On Vacation

I'm gone until the 17th. See you then.

George W. Bush -- "REAL THREAT"

I was having lunch with my wife this afternoon. From across the room I could see the big screen TV in the bar with either MSNBC or FOX playing with the sound turned off. I was only partially paying attention when I noticed a report about the election. They first flashed a clip of Kerry doing some meet-n-greet event with the caption "WESTWARD HO!" underneath. I guess Kerry was making some swing through the west.

The screen then flashed to a clip of Bush coming on stage at some event. Under his image was the caption "REAL THREAT".

Talk about truth in labeling :-)

I imagine the report was actually about the continuing controversy over the recent terror alerts and that the "REAL THREAT" was in reference to administration claims that the threat was real and not political. But the juxtaposition of Bush with that caption was a priceless moment that made me wish I had TiVo.

There is a subliminal nature to the image on the glass teat, especially in this age of continuous tickers and flashy background graphics, that can bypass our normal conscious filters. It can plant itself into our subconscious and sprout forth in ways that appears to the unaware to come entirely from within ourselves. Brainwashing is not just something they do in internment facilities.

I think it would be a useful exercise for everyone to turn off the audio while watching the cable news channels. This will allow you to focus your full conscious attention on the image being presented and to "see" things that you didn't "see" before. In this case, I caught the news giving a (probably unintentional) slap to Bush. But I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry gets his (un)fair share of the same treatment.

Reservist contradicts testimony that MP's were initiating abuse at Abu Ghraib

The reservist, who was witness to prison abuse, claims that Military Intelligence officials were leading and directing the abuse, contradicting claims of other witnesses who say that the MPs initiated abuse (link)

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - An Army reservist who saw naked detainees being humiliated at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq says military intelligence officials led and directed the abuse.

The account by Kenneth A. Davis, a former sergeant in the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company, conflicts with testimony soldiers gave this week at the pretrial hearing of Pfc. Lynndie England, one of seven members of the 372nd charged with abusing detainees.

Davis' account - in a May statement to Army investigators and in interviews this week with The Associated Press - makes him the first member of the unit who is not facing charges to publicly describe one of the episodes that led to criminal charges against others. No military intelligence personnel have been charged in the abuse, and their testimony at England's hearing points to the military police as the perpetrators.

Steady Growth?

"We're witnessing steady growth, steady growth. And that's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type growth." -- George W. Bush, July 2nd, in response to jobs report showing only 112,000 new jobs created in June.

 

Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations. The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. - CNN

Why is it that past economic numbers are always revised "down" in this administration? They couldn't be cooking the books on the initial reports could they?

But they wouldn't do that would they?

Update:

I know that economics is a black art, but why have they been so consistently off the mark the last few months?

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast a 243,000 gain in jobs, and the unemployment rate staying unchanged at 5.6 percent. Economists surveyed by Reuters had a median jobs growth forecast of 228,000, with a range of estimates between 200,000 and 300,000.

This is the second straight month of jobs growth far below economists' forecasts, following three months that showed strong jobs growth starting in March. The June report had initially showed 112,000 jobs added, rather the 250,000 forecast at that time.

But Friday's report missed the target by even a wider margin.

Are they basing their forecasts on the aforementioned cooked numbers coming out of the administration?

9/11 suspect to be acquitted?

Due to U.S. intransigence over releasing evidence and allegations of torture of key witness (link)

BERLIN, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Germany said on Friday it was urgently pressing the United States to release evidence that could help convict a Moroccan accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. targets.

...

Motassadeq, 30, was part of a circle of Arab students in Hamburg which included three of the Sept. 11 hijackers and Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, a leading al Qaeda figure who has boasted of masterminding the attacks.

Germany has been pressing the United States to let judges question bin al-Shaibah, who was captured in Pakistan in 2002, or allow the use in court of transcripts from his interrogation. Washington has so far resisted on security grounds.

In a speech in June, Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries called the U.S. stance understandable but regrettable, adding that defendants must be given the benefit of the doubt if key evidence is withheld.

Even if the transcripts were released, defence lawyers say they would challenge them by arguing that any statement from bin al-Shaibah had probably been obtained under torture.

