Kipli's Cage

BottleOfBlog has a bit to say about selective memory and presidential liars.

I have to wonder: if Kerry is elected, will any criticism of him be considered aiding the enemy and showing weakness?

Ann Coulter gave a talk this evening that left me fuming. Some of her positions (the need for intelligent screening at airports, for example) I am sympathetic to, if not in agreement with. But she can't help but pepper her talk with digs at "the liberals" (whoever they are), non sequitors that only appeal to emotion, and (the worst thing) outright lies or misrepresentations.

Here's one that she started with (note---I taped the talk, but was far back in the audience so the audio is not clear at points. I've tried to make an accurate transcription, but make no guarantees):

So I thought I'd discuss the Democrats contributions to the war on terrorism. I'll skip the war with Afghanistan since the liberals now claim they support that war, which of course they didn't since it was likely to be a quagmire and they carped about it immediately.

Who are these "liberals" that Coulter is referring to? There was certainly opposition to the war in Afghanistan (those damn librarians), but I don't think it was because of strategic military concerns. And certainly some people (myself included) thought that it would be a "quagmire" for U.S. troops, though not because they were against the war---I'm happy that, at least initially, I was wrong. But what "liberals" were against the war and, now that it didn't turn out to be as dire as they thought, are now for it? There may be some, but I doubt that they form a large segment of the "liberal" population.

If anything, liberals are upset that, since the first sweeping successes, the situation in Afghanistan has not improved significantly. Rather than become a shining "beacon of democracy" itself, the Taliban still occupies large portions of the countryside. Hampered by Bush's plans to invade Iraq, much of the support required to finish the job in Afghanistan was diverted to Iraq. Elections are scheduled for next week, but whoever gets the vote (I bet on Karzai) will have a hard time getting the country on the right track.

Coulter also claimed that the miltary action in Kosovo was "solely for the purpose of regime change." She needs this to be true to support her attacks on "liberals" who supported Clinton in 1999 but opposed Bush in 2003. What's the difference?

Here's a difference: the airstrikes ordered by Clinton in Kosovo were to stop the Serbian aggression, not regime change. A TIME primer on Kosovo tells us that "NATO opposes independence for Kosovo on the grounds that this would spur secessionist movements elsewhere and destabilize an already volatile region. At the same time, it believes that there can be no stability under the status quo. The U.S. and its NATO allies are trying to force both sides to accept a compromise — restoring Kosovo's autonomy within the former Yugoslavia." There was no regime change demanded and in fact the U.S. and its allies were careful not to call for it, unlike in Iraq.

I'm not claiming that the actions in Kosovo were justified or that they should form a model for foreign policy. But don't twist them to fit Iraq.

Maybe more later if I can stomach listening to the audio again.

Ralph Reed appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening. The interview was not particularly interesting, but what struck me was a claim by Reed concerning the connection between Iraq and the "war on terror." Stewart had asked for justification for invading Iraq---he had not heard an argument that he found convincing---and Reed responded with a list of things that Saddam had done. Going to war with two countries, gassing people, wanting to occupy the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, firing missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia...Stewart stopped him and said "after 1991."

Reed said that Saddam had given safe haven to terrorists Abu Nidal and al-Zarqawi. However, it is not clear to what extent Saddam's regime had connections with these terrorists or supported their activities.

Nidal was in Iraq, true---for a time in the 1980s until he was kicked out because Iraq needed the support of the U.S. in its war against Iran and again from some time after 1999 to his death in 2002. When Nidal died in August that year, Iraqi authorities claimed that he had entered the country illegally and had committed suicide when security forces wanted to take him in for interrogation. By the time of his death, Nidal's organization was considered inactive and no longer a serious terrorist threat.

The U.S. has claimed that Al-Zarqawi provides the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. He is said to have lost a leg in Afghanistan and then went to Iraq for medical treatment; he set up in the Kurdish region of Iraq with the group Ansar Al-Islam. Unfortunately for Reed's argument, this northwestern area of Iraq was largely independent of Saddam's regime---it was in a "no fly" zone and the Baghdad government had little control over it. In fact, there is evidence that Iran had (has?) more ties to the group that Iraq did.

