Stuart Stevens? Who Dat?

Do you know who Stuart Stevens is? Do you know his face? Have you seen him quoted or watched him on teevee? Apparently, the guy is the equivalent to Barack Obama’s David Axelrod. And, apparently, he’s going to take the fall for Mitt Romney’s horrible no-good lame adventure of a campaign. He’s not a real conservative. He’s too Hollywood. He went to college in liberal enclaves. He’s too cautious. He’s an eclectic flake.

I’ll tell you what the guy is. He’s practically invisible. But he also sucks at his job. Why the Romney campaign thinks it is good idea to air all their internal dirty laundry less than 60 days from the election is a mystery to me.

I thought the McCain campaign was incompetent, but they had nothing on this ship of fools.

Libyans Killed Its Best Ambassador, Chris Stevens – A Tribute [Update]

Ambassador Chris Stevens: The American Who Loved Libya (1960-2012)

BENGHAZI, Libya (TIME World) Sept. 12, 2012 – Courageous and optimistic, he knew the country he was assigned to like no other diplomat. His tragic death leaves an enormous hole in the American foreign service–and in Washington’s fitful dealings with the Arab world.

 « click for article
Chris Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya who was killed in the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. (Photo EPA)

“Salaam alaikum. My name is Chris Stevens, and I’m the new U.S. ambassador to Libya.” With those words Christopher Stevens–the 52-year-old diplomat who was killed along with three other Americans in a September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya–began an online video introducing himself to the people of Libya. Though he only took up his position in May, he wasn’t new to the region. An Arabic and French speaker, Stevens had been a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco, and after working in international trade law in Washington, served in Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia during his 21 years with the State Department.

But it was in Libya–where he also served as the number two U.S. diplomat from 2007 to 2009–where Stevens made his mark. His experience and credibility in a country that had long been off-limits proved invaluable during the chaotic Libyan revolution, and his work helped convince the Obama Administration to provide conclusive support to the besieged rebels. That made Stevens’s death all the more ironic–as President Barack Obama said after the attacks “it is especially tragic that he died in Benghazi because it is a city he helped to save at the height of a revolution.”

MORE: The Killing of the U.S. Ambassador Highlights the Country’s Post-Gaddafi Struggles by Vivienne Walt

The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens was a failure of security and human intelligence. The Al-Qaeda affiliated group knew who would be their target for doing the most damage to U.S. foreign policy. Chris Stevens’ love for Libya made him vulnerable. He spent the late evening in the US consulate in Benghazi, a magnificent complex of villas, but not offering the protection of the US Embassy in Tripoli.

 « click for photo US embassy in Tripoli

There had been clear signs of deteriorating security the past weeks and months in Benghazi.

Taking Back the House

Nancy Pelosi is talking smack about taking back control of the House of Representatives.

“On August 11, when Gov. Romney chose Ryan, that was the pivotal day,” Pelosi told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.” “That is the day things really changed. We were on a path. I would have said to you then we were dead even. Well, the momentum is very much with us, the Medicare issue in this campaign.”

But, it won’t be easy. A cursory review of the races only unearthed about 33 solid pick-up opportunities. We need 25. That means the Democrats have to come close to running the table and not suffer more than a couple incumbent defeats. And, even then, the majority will be so small that Pelosi might not have the votes to become Speaker again. We could see Steny Hoyer jump in front of her.

Breitbartese

“Stupid or evil” is really the new “chicken or the egg.” It would be hard to put more Stupid and Wrong into a post of this length, but it’s hard to believe that the author actually believes anything he’s saying. He’s smart enough to string a series of lies together in an essay, so is he really dumb enough to not know that nothing that he’s saying makes sense or is accurate? You can use that essay in an introductory English class, asking the students to list everything that isn’t supported by reality.

American Citizens Ordered Out of Tunisia and Sudan; Benghazi Security Questioned

Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens – Departure of U.S. government personnel

TUNIS, Tunisia (US Gov) Sept. 15, 2012 – The U.S. Embassy alerts all U.S. citizens that the Department of State has ordered the departure of all non-emergency U.S. government personnel from Tunisia following the attack on the U.S. Embassy. The airport in Tunis is open and U.S. citizens are encouraged to depart by commercial air.

U.S. citizens remaining in Tunisia should use caution and avoid demonstrations, make their own contingency emergency plans, enroll their presence in Tunisia through the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), and provide their current contact information and next-of-kin or emergency contact information.

