As we mentioned earlier today, the New York Times has thrown its support to Ned Lamont in an editorial appearing in Sunday's paper. The editorial board, which has long favored Joe Lieberman, pulled no punches as it withdrew its support, calling Lieberman's well-known accommodations of the Bush Administration a "warped version of bipartisanship."
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
The significance of newspaper editorials is vastly overrated. But in withdrawing its longtime support of Lieberman and backing Lamont, a virtual unknown until just a few weeks ago, The Times has given Lamont all of the boost that an editorial can deliver. It validates a challenge that until very recently many observers considered more notable for Lamont's national support from liberal blogs than for the possibility that the incumbent might actually be unseated in his own party's primary.
There must be at least a few people close to Lieberman who are wondering tonight whether he ought to step aside in favor of Lamont, rather than end his political career with a humiliating defeat.
--David Kurtz
Is it unspeakable?
You probably know that Mel Gibson was picked up last night on a DUI arrest outside LA.
Earlier today a number of readers sent me this story at TMZ.com which alleges that Gibson resisted arrest and among other things went on tirade against Jews. From the site ...
Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, "You mother f****r. I'm going to f*** you." The report also says "Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he 'owns Malibu' and will spend all of his money to 'get even' with me."The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"
Now, I wasn't familiar with this site. So I didn't know what to make of it. What the site alleges is that the arresting officer wrote up a detailed report from which the alleged quotes above come. But the police brass thought its contents were too inflammatory. And a sanitized version of the police report was then prepared. The site published what it claims is the original suppressed report here.
Now, as I said above, I'm not familiar with the site. But this evening TPM Reader EG sent in this AP story reporting that Gibson's publicist has now released a statement in which Gibson says, inter alios, "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable."
What the AP doesn't give any clue about is what these "despicable" statements might have been.
And you have to ask, why? Given what we know now, and now Gibson's cryptic apology, it really sounds like the TMZ story is probably on the mark. So why won't the AP touch that part of the story? CNN doesn't mention it either. People do say all sort of things when they're crazy drunk. But with Gibson, there's a history.
--Josh Marshall
Mission accomplished?
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared victory on Saturday after Israel announced it was withdrawing its forces from the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbail where Israeli troops found unexpected difficulty in dislodging the guerrilla group from its strongholds.Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev defended the decision to pull troops from Bint Jbeil, saying Israel had never intended to occupy the town, but Nasrallah's quick declaration of victory underscored the propaganda gains Hezbollah is reaping across the Muslim world as it battles Israel to a stalemate.
The last time I recall the U.S. seeming this ineffectual was following Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Tehran in 1980.
--David Kurtz
For those MZM-oholics among you, here's video of the grand opening of the MZM facility in Martinsville, Va., less than two years ago, complete with remarks from Richard Berglund, Rep. Virgil Goode, and Mitchell Wade himself. Oh, the heady days of ribbon-cuttings and campaign contributions. The MZM facility shuts its doors for good on Monday.
--David Kurtz
In a sign of election year desperation, the GOP House early today passed a $2.10 increase (over three years) in the minimum wage. But not to be completely outdone, they tacked on an estate tax cut to the same bill, along with some other tax reduction goodies.
As Kevin Drum noted, dryly: "Clearly, the Republican Party is the party of common sense. After all, if you give a few hundred dollars a month to the poorest of the working poor, it's only fair that you also give several million dollars to the richest of the idle rich."
“You have seen us outfox you on this issue tonight,” crowed Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) to Democrats on the House floor.
Those clever House Republicans. What will they think of next?
--David Kurtz
NYT endorses Ned Lamont . . .
More at TPMCafe's Election Central.
And here's how The Times first dropped the bombshell, in a straight news piece on the Lamont-Lieberman race:
[The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.]More to come . . .
