Friday, April 30, 2004

Kerry, Starting to Cohere? 

John Kerry just finished giving that speech at Fulton College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill's deservedly famous Iron Curtain speech, and what one can only hope will be Dick Cheney's deservedly infamous partisan and decidedly not statesman-like speech on Monday, which attacked Senator Kerry as a candidate who has what it doesn't take to be President, those famous troubling opinions about national defense and America's place in the world.

Senator Kerry and his campaign staff are to be congratulated. It was an impressive speech that took full advantage of one of those pregnant campaign moments sometimes handed to you by your opponent; Kerry and staff appear to have understood the dynamics of the moment, and executed the exact right response superbly.

The setting was perfect; Kerry couldn't have asked for more if it had been set up with the precision of a convention moment, but without that deathly lack of spontaneity. The audience wanted to hear from Kerry and let him know it.

And Kerry came through. This was a political speech about what needs to be done to change the failed course we are pursuing in Iraq. It was billed as John Kerry on Iraq and it did not disappoint, all the more so because his bearing and delivery were that of a statesman. No shouting, no direct attacks on the current administration, but a comfortable awareness that the failing nature of our current policy in Iraq is a given that most people accept. And Kerry avoided making the corollary mistake of sounding too grim, too comfortable with our failures there; it will take a special kind of propagandist to find any gloating in this speech, not that the slackers that hang out at a certain corner won't rise to the challenge.

Kerry presented a measured optimism that there is a way out of Iraq other than being driven out by Iraqis themselves, or by merely declaring either victory or defeat and simply leaving. Yes, there was no major policy proposal that he hasn't mentioned before, but this speech fleshed out his position, contextualized it, and answered, with appropriate indirection, the winger meme of the week, already taking hold among the SCLM, that there is virtually no difference between the Kerry and the Bush position on Iraq.

Before I continue, let me be clear, there were many items on the agenda of many of us on the liberal/left axis that we are waiting to hear Kerry say that he continued not to say on this occasion, and one or two phrases that make many of us shudder with distaste that he did say, like "staying the course," that one, mercifully, only once, and largely to make a point about its inadequacy as a description of what needs to be done.

My own greatest worry about Kerry's positions thus far has been what I consider to have been a straight-up mistake he made in appearing to back Bush's embrace of Sharon's so-called exit plan. So I was grateful that he made no mention of Israel or the Palestinians. I still believe that we can change Kerry's mind, "we" being those of us who support him, are raising money for him and working on his behalf. I plan to speak to that possibility in a weekend post. For now, I hope it will be sufficient to caution all of us not to do the work of the wingers for them. Without getting into the policy specifics in the speech, to be addressed in later posts, this was a speech that I think most of us ought to be able to live with, and not entirely unhappily. More needs to be fleshed out. But nothing Kerry said is inconsistent with the kinds of policies most of us think are essential to get us out as early as possible from an American occupation that is, in itself, the chief impediment to both stability and some form of democratic governence for the Iraqi people.

All three cable news networks carried the speech. CNN and MSNBC offered very little post-speech commentary. On Fox we were given Eleanor Clift and some columnist from the NYPost; Clift had a similar take to mine; this was a major step forward for the campaign, Kerry looked and sounded like a President, and one who knew what he was talking about. The NYPost hack had to reach to fit what we'd all just seen into one of the cliches the right has been hawking this week, and he contented himself with observing that Kerry lost an opportunity by not attacking the President's policy more specifically in order to differentiate himself from that policy, in other words, he should have behaved like Cheney, so that we'd have an easier time making the point that there is no real policy difference between the President and Senator Kerry, which leaves those only those questions of "character," like the President's steadfastness and Kerry's squishiness, to argue about. That's how they want to frame the Iraq question. Kerry went some way in reframing Iraq as a policy difference. Or so it seemed to me.

I have much more to say, and other bloggers I want to link to, but I'm writing this one on the run, so I'll leave it here.

Let us know what you think about the speech?

UPDATE From alert reader Zappatero, here's a link to the video at CSPAN. Anyone got a transcript?

Happy Mission Accomplished" Day!, part 2 

Let's confuse the Republicans with facts:

The Department of Defense and family members have identified 718 U.S. servicemembers who died supporting U.S.-led operations in Iraq. Of these, 580 died since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations there had ended.
(via AP)

Hmm... 580/781 is 80%.

Well, I guess it depends on the definition of "major", "combat", and "operations" ... Since Inerrant Boy cannot be wrong.

Happy "Mission Accomplished" Day! 

Yes, a year ago tomorrow Bush defiled the name of a great Republican and President, by using the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln as photo-op fodder for campaign commercials.

You remember: The photo-op they kept the troops an extra day at sea for? The photo-op where, although the carrier was only thirty miles off shore, they turned it for the cameras to make it look like it was out at sea? The photo-op where all the other dignitaries flew in by helicopter, but Bush was flown in on a fighter jet? The photo-op where the landing restraint wire was practically slack, so the fighter rolled halfway down the deck before stopping—since if the wire is nominal and tight, civilians like Bush vomit at the sudden shock of deceleration? The photo-op where Bush wore socks for a codpiece? The photo-op with the "Mission Accomplished" banner? The photo-op where Bush denied responsibility for the "Mission Accomplished" banner when it started looking like a loser of an idea?

Yes, that photo op.

However, our Inerrant Executive is never wrong, and so He is taking the opportunity to tell us so:

It will be a year on Saturday since Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln beneath a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" and announced that major combat in Iraq had ended.

[Executive] Bush on Friday defended his speech a year ago on the deck of an aircraft carrier proclaiming the end of major combat in Iraq and said "we're making progress, you bet" in bringing stability to the war-torn country.
(via LA Times)

Right. I don't understand, though, why more Americans died after the end of "major combat" than before.

Answering reporters' questions ... Bush said that on the day he spoke aboard an aircraft carrier off San Diego, he also noted that "there was still difficult work ahead."

Oh, please. "Difficult work" like rushing in tanks and armored Humvees a year later, to deal with an insurgency? Don't make me laugh. It hurts too much.

"A year ago I did give the speech from the carrier saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

A little revisionist history, eh?

"As a result, there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq," the president said
(via LA Times)

I'll leave it to others to argue the semantics about whether the Iraqi bodies buried in and around Fallujah are mass graves.

But Bush is—surprise!—lying about the torture chambers and rape rooms. They are still in Iraq—just run by mercenaries who should be ashamed to call themselves Americans:

Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.

Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.
(via Guardian)

Eesh.

Mission accomplished, my Aunt Fanny!

Iraq insurgency: Looks like we are re-Baathifying—though that may be too little, too late 

Well, it sure is easier to buy the Iraqis off than to kill them all and let God sort them out. Looks like someone in the Bush regime wised up. The signal, I imagine, was Chalabi saying they could bought the Baath party, and hence security, a year ago. $200 million looks cheap now, eh? The essential Juan Cole writes:

There are everywhere signs that the United States has embarked on a policy of re-baathification, rehabilitating thousands of ex-Baathists and putting them to work. Fifty former Baath officers met with Minister of Defense Ali Allawi on Thursday, expressing their deep disappointment with the current make-up of the new Iraqi army. The policy has two goals. First, it is aimed at mollifying the Sunni Arabs, who have given the US so much trouble in the past year, and from whom the high-ranking Baathists were largely drawn. Second, it serves as a threat to insurgents and Shiites, that if they continue to make trouble, they will be facing the aides of Chemical Ali.

Whoever made the decision to pull back and try to put an Iraqi face on the confrontation in Fallujah had more good sense than has been demonstrated by American leaders recently in Iraq. A bloody invasion of Fallujah had the potential of greatly deepening Iraqi and Arab hatred for the United States. It remains to see whether the new Iraqi force is up to the task of restoring order and quelling the fighters. The police in Fallujah have so far been ineffective, often admitting that they refuse to fight Iraqis on behalf of the Americans.
(via Informed Comment)

Of course, what might have brought realpolitik-style "good" results a year ago might not bring results today. Things change. Krugman writes:

All the information I've been able to get my hands on indicates that the security situation in Iraq is really, really bad. It's not a good sign when, a year into an occupation, the occupying army sends for more tanks. Western civilians have retreated to armed enclaves. U.S. forces are strong enough to defend those enclaves, and probably strong enough to keep essential supplies flowing. But we don't have remotely enough troops to turn the vicious circle around. The Iraqi forces that were supposed to fill the security gap collapsed — or turned against us — at the first sign of trouble.

And all of the proposals one hears for resolving this ugly situation seem to be either impractical or far behind the curve.

Some say we should send more troops. But the U.S. military doesn't have more troops to send, unless it resorts to extreme measures, like withdrawing a large part of the forces currently in South Korea. Did I mention that North Korea is building nuclear weapons, and may already have eight?

Others say we should seek more support from other countries. There may once have been a time — say, last summer — when the U.S. could have struck a deal: by ceding a lot of authority to the U.N., we might have been able to persuade countries with large armies, like India, to contribute large numbers of peacekeeping troops. But it's hard to imagine that anyone will now send significant forces into the Iraqi cauldron.

Some pin their hopes on a political solution: they believe that violence will subside if the U.N. is allowed to appoint a caretaker government that Iraqis don't view as a U.S. puppet.

Let's hope they're right. But bear in mind that right now the U.S. is still planning to hand over "sovereignty" to a body, yet to be named, that will have hardly any power at all. For practical purposes, the U.S. ambassador will be running the country. Americans may believe that everything will change on June 30, but Iraqis are unlikely to be fooled. And by the way, much of the Arab world believes that we've been committing war crimes in Falluja.

I don't have a plan for Iraq. I strongly suspect, however, that all the plans you hear now are irrelevant. If America's leaders hadn't made so many bad decisions, they might have had a chance to shape Iraq to their liking. But that window closed many months ago.
(via The Times)

Well, unless we can get the Sunnis to run the country for us like they ran it for Saddam (perhaps with our mercenaries helping them do the work our Geneva Convention-bound regular troops can't do). After, all the worst of the Ba'athists are a lot like the CPA/RNC folks: they will do literally anything to gain and hold power.

It really takes some cojones... 

to attack your political opponent for voting for cuts in the military that you suggested and supported at the time:

Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been charging that John Kerry would be a dangerous president because he opposed many key weapons that the military now relies on, himself presided over the biggest cutbacks in defense programs in modern history when he was secretary of defense under the first President Bush.

As Pentagon chief from 1989 to 1993 Cheney canceled or cut back many of the same weapons programs – bombers, fighter planes, battle tanks – that he says Kerry tried to deprive the armed forces of.
But wait, it gets even better:

The latest Bush-Cheney campaign ad depicts weapons such as the B-2 stealth bomber flying over a battlefield and then disappearing into thin air, attempting to convince voters that if Kerry prevailed back then, U.S. military forces would be underequipped.

Yet Cheney canceled the B-2 bomber program after 20 planes, even though the Air Force insisted it needed 132. He opposed upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, recommended killing the latest model of the F-14 fighter jet and opposed buying more F-15s.
So -- Cheney personally killed the B-2 that is the centerpiece of the advertisement!

I'm really not even sure "rank hypocrisy" quite covers it, eh?

Anyone got a better way to describe it?

And, yeah yeah, I know "typical Republican" comes immediately to mind but I'm looking for a memorable phrase to describe it.

Any ideas?

Update: Ooops. Forgot the link. Here you go.

Heh. The first leak of Mary Kate and Ashley's "visit" with the 9/11 commission is—wait for it—to the moonie Times 

Man, those Republicans work fast, don't they! And surprise! They are still pushing the "no time and place" line.

President George Bush told the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks a security memo he got warning of attacks lacked a date or place.

In the closed-door interview alongside Vice President Dick Cheney in the Oval Office Thursday, a commission member who asked not to be identified told the Washington Times Bush was questioned repeatedly about the Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled, "Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S."
(via Washington Times)

So, the natural question would be: "Mr. Bush, during your vacation, did you take any immediate action to pin down the time and place?"

Of course, if that question was asked and/or answered, that wasn't leaked:

No other details of the three-hour interview were available.


And according to Drudge (sigh) Bob Kerrey and Lee Hamilton left early.

One can only congratulate them on their unwillingness to participate in the "sock puppet farce."

The tinfoil hat theory, of course, would be that somehow an electronic recording device was smuggled in, so they have a transcript.

Soldier being prosecuted for abusing Iraqi prisoners a whistleblower? 

Certainly that would be entirely consistent with Bush Up-Is-Downism and vengefulness against perceived enemies.

A soldier facing a court-martial for his role in the alleged abuse of Iraqi war prisoners says commanders ignored his requests to set out rules for treating POWs and scolded him for questioning the inmates' harsh treatment.

Army Reserves Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick wfrote that Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad lacked the humane standards of the Virginia state prison where he worked in civilian life, according to a journal he started after military investigators first questioned him in January.

The Iraqi prisoners were sometimes confined naked for three consecutive days without toilets in damp, unventilated cells with floors 3 feet by 3 feet, Frederick wrote in materials obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"When I brought this up with the acting BN (battalion) commander, he stated, 'I don't care if he has to sleep standing up.' That's when he told my company commander that he was the BN commander and for me to do as he says," Frederick wrote.

The writings were supplied by Frederick's uncle, William Lawson, who said Frederick wanted to document what was happening to him. Lawson and Martha Frederick, the sergeant's wife, said Frederick was being made a scapegoat for commanders who gave him no guidance on managing hundreds of POWs with just a handful of ill-trained, poorly equipped troops
(via AP)

Way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, guys. Especially since the Islamic world has TV, and abuse of Iraqi prisoners is a top story.

UPDATE Alert reader 56K asks a pertinent question:

Dear Billy Graham:

Is it acceptabe in the eyes of the Lord for the US occupation troops to torture Iraqi prisoners?

If not, why are you silent?

Yours in Christ,
56k


UPDATE Atrios points out that private contractors were supervising the interrogation of prisoners. Yech. All this was sadly predicatable. See a Republic of Mercenaries.

"Jeebofascist": Request for comments 

Readers: Have any of you the Jeebofascist in its natural habitat? If so, where? Can you describe its plumage and habits?

Thursday, April 29, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

And sweet dreams.

If I can sleep, that is, with the vision of Mary Kate and Ashley (yech) immediately below.

Thanks, farmer. I think.

American Naive 

Erla Mae Nevin, a little known folk painter from Hazlehurst Georgia, produced the only known historic visual documentation of the young divinely chosen leader and his patriarch coadunate attendant as they - having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our Dear Leader and Country - present themselves entre nous before the assembled Nine-Eleven Commission of State Elders and Knowers of Secret Things. The painting currently hangs in the Great Hall of Monarchs and Heroes of the Autocracy in the nation's capitol.

- and he stepped into the river and seized up the drowning idiot, snatching it aloft by the heels like a great midwife and slapping it on the back to let the water out. A birth scene or a baptism or some ritual not yet inaugurated into any canon. He twisted the water from its hair and he gathered the naked and sobbing fool into his arms and carried it up into the camp and restored it among its fellows. (Cormac McCarthy, "Blood Meridian")


Gaudeamus igitur ~ let us therefore rejoice.

*

No shit, Sherlock Department: Bremer on Bush terror priorities in 2001 

Well, well, well.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said in a speech six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this,'" Bremer said
at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001.
(via AP)

Goodness! I wonder if this contradicts Bush's testimony today....

WaPos's Froomkin: Times endorses Bush 

Well, maybe not on the editorial page. But what other interpretation should we put on this mystifying behavior?

[The] New York Times [has] some bad polling news for the president.

"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll," they write.

Bush's approval rating "now stands at 46 percent, the lowest level of his presidency in The Times/CBS News Poll, down from 71 percent last March and a high of 89 percent just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001."

In fact, Bush's disapproval rating of 47 percent is now higher than his approval rating.

There's lots more numbers and a graphic on the Web site.

But is the Times trying to defuse its own bombshell? An unsigned sidebar explains how its poll compares to other recent ones -- and why. In short: "The New York Times/CBS News Poll's main findings were consistent with trends in some other recent polls but somewhat more negative for Mr. Bush." But "in statistical terms" they're "virtually the same."
(via WaPo)

Looks like another cheap attempt at fake "balance" to me. Fact: Bush's approval rating sucks (anti-Bush). Interpretation: The fact doesn't matter (pro-Bush). But let's remember Okrent's Law (back):

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true.

Question: When is the Times going to pursue what is true? Liberals have the facts on our side, we have nothing to fear from this!)

Answer: Not as long as Kit "Performing" Seelye, Judith "Kneepads" Miller, and Jodi Will-Whore-'Em are on the job ....

The Monday morning horror 

Used to be that the WhiteWash House would release the news it didn't want anyone to notice at 5:00PM Friday—like the Bush's "complete" service records, that turned out not to be.

But now horror happens 24/7, so 5:00PM Friday is just one hour among the others.

Now it turns out there's a new time to watch for horror: Monday morning.


[Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director], said Bush strategists often launch attacks against Kerry at the beginning of a week in which they are expecting bad news. This week's schedule includes a Supreme Court hearing on Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force, today's joint appearance by Bush and Cheney before the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks, and the first anniversary of Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
(via WaPo)

Good catch, Stephanie. Now what are you going to do to control the news cycle?

NOTE And here's a really weird comment from Kerry on this week's Monday Horror, the ginned up medals controversy:

Republicans are raising questions over a Vietnam War protest Kerry participated in 33 years ago, saying he pretended to throw away his medals. Kerry said Monday he threw away his ribbons and the medals of two other veterans, and he rejected the questions as a "phony controversy."(Full story)

After the conclusion of an interview with ABC during which he was grilled on the topic, a clearly frustrated Kerry -- who apparently believed the camera had been turned off -- sputtered into a microphone, "God, they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee."
(via CNN)

Merciful heavens, Senator, what world have you been living in? Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. You thought the "Dean Scream" was manna from heaven? No. They targetted him—and now they are targetting you. Welcome to the real world!

Plame Affair: Wilson names names. Was felon who blew Valerie Plame's cover on Dick "Dick" Cheney's staff? 

Who knew? Can it be that that the Republicans would happily break the law to smear an enemy? More Republican lawbreaking. Media yawns, collects paycheck.

Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been pegged as a possible leaker of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to a syndicated columnist, according to a new book by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband.
(via AP)

"Pegged", eh? Hmmm... Nice picture!

Or could it be Iran-Contra thug Elliot Abrams?

The other name "that has most often been repeated to me in connection with the inquiry and disclosure into my background and Valerie's is that of Elliott Abrams, who gained infamy in the Iran-Contra scandal during the first Bush administration." (Abrams, Leiby explains, is on the staff of the National Security Council.)

Then again, they could be heaving "Scooter" (love the sobriquet!) over the side to protect Rove....

Another suspect named in Wilson's book: White House chief political adviser Karl Rove. "The workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles," Wilson writes.

Columnist Robert Novak has said only that "two senior administration officials" were his sources.

Two sources? I know! It was Mary Kate and Ashley! Let's hope the grand jury can find out...

How Will We Know When John Kerry Is Done? 

Stick a fork in him. That's what our hard-working-to-the-point-of-suicidal-exhaustion, meritocratic media stars say *.

On the basis of two polls last week that still showed the presidential race as essentially even, and very little change for Kerry in the swing states, punditistas across the pundit spectrum, from putative liberals like Noam Schieber at TNR, to salt-of-the-earth centrist Kerry bashiros like Mickey Kaus, to genuine wingers like Bay Buchanan, who informed us recently on CNN that John Kerry's numbers are flat because he has been rejected as a credible alternative to George Bush, a consensus has been emerging that Kerry's campaign has stalled upon take-off, and is hovering in its airspace, struggling against the force of gravity. Punditistas were particularly struck that the period the poll sampled came after a spate of bad news for the Bush administration, and still, Americans cleaved to their President, leading some of the wiggier wags to propose the possibility that the worse things go for this country overseas, the more will Americans rally round the flag and the man who appears to be holding it.

Now we have a new poll, from the NYTimes and CBS that suggests a rather different picture.

Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and JANET ELDER

Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

After initially expressing robust backing for the war, the public is now evenly divided over whether the United States military should stay for as long as it takes to stabilize Iraq or pull out as soon as possible, the poll showed.

Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein. Forty-six percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 37 percent last month and 31 percent in December.

The diminished public support for the war did not translate into any significant advantage for Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The poll showed the two men remaining in a statistical dead heat, both in a head-to-head matchup and in a three-way race that included Ralph Nader.

Support for Mr. Bush is stronger in other areas vital to his re-election, including his handling of the threat from terrorism, which won the approval of 60 percent of respondents.

Even so, just short of a year after Mr. Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln last May 1 and proclaimed the end to major combat operations under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished," his approval rating has slid from the high levels it reached during the war.

Here's what part of this new poll you'll hear talked about the most:

The survey held hints of trouble for Mr. Kerry as he seeks to introduce himself to an electorate that knows relatively little about him. While 55 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they strongly favored the president, only 32 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters strongly favored their candidate.

Sixty-one percent of voters said Mr. Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear, versus 29 percent who said he says what he believes. The Bush campaign has attacked Mr. Kerry for months on that score, portraying him as a flip-flopper with no convictions.

On the same question, 43 percent said Mr. Bush says what people want to hear and 53 percent said he says what he believes

It's amazing, really, and somewhat depressing, I have to admit, that this administration has successfully launched that particular meme against John Kerry, of the man who can never take a stand, never talk straight, and even more amazing that they then kept it afloat by using, in particular, aspects of John Kerry's service to America in a war, usually referred to in other contexts as being a war hero, as well as his principled public stance against the war upon his return to this country, which was not something that most Americans wanted to hear from returning veterans, and certainly not Richard Nixon and his hitman, Charles Colson.

More to come on what the real problems of the Kerry campaign are, and how some of us on the left may be making them worse.

You can read the rest of the information on the poll here.

* By the end of today, I promise this reference will be made clear.

Fat Tony speaks, and emits an odor of sanctimony 

And—Fancy that!—the press is allowed to quote him!

As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to "do what the people want," instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically, Scalia said.

"And so politics has made itself known," Scalia told an audience of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

Good judges are honest lawyers who stick to the letter of the law or the Constitution, whatever their political philosophy, Scalia said.
(via AP)

Rich. "Politics has made itself known." I love it.

Three words: "Bush", "v", "Gore".

I won't use the phrase "duck pit", but feel free to think it!

Americans May Be Dying, but Irony Isn't 

Nightline, born during the Iranian hostage crisis to obsessively monitor Carter's unsuccessful efforts to secure the release of a few dozen Americans, is getting yanked for one broadcast covering Bush's contribution to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds. (via Atrios)

Iraq insurgency: CPA stands for "Corrupt Provisional Authority" 

But with the Republicans in charge, what else would be expect?

A senior Defense Department official is under investigation by the Pentagon inspector general for allegations that he attempted to alter a contract proposal in Iraq to benefit a mobile phone consortium that includes friends and colleagues, according to documents obtained by The Times and sources with direct knowledge of the process.

John A. Shaw, 64, the deputy undersecretary for international technology security, sought to transform a relatively minor police and fire communications proposal into a contract allowing the creation of an Iraq-wide commercial cellular network that could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue per year, the sources said.
(via LA Times)

And guess what! The administration is screwing Iraqi first responders, as well as our own!

Shaw's efforts resulted in a dispute at the Coalition Provisional Authority that has delayed the contract, depriving U.S. military officials and Iraqi police officers, firefighters, ambulance drivers and border guards of a joint communications system.

That has angered top U.S. officials and members of the U.S.-led authority governing Iraq, who say the deaths of many Americans and Iraqis might have been prevented with better communications.

Hey, wonder if the cell phone network in the Iraq works? Especially since we imposed the US cell phone standard on them, as opposed to the GSM standard, which the rest of the world uses? Hey, who cares?

CDMA, which was developed by Qualcomm, is used in the United States and some countries in Asia. Its rival, a standard developed by Europeans called GSM, is used in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East.

"Hey, we won the war," Shaw said in an interview. "Is it not in our interests to have the most advanced system that we possibly can that can then become the dominant standard in the region?"

Wow! War profiteering! Scratching the surface of corruption, I'm sure.

Back to normal on Fallujah 

Surprise!
Bush:

Bush insisted "most of Fallujah is returning to normal" despite a massive American bombardment yesterday.
(via UK Mirror)

Reality:

U.S. warplanes carried out new air strikes and gunfire erupted in parts of this volatile city Thursday night, hours after Marines announced a tentative deal to end a nearly month-long siege that has cost hundreds of lives. Separately, a series of hit-and-run attacks and a car-bomb blast killed 10 U.S. soldiers during the morning, most of them in and around the capital.

A cease-fire agreement -- reached with the assistance of local leaders and signed April 19 -- has largely been ignored by people in the city. Although the deal called for such heavy arms as mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to be surrendered to the Marines, all they have received is a small assortment of rusty, inoperable weapons.

The latest plan emerged from three days of discussions between U.S. commanders and four former Iraqi generals, according to Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment in Fallujah.

(via WaPo)

Cue The Boos 

Al Gore, apparently under the impression that he exists, has pledged to various entities of the Democratic Party, six million plus dollars that are to be drawn from his 2000 campaign accounts.

The former vice president pledged to donate $4 million to the Democratic National Committee. The party's Senate and House committees each will get $1 million, and the party from Gore's home state of Tennessee would receive $250,000.

The Democratic Party in Florida, site of the divisive 2000 election recount, will get $240,000 from a separate Gore campaign account. Republican campaign committees still hold a fund-raising advantage over Democrats.

"The outcome of this election is extremely important for the future of our country and for all that America stands for," Gore said. "I want to help John Kerry become president and I want to help Democrats retake control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives."

Ron Fournier is reporting for the WaPo, and you might just get the impression that he has some awareness that the poor hapless Gores aren't on Sally Quinns dinner party invitation list.

He shocked the political community late last year by endorsing then front-runner Dean, whose campaign collapsed several weeks later in Iowa.

That deserves the award for being the most (fill in the blank) statement of the week, but what kind? Readers?

This one I think I can peg:

Gore narrowly lost Florida and the presidential race after the Supreme Court stopped the disputed recount.

Misstatement masquerading as an understatement? I guess it depends on what your definition of "lost," or perhaps "won" is.

Despite his endorsement of Dean, Gore met recently with the putative nominee, Senator Kerry: "John will be a great president for all Americans, and I want to do everything I can to help him fight against the outrageous and misleading campaign being waged by the Bush-Cheney campaign," Gore said. I predict that this statement will produce a significant round of chuckles and sneers among our hard-working, to the point of exhaustion, meritocratic media stars.

If you are especially curious about which of these three men hates/resents/ or other harbored secret negative attitudes, (fill in the blank) the other two, or vice versa Xs two, or how Gore really feels about Bill Clinton, also vice ersa, tune into Hardball during the next two days; depending on the headlines, Chris is sure to address this important issue, and if you're lucky, Peggy Noonan and Pat Caudell will be in attendence.

Watch also for amusing, in a putative sort of way, variations on "the six million dollar man." Remember all the references in campaigns past to Gore's mechanical inability to register as an actual human being. Expect also derisive references to the fact that by law, Gore couldn't keep the money for himself, though he could have donated it to charity, instead of to a political party, a choice whose ethical/moral implications, in view of the political party, eek, he chose, will no doubt be addressed by members of the Capital Gang. Look also for one of those crack political reporters at the NYTimes to interview some nameless Democrat to express relief that Gore no longer exits, politically speaking, and remark upon the pathos of Gore not understanding that.

Boos there will be, how many and aimed at what particular Gore failing is the only open question. Why? Because Al Gore is under the mistaken impression that he exits and that outrageous assumption on his part is a deadly giveaway that Al Gore still doesn't understand who it is in this country who gets to decide who does or does not exist.

For more pathetic evidence of Al Gore's delusions, click here, here, here, and here.

Beyond sad, isn't it?

More Jeebofascists  

Apparently the pre-1954 Pledge of Allegiance was a phony bit of treasonous claptrap:

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott turned a routine recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance into a political flap this week when he omitted the words "under God" while leading the House of Representatives in the pledge.

McDermott, D-Seattle, said he recited the pledge before Tuesday's House session the way he had learned it as a child in Illinois, before the words "under God" were added, and that he meant no offense. When he came to "under God," McDermott paused while the rest of the House said the words and then continued on with the pledge.

"That's how I've always said it," McDermott said yesterday. "I make my pledge to my country and that's the end of it."

(via Seattle Times)


But of course it's not the end of it for our own homegrown Taliban, not by a long shot:

Republicans pounced on the omission. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."

Washington State Republican Party chairman Chris Vance echoed the criticism in a statement yesterday: "One more time, Jim McDermott has embarrassed Washington state."

The House's presiding officer Tuesday, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said the words "under God" would appear in the Congressional Record of Tuesday's proceedings, regardless of how McDermott had recited the pledge.

McDermott, 67, has been a lightning rod for conservatives since he took a high-profile trip to Iraq in 2002 and told television interviewers President Bush would mislead the public to justify an invasion.

This last, of course, is the big stinking turd in the middle of the living room: McDermott told the truth, so he must be hounded from public life. Too bad he routinely gets 70% of the vote in his district. At the very least, therefore, he must be smeared at every opportunity. Even if--especially if--he's a professing Christian:

"I was a 6-year-old boy when I gave my heart to Jesus Christ," said McDermott, a member of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. "I went to Wheaton College with Billy Graham. But religion shouldn't be worn on your sleeve. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. I don't think my relationship with God has any place in this."

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." --Matthew 6:5-6


Looks like the Jeebofascists have another traitor within who needs purging.

Taxation without representation 

So, if Pennsylvania is 50/50 Republican/Democratic, but the Republicans have gerrymandered "my" House delegation so that it is split 19/12 Republican/Democratic (here), and all revenue spending bills originate in the House, doesn't that mean that I'm being taxed without being represented?

This is, of course, a general problem: Though the country is controlled by a political machine based in the Red states, the Blue states are subsizing the Red states through tax revenues.

Time for some tea in the harbor....

NOTE Alert reader Ubu corrects me:

All tax legislation must originate in the House - that's what's referenced as "revenue bills" in the Constitution. Appropriations bills - spending - originate in both House & Senate.

Well, heck, that's what I meant.

Of course, the Constitution is a dead letter anyhow, what with Bush shifting $700,000,000 that both houses appropriated from Afghanistan to Iraq without, uh, telling anyone.

Mary Kate and Ashley before the 9/11 commission 

Alert reader JasonC comments:

Who knows what hijinx those loveable twins will get themselves into this fine morning! I hope they wear matching outfits.

Heh,

Negroponte's Stygian Shores 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee members are deciding whether or not to confirm George W. Bush's nomination of John Negroponte, a man who knows a rape room when he sees one, to ambassador of Iraq. Proving once again that the current Battalion 43 occupying the White House is little more than a squalid nest of paroled Reagan administration felons. A dangerous homicidal juicehead full of cheap moonshine Jesus and Nazi crank; driving south in a stolen 1980 Chrysler Cordova while live hand grenades roll around in the trunk.

Then again, it would appear that the brahmins of the SFRC aren't really trying to decide anything at all and in fact all the decidin' and confirmin' and concernin' is already pretty much decidedly, for whom the bell tolls, in the can.

Fast track slackers | Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings. Via Democracy Now
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT): We're not going that far, John, here, but in a sense, what I'm getting at here, it's obvious that this committee is going to confirm your nomination. So, in the traditional sense, the normal question and answer period is not really appropriate here because I don't think anything that you are going to say is going to dissuade any of us that you should not be the choice and get this job done.


[excerpt] "Two Democrats, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Barbara Boxer of California, noted that they had disagreed with Mr. Negroponte when he was an ambassador in Honduras and deputy national security adviser... [...] But they said they would set aside those concerns out of personal respect for him." ~ New York Times, Wed., 04.28.04 | "Ambassador Nominee Defends Limits on Iraq's Sovereignty | page A9. [excerpt]

Well jeepers, thats right diplomatic of em. Below are a few "concerns" apparently set aside out of "personal respect" for liege Negroponte's fragile sensibilities. Afterall, peers of the realm Sir Dodd and Lady Boxer wouldn't want to upset Ambassador Death Squad with uncomfortable reminders of potentially problematic bygone derring do. Sakes no.

Battalion 316: [Democracy Now - interview transcript]

SISTER LAETITIA BORDES: Why yes, good morning Amy. As I mentioned yesterday on your program, I had gone to Honduras to meet with then-ambassador John Negroponte to find out what had happened to 32 women from El Salvador, who had taken refuge in Honduras and who disappeared. At that time there was the Battalion 316. The Battalion was another name for the horrible death squad that was operating in Honduras at that time. That was well known to ambassador Negroponte. The reason I say it was very well known to ambassador Negroponte was that General Alvarez Martinez was then chief of the Honduran armed forces, and he was the secret head of battalion 316. Now, Negroponte and Martinez, the people would tell you, it was known that they would wine and dine together, and had ongoing connections. So, it is absurd to think that Mr. Negroponte would say that he did not know what was going in El Salvador at that time. As I found out 13 years later that the women we were looking for had been badly, badly tortured and then put in a helicopter and dropped into the ocean. They used Salvadoran military and helicopters to take these women and drop them over the ocean. Now, Battalion 316 continued to function the whole time that Negroponte was there, and I don't think too many people know that General Gustavo Martinez was kind of, quote, “Beheaded by his own military.” There was kind of a coup, and he took temporary refuge in the United States. When he went back to Honduras, he was assassinated. I don't think many people know about that. It is believed that he was assassinated by members of the military, who were very upset with him because of deals that he had made with the United States while he was the general. What angers me -- angers me very, very much is that there's absolutely no reference being made to the past of Mr. Negroponte in Honduras during these hearings. We just don't hear anything about it. We do not learn from our history. The people of Iraq are those who are going to be the ongoing victims of John Negroponte, who believes that the end justifies the means.

