My head hurts.  Today's NY Times Week in Review has a distinguished symposium titled How to See This Mission Accomplished.

Wow, I thought naively.  A diverse group of opinions on what to do about Iraq on the fifth anniversary of the most shameful, bitterly ironic "celebration" in US military history.

Then I looked at the distinguished conspirators [oh, I mean contributors]: Fred Kagan, Daniel Perle, Danielle Pletka, Ken Pollack, Paul fucking Bremer, for chrissake!  Yes, NY Times.  The Mission will finally be "accomplished" by taking the advice of the rogues and criminals who engineered the initial "Mission Accomplished."

Not a single "dirty fucking hippie" [n. phrase: someone who had the sense to oppose the war before it started] (unless you consider Nathaniel Fick, a Marine infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, to perhaps be a dirty fucking hippie).

<

Here we go again. In this week's Newsweek Michael Hirsch has an article titled The Democrats’ Wimp Factor: As Obama's patriotism is questioned, he's starting to look more and more like John Kerry in '04.

Hirsch then uses the time-honored self-fulfilling prophecy of adopting the right-wing attack as being effective merely because the question is raised.

Between the questions about Obama's meager association with William Ayers, a former Weatherman, and the suspicions raised by his lack of a flag lapel pin, the likely nominee is slowly being turned into John Kerry.

Hirsch seems oblivious to the idiocy of those questions and the backlash against them.  Let this guy know in his comments or his email: [webeditors@newsweek.com] that this year he's wrong -- We and Obama will not let this crap stand.

I'm still scratching my head on this one.  First, the AP  says McCain "declined to label Obama an elitist," then it quotes him saying that Obama is an elitist.  

In his speech and in a more relaxed question-and-answer session meant to approximate the setting on his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus, McCain repeatedly declined to label Obama an elitist for the comments that have roiled the race for the White House in recent days.

"I think those comments are elitist," he said. "I think anybody who disparages anyone who is hardworking, the dedicated people who cherish the right to hunt and observe their values and the culture ... and say that's because they are unhappy with their economic conditions, I think that's a fundamental contradiction to what I think America is."

"These are people who produced the generation that made the world safe for democracy."

McCain's remarks were his latest reaction to Obama's description last week of residents of small towns that have been economically distressed for a generation or more.

Emphasis supplied

Yes, that's right, Bill Maher called us that just half an hour ago, after quoting a poster who said he or she would "vote for Hillary and then leave the country."  This was in the context of Maher's continuing theme that no one has the right to tell Hillary to quit.

Aside from that, it was a pretty good show, with three liberals and cute, but air-headed Amy Holmes (Is Maher sleeping with her?).

Actually, by the end of the show, "conservative" Holmes had come out against all corporate welfare, and for financial regulation.  Not a bad transformation in 20 minutes.

Esai Morales, Robert Reich and Barbara Lee were excellent.  Morales (the Latino George Clooney?) kept bringing up the "transfer of wealth" upward through the "wars" on terror, drugs, etc. and Reich picked up on that.

Iraq war films have been a box-office bust so far, but the previews for Stop-Loss gave the impression that it might end the losing streak of films like "Lions for Lambs," "In the Valley of Elah," "Redacted" and "Rendition."

So in spite of its mediocre 61% tomatoemeter score, I headed out to the 10:00 show at the Lincoln Square.  I felt somewhat of an anti-war, anti-administration patriotic duty to see it, and add at least one to the weekend gross.

The show was pretty full, though not sold out.  But of course, we're talking about the People's Republic of the Upper West Side here.  As for the film itself?  Very good, but not great.  Certainly worth seeing.  (Some more, with perhaps a moderate spoiler, below the fold.)

Tavis Smiley beautifully illustrated the link between Wright's sermons and MLK's anti-war 1967 speeches, where he said,among other things, that the US was the world's greatest "purveyor of violence."  Tavis linked this to the true definition of a "patriot," as someone willing to rebuke his country.

