Did Slate deliberately avoid unflattering comparison to protect Obama?

We all know about the conservative media bias. Or something.

The St. Petersburg Times chose to print a story from Slate about White House staff salaries.

The story talks about the levels of compensation. The highest paid staffer under President Obama makes $193,000. Not too outrageous.

The story talks about how salaries are determined via a formula depending on rank. Assistants to the president earn the most. And we learn that Obama has more assistants than did his predecessor, 22 compared to 18. Plus experience can help a staffer earn more within his pay classification.

We learn from the story that "President Bush requested a total of $51.9 million for White House office salaries."

Some of us begin to wonder about how much Obama's staff will cost.

The story says the salaries go up every year. Obama, however, put a freeze on the salaries of staffers making $100,000 or more.

Some of us still wonder how much Obama's staff will cost.

Author Christopher Beam gives us a brief history of the growth of the White House staff, followed by an expert's estimate of the total cost of the staffing connected to the White House--obviously a number we cannot fairly compare with the amount Bush requested for office salaries.

Is that a hole in the story or what? If Beam can't tell us how Obama's staff compares with Bush's then he should explain why not. Otherwise, folks might think Beam is carrying water for the guy.

Unless he just didn't want to embarrass Bush with Obama's lower costs?

"That's what happens in free societies when people try to draw attention to themselves"

Ah, the liberal media.

What's that you say? What liberal media? I'm glad you asked. The McClatchy news service reported recently on a trip to Iraq by President Bush. During a joint press conference with Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki, an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, after which he was detained and arrested. Hitting someone with your shoe is a grave insult in Muslim culture.

The McClatchy story played up the journalist's actions as "a reminder that many Iraqis see him not as a liberator who freed them from Saddam Hussein but as an occupier who pushed their country into chaos." Objective reporting? Based on what?

Now, the above is bad enough but the part that prompted me to write was the later use of a Bush quotation. Check this out:

Bush said the shoe-throwing incident didn't faze him. He tried to laugh about it, saying, "It didn't bother me, and if you want the facts it was a size 10 shoe he threw at me."

He continued with the press conference, taking a question from an Iraqi reporter and another from an American.

"That's what happens in free societies when people try to draw attention to themselves," he said.

From the context provided in the story, it isn't especially clear what Bush is talking about when he says "That's what happens." What is "(t)hat"? The first inclination might even lead to the conclusion that Bush is talking about how people get arrested when they try to draw attention to themselves, even though it is difficult to make sense of the comment in that context minus the premise that Bush has some bizarre notion of free society. I'll be interested to see the spin on this from the left.

I found a reasonably balanced account at Editor and Publisher, noting how another journalist was the first to take down the shoe-thrower and a mass of the journalists apologized for the action.

And here is the context of Bush's statement, via Whitehouse.gov:

Q (Inaudible.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what if a guy threw a shoe at me?

Q But you are also very (inaudible) about progress -- (inaudible). Do you consider this a victory lap?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I consider it a important step in -- on the road toward an Iraq that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself.

But let me talk about the guy throwing the shoe. It is one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and have people not gesturing with all five fingers. It's a way for people to, you know, draw -- I don't know what the guy's cause is. But one thing is for certain -- he caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it. These journalists here were very apologetic, they were -- said, this doesn't represent the Iraqi people. But that's what happens in free societies, where people try to draw attention to themselves. And so I guess he was effected (effective--bw), because he caused you to say something about it.

Bush's explanation is far clearer than that of those who paraphase him, at least so far.

Pulling the quotation out of context created a misleading impression. Shame on McClatchy, along with writers Adam Ashton and Mohammed al Dulaimy.

Bush's place in history, revisited

Andrew Roberts has a column in The Telegraph (UK) reconsidering President George W. Bush's place in history. Roberts leads off with the Truman comparison before getting to specifics.

No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

But didn't Barack Obama say that Bush has caused greater danger to Americans because of terrorism?

Legends of the Left: Bush doesn't care about finding Bin Laden (Updated)

There's very popular assertion made about President Bush that he does not care about apprehending Osama bin Laden.

(Bogus quotation)"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."(/Bogus quotation)

The quotation draws pages of hits, until you restrict it such as by limiting the hits to .edu sites, which reduces it to one page consisting mostly of discussion board material.