Sister Laetitia Bordes, a Catholic nun with the Society of Helpers, a Catholic community of women. She is talking to us from San Bruno, California. Democracy Now/interview


General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez:
...who had been trained at the US Army School of the Americas and in Argentina. He believed that Honduras should take the Argentine approach to dealing with dissent, which consisted largely of kidnapping suspects and torturing them to death in secret jails. His fanaticism disturbed some of his comrades, but when American officials decided to use Honduras as a base for the contra war, they found him an eager ally. He was willing not only to turn over parts of Honduran territory to the contras and allow them to function with impunity, but also to tolerate and even direct the "disappearance" of Hondurans who protested.

[...]

During his years in Honduras, Negroponte acquired a reputation, justified or not, as an old-fashioned imperialist. Sending him to the UN serves notice that the Bush administration will not be bound by diplomatic niceties as it conducts its foreign policy. ~ source: "Our Man in Honduras" ~ source: "Our Man in Honduras", By Stephen Kinzer NY Review of Books>, September 20, 2001.


Candor - an endangered species.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Ct., noted differences that he had with Negroponte when the diplomat was ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s. "Those differences stem largely from a lack of candor about what the U.S. was and wasn't doing in Central America in the conflict at that time," Dodd said. "And although I intend to support and strongly support this nomination when it comes to a vote in this committee, and later on the Senate floor, I want to make one point especially clear: That same issue -- candor -- in my view, is going to be critical with respect to continued support for U.S. policies in Iraq." [excerpt] Source: FoxNews


Bushlette and his willing executioners wouldn't recognize candor if it came flapping through an open Oval Office window and laid an egg on the desk. And apparently Christopher Dodd wouldn't recognize a viper if it slithered up his pantleg and sunk its fangs into his left nut. Whatever.

However ya look at it - it's gonna be a weird scary summer.

*

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Tomorrow, Mary Kate and Ashley "visit" with the 9/11 commission. Won't that be fun?

Scalia licenses Republican gerrymandering 

Well, so much for legitimate government under Republican rule.

A Supreme Court plurality, in a Pennsylvania case that may change the political landscape of the United States, said Wednesday that the courts cannot rule on challenges to political gerrymandering.

The decision could affect similar disputes in Texas and elsewhere and is expected to benefit the Republican Party. It could also open the floodgates to politically gerrymandered redistricting wherever one party has firm control of a state legislature.

But a four-justice plurality led by Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that political gerrymandering claims are "non-justiciable" because no standards for judging such claims [of gerrymandering] exist.

"The use of purely political considerations in drawing district boundaries is not a 'necessary evil' that, for lack of judicially manageable standards, the Constitution must tolerate," Breyer said in his dissent. Breyer then proceeded to offer 15 pages illustrating what he said were possible standards.

State Legislatures Magazine reported after the 2002 elections that Republicans had firm control of 21 state legislatures and Democrats firmly controlled 16. Partisan control is divided in 11 legislatures; the remainder are effectively deadlocked.

Political gerrymandering is espoused by such national figures as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and it is expected to spread after Wednesday's ruling.
(via UPI)

Funny how willing Scalia was to make a ruling in Bush v Gore, where standards also did not exist, and how willing he is to make a ruling now. I wonder why?

Democrats to infiltrate Republican National Convention with "shadow volunteers"? 

Excellent! And best of all, one of the proponents of the idea is from Philly!

[T]here is evidence that the idea of volunteering, then not showing up, or showing up and using anti-Republican language has interested many people.

The biggest public proponent of the idea is a 37-year-old computer consultant from Philadelphia, David A. Lynn, who has created a Web site called shadowprotest.org. It is calling on protesters to volunteer at both the Republican convention and the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Boston earlier in the summer. Mr. Lynn has issued press releases, and tried to sell his idea across the Internet, where it has picked up some momentum.

Boston appears largely immune to the tactic since the host committee there had signed up 12,000 volunteers by the end of March, the host committee said.
(via The Times)

Still more excellent!

But New York, which has a long way to go to reach its target, has so far registered only about 1,400 potential volunteers. Marilyn Shaw, director of volunteer services for the host committee, said all volunteers would be vetted by law enforcement before they are signed up. She also said volunteers would be expected to attend many meetings before getting their volunteer shirts.

"I'll be honest with you," she said. "We meet and greet them so many times they become our best friends."

I love the idea of "anti-Republican language." What would that be? Stating a fact?

And I also love the idea of passing as a Republican... But I'm not sure I could stand it. Anyhow, readers, have at it!

Iraq: Why not just let the Iraqis vote on whether they want us to stay? 

How hard could that be?

UPDATE Alert reader snarkey comments:

Hey! If it works out can we try it here?

New York Times sends in the clowns: Jodi Will-Whore-'Em buries the Bush AWOL story yet again 

Surprise! I hate to read stuff like this on my morning commute, because it ruins the mood of the morning, but readers, it's my job. Here's Jodi Wilgoren doing what I imagine, if she's not a complete whore, she must think of as reporting. I've done some deletions and added the bracketed material to clarify the true state of play:

[Kerry's aides] offered reporters a provocative [useless! Who cares if it is provocative? Is it true?] four-page handout [document] headlined [titled], "Key Unanswered Questions: Bush's Record in the National Guard."

Mr. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973, but there is some dispute, [a long-running controversy] about how he got a coveted pilot spot, [why he was grounded for missing a medical exam,] [whether he was present for the entire term of his service,] and about missing attendanceservice records, [including the DD214 that would document the grounds for his discharge]. Mr. Cheney received deferments from the draft because he was a student and an expectant father. [Although Senators McCain and Kerry have authorized the unconditional release of all their service records, Mr. Bush has never done so.]

The Kerry handout, reviving questions that swirled around the White House earlier in the year, asked why Mr. Bush missed a medical exam while enrolled in the National Guard in 1972; why he requested not to be sent overseas for duty; how he got in over other applicants despite low scores; and where various records are.
(via NY Times)

And check that last sentence: "where various records are." Wilgoren buries the story right there. Readers, you know the detail (back), so you know that these records are the ones Bush must release to clear his name. They are:
  • The missing mandatory report on Bush's grounding

  • The missing DD214 discharge (that would give the grounds for his discharge)

  • The missing accumulation of total retirement points (that would show when he served)


And paystubs and a W2 would establish his attendance. Where are they? (Answer: On microfiche that Bush won't release.)

So Wilgoren does a "he said, she said", throws up her hands, and does no reporting. Meanwhile, what runs on page A1? A fluff—and I mean fluff—piece on Kerry's personal handler (see the essential Howler).

What a sick farce.

Readers, the address of hapless, overworked Times Bud Man Daniel Okrent is here: public@nytimes.com. Remember, he's the inventor of what is rapidly becoming known as Okrent's Law (back):

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true.

Feel free to write Mr. Okrent a polite, detailed letter sharing your views on how Jodi Wilgoren, and the World's Greatest Newspaper (not!) are doing on finding out the truth.

Alert reader 56K suggests:

perhaps we should email the Howler link to the NY Times's largest investor, T Rowe Price and ask them if a newspaper who lied about this can be trusted to tell the truth about its financials

info@troweprice.com

Put NYT/Wilgoren in the subject line

Well, maybe this link too...

Why are we even treating Kavanaugh's nomination seriously? 

Look at the record:

As a Starr deputy, [Appeals Court nominee Brett] Kavanaugh wrote the report to Congress saying that Mr. Clinton's dalliance with a former intern, Monica S. Lewinsky, provided grounds for impeachment.
(via NY Times)

So why aren't we all simply treating Kavanaugh's nomination as the joke it is, and reacting with hysterical laughter? We're going to give this guy lifetime tenure? WTF?

Supremes about to privatize the executive branch 

Isn't that what letting Cheney keep the papers for his energy task for private amounts to?

In a closely watched test of the president's right to operate behind closed doors, the Bush administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to preserve the freedom of the executive branch to solicit private outside advice.

Most of the justices signaled that they were prepared to do just that.
(via LA )

Not only that, there won't be a way to even find out what's been kept secret:

Moreover, neither Congress nor the courts may force the president to turn over information through so-called discovery orders, he said. "We are submitting that the discovery itself violates the Constitution," he said.

So, suppose industry "advice" takes the form of actually writing Federal regulations, and then having the administration they already own sign off on it. Could that be kept secret? Legally? Apparently, the Court is about to answer Yes.

Basically, the Bush theory of governance is that, every four years, there's a (rigged) national referendum on the Executive. (Let's not call Bush a "President" any more, OK?) In between, the Executive gets to do whatever the Executive wants. Bush has already totally trashed Congress's power of the purse by moving $700,000,000 appropriated for Afghanistan into Iraq, without so much as letting them now. Now, neither Congress nor the people will be able to look inside the Executive to see what it does or how it works, all under the guise of protecting "private advice." Hey, if the advice is so good, and the advice is something that won't screw us all over, why hide it?

So much for the Republic.

Appalling. Outrageous.

Looks like Spector pulled it off 

Here:

Arlen SPECTER: 527,365 (51%)

Pat TOOMEY: 510,724 (49%)
(via here)

With 99% of precincts reporting.

Tod bad. I would have liked to see Hoeffel stomp a winger. I think it will be harder for a Democrat to beat Spector. But what do I know? I've only been in Philly for three years, so it's not like I'm a native or anything. Readers?

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Goodnight, moon. 

Karen Ooze. I like that.

Karen "Primordial" Ooze. I like that better.

Thanks farmer!

Sweet dreams, all...

Spector/Toomey results for PA Republican primary 

Continuously updated here.

Pennsylvania: Philly and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between ....

Demoiselle Hughes 

Karen "the Texas Motormouth" Hughes, born in snooty elitist cheese-eating surrender monkey Paris? (Paris, France that is.)

The daughter of an Army major general, Hughes was born in Paris, France, and lived in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, Kentucky, Canada, Panama and Texas while growing up.

She graduated from Southern Methodist University in 1977 and went to work as a television reporter in Fort Worth. In 1984, she moved from covering politics to playing the game.

Texas press coordinator for the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1984, she later became executive director of the Texas GOP and joined Bush in the early months of his 1994 campaign for governor. LINK


What will we tell the children!!!

There is to be no questioning of the Dictator during the Circus 

A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it. - George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.

Project Vote Smart - National Political Awareness Test

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST BUSH

VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST CHENEY

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO ON 23 SEPARATE OCCASIONS BY:

VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO ON 23 SEPARATE OCCASSIONS BY:

MSNBC
CBS News
Cox Newspapers
Knight Ridder
National Journal
MTV
New Hampshire Public Broadcasting
Tucson Citizen
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Portsmouth Herald
Nashua Telegraph
Iowa Public Radio
Ames Daily Tribune
Cedar Rapids Gazette
Iowa City Press
The State (SC)
WYY Philadelphia
San Jose Mercury News
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Fomer Democratic Congressman
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Jim Leach, Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

What is the NPAT?
This candidate has responded in a past election to the National Political Awareness Test. As a continued effort to provide the American public with factual information on candidates running for public office, these archived responses are made available.


Project Vote-Smart.org ~ http://vote-smart.org

I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. - Quoted: "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward -Sep. 2001.

College where Cheney smeared Kerry asks Kerry to speak 

More like this!

Sen. John Kerry will speak at the same college where Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a blistering speech about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, a senior Kerry adviser told CNN.

Cheney's speech Monday at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri draw a rebuke from the school's president who said he was "surprised and disappointed" by what he described as "Kerry-bashing."

College President Fletcher M. Lamkin invited Kerry to speak and Kerry agreed.
(via CNN)

The Times actually gave Cheney's speech front page coverage. Cheney throwing red meat to the base is news? Sigh...

Stolen Dem Memos: AP, that's NOT what he said! 

Read this (for the background, back):

No one at the White House knew about Democratic memos on judicial nominees being taken from Senate computers by GOP Senate aides, one of President Bush's lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

"I don't know of anyone who was aware of this matter until we heard about it through the media," said Brett Kavanaugh, who serves as Bush's assistant and staff secretary. He was testifying before the committee at his confirmation hearing to be a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
(via AP)

Lawyers tend to pick their words very carefully. (In the Clinton years, the MWs used to call this "parsing.")

Winger thug Kavanaugh didn't "no one at the White House knew." He said "I didn't know of anyone who was aware." Not the same at all.

Annals of the Courtier Press 

I think this may be just about the saddest thing I've read recently. According to Elizabeth "Asking Questions is Scary" Bumiller:

Mr. Bush spoke for 44 minutes to the editors in off-the-cuff remarks that drew on familiar phrases from his speeches of the last two and a half years…Mr. Bush’s substantive remarks were interrupted only once with applause, when he called for the end of the "death tax," or the estate tax.
(via The Daily Howler)

And this during a talk that was purportedly about the war on terror. Remember when the press' motto was "Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted"? Apparently the new motto is "I got mine, Jack."

Elsewhere in today's Howler, Somerby gives deserved props to E.J. Dionne for, well, doing his job, which is also pretty sad when you think about it. (Somerby suggests we add props of our own here: postchat@aol.com.) Dionne, invoking Joseph Welch, asks Bush and his goons, "Have you no sense of decency?" The question pretty much answers itself.

But there may be a subtext. Before Welch asked his famous question, few had dared take on McCarthy; that is, the press was behaving then pretty much as it has been for the last 20 years. In asking this question, therefore, Welch was implicitly shaming the Fourth Estate. One wonders if Dionne is similarly addressing his cowardly colleagues? Sad yet again, if so, that journalists have to resort to indirection to shame their seemingly unshamable peers.

Welch's question is widely credited with puncturing McCarthy's aura of invulnerability and fear. The question is whether, and when, it will finally work on a press corps so corrupt and venal that it shamelessly applauds the demolition of a long-recognized bulwark against aristocratic rule.

9/11 commission: Bush builds in partisanship, adversarial nature 

Look at this little detail:

The White House had requested that no stenographer be present during the closed-door session. ... [T]here will not be an official record.
(via AP)

So, if the WhiteWash House wants to avoid partisanship, why on earth would they avoid having a neutral observer create the record?

And here's another little detail. First the sanctimony, from Scott "Sucka MC" McClellan:

[MCCLELLAN]: "You should not look at this as an adversarial process. We are all working toward the same objective here."

Uh huh. So, it's is not adversarial, then why is Bush bringing his lawyer?

Gonzales is expected to be at Thursday's session, along with perhaps another member of the counsel's office and other White House officials, McClellan said.

Wow! It looks like the commission is going to have a lot of "visitors"!

And the unanswered question:

Why the White House insisted on Bush and Cheney appearing together. Bush has declined to explain the decision. Some analysts have suggested the dual appearance is intended to prevent any differing accounts from the president and vice president.

What's a sock puppet without a hand? And what's a hand without a sock puppet?

AWOL Bush: Off the back burner again. What Bush must do to restore his good name 

It really is a question of character, isn't it?

WaPo's Froomkin writes:

Even after a big White House document dump, many questions remained unanswered about Bush's service, including how he got his posting, whether he fulfilled his obligations and why he missed a key physical.
(via WaPo)

Yep. Check out Kevin Drum and The Howler for the state of play when the SCLM dropped the story (yet again). And check out Atrios today for another interesting unanswered question.

James Moore writes in Salon:

The story keeps changing.

Just like the WMDs. And we know how that story turned out (unless the CPA/RNC has finally managed to bury something to "find", say in October).

And regardless of what the White House says about George W. Bush and his time in the Texas Air National Guard, journalists tend to accept the explanation. I can't. The president of the United States is lying to hide his behavior while he was a young pilot during the Vietnam War, and he has almost taken away reporters' ability to get the whole story. Unfortunately, the national media have other distractions, and they apparently don't think the Guard story is important enough to warrant additional effort. I think they are wrong.

The president's behavior while under oath to serve in the military is an important matter. By George W. Bush's own admission, there were at least eight months in 1972 when he was not performing assigned Guard duty. What if today's Guard members behaved as irresponsibly as Bush did during his hitch?

Actually, Joseph Heller had Yossarian give the answer to that question in Catch 22: "If everyone else behaved that way, then I'd be crazy to behave any other way!" The point, however, is that many others can prove they served their country honorably—like John Kerry, who still carries shrapnel in his leg. Bush, unforturtunately, just can't seem to prove he served his country honorably—or that he fulfilled his obligations.

Four documents that would clear the story up are all missing
Moore lists 4 missing documents that would clear Bush's good name once and for all. It's funny that none of them are in the record that the WhiteWash House keeps insisting is complete. And it's also funny that there is no enterprising reporter in the SCLM who has ever followed up on the story.

[1] The mandatory written report about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is any other disciplinary evidence. [2] A document showing a "roll-up," or the accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are [3] his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay stubs and any IRS [4] W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to have met his sworn obligations.

And Corrente readers know about the 5:00 horror, right? That's when Bush released the "complete" files—that weren't even complete:

when the Bush administration provided White House reporters with the "complete" file in the dead-news zone of a Friday night in early February, there were about 400 pages. Two hundred forty pages, unavailable to us during the presidential campaign, had suddenly been discovered. Nonetheless, the most important documents were still missing. Reporters just didn't know what was absent.

Reporters didn't know where to look, of course, because they hadn't been following the story in the blogosphere, where the work was being done. Oh well!

Where is the record of why Bush was grounded?

A pilot simply did not walk away from all of that training with two years remaining on his tour of duty without a formal explanation as to what happened and why. This narrative report is the document the public has never seen and the Bush White House is unlikely to ever release. Disciplinary action taken against Bush ought to be a part of his personnel record. No such files have ever been disclosed.


Why were the so-called complete records scrubbed twice before being released?

According to two separate sources within the Guard who saw the printout and spoke with me, the microfiche was shipped to the office of Maj. Gen. Danny James, commander of the Air National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. James' staff printed out all of the documents on the film and then, according to those same sources, James vetted the material. Subsequent to being scrutinized by James (who commanded the Texas Guard and was promoted to Washington by Bush,) the records were then sent to the White House for further scrutiny prior to release to the news media.

Note that McCain, when the Bush campaign smeared him, signed the authorization for all his records to be released. This, Bush has never done.

What does "clean up the files ... and remove any embarassment" mean?

James ordered a cleanup of the Bush Guard files in 1997. Burkett said he was waiting outside James' office when he heard a speakerphone conversation between the commander of the Texas Guard and Joe Allbaugh, Bush's chief of staff in Texas. Recounting the conversation, Burkett said he heard Allbaugh tell James to "clean up the governor's files and remove any embarrassments in case he wants to run for reelection or something higher."

"Karen [Hughes] and Danny [Bartlett] are going to be coming out to take a look at this file," Allbaugh said. "They're going to write a book."


Where is the microfiche that will tell the whole story?

If it had been cleaned up, as Burkett alleged, the only place to find the complete file would be on the microfiche [in the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis]. This is undoubtedly why the president has not simply ordered the entire file printed out and released without restriction to news media outlets. The paper records, which may explain the grounding and prove the president did not serve sufficient time to meet his legal obligation to the Guard, have likely been removed from the Austin files. But the microfiche has the whole truth, and that's why its dissemination is being controlled.

And note that the microfiches are still available.

The documents given to Washington reporters [in the 5:00 horror release] were printed from one of those two microfiches.


Who gave the order to the National Guard to stonewall?
Especially when it would be very, very simple for Bush to sign the paper to release all the records—just as John McCain did, and just as John Kerry did.

The stonewalling on this is still succeeding. Reporters calling the National Guard offices in Arlington and the Pentagon are being told the staff is no longer authorized to speak about the president and his time in the Guard. One national reporter, who is still trying to get to the bottom of the controversy, told me the White House said they were not going to talk about the Guard matter any further.

I wonder who the national reporter is...

From drip, drip, drip to splash, splash, splash?



Iraq insurgency: Najf and Sadr 

A nice take from the essential Juan Cole:

Since the Badr Corps of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq had control of the shrine of Imam Ali before the Sadrist uprising of early April, and since it still is helping patrol Karbala, my own guess is that Badr has deliberately pulled back in hopes that the Mahdi Army and the Americans will weaken each other. The hope that other Najaf forces will take care of Muqtada al-Sadr for the US seems to me forlorn. The Najafis hate Muqtada and his militiamen, who are not from Najaf on the whole. On the other hand, no Shiite clerical figure can possibly want to see the US drag Muqtada away in chains, since that would inevitably weaken the clerical authorities.
(via Informed Comment)

The savage wars of peace.

How many sides are there to the occupation, anyhow? Sadr, Badr ... No matter how many there are, they're all playing both ends against the middle. Eesh.

Iraq war: Blood on Bush's hands over armored vehicles 

Bush had a year to plan, but didn't since Bush's strong beliefs that the war would be a cakewalk and that Iraqis would be throwing flowers at us made planning unnecessary.

Twenty percent of the U.S. troops killed in Iraq might have lived had there been more armored, heavier vehicles available to them, Newsweek reports Monday.

The Army is racing to send "up-armored" Humvees to Iraq, but remains almost 1,800 vehicles short for its needs.
(via Military.com)

Nice to see Halliburton collecting billions while the troops die because we don't buy them armor.

Tell me again why the Republicans are so good on the military?

And where the heck is Kerry with the bill of rights for the troops? Great trial balloon that floated somewhere. C'mon, Dems! Get with the news cycle!

UPDATE Read the above, and then get a load of this from KaWen on CNN:

[HUGHES]: The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. I

Right. 20% of the deaths of our troops in Iraq were preventable with proper planning. So, I guess the "every life" part doesn't really include the troops, does it?

Iraq: Why are the Dems rolling over on Negroponte? 

Did Bush scratch their bellies with his boot again? I mean, look at this:

Sen. Chrisopher J. Dodd, D-Ct., noted differences that he had with Negroponte when the diplomat was ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s.

"Those differences stem largely from a lack of candor about what the U.S. was and wasn't doing in Central America in the conflict at that time," Dodd said. "And although I intend to support and strongly support this nomination when it comes to a vote in this committee, and later on the Senate floor, I want to make one point especially clear: That same issue - candor - in my view, is going to be critical with respect to continued support for U.S. policies in Iraq."
(via AP)

"Lack of candor" is rich—could Dodd mean that Negronte was lying?

And if "lack of candor" was the problem with Negroponte then, why is it not a problem now? Especially since the administration lied its way into the war.

Why doesn't Dodd simply opposed Negroponte's nomination? Just was Iraq needs—more death squads, presumably run using mercenaries out of the RNC/CPA "Republican Palace." Yech. Same old, same old.

AWOL Bush: Memo to Kerry: Two magic numbers 

Now that Kerry's "not going to stand for it" (finally!), here are two numbers he might find helpful:

214—as in DD214, the form (not released in the "complete" release of Bush's service records) which would show why Bush was honorably discharged,

10,000—as in $10,000, the still unclaimed reward for anyone who will step forward and bear witness that Bush did serve during his missing dates.

See back. And for how your media butchered this story, in the process giving Bush a free pass, read the Howler. (Sure wish Okrent would.)

Maybe if Kerry cuts the piece of shrapnel out of his own leg with no anesthetic on TV the Republicans will let up on his military record. Sheesh. What a bunch of shameless buffoons!


Hapless, overworked Times Bud-man Dan Okrent on "balance" 

You could have knocked me over with a feather!

Okrent pointed out that “the pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true.
(via AP)

Nice to see the Times embracing enlightenment values, instead of this post-modern "it's just politics" and "forget about the science" stuff we keep hearing from the wingers. Heh.

Monday, April 26, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

I don't know about this April showers thing, I really don't. "But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day!"

The party of Lincoln, or the party of Amway? 

As we know, Acting President Rove has spent a good deal of his $170 million on a multilevel-marketing, pyramid scheme to attract new voters (back). Democratic Veteran supplies some of the nauseating detail. He's experienced the Cult of Amway:

No matter how shitty the product, [themultilevel marketers] want their true believers to each recruit and be responsible for others down-stream. It's a brilliant concept, and one that better be countered, and quickly by the Democrats, because like my mom, the recruited "down-line" voters won't know that they have a basement full of cheap-ass toilet paper until the bills come due after the election. I think my mom is still paying off the toilet paper. We never discuss it anymore, after she lost all her friends trying to get them to become "distributors".
(via Democratic Veteran)

Hey, sounds like a more sophisticated variant of bait and switch. Readers, any ideas on how to counter Rove's strategy?

Bush on Iraq coffins: Operation Steaming Load continues 

First, the sanctimony:

"America knows full well that our men and women are serving and serving brilliantly both in Iraq and around the world. ... America is aware this is a war against terrorism," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said. But, he said, "The message is, the sensitivity and privacy of families of the fallen must be the first priority."
(via AP)

Oh, please. This White House would open the coffin lids live on FUX in a heartbeat if that would smear an enemy or win a single vote in a swing state. Please don't make me laugh—it hurts too much.

Say, when Joe Wilson's names who outed Valerie Plame, do you think it will make the front page of the Times? 

A17 is my guess. Readers?

NOTE Wilson's book will be released on the 30th, this Friday. At 5:00? Heh.

Pass the popcorn.



DOJ to investigate theft of Dems memos 

More lawbreaking from Republicans—business as usual, media yawns.

The Justice Department on Monday asked the new U.S. attorney in New York to investigate how Republicans got access to Democrats' computer memos in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A report by the Senate sergeant-at-arms earlier this year faulted two of committee chairman Orrin Hatch's former employees for the intrusion into the Democrats' computer documents. It says 4,670 files were found on a GOP aide's computer, "the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff."

and the Justice Department on Monday sent the case to David Kelley, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Kelley, a Democrat
, took James Comey's position as U.S. attorney after Comey left to become deputy attorney general, the No. 2 job at the Justice Department.

Kelley is "an experienced prosecutor of the highest integrity and independence," said Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are confident the investigation will be handled in a thorough, fair, impartial and professional manner."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called the appointment "a very good first step" and said Kelley is "independent" and "without conflicts."

"The only thing missing is for (Attorney General) John Ashcroft to recuse himself to avoid any potential conflict of interests," Schumer said.
(via AP)

For the Republicans to allow the Democrats anything at all on this, it must really, really stink. No wonder Frist was thinking about shutting down the Senate. Get everyone away from the cameras....

From drip, drip, drip to splash, splash, splash... The Republicans had better have a good cut man in their corner on this one.

Iraq: Bush really gives you the business 

Surprise!

Ten companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000 to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage.

The United States is paying more than $780 million to one British firm that was convicted of fraud on three federal construction projects and banned from U.S. government work during 2002, according to an Associated Press review of government documents.

A Virginia company convicted of rigging bids for American-funded projects in Egypt also has been awarded Iraq contracts worth hundreds of millions. And a third firm found guilty of environmental violations and bid rigging won U.S. Army approval for a subcontract to clean up an Iraqi harbor.

Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties without admitting wrongdoing. Together, the 10 companies have paid to resolve 30 alleged violations in the past four years. Six paid penalties more than once. But the companies have been awarded $7 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts.

The contracts are legal because the Bush administration repealed regulations put in place by the Clinton administration that would have allowed officials to bar new government work for companies convicted or penalized during the previous three years.

The two largest government contractors in Iraq, Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co., have paid several penalties in the past three years.

Halliburton paid $2 million in 2002 to settle charges it inflated costs on a maintenance contract at now-closed Fort Ord in California. Vice President Dick Cheney's former company did not admit wrongdoing.

Halliburton took in $3.6 billion last year from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say the company is getting about $1 billion a month for Iraq work this year.

Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran, whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.

Bechtel paid more than $110,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department in 2000 and 2001 to settle alleged safety and environmental violations. Bechtel has prime construction contracts in Iraq worth more than $2 billion.
(via AP)

Gee! And there's virtually no Congressional oversight of how Bush is spending your money in Iraq. I wonder if these companies are up to their old tricks? What do you think? (Would we ever know?)

Ad Campaigns - Check out MoveOn.org's New One 

It's a full 60 second response to the disgusting campaign that Bush and his minions are waging against, of all things, John Kerry's war record. The ad compares the contrasting records of Bush and Kerry during those pivotal years in their lives.

You can watch it here, and contribute to help get it on the air.

I had some questions about the ad, particularly the first part which dramatizes one of Kerry's VietNam experiences; something about it struck me as corny, not the experience, the way the ad presents it. The ad is quite tough on Bush's record during the same period, stressing certain "facts" that I don't think some swing voters yet consider facts, but the presentation is so low key that it won me over as being fairly effective.

I'd be curious to hear what any readers think about the ad, or any other thoughts you might have about what kind of ads you think like to see promoting Kerry's candidacy.

UPDATE Alert reader scout asks:

Isn't this ad in direct violation of what 527s can and can't do? I thought that 527s couldn't advocate for the election of any given candidate over another one?

Readers? Any answers?

UPDATE UPDATE: Comments contributor "justicestory" correctly points out that...
The ad is being put out by MoveOnPac, a registered political action committee, not a 527.


See: Move On PAC ~ http://www.moveonpac.org/
Move On PAC


A Blogaround Blogovia 

We'll start with a recommendation of three different blogs, all the work of the same blogger.

A man of parts and more than one name, the blogger known as "Scout" has a number of excellent posts up at what I thought was his only gig, "And Then...," including Rashomon thoughts about the media difficulties in ferreting out the "truth" about Iraq, news of a new kind of defense of the President and much other good stuff.

In addition, Scout is the mastermind behind Gay Penguin For America, go see for yourself, and the inspired, Bloggin The Stans, which refers to nation/states with names that end in "stan," and which is "A blog dedicated to figuring out Central Asia by a guy who has no clue about Central Asia." But definitely a guy who knows where to look to get educated. A terrific idea beautifully executed.

Another newish effort by a multi-blogger should become a vital resource in the coming months, if its author can keep up his present pace. This blog with its no-frills name, Bush Campaign Lies, is a no-frills indispensible investigation of the major lies of the Bush campaign as they happen, along with an excellent analysis of what makes them lies. Athough I do know who the blogger is, I think, as yet on the blog, the author remains anonymous. Up to Lie #37, which is another of those Kerry Flip-Flop accusations, this time on Ballistic Missile Defense, the author of "Bush Campaign Lies" isn't content to merely list, he notes, too, reoccuring themes and techniques, as for instance, in this helpful note on what you need to remember about how Senatorial votes work. The numbered lies are listed on a sidebar. This is one smart blog.

If you haven't paid a visit recently to "Sadly No," do so. As one of several substituting guest bloggers for the absent/ailing proprietor, "Peanut" is in the zone. In addition to two excellent posts about pro-choice issues, including the March for Women's Lives yesterday, one of which has the reviting information obtained by a religious coalition that is pro-choice that 78 % of Americans find nothing inconsistent with being both religious and pro-choice, there is also a bombshell post about a possible Kerry/Clinton ticket that will rock your sox off, a weekend feast of worthy Bush/media idiocies, look for the Waffle icons, a worthy addition to the war on terra, and....oh just keep scrolling until you get to something you've already read...and then read it again.

Andante at Collective Sigh has a great picture up of yesterday's March, picks up on a neglected story, has a lovely discussion of Edwards as V.P. by someone proud to be able to call him her Senator, and a personal story that speaks volumes about how the failure of government to represent the actual needs of the people it's supposed to represent has nothing to do with any sort of nanny state and a middle class made into deadbeats by excessive governmental largesse, and everything to do with creating the circumstances in which citizens can be at their most active, for themselves and their society, but done with a lighter touch than mine.

Two new blogs to recommend: Nosey Online, where is demonstrated a good eye for what is worthy of focus and a deft, lean style of commentary. I liked especially, "They Think You're Stupid," but as with all good blogs, it's the flow of the collage that adds up to a blog to go back to. Different in style, but impressive in its own way, Isebrand.com, smart, varied and original, with great graphics and a unique section, The Gore Vidal Pages, I couldn't find the permalink for individual posts, but the first three items posted as of this AM are terrific; I especially liked "Missing In Action," see what you think.


And I'll end with my fairly regular reminder to all of you to visit Confined Space, where among the gems you'll find there and nowhere else in blogovia, Jordan has a post on the hidden hazzards facing our hidden immigrant workers, which is right next to this one about a new way to think about Memorial Day.

For once, George, can you fight your own battle? 

Josh Marshall writes:

We have the same pattern again -- no different. The president wants to challenge John Kerry's military service. So he gets Karen to do it for him. You can get tripped in the chutzpah of this because this not only throws light on an earlier period when the president couldn't fight his own fights, it repeats the pattern.

But here's some free advice for Kerry.

Don't get mixed up on the details. Take this directly to the president. Tell him to turn over a new leaf in life and stop being a coward. If the president wants to attack or question your war record or what you did after the war, tell him to do it himself. No special deals, no hidden help from family retainers, no hiding behind Karen Hughes. Tell him, for once, to fight his own fights.
(via Talking Points Memo)

Right on.

Iraq insurgency: Sadr fortifying Najaf 

Well, I suppose we could besiege the city and starve the inhabitants....

As U.S. troops await orders to enter this Islamic holy city, militant Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and his militia are strengthening their control here, stockpiling weapons, seizing key religious sites and arresting or detaining those who challenge him.

In the last two weeks, Sadr's followers — many rushing here from Baghdad, Fallouja and other areas of Iraq — have fortified their positions in the city and the neighboring town of Kufa, including at Najaf's gold-domed shrine of Imam Ali, one of the most revered mosques in the world.

Sadr's forces have evicted more than 100 rival Shiite clerics and shrine employees, replacing them with their own armed militiamen, who roam the rooftops and courtyards of the shrine with rifles and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers hung over their shoulders.

Local police officers spoke of their inability to stop the militants, who this month ransacked several police stations, taking guns and vehicles.

