Distorting the meaning of a statement by removing the context is old hat
Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz of the Washington Post distort the meaning of a context by removing the statement. They write and quote.

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unlesselected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."

The Clinton campaign notes that they left out this bit of insufficiently vague text

"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that."

Given the text of the Geneva conventions and the laws they have passed, this is perfectly clear. It is true that Bush says similar things and mandates torture. However, he is not being vague, he is lying, just as Kornblut and Balz did.

I think they should be fired.

h/t everyone.
Taylor Marsh criticizes bloggers for believing the Post. This is odd as they had no source of the full quote until the Clinton campaign responded. Kevin Drum concedes the point very grudgingly. I am surprised that he is not more angry with Kornblut and Balz (he is anti anti msm though). Sargent, who pointed out the gross deletion of the substantive statement is very gentle with them too.

Mark Kleiman, who I generally respect, makes exactly the straw man argument I considered above.

Nice try, but no cigar. Saying "No torture" is the opposite of a "bright line"; after all, Bush keeps saying "we don't torture." To say that "it is not yet clear what this Administration is or isn't doing" sounds just like Glenn Reynolds.

The CIA just announced that it would no longer do waterboading. That clearly implies that the CIA was doing waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. If HRC can't say "No waterboarding," her "No torture" isn't worth the spit behind it.

The same goes for the cold cell, for "long time standing," for "disappearing" people into secret prisons, and to "rendering" people to countries which we know practice torture. It's legitimate to say "I won't know just how bad things are until I'm President," but it's not legitimate to pretend that we don't already know that torture is going on in our name, and that if we decide not to hold war crimes trials we at least need a truth and reconciliation commission to expose the facts.

Part of HRC's problem is that the Bill Clinton regime didn't have entirely clean hands, specifically on the "rendition" issue. But it now seems clear that if we want the country to make a clean break with current policies on maltreatment of captives, we can't do so by putting HRC in the White House.

He notes that Bush says we don't torture and we do, therefore we should assume that Clinton is lying too which means her statements don't mean what they seem to mean and are vague. He also does not discuss "abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed" (whcih he quoted) and argues as if Clinton had just said "no torture". This is not just shockingly below his usually standard, it is totally dishonest. Kleiman knows that the Geneva conventions and the laws they have passed ban cruel inhumane and degrading treatment as well as torture. To claim that the phrases which he ignores adds nothing is to attempt to deceive readers who are lest familiar with the texts than he is.

To my knowledge, Kleiman hasn't objected that the Geneva conventions or the anti torture bill are vague. For example, he didn't, IIRC object to the torture bill on the ground that it didn't list banned techniques (which would be dumb as no list can be exhaustive). I think he is motivated by opposition to Clinton (he certainly is very strongly opposed to her nomination) and embarrassed that he believed Kornblut's and Balz's lie.

I think there is no possible justification for his condemning Clinton but not the Geneva conventions. I am very disappointed in him.

update: Matthew Yglesias, who I respect as much as I respect Kleiman, goes even further into a morass of dishonest Clinton derangement.

"As Mark Kleiman says, this doesn't really wash and seems to indicate that she accepts the view that, for example, waterboarding which we definitely do know is happening maybe doesn't count as torture."

I can't see how any person of normal intelligence, let alone Matthew Yglesias could write such a thing. This is beyond dishonesty, this is stupidly blatant dishonesty.

Clinton promised to obey "the laws we have passed" which were passed to make it clear that Bush administration policies were illegal. The only support for Yglesias's appalling insane dishonest accusation against Clinton is the weasel word "seems" seems to relieve him, in his own mind, of finding any basis for his accusations against Clinton in anything Clinton has said or done. There is, of course, no analysis of Clinton's statement before the assertion about what it seems she said, because there can not possibly be.

Yglesias' argument appears to be that George Bush has destroyed the English language, therefore it is impossible to speak clearly about torture, therefore Hillary Clinton has failed to do so, therefore she is a torturer.