Reed also tries to offer a more direct connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. He referred Stewart to page 66 of the 9/11 Report, where (he said) the report tells of a visit that Iraqi officials paid to Al Qaeda. Here are the relevant passages from that page (footnotes omitted):

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Emphasis mine. It appears that there were discussions between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, but little came of it. At best, the two groups remained "friendly." Reed's comment on The Daily Show implied that the connections were stronger and deeper than they actually were.

To the extent that Iraq was connected to terrorist groups, that is a Bad Thing and warranted monitoring. But I have yet to see the kind of conclusive proof of Iraq working with terrorist groups (providing a haven for bases for example or material support) that would make me count it as support for going to war.

Ann Coulter is visiting the area on Wednesday. I have a ticket for her talk, so thought that I would take a look at some of her writings to prepare myself. Her September 22 column, "Dan Rather: Fairly Unbalanced", is about Rather's reporting on the documents that are now believed to be forgeries. She starts out with

I believe we now have conclusive proof that:

(1) Dan Rather is not an honest newsman who was simply duped by extremely clever forgeries; and

(2) We could have won the Vietnam War.

Strong claims. I look forward to her evidence.

Coulter takes Rather to task for not following basic canon of journalism: "not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years." Here, the "lunatic" is Burkett who provided Rather with the Killian memos. I'll agree with her on the canon, but I don't know about her characterization of Burkett.

Coulter also thinks that Rather has fits the babbling lunatic bill, partly because of a 1988 interview Rather did with then vice-president George H.W. Bush. She says that Rather received a "spanking" in that interview---I'll disagree with that point. It was certainly confrontational, but hardly a spanking. Apparently, since that day Rather has been looking for ways to get back at the Bush family. I don't know if he has or not, but for some Rather has become a symbol of the "liberal bias" of the media. That doesn't show that he is dishonest.

Coulter says that Rather should have investigated the memos more and, "[a]t a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS' sole 'unimpeachable' source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook crank Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information." I'll agree with Coulter on that one. From the evidence that has appeared so far, Rather and his producers did not practice the kind of skeptical journalism that I prefer. Given what I know at the moment, I think they screwed up.

And I can see an argument for form of dishonesty in which you do not admit to yourself that there may be evidence that goes against what you would like to be true. It appears that Mapes and Rather wanted the story so badly that they did not pay attention to evidence they should have. But I don't think this is the kind of dishonesty that Coulter means. For her, I think, Rather is dishonest because he knew that the memos were forged. For me, the evidence for that claim is not quite there.

(I think the column was written before Rather announced that the memos are probably forged and issued an apology.)

But Coulter wants to make this indicative of larger issues:

Liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal – which means we're really onto something. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence – an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career.

To the contrary, such an outrageous fraud was inevitable given the mendacity and outright partisanship of the press.

I don't think she's right to blame the "outright partisanship of the press." Partly because I don't think that such a thing exists (I'm not saying bias [of all forms] doesn't exist, just that this thing called "the press" is not a single entity that can be partisan). Also, being told to "move on" doesn't itself mean that there is anything more to see.

Then we have

Burkett didn't come to CBS; CBS found Burkett. Rather's producer, Mary Mapes, called Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign and told him he needed to talk to Burkett. Lockhart himself is the apotheosis of the media-DNC complex, moving in and out of Democratic campaigns and jobs with the mainstream media, including at ABC, NBC and CNN.

True, Burkett has said that Mapes contacted him---not about these documents in particular, but for any documents related the Bush's National Guard service. But how is Lockhart relevant? If Coulter wants to tie the story to mainstream media, it's already been done, since CBS is "mainstream." However, this passage does create the impression that Kerry campaign worker Lockhart was involved in the CBS story---the fact that Lockhart also works in mainstream media further cements the image of a partisan press. The connection through Lockhart is not justified. He had nothing to do with getting the memos to CBS, and Burkett has never said that his cooperation with CBS was contingent on getting to talk to Lockhart.

Coulter claims that "CBS was attempting to manipulate a presidential election in wartime." Perhaps, but only if "manipulate" is defined very broadly (so broadly that any news story might be said to be an attempt to manipuate an election). The use of "wartime" is inflammatory. The actions of CBS would be no more acceptable if all our troops were at home and there were no terrorists in the world.