"This is all they left us to sit on," said one police officer, sitting on a wobbly, three-legged chair outside the main Najaf police headquarters.

Police officers say they have reached an unspoken agreement with members of the Al Mahdi army, Sadr's militia, to stay out of each other's way.

"We have kept quiet during this crisis," said Fadil Sami, 30, an officer. "With whom are we going to fight? We are all sons of the same society. We don't want any kind of friction with the Al Mahdi army."

"The situation is so bad," said one fabric salesman who also did not want to be identified. "Sadr is following the example of Saddam Hussein. They are two faces of the same coin."
(via LA Times)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Iraq: The Economic qWagmire 

James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas opines:

Economically, the Iraq war is more like Vietnam: insidiously underestimated, sold to the public and Congress on false premises, improperly budgeted and inadequately taxed. During the Vietnam years, there was also economic growth at first. But then came creeping inflation, followed by worldwide commodity shocks, the oil crisis of 1973, international monetary disorder and a decade of economic troubles.

Could it happen again? Yes, it could.

Did Team Bush think through the economics of a long and costly war? There is no evidence it did. It counted on the war being quick, cheap and self-financing. If it thought about the long-range economics, there seems to have been only one goal: control of oil.

Spain's Philip II believed that control of the gold of Peru and silver of Mexico would guarantee his nation's predominance in Europe. Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake disagreed. Louis XIV and Napoleon I trusted in conquest to enrich France. Their ministers — Turgot and Talleyrand — knew better. Winston Churchill vowed not to preside over the end of the British Empire. But his successors gave it up when they couldn't afford it anymore. Luckily, the U.S. was there to take over, and we had the support of the free world. But that was then.

By going into Iraq with few allies, we've assumed the entire economic cost. The home-front damage is small now, but it will build over time. And it will take time and effort to repair. The future American economy will especially need a new energy direction, emphasizing conservation and renewable energy, and concerted investment in the world's next generation of technologies — both to reduce our oil dependence and to help balance our trade deficits.

Let's hope Sen. John F. Kerry makes this point on his manufacturing tour this week.

And let's hope that Americans understand. Real security begins at home.
(via LA Times)

Senator Kerry?

Iraq: How to get out: A three-state solution 

Ah, the New York Review of Books... Another Viet Nam memory, for those old enough (I was in Junior High). The great thing about the NYRB anti-war articles is that they were copiously footnoted—that wonderful, liberal device that enables readers to check the FACTS independently from the author's assertions.

Peter Galbraith gives a magisterial survey of what we did right, what we did wrong, what lies ahead (civil war in 2005), and how to get out, concluding:

The fundamental problem of Iraq is an absence of Iraqis.

In my view, Iraq is not salvageable as a unitary state. From my experience in the Balkans, I feel strongly that it is impossible to preserve the unity of a democratic state where people in a geographically defined region almost unanimously do not want to be part of that state. I have never met an Iraqi Kurd who preferred membership in Iraq if independence were a realistic possibility.

But the problem of Iraq is that a breakup of the country is not a realistic possibility for the present. Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have substantial Kurdish populations, fear the precedent that would be set if Iraqi Kurdistan became independent. Both Sunni and Shiite Arabs oppose the separation of Kurdistan. The Sunni Arabs do not have the resources to support an independent state of their own. (Iraq's largest oil fields are in the Shiite south or in the disputed territory of Kirkuk.)

The best hope for holding Iraq together—and thereby avoiding civil war—is to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent possible, the system each wants. This, too, suggests the only policy that can get American forces out of Iraq.

In the north this means accepting that Kurdistan will continue to govern its own affairs and retain responsibility for its own security.

In the south, Iraq's Shiites want an Islamic state. They are sufficiently confident of public support that they are pushing for early elections. The United States should let them have their elections, and be prepared to accept an Islamic state—but only in the south.

We can hope that if the Sunni Arabs feel more secure about their place in Iraq with respect to the Shiites and the Kurds, they will be relatively more moderate. Autonomy for the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq is a way to provide such security. There is, however, no way to know if it will work.

This model would solve many of the contradictions of modern Iraq. The Shiites could have their Islamic republic, while the Kurds could continue their secular traditions. Alcohol would continue to be a staple of Kurdish picnics while it would be strictly banned in Basra.

The three-state solution would permit the United States to disengage from security duties in most of Iraq. There are today fewer than three hundred coalition troops in Kurdistan, which would, under the proposal being made here, continue to be responsible for its own security.

(via NYRB)

Interesting ideas. Readers?

Sunday, April 25, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

You know, I was looking at the Times best seller list: On the left, or fiction (and I do mean fiction), #1 was LaHaye's latest Left Behind story. On the right, or non-fiction side, was Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. Talk about Red vs. Blue.... How many people, I wonder, buy both books? And do they experience cognitive dissonance?

Anyhow, the week coming up should be fun-packed: Joseph Wilson's book is coming out, and he's going to name names: the felon who outed Valerie Plame. And the inseparable Olsen twins—Dick "Dick" Cheney and his sock puppet, Lambkin—are going to testify together (Awwww!) before the 9/11 Commission.

Pass the popcorn.

Night all.

Iraq insurgency: Bush fecklessness costs American lives 

Remember the cakewalk? Remember the roses the Iraqis were going to throw? Bush believed that was going to happen, and that was enough for him. Too bad it wasn't enough for American troops going to war in Humvees with no armor.

When the war began, only about 2 percent of Army's 110,000 Humvees were armored. Now, of the nearly 15,000 Humvees in Iraq, about 1,500 to 2,000 are armored, according to the Army. The numbers are increasing.

During the war last year, some Humvees were ambushed as swift-moving U.S. troops bypassed pockets of resistance.

But the attacks have mounted as Iraq became what Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces, calls "a 360-degree battlefield," with none of safer rear areas of conventional warfare.

"They were not intended to be on the front lines," Dempsey said of the unarmored vehicles. "In a linear battlefield, Humvees always operated behind the front lines - in most cases even out of artillery range. Iraq isn't a linear battlefield. As we find ourselves in a low- to mid-intensity conflict, and we have all these vehicles designed for a linear battlefield, they come up short."
(via AP)

So, at the beginning of the war, 2% of the Humvees are armored. Now, 13% are. Why are we sending are troops to the duck pit? Great work from Der Furor!

Meanwhile, paying the mercenaries—whose employers are all good Republican campaign contributors—is eating up a quarter of the Iraq reconstruction money Congress voted.

Because of the surging violence, U.S.-financed contractors rebuilding Iraq are spending a quarter of their money to protect workers and insure their projects, according to American officials monitoring the work.
(via AP)

No wonder Bush didn't put anything for Iraq in the budget! Clusterfuck, anyone?

Bush economics: Naked exploitation 

Really, could Bush's vision for the economy be any clearer than this?

Most workers are doing more in less time and getting paid about the same amount, according to government statistics. Average real income per hour for nonfarm workers, excluding managers and executives, rose 1.2 percent from the first quarter of 2002 to the fourth quarter of last year.

Meanwhile, worker output per hour improved by 7.3 percent.


"Because raises and bonuses have been low for the past few years, the natives are getting restless," said Bill Coleman, senior vice-president of compensation at Salary.com, a Wellesley, Massachusetts-based consultancy.
(via Reuters)

So, if this is a recovery, show me the money!

Oh, and what a nice touch from that VP with that "natives are getting restless" comment! Why not just say "slaves", since that is what was meant? Slaves to fear, slaves to the mortgage, slaves to the fear of losing health insurance, slaves to going under because there won't be another job if this one is lost....

The lesson: What is the meaning of "soul", and do all humans, even Bush's enemies, have one? 

Now that we're trying to figure out how to talk about religion...

After posting "How can Bush say his enemies have no soul?", I asked Allen Brill of The Village Gate what "soul" meant, and this was his response:

"Soul" is used to translate the Hebrew word nephesh in the Hebrew Bible. Technically, it means "throat" or even trachea. Since human beings breathe through the "throat," it became synecdoche for life itself.

There's not much Greek-style dualism in the Hebrew Bible. You won't find strong distinctions between flesh and spirit or body and mind. There's also very little concern with the survival of a "soul" into eternity. There is an occasional reference to the vague, post-death state of Sheol, but resurrection makes no appearance except in Daniel 12 and perhaps Isaiah 25. (Ezekiel 37 refers to the "resurrection" of a nation, not an individual.) More important is the idea that one "survives" death by having descendants. Otherwise, one seeks a grant of long life and health from God, not a post-death existence that Christians call "eternal life." One has a "soul" in this sense as long as one is alive.

What Lambert seems to be talking about is what might be called a "conscience." The Hebrew sometimes uses lab, the word for "heart," in a way similar to English idiom. God has a "heart" in this sense. David is a man after God's own heart.

But the lab encompasses more than "conscience." It's the seat of emotions, the will and thought. As such, all human beings, created in the "image of God" have a "heart" even if it is corrupt. Again, there is no explicit connection between the lab and post-death existence.

Eternal life and some distinction between the body and "soul" are more common conceptions in the Greek Bible. The famous statement attributed to Jesus about the foolishness of giving up one's "soul" for the world translates the Greek word psyche. The Greek background includes the idea that the psyche separates from the soma, "body," at death and lives on. This "soul" can be "lost" by personal choice, destroyed by God or saved according to the Greek Bible. But psyche can also be used for the Hebrew concept nephesh as in Matthew 10:39.

Related but to be distinguished from the psyche is the pneuma or "spirit." Connected with idea of breath and life in Christian theology, believers have the gift of the "Spirit" that guides, enlightens and encourages them. It is only believers who have the "Spirit" and its fruits according to the Greek Bible. Those who do not believe have a "different spirit."

Finally, there is the Pauline idea of the "mind of Christ"--the nous xristou. Believers have it, according to Paul. This refers to the intellect more than the emotions and is the capacity that believers have to understand spiritual matters.

Does any of this go through Bush's mind when he makes outlandish statements like the one cited by Lambert? I very much doubt it. Dubya picked up some Evangelical jargon in that small group with Don Evans that he throws around carelessly from time to time. But there's precious little theological reflection going on there.

Is the idea that there are human beings without "souls" absurd? Within the context of the Hebrew Bible, it is. Even in the Greek Bible that reflects a more dualist approach to body and soul, I don't find any support for the idea that there are human beings born without "souls." Even though who "lose" their "souls" can be found again and "saved." Only in the eschatological sense are "souls" ever destroyed at the end of time, Last Day, etc.

Thanks to Allen for his careful, scholarly exposition. (Note to athiests and militant rationalists who just wnat to skip over this nonsense: You can't refute what you don't understand.)

Bottom line for me is that I stand by my original statement. I take Bush at his word. The fact that his thinking is careless doens't imply that he can't mean what he says. I believe that when Bush says his enemies have no souls, he is saying what he means: that is, that his enemies really are not human, and therefore that it's OK, indeed praiseworthy, to kill them. Not exactly mainstream Methodism, but then with so many other lies, why should we believe that statement, either?

I find Allen's last comment especially interesting, and perhaps he will expand on it. "Only in the eschatalogical sense are souls ever destroyed at the end of time." Lots of Bush's base believes that the end times are near, if not actually upon us. Could Bush believe that, and would that explain his belief that his enemies have no souls?




The Republican party as pyramid scheme 

The Times does indeed do some good reporting this week. Turns out that Rove spent a good chunk of his $170 million on building an Amway-like organization. It's a multi-level marketing system to sell Bush that sounds horribly like a Bush news conference: Everything is scripted. It also sounds like a creepy cult of personality: Volunteers do it because they "love Bush" and his "beliefs", not out of Republican party principles (to the extent there are any left) or policies. (Why is it that the SCLM portrays "hate Bush" as a threat to civil discourse, and "love Bush" as something normal? It seems to me that loving any politician, of whatever stripe, is far more dangerous.)

Anyhow, the whole article is well worth reading—the social terrain reminds me a lot of Stepford Wives, and the build environment of the burbclaves in Neil Stephensen's Snow Crash: "The Mews at Windsor Heights," "White Columns," and so forth. Anyhow, right at the end the article, Republican coordinator Betty Kitchen, not know what she says, says it:

"We just have to get some people to get more people. We just have to get this pyramid under way.''
(via The Times)"

Yes, folks: It's a pyramid scheme. And if you follow the money in a pyramid scheme, where does the money go? Right to the top, to the ones who got on the gravy train first. And who gets screwed? Why, the ones who come in last, before the bubble bursts. And who would that be? Why, the voters.

Yech. Read the whole thing.

And readers? Having read the article, what do you think? If Bush wins, we'll be living with this machine for years to come.


Iraq insurgency: US troops to enter holy city of Najaf 

Walking on eggshells, I assume:

U.S. troops will likely enter parts of Najaf soon to clamp down on a radical Shiite cleric's rebel militia, but they will stay away from sensitive holy sites in the center of the city to avoid rousing religious outrage, a U.S. general said Sunday.

With the new move, the military seeks to impose a degree of control in Najaf, while hoping a foray limited to the modern parts of the ancient city would not inflame Shiites. Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling did not say when troops would move in, or how many.

"We probably will go into the central part of the city. Will we interfere in the religious institutions? Absolutely not," said Hertling, a deputy commander of the 1st Armored Division.

He did not say when the move would occur, but it appeared unlikely for several days and was aimed at tightening the clampdown on radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia.

"It's not going to be large-scale fighting, the likes of other places, but it's going to be critical," he said. "We're going to drive this guy into the dirt."

"Either he tells his militia to put down their arms, form a political party and fight with ideas not guns -- or he's going to find a lot of them killed," he said.
(AP via LA Times)

But since Sadr and his militia are, in fact, inside a religious institution, it's unclear to me how we are going to drive Sadr "into the dirt" without demolishing a mosque or two.

Isvestia on the Hudson's Okrent gets all snarky 

One wonders how long the Times' experiment with having an ombudsman—I'm so sorry: "public editor"—can go on. The relentlessly self-satisfied and walking-though-gutshot editorial establishment at Times clearly feels that it needs an ombudsman like... like... well, like a stinking mackerel needs a Schwinn. Okrent seems to realize this, and is seeking a more suitable and long-term role as apologist and house flak. Really, what kind of "public editor" ends a column like this?

It's the shape of the aspiration and the extent that it's achieved for which The Times should be held responsible. Readers who expect more will deserve what they get. Ask for the paper of record, and you will end up holding a catalog, a soporific or an apologist. Probably all three, in fact.
(via The World's Greatest Newspaper (not!))

Snarky, Mr. Okrent, snarky! But seriously, what a great example of straw man argumentation. Here's how Okrent starts out:

My cellmate [We all feel for well-paid Daniel Okrent!] Arthur Bovino [He's real then, not a bot?], who has at his fingertips data that could make a statistician weep, calculates that in the five months since the office of the public editor opened for business, we've received 589 messages that contain the phrase "paper of record."

And Okrent, having pitched himself a high floater, hits it out of the park:

"Newspaper of record" did not originate with the editors. ... [T]he meticulous presentation of the acts of officialdom was long one of the ways The Times distinguished itself in an eight-newspaper town. "Long ago," according to Bill Borders, a senior editor who's been with the paper for 43 years, "The Times used to feel an obligation to print lots of things that we knew no one much would read - the new members of the Peruvian cabinet, for example - just to get them on the record. Fortunately those days are over."

So, readers who want think the Times is the newspaper of record want the Times to print the names of the Peruvian cabinet, as opposed, to say, covering the news. But today's Times doesn't do that, and we're all the better for it. So, readers (as Ann Landers would say) "kwitcher bellyachin'." The only catch? I'd bet that covering the news is exactly what those 589 readers wanted the Times to do, hoped the Times could do, dreamed that the Times could still do...

So, where to begin?

With Okrent assuming (again) that quoting one of his higher-ups somehow brings him credibility? Except as house fluffer? ("43 years" does say a lot, but what?)

With Okrent ignoring that "the meticulous presentation of acts of officialdom" is exactly what Judith "Kneepads" Miller thought her job was when "covering" the WMD story?

[MILLER] y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.
back)


With the fact that the Times issues corrections whose length is inversely proportionate to the severity of the transgression? Blair: Reams of copy. Wen Ho Lee: A story. Goring Gore in 2000: Nothing. Whitewater: Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

With the clowning by Seelye and Wilgoren in election 2004, which is just as cheesy and script-driven as Goring Gore in 2000? (Howler, here)

Naah... Let's begin where Okrent begins: With the 589 letters from readers. Okrent gets 589 letters (individually written, not Astroturfed, not hateful) using the phrase "newspaper of record," and, boiling it down, what's his reaction?

The customers are wrong

And the Times wonders why its readership is stagnant... If the blogopshere works out a business model that supports reportage we will happily eviscerate the Times. (And what would it take? Funding for 100 reporters worldwide, say? Not much.) Good luck, Dan.

NOTE Mail sadly overworked but well-paid Daniel Okrent here: public@nytimes.com.

Saturday, April 24, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Tomorrow is Sunday. And Sunday, for me, is just like any other day. It wasn't always like that, of course—once, the Sunday New York Times was published by a newsgathering organization....

Readers, is Sunday just another day for you? Why or why not?

Vatican attempt to intervene in election 2004 backfires 

The attempt; the result:

A spokesman for Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley says the archbishop "does not hold to the practice of publicly refusing Communion to anyone."
(via AP)

That "anyone" would include John Kerry, supporter of Roe v. Wade.

Spong's higher calling 

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day. (Thomas Jefferson)

John Shelby Spong
Episcopal Bishop Emeritus of Newark, New Jersey

John Shelby Spong retired as Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, in February 2000. Raised a fundamentalist in North Carolina at a time when the Bible was quoted to justify segregation, Bishop Spong came to believe that insistence on an inerrant, literal view of the Bible obscures truth and destroys faith. His subsequent challenges to the Church's position on human sexuality, the virgin birth, and the physical nature of Christ' resurrection had made him the target of fundamentalist hostility and fear. At the same time, it has offered hope to countless others who yearn to believe in God but reject premodern literalizations masquerading as faith. Spong |Westar Institute


John S. Spong; A Call for a New Reformation:

The need for a new theological reformation began when Copernicus and Galileo removed this planet from its previous supposed location at the center of the universe, where human life was thought to bask under the constant attention of a humanly defined parental deity. That revolution in thought produced an angle of vision radically different from the one in which the Bible was written and through which the primary theological tenets of the Christian faith were formed.

[...]

Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2.Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6.. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7.. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium.


Excerpts above from A Call for a New Reformation, by John S Spong.

Reference links:
Spong Bio
Spong Profile
Spong online / forums / calendar / library: A New Christianity for a New World

*

Here We Have Dominion ~ esto perpetua 

Errand in the Wilderness; Bonnie Blue revival gets a fresh jolt of that old time Reconstructionist persuasion.


TheoDixie rising:
"The vision of the Puritan fathers is not dead, but in our generation has revived and is beginning to spread through our land again," - Steven Wilkins (Pastor, Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe LA) [Intelligence Report, Spring 2004]


Excerpted material below from the Spring 2004 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Itelligence Report.

'Overthrowing Secularism'
Wilkins and Wilson have together probably done more than any others to construct the theology now animating much of the neo-Confederate movement. But there is more to their ideology than a defense of the South and slavery.

In his voluminous and often tedious writings, Wilson lays out an array of hard-right beliefs, many of them related to family and sexual matters. Overall, he told congregants last year, his goal is "the overthrow of unbelief and secularism."

The world as Wilson sees it is divided not by race but by religion — biblical Christians versus all others. As he says in one of his books, "[I]f neither parent believes in Jesus Christ, then the children are foul — unclean."

"Government schools" are godless propaganda factories teaching secularism, rationalism, and worse. Wilson's congregants are instructed to send their children to private Christian schools (like the one he started) or to home-school them.

Woman "was created to be dependent and responsive to a man," Wilson writes. Feminists seek "to rob women of their beauty in submission." Women should only be allowed to date or "court" with their father's permission — and then, if they are Christian, only with other Christians.

If a woman is raped, the rapist should pay the father a bride price and then, if the father approves, marry his victim.

Homosexuals, Wilson says, are "sodomites," "people with foul sexual habits." But the biblical punishment for homosexuality is not necessarily death, Wilson says in trying to distance himself from Reconstruction. Exile is another possibility.

Cursing one's parents is "deserving of punishment by death," Wilson adds. "Parental failure is not a defense." And Christian parents, by the way, "need not be afraid to lay it on" when spanking, he says.

Indeed, "godly discipline" would include spanking 2-year-old children for such "sins" as whining.


The high water mark; Wilson's charge.
Good Christians, he said, needed to look for "decisive points" in society, places that are both "strategic and feasible" targets to be "taken." New York City, for instance, is strategic but not feasible — too many godless liberals. Other places are feasible but not strategic — unimportant places in the theological wars that Wilson foresees.

"But," Douglas Wilson added in an upbeat note that day, "small towns with major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both."


Continue reading: Taliban on the Palouse? A religious empire based in Idaho is part of the far-right theological movement fueling neo-Confederate groups - By Mark Potok

***

"Anti-Christian bigots have assumed that they can act with abandon in their efforts to trash the sacred history of Christian America. We're here to say that this anti-Christian bigotry has no place in this great country," - Roberta Combs, Christian Coalition of America [source: Agape Press, Oct. 2003]


Reference links:
SPLCenter.org
Intelligence Project


Iraqi insurgency: Suicide boat attacks shut down Basra oil terminal 

Thank heavens we're bringing Libya online; this Iraq thing isn't looking so good

Suicide bombers launched three coordinated boat attacks on Iraq's vital southern Basra oil export terminal on Saturday, killing two members of U.S.-led forces.

Officials said there was no damage to the terminal, but Iraq's primary oil outlet -- some 10 km (six miles) offshore -- was closed after the attacks and workers were evacuated. It was not immediately clear how long the closure would last.

Iraq is almost completely dependent on the terminal -- which is in Britain's sector of responsibility in the country -- to export around 1.9 million barrels per day, providing badly needed funding for a country battered by war and violence.
(via Reuters)

Interesting that the attack is in the British sector...

The Toronto Star has a good roundup of the weekends attacks (via Juan Cole).


Wingers: Klan better than Kerry 

You'd have to laugh at the sheer over-the-top looniness of it, if only the statement didn't come from an uber-rich member of the Coors dynasty:

The New York Times inadvertently published a photo of Republican Senate candidate Pete Coors above a story about a KKK member who murdered a black sharecropper. The Times published a correction Saturday.

Cinamon Watson, spokeswoman for Coors, said the error was "so outrageous it's kind of funny. It could have been worse. Pete could have been identified as John Kerry."

Coors, head of the Coors brewing empire, is seeking the Republican nomination to fill the seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who is retiring.
(via AP)

Hey, nice to see the Republicans moving to the center at last. Oh, wait...

OK then, religion! 

Frank Herbert wrote in his novel Dune:

When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movement becomes headlong---faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles and forget that a precipice does not show itself to a man in a blind rush until it's too late." --Bene Gesserit proverb

Discuss.

Atrios and The Village Gate certainly have been.

For my part, FTF. On the other hand, I don't regard the FTF'ed Fundamentalists, or Bush for that matter, as Christians. They're trivial and abortive power seekers, plain and simple. And POTL.

On the flag-draped coffins 

So why is it OK for Bush to run a campaign ad of rescue workers taking a flag-draped coffin out of the WTC ruins, and it's not OK for our free press to run a picture of a flag-draped coffin coming back from Iraq?

Just asking.

Talking the talk, and walking the walk 

Kerry:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry still carries a piece of shrapnel in his left thigh from a 1969 Vietnam War wound that led to his second Purple Heart, his doctor said on Friday.
(via Reuters)


Bush:

Um. (back)

The dental records?

The codpiece?

Actually, the Republicans—they even wheeled out the really big gun, Waura—did a really good job spinning the (still incomplete) Bush military records issue.

The issue was not—as they claimed—that serving in the National Guard was somehow, in itself, unpatriotic; the issue was (1) whether Bush did, in fact, fulfill his service obligations (which we still don't know because the "complete" records don't include the DD214, reason for discharge), and (2) whether Bush can run as an uber-patriot having a service record like Bush does. I don 't think so.

To be fair, Bush's military record is stellar, compared to the chickenhawks who surround him, so maybe by Republican standards he is a hero. Nevertheless, they, and he, remind me of nothing so much as the Duke of Plaza Toro in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Gondoliers. I was going to quote only a part of it, but heck, it's all relevant so here it is:

In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind
(He found it less exciting).
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was at the fore, O-
That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!
In the first and foremost flight, ha, ha!
You always found that knight, ha, ha!
That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

When, to evade Destruction's hand,
To hide they all proceeded,
No soldier in that gallant band
Hid half as well as he did.
He lay concealed throughout the war,
And so preserved his gore, O!
That unaffected, Undetected, Well connected Warrior,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!
In every doughty deed, ha, ha!
He always took the lead, ha, ha!
That unaffected, Undetected, Well connected Warrior,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

When told that they would all be shot
Unless they left the service,
That hero hesitated not,
So marvellous his nerve is.
He sent his resignation in,
The first of all his corps, O!
That very knowing, Overflowing, Easy-going Paladin,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!
To men of grosser clay, ha, ha!
He always showed the way, ha, ha!
That very knowing, Overflowing, Easy-going Paladin,
The Duke of Plaza-Toroza-Toro
(Gilbert & Sullivan, The Gondoliers)

It's funny how certain types appear throughout history and literature, isn't it?

Poor Bush! While he was participating in his opera bouffe military service in TANG—not to take anything away from those who actually did serve honorably—Kerry was getting shot at. And now Bush, to win, has to smear Kerry as a traitor and a coward. A terrible dilemma for a man of conscience....

Is anyone else still gettting blogger spewage? 

Readers: Are any of you still getting stuff like this? From the current page? From the archives?




This stuff just overpowers my laptop: Can take a half hour to download, disk accessing all the while, and screws up my cache.

I'm using Mozilla 1.6 under linux—if anyone else is experiencing this, please comment and leave your browser and platform too.

Grr! This is eating into my precious weekend blogging time!

UPDATE Readers, if you get this anywhere else, can you give the URL where you're getting it, for the Mozilla people? Thanks.

Friday, April 23, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

"Or does it explode?"

Indeed.

Bush to give go/no go decision on Najaf 

I hope he's on the phone to Sistani.... Anyhow, we're dug in around the holy city of Najaf back):

Senior officers say the order to attack Najaf will be made "at the very highest levels of the U.S. government," an indication that President Bush may have the final word on whether soldiers here fight, or keep on waiting.
(via AP in Fort Wayne News Sentinel from Juan Cole)

So, when Bush says the generals told him to go in, he's lying (as usual). Watch for it...

So who's funding Kerry character assassin Ted Sampley, anyhow? 

Just asking. Readers?

(For more on this Goon Squad member, see back here.)

Show me the money! Bush administration still hiding Medicare cost estimates 

Amazing. No, not amazing. Outrageous.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is refusing to make public or give congressional Democrats the Bush administration's estimates of the cost of last year's Medicare legislation.

In a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a senior HHS official writing on Thompson's behalf said Democrats have no right to review administration estimates that the Medicare overhaul would cost substantially more than what President Bush and Thompson disclosed last year. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Friday.
(via AP)

My representative doesn't have the right to look at Bush estimates of what my tax dollars will bring me. Shameless.

What Happens To A Dream Deferred? 

Langston Hughes' answer* to that question provided Lorraine Hansberry with the title of her great play in the American realist tradition.

Sue Diaz is the mother of Spc. Roman Diaz, currently a resident in Iraq, courtesy of the 1st Armored Division. Her answer to the question of what happens to hope too long deferred is as eloquent and haunting and as fully in that tradition of American realism.

There are two hopes here: the first is the hope of a twenty-year old soldier that his call to duty in Iraq will mean something good for the people of Iraq. The CSMonitor article, written by his mother, is accompanied by a photograph Spc. Diaz taken on the day Saddam was captured. Here's his mother's description of it:

The photo, full of light, movement, and color, is beautiful. In it, a small group of Iraqi children are skipping, laughing, and running toward the camera on a dusty road near Baghdad. At the center, a boy waves a newspaper high above his head. In the low sun of early evening, the children's long shadows fan out in the direction of the person taking the picture. The photographer, a kid himself not all that long ago, is an American soldier.

(edit)

Back in December, a few months after his 20th birthday, he snapped this photo from the back of his Army vehicle the day Saddam Hussein was captured. He used a small digital camera he'd brought with him on his deployment to Baghdad last spring - tucked it into a pocket of his uniform so it wouldn't get bumped by the machine gun it has also been his job to carry.

The attached message that arrived with the photo on Sue Diaz's computer said, "It is a time of great hope here in Iraq."

Sue and her son have carried on an online conversation during his Iraqi stint. The mother's hope is that against her intrinsic skepticism about the war, her son's optimism, his hope, would prove to be the more accurate. It hasn't, as the son's emails confirm.

The second hope, that Sue Diaz's son would be returned to her after he's completed his military obligation, is proving as illusory. The scene, as Ms Diaz sketches it, in which they both face this reality is heart-breaking and unforgettable.

You are obligated to read it, whether you were/are for this war, or were not, because it is a scene that is being repeated in the thousands of Americans homes of those who have already been asked to sacrifice too much for their country, while the rest of us have been called on to contribute, other than our tax money, next to nothing.

* If you have not committed to memory this simple to remember poem, here's another opportunity.

And Speaking of Kerry's Military Record, Here's A Good Idea 

From Bob Fertik at Democrats.com, which is a great website, even though I don't agree with their efforts to get Bush impeached, for no other than the strictly practical reason than in terms of getting Kerry elected, I personal feel talk of "impeachment," however well deserved is the discussion, is ultimately unproductive, and possibly counerproductive.

This, on the other hand, I can definitely get behind.

The Boston Globe has abandoned its quest for the truth about Bush's grounding and AWOL during his National Guard duty, and now is attacking John Kerry's military record. In an open letter to Globe reporter Michael Kranish, Bob Fertik documents Dan Bartlett's latest lies. We demand complete and truthful answers to the 2 questions posed by Walter Robinson of the Globe back on Feb. 14: why Bush went AWOL for many months in 1972-73, and why Bush was grounded.

Click here and read Bob Fertik's Open Letter to the Globe's reporter, Michael Kranish. It's masterful, especially in its use of corroborating evidence from other news sources.

Read it, and then join in the fun: send your own letter. And then check out everything at Democrats.com.

Wash Post Rinse 

Ted Sampley is once again running amok in the wheelhouse. And apparently Lois Romano of the Washington Post has scurried aboard for the seasick jag. Which would also explain why Romano has been vomiting a familiar slurpy of old grog all over the salty deck of her own leaky frigate the Washington Post.

Way to go Lois. Some people never learn. Maybe swabbie Jimmy Olson will show up and slap you up side the head with a wet mop. In the meantime readers can write to WaPo's sleepy shore patrol trooper Michael Getler and let him know what you think of this recent hanky waving on behalf of Sampley's boozy ship of CREEPs.

Leah provides the follow-up info in the post below, see EdwardPig, Props To You, so I won't repeat the content found there. But, just for the record, i will repeat the following previous statement from Sen. John McCain as it applies to Ted Sampley and his noisy boatload of clatterous whelps.

"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility."

"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley." [source: statement of John McCain]


Heave it overboard Romano. Or report to the dispensary straightaway.

*

EdwardPig, Props To You 

Neither an insult, nor a character from a fairy tale, that's the name of a blog. If you don't know it, you should.

You should also know that its proprietor is neither a pig, fine four-legged creatures though they be, nor is he an Edward. (I hear tell that he goes by the name of David)

What you should know: two posts worthy of a visit, as is the entire site worthy of a bookmark.

First up, An Open Letter to Wa Po Ombudsman, Michael Getler, regarding Lois Romano's article that seeks to present a balanced summary of the "controversial" aspects of John Kerry's military record, which "David" finds not all that well-balanced.

Second up: This first rate example of follow-up reporting , in this case the on-going deep hypocrisy of the President's campaign in its on-going attempt to use the issue of body-armor for our troops in Iraq against Senator Kerry.

Other good stuff, too, about the Saudis and two nice links to Kos and Kevin Drum's comparisons of two contrasting military records.

While I'm on the subject, Kos reprints a stunning description of what action it was on the part of the young, (oh so young, can we please remember how oh so young they were, and still are), John Kerry that won him, I think, the Silver Heart. I'm reproducing it here because in my mind it bears much re-reading.

On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's craft and two other boats came under heavy fire from the riverbanks. Kerry ordered his units to turn into the ambush and sent men ashore to charge the enemy. According to the records, an enemy soldier holding a loaded rocket launcher sprang up within 10 feet of Kerry's boat and fled. Kerry leapt ashore, ran down the man and killed him.

My purpose was not to provide a frisson, one of those tiny, illicit thrills derived from the heroism of someone else, though if you experienced that, to be honest, upon first reading, so did I. But no, not that. This: For all of us to think about what it is we were asking of our young men then, and are asking today of both our young men and women "in theatre" to use one of the military's terms of art, not only that they be ready to die, and to live with the awareness of death at any moment, that we ask, too, that they be ready to kill, to take life, and then if that happens, to live with the memory for the rest of their lives.

In "Saving, Private Ryan," (for all its searing brilliance, a film I found to be disappointing) there was a scene that engraves itself on the mind of the viewer and changes forever the meaning of the words, "hand to hand combat." If you saw the film, you'll know to what scene I'm referring.

Can anyone doubt that the experience incapsulated in that single descriptive sentence quoted above changed forever the man that John Kerry would become?


Look! A free press! 

Enjoy it while you can (it was one of the freedoms the troops were fighting for, right?)




I like the contrast between the words and the image....


Horror 24/7 

I've given up calling for the 5:00 Horror because it seems the spewage of horror from the administration now happens all the time.