I honestly have no idea what has come over Matthew Yglesias. I do not recognise the writer I thought I knew in this post. The target is a public figure, but the reasoning is well below that deployed by Malkin to attack Graeme Frost. Maybe someone hacked his account. I can think of no more plausible explanation for such vile lying idiocy on the blog of an normally honest genius.

I might add that my horror at the quality of reasoning displayed by Yglesias and Kleimain has nothing to do with disagreement with their view that Clinton should not be the nominee. I donated to Obama's campaign following Kleimans's advice. I am on their side and I am appalled by the recent posts by my allies. Really disgusted.

dumping on Sullivan relegated to the post update gutter as Sullivan has long made it perfectly clear that he is totally dishonest and so indifferent to reality and logic that he might as well be an idiot.








Andrew Sullivan is, of course, one of the original Clinton haters whose dishonesty and disinterest in mere facts, which might not support the accusation that Clinton was a rapist but who cares*, appalled me back in the 90s when it was hard to be appalled by insane Clinton hatred. He also doesn't like Bush, but there is no reason to take anything he says about anyone named Clinton seriously. Actually given his serial dishonesty, there is no reason to take anything he claims seriously.

*I mean this quite literally and am prepared to attempt to prove that Sullivan was willing to accuse Clinton of rape without any consideration of the evidence, stating it as if it were a known fact. This would require finding a brief passage in an old New Republic which discussed the conviction of a Southern Sheriff for forcing women prisoners to perform oral sex to be released from prison. Sullivan said that in this case, unlike the case of Clinton, such behavior was punished. He did not address any alleged evidence that Clinton had committed any similar act. I'd say he excused himself from participation in any debate involving the name Clinton at that point and people shouldn't forget it.

Urgent Frost Family update

The Frost discussed b disreputable hatemongers like Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and David Boehner is, of course Graeme the middle schooler who dared confront [and hammer] Bush in debate [he could have bested Bush when he was in elementary school if he had a chance].

However few people know of his distant uncle Lawrence Frost, heroic defender of the third and twenty first amendments as reported b the nations finest news source.

Via Jim Henley who scooped the Onion.

update: I mistakenly identified the congressman whose staff retailed wingnut attacks on the Frosts. It was representative Woody Hardon not representative David Boehner.

Unless we agree that it's off the record it's on the record say

ADAM NAGOURNEY and MARC SANTORA of the New York Times

For all the anticipation that preceded Mr. Thompson’s appearance, his new rivals barely mentioned him, reflecting in part a sense within the party that his first weeks as an official candidate had not gone well. (Mr. Giuliani’s campaign, however, did dispatch an unsolicited “not for attribution” e-mail to reporters arguing that Mr. Thompson had, as a member of the Senate in 2001, been part of a coalition that sought to decrease the size of tax cuts proposed by Mr. Bush).

It seems that the Giuliani campaign had reason to believe that it could unilaterally declare something to be "not for attribution". About time journalists decided to stop putting up with that.

Also the first thing I've heard about Thompson that I like.

Not satisfied b his public confrontation with Paul Krugman

Stephen Colbert is tr ing to pick a fight with another progressive economist whose name starts with a K -- Larr Katz. He's sunk to insulting Katz's mother

here

and

here

you got it she emigrated from Hungary to Uruguay [via Ital]

you read it hear first. I don't think either Katz or Colbert has noticed.

Stupid Assholes

Bush's argument against expanding nominal spending on S-Chip is "poor kids first," that is he's against the program because it provides benefits to middle class families. The veto is political russian roulette, the justification makes it russian roulette with six bullets.

I once wrote that the last thing the Republicans should want to do is talk about the progressivity of the tax system. I was wrong. The last thing they want to say is that when Democrats claim they are helping the poor, they are really helping the middle class (second last is there is no such thing as a free lunch so look at spending not taxes given their record). Republicans have to argue that, when Democrats say middle class, they mean the poor. They survive only because working class Americans see a bigger gap with underclass Americans than with rich Americans.

What are they going to do next ? Attack small businessmen on principle ? Check.

Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Right wing bloggers attacked him arguing that he was rich. They are assholes, they are wrong on the facts but more oh much more, they are opposed to self employment.