Coulter also asks "[w]hat if – like Bush's 30-year-old DUI charge – the media had waited 72 hours before the election to air this character assassination?" This hypothetical is disingenuous. She implies that the media knew of Bush's DUI charge (which was 24 years old at the time of the 2000 elections) but waited until just before election day to make the charge known. But according to the Washington Post,

Spokesmen for two Portland, Maine, television stations said their reporters came across the incident while covering an unrelated arson case yesterday and overheard hallway conversations about the arrest. Reporters for the stations, WPXT-TV and WCSH-TV, pursued the story and found several documents confirming the Sept. 4, 1976, arrest, as well as the name of the arresting officer.

Erin Fehlau of WPXT told ABC's "Nightline" that she was asked about the episode by a police officer yesterday morning [Nov. 2] who said a judge and lawyer had been talking about it. Fehlau said the lawyer, who was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, had a copy of the docket and that she pursued the case from that information.

It may be that individuals knew of the DUI arrest and purposefully held back that information (in fact, people in the Bush campaign knew), but it is not the case that "the media" held the story back until a few days before the election. (Also interesting to note: the station who broke the story was a Fox affiliate.)

In the next two paragraphs, Coulter claims (as further evidence of the partisan nature of the media) that "the Swift Boat veterans haven't been able to get on Kerry PR agency CBS News" and there was a "total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media." She is not completely correct about the CBS News claim. CBS Evening News ran a story on the Swift Boat claims on May 4, when they made their first announcement to the press. On August 6, after the Swift Boat ads appeared, McCain came on the CBS Early Show to denounce them. Maybe that's not the kind of coverage that Coulter wanted.

But, by golly, the SBVT group has decidedly not been in a "total blackout" since the DNC convention. All of August was spent discussing their attacks, in spite of the fact that they have been largely discredited. Perhaps this is part of the reason why Couric has not interviewed them, or why "CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry."

Coulter ends with

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society.

It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts.

CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one.

Here Coulter repeats a common theme: we could have won in Vietnam if only the people had supported the troops. I think this is a simplistic view of the Vietnam war that ignores its history (dating back to the 1920s when Ho Chi Minh first campaigned, peacefully, for the independence of Vietnam) and the limitations of the American military. The Tet offensive was a military victory for the American forces; if Cronkite actually meant to say that it was a military defeat then he was wrong. But to say that CBS lost the war for America is simply hyperbole. There were many factors, including public sentiment shaped in part by the press, that affected the prosecution of the war and ultimately our withdrawal from Vietnam. To think that if only the media had been upbeat after Tet then those North Vietnamese and VC would have given in is wishful thinking.

Throughout the column, Coulter engages in snippy attacks, such as "Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's 'demonic personality shortcomings.' (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)" and "(It's now Day Seven of Kelley's refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.)" as well as saying that Cronkite is "president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society."

These kinds of comments seem to be typical of her "style" of writing: attack the person who has a view contrary to her own. Since Cronkite (possibly) made a defeatist statement, he must be in favor of Ho Chi Minh. That's ludicrous. Unfortunately, its the kind of talk that permeates discussions today.

So has Coulter given "conclusive proof" that Rather is dishonest and we could have won the Vietnam War? Not to me.

From CBS News:

CBS News has shelved a "60 Minutes" report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be "inappropriate" to air it so close to the presidential election, the network said on Saturday.

A spokesman for CBS would not elaborate on what "inappropriate" means.

I'm not sure I understand this move. The rationale for the war in Iraq is important to discuss, especially when we are about to vote on the adminstration that took us there. What information is in the report that would have been okay to present on September 8 (the intended air date---it was bumped in favor of the National Guard story on Bush), but "inappropriate" three weeks later?

Was our intelligence simply off or was it cherry-picked to support the war? Did the administration take appropriate steps to bring the U.N. on board or did it rush to war? Was the war in Iraq the next step in the "war on terror" or was Bush trying to make a neoconservative fantasy come true?

These questions are not simple ones. It would be nice to get some relevant facts to help answer them. Unfortunately, CBS has simply created the perception that its reports are not reliable and only serve partisan interests. Perhaps that is the case. If so then I'm glad they dropped the story---we need factual information about the issues not partisan spin, no matter what direction the spin is going.

Either the report is factual, in which case CBS News is doing its viewers a disservice by dropping it, or the report contains errors/mistakes/misrepresentations, in which case CBS should never have considered airing it in the first place.

