Ok, I promised a post on the talk last night from BU political science professors, historians, and my professor Bacevich on the upcoming election, but won't be able to write up anything detailed at the moment since I've spent all this evening 1) hearing a informational talk about careers in the State Department (which I'm not sure would be my top choice, but which I'm open to at this point) and 2) watching the debates.

I was going to take notes and maybe blog live while watching, but I decided to catch it with friends on cable instead of going to the university's big open presentation in the student union and so lost the chance to comment via wireless. I watched it on C-Span so I missed most of what I'm sure is yet another hurricane of spin descending on Florida at this moment that will continue throughout the week, but I might as well toss in a short reaction now before I try and quickly catch up on all the homework I've put off till this point in the evening. I don't own a tv at home myself and so miss out on a lot of the coverage of this campaign -- mostly I read about events and speeches, rather than hearing them live, which makes an obvious big difference in how I percieve the events.

This is the first time save the convention that I've heard Kerry speak extensively on tv and overall I think it was a reassuring experience; I found him measured, strong in his criticisms of the president and I think fairly effective at articulating himself.

That said, while Bush's repetition annoyed me at points and while there were one or two points where I just had to shake my head disbelievingly (I'll have to track down a transcript because I remember one part in particular where I felt Bush stumbled badly in trying to formulate an answer to one of Kerry's allegations -- but alas can't remember what that was, now without notes).

(Edit: Remembered. Bush's lamest attempt to respond to Kerry's criticisms I thought came when he gave a half-hearted jab back at Kerry's list of homeland security initiatives -- something about a "tax gap" and then kind of trailed off, not even bothering to take that anywhere. Circuitous answers come with the debates, but I thought Bush's performance on that particular question was particularly -- and visibly -- weak.)

I wouldn't call myself satisfied by the debate -- even as someone who will in all likelihood vote for Kerry come November, I'm not sure he has articulated a security strategy to counter Bush's own any more comprehensive than "I can do it better" (something I'm inclined to agree with and which should be as good a reason as any to vote for a change of administrations, I should note). The talk of expanding alliances is a nice goal, but I'm not necessarily sure it's a path to success -- but there is of course a limit on how much a challenger can promise without knowing what situation he will face upon taking office, anyways. Over-all I think both sides held up fairly well and reassured their respective partisans of their capabilities to carry out the office, but what took place in the eyes of these mythical undecided voters out there I have no way of imagining.

One thing off the top of my head that did bother me was the fact that Kerry failed to call out Bush on his plans for missile defense, a highly shaky plan in my mind that should be subjected to a lot more scrutiny than it's recieved thus far. Noahmax of Defense Tech (link found through praktike's blogroll -- interesting stuff there) has some thoughts and I've also written previously about some of the questions NMD raises.

There was much more raised in the speech, obviously, but it's late and I need to get some reading on the Civil War (as in, US Civil War) finished up before bed. Hopefully more over the weekend once I find a transcript and have more time to digest.

Edit: More on NMD here as well. I realize there's only so much time to rebut in a debate setting, but this is something that needs to be questioned.

Edit the second: Making the rounds before bed -- I'd say I agree with Jeralynn Meritt's reactions at Talk Left to the candidate's performance temperament-wise. I thought Bush, even when making what from his point of view may have been a decent rebuttal of Kerry's critiques, seemed, well, kinda exasperated throughout the whole thing. Kerry in contrast was pretty calm and confident throughout with only a few uncomfortable grins. Bush always seems to be talking to some particuarly slow seven-year old, but this time it was a seven-year old asking uncomfortable questions, and I think it showed with the repetitive answers (anyone who makes a drinking game for these had better put in a couple of shots for the phrase "hard work") and the somewhat testy responses even when trying to assert the strengths of his administration.

Also - the "flip-flopper" accusations pain me to no end, so I was happy to see Kerry give what to me was a pretty strong defense of his positions. I'd like to see this 87billion silliness nipped in the bud once and for all, which didn't happen, but "You can be certain and be wrong" -- that's good stuff.

UPDATE [9-22-04] by nadezhda while praktike is in Egypt

Arthur Chrenkoff has a couple of responses to contributing his name to a syndrome. He's clearly feeling misunderstood as well by M Yglesias. Main point:

I'm not in the business of providing an "honest assessment" - in fact, I'm not in the business of providing any "assessment" at all - I am in the business of providing information, though. If the media is painting an overly negative picture of Iraq, my mission is to point out to people all the positive developments taking place. My readers can then look at both, give each set of information the weight they consider appropriate, and then make up their mind as to what's going on in Iraq. If after the end of the whole process my readers are convinced that Iraq is after all going to hell, that's perfectly fine with me - the point is not to convince them either way, but to enable them to reach an educated judgment. My fisker is indeed the perfect example of how it all works in practice: he (or she) obviously follows the mainstream media coverage of Iraq; he (or she) also looks at my work, doesn't find it convincing or persuasive enough (as he or she is perfectly entitled to do), and arrives at the conclusion that situation in Iraq is truly bad - the most important element here is that he (or she) is now making that assessment based on all the information available.