I love the condescending attitude toward the small business owner:
"...maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance..."
I generally shy away from the "imagine if one of us said that" school of arguing, but really, imagine HRC referring to a family's small business as "a hobby" and suggesting it's time to get a "real job"
Methinks wingnuttia might have some fun with that. Me; as someone with a brother, several close relatives, and numerous friends who have made their way in the world by creating small businesses based on something they love doing all I can do is stifle the urge to go postal.

Posted by: Bob | October 07, 2007 at 11:23 PM

I am not Bob (I am Robert or Rob for one thing) but I wish I were. Can't stand reading Freepers though.

Sprezzatura Break

See below for my suffering as I find myself temporarily almost agreeing with Lee Seigal.

Now where can I go to wallow is some snide contempt ?

Jonah Goldberg ? Check

The press didn't care much about the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" story in which Limbaugh was referring to one anti-war activist

OK sure "soldiers" obviously refers to one soldier. I mean you don't expect Rush to keep track of singular and plural through the oxycontin haze.*

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ? Check

He talked about “300,” the recent movie about the Battle of Thermopylae: “That film claimed that under Darius the Great twenty-seven nations paid tribute to Iran.” The audience hissed. “But, in a meeting I was in, I corrected that impression. ‘No,’ I said, ‘under Darius forty-two nations paid tribute to Iran!’ ”

Next, he approached the nuclear issue. “Iranians have never tried to oppress anyone,” he said.

OK so it was non oppressive tribute fine.

*I know that Rush passed his drug test, but I'm assuming Jonah didn't

uhm know about that.

Burying the Lede after strangling it shooting it and lighting its corpse on fire

This is not the first time that I have expressed concern about Talking Points Memo sullying their outstanding journalistic credentials by publishing stuff from the vastly inferior Associated Press, but this one is really outrageous

The headline

FCC: No suppression of ownership report

FCC Investigation Finds No Suppression of Report on Media Ownership

JIM ABRAMS
Oct 05, 2007 16:18 EDT
AP News

the last two paragraphs

The IG office said another report that was never released, on the radio industry in 2003, "presents more troubling aspects." It quoted from an e-mail message from former Media Bureau chief Kenneth Ferree in which he states that he was "not inclined to release this one unless the story can be told in a much more positive way. This is not the time to be stirring the 'radio consolidation' pot."

Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz said it seemed clear that Ferree, a political appointee, "decided to stuff the draft radio report in a drawer because he didn't like what it said and the timing of it couldn't have been worse for the FCC" in that it illustrated concerns about FCC decisions to relax rules limiting media ownership.

The story proves that the claim in the headline is absolutely totally utterly false. The hint of possible conceivable justification for the false claim in the headline is the extensive discussion of investigation of the alleged suppression of a report on the TV industry. The headline would have been highly misleading but technically true if the word "media" were replaced by "Television." As written it is plainly false and totally unsuited to an organization with the high standards of "Talking Points Memo."

I disagree with Kevin Drum (ouch) and agree with Lee Seigal AAAAAIIIIIIIIII

I cut and paste Drum and continue with my comment.

TRUTH AND BEAUTY....Lee Siegel is — what? Nervous? Uncomfortable? Anxious? I'm not quite sure, but he's something over the recent release of several books attacking religion:

I'm not a particularly religious person. These arguments don't offend me or my beliefs. But they make me concerned nevertheless, because I think they strike a blow against something more important (at least to me) than belief in God. In their contempt for any belief that cannot be scientifically or empirically proved, the anti-God books are attacking our inborn capacity to create value and meaning for ourselves.

....When our anti-religionists attack the mechanism of religious faith by demanding that our beliefs be underpinned by science, statistics and cold logic, they are, in effect, attacking our right to believe in unseen, unprovable things at all....After all, you cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency; you cannot prove the dignity of being human, or your obligation to treat people as ends and not just as means.

Let me get this straight. Lee Siegel himself is "not a particularly religious person." But he nonetheless thinks that attacks on religion undermine our ability to believe in "truth, beauty, goodness and decency."

This is nuts. After all, Siegel presumably believes in all these things. If cold logic hasn't stopped him, why should it stop anyone else?

