small point, but it's unfortunate when mainstream reporters understate the true impact of the health care crisis. It should be well known that half of all bankruptcies in the country are filed by people who can't pay medical bills, and it should also be noted that of those bankruptcies, 68 percent are filed by people who already have health insurance. Slighting the deep impact of this crisis is unfortunately common; we've been hearing a lot about the pros and cons of bailing out the Big Three auto companies, but not enough of a broad discussion about the economic disadvantages placed on companies with competitors who operate in universal health care systems; our car companies reportedly pay more for health care than they do for steel. Their foreign-owned competitors are unburdened by this because they lack our ideological fixations and embrace a more rational system of the provision of health care. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fine article that helps explain how this happened, here, and today's Times has a profile of Phil Gramm, John McCain's favorite economic adviser, here, which helps demonstrate just how willfully blinded our leaders allowed themselves to become, and how working people must now pay the price ...

Noting that Barack Obama has a stated, but underreported, "commitment to blocking further media consolidation, fostering more independent and diverse media, ensuring universal high-speed Internet access, and 'taking a back seat to no one' in passing 'Net Neutrality' laws to prevent Internet providers like Comcast and AT&T from creating fast and slow lanes on the Internet," Josh Silver of Free Press gives his top media reform priorities for 2009. They include increased funding for PBS and NPR, and also white-space driven affordable Internet and reversing media consolidation, which we've written about here and here. Getting a federal shield law wouldn't be bad either.

George Zornick writes: Anyone else not want to hear the phrase "Team of Rivals" for awhile? There were no doubt foreign policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama worthy of discussion, but the idea that putting her in Foggy Bottom is comparable to Lincoln's famous cabinet appointments seems way, way overdrawn. The sector of the mainstream media that just cannot. let. go. of the primary fight has taken this ball and run -- Hardball regular Michelle Bernard said Hillary "will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem"; others referred to her as Obama's "enem[y]" who may "mak[e] trouble" for Obama. But while the foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton are certainly worthy of discussion, are they really any more pronounced than differences that may exist between, say, Obama and John Kerry or Bill Richardson, who are also being considered?

Henry Loomis, who became the director of Voice of America under President Eisenhower, died on November 2: Mr. Loomis was still in the post in 1965 when the Voice of America came under increasing pressure from the White House not to report awkward foreign-policy news, notably the growing U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. Mr. Loomis resigned, and in an accusatory farewell speech said, "The Voice of America is not the voice of the administration."

The New York Times obit is here.

The return of John McCain and of McCain Suck-Up Watch: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Sen. John McCain appeared at a rally in support of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), but the article did not note that McCain reportedly criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). More here.

Quote of the Day:

Q. What is George W. Bush's legacy in the Middle East?

A. One word: catastrophe. The United States has traditionally had a very strong position among upwardly mobile Middle Easterners who saw American-style meritocracy as an alternative to the system imposed on them, which allows only the children of the elite to be the leaders of tomorrow. Even if most Middle Easterners would not say it publicly, their dream was America, and America was the dream of the Middle East. And that dream has been killed entirely by Bush.

Gilles Kepel, professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at the Institute of Political Studies, in Paris, author of Beyond Terror and Martyrdom: The Future of the Middle East (Harvard University Press).

Some guy picks his 20 favorite singers, here.

From TomDispatch:

In his latest TomDispatch post, Tariq Ali, author most recently of The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power (highly praised in The Washington Post by Barack Obama's new Pakistan policy adviser Bruce Riedel), considers the future of George W. Bush's Afghan disaster. He explores the deteriorating political and military situations there, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's hopeless dilemma, rising strains within NATO, lowering morale among U.S. forces, and why the "neo-Taliban" is gaining strength (especially from U.S. air strikes that kill Afghan civilians). As he assesses the situation:

Over the last two years, the U.S./NATO occupation of that country has run into serious military problems. Given a severe global economic crisis and the election of a new American president -- a man separated in style, intellect, and temperament from his predecessor -- the possibility of a serious discussion about an exit strategy from the Afghan disaster hovers on the horizon. The predicament the U.S. and its allies find themselves in is not an inescapable one, but a change in policy, if it is to matter, cannot be of the cosmetic variety.

He also offers a ground-level view of the situation from an American veteran of the Afghan war gone AWOL in Canada and suggests why a military-plus solution to the conflict -- centered on a new Obama-era "surge" -- cannot work, while a military-minus solution, involving the mobilization of all the regional actors, all Afghanistan's neighbors, might. This would represent a true break from present U.S. policy.

