Glenn, thanks again for doing this and targeting WaPo. Are you putting one in The Hill too?

Since we have a day reprieve due to the funeral, please get on the phone and call Senate Majority Leader Reid's office and ask him to pull the FISA bill.

For good measure, browbeat four or five friends or family members into calling as well.

Again, the pertinent phone numbers are:

Washington DC Office: 202-224-3542

Reno Office: 775-686-5750

Vegas Office: 702-388-5020

The Washington DC office line has an option that takes you straight to voice mail, so you can call 24/7.

The blog referenced by EJ on page 31 -- http://cboldt.blogspot.com/ -- has depressing vote total predictions on the amendments, cloture and final passage.

Perhaps if Reid's office is completely flooded with call, he will come to his senses on this issue.

I know I am being overly optimistic, but one must keep one's chin up in dark times.

whereas, as far as I can tell there's very little chance, between the military industrial complex (including anti-terrorism and intelligence community) and the interests of the oil industry (which can be -- in a pinch -- considered part of "national security") are going to allow us to "leave" ...

Clinton and others have talked openly about retreating to fortified bases from which we will provide aerial support and satellite reconnaisance for the Iraqi army ... as well as maintain personnel and hardware sufficient to dissuade encroachment by Iran (firstly) but also any other neighbors wanting to take advantage of our decreased presence ...

It's not so much a matter of "keeping campaign promises" as the unlikeliness of being able to do so. Year 2009 with the national elections is not a good time to put American interests ahead of facilitating this transition, imho. After successful provincial elections (god willing), national elections with full sunni participation might be our and Iraq's ticket to a better future as well as the only means of installing a legitimate government whose contracts might be seen as valid by the Iraqi people.

I have no crystal ball ... everything depends on everything else. ...

-We just completed the full-page ad for the WashPost and it's being submitted by their noon deadline for publication in tomorrow's Section A paper.-

Glenn,

Thanks for embracing this idea, and credit goes to noamnesty for initiating it.

This is a product launch and it *might* make a little splash, though it wouldn't shock anyone here to see the media studiously ignore it like Rev. Hagee or the Keating Five.

I feel this is timely in more ways than one.

Which Bushie said, about selling the Iraq war, 'You never launch a new product in August'?

So do I. I shuddered the first time I learned the Juan Williams was moonlighting on Fox, and now I see Liasson doing it. I don't know which is worse, the way it lessens their credibility as impartial, dedicated journalists, or the way it lends the authority of their names to the worst exemplar of yellow journalism practicing today. Yes I do, come to think of it. That either journalist could cover the nakedness of Fox news with the reputation of NPR is shameless. Even more shameless, NPR puts up with it. I cannot imagine Fox allowing Hannity to moonlight on MSNBC.

Serving two masters in this instance is impossible. NPR needs to force them to choose.

what is this meme "conditions on the ground"?

As someone who employs a phenomenological approach rather than a partisan approach on the subject of politics, I'm actually fond of the phrase "conditions on the ground"- which speaks- or ought to speak- to the idea of that set of extant facts and evidence that are most useful to making accurate assessments of what's actually in front of one's face- as opposed to living up in one's head, propped up by the imaginary furniture, castles, palaces, sailing ships, etc. in that "reality" made of words. Words are fragile and unstable constructions, especially if they happen to collide too directly with the overwhelming power of Actual Reality, that silent and serene iceberg. All is Well, as long as Words and Actual Reality don't collide. A verbal reality too far adrift from actual reality is trouble. Especially in wartime. Hence, bearing the "conditions on the ground" in mind, and seeking to learn the most necessary and updated information about them, is typically very valuable to living in the Reality Based World, and Community.

However, the phrase "conditions on the ground" is itself made of Words, and hence suffers from the vulnerabilities to twisting and abuse that it shares in common with any other construction that can be employed to construct a verbal picture.

So whenever the phrase is employed- especially by an Official Spokesperson- the most productive response from the listener needs to be further inquiries: "Like what? For instance?"

As for the word "metrics"- it's a synonym for the word "measures", used instead of "measures" to avoid confusion with an associated definition of "measures- "actions" (as in "stern measures.")

"Metrics" is actually more specifically defined to be "quantifiable measures"- and, similarly, the listener should best respond with questions like "which metrics?" and "What about these metrics, which you haven't mentioned?", etc.

Whenever an Official Spokesperson employs the word "metrics", the listener should always brace for the threat of Statistics Abuse. As a long-time critical observer of the Zero Tolerance War on Drugs, my acquaintance with the abuse and outright perversion of metrics is of long standing. To check out what I mean, you might want to check out recent announcements on the Drug Problem in the USA by people like DHS chief Michael Chertoff and DEA head Karen Tandy- there are some real doozys in there.

I really don't have much use for the theory of language and communication that's recently highlighted and endowed the term "meme" with such fraught meaning and power. I think it's an intellectual fad.

But in the more general sense, I take your points about those two buzz-words/phrases and their recently highlighted popularity as verbal currency. They're among the latest in a long parade of words and phrases pressed into service and conjured as Authoritative Jargon Invocations- implicitly intended to lead reliably to a reaction of earnest, furrowed-brow, head-bobbing agreement from those in the presence of the Authorities using such Authoritative-Sounding Language, due to the connotations of Hard-Nosed Reality and Objectivity implied by the phrases.

Once the Conjured Reassurance is in place that the Authorities are reviewing/have reviewed the Conditions On The Ground and the Metrics, the listener is to presume that any need for further questions is Obviated (there's another lofty-sounding term.)

But if someone doesn't presume that, and keeps asking questions...it can really mess up that spell something awful.