I don't happen to care one way or the other whether atheists write books promoting atheism, but surely Siegel understands the difference between believing in an actual existing deity who controls the physical universe even though there's no evidence for it, and believing that human emotions are real even though they have no physical existence? This isn't really a subtle distinction. If it weren't, then Siegel's own lack of religiosity would undermine his ability to engage in flights of imagination. But, as this op-ed demonstrates, it doesn't.

On a personal level, I can understand why religious believers get tired of being pilloried as irrational zealots. Conversely, though, I get tired of believers who seem to think that atheists are incapable of morality, awe, appreciation of beauty, or the ability to lead a meaningful life. It's even more tiresome coming from someone who is himself not a believer and really ought to know better.

Oh (not mine either) God. I think I agree with Lee Siegal and disagree with you (both experiences are painful in the extreme).

In the passage you quoted (I will *not* read the rest of what he wrote) he didn't in any way suggest that religious faith is required for belief in, say, gooness. He argued that the scientific method can't show us what is write and wrong, what goodness is or tell us why to be good. This will come as no shock to anyone familiar with science and as a cliche to anyone familiar with the philosophy of science. His claim is so obvious that you can't believe he meant that which he clearly wrote.

Seigal is, quite clearly, criticizing logical positivism not atheism. The logical positivists always had great difficulty explaining why they didn't consider all statements about right and wrong to be hypocritical meaning in fact "I like this. Do so as well." That was a real philosophical problem. It helps explain why it is hard to find logical positivists in philosophy departments these days (meaning since about 1945).

The idea, central to logical positivism, that any claim which can not be tested empirically is nonsense is philosophical poison, with which logical positivism committed suicide (it asserts itself to be nonsense as it clearly can not be tested).

Dawkins et al haven't heard about the apostasy of the logical positivists. Seigal objects to their argument, roughly that which is not science is false or meaningless, not their conclusion.

It is not necessary to doubt that one can believe in right and wrong without believing in God to accept logical positivism. I believe in right and wrong but not in God or logical positivism.

update: Look Mr Drum don't bring my mother into the debate, because if you do. I will ... I mean I will ... admit you have a point.

My mother is much closer to being a logical positivist than I am and does not believ3 in objective moral truth.n This disbelief does not prevent her from being a wonderful person and atheist saint. I'm her son, so don't trust me but you can ask anyone who knows her. The belief that the word "truth" should be reserved for valid science and mathematics does not prevent her from being very very good. I believe in objective moral truth and, well I'm better than Dick Cheney but I don't dare go far beyond that.

Seigal is worried about the possible long term effects of the belief that there is no truth outside of science (and mathematics). I agree that he is being silly, as this belief is common among atheists many of whom are very moral people. However, it is a belief that goes beyond simple disbelief in God and, in particular, is a belief which do do not share. I agree with Drum conclusion that Seigal (intellectual spazzatura) is confused, but I disagree with Drum's argument, because Drum fails to notice that Seigal criticizes Dawkins' argument not his conclusion.

A double F.U. FISA Cave

I'm glad that progressives blocked Steny Hoyer's assault on the first amendment for a couple of days, but they didn't get the leadership to compromise (unless the draft bill was even worse).

Key point "it would require a court order when the government is seeking communications of a person inside the United States, but only if that person is the target" that is, they can only spy on you people in the USA* if they claim they are interested in the person you are talking to or e-mailing. Wow.

Oh also more of the F.U. approach to FISA. The August mega cave was just for six months. Now Congress will take itself out but require unfortunate FISA judges to decide whether to grant a blanket suspension of FISA for US to overseas communications for two F.U.s at a time.

I really honestly believe that US Democracy will survive the Democrats. I don't know why I am confident, but I am.

* I live in Italy. No US law prevents the NSA from spying on me. The theoretically sovereign Italian Republic could protect me, but they caved decades ago. This isn't about me, its about my mom. Since August it has been legal for the NSA to listen in when she calls me (so long as I am the target).