By the way, why the hell is this story on the CBS News site placed under the "Entertainment" section?

Eugene Volokh is guest blogging at Glenn Reynolds where he has posted about the passing of H.R. 2028. His take on the bill is that it may backfire on its supporters:

But does it make sense for Congress to use its power this way? The Constitution is binding on all courts, state as well as federal (see Article VI, section 2). If people are worried that federal courts may hold that "under God" is unconstitutional, they should be equally worried about some state supreme courts doing the same. And even those state supreme courts that might not take this view on their own might feel moved by precedents from other states, since courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.

What's more, if a state supreme court does hold the "under God" unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, then there'll be no remedy (short of impeaching the state supreme court Justices). Amending the state constitution, which is a remedy for state supreme court decisions based on the state constitution — such as the Goodridge same-sex marriage decision in the Massachusetts — will do nothing to change the state court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. And an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court won't be possible, because this proposed law would have stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

I hadn't thought of the possibility that a state supreme court may rule against "under God". While that would warm me on the inside were it to happen, I think it more likely that state supreme courts would leave the phrase in. In fact, I see darker forces at work here.

I am not a lawyer, so I may be missing something incredibly obvious, but what is to stop a state legislature from passing a law requiring all students to recite the pledge? I know that a Supreme Court ruling from 1943 held that this would be unconsitutional, but in order for that ruling to be applied (and thus invalidate the law), wouldn't someone (say Sally Student) need to bring suit in court?

Suppose Sally brought a suit in state court and eventually the state supreme court hears it. There the justices, some of whom may be up for election that year, decide that perhaps the Supreme Court erred in 1943, and rule that saying the Pledge is a good thing. After all, it's the patriotic thing to do and that Establishment Clause is getting a bit too big for its britches anyway.

What is Sally to do now? The Pledge Protection Act of 2004 prevents federal courts from hearing cases "pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance...or its recitation", so what federal court could help her? Even the Supreme Court, incensed as it may be at having one of its precedents treated so shabbily, would be powerless to help her.

This prospect terrifies me, and I hope that someone will be able to convince me that I'm being stupid (about this issue---I know I'm stupid about other things).

And, just to rehash an old topic, the phrase "under God" is very much an affirmation of a religious belief, not a recognition of historical fact. If proponents of the bill are serious that the phrase "under God" only refers to a part of our national heritage, then what would be wrong with saying "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation with many sexists..."? After all, sexism is a part of our national heritage (in the sense that many of the founding fathers were sexists and some of our laws/traditions have been sexist in nature).

If saying "under God" is not an affirmation of the existence of god, then surely there would be nothing wrong with saying "with many sexists" since the phrase does not affirm that there are now sexists in the U.S., just that there were at one time in our history.

Or here's another rewording: try "one Nation with homosexuals". I wonder how many people would not take that phrase as a simple recognition of a fact but instead as tacit support for homosexuality?

Of course people would have problems with these changes, because the words have meaning. Similarly, the phrase "under God" is not meaningless filler or harmless recognition of historical traditions.

Saying the Pledge is different from singing a song or being involved in governmental procedures in which god is mentioned ("God save this Court!")---those references are often clearly historical in nature and require no affirmation by me. However, when I say the Pledge, it is a deeply personal, powerful, and meaningful act. Saying the Pledge should unite me with my fellow citizens, irrespective of our own personal religious beliefs or backgrounds.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but atheists are so often treated as immoral, hedonistic, ne'er-do-wells (and sometimes, ironically, as devil-worshipers---go figure). According to a Gallup poll cited in an article on religious tolerance, only 49% of respondents would vote for an Atheist candidate (compared to 59% for Homosexual but over 90% for each of Baptist, Black, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Woman). Admittedly, that's up from 22% in 1959 and 40% in 1978, but until an atheist is elected President of the U.S., I hope you'll forgive me for being a little god-shy.

The House passed H.R. 2028, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2004," on Thursday. The bill is short and sweet:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.

An amendment to the bill, proposed by Rep. Watt of North Carolina, to allow the Supreme Court to hear cases was not passed.

