PDA

View Full Version : Cakewalk



thedrifter
12-06-06, 01:19 PM
Cakewalk

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 10:32 AM

"Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"

"No, sir."

That exchange, with Carl Levin, explains why Robert Gates sailed through the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday and will be the next defense secretary.

a) He is a member of the reality-based community.

b) He's not Donald Rumsfeld.

When John McCain asked if the Bush administration had sent enough troops, Gates hemmed and hawed for a second about things being easier in hindsight and then said: "There clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion."

And when Ted Kennedy read a series of Bush quotes about Iraq and asked, "Should we believe you or the president?", Gates skillfully said he would be independent but the commander-in-chief remains the Decider. He also said he wasn't giving up the Texas A&M presidency and a whole bunch of money to be a "bump on a log."

Everyone knew going in that the former CIA director was a virtual lock for Senate approval and all he had to do was play it safe. Gates did that, but without looking totally programmed.

It doesn't look like he'll enjoy kicking around reporters as much as Rummy, and, therefore, may be less fun to cover. But you've got to admit, taking over the Pentagon at this particular moment in history is the ultimate thankless job. Starting a settlement on the moon, as NASA now plans to do, might be easier.

At the same time, how much influence will he have on the commander-in-chief, whose minions undoubtedly rehearsed with Gates about how far he could go at the hearing?

Still, his appearance played well with the MSM.

Boston Globe: "Gates's assessment, showcasing his reputation for independence, appeared to contradict President Bush. In recent days, the president has insisted that the United States is 'absolutely' prevailing in Iraq -- even though Bush and his top aides have acknowledged that the war needs a fresh approach."

New York Times: "Mr. Gates gave few firm signals today about his own favored options for Iraq, but portrayed himself as a flexible realist, open to all options for adjusting American strategy. But he made clear that he has concerns about a rapid American drawdown, and cautioned that the recommendations to be made public on Wednesday by the Iraq Study Group would be important but not 'the last word.' "

Los Angeles Times: "In addition to not being Rumsfeld, Gates had the decided advantage of not having yet made up his mind on U.S. strategy in Iraq. And so, as various senators laid out their competing plans for the future of Iraq -- more trainers, more troops, fewer troops, hard deadlines -- Gates could answer that every option was on the table."

Chicago Tribune: "With his unwavering insistence that U.S. military forces must stand, fight and 'win' in Iraq, President Bush has taken on the look of the last man standing. Both inside and outside the White House, voices are calling for at least a new war strategy--and at most a target date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But Bush, while acknowledging frustration with the progress of the U.S. mission, so far has refused to fundamentally alter it."

Why all the recent leaks? John Dickerson has some theories:

"The famous discipline of the Bush administration has completely broken down. This level of leaking suggests administration aides no longer feel the sense of cohesion and teamwork--or the fear of retribution--that kept them from leaking in the past. A leaker may go to the papers to make himself or his agency look good, or because the president, or those close to him, aren't listening. But in any case, the public venting of private information suggests factionalism and infighting that can't be peacefully controlled or contained. Even if these were authorized leaks--meant to influence the debate without official fingerprints--it suggests that the Bush administration has so little credibility left that the press and public won't listen unless we think we're eavesdropping . . .

"Why these specific leaks? One can only speculate. The Hadley memo may have been leaked by someone who thought he was advancing administration policy by putting pressure on Maliki. Or, it could have been leaked by an administration official trying to force the president to own up to the peril of the current political situation. The Rumsfeld memo bears the secretary's personal hallmarks of bureaucratic vengeance and [backside]-covering. Rumsfeld or someone serving his interests may have leaked it in an effort to show that he wasn't clueless or blind to the reality on the ground in Iraq.

"Because these are high-purity leaks--original documents from senior aides with names we know--they can't be brushed off, discredited, or ignored. Bush and his aides have spent days reacting to each of them--revising past public statements that have become inoperative and confecting new spin. The Hadley memo so annoyed the Iraqi prime minister that he postponed a planned meeting with the president. (The White House denies this, but wait a few days, a memo will tell us otherwise.) But whatever the specific motivations behind them, these leaks powerfully reinforce the notion that George Bush has lost control of his Iraq policy."

The oh-8 campaign must be under way, because partisans are starting to trash some of the contenders. To go out on a limb here, I've concluded that Arianna is not a Hillary fan:

"The perfect girl was named Hillary and her plan was to become President of the United States. So, after joining the World's Most Exclusive Club, she set out to do everything her head -- and her consultants -- told her was right . . .

"She learned the rules of the Club, and followed them closely. She reached across the aisle and brought home the bacon for her constituents back home.

"She posed for smiling photo-ops with Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

"She backed a bill criminalizing flag burning, came out against violent video games, signed on to President Bush's missile defense plan, shifted her language on abortion, and became a bellicose backer of the war in Iraq -- convinced that the country isn't ready for a female Commander-in-Chief who isn't a hawk . . .

"And then suddenly, unexpectedly, came a rumbling in the distance. A rumbling caused by a boy named Barack. Indications are that before the year is out, Barack will officially be in."

Gee, that was quick.

