Project Playlist
Noticed this at TBogg and -- kind of like when the apes see the obelisk at the beginning of 2001 --I thought "ug! what that?" I'm not saying it's going to change the course of human evolution, but about ten minutes later I knew it's a *lot* of fun. Herewith the first several items I wanted on my playlist, in the order I found and added them....



Bless the various people who host these tracks on their sites. Naturally, I wish there was more, there are gaps I guess I expected -- couldn't find anything I wanted of John Hartford, say "Presbyterian Guitar," a wonderfully simple, pure melody on "Aeroplane." Had to hunt around for Mary McCaslin, "Pass me by" was one of my favorites (hey! and now I guess it is again) , but I couldn't find her version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" from the same album. Zappa: nothing from "Roxy and Elsewhere"; Dylan: no "Hard Rain" track via the main search engine. Beatles: spotty.

But plenty of stuff all the same. It occurred to me, wow, maybe they'll have "Save it for later" -- I'd have to say it's just about my single favorite bit of pop music -- and they did.... and Allman Brothers! and Creedence! and...

I'm very happy about this; "therefore," it won't last. (I guess I'm assuming I'm not doing any harm by accessing files people have voluntarily put up on the net. And you can easily add any of the songs in this playlist to your iPod, so artists needn't starve.) Meanwhile, it's easy to set up one of these Project Playlists for yourself; if you do, let me know, OK?


=====
UPDATE, 6/1: Welcome! I've been getting a lot of traffic (by my standards) to this archive page for the last week or two -- which is great. I'm guessing it's because of this "Project Playlist" post, but maybe not. Anyway, if you'd like to let me know how and why you found this page, or if you have any suggestions about this post or this site, please leave a comment -- I'm curious. Regardless, please have a look around the rest of the site, too, including the front page and selected posts. Thanks, and again: welcome. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:08:00 AM -- |    

 
Not exactly "the buck stops here," is it
There was a remarkable White House press conference in the wake of the Walter Reed outpatient scandal; TPM's Greg Sargent has a post and a video with some of the telling parts of Press Secretary Tony Snow's remarks on behalf of President George W. Bush.

We at "newsrack," however, have gone the TPM media empire one better, taking advantage of our access to some top-secret homeland security equipment. In the interests of national security, we can't go into it in any detail; suffice it to say it's is a quantum leap forward from that clunky box on Bush's back when he debated Kerry. Essentially, we established a wireless connection to Tony Snow's brain, recording his unspoken reactions (italicized below) and adding our own ([in brackets below]) during the press conference. Let's roll the tape:

Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post about troops coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan and being treated so poorly, apparently, based on this long investigation? What's the President's reaction?
MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops. ...

Let me repeat that so it's completely clear: we call our empty feel-good posturing a "commitment," not a "mantra."

...And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it. And the people who --
Q Were you aware?

I resent the tone and implication of that question. No.

MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes. And I would refer you to the Department of Defense, which I know is taking a very close look at it, too. Look, the men and women who have gone and fought for our country over there, they deserve the best care.
Q So why has that not been guaranteed, then?
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- you know, when you find a problem, you deal with it.
Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

The President? A newspaper? Learn? How would that work?

MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it, but I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better. And, again, Ed, this is something where I'd suggest you give DoD a call, because I know they've taken a good, hard look at it.

[The Washington Post?]
Huh?

Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

[Bob Dole?]
Bob Dole?

MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.
Q Is there?

Well, kinda.

MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q So the President responded how when he learned about this? What, specifically -- did he order something to be done?

He looked me in the eye and said very firmly, "handle it, Tony."

MR. SNOW: What I'm suggesting -- there's a reason I'm suggesting -- DoD is the proper place in which we'll be taking care of these issues. And I would refer you to them for comment. But this is something that's going to have to be an action item.
Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

No.

MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q Then tell us about that evidence.

No.

MR. SNOW: That's why -- again, I would refer you, Bill, to the Department of the Army, which runs the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This is the place where if you want to get --
Q That's just an easy way for you not to have to talk about it.

Yes.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a way of pointing to the proper authorities, which is what you would want.
Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

What are you, nuts? That would be taking responsibility for something we'd like to just go away.

