What if...

Lorie Byrd, writing at Wizbang and Townhall, poses a question I've often wondered about but have never been able to adequately articulate:

One of the favorite topics of discussion in the media and among Iraq war critics is whether or not the Bush administration has properly prosecuted the war, but the topic I have yet to hear discussed is whether or not the anti-war left and the media in America have properly prosecuted their roles during the war in Iraq. With Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, in the news, and the recent declassification of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, the topic of how things are going in Iraq, whether we are more or less safe, and whether or not the action there has led to the recruitment of more terrorists, is a hot topic. Not being debated, though, is what the status of the war in Iraq might be today if Democrat leaders and the media had conducted themselves differently. If all the successes of American troops in Iraq had been reported as studiously as the setbacks, would terrorists have been able to convince their young, impressionable followers that they were winning? If it were clear to the Iraqi people that politicians in D.C. were committed to finishing the mission in Iraq, would the attitude of the people there be different? If politicians and anti-war activists had not accused our own troops of engaging in torture, and worse, would world opinion, and specifically the opinion of the Iraqi people be different? No, I am not blaming all the ills of the world on the reporting in Iraq or on Democrats. I am just wondering, aloud, why there has not been more discussion about the consequences of the words and actions of the anti-war left and anti-American reporting...

WizBang

Deep inside the Democratic planning bunker...

Thanks to our patented Leftotronic™ technology, we've secreted a hidden camera and microphone deep inside the Democratic National Committee's command bunker. Shhhhhh.... let's listen in as the party leaders plan for campaign 2006...


Now, guys and gals, we have got to jump on this entie-yah Foley sitchee-ation and make these Republicans pay this time. Any ideas?


It's simple, you bald-headed cracker! Let's put the heat on Speaker Hastert! Chop off the head... and the torso... -er-... bleeds... a lot!


Don't you mean, "chop off the head and the body dies", genius? That's whah you appear on Fox and I don't. Your brainpower couldn't illuminate a flashlight, Beckel.


Stop your insipid infighting. We have one enemy: Bush and the rest of the Republicans.


Hate to break it to you, Alan, but that's more than one.


Stifle yourself, Beckel! If I need your opinion, I'll squeeze your head! The problem is that Hastert's timeline holds up! The family purposefully withheld the information from him. So that's a dead-end.


That's big talk comin' from you, pencil-neck. Why aren't you sitting on Hannity's lap, you ventriloquist's dummy?


Boys! Shut the hail up! You all are behavin' like seven-yeah olds.


Howie, you've been awfully quiet. Any strategies from our ostensible party leader?


Culture of corruption! Abramoff!! YEEEEAAARRRGGGHGHGHHAAARGH!!!


You know... Howie's right. Loud and somewhat deranged... but right. The culture of corruption has been the Republicans' biggest problem for years. Think about the Abramoff scandal...


Hey, Einstein, did you forget that our dear leader, Harry Reid, took about $70K from Abramoff's firm? And then did some extensive lobbying on his behalf? Plus, at least one of Reid's folks went to work for Abramoff? That's the last thing we wanna do - open that can of worms!


Hmmm, you have a point. Maybe that whole corruption theme is a bad idea. We don't want to remind voters of the $90 grand found in Jefferson's freezer... that pins the tail right back on the donkey, so to speak.


What about the child-subordinate angle? Cain't we take advantage of that?


Oh, don't go there, you bald-headed stooge! That'll bring up the whole Reynolds affair and the pardon!


Refresh mah memory. What the hail are you talkin' about?


Are your brain-cells still burned out from the Al Gore victory party in 2000?

Don't you remember? Jessie Jackson added former Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds to his Rainbow payroll. Reynolds was one of maybe 175 pardons that Bill granted just before leaving office. Reynolds was serving a federal sentence for... about 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lying to the Federal Election Commission. Plus he was serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

So do we really want to resurrect that story? Think about it: an ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate? And his new job with Rainbow was as... youth counselor?

Do you really want to bring that up?


Bill, are you payin' attention? This is serious! What the heck are you reading? Is that a Hustler magazine??


(Flips magazine shut) It's not what it looks like!!