--David Kurtz
After my post last Saturday trumpeting Floyd Landis' amazing performance in the Tour de France, I can't exactly ignore his failed drug test this week, as much as I'd like to ignore the test, the Tour, and the entire sport from this point forward.
There are those, including Landis himself, warning against a rush to judgment. Fine. We'll wait and see, though Landis himself expects his B sample to show the same elevated ratio of testosterone, at which point he will be stripped of his win in the Tour. As I understand it, the definitive test will be an analysis of whether the testosterone in his system was natural or synthetic, a test which may not be completed for some time.
Yeah, that's what I love about the Tour: alpine vistas, fields of lavender, and carbon isotope ratios.
I think I'll dull my pain with something French and authentic, like a bottle of Pernod.
--David Kurtz
I try to ignore these things. But yesterday Glenn Reynolds falsely claimed I said something I simply never did. And since what he claimed I did was call for the mass and indiscriminate killing of civilians at the outset of the Iraq War, it was more than the average lapse. In fact, unless Glenn simply never read what I actually wrote, I think there is no explanation for this other than that Glenn is being willfully dishonest and quite consciously lying. I don't even want to discuss this more since it's so dark and shameful. But here is the March 2003 column Glenn refers to. And here are two posts at other sites -- one short and another in the context of a broader argument -- which explain the nature of Glenn's false claim and dishonest intent.
--Josh Marshall
Former CIA hand Ray Close, via Larry Johnson:
My source confirmed in detail the fact that intelligence being produced for the Bush Administration by the Pentagon strongly supports the thesis that Hizballah operations are directly controlled and closely managed from Teheran. My source considers this an exaggerated picture of the real situation. He believes that this assessment contributes to an unhealthy and even dangerous mindset in Washington, leading to potentially serious miscalculations and errors of judgment by President Bush and his closest advisors at this very critical time.
--David Kurtz
Reuters: "Israel will not demand the immediate disarming of Hizbollah as part of a deal to end the current fighting in Lebanon, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official said on Saturday."
--David Kurtz
Time for some context on the current turmoil in and around Israel. This passage from Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty has special resonance given current events. The scene is the White House Situation Room in January 2001, where Bush is meeting for the first time with his National Security Council, 10 days after taking the oath of office. Bush has just asked who in the room has met Ariel Sharon:
He'd met Sharon briefly, Bush said, when they had flown over Israel in a helicopter on a visit in December 1998. "Just saw him that one time. We flew over the Palestinian camps," Bush said sourly. "Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation."And that was it, according to [Paul] O'Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.
[Colin] Powell said such a move might be hasty. He remarked on the violence on the West Bank and Gaza and on its roots. He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and Israeli army. "The consequences of that could be dire," he said, "especially for the Palestinians."
Bush shrugged. "Maybe that's the best way to get some things back in balance."
Powell seemed startled.
"Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things," Bush said.
With that, the rest of the meeting was devoted to Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Hezbollah agrees to proposed peace plan?
The Lebanese cease-fire plan, reached at a meeting on Friday night, calls for an immediate cease-fire, the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and the return of two Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah.The plan also calls for the return of displaced Lebanese to their homes, negotiations between Israel and Lebanon concerning the disputed Sheeba farms now under Israeli control, the disclosure of maps showing Israeli minefields near the Lebanese border, the deployment and strengthening of the Lebanese army and the expansion of the U.N. force in the south.
While Hezbollah agreed to a cease-fire with Israel and an increased international presence in southern Lebanon, the group objected to "a robust force" of international peacekeepers in the region, the sources said.
Hezbollah did not specifically agree to disarm, as Israel has demanded, the sources said. The plan does, however, call for the Lebanese military to take control of southern Lebanon, along with the U.N. force, which implies that the Hezbollah militia would not operate there.
It also calls for the implementation of the Taef accords -- which ended the Lebanese civil war in 1990 -- which includes the disarming of all militias, the sources said.
Hezbollah representatives told the cabinet it had reservations about the nature of an expanded international presence in the south, the source said.