He concludes: "Whether you are a policymaker in the next administration or an AWOL veteran of the Afghan War in Canada, Operation Enduring Freedom of 2001 has visibly become Operation Enduring Disaster. Less clear is whether an Obama administration can truly break from past policy or will just create a military-plus add-on to it. Only a total break from the catastrophe that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld created in Afghanistan will offer pathways to a viable future."

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Rick Kane
Hometown: Locust Grove, Virginia

Doctor Alterman:

You and others perceptively noted that the WSJ was doomed the day Murdoch bought it. This would have been a catastrophe for us all 20, or even 10 years ago, but now it will only be a catastrophe for the WSJ staff and the poor fools who continue to read it. For NYT, Bloomberg, and the Financial Times, it is market opportunity. Finally, for the last year, thanks to you and Dean Baker, I have found the best economic, financial, and business commentary on the Web at sites such as Calculated Risk, Angry Bear, and Naked Capitalism.

Name: Will Thomann
Hometown: New York, New York

Re: LTC Bob's letter. I have to say I'm sick of how we on the left are told that we must now cooperate with the right wing, just because they say so. I'm all for cooperation, but not if it merely means that the right wing simply gets its way, which is the only way the right wing cooperates. It is time that the failed policies and the people who represent them get put to pasture. Now is not the time to cooperate with them.

Name: Reed Richardson
Hometown: Ridgewood, NJ

To: Charles Pierce, Esq.

In your previous motion before this court regarding the plaintiff Roderick David Stewart (corresp. 11/14/08, Pt. II), counsel left the record sadly incomplete, leaving out one important citation that, contra. "I Ain't Superstitious," et al., augurs poorly for your client. I, of course, am referring to the landmark decision Stewart v. Waits (1990, the "Downtown Train" case), where the party of the first part did knowingly and with apparent malice engage in running up to #2 on the Billboard charts an unforgivably schmaltzy, power-ballad cover of what had previously been Tom Waits' brilliantly haunting and bittersweet song of unrequited love. Documentary evidence of this gross malfeasance (Cite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHqB3v5rNCc) we feel is more than sufficient to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order barring counsel from further admonitions on behalf of his client before this court as well as, frankly, any ex parte discussions with (at) the bar.

Footnote: It should also be pointed out to the court that the first visual reference of the mode of transportation at issue was, in fact, the Grand Central/Times Square shuttle, a train that does not begin, end, or ever travel through "downtown." (Ibid.)

Name: Bill Dauphin
Hometown: Vernon, CT

Unless I missed some previous mention of it, Pierce's list of Rod Stewart covers is incomplete without including the Mod's version of Cat Stevens' "The First Cut Is the Deepest," which appeared on the 1976 album, A Night on the Town.

Stewart's throaty voice gave the song an emotional grit that Stevens' own rendition never achieved.

Name: Ron Curtiss
Hometown: Studio City, CA

Eric: As Mr. Pierce has left the obscure cover songs door open, let me add Yes' versions of the Beatles, "Every Little Thing" and "I'm Down," plus their brilliant version of Paul Simon's "America" that clocks in at over 10 minutes!

Name: Steve Collins
Hometown: Carrboro, NC

I was really glad to see Pierce's resurrection of the old Rod Stewart, the man that Greil Marcus once lamented as the greatest waste of talent in music history. If I may add some to his tally of great covers that Rod did when young, he is remembered by many as being one of, if not the, finest cover artist of Bob Dylan. I'm thinking in particular of his cover of Dylan's "Only a Hobo" on Gasoline Alley. But even in his lamentable later years, his cover of "Forever Young" wasn't shabby. Rod the Mod has always been best when he acts as an interpreter. And not singing about "Hot Legs."

Eric replies: Nice new Rod collection, limited edition has a DVD, to be reviewed shortly ...

2:02pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Fri, Nov 14, 2008

Slacker Friday

We've got a new Think Again column called "Meanwhile, Back in Baghdad," here, and my Nation column is called "These Are Better Days."

I'll be speaking to a small gathering of Jewish students at Yale tonight where I will give your regards to the home of America's first hamburger but not, alas, to the world's best pizza, since it's a dinner thing. Saturday I'm speaking to a gathering of the Ohio ACLU in Cleveland, where I will give all of your regards to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

From LTC Bob:

Hey, 48? 52? Yeah, ummm, c'mere you two, come sit down in the living room. We've got something serious we need to talk to you about, OK?

[pause]

All right, you know that I'm not really good at speaking. State is, but we both thought that this should be written down, because that helps tamp down emotions. So here you go [handing paper], read this. It's from both of us. We can talk afterwards.

