A tale of two newspapers

Interesting piece at the Daily Kos discussing the difference in coverage on the latest report on the Iraq intelligence quagmire:

I have often wondered how different groups of people can see the exact same thing but come to entirely different conclusions. I’m not talking about the “difference of opinion” things, or the “I disagree on a technicality” things, but the “I reject the very premise of your reality, and have built my own version down here in the dank basement of my own mind.”

Let’s take a look at how the Los Angeles Times covered the new Senate Intelligence Committee report on the claims made as part of selling the Iraq war, and compare it to how the editorial page of the Washington Post, by which I mean Fred Hiatt, sees the exact same report on pre-war intelligence claims.

Read it in full.

Turns out the hippies were right about Iraq

Fascinating reading.

“Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information“

“Report on Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq Conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans Within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy“

Both are in PDF form, and they give us more details - that the Senate GOP has been sitting on for years - about how the Bush administration fudged the facts, when it wasn’t lying outright, on the intelligence.

One hopes this is big news in the fall.

Muslim seminary in India issues edict opposing terrorism

More common sense comments from moderate Muslims. Not that the right wing would have you know such a thing exists.

Senior clerics from the 150-year-old Muslim seminary Darul Uloom Deoband, which is said to have inspired the Taliban, have issued an edict saying they wished to wipe out terrorism.

The Indpendent reports: “The Deoband institute was established in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising against British rule, an uprising that was brutally suppressed by the imperial forces. Highly influential, it controls thousands of smaller seminaries and madrassas around the world, from Britain to Afghanistan.

“Of Britain’s 1,400 mosques, about 600 are run by Deobandi-affiliated clerics. Seventeen of the UK’s 26 Islamic seminaries follow Deobandi teachings, which produce about 80 per cent of all domestically trained Muslim clerics.

“Analysts say the move to speak out against terrorism would be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of India’s 140 million Muslim population, many of whom believe the image of their religion has been tarnished by the actions of a small number of people.”

Hat tip:  TMV

Pots and kettles

Apparently BOTH of our nominees are in league with the terrorists?

Wonder what the White House wankers have to say about that? Or whether they thought before they spoke at all?  Probably not.

This is cool

The history of the Middle East in 90 seconds.

A legitimate point

Joe Klein:

Not that I have any illusions about Hamas. They’re violent, they don’t believe in the right of Israel to exist, they may not ever change.

BUT…they did win an election in 2006, an election we–not the Palestinian Authority and certainly not the Israelis–insisted upon. If the Bush Administration is going to push a “Freedom Agenda”–admittedly, a dubious proposition, especially the way that Bush has pushed it–then it has a certain responsibility to deal with the people who win the elections, no matter how odious.

Harassing responsible parents

It’s sad when crap like this happens:

There was nothing ominous about the knock at the door, but when I pulled it open I was confronted by four police officers and our street was thick with panda cars.

This is not a scene you see too often in our home village of Great Malvern, not even if there has been a rare burglary in the respectable part of Worcestershire where we live happily among other decent, law-abiding families.

But the police were not coming to our aid. Instead they were coming to arrest me and my husband Folke for child abuse.

When it’s right to be wrong

Slate recently asked several high profile bloggers to comment on the fifth anniversary of Bush’s nightmare in Iraq and reflect on what they got wrong at the outset.

One of the better reads comes from Andrew Sullivan, who analyzes four fundamental errors in depth.

I think my favorite has to be by my friend John Cole at Balloon Juice who rather bluntly declares:

I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals.

Ok….tell us how you really feel John.

But a lot of us REALLY underestimated the duplicity of the Bush administration.  Who’d have thunk they’d falsify intelligence.  Who’d have thunk they’d simply disregard international law, the US Constitution, and basic human decency?

Let’s hope we learned our less on well, and that after 2008 the national nightmare can end.

Too sensitive?

At The Debate Link, David Schraub accuses 1,200 Jews of booing peace. The context is that of a benefit in Los Angeles for a border town near Gaza that has been under near constant siege for months. All three (two and a half?) presidential contenders delivered taped remarks. Obama’s remarks weren’t well received and Rob Eshman, editor in chief of Jewish Journal writes to Obama, asking if he knows he was booed.

This happened at the “Live for Sderot” concert at the Wilshire Theatre on Feb 27. All three presidential candidates each appeared on screen to deliver a videotaped statement of support for the Israelis undergoing a brutal campaign of terror in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

Sen. Hillary Clinton appeared first, spoke clearly and decisively and received a smattering of applause. Then you came on. The crowd jeered throughout your brief statement and booed and hissed at the end of it. I didn’t have the opposite of an applause meter with me, but I’d say the reaction hit a low point when you said we must all look forward to a day when “Israeli and Palestinian children can live in peace.”

Jimmy Delshad, the Persian Jewish mayor of Beverly Hills, bristled. “Palestinian?” he told me. “It’s like he has to throw that in our face.”

Then Sen. John McCain appeared on screen, and the place exploded. Applause, cheers, standing ovations. McCain spoke with utter conviction of Israel’s right to live in peace, and when he was through, even more cheers.

That brief audition was as clear a demonstration as any of something I’ve noticed happening over the last few months: the giant sucking sound of Jewish support for the leading Democratic candidate.

Schraub observes:

There a couple of things that could be noted here, particularly that the type of Jew that is engaged enough to attend a “Live for Sderot” concert might differ from the average. That being said, I actually have a friend who is from Sderot (a border town under consistent rocket attack from the Gaza Strip), and I certainly think that Jews (and human beings) of all political stripes have an obligation to stand for its security and the safety of its inhabitants.

