"Supressed" Climate Report was Junk Science

"Supressed" Climate Report was Junk Science
Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI ("CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!"), are all a-twitter over an apparently "suppressed" document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this "suppressed" document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let's take a look…

First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don't even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can't have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I'd suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….

Why It's Time to Get Rid of the So-Called Terrorist Watch List

Why It's Time to Get Rid of the So-Called Terrorist Watch List
In paper form, it is more than 540 pages long. Before 9/11, the government's list of suspected terrorists banned from air travel totaled just 16 names; today there are 44,000. And that doesn't include people the government thinks should be pulled aside for additional security screening. There are another 75,000 people on that list.

With Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, 60 Minutes spent months going over the names on the No Fly List. While it is classified as sensitive, even members of Congress have been denied access to it. But that may have less to do with national security than avoiding embarrassment.

Asked what the quality is of the information that the TSA gets from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI, Trento says, "Well, you know about our intelligence before we went to war in Iraq. You know what that was like. Not too good."

... 60 Minutes certainly didn't expect to find the names of 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers on the list, since they have been dead for five years. 60 Minutes also found a number of high-profile people who aren't likely to turn up at an airline ticket counter any time soon, like convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, now serving a life sentence in Colorado, and Saddam Hussein, who, at the time, was on trial for his life in Baghdad.

Hannity cites CBO numbers on health care, while ignoring CBO numbers on cap and trade

Hannity cites CBO numbers on health care, while ignoring CBO numbers on cap and trade
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity selectively cited "the impact of the CBO numbers and the CBO scoring" while discussing health care reform, but not CBO's estimate for cap-and-trade legislation.


On the June 24 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity selectively cited "the impact of the [Congressional Budget Office] numbers and the CBO scoring" while discussing health care reform, but not its estimate for cap-and-trade legislation. Hannity stated: "A lot of people haven't paid attention to it, and the impact of the CBO numbers and the CBO scoring, nor are people paying attention to this cap and tax, which could cost us nearly 3 million jobs and literally tax American families about $2,000 each." However, Hannity ignored that CBO estimated in a June 19 analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that the net impact to households from the bill in 2020 would range between a benefit of $40 per year and a cost of $340 per year, with an average cost of $175 per year -- a figure significantly less than $2,000.

Lawmakers, activists battle over mountaintop removal mining

Lawmakers, activists battle over mountaintop removal mining
Coal industry advocates and environmentalists converged on Capitol Hill on Thursday at a congressional hearing on the impact of mountaintop removal mining on Appalachian streams and rivers.

The coal industry has long held that this method of mining, which involves blasting the tops off mountains to reveal the underlying seams, is the most economical way of extracting coal. Environmentalists decry the destruction of Appalachian forests and streams and the coal waste runoff that often seeps into the surrounding water supply.

The Obama administration has vowed to change mountaintop removal mining practices, and in March the Environmental Protection Agency cited a proposed mine in Kentucky and one in West Virginia as examples of areas with particularly environmentally hazardous "valley fills," or areas where mountain streams are covered with rock and dirt that have been blasted away to reach seams of coal.

The EPA has pledged to review other mining permits, using "the best science" and following "the letter of the law" — moves that could delay the issuing of mining permits and require revisions to those permits.

However, the Obama administration stopped short of calling for an end to mountaintop removal. Environmentalists and some members of Congress would like to see an outright ban.

That would be a disaster, according to the National Mining Association.

"At a time when we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to create jobs, it is inconceivable that some in Congress would attempt to destroy some of the highest-paying jobs in American industry," said Hal Quinn, the association's president and chief executive, in a statement Thursday.

Though activists from across the country wearing T-shirts that read "Friends of Coal" and "I Love Mountains" packed the hallways and the committee hearing room, the sharpest dialogue and tension took place among committee members who hail from coal-producing states and their colleagues.

"There is no denying coal's significance to the culture and economy of Appalachia," said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works water and wildlife subcommittee. "However, mountaintop coal mining is a long-term assault on Appalachia's environment, economy, culture, and the health of its citizens."