Oven-fresh good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Captain's Quarters: Appeals Court Hints At Reversal On NSA Surveillance
Hugh Hewitt: Foley fallout, part I
Rick Moran's RWNH: October 5th, a day of peace, love, and...
STACLU: A Short History Of The ACLU
Wizbang: Foley: the plot sickens

Salon: The telecom slayers

Salon Magazine features a recap of the ragtag, ad hoc crew that banded together to defeat the major telecommunications carriers bent on turning the Internet into cable television. The war over net neutrality featured a bonfire of $100 million in public relations funds, YouTube videos, "astroturf" responses, and some of the biggest whoppers ever told.

The carriers appear intent on dismantling the principle of net neutrality, a fundamental method that describes how the Internet works today. In the current environment, network traffic -- whether a video from AT&T or a Flash animation from an 18 year-old college student -- is all treated with equal privilege. Under the new telecommunications law, carriers hoped to levy tarriffs on content providers like Google and Yahoo who they saw as vulnerable to the duopoly of cable and DSL that control access to residential Internet users.

The carriers, through their thought-leaders like Christopher Yoo, expressed a vision where the Internet effectively became something akin to cable television. Or, even better for them, pay-per-view (PPV) TV.

Unfortunately for the carriers -- and fortunately for consumers -- a grassroots campaign spearheaded by Save the Internet stopped the nine-figure PR campaign in its tracks. At least for the moment...

Salon: The telecom slayers and Doug's Net Neutrality Index.

Wanted: John Wilkes Booth

A seller on eBay is featuring this incredible piece of Civil War memorabilia: a "Wanted" poster for President Abraham Lincoln's assassin dated April 20, 1865.

John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin, was an immensely popular professional stage actor during the 1850's and 1860's. Imagine the fame surrounding someone like Tom Cruise and you can pretty much get the sense of Booth's popularity in his day. Booth, though, was a virulent Confederate sympathizer. As such, he was extremely agitated at the Civil War's outcome.

As a respected and popular actor, Booth had a personal relationship with the owner of Ford's Theater. On April 14, 1865, Booth discovered that Lincoln was scheduled to visit the theater that evening for a performance of Our American Cousin. During the play, at around 10pm, Booth snuck into the President's private box and shot him in the back of the head. Major Henry Rathbone, ostensibly a Presidential bodyguard, then struggled with Booth, who slashed him and then jumped from the box to the stage floor. Booth momentarily escaped, but was later hunted down by Union soldiers and cornered in a barn, which was set ablaze. Booth was dragged out of the fire and then unceremoniously shot.


The seller claims it is one of only two such posters currently known to exist. It is alleged to have been published by the War Department five days after Lincoln was murdered. The seller indicates that the original has been examined by an FBI document expert, the Surratt House Museum (Washington, DC) and the Smithsonian; all reportedly expressed interest and offered a tax credit, which was turned down by the seller.

The poster reads:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, APRIL 20, 1865 $100,000 REWARD! THE MURDERER OF OUR LATE BELOVED PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN. IS STILL AT LARGE. $50,000 REWARD! WILL BE PAID BY THIS DEPARTMENT FOR HIS APPREHENSION, IN ADDITION TO ANY REWARD OFFERED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES OR STATE EXECUTIVES. $25,000 REWARD! WILL BE PAID FOR THE APPREHENSION OF JOHN H. SURRATT, ONE OF BOOTH'S ACCOMPLICES. $25,000 REWARD! WILL BE PAID FOR THE APPREHENSION OF DANIEL C. HARROLD, ANOTHER OF BOOTH'S ACCOMPLICES. LIBERAL REWARDS WILL BE PAID FOR ANY INFORMATION THAT SHALL CONDUCE TO THE ARREST OF EITHER OF THE ABOVE NAMED CRIMINALS, OR THEIR ACCOMPLICES. ALL PERSONS HARBORING OR SECRETING THE SAID PERSONS, OR EITHER OF THEM, OR AIDING OR ASSISTING THEIR CONCEALMENT OR ESCAPE, WILL BE TREATED AS ACCOMPLICES IN THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION AND THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. LET THE STAIN OF INNOCENT BLOOD BE REMOVED FROM THE LAND BY THE ARREST AND PUNISHMENT OF THE MURDERERS. ALL GOOD CITIZENS ARE EXHORTED TO AID PUBLIC JUSTICE ON THIS OCCASION. EVERY MAN SHOULD CONSIDER HIS OWN CONSCIENCE CHARGED WITH THIS SOLEMN DUTY, AND REST NEITHER NIGHT NOR DAY UNTIL IT BE ACCOMPLISHED. EDWIN M. STANTON, SECRETARY OF WAR DESCRIPTIONS- BOOTH IS 5 FEET 7 OR 8 INCHES HIGH, SLENDER BUILD, HIGH FOREHEAD, BLACK HAIR, BLACK EYES, AND WEARS A HEAVY BLACK MUSTACHE. JOHN H. SURRATT IS ABOUT 5 FEET 8 INCHES. HAIR RATHER THIN AND DARK; EYES RATHER LIGHT; NO BEARD. WOULD WEIGH 145 OR 150 POUNDS. COMPLEXION RATHER PALE AND CLEAR, WITH COLOR IN HIS CHEEKS. WORE LIGHT CLOTHES OF FINE QUALITY. SHOULDERS SQUARE; CHEEK BONES RATHER PROMINENT; CHIN NARROW; EARS PROJECTING AT THE TOP; FOREHEAD RATHER LOW AND SQUARE, BUT BROAD. PARTS HIOS HAIR ON THE RIGHT SIDE; NECK RATHER LONG. HIS LIPS ARE FIRMLY SET. A SLIM MAN. DANIEL C. HARROLD IS 23 YEARS OF AGE. 5 FEET 6 OR 7 INCHES HIGH, RATHER BROAD SHOULDERED, OTHERWISE LIGHT BUILT; DARK HAIR, LITTLE (IF ANY) MONSTACHE; DARK EYES; WEIGHS ABOUT 140 POUNDS.