Hezbollah wants only an expansion of the current UNIFIL mission with the same mandate.
They don't want a "robust force," the source said.
"The force must be more robust, otherwise there's no sense in it," one of the high-ranking Lebanese officials told CNN.
The question of what to do about the two Israeli soldiers being held by Hezbollah was not discussed at the cabinet meeting, the sources said.
The proposal, developed by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, is the official position of the Lebanese government and is intended to be presented to Rice on her arrival in the region.
Rice told reporters on her plane early Saturday that she has only read news reports about the proposal but it appeared to have "some very good elements." She called it a "positive step."
Developing . . .
--David Kurtz
Jack Abramoff's old firm, Greenberg Traurig, is reportedly "deep into settlement talks" with the Alabama-Coushatta, one of the Indian tribes Abramoff bilked. The Alabama-Coushatta did not name Greenberg Traurig as a defendant in a civil RICO lawsuit it filed earlier this month in Texas against Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and others, but that could change if a settlement isn't worked out.
The lawsuit also provides fresh evidence of a closer connection between Greenberg Traurig and Michael Scanlon than the law firm has ever acknowledged. Scanlon was Abramoff's close partner in many widely criticized lobbying practices. He pleaded guilty last year to bribing a congressman.Greenberg has always maintained that Scanlon, who ran a Washington-based public relations company called Capital Strategies, was not a Greenberg employee. But, according to the suit, internal Greenberg e-mails showed that Scanlon "billed hours to tribal clients through Greenberg and that members of the law firm, including attorneys Kevin Ring, Shawn Vasell, Stephanie Leger, Todd Boulanger and others, fabricated hours and time entries for Scanlon."
I would imagine that no law firm accused of civil racketeering wants to take the case all the way to trial, regardless of the merits.
--David Kurtz
Headline of the Day: 'Stenholm lobbying for horse-meat industry'
I didn't even know there was a horse-meat industry. All you horse-meat lovers can eat well this weekend 'cause Charlie Stenholm's got your back.
--David Kurtz
McClatchy's Strobel:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush say they're not pressing for a quick cease-fire in Lebanon because they want a lasting peace instead.However, the administration's fundamental assumptions - that it's impossible to get both a quick end to the killings and a durable peace, and that a cease-fire would be a step away from real peace rather than toward it - are open to question.
The logic, such as it is, employed by Bush and Condi is that since cease-fires have been broken in the past, it is the cease-fires themselves that are the impediment to peace. No cease-fires ergo no broken cease-fires. It's sort of like saying that red lights are the reason drivers run red lights. Remove the traffic lights and, presto, drivers aren't running red lights anymore. Just ignore the carnage at intersections.
--David Kurtz
Man walks into Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building, announces "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," then opens fire.
1 dead. At least 5 wounded.
Late Update: The emails we get. This one from GS: "Yes Josh. And in 1994 Barush Goldstein assassinated 27 innocent people while they were praying. Were you making a point or helping to keep score? You disappoint me."
Later Update: The AP is now reportedly disputing the quote. I'll update when I hear more.
Even Later Update: AP now saying the quote is verified.
Late, Late Update: Police news conference to be streamed here at 11 PM Eastern.
--Josh Marshall
Haaretz: "Israel finds itself in an odd position - hesitating in Lebanon as the U.S. pushes for more."
--Josh Marshall
From Haaretz ...
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, underwent a series of tests at a Tel Aviv hospital on Friday after complaining of abdominal pain.The IDF chief was later declared healthy and allowed to go home, the army said.
An IDF spokesman said Halutz had been taken to hospital with stomach pains and had undergone tests. He was released later on Friday after doctors found nothing wrong with him.
"There is nothing wrong with his health," the spokesman said earlier.
TV reports said the 58-year-old Halutz, who has been leading Israel's 17-day war against Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, was also complaining of exhaustion.