Cardin and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., are sponsoring legislation that would outlaw mountaintop mining. The bipartisan proposal puts them at odds with fellow committee member and the subcommittee's ranking Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who says the legislation would result in job losses and higher electricity prices.

Nearly half the nation's electricity comes from coal.

"I'm concerned about the infighting among Democrats when it comes to coal," Inhofe said, referring to battles within the Democratic Party over how to best cap greenhouse gas emissions and whether to ban mountaintop removal mining.

After weeks of tense back and forth and internal disputes, House Democrats may be poised to push through historic climate-change legislation in a few days.

The brewing debate over banning mountaintop removal mining could reignite those tensions.

"The administration's decision will bring tighter scrutiny, but it is still important to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would prohibit blowing off the tops of mountains and putting the waste in our streams," said Alexander, a committee member. "Coal is an essential part of our energy future, but it is not necessary to destroy our environment in order to have enough of it."

Food Inc: Michael Pollan and Friends Reveal the Food Industry's Darkest Secrets

Food Inc: Michael Pollan and Friends Reveal the Food Industry's Darkest Secrets

It turns out that figuring out the most simple thing -- like what's on your dinner plate, and where it came from -- is actually a pretty subversive act.

That's what director Robert Kenner found out while spending six years putting together the amazing new documentary, Food Inc., which features prominent food writers Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma) and Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation).

Warning: Food Inc. is not for the faint of heart. While its focus is not on the gory images of slaughterhouse floors and filthy feedlots, what it does show about the journey of our food from "farm" to plate is not pretty.

The story's main narrative chronicles the consolidation of our vast food industry into the hands of a few powerful corporations that have worked to limit the public's understanding of where its food comes from, what's in it and how safe it may be.

But it's also a larger story about the people that have gotten in the way of the stampeding corporate herd -- like farmer Joel Salatin (also profiled in Pollan's Omnivore’s Dilemma), who has bravely bucked the trend to go corporate.

There's also Barbara Kowalcyk, who becomes a tireless food-safety advocate after her 2 1/2-year-old son Kevin died from eating an E. coli-tainted hamburger. And there is the economically strapped Orozco family, which is faced with the difficult decision of whether to save money by buying cheap processed food and spend more later on medical bills, or spring for the more expensive, but healthier food options that stretch its immediate income.

There are also the farmers who appear with their faces blacked out on screen for fear of Monsanto, or the communities ravaged by Type 2 diabetes, or the undocumented workers at processing plants who are recruited from their NAFTA-screwed homelands, illegally brought over the border to work dangerous jobs for peanuts, only to be humiliatingly sacrificed in immigration raids that only criminalize workers and never the employers.

It's really the people that make this film so riveting. If you've read Pollan's or Schlosser's important works, then you already know a lot -- but the film is still eye-opening on so many levels. And sometimes, you really just have to see it to believe it.

Both Pollan and Schlosser narrate the film, but it is the ordinary folks in the film that make you realize how critical these issues are to the future of food, health care, the environment and human rights in this country.

If you care about what you eat, then you should see this film -- and if you do, you'll likely never walk through the supermarket in the same way again. And that's a damn good thing.

AlterNet recently had the chance to talk with Kenner about whether our food is really safe to eat, why the food industry doesn't want us to know what we're eating, and how we can fight back.

Tara Lohan: So how did this film come about?

Robert Kenner: I read Eric Schlosser's book, Fast Food Nation, and I was struck by the idea that with food, there could be so much we don't know about something we are as familiar with. I began to think about doing a film about how we eat and where the food comes from. Ultimately exploring the idea that -- on one level we are spending less of our paycheck on food today than probably at any point in the history of the world -- and at the same time, this inexpensive food is coming to us at a high cost that you don't see at the checkout counter.

I thought by being able to talk about all the producers -- from the [small farmer] Joe Salatins of the world to big agribusiness -- it could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately, that conversation never took place [because the agribusiness companies wouldn't consent to be interviewed], so the movie kept transforming into something different. I was very disappointed in the wall and the veil that was placed between us and this conversation about our food.