But who knows, maybe today they'll surprise me!

North Korea calls for international help 

After the explosion and the resulting "sea of fire":

Secretive North Korea, in a rare admission of need, called for international assistance on Friday to deal with the huge explosion at a train station in which at least 150 people died.

The New York-based United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said a "formal request in response to the disaster" was received on Friday afternoon.
(via Reuters)

It's great to see the famously disciplined Bush administration stepping up to the plate with an aid offer that would not only cost us virtually nothing, and be the Christian thing to do, but would be a rare gesture of goodwill (translation: "PR bonanza"). Oh, wait....

More on Tami Silicio, who got fired for taking the photo Bush doesn't want you to see 

Turns out her son is wants to join the Marines.

"I know how she felt about it — she's a mother who has lost a kid," [Will] Taylor, [Tami Silicio's son] said from the Everett home he shares with his mother when she is not working abroad. "I don't know if she meant for things to blow up like it has, though."

The picture hasn't dissuaded Taylor from his plan to join the Marines in September.

"I've been planning to go into the Marines for a long time," he said. "I know she (Silicio) will be proud of me for going in."

Tami Silicio's sister Toni Silicio Prebezac, 52, said Tami sometimes sent e-mails about her experiences working in Kuwait.

"(Tami, 50,) said she would say prayers over the coffins. It was like the airplane was a church," said Prebezac, of Edmonds, as she and her family hurriedly prepared to leave for New York. "It was like she was a mom to these fallen boys."
(via Seattle Times)

Funny how people are just people, isn't it? How they don't necessarily fit into neat categories.

Anyhow, it's wrong for the administration to hide the photos. It's even worse for them to prate about privacy when it's clearly just a PR move. What the Pentagon's PR flacks say:

"Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified," said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
(via Seattle Times)

Or "any attention" whatever, eh?

The problem with hiding the photos, beyond the problem that it hides the true costs of the war, is that is somehow implies that the troops are separate and apart from the American people themselves. Molino says "our servicemembers." No, Mr. Molino, they are our servicemembers. Please don't hide them.

The Goon Squad nailed in California 

A small triumph for justice

The campaign manager and fund-raising committee for a California Republican have agreed to pay $84,000 in civil penalties for sending out letters pretending to be Democrats during a 1998 congressional campaign, the Federal Election Commission said.
(via AP)

This is, of course, just business as usual for our party of "the rule of law." How simple it seemed in the days when we were impeaching a President for a consensual blow job, instead of for lying his way into a war and misappropriating $700 million.... We are impeaching him, right? Oh, wait...

Anyhow, to the point at hand:

Republicans masquerading as Democrats, freepers staging bourgeois riots online (back), the theft of Kerry's files, theft of Democratic files in AZ, paramilitaries hired for the RNC convention...,

Gosh, the list is quite a long one already, isn't it?

So, I'm using the term "The Goon Squad" for the operatives in the ultra-Nixonian dirty tricks program that Bush is obviously running, and that doubtless our feckless SCLM will discover, conveniently, after the election.

Terrorist Mail 

John McKay at archy has also posted a warning on a recent spam email making the rounds. This arrival instructs readers to click some link which will whisk them away to bear witness to the capture of Osama bin Laden - "Murderous coward he is". - "God Bless America." As things would have it cowards come in a variety of styles and sizes and trades and the links location, if visited, will download a Trojan to the visitor's computer machine. (No, not the kind of Trojan your little sailor wears when visiting exotic ports of call. The other kind of Trojan.)

So go read This is just evil for additional info.

Extra details on same topic via: PRNewswire

*

Thursday, April 22, 2004

Good night, moon 

I've already had two beers, and I'm ready for the broom.

Please, Missus Henry, won't you take me to my room?

Yep, Both Diebold and ES&S screwed the pooch 

And in California, their machines are out.

California should ban the use of 15,000 touch-screen voting machines made by Diebold Election Systems from the Nov. 2 general election, an advisory panel to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recommended Thursday.

By an 8-0 vote, the state's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel recommended that Shelley cease the use of the machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in California and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election, turning away many voters in San Diego County.
(via San Diego Union-Tribune from Atrios)

Indiana, too (via Bill at The Agonist):

Marion County, [Indiana] election officials met Thursday to discuss allegations that a voting-equipment company used unapproved software to handle votes in last fall's elections and later tried to cover it up.

Marion County Clerk Doris Anne Sadler said she wouldn't have learned of the error if ES&S's local representative, Wendy Orange, hadn't informed her against the company's instructions.

Thank Heaven for whistlelowers—Diebold must be a far sicker company than ES&S, since it doesn't have any.

Sadler said county officials may decide to end their contract with ES&S or pursue other action against the company.

"Clearly the uncertified software is illegal," Sadler said Thursday. "It has ramifications long-term for our contract. It is a violation of their contract and in fact is a violation of Indiana law."
Five Indiana counties discovered in the past week that Election Systems & Software, a company contracted by 41 Indiana counties, installed a newer version of voting software that has not yet been approved by the State Election Commission.
(via San Diego Union-Tribune)

"Rule of law," and all that....

Of course, the Republicans have probably built a very robust, redundant system to steal the 2004 election, if necessary. Remember that the Florida vote was only close because Jebbie had already disenfranchised thousands of likely Democratic voters. Still, the taste of victory....


The photos Bush doesn't want you to see 

Here (try later, when the server load isn't so bad) at the memory hole:

A Web site published dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary, prompting the Pentagon to order an information clampdown Thursday.

The photographs were released last week to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images. Air Force officials initially denied the request but decided to release the photos after Kick appealed their decision.

After Kick posted more than 350 photographs on his Web site, the Defense Department barred the further release of the photographs to media outlets.
(via AP)

The Bush regime fired Tami Silicio for one photo—here's 361 (not 350).

The Pentagon cites "privacy concerns" for not showing photos of the coffins that come into Dover Air Force base from Iraq. What, the names are on the coffins? Somehow, I think they have other issues on their minds.

Oh, and here's one of the 361.



Bush lied, soldiers died. Often, what's obscene is not what you show, but what you hide.

UPDATE Alert reader Justin gives us the mirror.


Have A Happy Day, Earth 

Yes, it's that day again: Le Jour Du Terre.

Jimm, of the excellent blog, Project For A New Century Of Freedom, whose excellent epigraph is "Raising The Twin Towers of Reason and Compassion," has this equally heartening post on "Making Global Warning Personal."

Someone you can always trust to bring you down on the subject of the environment is Gregg Easterbrook, the man who has chosen, as perhaps the central task of his life, to protect the environment from environmentalists. Apparently, one John Stossel isn't enough. Easterbrook & Stossel, almost has a Dickensian ring. I'm glad it's almost; neither are worthy of Dickens. But surely together or separately, they are what the bad fairy promised the earth at its long-ago christening. Easterbrook's Earth Day contribution does not disappoint; its guaranteed to bring you down, by pouring yet more fuel on your outrage overload.

I don't need to lead you through the thickets of distortion, deceit, and self-puffery here. Easterbrook stands alone, the single purveyer of truth and integrity; the left and the Democratic party dissemble constantly about the huge strides they're responsible for making, which extends even to some sort of pathological inability to give the Bush administration the credit it deserves for its own flinty integrity on environmental issues, and the Republicans and conservatives are their own worst enemy, often making record on the environment seem worse than it is.

Here are the two examples of the latter Easterbrook presents for our consideration:

James Watts's bizarre anti-environment crusade of the 1980s made Republicans sound deranged on these issues. Newt Gingrich's bizarre anti-EPA crusade of the 1990s made Republicans sound unhinged on these issues. (Gingrich also bizarrely crusaded against the Clean Water Act; is there one single voter in America who doesn't want clean water?) Tom DeLay's bizarre anti-EPA statements of the present day make Republicans sound possessed on these issues. Bush's 2001 statements dismissing global warming as a concern made him sound callous and poorly informed. Republicans are supposed to be political pros, yet they consistently do a terrible job on environmental communication, almost begging to be denounced by the media and misunderstood by voters.

I leave it to you whose perceptions here are best described as "bizarre" or "deranged."

In the world according to Easterbrook, conservatives play politics with the environment and end up hurting only themselves; environmentalists, the left, and the Democratic Party play politics with that issue, and they hurt all of us, the environment itself, and the whole wide world. And who could be more despicable in this regard than the despicable Senator from Mass., no, not that one, the Junior Senator, who made the mistake of claiming in a recent speech that we were in danger, because of this administration, of handing onto our children a world environment in worse shape than the one in which we found it.

This, like the "current Democratic and media claims that there is some kind of super-sinister campaign in progress to undo environment protection," Easterbrook pronounces to be "preposterous." His proof, an extended discussion of examples of all the actual improvements made in the last decades, as if such improvements mean that no new problems have been discovered, or old ones inadequately dealt with. Nothing about bio-diversity, of course, or global warming, or the state of our oceans, or the amazing acceleration in the loss of the global rain forest.

How is it that this guy is not laughed or booed off the public stage? How is it that George Bush is our President? How is it that Al Gore isn't?

In part, it's because George W. Bush, for all his shortcomings, which are, after all, straightforward, easy to understand and all the more charming for that, is someone our SCLM can respect, whereas Al Gore just isn't.

And maybe you can pick up a clue why not by visiting this website, which keeps track of how our once Vice-President is spending some of his time these days. Silly guy, he, too, seems somewhat concerned about the environment.

Give me a break! Give us all a break, and just once, let an Easterbrook get some small fraction of the disrespect he's rightfully earned. And just in case you think Easterbrook is unaware that there are arguments against his positions not so easy to label "preposterous," watch him duck and cover by actually listing them.

So happy Earth Day. Except for greenhouse gases, today the environment in the Western nations is in the best condition it's been in since the industrial era began. (The environment of the developing world is a different story.) The Earth is doing just fine. The debate about the Earth, on the other hand, exhibits degradation, depletion, and endangerment.

Before you decide whether Easterbrook gets credit for helping the earth towards its greater health today, or he is describing himself in that last sentence, one more observation from another of his posts. This one is about Alaska. Easterbrook opposes drilling in Anwar, but thinks the North Slope pipeline used for natural gas is another matter. He may be right. Kerry has a similar position, but for reasons that remain opaque to me, Easterbrook doesn't take heart. Kerry's still problematic, or maybe it's just that he has political problems because he's got all those PC Democrats loons to deal with. Go figure. (And if you figure out what his point is, let us know)

What caught my eye in this discussion was this construction:

Alaskans by and large can't abide that they coexist with wild nature more than any other modern Americans, then are lectured by wealthy enviros who live in doorman buildings on the Upper East Side.

Aside from this being an observation about as fresh as a petrified fish, it reminded me of another group of hearty outdoor men and women who once voiced the same feelings towards environmentalists. I have friends and family in the Boston area, and several decades ago, I worked on a project there involving the rural poor, which is where I got to know a community of professional fishermen who worked the waters off Cape Cod, and who identified Park Ave. environmentalists as the reason their fishing boats were limited in hours on the water and the catch taken from the sea.

I'd pay big bucks to get Easterbrook in a room with some of these boat owners today to talk about the environment. It would be easy to arrange, because the fishermen have lots of time on their hands. You see, even with all the attempts to find the ecological tipping point, the waters are fished out. Or maybe the fish are all being home schooled these days, and they'll be back. No one is quite sure. But you can find more than a few of these fishermen who'll tell you they wish the government had insisted on earlier and more stringent conservation efforts than the ones that ultimately failed. And it wasn't Park Avenue denizens of doorman buildings, or Greg Easterbrook either, who were the ones who got hurt.

If you're interested in just how wrong-headed progressives can get in their preposterous criticism of Bush on the environment, today's Progress Report has some excellent examples in a post called "Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels."

UPDATE Thanks to alert reader Beth.

#5205 

So far.

And it's coming out the day after Bush and Cheney "visit" with the 9/11 Commision—that is, on April 30. I wonder how it will rank then?

Planning for the RNC convention in New York 

A nice piece from the Guardian here. Say, why don't I ever see material like this in the World's Greatest Newspaper (not!), the New York Times? Someone asleep at the wheel over there? Anyhow:

The Counter Convention organisers do not tolerate incitements to violence on the site. They are more interested in providing information on coming events and on how to print stickers.

In January, they had a brush with authority that indicates how important the politics of cyberspace have become.

"The secret service rang us up, but we refused to talk to them, except through lawyers, and nothing seems to have come of any investigation," says Etundi.

And, of course, agent provacateurs are already at work.

A day earlier, an unknown blogger had put a posting on their discussion board mentioning the idea of bringing a firearm along to the protest.

The item, along with subsequent posts, such as a "picture of poop", was taken off, but Etundi is convinced that it was the result of a rightwing conspiracy, as an inflammatory article appeared within hours on a Republican-supporting news website.

They now moderate every single post before publication. Emails attacking the site are still sent on a daily basis, he says.

Let's just hope it was a volunteer, as opposed to a paid Republican operative or mercenary,

The team has pulled off one significant victory: "Republican convention", or any other close variation, into the Google search box, and they are top of the results list.

Heh.

Portrait of Deibold executive not getting it. 

As Monty Python asks: "Are you [sound effect] embarrassed easily?" Apparently Diebold Election Services President Bob Urosevich isn't.

It is an uncommon day when the nation's second-largest provider of voting systems concedes that its flagship products in California have significant security flaws and that [Diebold]supplied hundreds of poorly designed electronic-voting devices that disenfranchised voters in the March presidential primary.

Diebold Election Services Inc. president Bob Urosevich admitted this and more, and apologized "for any embarrassment."

"We were caught. We apologize for that," Urosevich said
of the mass failures of devices needed to call up digital ballots. Poll-workers in Alameda and San Diego counties hadn't been trained on ways around their failure, and San Diego County chose not to supply polls with backup paper ballots, crippling the largest rollout of e-voting in the nation on March 2. Unknown thousands of voters were turned away at the polls.

"We're sorry for the inconvenience of the voters," Urosevich said.

"Weren't they actually disenfranchised?" asked Tony Miller, chief counsel to the state's elections division.

After a moment, Urosevich agreed: "Yes, sir."


Currently, electronic machines offer no independent vote record to recount, rendering recounts useless.

Weeks after Diebold Election Systems Inc. vowed a "new day" of operating excellence in California, the nation's second largest voting systems firm asked state approval for 10 mostly untested changes to its voting software.

Its latest requests were less than a month before the Super Tuesday presidential primary, prompting state officials to demand a backup voting plan for four counties where Diebold had installed its untested, unapproved TSx voting system, which sold for $40 million the previous summer.

Undersecretary of State Mark Kyle blasted Diebold Elections president Bob Urosevich over Diebold's two-page proposal for more than a million hand-counted paper ballots.

"It is apparent from your responses that no such backup plan has been created and that you continue to 'fly by the seat of your pants,'" Kyle wrote on Feb. 8. "In view of the chaos your company has caused, we expected that your company would 'step up to the plate' with an aggressive backup plan. Your failure to do so raises grave questions about your suitability as a voting systems vendor."

Diebold was not the only vendor to seek last-minute changes to its software. Every vendor selling e-voting systems in the state asked for changes in the two months before the March primary.
(via Tri-Valley Herald

Diebold sounds like a lousy, lousy, software vendor. Of course, "lousy for who" is always a question, with anything the Republicans do....

Woman who took picture of flag-draped Iraq coffin fired, at the demand of the military 

Why does the Bush administration hate freedom?

A cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins bearing the remains of U.S. soldiers was published on a newspaper's front page was fired by the military contractor that employed her.

Tami Silicio, 50, was fired Wednesday by Maytag Aircraft Corp. after military officials raised "very specific concerns" related to the photograph, said William L. Silva, Maytag president. The photo was taken in Kuwait.
(via AP)

Here's the photo Bush doesn't want you to see. I wonder why?



Here's the contact information for Mercury Air Group, the owner of Maytag. Feel free let them know how you feel about a company firing an employee for taking a picture that our free press prints.

And here's their phone number: 310-827-2737 and fax: Fax: 310-827-6528. Hey, maybe someone from Air American can call them, and find out what they have to say about this. ...

RNC/CPA techies loot code for their site from the Brookings Institute 

Heh heh heh. From Josh Marshall.

And that's not the only looting going on at RNC/CPA... From the mind-bogglingly egregious to the petty, the institution is rotten to the core.


Rumsfeld's Mantelpiece 




Souvenir
by MJS

There upon the mantel
Lies the dust of the war dead
Mingling in a golden light
That shines inside my head

I wonder, just like Shakespeare
Where all japes and jests must flow?
I wonder for a second,
Then I pick them up and go

I am The Donald Rumsfeld
God of War and Loot
I reach into disorder
And stash it in my boot

Hey - life is messy, so messy and unkind
I like to think I clean it up
With each bone-chip I find

All hail The Donald Rumsfelds
All hail The Gods of War
Invite them to your house, my friend
But frisk them at the door
Always frisk them at the door...

There upon the mantel
Lies the dust of the war dead
Mingling in a golden light
That shines inside my head

Lyrics: MJS
Illustration: farmtoons
musical inspiration: "Mr. Bad Example", by Warren Zevon

Made possible by a generous contribution from
Mustard Gas Turkee Farm Amber Keepsakes International
(A division of Martin Marietta)


NOTE For more about Rummy looting the 9/11 site for souvenirs, see back here.

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Pounding on all this war news is hard work. In a way, it's just the same as after Bush hung up the Mission Accomplished banner—Republicans put forward an image, and we responded with FACTS: Back then, it was enough to list the casulties to give the lie to the image. But now the stakes are higher, the game is more complicated, and the facts are harder to gather and less easy to fit into the big picture....

Still, since we have both the facts and right on our side, we should win, eh?

And readers! If you live in Philly, one of America's great papers is on the stands now: The Independent. Its site is here, but a web "presence" is so thin compared to the expansive broadsheet—"Too big to read on the subway." Heck, what good are trees if you can't print newspapers with them? Definitely authentic Philly.

Iraq: A new wall in the making 

Anti-immigrant loons fail in attempted takeover of Sierra Club 

That would be, The Sierra Club and its $100 million budget.

Sierra Club leaders have beaten back an effort by anti-immigration forces to gain control of the nation's largest and most influential environmental group.

In elections for the Sierra Club's 15-member board of directors, candidates picked by the leadership won all five open seats in a landslide, according to vote tallies released Wednesday, several hours after voting closed. The bitterly contested election had been conducted by mail and online since March 1.

"It's a stunning rejection of the anti-immigration forces," said Adam Werbach, the club's president from 1996 to 1998. "I think people realized that there's no role for racism or anti-immigrant feelings in the environmental movement."
(via AP)

America, there's good news tonight!

Yes, a Texas-sized thank you 

Words fail me.

President Bush on Wednesday rejected international condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and said world leaders owed him a "thank you" for his plans for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
(via AP)

Words still fail me. Readers?

Mighty generous, if you ask me! 

The Republicans support the troops....

The House voted unanimously Wednesday to let financially pinched National Guard and Reserve troops tap into retirement savings without penalty, although some Democrats called the effort to support the troops "pathetic" and "rather pitiful."
(via AP)

So, what words other than "pitiful" and "pathetic" should be used?

Homage to Catatonia 

Orwell's heir Christopher Hitchens reports from liberated Iraq:

"I mean all the difference in the world, there were smartly uniformed, well organized policemen directing traffic," he said. "At dinner there were eight different kinds of lamb and five different kinds of scotch."
(via The Standard-Journal)

So this is Hitchens' new notion of freedom: Cops and plenty of booze. Not exactly "from each according to abilities," but then again, 9/11 changed everything, as we know.

Science for Republicans: Minnie has two mommies 

Kerry smear page 

Here.

Gee, there are a lot of Republican smears already! $170 million buys a lot, and most bottom feeders come cheap, as we learned during the winger assault on Clinton.


Iraq insurgency: Reports from Fallujah 

Via Lies.com (cute name), and The Nation.

Another report: We targetted ambulances in Fallujah, at least that's what the report says the Iraqi minister of health says.

I sure hope that's not true. That won't play well on TV. Winning hearts and minds, and all that...

Iraq insurgency: Another blast, this one in Najaf as two-day truce ends 

A Bulgarian news agency, but what the heck:

A powerful explosion hit the southern part of the Iraqi holy city of Najaf near the camp of El Salvador troops, according to reports.

No casualties or damages have been reported so far, ITAR-TASS says.

The news broke as the two-day truce in Naja declared by the rebel Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday.
(via Sofia News Agency)


And, of course, fighting began in Fallujah again. Guess they didn't turn in those "heavy weapons" after all.

Iraq War: Bush shows leadership by being scared to put a price tag on the war in an election war 

I guess Der Furor (back, heh) doesn't want to stir people up. Or maybe he doesn't give two shits about Congress's constitionally mandated powers of the purse. Hey, whatever!

On Capitol Hill, two leading lawmakers urged the Bush administration to present Congress with projected price tag of Iraq operations next year, a politically delicate step the White House has said it does not intend to take in an election year.

"They haven't asked for one single penny for next year for Afghanistan and Iraq," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. "Give me a break. Give me a break!"

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he smelled election-year politics.

"The administration would be well served here to come forward now, be honest about this, because the continuity and the confidence in this policy is going to be required to sustain it," Hagel said. "And that means be honest with the Congress, be honest with the American people.

"Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it's going to be $50 billion to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year."
(via AP)

Heh.

Well, maybe the administration isn't made up of ground squirrels, Chuck. Let's be reasonable!

Maybe they're flying squirrels. But in that case, which one is Rocky? And which one is Bulwinkle? Natasha? Boris Badenov?

Iraq war: Poland to follow Spain? 

Seems like Bush scolding the Spanish Prime Minister for following through on his election promise—What? He took that stuff seriously?—didn't improve matters much.

Poland's outgoing prime minister said Wednesday that Spain's withdrawal of troops from Iraq could not be ignored, a first hint that Poland may be having doubts about its mission there.

"We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Spain and others are leaving Iraq," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told the Polish news agency PAP.

"We will not make any rash gestures," he said. "The final decision about the pullout will be agreed and thought over, but the problem exists."
(via AP)

Another triumph for Bush diplomacy!

UPDATE Looks like the horse's head got left in incoming Polish Prime Minister's bed, however. And Berlusconi is staying the course, despite the wishes of the Italian people.

UPDATE The Ukraine is getting restive:

- Ukraine, a leading contributor of troops in Iraq, said it wants members of the U.S.-led coalition to have more influence in decisions on nonmilitary issues.
(via AP)

Translation: They want some contracts, too.

UPDATE But the Dominican Republic followed joined Spain and Honduras out the door yesterday (AP).

Sure, these are smallish contributions from smaller countries, but the numbers count just as much now as when Bush was pumping up the size of the "coalition of the willing" when going to war, don't they?

Iraq war: A two-fer from Rummy: Revisionist history and Orwellian language! 

And, oh yeah, Bush gave the Saudis "a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq." At least the press is starting to report this stuff. The whores have turned, it seems:

The Pentagon deleted from a public transcript a statement Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made to author Bob Woodward suggesting that the administration gave Saudi Arabia a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq.

At issue was a passage in Woodward's "Plan of Attack," an account published this week of Bush's decision making about the war, quoting Rumsfeld as telling Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, in January 2003 that he could "take that to the bank" that the invasion would happen.

The comment came in a key moment in the run-up to the war, when Rumsfeld and other officials were briefing Bandar on a military plan to attack and invade Iraq, and pointing to a top-secret map that showed how the war plan would unfold. The book reports that the meeting with Bandar was held on Jan. 11, 2003, in Vice President Cheney's West Wing office. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended.

Pentagon officials omitted the discussion of the meeting from a transcript of the Woodward interview that they posted on the Defense Department's Web site Monday. Rumsfeld told reporters at a briefing yesterday that he may have used the phrase "take that to the bank" but that no final decision had been made to go to war.
(via WaPo)

Hmmm.... Does "take it to the bank" imply a final decision? Certainly the fundamentalist Promise Keepers think so. Heh.

But Rummy, like everyone else in the maladministration, lives in a world like Humpty Dumpy in Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Yep!

Iraq insurgency: Bombs in Basra, nothing from Fallujah 

More proof that we're winning:

BASRA, Iraq (AP) - Wednesday's explosions tore into three police stations in Basra and the academy in the suburb of Zubair nearly simultanously after 7 a.m., as many residents were headed to markets, jobs or school. An hour later, another blast targeted the same police academy.

Forty-five people were killed [among them, children] in the station blasts and 10 were killed in the police academy explosions, officials and witnesses said. At least 238 people were wounded.

Meanwhile, an agreement aimed at bringing peace to Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, met troubles only a day after its implementation began. A heavy battle broke out Wednesday morning on the city's north side, where up to 40 insurgents attacked Marine positions, commanders said. Nine insurgents were killed, and three Marines were wounded, a spokesman said.

As of noon, no guerrillas had turned in any heavy weapons, the most crucial tenet of the agreement in U.S. eyes, said Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne. The U.S. military has warned it may resume its assault on Fallujah if the agreement falls through.
(via AP)


UPDATE And now bombs in Riyadh.

God Love That FreewayBlogger (All Possible Gods, That Is) 

We have received a communication from that elusive Scarlet known as Pimpernel, explaining the origin of his/her latest addition to our public, writ large, discourse:

I was up the other night painting signs that said "Impeach" to put on the freeways, as is my patriotic duty, when I noticed two of them fallen together to make the word "Chimpeach". After laughing a bit, I wondered if I was the first to come up with it, and if it's promotion would ultimately help or hinder the fight against the Unelected One. Then I thought what the hell, painted it in three foot tall letters and stuck it over the Santa Monica Freeway. You can see it here:

And with a click of your mouse, so can you.

Scarlet P adds that a Goggle search for Chimpeach produced a reference at a non-freeway blog; someone got there first, but surely "P" is the first to blog the word on a FreewayBlog. I'll quote the final words of the Scarlet's message because they are so cheering:

I think we can do better than that. (only two websites) Bumperstickermakers: Go Wild.

Looking Forward to Sweet Victory in November,

And so should we all.




Brainless in Casa Blanco  

Pansypoo Reports; Jokes from the Underground:

Modern Medicine! (posted by "nedlogg")

An Israeli doctor says "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor says "That is nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."

A Russian doctor says "In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."

The Texas doctor, not to be outdone, says "You guys are way behind, we recently took a man with no brain out of Texas, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work."


Legacy! Ya can lead a brainless horse's ass to water but ya can't teach it how to tap a spigot "placed in the bunghole of a cask". (that's what it says in the dictionary) Or something like that. It's a nuance thing. Or whatever. Please help a horse's ass with no brain or nuance spigot - find a new bunghole to tap - in Texas - in early 2005. (and I think ya know who I mean) It'd be the Christian thing to do. Y'all.

*

That Old Time Inferno 

Listen:

Some object to the Bible because it recounts how that women and innocent children were slaughtered in the wars led by God's chosen leaders, and how can God be a just and loving God and permit such as that? The answer is that the wicked people destroyed in those wars received just punishment for their crimes and the innocent ones who died in the wars were taken home to Heaven and certainly it could be no cruel thing to take a good person or an innocent child to Heaven. It is a certainty that we must all die sometime anyway, and what is wrong in God, Who gave us life, allowing us to die in a conflict such as the cruel wars mentioned in the Bible? ~ Rev. Ben M. Bogard / editor of the Baptist and Commoner, Antioch Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, circa 1930.


There ya have it. History's zombies hissing at us - again. A holy-rollin' Bible thumpin' free fire zone blessing. A vortex of rabid religious apocalyptic glory. A fuzzy-think worldwide-fundamentalist religious errand in the global wilderness mission statement. A fanciful battle plan for Dominion on behalf of a Kingdom of endtimer idiots worldwide. And all of us are just so much kindling for the hellfire furnace maw.

While I'm at it; more posthumous pearls of wisdom from the celebrated prophet of 100% God-fearin' patriotic Christian Americanistan (Americanus moronicus) circa 1930 - the Rev. Ben M. Bogard:

If the worst comes to the worst, we had better let our children suffer from disease and even die from neglect than to instill into their impressionable hearts the idea that the Bible is false.


Sound familiar?
Uh huh...yeah well, while we're at it, some idear's for impressionable minds:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven… The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste." ~ Mark Twain, The Lowest Animal essay, 1897


*

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

How can Bush say that his enemies have no souls? 

I've been thinking about this one all day, and the more I think about it, the stranger it gets. From a WhiteWash House transcript via WhoPundit via Atrios. WhoPundit makes a joke about it, but I think it's remarkable and deadly serious:

[BUSH] We must continue to stay on the offense when it comes to chasing these killers down and bringing them to justice -- and we will. We've got to be strong and resolute and determined. We will never show weakness in the face of these people who have no soul, who have no conscience, who care less about the life of a man or a woman or a child. We've got to do everything we can here at home. And there's no doubt in my mind that, with the Almighty's blessings and hard work, that we will succeed in our mission. [end quote]

There's a lot of remarkable material here.

To begin with, it's a campaign speech; here, we have a candidate openly and explicitly running for President on the basis of his religious views; indeed, because he was sent to do the work of the Almighty. This is mind-boggling. When John Mitchell—of blessed memory; how I wish we had a President like Nixon today—said "the country is going so far to the right that you won't recognize it," he was correct, but I don't think anyone could have imagined, well, the airplane of "Christian" fundamentalism flying into the building of the Republic. FTF, indeed.


Then, all the talk about "killers" is a classic case of winger projection, since if there's one thing we do know about Bush, it's that he himself has discovered a taste for killing. Over the top? Look at the evidence, and think (back). But that's not what's remarkable.

The most remarkable statement of all is that "these people have no soul." Here again, let's take the Republicans at their word; let's accept that when Bush says this, he means it.

Even at my most snarky, it never occured to me to say that Bush had no soul. When I listened, finally, to the audio of his press conference last night (back) my bottom line was that Bush was much like Shakespeare's Macbeth in his moral predicament, and also in the evil that he did. (The lies are the tip-off: Bush is a fully paid up member of the POTL.) In fact, I came away feeling the tragic emotions of pity and terror: Pity for the pain I could hear in Bush's voice, which I felt did come from his soul; and terror for what he was doing to himself, the country, and the world.

What kind of person has the worldview that there are beings, clothed in human form, who walk the earth yet have no souls?

Can someone with more knowledge of theology than I have answer this question?

So far as I know, even demons and devils have souls (though evil ones). Vampires don't have souls, but I think a Christian would regard vampires as fictional. Animals might be considered to have no souls.

Remember that Bush believes that "you're either with us or against us." Do all who oppose Bush have no souls? Are all who oppose like vampires or animals? If we talk Bush at his word, must we believe he believes this? Am I alone in seeing the obvious connection to eliminationist rhetoric?

Can someone more versed in Protestant and Fundamentalist theology than I am help me out here? Is this idea even Christian? Where does it come from? What on earth is going on?

As you all can see, I found this statement by Bush deeply disturbing. Help!

No "Goodnight, moon" after this, I am afraid.

UPDATE Some readers have said that perhaps Bush is using the word "soul" carelessly. Here it is again:

"If you don't have the aspirations of the people firmly embedded in your soul, it's hard to take a gamble for peace," Bush said.
(via Reuters)

So, I think we have to take Bush at his word. When he says his enemies have no soul, that is what he means. Eeesh.

Gay marriage legalized in Oregon 

Good for them.

A judge told Multnomah County to stop issuing gay marriage licenses Tuesday, but he handed gay couples a historic victory by ordering Oregon to recognize the 3,000 licenses already granted in the county.

[Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden] told the county to cease issuing same-sex licenses until the Oregon Legislature has a chance to fashion a new law, perhaps allowing Vermont-style civil unions.

He gave the Oregon Legislature 90 days from the start of its next session to come up with the new law. If that doesn't happen, Multnomah County can resume issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
(via AP)

I wonder how long before the wingers take the law into their own hands on this one? I'd hate to see Frank Bearden become the next Barnett Slepian.

Eh?

Can Ben Nelson learn from the example of Max Cleland? 

Max Cleland voted with the Republicans on tax cuts, and then the Republicans ran ads that called him a traitor—when he became a triple amputee in service to his country. So what on earth is Ben Nelson thinking?

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said in an interview Tuesday that he might support a GOP-written $2.4 trillion budget for next year containing compromise restrictions on future tax cuts. His vote, should he provide it, could be decisive because some moderate Republicans in the narrowly divided Senate are expected to oppose the plan.
(via AP)

And he's going to screw over the moderate Republicans if he does... Unbelievable.

Here's Nelson's email page.


SCLM, heal thyself 

AP "reports" the resignation, in disgrace, of USA Today editor Karen Jurgensen over faked stories by reporter Jack Kelley—without, somehow, ever mentioning that Kelley got a free pass on implausible stories for so long because he was a SIC. (The ever essential Atrios made the connection for us.)

You know, I can think of other cases where people's very strongly held beliefs lead them to, well, "tell stories." Readers?

Kerry On Meet The Press, Kerry On Meet The Press,
Kerry/Cut/Kerry/Cut/Press/Cut/Kerry/Cut/Kerry/the/Cut/Kerry 

I thought he did well, minus his comments on Bush/Sharon/Israel (more to come on this admittedly big one). I thought the media whores would have a hard time dissing Kerry's performance, especially compared with the President's solo hour with Tim.

Silly me. If there is one circumstance can prod one of those sedentary Washington heathers to put out a concerted effort, it's an opportunity to dis a Dem. (see post immediately below)

So, it was with some relief that I started to pick up approving notices from around blogovia. Here's Pandagon, and check out the comments.

Then again, what the hell do we know? We're only ordinary citizens, and voters. We're among those throngs of the wrong-headed who actually enjoyed those long Clinton SOTUs, the idea of the President addressing we, the people, at such length and specificity, to the angry frustration of the impatient, easily bored Commentariat.

