PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » 2025

Yesterday, when addressing the NRA, Rudy Giuliani stated, in reference to the MoveOn.org “Petraeus or Betray US?” ad, the following:

It passed a line we should not allow American political organizations to pass.

That is my transcription of the quote as broadcast on Special Report with Brit Hume on Friday September 21, 2025–and rewound thrice via TiVo to make sure I got it right. I have seen the quote in two other places where the “It” was replaced by either “They” (Marc Ambinder) or “We” (MSNBC’s “First Read” blog). Ambinder includes the next sentence, not aired on the aforementioned broadcast:

We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not.

I was unaware that there was a “line” in the United States of America that we couldn’t cross in terms of political speech. Indeed, if any speech should have absolute protection it is political speech. I am not a MoveOn.org booster, but I fully recognize and support their right to say what they wish in the public square. One could interpret his statement as one that simply points to decorum, but when a presidential candidates starts slinging words around like “allow” one should take notice (especially a candidate who has already demonstrate that he may have an expansive view of executive authority).

Further, isn’t one of the alleged motivations for fighting these wars the protection of our liberties? Rudy, doesn’t seem to see it that way. Rather, he seems to be saying that citizens of the United States of America can’t criticize the war or its leaders. How does that, in any way, comport with the letter or the spirit of the the First Amendment’s free speech clause? Indeed, given the high stakes of war, shouldn’t that be the best time to be critical? The vibe here, like the vibe from the administration, comes across essentially as: once the war starts, everyone should shut up, support the troops (meaning the war policy itself) and, btw, Congress should fund the fighting, but shouldn’t try to interfere in any way). This is all far too authoritarian a view of the executive power for my tastes, thanks.

I also find the notion that interest groups/individuals shouldn’t criticize generals in particular to be distasteful. While I respect the service of those in our military, placing them on a pedestal is a dangerous and undemocratic game. And I especially find the ongoing beatification of Petreaus to be especially odd.

What is especially disturbing is that there hasn’t been much (if any) scrutiny over his views on free expression, but rather it appears that the issue of the day is the cell phone call from his wife. Indeed, that little bit of dinner theater appears to be getting even more press than the fact the Rudy seems to have conveniently adjusted his gun control views for the purposes of the campaign. His explanation for the shift? 9/11, of course.

Sphere: Related Content

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for the former President of Peru. First it was a no-go in the Japanese Senate elections and now he is being sent to Peru for trial (via the BBC):

Chile’s Supreme Court has approved the extradition of Peru’s former President Alberto Fujimori to face human rights abuses and corruption charges.

The oddest thing about the whole tale is that Fujimori went to Chile in an attempt to return to Peru so that he could run for the presidency. What the man was thinking in that regard is beyond me, as he was in exile as a direct result of his time in that office. Of course, I guess if one was once willing to dismiss the Congress, tear up the constitution and give oneself overblown executive powers and an extended term in office, one probably has an overactive ego.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the BBC: Castro seen in rare TV interview

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro has made his first TV appearance for three months, ending speculation that he had died or suffered a major relapse.

Mr Castro, 81 has not appeared in public since July last year when he underwent emergency intestinal surgery.

The video contained the requisite “proof of life” elements, which always makes them seem as much like a ransom video than an intereview:

In the taped interview, Mr Castro spoke slowly with long pauses about a range of topics including the strength of the euro against the dollar.

“Yesterday the euro was at $1.41. Oil I think about $84 a barrel,” he said, suggesting that he was up to date on current affairs and that the interview was very recent.

He also showed a copy of a book by former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which was published this week.

Given that the rumors of his death were rampant just shy of a month ago, one would think that he hasn’t been doing too well, else he would have made it to airwaves before now.

I must confess, this shadow dance over his status continually reminds me of a reverse version of that running SNL joke from the 1970s: “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.”

Sphere: Related Content

Via WNZ: MIT Student Arrested For Fake Bomb At Logan

An MIT student wearing what turned out to be a fake bomb was arrested at gunpoint Friday at Logan International Airport and later claimed it was artwork and that she was there to meet her boyfriend, officials said.

Star Simpson, 19, had a white computer circuit board and wiring over a black hooded sweat shirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport.

[…]

The battery-powered rectangular device had nine flashing lights, Pare said. Simpson also had Play-Doh in her hands, he said.

The phrases “Socket to me” and “Course VI” were written on the back of sweat shirt, which authorities displayed to the media. Course VI appears to be a reference to MIT’s major of electrical engineering and computer science.

First, off: of the airports at which to test airport security’s aesthetic acumen, Logan International is an especially poor choice.

Still, given the description of the device (and the video at WBZ’s site) and the following response, one has to wonder about how far we have come in the last six years (and I don’t mean in a good way) in terms of overreaction to possible threats:

“She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands and not to make any movement, so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device,” Pare said. “Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force.”

I am not sure that flashing lights on a circuit board qualifies for the potential use of deadly force. Indeed, the incident reminded me of a post at OTB yesterday. It seems as if we have decided that we need to jettison common sense because of what happened on 9/11/01.

Sphere: Related Content

I have largely avoided commenting on the MoveOn.org “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad because, well, as noted yesterday, I believe that my outrage-o-meter is busted.

Now, Michael Kinsley, writing for Time (How Dare You) so perfectly captures the essence of the situation, I am compelled to take public notice.