TL: What was your learning curve like -- how much did you know about these issues going into this, and what did you learn along the way?

RK: I'm still learning. I didn't come into this as a food activist, I came into this as a filmmaker who found it an interesting conversation. I didn't want to make a film for the converted, I didn't want to make a film for the true believers; I wanted to make a film for people who hadn't thought about the food they are eating. I thought it was most important to try and get people, not to turn their stomachs but to open their eyes.

After attacking Obama for it, Krauthammer refers to Khamenei as ‘Supreme Leader.’

After attacking Obama for it, Krauthammer refers to Khamenei as ‘Supreme Leader.’
Last Friday, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer disdainfully attacked President Obama for referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the “Supreme Leader” of Iran. “‘Supreme Leader’? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator,” wrote Krauthammer. But during an interview on Dennis Miller’s radio show today, Krauthammer himself referred to the ayatollah as “Supreme Leader”:

KRAUTHAMMER: And the reason he did it is that he thinks he needs to preserve his relations with the existing regime so that he can negotiate nuclear disarmament with them, which in and of itself is a lunatic fantasy. It’s not going to happen. There’s no way he’s going to sweet talk, you know, the Supreme Leader out of his nukes. So, that was the point. He thought that if I support the protesters too much, I alienate and I prevent the relations with the government and I can’t.



The New Republic’s Chris Orr notes that Krauthammer also referred to Khamenei as “Supreme Leader” days before his column attacking Obama for using the phrase was published. This isn’t surprising, considering that top conservatives have regularly referred to Khamenei as “Supreme Leader.

Missouri lawmaker on child hunger: ‘Hunger can be a positive motivator.

Missouri lawmaker on child hunger: ‘Hunger can be a positive motivator.
In her June newsletter, State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-MO) provided several “commentaries” to a press release from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on a summer food program. The program provides “food during the summer for thousands of low-income Missouri children who rely on the school cafeteria for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year.” Davis, who serves as the chairwoman of the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families, questioned whether the program is “warranted,” and extolled the hidden benefits of child hunger:

Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. [...] Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another. [...] Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break. [...] It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts.

A report by Feeding America found that one in five Missouri children currently lives with hunger. Taking apart Davis’ other arguments, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial noted that most of the summer feeding program sites are actually hosted by churches and that the program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, fed 3.7 million meals at a total cost of less than $9.5 million last summer — “a pretty good use of federal money.” (HT: DailyKos diarist Dem Beans)

Why should we listen to conservatives on foreign policy?

Why should we listen to these conservatives on foreign policy?
When considering what kind of platform to offer conservative commentators' criticism of President Obama's reaction to events in Iran, the media should remember these commentators' previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about other foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war.


On newspaper opinion pages and in recent appearances on cable news, conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's reaction to unfolding events in Iran. However, in considering what kind of platform to offer these commentators' criticisms, the media should remember their previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war.

One prominent example is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which stated in a June 18 editorial: "Now the President who likes to say that 'words matter' refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control." And in a June 15 editorial, the Journal wrote, "President Obama came to office promising the world's dictators an open hand in exchange for an unclenched fist. ... [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has repudiated the President's diplomacy of friendly overture. It turns out that the 'axis of evil' really is evil -- and not, as liberal sages would have it, merely misunderstood. The [Iranian] vote should prompt Mr. Obama to rethink his pursuit of a grand nuclear bargain with Iran, though early indications suggest he plans to try anyway." The editorial asserted that if a report in The New York Times was correct, "then Mr. Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter and the mullahs will play him for time to get their bomb."

However, the Journal editorial page has a record replete with discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy:

Iraq

January 22, 2003:

We don't have much time for the argument that President Bush's Iraq policy is about "blood for oil." But if anyone is looking for reasons to doubt his stated commitment to bring democracy to that country, they need only look at the way his Administration has been handling the Iraqi opposition.

