Defend this!

I am way, way beyond the point where the straw broke the camel’s back.

How can any Bush defender go along with this?

Hullabaloo

Well it looks like the Rovian character assassins have decided it’s time to go after the US Attorneys. Here’s a new attack ad playing on New Mexico radio stations:

Former US Attorney David Iglesias wonders why he was fired. He says it was politics. Well, let’s look at the facts.

Iglesias brags he won a huge corruption case but he cut sweetheart deals with those involved and then lost 23 of 24 counts at trial (voices: NOT GUILTY!)

In 2004 3000 suspect voter registration forms turned up. But Iglesias did nothing even when a crack dealer was busted with them and even when political operatives took the fifth and refused to testify about their fraud. David Iglesias just looked the other way.

No wonder a criminal defense lawyer just praised him. He let her client walk.

Someone can try the “you got nothing on me, copper,” defense, and claim that this is some “independent” group. Fine. Balloon Juice asks:

who are these New Mexicans for an Honest Court? Who knows- all we can find on the name listed on the website, Linda Chavez Krumland, is that she was a Republican Delegate and a donor to Heather Wilson.

I’m trying to put this in some words that are not way, way over the top. They pressured this guy Iglesias (a Republican) to harass opponents baselessly. He demurred and they sacked him. And now, public attacks on his integrity and honesty?

What the Hell kind of a country am I living in? This is beyond bullshit.

I hope someone can show me that there is some huge error in this report, or that there is some other explanation.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Balloon Juice on 28 Mar 2007 at 4:15 pm

    […] don’t care. This is clearly nothing more than payback, punishment, and a message to others. Der Commisar gets it, […]

  2. Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Stiftung??? § Unqualified Offerings on 28 Mar 2007 at 8:28 pm

    […] off. You can see the dynamic whenever a formerly “reliable” blogger like John Cole or Der Commissar sets the Kool-Aid cup down and begins describing the jungle compound as it actually looks. You see […]

  3. Oh, Won’t You Lay My Bags Upon the Funeral Fire and Sing it Again » The Road to Surfdom on 29 Mar 2007 at 11:49 am

    […] them off. You can see the dynamic whenever a formerly “reliable” blogger like John Cole or Der Commissar sets the Kool-Aid cup down and begins describing the jungle compound as it actually looks. You see […]

  4. The Poor Man Institute » A-yup on 29 Mar 2007 at 7:21 pm

    […] them off. You can see the dynamic whenever a formerly “reliable” blogger like John Cole or Der Commissar sets the Kool-Aid cup down and begins describing the jungle compound as it actually looks. You see […]

  5. Divided We Stand United We Fall on 30 Mar 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Can Chuck Hagel save the GOP from the Bushies?…

    Now I finally get it. Chuck Hagel is not a problem for traditional Republicans in the Goldwater/Reagan tradition. Chuck Hagel is not a problem for limited government, freedom-loving, libertarian conservatives. Chuck Hagel is a big problem for the “Bus…

Comments

  1. jfxgillis wrote:

    Can I give you some informed and educated but completely baseless speculation? First, not so baseless:

    Both Dominechi and Heather Wilson are suddenly vulnerable. Ads by Iglisias or about Iglisais by their opponents could be politically fatal.

    Second, baseless: Rumors in New Mexico political circles that Iglisais may be considering a run for office? Even as a Republican (although I’d love him death if he switched parties) he could DEMOLISH Wilson.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 4:27 pm

  2. Andy wrote:

    You leftards always fold in the face of the truth. These so-called “attack” ads are actually “truth ads” and you and your leftist atourney generals can’t face up to it. Try persecuting criminals and Dems who try to steal elections next time instead of legalizing booze and helping Mexicans break into the country and take our jobs.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 4:28 pm

  3. Redleg wrote:

    Andy,
    The biggest criminals in all this are Bush and Cheney. Too bad the Dems don’t have the cajones to impeach them for their high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 4:52 pm

  4. Andy Makes Me Laugh wrote:

    Is it just me or have the Trolls just run out of steam.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 5:00 pm

  5. Grim wrote:

    Well, speaking as someone who hasn’t been in the weeds on this one, let me ask this: are the charges, as Andy says, true? I mean, heated partisan characterizations aside — did the guy neglect to prosecute a crack dealer caught with 3,000 voter registration forms? If so, did he say why?

