Bushian Rhetoric in Action: Iraq Pullout

Remember kids: A 'timetable' for withdrawal of American troops, bad. A 'time horizon' for the same, good. It may seem a semantic argument to most of us, but in the bi-polar reality of American politics the difference becomes amplified by virtue of from whence it emanates. That is, whether the speaker is branded with an 'R' or a 'D.'

President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home.

Combined with the admission of the true state of Afghanistan, the administration is slowly vindicating the opinions of those it has shouted down and stonewalled for the last five years, even if it is hesitant to admit it.

The suggestion of troop withdrawal presents itself as the administration's admission of the flailing status of negotiations over the long-term presence it was attempting to foist onto Iraq, which was more prepared for the onslaught than Bush had hoped. I have documented the details of that agreement in some depth. As per usual, the administration would never frame it as such, but the truth can easily be inferred, a practice which everyone should be well acquainted with by now.

The article cited presents its own frustrations, namely the nasty habit of our stenographer press to instantly parrot whatever meaningless term the administration bestows upon something to blur its true meaning. In a country with an ostensibly free press, one would assume that journalists would be capable of replacing the term 'time horizon' with 'timetable' so as not to play the administration's hand for them. It's obvious why the administration would avoid the latter term, as they have consistently called anyone in support of it cowards or worse. The press, however, is under no obligation to adhere to the administration's semantic gamesmanship.

This tactic has been seen in the past, both in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and after, most recently when every journalist began using the term 'special groups,' on precisely the same day the administration gave them their cue so as to blur the lines between the Iranian-backed Shiite militias we oppose and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias we support. Americans have been granted a free press by the Constitution. The next step is to find journalists who care to exercise that right. The government can do its own dissembling, it doesn't need a complicit press for aid.


Related:

Iraq SOFA: Out on the Curb?, July 14
When a Guest Becomes a Squatter, June 15
Testimonial Vindication, April 8

Sphere: Related Content

Newsbusters Loses Its Mind

Don't make a habit of reading Newsbusters too often, but I comb it every now and again to see how the librul media has been brainwashing me into thinking rapid inflation is a bad thing, or lots of people dying is undesirable, or any other crazy mantra the dreaded mainstream media has thrust upon an unsuspecting world.

Every so often, I stumble upon something truly fantastic, like this gem about a Google conspiracy to censor any anti-Obama website on the Blogger platform.

Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing. Boy, it must be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his opponents like that!

Wow. That's possible. Alternatively, some joker could have gone through and simply clicked the "Flag Blog" button like the one you see at the top of your screen now and the automated system then shut the blogs down temporarily. But hey, who needs reason when you've got a good conspiracy theory going?

Has Obama achieved cult status? Absolutely. Is one of the leading online companies so blinded by love for him that they would begin censoring even the most mundane of criticism? Doubtful.

After a while, it seems someone tapped the author on the shoulder and he tried to backtrack or save face a bit, but even then can't quite commit.

Apparently, this campaign merely took advantage of Google/Blogger's flawed system of finding spam blogs. So, it looks like what we have here is an Obama dirty trick to shut down political opposition.

Getting warmer, but still no. You're confusing the actions of an over-zealous fan with those of the actual campaign. I'm no Obama groupie [yes, 'hope' sounds cute, but is virtually meaningless], but I must admit I haven't seen the fellas on the right frothing at the mouth this much in quite some time. He's knocked them clear of their marbles, and it's extremely entertaining.

Sphere: Related Content

US Military Awards Contract to Saudi Fugitive

When not paying mercenaries to fight alongside US forces, the US military is awarding contracts to a Saudi wanted by the US Justice Department.

The US military has awarded an $80 million contract to a prominent Saudi financier who has been indicted by the US Justice Department. The contract to supply jet fuel to American bases in Afghanistan was awarded to the Attock Refinery Ltd, a Pakistani-based refinery owned by Gaith Pharaon. Pharaon is wanted in connection with his alleged role at the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the CenTrust savings and loan scandal, which cost US tax payers $1.7 billion.

In relation to the $1.7 billion he's already bilked from tax payers, I suppose that $80 million is a pittance. But, surely there are ways to find jet fuel that don't include paying a man that your own Justice Department has indicted.

Interestingly, Pharaon was also an investor in President George W. Bush's first business venture, Arbusto Energy.

I'm not sure 'interestingly' is the best adverb here. Granting Cheney's old company a no-bid contract to do everything in the conduction of the Iraqi occupation--despite its hand in electrocuting soldiers to death--is perhaps in bad taste, but to take political payback to the point of paying a fugitive might be going a bit far.

Sphere: Related Content

John Boehner: Lawuits for Me, But Not for Thee

In what has to be the clearest case of hypocrisy seen in quite some time, John Boehner has been granted $1 million dollars in an illegal wiretapping case, even as he continues to fight for telecom immunity surrounding the illegal NSA program. Boehner, apparently without irony, justified his case by saying, "no one — including members of Congress — is above the law.” The mind reels.

Surely his statement is correct, but that hasn't prevented him from being on the front lines of preventing other Americans from having their day in court. Illegality clearly is only of importance should it affect him, but for him to extend the same standards to everyone else is too much for him to bear. He made this point clear in an interview with Brit Hume:

HUME: The other issue that has risen in connection with this bill has to do with granting an immunity from legal action, from lawsuits, to companies which, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, cooperated with very aggressive government surveillance activities undertaken in the fear that another attack might have been right then on the way.