Last night on MSNBC, on Keith Olberman's Countdown, I saw something that years of exposure to the unseriousness of our major media did not prepare me for. I hesitated posting about it, but now I see that you can see the tape yourself on the Countdown website and judge for yourselves what the point was, besides making Kerry look like an ass.

Here's the piece as transcribed.

OLBERMANN: If you go, by the way, to COUNTDOWN.MSNBC.com, you can read excerpts of Bob Woodward‘s book, “Plan of Attack.”

And this programming note: Chris Matthews, special guest Wednesday night on “HARDBALL”: Bob Woodward. Be there, aloha.

And one more thing before we leave the No. 5 story: Politics and presidents. It‘s all been Mr. Bush so far tonight, to be fair, something about Senator Kerry. If you missed him on “Meet the Press” yesterday, we have boiled down his 60 minutes with Tim Russert to the most important 45 seconds. Well the most important 45 seconds based on the news judgment of a show that‘s obsessed with numbers, like ours.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM RUSSERT, “MEET THE PRESS”: Senator Kerry, welcome.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Glad to be here. Thank you, Tim.

First of all, No. 1...No. 2...No. 1...No. 2, then No. 3, we need a president who understands No. 4. Guess what, Tim? Eight million...ten million.

Guess what, Tim? Eleven million.

RUSSERT: Senator...

KERRY: Let me just finish...think of the year 2000...2004...the year 2020...2029...I think we can do better...2037.

Let me be very clear to you. You and I earn a lot of money.

$6 trillion in the last six-five-four years, that‘s what you said, but that said, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4...and here‘s the bottom line: No. 1.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And that‘s 30 for today. Thus the fifth story, Woodward and Bush, Kerry and the COUNTDOWN‘s completed. Yes, we will show that again later in the show.

And he did. To see it yourself, click here, and then scroll down and click on the "Launch".

Let me know if there is something there I'm missing.

About Those Polls 

To piggyback on Lambert's post below, everyone should take a deep breath, sit back, relax, and then start to think, preferably with clarity.

FACT: Two influential current polls, sponsored by major media players, CNN-Gallup, Washington Post/ABC released yesterday show improvement in the President's poll numbers against Kerry, interpreted by the polls as slippage for Kerry, this after two weeks of what one would assume to have been incredibly bad news for the current administration.

I won't repeat what Kos and Marshall have to say, but go read them, including the bit about the Zogby poll's rather different results. (links here).

No one can be entirely sure what the polls really mean; much of the result can be the result of statistical drift, as well as what questions are asked. Billmon, who, thankfully, has reopened the Whiskey Bar, has some fun juxtaposing (in his hands a technique that is fast becoming an art form) a few of the self-cancelling internal contradictions to be found among the answers to some of the WaPo poll questions:

Q: Please tell me whether the following statement applies to George W. Bush or not: He is honest and trustworthy.
Yes: 55%
No: 44%
Don't Know: 1%

Q:Please tell me whether the following statement applies to George W. Bush or not: He's always truthful in explaining his policies.

Yes: 46%
No: 53%
Don't Know: 2%

Check out Billmon's personal favorite here.

And you can enlighten yourself on the structure of polls by checking out the internals of the WaPo/ABC poll for yourself, question by question, here.

FACT: Such polls do have an impact on opinion makers, who can influence public perceptions of Bush's strengths, and Kerry's weaknesses.

FACT: Whatever the reality behind these polls, already we see the Washington establishment ramping up to interpret the results as a decided minus for Kerry.

BLITZER: How the Clinton the Bush White House handled warnings of al Qaeda activity prior to the 9/11 attacks. How President Bush is doing on the job. These are questions all asked in a brand new CNN/"USA TODAY"/Gallup poll. Here to look at the numbers as he always does, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider. Take a look at the first number. A head to head match-up between the president and John Kerry look at this, Bush 51 percent, John Kerry 46 percent.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: That's remarkable given the fact the last few weeks have been bad weeks for the president. There's been losses in Iraq, 9/11 Commission revelations, gasoline prices, what many regarded as an unconvincing performance in the president's prime time press conference. What Americans seem to be doing is rallying to the president in the time of international crisis. His ratings went up. That lead is a little higher than it was couple of weeks ago, because Americans instinctively support the president. You mention troops in Iraq, support for sending more troops in Iraq has actually gone up.

BLITZER: Clearly this is the first major poll done since his nationally televised news conference. Who is doing a better job, who would do a better job as far as handling Iraq is concerned. Bush 55 percent, Kerry 41 percent. What do you make of this? SCHNEIDER: Despite the losses, what Americans think two words, bush in Iraq, they remember something the United States won. They went in with overwhelming force, they got rid of Saddam Hussein regime and Saddam Hussein is now in captivity. So, the view is if you want someone that can handling a situation like that, a man of strength and decisiveness and resolve, Bush is your man.

BLITZER: Now as far as handling terrorism, similar result, even better for the president. Would do a good job handling terrorism, yes, Bush 64 percent, 43 percent for Kerry. That's more than a 20 point slip.

SCHNEIDER: It's a huge advantage for Bush, and this is the issue he wants to run on. He said this election will be on the following question, which one of us can better win the war on terror?

He said that because it's his strong suit.

BLITZER: All right, there's a weak suit he has as well. That's the economy. Look at this. Would do a good job handling the economy, 49 percent say the president, a 55 percent give a better mark to John Kerry.

SCHNEIDER: This is his weak issue. The Democrats would like to make a referendum on the economy. They are hoping it would be like '92 was for father. Remember the economy (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the referendum no the economy. But there's a difference, the difference is 9/11. And for the reasons we just saw, the president's determined not to let this simply be a referendum on the economy, and the figures show why.

All that's missing are the pompom girls. Note the talking point about Democrats/Kerry wanting to run only on the "economy," you'll hear it often in the coming weeks. It makes it seem as if there are no real arguments to be mounted against the Bush administrations handling of foreign policy, post 9/11.

Those facts notwithstanding, the worst thing any of us who want to see Kerry elected the next president is to let ourselves be influenced by the spin around these polls.

I think Kos is right to point out that Kerry has been spending his time raising money and done one hell of a job, but he's been an absent presence, while Bush, during the last two weeks, has spent less time campaigning, more time in a Presidential mode, even if that's meant explaining why his foreign policy is such a mess.

UNHAPPY FACT AND MAJOR KERRY CHALLENGE: Foreign policy almost always rebounds to the advantage of an incumbent, even when things are going wrong. Lambert's exactly right about the subject most in need of addressing is how we, bloggers, readers, activists, radio hosts, any and all of us who are determined to end the Bush Presidency next November rather than four Novembers from then, can help Kerry and the Democrats meet this challenge. My contribution, coming soon, a discussion of how we can change Kerry's mind about the position he's thus far etched out on the Bush administration's too tight embrace of Sharon's policy of "withdrawal - not."

UNHAPPY FACT AND MAJOR KERRY CHALLENGE: It's becoming increasingly clear courtesty of Bob Somerby, that the Washington "heathers" don't like Kerry in the same way they didn't like Al Gore. Examples are everywhere. Here's a snippet from Lou Dobbs CNN show yesterday, Roger Simon, Karen Tumilty, and Ron Brownsein doing the color commentary.

DOBBS: Well, last week, we were able to talk here about how well or not so well the president did in his press conference. We now have that opportunity to discuss Senator Kerry on "Meet the Press." Is "Meet the Press" a forum that is losing its -- well, its attractiveness for candidates? How do you think Senator Kerry did, Roger?

SIMON: I think he had mixed results. I think "Meet the Press" continues to be one of those rites of passage that candidates have to -- candidates and incumbent presidents have to appear on if they want to be elected or reelected.

I thought Kerry did fine when he was attacking George Bush. He's got that down. I think he did less than fine when he was defending his own record. I thought that the clip that Tim Russert showed of Kerry in 1971 talking about how he had committed, sort of, atrocities in Vietnam led to a very poor response by Kerry. He joked about, you know, how he had dark hair back then. And it was also a missed opportunity, as Karen said on the...

DOBBS: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Roger, we got about 15 seconds. Karen.

TUMULTY: Well, I just think he's got to come up with a better explanation on that $87 billion vote that -- the amendment that he voted against.

BROWNSTEIN: Lou, the appearance may have been most valuable as a reminder for the people that John Kerry is running for president, because it's been awful hard to tell that the last few weeks.

DOBBS: OK. Ron, Karen, Roger, thank you very much for being here.

Something of a relief that they ran out of time. The reasons for this antipithy are complicated, as are the implications, a subject I'll also address in another post, but this time we have no excuse for not being ready.

Let's all keep calm about the polls, shall we? 

So saieth Josh Marshall and Kos. So Bush's $50 million bucks (of $185 million) this month didn't buy a whole lot.

Then again, as Atrios points out, if Kerry can't show Bush's "war President" shtick for what it is, Bush's slight but measurable lead might continue all the way through election (or, Heaven forfend, "election") day.

House to house, door to door, this is the conversation we need to be having. Since, after all, we've been right so far.

UPDATE Pandagon weighs in:

So the thing we should take from these polls isn't a climb for Bush or a drop from Kerry, it's a hardened electorate registering no change. Gallup and Zogby are clearly using sampling/weighting methods leading them to different numbers, one favoring Bush and one favoring Kerry, and since both are respected firms with reasonable track records the only thing to do is look at the trend lines. Of which there aren't any. Which that Bush's press conference did him absolutely no good and the edlectorate is exactly as divided as before it. Shock! Awe! Peculiar!

Definitely, we need more bake sales (immediately below), and no, I'm not being ironic

The MoveOn bake sales on the weekend—How did they go? 

Back here.

Readers? Any reports from the field?

UPDATE Alert reader Phillip comments from New York :

i believe [there were] something like 30 sales in the city total.

i really think the value of the sales was in having people on the streets talking to their neighbors, passersby, the curious, kids, grandmas, everyone. i really think move on should do this every month from now until november. so should kerry.

What Phillip said.

MORE UPDATES: From alert reader "BudMan," this moving eye witness account from Colorado:

Dateline Colorado Springs - From deep in the heart of enemy territory (1 elected Dem in the whole county) we had a great turnout. Plenty of goods, supporters, and money raised. Lots of thumbs up and honks of support. The most heartening, and heartbreaking, thing was the military support: 2 MP's just back from Iraq pledged to continue to support Kerry and helped staff the sale; 1 soldier just back with his wife and 3 young kids - the wife was beside herself with nerves. They hung around the event all day; And one more soldier who is waiting to ship out, and knows it's a "clusterfuck of major proportions."
(his quote)

And this is something the polls can't pick up: the determination of all of us to make a difference, the large number of military and conservatives who are slowly changing their minds, and the weakness of support for Bush. We had 1 person come to our booth claiming to be Republican, and criticizing our effort. HA, I LAUGH IN THEIR FACES!

Thanks to all the readers who left reports in comments; any reader who attended any sale and hasn't yet left a description, again we invite you to.
Thanks BudMan.

Rapture Index closes down 1 on earthquakes 

Here.

"The earthquake in Bam is causing Iran to be inwardly focused on its own domestic affairs." Oh?

UPDATE And apparently 33% of Republican voters belief this nonsense. What is to be done?

Iraq: Yes, the "10:00AM alarm story" is a doozy. "Clusterfuck", anyone? 

Go read. Makes the RNC/CPA effort look like amateur hour that it is.

More in a bit.

UPDATE

But according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author -- a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director -- have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war.

Signs of the author's continuing support for the U.S. invasion and occupation are all over the memo, which was written to a superior in Baghdad and circulated among other CPA officials.

Yet the memo is gloomy in most other respects, portraying a country mired in dysfunction and corruption, overseen by a CPA that "handle(s) an issue like 6-year-olds play soccer: Someone kicks the ball and 100 people chase after it hoping to be noticed, without a care as to what happens on the field."

Hey, it works for the SCLM, so why not for the Iraqis?

In the broadest sense, according to the memo's author, the CPA's bunker-in-Baghdad mentality has contributed to the potential for civil war all over the country. "[CPA Administrator L. Paul] Bremer has encouraged re-centralization in Iraq because it is easier to control a Governing Council less than a kilometer away from the Palace, rather than 18 different provincial councils who would otherwise have budgetary authority," he says. The net effect, the memo's author continues, has been a "desperation to dominate Baghdad, and an absolutism born of regional isolation."

The memo also describes the CPA as "handicapped by [its] security bubble," and derides the U.S. government for spending "millions importing sport utility vehicles which are used exclusively to drive the kilometer and a half" between CPA and Governing Council headquarters when "we would have been much better off with a small fleet of used cars and a bicycle for every Green Zone resident."

The memo also notes that while Iraqi police "remain too fearful to enforce regulations," they are making a pretty penny as small-arms dealers, with the CPA as an unwitting partner. "CPA is ironically driving the weapons market," it reveals. "Iraqi police sell their U.S.-supplied weapons on the black market; they are promptly re-supplied. Interior ministry weapons buy-backs keep the price of arms high."

According to a Washington, DC-based senior military official whose responsibilities include Iraq, CPA now estimates there are at least 30 separate militias active in Iraq,, and "essentially [CPA] doesn't know what to do with regard to them -- which is frightening, because CPA's authority essentially ends on June 30, and any Iraqi incentive to get rid of the militias is likely to go away after that date, as sending U.S. troops around Iraq against Iraqis isn't likely to endear the new Iraqi government to its citizens."

"Baghdadis have an uneasy sense that they are heading towards civil war," it says. "Sunnis, Shias and Kurd professionals say that they themselves, friends and associates are buying weapons fearing for the future."

The memo goes on to argue that "the trigger for a civil war" is not likely to be an isolated incident of violence, but the result of "deeper conflicts that revolve around patronage and absolutism" reaching a flashpoint.

This is the background against which the uprisings and subsequent negotiations—between whom and for what, really, we can now ask&mdashl; in Falllujah and Najaf took place.

Eesh. Well, it's a messy process.

Black box voting: Diebold's reckless indifference to lawbreaking turned voters away from polls in California 

What a surprise! Their software sucks, they don't give two shits about it, and rather than fix it, they break the law and cover up. Standard operating procedure for the part of corporate American that supports Bush.

Attorneys for Diebold Election Systems Inc. warned in late November that its use of uncertified vote-counting software in Alameda County violated California election law and broke its $12.7 million contract with Alameda County.

Soon after, a review of internal legal memos obtained by ANG Newspapers shows, Diebold's attorneys at the Los Angeles office of Jones Day realized the McKinney, Texas-based firm also faced a threat of criminal charges and exile from California elections.

Yet despite warnings from the state's chief elections officer, Diebold continued fielding poorly tested, faulty software and hardware in at least two of California's largest urban counties during the Super Tuesday primary, when e-voting temporarily broke down and voters were turned away at the polls.

Other documentation obtained by ANG shows that the latest approved versions of Diebold's vote-counting software in this state cast doubt on the firm's claims elsewhere that it has fixed multiple security vulnerabilities unearthed in the last year.
(via Tri Valley Herald from The Agonist)

And just in case anyone has forgotten:

The chief executive of Ohio-based Diebold Inc., one of the largest voting machine manufacturers and a top target of security critics, is a top fund-raiser for the Bush campaign. In an August fund-raising letter, Walden O'Dell sought $10,000 donations and declared he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
(via Miami Herald)

And, as usual, we should start taking the Republicans at their word. "Deliver" means the same as "deliver by any means necessary," just as Florida was delivered.

Maybe someone can give me a good reason to regard a close Bush win in 2004 as legitimate, but I sure can't think of one.

UPDATE Alert reader 56K points out that Diebold insiders may know the jig is up: they're dumping their stock. Even more interesting, it looks like the company's General Counsel is the main culprit. Hmm....

Iraq insurgency: Tension eases in Fallujah, Najaf 

From a boil to a simmer:

Tension has eased in two Iraqi flashpoint cities after a truce held in the Sunni bastion of Falluja and U.S. forces prepared to pull back from a base near Najaf, where a rebel Shi'ite cleric [Sadr] is holed up.

"I am confident that the guerrillas will turn in their heavy weapons as long as the Americans provide the guarantees they promised," said Fawzi Muthin, a 47-year-old engineer who was a member of Falluja's delegation in the talks.

"I just hope we learn from the experience. The Americans have failed in Iraq over the last year. They have to treat us with respect as humans and deliver on the promises they made."
(via Reuters)

Though I don't know if those pesky RPGs are considered "heavy."

U.S. forces also gave Iraqi mediators more time to resolve a standoff with Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army militia in the holy city of Najaf, south of the capital.

General Ricardo Sanchez, commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, told soldiers of a 2,500-strong 3rd Brigade Task Force that he was pulling them back to avoid bloodshed in Najaf or damage to shrines sacred to Shi'ites in Iraq and beyond.

Sanchez said there were "a whole bunch of initiatives" to resolve the crisis, but made clear Sadr was still a target. "Wherever we find him on the battlefield we kill him within the constraints that we have applied," he said.

I love the way "bringing to justice" means "killing." Anyhow, what's the net?

The Spanish are out, and the Hondurans followed.

The transport system still seems dicey, and armed insurgents rule the roads. No roads, no reconstruction (to use the noxious Orwellian term); no reconstruction, no security.

If anything, Sistani's power was reinforced.

And it still isn't clear to whom we are going to hand over the trappings of sovreignty on the 30th ...

Dunno if this is a pause or a full stop. I have to say that to me it feels like two fighters breaking a clinch to get a better grip. We'll see.



Monday, April 19, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Still listening to the press conference... I think that, well, outrageous is the word. Out of his depth, and doesn't even know it. Helpless without his talking points, or unless he connects with his own anger against those who question him. Incapable of giving a straight answer, and twisty as a corkscrew.

Highly recommended.

POTL.

Bush press conference once more 

My roommate is playing the Bush press conference. He thinks I need to hear it. I need to sleep, and I hate to wake up screaming, so I'm not sure I agree with him. He's playing it really loud.

Bush's voice, his phrasing and intonation, sounds really, really strange. Not Xanax, but oddly slurred, and oddly phrased.

"A country that's hiding things is a country that's afraid of getting caught."

"It's their oil, and they're going to use it to reconstruct their country."

"I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

Bottom line: I think it's tragic for the country that such a small man is in charge. As always, enlightenment values are relevant, in this case, Shakespeare's Macbeth:

ACT I SCENE III
MACBETH: Why do you dress me in borrow'd robes? [Florida]

ACT V, SCENE II
ANGUS: Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love: now does he feel his title
Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.
[Florida]

ACT V, SCENE IV
MACBETH: By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er:
["stay the course"]
Strange things I have in head, that will to hand;
Which must be acted ere they may be scann'd.

Eesh.



Set whatever alarms you have to ring at 10:00AM tomorrow 

Sure, the SCLM is too busy whoring and fluffing to, you know, actually do what they have First Amendment protection to do—cover the news—but it looks like the weeklies are going to come through for us. (Hey, where else can I read Tom Tomorrow?) Via the essential (Atrios):

In an unusual move for the organization, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) will release what it promises will be a bombshell article related to the Iraq conflict at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. It will be made available free of charge for publication on all AAN-member Web sites, as well as for print, and more than 60 members papers have expressed interest in using it, according to Executive Director Richard Karpel.

The 3,000-word story, embargoed until Tuesday but obtained by E&P today, is based on a "closely held" memo purportedly written by a U.S. government official detailed to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It was provided to writer Jason Vest by "a Western intelligence official." The memo offers a candid assessment of Iraq's bleak future -- as a country trapped in corruption and dysfunction -- and portrays a CPA cut off from the Iraqi people after a "year's worth of serious errors."

The article is titled, "Fables of Reconstruction," with a subhed, "A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq."

Karpel commented, "We have no question that the memo is authentic."
(via Editor and Publisher)

Serious errors by the RNC/CPA? Who knew? Pass the popcorn!

Iraq insurgency: Sadr: Australians next 

Edmund Burke: An authentic conservative speaks 

Inspired by Tresy (below) I thought I'd gather a garland of quotations from an authentic conservative, Edmund Burke. The National Review types surely know the man, and know the words; I'm not even going to bother to highlight the relevant parts. Are they capable of being ashamed of themselves for supporting Bush in his shameful and unconstitutional expedients?

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.
(via EDMUND BURKE, letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, April 3, 1777)


Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
(via EDMUND BURKE, “Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,” 1791)


Fraud and prevarication are servile vices. They sometimes grow out of the necessities, always out of the habits, of slavish and degenerate spirits…. It is an erect countenance, it is a firm adherence to principle, it is a power of resisting false shame and frivolous fear, that assert our good faith and honor, and assure to us the confidence of mankind.
(via EDMUND BURKE, “Letters on a Regicide Peace,” letter 3, 1796–1797)

The particulars that make all these quotations relevant to the present day should be obvious for those with eyes to see.

Have they no decency? At long last, have they no decency?

Kean playing a fine game of rope-a-dope with Bush? 

All the winger huff-and-puff about partisanship on the 9/11 Commission—eminently predictable, as soon as they got any traction at all—seems to be all for naught (crossed fingers). So much for the hack job on Gorelick.

Why? I think the Commissions's decision to let Cheney and his sock puppet testify together is looking better and better all the time: It didn't gain Bush a thing, and how could a Commission that lets Bush and Cheney get away with this possibly be partisan? Rope-a-dope...

Kean isn't looking so bad right now. New Jersey columnist Bob Braun writes in the Newark Star Ledger:

"Silly statement," Kean growled at a news conference the other day. "He should stay out of our business."

Whoa! Tom Kean said that?

About F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee?

Kean -- who, in decades of public life, almost has never shown irritation -- put down Sensenbrenner because the Wisconsin Republican called for the resignation of Jamie Gorelick, a member of the 9/11 commission that Kean heads.

Pass the popcorn!


Caution! Genius at work! 

Look like farmer's put up the new template (thanks, farmer).

Readers! Any comments? Suggestions?

NOTE If you have problems, be sure to mention your browser and its version, a la "Mozilla [browser] 1.6 [version]." Thanks!

CNN's Latest Poll Plus A Reviving Spot of Alterman 

Wolf Blitzer has the results of CNN's latest Gallup Poll. I could tell from his breathless excitement and from William Schneider's coiled enthusiasm and darting tongue that Bush had gained back some ground on Kerry.

The Poll is not yet up on the CNN website, nor could I find it at Gallup, but as I recall the overall numbers for Bush vs Kerry were Bush 54, Kerry 49. On Iraq, Bush's lead over Kerry was greater than that, ditto on who is better on terrorism in general.

Schneider had a lot to say, but I can sum it up for you in only a few words: the race is over: Bush to be reelected. Schneider was particularly impressed that Bush had regained his primacy over Kerry after two weeks that were bad ones for the President: Schneider's analysis, the country is rallying around a wartime President they perceive as the kind of guy you want in a situation of international threats and tension, tough, decisive, and determined to win. No matter that he lead us straight into the poop box we're struggling to get out of. Details, details.

That's an approximation of what got said; transcript along with the poll, lagging.

On the other hand, Kerry has been almost invisible these last several weeks. That might explain something.

It'll be interesting to see if the better polls starts to make the media whores who've been forced, finally, to notice that there are one or two things this administration needs to answer for, will now start to worry that they're going to be punished by their pimp for even thinking of removing themselves from his loving protection.

What this administration continues to get away with is mind-pulverizing.

Check out Alterman, back blogging today, running a quick total on the likely damage from Bush's billet-doux to Sharon, and making abundantly clear exactly what kind of brave new Israel Bush has signed off on, in the name of us all: a hint; if what's left of the West Bank on the other side of that concrete wall can rightfully be referred to as bantustans, what does that make Israel? Erik doesn't mince words.

He also takes a moment to unravel a particularly nauseating example of moral equivalency indulged in by MoDo.

Increasingly, Eric Alterman is showing himself worthy of Lambert's most excellent definition of what makes for a truly gifted polemicist, (which I differentiate from a propagandist), i.e., that his outrage be always fresh.

No small feat with this bunch in office.

Useless Idiot 

First, this question: is there an opening I don't know about for a goddam copyeditor on the New York Times? That's the only explanation for this howler from Tom Friedman, on Bush's capitulation to Sharon's Greater Israel land grab:

So now President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air. I don't like his style, but it's done. The status quo was no better.
(via NYT)

I'm sure I'll think of Tom's frozen chessboard hurtling across the Negev desert when the first dirty bomb explodes on America soil, and wish that instead of throwing it, Bush had instead broken it up into pretty red and black cubes to make refreshing mint juleps. Or at least ice tea.

Meanwhile, my second question: has Friedman learned not a fucking thing in the last year?

We all remember last year, right? When the answer to any doubters about attacking Iraq was, "But we must invade! After all, the status quo is intolerable! Anything is better than this!" Status quo ante doesn't look so bloody intolerable now, does it?

The single greatest virtue of authentic conservativism is the recognition that the risk of change is always asymmetric: change may make things marginally better, but they can also always get infinitely worse. You'd think a Pulitzer prize winner might have learned this by now. Then again, you'd also think he'd learned how to use metaphor at a 7th grade level, wouldn't you?

Product liability for linux 

Interesting!

A new company said on Monday it can certify that the basic code in the Linux operating software is free of copyright infringement and it will offer standard product liability insurance to developers and users.

"After a rigorous six-month process of examining the individual software files in the Linux kernel and tracing their origins, OSRM [ Open Source Risk Management] found no copyright infringement in kernel versions 2.4 and 2.6," [lawyer and venture capitalist Daniel] Egger, OSRM's chairman, said in an interview. He was referring to the two most commonly used versions of the Linux operating system.

Weird tales: Previously unknown security camera video surfaces in Oklahoma City bombing case 

Just when you think you can take off your tinfoil hat, because all the weirdness has been successfully accounted for, this:

The government has insisted McVeigh drove the truck himself and that it never had any video of the bombing or the scene of the Alfred P. Murrah building in the minutes before the April 19, 1995, explosion.
(via AP)

However:

Several investigators and prosecutors who worked the case told The Associated Press they had never seen video footage like that described in the Secret Service log.

The document, if accurate, is either significant evidence kept secret for nine years or a misconstrued recounting of investigative leads that were often passed by word of mouth during the hectic early days of the case, they said.

"I did not see it," said Danny Defenbaugh, the retired FBI agent who ran the Oklahoma City probe. "If it shows what it says, then it would be significant."

Hmmm....

Iraq insurgency: Today's bottom line in Fallujah 

A summary of the text of the statement released by the Fallujah negotiators:

The parties agreed that Coalition Forces do not intend to resume offensive operations if all persons inside the city turn in their heavy weapons. Individual violators will be dealt with on an individual basis.

The parties reaffirmed the absolute need to restore law and order in the city as quickly as possible, to rebuild the judicial system, and to initiate thorough Iraqi investigations into criminal acts committed in the city in this period of instability, which includes the killing and mutilation of the four American contractors and the attack on the Iraqi Police Station in February.
(via AP)

We'll see.

My picture is that the RPG owners are about as likely to turn them in as NRA members would be to, well, not exercise their Second Amendment rights. But who knows? Readers?

NOTE Meanwhile, in Najaf, we seem to be settling in for a longer seige. And Chalabi is leaving the sinking ship:

PETER CAVE: I spoke to Ahmed Chalabi from the Governing Council over the weekend and he said that the security arrangements the Americans had made had collapsed. That they'd basically wasted their time for a year and they had to completely rethink, and his point of view, and it was a view I think shared in some ways by the General, was that they've really got to do something about training Iraqi troops to take over because the troops they've trained so far have been a bit of a failure. They've deserted their post, they've joined the enemy, they're under-trained, they're under-equipped and have no morale.

MARK COLVIN: Yeah, that was interesting though coming from Ahmed Chalabi, wasn't it? Because so much reporting of what the US has done there has suggested that Ahmed Chalabi has really been in the ear of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, all those people all the way through. So, to what extent was he just now shifting his own ground, and pretending that it was nothing to do with him?

PETER CAVE: Well perhaps it's slightly cynical, but he's going to be out of a job in a couple of months, when the Interim Governing Council is disbanded in favour of the government to be set up by the United Nations to take them through to elections in January. So I think Mr Chalabi who has been seen right along by a lot of Iraqis as being a little bit too close to the Americans, has been working fairly hard, certainly over the last week or so, to distance himself from them.

Talk about playing both ends against the middle!

Kerry: Bush Saudi connection "outrageous" 

Good to hear, but why today? Can't Kerry get his reactions into the same news cycle as events?

"Last night ... it was reported that in the Oval Office discussion around whether to invade Iraq that the president, the vice president (Dick Cheney), the secretary of defense (Donald Rumsfeld) made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices," Kerry told a town hall meeting in Lake Worth.

"But here's the catch," he said. "The American people would have to wait until the election, until November of 2004."
(via Reuters)

So what's Kerry's point? That's how the Medicare benefit works, right?

Journalist Bob Woodward, author of a new book titled, "Plan of Attack," also said in a CBS' "60 Minutes" interview that Bush gave national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld permission to tell Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan of his decision to go to war in Iraq before informing Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Poor old Colin Powell. It's sad, isn't it? Wouldn't it be simpler just to make Prince Bandar Secretary of State?

"Now, if this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong and if what Bob Woodward reports is true -- that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal -- that is outrageous and unacceptable," Kerry said.

And hey, it looks like the "outrage" meme is starting to get some traction!

Good news, because outrage is really the only appropriate reaction to 9/10—OK, I'm too warm and generous—of what Bush does.

We may have outrage fatigue (back), but compared to the swing voters, we're fashion forward ... (back)

"When It Comes To Redistributing Income, MaxSpeak Doesn't Just Talk The Talk" 

Why we love Max.

Not only because he's always smart and often wise, not only because his snarkiest shots zing with wit, not only because he makes us laugh out loud.

Because of stuff like this.

I rarely do any volunteering. I made an exception this year and participated in the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program. This amounted to a day and a half of training, and four weekend afternoons of actually preparing taxes for low-income people.

The all-day training was at Georgetown University Law Center. It was a seminar with about 200 attendees. In the afternoon, we were given a sample tax return to prepare. The audience consisted of grad students in law, accounting, retired people, and an assortment of professional types. Not one person did the problem correctly. Not. One.

You can find out what two mistakes Max made, and whose tax returns he helped with, why he disagrees with Nathan Newman about Kerry's proposed tax credit, and just in case you were in any doubt that what the rightwing has in mind for the working poor has nothing to do with improving their chances to lead a minimally decent life, he'll clue you in smartly.

It happens that the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a benefit for families with children. Since the EITC is refundable and it's for poor people (those who work, by the way), it raises conservative hackles. So Congress tasks the IRS and GAO to do special studies and scrutiny on EITC people and lo and behold, they have a high "non-compliance" rate. Compared to what, you might ask? Compared to nothing, since comparable data on other tax provisions (offshore accounts, fer instance) are either non-existent or not elevated to the same plain (plane? I said I was busy.) of attention. There is no parallel bureaucratic enforcement and punishment juggarnaut bearing down on people who screw up their claims for exemptions or the Child Tax Credit.

Gotta love the guy.

Go and find out what the unfairness might provoke Max to do, and check out anything you've not yet read while you're there; it's all worth the time.

Iraq Insurgency: Get your (dirty) war on! 

Another day, another outrage.

President Bush on Monday will tap John Negroponte, the American ambassador to the United Nations, as his ambassador to Iraq, a Bush administration official said.
(via Reuters)

And what is one among so many?

9/11 Commission members receiving death threats 

Hardly surprising. After all, if you call people traitors often enough, that does tend to mark them, doesn't it?

Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks.
(via CNN)

Great to see Bush, Frist, DeéLay, and Hastert stepping up to the plate to forcefully condemn this insult to a national conversation in the public square. Oh, wait...

NOTE A nice example of setting the record straight by Gorelick here.

Iraq insurgency: Fallujah and Najaf  

Well, maybe. Fallujah the one hand:

Dan Senor, chief spokesman of the [RNC/CPA], told a news conference that negotiators agreed after three days of talks to work towards a real and lasting ceasefire in Falluja.
(via Reuters)

Fallujah on the other hand:

However, it is not clear how much influence Falluja officials have on the estimated 1,000-2,000 fighters in the city who have battled on despite U.S. Marines being ordered to halt offensive operations 10 days ago.
U.S. officials and civic leaders of Falluja have agreed a plan to bring peace back to the bloodied Iraqi city after two weeks of heavy fighting in which hundreds of Iraqis have died.

Najaf on the one hand:

And, on a relatively peaceful day on Monday, the commander of 2,500 U.S. troops outside Najaf said he would allow time for talks before any attempt to enter the holy city to seize a rebel cleric -- which could spark a wider and bloodier uprising.

But, with the American military wary of enraging Iraqis by sending troops into one of the most sacred cities in Shi'ite Islam, the U.S. commander said no assault was imminent.

"Because of where negotiations are right now, we can wait," Colonel Dana Pittard said. "We still want Iraqis to solve the problem."

And Najaf on the other hand:

The U.S. army has said it wants to kill or capture Sadr, who is holed up in Najaf, and destroy his militia.

A senior coalition official said it was unclear how far negotiations by various Iraqi intermediaries had progressed.

"It's difficult to get a sense of what's real and what isn't," he said.
The Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, called for a halt to attacks on Spain's 1,400 troops near Najaf after the new government in Madrid said it was pulling out of the U.S.-led occupying coalition.

The fog of war ....