MR. SNOW: No. David asked where the outrage -- of course there's outrage that men and women who have been fighting have not received the outpatient care -- if you read the stories, there are many who are happy with it, some who are unhappy, and it's important that we show our commitment to the people who have served. I don't know what more you want me to do.

Q In December NPR ran a series looking at the quality of mental health care for Iraq veterans who have returned, showing that it's shocking how little care is provided to them. And several congresspeople -- Obama, Boxer and Bond -- sent a letter to the Pentagon, which you're referring us to, asking for an investigation, which they have not agreed to conduct. So you're referring us to the DoD, but they're not acting quickly on this. So does the President want them to act quickly?

blah blah blah NPR blah blah blah

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you've asked me about two separate stories.

No fair!

Q It seems there's a problem that's endemic to the system.
MR. SNOW: Well, rather than leaping to a conclusion, as I said, I would suggest you call them, and then we can talk about it later. [...]

[Now there's an idea. Rather than rashly leaping to conclusions and doing something we might regret, let's always communicate and talk about things first.]
I've heard about this reality-based thinking stuff, is that what's going on? This never happened to me at FOX.

Q Off camera this morning you said that you would have something at noon; you said, I'll talk about it then. And now you're not really --

Heh. Dawn breaks over Marblehead, dude. Let's see... work in "may", then refer 'em some place else.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because -- again, I think that you may see some activity on it. And at this point I would refer you to the Department of Defense.
Q Is the system working?
MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what -- is the system working? Yes. Is it working perfectly? No.

If it were, I wouldn't be talking about this story.

Q It's good enough?
MR. SNOW: No, I said, it's not good enough. I just told you it's not working perfectly. But there are also thousands of people who have been through the system who have been cared for. But it is important that we maintain a commitment to following up or providing the treatment that these men and women deserve.

Silent treatment. Out of the limelight.

Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?
MR. SNOW: No. [...]

Nosirree bob. He hates this kind of crap.

Q You responded to me a moment ago that the administration was aware of this before the articles appeared in the paper.

Well, sure I did.

MR. SNOW: That is my understanding. But, again, this is something that's an action item over at the Department of Defense and, in particular, the Department of the Army. I am not fully briefed on the activities or who knew what, when. And I suggest --

...you take it up with them.

Q Was the President aware of it? Was the White House aware of it?
MR. SNOW: I am not certain --
Q May I follow on --
Q What is the President's --
MR. SNOW: -- when we first became aware of it. Now the President certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, and visited regularly, and we also have people from Walter Reed regularly over to the White House as guests, sometimes in fairly large numbers.

When we need them.

So as I said, the President is committed -- committed to these people, committed to men and women who have served. We need to make sure that whatever problems there are get fixed. I couldn't be any stronger or plainer about it.

I strongly, plainly stand for fixing problems if there are any.

Q Has he given any new orders?
MR. SNOW: No. At this point, Helen, I think the most important thing -- the way this would work is the Department of Army has its own investigation about what's going on at Walter Reed. They will be taking action. The President certainly wants to make sure that, as I said before, whatever problems there are get fixed.

Man, I'm off my game. Of course! "We must wait for the outcome of that investigation." Yeah, that's the ticket.

Q On Walter Reed, a lot of the veterans, the medical community, the doctors, the neighbors who have worked at Walter Reed are very upset about this move, pending move to Bethesda. In light of everything that's happening, does the administration still support uprooting --
MR. SNOW: The Department of Defense has made the decision to consolidate the treatment facilities at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

Not us. Them.

Q Is there any chance of a second look? Some of the facilities at Walter Reed are brand new.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm just going to refer you to that. This is -- all of a sudden people are trying to open up different avenues of inquiry. The fact is that those changes have, in fact, been decided upon by the Department of Defense. I am not aware of any decisions to change.

Them, not us. You just talk to Defense, we have nothing to do with any of that.

Q To clarify, were these -- any actions that the Pentagon has taken, these action items, were they done on its own, or did they do this in response to some order from here?
MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not aware that anybody has --

[done anything.]
...done anything. Whoa, that was close.

...look, when you have a problem like this, the imperative is to fix it. I'm not sure that you have to issue orders; there are people there who know if they've got a problem they need to fix it. So I don't think that -- I will try to find out for you, but I'm not aware that the President has cut any special orders.