Where an attempt is made to source the quotation, it is most often said to have been given during a Bush speech on March 13, 2002:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
(buzzflash.com)

14. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
(Daniel Kurtzman, Rense.com)

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
(Eugenia's Rants and Thoughts)

Many more there are. But none of the hits appeared to offer reliable sourcing. Eventually I searched out President Bush's address from March 13, 2002.

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

(whitehouse.gov)(bold emphasis added)

The phrases I highlighted represent the very closest matches for what Bush is supposed to have said that day according to those critics.

I don't think the quotation is accurate.

Additionally, the context of March 13, 2002 makes clear that Bush remained concerned about bin Laden in terms of bringing him to justice (" But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore."), but less concerned about bin Laden's ability to assist in conducting terrorism operations.

If anyone knows a reliable source for the quotation, please let me know and I'll update the post accordingly after verifying it.

Update:
I have yet to pin down the origin of the quotation, but at least I found a liberal blogger who realized that it wasn't kosher (so props to the hard-to-identify blogger responsible ... could be "hclsmith" if we go by the URL):

13: GWB, in Brady briefing room: [OBL] is—you know, as I mention in my speeches—I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. (as is W) And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all. (just like W hides from protestors, newspapers, etc) So I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you…I truly am not that concerned about him. (The widely-repeated version I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority seems to be a mirage. =( )

*****

November in Iraq: Another drop in casualties

The casualty counts will probably endure some fits and starts in the coming months as the U.S. turns over more and more of the statistical record-keeping to Iraqi forces, but November showed another drop in casualties among civilians and Iraqi security forces.

Nov-07	560
Oct-07	679
Sep-07	848
Aug-07	1,674
Jul-07	1,690
Jun-07	1,345
May-07	1,980

(icasualties.org)

Bear in mind that casualty figures might receive an upward adjustment if November casualties turn up in December. Usually such adjustments are minor, so it appears that this category of deaths dipped by approximately 100.

U.S. military deaths, by staying about the same as for October, were on track to be at their lowest for a two-month period since Feb-Mar of 2004:

2003	0	0	65	74	37	30	48	35	31	44	82	40
2004	47	20	52	135	80	42	54	66	80	64	137	72
2005	107	58	35	52	80	78	54	85	49	96	84	68
2006	62	55	31	76	69	61	43	65	72	106	70	112
2007	83	81	81	104	126	101	78	84	65	38	37

(icasualties.org)

It's worth noting that Iraq Body Count shows a much higher total for November, and it's somewhat more difficult to see trends in the IBC numbers than for icasualties.org.

NOVEMBER TOTAL: 1,100 CIVILIANS KILLED
(Iraq Body Count)

And in other news ...

A Democrat congressman who once led criticism of the Iraq war now admits President Bush's change of strategy has improved security.
(...)
Fresh from a four-day visit to Iraq and Kuwait, John Murtha said: "I think the 'surge' is working."
(TelegraphUK)

Murtha went on to reiterate his call for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Democrats in Congress now look beyond pathetic. President Bush's change in strategy worked in spite of the initial charges that it would not. Gen. Petraeus was correct about reductions in violence despite comments such as that of Sen. Clinton that Petraeus' report requires "a willing suspension of disbelief" (Senatese for "Liar, liar, pants on fire!").

And now the Dems are apparently desperate to put their stamp on troop reductions to make sure the anti-war faction on the left gives credit where the Democrats want it.

*****

Blumner expands her realm of credibility, albeit in an unhealthy way

I'll have to grant Robyn Blumner, that pinata of the St. Petersburg Times, an area of expertise.

After all the cherry-picking she did for this week's editorial, I'll have to take her very seriously the next time she writes about the plight of agricultural workers.

The topic this week, along with the customary swipe at Bush and/or Republicans, is health care.

Rudy Giuliani has been called "Bush with brains" by those who fear that the former New York City mayor shares a penchant for unbridled executive power. But the Republican presidential primary front-runner seems to have a screw loose when it comes to campaigning. His attack on Hillary Clinton's health care proposal with the bugaboo of European-style "socialized" medicine is not only full of factual holes but it will surely bite him in the butt if he makes it to the general election.
(St. Petersburg Times)

Cherry-pick No. 1: "(F)ull of factual holes" but Blumner will only mention one, regarding Giulianni's imprecise use of cancer statistics earlier in the campaign.