BOEHNER: But after 9/11, our country and our intelligence officials went to telecommunication firms and other third parties and asked them to participate in a program to help secure and bring safety to the American people, and they did.

And because they did voluntarily, I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get into the pockets of the American companies.

This answer, of course, does nothing to address the legality of the actions, but merely says that the phone companies 'participated voluntarily.' Given that, one presumes that the company which voluntarily participated in his own case would be granted a similar assessment. One would be wrong. That voluntarily conducting illegal activity somehow alleviates guilt is preposterous.

And, as Boehner said himself, "no one is above the law."

A constant drumbeat of supporters of immunity against organizations like the ACLU and EFF, who are working for very little, is to paint them as money-hungry, unscrupulous lawyers out only to make a quick buck. But, really, the organizations are after punitive damages meant to deter future transgressions.

Boehner's own lawyer during his case:

“Punitive damages are not imposed to give awards to plaintiffs; they are imposed to punish and deter illegal conduct and to exact retribution on behalf of society for the violation of its laws,” Boehner’s attorneys, seeking damages and legal fees, argued in a court brief.

At every turn, Boehner's own case throws a wrench into his argument in favor of telecom immunity. And his sense of logic deflects all attacks with equal regularity.

Sphere: Related Content

John McCain Takes the Reins on Wishful Thinking

The spin on Barack Obama this campaign season has been that he's all bluster and little substance. That was to be expected, given his short time on the national political scene, especially when compared to his two competitors.

But John McCain on Thursday took the baton, delivering a speech in Ohio in which he laid out his vision of the world at the end of his first hypothetical term, a speech which was grandiose in scope but limited in specifics.

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

Again, McCain is falling back on "winning" as the impetus for withdrawal while never spelling out what that entails or how it can be achieved. Even as he acknowledges "centuries of sectarian tension," he supposes that it will have faded in the next four years. An incredible claim, really, to presume that centuries of animosity will be solved by a decade of relative anarchy.

"Civil war has been prevented," by refusing to acknowledge it already existed, or that ethnic cleansing has been thorough enough as to render more a moot point. Disbanding militias will undoubtedly continue as more militia members are absorbed by the ISF, which is already seen as a sectarian tool by the under-represented Sunnis.

McCain seems also to be proposing permanent bases while refusing to acknowledge that Congress has to approve any SOFA, something a likely Democratic-controlled legislature will be loathe to approve.

The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated. U.S. and NATO forces remain there to help finish the job, and continue operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven. Increased cooperation between the United States and its allies in the concerted use of military, diplomatic, and economic power and reforms in the intelligence capabilities of the United States has disrupted terrorist networks and exposed plots around the world.

As the Taliban is currently enjoying a resurgence, in order to speculate that there will be regression McCain is obligated to propose some strategic alteration which would precipitate such a change. It can't be more troops, as the US has already pleaded for more NATO forces to no avail, and the rest of our forces are stuck in Iraq. If it's cooperation he's after, the US has already be rebuffed by NATO allies and now by its supposed staunch ally, Pakistan. As of now, and short of any specific and tangible alterations in strategic aims, that al Qaeda would be unable to find a safe haven in Pakistan is a pipe dream.

After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world's repeated declaration that we would "never again" tolerant such inhumanity. Encouraged by the success, the League is now occupied with using the economic power and prestige of its member states to end other gross abuses of human rights such as the despicable crime of human trafficking.

I can't argue with the impotency of the UN, but that in 4 years, McCain will have established a functional League of Democracies is an incredible in and of itself, but that it will have succeeded in ending decades-old conflicts and centuries-old vices is ludicrous.

Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history. Reforms of the insurance market; putting the choice of health care into the hands of American families rather than exclusively with the government or employers.

McCain's plan to allow Americans to buy their own insurance ignores the fact that they can currently buy their own insurance. The problem isn't availability, it's prohibitive costs and that many people, McCain included, aren't qualified for coverage.

McCain goes on to predicate several improvements on "reduction of costs." Of course, no suggestion as to just what might lower these costs.

It goes on from there, with nary a suggestion save for wishful thinking to illustrate just how any of these propositions comes to fruition.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary and the Gas Tax: More Mind-Numbing Hypocrisy on the Campaign Trail

Jon Stewart opens 'Panderer's Box'

If there's one thing consistent about Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, it's that nothing about her stances are consistent. Be it on the issue of the war in Iraq (which she voted to approve), or troop withdrawals (where she once agreed with John McCain), or gas taxes, she has proven time and again that she is willing to say nearly anything to get elected.

Political posturing is nothing new, of course, but that the wealthiest and most politically-connected of the trio of remaining candidates is allowed to pose as the least elitist of the bunch is preposterous and a terrible failing of journalistic rigor and public use of reason. Just because someone gives a speech on the back of a pick-up truck doesn't mean she's an average person. When this is all over, she'll go back to one of her houses, take weekends to places you would be barred from, and go back to her day job ensuring that the public gets just enough carrots to keep them at bay.

The central theme to Clinton's faux populism in recent weeks has been the gas-tax holiday, an idea first proposed (this election cycle) by John McCain. Not surprisingly, given the media's typical unquestioning, non-skeptical disposition, she has been able to brush aside nearly every economist and the suggestion--a correct one, I think--that the proposal is a worthless gimmick which doesn't address the root causes.

Apparently, in terms of the economy, 'elite' means 'everyone.' The economy, of course, is one place where she's "not going to put [her] lot in with economists." Economists may know a lot about economic issues, to be sure, but until they've been driven by the Secret Service and had their gas paid for, they don't know what true Americans want.

