Commonwealth Commonsense

More Kukos

Peter Baker continues his string of good reporting in today’s Washington Post. Why is it good? Because he’s not a stenographer. He looks behind the statements -- a one-man truth squad.

As Bush wound up a three-day campaign swing out west on Wednesday, for example, he attacked Democrats for voting last week against legislation authorizing warrantless telephone and e-mail surveillance.

"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. (emphasis added) Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.

Yesterday, he took on Bush’s cheap “cut-and-run” shots.

While saying he does not question their patriotism, Bush paints Democrats as a "cut-and-run" party that enables terrorists.

His indictment centers on three pieces of legislation: the USA Patriot Act expanding law enforcement powers; a measure authorizing warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail into and out of the United States when one person is suspected of ties to terrorists; and legislation creating military tribunals that restricts the rights of terror suspects and permits harsh interrogation to extract information. Noting that Democrats supported the Patriot Act in 2001 before filibustering its renewal last winter, Bush said, "They voted for it before they voted against it."

Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued (emphasis added) against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture.

It’s critical that reporters challenge statements made by politicians, especially those such as Bush who regularly suspends reality and ignores what opponents really said and simply puts words in their mouths.

The Amish

Remarkable people, from which many on the so-called religious right could learn a lot.

...they don't balance the hurt with hate."

Gutless Pages

Who is to blame for this sordid state of affairs on Capitol Hill? Is it Congressman Mark Foley for hitting on young pages? Is it gays, as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council believes? Is it the GOP leadership who apparently thought that Foley’s $100,000 contribution to the congressional campaign committee last summer was a sufficient price to keep the lid on his abuse?

No, it’s the pages’ fault, according to Howard Kurtz of The Post.

Among the many depressing aspects of the downfall of Mark Foley--who has now done the inevitable checking-into-rehab thing--is that a number of young people could have blown the whistle on this deceptive congressman in recent years, but didn't.

The Washington Post tracked down a couple of them. Former page Patrick McDonald said that at a 2003 reunion he learned of sexual messages that Foley sent three or four ex-classmates and thought, "if this gets out, it will destroy him."

Matthew Loraditch says he has known for years about the "creepy" messages the Florida Republican sent three of his 2002 classmates. But no one wanted to come forward. "You take down a Congress member, and you can't end up trying to do something later," Loraditch said.

Now I don't want to come down on 16-year-old kids (though some are now as old as 21) who must have been intimidated by the whole thing. Indeed, the power imbalance between a big-shot member of Congress and a lowly page is part of what makes this infuriating.

But did they really think that if they told the outside world that the co-chair of the Exploited Children's Caucus was sending them, or their friends, graphic sexual messages, that their future careers would be ruined? That they would be washed up in politics? Isn't it more likely that they would be hailed as brave for doing the right thing?

The naiveté of Kurtz! Or maybe he’s just trying to deflect the blame from the GOP. “Hailed” by the Dems maybe, but ostracized by the GOP. If any Republican page turned in Foley, it would be along time before that kid would be a Republican candidate for anything.

Twin Evils

I just tuned it to Chris Matthews on “Hardball.” Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council said that Congressman’s Foley actions prove that when you promote “tolerance and diversity, this is what you get.”

Then he said that research proves that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men. Matthews did not ask him what research. Anybody know what research he’s talking about?

Doesn’t like tolerance and diversity. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

Flip Flopping For Foley

GOP leaders can't get theri stories straight. Today, we have a new version. Or is it the old version?

Bloggers Beware

Got a lawyer?

No Questions!

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Congressman John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said in a press conference at 2:00 that they were not aware of Congressman Foley’s explicit Instant Messages until this news report surfaced last week.

Except it wasn’t really a press conference because they took no questions. Didn’t look good.

There are still a lot of holes in this story. ABC News reported yesterday that “Foley’s obsession has been known to Republicans for 5 years” and quoted an ex-page who said that “warnings were issued…Pages were told to watch out for Foley.” By using the past passive tense, the reporter suggests he doesn’t know the full details. Who knew it for five years? Who issued the warnings?

Those were probably some of the questions reporters didn’t get to ask this afternoon as Hastert and Shimkus walked out on reporters.

Update: With Gonzales heading this investigation don’t expect anything before the elections. They’re already dragging their feet.

[Justice Dept. o]fficials were still trying to decide whether the Washington or Miami offices of the FBI would head the inquiry.

How lame an excuse is that?

Da Dems

He has a point.

Most Democrats in Congress seem bereft of ideas or the courage to stand up for them. They clearly want power, but they have no principles to guide their use of it.

