Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

A brief note on the recent lack of TPM postings.

I’ve gotten a lot of emails asking what’s up. Here’s the deal: As of Wednesday morning of this week I’ve been on jury duty. So, as you might imagine, that’s put a bit of a crimp in my time. Then, as of Thursday morning, the hard drive on my IBM think pad crashed. And, yes, I mean really crashed. As in, all gone.

Luckily, as I’ve ventured further into adulthood, I’ve gotten a little more responsible about backing up data. And even though I’d gotten a little sloppy, a bit lazy about it in the last month or two, I had still done a relatively recent back up – about three weeks ago.

(If you're wondering whether I'm going back to the twice a week back-up routine, well ... yes, you could say that.)

One thing I learned from this regrettable experience is that I’m simply too dependent on computers to have only one. For years, I’ve gotten by with only a laptop, which --- as those who know me could attest --- functions rather like a physical appendage. Actually, I liked only having one, very mobile, computer.

So tonight, after I got home from the courthouse, I ran out to the local mall to get a cheap desktop as a fall-back machine (for cases when my computer is off being repaired for a week) and another layer of data back-up for future technological disasters. An unexpected expense, but a necessary one --- I’m using it right now to write this post.

In any case, expect the regular schedule to resume from right now.

Don't miss this piece in today's Washington Post on the survey Stars and Stripes -- not exactly the liberal media -- did of soldiers in Iraq, and what they found.

What's surreal about the White House's new claims that the press is keeping all the good news from Iraq (reopening schools and so forth) hidden -- faithfully parroted by the usual suspects -- is that it's really hard to find anyone who's been in the country recently or for any significant period of time who thinks that's true.

It seems to be an insight vouchsafed mainly to conservative newspaper columnists.

The Stars and Stripes survey -- though non-scientific -- seems to lend credence to that perception. Despite not being from a randomized cross-section of those serving in Iraq, says Stars and Stripes editor David Mazzarella, "We still think the findings are significant and make clear that the troops have a different idea of things than what their leaders have been saying."

Every time I hear some conservative wag trumpeting "the schools, the schools!" I have to admit it gives me flashbacks to Herve Villechaize and the intro to Fantasy Island ("de plane, de plane!").

The schools are great. But we're not there to reopen schools. More to come soon on this issue of the schools.

In the end I don’t think it <$Ad$> will really matter much. But it was a little painful yesterday watching various media outlets bend over backwards to give credence to the White House’s complaints that the media is conspiring to hide all the good news coming out of Iraq.

CNN was in full grovel mode.

One of the most unintentionally comedic moments came from Bill Hemmer who was filling in on Paula Zahn’s show.

After New Republic Editor Peter Beinart pointed out that the media might actually be understating the problems in the country by underreporting the number of wounded soldiers (as opposed to fatalities), Hemmer shot back with this gem …

I think there's (sic) to sides of that coin. … If you're saying it's actually worse than being reported, could it also be better than what's being reported also, if you consider that these reporters, many of them tell us they want to go cover the new school opening, but they can't because there's another bombing or shooting and that prevents them from sending that story?

I love this logic.

It’s not just the reporters who are keeping a lid on all the good things going on in Iraq. It’s the darned terrorists who are keeping everyone from hearing how good things are by constantly setting off bombs and shooting people.

Mr. Nethercutt, would you like to revise and extend your remarks?

I think he might.

George Nethercutt is a congressman from Washington. And he’s running against the incumbent senator, Patty Murray. In a speech Monday, he got a little carried away with his ‘we’re building new schools right and left in Iraq’ enthusiasm.

"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where the quote appeared, went on to note that Nethercutt made clear that he did not want any more soldiers to be killed. Which is nice to know.

In his column today Nick Kristof argues that for all the mistakes President Bush made getting us into Iraq --- mistakes both of omission and commission, incompetence and bad-faith --- that now we have no choice but to stay, and to pay what it takes to get the job done right. “I believe that President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq,” Kristof writes in conclusion, “but he's right about staying there.”

