A moment of deja vu

So I read that Glenn Greenwald is railing, as he does, today about "New Republic syndrome" as part of his continued jihad against the FISA compromise. While this particular issue fails to move me, I'm with Greenwald in spirit -- I've spent a long time decrying elite, establishmentarian, "serious," nominally liberal journalism and how it consistently enables the worst conservative evils.

This topic sends me on a Vietnam-style flashback to my Dem Apples halcyon days, in 2006 and 2007, when I spent much of my time arguing these matters with the brilliant Josh Patashnik '07. Josh and I, with help from people like Kyle Krahel and periodically Garrett Dash Nelson on my side and Third Degree & Max Mishkin on his, would spar over things like centrism, bipartisanship, and Joe Lieberman, all of which Josh was for and I continue to be against. Josh used to write things like this, from October 2006:

Certainly it's pretty clear at this point that the invasion was ill-advised. But the fact is that in 2002 and 2003 a lot of calm, thoughtful, intelligent people were in favor of the invasion.

[...] We now know that Saddam did not have WMDs and that rebuilding the country and establishing a new political order have proven to be exceedingly difficult. The question is, should we have known those things back then? We certainly should have been more diligent in asking questions. But I still don't think it was unreasonable to believe that Saddam had WMDs and that we might be able to help the Iraqis set up a better form of government. [...]

If the U.S. had gone in, found WMD, and set up a moderately stable, moderately liberal democracy with limited American and Iraqi casualties, I think Iraq would have to be counted as one of the greatest successes in the history of American foreign policy. I don't see a huge downside here.

Or this from the Lieberman/Lamont fiasco of August 2006:

[Democrats should] be careful not to swing too far in the opposite direction, toward dovishness and partisanship. I believe in a Democratic Party that eschews both Lieberman's kowtowing to the GOP and the vicious, narrow-minded partisanship of the Daily Kos wing of the party. There are any number of Democrats--Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Barack Obama--who stand on principle and are proud members of the party, but who maintain civility and are willing to work in good faith with the other side when it is willing to do the same. I believe in a Democratic Party that thinks seriously about our problems in Iraq but also recognizes that we are indeed locked in a struggle to the death against jihadism. Joe Biden and Tony Blair understand this; I agree with Jacob Weisberg that many on the left don't.

Yes, Josh actually cited Jacob Weisberg. (He also regularly referred to Peter Beinart.) Today, on any liberal blog, this stuff would receive an immediate and righteous smackdown; but the atmosphere, on Dem Apples and in liberal politics in general, was different then. There was still a substantial contingent that was completely establishmentarian in character, earnestly advocated DLC politics, recoiled from antiwar or other progressive rhetoric, and despised everything Howard Dean and the lefty blogs stood for. This was before the magnitude of the 2006 midterms and the total vindication of Dean began to push those ideas backward into elite journalism and the margins where they belong (a process which, as we can see, is still ongoing). Harvard was and is an incubator of this kind of thinking -- Josh in particular was editor of HPR and active at the IOP, two of our most noxiously centrist and elitist institutions (the Crimson completes that trifecta). Those of us who were further left and outside that establishment had to push hard against it, and spend weeks arguing about crap like "civility" as a result. It was one of my formative political experiences.

Anyway, so off I go to read Greenwald and WHADDAYA KNOW -- turns out the TNR post that infuriated him so was by none other than Josh Patashnik himself! Josh after graduation went on to bigger and better things, now blogging full-time for TNR's The Plank, and apparently he's doing the same damn thing to Greenwald he used to do to me. The genesis of the argument is different -- and weirdly, I lean to Josh's side on the issue, if only because I lack that part of my brain that makes you libertarian -- but Greenwald takes it to familiar territory:

The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It's this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it's why we have no real opposition party; and it's why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It's because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over -- even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that -- it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party's leadership.

The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are "nuts," "need to have their heads examined," and are "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of "abject pacifism."