The Iraqi National Congress is by far the most significant player in that movement. It's an umbrella organization led by Ahmad Chalabi, a University of Chicago-educated mathematician and banker. Its professed goal is a unified, pluralistic and democratic Iraq -- which is why it draws support from among all Iraqi ethnic groups, including the two Kurdish factions. In 1996 it succeeded in unifying the Kurds and actually taking ground from Saddam's army only to be turned back after the Clinton Administration denied air support. The INC has since brought out scores of defectors and tons of information on Saddam's weapons programs.

All in all a good set of allies -- to everyone but the State Department. Back in November we reported that Foggy Bottom was nickel-and-diming the aid requests of the INC, contrary to the spirit of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and Mr. Bush's statements about helping Iraqis liberate their own country. Our editorial apparently got some White House attention and the group's 2002 funds were finally released.

But 2003 finds State still trying to micromanage the INC budget, balking at funds to help the INC cooperate with Defense Department efforts to train Iraqi exiles, to restart the group's satellite TV channel, and even for the post of Arab media coordinator. We could go on. But the truth is that much damage has already been done. If the U.S. invades, the INC won't be the military or public relations asset it might have been.

February 25, 2003:

We hope Messrs. Bush and [Tony] Blair understand that the ultimate political endorsement for disarming Iraq is not a nine-to-six Security Council vote, if by some miracle that can be achieved. It will be the nasty weapons and the cheering Iraqis the coalition finds when it liberates the country. And if the President continues to bow to the U.N. rebuffs much longer, Mr. [Richard] Holbrooke won't be the only Democrat attacking him from the right.

April 16, 2003:

With the Pentagon declaring the end of "major combat" in Iraq, most Americans are responding with relief and pride. Our troops have performed with skill, courage and even honorable restraint in deposing a dictator half a world away in less than a month. The puzzle is why some Americans, especially media and liberal elites, continue to wallow in pessimism about this liberation.

Two weeks ago these elites were predicting a long war with horrific casualties and global damage. Then at the sight of Iraqis cheering U.S. troops in Baghdad, they quickly moved on to fret about "looting" and "anarchy." Now that those are subsiding, our pessimists have rushed to worry that Iraqi democracy and reconstruction will be all but impossible. What is it that liberals find so dismaying about the prospect of American success?

In discounting these gloomy new predictions, it helps to consider their track record. Among the anticipated disasters that haven't come true: a "nationalist" uprising against U.S. troops, a la Vietnam; the "Arab street" enraged against us; tens of thousands of civilian casualties and a refugee and humanitarian crisis; bloody house-to-house urban combat; Iraq's oil fields aflame, lifting oil prices and sending the economy into recession; North Korea ("the greater threat") using the war as an excuse to attack; the Turks intervening in northern Iraq and at war with the Kurds; and all of course leading to world-wide mayhem.

[...]

We don't write this in any spirit of gloating, because in fact this union of American left and far right may pose a long-term problem for liberated Iraq. Nation-building will require both patience and political consensus to succeed. Looking for vindication, these voices may too quickly look for reasons to call every mistake or difficulty a disaster -- and demand a U.S. retreat. As optimists ourselves, we'll hold out hope that the sight of free Iraqis will cause at least some of them to revive their faith in American principles.

Other misinformation

WSJ falsely claimed that FISA court approved "warrantless wiretapping program" exposed in 2005

WSJ editorial falsely asserted "[n]ot a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11"

WSJ defended Bush domestic surveillance program with falsehoods -- again

Salon.com executive editor Gary Kamiya also noted the recent Journal editorials on Obama and Iran and the paper's past record on foreign policy issues.

Other prominent media conservatives also strongly supported action against Iraq in the time leading up the war, yet are now criticizing Obama for his response to Iran and North Korea. Media Matters for America has also provided examples of misinformation from those figures:

ABC Obama health care special brings out Fox News' hypocrisy

ABC Obama health care special brings out Fox News' hypocrisy
In criticizing a former ABC News correspondent now working in the Obama White House and ABC's refusal to air an advocacy ad during a program to be broadcast from the White House, Fox News guests and hosts have ignored Fox's own history of refusal to air advocacy ads that criticized the Bush administration, or that Tony Snow left Fox News to be President Bush's press secretary.