But -- Tavis continued the disturbing tendency of saying "You can't beat McCain on experience" -- and Robin Wright, otherwise quite good on Iraq, bought the "McCain's speech showed differentiation from Bush."

People like Smiley have to starting saying, "McCain may have longevity, but that doesn't equate to good experience.  Any "experience" that made him support the greatest disaster in US foreing policy is worthless.

Dan Savage added some good comments and a good bit about the "what if Obama/Hillary loses" issue with CA voters.

As one of the key disseminators of "Conventional Wisdom," Mark Halperin is a favorite and often-deserved target of blog scorn.  More often than not, that his posts have a pro-GOP spin (perhaps because "Drudge rules his world").  But if his framing of the Obama Speech and McCain gaffe become the CW, that's great news.

His first headline now is:

McCAIN FLUBS TERRORISM FACT ON MIDEAST TOUR

This gaffe is covered in this recommended diary

But the next headline is

OBAMA RISES TO THE OCCASION ON RACE AND THE RACE

The subheadline says Obama

BLOWS THE CHATTERING CLASS AWAY  WITH PHILADELPHIA SPEECH

Mark is a prime chatterer of the chattering classes.
Keep it up Mark!

I always read the Sunday NY Times Week in Review, in particular the Op-Ed page (now expanded to four pages!).  This week, there were two egregious features on Iraq:  An amazingly patronizing and blame-shifting piece by reporter John Burns and a purported symposium of views on Iraq on the occasion of the invasion's fifth anniversary. Anticipating the latter, I looked forward to a diversity of views reflecting on the past five years. Instead, there was an array of apologies, recriminations, excuses, and half-truths by neo-cons like Richard Perle, Danielle Pletka and Fred Kagan, a bizarre piece by Paul Bremer, a sorta mea culpa, but stay-the-course piece by Kenneth Pollack.

This presentation is brilliantly eviscerated by David Bromwich in a must-read entry in the current Huffington Post:  

Cross-posted on Docudharma

I don't think Obama's Olbermann appearance is enough to stem the Wright tide.  The best argument is the much worse connection between McCain and the crazy right preachers. Because the traditional media never will do it, Obama may have to be the one to reveal the outrageous double standard of excoriating him for Wright, while not touching McCain for embracing Hagee and Parsley.  

I've put together a draft Obama speech that tries to weave together his message with an attack on the double standard.

In the comments or a diary, let's try to put together an "open source" speech for Obama (or a surrogate who will have a platform).  Here's my try:

The past few days my campaign has been engulfed in nearly constant, furious attacks of guilt by association.  The words of Pastor Wright, which I have repeatedly denounced, have been broadcast non-stop on radio, television and the internet.  Despite my rejection of these statements, so-called pundits have seen fit to tie me irrevocably to them, and impugn my patriotism and tolerance.

Obviously, Maher's show tonight was vastly superior to the Kingston/Frum atrocity.  Adam Goldberg was neurotically entertaining; Jeremy Scahill was a non-smirking, serious version of Matt Taibi, who effectively called Scarborough on his bullshit, and Farai Chediya was quite good, when she was finally able to shout down Scarborough.

But a low point came, when Maher asked "Whom would you ideally like answering the phone at 3:00 am? and Scar said Colin Powell, and proceeded to launch into a ridiculous paean to Powell that speculated that he would not have gone to war in Iraq and would have followed the "Powell Doctrine" if he had.  Sadly, no one disagreed! (Maher even agreed.)

Powell perverted his legitimacy by making the false case for war, and not speaking out until he left office.  He's as great a villain as the rest.  To see him skate was disgusting.

Here is what Obama said with respect to public financing:

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Here is what the "liberal" New York Times said he said:

If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

The Times article does not quote Obama's actual statement, nor does it link to it. Instead, it continually mischaracterizes it.

cross-posted on Docudharma

Nicholas Kristof may be the most maddening of all the New York Times columnists.  His last two columns illustrate this perfectly. Last Thursday, he wrote a great column on the torture and incarceration of Sami al-Hajj.  It was a rare traditional media expose and attack on this underreported story.  I wrote a comment to the piece suggesting that he do a follow-up column noting that Congress had just passed an anti-torture bill, but candidate McCain had voted no.