I agree, so far as it goes. But I think the sentiment expressed misses the point.

I certainly don’t think we should pull out of Iraq. More importantly, I don’t know many of what I’d call mainstream foreign policy voices who think we should pull out of Iraq any time in the near future. (No, Dennis Kucinich doesn’t count.) I know the president would like to conjure up opponents who favor an immediate pull-out from Iraq because shadow-boxing with them would make for good politics. But I really don’t know quite who Kristof is arguing against.

As I said, I think Kristof has it a bit wrong.

The question is not whether we should pull out immediately, nor is it precisely how long we’ll need to stay, nor even the precise sums of money we should be willing to expend. The question is how to make a success --- or at least not a failure --- of the situation we’re currently in.

And if our task is to figure out how to find our way to success, then it makes a lot of sense to look skeptically at the roadmap to success being charted by those who got us into the mess in the first place.

Eh ... 12 letters from northern Iraq. Or maybe 500, give or take. Turns out that 500 of those phony letters from soldiers in Iraq got sent out. For the moment it looks like it was all the brainchild of Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, the commander of the battalion in question.

I’m trying to put together a list of the most ridiculous historical analogies Bush partisans are putting forward to explain the difficulties we’re now facing in Iraq. This is sort of related, I guess, to the hunt for the Holy Grail of an innocent explanation of the Plame debacle we noted a few days ago.

The contest is just beginning. But John Fund is definitely in the hunt. Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Fund was on Paula Zahn’s show debating Peter Beinart on the senseless ‘press is keeping all the good news from Iraq hidden' story line.

When asked about the on-going toll of dead and wounded American soldiers, Fund interjected: “But remember after World War II we had Japanese soldiers fighting on islands for years.”

(Next time I see Fund I’m going to have to have word with him because I’m holding him responsible for the Diet Coke that exploded out of my mouth and got all over my shirt when I heard his boneheaded analogy.)

If you’re a World War II buff, you’ll remember that for years after Japan’s surrender in 1945 there was a smattering of Japanese soldiers on this or that Pacific island who had never gotten the news that the war was over. The stories are touching. And I think I remember that the very last of them were found in the early 1970s. But for America, their prime historical legacy was to provide fodder for a few episodes of Gilligan’s Island. So somehow I think they’re a rather strained analogy to the guerilla insurgency and suicide attacks we’re now wrestling with in central Iraq.

Maybe someone else will come up with something more ridiculous. But for the moment, John, you’re the man to beat!

Bob Novak seems to be doing everything he can to lay the groundwork for his sources -- those "two top administration officials" -- to claim they didn't know Valerie Plame was a clandestine agent. Frankly, the available facts say otherwise. Here's my run-down of the evidence in my new column in The Hill.

A bounce back in the polls?

That might be a bit of an overstatement. Here are a number of recently-released presidential approval polls (with the most recent listed first) and how far the president moved up or down from the last time that news outlet did a poll. ABC/WaPo: 53%, down 1; CNN/USA Today: 56%, up 1; Newsweek: 51%, down 1; Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report: 51%, down 4.

One extra bit of info, CNN/USA Today Gallup did two polls in rapid succession: one at the beginning of last week and one over the weekend. If we go back one more poll, to the one they did September 19th through 21st, that one had Bush at 50%. So if you bend the measure a bit in the president’s favor, you get one poll with a six point bump.

Things are very politically unsettled at the moment. So I don’t think we can make too many judgments from this snapshot other than to say that the president has gotten a bit of a foothold just a hair’s breadth over 50%.

Equally important, perhaps more so, is the re-elect number. The ABC/Post poll has that at Bush 46%, Dem Nominee 47%. The Newsweek poll has him at 44% re-elect. I couldn’t find the internals on the CNN-USA Today poll. But if someone knows what re-elect number they got, please send it along.

For my part, I'll be waiting to hear what the all-knowing Ruy has to say about these numbers.