Since news broke that ABC News plans to broadcast a June 24 prime-time special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," from the White House, Fox News guests and hosts have repeatedly ignored Fox's own history and blasted ABC News over its planned broadcast by claiming, among other things, that ABC News is excluding opposition voices both from appearing in and advertising during the special. Some Fox News hosts and guests have also suggested a "conflict of interest," pointing to the fact that former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass is now communications director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Reform. Fox News' concern over the ABC News special is noteworthy given Fox's history.

As Media Matters for America noted, the network enjoyed "unprecedented access" during the Bush administration. But further reinforcing the hypocrisy of Fox's reaction to the ABC News broadcast are two other facts: Fox News itself has refused to air advertisements critical of Bush administration policies and appointees, and in 2006, Tony Snow, then-Fox News anchor and radio host, left Fox to serve as President Bush's White House press secretary.

On the June 17 edition of his show, Fox News' Sean Hannity described the ABC special as a "Mickey Mouse-sponsored infomercial," and said: "Now, it's bad enough that the White House is taking over a broadcast network for a full hour, but we were also reminded today that the White House director of communications for health care spin is none other than former ABC correspondent Linda Douglass." He added: "Now that cannot be a coincidence. We also learned that ABC has declined a request by a conservative health care group to buy ad time during the infomercial. Now, the group says that, at the very least, they had hoped that ABC would let the other side pay for airtime. But, no, apparently Mickey was not interested." Hannity hosted Karl Rove, former Bush adviser and current Fox News contributor, to discuss the issue.

Similarly, on the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated that ABC is "now refusing ... to air a paid TV ad representing the opposing conservative view when it comes to health care," and added that the special "sounds like it is going to be one big infomercial." Kilmeade went on to note that the "director of communications is Linda Douglass, former ABC News reporter," who is "now at the White House Office of Health Reform," and asked Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin: "You think there's a connection there?" Malkin replied, "It certainly seems like it, and, of course, these conflicts of interest don't matter to the liberal media and to the -- their government masters and overlords."

In criticizing ABC News, neither Hannity nor Kilmeade noted that Fox News previously refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticized the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. In an email provided to Media Matters by the center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad, but said that "[i]f you have documentation that it [the constitution] is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that." Moreover, in 2005, Fox News refused to run an ad critical of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who Bush had nominated to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Fox News does, however, repeatedly air anti-health care reform ads from the Conservatives for Patients' Rights, the group whose ad was reportedly rejected by ABC.

The Surge Worked is an Urban Myth

Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq
Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence.

"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.

"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.

Some 2 million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq, while 2 million more have sought refuge in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Previously religiously mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad became homogenized Sunni or Shi'ite Muslim enclaves.

O'Reilly Rages Against Joan Walsh Over Tiller Murder

O'Reilly Rages Against Joan Walsh Over Tiller Murder (VIDEO)
[Via Media Monitor Jon] Wow. Joan Walsh went on the O'Reilly Factor tonight having publicly vowed to be well-prepared to defend the reproductive rights of women and the legality of Dr. George Tiller's clinical practice, and truly doled out some major ownage without raising her voice or raising the temperature at all. It was an artful performance of talking headery, and what can I say? By the end of their two segments, O'Reilly is reduced to a gibbering, shout-faced wreck. If you need to know how far Walsh pummeled O'Reilly into pure insipidity, wait for the moment where he says to her: "My constitutional rights say I can say what I say, you can say what you say, as vile as you say it, you can say it, and I would never condemn you for saying it. You are misguided, you have blood on your hands because you portrayed this man as a hero."

Right. Bill O'Reilly would never condemn you for speaking your mind, if you don't count the whole YOU ARE VILE and YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS condemnation part!