Today, his column is an inexplicable Valentine to McCain that excuses all of his pandering on numerous issues, and mentions merely in passing that he just voted for torture!

I give my Senator Chuck Schumer some credit for appearing here, but it's abundantly clear that he and the Dems in the Senate have forfeited all or most of the good will that existed prior to the 2006 election.

ClammyC has one of his usual excellent diaries up on this, but as I was commenting  there it occurred to me that Schumer (et al.) could earn the good graces of this and the other progressive communities through some dramatic gesture.

For example, his vote on the Mukasey nomination has within just months proven extraodinarily naive, at best.

TPM's The Horses' Mouth lets us know that the bogus Clinton says slow down the economy lie continues to be circulated and misrepresented in major papers.

Most egregiously, the Philadelphia Bulletin actually has a story with the headline: Bill Clinton Wants Economic Slowdown.  What Clinton actually said was

And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other

As a liberal Jew (which most of us are!), nothing infuriates me more than the hijacking of "Jewish Opinion" by the organized, powerful Jewish Groups like AIPAC, the ADL, etc. American Jews suffer guilt by association because people like Podhoretz, Crystal, Goldberg et al., ad nauseum are perceived as speaking  for us when quite the contrary is the case.

Eric Alterman does a great job of summarizing this problem in a piece at The Nation, Bad for the Jews..  As he puts it

"Rather, it's that they think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena.

(More below, if you should only be so inclined.)

Cross-posted at Docudharma.

In the 1950’s, my Dad was the head counselor at a summer camp in in Pennsylvania. About 10 years ago, I ran into a friend who had gone to the camp.  After reminiscing for a few minutes, I asked him if he would like me to give his regards to my father.  His answer:

"Don't give him my regards."  He paused.  "Give him my respect."

The comment captured his larger-than-life presence for generations of kids at summer camps and at the schools where he was a teacher and principal.

My Dad died on October 24 at the age of 91.  He was a quintessential member of the "Greatest Generation." Born in 1916 to immigrant parents, he made it through the Depression, went to City College, served in W.W. II, took advantage of the G.I. Bill, raised a war baby (my big brother) and a boomer (me), moved to an "urban suburb" (Rockaway Beach, NY), worked two jobs –- teacher and principal; and camp counselor and director.

Also, between 1973 and last month, he tenaciously and courageously fought his way through several heart attacks, a couple of "mini-strokes," two multiple bypass surgeries,

Today Michael Cooper did a great Times piece that, for a very refreshing change, essentially called Rudy a liar.  I humbly wonder if this in some way could have stemmed from my correspondence with Cooper.

On Monday of this week a Times article by Cooper and Michael Luo on Romney and Giuliani had merely repeated the charges and counter-charges of each campaign about whether crime had gone down in Massachusetts while Romney was Governor.  

Paul Waldman wrote a piece in Tapped about this "he said/he said" approach and I emailed Cooper with a link to it::

The link below contains an excellent suggestion with respect to your piece today and Romney and Giuliani's charges on crime in Massachusetts: that is -- find out which one of them is telling the truth and report that. As pointed out in the link, the truth is ascertainable easily on line. Thanks.

This piece by Paul Waldman yesterday in Tapped pointed out that a Times article on Romney and Giuliani had merely repeated the charges and counter-charges of each campaign about whether crime had gone down in Massachussetts while Romney was Governor.

Waldman illustrated how easy it was to find out who was lying: Crime had, in fact, gone down in Massachusetts.  I sent the link to Michael Cooper, one of the authors of the Times piece, and wrote:

The link below contains an excellent suggestion with respect to your piece today and Romney and Giuliani's charges on crime in Massachussetts: that is -- find out which one of them is telling the truth and report that. As pointed out in the link, the truth is ascertainable easily on line. Thanks.