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 5:04 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    I can only respond personally. You know me, or at least you know my online persona and writings. Maybe you want take my word for it, which is, “No, this is bull, wholly manufactured.”

    Maybe you want to get into the weeds. I dunno.

    Not that it will help, but I’ll point out that I could accuse you (or anyone else) of anything I want tomorrow. Doesn’t mean there is any validity at all to the accusation. And the notion that people can level such charges, and other (loyal, sincere) people will give them credence … well … that’s what the Lefties call ’swiftboating.’ It sucks. Big time.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 5:24 pm

  7. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    I don’t want to fall too far afoul of commie’s civility rules, but any idiot could find out that he left the case for the state and local authorities to prosecute.

    Since it was, you know, STATE AND LOCAL LAW that had been violated.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 6:30 pm

  8. commissar wrote:

    I don’t want to fall too far afoul of commie’s civility rules, …

    Then don’t. :)

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 7:47 pm

  9. T-Bone wrote:

    Yo, ’sup.

    Want some crack, man? ****’ll get you fuuuuucked up.

    No?

    Thass cool. How about the means with which to commit massive voter fraud? You want summa that? ****’ll sway an election like a muh-fuh.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 7:52 pm

  10. Formerly T-Bone wrote:

    Wait–so just adding extra u’s makes the f-word not profane? AI’s got a ways to go.

    (Sorry, figured we could swear if you did)

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 7:57 pm

  11. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie: Be thankful. You shoulda seen the version I deleted.

    Did you see the preview/leak of Sampson’s testimony referenced at TPM? In full:

    According to the AP, in his prepared remarks, Kyle Sampson will tell the senate Judiciary Committee: “The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial.”

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 8:00 pm

  12. Formerly T-Bone wrote:

    Sorry, just assumed we could swear if you did. And apparently I’ve detected a flaw in the AI with the help of my multiple u’s.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 8:00 pm

  13. Nikki wrote:

    From the NM radio ad:

    …and he did find time to take dozens of taxpayer funded junkets around the world.

    Iglesias was a reservist. That tells you all you need to know about the validity of statements in the ad.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 8:19 pm

  14. Grim wrote:

    Commie:

    I’ve told you before I thought that you were an honest reporter. Your word is good enough for me. That’s why I asked. I just wanted to know if the charge was true or not.

    JF:

    Any idiot can look something up and eventually find what he wanted, but even the smartest man can’t be an expert on everything. In order to keep up with the “weeds” in my own field, I have to trust certain other people to keep up with other fields.

    I don’t intend to dig into these particular weeds, which entail 30,000 emails and multiple posts at half a dozen blogs daily. That leaves me two options: ignore it entirely, or trust someone else to keep an eye on it for me, asking questions as necessary to keep aware of at least the major trends.

    Should I be paying more attention to this than to, say, stories about the surge in Iraq or counterterrorism efforts in Asia? That’s a judgment call about which no certain knowledge is currently possible. I’ve made my judgment, but I’m also hedging my bet by keeping up with Commie’s posted comments, and asking occasional questions of those here who are more interested than I am.

    That judgment could turn out to be wrong, but I’m not convinced that it’s stupid. Stupid would be failing to plan for the contingency that I could be wrong.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 9:49 pm

  15. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    More for our amusement than anything else, a couple more details of the ads: 1) It accuses him of taking ‘foreign junkets at taxpayer expense.’ heh. He’s in the Naval Reserves. 2) A few people have noted the irony in the ad’s reference to letting some white-collar criminal plead the fifth.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 10:02 pm

  16. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    So, you conclude from my answer that the charge was indeed “true”?

    Yes, it’s true that Federal prosecutors “look the other way” and “ignore” cases that by tradition or law belong at lower jurisdictions.

    Just so you know–this’ll save you reading 30,000 e-mails again–when this same slime gets dripped on McKay up in Washington State, the accusations centered on King County, encompassing the city of Seattle.

    At the time, King County had a Republican executive, the Secretary of State, responsible for enforcing state election law, was a Republican and the Federal prosecutor for the Western District of Washington, John McKay, was a Republican, and at all three level of government they agreed that there was no prosecutable fraud in that election.

