Blog Link Meta Backlash

(Here I am with another "Link damnit!" moment...)

Skippy hops along in Jon Swift's "Liberal Linking Policy" footsteps:

skippy the bush kangaroo:
we got yer 'amnesty' right here

"and who are we to limit political discourse diversity? what's going on here? it's as if the major blogs are trying to emulate the democrats in washington who suddenly forget about their constituents.

(ok, it's not. our metaphors suck tonight. but we're pissed. so cut us some slack.)

ergo, we here at skippy are planning to retaliate by offering real blog amnesty. and here's how it goes:

many smaller blogs link to skippy for one or more of a few reasons: out of politeness, out of a hope that we might notice them and link back, or simply out of the imitation of what it takes to make a good blog. it's the second reason that interests us (we really should have put it as the last reason to be more clear with sentence structure (on the other hand, using less paranthetical phrases in a paragraph would go a long way towards grammatical clarity (too late now))).

to wit: any blog that has linked to skippy and has not received a reciprocal blogroll link will now be included on our roll! all you have to do is notify us in our comments section or email us, and we will happily include you! that will show those big shot elitists too good for the little guy blogs! ha!"

At a time when the bigger Blogs need to be doing more to help build the left community some are, and some aren't. I find it ironic that I posted just last week on Chris Bowers argument that we need to link more effectively:

If everyone on the left works a little harder on this we can turn the tides on on the Google Wars and win. We have already made a lot of inroads since this 2004 picture:

The graphs represent the aggregate linkage going on leading up to the 2004 election. Reds (them) are the Republican bloggers, and Blues (us) are the Democratic bloggers. The full expanation of the graphs particulars are on page 9 of the PDF paper. Basically, the first graph connects dots (blogs) when there is strong linkage between them (+25 during the period), the second one where there is less stronger linkage (+5), and they've a 3rd map that includes all linkage that I've not included.

Between blogs then (not taking into consideration that diaries on #8DailyKos and #17MyDD serve to allow massive coordiantion and spreading of message), there's just a lot more coordination through linking among Republican than there has been with Democratic bloggers, at least on the surface of particular URL's. The other interesting thing I noted was that the blog by George Bush's campaign didn't even make the top 40-- now that's pitiful.

We were less coordinated in '04. But in '06 we did little things a little better. I am sure the more recent graphs would look a lot better. But you know that we can still keep on improving on this.

Remember that every time you link to any site you are, over time, creating a kind of GOOGLEBOMB effect on that site when it comes to site rankings, search results, etc.. Tagging and choice of words that are used to link are important in these cumulitive effects as well.

Now this week... Brilliant at Breakfast has the scoop on how MyDD has become an apologist for those attempting to cut out the links that we need to build the Left:

Shorter Chris Bowers

"We innovate more than you, we hired people to help us, and because we did that there is no place for you lone bloggers anymore -- because WE decide who makes it and who doesn't."

Oh, you really have to read this self-congratulatory drivel to believe it. It's truly amazing to see one blogger fellating the entire Big Name Blogosphere in one post, while at the same time consigning the rest of us to the ranks of the MySpacers.

Kool Kidz Klub indeed.

It's funny how Bowers uses a quote by Jeffrey Feldman to illustrate his point, because as I've mentioned before, I had a very nice conversation about blogging just last week with Mr. Feldman, who seems to be in no way a blog snob. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there is at least one Big Name Blogger who isn't puffed up with his own self-importance.

But with Kos and Atrios making a big show about "culling the blogroll", and Chris Bowers playing "Mine's Bigger" with the rest of the blogosphere, is this really what it's come to? Is this the Revenge of the Nerds come to fruition? Is this the guys who DIDN'T get laid on prom night finally staking their claim to coolness?

If so, are we going to sit by and take it? Are we going to just toil away while guys like Atrios and Kos and Chris Bowers define the rules and brand the rest of us as useless?

What an amazing flip-flop-contortion there Bowers... This leaves me wondering just how committed he really is to the cause.