Officials at Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital said he was sent home after several hours with a recommdentation that he rest and eat properly. The military said Halutz was given a clean bill of health.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader AS on the unfolding disaster ...
Via Kevin Drum, I read Mona Charon's recent post about dual loyalties and Jewish Americans. Now I have a ton of Israeli colleagues, and I've talked about this a bit with them. Almost all of them believe that the past six years were a huge missed opportunity, in that Hizbullah's build-up in Lebanon was unchecked.Oddly enough, only a few seem to share my view that this traces back (at least in part) to Bush's stupid move in dropping Clinton's peace moves. The military option Israel is exerising now is driven by frustration, not any real plan for victory. Leadership by the US over the past six years might have done much to limit Hezbollah's strength there, and avoided the current crisis--or at least, made the current crisis one that the Lebanese could have managed themselves.
Some of my Jewish American friends express this, but not all. And I've yet to read any American journalist (bloggers included) clearly express this point: that anybody with Israel's long-term well-being at heart really sees the current US administration as an unmitigated disaster. They won't achieve the lasting peace that Israel needs, in fact they will probably end up undoing the past couple of decades of prosperity in Israel.
Whether or not Bill Clinton's specific proposals were the best idea or not, they led to genuine dialogue. Whether Arafat was sincere or not, he was still talking, and others in the region were participating. Bush, having been let into the China shop, is now doing what he does best.
I'm looking forward to your hearing your views on this.
It actually goes way beyond the incoming administration's decision to ignore the Israel-Palestine track from the get-go, though that has played a very big part in this unfolding disaster. The Bush administration has always seen the situation in Israel-Palestine as essentially a side issue in the larger context of the Middle East, one to be solved through overthrowing regimes either in Baghdad or Damascus. The Israelis and the Palestinians themselves had already done quite a lot to make a mess of things by January 2001. But by comparison with today things six years ago seem almost idyllic.
The thinking of the Bush administration was that the Clinton folks had put tons of time into the Peace Process and what had it gotten them? Just a big headache and no achievements, either political or substantive.
But what I think you learn when you watch the region over time is that things can always get worse. And quite a lot of effort is often required to keep things on the barely tolerable level of miserable without slipping into the truly horrible. To prevent going from one to the other is a job of international management that really a greater power alone can accomplish. Us. Us with the Europeans. Probably also the Russians and even the Chinese. Easy? No. Do these different countries have different agendas, not all of them wholesome? Sure. But that's life. Or rather, that's running the world.
Is this crisis the Bush administration's doing? No, it has deep roots that go well beyond it. Would things have gotten quite this bad if the administration hadn't basically ignored these problems for six years and simultaneously blown up the Fertile Crescent? No way.
This is the Bush administration's apocalypse. We are, to borrow the phrase, just living in it. But then, that's quite bad enough, isn't it?
--Josh Marshall
Behold our Middle East policy!
This is President Bush's answer to David Gregory's question today at the news conference, which I referenced earlier.
Let me make an additional point about this answer. We know the president isn't very articulate in news conference settings. But national leaders don't have to be articulate to be good leaders. In fact there have been a number very good ones who could scarcely speak coherently for thirty seconds.
But if you watch this passage I think you see something different. Namely, that pretty much everything that's happened over the last three years, and certainly over the last three months has just gone in one presidential ear and out the other. He is, in both the deepest and most superficial sense, out of it.
--Josh Marshall
Fascinating. From Ha'aretz: an interview with a broadcaster for an independent Arabic language news cable channel in Israel.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary's senate opponent John Spencer says she must endorse John Bolton to prove her loyalty to Israel. Bolton must be quite a goy! I didn't even know he had one of our decoder rings.
--Josh Marshall
Here's a transcript of that brain dead answer by Bush at today's press conference alluded to earlier.
--Paul Kiel
Blogger's point of privilege: From our Manhattan readers, can we get recommendations for economical but reliable business broadband service?
