DOWNLOADS: (690)

PLAYS: (520)

Embed

On This Week with Jake Tapper, Rahm Emanuel says that the Afghanistan withdrawal deadline is really more of a guideline:

TAPPER: Your portfolio is a lot larger than just energy and the oil spill. I want to move on the Afghanistan. We recently have two grim milestones in Afghanistan. More than 1,000 U.S. service personnel have died in there in service to their country. And this war became the longest in our nation's history.

EMANUEL: Yes.

TAPPER: The president set a July 2011 deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal. But there is some confusion as to what it means, exactly. In Jon Alter's new book, here's Vice President Biden, he says, quote: "At the conclusion of an interview in his West Wing office, Biden was adamant. 'In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out, be on it,' Biden said as he wheeled to leave the room, late for lunch with the president. He turned at the door and said once more, 'Bet on it.'"

But here is General Petraeus testifying before Congress this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, CENTCOM: ... said that it was very important that it not imply a race for the exits, a search for the light to turn off or anything like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So what exactly does the July 2011 deadline mean? Is it going to be a whole lot of people moving out, definitely, as Vice President Biden says? Or could it be more nuanced, as General Petraeus says, maybe just a couple of people leaving one province?

EMANUEL: Well, no, everybody knows there's a firm date. And that firm date is a date -- deals with the troops that are part of the surge, the additional 30,000. What will be determined at that date or going into that date will be the scale and scope of that reduction.

But there will be no doubt that that's going to happen. And I know actually -- I look at both of those, and they're not inconsistent. But remember where we were on Afghanistan policy, that war had waxed and waned. And there really hadn't been a focus on how to bring that war to -- and the effort (INAUDIBLE), even with al Qaeda and Taliban, to a point given what was going on in Iraq.

The president raised the troop level and civilian participation to 30,000. This was creating a window of opportunity for Afghanistan. We are now at that point in Afghanistan, and in fact for the first time in eight years, nine years, they're actually meeting their police recruitment requirements as well as their army recruitment requirements. So they themselves can take more and more responsibility for the security of that country.

Second is we're also -- about a half of al Qaeda has been eliminated in this last 18 months. So we're taking the pressure to al Qaeda, taking the pressure to the Taliban. And we're making progress as it relates to, as you know, after the president's meeting with President Karzai, went back to Afghanistan, held a peace jurga.

There is also progress being made on that side. All of this has been predictable in the sense that we knew once we created this window of opportunity, we were going to focus on what are the resources that are necessary, where are we going to be making progress. But the July '11 date, as stated by the president, that's not moving. That's not changing. Everybody agreed on that date. General Petraeus did. Secretary Gates did. As also Admiral Mullen agreed.

And the goal is to take this opportunity, focus on what needs to get done, and then on July 2011, is to begin the reduction of...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But it could be any...

EMANUEL: ... troops.

TAPPER: But it could be any number of people.
EMANUEL: That's what you'll evaluate based on the conditions on the ground. That is -- but what had to happen prior to that was having a date that gave everybody, the NATO, international forces, as well as Afghanistan, that sense of urgency to move.

Krugman wades into the question of whether Jonathan Gruber's work is suspect in light of his government grant:

For those who haven’t been following this, Gruber — who is one of the three or four top health care economists in the nation — turns out to have a large research grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, for modeling the consequences of various reform plans. This has led some people, mainly Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake, to question Gruber’s objectivity.

The truth is that this is no big deal. Gruber’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; it’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. You wouldn’t ordinarily say that this tarnishes the epidemiologist’s credentials as an independent analyst on infectious diseases, unless you want to say that nobody receiving a research grant can be considered independent.

The only reasons you might see this differently would be if Gruber were either receiving a sweetheart deal, or seemed to have changed his views to accommodate his sponsors. Neither is remotely true. Gruber is very much the go-to guy on modeling reform: it’s hard to think of who else could be doing the work better. And his position on reform has been entirely consistent.

Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes — I think he was being too much of an academic, taking for granted that everyone understands the difference between being a political hired gun and receiving a research grant. Should he disclose the contract every time he writes anything? Well, maybe — but a brief mention should suffice. When you’re writing 800-word op-eds, you need to reserve as much space as possible for real content.

And I have every intention of continuing to cite Gruber on matters related to health care. He’s the top micro-modeling expert, and getting this stuff right is more important than this essentially trivial controversy.

[...] What the folks at Firedoglake should ask themselves is this: do you really want to become just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals?

Even though I posted Marcy's story, I thought this probably wasn't as big a deal as it sounded. And that's one reason why I try not to jump to conclusions when I first read or see a story -- odds are high that the information is incomplete or out of context, by very nature of the 24-hour news cycle.

And jumping to conclusions is the same thing I hate about cable news. I'm not eager to follow in their footsteps.

We've been so often misled by the media that it's good to stay skeptical, but let's also retain a willingness to see how a story unfolds.

Loud noises!

Let there be no doubt that Matt Drudge is the world's biggest douchebag. The gigantic screamer headline above leads us to this ridiculousness, written by Drudge himself:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Ethical firestorm? How is broadcasting from the White House an ethical firestorm? Even someone as thick as Drudge should know that every major press agency has a reporter INSIDE the White House every day reporting the, you know, news. Many of them -- GASP! Siren Light Animated GIF!!!! -- report live from inside the West Wing press room or on the front lawn.

By the way, remember when Fox News Channel's resident Monchichi Brett Baier did a whole thing from "inside the White House"?

