I Hate What You Just Said

Just hours after getting hit-and-run by the McCain campaign, Bob Novak became the author of his own:

Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak was cited by police after he hit a pedestrian with his black Corvette in downtown Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning.

A Politico reporter saw Novak in the front of a police car with a citation in his hand; a WJLA-TV crew and reporter saw Novak as well. The pedestrian, a 66-year-old male, was hospitalized at George Washington University Hospital with minor injuries according to DC Fire and EMS. Novak was later released by police and drove away from the scene.

“I didn’t know I hit him. I feel terrible,” a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. “He’s not dead, that’s the main thing.”

But don’t feel too bad for the Novakula, there’s more to the story:

As he traveled east on K. Street, crossing 18th, [a cyclist named David Bono] said a “black Corvette convertible with top closed plowed into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed onto the windshield.”

Bono said the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a “Walk” signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and then Novak made a right into the service lane of K Street. “The car is speeding away. What’s going through my mind is, you just can’t hit a pedestrian and drive away,” Bono said.

He chased Novak half a block down K St., finally caught up with him and then put his bike in front of the car to block him and called 911. Traffic immediately backed up, horns blared, and commuters finally went into reverse to allow Novak to pull over.

Bono said that throughout, Novak “keeps trying to get away. He keeps trying to go.” He said he vaguely recognized the longtime political reporter and columnist as a Washington celebrity but could not precisely place him.

Finally, Novak put his head out the window of his car and motioned him over. Bono said he told him that you can’t hit a pedestrian and just drive away. He said Novak responded:  “I didn’t see him there.”

A concierge at 1700 K Street said that she saw a bicyclist yelling and walked outside to see what the commotion was about.

“This guy hit somebody and he won’t stop so I’m going to stay here until the police come,” Aleta Petty quoted Bono as saying, as he stood in K Street, blocking traffic.

Bob, I call “bullshit.”

[Updated Below]

I believe it was Emerson who wrote that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Yesterday, our nation’s media showed why they think Emerson is full of shit.

The truth, according to the Washington Press Corps(e), is that politicians show that they are big-minded and serious by never, EVER, changing their views–no matter what.

In a press conference Barack Obama stated that he would continue to “refine” his policy about Iraq as he traveled to the embattled country and met with our commanders on the ground.

How is a reporter supposed to respond when a politician uses a word like “refine” in a sentence? By doing the only thing you know how to do, of course: manufacture fake controversies.

Take the AP story, for instance, which was titled “Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy”:

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

The Washington Post’s headline was “Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline”

And Mike Allen, of The Politico:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month. [. . .]

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

Nice work, Mike, you hack. Really going out of your way to construct a “flip-flopper” narrative.

Refining something, to our nation’s media, apparently means something akin to “reject,” “alter,” or “change.” But not according to the dictionary. There I find that “refine” can mean the following:

• S: (v) polish, refine, fine-tune, down (improve or perfect by pruning or polishing) “refine one’s style of writing”
• S: (v) complicate, refine, rarify, elaborate (make more complex, intricate, or richer) “refine a design or pattern”
• S: (v) refine (treat or prepare so as to put in a usable condition) “refine paper stock”; “refine pig iron”; “refine oil”
• S: (v) refine, rectify (reduce to a fine, unmixed, or pure state; separate from extraneous matter or cleanse from impurities) “refine sugar”
• S: (v) refine (attenuate or reduce in vigor, strength, or validity by polishing or purifying) “many valuable nutrients are refined out of the foods in our modern diet”
• S: (v) refine (make more precise or increase the discriminatory powers of) “refine a method of analysis”; “refine the constant in the equation”

Two points about all this.

First, I think that this dust-up is absurd solely on the basis of the language Obama used. To “refine” something does not mean to fundamentally “alter” or “change” it. If anything, refining something suggests a process whereby something becomes more concentrated, more itself — free from impurities or mistakes. Essentially, Obama is saying that he wants to end the war better.

Secondly, this event is evidence of the pathetic “gotcha” school of journalism where the objective is to expose a candidate as a “flip-flopper.”  God knows there is plenty of self-serving equivocation, waffling, and politically expedient reversal going on in Washington. And these things should be exposed for what they are. But we must also acknowledge that a “change of mind” based on the consultation of authorities and the study of new evidence is actually an indication of a sane, healthy intellect–not a suggestion of duplicity or dishonesty.

To our journalists and the preposterous commentator clowns who construct our media narratives, only a “flip-flopper” would state that they intend to thoughtfully consider evidence and take great care when making decisions about things like war and the lives of soldiers. And a “flip-flopper” is incapable of being a good president.