Jon Swift puts it all in perspective:

I adopted this policy in a spirit of both self-interest and altruism. In the blogosphere links are like capital. By offering links to others, others would be more inclined to offer links to me. But I am also very grateful to those who helped me out by throwing a link my way or adding me to their blogroll when I was just starting out. Now that I am a Large Mammal, according the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, I have tried to return the favor by helping out those further down the food chain.

Links are capital! It is the foundation of bringing views from fellow bloggers out of obscurity and into the top of search engine results. And just how much does it cost any blogger to spend some of this valuable capital?

ZIP. Zilch. Zero dollars.

Not even one penny to use the most effective marketing tool that Blogtopia has to offer.

All you have to do is put a few seconds into the act of cut'n'paste into your Blogroll or into a post... And you make a huge difference for everyone in our fight.

As ctblogger commented in an earlier MLN diary of mine on building a better community:

We should all work together to fight the good progressive fight and not be so critical in terms of other people's sites. I read CTBlue, Ed's Daily Rant, CT Local Politics, and the watch sites everyday and I learn something new from all of those guys which I incorporate into my site and that's the way it should be. Learn something from me and I learn something from you.

2006 is going to be a HUGE election year and Connecticut will be ground zero in terms of who controls Congress (2nd, 4th 5th district races). The faster we can all work to get this site up to full-speed, the more national attention it will recieve.

He also called me out for not having links to his sites... Which I quickly fixed. lol

2006 is behind us but there are still a lot of common causes that we all share, and we can all help eachother in achieving our goals. Linking is the first, easiest AND cheapest way to start.

For more background on all of this: Boston Joe has a Meta diary up x-posted at BooTrib and at MLW covering a bit more of this Meta discussion in a thoughtful way. Both have generated a lot of comments. I usually hate Meta... But this topic is the foundation of what Blogging is all about.

Independent Republican Joe Lieberman Proposes New TAX

Independent Republican Senator Joe Lieberman proposes a "Military Industrial Complex TAX":

An outspoken supporter of the Iraq war on Tuesday called for a new tax to pay for its astronomical cost as Congress opened a debate on President George W. Bush's $2.9 trillion budget plan for next year.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut proposed a "war on terrorism tax" at a Senate hearing during which he said the Pentagon's $622 billion defense budget proposal for fiscal 2008 threatened to crowd out funds for domestic programs.

To clarify the matter for you Joe: There already is a massive tax for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq... It is payed in the blood of Americans and Iraqis.

Independent Republican Joe Lieberman
addresses the Dead Elephant caucus of the GOP.

Got Tinfoil? You are going to need it!

Senator Bob Graham points the 911 conspiracy finger squarely at the criminal Bush administration:

9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in book - The Boston Globe:
"WASHINGTON -- Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration," the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters," obtained by The Miami Herald yesterday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees."

OK... Now if this doesn't make a certain "moderate right-wing libertarian" look like the paranoid one after banning all of those conspiracy diarists...

[update] And in the UNFUCKIN' REAL FILE...

Who else but FAAARRRR-RIGHT-WINGNUT REPUBLICAN Joe Neocon Lieberman would stand up and attempt to give Bush political cover today concerning escalation in Iraq:

Via Scarce at MLN:

Republicans bump Sen. Collins (R) for Lieberman
Sen. Collins (R-ME) would later vote for the resolution, Lieberman would not.

Grotesque as always.

Giuliani Files for 08

Rudy Giuliani announces his bid:

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor filed a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission indicating that he would seek the presidency as a Republican should he decide to go forward.

Needless to say, the republican tag on his party affilliation should be a real drag on his campaign. Though, the same can be said of almost any GOP candidate given the current political climate based on the GOP's past records that more closely resembles criminal rap sheets than curriculum vitaes.

Popcorn Time! Libby tapes to be released

I see many juicy tidbits concerning White House lies in your future...

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he had little choice but to make them public under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C, even though he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way.

Libby is charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in an indictment that focuses in part on his statements to a federal grand jury investigating the leak of the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.