"Cut." Heh heh heh.
[Good one, Tony!]

But I will try to get for you additional information.
Q I think what we're --
MR. SNOW: I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to get a tick-tock on what did he learn and how did he respond and who did he call.

[Shocking! Can they do that?]
Tricksy reporters!

Q Yes, we're trying to determine if someone here built a fire under someone over there to do something.
MR. SNOW: You know, that's assuming that people there are callous about the fate of the people who are serving.

[Oh, we don't need to assume that any more. We're pretty clear about people in the White House, too.]
Must. ignore. the voice.

Q It isn't --
MR. SNOW: No, I think it is. When you say "light a fire," it's as if, you know, you find out that there's a problem and you don't move quickly to try to correct it.

We, on the other hand, didn't find out there was a problem and didn't move quickly to try to correct it. Big difference! This gets back to my earlier philosophical point about choosing words carefully.

My sense is that there's plenty of fire for trying to get it right. But this is why I'm telling you if you want a more direct answer about this, you do need to talk to the people at the Department of the Army --
Q But, Tony, when you read --
MR. SNOW: -- who are at the ground level involvement here.

We prefer to float above it all ourselves.

Q -- an account that says a commanding general, quotes a commanding general as saying, well, gee, we ordered repairs done, but they weren't done -- you'd think they would have known this hadn't been accomplished.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's why -- you've just made my point, which is you need to get back to them, and I will also get back for you with a tick-tock about what's going on at this end.

And then this will all go away, please God.

Q It's not just -- you're describing kind of a cold, detached bureaucratic process.

So?

We all know how this works. Something like this, this kind of story gets people's attention. You are now --
MR. SNOW: Well --
Q Wait a minute. You're now in the PR business, you know if something like this happens it's at odds with the commitments you make; the Commander-in-Chief might well stand up at a meeting and say, darn it, let's get to the bottom of this now and let's get answers. And this happened over the weekend, and you're saying you think the White House knew, but you're not sure; you're not sure when the President knew or if he said something to somebody. It just seems like you should have those answers.

OK, here your answer: no one gave a flip about this around here until it broke in the Post on Sunday. That clear enough for you?

MR. SNOW: Okay, but you also -- fine, I'll try to get them for you. But when you talk about cold detachment, I don't think saying that if it needs --
Q You're calling it an "action item"?

Hey, I thought that sounded pretty good, all military and strong and stuff.

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, because what I'm telling you is that it is something that falls under the providence of the Department of the Army. Therefore, if you want the detailed answers about who knew what, when and how it's been handled, you do need to ask them, because they're going to have the information, David. I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country.

For about a second.

And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.

[Or else what?]
Don't go there.

Q But, Tony --
MR. SNOW: Wait, wait. In that case, what I'm telling you is let's sort through the facts. I know that what you want is for me to tell you more than I know right now. So you keep at it --
Q But it would not be unreasonable for you or the President, through you, to express some kind of outrage over what has happened up there.

[Come on Tony, whip up a little reasonable outrage for the gang, and there might still be time for a long lunch.]
Don't think I can sell it now.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a matter of trying to figure out precisely what has happened. You have news stories, it is important to investigate. As you know, the most important thing is to fix a problem, correct? And there is absolute determination to fix the problem. The President is somebody, again, whose passion for these forces should never, ever be a topic of doubt on the part of the forces or the American people.

Or I'm out of a job, that's or else what.

Q Right, but Tony, when you say he looks in the eyes of the families -- but what if the bureaucrats on the ground are not actually following through on the commitment you say he has? Doesn't he have a duty to follow through and say, what --

Oh come on.

MR. SNOW: That's why I'm asking you to direct your questions to the people who are in direct line of responsibility for this, who are going to have more information on this than I do right now.
Q What is your reaction of Major General Weightman, who is the Commander at Walter Reed, also says in the bottom of the article on Sunday in The Washington Post, said that he's concerned and that they're bracing for, "potentially a lot more casualties," people coming to Walter Reed because of the surge.

[Escalation.]
Surge.
[Escalation.]
Surge. Now that's enough.

