Study show FOX covering war less than CNN, MSNBC, others

A new independent study shows that FOX News is covering the war in Iraq far less than its competitors. The cynic in me would say that FOX doesn't want to cover news that reflects badly on the Bush administration. Hell, they could have broadcast happy stories had they wanted to. But they didn't. And in fact, news networks tend to like to cover "bad" news - as Walter Cronkite, or someone, once said, nobody wants to hear about the kitten that didn't get stuck in the tree. With that in mind, Iraq is a perfect story for what makes news. And in any case, we're at war. Bush and the Republicans always like to remind us of that fact. But their network of choice is less interested in covering the war. Odd.

It would be interesting to see how much FOX covered the war when it thought things were going well the, first year or two. Read the rest of this post...

I met former with Senators Daschle and Frist this morning to discuss the ONE Campaign

The global anti-poverty effort, the ONE Campaign, held a small meeting this morning for a few bloggers from the right and the left with the new campaign co-chairs, former Senator Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Bill Frist (R-TN). The campaign is launching a $30 million effort to influence the 2008 elections here in the US by getting all the presidential candidates to endorse the following goals:

5 Achievable Goals

1. Save 15,000 lives a day by fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, three of the world's most devastating diseases.
2. Prevent 5.4 million young children from dying each year from poverty-related illnesses and 400,000 women from dying in childbirth each year.
3. Provide free access to primary education for 77 million out-of-school children with a special emphasis on girls.
4. Improve the living conditions of vulnerable populations by, for example, providing access to clean water for 450 million people and basic sanitation to more than 700 million people.
5. Reduce by half the number of people in the world who suffer from hunger, resulting in 300 million "fewer" hungry people each year.

I was struck by two things at the Daschle-Frist meeting. First, some of the conservative bloggers were really into the campaign. And second, Senator Frist seemed awfully into the campaign as well. As a Democrat, I'm not accustomed to finding Republicans who care about HIV/AIDS and world poverty. It's was a nice thing to see.

I raised a few concerns to the Senators. First, compassion fatigue/foreign fatigue. After the ongoing debacle in Iraq, I wonder whether Americans are going to be in the mood for a very expensive foreign adventure any time soon. Having said that, saving the poor is a totally different venture than fighting a war, and it's quite possible the public would welcome a warm and fuzzy change of pace. My second concern was whether the ONE Campaign had the gumption it will need to get politicians off the dime. Meaning, it's a bipartisan campaign made up of a coalition of liberal and conservative non-profits. I can't speak for the conservative non-profits, but the liberal ones can sometimes be a bit wimpy. They don't want to ruffle feathers, and don't want to offend politicians. Their standard refrain to any proposal is "we can't do THAT." The ONE Campaign is going to need to browbeat its own member organizations just as fiercely as it browbeats our politicians.

But all in all, I think this is great. It's about time AMERICA re-engaged the world in a good, positive, helpful way. It also wouldn't hurt us to find a goal that we can all agree on, left and right.

After the briefing, ONE held an event at St. Mark's church. As I'd already had my briefing, I stayed for the beginning, which included the African Children's Choir - see video below.

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

Is a 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl really a "sex offender" who should spend 10 years in jail?

I have a big problem with a 30 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. But a 17 year old and a 15 year old? Thoughts? Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senators block vote on Gonzales "no confidence" motion

The Senate just voted to prevent further action on S J Res 14, the "no confidence in Alberto Gonzales" resolution. The vote was 53 - 38, with one voting present. 60 votes were needed to proceed to a vote on the actual resolution. So, while this wasn't the actual vote, this was a resounding and humiliating vote for Bush and Gonzales. Looks like he lost every Democrat and several Republicans, including Specter (PA), Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Coleman (MN), Smith (OR), Hagel (NE) and Sununu (NH). Lieberman, the last Senator to vote, sided with Bush, of course. Ted Stevens (AK) voted present.

The GOP used a procedural gimmick to block the resolution -- that's basically a filibuster. They've become unbelievable obstructionists. If the Republican Senators want to spend all their time doing George Bush's dirty work, so be it.

In his floor statement during the debate, the Senate Majority Leader said Gonzales must go:

Time and time again, Alberto Gonzales has proven beyond a doubt his incompetence, misjudgment and lack of independence. He is profoundly unworthy to hold one of the highest and most important offices in the land. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution reflecting the facts before us. I urge Attorney General Gonzales to resign his office to allow America the chance to recover from his catastrophic tenure. If he does not, I urge President Bush to finally remove him.

Read the rest of this post...