eBay: Wanted Poster

Tonight on 60 Minutes: Bob Woodward's State o' Denial

*tick* *tick* *tick* Tonight on 60 Minutes...


I'm Morley Safer and we'll be interviewing Bob Woodward about his startling new book State of Denial, a scathing rebuke of the Bush administration over Iraq, terrorism, and 9/11!


I'm Leslie Stahl and we'll also be discussing Woodward's new book, State of Denial, a blistering indictment of George W. Bush's leadership style... his dismissal of Andy Card's demands to fire Donald Rumsfeld... how he ignored Condi Rice when she complained Rumsfeld wasn't answering his phone; and other startling revelations!


I'm Steve Kroft with... -er- Joan Rivers. We'll dissect the shocking accusations in Woodward's book, State of Denial (available now at Barnes & Noble) which outlines the callous disregard by the Bush Administration of Maureen Dowd's repeated requests for interviews!


And I'm Mike Wallace. We'll discuss State of Denial and other Viacom products including Simon & Schuster's latest best-sellers and the full fall lineup on CBS!


That and Andy Rooney... after the break...

*tick* *tick* *tick*


Oven-baked good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Anchoress: CBS "free spech" - a barn-burner
Captain's Quarters: Political Dishonesty In Minnesota Politics
Rick Moran's House: Oy, What a Mess! Foley coverup and gambit that exposed it
STACLU: Frist Says Taliban Quote Was Out Of Context
Wizbang: What a peace of work

Another 60 Minutes infomercial: Woodward's State of Denial

The release of Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial is accompanied by an all-too-predictable ruckus. It follows the traditional CBS-Viacom-Simon & Schuster gameplan. First, use controversial (and difficult to fact-check) assertions to gain headlines in the Washington Post and its brethren. Second, employ 60 Minutes as a free infomercial; feature an interview with the author regarding the controversial claims. Third, sell lots and lots of books using all of the free marketing channels.

Simon & Schuster has employed this formula before. Richard Clarke's Against all Enemies in 2004 and Pervez Musharraf's In the Line of Fire (weeks ago) were exquisitely timed to coincide with an election cycle. Each used the 60 Minutes infomercial format, plenty of anti-administration rhetoric, and the usual accompanying drumbeat in the mainstream press to flog as many books as possible.

Woodward's central thesis is that things are getting worse in Iraq even though the administration claims things are better. He points to a so-called "secret" chart that shows attacks reaching almost 900 per week in Iraq, which Woodward claims are against U.S. troops.