This bill bothers me for two reasons. First, I am troubled that the Congress can simply declare certain cases off limits for the courts. If a state were to pass a law requiring school children to recite the pledge each day, a practice struck down in the 1940s by the Supreme Court, could the law be challenged? State courts would still be allowed to hear a challenge, but if a state supreme court refused to hear it, or ruled in favor of the law (as some may, especially in states where supreme court judges are elected), where would the challenge go? Could Congress declare cases involving the establishment clause also off limits? Or the first amendment? Would this practice simply create a status quo in the courts, or (worse) completely remove the notions of precedent and appeal?

But the other reason that I'm bothered concerns what I see the intent of the bill to be---to create/solidify a connection between the country and god. According to an AP news story:

Supporters insisted Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.

<snip>

In June, the Supreme Court dismissed, on a technicality, a 2002 federal court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who wrote the amendment on legislation before the House on Thursday, said the outcome could be different if the high court rules on the substance, or "if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say that it is wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say 'under God' in the pledge."

In such a scenario, Akin said, the courts will have "emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about."

What America has always been about? I'm not sure that I see history in quite the same way as Mr. Akin. Yes, religion has been a part of our "national heritage", but the pledge does not say "I recognize the history of the United States." To say the pledge (in its current form) is to affirm that the United States is "one Nation under God." Those words are more than a recognition of historical fact. They are, as the AP article notes, an affirmation of religion (specifically, in the existence of God), not an affirmation of the role of religion in U.S. history.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has come out strongly against the bill.

Monday evening on Scarborough Country, the editorial page editor of the Washington Times Tony Blankley commented on the Lockhart-Burkett "connection":

SCARBOROUGH: Tony Blankley, is that [Rather's apology] enough to put this crisis behind Dan Rather?

TONY BLANKLEY, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, “THE WASHINGTON TIMES”: No.

Look, a couple of things. First of all, in my experience as Newt‘s press secretary, working in communications for Ronald Reagan in the White House, it‘s certainly not uncommon for news organizations to go to the opposition to try to get dirt on them. It is uncommon for them to report fraudulent dirt.

But the big deal in the story isn‘t that she called Lockhart. The big story is that Lockhart is involved. And when one political team gets caught trying to sling dirt on the other team, that‘s when they and their candidate get in trouble. Sasso, who is now a senior player in Kerry‘s campaign, got fired from Dukakis‘ campaign for similar kind of activity.

And one other big point tonight. The AP story that reports the Lockhart statement reveals that Lockhart is almost certainly lying in the AP story, because the AP story quotes Lockhart as saying that he called Burkett, but didn‘t talk about the guard. He talked about the Vietnam vets issue.

Now, he was told by the CBS producer that they have got some stuff on the Guard story. Burkett is known—--he is Mr. National Guard. That‘s what he has been doing 10 years. So when poor old Joe told AP, I didn‘t talk to him about it, that sets up an almost certain lie which has to be looked into.

Later in the same program, Blankley returns to the issue of whether Lockhart is lying:

BLANKLEY: I would predict, with almost certainty, that Joe Lockhart will be fired within 48 to 72 hours. Kerry has got to cut that point. This is at the Haldeman stage of firings already.

FINEMAN [Newsweek political correspondent]: Well, I think that‘s a little—that may be a little overmuch at this point.

Just because Joe Lockhart is getting information wherever he can get it from, don‘t forget the CBS part of the equation as well here. I mean, she is the one who suggested that the call be made, and then Lockhart is going to be looking for whatever he can find.

BLANKLEY: We don‘t know whether the initial statements made by these people are true or not.

FINEMAN: That‘s right.

BLANKLEY: We only know the one statement by Lockhart most probably isn‘t. These can all be as self-serving as they think they can get away with in the first round of fire walls.

FINEMAN: Right. I agree with that. I agree with that.

I'll agree with Blankley as well: we don't know whether the initial statements made by these people are true or not (I am not even sure what statement or people are being referred to). But Blankley thinks he has found out at least one lie, by Lockhart. His evidence? Simply that since Burkett was known as "Mr. National Guard," Blankley has trouble believing that Burkett would want to talk about anything else.

That's weak evidence. Lockhart and Burkett may indeed have talked about the National Guard issue---I don't know because I wasn't listening in. But both Lockhart and Burkett have said that they didn't. To make his charge stick, Blankley needs to come up with something more than "I can't believe it."

