Brendan Nyhan

Bush official: Don't defend accused terrorists

Via Andrew Sullivan, the Washington Post denounces Cully Stimson, the Bush administration official responsible for "detainee affairs," for his loathsome comments suggesting that top law firms should not represent accused terrorists (Windows Media audio):

Most Americans understand that legal representation for the accused is one of the core principles of the American way. Not, it seems, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"Actually you know I think the news story that you're really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request through a major news organization, somebody asked, 'Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there,' and you know what, it's shocking," he said.

Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."

It might be only laughable that Mr. Stimson, during the interview, called Guantanamo "certainly, probably, the most transparent and open location in the world."

But it's offensive -- shocking, to use his word -- that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking -- though perhaps not surprising -- that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.

The New York Times adds more context. Stimson, who hyped the "major play" that the issue would get, apparently tried to advance his cause by leaking a blind quote to the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, cited the list of law firms and quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”

In addition, Stimson's views are so extreme that even the Bush administration (quietly) denounced them:

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments “do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,” a senior Pentagon official said.

And Stimson's disreputable suggestion that the firms are being paid by nefarious third parties is apparently untrue:

Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid, Mr. Ratner said. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Mr. Ratner said that there were two other defense lawyers not under his group’s umbrella and that he did not know whether they were paid.

Christopher Moore, a lawyer at the New York firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton who represented an Uzbeki detainee who has since been released, said: “We believe in the concept of justice and that every person is entitled to counsel. Any suggestion that our representation was anything other than a pro bono basis is untrue and unprofessional.” Mr. Moore said he had made four trips to Guantánamo and one to Albania at the firm’s expense, to see his client freed.

Update 1/13 9:51 PM: More administration disavowal via David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo:

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, said Stimson was not speaking for the Bush administration.

Stimson's comments “do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership,” Maka told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Maybe the appointment of Bob Gates has made a difference -- do you think Rumsfeld would be running away from Stimson right now?

Update 1/18 7:58 PM: Media Matters linked to this post today in an article criticizing a CNN correspondent for referring to Stimson's statement as "a few ill-chosen words" (the Pentagon official apologized today).

NC AG takes over Duke lacrosse case

It's official -- the North Carolina Attorney General's office is taking over the Duke lacrosse case. Thank goodness.

PS Can this passage from the ABCNews.com report on the announcement be correct?

Nifong, a career prosecutor for nearly 30 years, was "devastated" by having to prosecute the Duke case, his lawyer said.

"It's devastating to him," Freedman said. "He cherishes his reputation as an ethical attorney and prosecutor."

His resignation does not reflect of the strength of the case overall, Freedman told ABC News, adding, "He believes in the case."

Nifong didn't "have" to prosecute anything. Cry me a river.

Dems' victory dance: the cabbage patch?

For those of you pondering the appropriate dance to celebrate the dethroning of Tom DeLay et al, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones chose the cabbage patch -- and then chose (probably unwisely) to do it on the House floor:

Heady with victory, Democrats are feeling feistier and cockier than they have in years. This headiness was symbolized earlier that day, when Democratic Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio cast her vote to coronate Pelosi as speaker and then, with the whole House watching, broke out into a hip-hop jig known as the "cabbage patch"--a move that involves clasping one's hands and swinging one's arms as if churning butter. Such enthusiasm is understandable for Democrats, who waited more than a decade to regain power. Still, to some, turning the House floor into a dance floor sent a message of dubious taste. "You want to be magnanimous in victory, and then you see that," says a dismayed House Democratic leadership aide. "Show some class!"

For those of you who aren't familiar with the cabbage patch, here's a random YouTube demo (anyone have C-SPAN video of Tubbs-Jones?):

Nifong off Duke lacrosse case

The Mike Nifong reign of terror is finally over -- he's asked to be removed from the Duke lacrosse case:

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has asked to be removed from the Duke University lacrosse case.

* Nifong made the request in a letter delivered to the office of N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

* The attorney general's office could take over the case.

