Confessions of a bottom-feeding blogger

I took several days off from blogging, ostensibly to plant a vegetable garden. However, the garden was planted several days ago, the drip irrigation system is working, and I haven’t been posting.Is it because I’m finding the greatest joy being with my grandchildren, with whom I spend a couple of days a week? If I’m honest with myself, the reason I haven’t been posting is because I’m not sure I’m adding any value to the world of information. I describe myself as a “bottom-feeding blogger” because I rely on what others write. I described this in my March 27th post, "How important are newspapers?" “With blogging in mind, each morning I check The New York Times and The Washington Post. Then I check four well-known blogs, Juan Cole’s Informed Comment, Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory. Scott Horton’s No Comment, and Steve Clemons’s The Washington Note.... I, in turn, rely on these and other bloggers to help me understand what’s going on. Then I attempt to distill what I learn into a few paragraphs for my blog.”

The following describes the sequence of events that prompted me to examine the time it takes to post almost every day when I'm home:

1. On April 6th, I read The New York Times article, "In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop." The article described the death of two bloggers who were working for pay. I’m working for fun and for free. However, blogging almost every day creates stress, which is not good for my health as I turn 68 on Sunday.

2. April 9th was a stunningly beautiful day. In the late afternoon as I hunkered over my computer pulling together my post "Fear for Iran," I kept looking outside, wondering what I was doing inside.

3. On April 10th, I was shocked to see that one of my favorite bloggers, the most prolific blogger I’m aware of, Scott Horton, posted "Is There Life After Blogging?", noting the Times article about bloggers dropping dead and announcing that he would no longer be blogging daily.

I can’t answer the question of whether or not I add value by blogging. I know I miss the discipline of finding something every day worth a post. However, I’m pleased to report that while I was “away,” I explored two new blogs:

1. South Jerusalem: Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman, described as “A Progressive, Skeptical Blog on Israel, Judaism, Culture, Politics, and Literature”;

2. Best Guess Commentary: “Commentary and Analysis on Current Events in Politics, Business, Foregin Affairs and More."

Now that Scott Horton isn’t posting each day, I’m taking the time I used to spend reading his blog to check:

1. Tony Karon’s blog, Rootless Cosmopolitan. I highly recommend his April 9th post, "Healing Israel's Birth Scar";

2. Ken Silverstein’s Washington Babylon.

Lastly, I want to recommend Dan Froomkin’s Monday through Friday post for The Washington Post, White House Watch. I’ve been reading it each workday for many, many months.

I still can’t answer the question “Am I adding value?” But I enjoyed pulling this post together.

(photo of my garden taken this afternoon; photo of my grandchildren from a week ago)

Recommended reading and viewing: White House Torture Advisers

Dan Froomkin’s post at The Washington Post "White House Torture Advisers."

Four minute video clip of last night’s report on ABC News.
Froomkin makes the following correction to the ABC News report:”There's one serious flaw in the ABC report: It allows the administration's version of Zubaydah's value as an intelligence asset to go unrefuted. ABC calls Zubaydah a "top al Qaeda operative" and reports that '[af]ter he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.'

"But as I've written, administration statements about Zubaydah have been almost entirely contradicted by authoritative accounts from author Ron Suskind and New York Times reporter David Johnston.

"Zubaydah, it turns out, was a mentally ill minor functionary, nursed back to health by the FBI, who under CIA torture sent investigators chasing after false leads about al-Qaeda plots on American nuclear plants, water systems, shopping malls, banks and supermarkets.

"The most valuable information Zubaydah gave investigators about Mohammed was his nickname, which, as Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer reported in The Washington Post, the CIA had already learned seven months earlier.”

Update from a friend this evening: Daily Kos: "Memo Signed by Bush, Authorizing Torture, Surfaces." I haven’t had time to verify this report.

"Lame Duck Still Quacks" by Jon Spitz

Jon’s back. After taking a few weeks off to work on local issues involving water rights, Jon is again writing columns for the Mendocino County Observer. The Observer is the weekly newspaper in Laytonville, California, a town of 1,301 residents that straddles U.S. 101 one hundred and sixty miles north of San Francisco. Since last October, I’ve featured several of his columns with links below.*

His most recent, "Lame Duck Still Quacks," is well worth reading. In the first paragraph he sets the tone by stating “…[T]here is still a bloody war going on in Iraq and …we still have a sitting president who is literally getting away with murder.”

Jon focuses on the underreported war in Iraq, the negative impact of the “surge,” and the likelihood the war will rage on regardless of who is nominated for president next November.