Via Atrios:

Joe Lockhart, former press secretary for Clinton and current Kerry adviser, was interviewed this morning by Bill Hemmer, co-host of American Morning on CNN. At issue was how much contact Lockhart had with Bill Burkett, the source of the possibly forged documents that CBS to question Bush's service in the National Guard. Apparently Burkett and Lockhart shared a phone call, made possible by a CBS producer, a few days before the CBS program aired. The natural question is: what did they talk about?

Lockhart says that their conversation was about advice that Burkett had for the Kerry campaign — the kind of thing that Lockhart deals with often — and nothing about the National Guard story. What caught my eye was this exchange between Hemmer and Lockhart:

HEMMER: So it was the Saturday before, and the story aired on the following Wednesday, which is four days later. But the issue is, regarding this phone call, whether or not there was collaboration ultimately between the campaign and the network. What can you say about those who raised that possibility today?

LOCKHART: I can say two things. One, is the campaign had nothing to do with these documents, nothing to do with this story. And two, you have to question the motives of those people who are raising these questions.

The White House is raising questions about this because they don't want to answer questions. I mean, the guy has held two briefings in two months. These guys don't want to answer questions about the National Guard story.

They even don't want to answer questions about what's going on in Iraq, what's going on in the economy. And I think it's time for them to step up and stop posing questions and start answering them, because that's what — that's what the public wants.

HEMMER: I apologize for interjecting again. But you knew Bill Burkett has a long history of a fight with the National Guard. And also for several years he's had his own fight with George Bush.

LOCKHART: Bill, what do you base that on?

Good catch, Joe. Is Hemmer a mind reader?

HEMMER: The reports that we're getting. It's just that I interviewed him — I interviewed him six months ago and he told...

LOCKHART: Bill, you just said what I knew. How do you know that?

Don't let it go, Joe!

HEMMER: I know it because I talked to him six months ago, in fact, on this program. And he raised the issue...

LOCKHART: No, no, no, Bill.

HEMMER: He raised the issue. Let's be clear.

LOCKHART: Let's be clear.

Yes, Bill, let's be clear. You claimed that Joe knew X. Joe is asking how you know that he knew X. Your response is that you know X because Burkett said X in his interview with you six months ago. But, still, how do you know that Joe knew X? Is Lockhart a devoted follower of your program who never misses a show? Perhaps Lockhart was present at the interview six months ago, or Burkett said he had talked with him...but Lockhart wasn't there and Burkett didn't say that.

But Hemmer doesn't seem clear on that point as he continues blithely on:

HEMMER: Some very important stuff here. He raised the issue that some files were seen by him and others in a garbage can 30 years ago about George Bush's National Guard service.

LOCKHART: Right.

HEMMER: And now — and to you, you say what?

Huh? Say what about what? What happened to being clear? And what happened to Hemmer's mind reading ability? Doesn't he already know what Lockhart will say? Luckily Joe doesn't let himself get distracted:

LOCKHART: I say, Bill, how do you know what I knew? You're basing this on what maybe some other people were telling you. I didn't know who the guy was. I talked to him on the phone for three or four minutes. That's the beginning and the end of the story.

Go, Joe, Go!

HEMMER: So let's be clear. You did not know about the history about Bill Burkett before you talked to him Saturday night?

LOCKHART: I did not. I did not.

Thank goodness we're being clear, Bill.

I suspect that Hemmer was not even aware that he had claimed Lockhart knew about Burkett, which would explain his inability to answer Lockhart's quick question. But Hemmer should have been aware of what he was saying, and not even made the silly claim in the first place. I'm glad that Lockhart called him on it.

A Newsweek poll conducted by Princeton Survey Reseach Associates on September 2-3, 2004, concluded that 42% of people still think that Saddam had something to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001 (via Polling Report):

"Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?"

		Was (%)	Was Not (%)	Unsure (%)
Among registered voters:
	9/2-3/04:	42	44	14
Among all adults:
	1/29-30/04:	49	39	12
	9/18-19/03:	47	37	16

Note that the percentages haven't changed much over the last year (a 5-7% drop — not very large). And this is after the 9/11 Commission released its report in July. In that report, we find:

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

Of course, there was the widely circulated claim that Mohamed Atta, the lead terrorist on 9/11, met with an Iraqi diplomat in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2001. The 9/11 Commission reports:

The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period. Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

The Iraqi diplomat (Ani) who was supposed to have met Atta denies that they met. Though the commission could not "absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001", they conclude that "[t]he available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

The evidence simply does not support the belief that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even more distressing, much of the information debunking the connections between Iraq and 9/11 was available to the public well over a year ago.