* Duke University officials said they will welcome the perspective of an "independent party."

Nifong sent a letter to Cooper this afternoon, according to Noelle Talley, a spokesman for Cooper. The letter asked Cooper to appoint his office's special prosecution unit to take over the case, Talley said.

How long will it take an independent third party to drop all charges after reviewing the state of Nifong's case? An hour?

Duke lacrosse case in shambles

Read the latest on the Duke lacrosse case and try to believe that District Attorney Mike Nifong has not dropped all charges -- the accuser has changed her story yet again, and none of the details survive scrutiny:

In her latest statement to investigators, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case changed her account again about when the alleged gang rape occurred, who attacked her and how.

Defense attorneys filed the statement in court today, arguing that it was more evidence that the woman is an unreliable witness.

The woman adjusted the timing of the assault to earlier in the evening, a time point preceding the well-documented alibi of one accused player, Reade Seligmann. The defense, however, introduced yet more alibi evidence for Seligmann: he was on the cell phone with his girlfriend during the height of the attack as the accuser now times it.

The new version of the events comes from a Dec. 21 interview by Linwood Wilson, chief investigator for Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The statement marked the first time anyone from the District Attorney's office discussed the case with the woman since charges were filed in April. The interview came less than a week after a private laboratory director testified that he and Nifong agreed not to report DNA evidence favorable to the three accused players.

It was the Dec. 21 interview that prompted Nifong to drop rape charges the following day against the three players after the woman said she was no longer certain that the men had vaginally assaulted her with their penises.

The three players, Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty, have called the accusations lies and said they are innocent.

The statement layers new and contradictory accounts over the woman's previous statements:

* In her latest statement she said the attack ended at midnight.

In previous accounts, the woman said the gang-rape ended shortly before she left in the car driven by Kim Roberts, the second dancer. Roberts called 911 as she was driving away at 12:53 a.m., according to police records. This new account leaves 50 minutes unaccounted between the end of the rape and the departure from the party.

The new statement runs contrary to time stamped photos of the party, which show the two women dancing between 12:00 and 12:04 a.m. in the living room of the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

* In the latest statement, the woman says she arrived at the party at 11:10 p.m. on March 13 and that the rape began at 11:40 p.m. Her cell phone records show that she was on phone with her father and others up to one minute before the rape allegedly started.

* The woman now said her alleged assailants used multiple names.

In previous accounts, she said she was assaulted by three men named "Adam", "Brett" and "Matt." She has given conflicting descriptions of the three men and contradictory accounts of how they assaulted her.

In the Dec. 21 interview, she said for the first time that the players used multiple names. "Dan, Adam and Brett was used by Dave Evans," Wilson wrote. "Adam and Matt was also used by Reade Seligmann. She does not remember a name being used for Collin Finnerty or if he was called by a name."

* The accuser has changed her description of Evans. On April 4, she viewed a photograph of Evans and said it looked like one of her assailants, except that the assailant had a moustache. In the Dec. 21 statement, the woman said the assailant had a five o'clock shadow, not a mustache. Evans has a visible five o'clock shadow in the photograph.

* In her recent statement, the woman said that Evans stood in front of her and made her perform sex on him. In past statements, she said that Seligmann did this.

Mitt Romney doesn't want to get macaca-ed

Perhaps learning from George Allen's experience, Mitt Romney moved quickly yesterday to try to prevent a YouTube video of his 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy from becoming the next "macaca":

A video recording of former Governor Mitt Romney expressing liberal views became an Internet sensation in the political world yesterday, prompting Romney to call a conservative webcast to say that he has "grown a bit wiser" in the past 13 years.

...The five-minute clip from an October 1994 debate against Senator Edward M. Kennedy shows Romney endorsing a series of liberal viewpoints and includes statements of support for abortion rights and gay rights. The clip was viewed more than 12,000 times on Youtube.com yesterday by 10 p.m.

Last night, Romney called in to the conservative Internet broadcast "The Glenn and Helen Show" to react to the distribution of what his presidential exploratory committee called "ancient footage."