One supposes, then, that a non-elitist economic opinion might be found by asking Senatorial-candidate Clinton what she thinks of the gas-tax repeal:

[O]ne of my fundamental disagreements during this campaign with my opponent was when he called for the repeal of the gas tax. Now, the gas tax is one of those few taxes that New York actually gets more money from Washington than we send. And we are totally reliant on it to do things like finishing I-86 in the Southern Tier, or the fast- ferry harbor works up in Rochester, as well as the work we need to do here in the city. So you can count on me to support infrastructure.

Oh.

From a contemporaneous article:

Rep. Rick Lazio and Hillary Rodham Clinton continued trading swings on the gas tax as they campaigned for the Senate yesterday, with Clinton accusing Lazio of "siding with the Republican leadership instead of the needs and interests of the people of New York" on the issue.

So, there you have it: Supporting a gas-tax repeal is elitist and in opposition to the will of the people. Unless Clinton subsequently proposes a repeal, in which case the terms are reversed. No logical fallacies here.

Anything else you'd like to add, Senatorial-candidate Clinton?:

Clinton, meanwhile, lashed out at Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax, calling it "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies."

Either Hillary forgot her economics or she's pandering in the most recent race for office. I'll settle on the latter.

The problem is, Clinton knows she's full of it. When every economist refutes your idea, it's not out of elitism. Johnathan Alter expands upon a few of the reasons. To paraphrase:

• The oil companies are not inclined--or required--to keep prices level. There's nothing to prevent them from raising prices in response and pocketing the difference


• The plan would save maybe $30 per person. Less than a tank of gas.


• The Department of Transportation says it would cost 300,000 jobs. Assuming they're anywhere near the ballpark, that's a steep price to pay for Mrs. Champion-of-Blue-Collar-America. It's a little hard to go around saying you're going to save working-class jobs if you're actively pursuing a proposal that would eliminate them.


• Most importantly: There's no way the plan is going to happen. Clinton knows it. McCain knows it. Everyone knows it.

When asked to explain the change of heart, Clinton's campaign suggests that they have a way to pay for the lost revenue, unlike Lazio in 2000. First, Lazio did have a plan to use the Federal surplus. That wouldn't have materialized, either, but he did have a plan, workable or not.

Second, Clinton's proposal is to use a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to pay for the budget shortfall, a suggestion that brings even more improbabilities into the fray. She's already used the windfall profits tax once in her campaign rhetoric, so essentially, she's spending that money twice. Again, the oil companies will gladly offset the new tax by raising prices, so the consumer will see none of it. And, finally, there's no possibility of said profits tax being enacted, certainly not by Memorial Day, as Congress already rejected the idea in December.

Clinton has staked her campaign on a plan that she, herself, has rejected outright in the past, utilized economics she knows aren't founded in reality, and proposed a politically-non-viable solution to high gas prices that is an outright pander for votes. I doubt we hear anything more of the gas-tax holiday after the upcoming primaries. In fact, I would be surprised if it doesn't just vanish down the memory hole, like so many of Clinton's campaign tactics and metrics for nomination.

After this proposal dies out, she'll work on her stock alchemist understanding of the electoral process and return to concocting a formula for which states' votes count, don't count, or count twice.

Sphere: Related Content

Past McCain Bites Present McCain Again

I've already illustrated John McCain's 180 on foreign intervention depending on the administration and whether or not he's running for president. Having pleaded for Bill Clinton to pull troops out of Somalia and Haiti in the 90s, he pleads with the American public for the exact opposite in Iraq.

I've refrained from using McCain's now-infamous '100 years' line because I think he was clearly stipulating a situation like Germany and South Korea, not active conflict for a century. (Of course, I don't think that's possible, but that was his contention.) Well, it seems past McCain doesn't agree either.

From January, 2005, on Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Well, what do you think of the Democrats sharpshooting now, saying come home?

MCCAIN: Well, I don‘t...

MATTHEWS: As a policy suggestion, is it something that we all want the world to know we‘re eventually coming home and we might as well argue about when or...

MCCAIN: Sure we‘re going to come home.

But the fact is that the key to it is not when the troops come home. It is when we stop reading—today, Shuster just reported four brave young Marines were killed. It is the casualties that creates the discontent amongst Americans. We‘ve been in Bosnia for, what, 10, 12, years, Kosovo for 10 years, South Korea for 50 years. Americans aren‘t upset about that.

But we have got to get the casualty rate down. And that‘s the transfer of well-trained and well-equipped Iraqis to handle the security situation.

MATTHEWS: But you‘ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I‘ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German—the North Korean—the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?

MCCAIN: I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.

And I don‘t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.

MATTHEWS: So no Guantanamo in Iraq?

MCCAIN: I don‘t see any reason for it.

He begins with the same line about staying but eliminating casualties, but then illustrates that at least at some point in time in the past he had a somewhat accurate perception that the scenario in Iraq isn't comparable to post-conflict Germany or Korea.

Also of note is his dismissal of Iraqi public opinion. While the United States extends its infinite benevolence across the globe, it seems that the opinion of those upon whom it bestows such beneficence barely registers.

Almost three years later, in the midst of a presidential run, McCain reiterated much the same stance on the Charlie Rose Show:

ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

MCCAIN: I don’t think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

During a subsequent visit in November, McCain would answer the same question with an answer closer to his January answer in the townhall meeting.

