Blogcritics

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

President Bush and Iraq: Historic Vision or Tactically-Challenged, Oil-Drenched Folly?

Eric Berlin — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:48:32 EDT

David Brooks, a conservative columnist I've come to respect, wrote a striking piece in Wednesday's edition of The New York Times entitled, "Ends Without Means" (it's TimeSelect-available only, alas – I coughed up a buck to read the print edition). He describes spending time in close proximity to President Bush recently as a small group of (conservative-leaning, I believe) journalists got some face time with our Commander-in-Chief. "Let me just first tell you that I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions," President Bush says, and Brooks sizes up the President and declares that far from the eager-to-please politicians that he usually encounters, Bush "…is the most inner-directed man on the globe." Bush takes the long view, it seems, a strategic thinker secure in his belief that the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq will one day be hailed by historians and all free peoples as an essential chapter in the eventually victorious war campaign against terror. Unfortunately, as Brooks goes onto explain, Bush's self-confidence and personal magnetism dim when discussing the drudgery of day-to-day tactics and operations. In alluding to the fact that less than global resources have been applied toward this "global struggle," Brooks ends by stating that, "…the sad truth is, there has been a gap between Bush's visions and the means his administration has devoted to realize them. And when tactics do not adjust to fit the strategy, then the strategy gets diminished to fit the tactics." He then finishes with a final ominous two words: "Or worse." This is not a particularly new assessment, of course, merely a cogent analysis and interesting in that it comes from one of an increasingly vocal group of conservative thinkers, writers, and pundits who are now sharpening their criticism of how Iraq is being handled. What I found to be most startling was a single sentence in David Brooks' piece. Writing about Bush's explanation of his vision, Brooks states that, "He asked us to think about what the world could be like 50 years from now, with Islamic radicals either controlling the world's oil supply or not." With everything that's happened over the past three-and-a-half years, it's a bit difficult to recall the run up to the war, the cries of "No Blood For Oil!" from the left, and the sharp rebukes and calls to patriotism from the right. That the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators and that Iraqi oil would surely pay for the costs of the mercifully short war, and so on. And it's fascinating that, what with all the talk of a "freedom agenda" and democracy in the Middle East and all its wondrous benefits, that the President would circle back to speaking about access to oil, particularly from such a speculative and futuristic standpoint. Further, isn't it none too disturbing to believe (or at least to know that the President of the United States believes) to assume that we will be as dependent on foreign oil 50 years from now as we are now? That, perhaps, we are being forced to engage in a protracted and bloody and costly and destabilizing war now so that our grandchildren can freely reap the benefits of further depleting the Earth's finite resources? Could it have been a slip of the tongue, the President being museful amongst right-thinking writer types? On the same editorial page in the Times, Bob Herbert questions the character of the American people, wondering what happened to a country now ruled by fear, that invades nations based upon shifting notions and theories (Vice President Cheney, let's remember, on Meet the Press announced that he would do everything exactly the same way again if he could), and seeks to negate the rights, constitutional and otherwise, for "terror suspects." It's a good question.

Eric Berlin is the Executive Producer of Blogcritics.org and publisher of Online Media Cultist. He's also prone to referring to himself in the third person in author bios in an attempt to make it look like someone Less Important wrote it for him. Contact: dumpsterbust@gmail.com

Senator Santorum: "I don't think the focus should be on Iraq, it should be on Iran"

Eric Berlin — Tue, 5 Sep 2006 06:57:10 EDT

Sunday's edition of Meet the Press kicked off the NBC program's 2006 Senate debate series. Up to bat first were Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) and challenger Bob Casey Jr. (D). Widely considered one of the more vulnerable Republican incumbents in the upcoming November elections, Santorum's current take on the ongoing war in Iraq and other Bush administration policies are of particular interest. Bob Casey took the early initiative in the debate by declaring his lack of confidence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, an issue, which of late, sheds light on whether or not a politician is "for or against" the Bush administration's war policies in a general sense. Casey then turned to Santorum to ask him what his take is on the Defense Secretary. Santorum replied that he is doing a fine job. The senator then went on to lay out what may well become the Republican strategy this campaign season. During a lengthy response, Santorum tied the war in Iraq to the broader "war on terror," something President Bush and other Republican leaders have sought to do over the past two to three years. Interestingly though, the specter of a threat from Iran came up numerous times. Iran, it seems, is both an "enemy" and an entity to be blamed for the current state of affairs in Iraq. Iraq, merely one front in the wider war on terror according to Santorum, should be looked at within the broader scope of the struggle against the "Islamic fascists." The lynchpin of this focus-shift boils down to Santorum's declaration that "I don't think the focus should be on Iraq, it should be on Iran."This attempt to shift the focus from the ongoing sectarian violence and American casualties in Iraq to new security threats can be seen as part of a familiar Republican strategy to stress national security issues – which some might call the Fear Card – during political campaigns. The big picture political question is whether or not it will work one more time. The big picture policy questions are far more serious. Will the American public demand a change in foreign policy, particularly in terms of Iraq? Will a shift of focus to aggressively confront Iran further destabilize the Middle East? Tim Russert presented one of his famous graphical charts showing that Sen. Santorum has voted with President Bush's policies close to 100% of the time. When asked what he thinks of the job the president has done, the senator replied, "I think [President Bush] has been a terrific president, absolutely." If the polls are to be believed, it appears most people disagree. This November, voters will have the opportunity to reaffirm or reject his proxy in Pennsylvania.