U.S. citizens should remain cautious and avoid areas where large gatherings may occur. Even demonstrations or events intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and possibly escalate into violence.  U.S. citizens in Tunisia are urged to monitor local news reports and to plan their activities accordingly. U.S. citizens should review the current Country Specific Information for Tunisia.

U.S. orders embassy staff to leave Tunis, Khartoum

KHARTOUM, Sudan (Reuters) – The U.S. embassies in Tunis and Khartoum were attacked on Friday by protesters infuriated by a widely disseminated anti-Islamic film, made in the United States, that insults the Prophet Mohammad and has provoked a violent reaction across the Muslim world.

Four people were killed and 46 injured in the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, according to a hospital official in the city.

In Khartoum, around 5,000 people protesting against the film stormed the German embassy before breaking into the U.S. mission on Friday. They also attacked the British embassy and at least two people were killed in clashes with police, according to state media.

A U.S. official told Reuters on Friday that Washington would send Marines to Sudan to improve security at the embassy, which is located outside Khartoum for security reasons.

But Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti told the state news agency SUNA, “Sudan is able to protect the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and the state is committed to protecting its guests in the diplomatic corps.”

Sudan Refuses to Allow US Marines to Protect Embassy

Wounded Libyan guard tells there was no protest before Islamists attack

(AP) – Libyan security guard who said he was at the U.S. consulate here when it was attacked Tuesday night has provided new evidence that the assault on the compound that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a planned attack by armed Islamists and not the outgrowth of a protest over an online video that mocks Islam and its founder, the Prophet Muhammad.

The guard, interviewed in the hospital where he is being treated for five shrapnel wounds in one leg and two bullet wounds in the other, said that the consulate area was quiet– “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.

The men lobbed grenades into the compound, wounding the guard and knocking him to the ground, then stormed through the facility’s main gate, shouting “God is great” and moving to one of the many villas that make up the consulate compound.

The Libyan security guard at the gate was unarmed and carried only a phone. One of the Islamists wanted to execute him, but he narrowly escaped through intervention of another.

The wounded guard’s tale suggested that whoever ordered the assault had been able to call upon a large number of people to carry out what appeared to be an organized attack.

The guard, who said he’d been hired seven months ago by a British company to protect the compound, said the first explosion knocked him to the ground, and he was unable to fire his weapon. Four other contracted guards and three members of Libya’s 17th of February Brigade, a group formed during the first days of the anti-Gadhafi uprising and now considered part of Libya’s military, were protecting the outside perimeter of the compound.

After storming through the gate, the guard said, the men rushed into one of the compound’s buildings, meeting no resistance. The guard did not say whether that was the building where the ambassador was.

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador’s last moments

US consulate less security protection than embassy, not able to withstand attack

(Politico) – The Benghazi consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies. The consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source said. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.”

The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.

Did the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Not Have Enough Security?

Rick Santorum and Smart People

Speaking at the socially conservative Values Voter Summit in Washington DC today, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania made a comment that may be as long-remembered as his remark about Man-on-Dog sexual relations.

“We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country. We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.”

In fairness, I think that this quote doesn’t come off quite as badly if you put it within the full context of his remarks. Taken in total isolation from the rest of his speech, it really becomes completely farcical.

Yet, to some degree, it invites us to isolate it from everything else because it’s not a misstatement. It’s actually a logical peg in his argument. Forget about the ‘elite’ part of it for a moment. Let’s focus on the ‘smart’ part of it. What Santorum is saying is that regular folks of average intelligence are the backbone of this country, and their values are traditional American values that are essential to making America a special and worthwhile place. And I agree with Rick Santorum about all of that.

Where I differ is on the implications of that observation. The values of regular folks are solid, but their grasp of facts may not be. We need scientists and experts to help us make good decisions. We need them to educate us. We need leaders to listen to them. When our values turn out to conflict with science, or our beliefs turn out to lack expertise, we need to defer to smart people.

Think about the vehicle we just landed on Mars. Does Rick Santorum have any idea how to land a vehicle on Mars? Does he know how his cell phone works? Can he rewire his house without getting electrocuted? Does he have any idea how the Google search engine works? If you dropped Rick Santorum into a time machine and delivered him to 1865, would he be able to make a light bulb or an internal combustion engine or create an antibiotic or cure Polio?

The truth is, almost none of us could do any of those things because we don’t know shit compared to our scientists and experts.