* * *

Dear Family,

OK, well we all know this is a pretty emotional time for everyone. We get it. 52, you're on top of the world right now and feeling really good. And 48, we know you feel like you just got hit by a truck and you want to crawl into a cave. But 48, please remember that 52 felt that way not long ago. THIS time we need you two to get along, ok? Because maybe you haven't noticed, but things are pretty rough around here, especially for us, and things might get even worse before they get better.

Now, 52, I know you want to blame our troubles on 48, and some of that is understandable. But you need to be calm and focused now and let the past rest. And 48, I know that you want to blame our troubles on 52, and some of that is understandable too. But you need to stop the pouting and pull up. We have let you two work yourselves up and vent your issues as much as you wanted up to this point, but all of that has to stop now, OK? It's done. The emotions are understandable, but the time for that is over now. Do you hear us? We need both of you to settle down now and act your age. You should not be acting like this at 232.

Yes, we get it. Emotions are heady things. But the way you two have behaved in the past just will not cut it this time. That time in 1861? That was totally unacceptable. And frankly, the way the both of you acted in 1932 was pretty bad too. As for 1968, I think we all agree that the family is better leaving that behind us. This isn't like the time you wrecked the car and blamed it on "the environment," 48, and it's not like the time you got suspended and threatened to move to France, 52. This is a lot more serious. We are in real, no-kidding trouble, and we need both of you pulling together this time. You understand, intellectually, that euphoria and depression lead to overconfidence and recrimination, which only drive you two further apart, and we cannot have that this time. We just can't.

We want you to know that we love both of you. Yes, you each have your extreme moments and personality traits, but we really do love you both, even some of the crazy parts, and that is what is important. We are a family, but as a family, we need to pull as one team. Do you understand? We need you to stand up now and help us make things right in the neighborhood, because frankly it is just too much for the two of us to carry the load alone now, OK? We are just too worn out and exhausted, and we both need your help.

We're being direct with the two of you because you are old enough now to understand. And we are talking this way because we see that if you two keep it up, if you don't calm down and start seriously working together for this family, the consequences will be a lot more serious than just another grounding.

OK, well, we all understand each other now. Now do the right thing, both of you. And please, when you go outside, remember that the neighbors can hear and see you, ok? No more streaking 52? No more preaching on the corner 48? Just be normal, deal?

We love you,
Department of Defense (LTC Bob) and Department of State (Mrs. LTC Bob)

You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com . If you've a message for Mrs. LTC Bob, he can pass it to her as well.

From TomDispatch:

An election campaign season is invariably a time when all Democrats must seem tougher than titanium on foreign policy issues -- and, on North Korea, Barack Obama was. That, of course, was campaign rhetoric, but such rhetoric sometimes has an eerie way of turning into policy, especially for a new Democratic administration which will undoubtedly feel a similar need to seem tough on "security issues." It's often suggested that Kim Jong Il's country is locked in a time warp. That might turn out to be a better description -- as co-director of the website Foreign Policy in Focus and Korea expert John Feffer suggests -- of American policy toward that country. As a key prerequisite for a genuinely new approach to the North, the Obama administration should start, he concludes, by suspending the givens of the last 12 years and simply trying to see that country in a new way.

This Feffer himself does in his latest TomDispatch piece, beginning his new portrait of the North Koreans this way: "Forget the picture you have of a land that time forgot. North Korea is not the world's last Stalinist country or the only remaining communist economy. Not anymore, anyway. The country is very different than it was even a decade ago. For one thing, North Korea is now thoroughly permeated by a spreading market economy."

For an American media that concentrates only on the North's nuclear weapons program and the health of its "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, Feffer paints a startling picture of the development of "red capitalism" in the North -- red, not in the sense of communism, but as in "red in tooth and claw." In the end, he offers a vision of the North -- with a developing technocratic class, new markets, and newly porous borders -- as a China without money.

It's in this context that he considers the disaster of Bush's North Korean policy -- both the attempt at regime change and the attempt at negotiations over its nuclear program. "If the Obama administration proves capable of looking at North Korea with new eyes," he suggests, "it will see that economic engagement with the country is likely to encourage all these important, if still nascent, changes" instead of simply focusing only bargaining chip the impoverished North now has, its nuclear program.

In this rethinking of American policy, Feffer urges the new administration to engage the North economically and suggests just how this might be done to everyone's benefit. He concludes: "If Obama and his advisors look at North Korea clearly, they can resolve the longest-lived conflict that the United States currently has with another country. That wouldn't be change around the edges, but a fundamental step forward in U.S. relations with the world."

Slacker Friday:

Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA

Hey Doc:

"Here's to you/Raise a glass to everyone/Here's to them/underneath the burning sun."

Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "I Ate Up The Apple Tree" (The Original Pinstripe Brass Band) -- Matt Lauer's coming over tomorrow. We're going to make moose etouffee and talk about how much I love New Orleans.

Short Takes:

Part The First: The Bateman/Pierce ticket was sadly mistaken in its belief that the Nation was ready for either one of us. We are gearing up for 2012. I'm fairly sure I can still work less hard.

Part The Second: More thoughts on The Great Cover List: to wit, what to do with Rod The Mod? He's something of a giggle in his dotage, thrashing around with Gershwin and all that but, in his younger days, he was a cover machine, starting with the tremendous "I Ain't Superstitious" with The Jeff Beck Group. I would include as exhibits for the Plaintiff the following: a) the backwards-arranged "Street Fightin' Man" from The Rod Stewart Album; b) the stellar pair of Dylan obscuros, "Only A Hobo" (Gasoline Alley) and "Mama, You Been On My Mind" (Never A Dull Moment); c) the pulverizing "(I Know) I'm Losin' You" from Every Picture Tells A Story and the sloppy-great "Twistin' The Night Away" (NADM), d) the moving "People Get Ready" that he did with Jeff Beck, and, my own personal favorite, his masterful reworking of my personal collegiate anthem, "What Made Milwaukee Famous (Made A Loser Out Of Me)." (Jerry Lee's version of the Charlie Rich tune was a jukebox staple at the late, lamented Lenny's Tap on the corner of 18th and State.) As far as I know, for years, the cut existed only on the cassette version of Never A Dull Moment. It now can be found on a couple of Mercury anthologies.

Part The Third: Anyone who doubts that Garry W. Tallent is the most underrated player in rock and roll need only listen to the vintage "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" that's going to be all over the radio for the next month and a half. He runs that bass into the choruses like Duck Dunn hitting his mark on the live versions of "Try A Little Tenderness."

Part The Fourth: It really is only a matter of time before Shep Smith goes over the wall, isn't it? C'mon, Shep. That car's idling in the dark outside the studio!

Part The Fifth: Bravo has brought back The West Wing for two episodes every weekday morning. It's remarkable in the early shows how deeply DLC-Moynihan Stockholm Syndrome afflicted the Bartlet-Sorkin White House. (Yes, Lawrence O'Donnell, you're a good man, but I am indeed looking at you. And at Caddell.) There's an ungodly amount of flinching going on, and the show already feels as conspicuously dated as The Defenders or Carter Country. Still smart writing, though, and what a horrible loss John Spencer was.

Part The Sixth: It's over! It's all over! In a shocking development, the preseason favorite quit on his stool, and the title of Biggest Knob In Knoxville passes to the challenger in a shocking upset. Heh, indeedly-deedly-do!

Part The Last: God love Dr. Maddow for at least pointing out the other night that a great deal of the reporting on the Obama transition is a bubbling goulash of agenda-pushing, guesswork, wishful thinking, and complete bullsh*t.

Just when you thought there might actually be a bottom to scrape in the barrel of cable television news, we have the unprecedented coverage granted to Princess Dumbass Of The Northwoods. Remember, if you would, that in 2000, we had a genuinely controversial election the results of which were dubious on their face, and then delegitimized even more by a comically corrupt Supreme Court decision that might as well have been handed down in a plain brown envelope. Throughout the extended unpleasantness, all we heard from the punditariat was that the dispute had to be settled quickly and smoothly, none of those messy constitutional requirements to tangle us up, because The American People were hankering for a solution. This was, of course, arrant nonsense. Most of the people spreading knew as much about The American People than they did about Giant Mole Rats On Mars. The extended recount was inconveniencing them. That was the problem. Nevertheless, once the Nine Old Burglars handed down their nakedly accessorial opinion, we were all told to move on. Al Gore was sent on his way in a hail of condescension and ridicule. (Read now the reaction to the thwacking speech Gore gave prior to the launching of the Iraq War. People should have been fired for what they wrote and said.) We were also told that, because of the connivance through which he'd been put in office, George W. Bush undoubtedly would be forced to govern in a moderate, bipartisan fashion. And, of course, apres le merde, le deluge.