Blair Backs UN Plan For New Middle East Peacekeeping Force

Eric Berlin — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:11:10 EDT

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is pushing the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and the United States – to contribute to a multinational force that would aim to bring stability to the Middle East. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, known as President George W. Bush's closest international ally in the war on terror, announced his support for Annan's plan, stating in a joint press conference the only way to bring about an end to the deepening violence between Israel, Hezbollah, and other invested parties is "…the deployment of an international force that can stop the bombardment." Meanwhile, Israeli air raids in Lebanon are continuing in an effort to convince the Lebanese government to get control of Hezbollah and its leaders, who are ordering deadly rocket attacks of their own into Israeli territory. The UN proposal comes at a significant and delicate juncture in U.S. foreign relations. With its military largely committed to quelling the continuing violence and attempts at nation building in Iraq, and threats coming in some form from all three "Axis of Evil" states (Iraq, Iran, North Korea), the United States has thus far been subdued in its reaction beyond general statements that Israel has the right to defend itself from attack. It is clear whatever strategy President Bush eventually develops, it will not quite be in line with the administration's aggressive post-9/11 policy of preemption, a shift documented in the already famous Time piece, "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." On Sunday's edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware stated his belief the United States has no plan for the Middle East. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich grimly announced during the same segment that the world is now seeing the opening stages of World War III. It seems likely the debate in the United States is likely to shift from when to get out of Iraq to how to grapple with the larger question of an increasingly violent and unstable Middle East. The answer must lie in international cooperation led by the United States. Moderate forces must be bolstered and supported whenever and however possible. This goal, perhaps, may eventually trump the overarching mantra of spreading democracy.

President Bush "In The Process Of Solving" Global Warming

Eric Berlin — Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:16:35 EDT

In a fluffy interview in People magazine, President Bush was asked an assortment of questions about turning 60 and getting older. The president talked about his new obsession with mountain biking, life with Laura with the kids off to college, and the kinds of boring birthday gifts (bland ties, dreary sweaters) that birthday dads the world round must by definition endure. When the topic turned to politics, things got more interesting. A well phrased, nearly screwball question ("Do you think Gore is right on global warming?") elicited a perhaps illuminating answer. "I think we have a problem on global warming," the president began. This in itself underscores how much the debate on global warming and environmentalism has shifted in the United States. Until recently, it was very easy for public leaders to at least give a nod and wink to Rush Limbaugh's and other conservative pundits' open criticism of the environmental movement, with their cries of "hysterics" and "pseudo-science." Those who cared about the environment could be easily ignored. And those who advocated policy change were passed off as tree-huggers or worse, and were branded as being against progress and the American Way. In 2001, President Bush chose to walk away from the Kyoto Treaty, which mandates that industrialized nations cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, which scientists believe are a leading factor in causing global warming. Now the president believes that there is a problem, and that there is a "debate." Bush went on to tell People, "I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate." But that's not all. President Bush is, in his own words, in the process of solving that debate. "It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline."Beyond the president's new interest in environmental policy and regardless of his policy alternatives, there are several clear ironies here. Al Gore is now being widely credited for raising the specter of global warming in the public eye, thanks to his documentary and book, both called An Inconvenient Truth. A longtime and passionate environmentalist, Gore was criticized during the 2000 presidential campaign for stifling his views on the environment out of fear that it would alienate swing voters. It is possible, of course, that a handful of disaffected environmentalists in Florida may have changed the course of modern American history by voting for Ralph Nader and therefore swinging the election to the current president. Another favorite criticism and caricature of Mr. Gore is that he is wooden and pompous. The latter assessment is based in part on his sometimes professorial speaking style and in part on the mischaracterization that he claimed to have "invented the Internet." Six years into his presidency, isn't it ironic that George W. Bush now claims to be solving the global warming debate?