Does that cause the White House to think at all about that policy, because you have the Commander of Walter Reed --

[Escalation.]

MR. SNOW: There are a whole series of things, and, again, this is why you need to talk to people who are in the chain, because --

They're not me.

Q But this he said on the record.
MR. SNOW: I understand, Ed. ...

And he will pay for that.

...But there are a series of things. First, for Walter Reed, what you end up having is treatment of people who are wounded -- and also this is Bethesda, as you know, different sorts of injuries are treated at the two facilities. And many of those people are there for months. And this story deals with outpatient care after that treatment, right? So it's important, I think, to understand that you've got to be prepared for all things that are going to come your way, including getting the piece right when it comes to outpatient care, and continuing also to do well by inpatients.

You know what, I'm a wicked quick study with all this stuff -- every bit as good as old whatshername... PJ? on West Wing: you got your outpatients, you got your inpatients, there's a difference, you gotta be prepared for all of 'em.
[You rock, Tony.]

But, again, I know you want me to -- I'm simply not going to go beyond what I know. And in this particular case, the people who do know the facts and do know what's going on, and do know how the investigations are proceeding are the guys over at DoD.

Not me. That's key: not me.

Q I think that's part of the question. It doesn't seem like -- beyond what you know, it doesn't seem like you're asking that many questions to find out. I mean, you have a limited knowledge about the situation.
MR. SNOW: It's because they're working the issue, and I'm telling you, those are the people to talk to, the DoD.
Q -- I mean, you keep putting me off on other people --
MR. SNOW: I know.

It's our whole deal, really.

Q This is a commitment the President has made, you said, to the families, right?
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q So why isn't the President, why isn't his staff saying, let's get to the bottom of it now?
MR. SNOW: We are trying to get to the bottom of it, and the people who are responsible for getting to the bottom of it work on the other side of the river.

[Not exactly "the buck stops here," is it.]
Shut up. Just shut up. posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:00:00 AM -- |    

 
Be still, my beating heart

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney. They want to know whether Cheney might have known about the leaks ahead of time or had even encouraged Libby to provide information to reporters about Plame's CIA status, the same sources said.

-- Murray Waas, National Journal, via digby ("hullabaloo"). Waas continues:

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and a professor at Fordham Law School, said the significance of Cheney's reaction to Libby's version of events depends on exactly what Libby told him and what Cheney knew at the time. "Only Cheney and Libby know the import of their conversation, and as is often the case, each could have even come away with a different impression of what was meant" by what the other said.

"If Cheney was merely showing surprise and interest at what Libby indicating to him he was going to tell investigators, then the vice president is innocent in the exchange," Richman said. "But if he had reason to believe, or personal knowledge, that what Libby was planning to say was untrue then there is good reason to view Cheney's conduct in an entirely different light -- an obstruction interpretation."

Tough stuff to prove, but Libby might be a motivated witness, and one who'd know just what documents could back him up. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:03:00 AM -- |    

 
"Give a hand clap for the soldiers, then give a hand for the U.S.A."
Postscript to the "Disgrace at Walter Reed" post, below, from the second of the Priest/Hull reports (The Hotel Aftermath"):

After dinner, [Dell and Annette McLeod] return through the gates of Walter Reed in Annette's car, a John 3:16 decal on the bumper and the Dixie Chicks in the CD player. Annette sees a flier in the lobby of Mologne House announcing a free trip to see Toby Keith in concert. A week later, it is a wonderful night at the Nissan Pavilion. About 70 wounded soldiers from Walter Reed attend the show. Toby invites them up on stage and brings the house down when he sings his monster wartime hit "American Soldier." Dell stands on stage in his uniform while Annette snaps pictures. "Give a hand clap for the soldiers," Annette hears Toby tell the audience, "then give a hand for the U.S.A."

It's like something out of Animal Farm -- the loyal workhorse sent off to the glue factory when no one's paying attention, and then held up as an example of virtue by the clever pigs:

"It was the most affecting sight I have ever seen!" said Squealer, lifting his trotter and wiping away a tear. "I was at his bedside at the very last. And at the end, almost too weak to speak, he whispered in my ear that his sole sorrow was to have passed on before the job was finished. 'Forward, comrades!' he whispered. 'Forward in the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Long live the USA! Long live Dubya! Dubya is always right.' Those were his very last words, comrades."