Either this is a natural progression, one in which McCain takes in facts and new realities and adapts his opinions to meet them, or it's simply yet another reflection of McCain's constant remaking of his image. As this campaign has progressed, McCain's rhetoric and policy suggestions have taken a hard turn right, with the occasional buffeting when he misplaces his notes.

Eventually, once the Democrats are done beating each other up, perhaps someone will notice the inconsistencies.

Sphere: Related Content

Do What Now?

Sometimes you can't help but laugh:

As negotiations on a farm bill have stumbled, Bush has asked the House and Senate to extend the law for a year or longer. He says the new legislation is too expensive and would not do enough to cut subsidy payments to wealthy farmers in a time of record crop prices.

So, let me get this straight. Bush doesn't like the legislation because it subsidizes wealthy members of a large, profitable industry in a time of record prices for the products of said industry.

It seems that same logic could apply to another industry in those exact terms. Care to cut those subsidies, Mr. Bush? Didn't think so.

Sphere: Related Content

Down Is the New Up

Doug Feith, everyone's favorite revisionist historian, took the opportunity on Hugh Hewitt's show to claim, "We took an extremely strongly pro-Geneva Convention position in the Pentagon." An interesting take on historical record, indeed, considering the well-documented steps Feith and the rest of the Justice Department took in the overt aim of subverting the Geneva Conventions. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. And so on.

In Feith's conversations with Phillippe Sands, one might mistakenly construe that just the opposite is true.

With the war in Afghanistan under way, lawyers in Washington understood that they needed a uniform view on the constraints, if any, imposed by Geneva. Addington, Haynes, and Gonzales all objected to Geneva. Indeed, Haynes in December 2001 told the CentCom admiral in charge of detainees in Afghanistan “to ‘take the gloves off’ and ask whatever he wanted” in the questioning of John Walker Lindh.

[...]

On January 25, Alberto Gonzales put his name to a memo to the president supporting Haynes and Rumsfeld over Powell and Taft. This memo, which is believed to have been written by Addington, presented a “new paradigm” and described Geneva’s “strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners” as “obsolete.”

As to Feith's own opinion:

Douglas Feith had a long-standing intellectual interest in Geneva, and for many years had opposed legal protections for terrorists under international law. He referred me to an article he had written in 1985, in The National Interest, setting out his basic view. Geneva provided incentives to play by the rules; those who chose not to follow the rules, he argued, shouldn’t be allowed to rely on them, or else the whole Geneva structure would collapse. The only way to protect Geneva, in other words, was sometimes to limit its scope. To uphold Geneva’s protections, you might have to cast them aside.

[...]

As he saw it, either you were a detainee to whom Geneva didn’t apply or you were a detainee to whom Geneva applied but whose rights you couldn’t invoke.

Feith seems to be in a constant state of schizophrenic flux, not sure if he's settling on the storyline that he played an immense role in the administration or whether he was merely swept along unwittingly by the "idiots" that surrounded him.

Whatever narrative he chooses, the historical record enjoys no such fluctuation, always landing on the precise opposite of Feith's ludicrous claim to the Pentagon being "pro-Geneva."

There is enough in the public record now to firmly conclude, without an ounce of doubt, that the Bush Administration, both the Departments of Justice and Defense, actively sought a legal apparatus to eliminate the need for adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Far from being pro-Geneva, the Administration sought to render it useless and inapplicable.

As far back as 2004, around the time of Abu Ghraib, it was clear to nearly everyone that Feith had a long-standing, personal opposition to Geneva.

It was Feith who devised the legal solution for getting around the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on physically or psychologically coercing prisoners of war into talking. As a Pentagon official in the 1980s, Feith had laid out the argument that terrorists didn't deserve protection under the Geneva Conventions. Once the war on terrorism started, all he had to do was implement it. And even more damning than his legal rule-making is Feith's reported reaction to complaints by military Judge Advocate General lawyers about the new, looser interrogation rules. "They said he had a dismissive, if not derisive, attitude toward the Geneva Conventions," Scott Horton, a lawyer who was approached by six outraged JAG officers last year, told the Chicago Tribune. "One of them said he calls it 'law in the service of terror.'"

Whatever the Defense Department's outlook, it is clear that Feith has held a grudge against the Geneva Conventions for a long time, and most certainly would never have been confused with someone who was "pro-Geneva." It is fairly clear by any standard that the US is bound by not only the Geneva Conventions but numerous other treaties and mandates entered into of its own volition and prohibited from engaging in the torturous interrogations Feith and his cohorts actively supported.

Far from saying Feith supported Geneva, one could easily make the case that Feith acted as a pro-torture activist.

Sphere: Related Content

Ducking the Point

Yesterday, I examined the New York Times piece detailing the Pentagon's efforts to promote its policy in the media via retired military officers who were less-than-retired from positions from which to profit from the war.

Predictably, supporters of the war were less than impressed with the article. Specifically, Max Boot and John Podhoretz, writing at Commentary. To take on Boot's objection first:

Hold the front page! Heck, on second thought, hold three full inside pages as well. Notify the Pulitzer jurors. The New York Times has a blockbuster scoop. Its ace reporter, David Barstow, has uncovered shocking evidence that . . . the Pentagon tries to get out its side of the story about Iraq to the news media.