    So unless those three REPUBLICANS joined in a conspiracy of fraud to deny the REPUBLICAN candidate an office he’d have otherwise won, you can forget that “voter fraud” case, too.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 10:11 pm

  17. Grim wrote:

    Actually, JF, I concluded that from Commie’s answer. :)

    But I am willing to consider additional information, like that which you just kindly offered. I’ll be watching.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 10:15 pm

  18. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    Do you ever listen to the Jim Rome sports-talk radio show?

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 10:42 pm

  19. Grim wrote:

    I’ve never ever heard of it. But then, the only sport I actually follow closely is Professional Bull Riding. And, er, I haven’t had time for that one since 2004.

    I hear Jim Sharp* retired. Too bad - but we all get old.

    * By an astonishing coincidence, when I used Google to confirm this before posting it, I discovered that “Jim Sharp” is also the name of an attorney with a connection to George Bush. As far as I know, there’s no relation.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 11:19 pm

  20. jfxgillis wrote:

    Rome’s got a nationally syndicated radio show and a half-hour afternoon tv show on ESPN.

    Friends with Pat Tillman from the days when one of them was a small-time radio host and the other a college athlete.

    I’m refining this a little fromm what he said yesterday, although the quote is a quote.

    We all know about and accept the “fog of war.” Our level of certainty about events in the field by definition must include some ambiguity.

    And yet, in the awarding of citations for valor, we demand a degree of knowledge that, while not unambiguous, must attain a degree of certainty higher than we might ordinarily expect.

    When those Army officers attended Tillman’s memorial service with the family (at which John McCain and Rome himself spoke), they knew at the time what had happened. Even if they did not, they must have known that they couldn’t have known with the requiste certainty what happened.

    Yet, shortly afterwards they awarded a posthumous Silver Star including a detailed narrative that they must have known was at best unsupported (at worst, they knew it was false).

    The only reason they’d have had for doing that is “political advantage.”

    That’s politics, too, huh?

    Just like U.S. Attorneys are “political”?

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 11:50 pm

  21. Grim wrote:

    Here you’re more in my field.

    Posthumous awards for valor often have to be based on less-than-complete information about what happened. It should be obvious why that is the case.

    All the Silver Star requires (this information is in 10 US Code 3746) is that there be a citation of gallantry in combat action. Insofar as the reports from the battlefield cited him in this fashion, there is sufficient evidence to begin the awards process.

    There are reasons other than political advantage to want to honor a dead soldier in the short term, not least being that it is kind to a grieving family.

    If kindness is not enough, however, there are also formal rules in place. 32 CFR part 578.8 g3 holds:

    “To be fully effective, an award must be timely. Undue delay in submitting a recommendation may preclude its consideration. It is highly desirable that a recommendation be placed in military channels and acted upon as quickly as possible. If circumstances preclude submission of a completely documented recommendation, it is best to submit it as soon as possible and note that additional data will be submitted later.”

    An Army panel reaffirmed the award of the Silver Star following the changes in the citation made after the full investigation.

    So, no, I don’t believe that’s “political.”

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 8:39 am

  22. BloodSpite wrote:

    Again, I’m not a Bush defender per se, but in this case I consider myself more a defender of balance and of the law.

    As I said before I consider this morally reprehensible.

    But honestly I don’t see any difference between the removal of the SA’s and this

    Both groups are removed for little more than political reasons.

    The only real difference is because the Republicans did it, suddenly it’s a “crime” and travesty to humanity.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 11:27 am

  23. Davebo wrote:

    But honestly I don’t see any difference between the removal of the SA’s and this

    Well Bloodspite, I suppose if our ambassador to Belgium had issued subpeonas for the #2 man at the CIA you’d almost have a point there.

    As it is, not so much.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 1:02 pm

  24. BloodSpite wrote:

    The point being Davebo, that as the definition of the Law is “Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.” then the point that the issued subpeona’s or any of their past success’s are 100% moot.

    THey could have found Jimmy Hoffa and it doesn’t matter. What does matter is they serve at the pleasure, or displeasure, of the acting authority and he fired them.