Taking Advantage of Medicare Advantage Accounts

As part of the [subsidize insurance companies] I mean the medicare prescription drug benefit bill, Republicans allowed firms to compete with medicare with fee for service medicare advantage accounts (previously they could only compete with HMO accounts). The cost of medicare advantage to the treasury is about six billion a year (roughly equal to total compensation of all fortune 500 CEOs put together).

Unsurprisingly, unscrupulous insurance salesmen have acted like insurance salesmen in the scramble for the cash.

Kathleen Healey, a lawyer at the Alabama Department of Senior Services, said: “Despite the prohibition of door-to-door marketing, agents arrive on residents’ doorsteps stating that the president sent them, or that they represent Medicare. Some telemarketers insist they are calling from Medicare, and they tell beneficiaries that they will lose their Medicare if they do not sign up for the telemarketer’s plan.”

David A. Lipschutz, a lawyer at California Health Advocates, a nonprofit group,
explains

“Every enrollee in a private Medicare plan is a potential source of substantial profits,” Mr. Lipschutz said.

Doh. It's time to close the spigot. Republicans will not be eager to filibuster after some hearings following up on the article by ROBERT PEAR

All the ducks in a row

The White House illegally stopped secure archiving of e-mails because they switched to microsoftware

The National Security Archive and CREW lawsuits paint a picture of a White House that gave low priority to compliance with its archival duties under the law. The research institute alleges that the Executive Office of the President abandoned the automated record management system (ARMS) built by the previous administration to securely archive e-mails in 2002, never implementing another system for that purpose. The time period for the abandonment of the legacy archival system coincides with the Executive Office of the President's switch from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange and Outlook, referred to by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino in an April 13 press briefing.

"In 2002, they abandoned Lotus Notes, went to Microsoft Outlook, abandoned ARMS, but never put in a new electronic records management system. So I'm told they just dumped e-mail on servers. This meant that anybody with access to the servers could potentially dump data and delete documents," said Weismann.

"Each agency of the EOP's records are commingled. It's all just a dump. How much is missing? I think 5 million is the low end of what's missing."

via Sadly no again

but this is the funniest post over there

Why, Pastor Swank? Why dost thou persecuteth me?

Greasy Giuliani Slips Through Every Tight Hole
J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Is this Swank guy for real ? It would be very embarrassing to make fun of, say General J C Christian.

The Pantomime Horse of the Stupidocalypse

Echo chamber er er

Over at Sadl No Gavin M has some fun with Johah Goldberg.

Goldberg claimed that "that conservatives don’t actually question the patriotism of liberals". Huh ? When called on it, he claimed that Democrats do it too. In one example, he accuses John Kerry of questioning patriotism and poor rhyming when Kerry said "creed of greed".

Gavin M argues that Goldberg got all of his examples from an article b Morton Kondracke

Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), when he was a candidate, said that Bush’s Iraq policy was “anti-patriotic at the core.” Last September, Kerry said that Bush “lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends” and that it was “unpatriotic” for Bush’s “friends” (i.e., corporate executives) to move jobs offshore. It was a regular staple of retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s campaign to say that Bush’s policies were “not patriotic.”

Howard Dean, when he was a candidate, charged that Ashcroft “is no patriot. He’s a direct descendant of Joseph McCarthy.”

Sure looks that way. Note that Kondracke didn't claim that Kerry claimed that Bush was unpatriotic, but that's just a detail. Kondracke did accuse Kerry of poor grammer as "he and his friends" should be "himself and his friends".


googling

"creed of greed" AND Kerry shows that Kerry is indeed guilty of a silly rhyme but there is no evidence of the grammer booboo [or the accusation of unpatriotism based on little evidence alleged by Goldberg].

Gavin googled the whole phrase and found that, surprise surprise, Fred Barnes writes by cutting a pasting without attribution or checking quotes.

The repetition of the grammar error shows this. Thus " The Last Refuge of the Democrats " was cowritten by Barnes and Kondracke [although Barnes didn't share credit for the misquotation]. Brad DeLong might call the beastie who wrote that article the pantomime horse of the Stupidocalypse.

Sad to say, Kaus and Krauthammer seem to make up their own inaccurate quotes.