Whether we are relatively smart or not, we don’t know shit. So, we rely on our values to see us through. And that’s fine. Most of our values make sense and have worked in human societies for thousands of years. But when people tell us not to eat wild mushrooms because they might be poisonous, we listen to them, don’t we? Because they know better than we do. That doesn’t make them more virtuous, and it doesn’t mean that they know better than we do on every subject.

But to align yourself against smart people as if they are the enemy? That’s crazy. Without smart people, Rick Santorum would be trying and failing to start a fire in some cave in the Kentucky mountains. So would most of you. So would I.

A political movement based on pride in being stupid is really stupid.

Finally, Rick Santorum is probably the only politician in America who thinks our problem is that our elites are too smart. In fact, I don’t know any smart people who think that.

A Fluff Piece Worth Reading

Even though we all ought to concede that it is a blatant fluff piece, Michael Lewis’s long article in Vanity Fair succeeds on a couple of levels. First, it is constructed artfully, which is a sign of a mature and gifted writer. It must have been a pleasure to edit and it’s a very enjoyable read, despite its length. Second, it does a very nice job of giving you a sense for what it is really like to be president. Not just the settings or the aggravations, but the strangeness of it. Being president is a weird thing to be…absurd in many respects, and Lewis brings that out quite effectively.

I’m too tired and hungry to really delve in the bit on Libya, but I just want to make one brief observation. When the president sat down with his Principals to debate what to do about Libya, he was presented with a binary choice: do nothing or support a no-fly zone that they all conceded would not work.

Sec. Clinton supported a no-fly zone, as did Ambassador Susan Rice, but the consensus was for doing nothing. I also approached the decision as a mainly binary choice, although my belief was that after the no-fly zone failed we would be sucked into a bigger conflict. What the president came up with was more imaginative than what I opposed, and it worked better than I predicted.

I still think the talk about Gaddafi killing a hundred thousand people was hype, but he was going to do some serious killing. No doubt, the president saved a lot of lives and he didn’t need to do it. At first, his own leaders, including the Pentagon, didn’t even give an option that would have worked. He had to push them to find a solution.

I still think our decision to intervene in Libya failed any reasonable risk-reward standard, but despite our recent tragedy there, the president pulled it off despite the bad odds. And that’s why he’s president and I am not.

If you want to delve deeper into it there’s an interesting back and forth between David Atkins and digby at Hullabaloo. For the record, I disagree with both of them.

Dealing With a Taunting Jerk

When I read the account of how the State Department learned of the assault on the Benghazi Consulate, and how they handled the immediate aftermath, it makes my even angrier about how the Romney campaign behaved in those hours. What an annoying jerk that man is. He has no sense of dignity or decorum. And, as we’ve seen with the recent hair-trigger Anti-American response to a perceived offense in the Arab World, we can’t afford to have a president who routinely offers grievous offense when he doesn’t even have the intention of doing so.

Oh, Say Can You See What’s Going On?

Some of you may have noticed I haven’t been posting much of late. Some of you may not care. Some of you may be saying to yourself: Where did Booman go? His blog’s been hacked by some moron (okay, hopefully that last category is a tiny minority).

Well, I’m one of the “fortunate ones” this election year. You see, every election cycle we see the same things happen on political blogs, whether left or right, and it mirrors in a way the nature of political reporting on the cable news shows. Everything is “all about the horse race.” I’m not saying literally everything, but when the death of a US Ambassador and three other people in Libya becomes all about the Romney campaign’s gaffes, or (to give the right their due) all about Obama’s allegedly weak foreign policy because it shows he “placates” our enemies, well I think you get my drift.

Of course, I stopped watching the cable news programs over a year ago. I stopped reading the political blogs every day, and more importantly writing for them on a consistent basis, sometime over this Summer. So I learned about the attack in Libya and the protests in other Middle Eastern countries only Thursday night, when I watched the Rachel Maddow Show for the first time in months. And after furiously looking around the internet to figure out what happened, and what people had been saying had happened, I found a lot of blog posts that had little to do with the actual events. This did not surprise me.

It seems every election cycle (which means every two years) the blogosphere becomes more and more like Talk Radio (right wing blogs) or Cable News (both liberal or conservative blogs) the majority of “stories” contains far more opinion, hyperbole, rants, misstatements of fact or out and out falsehoods. Sure, we like to note that the Republicans are primarily responsible for this trend, and they are, in my view the main culprits, but you see many liberal blogs with posts that often jump the gun before all the facts are known, or buy into quasi-conspiracy theories. Often times (and I have been as guilty as anyone about this in the past) the stories we post or tweet have a symbiotic (or maybe its better to call it a parasitic) relationship with other sources of media.