...I'm not saying that Republicans are at all better, and of course elections breed some policy timidity. But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.

There have been attempts to offer an agenda, but they have been vague and do not represent out of the box thinking. And of course, they are a “they,” no one single Democratic proposal.

Some will say that’s because the Dems do not have a single leader and couldn’t, given they are out of power. But that didn’t stop Gingrich.

Poll: Webb-Allen Tied

This is great news for Jim Webb. Latest Mason-Dixon poll done for McClatchy newspapers has the race tied. With only six weeks to go, the incumbent only has 43% of the vote, the same as Jim Webb. Twelve percent are undecided, and this group usually breaks overwhelmingly for the challenger.

Good Reporting

After criticizing this morning's Washington Post story on Jim Webb, I want to be fair about the good reporting The Post does, for it far outweighs the transgressions it sometimes makes. I noticed these examples yesterday but didn’t get around to commenting.

The first example was Peter Baker’s story about the dust-up over who is to blame for not taking Osama bin Laden seriously.

[Former President Bill Clinton] said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan." The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, [emphasis added] just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration "didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office." In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers. What Clinton may have been referring to was counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's frustration that the principals disregarded his urgent calls to meet sooner because of a months-long policy review. [emphasis added]

Rice came under fire for her assertion that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda" by Clinton's team. In fact, Clarke sent Rice an al-Qaeda memo on Jan. 25, 2001, along with a strategy to "roll back" the terrorist network, but the Bush team decided to conduct the policy review. [emphasis added]

Another example is in the analysis by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus on the recent NIE estimate.

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document's conclusion "that because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent."

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. [emphasis added] Instead, while it notes that counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda's leadership, it describes the spreading "global jihadist movement" as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but is not actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majority countries, and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

More reporters need to point out when the facts belie the spin.

But later on in the article, can anyone explain to me what is meant by this passage?

Democratic claims of an administration coverup seemed less justified yesterday as it became apparent that the complete classified report had been made available to lawmakers within days of its completion in April.

Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.

In the House, "there was a bit of a snafu with this particular document," said a spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the intelligence committee chairman. "We had a massive computer failure on our classified side." The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when "it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system."

Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.

“[A] snafu with the document”? Was it even known to Democrats that the document was available? The passage doesn’t make that clear.

HP Clams Up

Pretty riveting television right now on CNBC as each HP executive and their contractors so far -- about seven -- has pleaded the fifth in the Congressional hearings into HP’s scandal on “pretexting.” I’m not a financial advisor, but if you have HP stock, call your broker.

Pot (Shear), Kettle (Bloggers)

Mike Shear and The Washington Post have a story today about whether Jim Webb ever used the “N-word.” Why? Just read Marc Fisher’s column nearby.

"I'd just ask people to look at the facts," said Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams. "We've had one person go on the record, and not one of [Shelton's] teammates has come forward to back him up. It's an interesting new standard in journalism: If somebody called you and said, 'I want to make a charge against Jim Webb,' should that person automatically be afforded the assumption of truth?"

Mike Shear answers, “yes” And for those who charge that The Post is part of the liberal media cabal, the story proves otherwise. To prove they are not liberal, The Post felt compelled to run a story because the Allen campaigned demanded it, after Webb was asked by the Richmond Times Dispatch if he ever used the word.

Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter [Ed. Note -- meaning Shear] to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior as a member of ROTC during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s.

Cragg says that Webb admitted using the word when interviewed by Cragg for a 1983 article in a Vietnam veterans magazine. Yet, Cragg’s account is not supported by his own documentation.

Cragg, who described himself as a Republican who would vote for Allen, did not include the story in his article. He provided a transcript of the interview, but the transcript does not contain the ROTC story.

This is more evidence of the MSM’s caving in to the pressure from the right about their supposed liberal biases. To prove otherwise, they run a story like this. Mike Shear, who lectured bloggers at a conference earlier this year about posting unsubstantiated stories, runs a story based on an admitted partisan’s charge when his own documentation can’t support it.

Let’s make clear the differences: Against Webb, we have one man making this charge. His own notes for his interview belie his accusations.

Against Allen, we have his own admission of fascination with the Confederacy, though he was a privileged son raised in California. He hung a Confederate flag in his home and a noose in his office. And several people have confirmed his use of the racial epithet and now another who has come forward confirming hearing the deer head in the mailbox story years ago from one of the participants in the prank. And oh yeah, Allen called a dark skinned kid a “macaca.”

Liberal media! More apt, Wimpish Media, Hypocritical Reporter