Lying under oath is an impeachable offense. We should be especially concerned when it’s about national security (as opposed to a blowjob).

All that hysteria over Clinton — much of it justifiable, because he did a dumb, inappropriate thing. But if Ashcroft did what his critics are claiming, it’s a whole different story. It’s about falsifying the record of our country’s national security preparedness just to cover Ashcroft’s ass. Check out the post; our pompous, self-righteous, oh-so-religious attorney general may be in very hot water.

If this topic interests you, stop what you’re doing and read this eye-opening article on how the Chinese media manipulate material and plays mind games with all involved — its viewers and the experts its puts on CCTV.

The piece is written by one “Ann Condi,” a pen name for an American journalist working for CCTV, and she (if it is a she) is sharp and brutal. She describes a panel discussion on how journalists present China to the modern world, which serves as a case study for the hypocrisy inherent to a government-controlled press. It’s funny, it’s incisive and it’s infuriating.

Giving a quote or two from this article cannot do it justice; you have to read it all. Here is an example of the writer’s pith.

The strategy of the Chinese government is to change the subject.

When complaints are lodged about the imprisoning of dissidents, the Chinese do not forthrightly proclaim “Indeed, we do put them in prison. We are justified in doing so. They are a threat to our security.” Instead they change the subject to “No country should interfere in the internal affairs of another country.” When America attacks China’s human rights record, the Chinese do not say “You are mistaken about our human rights problem, and here’s why.” Rather, they change the subject: “What about your human rights problem?”

All governments—all human beings—are guilty of this move, which in American parlance is called “spin”. But in China the technique has been reflexively applied for so long, it is now simply the default official approach to any awkward information whatsoever. A government that blocks any open discussion of its problems while tacitly admitting to them in this way cannot help developing pathological patterns of interaction, becoming both fiercely proud and profoundly embarrassed, as each act of blatant denial painfully highlights the stubborn reality. And sitting before us on the stage was the embodiment of this mentality.

There’s much more to this article, including a description of how getting into the CCTV building is like getting into the War Room of the Pentagon. This was something I experienced myself once when I went to a Chinese radio station; I’ll never forget it.

Just a side note: The panel was presided over by the beautiful emcee Shen Bing, who I used for a similar purpose when I managed an event in Beijing. She is sensational, and knows just how to keep things “lite and brisk.” The perfect choice to keep the dialogue from getting too serious or uncomfortable. That’s exactly why they chose her.

It appears that Hailey Xie, one of my favorite Chinese bloggers, is now at a new address. Be sure to check her out.

Or so say the latest reports. It looks like this is going to become a regular occurrence, with no end in sight. Such a stupid waste.

Watching the video yesterday of Kim Sung-il screaming, “I don’t want to die,” I tried to imagine the horror of the situation. I tried to get into his mind, and I tried to get into the minds of his captors. The former was easier than the latter. I just can’t imagine being so hardened that it becomes acceptable, even honorable, to slit the throat of an innocent man who posed no threat. But then, that’s what terrorism is all about, the slaughter of innocents, and there seem to be an awful lot of monsters willing to use it.

This barbarism is what many point to as proof that we must fight them with everything we’ve got and eliminate them. A completely understandable argument. But it also speaks to just how difficult, if not impossible, such a battle may be.

I don’t have any answers right now, only questions and concerns as terrorism appears to prosper and spread with every new attempt to destroy it. A hydra, with an infinite number of heads.

Who would have believed it six months ago?

Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism
Nation Evenly Divided on President, Kerry

Public anxiety over mounting casualties in Iraq and doubts about long-term consequences of the war continue to rise and have helped to erase President Bush’s once-formidable advantage over Sen. John F. Kerry concerning who is best able to deal with terrorist threats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Exactly half the country now approves of the way Bush is managing the U.S. war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points since April, according to the poll. Barely two months ago, Bush comfortably led Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, by 21 points when voters were asked which man they trusted to deal with the terrorist threat. Today the country is evenly divided, with 48 percent preferring Kerry and 47 percent favoring Bush.

With fewer than 10 days before the United States turns over governing power to Iraq, the survey shows that Americans are coming to a mixed judgment about the costs and benefits of the war. Campaign advisers to both Bush and Kerry believe voters’ conclusions about Bush and Iraq will play a decisive role in determining the outcome of the November election.