A prosecution source told Reuters that no fresh evidence against Motassadeq had emerged within Germany and he was likely to be acquitted of the main charge -- being an accessory to the Sept. 11 attacks -- unless Washington produced new information.

Playing Politics

CNN's Bill Schneider gets snarky:

WOODRUFF: Well, the war on terror is now a political issue in the presidential race here in the United States. That fact was made clear this week by the latest reported terrorist threats. Here now, CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The War in Iraq has always been a political issue. Now, terror, too, has become politics. The administration says be afraid, be very afraid.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are not yet safe. Threats are still out there.

SCHNEIDER: The homeland security secretary's message was specific and sobering.

TOM RIDGE, SECY. OF HOMELAND SECURITY: It is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information.

SCHNEIDER: Many Democrats were alarmed by the timing of the alert, right after John Kerry's triumphant convention, based on intelligence that was several years old. They saw politics. But Kerry couldn't say that without sounding cynical.

KERRY: I haven't suggested that, and I won't suggest that.

SCHNEIDER: So others said it, with or without Kerry's approval.

HOWARD DEAN, FMR. VERMONT GOVERNOR: It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics.

SCHNEIDER: No fear of sounding cynical here.

JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": With the Democratic party now in the spotlight, many people are wondering -- yes, oh, this just in. I'm sorry. "Terror warning." OK.

(APPLAUSE)

OK, I guess we'll have to stop. We'll have to stop talking about the Democrats.

SCHNEIDER: The administration was shocked -- shocked -- to hear that politics might be going on.

RIDGE: We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security.

SCHNEIDER: Oh, no?

RIDGE: The kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror.

SCHNEIDER: Democrats, too, can turn terror into politics. They can accuse the White House of fear mongering.

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: A true leader inspires hope and vanquishes fear. This administration does neither. Instead, it brings fear.

SCHNEIDER: They can argue that Democrats would do better.

KERRY: And I believe that I can fight a more effective war on terror than George Bush is. I know I can fight a more effective war.

SCHNEIDER: How?

KERRY: I will build and lead strong alliances.

SCHNEIDER: And they can charge that the administration's policies, like the war in Iraq, have made the U.S. more vulnerable.

KERRY: I believe this administration in its policies is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: This week, a barrier was broken. The war on terror is now officially a political issue. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Sea change.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

WOODRUFF: OK. Bill Schneider. Thank you very much.

Of course Schneider, trying again to be "balanced", implies that playing to people's fear of terrorism and pointing out that someone is playing to people's fear of terrorism are equal.

Air America Profitable?

Al Franken was talking this morning about Air Americas ratings and crowing about how his show was beating Bill O'Reilley, especially in the coveted 22-55 age bracket (note: I don't remember the exact years, but that's pretty close). Now, I understand why that group is coveted: they spend a lot more money than other groups and are thus more valuable when it comes to drawing in advertisers. That's good for the long-term success of Air America (and may finally put to rest the myth that liberal talk radio is unprofitable). But I did have one troubling thought: the younger age brackets are the least likely to vote.

In other words, O'Reilley may not be drawing in as much of the audience that would be profitable for advertisers, but he is drawing in more of the audience that would be profitable for politicians.

That could change over time, especially as a profitable model for liberal talk radio increases its total market share, but lets not get fooled into thinking that Air America is going to swing the election this year. AA is an investment for the future.

Damn Howard Dean!

Howard Dean is being a pest again by pointing out uncomfortable truths:

DEAN:  The timing bothers me deeply.  This wouldn�t be such a problem if the president was credible.  But the president turned out to have said a great many things about us going into Iraq, which turned out not to be true.  Senior law enforcement officials in Washington, D.C., are quoted in �The Washington Post� this morning as saying they haven�t received any new information of any kind, that none of this information was new, and it was all known of them ahead of time.  This is deeply troubling, Fred, deeply troubling.

The latest brouhaha over "that crazy Dean" really comes down to this: Dean is not accusing the Bush administration of manufacturing terror threats. He is only questioning the timing of the announcements of terror threats.

I repeat: the validity of the information is not in question here, it's the decision when to go public with it that is so troubling.