Cherry-pick No. 2:

Polls regularly show that Americans are disgusted with the current state of affairs. In a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, nine in 10 respondents said that the U.S. health care system needs fundamental changes and two-thirds said it was up to the federal government to guarantee that all Americans have health care coverage.

In the paragraph just preceding the one above, Blumner assures the reader that the voters "won't be fooled again" regarding Sen. Clinton's health care magic. Not many will bother looking up the poll Blumner cited, unfortunately.

The numbers she cites are accurate, albeit the wisdom of the mob isn't necessarily the best guide to public policy (I'll point Blumner to the approval for the Iraq War in 2003 if she looks askance). On the other hand, she's not telling the whole story.

Won't be fooled into thinking Hillarycare isn't the greatest thing since Social Security (we'll leave aside the fact that the younger generation correctly doubts that it will benefit from Social Security)?

CONFIDENCE IN HANDLING HEALTH CARE
(Among registered voters)
Clinton Edwards Obama
Confident 36% 22% 25%
Uneasy 51 50 44
Don’t Know 13 28 31
(CBSnews poll, page 2)

With only 51% of registered voters polled "uneasy" about Sen. Clinton's health care initiative, how could people possibly be fooled this time? Perhaps Blumner hopes that by hiding part of the truth she can bring that embarrassing number down a bit.

Blumner's key statistic, the high public approval for a federal guarantee of health insurance, had a caveat in the original poll. Not the sort of thing a Blumner would wish to share with the public.

But only about half as many Americans – less than one in three - think the government can do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Many are not sure how government would fare in this role.

WOULD GOVERNMENT DO BETTER OR WORSE AT PROVIDING COVERAGE THAN PRIVATE COMPANIES?

Government better 30% Government worse 44 Don't know 23
(CBSnews poll, page 4)

A subsequent comment by Blumner nearly resulted in my eyes rolling violently enough to fly out of their orbits.

If the next president does nothing else but add this country to the pantheon of advanced nations that provide universal coverage, it will be a successful tenure -one that will be remembered fondly by generations to come, like that of FDR for Social Security and LBJ for Medicare.

The "advanced nations" that provide universal coverage are putting their citizens on waiting lists and admitting that the system is allowing people to die as a result.

So it is acutely awkward for his successor, Gordon Brown, that, 10 years on, his government is scrambling to fend off accusations of crisis in the NHS following a damning report about hospital infections that critics say is symptomatic of a wider malaise in British healthcare.
(Christian Science Monitor)

When you look at consumer satisfaction in Canada, it's as low as consumer satisfaction in the United States, which is extraordinary, given how high it was in Canada ten years ago.
(PBS, commentary by Sharon Glied, PhD)

Germany proposes radical plans to tackle financial crisis in health care
(British Medical Journal)

In short, these "advanced" countries are creating huge problems for themselves with their national health care plans. The problem, economically is the third-party payor problem, and it also wreaks its havoc with the privatized fraction of the U.S. system (the dirty little secret of American health care is that government regulation is causing many of the problems already). But Blumner won't want her sheeple to know any of that.

Yes, Roosevelt and LBJ were fawned over by the three generations who received the benefit of their ponzi schemes. The later generations will have ample reason to curse them, assuming the government will permit dissent at that point.

Roosevelt saddled the nation with a pyramid scheme that was never designed to abide a trend toward a graying and retired population. LBJ made it even worse.

But back to Blumner, for she has yet to exhaust her stupidity. This next line sums up the thrust of the rest of her editorial.

But guaranteed health care will not only serve to relieve the anxieties of tens of millions of American families, it will also be a shot of adrenaline to our economy.

This claim of Blumner's, by rights, should be entirely laughable. Has nationalized health care stimulated the economies of those nations who follow that path? Made them noticeably more efficient? If it has, then Europe's relatively weak economies seem even more pathetic.

Blumner's focus on the link between employment and health insurance seems curious, given that President Bush proposed portable insurance back in 2006.