Something like that.

It turns out Mr. Keith supposedly opposed the Iraq war -- he just doesn't appear to oppose making a buck off it, or displaying its casualties at his shows to rev up the crowd and make another buck. If he donates every dime and then some that he makes off "American Soldier" and "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" to wounded veteran support groups, I stand corrected. Otherwise: clever... man. posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:28:00 PM -- |    

 
Disgrace at Walter Reed
Dead cockroaches in the halls. Rooms so dilapidated you can see an upstairs bathroom from your own. A rodent problem that was recently downgraded to 'manageable.'

This isn't the story of a third world slum or some Eastern bloc mental institution. It's daily life for Walter Reed outpatient veterans, report the Washington Post's Dana Priest and Anne Hull in a two part series ("Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility," 2/18; "Mologne House Guests Find Recovery is Slow," 2/19). And -- as one might expect from the military bureaucracy -- it's not just the living conditions, but the paperwork and everyday thoughtlessness that can really wear down wounded or psychologically harmed veterans. Items plucked from the two reports:

• Family members who speak only Spanish have had to rely on Salvadoran housekeepers, a Cuban bus driver, the Panamanian bartender and a Mexican floor cleaner for help. Walter Reed maintains a list of bilingual staffers, but they are rarely called on, according to soldiers and families and Walter Reed staff members.
  

• Staff Sgt. John Daniel Shannon, 43, came in on one of those buses in November 2004 and spent several weeks on the fifth floor of Walter Reed's hospital. His eye and skull were shattered by an AK-47 round. His odyssey in the Other Walter Reed has lasted more than two years, but it began when someone handed him a map of the grounds and told him to find his room across post.

  A reconnaissance and land-navigation expert, Shannon was so disoriented that he couldn't even find north. Holding the map, he stumbled around outside the hospital, sliding against walls and trying to keep himself upright, he said. He asked anyone he found for directions.
  

• Lost paperwork for new uniforms has forced some soldiers to attend their own Purple Heart ceremonies and the official birthday party for the Army in gym clothes, only to be chewed out by superiors.
  
  
• Cpl. Jeremy Harper, returned from Iraq with PTSD after seeing three buddies die. He kept his room dark, refused his combat medals and always seemed heavily medicated, said people who knew him. According to his mother, Harper was drunkenly wandering the lobby of the Mologne House on New Year's Eve 2004, looking for a ride home to West Virginia. The next morning he was found dead in his room. An autopsy showed alcohol poisoning, she said.
  
  
• [A] 47-year-old Guard member ... was driving an Army vehicle through the Iraqi night when a flash of light blinded him and he crashed into a ditch with an eight-foot drop. Among his many injuries was a broken foot that didn't heal properly. Army doctors decided that "late life atrophy" was responsible for the foot, not the truck wreck in Iraq.
  

• Wilson, the clinical social worker at Walter Reed, was part of a staff team that recognized Building 18's toll on the wounded. He mapped out a plan and, in September, was given a $30,000 grant from the Commander's Initiative Account for improvements. He ordered some equipment, including a pool table and air hockey table, which have not yet arrived. A Psychiatry Department functionary held up the rest of the money because she feared that buying a lot of recreational equipment close to Christmas would trigger an audit, Wilson said.

  In January, Wilson was told that the funds were no longer available and that he would have to submit a new request. "It's absurd," he said. "Seven months of work down the drain. I have nothing to show for this project. It's a great example of what we're up against."
  

• Life beyond the hospital bed is a frustrating mountain of paperwork. The typical soldier is required to file 22 documents with eight different commands -- most of them off-post -- to enter and exit the medical processing world, according to government investigators. Sixteen different information systems are used to process the forms, but few of them can communicate with one another. The Army's three personnel databases cannot read each other's files and can't interact with the separate pay system or the medical recordkeeping databases.

  The disappearance of necessary forms and records is the most common reason soldiers languish at Walter Reed longer than they should, according to soldiers, family members and staffers. Sometimes the Army has no record that a soldier even served in Iraq. A combat medic who did three tours had to bring in letters and photos of herself in Iraq to show she that had been there, after a clerk couldn't find a record of her service.