What some popular media figure says, or how some news organization reports a story, becomes a story in itself. People far too often post about important issues facing this country and the world, not in terms of a the dangers they pose or to offer thoughtful policy solutions, but strictly in terms of how it may or may not benefit “our team,” whatever team that may be. I’m not saying that is the case for every blog or every poster, but the “noise” tends to wash out the signal in election years.

Of course, this tendency to see everything, no matter how tangential, in strictly political terms, has been creeping into non-election years as well. In a sense, since the Republicans won the 1994 mid-terms and Gingrich, that little bomb thrower became Speaker of the House, we now live in a society where the campaign never ends, and with the rise of the internet and social media that trend has reached warp speed. We now live in a world where lies and disinformation predominate. A world in which any idiot can film a You Tube video and make it available instantly around the world.

And with the constant politicization of media, every action, no matter how prosaic, is dissected for its political impact, rather than what significance it may have on the lives of ordinary people. Politicians have become entertainment figures, super heroes and super villains, both, in some grand spectacle of Good vs. Evil. Facts be damned, we just seem to want a good story! And the cable networks, talk radio and yes, even the blogosphere is willing to deliver the goods (as opposed to the good).

You can see the desire for fame trumping good governance in any story where minor political figures act outrageously (see, for example, these jokers in Kansas) or the entire career history of people such as Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and (much as I hate to say it) Anthony Weiner. I suppose that is in part a reflection of a society where money not only buys access and favors from politicians, but also determines which political messages get broadcast and which issues get discussed on the TV — still the largest source of information for most people.

Not to say there was ever a golden age in American politics. But there was a time when the insane 24/7 news cycle did not exist. There was a time where it was illegal for some “person” real or corporate, to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into influencing our elections. There was even a time where local TV news had to devote time for opposing points of view on “issues of the day” from ordinary people, not some “pundit” on a call list.

Of course, I did say I was fortunate, earlier, didn’t I? I was being a tad facetious. Over the last month, my family has experienced various health issues (myself and other members of my family) that have forced me to re-focus my priorities, as they say. I won’t go into the maudlin details. After all, occasionally some of my family members read this blog, and besides regular readers are well aware of the medical issues my family faces and likely don’t need or necessarily want a running update. Lots of people have problems, these days.

However, my time away from the circus atmosphere of media coverage of the “news” and political coverage of the election by all forms of media, including the blogs, has given me time to reflect on the nature of this rough beast of which I have played a small part since 2005. The issues I care about–climate change, civil rights, police abuse, income inequality, racism in all its many forms, etc.–are still vitally important to me. But in an election year no one talks about those issues in any substantive way. Indeed, many of the most pressing issues, such as climate change, are simply kicked to the curb. Republican candidates can’t talk about them in any intelligent manner (regardless of what they really believe) because of their base and the sources of funding they rely upon for funding their campaigns,and Democrats won’t about them for whatever reason. Indeed, I was dismayed to see President Obama in his acceptance speech continue to refer to ethanol and (far worse in my opinion) make this statement:

We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more.

I’ve also been dismayed by the lack of investigation and prosecution of Wall Street gangsters (clearly the best organized crime syndicate in the world) but even more dismayed that neither party has made much of an issue of it other than to refer to Romney’s actions as the head of Bain Capital. In the big picture Bain was a minor player. They merely rode the wave created by the Big Boys at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo etc. Yet, it seems the only way we can discuss the massive fraud and theft of our money by Wall Street is to confine it to attack ads against Romney? Don’t get me wrong, he deserves the ignominy for what were doubtless shady practices at best, and outright theft, at worst, but where is the substantive discussion of what happened and what needs to be done to eliminate the power of our Financial Overlords? Buried in the pages of Rolling Stone Magazine in articles by Matt Taibbi. Who would have guessed that a magazine created to cover the music industry would be the leader in covering the depths to which our financial criminals have plumbed?

So, forgive me if I have been absent from posting lately. What I want to talk about doesn’t seem to be all that important to most political junkies and “news consumers” right now. I will work to do what I can to re-elect Obama, because God knows what havoc Romney could wreak if he were elected, and I will do what I can to get Democrats elected to Congress, but writing about politics on a liberal blog in an election year is a task best suited for others right now. I wish them luck, though to be honest, I fear it is an exercise in hearing ourselves talk to one another.