• Leveling the playing field by making the same tax relief available to individuals and employers. Americans who purchase HSA-qualified insurance policies on their own should have the same tax advantages as people who obtain insurance through their employer.
• Eliminating all taxes on out-of-pocket spending through HSAs. Americans with HSAs should be able to pay for all of their care tax-free.
• Making health insurance portable. Americans should be able to own the insurance policy that goes along with their HSA, and keep it when they change or lose their jobs without worrying about paying higher premiums if they become sick.
• Strengthening the buying power of America’s small businesses. Small businesses should have the same access to price efficiencies as large businesses when purchasing health insurance.
• Passing medical liability reform. Limit costly and frivolous lawsuits that waste scarce resources, increase health care costs, and drive doctors out of business.
• Improving adoption of health information technology. Electronic health records that reduce costs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of medical treatment should be widely used.
• Empowering consumers through information. All Americans should be able to obtain easy-to-understand information about the price and quality of the health care they receive from their medical provider and insurance carrier.
• Providing affordable coverage for vulnerable Americans. Americans with low incomes and persistently high medical expenses should receive additional assistance.
• Promoting prevention, wellness, and fitness. The President encourages all Americans to lead a healthy lifestyle to prevent disease and improve their overall quality of life.

(whitehouse.gov)

I guess Blumner missed it.

*****

In the know? The St. Petersburg Times on Scott Beauchamp, with segue to the surge

Nothing at all yet, if the Times' search function is working with anything like minimal efficiency.

***

Just to see what else I would know thanks to the Times, I searched for "surge working."
I got this from 2006 (along with various hits having nothing to do with Iraq):

So much for the long-awaited Iraq Study Group's report on the "way forward" in Iraq. It made headlines but not much of an impression on President Bush, who has suggested that some of the bipartisan panel's key recommendations were "ideas for defeat." Bush plans to speak to the nation in January on his next move in Iraq after consulting with military leaders and his own national security team. We should be worried, especially with the news that Bush has begun imagining parallels between his wartime leadership and Harry Truman's.

Some of us assumed the debate in Washington by now would be on the study group's call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces in early 2008. But instead of debating how to get out of Iraq, we're considering whether to get in even deeper with a "surge" of additional troops, as if that is likely to change the outcome.

(St. Petersburg Times)

Philip Gailey had evidently already figured out that improving security would do nothing to make it more likely that Iraq's government could act to ease sectarian tensions. What a brain!

Gailey goes on to imply that President Bush predictably opted for the surge strategy as a reaction to the Iraq Survey Group recommendations (turn to Iran and Syrian to resolve security issues and get out--sheer genius).

It's obvious that President Bush has his back up over the Iraq Study Group recommendations. So we shouldn't be surprised if his response is to go for the "surge" option, sacrificing more American lives in his stubborn pursuit of a failed policy.

Gailey's view can in turn be viewed as Bush trying to secure a "narrative" of his successful military action in Iraq, let alone the dire consequences of failure.

Ironically, Gailey is no less (and probably more) engaged in supporting a narrative. That narrative is of an Iraq War that was ill-advised and doomed to eventual failure.

What makes Gailey so absolutely sure that the Iraq government cannot act effectively to sooth sectarian divisions now that the surge is improving security and the Iraqi people are increasingly supporting the idea of a national secular government according to polls?

Don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative, Phil.

Bush lied again?

WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

"It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon," he said during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
(The News)

Oh, really?
It's at least true that Iran has tended to deny that it is seeking nuclear weapons--but occasionally they let their intentions slip.

The clerics in Iran have more power than President Ahmadinejad.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies. In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons. Missiles beside a portrait of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.

The News reported that the White House said that Bush was talking about Iran's actions. If that's the case, then he could pick a better word than "proclaimed"--or at least modify it by adding "by its actions" afterward.

I can't say I trust the press. Nor am I completely confident in the Administration's explanations of the president's statements after the ridiculous response they made during the "16 words" brouhaha.

Pillar pilloried by Powerline

I noted Paul R. Pillar's nonsensical attack on the administration here.

Powerline blog has an excellent entry that continues to shed light on the bogus arguments the man is airing from within the executive branch of government--additional evidence of a war on the administration waged from within the structures of that branch.

The key observation is Pillar's claim that Bush did not rely on the National Intelligence Estimate in making the decision to go to war against Iraq, implying that collected intelligence did not inform the decision.

That implication seems entirely specious in light of the intelligence briefings to which the president is privy, and in light of the correspondence between the NIE and the reasons the president offered for waging war on Hussein's regime.