U.S. Accused of "Habitually" Attacking Iraqi Civilians

Eric Berlin — Fri, 2 Jun 2006 15:22:44 EDT

What's breaking? The Iraqi Prime Minister has accused the U.S. military of "habitually" attacking its civilians. What's the significance? In the wake of more than three years of occupation, the sinking and sliding toward civil war between Iraq's Shia and Sunni sects, and the outrage over prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the recent revelation of civilian deaths in the city of Haditha encourage dark memories of Vietnam in the minds of Americans, and potentially violent resentment in the hearts of Iraqis. The New York Times reports: In his comments, [Prime Minister] Maliki said violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people." "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said. "This is completely unacceptable." Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added. There are already dark undertones that this will not be pawned off as an isolated incident, separate from the chain-of-command, as Abu Ghraib was. The Nation starkly states:Enough details have emerged from survivors and military personnel to conclude that in the town of Haditha last November, members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre. The killings may have been in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal, but this was not the work of soldiers gone berserk. The targets (children from 3 to 14, an old man in a wheelchair, taxi passengers), the hours-long duration of killings, the number of Marines involved, the careful mop-up--all amount to willful, targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis.What happens next A lot is going to happen in both the U.S. and Iraq over this one. The "best case" in terms of the Bush administration is that yet another scandal will glaze over the eyes of the public and will slog along its investigative and procedural path, while in Iraq the new and fragile government will use this grim opportunity to coalesce and lead its people away from the precipice of anarchy and bloodshed. Andrew Sullivan sees Maliki's statement as more Machiavellian than heartfelt: It seems to me that Maliki believes he has more to gain by attacking the Americans than by defending or ignoring them. Why? Maybe because if a national Iraqi leader emerges who can express frustration at American soldiers, he can leverage that and build the popular support to face down local militias or even recalcitrant factions in the new parliament. It's just a theory.Sullivan may well be right, but does this seem to anyone to be the kind of incident for which the U.S. military or government should be defended? Meanwhile This year, dubbed a "year of transition" by a Congress hopeful to bring a significant number of troops home by the end of 2006, is rather looking more like another year of occupation. The Times piece goes on to report: "This week American forces ordered 1,500 troops from Kuwait into Anbar Province, a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency, in the latest sign that insurgents and terrorist groups including those led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi control much of the sprawling desert region." Upshot There has already been a significant amount of chatter as to whether Haditha will finally mark the end of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's tenure. But does it really matter at this point? And: U.S. troops in Iraq are now to be trained in the art of ethics. Will this be viewed as yet another case of poor planning for occupation of foreign soil? And: Cenk Uygur over at The Huffington Post asks a question that has been floating around since the Mission Accomplished days: "So, Mr. CEO Decider President, I have one simple question for you: What happens if the people and the government of Iraq ask us to leave?"And and: Bomb blasts in Baghdad killed seven and wounded more than 50 today.

