Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
From John McCain's speech to the Associated Press' annual meeting on Monday:
Long ago in my career, I made a decision to be as accessible to the press as the press would prefer me to be....I believe in giving great access to the press....I much prefer long back and forths, where reporters have multiple follow ups and I have an opportunity to explain my views in greater detail...I think reporters are better able to meet their first responsibility of ensuring an informed citizenry if they are allowed to press a candidate for more than a gotcha quote or a comment on whatever the cable driven news environment has decided is the process story of the day....[T]he responsibility of an informed citizenry is as much my responsibility as it is yours. I don't believe in deceiving voters about my positions, my beliefs or how I would govern this country were I to have the extraordinary privilege of serving as President. I want voters to know and understand my positions.
So how come McCain's campaign has refused to address questions about his connection to Rod Parsley, the megachurch pastor who has called for the eradication of Islam? I've called his campaign a dozen or so times to ask for a comment on McCain's relationship with this fundamentalist leader--McCain campaigned with Parsley, accepted his endorsement, and called him a "spiritual guide"--yet no one at McCain HQ would respond. As far as I can tell, McCain has not given a straight answer to the question: will you renounce the support of a person who calls Islam a "false religion" and urges its destruction? His alliance with Parsley is one position McCain does not seem eager to explain.
The Iraq general's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee was predictable: progress is real, we must stay the course. But committee Democrats missed an opportunity to undercut the White House story.
As General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday and pitched a story of success in Iraq, a news update flashed on the television screen: Sadr threatens to end cease-fire. Meaning that civil war between the Shiite-dominated government of Baghdad and the Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr could erupt. But Senator John McCain, the senior Republican member at the hearing, seemed unaware of this development. He asked Petraeus, "What do you make of Sadr's declaration of a cease-fire?"
It's been four decades since Martin Luther King, Jr., was shot and killed. On the occasion of this anniversary, there's much media coverage of his life and his death. In all the years that have passed since that tragic moment, a flood of commentary has flowed. Yet it remains hard to improve upon what Bobby Kennedy said on the night of that assassination in Indianapolis, where he was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. He spoke extemporaneously and had the hard task of informing the crowd of King's violent death. Here is the audio of Kennedy's remarks accompanied by a photo montage:
As many commentators have noted, there were riots in cities across America when people learned of the news of King's murder, but there was calm in Indianapolis that horrible night.
Two months later, RFK would be shot and killed. If you want to see actual footage of Kennedy speaking to the crowd in Indianapolis (with Italian subtitles superimposed), you'll find it after the jump:
Yesterday I posted tough questions that a dozen national security experts would like to pose to General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, when he testifies before Congress next week. And two retired generals have additional queries to add to the list. Here they are:
Retired General William Odom, former National Security Agency director:
-- What historical example is there for rebuilding a collapsed state from the bottom up except by civil war in which a single leader wins?
-- Why is Iraq not on the road to Balkanization? Fragmentation?
-- What historical example is there of the U.S. military building an army for a government whose leaders have neither the power to rule nor the capacity to bring warring factions under their control?
-- Do you propose to string out the surge although the Army simply does not have forces to continue?
-- Why did the Iraqi forces you trained a few years ago fail to emerge as an effective fighting force that survives and serves as the core of the Iraqi army today? If you succeeded, then why do we have this problem with standing up an effective Iraqi Army?
It's time for what's become a semiannual ritual: General David Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill. Last September, the top military commander in Iraq testified before several House and Senate committees in what was widely depicted as a make-or-break moment for the Bush administration and its war in Iraq. Wielding charts and graphs, Petraeus, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, claimed that the so-called surge of U.S. troops in Iraq was working and that "it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time." Such an outcome, he added, "will require a long-term effort." The questions he received from the legislators were mostly softballs. (Neither senators Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were impressive when questioning Petraeus.) But when Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus if the Iraq War "makes America safer," the general replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted [it] out in my own mind." War critics zeroed in on that comment, yet Petraeus' performance was generally deemed a success, in that it appeared to have created political space (in the United States) for the war—six month's of space, at least. Petraeus told Congress that a decision on reducing the level of troops should be put off until March 2008 and that in half a year he would report back to Congress.