After getting past the obligatory condescension, Boot opens with the premise that the Pentagon deserves to disseminate its side of the story. Undoubtedly, this is fair, but Boot misses the point in framing his argument this way. Namely, that the Pentagon wasn't simply disseminating its side of the story. It is more than welcome to do so, as that's what press conferences are for. I do contend, however, that portraying the presentation of its talking points as efforts of a detached, autonomous group of retired generals who in fact were being fed their lines offstage is not comparable.

The Times piece illustrates as much when it claims, "the access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."

It is the effort to conceal the influence of the government propaganda mechanism that, by its very existence, exhibits the folly of Boot's supposition. These military men were not rolled out as agents of the Pentagon's "side of the story," they were presented as objective commenters expressing their own opinions.

The second objection is perhaps more thoughtless than the first:

As I read and read and read this seemingly endless report, I kept trying to figure out what the news was here. Why did the Times decide this story is so important? After all, it’s no secret that the Pentagon–-and every other branch of government-–routinely provides background briefings to journalists (including columnists and other purveyors of opinion), and tries to influence their coverage by carefully doling out access. It is hardly unheard of for cabinet members–-or even the President and Vice President–--to woo selected journalists deemed to be friendly while cutting off those deemed hostile. Nor is it exactly a scandal for government agencies to hire public relations firms to track coverage of them and try to suggest ways in which they might be cast in a more positive light. All this is part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism in which the Times is, of course, a leading participant.

Here, after yet more condescension, Boot employs the well-worn tactic of 'yeah, well everybody does it.' It would not be much further for Max to have opted instead for the 'well, they started it' routine.

He seems to be suggesting that because the Times relies on government sources--and thus access--that it's merely part of the game for the Defense Department to spread half-truths and outright lies to the public, and thus nothing to be concerned about. But, really, all he's doing is illustrating a second issue, as I noted yesterday:

..the crux of our journalistic problem in the States can be found [here:] In an effort to gain--and maintain--access to 'sources' or 'government contacts,' journalists have sacrificed skepticism. How can we expect journalists to speak truth to power when they rely as their main sources on cogs in the incarnation of that power?

So in saying that journalists do it too, Boot thinks he's made a point of some significance, though clearly in reality he has simply illustrated the second half of the main point, that journalism as a whole relies too heavily on access and succombs to the pressures to maintain that access, sacrificing integrity in bits and pieces along the way.

Certainly, the Times failed to turn the spotlight back on itself, which it absolutely should considering its performance from 2002-2004, but in saying so Boot does not dispel the central theme of the article. He merely extends it to its logical conclusion. This is not, I think, what he had in mind, but I won't argue his point.

Yesterday's article merely covered but one spoke in the propaganda wheel. My objection to Boot though, is that he sees the collection of spokes circling the hub but doesn't think to throw a stick in between.

Podhoretz, contrary to Boot's proximity to a logical conclusion, simply spins toward the edge without hope of re-gaining traction. He's not really sure what all the hubbub is about since the Pentagon was simply looking for "good coverage."

But, of course, it's not 'good coverage' that is of concern. It's, well, 'false' coverage. The Times:

Mr. [Robert] Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. … Mr. [Robert] Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being ‘manipulated’ to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.

One…participant [of a hosted trip to Iraq in Sept. 2003], General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly ‘artificial’ that he joked to another group member that they were on ‘the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,’ a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had ‘brainwashed’ him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965.

Podhoretz's opening salvo:

I think, based on many years of experience working at various newspapers, that there is an explanation for the extreme length — 7800 words — of the story and the fact that it manages to find nothing more than an effort by the Pentagon to get good coverage. The Times thought it was on to something very big, ended up with something very small, and then took what little they had and tried to make a silk purse from the sow’s ear that was reporter David Barstow’s investigation.

Claiming "many years of experience working at various newspapers" is nothing more than an erroneous implication that his conclusion is not to be confused with mere opinion. He knows about papers, so you just shut your mouth and listen to him, okay?

His conclusion?: That the Times failed to persuade a fanatical believer in the war, namely John Podhoretz, and thus must admit that they "tried to make a silk purse from the sow's ear." Mind you, Podhoretz offers nothing in the way of support of his thesis, but he knows papers, so that would just be superfluous.

Barstow’s endless tale reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs, courted them and served them extremely well, in hopes of getting the kind of coverage that would counteract the nastier stuff written about the Defense Department in the media.

Both Boot and Podhoretz mention the length of the article several times, ostensibly in an attempt to elicit sympathy from the reader for their having to have turned a page or two. I can think of no other reason to continuously mention it, other than perhaps some relationship I've missed regarding the inverse nature of article length and accuracy.

Other than that, though, this sentence is incredible. First, the Pentagon didn't have "hopes" they would receive friendly coverage. They had a team of military men they knew to be sympathetic who had an added financial incentive they were unlikely to opine against. There was no hope involved.

Second, neither Boot nor Podhoretz ever broach the subject of whether the information provided was true. They both seem adamant that the Pentagon's side should be included, even if delivered under cloak of darkness, regardless of its veracity. That journalism should be a vehicle for truth seems anathema to both theses.

Maybe they believed the Pentagon, maybe they didn't. But whether it was being honest with the American people clearly is of minimal concern. Both pundits are merely concerned with the right of the propaganda machine to exert its influence on public discourse, not the right of the public to honesty.

My favorite line:

I intuit that this story, which features extensive use of Freedom of Information requests...

One need look no further. The obvious disdain Podhoretz has for the mere idea that the public has even limited access to facts from within government illustrates clearer than anything I can imagine why he must cling to his dismissal of the story. One would suppose, based on this aversion to government documents being viewed, that he would support the alternative method of public fact-finding endeavors. Namely, that the public would graciously accept the government talking points delivered to them in stealth form. After all, if democracy can rest on nothing else, shouldn't it be able to preside happily over the ignorance of its constituents?