Alberto Gonzales: Fact vs Fiction

From the Democratic Caucus

FICTION: The Attorney General said he was unaware of the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys. "As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's former Chief of Staff, said that Attorney General Gonzales was not being truthful. "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate" (Kyle Sampson Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/29/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson discussed the plan with Attorney General Gonzales before he left the White House Counsel's office.

Senator Schumer (D-NY): First, let's go over some of the attorney general's statements.

As you know, at a press conference on March 13th, the attorney general discussed this process of dismissing the U.S. attorneys and he said, "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood." Was that statement accurate?

Kyle Sampson: I don't think it's entirely accurate what he said. I don't remember if the attorney general ever saw documents. I didn't prepare memos for him on this issue. But we did discuss it as early as -- before he became the attorney general, when he was the attorney general designate in January of 2005, I think; and then, from time to time, as the process was, sort of, in a thinking phase through 2005 and 2006. And then I remember discussing it with him as the process sort of came to a conclusion in the fall of 2006. (Kyle Sampson Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/29/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson discussed the plan with Gonzales multiple times.

Senator Schumer (D-NY): So were there at least five?

Kyle Sampson: I don't remember specifically, but it would -- I spoke with him every day, so I think at least five. (Kyle Sampson Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/29/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson continually briefed Attorney General Gonzales on the progress of the plan to fire eight United States attorneys. "Well, as I said in a previous answer, the attorney general was aware of this process from the beginning in early 2005. He and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process. Then after the, sort of, more final phase of the process in the 2006 began, we discussed it. He asked me to make sure that the process was appropriate, that I was consulting with the deputy attorney general and others in developing the list. And then ultimately he approved both the list and the notion of going forward and asking for these resignations." (Kyle Sampson Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/29/07)

FACT: Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales decided that the U.S. Attorneys should go. "David – Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearings, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Office of White House Counsel, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

FACT: Attorney General Gonzales was even involved in picking the U.S. Attorneys to be fired.

Senator Schumer (D-NY): Similarly, DOJ spokesman, on March 24th, Ms. Scolinos, said the attorney general did not participate in the selection of U.S. attorneys to be fired. Was that an accurate statement?

Kyle Sampson: I don't think that's an accurate statement. (Kyle Sampson Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/29/07)

FICTION: Attorney General Gonzales denied being involved in White House deliberations regarding the US Attorney firings. "I don't remember that conversation…During the process there may have been other conversations about specifically about the performance of U.S. attorneys. But I wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign.'' (NBC News, 3/26/07)

FACT: This was contradicted by his Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson and Associate Attorney General William Mercer. "Mr. Schumer said Monday that Mr. Sampson recalled that in early March, Mr. Gonzales had told him about the White House conversation -- the first time, Mr. Sampson said, that he learned of the president's concern. Mr. Sampson's lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, declined to comment on the interview. According to Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sampson said he believed Mr. Gonzales had attended a June 2006 meeting in which Ms. Lam's removal was discussed. Another official, William W. Mercer, the acting associate attorney general, recalled with greater certainty that Mr. Gonzales was at the meeting, Mr. Schumer said." (New York Times, 4/17/07)

Read the rest of this post...

Specter to vote against Gonzales

Which puts the rest of the Republicans in an even worse situation. If Specter doesn't think that this is just as "political stunt," then it's going to be harder for the other Republicans to not support the resolution. Read the rest of this post...

Will these 10 GOP Senators flip-flop on Gonzales today?

From the Democratic Caucus.

Senate Republicans have expressed a lack of confidence in the Attorney General. Will they back up their statements with a vote today?

* Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Republican on Senate Judiciary Committee: “I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general…I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare.’” (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 5/17/07)

* Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS): “When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about [stepping down]” (AP, 5/16/07)

* Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “I am very disappointed in [Alberto Gonzales’] performance . . . I think loyalty to the president should enter into his calculations. . . . I think that out of loyalty to the president that [resigning] would probably be the best thing that he could do.” (Washington Post, 4/25/07)

* Senator John Sununu (R-NH): “The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership.” (Reuters, 3/15/07)

* Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR): “‘For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful’ if Gonzales resigned, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., told USA TODAY this afternoon.” (USA Today, 3/15/07)

* Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK): “But to me, there has to be consequences to accepting responsibility. And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it's my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It's generous to say that there were misstatements. That's a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.” (Judiciary Committee Hearing¸ 4/19/07)

* Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): “Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Thursday that he would like to see Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign, calling into question Gonzales’ credibility and his ability to focus on his job. ‘I don't believe that Gonzales has the type of leadership that the department needs,’ he said.” (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 5/17/07)

* Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there.” (AP, 4/20/07)

* Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE): “The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question . . .Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead.” (Washington Post, 5/16/07)

* Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC): But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me, ‘That sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time.’ If I applied that standard to you, what would you say? (Judiciary Committee Hearing¸ 4/19/07)

Read the rest of this post...