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: President Bush Really Big Doofus
Yes, I grant you, this may have been reported in other outlets before. But we're here listening to the Bush-Blair press conference. And a few minutes ago a reporter (I think David Gregory, but will check on that) asked the president in so many words: You said Iraq was going to bring about new Middle East but now the Middle East is a complete disaster.
Certainly, this would be a challenging question on more levels than one. But the president's answer, quite a lengthy one actually, showed in a really frightening detail how President Bush seems to be basically brain dead on this issue. We'll try to get a copy of it up on line. You really have to hear it to believe it.
Late Update: Here's the transcript of the exchange in question.
--Josh Marshall
More Social Security bamboozlement from Washington senate candidate Mike McGavick. He actually manages to flip-flop within the same statement.
This is from his statement on privatization/phase out in the Seattle Times today ...
McGavick says benefits must be guaranteed for current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement. He does not support privatization or a phasing-out of Social Security. But confidence in the system is broken. He would give younger workers the option of placing their benefits in voluntary personal accounts controlled by the federal government. This would help restore confidence in the system and ensure its solvency.
So he doesn't support privatization, only he does support it. Is this nuance?
--Josh Marshall
The Washington Post's front page today: House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) and his lobbyist pal -- who just happens to employ Davis' wife.
--Paul Kiel
So Howard Dean is catching flak for comparing Katherine Harris to Joseph Stalin. (Actually did you know that TPM is related to Stalin by marriage? Little known fact. Actually not even sure if it's true. But it seemed to be from what I could tell. I'll look into it again.) But somehow Harris, Stalin, I just don't see it. Not that she hasn't been involved in undermining democracy and perhaps, by elevating George W. Bush to the presidency, in some way indirectly responsible for casting the entire Middle East into the hell pot of oblivion. But somehow, Stalin, I just don't see it. Maybe it's the pockmarks.
But that doesn't mean she might not have an analogue in other villains from the past. Just off the top of my head Felix Dzerzhinsky comes to mind. He was founder of the NKVD, forerunner of the KGB. He was known as something of a dandy. So I can see some crossover and affinity there with Harris.
But you tell me. If not Stalin, which historical villain seems a more logical historical soulmate to Katherine Harris?
--Josh Marshall
DNC chairman Howard Dean pushed for apology over "Stalin" comment. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Days before he was killed by Israeli bomb strikes, Canadian UN peacekeeper told former commander that Hizbullah was using the UN base as a shield.
--Josh Marshall
An article in Ha'aretz questions whether Israel's civilian leadership are too captive to the country's defense establishment.
--Josh Marshall
Jersusalem Post: Israeli cabinet rejects IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz's recommendation to widen ground operations in southern Lebanon, approves call up of three reserve batallions.
More analysis from Ha'aretz of what went on in the Israeli cabinet meeting.
--Josh Marshall
New poll shows Hank Johnson leading Rep. Cynthia McKinney by 46% to 21% in the August 8th run-off for the Democratic nomination in Georgia's 4th district.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader LJ for the heads up.)
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I know there are plenty of other things in the world of far more concern than this. But we've gotten a bunch of emails asking, 'So what happened to your car? What's the latest?' If you're more interested in the usual fare (which I can certainly understand), just skip down the post below.
Now, as was pretty obvious from the moment the garage manager called us Tuesday morning and told us someone had taken our car, the thing is clearly long gone. After that, the folks from Central Parking started making accusations blaming the whole thing on us, then saying our car wasn't nice enough to steal and other bizarre behavior before finally admitting that it had been stolen and that they had apparently left the key in the car, which presumably made it rather easy to steal.
(For a point of reference, this is a big company, which may be why they act this way, I guess. I think they probably run like half the parking garages in New York City and their website says they're the "leading provider of parking and transportation-related services throughout North America, South America and Europe.")