Willard [Mitt] Romney explains how the market system works

He opposes the expansion of SCHIP [subsidised health insurance for children in families which make less than $ 6O,OOO for a family of 4] noting that some of the new recipients currently have health insurance

Mr. Romney told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that the proposed expansion was wasteful duplication.

“Can you imagine doing something like that in your enterprise, saying we want to get a new customer, so we’re going to lower the price to get this new account by 10 percent but then we’re going to go to all of our old customers and all give them 10 percent off too?” Mr. Romney said.

That is, in the private sector firms can manage perfect price discrimination and never sell an thing for less than the maximum a consumer is willing to pa. Charging an one less than their reservation price is proof of public sector inefficiency

This man made money in the private sector. He can't be that dumb. He is lying.

Paul has more links but I have more n's

I am currently suffering from acute link envy as I find m self [at best] the third most important Waldman* on the web.

Paul Waldman hates Iowa and got links from Atrios, Kos, Yglesias and Kevin Drum

aaaaarrrrg . Also Kagro X is named David Waldman.

I hate Iowa more than anyone and no one cares.

It's not as bad as it seems

Google He who knows not and knows not that he know not.....

and get sent straight here !

I am not the world's leading sophomoric buffoon [but I'm working on it]

Not only a crime a mistake

The fact that the USA decided to emulate the ussr in it's approach to torture should remain shocking. The guilt must be punished and there are hundreds of them [I was just following orders is no excuse when the orders are clearly criminal]. I was most surprised however b the astounding incompetence of our Mayberry Torquemadas

Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed’s statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.’s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed’s background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison.

So the absolute rule that experts are not to be trusted is more important than something which is more important than all moral principles.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

not a nightmare read all about it in toda's Times.

Wow

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrow that he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to several informed sources, a decision that further complicates an already difficult playing field for Republicans next November.

An open seat in deep purple New Mexico ! Brings the score to three high prob Dem pickups [Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire] a toss up in New Mexico and definite chances in Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska and Alaska [Stevens is so crooked the he is vulnerable]. The Republicans have some chance in Louisiana because Katrina drove out much of the Dem vote and South Dakota.

forty Republicans [not enough to filibuster] is possible. Of course on Ira* they have Lieberman.

Wow

Iraq invasion advocate Jeffrey Goldberg really did get a pony ?

Golberg wrote

The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

and the result ? Ponies !

David Bradley had been trying to lure Jeffrey Goldberg to the Atlantic for more than two years.

Bradley, the magazine's owner, wrote flattering letters. He courted Goldberg at a McDonald's on Wisconsin Avenue. He proffered a hefty signing bonus. And when the New Yorker's Washington correspondent finally seemed receptive to making the move, Bradley sent in the ponies.

"He's incredibly persistent and makes you feel like you're God's gift to journalism," says Goldberg, who had turned Bradley down once before. But that was before the horses showed up at his home to entertain his children.

And I thought all this "pony plan" and "finding a pony" was snark. How naive.

all shamelessly stolen from A Tiny Revolution

Less Horrible News from Iraq

The number of civilian casualties in Iraq was much lower in September than in August.
Kevin Drum has a nice graph.


I think the dramatic decline in deaths from August to September could have been forecast (although checking my blog I see I didn't do so). This sounds negative, but I mean that there have been 60 less awful days in the past two months. The (honest) August numbers include the estimated 572 deaths from bombings in Qahtaniya on August 14 (the victims were Yazidi). This was an immense catastrophe and monstrous crime, but it could have happened on any day for years. It was reasonable to guess that such a massacre would not occur in September. That would imply that fewer people would be killed per day in September than in June and July (as fewer will killed in August except August 14).

I think the bizarre numbers presented by Petraeus must have been calculated by excluding the August 14 deaths in Qahtaniya. It might be reasonable to look at deaths other than those when trying to forecast, but just pretending they didn't happen is still perjury in my book.

Still, the important point is that the good news is spread over 60 of 61 days not just 30 days which is ... still much less important than the political stalemate.