Court overrules Bush on enemy combatants

Huh. Some federal judges think the Constitution matters:

President George W. Bush cannot order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a Qatari national and suspected al Qaeda operative, the only person being held in the United States as an "enemy combatant," an appeals court ruled on Monday.

In a major setback for Bush's policies in the war on terrorism adopted after the September 11 attacks, the appellate panel ruled 2-1 the U.S. government had no evidence to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri as an "enemy combatant." The court ordered him released from military custody.

Read the rest of this post...

Same as it ever was

I'm freshly back from two weeks in Italy, which was fantastic in all regards save one: internet access. Hence the unexpected absence.

On the other hand, I've been catching up on the news, and it seems that since I left, Iraq is turning around! The government is making necessary political compromises, the surge is working, and we're on our way towards victory.

Oh, wait. As it turns out, none of that is true.

Rather, the escalation isn't doing anything it was intended to: Violence is up, Iraqi forces are faltering, and the political process continues to flounder. As the McClatchy piece rightly observes, the problems today mirror those from last summer's Baghdad security effort. Some metrics improved in the initial month or two of the escalation, but that timing, as I wrote at the time, coincided with predictable seasonal trends, and now the numbers are back to levels that belie any claims of improvement.

Iraqi forces aren't simply going to magically step up and be able to secure the nation in the absence of significant political movement. Again: the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved with exclusively military solutions. Even in its best case scenario, the "surge" was supposed to open up political space for necessary negotiation and compromise. That is, quite clearly, not happening.

The Iraqi government has missed every interim deadline set by U.S. officials and has made little progress toward 18 benchmarks that Congress has ordered Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker to report on in September.

Similar benchmarks were announced last year as the U.S. began that effort to pacify Baghdad.

Military officers who worked with Casey in Baghdad last year say they have a sense of deja vu as they contemplate the surge's progress so far.

Insisting that Iraqis take political action to improve the situation is not the same as blaming them, or abandoning the situation. What we're doing now isn't helping, so there's no reason to continue the kind of presence we currently have. Read the rest of this post...

Iraqi Parliament's anti-American speaker suddenly removed from office

Isn't that convenient. Read the rest of this post...

ONE.org

ONE Vote to launch anti-poverty campaign. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

George Bush is back from Europe. He finally found some fans -- in Albania. Who knew?

Today's the no confidence vote in the Senate on Alberto Gonzales. The GOP Senators have been giving their marching orders from Bush to support the discredited, unethical, lying Attorney General. The Republicans will do what Bush tells them.

And, Tony and Carmela live on.

Let's get it started. Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich, a real ideas man

There are values and there are values. The only thinking at his think tank is when will the check clear.

Potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has promoted public policy positions that closely track the financial interests of companies that underwrite a think tank he founded.

During his days in Congress, Gingrich also played a major role in chopping food inspections down to their current pathetic state, while receiving significant campaign contributions from the big winners of those actions. What a visionary. Read the rest of this post...

E. coli recalls tripping over each other

And guess what? China was not even involved in these food contamination problems.

Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. on Friday recalled more than 40,000 pounds of ground beef shipped to Wal-Mart stores in 12 states after samples tested at a Sherman, Texas, plant showed signs of E. coli contamination.

No illnesses had been reported. Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc. said the recall is not related to contaminated ground beef distributed by California-based United Food Group LLC.

On a related note, a small step was taken this week in food safety by a Congressional subcommittee on agriculture. They voted to move specific food safety functions back to the Agriculture Department instead of DHS, who held responsibility for inspecting foreign agriculture products for insects and contaminants since 2002 according to Congressional Quarterly. DHS has a poor record across the board, but it's rather amazing that the GOP handed over that function to them in the first place. Read the rest of this post...

Fun discovery in the Metro

Paris always has a new surprise around every corner and yesterday I stumbled upon some great old adverts from 1959 that are being uncovered thanks to the renovation at the station Notre Dames des Champs. (This also happens to be the station that sits just steps from where Hemmingway lived and where Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein hosted their famous gatherings.) They are breaking down an "old" false wall that hid the original tile for decades and everyone who was passing through was pulling out their cameras to grab a few pieces of history. Read the rest of this post...