The F word once more 

Salon (go on, get the day pass) has a useful piece on the F word (back). Scholar Robert O. Paxton comes up with the following definition:

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
(via Laura Miller inSalon)

All in all, Miller is pretty sanguine:

Closer to home, using Paxton's definition, is George W. Bush a fascist? Nah. America in the early 2000s doesn't resemble Germany in the 1930s much at all, really. But that doesn't mean this administration's encroachments on civil liberties, cheap appeals to patriotism in launching an ill-conceived and ineptly executed war in Iraq, or efforts to conduct government business in excessive secrecy aren't extremely disturbing. The comparisons of Bush to Hitler don't shed much light on his policies, but they do show just how much fury he's provoked. Usually, when Americans call a politician they don't like a "fascist" it's not because we know he's got an extra-governmental squad of jackbooted thugs ready to sic on his enemies. It's because it's the worst thing we can think of to call anyone. But you can be a bad leader who does bad things without deserving comparisons to the Nazis and ominous references to the "thin end of the wedge." We've all heard the poem by the German who didn't speak out when they came to get this group and that, but let's face it, it's just not effective political vigilance to cry "Hitler" at every provocation. Because most of the time it's not Hitler, and should the day finally come when it is, we want to make sure people are still listening.

I'm not sure I am as sanguine as Miller. There's no sense using "the F word" as an all-purpose term of abuse, because that devalues it. But in political science, the nature and adaptability seems like "the problem of evil" in theology: There is something about the world, and something about being human, that can cause terrible, horrific events to occur—and the fall can take a single generation.

And I think that what Miller is missing is the marriage of the Republican party, right wing extremism, and fundamentalism. So I return to Paxton's list, and reformat it this way:


  1. obsessive preoccupation with community decline,humiliation or victimhood (Rush, by Orcinus, the neocons, the right generally)

  2. by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, (Rush)

  3. in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants (the Freepers, the NRA, militias are all wannabes here, fortunately)

  4. working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites (veterans of Bush 41)

  5. abandons democratic liberties (Voting fraud, VWRC, Patriot Act)

  6. and pursues with redemptive violence and (violence only rhetorical, so far)

  7. without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing (Rush)

  8. and external expansion (Iraq)



Readers?

Blogger weirdness 

Netscape users may still be seeing tons 'o' spewage after the first post, who knows why. A Refresh will make this go away, but I would clean out the Cache (Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Cache -> "Clear Cache" because all the spewage ends up in there, and that brought my laptop to its knees yesterday.

See No Evil 

Apparently there are still some terrorist attacks that the Bush Administration doesn't mind being caught off guard about:
"Addressing Israel's assassination on Saturday of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas Islamic militant leader, Ms. Rice said the United States had not approved the attack in advance or known it was going to happen."
via AP

Setting aside the likelihood that she's lying through her teeth as usual, did anyone think to ask Condi whether the U.S. approved of it in hindsight? I mean, aside from the whole pesky political assassinations issue, with Americans dying right and left almost right next door, you'd think that we might, you know, have a right to an opinion about Israel using our $6B to pour gasoline on a raging fire. Instead, we are told:
"The President doesn't discuss with the Prime Minister Israeli operations."

But he does discuss U.S. military operations SSaudi Arabia, in return for cooperation on his re-election.

In a sane society, impeachment proceedings would be underway by now. Instead, with each new outrage, it seems like we retreat further into denial. The bill, when it comes due, I don't even want to think about.

A Blogaround Liberal Blogovia 

Check out NTodd for a magnificent telephoto catch of a magnificently red Cardinal. In fact, all NTodd's posted pics are worth a scroll; in particular, don't miss the white crocuses, two different barns, and all the cats. Check out too, his word for the day, which doesn't just happen to be "fungible," and some thoughts on our own "revolution" provoked by our President's view of what he thinks Iraqi's are all about.

World 'O Crap is "Looking For Mr. Good Church" in all the right places.

Rivka, the always Respectful of Otters has some fine thoughts on Camilla Paglia's recently discovered disappointment in the quality of her own students; check out this post that caught Patrick Neilson Hayden's eyes, and Rivka's subsequent clarification for the Electrolite readers who mis-read it; clue; it's satire, folks. Another don't miss here, the thoughts of Rivka's friend, Barbara, when accosted for not supporting the troops.

Charles2 at The Fulcrum is bursting at the seams with good stuff to read; he'll help you keep track of odds and ends like the newest from the NRA, as well as multiple analysis of Bush/Rumsfelt incompetence, and a picture that distills in one unbearable moment the suffereing that some American families are experiencing; fair warning; it will freeze your soul. If you aren't yet familiar with The Fulcrum, you're missing one of our best. Go and be enlightened.

Amy of BlogAmy makes a great catch of how some "regular Joe's" viewed the likely outcomes of our invasion of Iraq, and none of them rocket scientists.

At Bark Bark, Woof Woof, Mustang Bobby has some thoughts on the Mustang's 40th birthday, that would be the car, among other interesting items, like a newsletter from Michael Moore, yes that Michael Moore, and if you haven't yet started Bobby's series of posts on his own personal approach to writing, you can start here, where is posted his latest, plus links to the seven previous ones.

Check out Norbizness who beats out everyone with a special report on the White House's reaction to last night's Woodward performance on 60 Minutes, along with other tasty items like VP Cheney making nice at an NRA gala, to mention only a few of the worthy items there.

If you haven't yet paid a visit to Gotham City 13, do so and you'll find that we have another savy, witty, "Jesse" in our blogging midst (the other Jesse being the creator of Pandagon, of course). Who could resist a blog that carries the motto: "Don't get marginalized, get even." Like the other Jesse, this Jesse's talents are both verbal and visual. He's on vacation right at the moment, but take a trip over to his city and try and answer the visual puzzle, "What oh What Could They Be Referring To." There's lots of other good stuff up, so go and enjoy.

That should keep you busy for awhile, and we'll be back soon with more liberal blogovia sites to visit.

Morning all! 

Massive commute problems... Talk amongst yourselves....

Sunday, April 18, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

What a dislocating week and weekend.

As of now, the the road to Baghdad are now closed to civilian traffic, Bremer is reported to believe that "meeting the June 30 transfer date may require a decisive show of force, at least in Falluja." Funny how many decisive shows of force we've had, eh? And as I head for bed, I remember the joke Colin Powell told: "I sleep like a baby—every two hours I wake up screaming."

Oh, and on 60 Minutes Woodward said the Saudis told Bush they'll rig oil prices to help him win the election. So, it's OK if gas prices are high now, right?

How can I sleep when my head is exploding? Aauggh!

Iraq insurgency: Brit general: "When Sistani gives the word, we're outta here." 

First Spain, now the Brits?

Puts a different complexion on Blair's love fest with aWol in Hellmouth, TX, what?

[Brigadier General Nick] Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all.

Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade.

"A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that."
(via Independent)

Here in the States, we'd call that a trial balloon....

During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric. "The moment that Sayid Ali says, 'We don't want the Coalition here', we might as well go home," Brig Carter said.

Sistani, Sistani I love you Sistani,
You're always a day away...

So, Sistani has the Brits by the balls, too. So now it's even easier for him; first he squeezes the balls of Bush's poodle, Blair, and then, only if necessary, does he give Bush the treatment. Divide and conquer...

One of the amazing things about Bush's Iraq adventure is how what looked like overheated rhetoric from "unsourced ranters" in the blogosphere—heck, I thought it was overheated myself!—has time and again turned out to be a sober description of the reality Bush created.

Remember "Coalition of the Billing"? With Spain out, if the Brits go ... Well, that will leave only the (PCA/RNC)-funded mercenaries, won't it? They would then move up from being the third largest foreign presence to the second.

Eesh.

Blogger weirdness 

Blogger seems to have taken to displaying the first post OK, and then blowing huge chunks of random character spewage, at least for Netscape and Mozilla users. A Refresh seems to fix the display, but I think the spewage gets into the Netscape cache, causing it go go periodically crazy, at least under linux (where I get activity-halting disk access activity that stops when I kill Mozilla).

Anyhow.


Outrage fatigue, take 2 

From Corrente Chief Lyricist MSJ:

"Outrage Fatigues"—for the Urban Exhausted Liberal in your family!

"Faith Based Clothing"—where your beliefs are flapping in the breeze.

"Actionable Springwear"—you can't wear it unless someone instructs you how to specifically put on each item.

"W's Vacation Wear"—walk around the perimeter in pants that are 40% relaxed fit.

"Cheney's Secret Energy Briefs"—you'll never know what's covering what, will you?

"Rummy's Messy Pants"—Accidents do happen!

"Neocon Knickers"—Make everybody wear them!

"Condi's Line of Defense Chastity Belt"—A girl will never have to say 'Yes' wearing one of these!

"End of Lite-Days" panty liners—Waura thinks every girl should should be stain free for the Avenging Lord's Big Finale!

And, of course, George Bush omorashi!

Outrage fatigue, take 1 

As alert reader fightingdem points out, some of us may suffer from outrage fatigue. (One sign of a truly gifted polemicist is that his or her outrage is always fresh.) Anyhow, here's a definition of outrage:

out·ragePronunciation Key (outrj)
n.

1. An act of extreme violence or viciousness.
2. An act grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste.
3. A deplorable insult.
4. Resentful anger aroused by a violent or offensive act.


tr.v. out·raged, out·rag·ing, out·rag·es

1. To offend grossly against (standards of decency or morality); commit an outrage on.
2. To produce anger or resentment in: Incompetence outraged him. See Synonyms at offend.


[Middle English, from Old French, from outre, beyond. See outr&ecaute;.]

There's a lot to ponder in this word, "outrage," and in its definition.

First, the common thread in the definitions is the sense of boundaries violated (from the original French, heh, outre). Surely this sense of transgression—that Bush will truly stop at nothing, break any rule to gain and hold power—is what fuels the, well, outrage that many of us feel.

Meaning, second, that outrage begets outrage. The right is correct to recognize that opposition to Bush can be fuelled by strong emotion; but its pure disinformation to call the emotion hate: "motiveless malignity," such as Iago had. Rather, the emotion is all to motivated; it's outrage: resentful anger aroused by an offensive act. For example, lying one's way into a war is an outrage on the body politic, and creates outrage in those who were lied to.

Finally, yes, outrage is fatiguing. Like any strong emotion, it takes energy. But although we in the blogosphere may be fatigued, most American voters have not even begun to think seriously about the election. So we need to harness our outrage—and all the memes we have created to express and focus it—for the ugly battle that lies ahead.

The war at home: Bankrupt media and Congress ignore Bush coup 

I really don't know what other word to use than "coup."

Bush takes $700 million that Congress voted for Afghanistan, and spends it on Iraq (back).

Maybe somebody can tell me what that is, other than an exercise of arbitrary, indeed dictatorial, power?

The fact that massive intelligence failures are a "Look! Over there!" story, trivial by comparison with the real story, which is the destruction of Constitutional Government by Bush, is... Well, words fail me. Readers?

Iraq insurgency: Spain pulls troops out 

If the war in Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda, or made America safer, I'd have a problem with it, but as things are, More power to them.

Plus, Spain has a President who was actually elected....

Enthusiastic SICs: Just the endorphins? 

Allen of The Right Christians has a new site and an insightful post on enthusiasm.

The question: Is it all about me and my feelings, or all about God?

If it's all about me and my feelings, that's narcissism (Tresy, back), and Lord only knows we've had enough of that with Bush...

Did Acting President Rove jump the shark with the Mission Accomplished banner? 

Pandagon thinks so. Let's hope he's right.

Get your backpacks from Tom Binh! 

The ever essential Orcinus explains.

Parse this! 

Bush, May 23, 2002:

"I have no war plans on my desk," Bush said at a Berlin news conference during the first stop of his European tour. "We've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein." His statement was in answer to a question about U.S. plans regarding Iraq and heightened concerns voiced throughout the world about the war on terror.
(via http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/gen.war.on.terror/)

Bush, November 2001 (date, here)

"President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?' What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret", says Woodward.
(via CBS)

Of course, the plans weren't on Bush's desk! They were in the cubbyhole! So, "technically," Bush might not be lying.

Of course, we all knew we were being lied to, that the speeches on policy, the soul-searching, the furrowed brow, the diplomacy, the coalition-building, the UN Security Council votes, the Congressional Resolution, the entire Constitutional process were completely fraudulent, and that Bush had already thrown the dice for war. (Obvious both in retrospect and at the time, since it took us months to preposition the troops and the materiel, and we certainly weren't going to meekly ship all that back home.)

YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL, YABL.

The only surprise is that the SCLM is surprised. Not that it isn't a good thing, ultimatelely, to have the infection lanced, even though the sight of all the pus oozing out isn't pleasant.


Iraq insurgency: "Surprises" destroying RNC/CPA/PNAC master plan for Middle East 

The people who own Bush can't be happy—he keeps getting surprised! Here's reasonable summary of the situation on the ground from WaPo:

In the space of two weeks, a fierce insurgency in Iraq has isolated the U.S.-appointed civilian government and stopped the American-financed reconstruction effort, as contractors hunker down against waves of ambushes and kidnappings, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
(via WaPo)

As alert readers knew would happen (back).

"The Fallujah problem and the Sadr problem are having a wider impact than we expected," a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy said. In Baghdad and Washington, officials had initially concluded that addressing those problems would not engender much anger among ordinary Iraqis. "Sadr's people and the people of Fallujah were seen as isolated and lacking broad support among Iraqis," the official added.

Instead, the official said, "The effect has been profound."

The violence has brought the U.S.-funded reconstruction of Iraq to a near-halt, according to U.S. officials and private contractors.

The most visible leader of the resistance is Sadr, a firebrand whose appeal long appeared to be limited to the young, unemployed Shiites who made up his militia, the Mahdi Army. However, in a surprising development, his poster began appearing this month at Sunni mosques that previously showed little interest in his activities.

The crises have helped boost the standing of more radical Shiite and Sunni political leaders. "The politicians the Americans wanted to become popular have lost out to the guys the Americans didn't want to become popular," said an Iraqi adviser to the occupation authority. "It was exactly the outcome they did not want."

And, oh yeah: We foolishly threw our barely trained "Iraqi" Army into Fallujah, and most of it collapsed—except for the Kurdish battalion. So now the Sunnis and the Shi'ites are united not only in their resistance to us, but in anger at the Kurds.

Again, the CPA/RNC/PNAC master plan is to turn Iraq into a stable platform for the projection of US power in the Middle East. (All this June 30 foofrah is window-dressing for that.) The plan is to build the largest US embassy in the world, 14 permament military bases, and God knows what else they've hidden in their humongous slush fund of "reconstruction" funding. Not to mention whatever the missionaries must be doing...

Of course, it's going to be hard to spend all our billions effectively if we can't keep the roads into Baghdad open, and—funny thing!—the contractors we've hired to build our occupation infrastructure don't like being shot at, and especially don't like being kidnapped. So, expect a lot more of that from the insurgents, and especially expect to hear stories about "martyrs" from the SCLM if any of them get killed. The modus operandi, perfected in the manufactured Jessica Lynch story, will doubtless be a Special Forces rescue followed by tapes immediately to the media, with the real story to come out a year or so later, when nobody is listening anymore. It is, after all, expedient that some die for the greater good of the Reconstruction. Just to lay down a marker....

qWagmire, anyone? Eesh.

Iraq insurgency: What to do about Sadr and his militia? 

Juan Cole gives detail on the collapse of negotiations with Sadr Meanwhile, Sadr has declared a two-day truce (for the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed).

I still don't get what's to negotiate. The RNC—oh, sorry! The CPA—wants Sadr to disarm his militia; Sadr doesn't want that. And making him do it is going to be about as easy as, well, getting a winger loon not to exercise his Second Amendment rights. Sadr to CPA: "I will give up my militia when they pry my dead cold fingers from around it."

Here's an idea: Why not have Sistani issue a fatwa that legalizes Sadr's militia as the Iraqi Army? After all, Sadr's militia, unlike the Army the CPA trained, seem to be capable of functioning in a war. Plus, it would give a lot of poor men (Sadr's base) work. And if it were under Sistani and Shi'ites who are, if not more moderate, at least more mature, it would lead to much greater stability. [Probably there are readers who can tell if this thought is simply crazed, as opposed to being out of the box.]

Plus, we wouldn't have to pay American contractors billions to train the Iraqi Army ourselves! Oh, wait...

Adult, eh? 

Stirling Newberry writes in The Agonist that the Administration, "when it came in, claimed 'the adults are in charge.' This is an adult government in the same way an adult web site is." [Laughter. Rim shot].

Good one!

Saturday, April 17, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Anyone remember the old Firesign Theatre sketch? "This is the hour of the wolf news"? Kinda how I feel, these days. Honestly, I don't think I've recovered from Bush's press conference. The surreal sense of total dislocation....

On the other hand, it was a beautiful spring day in Philly; the apple blossoms were out. I guess we'd better enjoy it while we can, before it turns ninety degrees and sticky ;-)

Oh, and FTF.

Rocket launchers sought in Oakland warehouse near airport [update] 

Hmmm...

Investigators from a dozen federal, state and local agencies raided a sprawling warehouse complex near Oakland International Airport on Friday, looking for items that included devices used to launch rockets from vehicles.

The exact nature of the investigation and the evidence being sought at the complex in San Leandro was not known because the federal search warrant used to conduct the raid was filed in U.S. District Court under seal. The search is expected to continue today.
However, U.S. Magistrate Edward Chen, the judge who signed the warrant earlier in the week, told The Chronicle: "The warrant was for a bunch of devices for rockets that could be launched from military vehicles and (for) some M-16s," semiautomatic assault rifles used by the U.S. military. "

Developing...

UPDATE Curiouser and curiouser:

Law enforcement agents who raided a sprawling warehouse near Oakland International Airport failed to find the weapons they were looking for, including rocket launchers, officials said Saturday.

After obtaining a warrant to search for rocket launchers and other military weaponry, more than 200 officers from federal, state and local agencies raided the complex early Friday morning, federal officials said.

Federal officials would not reveal the exact nature of the investigation, but said the search was not related to terrorism.
(via AP)

Uh huh.

Harold Chapman, 65, the owner of building, said he suspected that a man dating one of his female friends may have called one of the agencies as a prank.

"I think he called the FBI up and said I had a bunch of ground-to-air missiles," Chapman said. "Of course, it's unfounded. I don't have any ground-to-air missiles."

Well, I'm certainly glad that a raid seeking ground-to-air missiles in a warehouse near an airport had nothing to do with terrorism. Otherwise, I might not feel safer. Weird.

Remember Bush's mustard gas on the turkey farm? It was YABL, YABL, YABL! 

Not once, but twice at his last press conference? How could I have missed this from Al Kamen:

Meanwhile, Bush, in his news conference Tuesday, showed he was ready to raise the level of his play in this arena.

Bush found a way to make not one, not two, but three factual errors in a single 15-word sentence, which must be something of a world indoor record. Bush said it is still possible that inspectors will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm," Bush said, referring to Libya's WMD disclosures last month.

The White House, according to Reuters, said [1] the accurate figure was 23.6 metric tons or 26 tons, not 50. [2] The stuff was found at various locations, not at a turkey farm. And there was [3] no mustard gas on the farm at all, but unfilled chemical munitions.

Other than that, the sentence was spot on.
(via WaPo)

"Factual errors," eh? No, it couldn't be that Bush ... just ... makes .... shit .... up ....

YABL, YABL, YABL! Does sound kind of like a turkey, doesn't it?

Iraq Insurgency: Six Marines killed on Iraq-Syrian border 

More proof that we're winning:

Six Marines were killed and scores of insurgent Iraqis slain in a fierce 14-hour battle Saturday between Marines and mujahedeen fighters who slipped into this town near the Syrian border.
(via Kansas City Star)

Thanks to alert reader Northsylvania.

Iraq insurgency: Still too quiet 

A miscellany from AP:

We've closed down highways into Baghdad:

The U.S. military closed down two major highways into Baghdad on Saturday in the latest disruption caused by intensified attacks by anti-U.S. insurgents.

Sections of the two highways, north and south of the capital, were closed off to repair damage from a mounting number of roadside bombs. Commanders suggested the routes remained vulnerable to attacks by insurgents who have been targeting U.S. military supply lines.

"We've got to fix those roads, we've also got to protect those roads," Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.
(via AP in the San Jose Mercury News)

This was the press conference that Kimmit fainted at, I imagine.

And I seem to remember those long, vulnerable supply lines from last year. But why now? Maybe to cut Sadr in Najaf off from his supporters in Sadr City, in the Baghdad slums? Since the Najaf negotiations seem to have broken down:

In the south [Najaf], U.S. troops skirmished for a second day with militiamen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His aides said Iraqi-led mediation aimed at resolving a standoff with the Americans had broken down.

A top al-Sadr aide, Jabir al-Khafaji, said mediations by Iraqi politicians had ended because of U.S. conditions that the cleric's al-Mahdi Army milita be disbanded.

U.S. forces at Najaf appear to be holding back their firepower to allow moderate clerics to bring pressure against al-Sadr, avoiding an assault on Najaf.

Meaning that Sistani still has Bush by the balls. Eesh.

Goalposts With Wheels 

The secret of not appearing to be flipping when, in truth, you are flopping? Redefine your objective.

You can catch Charles Krauthammer in the act here.

The column is meant to be a lethal blow to the muddled idiocy of all those comparisons of Iraq to "Vietnam," and everything that word entails. And I'm not kidding about that "lethal."

There is no cure for the Vietnam syndrome. It will only go away when the baby-boom generation does, dying off like the Israelites in the desert, allowing a new generation, cleansed of the memories and the guilt, to look at the world clearly once again.

Amnesia as clarity. Interesting concept. Not remembering certainly makes a pundit's life easier; forming an opinion based on a density of likely contradictory data is always more difficult than doing so on a simple set of selectively remembered facts. Works for Bush. And for those who've hitched their wagon to his star.

So, Charles, the Kraut, is waiting for the boomers to shuffle off their mortal coil. And while he waits, he will happily, if sternly, guide non-boomers to the path of moral clarity. That there would be comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam was inevitable, he tells us, but not why. Instead, he offers the example of such a comparison from early in the Iraq war.

During our astonishingly fast dash to Baghdad, taking the capital within 21 days, the chorus of naysayers was already calling Iraq a quagmire on Day 8!

This is nonsense, of course. There was no "chorus of naysayers." What there was were multiple reports and commentaries by journalists and military analysts, often working for media sources that had either endorsed the war or been highly supportive, about unexpectedly fierce localized opposition that raised the perfectly natural question of whether Rumsfeld's lean troop levels, deployed according to an expectation of rapid progress to Baghdad, would prove adequate to subdue the Iraqi nation.

From this non-sequitur, Mr. K moves to this one: the assurance that Iraq was not Vietnam then, and continues not to be, now.

Next we're given a few differences. In Iraq, we didn't inherit a "failed French colonialism," we overthrew "a deeply reviled tyrant." Yes, there were those few who prospered under Saddam, like the entire city of Fallujah for instance, i.e., their resistance is the equivalent of Saddam's tyranny, and must be dispatched with the same thoroughness. And since Sunni Arabs are only 1/6th of the population of Iraq, "a fraction of a fraction," no problem.

Next up, the Shiia, a majority of the Iraqi population. Not to worry. Saddam's frequent victims, the Shiia are glad we invaded; they have been truly liberated. Yes, they "chafe" at being occupied, but the Shiia clerics realize we must stay, lest our leaving leave the Shiia vulnerable to "the sway of either the Saddamites, foreign Sunni (al Qaeda) terrorists, or the runt Shiite usurper, Moqtada Sadr."

Al Sadr, Krauthammer will allow, represents something of a "crises," but look how the Shiia are helping us by negotiating with Al Sadr. Ditto for the Governing Council, working with us in Fallujah. All to the good, because these leaders "have far more legitimacy than Sadr's grandiloquent Mahdi army or the jihaadists of Fallujah." Whether they have more legitimacy than did the various governments that ruled South Vietnam Mr. K doesn't tell us. Nor does he comment on which if any of our "allies" might have more legitimacy than the other. Or whether any of them have sufficient legitimacy to offset our presence as occupiers of Iraq.

Then again, why should Krauthammer bother with such comparisons, or such analysis?

Iraq is Vietnam not on the ground, but in our heads. The troubles of the last few weeks were immediately interpreted as a national uprising, Iraq's Tet Offensive, and created a momentary panic. The panic overlooked two facts: First, Tet was infinitely larger and deadlier in effect and in scale. And second, Tet was a devastating military defeat for the Viet Cong. They never recovered. Unfortunately, neither did we, psychologically. Walter Cronkite, speaking for the establishment, declared the war lost. Once said, it was.

Who would have thought that Charles Krauthammer had a secret, inner "Lovin' Spoonful," but he does seem to believe in "magic." Certainly, nothing about those last two sentences could be interpreted as history.

And now to the "other" big difference between Iraq and Vietnam, according to the gospel of Kraut: in Vietnam we faced "a decades-old, centralized nationalist (communist) movement," and nothing like that exists in Iraq. Well, that's a relief. In fact, in Iraq what we confront is a country "highly factionalized along lines of ethnicity and religion."

Now we get to the heart of darkness Krauthammer's argument.

The gist: We have been responsding to this factionalism as if it is a problem, when perhaps it is the solution. Our motivation, the goal of "a united, pluralistic, democratic Iraq, in which the factions negotiate their differences the way we do in the West, " has turned out to be problematic, not because of any error in the policy, or its implementation, but because of the Iraqiis themselves.

It is a noble goal. It would be a great achievement for the Middle East. But it may be a bridge too far. That may happen in the future, when Iraq has had time to develop the habits of democracy and rebuild civil society, razed to the ground by Saddam.

But until then, expecting Iraqis to fight with us on behalf of a new abstract Iraq may be unrealistic. Some Iraqi police and militia did fight with us in the last few weeks. But many did not. That is not hard to understand. There is no de Gaulle. There is no organizing anti-Saddam resistance myth. There is as yet no legitimate Iraqi leadership to fight and die for.

Now he tells us. It was rather a different story we were told prior to the invasion. In fact, just last Tuesday during his press conference, the President was still sticking up for the democratic instincts of our brown-skinned brothers, and sisters, of course.

And it dawned on me that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place. It also dawned on me then that when we get it right in Iraq, at some point in time an American President will be sitting down with a duly-elected Iraqi leader talking about how to bring security to what has been a troubled part of the world.

The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.

Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and, if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

That moment made me cringe, not because I don't believe it to be true, I do. But because nothing that this administration has done in prosecuting its Iraq policy of invasion and occupation suggests that their belief is anything other than rhetorical.

For Krauthammer, as for David Brooks et al, that is sufficient.

True national greatness, after all, requires we be tough-minded, as well as just plain tough, if not with ourselves, with all others, including our allies, including those who have been the object of our liberating invasion of their country. And Krauthammer, ready to move those goalposts, need only help us understand what truly motivates Iraqiis and the wheels will do the rest.

What there is to fight and die for is tribe and faith. Which is why we should lower our ambitions and see Iraqi factionalization as a useful tool

(edit)

This is no time for despair. We must put down the two rebellions -- Fallujah's and Sadr's -- to demonstrate our seriousness, then transfer power as quickly as we can to those who will inherit it anyway, the Shiite majority with its long history of religious quietism and wariness of Iran. And antagonism toward their former Sunni oppressors. If the Sunnis continue to resist and carry on a civil war, it will then be up to the Shiites to fight it, not for Americans to do it on their behalf.

Hardly the best of all possible worlds. But it is a world we could live with.

I had to read that last paragraph several times before I could be sure that Krauthammer wasn't actually proposing an early withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, or at least committment to some kind of timeline. Instead, I think the point of what he is suggesting is to accept the Shiia as the rightful rulers of Iraq in service of the larger goal of making them our proxy when it comes to putting down jihadist violence.

There is so much dumbness contained in this single column, it's hard to know where to begin.

There are divisions between Shia and Sunni, but there are also profound connections, not the least being that they are all Iraqis, as attested to by the high rate of intermarriage between the two groups. Sunnis were involved in Saddam's oppression of the Shiia, but it was this country which had an army resident in a nearby desert during the brutal suppression of the Shia uprising at the end of the Gulf War and did nothing to stop it. Why would the Shiia be willing to engage in a civil war with Sunni Iraq on our behalf? The problems we are facing in Iraq range beyond Fallujah and Najaf, and include the complicated matter of an Iraqi constitution. Bremer has come down so hard on the side of "indivdual rights," that he/we helped to create the problem of Shiia rejection of the constitution, because they rightly saw that giving the Kurds veto power undermined the central concept of any democratic society, majority rule; what kind of majority rule can be vetoed, not by contitutional guarantees of individual liberties, which Sistanni has made clear he understands, but instead, by constitutional fiat handed to the Kurds; a Shiia government may be able to propose, but minority Kurds, but not the minority Sunnis, would retain the power to depose whatever doesn't please them.

Then there's this unaddressed difficulty inherent in Krauhammer's revised vision; what makes him think, based on the last two weeks, that the means by which we will have to put down the current "two rebellions," won't have created a permanent resistence to any American presence in Iraq?

But I guess that's just all too detailed for those big-picture guys.


Republicans dropping like flies during press conferences 

Now it's DOD Iraqi flak Kimmit who "appeared to briefly lose consciousness during a news conference."

So, it's not exactly the same as Bush, since during his press conference, Bush appeared to briefly regain consciousness.

But still, what's up? Something uniquely stressful about answering questions right now?

With things quiet... Too quiet... In Najaf ....

Iraq insurgency: Hopes for negotiated settlement in Najaf fade 

Via Juan Cole.

It's been quiet... Too quiet...

Except for the explosions in Kufa and the demonstrations in East Baghdad, I mean.

So, the Congressional vote for war, the UN speech, the diplomacy, the speeches to the American people were just a fraud? 

There was just the pretence of demoracy, and in fact a decision for war had been made, by one man, acting alone in secret?

Yep.

We knew it at the time, but now we really know it, and, as usual with Bush, it's worse than even we imagined. One of our problems is that we have limits, so when Bush or some other winger says something utterly outrageous, we don't take them at their word. Remember this one from Bush?

[BSUH]: I'm the commander—see, I don't need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things," he told Bob Woodward. "That's the interesting thing about being president."
(via Atlantic

Turns out Bush meant exactly what he said. So much for the Constitution:

On the war's origins, the book describes Bush pulling Rumsfeld into a cubbyhole office adjacent to the Situation Room for that November 2001 meeting and asking him what shape the Iraq war plan was in. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Mr. Bush ordered a fresh one.

The book says Mr. Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about their planning and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into it at some point, the president said not to do so yet.

Even Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Mr. Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.

The book says Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of Central Command, uttered a string of obscenities when the Pentagon told him to come up with an Iraq war plan in the midst of fighting another conflict.

Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the book, but Congress was kept in the dark about it.

About that, Woodward told Mike Wallace in the 60 Minutes interview, "(At) the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done.

"They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. ... Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
(via CBS)

Now, of course, Bush and his handlers are saying these were just plans, no decision has been made, et cetera.

And, oh yeah, so much for Congressional spending authority, checks and balances, and the Constitution.

It's enough to make me go to one of those MoveOn bake salses, and I am not a bake sale kind of guy.

Friday, April 16, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Wierd. No 5:00 horror. Have they just gotten undisciplined, or is it just horror 24/7?

UPDATE From Corrente Chief Lyricist MJS:

It's one Iraq, two Iraq, three Iraq rock
Four Iraq, five Iraq, six Iraq rock
Seven Iraq, eight Iraq, nine Iraq rock
It's Iraq around the clock tonight...

Well, on that note....

Color Us Red, White & Blue 

Is there anything more American, more down home, more "red state" than a Bake Sale? Church auxiliaries do them, YWCAs do them, PTAs do them, so MoveOn.org figured, if anything goes, let's do it, Let's Have A Bake Sale.

And if one Bake Sale is a good idea, isn't a thousand Bake Sales a thousand times better?

Behold:

Tomorrow [Saturday], from Lincoln City, OR to Kent, OH to Peaks Island, ME, MoveOn members will holding over 1,000 bake sales to help raise some dough (sorry) and take our country back. It's a great way to demonstrate the contrast between Bush's millionaire-backed campaign and our grassroots movement.

The creativity and energy folks are putting into their sales is just astounding. Over 11,000 bakers have signed up to help. And just take a look at some of the sales' titles:

Beat Bush Bake Bash in
Mountaineer Bake Sale for Democracy in Charleston, WV
Cheekypotato's Home-made Aussie Cookies, Cakes, Pizzas & Calzones for Democracy in Phoenix, AZ
No CARB (Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush) Bake Sale in Seattle, WA
Have Your Cake and Beat Bush II in Storrs, CT
Sweet Eating, Bush Beating in Brooklyn, NY
Hippies against Hoodlums (HAH!) in Boulder, CO
Afternoon Tea for Democracy in Princeton, NJ
Goodies for Good in Davie, FL
. . . and the list goes on.

With over 1,000 bake sales, it’s likely there’s a bake sale you can drop by near you

To find one, click here, you'll be whisked away to events in the LA area, but you can find out what is in your area by entering your zip code in the appropriate box. That's the best I can do because MoveOn's emails are tailored to the geographical imperatives of each member.

This won't be the last of these efforts, so sign up to bake or to otherwise help.

UPDATE Alert reader peanut asks: Is Condi bringin' her special yellowcake?

UPDATE Alert reader skaterina adds Moab, UT to the list. See you there, Moabites!

Iraq insurgency: the legal case against Sadr 

Via The Australian from The Agonist.

Interesting that the judge who compiled the case is in the sacred city of Najaf, Sadr is holed up in Najaf, Sistani has an office in Najaf, and the Marines have surrounded Najaf. So, again, I wonder what Sistani wants?

Yes, Sistani has Bush by the balls indeed 

The classic question one politician asks another: "What do you want?"

More than 2500 US troops surround the city, primed for an attack to capture the renegade imam Moqtada al-Sadr. But the spiritual leader of all Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has told them he has "drawn a red line" around Najaf.