Anyway, finally, the higher ups got back to us after we kept complaining. But despite some initial conciliatory words we found the same pattern of weirdly aggressive behavior toward customers that seems to run through the whole company. My wife and I were just talking to the company representative, Neal Sanderson, today who told us what the company thought it was reasonable for them to pay us. I pointed out that their offer didn't seem quite equitable since it would only buy us like a third of the car we had. And, remember, this was the car that's so lame that no one would want to steal it anyway.
Then the Monty Python portion of the conversation got underway.
Now in a graver voice, the Central Parking guy, Sanderson, said, "Well, we have evidence the car was not in mint condition. In fact, we have documentation that it had several scratches on the side ..." At this point, as a uncontrolled chuckle started to sneak out of my throat I hear my dear pregnant wife saying, "Don't even ..."
A little backstory is in order. A few months ago, one of the garage employees ground another car against ours leaving a deep scratch and some miscellaneous nicks on the drivers' side of the car. They gave us a claim ticket to get it fixed and they'd reimburse us, etc. We'd gotten the estimate. Hadn't had the work done yet. But the 'documentation' was the report of Central Parking damaging the car.
So at this juncture in the conversation I point out that this seems hard to figure how they should pay us less to replace our car, which they got stolen, because it had lost value when they banged into it.
After all, if we wanted the thing crashed into and stolen we could have saved a lot of money just parking it on the street, right? (Has anyone else had this kind of experience with this company?)
Anyway, it went from bad to worse from there.
We'll keep you posted.
--Josh Marshall
Let me tell you about a new site we've launched to cover the 2006 election campaign, TPM's Election Central.
It's hosted over at TPMCafe.
Our goal is provide running news, updates and commentary on every competitive race in the country -- and even some that aren't so competitive perhaps, but still worthy of attention. Below the first post, you'll see our poll tracker, with every campaign 2006 poll released in the previous 48 hours.
The site is edited by Greg Sargent (who you probably know from New York Magazine, the American Prospect, his Horse's Mouth blog and other publications) and written by Greg, our TPM staff and our crack team of TPM interns.
Our goal is to have some new development, nugget or scoop from the campaign trail every time you return.
To make it every thing we want to make it, we need your help. If you know of a poll that just broke that we don't have, send us an email. And tell us what's going on in your district and state. We troll Google and follow all the politics sheets. But what makes us able to drill down and find stories that more conventional news outlets either can't or won't is your email, your tips and updates.
You read the papers and see the television coverage of the races in your area, go to the townhalls, get the flyers. So you're going to know first when the revealing statement gets made, when the key development happens. None of our coverage on Social Security last year would have been possible without readers keeping us posted on how the story was developing at the district level. So we're asking for your help again.
If you've got a tip or an update or just want to let us know about an angle we're missing, shoot us an email at our regular comment email address up there at the upper right hand corner with the subject line "Election Central". We'd love it if you'd be part of our project.
Thanks and let us know how we're doing.
--Josh Marshall
Good article by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek on the dangers and foolishness of conflating al Qaida with Hizbullah and Hamas, and more generally how President Bush doesn't understand who he's fighting against.
--Josh Marshall
Earmark barons grumble privately about the snooping of Copley muckraker Jerry Kammer.
--Josh Marshall
The proprietor of a liberal blog on the possibility I may not agree with Juan Cole on what's going on in Lebanon: "For many of us who are not Jewish, you lose us right there. For good. Very transparent. Poof. You - as a commentator - simply cannot post critical comments about Israel and continue normal social relations with your Jewish community. Ergo, you flip."
--Josh Marshall
Will Lieberman take over for Rummy? And was that the source of the problems in the first place?
Juliette Kayyem thinks it's a possibility.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Katherine "Pink Sugar" Harris gets compared to Josef Stalin. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Israeli Minister for Public Security, Avi Dichter, on how Israel is fighting the war. From the Times ...