Now, though, we have the vice-presidential candidate of a ticket that lost from one end of the country to another being treated as though her every halting grammatical atrocity is inherently newsworthy. This past week has been simply astonishing. If the past campaign revealed anything, it revealed that Sarah Palin has the breadth of knowledge suitable to a small-town mayor and the syntax suitable for running the Slurpee machine at some logging-trail convenience store. She seems to have learned English backwards. She helped doom the ticket all by herself. Yet, there are important people in the television news end of my business who seem completely incapable of saying no to this dim woman. How is she not yet yesterday's news? Don't hand me that she is somehow a vital figure in the rebuilding of the Republican brand. The jury is still way out on that. (If that were really the case, I'd be seeing a lot more of Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels than I'm seeing of Herself.) Yes, I know people watch NASCAR to see car wrecks, but they don't watch to see the same car wreck, over and over again. What is wrong with you people? Butcher's Bill Kristol thinks this woman's smart. Isn't that enough? Yeesh.

Name: Steve Milligan
Hometown: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dr. A.

I also saw "Boogie Man" the other night. I thought it was fascinating. What continues to puzzle me is that folks like Atwater and Rove are constantly described as "genius" or "brilliant" when it seems to me that their only true distinction is their enthusiasm for shredding all standards of decency and all regard for the truth. Does this make political operatives who display a modicum of probity "uninspired" or "less brilliant?" As bad as it is, what would the quality of our political discourse be like if our fora were populated exclusively by such "geniuses?"

What was conspicuous by its absence in the film was the highlighting of the media's role in pimping themselves out as willing, better yet enthusiastic conduits for the swill that these "brilliant" operatives churn out with such depressing regularity.

Keep up the good work.

Name: John B
Hometown: Des Moines, IA

I've been thinking for the last couple of days how to say what Tom Engelhardt says better here. Barack Obama can only do what we're sending him to Washington to do if we write to our representatives insisting that they do the right thing, that we complain to the media when they repeat lies or hold him to an impossible standard. If "We, the People" do this right, it can be the start of an ongoing Liberal enlightenment in the United States. If we just let the man suffocate we won't get another chance to straighten things out for a long time. That's a guarantee.

Name: John Brennan
Hometown: Fairfax Station, VA

With regards to the claims of phony blogster/ersatz McCain adviser Martin Eisenstadt being taken so credulously by so many MSM outlets, you'd think they'd realize that anyone claiming to work at something called the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy was staging an elaborate prank. The moment I saw the name of that supposed think tank I realized it was a goof. The only question in my mind was whether the Harding referred to was Warren or Tonya.

Name: Denton Randall
Hometown: Louisville, KY

Hey Doc...

I can't recall an election cycle when so many folks continued wearing their (winners) badges, wrist bands, T-shirts, etc., after election day.

Reminds me of David Crosby; "I feel like letting my freak flag fly."

Name: Jim
Hometown: Swanzey, NH

I'm a fan of Simmons, probably because I'm also a fan of Boston teams. That's been Simmons' shtick from the beginning, being a fan who writes rather than a sportswriter. He's always hated Shaughnessy (named "The Curly-Headed Boyfriend" by Carl Everett, who was ranking out Peter Gammons at the time) for his ridiculous reliance on the "Curse of Babe Ruth" story. It's likely he's picking on Berman for his equally ridiculous and inappropriate boosting of the Bills.

Name: Ken Hughes
Hometown: Presidential Recordings Program, Miller Center, University of Virginia

Dear Eric,

"South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway," President Richard Nixon told National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger on August 3, 1972, by which time he had spent nearly four full years telling the American people the opposite. "I'm just being perfectly candid."

Nixon had publicly promised to bring the troops home from Vietnam only when the South could defend and govern itself, but he privately recognized that that it probably never would be able to. He could have withdrawn the troops when he first realized this. And gone down in history as a president who lost a war. And gone down to defeat in the 1972 election.

Instead, Nixon secretly timed military withdrawal from Vietnam to the election, bringing enough troops home to bolster his claim that his training program for the South Vietnamese military was succeeding, while leaving enough there (until the politically opportune moment) to conceal that it wasn't. And he secretly proposed a "decent interval" exit, letting Hanoi know via triangular diplomacy that he would not intervene if it overthrew the Saigon government after he got out -- as long as the Communists waited about 18 months. Enough time so that Saigon's fall looked like Saigon's fault, not Nixon's.

Episode five of Fatal Politics shows how Nixon's secret diplomatic strategy began to bear fruit in 1972. The Chinese accepted the "decent interval" concept, then urged it on the North Vietnamese. The last US combat troops came home. Nixon rode sky high in the polls.

Almost twenty thousand American soldiers had died during his presidency (one-third of all who died in our longest war). They had been told they were fighting for South Vietnam's independence and freedom, not for a decent interval before North Vietnam won. "We've got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two," Kissinger told Nixon. "After a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74 no one will give a damn."

1:30pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Make a Donation

Links

Recent Columns

Bookmarks