If this is the precedent, I hope they have to enter Cheney's lying, err, testimony to the Grand Jury as evidence in this case as well. heh

The more witnesses' Grand Jury testimony tapes are entered as evidence, the better picture we will get as to the inner workings of the propaganda machine that brought us to an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Hadley on Pressing Forward to Failure - Pincus Propaganda

Hadley's response to the reporter's question:(paraphrased)

"I agree, I was spinning, so let me try and spin it completely another way: Please let the preznit continue to press on towards failure... It's our last-best chance to fail!"

Ok... Maybe you should watch the Video and get the real quotes...

"One of the things you should conclude from this NIE is the best plan is to have this plan succeed."

What plan? Stay the fuckin' course? Puhleeeese... That is all the ESCALATION/surge really is.

And of course in the WaPo, Pincus and DeYoung lie the BIG LIE:

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement.

Let's take another look at the declassified version of the NIE to compare:

*The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

snip

*Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.

Yeah... I think the NIE says Pincus is lying. I gave up reading the Pincus propaganda after I got to his second graph lie. It's like reading the thoughts of Bush, Lieberman or St. McCain. There is no point to it since they are all insane or liars or both.

The Rovian spin machine is cranking it up a notch.... We had better be ready to fight back.

[update] Billy-Willy Kristol seeps up from the Daily Muck:

When decadent neoconservatives lose political battles over the war, the results aren't pretty. The byline here reads Bill Kristol, but the words could very well have come from Shakespeare's Richard III (like, say, Act V, Scene IV):

John Warner of Virginia, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine are the four Republican senators (in addition to Nebraska's Chuck Hagel) currently signed on to the Democrats' anti-surge, anti-Petraeus, anti-troops, and anti-victory resolution.

That's right: a nonbinding anti-surge resolution is an act against the troops.

Oh, and there's more. Kristol threatens dire political consequences to all anti-surge GOP senators...

It is another full-court press from all of the usual ass-kissing Bush hacks...

Iraq NIE

Below are the Key Judgements of the NIE (at least the declasified version taken from the PDF that was released) and it is obvious that it does not paint a pretty picture. Of note is that while it mentions the influence of Iran, they also make it clear that Iran's influence is the negligible when you look at the overall picture of chaos.

I am including the "Explanation of Estimative Language" at the bottom of this so that you can get a clearer picture of what they mean to say with their specific choice of wording. Also, all emphasis and formatting is NOT mine, and is included as originally in the report.

-------------

Key Judgments

Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006. If strengthened Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), more loyal to the government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.

• Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.

The challenges confronting Iraqis are daunting, and multiple factors are driving the current trajectory of the country’s security and political evolution.

• Decades of subordination to Sunni political, social, and economic domination have made the Shia deeply insecure about their hold on power. This insecurity leads the Shia to mistrust US efforts to reconcile Iraqi sects and reinforces their unwillingness to engage with the Sunnis on a variety of issues, including adjusting the structure of Iraq’s federal system, reining in Shia militias, and easing de-Bathification.

• Many Sunni Arabs remain unwilling to accept their minority status, believe the central government is illegitimate and incompetent, and are convinced that Shia dominance will increase Iranian influence over Iraq, in ways that erode the state’s Arab character and increase Sunni repression.

• The absence of unifying leaders among the Arab Sunni or Shia with the capacity to speak for or exert control over their confessional groups limits prospects for reconciliation. The Kurds remain willing to participate in Iraqi state building but reluctant to surrender any of the gains in autonomy they have achieved.

• The Kurds are moving systematically to increase their control of Kirkuk to guarantee annexation of all or most of the city and province into the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) after the constitutionally mandated referendum scheduled to occur no later than 31 December 2007. Arab groups in Kirkuk continue to resist violently what they see as Kurdish encroachment.

• Despite real improvements, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)—particularly the Iraqi police—will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against Shia militias with success. Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units, many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls, and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of the areas where they were recruited.

• Extremists—most notably the Sunni jihadist group al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM)—continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.

• Significant population displacement, both within Iraq and the movement of Iraqis into neighboring countries, indicates the hardening of ethno-sectarian divisions, diminishes Iraq’s professional and entrepreneurial classes, and strains the capacities of the countries to which they have relocated. The UN estimates over a million Iraqis are now in Syria and Jordan.

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

• If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq’s current trajectory. They include:

• Broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism to begin to reduce one of the major sources of Iraq’s instability.