...[Institutions which should restrain conservative lawbreaking] have failed because they have been, and continue to be, defined by the meek, amorphous, principle-free New Republic Syndrome, which thinks that its restrained tolerance and complicit embrace of patent Bush extremism is some sort of mark of political sophistication and Seriousness... Good, smart, adult Democrats -- like the sober, Serious geniuses at The New Republic who have been so right for so long, and like Steny Hoyer -- understand that these matters are very complex and difficult and it's best if the Right not be opposed with too much vigor, if they should be opposed at all. It's precisely that mindset, and those who are guided by it, which needs to be targeted if the guaranteed Democratic majority is to mean anything other than an endless perpetuation of The New Republic Syndrome.

Preach it, brother. He's like a more eloquent and less profane version of me.

I don't really have a larger point here, except to point out how interesting it is that Josh is now having the same fights on a national stage that he used to have in this little sandbox. The more things change...

Reid fails to oppose telecom immunity; Dodd to filibuster

Here's a wonderful example of leadership from Senator Reid:

I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply choose one committee’s bill over the other. I personally favor many of the additional protections included in the Judiciary Committee bill, and I oppose the concept of retroactive immunity in the Intelligence bill. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Intelligence bill was reported favorably by a vote of 13-2, with most Democrats on the committee supporting that approach. I explored the possibility of putting before the Senate a bill that included elements of both two committee bills. Earlier this week, I used Senate Rule 14 to place two bills on the calendar.

The first – S. 2440 – consists of Titles I and III of the Intelligence bill, but did not include Title II on retroactive immunity. The second bill – S. 2441 – consists of Title I of the Intelligence bill and Titles II and III of the Judiciary bill. But after consulting further with Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Leahy, a consensus emerged among the three of us that the best way to proceed would be by regular order. Both Chairmen agreed with this approach.

Under regular order, and the rules of the Senate governing sequential referral, I will move to proceed to S. 2248 – the bill reported by each committee. When that motion to proceed is adopted, the work of both committees will be before the Senate. Because of the order in which they considered the bill, the Intelligence Committee version will be the base text, and the Judiciary Committee version will be automatically pending as a substitute amendment.

What this means, in effect, is that getting rid of the telecom immunity in the Intelligence Committee bill will require sixty votes, "rendering," as Glenn Greenwald explains, "such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill."

That's bad enough, but the explanation Reid is giving makes me angry. "The Intelligence Committee submitted their bill first, so we will consider theirs first."--pretty transparent BS, I have to say. I'm sure there are very good reasons for Reid's failure to oppose telecom immunity, such as, say, keeping in the good graces of powerful people like the telecoms and his old chum Senator Rockefeller, but the Majority Leader has power that is meant to be exercised in just such instances as this, where it is obvious that some Senators are working against the interests of their constituency, and where those Senators are clearly wrong.

Apparently Senator Leahy has also decided not to exercise his full clout; Reid says that Leahy agreed to have his bill (the one without immunity, and with better safeguards on domestic spying) plowed under.

Not only has Reid taken this action, but he also, in defiance of Senate custom, refused to recognize the hold Senator Dodd (a member of his own party) placed on the bill. When Tom Coburn placed a hold on a civil rights bill, Reid honored it.

As a result of all this, Chris Dodd is going to have to stand up and filibuster in support of the Constitution and in defiance of his own supposed allies. What in the world is the matter with our party?

Here's Chris Dodd's page on the filibuster.

Update: I'm watching C-Span on my computer, and Ted Kennedy just gave a corker of a speech. I'll try and find a clip of it and put it up.

Update II: Kit Bond says that the President does have the "inherent authority" under Article II of the Constitution to "conduct warrantless surveillance." Let me just take a look at Article II.. okay, yeah, I don't see it anywhere. How can Bond make an argument like that with a straight face?

Update III: Here's part of the Kennedy speech. (Embed fixed. --markus)

Military Spokesperson With an Ax to Grind

The military spokesman for Gen. Petraeus has been engaged in some downright bizarre behavior with Glenn Greenwald. First, he sent (or possibly did not send..) an unsolicited e-mail, which refuted claims that Greenwald did not make, and ignored the ones that he did. Then Greenwald's commenters, who quite understandably had a hard time believing that something so intemperate and unprofessional could have issued from the mouth of a supposedly non-partisan spokesperson, suggested that perhaps Colonel Boylan had been spoofed. Then this exchange ensued:

 

GG to Col. Boylan:

Col. Boylan - Could you just confirm that this email [email forwarded] is authentic, written by and sent from you?

Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald

Col. Boylan to GG:

Glenn,

Interesting email and no. Why do you ask?

Steven

GG to Col. Boylan:

Only because it comes from your email address, is written in your name, and bears all of the same distinguishing features as the last emails you sent to me:

steven.boylan@iraq.centcom.mil

Did you really not notice that?

Col. Boylan to GG:

Well, since they were on the web, not surprising. If you do a search on the web, you will also see that I have been a victim of identity theft of late in Vermont and at least two other places trying to rent property and that person identified themselves as me and thankfully the State Police were able to get in touch with me about it while I am sitting here in Baghdad.

GG to Col. Boylan:

Well isn't it of great concern to you that someone is able to send out emails using your miltiary email address? Do you plan to look into that?

And you labelled the email I recieved "interesting." What does that mean? Do you agree with its content, have any comments about it?

Col. Boylan to GG:

I am interested in this issue. What I am doing about it does not concern you. Interesting is what I find it.

Whether I agree with what the email says or not is not an issue I wish to discuss with you, as I decided after our last exchange that I would not take the time or efforts to engage with you.

Is there a reason why you posted this?

After reading that exchange (and reviewing information Greenwald posted that showed the exact same tracking information from all the communications he's had with Boylan--including communications that are not in question), I think there's about a five percent chance that Boylan actually had his e-mail spoofed.

First of all, notice that throughout the e-mail exchange, Boylan avoids saying, "I did not send/write the e-mail." Greenwald asks him whether he can confirm, and Boylan is probably happy to get the opportunity to put one over on a lawyer (he takes a few cracks at lawyers in the e-mail). The thing about Vermont is also phrased in a non-committal way. Boylan doesn't say, "The person who stole my identity in Vermont probably used my e-mail account."

If this actually is what it looks like--partisan hackery by a military official, followed by persnickety efforts to play it off as a case of mistaken identity without ever actually saying as much--it's just about unbelievable.

Hopefully this is just a hack (although if it is a hack, the response by Col. Boylan is terribly nonchalant), but whether it is or not, the politicization of supposedly nonpolitical branches of government under Bush is a problem that will be fixed only with great effort on the part of his successor. And if someone like Giuliani or Romney is elected, you can bet that it won't be fixed.

Greenwald on the O'Hanlon-Pollack Fraud

I don't have terribly much to add to Glenn Greenwald's excellent article on the subject. I was amazed by the media blitz that ensued after their joint op-ed in the NY Times. Glenn Greenwald interviewed Michael O'Hanlon, and the interview, plus other facts that have come out, serves to totally destroy the credibility of O'Hanlon and Pollack, and to damage the credibility of the dozens of media figures that have propagated their claims. I encourage everyone to read the full article--unless you're already in a bad mood--but here's the gist of Greenwald's conclusions:

With the possible exception of their observations about U.S. troop morale and the McCain-like claims about the isolated, peaceful strolls they were led on by the military, Pollack and O'Hanlon could have just as easily stayed at home, spoken on the telephone with U.S. military commanders, written down what they said, and then "reported" everything exactly as they did in their Op-Ed. The trip to Iraq part was just a prop in the argument, something to bestow unwarranted and artificial credibility on their war cheerleading claims.

I have nothing against O'Hanlon personally; he was perfectly cordial and professional in my dealings with him and I think he deserves credit for agreeing to be interviewed in light of what I had written about his Op-Ed. But it is very difficult to credit him and Pollack with good faith, as though they are guilty of nothing more than sloppy "scholarship."

A failure to disclose obviously critical facts that bear on the credibility of their "findings" and a willingness to ground their conclusions in patently one-sided and highly controlled data are far more serious sins than mere sloppiness. It is difficult to avoid reaching any conclusion other than that they willfully served as propaganda tools in order to bolster the perception of success for a war and a "Surge" strategy which they prominently supported and on which their professional reputations rest.

After all, the whole premise of the Op-Ed is that they have credibility to speak about the Progress in Iraq because they just returned from a trip there and because they are "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." Indeed, they used the very first sentence to create the misleading impression that they were offering first-hand accounts of the purported progress, rather than simply relying upon claims of the U.S. military.

Greenwald's made a powerful case over the past couple years that our media discourse is profoundly broken, but this whole spectacle is a particularly egregious example.