    Which is why I said I am not a bush supporter, but rather a defender of the law in this case. Because I do not agree with the why’s, but I acknowledge his right to do so

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 1:15 pm

  25. commissar wrote:

    Blood,

    If (if!) Iglesias was fired for not going after those New Mexico Dems, then that’s obstruction of justice.

    Specter put it very well this morning, “The Pres. can fire them for no reason, but not for a bad reason.”

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 1:24 pm

  26. BloodSpite wrote:

    But I present to you, that because of the way the law is written, he can easily shrug his shoulders and say “The Senate helps choose the replacement attorney, by law, and if they so choose the incoming attorney can resume proceedings of the outgoing attorney”

    Again it may be morally wrong (which I agree with you 100% and it does look shady I agree with that as well), but legally correct.

    I’m not looking at this as “Bush is awesome he’s innocent!” But as there is nothing in the letter of the law regarding the placement or replacement of Attorney Generals that cite “Good reasons” versus “Bad Reasons” must be the foundation for the dismisal.

    They are 100% serving at his pleasure or displeasure.

    Do I think thats right? No. Do I think it’s good? No. But the factor of the matter is, just like many states which hold a law called “At Will Work” which means an employer can terminate you for any reason, including whistle blowing, this form of government operation, is no different.

    My prediction is after this is all said and done, and the media and Democrat Tap Dancing is complete we will have a Libby/Shakespearean political extravagance on Display. Much Ado about Nothing.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 2:40 pm

  27. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    What’s this? Another feint in the foonote wars. Problems:

    1. I don’t have “32 CFR part 578.8 g3″ handy, but I’m willing to bet it doesn’t authorize something like “Oh, let’s just slap a Silver Star on this corpse to make the guy’s folks feel better.” And in any event, it was UN-kind, if you read or heard Tillman’s Mom in the last few days;

    2. When you engage in a footnote battle, you don’t win just by throwing around cites. They have to be pertinant. The joke is, your “timiliness” provision supports my contention, not yours.

    The report this week dispositively found that command knew the truth as early as 48 hours after the incident. Sometime after they knew the truth, they signed off on a citation that they knew to be false. Your claim that the “amendment” is remedy fails because they could have either included the changes originally or, possibly, have written the citation in vague enough terms to cover both the true and the false narrative.

    Yet they did not. Why? Would the folks have been more comforted by 1,000-word detailed citation as opposed to a vague 200-word citation?

    Command BOTH knew the truth AND signed off on a citation they knew was at variance with it. There’s no real personal reason for it–the family gets a Silver Star either way–and there’s no real policy reason for it under the very law you yourself cited.

    They wanted political/propaganda value from it. Obviously. I don’t even think that’s neccessarily a bad thing. It’s just obvious that that is what it was.

    They wanted their little epic tale to transform an NFL Sunday broadcast into a glorified ad for Bush’s re-election campaign. It worked.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 3:02 pm

  28. Grim wrote:

    That there was bad behavior by the command is evident from the Army inquiry, which referred nine general officers for punishment. That is rather astonishing.

    Your contention that his Silver Star was issued purely for political reasons, however, is unfounded. As I said, a separate board of inquiry reaffirmed the award.

    You’re welcome to condemn these particular officers all you like. I merely said you were wrong to offer the “speed” or “rush” to cite him as a reason to suspect the award. Speed is required by the law; nor is there a statuatory requirement to wait for all the facts to be clear. Just the opposite, in fact.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 6:44 pm

  29. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    You don’t get it:

    This, roughly what I said:

    Your contention that his Silver Star was issued purely for political reasons

    and this:

    As I said, a separate board of inquiry reaffirmed the award.

    Are not mutually exclusive. It may well be that, as the board of inquiry found, that the Silver Star would’ve been well and honorably earned in any circumstances.

    However, the award was granted when it was and how it was for partisan political purposes. There’d otherwise have been no need to “amend” the citation afterwards after the LIE contained in it was exposed.

    If the analogy isn’t clear yet: The law and Army procedures did allow for the Silver Star to be awarded to Tillman, just as the law and Constitutional “adice and consent” protocols state that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

    But there’s right way to do these things and filthy, crummy, dirty, partisan-political and criminal way to do these things. Bush and his scuzzball partisan hacks took the dirty way.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 7:01 pm

  30. Grim wrote:

    I’m a strong supporter of the idea that “right” and “legal” aren’t closely related concepts. However, I’d like you to notice that you’re confused even on your own terms: ‘it may be legal, but it’s criminal’ is obviously not correct.