Conservative Pundit Celebrates Creation of Alternate Reality

Conservative Pundit Celebrates Creation of Alternate Reality
Yesterday, Charles Krauthammer accepted the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, an annual award given by News Corporation. In his acceptance speech, Krauthammer lauded Fox News channel, which he said has “done a great service to the American polity” and for “single-handedly breaking up the intellectual and ideological monopoly that for decades exerted hegemony (to use a favorite lefty cliché) over the broadcast media.” But his praise took a strange turn when he extolled the “genius” of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes for creating an “alternate reality” for its viewers:

KRAUTHAMMER: What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.

A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn’t even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.

Elsewhere in his speech, Krauthammer tried to explain why his award was more valuable to him than the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize is “awarded to those, from Yasir Arafat to Jimmy Carter, who give the most succor to the forces of terror and tyranny,” Krauthammer said. (HT: TPM)

Obama decided to "take over Fannie, take over Freddie" ?

Hannity's new false talking point Obama decided to "take over Fannie, take over Freddie"
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely claimed or suggested that the Obama administration acted to "take over Fannie, take over Freddie." In fact, it was the Bush administration that made the decision to "take over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On the June 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama acted to "fundamentally... take over Fannie, take over Freddie." In fact, it was the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) under the Bush administration, with the financial support of the Bush Treasury Department, that made the decision to "take over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On September 7, 2008, at a joint news conference with then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, FHFA Director James B. Lockhart announced that he had placed the companies into conservatorship, a legal process in which a person or entity -- in this case, the FHFA -- is appointed to establish control and oversight of a company to put that company in a sound and solvent condition. As the FHFA noted in a fact sheet released at the time of the announcement:

The Conservator controls and directs the operations of the Company. The Conservator may (1) take over the assets of and operate the Company with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of the Company and conduct all business of the Company; (2) collect all obligations and money due to the Company; (3) perform all functions of the Company which are consistent with the Conservator's appointment; (4) preserve and conserve the assets and property of the Company; and (5) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the Conservator.

Following Lockhart's announcement, Paulson stated: "I support the Director's decision as necessary and appropriate and had advised him that conservatorship was the only form in which I would commit taxpayer money to the GSEs." He also laid out a series of "additional steps" the Treasury Department was taking "to complement FHFA's decision to place both enterprises in conservatorship," including the purchase of preferred stock in the two companies.

On June 3, Hannity asserted:

[T]here's a point here that we need to discuss, and this is Barack Obama, if we get to the root cause of -- if anyone would have predicted that he was going to accumulate these debt -- this debt, these deficits, that he was going to fundamentally take over GM, take over Chrysler, take over the banks, take over Fannie, take over Freddie, and that he's going to go on an apology tour and then say we're not a Christian nation, these are fundamental -- you know, there's a fundamental foundation of America that we are altering here.

On June 2, Hannity similarly suggested that the Obama administration was responsible for the takeovers of Freddie and Fannie, stating: "So now on the economy, we've got the government taking over car companies and nationalizing banks, and they're taking over Freddie and Fannie."

Media Matters for America has documented a pattern of the media leaving out relevant information about the role of Bush-era policies in discussing the current state of the economy.

From the June 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: But I think, fundamentally, there's a point here that we need to discuss. And that is Barack Obama, if we get to the root cause of -- if anyone would have predicted that he was going to accumulate these debt -- this debt, these deficits; that he was going to fundamentally take over GM, take over Chrysler, take over the banks, take over Fannie, take over Freddie; and that he's going to go on an apology tour and then say we're not a Christian nation, these are fundamental -- you know, there's a fundamental foundation of America that we are altering here.

From the June 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: And we continue now with our "Great American Panel."

All right. So now on the economy, we've got the government taking over car companies and nationalizing banks, and they're taking over Freddie and Fannie. And they've got, you know, a $2 trillion deficit this year, quadrupling it, $10 trillion in the future. I guess this is socialism.

What the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal

What the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal
Comey begins by noting that OLC lawyer Patrick Philbin had expressed numerous objections to the Bradbury memo -- all of which were being ignored in the rush to give the White House what it wanted:

Comey then noted that he, too, had "grave reservations" about the DOJ legal opinion:

Does that sound to you like there was unanimity in the DOJ about the legality of these methods?