In Salon, Cintra Wilson unloads about pre-9/11 Rudy, beginning with this quote:

"There is something deranged about you . . . this excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness . . . you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels. You need somebody to help you. There are people in this city and in this world that need a lot of help. Something has gone wrong with you. -- New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on his radio show, to a ferret advocate, after imposing New York's 2001 ferret ban.

"There is at least one nice thing one can say about former New York mayor and current Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani -- besides, of course, his penchant for dressing in drag, his love for opera, and the fact that he used to share an apartment with a gay man.

"On 9/11, all Americans were frightened children, and in a moment of mythic personal heroism, Mayor Giuliani filled the gaping leadership void . . .

"He made everyone but the most grouchy and resentful New Yorkers forget that before planes crashed into the World Trade Center, Rudy was a hyper-authoritarian narcissist with a lust for overkill verging on the sociopathic.

"And now, at a time when the machinations of another hubristic bully have brought an unprecedented expansion of the powers of the presidency, 'America's Mayor' may be our next chief executive."

Conservatives can join the fun too:

"STOP THE PRESSES!!!" shouts Dean Barnett. "Sam Brownback has entered the presidential race. Bad news for you, Duncan Hunter. That ironclad lock you had on the least-plausible Republican candidacy has disappeared overnight."

On the media front, Jack Shafer says the WSJ will be peddling less dog food in its packages:

"It's the rare amputee who describes himself as better off without his two big toes than with them, but that's what Wall Street Journal Publisher L. Gordon Crovitz attempts in a 'Letter From the Publisher' on the paper's op-ed page.

"As announced more than a year ago, the girthsome Journal will lose 3 inches in width starting Jan. 2, giving it a similar dimension as other newspapers that have downsized in the name of cutting their newsprint costs--the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. The New York Times gets its paring in summer 2007.

"Instead of leveling with his readers about the reasons behind his paper's new slim profile--to save money--Crovitz insults their intelligence by claiming the change is for the 'convenience' of readers. Calling it an 'easier-to-handle size,' he repeats the testimony of one reader who, upon seeing a prototype of the smaller Journal, said, 'I fly First Class, but when I'm reading the Journal now I knock over my neighbor's orange juice. That won't happen anymore.'

"People have been flying first class and reading their Wall Street Journals for more than a half century. Suddenly the size is a problem? Doesn't Crovitz understand that he's writing for one of the most business-literate audiences in the nation, and that they roll their eyes when a manufacturer says he shrank the product for the benefit of the customer?"

Blogging from Iraq, Bill Roggio finds the MSM none too popular:

"While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no 'graceful exit' from Iraq, and that we'd stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.

"In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in 'blood and guts.' They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them."

St. Petersburg Times TV critic Eric Deggans says a Bill O'Reilly researcher called to ask him, as part of a "Factor" survey, which political party he belongs to and whether he has made donations:

"Since I consider myself an opinion columnist and have not been shy about divulging my political leanings in the past, I had no problem answering O'Reilly's questions, which I think are a public record, anyway. (I haven't donated to any political party and I'm a registered Democrat. Surprise!) I'm sure O'Reilly is expecting to prove that a majority of TV critics are Democrats and have given $$ to them (good luck on that last one; we barely make enough to afford the service fees on our TiVos).

"My cynicism on this latest move by Fox's highest-profile name really doesn't have much to do with the fact that he has called me a 'dishonest, racially motivated correspondent writing for perhaps the worst newspaper in the country.' Really."

That followed a post-Katrina column in which Deggans said O'Reilly seemed to be suggesting that "these often poor, often black hurricane victims brought all this misery and death on themselves."

Scarecrow at Firedoglake says journalists totally rolled over--until recently taking their vitamins:

"Except for showing the obvious in NOLA, not paying attention was the media's problem; and worse, for the most part, the traditional media just didn't seem to care enough to do their jobs, to ask the questions they should have been asking and to search out answers from sources other than the administration flacks who were feeding them. We didn't just have a 'rubber stamp Republican Congress.' It was worse than that: we had a rubber stamp fourth estate. But that seems to be changing, and changing fast.

"Almost every day we see increasing segments of the press coming down on this regime and particularly this president with stories of ineptitude, self-delusion, corruption and even accusations of near criminally negligent behavior. And they are doing this with a ferocity that I have not seen in my lifetime -- and I was there for Nixon and watched Watergate hearings every day. It seems everyone is getting in on the act, though for conservative media and pundits, the motivation may be less to denigrate the regime's ruling principles, which the conservatives still embrace, and more to distance themselves from the regime in the hope that both they and the now suspect ruling philosophy will not be thrown out with the dirty practitioners."

And finally, this tale of sharp-eyed police work:

"Two Swedish border control officers risk disciplinary action for keeping a photo collection of 'exceptionally beautiful' women who passed through their checkpoint, police officials said Tuesday.

"The officers, who were working at a ferry terminal near Stockholm, made photocopies of the women's passport photos and placed them in a binder. They also noted the date of birth next to each entry, the Stockholm police department said.

"The binder contained instructions on how to compile the collection, and orders to make backup copies in case the binder would go missing or be confiscated by 'evil-minded bores,' police said."

Their punishment: A warning. Here there would have been a special prosecutor and an apology on Oprah.

Ellie