Blumner: Republicans are stupid

OK, not in so many words. It might as well be the title of her Sunday editorial from this past week, however.

Blumner informs us that Gore was right about climate change, and moreover that he is right about American voters being dumbed-down by television news.

And she's got proof. Sort of.

This is Gore's other main point. A citizenry that abandons the dynamic exercise of reading and the reasoning process it engages, for the passive absorption of emotionally charged television images, is susceptible to choosing the worst kind of leaders. And it has.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney could never have held on to power and committed the wrongs they have against our constitutional system without a public too wrapped up in the happenings of Natalee Holloway in Aruba to care about domestic warrantless wiretapping.

Gore meticulously documents how Americans have been sleepwalking through their duties as citizens while this administration has been systematically destroying the pillars of our democracy.
(the St. Petersburg Times)

There you have it. Bush and Cheney winning re-election had to do with the stupidity of voters. It had nothing to do with John Kerry's poor campaigning, poor debate performances or flip-flops. And what's with the "domestic" warrantless wiretapping? Number one, the NSA program monitored international calls, not domestic ones. I guess if one end of the call is in the United States, then it qualifies as "domestic" for Blumner's way-above-television-news intellect.
Two, warrantless wiretapping arguably falls within the president's article 2 powers under the Constitution. Blumner's entitled her opinion, of course.

The title of her piece in the Times is "We're the boobs in front of the tube"--but she doesn't really refer to herself. It's not like Blumner would ever have voted for Bush/Cheney. It's your fault, Bush/Cheney voter. You're stupid.

She offers us the wisdom of former television newsman Dan Rather, of fake but true document fame: Television news has been "dumbed down and tarted up."

This attitude is so typical among newspaper folks. They don't acknowledge the falsehoods they seem to eagerly promulgate (Bush tricked Americans into thinking that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, and Blumner's own statement here about "domestic" wiretapping). The problem, apparently, is that the American public will not believe the lies of print journalism in favor of the lies of television journalism (though I can imagine that plenty of the lies of television news would get a thumb's up from Blumner).

She decries the "drummed up" threat of terrorism (great timing with the recent terrorism plot foiled at Kennedy airport, Robyn!), comparing the chances of dying in a car or plane accident to the chances of dying in a terrorist attack. Funny--I'll be she never used that tack to defend the low number of troop deaths in Iraq.

From there she leaks her apparent belief that Democrat gains in Congress reflect a repudiation of the war in general. Talk about an evidence of superficial reading.

Blumner is a hack. Here's exhibit A: She calls Gore's book "meticulously documented" yet here is Gore's representation of the main point of his book:

It is a seriously indictment of our political discourse that almost three-quarters of Americans were so easily led to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that so many Americans still believe that most of the hijackers on September 11 were Iraqis.
("Assault on Reason" @ Amazon.com)

Gore's buying the same media-fed lie that Noam Chomsky and Paul R. Pillar bought. See my post here. Yes, Mr. Gore, it's a serious indictment, at least in terms of gravity. Just one problem. It's a false charge.

It's too ironic for words that Blumner excoriates the broadcast media for engaging in a technique she emulates in print.

***

Last up, the Sawyer interview of Gore. It was after viewing this that I realized that Gore is peddling untruth in his "meticulously" researched tome.

Sawyer, to me, seems excited at the prospect of another Gore run at the presidency. She gives him no hard questions, just the softball question about the political dimension of the book (which is obvious). I think Sawyer wanted Gore to announce he was running, hoping that the wonderful Al Gore would personally effect the changes called for in his book.

The interview also gives more information than does Blumner's print editorial.
Have a look; see what I'm talking about:

"Sublovious Poll": President Bush caused a dramatic increase in the number of Americans who believe that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.

I've had the poll up for maybe nine months.

As of May 14, 2007, the poll had fifteen responses.

13 strongly agreed with the statement.
1 didn't know (neutral)
1 strongly disagreed.

The poll is not scientific by any means, but I'd at least hazard a guess that my tradition of blog-hopping the blogs of the Loony Left (that's not all you liberal bloggers, but too many by percentage) draws some attention; they trail back here to see what right-wing nutcase is invading their space.