Other than eliciting a chuckle or two, I have yet to find after several readings any significant analysis of why the story was unimportant, misleading, inappropriate or any other adjective.

Podhoretz feels strongly about the issue, we are left with no doubt about that. But all one can ascertain from his parable are his imaginative suppositions as to the process of development of the piece itself. Even the phrasing of the title--What the Times Was Up To--in the form of the affirmative rather than the inquisitive leaves no question as to his premise.

It can be surmised, I guess, that somewhere in America, someone was clamoring to hear John Podhoretz's opinion as to how the story came to be printed, though I'm at a loss to comprehend where this might be.

Sphere: Related Content

Truth From Power

Another day, another incredible revelation of the true scope of the Orwellian fantasy world that has been constructed in just a few short years in the United States.

Not that it should come as a surprise. That pundits and military analysts began selling a fallacious stock of goods in the run up to and in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq is not news. That it was the product of active collusion with the Pentagon and the Bush administration should, though, elicit more outrage than it probably will.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

It is in that last sentence that I believe the crux of our journalistic problem in the States can be found. In an effort to gain--and maintain--access to 'sources' or 'government contacts,' journalists have sacrificed skepticism. How can we expect journalists to speak truth to power when they rely as their main sources on cogs in the incarnation of that power?

Often in the media, there is a drive to present 'both sides' of a story. This is to be applauded, certainly, but only if both sides are playing fair. To have a supporter of the war who speaks glowingly of it of his or her own misguided volition is one thing. To present someone who is simply relaying the Pentagon's talking points in order to defend a policy upon which their financial standing depends is entirely another.

If the government talking points were trustworthy, journalism wouldn't be necessary. We could simply read the White House press releases and be done with it, assured that "we are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia" or "2+2=5" and move on with our lives. But that isn't so.

One of the most essential feats for a budding dictatorship is to render control of the press. There's a reason for that. There's a reason that the people of North Korea, some of the poorest and most downtrodden in the world, don't rise up against a 5-foot-tall laughingstock of a man. Military force is certainly part of that, but control of the press goes even further toward explaining how a small percentage can control the masses.

We need journalists as a check on power, not beholden to it. The press in this country presided over the marginalization of the war opposition, often holding up these financially-dependent military analysts as evidence of their folly. But the folly lies with journalists. Having spent a year graciously disseminating the government line in the run-up to the war, pleasantly granting air time to false prophets, and failing to present the slightest bit of skepticism, it is time journalists come clean.

Journalists have a duty to American citizens. A duty that lies in skepticism and truth. The White House disseminates its own line, there's no reason for the press to engage in the redundancy of doing that as well.

Sphere: Related Content

He Who Speaks for the People

I'll admit to watching about 10 full minutes of last night's Democratic debate before opting for the much more interesting--and informative--wallpaper across the room. That the debate, and I use that term loosely, can stand as tantamount to failing and shortcoming of the current state of political discourse would be an understatement of epic proportions.

The first 50 minutes was devoted entirely to a rehash of the same BS that's been harped on for the last six weeks without any sign of ebbing. American politics has come to resemble a hybrid of Tiger Beat and US, offering absolutely nothing substantive or of any consequence.

What's more infuriating, though, is the suggestion, based on absolutely no evidence, that this style is exactly what Americans demand. George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson were just begrudgingly fulfilling the role demanded of them by the public. In their response to criticism, they hold themselves up as helpless hostages of the will of the citizens. Servants are they, with not a second to waste on such distractions as the economy, or the specifics of a health care plan, or the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In an interview with Greg Sargent, Stephanopoulos repetitively invokes that mindset:

He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.

"This [Stephanopoulos' definition of 'electability'] is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it."

Asked why we should presume that electability, rather than issues, was the dominant concern of many Dems right now, Stephanopoulos argued that it was a frequent topic of discussion on the campaign trail.

With that, Stephanopoulos brilliantly demonstrates the kind of circular logic which allows for the presentation of tabloid political coverage as legitimate. The thought is prevalent in the media, but no less nonsensical for being so. Suggesting that something is important because it's talked about is a logical trainwreck traveling in circles and barely gripping the rails of sanity.

The suggestion that the volume of media coverage is in some way an objective judge of relative importance is insane and ludicrous on its face. The idea's idiocy is surpassed only in its supreme arrogance, the arrogance to claim some secret, personal knowledge of the will and desires of 'the people' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Consider ABC's own data as to the most pressing issue among voters:

Economy/Jobs 41
War in Iraq 18
Health care 7
Terrorism 5
Ethics 4
Immigration 4
Other 13
Unsure 5

Even if we can assume that every single person who selected 'other' meant 'tabloid-style political hackery,' it still doesn't rate anywhere near the top priority.

The consensus today seems to be that Obama took the brunt of the questioning, but even that evaluation glosses over the main travesty. The problem isn't that Stephanopoulos and Gibson asked either Clinton or Obama tougher questions, went easier on one than the other, or illustrated quite clearly what the General Election debate will look like.

The problem, the underlying root of everything wrong with politics in America, is the top-down approach to the entire game of debating. Instead of a forum for presenting reasons to vote for a specific candidate, debates have become a spectacle of attempted erosion of credibility and parade of inconsequential, patronizing reasons not to vote for the other guy.