But if you want real entertainment, don't miss Mitt TV, where the first clip begins with this cheesy movie preview-style voiceover:

The great American story. It's about overcoming great obstacles. It's about finding the future and seizing it. It's about turning around lives. This is the story of Governor Mitt Romney these past four years. And this is how it started...

(Personally, I would have opened with "In a world where there are no Republican presidents from Massachusetts...")

Malveaux's "objective" reporting on Iraq

CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux's analysis of President Bush's speech last night is a perfect illustration of how "objective" journalism works. Claims on which the two sides of the political spectrum disagree are always presented as contested, but as soon as one side gives in, the claim becomes indisputable truth. Thus, within minutes of the president's speech, Malveaux was describing the administration's Iraq strategy to this point as "a failed policy":

MALVEAUX: Essentially you have seen in the past this kind of public relations campaigns and speeches that have been done before and there has been a failed policy that has followed. So the big question of course, whether or not this is going to be a viable strategy or if it's just going to be another pep rally.

Of course, the strategy didn't magically become a "failed policy" at 9:30 PM EST last night. But CNN reporters couldn't describe it as such until then without being accused of bias. It's no wonder people are disillusioned with the mainstream press...

Edwards criticizes Bush as too "academic"

I know John Edwards specializes in emotional appeals, but given his need to appear more substantive, it was strange to see him criticizing President Bush for being too academic on Larry King last night:

JOHN EDWARDS, 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I think what America needs from their president under the circumstances is, first, trust. They need to feel like they can trust their president. They need to have a sense of honesty and decency that the president is trying to make the right decision, the best judgment under very difficult circumstances.

What I saw was a very academic, analytical speech, making the case for putting more troops in Iraq. And I think that's now what America needed from its president right now. I think the president is profoundly wrong. I think escalating the war is a huge mistake.

But beyond that, what's happened is that the trust in the president has eroded. And America has to feel in their gut that whether he's right or wrong the president's telling the truth.

And instead of all of the statistics and information that he had in his speech, he should have said, "The situation is very bad in Iraq right now. We're doing the best we can with a difficult situation and..."

KING: Is this what would you have said?

EDWARDS: That's exactly what I would have said.

KING: It's bad?

EDWARDS: I would have said, "It's bad. The choices are bad and worse. We have to be honest. I'm going to be honest with you. I'm going to tell what you I believe is the best thing to do under these circumstances."

Coming soon: Edwards blasts Dick Cheney for being too open and forthcoming with the American people.

GMA's Glenn Beck hire latest pander to right

Media Matters reports that ABC's "Good Morning America" has named CNN Headline News/syndicated radio host Glenn Beck as a "regular commentator."

Beck, of course, recently distinguished himself by telling Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies'" -- part of a long pattern of hateful and offensive comments.

Sadly, this is hardly the first such attempt by network news divisions to preempt critics of "liberal bias" by featuring an extreme right-wing pundit. CBS Evening News ran a "Free Speech" segment featuring Rush Limbaugh in September, and he served as an NBC Election Night analyst in 2002. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams also suck up to Limbaugh all the time.

It may be true, as ABC's Mark Halperin put it, that "[A]s an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel, you want to have a future, you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing." But aren't there better ways to appeal to conservatives than by kissing up to hatemongers like Limbaugh and Beck? Do they really need a bigger platform?

(For the liberal bias diehards, it's also worth noting that no liberal commentator even remotely comparable to Limbaugh or Beck is featured on network news.)

Update 1/11/ 8:21 AM: Bruce Bartlett offers a novel explanation in comments:

I am convinced that the reason such nut cases are put on the air is liberal bias. Liberals know that presenting people like Alan Keyes as spokesmen for conservatism is the best way of making America liberal. I really believe this.

I'm not sure I agree. It could be that the networks are sincerely attempting to pander and think conservatives want Limbaugh, Beck et al on the air. (Of course, many do.) Alternatively, putting on extreme pundits may be intended as a costly signal to conservative viewers that the networks are serious about countering perceptions of liberal bias. Putting David Brooks on the air doesn't carry the same reputational cost.