Avi Dichter, the Israeli minister for public security and until recently the director of the Shin Bet counterterrorism service, said: "I don't think we were surprised by Hezbollah. If there are surprises, they're local surprises, not strategic surprises."By that, he meant the depth and quality of Hezbollah underground bunkers and storehouses, Israeli officials said. Dichter said Israel's deliberate pace was an effort to minimize casualties, both to Israeli forces and to Lebanese civilians.
"You can do it in a short time," he said. "You can flood southern Lebanon with ground troops and you can bomb villages without warning anyone and it will be faster. But you'll kill a lot more innocent people and suffer a lot more casualties, and we don't intend to do either."
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader LS on Israel's war on Hizbullah ...
I find Juan Cole's remarks interesting, and I have some really sympathy with the indignation of Israel's targeting civilians. Here's the thing, though. I have yet to see anywhere on line an honest attempt to wrestle with the conundrum Israel faces. Hizbollah operates within civilian neighborhoods, and does things like house its weapons in apartment buildings (where people actually live). What are the military options for dealing with an enemy that positions itself in this way? It seems that a conventional state based armed force is damned if it attacks these weapons caches in that it will undoubtedly visit a huge civilian collateral damage on non-combatant civilians. It is also damned if it does nothing, allowing weapons caches to be built up and used against the state. I would be really interested to hear what military experts and the ethicists who teach, say, at West Point, are saying about this sort of dilemma of military situation. What are the rules of war in this post-Grotius, post-Clausewicz era? What should the rules of war be in this scenario? Is it even possible to devise rules of war and engagement in this circumstance? Breczinski's remarks posted by Steve Clemons suggest thinking about this as a hostage taking situation: Hizbollah is holding civilians hostage by their weapons caches. Are there other analogies out there?
--Josh Marshall
Juan Cole's view on twowars in Lebanon ...
Israel's present policy toward Lebanon, of striking at so many civilian targets as to hold the entire civilian population hostage, is unspeakable.I haven't complained about the Israeli border war with Hizbullah. I'm not sure it is wise, and I don't know how many Israelis Hizbullah even killed in, say, the year 2005. Is it really worth it? But I don't deny that Hizbullah went too far when it shelled dozens of civilian towns and cities and killed over a dozen innocent civilians, even in reprisal for the Israeli bombing campaign. (You can't target civilians. That is a prosecutable crime.) That is a clear casus belli, and I'd like to see Nasrallah tried at the Hague for all those civilian deaths he ordered. The fighting at Maroun al-Ra's and Bint Jbeil was horrible on all sides, but it was understandable, even justifiable. The fighting itself isn't going to lead anywwhere useful, though, and it is time for a ceasefire and political negotiations--the only way to actually settle such disputes.
What was done to Lebanon as a whole is among the most horrible war crimes of the young 21st century. And that it was done tells me that there is something sick in the heart of the Israeli military and political elite, a sickness of the soul that had better be faced and remedied before our entire world catches the contagion.
This is a snippet out of a much longer post. So read the whole thing. I clipped out this portion to capture the distinction Cole's drawing between the fighting near Lebanon's southern border with Israel and the bombing campaign across the breadth of Lebanon.
Late Update: This has come up in response to various items I've reprinted in recent days. So just to restate what most of you probably know, just because I reprint something here does not mean I agree with it. If I do or don't, I'll say so.
--Josh Marshall
Israeli cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss expanding ground operations in south Lebanon.
--Josh Marshall
First Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele got knocked around for his Bush 'Scarlet letter' interview. Now he gets caught red-handed fibbing about the interview itself.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, the New York Times EmpireZone
blog followed up with New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean to ask for clarification of his Social Security bamboozle. And well, seems there's still some hedging. You be the judge ....