But booing peace for Palestinian children? “Bristling” when their lives, too, are brought up? Claiming that it is something that he “threw in your face”? It’s sickening. For that is the dream, isn’t it? We can disagree over how to get there and what needs to be done, we can be adamant (correctly) that Israel’s security must be maintained. But the end of this trip has to be a world where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace. One in which either has peace, but the other has fear and strife, is no world I wish to live in.

I wonder if he’s missing the point though, and I don’t agree that peace for children is what’s being booed here. Rather, it seems the audience reacted negatively to the presumptiveness of an American politician speaking platitudes (which, let’s face it - is something Obama does really, really, REALLY well) about peace and children from the safety of being a hemisphere away, and as if both sides in the border skirmishes are morally equivalent.

Eshman’s larger point is Obama hasn’t really captured the imagination of Jewish voters who have historically done a lot organizationally, financially and simply turning out to the polls to help Democratic candidates and how that might bode ill in November. I’ve spoken before about how Obama’s resume is promising, but still thin. It’s still developing.  The cynic might even note that he’s so new on the federal stage, it’s been crafted every step along the way with a campaign in mind.

Then there is the lack of a track record. Yes, you received a perfect score from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. You have longtime Jewish supporters, some of whom, like campaign manager David Axelrod, have been integral to your campaign. Your record on Israel and other Jewish issues is solid — but not long. “We know Hillary; we know McCain,” a Washington pro-Israel activist told me last week. “Obama — we don’t know him.”

With Israel facing Hamas to the south, Hezbollah to the north and Iranian nukes further east, it’s hard to blame Jews for being hesitant to cast their lot with an unknown. Finally, there is what Carroll calls the “kishkas factor,” the lingering question among less partisan Jews whether you feel for Israel in your guts, or kishkas.

It’s been said the presidency is not an entry level position.  That’s true, but I think the significance of that statement is overblown so I’ve not dwelt on it a lot.  First off, one’s record may or may not reflect how one actually governs.  When all the candidates have primarily legislative backgrounds it’s just conjecture what that will mean in terms of an Obama or Clinton Deux or McCain administration.  Second, while the presidency is not entry level, it’s not your typical career ladder either and I’m not sure there is a specific formula or resume one should expect to prepare one for a one of a kind office.  Some presidents with unconventional pasts have been successful, and some with stellar resumes have been disappointing in office.

But still, Obama is the new kid on the block.  He’s new to the federal stage and he doesn’t have executive experience.  He comes off well and his rhetoric is stellar.  But that only goes so far.  There are a lot of us who are still doing the gut check with Obama.  Different reasons, different criteria, but still it comes down to the gut check.

I’ve been asked several times recently who I’m favoring in the race - apparently my writing has been too even handed.  Well, that’s a good question.  Depending on the day of the week and phase of the moon I went back and forth between Richardson and Edwards, and with them out of the race I say with confidence only that I will support the Democratic nominee in the general election.  As I’ve already discussed a few times, it’s pretty plain at this point that the “legitimate” nominee is not Hillary and the question is whether she’s prepared to rip the party to shreds, jeopardizing what should be a gimmie in November, rather than step aside gracefully.

Obama and Clinton both would do OK as president.  Both have factors pro and con.  But we can vote for only one.  At the Minnesota caucus, I voted for Barak Obama.

Why Tibet is a test for the world

Great piece on Tibet at Shakespeare’s Sister:

The fact that Tibetan culture is extraordinary, that they have a solid claim to independence, that they have the physical resources to be a state, all that only explains why the Tibetans are dying for their country. So why do I say that Tibet is a test for the world?

Because it is the only nation that is struggling for independence with non-violence.

We, meaning the international community, are always saying that people should resolve their differences peaceably, rationally, and on the merits. Logically, then, we should be helping those who do that, and ignoring the thugs whose whole argument consists of blowing people’s heads off.

Instead? I don’t need to give any examples of “instead.” All the news, from one end to the other, is nothing but “instead.”

Tibet is now in the news because some Tibetans couldn’t stand it any more and blew up. The Dalai Lama has insisted during his whole lifetime in office that the Tibetans’ struggle must be non-violent. He’s insisted on that to a people whose men, in some regions, didn’t feel dressed unless they were carrying two rifles, not just one. And those people, in spite of indescribable frustration, abuse, destruction of land, and destruction of themselves in what really is cultural genocide, have fought almost entirely without killing.

The result for the rest of the world has been that Tibet is some quaint backwater that is the pet project of a few actors.

A world traveler

Nice little game. On my first try I got through level 10 with a score of 378421.

It moves fast and the screen is so small, it’s hard to know where to click. Fun to try.

What a nimrod

And without intentional irony, Bush opens his mouth.  Read and see it in full.

Good riddance

Not that Raul is an improvement:

Fidel Castro today announced he is resigning as president of Cuba. Castro was treated for intestinal problems two years ago and in his resignation letter he cited his “critical health condition

Still, one wonders when the embargo will be lifted.  Engagement is the word of the day…except with Cuba.  That’s an emotional response, geared toward securing Cuban-American votes, not good policy.

Welcome to Londanistan

Quick, send the family values crowds to protest in London:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

Hat tip:  Joe

Peaceful tidings on NPR

Dan Savage covers this story so brilliantly.  Read it in full.

La la la. Islam means peace.