Of course, terrorism and national security are the crown jewels of the Bush campaign. With those lost, what does he have to stand on? The economy is getting better, but most of the recovery is being enjoyed on the corporate and not the individual level. Iraq is the issue. It represents so much of how the Bush White House operates in terms of making decisions, keeping secrets, telling lies, aggrandizing itself (“Mission Accomplished”), breaking the law and flip-flopping at every turn.

It is deeply ironic that what was only six month’s ago the administration’s diamond necklace has transmogrified into the hangman’s noose. As evidence mounts that Iraq has cost us the war on terror, there will simply be no way out.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a great post on this poll with a vivid graphic. He comes to interesting conclusions.

I happened to run into Hugh Hewitt at lunch again today — he lives right across the freeway from me — and in an effort to keep up a facade of good cheer he offered to make a bet: if Kerry wins he turns over his blog to me for a week; if Bush wins he gets my blog for a week.

I laughed and returned to my sandwich, which is probably a good thing for Hugh. Terrorism is central to Bush’s chances this November, and if his approval ratings on terrorism aren’t at least 10 points ahead of Kerry by October, he’s going down in flames.

Which is exactly what’s happened to every other president who’s won office with fewer popular votes than his opponent. One termers all.

Update 2: Billmon found this to be the poll’s highlight:

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve: 47%
Disapprove: 51%
No opinion: 1%

Q: Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?

Approve: 62%
Disapprove: 37%
No opinion: 1%

Interesting: Apparently it’s not inconceivable that both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties might siphon votes away from Bush, even to the point of tipping the election.

The main theme of these parties is that the present administration is out of control when it comes to spending and is not living up to its ideals of reduced government. Both also call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

This could get interesting. We’ve been recording the increasing dissatisfaction of conservative pundits, and it seems that it might be spreading. (The article notes that the two parties are doing a good job of appealing to citizens at the grassroots level.) Could Bush be threatened by his very own Ralph Naders? Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

If this is a topic of interest, you absolutely must read this great review of three books on how China has dealt with its Moslems in the west. The critic makes some brilliant points about how China deals with troublesome minorities. Even scarier, however, is how the US has abetted this oppression by giving it legitimacy under our “war on terror.”

Susan Estrich, a Fox commentator and former manager of the Dukakis presidential campaign, just said there is no way Kerry can choose anyone but Edwards for his VP. Her arguments are good: So many of Kerry’s followers (like me) will be devastated if he chooses anyone else, and Kerry knows it. Gephardt just doesn’t cut it for these people, and Kerry knows it. Edwards will give the ticket an infusion of Southern charm and youthful energy, and Kerry knows it. It’s already a done deal, she said on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor.

This was music to my ears, but it has to be remembered that just a few days ago pundits were predicting it would be Gephardt. So I’ll hold back my enthusiasm until I hear it from John Kerry’s mouth. But I sure feel a lot more upbeat today than I did last week.

These guidelines for talking about the Iraq war in a manner that associates it with 9/11 were prepared by Republican pollster/strategist Frank Luntz. It’s a pdf file so I can’t cut and paste, but some of these points are quite revealing.

Remember, I’ve always said the Republicans are masterful when it comes to singing from the same songbook and staying “on-message.” That’s thanks to documents like this. I don’t like the Republicans’ messages, which are based on deception, but I admire their organization and their appreciation of coordinated communication. The Democrats need to learn to do the same: idenitfy your key messages, articulate them with compelling and powerful language, and never waiver from them.

The notes were discovered by Atrios — thanks.

He sure gives a great interview — and it brought back all sorts of nostalgic memories of a president who could actually hold a conversation without leaning on platitudes and talking points.

From Patriotboy:

Klinton dishonors Our Leader

Like many of you, I watched Klinton’s disgraceful acceptance of responsibility for the Lewinsky Scandal last night on 60 Minutes. He did not try to lie his way out of it or blame it on an underling. It’s as if he believes that it’s acceptable for a President to admit to making mistakes.

If Our Leader had been in Klinton’s position, he’d have done the honorable thing and blamed the White House cigar provisioner. He’d do so with the knowledge that today, Rush would back him up by railing against tobacconists, O’Reilly would be calling for a boycott of wrapper leaf from the Dominican Republic, and Coulter would have killed some elderly Cuban cigar roller in Tampa with a homemade shiv. By next week, no patriotic American would dare voice the slightest doubt about presidential infallibility. That’s Bush Era leadership–the kind of leadership we missed during the Klinton years.

“Presidential infallibility” — now that is priceless.