In short, there's no support for the view that Bush caused any increase in the belief that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Those in the reality-based community who strongly agreed with the statement based their belief on a fantasy.

The legend started with a poorly-written account in the Christian Science Monitor. Noam Chomsky picked up on the bad information in that story (probably helped along by left-wing networking--there's a tendency for snippets of information like that to get sent around on listserves and the like). I contacted Dr. Chomsky regarding this issue and he wrote that he could not recall the source of the poll he referenced.
I identified the poll I think he relied on, but he said it didn't look familiar.

Of two questions I asked him, he ignored the second, which was whether or not he continued to believe that the Bush administration had been responsible for increasing the percentage of Americans who thought Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

Here's what Chomsky had been saying, BTW:

The drumbeat for war began in September 2002, and the government-media propaganda campaign achieved a spectacular success. Very quickly, the majority of the population came to believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to US security, even that Iraq was involved in 9-11 (up from 3% after 9-11) and was planning new attacks.

And here's one I hadn't seen before. Paul Pillar also piled on with some disinformation:

In a poll taken the first week after 9/11, 57 percent of Americans surveyed identified Usama bin Laden as the one most likely responsible for the attacks. Fourteen percent did not know or did not answer, and no other response received more than four percent. Only three percent named Iraq or Saddam Hussein as the leading suspect. In a poll in August 2002--after months of a rhetorical drumbeat in which "Iraq," "war on terrorism," and 9/11 had repeatedly been blended together in words and thus in people's minds--53 percent of respondents said they believed that Saddam Hussein had been "personally involved" in the 9/11 attacks. In a poll in August 2003, after another year in which Iraq and 9/11 were linked in pro-war rhetoric but not in any new evidence, 69 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks.
Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Paul R. Pillar

The above material comes from Pillar's introduction to his work.
Google allows a more comprehensive search of Pillar's introduction than the link I provided above.


1) Note that Pillar references the Wirthlin Worldwide poll for his 3% figure, the same figure used by Chomsky.
2) Note that Pillar compares percentages for different measurements as though the comparison is legitimate. Is it?

• a) The Wirthlin poll was an open-ended question. That means it wasn't multiple choice, but the equivalent of fill-in-the-blank.
  
• b) The Wirthlin poll had a follow-up question where respondents were to name their second choice for "most responsible," Saddam Hussein drew 27%. Does Pillar mention it? No, he doesn't. The follow-up question was also open-ended, by the way.
• c) So next Pillar cited the 53 percent poll, where Hussein is named as "personally involved." A person could be third, fourth, fifth, or sixth most responsible and still be "personally involved." These percentages cannot be fairly compared.
• d) Pillar next cites the 69 percent poll, and the goalposts have moved again. This time, the poll measured those who, Pillar says "believed Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks."
• e) Not only is the 69 percent poll another seismic shift for the goalposts, Pillar accepts the worst piece of reporting in the story. Milbank and Deane do lead off with the misleading summary that Pillar repeats. However, the story goes on to say "Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll." "[A]t least likely" turns into an apparently unqualified belief.
  
• In the same story Milbank and Deane reported (safely near the end where many readers never end up) "On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged." Another highly significant figure simply ignored by Pillar.

The Wirthlin poll, constructed as it is, may be perfectly consistent with the Time/CNN poll showing 78 percent suspecting Hussein's involvement.
Pillar and Chomsky should know better than to base an argument on this type of statistical malpractice. Chomsky, unfortunately, has a reputation for careless handling of the facts.

Pillar, as a person with a significant role with the CIA, simply reveals how partisanship has roots in the executive branch of government. A non-partisan should not make this mistake. Correction: nobody should make this mistake. A non-partisan wouldn't be expected to make a mistake like this.

There is no reasonable evidence of an increase in the belief that Hussein was responsible for 9/11, much less any evidence that the Bush administration was responsible for the mythical increase.
Thirteen out of fifteen poll respondents were fooled.

I'll keep the poll open, and place a link to this entry nearby. Let's see if the percentages change a bit.