I suppose this means that the platonic ideal of the American president is someone like George Bush who gets an idea in his head and stubbornly refuses to alter course regardless of facts, evidence, objective data, polls, and the opinions of learned professionals. That kind of consistency takes character. And integrity. Better to be ruled by your “gut” than by your mind.

Way to go, media elites!

UPDATE I:

Not to be outdone, NPR issues this ingenious statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he is not shifting his policy on troop withdrawals from Iraq, just hours after he said he was open to “refining” his policy.

Oh, snap! NPR, you just busted Obama wearing five pairs of flip-flops! Previously, Obama said he was committed to ending the war, but now he’s completely “refined” his policy and will probably keep our soldiers there for 100 years. McCain wins!

“Open to ‘refining’ his policy” is the equivalent of saying that Barack Obama is “open to perfecting his policy” on Iraq. Shock! Gasp!

One of the more popular statements on this issue (judged by Google) was penned by this budding philologist:

Does Barack Obama’s “Refine” Mean the Same Thing As Evolving, or Flip Flopping?

Refine, evolve, changes his mind…..they all mean the same thing…..Flip Flopping.

Can’t you just hear the rustle of the Cheetos bag?

UPDATE II:

This MSNBC write-up is pretty fair.

Watch the clip of Wes Clark’s statements on John McCain. Then compare it to the media response: a self-feeding loop of evidence-free outrage and effrontery that boggle the mind.

Watching televised news literally makes you stupid.

You just have to read this one.

Back in a 2004 State of the Union speech, President Shrub announced that the US was in the process of creating an Arabic news network that would “cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda” and present a truthier image of the US to the Muslim world.

Bush’s reference to “hateful propaganda” was a thinly-veiled reference to the Qatar-based world news organization, Al-Jazzera, which had a pesky way of talking about things like war crimes and torture–things that the US would never do.

Here’s the Plan:

Step One: Use Taxpayer Dollars to Create the Fox News of the Arab World.

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Step Two: Find Qualified Staff.

Alhurra’s reporters and commentators operate with little oversight. Alhurra’s president, Brian Conniff, does not speak Arabic and is unable to understand anything broadcast on the radio and television networks he is paid to manage. Conniff has no journalism experience and worked previously as a government auditor. His news director, Daniel Nassif, grew up in Lebanon and has no background in television. Before coming to the network, he helped promote the political aspirations in Washington of a Lebanese Christian former general.

Step Three: Create Appropriate Oversight.

During a visit to Alhurra’s studios in June, reporters, producers, cameramen and technical staff were busy preparing broadcasts for an audience half-way around the world. Conniff, who is the president of Alhurra and Radio Sawa, sat in on a morning editorial meeting but could not understand it – his Middle Eastern staff discussed the day’s stories in Arabic and no one offered Conniff a simultaneous translation.

“There is no adult supervision there by people who know what is on the actual broadcasts,” said William Rugh, who served as U.S. Ambassador in Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. “You need bilingual managers who understand both languages and cultures and understand journalism.”

Financial accountability also appears to be lacking. In its four years, the network has been unable to provide full documentation to auditors to account for its spending, according to two people familiar with the records and a 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office.

Step Four: Use this Finely-tuned Organ of Propaganda to Win Hearts and Minds

When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah railed against the U.S. government and threatened Israel, Alhurra carried it live and unedited.

When U.S. combat deaths in Iraq surpassed 4,000 in March, Radio Sawa interviewed an anonymous militant who told listeners: “Occupation is occupation. We need to resist them and kill more than 4,000.”

In March, Alhurra aired a documentary on the “The Crusades” — a series of military campaigns that Christian Europe waged against the Muslim world during the Middle Ages.

Step Five: Get Sweeeet Haircuts.

Some low-level staff members were highly paid, including a hairdresser from Lebanon who coiffed the anchors for $100,000 a year.

Sorry for the rather blunt title. But each day he seems to find a new way to prove it. In his column today, he takes on the new MoveOn.org ad.

He summarizes the ad this way:

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

Predictably, Kristol is offended by the idea of a mother not wanting her son to die in a phony war of choice, built on lies, mismanaged calamitously, and seemingly with no end in sight. I mean - the gall! How dare she?!

An example of the extreme dickitude:

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.

Pedantic? You think?

Then he repeats this crap:

And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, “Maybe 100” — explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. …”

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we’ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

And the crescendo of dickness continues with this:

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

Right. Because that’s how that works, Bill. You dick.

In one brief column, Bill has reaffirmed that his views on the Iraq war completely disconnected from reality, that he is a snotty bastard, and that he believes (or more likely, is willing to pretend) that America has no class system. From Bill’s point of view, since there is no class system to worry about, and economic opportunities are open to all, the concept of an all-volunteer army is perfectly democratic and lovely.