Al Gore and MySpace: Ahead of the Curve Once Again

Eric Berlin — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:12:28 EDT

What's breaking? Al Gore is back, kids!What? That is, so what? With the release of the new and widely praised documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, the media seems to have rediscovered former Vice President and 2000 popular vote victor Al Gore. Al Gore is back, and now he's imbued with the zest, the headlines seem to imply. Or some such. But it was the closing line of a recent Howard Fineman piece that I found most striking. Political strategist-turned-celebrity James Carville related the following to Fineman:"The reason people don't like Gore is that he has been right so damn many times." The briefest recent history of Al Gore ever Al Gore took a lot of ribbing during the '90s. Much of it is par for the course for any vice president. We laughed at Dan Quayle because we believed him to be scary not-smart and we laugh at Dick Cheney today because, well, we're mostly just scared. Gore took his shots with some good reason. There was the notion that he claimed to have "invented the Internet." This is silly, of course. But the truth is that Gore has been ahead of the curve many times. His passion, intelligence, and foresight had him out front on environmental issues (who's laughing about the environment now? Perhaps a couple of Rush Limbaugh's poker buddies, but that's about it), the incredible transformative power of technology, and he was an early and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. Enter MySpace Gore is now using MySpace - which, if nothing else, symbolizes the revolutionary power of online social networking - to create a digital buzz for "An Inconvenient Truth," a film that soberly and earnestly lays out the impact of climate change. "MySpace has a unique ability to mobilize its community around an urgent cause," says Mr. Gore. I've long thought that there will be a "Howard Dean of 2008" candidate, a person who harnesses the power of technology and the Internet to outmaneuver and outthink more flat-footed and traditionally-minded opponents. Dean was ahead of the curve in the early days of the 2004 presidential season because he understood that the Internet was an easy, cheap, and effective way to gather people, raise funds, communicate, and perhaps more than anything, provide an egalitarian platform in which "regular people" can express their voice and feel part of something larger. What's it all mean then, eh? Al Gore, mostly forgotten through the first five years of George W. Bush's presidency, may well emerge as a formidable 2008 contender. The media, at the least, is fully enamored with the "non-politician" Gore, the prognosticator Gore, the non-focus grouped and poll-driven Gore. Gore's "emergence" comes at an interesting and pivotal moment for the Democratic Party. There is hope that the Dems can retake the House for the first time since 1994. People are also seriously scrutinizing the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, before she is simply ceded the presidential nomination. A front page New York Times piece that looks deeply into Bill and Hillary's private life seems to imply the question: Is America really ready for four more years of these two? But there are also much larger policy issues at stake. Clinton's position on the war can potentially place her in similar sticky territory as Sen. John Kerry's "voted before it before I voted against it" murk-atude. Clinton is also a sitting Senator from Northeastern and "liberal" New York, which may not sit well with a country now accustomed to electing Southern executives to the White House. Upshot If he were to jump into the '08 presidential race, Al Gore plus MySpace makes perfect sense. Perhaps this is an inconvenient truth that Hillary Clinton and other "invisible primary" players should well take note of.

What's Breaking: The GOP Is In Trouble

Eric Berlin — Mon, 22 May 2006 06:41:11 EDT

What's breaking? The GOP is in trouble. Is it though? It's certainly the prevailing storyline these days, as poll numbers for President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress trend down down down on war weariness, scandal weariness, and perhaps more than anything: general Washington-as-usual dog tiredness (some are posing this as "conservative fatigue"). You can't help thinking, perhaps, that the media has positioned its audience for a GOP-comeback storyline as the sprint to the 2006 midterm elections begins. Or, more likely, this is what Karl Rove and Co. is hoping for, planning for, and even now actively planning to make so. What's up? It was once thought that President Bush had a rock-solid base of support, an uncrackable legion of Bushies who would march with him through the neoconservative marshes into the fiery crack of Mt. Terrorism itself (or some such). That's now been debunked, of course, as it is now conservatives who are joining liberals, moderates, and independents in turning against this administration. As Richard A. Viguerie's "Fury on the Right" column in The Washington Post relates: Sixty-five months into Bush's presidency, conservatives feel betrayed. After the "Bridge to Nowhere" transportation bill, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and the Dubai Ports World deal, the immigration crisis was the tipping point for us. Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found last week that Republican disapproval of Bush's presidency had increased from 16 percent to 30 percent in one month. It is largely the defection of conservatives that is driving the president's poll numbers to new lows.Why it matters A great deal hinges on the outcome of the '06 elections. If the Democrats can take back either house of Congress (conventional wisdom gives the Dems with their best shot at the House since 1994), it will very likely lead to embarrassing and potentially painful investigations into pre-war intelligence, WMDs, domestic wiretapping, and other as yet unseen nooks and/or crannies of the kitchen sink. More than anything, it will set the stage for 2008, a wide open presidential election year that could see such wide ranging figures as John McCain, Rudolf Giuliani, and George Allan on the right and Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and Mark Warner on the left looking to lay claim to a markedly different political era. It should not be discounted that 2006 is the last chance for angry liberals and the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd from 2004 to "get back" at Bush. It remains to be seen if the now dispirited conservative base can rile itself up with its normal quotient of social issues - abortion and gay marriage being the most popular these days - to make up the difference. Why all the gloom-and-doom? On the strength of the economy, people should be more sunshiny, or so says Michael Barone (and the whole of the GOP communications team). Underlying factors are clouding the overall rosy economic message. Gas prices, outsourcing, health care costs, and other factors are turning most people off to the administration's rhetoric, from the "ownership society" on down to social security reform. The big picture Unfortunately for the president and for the rest of us, the political world is being largely driven by the real one:Appearing with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly turned aside questions on whether any American troops will likely be withdrawn from Iraq this year.Upshot A consistent criticism of the Bush administration is that it is long on politics and short on governing. The final test of that statement and of the Republican majority's staying power is now in the offing:Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.