DEAN:  I think�any administration, and I certainly had this advantage when I was governor, had the opportunity to release and make news in the way that the challenger does not.  Do I think this president is making news, and John Ashcroft�remember, John Ashcroft called a terrorist alert last May, and that was rebuked by Washington officials, and which turned out he didn�t have the power to do such a thing.

This is a disturbing pattern in this administration that we see again, and again, and again.  And, yes, any administration has the opportunity to manufacture news, and the question is, not is there a terrorist threat or not, there clearly is, not whether al Qaeda presents a danger to these five buildings, yes, it clearly does.  What of the timing of the release of this news?  Why are we getting news that�s three years old and that we had access to three weeks ago?  Why are we finding that out on the Sunday after the Democratic National Convention?

Bush has an inherent advantage in the debate about the war on terror because he has access to the terror threat information before his opponent does. Dean is speaking the uncomfortable truth that all politicians do this kind of thing. Even he subtly admits to having done so. But in Dean's case the information he had access to was of a different degree to the information Bush has. It's one thing to time the announcement of the latest economic news for political advantage. It's quite another thing to time the announcement of threats of terrorism for the same reason.

"But they wouldn't do something like that" is not a sufficient response to this argument. And it is certainly not the kind of position from which responsible journalists should approach this matter.

And that's the really uncomfortable truth that Dean is pressing.

Psychology

If you parse the Kerry team statements with regard to Dean's comments on the recent terror alerts you'll see that they never really "disowned" him. They just said that they didn't want to go as far as Dean did. They never said that Dean was wrong or that he shouldn't have said what he said. they just said that they want to believe the President.

In other words, Kerry is putting himself into the position of being just like the rest of America. Which means that when the rest of America feels betrayed they will look for affirmation of their feeling of betrayal by looking to the guy standing next to them and ... it will be John Kerry.

A Multi-Layered Approach?

There's a pair of interesting stories in tomorrow's Washington Post about the latest terror alerts. First, James P. Rubin, a senior Kerry adviser, raises some doubts about Tom Ridge's motives:

Rubin, however, said he took issue with some comments by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, saying Ridge implied that the new information was the product of new anti-terrorism and intelligence-gathering policies implemented by the Bush administration. Ridge, he said, was "not as fair-minded as he ought to be" in describing how the latest information was uncovered.

This comes immediately after a "distancing" of the Kerry campaign from Howard Dean, who made a less shaded suggestion that the alerts were politically motivated:

Although fighting terrorism has been seen as a political asset for Bush and the GOP, Kerry's campaign has not shrunk from taking this fight to Bush. The campaign's strategy has been to take seriously all terror alerts by the federal government while challenging the president's handling of terrorism and the war in Iraq.

As part of that approach, Kerry and his advisers quickly distanced themselves from comments by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who suggested Sunday that the terror alert may have been politically motivated to blunt the momentum Kerry gained from his convention last week. Saying he took the threats seriously, Kerry said of Dean: "I don't care what he says. I haven't suggested that, and I won't suggest that."

Rubin's comment is even more interesting in light of the other Washington Post news story:

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued since then, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

Apparently Rubin's comment came even before this news came out, which makes it remarkably prescient.

Notice that Dean becomes a convenient foil for Kerry to deflect the accusation that he is politicizing the war on terror. But Dean is still out there making the suggestion, backed up to a lighter extent by Rubin, and thus keeping the topic in the news. Is this intentional?

Hmmmm ...

Defending The Taxman

Kevin Drum takes some time to thoughtfully analyze the idea of eliminating the income tax in light of recent stories about Republican proposals to eliminate the IRS.

It's nice that Kevin takes the time, but it is really quite beside the point. It is important that we not to get snookered into thinking this is a debate about Income Taxes vs. other kind of taxes. It is purely a political gesture designed to appeal to peoples gut feelings. "Get rid of the IRS? Fuck Yeah!" is the response they are hoping for from the public. The details of what that would mean are one of those much derided "nuances".

Regardless of what tax system we have, there would still need to be an agency responsible for collecting taxes (An IRS by another name would smell as foul). But that is a fact that would be lost in all the cheering while putting that taxman up against the wall.

No politician wants to be seen as defending the IRS, yet that is precisely the spin that will be put on any argument against this proposal.

It is stupid policy, but it may be smart politics.