I officially endorse the draft - of William Kristol.

And I stand by the title of this post.

You might be forgiven for not having registered the significance of the Irish public’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, viewed by some as the failed 2005 “constitution” of the European Union in drag, last week. Perhaps you saw an article flit by the New York Times website over the weekend before the issue took a backseat to Kobe’s ongoing experiment in athletic eugenics at the NBA Finals or the latest journalist (yes I’m thinking about you Kristol) to elegize the passing of Tim Russert. And damn, wasn’t that a clutch put Tiger sunk to force a playoff?

Meanwhile, somewhere outside Donegal all hell broke loose in European politics. A relatively small European country, Ireland (the only country to put the ratification of the treaty to a referendum so far) is an exemplary case of what is at stake, as the treaty seeks to further centralize key policy positions–such as labor regulations and foreign policy–at the expense of member state autonomy:

The Lisbon treaty is complex. It offers sweeping changes to the way the union runs—creating a new full-time “president” to represent member states, and a foreign-policy chief to speak for Europe round the world. It also sweeps away national vetoes in some important areas of policy, such as cross-border policing and justice. Many Irish no voters voiced suspicions that the treaty would, in reality, rob their small state of clout at the EU’s top tables.

The Economist

“EU leaders were to be heard crowing last year that they had made it “unintelligible” in order to smuggle it past voters,” The Economist continues, rightly noting that this was a much easier task in most European countries, eighteen of which had already shoved it through their respective parliaments with little or no debate.

“So pay no attention to the wailing in Brussels,” writes Anne Appelbaum, “If the most enthusiastic Europeans in Europe didn’t care enough to read the treaty they’ve just rejected, then maybe it’s just as well it didn’t pass.” I guess Applebaum figues that libertarianism European-style means more centralized government and concentrated economic and military power. Apparently, European citizens lack the free-thinking gene possessed by all rational, Cato Institute supporting Americans that allow them to cut through hundreds of pages of bureaucratic doublespeak. But I digress.

Predictably, establishment politicians have been wringing their hands over the result, especially from the larger states, who stood to gain the most. Nicholas Sarkozy, the immigrant-bashing-top-model-marrying-archconservative president of France is especially pissed off. He’s threatening to travel to Ireland to learn firsthand why they had the temerity to say no to even more big business payola and the prospect of increased European military integration. Guess which countries would assume effective control of the latter? Now you’re getting the picture. Stay tuned, France assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union in July.

Nobody can deny the rhetorical potency of a pithy bumper sticker:

A $300 million Pentagon psychological warfare operation includes plans for placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the U.S. government as the source, one of the military officials in charge of the program says.

Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and “novelty items” such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.

You can laugh, but somebody has to combat those seductively hilarious “I Brake for Jihad” messages.

Glenn Greenwald just eviscerated David Broder over at Salon–exposing him as as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Washington media.

In a Washington Post “chat,” a citizen from Crestwood, NY wrote in with a fine point about the “Phase II” Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence:

So the Senate report — supported by two Republicans — supports the conclusion that we all reached several years ago, that Bush and Cheney used propaganda and ginned up intelligence to trick the country into war. If this is not an impeachable offense, what do you define as one? And if an impeachable offense is committed, isn’t it the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to put possible harm to their electoral chances (negligible, in my opinion) ahead of their oaths to the Constitution? How will history look back at this disgraceful chapter in both the executive and legislative branches?

Broder’s response:

You’ll have to forgive me, but I am reluctant to see every big policy dispute turned into a criminal or impeachable affair. There needs to be accountability but there also needs to be proportionality. This country is engaged in two wars and has serious, serious domestic problems. To stop everything and attempt to impeach and remove a president who has less than a year to serve would not strike me as the best use of our energy. And for what? So Dick Cheney can be president?

Greenwald’s response was blistering, but I’ll only quote a portion:

The only news made by that Senate report is that, in our country, a report like this — documenting that the Government lied us into a war — is no longer news at all. Extraordinary conduct of that type has been converted by the David Broders of the world into commonplace “policy disputes.”

And:

When Scott McClellan used the term “complicit enablers” to describe our press corps, this is the face of that: soothingly assuring the public that there is nothing at all unusual or radical about what’s going on in our Government, that everything from torture to warrantless, illegal spying to process-less detentions and the abolition of habeas corpus and even lying our country into war are just standard “policy disputes” that should be resolved in a gentlemanly manner through respectful and civil discourse, not by excessive and mean-spirited weapons such as investigations and prosecutions. As Broder said, the notion that there should be a “sense of urgency” is for people who “get carried away by their own rhetoric.”

Read the whole post. Greenwald is the best, most insightful, and important voice speaking in the twilight of the Bush regime.