Not just one war. We may be on the verge of a second war. Excerpt: “With virtually no Congressional resistance to his war in Iraq, Bush felt empowered to spend much of his recent trip to the Middle East trying to drum up support from Islamic countries for his plan to bomb Iran. Unlike the cowering US Congress, however, the leaders of these countries did not bow down to the naked emperor, and Bush came away with no local Middle Eastern support for his lunatic plan. But such rejection means nothing to Bush and the bombing of Iran is still very much on his agenda.”

There are many more insightful comments in the article. In Jon’s concluding paragraph he warns, “…Bush is not gone, and in these perilous months before the November election he is still in a position to do a lot of damage. Public beware – this lame duck is still quacking.”

Related reading: Today’s post by Dan Froomkin, "Bush's Peace of Mind" (scroll down to the second section). It describes Bush’s sangfroid in the face of the disastrous Iraq war: “Yesterday, as the American military death toll in Iraq passed 4,000, Bush's first public appearance was at the annual Easter Egg Roll, where he appeared in high spirits. Today he participated in a photo op with two bass-fishing champions. ‘There's nothing better than fishing,’ he said.”

* Jon’s previous columns:
”ClintObamaInc.”
"Full-spectrum impotence"
"Don't look now, but here come the thought police"
"The Suddenly Impeachable Mr. Cheney"
"Frank Rich....and Jon Spitz...comment on the Mukasey confirmation"
"The collapse has begun"

(photo of Jon provided by him)

Who is Steven Bradbury?

Steven Bradbury's name is popping up in all sorts of blogs these days. Who is he? According to the White House website, Steven G. Bradbury is the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel U.S. Department of Justice.

Yesterday, Dan Froomkin, who blogs for The Washington Post, linked to several recent articles about Bradbury in "Nominee Watch":

Holly Rosenkrantz writes for Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush said the Senate must vote on his backlog of more than 200 nominees promptly and stop treating them like 'political pawns.'

"'The confirmation process has turned into a never-ending political game where everyone loses,' Bush said in a statement at the White House in Washington. 'It is clear that the process is not working.'"

Paul Kiel writes for TPM Muckraker that at the heart of this controversy lies Steven Bradbury, who has been the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel for more than three years.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and [Dick] Durbin, the Senate whip, revealed that, in negotiations with the White House late last year before the Christmas holiday, the President refused to strike a deal on nominees unless Reid allowed him to recess appoint Bradbury. Reid said he'd offered to confirm 84 of the pending nominees, but the White House said no dice. . . .

Jim Oliphant blogs for Tribune Newspapers: "Who is Steven Bradbury? "Bradbury is the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. The critically important office provides legal advice to the White House and it was this office that, at various times during the Bush administration, green-lighted controversial anti-terror policies involving extreme interrogation methods and the warrantless wiretapping program.

"Bradbury was nominated in 2005. He's been doing the job in an acting basis ever since because the Democratic-led Senate has made it crystal-clear they won't vote to approve him. Durbin said that Bradbury signed off on legal opinions approving abusive interrogation practices such as waterboarding and complained that the Justice Department won't hand over those memos.
"The Senate was so fearful that Bush would use a recess appointment to make Bradbury's position permanent that it stayed in session over the Christmas break, having Sen. Jim Webb come in daily to bang the gavel. . . .

"'When the president is willing to vote so many of his own people -- including four Assistant Secretaries of Defense and the Fed -- off the island for one nominee, you know that person must be special. And special he is,' Reid said. 'Mr. Bradbury is the lawyer who loves to give the president the answer he wants regardless of the law, regardless of its impact on our nation and regardless of what it does to our standing in the world.'"

In a letter to Mukasey this week, Durbin described his concerns about Bradbury -- and about whether his continued service as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel violates the law.

(photo of Bradbury: White House website)

On this day a year ago, Bush's false promises about the surge

How well I remember January 10, 2007. It was the day that an impeachment forum which I organized (with help) and moderated was held. The buzz at the forum was Bush's speech that night about the war in Iraq.

Thank goodness Dan Froomkin, who blogs for the The Washington Post, took time to remind us of Bush’s promises in today's post, "Promises, Promises."

Here’s what Bush promised:

1. “…[W]e can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas….

2. “To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.

3. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

4. “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

5. “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.

6. “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."

Here's the text of Bush’s speech.

Froomkin adds: “And lest anyone think that Bush didn't take these Iraqi promises seriously, he vowed that ‘America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.’ [emphasis mine]

“A year later, security has undeniably improved greatly -- although some experts suggest that the relative calm is due in part to all the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place. But all that promised political reconciliation? There are no signs of it whatsoever.”

Now what? “…[R]ather than hold the Iraqi government accountable -- say, by threatening to withdraw or pull back U.S. troops -- administration officials have come up with yet another plan....

“Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung write in The Washington Post: ‘In the year since President Bush announced he was changing course in Iraq with a troop 'surge' and a new strategy, U.S. military and diplomatic officials have begun their own quiet policy shift. After countless unsuccessful efforts to push Iraqis toward various political, economic and security goals, they have decided to let the Iraqis figure some things out themselves. . . .

"’In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. . . .

"’Although some progress has been made and legislation in some cases has begun to slowly work its way through the parliament, none of [the major political] benchmarks has been achieved. Nor has the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki taken over security responsibility for all 18 provinces, as Bush forecast it would. . . ‘.” [emphasis mine]

(photo of Dan Froomkin: Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard)

Election Watch 2008 Update

Yesterday I posted links to the three sources I plan to rely on to stay informed about the 2008 election.

Here are three more:

1. Congressional Quarterly Politics. This is a comprehensive site which includes an interactive election map that allows the viewer to check congressional districts as well as the larger races. It also has a “balance of power scorecard” for each race.

2. Yahoo! News Election 08 Political Dashboard, recommended by my blogging buddy, Chris Borland, who posts at The Democratic Activist. The interactive map takes the viewer to each state’s presidential primary, polling results for the presidential candidates, and voter breakdown by party.

3. Project Vote Smart, recommended by an old friend, “Weedburner,” who blogs at Weed Garden. The PVS site invites the reader to browse through more than who’s running and projections of who is likely to win. The Voter’s Self-Defense System project caught my attention. Check it out.

I’ll continue to check sources of election information and post about them. My goal is to spend a limited amount of time finding out what is going on and a lot of active time as the 2008 election approaches. Also, I haven’t yet given up on impeaching Cheney, who is increasingly vulnerable. See Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin’s Will Justice Go After Cheney?

(visual: WordPress.com)

Leaders who lie - Have we had enough?

Last Monday, Dan Froomkin, who blogs for the Washington Post at White House Watch, included in his post a couple of paragraphs under Impeachment (Non) Watch: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that during the week of Nov. 4 -9, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's introduction of a measure to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney was 'barely a blip on the larger news-scape.'

"The story did not come close to cracking the top-10 stories in PEJ's overall News Coverage Index. But on talk radio, it was 'the top story with 20% of the total airtime.'"
The next day Public Affairs Books, publisher of former press secretary Scott McClellan’s forthcoming book, What Happened, released an excerpt:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

On November 22nd, Dave Lindorff, co-author of the excellent book, The Case for Impeachment posted, "Impeachment is Back on the Table": “With that one little statement…all excuses for not impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney, not to mention indicting Cheney (who of course has no immunity from prosecution while in office), have evaporated.

“There is no way that American democracy can continue to survive, even in its current truncated form, if the Congress continues to duck this issue and pretend that it has 'more important things to do,' as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her retinue of leaders in the House have continued to claim for an entire year in control of the Congress.

“To keep impeachment ‘off the table,’ knowing that the president and vice president brazenly lied to the American people and to the Special Counsel's office about such a serious offense, is to make a mockery of the Constitution and the law."

I'll be watching the mainstream media to see if impeachment becomes more than a "blip on the larger news-scape" and if more than 20% of the talkers on radio shows "seize on [the] impeachment issue."

Even if the media continues to ignore impeachment, the former press secretary's disclosure is so significant that those of us who support H. Res 799 can urge members of the House Judiciary Committee to subpoena Scott McClellan and begin the impeachment investigation immediately. I highly recommend you go to Chris Borland’s Action Plan: Cheney Impeachment Resolution for contact information for selected House Judiciary Committee members.

(graphs: Project for Excellence in Journalism)

Three blogs to check while I'm away

I’m off kayaking for a few days and like to leave readers with some places to go. In addition to my previous lists, posted here and here, I highly recommend the following:

1. Hullabaloo: There’s an interesting post about this blogger, Digby, by Salon.com’s blogger Joan Walsh, "The hullabaloo over Digby". In a nutshell, no one knew she was a woman until she received an award on behalf of bloggers at the Take Back America 2007 conference. Until Digby’s gender was revealed, she wrote so well that most people thought she was a man! I haven’t been able to find a photo of Digby.

2. Dan Froomkin’s (photo) White House Watch for the Washington Post. Froomkin often asks the questions before others even think of them, i.e., about the importance of Bush’s signing statements. He scours the news and gives you the links to all of the important stories related to any particular issue.

3. In addition to writing the White House Watch, Froomkin is deputy editor of Nieman Watchdog, the blog for the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, "...[W]which seeks to encourage more informed reporting by soliciting probing questions from experts." There’s a great link to websites for journalists. It’s up to citizens to hold our journalists accountable, and here are the tools to help us.

(photo: Dan Froomkin from White House Watch)