Opposite of a Sound Counterinsurgency

Daniel Larison's takeaway from a post at The American Prospect:

Lost in the frequent back-and-forth over whether John McCain understands what the “surge” was or whether he knows when the Anbar Awakening happened (answers: apparently not and no) is the more basic point, made here by Matthew Duss, that the Anbar model has succeeded for the time being by pursuing the opposite of a sound counterinsurgency...

Corrupt Idiots

WaPo:

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors, according to an inspector general's report released today.

Goodling was part of an effort to give a large number of highly sought-after Justice Department jobs to law school grads from her alma mater, Pat Robertson's bottom-tier Regent University:

The infiltration by mediocre graduates of a poorly rated faith-based law school into key positions in the Department of Justice is just plain scary. The New Republic website, referring to the Goodling affair, observed with uncharacteristic understatement: “That a recent graduate of one of the worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the [Department of Justice].”

Reduced Violence in Iraq

To borrow from Obama, we've gone from an unacceptable level of violence up to a horrifying level of violence and now back down to an unacceptable level of violence. That's not a tremendous accomplishment. Yglesias:

If you look back to the summer of 2005, you'll see that few people at the time regarded conditions in Iraq as "good" or even acceptable. And yet things got so much worse over the course of 2006 and early 2007, that improvement in 2008 to bring us back to the kind of level of violence we had three years ago -- except with more walled-off and ethnically cleansed neighborhoods in place -- is now represented as a great triumph. James Vega has a forceful post up at The Democratic Strategist reminding us of how perverse this is.

And then you get things like today's newspaper headline "Bomb Attacks in Baghdad and Kirkuk Kill Dozens". The essence of the "success" of the surge is that, as in 2004 and 2005, you only sometimes read about that kind of thing, whereas at its worst you read about it frequently. That's not nothing, but people should understand that even in its "better" state Iraq is very much a shattered society featuring an unenviable quality of life.

Patriotism Differs Between Conservatives and Liberals

This article by Peter Beinart is a pretty good attempt at describing the difference:

What both campaigns understand is that American patriotism wears two faces: a patriotism of affirmation, which appeals more to conservatives, and a patriotism of dissent, particularly cherished by liberals. Both brands are precious, and both are dangerous. And in this campaign, the candidate who embodies the best of both will probably win.

I agree that I tend to think dissent more patriotic than affirmation. However, while Beinart tries to be very evenhanded, I don't agree with some of the other characterizations of liberal patriotism.

A liberal patriot is fully capable of recognizing past American greatness, but there is also something conservative about not needing that belief in American greatness to be patriotic. My country doesn't have to earn my patriotism by being perfect or sufficiently great.

And liberal patriotism can distinguish Americans from others with the same values and American interests from foreign interests. There is value in moral duty to your community.

Here are the primary sources of my patriotism:

1. American ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and expressed by others throughout the years.
2. Past American social, economic, and military accomplishments.
3. My family and friends are Americans, and the future of myself and my family depends upon American success.

The second and third sources on the list may be classified as conservative patriotism by Beinart, but they are perfectly compatible with liberal patriotism.

Another False Attack Ad from McCain

I had hoped for an honest and honorable campaign from McCain. I guess knowing he's going to lose is making him desperate. FactCheck.org:

The McCain campaign is running a TV ad attacking Obama with statements that are literally true but paint an incomplete picture.

It says he "voted against funding our troops." He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

It says he "hasn't been to Iraq for years." He was headed there at the time the ad was released, however, and had been there in 2006.

It says he "never held a single hearing on Afghanistan." It was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's subcommittee, that had the hearings on this global hot spot, and Obama attended one of those. Over the same time period, McCain himself attended none of the Afghanistan hearings held by the Armed Services Committee on which he serves.

Study: Media Tougher on Obama

James Rainey at the Los Angeles Times:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Lest you think the researchers have a liberal bias, the article noted that Lichter is a former Fox News contributor whose past findings have been touted by conservatives:

It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter's researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady.

In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats.

Disbar Alberto Gonzales

Besides being a bad lawyer, he has broken the law and advised his client to break the law. He has been involved in most of the major abuses of power of the Bush Administration, as shown by this Slate diagram (follow the link for the interactive diagram):