Several things sprang to mind when the ad first materialized. First was that we are talking about MoveOn.org, and therefore there should have been no surprise from anyone about the fact that they were engaging in attention-getting, inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, for those offended by or opposed to the ad, the grandest irony of all is that their apoplexy has made that ad buy far, far more valuable than it would have been had they just yawned and moved on (if you will forgive the turn of phrase). Second, since when is being a General a “get out of criticism free” card? Last time I checked, citizens of the US have free speech and all of that, and if someone wants to make silly rhymes in the newspaper, so what? Third, and more to the point, Petraeus is a big boy in a profession wherein getting shot at is part of the job description. I simply figure that he can handle a little playgroundesque mudslinging. Further, the man has a Ph.D. in International Relations from Princeton, so I am guessing he understands politics fairly well (not to mention that no one rises to the rank of General without exposure to the rough and tumble of the political world).

When it comes down to the ad itself, Kinsley pretty much sums up my views:

You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general’s honesty, not his patriotism.

And beyond that,

But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.

Indeed, and further:

All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They’d far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn’t done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?)

Double indeed.

And somehow this whole thing has risen to the level of requiring a Senate Resolution condemning the ad.

Isn’t it rather unseemly for a democratic institution taking the time out its busy schedule to condemn a group of citizens who expressed a political opinion?

Talk about sound and fury signifying nothing…

I will repeat: all of the outrage over the ad has made the ad more well known and has radically amplified the impact of the ad buy itself.

Beyond that, it just seems we have a lot more rather important issues to be dealing with than whether an interest group said something mean about David Petraeus.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the BBC: Arctic seabed ‘belongs to Russia’:

The Natural Resources Ministry said tests on soil samples showed Russia was linked to the Lomonosov Ridge.

[…]

Under a United Nations convention, the country claiming ownership of the region’s ocean floor must show evidence that the seabed is an extension of their continental shelf.

As the map with the story indicates, this would be a substantial boost to Russian claims over the arctic circle.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the AP: Many voters still undecided on 2025 race

For all the time and money that the candidates have invested, a large number of voters in each party remains uncommitted or willing to change their minds four months before voting begins.

This should be a surprise to no one–there are a plethora of candidates (the most in some time, if not ever) and no votes will be cast for many months.

And, for that matter, the candidates aren’t (despite the compressed schedule) campaigning in such a way as to target a mass audience.

Sphere: Related Content

Perhaps my outrage-o-meter is busted, but I just don’t see the point to the apoplexy that is roiling through certain elements of the rightward Blogosphere today over the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to visit Ground Zero and will speak at Columbia University.

Part of my basic response is to wonder why some think that we are so weak as to be unable to withstand this man’s presence and his words. It seems to me that the whole thing (and the responses of various presidential candidates) just makes us look petty and frightened.

As James Joyner notes:

it’s rather silly to deny him access to public areas out of pique.

Similarly BooMan (via OTB) correctly notes:

Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.

Now, I can understand the question of whether the NYPD ought to be providing special security, but that doesn’t require a race to outrage.

More than the Ground Zero request, I don’t see the point of the outrage over the visit to Columbia. The fact of the matter is, half of the time that Ahmadinejad will spend will be a Q&A segment, in which his controversial ideas will have to be defended in an open forum.

As James Joyner rightly notes:

highlighting Ahmadinejad’s crazy, evil ideas and forcing him to defend them is the most surefire way I can think of to make students throw off the silly notion that all regimes and ideas are equal.

Further, the event is at School of International and Public Affairs–surely the opportunity to see and hear a key world leader, even one who is antagonistic to the US and who has some repugnant ideas, is a useful educational moment. Any process that could lead to a better understanding of a key state in current global affairs is a good thing.

I will confess: part of my problem is that I long ago ran out of outrage for issues that are ultimately unimportant. I try to reserve my outrage for things that are truly outrageous–and this doesn’t qualify.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the AFP: Neptune has a ‘warm’ south pole, astronomers find:

An international team of astronomers say that Neptune, long dismissed as a cobalt-blue gas giant cloaked in deathly cold, has a relatively warm south pole.

[…]

A Neptunian “year” is the same as 165 Earth years, for this is the time the distant planet takes to circle the Sun.

Because of the planet’s tilt, the south pole has been exposed to the Sun for the past 40 years, creating a relative “hot spot,” the CNRS said.

Eventually, as Neptune continues its crawl around the Sun, the south pole will be darkened and the north will be illuminated, and the methane escape will shift there.

“In 80 years, when Neptune’s north pole emerges into summer, we can expect the situation to be reversed,” the CNRS said.

No commentary–I just think that space news is cool.

But here’s some Neptunian trivia gleaned from the story: Neptune has the strongest winds of any planet in the solar system, topping 1,200 mph.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the BBC: Sarkozy announces huge job cuts

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced more than 22,000 job cuts in the civil service in order to reform the country’s bulging public sector.

[…]

“I want a public service that is smaller, better paid and with better career prospects,” he said.

“What I am proposing is a cultural revolution, a revolution for changing the way we think, for changing behaviour.”

Mr Sarkozy’s announcement means that next year one in three retiring public sector workers will not be replaced. That figure could rise in the future.

Well, Sarkozy did come to office promising to make major changes to the state’s approach to the economy and specifically to work. One wonders how well such moves will go over, however.

Sphere: Related Content