So we can debate endlessly about weather or not someone is sufficiently patriotic or feminine. We can talk about bowling as a sitting President admits to violating international and domestic law. We can discuss who's really the Everyman, even though it's clear that none of the 3 candidates will ever again be confused as such. We can do that.

But lapel pins don't secure borders, either domestically or abroad. A shot of Crown Royal won't bring back jobs. And an association with Reverend Wright won't make John McCain's foreign policy less disastrous.

As long as the media is allowed to dictate the discussion, the public loses. It's not that the media is liberal or conservative or whatever the running narrative is that week. It's not whether they go softer on one candidate or another. It's whether we as Americans continue to allow them to set the agenda. It's whether we continue to stand for a debate almost entirely devoid of substance and keep sailing along mindlessly until the next vapid windstorm of faux controversy sweeps us away, only for us to be ripped back the other way by the undercurrent.

The quandary, then, is whether we choose to stand up, walk to shore, and stake out a path that suits our needs or simply lie back and let the unheeding river push us along the unforgiving banks of its own telescopic worldview.

Sphere: Related Content

Absolute Insanity

Executive privilege has been invoked throughout the decades for any number of violations of the law, most recently in regards to the ability of the President to do whatever pleases him because the country's in an infinite state of war (on 'terr').

I've never heard of executive privilege used as a defense of slander, though. But that's just what Missouri Governor Matt Blunt (R) has claimed in recent court filings.

"The absolute privilege provides complete immunity to its holder — even for intentionally false statements…,'' Blunt's court document states. "Under this standard, absolute immunity prevents Governor Blunt's alleged conduct from giving rise to defamation liability."

John Yoo would be proud. Where does one find lawyers who believe that simply writing something down makes it legally viable? Torture's not torture because we say it's not. Even if it is, treaties don't apply because we say so. Fourth Amendment? Applied at the President's discretion.

One of the central tenets of the American representative democracy is that our leaders are citizens themselves, not extra-judicial monarchs. That was the point of breaking from, well, a monarchy. To claim that holding an executive office grants the holder of that office carte blanche to do whatever he or she wishes requires an unfathomable amount of audacity.

Here, Blunt (and others) is(/are) claiming the specific right to spread outright lies about a former aide, Scott Eckersley, namely that he was fired for visiting a group-sex website and maybe a drug user. They later rescinded those claims.

The most significant deviation from President Bush is illustrated by this line: "Officials routinely contend that "absolute privilege," or executive privilege, shields them from legal liability for actions or comments made in connection with their governmental duties."

While I don't buy Bush's claims, at least he can attribute his misdeeds to his view of necessary governance. Blunt wasn't governing, and slander doesn't typically fall in the category of "part of official duties." 'Absolute privilege'--as his court filings term it--in this case, if followed to fruition, is basically a declaration that any act by an executive done while in office is immune from prosecution.

Snorting coke in the Governor's mansion has just as much to do with official duties as slander does.

Sphere: Related Content

1993 John McCain Battles 2008 John McCain

John McCain's faux gravitation to the right during his most recent campaign is readily apparent. What has been lacking, however, is any significantly-deep look into just what that entails. While at times McCain seems to be looking through his notes to see what his positions are supposed to be, it is McCain's own words which may do him the most harm. You Tube never forgets.

On Somalia:



Priceless

Transcripts below the fold

In 2008, he's campaigning as the war candidate, but in 1993 he was making the exact case opponents of the Iraq war are making now. It's uncanny.

Mr. President, there is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe that the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1st, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible.

Check.

What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not excercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible.

What is this...Constitution...you speak of?

But the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished. The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake.

Amen.

But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we inmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives...

Absolutely. Unbelievable.

But that's not all. In 1994, he takes on the US presence in Haiti.

The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives. Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side but it is my view and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view that as soon as possible means as soon as possible.

Wow.

These two videos really speak for themselves, but humor me as we count the arguments McCain goes through on his way to laying out the 2008 case against the Iraq war.

• The American people want the troops home
• The US military is not a police force
• The goals of the resolution authorizing US action had been accomplished
• Immediate withdrawal
• No loss of US prestige
  

He literally walks through the entire catalog of reasons for the Iraq withdrawal twice in two years. This is the exact thinking he thinks presents a danger to America. And. It's. His. Own.

Sphere: Related Content

If the President Spoke and No One Was There to Hear Him, Would He Still Be Full of Crap?

After months of being assaulted with the insurgent falsehood that "the surge is working" by the President, his administration, and his new BFF, John McCain, it seems that Muqtada al Sadr has thrown a wrench into their new reality. Or so you would think.

To hear Bush tell it, that violence you're hearing about in Basra and the Green Zone, it never happened. And if you don't believe that, well then consider that the renewed attacks are actually a good thing.

Concerning the efficacy of the surge in the first place, the decrease in violence was attributable to many factors, the greatest of which certainly wasn't a couple thousand more troops. The cease-fire called for by al Sadr last August is arguably the most significant factor, taking his formidable Mahdi army (militia) out of the equation. You take the largest Shiite faction and outspoken opponent of the Maliki government off the table and that violence was reduced should come as no surprise.

Additionally, it has been well-publicized that the US government is paying off a large number of Sunni (former) insurgents to not attack us. Of course, they don't call them Temporarily-Bribed Noncombatants, they call them the Concerned Local Citizens.