    I’m also not sure why you’re conflating the motives of Bush administration political operatives, hand picked for the sole purpose of serving his interests, with Army generals, who joined the military probably before Bush did himself. ‘This Tillman business was all about reelecting Bush’ is highly unlikely; even the family believes that bad behavior was oriented toward protecting the Army from suffering a loss in recruiting numbers.

    Again, there was bad behavior by the commanders — the inquiry bore that out, and recommeded sweeping punishments. It’s hardly likely that any of the people reprimanded saw Pat Tillman’s death and thought, “Oh no, what about Bush?!” The Army has its own interests, ones that seem to have motivated the bad behavior here — and also the inquiry and punishments to follow. One of those interests, after all, is having a clean command structure.

    If the political class polices itself as well, I’ll be impressed shocked.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 8:51 pm

  31. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    Yeah, well, I might’ve gotten a little hyperbolic towards the end, BUT the very fact the the actions are so filthily discreditable on their face are grounds to:

    1. Suspect that criminality could very well be lurking below the surface. You people whined INTERMINABLY about Clinton’s Travel Office firings (Schedule C “pleasure of the President” employees all, btw) then leap to the “technically, it’s legal” defense when Federal prosecutors are the targets? Based on that, there’s no reason not to at least look for a crime; and

    2. More than enough justification to inflict every ounce of political suffering the opposition in Congress can wring out of the events, criminality or not.

    ‘This Tillman business was all about reelecting Bush’ is highly unlikely;

    You’re the expert, not me, but I believe generals, or generals above a certain grade, are appointed by the executive and subject to Senatorial advice and consent. If you were in the military and don’t think high command is political …. well … WERE you in the military?

    I think the Tillman business was both indirectly and directly about re-electing Bush. Indirectly in that I think it’s the case that high command was (honorably, I’m sure) committed to “winning” in Iraq and that creating a hero epic assisted that effort. No worries–armies have been doing that since The Iliad. The fact that the constructed epic helped Bush was a by-product.

    But it was also directly exploited by Bush, but you’d have to have sat through the NFL double-header games broadcast on September 19, 2004 to fully realize the scope of Bush’s despicable exploitation. He turned Tillman’s death into a lie, then he turned that lie into campaign stunt featuring free media in one of network television’s most valuable timeslots.

    There’’s a reason people like Mary Tillman and Jim Rome now find themselves disgusted by what they thought at the time was a tender and moving testimonial to a person they loved.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 9:20 pm

  32. commissar wrote:

    Hoping to avoid getting caught in the crossfire here, I gotta object to the “the Pres can fire any employee who serves at his pleasure, therefore it’s okay by definition.”

    It’s absolutely possible for an activity which is generally legal (a Pres firing such an employee, or me driving my wife home from the bank), to be illegal in context (if such an employee has refused to harass political opponents, or if my wife has just robbed the bank).

    “This guy drove the getaway car.” … “Nonsense, he has a valid NY State drivers license and a properly registered vehicle. Therefore, his driving is always legal.”

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 9:36 pm

  33. Volum wrote:

    Grim: The charges of this “crack-dealer” and “voter fraud” were never found to be credible by the FBI, as per Muellers testimony yesterday.

    On this point, it’s not about being in the weeds. Maybe looking it up for one second before accusing someone of omitting relevant data is a better way.

    Also, too many people are forgetting that this statute was added to the PATRIOT act to only be used in an emergency situation. Like, if the congress was taken out in a terrorist-strike, or if gov’t was shut down. It was never intended to be used to circumnavigate congress.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 9:43 pm

  34. commissar wrote:

    As deep in the weeds as I am on this, I still don’t really get the angle of the Patriot Act revision. I understand that it permitted temporary USA appointments w/o Senate confirmation.

    But I lost track of the timing — how it correlates with the DOJ project to fire the USAs. And Moschella or Mercer had their fingerprints on it?

    Obviously if you fire someone and can replace with your own guy immediately, rather than through a potentially lengthy Senate hearing, that might be useful. But why should they anticipate a problem; people get confirmed all the time.