My commentator thinks that reading "Good news from Iraq" "inhibits clear thinking about what is really going on in Iraq". I would have thought that trying to form opinion about the situation in Iraq after considering only one side of the story is far more dangerous.

---

UPDATE [9-17-04] by nadezhda

Perhaps a brush with reality from time to time is the best cure for the Chrenkoff Syndrome. As Andrew Sullivan notes today:

Losing control of critical parts of Baghdad is, er, not a good sign.

His comment was made as a followup to this excerpt from Gregory Djerjeian, The Belgravia Dispatch on fatalities in Iraq.

Also, folks, a capital city like Baghdad is critical in all of this. You can't have foreign nationals, willy-nilly, being kidnapped from the Mansour neighborhood smack dab in the morning on their way to work. You can't have myriad suicide car bombings slaughtering new Iraqi police recruits seemingly every day. You can't have the effing perimeter of the Green Zone unsecured at this late juncture. Not only is it critical to exert real control over the capital as a strategic matter--it's also of hugely symbolic support--for us, for the international community and, yes, for the insurgents.

This would seem to be a pretty self-evident observation. But he's one of the few long-time supporters of the invasion to have been willing to look unblinkingly at what's going on and not reject out-of-hand the idea that the US strategy may require adjustment. He warns against equating realism with "defeatism" with this plea:

Listen, we're all in this together. Suger-coating and potentially dubious number-crunching exercises aren't going to win this war. Understanding (at least as best as one can judiciously ascertain) where we are right now, however, might help. And, truth be told, it ain't all that pretty. No, it's not Tet, not by a long shot. But it's not a rinky-dink little insurgency fully contained and emasculated in Anbar province either. It's something in between, and the sooner we accept that, the better for all of us.

---

prakitke's original article:

Yesterday I tried to peer beneath the fog of war and mindless propaganda that some people seem to desperately need. Arthur Chrenkoff, as I'm sure you know, is a Polish-Australian blogger and the author of the running blog series "Good News From Iraq." He's on his tenth installment, and his prodigious efforts have been noticed and rewarded by the Wall St. Journal and various influential conservative bloggers. I feel somewhat churlish--much like I did when I told my younger brother there was no such thing as Santa Claus--doing this to a guy who puts so much work into what he does, but today I'm going to rant a bit about "Chrenkoff Syndrome," because I think it inhibits clear thinking about what is really going on in Iraq.    more »

Buried in this Washington Post article about Patrick Fitzgerald's expanding leaks probe is this paragraph:

Lawyers and witnesses in the probe said Fitzgerald is interested in a story co-written by Pincus that appeared in The Post on Oct. 12, 2003. That story said that on July 12, 2003, two days before Novak's column was published, an administration official told a Post reporter that Wilson's wife had recommended him for the trip to Niger. The official said she was a CIA employee but did not disclose her name. An attorney for The Post declined to comment.

This was news to me.

UPDATE [9-16-04 11:35AM] by nadezhda

Pincus source reveals identity to Fitzgerald

A Washington Post reporter's confidential source has revealed his or her identity to the special prosecutor conducting the CIA leak inquiry, a development that provides investigators with a fact they have been pursuing in the nearly year-long probe.

Post reporter Walter Pincus, who had been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury in the case, instead gave a deposition yesterday in which he recounted his conversation with the source, whom he has previously identified as an "administration official." Pincus said he did not name the source and agreed to be questioned only with the source's approval.

Both Pincus and Matthew Cooper of Time have already answered questions re their conversations with Scooter Libby, who released them from confidentiality and urged them to talk to prosecutors.

A new wrinkle in Fitzgerald's case may have emerged, however. Cooper has just been supoenaed to testify about any conversation he held prior to July 14 (date of Novak article) about Wilson, Wilson's Africa trip or his wife.

Three days after Novak's column appeared, Cooper co-wrote a story on Time's Web site saying that administration officials told Time of Plame's role in Wilson's trip. Time has not said when those conversations occurred, however, an issue central to the investigation. Any disclosures "post-Novak," lawyers in the case said, are likely to be viewed as non-criminal discussion of information already in the public domain.

Nadezhda has often complained that it's difficult to find good war reporting in the establishment press, which tends to focus at a higher level and relate every event to the presidential election.

Luckily, one news organization still has chops: Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau.

Here's a great example of how it can be done.
   more »

In a four-hour session with a group of western foreign policy experts, Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed a wide range of matters beyond the Beslan hostage tragedy. In pointed remarks about the support by some US officials of "Chechen separatists," evidenced by meetings and the recent grant of asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the so-called "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.

Putin also raised another point of ongoing friction between his government and the US:

In other comments, Putin said Russia would take its own approach to democratic reform.

"We'll do this at our own pace," he said. Democracy can mean different things in different countries, he said.

"In Russia, democracy is who shouts the loudest," he said. "In the U.S., it's who has the most money."

May explain why the Kremlin has been so interested in controlling the megaphones of TV networks while being willing to leave a more lively and competitive space for newspapers.

Also suggests that the unlikely duo of President Putin and Ted Turner may have similar views on the consolidation of US mass media ownership by large corporate conglomerates. See recent comments by the "shrillionaire" at The Shrill Blog.

Via Jill Dougherty, CNN, Putin blasts US on terror stance