A the Return of the Killian Memos


Dan Rather has sued CBS for wrongful dismissal. He claims, among other more interesting things that the Killian memos shown on 60 minutes II which I have been calling "the forged Killian memo" for years, are authentic. The other things are more interesting. He claims that CBS tried to bury the Abu Ghraib story, that the substance of his accusations against Bush is correct, and that CBS hired a private investigator and ignored his conclusions that "after following all the leads given to him by Ms. Mapes, he [Rigler] was of the opinion that the Killian Documents were most likely authentic, and that the underlying story was certainly accurate." All this is a bit more important than the memos themselves.

To me, the unimportance of the memos in the case against Bush is the strongest argument against Rather and Mary Mapes (the "producer" who did the actual reporting).

I wrote at the time

Saturday, September 11, 2004


Alleged Killian memos II

The debate about whether the alleged Killian memos are forgeries has its delights. Every geek dreams of the day in which fonts, superscripts, proportional spacing and kerning make the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. Well not quite every geek. I consider myself a geek and I just learned what kerning is. Also the thought of total humiliation of George W Bush, Dan Rather or (most likely) both, must delight all right thinking people.

Sad to say the debate is very very irrelevant. [snip]

In my more paranoid moments, I imagine that Karl Rove typed the memos using microsoft word then signed them James Killian with a signature that doesn't match Killian's [OK so I'm totally paranoid now] He must have known that another round of Bush and the TANG was coming after the swift boat vets smear. This way, the press is distracted from the fact (noted by the Boston Globe) that Bush ignored his commitment to find a national guard post in Massachusetts when he was at Harvard BS, that the guy who got him the post in the TANG admitted doing so under oath etc etc etc.

[snip]

the alleged memos are not the first documents which suggest that Bush disobeyed a direct order. Back on St Valentime's day, Mark Kleiman noted that The Democratic Veteran linked to the order grounding Bush and James R Bath (you know Bush's link to the Bin Laden family) as posted by Martin at coldfeet@cis.net who I believe is a hero farmer in Iowa.

This order from the General Francis Greenlief (chief natinal guard bureau) grounds Bush and orders "Off will comply with para 2-10 AFM, 35-13." This is an order from a major general. It is written in militareese. What exactly does para 2-10 AFM, 35-13 require ? The most reasonable guess is that it is an order to take a flight physical. This would mean that there is uncontested proof that Bush disobeyed a direct order. However, no one has replied to Kleiman's request for a 1972 Air Force Manual, so we don't know. The manual must be an archived document, so it seems to me that it would make more sense to look it up than to argue about kerns and superscripts.

So at the time it was clear to someone who had been following the issue that the controversial memos added essentially nothing to what was known about George Bush's long past misconduct. There was no reason to go with them at all and certainly no reason to present them without checking with people like Killian's secretary.

Rather and Mapes demonstrate that they haven't gotten in by continuing to argue that the memos are authentic.

Mapes' argument was that the Killian documents "meshed" with the facts in precise and nuanced ways. "The Killian memos, when married to the official documents, fit like a glove," she wrote. "There is not a date, or a name, or an action out of place. Nor does the content of the Killian memos differ in any way from the information that has come out after our story ... In order to conclude that the documents are forged or utterly unreliable, two questions must be answered: 1) how could anyone have forged such pristinely accurate information; and 2) why would anyone have taken such great pains to forge the truth?

OK I have a couple of answers Ms Mapes. 2) Rove forged the truth hoping that someone would fall for the forgery and the ensuing controversy would convince people that Bush was never AWOL and the accusations against him are false. This is exactly what happened, so, while such a scheme would be optimistic it wouldn't be insane. 1a) the facts in the memos, including facts not yet in the public record, are accurate because Bush was in so much trouble he remembers even through the haze of alchohol and we all know what else (cough cocaine cough). or 1b) the official information which only later became public was known to the people in the Bush administration who have favored access to Bush's TANG records.

In brief you were punked. Now is the forged by the Bush team hypothesis paranoid ? I actually don't think so. First Mapes' questions are otherwise hard to answer. Second it explains why a well connected freeper challenged the authenticity of the documents while the 60 minutes II stopwatch was still ticking. It is my current working hypothesis.