    Can anyone summarize this aspect?

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 9:56 pm

  35. Volum wrote:

    commissar:

    That’s an issue that almost no one has mentioned yet.

    Why did they use this part of the PATRIOT Act?

    We’re not under some sort of internal durress that would require POTUS to bypass any senate confirmation, so why did they use it?

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 10:24 pm

  36. Grim wrote:

    “You people… Travel Office…”

    At the time, I was in the Marine Corps. We were ordered not to discuss our opinion of the President or any of his doings.

    “You’re the expert, not me, but I believe generals, or generals above a certain grade, are appointed by the executive and subject to Senatorial advice and consent.”

    That would be true for Abizaid in this case. He was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote.

    “I think the Tillman business was both indirectly and directly about re-electing Bush.”

    So I gathered. I trust you understand that I don’t believe you’re right.

    “Indirectly in that I think it’s the case that high command was (honorably, I’m sure) committed to “winning” in Iraq and that creating a hero epic assisted that effort. No worries–armies have been doing that since The Iliad.”

    You are, of course, aware that he was killed in Afghanistan, and therefore not likely to play a large part in the Iraqiad.

    Support for operations in Afghanistan has been fairly high since the Iraq war began. It wasn’t in any danger in 2005, and isn’t now.

    V:

    “Maybe looking it up for one second before accusing someone of omitting relevant data is a better way.”

    I’d like to be clear: I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I just asked the Commissar if Andy’s characterization was accurate or not.

    If I’d asked Google instead, I’d have gotten the spin on both sides; what I wanted was his informed opinion.

    C:

    “It’s absolutely possible for an activity which is generally legal (a Pres firing such an employee, or me driving my wife home from the bank), to be illegal in context (if such an employee has refused to harass political opponents, or if my wife has just robbed the bank).”

    I grant that point, with the understanding that you’re not liable for prosecution for the act of driving on the highway, but for the act of aiding and abetting the felony.

    The problem for the analogy is that Bush himself is the one who committed the act — and thus, he can’t be said to have aided and abetted someone else’s design to commit a felony. In other words, you have to show that he robbed the bank, not that he drove the getaway car. This is because only he had the power; nobody else could fire the attorneys.

    He can’t be guilty of abetting someone else’s illegal firing of them; you have to show that his firing was itself illegal.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 11:25 pm

  37. Grim wrote:

    2005=2004, above. Typo, but an important one to correct.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 11:26 pm

  38. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    You are, of course, aware that he was killed in Afghanistan, and therefore not likely to play a large part in the Iraqiad.

    There’s so much wrong with this I may forget something and have to come back.

    First, the distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq was not only less at the time, in 2004, erasing that distinction was one of the very things Bush and the War Party were trying to do. It was all GWoT. Just a year earlier something like three-quarters of the American electorate (yours truly included) supported the invasion of Iraq precisely and exactly because it was the same war as in Afghanistan.

    In fact, I daresay that you yourself still believe that. You can’t say “We can’t withdraw from Iraq else the ‘terrorists’ win” without operating from that viewpoint.

    Secondly, of course, the literature of war and the art and epic stories that spring from such projects are not limited to precise campaigns. Is “The Charge of the Light Brigade” no longer relevant because nobody knows where or cares where Crimea is anymore?

    The fact that the “story” of Tillman produced by the Adminstration was set in Afghanistan and not Iraq has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not the story functioned as a political tale for political purposes with respect to Iraq.

    Finally:

    I trust you understand that I don’t believe you’re right.

    The problem with that is that you can’t otherwise explain the intrusion of George W. Bush’s image and words into a Sunday NFL broadcast in the middle of a close and heated presidential campaign.

    You maight be a loyal Bushie, but you’re not naive. Do you think the opportunity for free, mainstream media coverage of Bush in circumstances highly favorable to the image he was trying to portray in his campaign wasn’t noted and cheered on, even devised by his political people?

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 3:06 pm

  39. Volum wrote:

    Grim:
    “If I’d asked Google instead, I’d have gotten the spin on both sides; what I wanted was his informed opinion.”

    What version of Google are you using?