Hannity's "Enemy of the State" award

In another sad chapter in the history of post-9/11 attacks on dissent, Sean Hannity has started a weekly "Enemy of the State" award, which carries an obvious implication of treason. The first award was given to Sean Penn for no reason other than the fact that he doesn't like Hannity or the Bush administration. (Via Andrew Sullivan.)

John Kerry 2008: Game over

University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin has an excellent new post up analyzing new favorability data on the 2008 presidential contenders. The coolest graph illustrates just how unpopular John Kerry is. Kerry's rating of 22% favorable/48% unfavorable is far worse than anyone else in the poll. To give you a sense of how unpopular Kerry is, Tom DeLay's favorability rating back in April (months after his indictment) was 23% favorable/49% unfavorable. It's more than a little ironic that Kerry, who says President Bush "lives in a state of denial," thinks he can win the presidency with numbers like that.

Questioning Hillary's experience

Here's a question that everyone seems to be ignoring: why does Hillary Clinton get a pass on the experience question while Barack Obama and John Edwards are portrayed as inexperienced? Here are their respective resumes in public office:

Clinton -- six years in the United States Senate;
Edwards -- six years in the United States Senate;
Obama -- seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate.

There's no question that Clinton was highly involved in politics and policy for most of her adult life. But is her pre-Senate experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate really that much more substantial than Obama's seven years as a state legislator? Implicitly, the Clinton experience argument seems to rest more on the fact that she was inside the White House advising her husband for eight years. But no one's suggesting that other people who advised Clinton are qualified to be president on that basis -- otherwise Rahm Emanuel and Leon Panetta would be throwing their hats in the ring. Sure, she was a closer adviser to her husband than those two, but to my mind, you either have experience being "the decider" or you don't. And Clinton has no executive experience, no experience managing a large bureaucracy, and less experience as an elected representative than Obama. Just because she's famous and has lots of experience in national politics doesn't make her more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her rivals.

Correction 2/11 3:26 PM: Obama has served two years in the Senate, not four.

The Edwards primary strategy

Everyone thinks John Edwards is hurt by Barack Obama becoming the "fresh face" in the Democratic presidential primary race. It's also true that he can't compete with Obama and Hillary on a number of dimensions -- they're celebrities who would make history if they became president, and both are brilliant at a level that he, apparently, is not. But what he can do is run a substantive campaign that's based on issues and ideas rather than gauzy personality-driven appeals. As many people have noted, neither Hillary nor Obama has a distinct policy platform. Edwards will.

Hotline On Call has a typically sharp analysis of how Edwards is going to change the dynamics of the race:

Wisdom before it's conventional holds that Ex-Sen. John Edwards will suffer mightily in the '08 Democratic nomination position jostle once Sen. Barack Obama declares and subsequently sucks all the oxygen out of the room.

Here's how Edwards plans to parry: throw caution to the wind and repeatedly draw media-friendly contrasts.

That's the thought behind his clever "McCain Doctrine" appellation, which refers to the AZ Sen's support for a troop surge in Iraq. It's a catch slogan, and one that his '08 opponents wish they'd thought of. Think Edwards will abdicate the foreign policy discussion to others with, you know, more experience? Think again. Obama endorsed the Baker/Hamilton report. Edwards didn't think the report went far enough.

Speaking of Obama, here's what Edwards said in New Hampshire:

"Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow."

Again, the contrast: Edwards is a doer, Obama is a dreamer. Think Edwards will be nice to his opponents? Think again.

Obama right now gets applause because of who he is. Edwards get applause for what he says.

The good news is that Edwards' candidacy will force Obama and Clinton to be aggressive in developing their own policy platforms and messages. Winning the nomination on biography, as Kerry did in 2004, is not good for the party or the country.