Rep. Tom Davis III (R-VA) has his analysis ready for the reporters:

Among the public, Davis said, "there's vast appreciation for soldiers, but there's a lack of focus on what happens to them" when they return. "It's awful."

It's awful all right: we thought you clowns would at least take care of the honorable men and women returning from the war you got them into and can't seem to think your way out of. Mr. Davis' remark would be slightly more appropriate were he not the former ranking Republican on the House Government Affairs committee overseeing this disgrace. Back in the old days in Japan, pols in Davis' position had a way to deal with situations like this that didn't involve blaming anybody else for their own failures. On balance, I don't recommend that to Davis, but I do wish he'd have the decency to shut up if he doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

While the peak outpatient level so far was in 2005, hospital officials are "bracing for 'potentially a lot more' casualties" because of the planned escalation/surge in Iraq. And the war in Iraq isn't just a reason so many outpatients come to Walter Reed -- it's also the reason so many stay there:

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, commander at Walter Reed, said in an interview last week that a major reason outpatients stay so long, a change from the days when injured soldiers were discharged as quickly as possible, is that the Army wants to be able to hang on to as many soldiers as it can, "because this is the first time this country has fought a war for so long with an all-volunteer force since the Revolution."

Let's be sure not to "support the troops" by making that war last even longer. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:03:00 PM -- |    

 
"We're going to protect 'em, and we're going to support 'em"
That's House Appropriations Defense subcommittee chair John Murtha (D-PA-12) speaking about troops heading for Iraq.

But not if the Washington Post editorial board can help it. In its wisdom, that august body saw fit on Saturday to dismiss John Murtha's idea for restoring some sense to our military involvement in Iraq. Murtha's measure will insist that troop formations returning to Iraq satisfy minimal "readiness" requirements -- a year between deployments, spent training on equipment that will be used in the field, an end to "stop loss" exploitation -- something that too many Americans don't realize is not always the case right now.

Cleverly, the Post's vicious, dishonest editorial did not take on Murtha's plan itself right away, but began by focusing on Murtha's statement that the vote the House resolution was "not the real vote." Hoping perhaps to sway one or the other representative who poured everything they had into their five minute speech on a nonbinding resolution, the Post said Murtha "breezily dismissed" the debate involved. The Post was having none of that, standing tall to claim that the vote

..ought to increase the pressure on Mr. Bush and the Iraqi government to follow through on their pledges to accompany the military campaign with tangible steps toward political accords and economic reconstruction. Senate leaders would be wise to reach an agreement today allowing a similar debate. And both chambers should aggressively conduct oversight hearings aimed at holding the administration to its promise to link continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraqi performance.

First, the Post nicely elided anything Murtha said that didn't fit the smear they were peddling. In the interview, what he also said was "We want them to vote for this resolution, we want people to ... demand that their Members of Congress vote for this resolution, because it very clearly reinforces what the election said."*

But also take a second look at what the Post's editors said: "Ought." "Should." "Holding the administration to its promise." As the same editors have no doubt heard on other occasions, hope is not a plan. Perhaps realizing that they were all but making Murtha's point for him, the Post turned to its real objective -- undermining Murtha's politically savvy plan to slowly extricate ourselves from Iraq (links added):

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge."

But as anyone who actually watches Murtha's remarks will see, that's an extremely tendentious, unfair version of what Murtha actually said. "His aim, he made clear," is to protect the troops by insisting they not be thrown into a combat zone with inadequate rest and training. It's true that may happen to stop the surge as well; if so, the Post need only look to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to assign the blame for that. We're overdrawn at the military readiness bank; it's unfair and unconscionable to lay the burden for that on precisely the same soldiers every Member of Congress loved to say they "support " during that glorious debate over a non-binding resolution last week. Give me Murtha every time over empty posturing like that when he says:

We need to make sure that everybody understands: we're gonna support the troops, we're gonna give the troops everything they need. We're not going to put any of them -- make any of them vulnerable. But we're going to make darn sure that they have what they need before they go over; we're going to protect 'em and we're going to support 'em.*

We have a military that was not built for a years-long occupation of a large country much better than it was designed for a mission to Mars. If that's what we want, we'd better start anteing up to be an empire instead of just pretending to be one.