• Significant concessions by Shia and Kurds to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism.

• A bottom-up approach—deputizing, resourcing, and working more directly with neighborhood watch groups and establishing grievance committees—to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups, which have been mobilized into communal warfare over the past three years.

A key enabler for all of these steps would be stronger Iraqi leadership, which could enhance the positive impact of all the above developments.

Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Syria continues to provide safehaven for expatriate Iraqi Bathists and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq.

• For key Sunni regimes, intense communal warfare, Shia gains in Iraq, and Iran’s assertive role have heightened fears of regional instability and unrest and contributed to a growing polarization between Iran and Syria on the one hand and other Middle East governments on the other. But traditional regional rivalries, deepening ethnic and sectarian violence in Iraq over the past year, persistent anti-Americanism in the region, anti-Shia prejudice among Arab states, and fears of being perceived by their publics as abandoning their Sunni co-religionists in Iraq have constrained Arab states’ willingness to engage politically and economically with the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad and led them to consider unilateral support to Sunni groups.

• Turkey does not want Iraq to disintegrate and is determined to eliminate the safehaven in northern Iraq of the Kurdistan People’s Congress (KGK, formerly PKK)—a Turkish Kurdish terrorist group.

A number of identifiable internal security and political triggering events, including sustained mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious and political leaders, and a complete Sunni defection from the government have the potential to convulse severely Iraq’s security environment. Should these events take place, they could spark an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences. Three prospective security paths might then emerge:

• Chaos Leading to Partition. With a rapid deterioration in the capacity of Iraq’s central government to function, security services and other aspects of sovereignty would collapse. Resulting widespread fighting could produce de facto partition, dividing Iraq into three mutually antagonistic parts. Collapse of this magnitude would generate fierce violence for at least several years, ranging well beyond the time frame of this Estimate, before settling into a partially stable end-state.

• Emergence of a Shia Strongman. Instead of a disintegrating central government producing partition, a security implosion could lead Iraq’s potentially most powerful group, the Shia, to assert its latent strength.

• Anarchic Fragmentation of Power. The emergence of a checkered pattern of local control would present the greatest potential for instability, mixing extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes.

------------------------

What We Mean When We Say:
An Explanation of Estimative Language

When we use words such as “we judge” or “we assess”—terms we use synonymously—as well as “we estimate,” “likely” or “indicate,” we are trying to convey an analytical assessment or judgment. These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge. Some analytical judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks. In either type of judgment, we do not have “evidence” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.

Intelligence judgments pertaining to likelihood are intended to reflect the Community’s sense of the probability of a development or event. Assigning precise numerical ratings to such judgments would imply more rigor than we intend. The chart below provides a rough idea of the relationship of terms to each other.



We do not intend the term “unlikely” to imply an event will not happen. We use “probably” and “likely” to indicate there is a greater than even chance. We use words such as “we cannot dismiss,” “we cannot rule out,” and “we cannot discount” to reflect an unlikely—or even remote—event whose consequences are such it warrants mentioning. Words such as “may be” and “suggest” are used to reflect situations in which we are unable to assess the likelihood generally because relevant information is nonexistent, sketchy, or fragmented.

In addition to using words within a judgment to convey degrees of likelihood, we also ascribe “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence levels based on the scope and quality of information supporting our judgments.

• “High confidence” generally indicates our judgments are based on high-quality information and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.

• “Moderate confidence” generally means the information is interpreted in various ways, we have alternative views, or the information is credible and plausible but not corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

• “Low confidence” generally means the information is scant, questionable, or very fragmented and it is difficult to make solid analytic inferences, or we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

A Moment of Clarity

A moment of clarity, if you are one of those Bush-Lieberman-McCain clones that refuse to accept the reality of the situation, from former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's prepared testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity.”

“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq,” Brzezinski cautioned, “the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. … It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction.”

Ya don't say? Anyone that supports the axis of weasels' (Bush, Lieberman, McCain, AEI) continuence of failed policy in Iraq is playing right into the terrorists' hands... These idiots need to be removed from office and/or prosecuted for their criminal negligence.