Post commits journalism journamalism

In a story on the Washington Post website, William Branigin manages the rare feat of casting appropriate doubt on the President's misleading tax and budget claims:

Democrats have long derided Bush's deficit-cutting boasts, saying he routinely ignores the huge debt that the federal government has accumulated since he was inaugurated in January 2001. From a record surplus of $237 billion in fiscal 2000 under President Bill Clinton, the budget began slipping into deficit under Bush, in part because of a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue, the impact of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.

But after reaching a record $413 billion in 2004, the budget deficit dropped to $248 billion in the 2006 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, thanks largely to higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

The claim that the federal budget deficit has been cut in half stems from the administration's original projection of a $512 billion deficit for 2004, a number that critics have said was inflated, especially since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was forecasting $477 billion at the time.

Some economists also have charged that Bush has claimed unwarranted credit for his tax cuts, which they say have cost the Treasury more in lost revenue than has been gained from their economic stimulus effect.

According to Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist who joined the American Enterprise Institute, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Viard said in October there was "no evidence" that Bush's tax cuts come anywhere close to paying for themselves, a conclusion shared by economists at the Treasury Department and the nonpartisan CBO, Washington Post staff writer Lori Montgomery reported.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated that economic growth fueled by the tax cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of their total cost, which amounts to about $1.1 trillion since 2001.

PS Add Viard to the list of current and former Bush administration economists who have stated that his tax cuts have not increased revenue.

Update 1/4 8:17 AM: Where'd it go? Brad DeLong points out that the link which once led to Branigin's article now points to a Peter Baker article that ran on page A1 of today's paper -- and omits all of the content quoted above:

But, alas, the act of journamalism was only temporary. If you click on Brendan's link or search the Post's website, you find that the story is gone. It has been replaced: journalism to journamalism. Somebody decided the Post's readers needed to be protected from learning about the estimates of CBO, about the consensus of economists, and about the fact that the Bushies highballed their forecast to make it easier to cut it in half.

Now we see a different story--with no quotes from real economists, with no quotes from budget analysts outside the Heritage Foundation, with un-fact-checked quotes from Bush's budget director, and with no challenge to Bush's claim that the tax cuts have raised revenue--by the obsequious Peter Baker.

Branigin's article has apparently been completely disappeared -- it shows up in the Post search engine, but the links lead to Baker's article.

Bush: "Political statements" bad (from Dems)

The AP highlights another passage from President Bush's Wall Street Journal op-ed today:

President Bush, facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for the first time, is urging lawmakers to work with his administration and warning that "political statements" in the form of legislation would result in a stalemate.

Bush, of course, has never pushed legislation with no chance of passage as a political statement. Oh, wait...

Bush misleads again on federal revenues

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, President Bush falsely suggests that his tax cuts have increased federal revenue yet again:

It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people.

By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle the longer term fiscal challenge facing our country: reforming entitlements--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--so future generations can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country.

But as I've pointed out over and over since 2001, Bush's suggestion is false. Indeed, his own economists have repeatedly admitted that tax cuts do not increase revenue. It's a sad commentary on the nation's press corps that this falsehood so often goes unchallenged.

Journalists as children's characters

A New York Observer article on the future of the public editor position at the New York Times includes this amusing passage characterizing Byron Calame, the current occupant of the position:

Mr. [Daniel] Okrent [the previous public editor] was a sharp critic who raised hackles and then won respect during his 18-month term. In contrast, Mr. Calame has been a bit more like that other Barney, the friendly purple dinosaur—and not entirely unlike Snuffleupagus, the once-invisible creature of Sesame Street. The readers were Big Bird, and we could see and hear him—but did he exist to anyone inside The Times?

Talk about innovation -- this is a whole new style of media criticism. Coming next week: Is Maureen Dowd more like Miss Piggy or Dora the Explorer?

(PS I'm guessing the author, Michael Calderone, has watched a lot of children's TV with his kids...)