Another aspect of the drop in violence--one that people seem loathe to address--is the pure logistics of the sectarian violence. Upon the fall of the Hussein regime, sectarian killings were easy due to the mixed neighborhoods which bred close proximity and accessibility. Five years and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, sectarian killings have become harder because the population is mostly segregated along Sunni/Shia lines. That is, it's literally harder to find people to kill (that aren't protected by their own kind.)

So, clearly there is a number of ingredients to the mirage of success, but an increase in troops isn't high on the list of most significant. That said, somehow Gen. Petraeus has become an untouchable among the US government and media, and to question the success of the surge pure blasphemy.

Then came the week of March 24:

Is 'success' of US surge about to unravel?

Clashes spread as US, Iraqi forces attack Shiite Militia

From the first link:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr's Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr's followers that they'll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

That this renewed violence by Sadr's loyalists is generally considered as a less-than-full-scale rollback of the cease-fire should scare supporters of the the efficacy of the surge. If this is only a slight upturn, the likelihood of the Iraqi forces pushing back successfully against a full-scale onslaught is extremely low.

Basra is Iraq's only port city and contains 80 percent of the country's oil reserves. Not a small tactical region by any stretch.

But when life hands President Bush lemons:

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide more details about the progress of the surge when they testify before Congress early next month. But this much is clear: The surge is doing what it was designed to do. It's helping Iraqis reclaim security and restart political and economic life. It is bringing America closer to a key strategic victory in the war against these extremists and radicals.

On the security side, the surge has brought important gains, which I discussed in detail last week in a speech at the Pentagon. In Baghdad, we've worked with Iraqi security forces to greatly diminish the sectarian violence and civilian deaths. We've broken the grip of al Qaida on the capital. We've weakened the influence of Iranian-backed militias. We've dramatically improved security conditions in many devastated neighborhoods in what some have deemed a "re-liberation."

In Anbar Province -- which 18 months ago was declared "lost" to al Qaeda -- we joined with (read: paid off) the brave local sheiks who launched the first large-scale Arab uprising against al Qaeda.

This speech was given Thursday, as the situation in Iraq deteriorated into chaos. As that Shiite militia that we've rendered impotent interrupted the functions of government and daily life. As significant instability spread to the all-important oil-exporting port town of Basra.

Besides the obvious unwillingness to look at the situation as it is, and not as he wishes, President Bush continues to stress the impact of al Qaeda at every opportunity. This repetition is clearly his effort to continuously conflate al Qaeda and Iraq as retroactive justification for the war, despite ample evidence that no such relationship existed prior to the US occupation.

While spending plenty of time on al Qaeda--not the group responsible for the most recent uprising--in his speech Thursday, Bush mentions al Sadr and his Mahdi militia by name precisely zero times.

That omission is no accident. The actual situation on the ground is of no significance to Bush. All that matters is his continued desire to make this debate about al Qaeda even when the facts belie his case. No one can read a speech that doesn't once name the actual root of the violence, yet centers on a rival group, and suggest that he has any other goal in mind.

The surge isn't working. It never was. Al Sadr was calling the shots from the beginning, and, admit it or not, this administration knows it.

-------------

Update (3/27, 1915):

Glen Greenwald points to this prophetic article from February in the The Guardian predicting the very outbreak of violence that now threatens Basra.

This indicates two distinct options: One, that Dan Smith, a newspaper reporter, has better intelligence and a firmer grasp on the situation than the US government. Or, two, the US government is not being particularly honest about the reality of the situation.

Sphere: Related Content

The Wheels Come Off on the Tarmac

It didn't take long, but the Bosnia story has completely gotten away from the Clinton campaign. The other day I said that she "forgets other people were there." Well, maybe Sinbad didn't think to record the whole thing, but CBS news did.



As with nearly all of her campaign's backtracking, the spin on this story certainly doesn't fail to dig a deeper hole. First, the campaign claimed that although there may not have been actual fire at the airport, there were certainly warnings and that she was entering a potentially "hostile area." Again, this tends to be the case with areas that have recently ceased to be an official war zone.

But the campaign misses the point. If all she had meant to say was that she had made trips to areas around the globe ravaged by war, she would have been correct, and her rebuttal in this instance would make sense.

But that isn't the case. She felt compelled to make it seem like she'd seen action, as if dodging bullets was somehow a major Presidential criteria for a large portion of the population.

In truth, she's told the story several times. As with John McCain repeatedly 'misspeaking,' the excuse only works if you flub once. She told the story in a slightly-less-embellished fashion before. That prompted Sinbad's comments, and it was after she was refuted that she retold the story in its current--recently-deceased, rather-- incarnation. The exaggerated re-telling came on St. Patrick's Day in a prepared speech. When you screw up on the fly, it's 'misspeaking.' But when you misrepresent the truth in a prepared statement, some may venture to call it 'lying.'

What's even more amusing to me is that even in a faux-apologetic state, Clinton found a way to insert even more bullshit, saying, "I was also told the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and I can‘t rush by her. I‘ve got to go at least greet her." (Referring to the girl she meets on the tarmac, as seen in the above video.)

There you have it. She was going to worry about her own head, but being the superior citizen and lover of children that she is, she couldn't resist stopping to listen to a poem from a child that somehow made it onto the front lines of a war zone.

She can't resist the urge when caught in a blatant lie to try and construe herself as the sympathetic character in the story.

What really gets me is that somebody as politically shrewd a Clinton is by nearly all accounts could simply bank on no one having footage of the ceremony. Did she really think it wasn't going to end up on You Tube? How is that possible?

Sphere: Related Content