This Washington Post op-ed by Senator John McCain, rebutting his fellow Republicans on the use of torture, is notable.
Might it herald the return of the old McCain from the early 2000s? If so, he might also find his voice on the climate issue.
Like many, I’ve been closely following the big story this week.
For those interested in how Bin Laden was finally found and about the mission that took him out, read this tick tock in the NYT. For background on the elite commandos and the special operations apparatus they belong to, read this and this. These special operations guys work in the shadows. They are known as “operators” and they rarely make news.
Some of you who are not big fans of President Obama may be wondering why even his biggest detractors are giving him credit. It’s not just good politics. As this NYT story notes:
As more than a dozen White House, intelligence and Pentagon officials described the operation on Monday, the past few weeks were a nerve-racking amalgamation of what-ifs and negative scenarios. “There wasn’t a meeting when someone didn’t mention ‘Black Hawk Down,’ ” a senior administration official said, referring to the disastrous 1993 battle in Somalia in which two American helicopters were shot down and some of their crew killed in action. The failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980 also loomed large.
Secretary of Defense Gates was reportedly skeptical of the operation and had asked military officials to draw up scenarios for aerial bombing of the Bin Laden compound, but as as one intelligence official tells the Times:
It would have created a giant crater, and it wouldn’t have given us a body.
It also wouldn’t have netted the “trove of computer drives and disks” that Politico is reporting in a story today. The piece quotes a U.S. official calling it “the mother lode of intelligence.”
So President Obama had ample reason to approve the raid, but also ample reason to play it safe, as this Republican tells the Times:
John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a Republican spokesman on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the operation was “a gutsy call because so much could have gone wrong.”
“The fact that Obama approved this mission instead of the safer option of bombing the compound was the right call militarily,” Mr. Ullyot said, “but also a real roll of the dice politically because of how quickly it could have unraveled.”
For additional background on how the hunt for Bin Laden proceeded after Obama became president, see this piece by Steve Coll in The New Yorker. (The magazine has a nice online round-up of various perspectives.) Coll also discusses perhaps the most important story that will now play out, and that is how the circumstances of Bin Laden’s hideout location will impact the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
UPDATE: Pro Publica provides an excellent round-up of the coverage thus far, “being careful to note what’s been said, what’s already being disputed, and what still remains to be seen.”
The mind reels:
In what might be one of the most remarkable about-faces ever to come from within the beltway, James Inhofe, Senator and minority ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee (R. OKLA), apologized to a stunned Senate chamber for calling climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
“It’s time for leadership in Washington on climate change,” said Inhofe. “To date, I have been an obstacle to that leadership, and that changes today.”
Then the room starts to spin:
CBS News has obtained exclusive archival footage providing irrefutable evidence that so-called “progressive” blogger Joe Romm is in fact an active participant in the Tea Party movement.
Long before William Cronon rocked Wisconsin Republicans’ world, he rocked mine when I read his first book, Changes in the Land. It pretty much reoriented my intellectual framework. (Another journalist seems to have had a similar experience.) Here’s the 1984 NYT review of the book that launched Cronon’s career.
But I’m just a piker. There are famous, accomplished others who have been similarly influenced by Cronon’s work.
As for the current political attention he’s receiving from angry Republicans, it’s worth recalling that this isn’t the first time that Cronon has found himself in the crosshairs for something he’s written. As I discussed in a previous post, environmentalists gave him a good working over in the mid-1990s for this provocative essay. He struck a nerve then, and I think he’s right to assume he’s struck another nerve recently–with Wisconsin Republicans.
Most of the commentary in the media (regarding the current controversy) that I’ve read sides with Cronon’s view–that the FOIA request for his university emails is a politically motivated witch hunt. One notable exception is Jack Shafer at Slate, whose headline says it all:
There’s No Such Thing as a Bad FOIA Request
That’s a debate worth having, but with Cronon I see an upside to this ugly episode because as distinguished and well known in academia as he is, Cronon is now being discovered by a wider public. Consider this admission from Salon’s writer:
A week ago, I had never heard of Cronon. This is embarrassing, since it doesn’t take much digging around to discover that he is one of the most highly regarded historians in the United States (not to mention president-elect of the American Historical Association).
A commenter elsewhere also observes:
the [Salon] author, Andrew Leonard mentions that he just purchased two of Cronon’s books; when I checked at Amazon, those two books were ranked something like #45 and #51 — not bad for history publications!!
Indeed.
So as much as I abhor the the Republican attempt to intimidate a critic, they have introduced a brilliant mind and gifted writer to a broader, worldwide audience. In doing so, they have also shined a spotlight on their own brass knuckle tactics. And before this is all over, they may have even ignited a useful debate on the appropriate use of FOIA.
UPDATE: Paul Krugman in his NYT op-ed column today, writes about “the Cronon affair”and makes a climate connection:
The demand for Mr. Cronon’s correspondence has obvious parallels with the ongoing smear campaign against climate science and climate scientists, which has lately relied heavily on supposedly damaging quotations found in e-mail records.
Damn, this story is cut straight from The Sopranos. In a free associative sort of way, it reminds me of that classic episode where Paulie Walnuts and Christopher get lost in the Pine Barrens. People may forget just how hilarious that show was.
Best spring training baseball story. Which sort of reminded me of one of my all-time favorite TV shows.
We can’t win the snowstorm. How can we win the future?
That’s the teaser to this WTF post by a blogger with the best tagline:
How The World Is Really Run
Where does the Huffington Post find these people:
I know I told you I was over astrologers, but I never said anything about clairvoyant healers. A friend of mine raved about Tori Quisling, so I had to meet her. Her readings supposedly guide and empower. What’s the harm in that?
What’s the harm? How about getting ripped off by a charlatan?
Ah, but the little lamb was seeking cosmic wisdom:
I figured she could teach me a few spiritual lessons, or at least explain what the heck an aura is.
Yeah, what the heck is an aura? Can somebody tell me without having to pay a glorified, over-priced fortune teller? How about you, gentle seeker of urban Dharma? Did you learn what an aura is, and by the way, what was the cost of your spiritual lesson?
On the passing of Gerry Rafferty, Stoat reminisces about that famous line from “Stuck in the Middle with You” and remarks:
the same problems exist: remaining sane and balanced between we’re-all-going-to-die and there-is-no-problem.
Many people will undoubtedly associate the song with a classically twisted Tarantino scene. I’m glad Stoat chose this great clip in memoriam.