I took a short trip today, part of which was on a toll road. A sign along that road, just before the toll booth, read:

FAILURE TO
PAY TOLL
STRICTLY
ENFORCED

Think about that, then join me in a collective sigh and shake of the head.

William Saletan has a sharp attack on Bush's position on the National Guard — his service in the Guard and (more importantly) his use of the National Guard in Iraq. In particular, Bush has called up the Guard under the guise of a "national emergency" which may or may not exist. The "stop-loss" order that keeps Guard troops in the service longer than their contract requires was also given in response to a perceived national emergency.

SALETAN: But these Guard troops aren't being sent to fight the people who attacked the United States in September 2001. They're being sent to—and locked in—Iraq. Some 40,000 members of the Guard are in Iraq today—six times the number of guardsmen sent to Vietnam. Already, more Guard troops have died in Iraq than in Vietnam.

What does Iraq have to do with the "national emergency" declared by Bush in 2001? Nothing. The 9/11 commission found "no evidence" of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida. Four days ago, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed, "I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorists who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime."

In short, Bush has pulled Guard troops away from their homeland security duties to fight and die in a war unrelated to the service for which they enlisted. A guardsman who did less than he signed up for is coercing other guardsmen to do more than they signed up for.

At least one Guardsman is challenging the stop-loss order in court. We'll see how far that goes.

What was notable (to me) about Saletan's article was not the point he makes about Bush's service in the Guard, or Bush's misuse of the Guard in Iraq. It was the fact that Saletan actually gives links to various sources that support his points. From the few articles that I've looked at, it seems that Saletan tends to provide links — that's good for the reader who can then check the quotes or facts for themselves. Are the quotes being interpreted appropriately given the context? Are the facts actually present in the documentation and are they being interpreted correctly?

I'd like to see other columnists present links and sources with their work. I realize that many (most?) are writing for print media where hyperlinks don't make much sense, but would a few hyperlinks to sources be that hard to fill in?

Jamie Whyte is upset about the lack of love of truth nowadays. And if you don't have a love of truth, you're not likely to care about how to reason. And if you don't care about how to reason then you're opening yourself up for all sorts of problems, as you probably aren't able to make well informed, rational, independent decisions. Can you say "sheep"? I'm with Jamie — the world would be a better place if more people loved truth — but I'm afraid it might be hoping for too much, given the current state of discourse (especially in America).

His book Bad Thoughts is out of print, but he has another one, Crimes Against Logic, coming out in October. (Here's a review of Bad Thoughts.) In the New Scientist interview with Whyte, he describes some common fallacies, including:

• Celebrity fallacy: believing someone because he/she is a celebrity or has experienced something related to the issue at hand.

  Mel Gibson starred in a movie about paranoid conspiracy theorists so he must know best how to treat such people.

  Fred once got caught in a hurricane, so he should be consulted before issuing mandatory evacuation orders in Florida.

• Authority fallacy: believing that because a person (or group) is an authority on one issue he must be an authority on another (related) issue.

  Whyte's example: the British Medical Association knows about the health effects of fatty foods, so they should make recommendations regarding the taxation of those foods.

• Motive fallacy: believing a statement is true or false because of the motives of the person or group making it.

  Paul received funding from oil companies so his report on the effectiveness of vehicle emission standards can't be right (and I don't need to see the report to know that).

These fallacies (and so many others) show up again and again in conversations. Our political discourse, dominated as it is by celebrity politics, is rife with the celebrity fallacy (sometimes in reverse: a person's statements are rejected because he is a celebrity).

And the motive fallacy...yeesh...what would political pundits fill the airwaves with if they were not allowed to commit this fallacy? It's certainly appropriate to ask about possible motives, but to focus solely on who is funding whom and disregard the substance of any claims being made does a disservice to the pursuit of truth.

Then again, it's all about the ratings isn't it? And becoming a celebrity. Once you're a celebrity, people will believe you. Trust me. I know because I'm an expert on celebrities — I've been watching them all my life. And I'm not accepting any money from SAG, so I have no reason to lie.