Ted Rall calls me a neocon

The lefty cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall called me a "Bush apologist" back in 2002 for debunking his conspiracy theories about the war in Afghanistan. Now he's claiming he was right all along in a diatribe where he absurdly labels me a "neoconservative Republican":

Now that only 9% of Americans believe the war in Iraq can be won, it's easy to forget how bad things got for those of us who were against it from the beginning. As the Great Northern Plains blog reminds us, those of us who stood up against this idiotic war against Iraq were getting trashed by the radical right while the moderates and liberals quivered in fearful silence. Paul Krugman referenced this typical Weekly Standard piece in his normally excellent New York Times column, but fumbled by focussing on elected officials trashed by the radical right rather than on the journalists and other citizens who actually paid a price for being correct.

Here's the section about Yours Truly:

Did you know that your average Iraqi fellow would much rather watch his relatives be raped or eaten by dogs than have to shake hands with an American Marine on the sidewalk?

"Regardless of their political affiliations, patriotic Iraqis prefer to bear the yoke of Saddam's brutal and corrupt dictatorship than to suffer the humiliation of living in a conquered nation. . . . The thought of infidel troops marching through their cities, past their mosques, patting them down, ordering them around, disgusts them even more than Saddam's torture chambers."

--Cartoonist and conspiracy-theory book author Ted Rall, April 2, 2003

I assume that the "conspiracy theory" book they're referring to was GAS WAR, which detailed the development of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project, a project neoconservative Republicans like Brendan Nyhan said was pure fiction. Now, of course, the pipeline is under construction even as Afghanistan collapses into worse chaos. As for my quote, well, looks like I called that one right. As usual.

Now that my politics have been vindicated, will the publications that censored my cartoons because of my politics between 2001 and 2005 apologize to their readers and pick them back up again? Don't hold your breath. After all, being the Week In Review editor of the New York Times means never having to say you're sorry.

Rall is unfortunately not a member of the reality-based community. For the record, I never claimed that the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project "was pure fiction." In fact, I pointed out that Pakistan had "recently lobbied the new US ambassador to the country on behalf of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline" and specifically acknowledged that "President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as former oilmen, certainly understand the importance of the pipeline projects, but these are surely only part of a complex set of factors being weighed by the administration." Rall, on the other hand, has not seen this ludicrous conspiracy theory vindicated:

Finally the Bushies had the perfect excuse to do what the U.S. had wanted all along: invade and/or install an old-school puppet regime in Kabul. Realpolitik no more cares about the 6,000 dead than it concerns itself with oppressed women in Afghanistan; this ersatz war by a phony president is solely about getting the Unocal deal done without interference from annoying local middlemen.

Needless to say, the fact that a pipeline project is underway hardly proves that it was the sole motivation for the war. (See my original column for more.)

Spencer Ackerman goes too far

After my experience with The American Prospect, I'm sympathetic to Spencer Ackerman, who was fired by The New Republic after coming into conflict with TNR's maddening pro-Iraq war politics. (Unfortunately, he signed on with TAP afterward, which is far more dogmatic than TNR.)

But Ackerman takes his newfound freedom from editorial constraint too far in an unhinged post on his new personal blog:

Read the names of the dead below. Ask yourself if a cynical show trial was worth the life of a single one of them.

Bush said, with no evident awareness:

Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.

Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.

Bush is a torturer, so he wouldn't recognize a fair trial if he observed one. (I surely hope Baltasar Garzon will one day instruct him in what a fair trial looks like.) As Al Gore once observed, he dragged the name of the United States through Saddam Hussein's torture prison. The idea that Bush's hypocrisy and deception could force one to divert attention from the death of Saddam is a disgusting thing, but yet the coward who decrees an outcome and calls it justice demands condemnation. Perhaps the right thing to say is: One down, one to go.

However flawed the Iraqi legal process may have been, there's just no justification for the last line "One down, one to go," which implicitly compares Bush to Saddam and could be read to suggest that Bush should be executed next.

Update 1/2 7:03 AM: To clarify, the issue of why Ackerman was fired is complicated; see the New York Observer piece I linked above for more. I'm specifically sympathetic to Ackerman's claim to have been constrained in his writing and reporting by his disagreement with the magazine over the war. I don't condone his other (alleged) transgressions.