O'Reilly, too. And then there were all of those Bush White House press releases that FOX News Channel aired verbatim.

But since Drudge is making a big pee-pee dance about this, expect all of the press to soon follow -- despite reality.

(Cross posted at Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!)

I’m not surprised Dan Bartlett is going to one of the networks; I’m surprised Dan Bartlett didn’t go to one of the networks sooner. (via TP)

Former Counselor to President Bush, Dan Bartlett, has joined CBS News as a political analyst. Bartlett will provide on-air analysis on a variety of political issues, “including at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and beyond,” according to the press release.

Said CBS News & Sports president Sean McManus, “We’re very pleased to have Dan Bartlett join our team. We now go into the final stages of this fascinating political season with two analysts — Dan and Joe [Trippi] — who have had unique and extensive hands-on experience in major political campaigns and government.”

This is the latest part of a strange phenomenon of rewarding the Bush gang with high-profile opportunities at major media outlets. The Bush White House has been, for lack of a better word, a disaster for the country. From a journalistic perspective, these guys have been a nightmare — embracing almost comical levels of secrecy, propaganda, and media manipulation.

And yet, the moment presidential aides leave the West Wing, media outlets jump at the chance to put them on the payroll.

Continue reading »

I keep hearing the name Chuck Hagel being mentioned as a possible Obama appointee if he wins the White House. And it's coming from of all people---liberals. I see it in comment sections and in some articles. As if that's some sort of bipartisan statement for Obama that will have the beltway weenies singing kumbaya across DC. I hate to speculate on something like this because I don't want to assume Obama will win the general. We do have to deal with McCain's Media at all times, but really, what is the fascination with him? Do they really believe that if Obama picks Republicans to be in his cabinet that they'll suddenly be won over and give him a very easy time trying to pass his legislation? I mean get real.

And I've also heard that Robert "Iran Contra" Gates is a good idea too. I don't know, do you think they've watched too many episodes of the the great series......West Wing?

(graphic) If the pundits are so into Hagel---maybe if Obama wins---they can ask him to appoint John McCain to be his Secretary of State---you remember---just like Jimmy Smits did to Alan Alda:

"Santos names Vinick as Secretary of State."

How about if Obama just asks Alan Alda instead?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

The media-manufactured controversies over Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, aren't going to go away if the media can help it. It's much easier to talk about them than admit to propagandists on your booking lists. Rev. Wright agreed to his first public interview, and will be on Bill Moyer's Journal, which will air this evening on PBS. But advance video has the punditocracy a-twitter with the meme that Wright "throws" Obama under the bus. But the media also has a history of purposefully taking Wright's words out of context.

However, take a closer look at that panel assembled. Joe Watkins (introduced as Rev. Watkins, as he holds a divinity degree), who has worked for the Dan Quayle, Bush 41 and the current president, Kevin Madden, whose last gig was as Mitt Romney's spokesman as well as working on Bush's 2000 campaign and Lawrence O'Donnell, the lone Democrat, who formerly worked for Patrick Moynihan and was the Chief of Staff for the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works before jumping to Hollywood and The West Wing and Big Love. Could the deck be stacked any further against anything Wright says? Watch as Madden and Watkins slam Obama by attributing words that Wright did not say, much to the frustration of O'Donnell.

This is great. He’s not using those words and every pundit on TV talking about this wants to force those words into Rev. Wright’s mouth. He’s not using them so we’re pretending he’s using them.

Terrific clip from The West Wing where Penn and Teller burn a flag (or do they?) in the White House. Open thread below.

That's right...the rightful President was invited to go to the office stolen from him. Boy, this had to be awkward. Bush has such a chip on his shoulder, I can't imagine him being a big enough man to keep from making some snarky or insulting remark.

Download | play Download | play (h/t BillW)

The Swamp:

Al Gore slipped out the side door of the West Wing.

In his private Oval Office meeting with President Bush, the former vice president insisted that they had spoken about global warming "the whole time.'' It wasn't clear if the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who shared the honor for his work on climtate change, was serious.[..]

But Gore, calling the meeting with Bush "very cordial'' and "substantive,'' declined to elaborate on their meeting. "I'm not going to do an interview here,'' Gore said in his walk down the streets outside the White House. "I don't want to comment more.''[..]

Gore also has been outspoken in his criticism for other administration policies, most notably the war in Iraq.

The White House insists the president holds no ill will toward Gore, who carried his challenge of the outcome of the 2000 election to the Supreme Court.

"I don't believe so,'' Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino said of any "bad blood'' between the two. "I know this president does not harbor any resentments. He never has.''

Uh huh. Sure.

Bradley Whitford: No More Dirty Tricks! Here's the RSVP page. The call starts at 4PM PST.

On Monday, September 24, from 4-5 p.m. PDT join Bradley Whitford of "The West Wing" fame, bloggers Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.com and John Amato of CrooksandLiars.com, plus California pollster Ben Tulchin of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for a special conference call hosted by Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign.

This video was filmed at the Blogger party at Steve Audio's a few weeks ago. I've signed on to be part of the Courage Campaign's effort to stop the Swiftboat loving lawyers plan to screw with California.

Jane: "On Monday there’s going to be a conference call at 4pm PT/7pm ET with Bradley Whitford that is open to anyone. You can RSVP at the Courage Campaign’s website."

We would like to invite you to a special Courage Campaign conference call this Monday, September 24, with Bradley Whitford ("The West Wing"), Jane Hamsher (firedoglake.com), John Amato (CrooksandLiars.com) and Ben Tulchin, California's pollster for Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.