« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

Pants on fire

by Mark Gisleson

This blog is part of Twin Cities Babelogue, which is a part of City Pages, an alt-weekly newspaper, which is owned by Village Voice Media. On the local front, City Pages considers itself to be in competition with the two local daily newspapers, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and nothing makes CP editors or staff happier than scooping the big boys on a local news story.

City Pages' "turf" is, like many alt-weeklies, music and the arts, local news and political views often overlooked by the major news media. We are the proverbial breath of fresh air in the local news market. Still credit must be given when credit is due, and today the Star Tribune published a blistering editorial on Dick Cheney's lies. Sure, that's the kind of thing we do every day here, but this blog's record readership to date is about 11,000 uniques, and the Strib (as we locals call it) has almost that many websites linking to its front page.

Does a major newspaper deserve kudos for finally publishing the obvious truth? Probably not, but I dare you to find another daily newspaper that would lead off an editorial with these two grafs:

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable.

I'm going to have to start reading the local paper of record a little more often. The truth is I found this link by reading Atrios, not the Strib. And, for more on Cheney's lies, and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's take on the Meet the Press love-a-thon between Dick and Tim Russert, check out Steve Gilliard (click while it's fresh, Steve doesn't archive by comments but by date).

And, thanks to Buzzflash, here's another blistering editorial, this one from the Los Angeles Times:

Vice President Dick Cheney has long acted as though the best defense is a good offense, no matter what the damage to truth or common sense. It was Cheney who CIA analysts say personally pressured them to deliver worst-case estimates about Iraqi capabilities and then declared in July that "it would have been irresponsible in the extreme" not to have acted on those very CIA estimates. Even so, Cheney, in commenting about Iraq on Sunday during a rare television appearance, broke new ground. He not only defended the Bush administration's record in rebuilding Iraq but he upheld sweeping, unproven claims about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism....

On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney announced to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," and in mid-March he declared that U.S. troops would be "greeted as liberators." Since then, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and American troops face up to 17 attacks a day.

Also courtesy of Buzzflash, here's an Arizona Daily Star story about compensation Cheney has received from Halliburton since he took office.

* *

A big lawsuit is about to hit the fan. One of the Bush administration's "victims" is fighting back. TalkLeft has the details about Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian who was accused of being the lead instructor for the 9/11 hijackers. British courts can't seem to find any compelling evidence to back up US charges. Makes you wonder how many American terrorists would be out of jail in a New York minute if they ever got to see the inside of a courtroom.

What to make of Wesley Clark. Here's some of the better takes I've seen lately:

Start with Ron Fournier's WaPost AP story if you haven't read any basic accounts of Clark's announcement.

Mark A.R. Kleiman: I am convinced that he would be the strongest candidate against Bush, and have a weaker but still distinct belief that he might well make the best President as well.

Eric Boehlert: "Wesley Clark: The new Howard Dean?" [must watch commercial or be a Salon subscriber]

Joshua Micah Marshall: I think this has the potential to turn the primary race completely upside-down.

Kevin Drum comments on a WashTimes report that Hillary Clinton may co-chair Wesley Clark's campaign.

Hesiod Theogeny on the probable rightwing attacks that will come Clark's way.

For what it's worth, Boehlert's headline comes close to capturing my personal odyssey regarding 2004 Democratic candidates. Like a true believer I stayed with Kucinich until the numbers started shrinking, not growing. I then leaned Dean, but the more I learned, the more I found Clark attractive. If you're going to settle for a moderate just to make sure W's butt gets kicked properly, we might as well get one who appears to be a genuine liberal in many regards, unlike Dean who consistently comes across as more conservative the harder you look. The whole Dean is a liberal thing is nothing more than Republican trash talking. I can't wait to see how those draft-dodging chickenhawks try to trash Clark.

UPDATE: One more link from one of our readers, this one to FAIR's media advisory on Clark and the War in Iraq.

Posted by Steve Perry at September 17, 2003 11:06 AM

« Revolutionary Republicanism | Main | Demythification »