We note, however, that there has been has been a terminological dispute in political circles over what, exactly, the word “privatization” means. Some Republican pols, when pressed, have said they support some version of private accounts but oppose “privatization.” To clear things up, we put in a call to Kean campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker, and asked her to unpack her candidate’s thinking for us. Does Mr. Kean, we asked, favor a change to Social Security that would allow individuals to carve out part of their existing payroll tax payments into individual investment accounts?Mr. Hazelbaker’s prompt reply: “Kean studied the various plans that would privatize social security, decided that it was the wrong way to go, and does not support any measure that privatizes Social Security. So, the answer to your question is no.”
So, we continued, Mr. Kean opposes carve-out accounts by any name?
“No matter what you call it he opposes it,” she replied.
No matter what you call it, he opposes it?
But what is the it they're calling? What does he oppose? I think the verbal wiggliness tells the story. He's hiding behind the 'privatization' bamboozle. Thoughts?
And if he's changed his position to being against phase out, will he commit to opposing it through his whole six year term of office? I think one of the pro-Social Security groups has a pledge they'd be happy to allow him to sign to go on the record.
--Josh Marshall
Question of the Day: Is Joe Lieberman going to be sworn for a fourth term in the senate next January? Tell us what you think here.
--Josh Marshall
How would you like to make a hundred-fold return on your investment -- in just six years? One scandal-linked lobbying firm (tied to a powerful GOP congressman) made such dreams come true, Paul Kiel finds.
--Justin Rood
I was just pulling together material for a column I'm writing this morning. And on second reading of Joe Klein's Lieberman column this week in Time, this passage jumped out at me ...
There are those who believe the Senator's unwillingness to criticize Bush has its roots in politics. "He flew too close to the sun," said a Connecticut Democrat who believes that Lieberman played nice with the President in the hope of securing both the Democratic and the Republican nominations for Senate this year.
Can this be true? I'm not sure if the idea here is that Lieberman actually gamed his criticism of President Bush for the meager advantage of not having any challenger this year as opposed to whatever shlub the state GOP planned to send up against him on an electoral suicide run or whether he just wanted the bipartisanship hat trick of dual nomination.
In any case, the thought strikes me as highly implausible. Joe's kid gloves with the president and failure to take a stand on the disaster that has become of Iraq seems far more likely to be characterological or an effort to work Beltway opinion. But Klein seems to really think there might be something to this theory. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
--Josh Marshall
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA): From fighter to apologist in 60 seconds. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
The next flare up?
Over the last week, Turkey has lost 15 soldiers in cross border attacks from Kurdish separatists operating from inside Iraq. Pressure for retaliation is growing inside Turkey. But President Bush is asking for them to hold off on acting.
--Josh Marshall
Today I had an interesting morning.
Minutes after getting out of bed, I was spending a few moments with my wife before we both went to work when we got a call. It was from the Central Parking garage across the street where we park our car. (We're monthly parkers.) A manager, with a vaguely agitated voice, said, "We need you to fix your ticket because your ticket was left open when you picked up your car yesterday."
I didn't quite understand what that meant, but a reasonable request. Except for one problem: we didn't pick up our car yesterday.
As my eyes began to bulge out, I raised this point. And then the conversation rapidly descended to a staccato exchange of 'Where's our car?' 'I will have to call you back.' 'Where's our car?' 'I will have to call you back."
As I learned in the call and soon after, someone had taken the car without providing the ticket you get when you drop it off. And, apparently (though the stories became more and more dubious) when they'd done an inventory this morning they realized our car was gone. Thus, the story about the ticket being 'open'.
I threw on some clothes and hustled down to the garage and started asking what the hell was going on. There were three or four different contradictory stories. But they all boiled down to this: the attendant on duty, who was apparently new, had allowed someone to walk into the lot, late Monday night, and drive off with the car without getting the ticket or asking for ID or anything. Not that the car thief was sneaky about it. The attendant saw the guy, who said either that he was the owner of the car or had permission to take it. Or maybe he didn't say that. The unidentified person had this description and then that description. Then it wasn't clear