Oh, and one final nail in the coffin:

The American public’s apparently widespread belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 terror at- tacks was no feat of misdirection by the Bush administration. Instead, the Bush administration inherited and played into a favorable climate of public opinion, which may have greatly facilitated itstask of building public support for war against Iraq. The mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks was already widespread among Americans long before President Bush began publicly linking Saddam Hussein with the War on Terrorism. In- deed, nearly seven months before the 9/11 attacks, an Opinion Dynamics poll in late February of 2001 found that 73% of Americans said it was very or somewhat likely that “Saddam Hussein will organize terrorist attacks on United States [sic] targets to retaliate for the air strikes” that had recently beenconducted in Iraq by American and British air forces.
("When Osama Became Saddam" --Altaus, Largio)

See page five of the .pdf file.

A Rove memo, and the Fever Swamp

The degree of the response remains to be seen, but early indications point to the left-wing Fever Swamp being somewhat a-twitter over a Karl Rove memo submitted as evidence in the case against "Scooter" Libby as an offshoot of the Plame investigation.

The Brad Blog (honored at Bad Blog's Blood) offers this unhinged headline:
'THE PRES' IMPLICATED IN LIBBY CIA LEAK BY CHENEY'S HAND-WRITTEN NOTE

Wishful thinking, Brad.

Here's the note:
Truthout.org

To the left near the margin, it appears to say "Tenet Wilson Memo" (Truthout says the memo was "written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan").

At the top, there is a sentence in brackets (perhaps referring to a previous memo by Cheney?). It appears to read "[People have made too much of the difference in how I described Karl and Libby]"
followed by
"I've talked to Libby. I said it was rediculous [sic] about Karl and it is ridiculous about Libby[.] Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information."

That portion does not appear to be written by Cheney, assuming the lower portion attributed to Cheney is representative of Cheney's writing.
Here's the part attributed to Cheney:

Has to happen today[.]
Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl.
Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy [the Pres.] [ ] that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.

The part in red was crossed out in the original note, and the green brackets stand in for some space on the paper.
The language used by commentators such as "Brad" would suggest that it's a simple matter of using "that" to replace "the Pres." but the spacing should allow for at least some consideration that a completely alternative ending was contemplated. Not that the note is necessarily important in any case.

In the timeline, the investigation into the Plame case has begun right around this time, and McClellan is apparently fresh from a press conference where questions regarding Karl Rove's involvement were raised.

"Brad" is crazy if he thinks that Bush is implicated in the Plame leak by this memo. It is most simply explained as a sketch of Bush's strategy for dealing with the investigation, as in designating a point man for fielding questions.

I'd like to see how this evidence is treated in the court proceedings, however.

I don't know whose incompetence Cheney speaks of (Richard Armitage?).

My best guess is that Armitage is the incompetent one and the one who would be protected without a crisp defense of Rove and Libby.

There's nothing here to implicate Bush unless I have completely mistranslated the page.

Bush's SOTU speech, 2007

I decided on the ABC version.

First, the speech.

Bush was more composed and effective for this one compared to the speech outlining the troop surge from a couple of weeks ago. Other commentators (including Cap'n Ed over at Captain's Quarters and an ABC correspondent whose name I missed) note that Bush tends to perform better in front of a live audience.

Cap'n Ed covered the details of the speech pretty well. To his comments I just want to add that I see the biographical sketches and guest appearances as being intended to illustrate the American will to get things done even where sacrifice is required.

It was a somewhat unexpected way of illustrating the ability of this nation to achieve notable and difficult goals--a subtle way of shaming those who would undercut support for the effort to stand Iraq firmly on its feet.

Those stories were each very effective in their own way, and Bush's appeal on the war gained considerable appeal based on that message.

I find myself wondering how those who call the war lost can have such unshakable faith in the inability of the United States to succeed in something.

When I ask, I tend to get thin answers.

Nancy Pelosi carried herself well, I think. Hillary came off better than usual, after the first shot of her, anyway. Our first ABC glimpse of the wind-testing senator from New York found her with a pinched mouth and disparaging expression.

Gotta love the aptitude of cameramen for catching folks at their worst.

Hillary cleaned up her act after that--but Barack Obama, sitting just in front of her, looked like a student falling asleep in class at times.

On the whole, I found the Democrat response to war issues discouraging. Key lines on national defense and security drew standing ovations on the right side of the aisle, with a smattering of polite applause from seated figures on the left.

Is it coherent to think that the US cannot win the war in Iraq while also thinking that Iraq will have a better shot at stability after we leave?

I don't see it. Not unless the stability is under the booted heel of Iran.