As a result of his objections, Comey went to Attorney General Alberto Gonazles to urge that the memo not be approved, but Gonzales told him that he was under extreme pressure from Dick Cheney, David Addington, Harriet Miers -- and even Bush himself -- to get these memos issued:

Comey urged Gonzales to stop the approval of the "combined techniques" memo, warning it would "come back to haunt him":

The following day, Comey noted that the loyalty of DOJ lawyers lay with the White House, not with the Justice Department, and they were thus willing to comply with the demands of Cheney and Addington even at the expense of their duties as DOJ lawyers:

Bush Lawyers Approved Constitution-Free Domestic Military Ops, Docs Show

Bush Lawyers Approved Constitution-Free Domestic Military Ops, Docs Show
The Justice Department secretly authorized President George Bush to use the military inside the United States to snoop on, raid and even kill citizens in order to fight terrorism without regard to the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, according to a Oct 23, 2001 memo released by the Obama Administration Monday.

"We do not think a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probable cause or to obtain a warrant," the Office of Legal Counsel memo (.pdf) said. "We think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks."

Department of Justice special counsel Robert Delahunty and John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general best known for penning a memo authorizing government agents to torture suspected terrorists, issued the memo after the administration asked whether it could use the military inside the United States.

Government employees rely on the Office of Legal Counsel’s memos for binding advice as to what activities are and are not legal.

Media again stoke fears that Obama too close to Muslim world

Media again stoke fears that Obama too close to Muslim world
SUMMARY: Media figures have used President Obama's second overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East to stoke fears that he may be too close to the Muslim world or harbors a secret, anti-American agenda.



In covering President Obama's second overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East, the media have used the trip to stoke fears that he may be too close to the Muslim world or harbors a secret, anti-American agenda. For example, on the June 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated of Obama's trip: "[H]e pretty much told them today that he's one of them, he's got Muslim roots, he grew up -- three different countries with Muslim people, relatives and so forth. Then he says he's gonna close Guantánamo. 'We're gonna stop the torture. I've made it unequivocally illegal, and we're gonna close Guantánamo Bay.' Of course, that's -- we're harming ourselves. That's why they love him."

This theme follows a series of baseless smears from the presidential campaign intended to stoke fears about Obama's background and sow suspicions that, as ABC News' senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper noted, Obama was "some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate," including that he was educated in a radical madrassa and that he is a Muslim and not a Christian.

Media Matters for America has identified numerous recent examples of media figures reviving negative references to Obama and Islam, including the following:

* Several Fox News media figures have pointed to Obama's current overseas trip to Saudi Arabia and Cairo as, in the words of Fox News host Steve Doocy, Obama's "Muslim apology tour," echoing an assertion made about Obama's European and Middle Eastern trip in April. On the June 4 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy asserted that "some have -- commentators have referred it as President Obama's Muslim apology tour." Similarly, on the June 3 edition of Fox & Friends, on-screen text asked of Obama upon his arrival in Saudi Arabia: "Will He Continue 'Apology-looza?' " Additionally, on the June 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, radio host and comedian Dennis Miller stated that there was "going to be a lot of butt kissing" during "Obama's mea culpa with the Arab world."

Yikes! Did Obama Really Call America A Muslim Country? Nope.

Yikes! Did Obama Really Call America A Muslim Country? Nope.

With President Obama set to depart for the Mideast, many will likely jump on him today for allegedly calling America a Muslim country on French television late yesterday.

Indeed, critics are already grabbing on to the comment as it was reported in the New York Times write-up:

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.

The Times piece is already spreading rapidly on the right. PowerLineBlog, for instance, asked: “In what possible sense can any rational person consider the United States to be a Muslim country?” But here’s what Obama actually said:

Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.

Hard-core rhetoricians will note that Obama was employing an obscure tense known as the “conditional,” and an arcane rhetorical device known as a “hypothetical.” He said that if you were to take the number of Muslims in America, then one could see America as ranking up there with other Muslim countries — in numerical, hypothetical terms.