It is a classic Iraqi power play. Ayatollah Sistani has brought the rambunctious Sadr to heel, so now he will protect him against a US threat to capture or kill the headstrong young imam, who is wanted on murder charges.

The implicit deal Ayatollah Sistani is offering the US is that it should back off in the face of his defusing a Shiite uprising
that risked all-out war between the US and the majority Shiites.

There has been an ominous Iraqi silence on a United Nations outline of the structure of a provisional government to run the country between the return of sovereign power by the US on June 30 and elections to be held in January.

The plan calls for the abolition of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and of the US occupation administration, the Coalition Provisional Authority. It calls for the UN to lead a consultative process to appoint officials and a national conference to appoint a national assembly.

But no light has yet been shed on how tense relations between religious, tribal and ethnic groups will be reflected in the structure of the interim government...
(via Sidney Morning Herald)

Sistani, Sistani I love you Sistani,
You're always a day away...

Iraq insurgency: US forces holding 200 members of Iraqi Civil Defence Corps 

Winning hearts and minds.... Honestly, what did we expect?

US forces have detained around 200 Iraqi paramilitary soldiers who refused to take part in a US offensive against the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah, their former comrades said today.

The US military declined to confirm whether the men were being held.

Senior officers play down the significance of such incidents but, asked about reports of mutiny among Iraqi troops, have acknowledged a "command failure" took place during the Fallujah offensive.

Soldiers from the Baghdad-based 36th Security Brigade, part of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC), said that last week US commanders took them at night to Fallujah, west of the capital, where US forces were massing to crush a growing insurgency.

"They told us to attack the city and we were astonished. How could an Iraqi fight an Iraqi like this? This meant that nothing had changed from the Saddam Hussein days. We refused en masse," said Ali al-Shamari.

Shamari said the brigade members did not know they were heading to Fallujah until they arrived there.

After the brigade refused to fight, he said, soldiers were stripped of their badges and confined to tents in a US base on the outskirts of Fallujah. Their rations were restricted to one meal per day.

"I escaped, but around 200 of our comrades remain there. We demand their release," Shamari said.

Ali Hussein, a Shi'ite private, said the brigade's mission since its formation had been security tasks such as conducting searches and guarding buildings.

"Suddenly, we were asked to take part in a huge offensive," Hussein said, adding that he felt sympathy for Fallujah residents although they were from the Sunni minority who had dominated the Shi'ites for decades.
(via Sidney Morning Herald)

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ship 'em to Gitmo!

Seems like the situation in Fallujah must have been a lot worse than we were told, for us to throw these guys in there.

At long last, a Republican operative has the decency to admit a mistake! 

And it's none other than Acting President Rove himself.

President Bush's top political adviser said this week he regretted the use of a "Mission Accomplished" banner as a backdrop for the president's landing on an aircraft carrier last May to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

"I wish the banner was not up there," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."

Last October, Bush said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later clarified that the ship's crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor. It wasn't clear who paid for the sign.
(via the LA Times)

"Convenient symbol," eh?

Symbolize this!

Have they transplanted a heart back into Dick "Dick" Cheney? 

Here's a curious little item from alert reader Xan that I quote in its entirety:

Was Vice President Dick Cheney recently treated at Culpeper Regional Hospital?

Some with connections to the hospital say they heard that Cheney was recently treated at and released from the facility.

A spokesman for Cheney declined to comment.

When asked yesterday whether it was true, hospital spokeswoman Lynn Martin said, "We have no record in our system of Mr. Cheney being here."

When further asked if Cheney had been seen by hospital personnel but there was simply no record of the visit, Martin replied, "We have no record in our system of Mr. Cheney being here."

When asked if his office had helped provide security for the reported visit, Culpeper County Sheriff Lee Hart replied: "No. He has his own people."

Oops!

When asked if the Sheriff's Office knew that Cheney was or would be at the hospital, Hart said, "We had some knowledge."

When questioned further, Hart said he could say no more until he made a telephone call. Less than two minutes later the sheriff called back to report, "We had no knowledge of the incident."

The exact date of or reasons for the vice president's reported hospital visit are unclear. It has long been rumored that Cheney, who has a history of heart problems, has occasionally been secreted at some remote Culpeper government facility since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(via the Fredericksburg Freelance-Star)

And you all know the joke: "Bush is a heartbeat away from the Presidency." [rimshot. Laughter]

UPDATE Alert reader Jon H asks:

Maybe the hospital is keeping Cheney supplied with the blood he needs for nourishment?

Lyric Corner: "I'm your puppet" 

Somehow, the prospect of Bush and Cheney testifying together at the 9/11 Commission brings this song to mind. I don't know why...

Which shall it be? The Marvin Gaye version, or the Elton John version?

Pull the string and I'll wink at you, I'm your puppet
I'll do funny things if you want me to, I'm your puppet

I'll be yours to have and to hold
Darling you've got full control of your puppet

Your every wish is my command
All you gotta do is wiggle your little hand
I'm your puppet, I'm your puppet


I'm just a toy, just a funny boy
That makes you laugh when you're blue
I'll be wonderful, do just what I'm told
I'll do anything for you
I'm your puppet, I'm your puppet
(via here)

Eesh.

Creepy.

US Treasury puts Government Seal on RNC propaganda—and my taxes are paying for it! 

Great headlines of our time: "Fighting erupts as U.S., Iraqis start dialogue" 

We really expect better of the Canadians.

Explosions shook a riverbank as U.S. soldiers battled Shiite militiamen outside the southern city of Kufa today. The fighting came as the U.S. military held its first direct negotiations in an attempt to end fighting in Falluja.

The military said U.S. soldiers fought back after they were attacked by supporters of radical cleric near Kufa, which neighbours the holy city of Najaf. Some 2,500 U.S. soldiers are deployed outside Najaf to kill or capture al-Sadr and dismantle his al-Mahdi army militia.

Large explosions were seen by the river in a sparsely populated area on the edge of Kufa. Five civilians caught in the crossfire were killed and 14 wounded, hospital officials said.

In Falluja, west of Baghdad, U.S. military and civilian officials met today with leaders from Falluja, the first known direct negotiations involving Americans since the siege of the city began April 5.

Until now, U.S.-allied Iraqi leaders have been holding talks with city representatives trying to find an end to fighting that has killed dozens of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis.

Both countries want to avoid a U.S. attack on Najaf, site of the holiest Shiite site — the Imam Ali Shrine, near the office where al-Sadr is located, surrounded by armed gunmen.

Shiite Governing Council member Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he saw "flexibility from al-Sadr's side" and urged Americans to show "similar flexibility."

Top U.S. administrator Paul Bremer was involved in "multiple channels" to try to negotiate an end to the standoff in the south and in Falluja, said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But Myers warned there was a limit as to how long the marines can wait. "At some point somebody has to make a decision on what we're going to do, and we certainly can't rule out the use of force there again," he said.

U.S. commanders have vowed to "kill or capture" al-Sadr, but have limited their actions to small skirmishes on the outskirts of the city.

Maj. Neal O'Brien said the units at Najaf "will not complete this operation" and will likely be replaced by other troops — a rotation that suggests that an assault on the city is not imminent.

Negotiations appeared focused on dissolving al-Sadr's al-Mahdi army militia — a demand he has refused — and how to deal with al-Sadr himself. He has been charged with involvement in the assassination last year of a rival Shiite cleric.
(via Toronto Star)

I don't get what's to negotiate about: The CPA wants to kill Sadr and destroy his militia, and Sadr doesn't want that. So how do we make a deal?

I think Rick Santorum would want to know about this 

Go read.

Gotta watch out for those disgruntled employees...

Anyhow, in case his staff isn't, uh, on top of it, you can Rick all about it here.

Heh heh heh.

Incomparably, The Howler shows us what a free press would look like 

Here are the questions that Bush was asked at his press conference (what the hell has he got to be stressed about, anyhow?), what's wrong with them, the questions that should have been asked, and how to ask them.

Of all the words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been.

Sigh. That slippery little scut gets a free pass again.

Juan Cole on Sadr and the Sadrists 

So—ho hum—all that "gangster" and "thug" rhetoric from Dear Leader is just wrong:

I am often highly impressed with the intelligence and learning of the military officers I meet at security conferences. But I confess myself deeply puzzled as to how, after being in Iraq for over a year, these bright and well-informed persons could have gotten the Sadrist movement so wrong.

1) It is a longstanding social movement, not just a fly by night militia
2) It is not tiny in numbers of adherents, though not all adherents are willing to put themselves out for it at the moment; that could change.
3) It has lots of potential leaders besides Muqtada
4) Its cadres can easily become guerrillas, as the Army of the Mahdi shows.

So you can't wipe it out, and you can't hope that it will just go away, and it is highly unwise to start a decades-long (yes) feud with it.
(via Informed Comment)

Oh.

The "kill 'em all" strategy won't work.

Damn.

The Republican sense of "impunity" 

Buried at the end of a Reuters story about "partisanship" is a list of three probes into Republican lawbreaking. Why would the Republicans do such things? In the punchline of the old joke: "Because they can." They felt they could get away with anything, so they did whatever they wanted.

That's a feeling of impunity.

Adding to the rough-and-tumble atmosphere has been squabbling over Bush's handling of Iraq and terror threats prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as well as some unrelated investigations.
(via Reuters)

"Squabbling"?! I mean, did Bush lie his way into a war, or not? Did Bush drop the ball on 9/11 not? To Reuters, raising these questions is "squabbling." And Nedra Pickler doesn't even work there! Merciful Heavens.

One probe involves possible bribes on the House floor on behalf of an administration-backed prescription drug bill that narrowly won passage late last year.

Authorities are also examining an alleged threat to dismiss a federal actuary if he revealed what the bill might actually cost, drawing fire from some Republicans as well as Democrats.

The Senate's top law enforcement officer found that two Republican aides tapped into Democratic computer files, part of an apparent renegade effort to track opposition to Bush's most contentious judicial nominees.

Man, that's a lot of probing, and there's no mention of The Plame Affair at all.

And do I sense a common thread here? Gee, it seems like the very same people who were prating about "the rule of law" while in the process of overthrowing Clinton are now being investigated for bribery, threats, and theft. What a surprise!
The essential Orcinus nails it:

The GOP, and the conservative movement generally, has been overtaken by people whose chief concerns have little to do with true conservatism and more with the Machivellian acquisition of power by any means. This is not mere opportunism, but a malignant metastasis that not only finds white supremacism an acceptable impulse but one fully consonant with its drive to power.

All tyrannies and all tyrants, including Bush and his regime in Washington, feel they posses "impunity," because the powper they have makes them crazy. It's our job, as citizens, to teach them differently.

Great headlines of our time: "Economic Rebound on Track Despite Reports" 

Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?

U.S. industrial production unexpectedly dropped in March while consumer sentiment slipped this month, but economists downplayed the two disappointing reports and said the economy's solid expansion remains on track.

Strong data this week on regional factory output and retail sales have boosted forecasts for overall economic growth in the first half of the year. Some economists are now looking for gross domestic product of about 5 percent, up from the 4.1 percent pace in the fourth-quarter last year.

Yet Federal Reserve officials have sought to play down worries they will be eager to lift official interest rates from 46-year lows in response, even with an surprising jump in consumer price inflation in March.

Richmond Federal Reserve Bank President Alfred Broaddus reinforced that message on Friday, saying the central bank was "some distance" from tightening monetary policy to choke off a future inflation threat. Broaddus also said he wanted "more confirmation" economic growth would be sustained.
(via Reuters)

What's "unexpected" about it? Bush is still in office!

Out of the mouths of babes 

So Dick "Dick" Cheney and his wife, authoress Lynn, travelling in the fabled East, and Lynn is doing a photo-op with some cute South Korean kids:

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, faced some tough grilling Friday when she met American and South Korean third graders on a tour of a U.S. military base in Seoul.

Among the questions: "Did your husband ever fight in a war?"

Mrs. Cheney stopped in at the Seoul American Elementary School on the sprawling Yongsan Army Garrison in the South Korean capital to give a short history lesson from her 2002 book "America: A Patriotic Primer."

As for her husband's military record, she said: "He was in college, so he did not fight in a war."
(via AP)

As with all the chickenhawks, "patriotism" and putting your own ass on the line are two very, very different concepts.

Too bad one of the kids didn't ask this:

Mrs. Cheney, why don't you feel your lesbian romance novel is "your best work"?

Oh well....

Our CEO President: Bush shows leadership by hiding decision for Iraq war from "team" 

Here's an example of Bush courage:

President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says [Woodward's] new book on his Iraq policy.
(via AP)

Including his exercise partner and surrogate Mom, Condi.

It's the new Republican concept: "implausible deniability"!

Eesh. "Furor," eh?

The following presentation is 100% American! 

Crawford Dinner Theater Presents!

"I Remember It Well" ~ by MJS

DICK:
We fought for peace.

GEORGE:
We had a plan.

DICK:
Long distance called

GEORGE:
Afghanistan?

DICK:
Ah yes, I remember it well.
We fought for peace

GEORGE:
I fought for war

DICK:
My ticker raced

GEORGE:
My ass is sore

DICK:
I remember it well.
Then on to Saddam’s Iraq

GEORGE:
It’s Saddam’s no more
Caught him, and made him crack

DICK:
War is such a chore



GEORGE:
If not for France

DICK:
You stuffed your crotch!

GEORGE:
I creamed my pants

DICK:
Ah, yes, I remember it well.
You wore a special suit

GEORGE:
I swaggered strong



DICK:
I stayed at home

GEORGE:
I wore a thong!
How strong we were
How young and gay
Two valiant men
In every way!

DICK:
Ah yes, I remember it well.



Based on:
Original song from "Gigi"
Music: Frederick Loewe
Lyrics: Alan Jay Lerner

Parody arrangement by MJS.
Makeup, wardrobe, and costume design by the farmer.

A Mustard Gas Turkey Farm Production ~ 2004

*

Thursday, April 15, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Paid the price of civlization today.

Oh, and FTF (back)

I always knew those studies about cool college Republicans were part of Operation Steaming Load 

At last, some data:

College students favor Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry over President Bush by a 10-point margin and have become substantially more dissatisfied with Bush over the past six months, according to a poll released Thursday.
(via CNN)

Now, if only we can get them to vote, and the Republicans don't manage to disenfranchise them.

Sunday's 60 minutes: Woodward to paint picture of dysfunctional WhiteWash House 

Who knew?

CBS has a teaser here. And Drudge (sigh) writes:

Top administration officials now barely speak to each other

Well, naturally.

With all the criminal investigations going on, their lawyers probably told them that not talking to each other would be a good idea.

Weird jobless claims numbers 

The experts tell us there's nothing to worry about:

New claims for unemployment benefits increased last week by 30,000, the biggest jump in 16 months. Still, analysts said Thursday they believe the labor market has turned a corner, pointing the way to a sustainable economic recovery.
(AP via Pandagon)

Of course, it could be just a blip. Let's hope. Honestly.

Say no more! Say no more! 

In case striking likely Democratic voters from the rolls won't be enough to win Florida in 2004, Bush takes out an insurance policy:

President Bush's embrace yesterday of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally disengage from the Palestinians carries potential political benefits for Bush... Bush's strategists believe that even small inroads into the Jewish vote could mean the difference between winning and losing Florida, and several Republicans believe the announcement could further inhibit Kerry's fundraising in the Jewish community.
(via WaPo)

Nudge nudge wink wink!

"Brave and courageous"? How about "Craven and boneheaded"?

Iraq insurgency: Sadr negotiating, with the Iranians, of all people, mediating 

From The Agonist.

The latest: According to Pakistani sources:

NAJAF Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr said on Thursday he was prepared to meet an Iranian delegation in Najaf as he embraced mediation efforts to avert a showdown with US troops massed outside the holy city.

Another aide in nearby Kufa, Sheikh Fuad al-Torsi, said Sadr “welcomes the Iranian initiative because it is coming from an Islamic country.” But the contents of any Iranian proposal remained unknown to the Sadr camp and the delegation was tight-lipped about the purpose of its visit.

A senior US official said the delegation was in Iraq at the request of the British government.

What is clear is that Sadr has significantly toned down his rhetoric over the past week as US troops massed near Najaf with the stated mission of killing or capturing him.

On the ground in Najaf, all was quiet Thursday as Iraqi police were seen around the city’s main streets, while Sadr’s black-clad fighters milled around the shrine of Imam Ali, the city’s holiest site.
(via Pakistan Daily Times).

Well, as long as we don't we don't shell any mosques in Najaf, like we just did in Fallujah. That would'n't play real well on Iraqi TV, would it?

Iraq insurgency: The Brahimi Plan for a transitional government 

From the essential Juan Cole:

[Brahimi's plan] suggests a handful of top appointments, and wants the United Nations to have a strong hand in making them. But then he also suggests the election of a Consultative Assembly that would be more broadly based and would advise the government during the transition.

The danger in Brahimi's plan for a corrupt Pentagon-supported expat like Chalabi is that Brahimi is saying that the UN doesn't want him in a high appointive post because of all the questions that swirl around him regarding embezzlement and playing fast and loose with other people's money.

Brahimi seems to be saying that the appointed high officials--a president, two vice-presidents, and a prime minister-- should have genuine grass roots in Iraq and be respected as upright. I think Barzani and Talabani among the Kurds fit this bill, and so do Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and Ibrahim Jaafari among the Shiites. I don't know, however, to whom you would turn among the Sunni Arabs for a politician with substantial grass roots.

it seems likely that Chalabi also does want to clear the decks so that he can rule unopposed if he can get into power, without a lot of pesky informed technocrats second-guessing him and even thwarting some of his policies. Since the CPA is a creature of the Neocon-dominated Department of Defense, it may well be that punitive measures against former Baath Party members is designed to punish them for their hostile attitudes to Israel or to ensure that Iraq is able to conclude a Camp David-style peace treaty with Ariel Sharon down the road.
(via Juan Cole)

We have the word "Byzantine" to describe all this. It's interesting the linkage between Chalabi and Sharon, eh?

Rapture index closes mixed: Volanoes down, plagues up 

Here.

But trading closed before the Sharon's ghetto wall was blessed by The Leader. I'll check back tomorrow.

Bush remains unserious about loose nukes 

UnbelievableAll too believable. (See "Reckless indifference to the nightmare scenario," back). Anyhow:

Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards. The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The information was also sent to the U.N. Security Council in a letter from its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, that was circulated Thursday.

The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States, which is leading the coalition administering Iraq, officials said.

The United Sattes has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2003 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.
(via AP)

You know, there could be a shipping container in the Port of Philadelphia right now with radioactive material, a conventional explosive, and a timer. If I were AQ, I'd set it for July 4th, and try to take out the Liberty Bell and Constitution Hall.

If Iraqi nuclear material is loose (sure sounds like it), and AQ takes out an American city with it, Bush will have caused it: (1) by lying his way into the war, (2) by butchering the security situation after the war, and (3) not protecting our ports.

Aw, fuck 'em. It's only the port cities that in danger, and they're the enemies of all decent Americans: They're Blue, they're full of non-Christians, they don't all drive cars or own guns, and they harbor gays, so they deserve to be cleansed by the fire from Heaven. Any questions?


Return the Gift 

Lambert's question below invites at least two more, namely:
  • Does the "Almighty" (Judeo-Christian variety) really give a shit about freedom?
  • How does Islam stack up in comparison?

The Bible's position on slavery is pretty clear:

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (NIV 1 Timothy 6:1)"

Elsewhere, that lovable whackjob Leviticus, when not dispensing proscriptions about shellfish and sodomy, sagely advises,

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

Now, one could see how this vision of society would appeal to a Bushie, but for the not so high-born fundamentalist who believes in the literal inerrancy of Scripture, this doesn't sound like a "freedom-loving" God at all.

As for the second question, I don't know enough to say, though this site takes up the case on Islam's behalf. My own view is that freedom is reason's gift to man and consequently the mortal enemy of bigotry and fear, which are the coin of the realm in Bushworld and any other belief system governed by revealed truth. Any readers care to chime in?

If "Freedom is the Almighty's gift" to humanity, is that the same as igniting a crusade over "which Almighty"? 

And which "freedom"?

Just asking.

OBL heard from 

Yeah, the Israelis assassinating Yassin was another match under the insurgency, along with shutting Sadr's newspaper.... Thanks, Ariel.

April 15, 2004: A man identifying himself as bin Laden offers a "truce" to European countries that do not attack Muslims, saying it would begin when their soldiers leave Islamic nations. The tape gives the countries three months to start pulling out its troops. It vows revenge against the United States for the Israeli assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The CIA is reviewing the tape's authenticity.
(via AP)


UPDATE The tape is "likely authentic".

Brave And Courageous 

With those two words, George W. Bush, surely destined to be the worst US President in the history of this country, and even, perhaps, the worst president of anything in the history of the world, torpedoed his own stated policy for carving from the chaotic violence of the fifty year-plus Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a path to a peaceful, just settlement, his so-called "road map" at the end of which Palestinians were to have forsaken random terrorist violence for a national state of their own.

Who else but George W. Bush could turn two excellent words like "brave" and "courageous," into lethal missiles which he then aims directly at his own stated policy, his big-picture vision for a newer, better version of the Middle East But that's what he did, by applying them to Sharon's peace plan for Israel; withdrawal from Gaza, in exchange for acceptance of a "security barrier," otherwise recognized as a huge concrete wall, whose path will guarantee that when Israel withdraws behind it, signifigant settler portions of the West Bank will become part of Israel, leaving Palestinians with an expanse of isolated bantustans from which to try and build a national state.

My expectations of this administration are minus nil, but it simple isn't possible to be sufficiently cynical not to find oneself surprised once again at the utter vacancy at the heart of everything it does. I did expect Sharon's presence at Crawford to produce a lot of attempts to dance on raindrops. Yes, Bush would probably endorse the withdrawal from Gaza, ignore the issue of that hideous wall, and give some kind of deliberately vague gesture in the direction of something less than total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

What happened is a complete capitulation to Sharon's master plan, the one he's been actively pursuing since 2002.

Bush's disgusting letter is truly the final stone in that commerative mounument, built primarily from Palestinian corpses, but also not a few Israeli ones, that will mark the final and complete death of the Oslo accords, and with it any pretense that we're engaged in a peace process, or following a genuine roadmap toward a just settlement between these two peoples. Two state solution? No, just another Bush lie.

Take the wall. Please.

Here are the words the President's speechwriters put in his mouth today:

The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity, removing unauthorized outposts, and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

As the Government of Israel has stated, the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

Every word of that statement, including, as Mary McCarthy once famously said, the "ands" the "thes" and the "buts," is a lie. That security, separation wall is already all the things the statement claims the Israeli government recognizes and accepts it should not be.

Four decades of American policy, flushed down the Bush potty. No surprise there. Has this administation ever met a policy it didn't view as inferior to anything it could think up in the time it takes to fly Airforce One to Crawford?

Colin Powell, how do you live with yourself; how do you manage to shave everyday without looking at yourself in the mirror. And when you do, who and what do you see staring back at you?

This way, Sharon's way, Bush's and the whole parade of neo-con revelers, lies madness. And not only for the Palestinian people. It's a tragedy for Israel, precisely because it will not provide genuine lasting security. As long as enough Israelis are willing to keep in power a government which believes that there is some way to rid themselves of Palestinians once and for all, by making life so impossible for them that they will either finally leave, or take up arms, thus justifying Israeli's willingness to slaughter them in the name of all that is right and good in the world, Israel will never find either security or peace. And Israelis misread Americans if they think that American support is as impregnable as that wall in the face of the kind of injustice Israel is preparing itself to rain down on the heads of all Palestinians. When those Palestinians begin to be seen not as terrorists, but as the latest in a long line of oppressed peoples struggling for the most basic human rights, it won't be as easy to color them "terrorists." When the American people wake up to what Israel is allowing itself to become, all those bets so carefully crafted by those who claim to be supporters of Israel, will be inoperative. What happens when the rest of the world comes to a consensus that Israel no longer has a moral claim to Palestine so long as it denies and actively suppresses Palestinian claims to nationhood. This brave new Israel is a fool's fantasy. Not that Sharon hasn't been masterfully clever, far too clever for the likes of George W. Bush, whose road map leads nowhere, except, perhaps, to a hundred year war with the muslim world.


Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

The effort of processing the results of last night's Operation Steaming Load was really too much for me, so, surly to bed. Night all.

Man, those RPGs are pesky 

WaPo.

And the Iraqi insurgents resourceful, and getting more organized all the time.


So, Bush's new ambassador to Iraq, Negroponte, is a death squad enabler. Your point? 

Kos has a bit more, and some pointers.

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake ....

OK, the Sharon plan 

Head Trip 

Atrios lauds today's column by William Saletan, in which he ridicules Bush's "unhinged" idea of "credibility". According to Saletan, the problem is that Bush sincerely believes that credibility means refusing to change one's mind, when even reality demonstrates that the "picture in his head" is wrong.

Atrios' props notwithstanding, the same could be said of Saletan. Saletan is, after all, the guy who recently lectured Democrats that "most voters don't [think Bush is a liar], for a good reason: It isn't true." The ludicrousness of this assertion gives new life to the old line about some things being so preposterous it takes an educated person to believe them.

To normal people, a lie is a statement knowingly at variance with reality. Occasional false statements do not automatically point to dishonesty, but a constant stream of false statements made in the teeth of evidence that demonstrates their falsity does. That has been abundantly on display since Inauguration Day 2001.

The picture in Saletan's head is that Bush's moral rigidity and self-righteousness prevents from seeing and adapting to reality. But that mental picture depends on his own selective picture of reality for its preservation, namely, that Bush never compromises his "principles" in the face of changing reality. As it happens, I'm listening to Franken on Air America right now, and they're having a field day listing just such Bush's broken promises. And this doesn't even get to his well-documented history of untruths about his own intentions, not least of which were those towards Iraq before 9/11. When Saletan calls Bush dangerously unhinged from reality, he's being unkind to the dangerously unhinged, who, after all, are not responsible for their mental state.

Is this how dysfunctional the national family has become under our dry drunk President, that his enablers in the intelligentsia, such as Saletan, bullied by relentless abuse of power and shameless prevarication, have so skewed public perception that delusional half truths are applauded simply because they are a break from 4 years of flat-out denial and sycophancy?

Anguish 

Is that not the single most conspicuously absent emotion from those our current President seems capable of expressing?

From his news conference last night:

There's no question it's been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's been really tough for the families. I understand that. It's been tough on this administration. But we're doing the right thing. . .. '

"And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking. "

"And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of -- a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country."

"I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.

There are some things I wish we'd have done when I look back. I mean, hindsight is easy. It's easy for a President to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place; for example, a homeland security department. And why I -- I say that because it's -- that provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before. "

"And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it's -- it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on war ever since. The lessons of 9/11 that I -- one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.

The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the country, we must do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to justice, before they hurt us again. I'm afraid they want to hurt us again. They're still there."

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.

"Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice"

"I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes. Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens -- I don't. It's a tough time for the American people to see that. It's gut-wrenching. One of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members who have lost their life. It is a -- it is -- it's a chance to hug and weep and to console and to remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one was done in the name of security for America and freedom for the world. "

Two stories about "family members."

Here's Steve Gilliard talking about one of them:

Thomas Hamill was a dairy farmer not long ago. But then he sold his farm and started driving trucks. Living in rural Mississippi, that didn't pay great. Then, of course, his wife had open heart surgery a couple of months back. With debts and a sick wife, he was looking for a better paying job. Kellogg, Brown and Root had one. Great pay, 10K a month, tax free. Benefits. Only one catch. It was in Iraq.

And then there's the story of the three sisters, perhaps not sadder than, but certainly more wrenching than Chekov's.

Brookfield - The two sisters of a United States soldier slain in Iraq last week will not have to return to active duty with their units in Baghdad once their emergency leave expires, a spokesperson for the family said on Tuesday.

All three women had enlisted in the Wisconsin National Guard, a part-time citizen soldier's unit, and were deployed to Iraq.

Specialist Michelle Witmer, 20, with the Guard's 32nd Military Police Company, was killed on Friday when her Humvee was ambushed. She was killed just weeks before her unit was expected to go home.

Her grief-stricken parents pleaded for their two remaining daughters - Rachel, 24, and Charity, Michelle's twin - to be allowed to serve out the rest of their tour of duty in the United States.

But the women said on Tuesday that they were deferring the wrenching decision until after their sister's funeral.

"They are focusing their attention on spending time with their family and grieving the loss of Michelle," spokesperson Joan Apt said.

In the same statement, Specialist Rachel Witmer, who is attached to the same unit as Michelle, and Sergeant Charity Witmer, a medic with the Guard, also stationed in the Baghdad area, touched on the dilemma facing them.

The women, tearful and clinging to their parents and brothers, did not speak at the brief press conference at a church in Brookfield.

But they sent a message to their comrades back in the field in a written statement.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with you," they wrote. "Not a minute goes by that we don't think of you. We are conflicted, because we have two families and we can't be with both at the same time."

Both of these stories would surely be the most tragic of last week, if it weren't for these stories, and these, and these, and these.

Meanwhile, it all still goes on:

Iraq Cleric Offers Peace Terms; U.S. Forces Poised

Iraq Shiite radical leader must be brought to justice: top US general

With the occasional twist:

Bush stands firm on Iraq, as Iran says it's been called on to help

Iran Halts Its Work With U.S. on Iraq

For bearing witness so that all of us can know what is being done in our name, we owe a huge thank-you to all the journalists who are there to tell us these stories, including the young Iraqi woman, Riverbend, and all the other Iraqi bloggers so many of us have become so fond of, and about whom we worry on a daily basis for bearing witness.

Richard Brookheiser is less grateful. One can see why.

The mere fact of having been here before throughout history is not comforting. Post-wars can be lost, just like wars. After the end of the Civil War, violent white resistance in the South rolled back black rights by weakening the North’s willingness to sustain Reconstruction. Robert E. Lee surrendered, but because the Ku Klux Klan did not, President Grant was unable to accomplish what General Grant had. That is why the fighting in Iraq is as important as it is depressing. The die-hards must die hard. But we, the television-watching public, have a task, too—not to be mesmerized into paralysis.

His position is completely understandable. Actual facts get in the way of what he is sure is the truth.

Real wars keep going after they end, by other means or by the same means, as Iraq shows. The Baathists in Fallujah, augmented by foreign predators and the followers of Moqtada Sadr, the ambitious young Shiite politician/cleric, took the fight to the Americans. The Americans obliged.

That, of course, is not what happened. Al Sadr said and published highly intemperate sentiments. He led demonstrations, he made threats. We, i.e., the CPA, some provisional that, made the decision to close the newspaper and to seek a warrant from a so-called Iraqi court, one that is controlled by those who truly govern Iraq today. But Mr. Brookheiser's real aim lies elsewhere.

All postmodern war is mindful of the camera. When did rabble the world over first bring hand-lettered signs in English to their demonstrations? During Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution in Iran? A similarly iatrogenic event landed on the front page of the April 10 issue of The New York Times—the grinning Iraqi man, all teeth, displaying a pair of American boots he had looted from an attacked supply convoy. This shot was more badly staged than most. No crowd, not even of idle boys, was gathered for an Adoration of the Boots. The man was, seemingly, all by himself, performing for Your Correspondent. College girls on spring break show their boobs for Girls Gone Wild; this Iraqi showed his boots for Baathists Gone Wild. American men support the strip show with their bottomless appetite for flesh; Americans support the boot show with their appetite for failure.

Hence the need for other voices, other chat rooms

And the ever vigilant "Rick" finds those voices he needs to hear, all two of them. Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. There is Ali of Iraqthemodel. blogspot.

What does Ali hope for? "When this riot will be crushed … all the clerics will no longer seem as strong as they seemed before, and once they see … Sadir [his spelling] in handcuffs, they will think a million times before committing a similar stupidity in the future." Even though we are not clerics, we can offer a prayer: from his lips to God’s ears.

There's also one other witness Rick finds worthy of note. What other Iraqi voices need he consult than the two that Andrew Sullivan recommends, along with an email from a Marine, all worthy of reading, mind you, but there are twenty-five million Iraqis and a hundred thousand or so of American troops there.

Are they a representative sample? Do I look like a pollster? Do they have their own agendas? No doubt. But their agendas—the desire for liberty, and the determination to secure it—compare favorably with those of the Boot Man, who is at best mischievous, at worst a fanatic too cowardly or incompetent to take up an AK-47, but willing to help the cause of re-enslavement in little ways. The confusion of voices from the ground, on whatever side, is infinitely more interesting than Bob Kerrey’s audition for a Vice Presidential nomination at the hearings of the 9/11 commission. We do have a war on, and mistakes will be made, though none so bad as the mistakes all of us, Republicans and Democrats both, made when we imagined we lived in a world of peace.

Bosnia, the Sudan, ten years ago and today, Somalia, Rawanda, Haiti, Kosovo, Chechynya -- not to mention the first bombing of the WTC, Oklahoma City, US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole -- Richard Brookheiser spent the nineties thinking he lived in a world of peace?

Most remarkable - see if you can find one moment of genuine anguish in the whole piece?

You won't find any anguish here either, but at least this typical dingbat Newsmax column as the virtue of let-it-all-hang-out blood-thirsty, blood-curkling honesty.

When it comes to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory there is no more successful collaborator than the media.
As desperate terrorist insurgents in Iraq pour gasoline on embers to attract journalists like moths to a flame it should be noted that the bad guys are ‘using’ the media as a tactical resource.

They know there is "no way nohow" they can defeat the American coalition forces militarily. However, they also know that IF they can manipulate the media to bludgeon the American homeland with images and stories of outrageous atrocities, there is a distinct possibility the American people will compel the administration to leave.