As Mario Loyola points out, this chart is part of a publicly available DOD report called "Report on Stability and Progress in Iraq." On page 31 of the report, available via a Google search or by clicking the hyperlinked title, the word 'attacks' refers to all incidents (civilians, infrastructure, etc.). Page 32 of the report shows that, in fact, attacks against Coalition forces are markedly down since 2004. More importantly, there is a single problem province out of 18 (Anbar/Baghdad). The remainder of the country is largely operating without any marked violence.

Thus, Woodward's central statistic -- the blockbuster "revelation" breathlessly featured on 60 Minutes -- is utterly without merit. Other of the book's claims also have run into some problems on the fact-checking side:

* The book states Chief of Staff Andrew Card twice tried to get Rumsfeld fired, a claim which Card has vehemently denied and which doesn't appear to be corroborated in any written form

* George Tenet warned Rice two months before 9/11 of an imminent attack, but Woodward doesn't speculate on the Clinton administration's reaction to a similar report in 1998 ("SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks") nor the rationale for Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents related to 9/11

* Woodward claims that Donald Rumsfeld didn't return Condi Rice's calls, which both parties deny.

Even the New York Times, no friend of the Bush administration, has reported upon multiple controversies associated with the book. For example, why weren't Washington Post employee Woodward's claims featured on page A1 as they were discovered -- if they were truly so incendiary? In other words, unless this is just another book-pitching exercise, why would anyone wait to publish a set of startling revelations?

From all appearances, this is just another example of an integrated marketing campaign where Simon and CBS (both of which operate under the Viacom corporate umbrella) provide support for flogging books. That CBS relentlessly hammers the Bush administration during an election cycle is beside the point. That Woodward's assertions are so easily dismissed with publicly available resources is the real surprise. But I suppose quality has never been a strong point of infomercials.


Oven-fresh good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Weekly Standard: Who's really in denial?
Wizbang: The 9/11 Bombshell that Wasn't"
Samantha Burns: OTA

Comparing Zawahiri vs. Democratic talking points

Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Al Qaeda's number two man -- released another videotaped message this week. Zawahiri's previous video was timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of 9/11. The new video featured the firebrand cleric ripping the U.S., the Pope, Israel, and the U.N., not necessarily in that order, for interfering with Al Qaeda's fascist ideological vision.

In what doesn't come as much of a surprise, Zawahiri didn't hesitate to echo many of the Democratic Party's most virulent talking points. Compare-and-contrast:

"War for Oil"

"Why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people's sons in order to increase your profits?"

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe says he believes radical filmmaker Michael Moore's assertion that the United States went to war in Afghanistan not to avenge the terrorist attacks of September 11 but instead to assure that the Unocal Corporation could build a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan for the financial benefit of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Enron chief Kenneth Lay...

“It is clear that the major oil and gas companies were the real winners of the war in Iraq,” stated Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today. “These sky high profits are a clear indication that while America’s prestige in the world has been greatly harmed by the war, the major oil and gas companies repeated great financial gain...

"Bush lied... people died"

"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place..."

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," the Massachusetts Democrat told the AP...

"Killing terrorists causes more terrorism"

...al-Zawahiri called Bush a "lying failure" for saying progress had been made in the war on terrorism. "Bush you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and a half years [since the arrests of terror leaders Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, et. al.] ... What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom..."

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts... blamed the president's focus on Iraq... "...[it's a] misleading myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction and a profound drain on our financial and military resources," Kerry said...

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bush and Congress needed to change course in Iraq... "The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists," Reid said...

Echo Chamber

I'm not sure whose talking points these are any more. But when you can't distinguish the terrorists' talking-points from the Democratic Party's, it's safe to say that both are well outside the realm of mainstream American thought processes.

The Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri is regarded as an ideological founder of al-Qaeda and carries a $25 million US bounty on his head. No word on bounties for other Democratic thought-leaders.

Oh, I forgot. The difference is the Democrats support the troops.


In this, the nuclear age of terrorism, can America really afford Democratic "leadership"?

Vote Republican.

Oven-fresh good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Anchoress: NY Times and Time Magazine - just plain lying, now
GatewayPundit: Five Years After 9-11, Ringleader Atta's Suicide Tape Surfaces
HotAir: Times of London obtains Mohammed Atta martyrdom video
Hugh Hewitt: Slugfest
Jawa Report: New Zawahiri tape
Rick Moran's RWNH: Now I know how Alice felt
RWN: Weekend Links
Wizbang: A Curiously Selective Commitment to Democracy