Sure, let’s fact-check the claim about the number of Muslims and analyze the policy implications. But come on, the man simply didn’t say America is a Muslim country. It’s going to be a long week.

Cheney and Rice use The Trauma of 9/11 Excuse

Cheney and Rice use The Trauma of 9/11 Excuse

Top officials from the Bush administration have hit upon a revealing new theme as they retrospectively justify their national security policies. Call it the White House 9/11 trauma defense.

"Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans," Condoleezza Rice said [1] last month as she admonished a Stanford University student who questioned the Bush-era interrogation program. And in his May 21 speech [2] on national security, Dick Cheney called the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a "defining" experience that "caused everyone to take a serious second look" at the threats to America. Critics of the administration have become more intense as memories of the attacks have faded, he argued. "Part of our responsibility, as we saw it," Cheney said, "was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America."

I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice (then the president's national security adviser) and Cheney in the vice president's office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive. I remember the next day, too, when smoke still rose from the Pentagon as I sat in my office in the White House compound, a gas mask on my desk. The streets of Washington were empty, except for the armored vehicles, and the skies were clear, except for the F-15s on patrol. Every scene from those days is seared into my memory. I understand how it was a defining moment for Cheney, as it was for so many Americans.

Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. "If you were there in a position of authority and watched Americans drop out of eighty-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people," Rice said in her recent comments [1], "then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again."

I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years -- on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping -- were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney's admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Thus, when Bush's inner circle first really came to grips with the threat of terrorism, they did so in a state of shock -- a bad state in which to develop a coherent response. Fearful of new attacks, they authorized the most extreme measures available, without assessing whether they were really a good idea.

I believe this zeal stemmed in part from concerns about the 2004 presidential election. Many in the White House feared that their inaction prior to the attacks would be publicly detailed before the next vote -- which is why they resisted the 9/11 commission -- and that a second attack would eliminate any chance of a second Bush term. So they decided to leave no doubt that they had done everything imaginable.

The first response they discussed was invading Iraq. While the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was in the White House suggesting an attack against Baghdad. Somehow the administration's leaders could not believe that al-Qaeda could have mounted such a devastating operation, so Iraqi involvement became the convenient explanation. Despite being told repeatedly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, some, like Cheney, could not abandon the idea. Charles Duelfer of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group recently revealed in his book, "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq," [3] that high-level U.S. officials urged him to consider waterboarding specific Iraqi prisoners of war so that they could provide evidence of an Iraqi role in the terrorist attacks -- a request Duelfer refused. (A recent report [4] indicates that the suggestion came from the vice president's office.) Nevertheless, the lack of evidence did not deter the administration from eventually invading Iraq -- a move many senior Bush officials had wanted to make before 9/11.

On detention, the Bush team leaped to the assumption that U.S. courts and prisons would not work. Before the terrorist attacks, the U.S. counterterrorism program of the 1990s had arrested al-Qaeda terrorists and others around the world and had a 100 percent conviction rate in the U.S. justice system. Yet the American system was abandoned, again as part of a pattern of immediately adopting the most extreme response available. Camps were established around the world, notably in Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners were held without being charged or tried. They became symbols of American overreach, held up as proof that al-Qaeda's anti-American propaganda was right.

Similarly, with regard to interrogation, administration officials conducted no meaningful professional analysis of which techniques worked and which did not. The FBI, which had successfully questioned al-Qaeda terrorists, was effectively excluded from interrogations. Instead, there was the immediate and unwarranted assumption that extreme measures -- such as waterboarding one detainee 183 times [5] -- would be the most effective.

Finally, on wiretapping, rather than beef up the procedures available under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the administration again moved to the extreme, listening in on communications here at home without legal process. FISA did need some modification, but it also allowed for the quick issuance of court orders, as when President Clinton took stepped-up defensive measures in late 1999 under the heightened threat of the new millennium.

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

"I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said in his recent speech [2]. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration's response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.
© 2009 The Washington Post

Richard A. Clarke [6], the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, is the author of "Against All Enemies" [7] and "Your Government Failed You."