    See, the one I use you can find Agent Mueller’s (you know, that head of the CIA dude) testimony from this week, where he personally contradicted what you just said. And you don’t need to even pay attention to anyone’s spin.

    Coming here and pushing this meme is furthering the lie they want you to further. It’s dishonest, at best.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 4:15 pm

  40. commissar wrote:

    Volum,

    *sigh* We don’t attack each other here and accuse folks of lying and bad faith. (And that goes double for newbies vis a vis regular commenters.)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know this the internets and all. But this is a small blog with a few commenters and we’re more or less polite to each other. You’re welcome to participate on that basis.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 4:20 pm

  41. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie:

    Could you add more precison to this diktat:

    … we’re more or less polite to each other.

    :^{)>

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 4:44 pm

  42. Grim wrote:

    Besides, V, I’m not ‘pushing a meme’ or anything else anyway. Like I said, I’m willing to take his word. I just wanted to know what it was.

    It ought to be OK to ask a question in good faith.

    JF:

    “In fact, I daresay that you yourself still believe that.”

    You should read my piece on disaggregation, entitled “A Strategy for the Long War,” at BlackFive.

    “Is “The Charge of the Light Brigade” no longer relevant because nobody knows where or cares where Crimea is anymore?”

    The Crimea is in the Ukraine. It may not be well known, but it is well known to students of military science.

    Who are probably almost the only ones left to remember the poem.

    “The problem with that is that you can’t otherwise explain the intrusion of George W. Bush’s image and words into a Sunday NFL broadcast in the middle of a close and heated presidential campaign.”

    Ah… I admit I wasn’t even aware of them. I think I mentioned not getting a lot of time for television sports. I’m going to assert that it’s probably not that unusual for the President of the United States to appear in sports broadcasts, though — I think I recall that he normally does, for example, following the World Series. Which would always be “in the height of a presidential campaign,” coming in October.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 6:57 pm

  43. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    How can I read your piece when you don’t link it?

    As for Tennyson, let’s fast forward. I presume you must be aware of Jarhead. In the book (haven’t seen the movie) there’s a scene featuring Apocalypse Now. Although that movie is about Vietnam, it was used by the Marines in Gulf War I as a pre-battle emotional boost.

    I presume you’ll tell me that was silly of those guys because Vietnam had nothing to do with liberating Kuwait?

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 7:25 pm

  44. Grim wrote:

    JF:

    Fair point, since I don’t want to be bothered with Google either. Here.

    As for Tennyson, you miss my point. I’d be delighted if he were wider read. I love “Idylls of the King.” I wish Chesterton’s “Ballad of the White Horse” were required reading for everyone in the Anglosphere. Indeed, I’d like it to be required that they read it at least four times.

    My point is that saying that the general populace doesn’t remember things at the same rate as experts do. The Marines who liberated Kuwait ought to have remembered Vietnam, and others; yet the general society has made a mess of it. That’s a fact of modern life.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 7:54 pm

  45. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim, thanks. I’ll check it out.

    Your other point cuts both ways. The public … the popular culture … experiences and/or articulates stories about war in an emotional way. The rationalistic distinction between “Afghanistan” and “Iraq” simply isn’t germane to that.

    There’s a new story on this breaking hard on AP:

    AP: Gen. tried to warn Bush on Tillman

    SAN JOSE, Calif. - Just seven days after Pat Tillman’s death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 8:23 pm

  46. Grim wrote:

    The new story reminds me that the Pentagon had the truth out within about a month - which is to say, by June 2004, months before the election.

    That’s still a problem of a sort, given that we know the fellows knew something of that truth within days-not-weeks. Still and all, I’ll repeat: if politicians can start policing their operatives as well, I’ll be shocked.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 9:57 pm

  47. jfxgillis wrote:

    Grim:

    The forum at the NYTimes where I’ve been a regular for years is being taken down in a week. I’ve been meaning to get more discipline in my polemics, so I opened an account and started a column at newsvine.

    First effort was adapting my arguments in this thread: Pat Tillman’s Medal and Alberto Gonzales’ Fired Prosecutors

    You want credit or an embedded link or something?

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 10:11 pm

  48. Grim wrote:

    No thanks. You’re welcome to all the credit for that one. :)

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 10:16 pm

« Mammals - the long-fuse model
Thanks for Everything »