The Post continues, disingenuously:

So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Right: the Post wants an all or nothing vote on funding troops in Iraq right now. A nonbinding vote "ought to" increase the pressure on Bush, but a binding spending measure "may" be unconstitutional. A gentle admonishment to the engineer driving a train off a broken bridge "ought to" bring him to his senses, but the brakeman pulling the emergency brake "may" exceed his authority?

Surely the Post hasn't been entirely asleep for the past forty years. Congress has "micromanaged" -- that is, exercised -- its war spending authority time and again without the Constitution coming apart at the seams. Indeed, it seems like exactly what Congress is supposed to do to me (emphases added):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [...]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

But Murtha honestly supporting the troops by not throwing them into Iraq before they're rested and ready is called -- get ready for it -- "cynicism."

The editors then pretend to know Murtha is wrong in saying Iraq would be stable without American troops -- a fairly reasonable claim, if you look at the "before" and "after" pictures out of that country -- before playing "gotcha" with beside-the-point remarks about the Green Zone, bulldozing Abu Ghraib and the like.

This was one of the most infuriating Washington Post editorials I've ever read. If anyone's cornered the market in cynicism, it's these craven fools, forever hedging, hemming, and hawing about whether Bush was misleading about the war, whether and how he's mismanaged it, and about the tragic, intractable situation that has resulted in Iraq -- yet never offering any way forward other than for other people to gut it out for them. If these deans and doyennes of the District have a plan for Congress to serve the will of the people and get our troops out of Iraq, they should publish it. Until then, they should be quiet and let grownups do the work that needs to be done.


=====
* "We want them to vote for this resolution...": 2:33 minute mark; "We're going to make darn sure...": 10:33 minute mark of the MoveCongress.org video.
NOTES: Washington Post editorial -- "Not the real vote", 2/16/07; "not necessarily the case right now" -- "United States Army Military Readiness", Rep's Murtha, Obey, 9/13/06 ; "time and again" -- "Congressional Limitations and Requirements for Military Deployments and Funding," Center for American Progress, 1/9/07 ; Constitution reference -- FindLaw; "fairly reasonable claim" -- "Apocalypse Not", Robert Dreyfuss, Washington Monthly, Mar 2007: "if it was foolish to accept the best-case assumptions that led us to invade Iraq, it’s also foolish not to question the worst-case assumptions that undergird arguments for staying."
EDIT, 2/19: No reason for it to be just 'doyennes.'
UPDATE, 2/19: See "The Murtha Smear Is On" by BarbInMD at Daily Kos for a sampling of attacks on Murtha over the last week, including Brit Hume, Robert Novak, Investor's Business Daily, and many, many more. This plan of his really has them worried. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:15:00 AM -- |    

 
The higher power of "scrotum"
Newbery Medal children's book winners from Johnny Tremain to Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH to A Wrinkle in Time to The Tale of Despereaux line our bookshelves. While we haven't got to Wrinkle in Time yet, in my experience so far they're consistently excellent, challenging, well written books that broaden a child's horizons and often mine as well. This year's Newbery Medal winner is The Higher Power of Lucky, by Susan Patron; naturally, librarians and parents are clamoring to add the book to their collections. Right?

Wrong. Due to the Unfortunate Use of a Medical Term, the book is controversial rather than coveted:

The book’s heroine, a scrappy 10-year-old orphan named Lucky Trimble, hears the word through a hole in a wall when another character says he saw a rattlesnake bite his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.

“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much,” the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”

The inclusion of the word has shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from elementary schools, and reopened the debate over what constitutes acceptable content in children’s books. The controversy was first reported by Publishers Weekly, a trade magazine.

(-- "With One Word, Children’s Book Sets Off Uproar," Julie Bosman, New York Times, 2/18)

If you, your librarian, or your child are thrown for a loop by the word 'scrotum,' you're already in much worse trouble than this book will ever cause. File this one next to the "Hoohaa Monologues" story under "pass the smelling salts."


=====
PRIOR "pass the smelling salts" posts: Every week is Banned Books Week; Children don't even know what tolerance means. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:22:00 AM -- |