It worked in Vietnam.
It worked in Somalia.
I seriously doubt it will work in Iraq.

Next time David Brooks tries to convince himself, and you, that there is a fundamental difference between his rightwinged soul and that of extremists Clinton-haters among whom Mr. Brooks seems not to place himself, look for the anguish, and when you can't find it, you'll know there is as much difference between Chris Ruddy and David Brooks as there is between Richard Brookheiser and Geof Metcalf.

And if that seems like harsh rhetoric, well, sometimes we're called upon not to be mesmerized into complacent good manners


Iraq insurgency: Latest on Sadr and the standoff in Najaf 

Somehow I doubt that, after we've dug in, we'll end up cancelling the assault. After all, that wouldn't look tough. And doubtless Sistani or his son is on the phone to someone in the WhiteWash House, trying for all they can get in exhange for their mediation services (and who can blame them). Hey, maybe we'll sell out the Kurds yet again! Anyhow:

In the south, 2,500 U.S. troops were digging in outside the Shiite holy city of Najaf, preparing for a possible assault against radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. An attack on the city would likely outrage Iraq's Shiite majority, a community that - aside from al-Sadr's militia - has so far shunned anti-U.S. violence.

Iraqi clerics and politicians have launched negotiations with al-Sadr, trying to get him to back down sufficiently to avert a U.S. attack. But al-Sadr appeared to take a tough stance, demanding U.S. troops withdraw from all Iraqi cities.
(via AP)

Does anyone else have the feeling (especially after reading Orcinus, below) that we're watching some kind of cheap horror movie?

I mean a really cheap horror movie. The kind where Condi, Rummy, Wolfie, Bush and all the rest of them are wandering round in the woods, and, as night falls, it starts to rain.

And they're wondering whether they should seek shelter—say, in that house with no lights in the windows, over there in the clearing.... Down the path with the, with the—"Say, are those footprints? Then... why the claw marks?" "Oh, come on, Rummy, I'm getting wet. Let's go!"

And the entire audience yells: "No! Don't go in the haunted house!"

But, of course, they do anyway....

Iraq insurgency: Sadr and the stand-off in Najaf: A second Waco? 

The ever essential Orcinus brings us this analysis from Jean Rosenfeld:

Watch what is happening with al-Sadr in an-Najaf. This is a critical incident writ large of the type my colleagues and I have advised about, studied, and written about over a period of eight years. I am hypothesizing that we risk making the same mistake at an-Najaf with al-Sadr

I have written and spoken many times about how a religiously motivated critical incident, or standoff, differs qualitatively and markedly from a criminally-motivated hostage standoff. The latter is the model for defusing critical incidents among law enforcement and [coutner-terrorism] specialists. They remain uninformed and skeptical about these important differences to this day.

What is not known about Waco is that the final assault plan was amended on the ground by the tactical field commanders on the very day of the assault. That alteration had been discussed and rejected by the FBI brass over several weeks. Nonetheless, the FBI HRT commander, Richard Rogers implemented the rejected plan via a loophole signed by Janet Reno the morning of the final assault on April 19. That alteration was identical to the gassing and demolition plan that two Delta Force advisors seconded to the Justice Dept. in a principals meeting of April 14. Those two advisors supported the rejected plan that was later implemented "hypothetically" in order to conform to the letter of Posse Comitatus law. I also have published a peer-reviewed article with this finding. It is based on government documents--all open source. The rejected plan supported by Jeff Jamar, Richard Rogers, and the two Delta Force officers resulted in a disaster that did not have to happen. It was an ill-advised tactical approach to a religious community that feared that Satan was attacking them.

Those two Delta Force officers were Peter J. Schoomaker and "Jerry" Boykin, now both top officials in the US Army in charge of military planning for the war on terrorism.

I believe [Republican operative Dan] Senor's approach is similar to the tactical one taken at Waco against another "messiah." It resulted in many deaths and a legacy that led us to the "commemoration" atrocity in Oklahoma City.

[And Orcinus adds: It is worth observing, of course, that (as Atrios notes) the coalition appears determined to make this mistake, since its official stance is that "The mission of U.S. forces is to kill or capture Moqtada al-Sadr."
(via Orcinus)

Eesh.

The good news is that it seems like the Ayatollahs are playing a mediating role in all this—meaning that they really do have Bush by the balls.

Sistani, Sistani I love you Sistani,
Your’e always a day away...

Stupid, stupid 

I imagine the wingers and freepers and LIttle Green Snotballs are going nuts over this one.

Fortunately, the Kerry campaign was on top of the story as it broke. Good work, guys.

Sheesh. Rush calling Democrats traitors to an audience of 15,000,000 and Anne Coulter calling for liberals to be killed, and not a peep from the watchdogs, and then they go nuts over an ad in a shopper. Just a reminder not to be stupid, people. It's like the Dean scream: something essentially harmless gets magnified.


Bush news conference: The harder they come 

WaPo style columnist Tom Shales makes a nice point:

Bush similarly struggled, a few minutes earlier, to cite the single biggest mistake of his presidency. He looked baffled and incredulous. "I'm sure something will pop into my head here," he said, noting the intense "pressure" of holding a news conference on TV. Of course people watching throughout the country expect a president to be able to handle that kind of pressure without blinking, based on the assumption that this is one of the milder forms of pressure that come with the office.
(via WaPo)

Yes, The Harder They Come does have relevance today, doesn't it?

Pressure Drop
It is you (oh yeah)
It is you, you (oh yeah)
It is you (oh yeah)

Cause a pressure drop, oh pressure
Oh yeah pressure drop a drop on you
I say a pressure drop, oh pressure
Oh yeah pressure drop a drop on you

I say when it drops, oh you gonna feel it
Know that you were doing wrong.


Heh.

Bush couldn't take the hints on AQ, just like he couldn't take the hints on trading Sammy Sosa 

There's a pattern, and Trapper John at Kos finds it.

Nobody seems to have noticed, but Ashcroft heaved Bush over the side in his testimony 

They're starting to turn on each other...

MR. GORTON Did you make any changes reflecting that millennium after-action review [recommendations to disrupt the Qaeda network after a bomb plot] in your time as attorney general before 9/11?

A. [ASHCROFT]: This is a report which was not briefed to me or briefed to other individuals. It was a report which is a classified report.

Q. So you didn't know of its existence?

A. No.
... We — and these are the kinds of recommendations that were involved in the report, which was simply not made available —— ... The SEIB [Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing] available to me.

Q. On Aug. 7, 2001, a SEIB that reflected much of — although it was not identical to — much of the content of the Aug. 6 Presidential Daily Brief — came out. And I would like to ask you if you remember seeing a document headed Terrorism bin Laden Determined to Strike In The United States in the SEIB.

A. I do not remember seeing that. I was in, I believe I was in Chicago speaking at the American Bar Association meeting, I believe, at the time. So I do not have a recollection of seeing that.

Q. Did your staff regularly brief you on the intelligence when you returned?

A. I was briefed, and items of interest were noted for me from time to time by my staff.

Q. Would something like this, which is a memorandum that is going out to your colleagues — hundreds of your colleagues in the government — saying that bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States — been an item of significance that you would think would have been briefed to you?

A. These items had been briefed to me. They had been briefed to me by the F.B.I. They had been briefed to me by the C.I.A. The administration asked me to get briefings when appropriate in regard to these measures. I remember Ms. Rice, for example, early in July during the threat period and the heightened and elevated threat, asking me if I would receive a briefing from the C.I.A. because she thought it important. It's that kind of briefing that I received early. The C.I.A. — we have reconstructed it from the slides they used — talked a lot about the threat overseas. And we obviously were aware of the historical information that Osama bin Laden had issued statements years before, much of which is in the SEIB and was in the Aug. 6 P.D.B., which I have now read.

And but [sic] we inquired of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are there domestic threats that require — is there any evidence of domestic, of threat? And they both said no.
(via NY Times)

Contrast Bush:

BUSH: I was satisfied that some matters were being looked into.
(back)

Given what Ashcroft says about what he wasn't shown, how on earth could Bush have been "satisfied"?


Iraq insurgency: US adopting Israeli tactics 

And don't think the Iraqis haven't noticed.

With sporadic fighting in Falluja and US forces moving into position outside Najaf, the Arab press is pointing to similarities between US military operations in Iraq and the tactics Israeli forces employ in the West Bank and Gaza.

Such similarities are not coincidental.

While many of Israel's methods are controversial it has, in purely military terms, developed highly effective tactics for offensive operations in urban areas along with a range of specialised equipment which, for example, can help troops to breach walls, gather intelligence, and locate snipers.

And senior US commanders have visited Israel specifically to discuss what the Pentagon jargon calls "Military Operations on Urban Terrain".
(via BBC)

Great news, eh?

What next? A generation of warfare? A wall? Where would we build it?

Mission accomplished? Not! 

As always, the numbers tell the story.



(Via BBC via The Agonist.





This kind of stunt pisses me off so much I can't even write about it. 


President Bush, fulfilling a 15-month-old promise, scheduled a jog around the South Lawn Wednesday with a soldier badly wounded in Afghanistan.
(via AP)

Christians don't lie 

Ashcroft lies (via Atrios).

Therefore, Ashcroft is not a Christian.

QED.

(Roger Ailes wrote:

His review showed, [Ashcroft] testified, that there was "no covert action program to kill bin Laden."

But several commissioners disagreed. They cited the 1998 "memorandum of notification" signed by Clinton, which was found among the documents that the Bush White House originally refused to turn over to the commission.

Imagine that!

Joseph Wilson's book on the way 

You know, the one where he outs the outer of Valerie Plame.

Preorder The Politics of Truth here.

Drip, drip, drip....

Iraqi insurgency: Sadr, negotiations, and the dry humor of the Ayatollahs 

Superb analysis from Juan Cole. Go read.

A reasonable wrapup of Bush's press conference from Howie the Whore 

WaPo.

At least he gives a lot of links.

The CW seems to be that Bush changed few minds. I still think that's a win for us, since that means the drip, drip, drip dynamic is still in place.

Did Bush really give a speech at the start that took 17 minutes of a 60 minute news conference?

And what's up with the tie? The Bush media operation is famously disciplined—who let him go on national TV looking like a 60's acid casuality?

And how about the turkey farm and the mustard gas? Twice, yet. Was that bizarre? Has Bush been secretly reading Atrios on "Preznit give me turkee"?

And call me cynical, but I don't really see how Bush can lie his way into a war, and then grieve with the families whose children he sent to die. That kind of contradiction is what makes my head explode whenever I watch the guy.

Republicans cut back on the air war because it hasn't moved the numbers 

Why would that be, I wonder?

Despite its unprecedented fundraising success, President Bush's reelection team is scaling back its massive level of television advertising, according to senior Republicans familiar with the campaign's planning.

In the next few weeks, viewers in the 18 states where the ads have aired since early March will see about 30% fewer a week, one ranking GOP strategist said.

Of course, they claim the cutbacks were planned.

Anthony Corrado, an expert on campaign finance at Colby College in Maine, said that since March 4 — just after Kerry in effect wrapped up his party's nomination — Bush has bought about as much television advertising as past presidential candidates purchased for the entire general election campaign.

"And frankly," Corrado said, the president's campaign "didn't move the [poll] numbers that much."

He added: "The Bush campaign came out heavy, both in terms of volume and with some of their strongest attacks, and they didn't get a knockout."
(via LA Times)

As they say in the Navy: You can't buff a turd.

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Good night, moon 

And don't stand under the turkeys when they fly overhead.

NOTE I took the tie picture down. Alert reader nope says it was some kind of moire pattern. Damn, but many thanks. What I get for not being media-minded, I guess.

So, how did Bush do? Any signs of the earpiece? 

I don't have a TV, so I couldn't watch with the sound turned down even if I wanted to.

NOTE Pandagon are, as usual, blogging live.


President delivers opening statement on Iraq before White House news conference (MSNBC via WaPo.)

Bush certainly doesn't look good. And what's with the tie? Is he on the brown acid, or what?

UPDATE Seems like AP is putting the transcript up in near real-time:

BUSH: This has been tough weeks in that country.

Yep, it's the brown acid, alright.

UPDATE Some lowlights:

Non-answer: Why Bush is appearing with Cheney before the 9/11 commission

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
(via AP)

I don't see an answer. Do you see an answer?

Scripted? Yes, it was scripted

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

BUSH: I've got some must-calls. I'm sorry.
(via AP)


[UPDATE: Alert reader Matt corrects me on the must calls:

[Re:] "must-calls." Every president since Reagan has come to each press conference with a list of the first 8-12 reporters to call on, to make sure all the wire service and network and major newspaper reporters get their turn. Until at least last time, they didn't have to submit the questions in advance, but the order for the first several questions has been pre-determined for about 20 years.

It's only after those reporters have had their shot that the President starts taking questions from the floor, and that's when he snapped tonight about not calling on anyone who shouted. He probably also had a list of other suggested questioners, or at least a seating chart with names and affiliations. That's how he knew to call on Don Gonyer of NPR, whom he admitted he'd never called on before.

I still wouldn't put it past them to force the questions to be cleared in advance, though.

I can think of some other farms with turkeys...

BUSH: By the way, they found [in Libya], I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, I believe it was, in a turkey farm, only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer.
(via AP)

Certainly a reason for our troops to die. No question.

Sick and bizarre

BUSH: One of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members, who've lost their life. It's a chance to hug and weep and to console, and to remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one was done in the name of security for America and freedom for the world.
(via AP)

YABL, YABL, YABL.

BUSH: One of the things that's very important, Judy, at least as far as I'm concerned, is to never allow our youngsters to die in vain. And I made that pledge to their parents. Withdrawing from the battlefield of Iraq would be just that, and it's not going to happen under my watch.
(via AP)

The very definition of a quagmire. Because some died, more must die, otherwise the deaths are in vain. And let's infantilize the troops. Yech!

Scripted? Yes, it's scripted!

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

[Alert reader says norbizness says "This is the question that had him frozen like a deer in the headlights." Readers, did it really play that badly on TV?]

Now read the whole response. Is there any sign Bush can ever admit a mistake?

BUSH: John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.

What is it that you know??!?! That they didn't exist?

BUSH: See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission.

Huh? What commission was "sent up"? Not David Kay?

BUSH: I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

And there's that turkey farm again. Beautiful plumage!

At this point, they only way the "truth" could correspond to Bush's beliefs is if some CPA contractors planted them (or papers about them, or plans).

BUSH: One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.

You know, there's this kind of - there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq.
(via AP)

Fah. When we can offer millions of dollars in reward money and a new identity, we can't even get Ahmed Chalabi to fake a scientist for us? What a load of bollocks.

Our CEO President

BUSH: Let's see. Last question here. Hold on for a second. Those who yell will not be ask - I tell you a guy who I have never heard from.

[mush deleted]

BUSH: One thing is for certain, though, about me, and the world has learned this: When I say something, I mean it.
(via AP)

Except for things like, oh, the PDBs, meeting with the 9/11 commission for only an hour, et cetera, et cetera et cetera (via Kos). There's actually quite a list of things that Bush said, and turned out not to mean—outright lies and bait and switch aside, it's still quite a list.



AP has some person in the street reaction.

My gut take: Unless there's something the small screen conveys that I'm missing—was that tie really as goofy as it looked?—I don't think Bush hurt himself. That's a win for us, because he needed to help himself. And I'll be interested to see how that "mustard gas on a turkey farm" bit plays. The performance by the press corps was utterly shoddy, as they allowed themselves to be manipulated by the scripting, but we've come to expect that.

Readers?


Well, the US just bombed Fallujah with F16s 

The Agonist (and Al Jazeera) and it looks like the holy city of Najaf is next (Reuters).

This should set us in solid with Sistani, yes indeedy. What was that I kept hearing about a truce? And just in time for Bush's news conference, too!

UPDATE More from Juan Cole: Sistani's strongly-worded message to the US warning them against attacking Najaf.

Iraq insurgency: Negroponte to be ambassador to Baghdad 

And the embassy building is going to be the largest in the world.

John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who played a central role in trying to win support for war with Iraq, is emerging as the leading candidate for the sensitive job of ambassador to Baghdad.

Negroponte, 64, is a career foreign service officer whom President Bush recruited from the corporate world to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

There, he helped win approval of a resolution to expand the mandate of an international security force in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban government.

Negroponte's nomination for the U.N. post was confirmed by the Senate in September 2001 after a half-year delay caused mostly by criticism of his record as the U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.

There he played a prominent role in assisting the Contras in Nicaragua in their war with the left-wing Sandinista government, which was aligned with Cuba and the Soviet Union.

For weeks before his Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Negroponte was questioned by staff members on whether he had acquiesced to human rights abuses by a Honduran death squad funded and partly trained by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Negroponte testified that he did not believe the abuses were part of a deliberate Honduran government policy. "To this day," he said, "I do not believe that death squads were operating in Honduras."
(via AP)

"See no evil," eh? Negroponte should do just fine....

RPG price on eBay 

A rocket propelled grenade launcher costs $100 (thanks to alert reader scaramouche).

On the other hand, our helicopters, tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and Hummers are very, very expensive.

Questions for Bush 

Yes, he's having a news conference today, and I'm sure there are a lot of questions people would like to ask him.

I'll start.

Q: Mr. Bush, do you believe, as do many of your supporters, that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Q: As a follow up, Sir, can you tell your supporters what steps you have taken to bring about the Rapture? (alert reader attaturk )


[Readers?]


Thank you Mr. President...I was assuming this would be a joint press conference....Where is Mr. Cheney? (alert reader MQ)

UPDATE Tbogg brings back happy memories of the last Bush press conference—the scripted one. I wonder if this one will be scripted too?

Bush as uniter: The birth of Iraqi nationalism 

We've heard the insurgency called a "two front war." That's not good news for the occupation. What if the news is worse, and the insurgency is a war of national liberation?

The lopsided battle 35 miles to the west [in Fallujah] -- where 2,500 Marines have been deployed -- has had a profound impact here, redefining for many in Baghdad the nature of the campaign against U.S. troops.

Intense, sympathetic and often startlingly graphic coverage on Arab channels has deepened a vein of nationalism, stirred in part by still unconfirmed reports of high civilian casualties. Over the weekend, in the living room of a decidedly secular family, a woman wept over the images on a screen she finally leaned forward and kissed.

Headlines in Iraq's newly free press reinforce the video images: "Fallujah Wakes to a Grave Massacre" read the banner in Monday's edition of the daily Azzaman. Fresh graffiti sprayed in sweeping Arabic letters is turning up across the city. On one wall in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Jihad, the messages were spaced 10 yards apart: "Long live Fallujah's heroes." "Down with America and long live the Mahdi Army," a Shiite militia. Then: "Long live the resistance in Fallujah." And finally, "Long live the resistance."

The popular response -- of Shiite and Sunni giving aid, shelter to refugees and even volunteers to the fight -- has pushed fears of an Iraqi civil war to the background. The fighters in Fallujah are said to include Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. A housewife in Baghdad's Salaam neighborhood told of a passionate argument with her husband, a Shiite who insisted on joining friends volunteering to fight in Fallujah.

"This is jihad," she quoted him as saying. She added: "It was the first time he ever slapped me."

Some here are already speaking with the sense of history -- that powerful, deeply symbolic myths are being created.

"What is striking is how much has changed in a week -- a week," said Wamid Nadhmi, a political science professor at Baghdad University. "No one can talk about the Sunni Triangle anymore. No one can seriously talk about Sunni-Shiite fragmentation or civil war. The occupation cannot talk about small bands of resistance. Now it is a popular rebellion and it has spread."

"I think it will be bigger than Karameh," he added.
(via WaPo)

Waist deep in the big muddy...

With friends like these ... 

Every so often, I read the Christian Broadcasting Network, and they unearthed this nugget:

On Monday at a press conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Bush said the FBI's 70 on-going investigations in 2001 on al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden gave him comfort.

Bush said, "It meant the FBI was doing its job. The FBI was running down any lead. And, I will tell you this, if they had found something they would have reported back to me. That's the way the system works."
(via CBN)

No, it isn't. As the 9/11 Commission is in the process of showing.

Bush just seems goofily passive and weirdly ignorant of how stuff gets done in DC. It's a Federal system, with separation of powers. Conflict is built in. (That's why Condi's excuse that it is a "structural" problem is so pathetically naive.) The FBI is an independent agency, in fact and even more so politically. That isn't a "technical" problem to be solved with better information systems.

It isn't enough to wait for a report to come back! You have to shake the trees!

Oh, my head. I can feel it starting to explode again.

What if Gore had won.... 

This is one of those jokes that isn't even funny, because it's true:

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Al Gore was impeached by the House of Representatives but not convicted by the Senate, thanks only to the vote of Senator Jim Jeffords (R, VT) who was the only Republican to vote against Gore's removal from office. The historic vote ended a three-year fight by the Republican party to repudiate what Rep. Tom Delay called Gore's "reckless, evil and unnecessary" response to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001.
(via Oliver Willis: Read the whole thing)

Oh, surely not.

Kerry's WaPo OpEd on Iraq strategy 

I was wondering what to say about this, but go read Pandagon.

Personally, I think Kerry's wise not to say too much on this—it's an old political maxim never to attack an enemy who's in the process of destroying himself all on this own. OTOH, maybe Kerry believes this is, oh, an issue of national importance or something, and really wants to start a policy debate. Will Ed Gillespie extend the right hand of good fellowship, I wonder?

Iraq insurgency: Why killing the latest "bad guy," Sadr, won't work 

Excellent analysis from the essential Juan Cole:

The problem with this approach is that the Sadrists are a widespread social movement whose history goes back over a decade, and killing Muqtada [Sadr] will not end the movement. There are lots of potential successors to Muqtada [Sadr]. The chief characteristic of the Sadrists is their cheekiness. They were cheeky to Saddam, and they will be cheeky to Gen. Abizaid. They are desperately poor ghetto dwellers, they don't like The Man, and they think they have nothing to lose in taking Him on. If the US military thinks this is a military problem with a military solution, they are just clueless. Someone on a discussion list said that Iraq is not Vietnam because this time the generals are in charge, and they know what they are doing. The US officers in Iraq are bright, dedicated persons, but they don't know squat about Iraq (even Abizaid, a Lebanese Christian, is hardly an Iraq expert), and it also isn't at all clear that they are setting the agenda. Going after Muqtada [Sadr], for instance, almost certainly was the idea of the civilian politicians in the CPA and the Department of Defense.
(via Informed Comment)

Thanks, RNC operatives in the "Republican Palace", for using brute force and ignorance to make a bad situation far worse.

Krugman: On our way out, leave the golden key under the mat for the moderate Shi'ites 

I'm so tired of hearing that infantilizing "bad guys" rhetoric. So, apparently, is Krugman.

When will we learn that we're not going to end the mess in Iraq by getting bad guys? There are always new bad guys to take their place. And let's can the rhetoric about staying the course. In fact, we desperately need a change in course.

The best we can realistically hope for now is to turn power over to relatively moderate Iraqis with a real base of popular support. Yes, that mainly means Islamic clerics. The architects of the war will complain bitterly, and claim that we could have achieved far more. But they've been wrong about everything so far — and if we keep following their advice, Iraq really will turn into another Vietnam.
(via The Times)


Sistani, Sistani I love you Sistani,
Your’e always a day away...

Heck, I guess I'd better leave this lyrical stuff to alert reader MJS.

Bush: Talking the talk, or walking the walk? 

Talking the talk:

[BUSH]: "We stand for a culture of responsibility in America. We're changing the culture of this country from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you got a problem, blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us are responsible for the decisions we make in life."
(via EJ Dionne in WaPo)

But not walking the walk.

I was satisfied that some matters were being looked into.
(Ibid.)

Talk is cheap.

Iraq insurgency: The Viet Nam comparison 

Richard Cohen is good today:

Here are the reasons Iraq is not Vietnam: It is a desert, not a jungle. The enemy is not protected and supplied by major powers such as the Soviet Union or China, not to mention a formidable front-line state such as North Vietnam. The Iraqis are not, like the Vietnamese, a single culture fighting a long-term war of liberation from colonial masters. They are fragmented by religion and language, and they have been independent ever since the British left lo these many years ago. In almost every way but one, Iraq is not Vietnam. Here's the one: We don't know what the hell we're doing.
(via WaPo)

The cynical view, of course, is that we thought we knew what we were doing. There seemed to be no real reason to light the match by closing down Sadr's newspaper, leading me to think it's all election year politics: burst the guy's bubble now. Too bad it wasn't a bubble, there was no back-up plan, and that the unintended consequence has been to bring about a nascent Iraqi nationalism—directed against us.

Even with our eyes open, we were blind as a bat.

It is the same in Iraq. We went to war for the wrong reasons, and with too few troops and too few allies. Just about every expectation turned out to be misplaced. The occupation has not been financed by oil revenue, as we were assured. The Iraqi army and police are not, as promised, up to the task of maintaining order. Americans were often greeted as liberators, but also as conquerors. The United States did not commit enough troops to intimidate looters and the civilian leaders we backed turned out to have larger followings in Georgetown than in Baghdad. Victory remains possible, but first we'll have to figure out what victory is.

The lesson of Vietnam is that once you make the initial mistake, little you do afterward is right.

Yep, quagmires are like that.

Iraq insurgency: Helicopter downed by RPG 

No US soldiers killed.

U.S. military helicopter crashed outside Fallujah on Tuesday, but there was no indication anyone in the crew was killed or injured, a Marine commander said.

U.S. troops blew up the downed craft to keep it from being looted, he said. Insurgents said they shot it down with a rocket-propelled grenade.
(via The Globe, AP)

Pesky grenades. Wonder how much an RPG costs on eBay?

Iraq insurgency: We're bringing back Saddam's generals?! 

First, Bremer disbands the entire Iraqi army, and sends them home—with their weapons.

Now, we're going to put Saddam's generals back on the job? WTF? Given that Saddam's regime was as bad as Bush says, isn't this kind of like putting Hermann Goering back in charge of the German army after World War II—without de-Nazification? How will this play among the Iraqis, I wonder?

"It's ... very clear that we've got to get more senior Iraqis involved - former military types involved in the security forces," [Gen. John Abizaid] said. "In the next couple of days you'll see a large number of senior officers being appointed to key positions in the ministry of defense and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands."
(via AP)

Curiouser and curiouser.

Iraq insurgency: Civilian casualties 

How the story plays in Iraq:

More than 600 Iraqis have been killed in Fallujah since the siege began on April 5, said the head of the city hospital, Rafie al-Issawi. Most of the dead registered at hospitals and clinics were women, children and elderly, he said.
(via AP)

See back here on US tactics and the high number of civilian deaths.

Nice timing, Crisco Johnny! 

Nice timing by the 9/11 Commission too, releasing this on the day of Ashcroft's testimony....

The day before the Sept. 11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected an FBI appeal for an extra infusion of money for counterterrorism, according to a Sept. 11 commission staff statement released Tuesday.

The commission staff statement quotes a former FBI counterterrorism chief, Dale Watson, as saying he "almost fell out of his chair" when he saw a May 10 budget memo from Ashcroft listing seven priorities, including illegal drugs and gun violence, but not terrorism.
(via AP)

I guess Ashcroft didn't get the memo.

Of course, throwing money at the problem never solves anything (unless you're a CEO, or Halliburton, of course).

Monday, April 12, 2004

Good night, moon 

Again, what a day.

And FTF.

Iraq insurgency: US uses crude tactics against Iraqi civilians seen as untermenschen 

Take up the white man's burden...

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, [a senior British officer] said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."

The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slavs and gypsies.

Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".

The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used on targets in urban areas.

British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets. The American approach was markedly different, the officer said.

"When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.

"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage, but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians.
That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later."

The officer believed America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the insurgents.
(from The Age, via Juan Cole)

Well.

But "General" Kimmit—since when did a PR flak get to be a General, anyhow?—claimed that reports of numerous civilian casualties in the latest fighting are products of "propaganda machines that are operating inside of Fallujah"! (CNN)

Oh well. I guess that was just part of Operation Steaming Load....

Great to see the SCLM picking this story up. Oh, wait...

UPDATE As far as having "lost the military initiative": It sure looks like it. See this article from Reuters. I'm to tired to lampoon the quotes from the wingers who think that flattening Fallujah is the answer, but have at it yourselves, if you like.

Sistani edges closer to Sadr 

Guess whatever deal Bush tried to make with his Eminence, the Shi'ite moderate Sistani didn't work. (Sistani, no fool, must understand that making a deal with Bush is, well, about as smart as Max Cleland voting for tax cuts on the assumption that would buy him some safety.)

The sons of Iraq's top Shiite cleric and two other grand ayatollahs met Monday with radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, telling him they oppose any U.S. assault to capture him, a man who attended the meeting told The Associated Press.

Al-Sistani's son, Mohammed Rida, often serves as his main envoy: The 75-year-old grand ayatollah never leaves his home, which is not far from al-Sadr's office.

The rare gathering reflected the depth of Shiite Muslims fears of military action in Najaf, their holiest city. The top cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani - a moderate who opposes anti-U.S. violence - has long kept the young, vehemently anti-American al-Sadr at arm's length.

"They agreed not to allow any hostile act against Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr and the city of Najaf," said the man in the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He said the meeting took place in al-Sadr's office, where his supporters said he moved to from Kufa several days ago and where he has remained holed up, surrounded by armed militiamen.

But the unexpected strength shown by al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia in last week's uprising has increased his influence, and the prospect of a U.S. military operation in Najaf is alarming to Iraq's Shiites.

Al-Sadr office is a stone's throw from the Imam Ali Shrine, raising the possibility of damage to the holiest Shiite site in Iraq if he is targeted in an attack. The shrine also is the third holiest in the world after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.

The pullback by al-Sadr appeared to be an attempt to avert U.S. action, though al-Sadr followers rejected another U.S demand - the dissolution of the al-Mahdi Army.
(via AP)

Well, Bush is certainly uniting the Sunnis, and the Shi'ites, both radical and moderate. Think he'll go for the trifecta, and get the Kurds pissed off at us too? (It would be interesting to know if we are aiming the Kurds at Syria.)

Now Scalia flipflops on confiscating reporters' tapes. Will wonders never cease? 

Yes, Scalia apologized for having his goons violate federal law (WaPo) by seizing reporters's tapes:

Justice [sic] Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court has apologized to two Mississippi reporters who were required to erase recordings of a speech he gave at a high school there on Wednesday.

The reporters, for The Associated Press and a local newspaper, had been told by a deputy federal marshal to destroy the recordings at the end of a half-hour speech by the justice at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg.

The marshal cited the justice's standing policy prohibiting the recording of his remarks. The policy had not been announced at the high school.
(via NY Times)

Memo to Fat Tony: If you want to know what else to apologize for, I've got a list.

Memo to alert readers: Scalia seems to feel the need to prevent bad publicity in the press. I sure hope that doesn't signal BOHICA on the case now before the court where Dick "Dick" Cheney wants to keep his energy task force papers secret from the citizens who paid for them.


Bush's eyes 

I don't have a TV, so every so often I ask my Mom what was on the news, and today she said that Bush's eyes looked "strange." Not just that his eyes looked "nervous" but there was "something behind them." Then she had to think, and said what was behind Bush's eyes was "disbelief, as if he couldn't believe what was happening to him."

OK, I'm fine with that.

And I think I know what Bush can't believe is happening to him: It's the Plame Affair, and the prospect of having to get a lawyer. Joe Wilson's book is coming out this month, and Wilson has said he's going to name the leaker. (Cf. Atrios here.)

NOTE OK, I admit it. This is in the print version of Vanity Fair. I broke down and bought it. I feel... so used.... Maybe that's just the perfume inserts, though. It sure isn't the table of contents—that isn't usable at all. [rimshot. Laughter. [material recycled from Leah. [Put it in a box, it'll never get their in brackets. [OK, it's late...]]]]

Real men attack Teheran 

Waist deep in the Big Muddy:

Neo-conservatives close to the administration of President George W Bush are pushing for retribution against Iran for, they say, sponsoring this week's Shia uprising in Iraq led by radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

But independent experts say that while Iran has no doubt provided various forms of assistance to Shia factions in Iraq since the ouster of former President Saddam Hussein one year ago, its relations with Sadr have long been rocky, and that it has opposed radical actions that could destabilize the situation.

"Those elements closest to Iran among the Shia leaders (in Iraq) have been the most moderate through all of this," according to Shaul Bakhash, an Iran expert at George Mason University here.

The Iran hand was first raised in connection with Sadr's revolt by Michael Rubin, who just returned as a "governance team adviser" for the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq to his previous position as a resident fellow at AEI.

Another senior CPA adviser, Larry Diamond, a neo-conservative who specializes in democratization at the California-based Hoover Institution, told IPS this week that Sadr's Mahdi Army, and other Shia militias, are being armed and financed by Iran with the aim of imposing "another Iranian-style theocracy".

On Tuesday, the 'Wall Street Journal's editorial page took up the same theme, arguing that Sadr has talked "openly of creating an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Iraq (and) has visited Tehran since the fall of Saddam. His Mahdi militia is almost certainly financed and trained by Iranians," the editorial continued, adding, "Revolutionary Guards may be instigating some of the current unrest".

"As for Tehran, we would hope the Sadr uprising puts to rest the illusion that the mullahs (in Tehran) can be appeased. As Bernard Lewis teaches, Middle Eastern leaders interpret American restraint as weakness. Iran's mullahs fear a Muslim democracy in Iraq because is it a direct threat to their own rule."

"If warnings to Tehran from Washington don't impress them, perhaps some cruise missiles aimed at the Bushehr nuclear site will concentrate their minds," the Journal suggested.-Dawn/The InterPress News Service.
(via Hi Pakistan)

Thanks to alert reader Xan for the pointer to Hi Pakistan—whoever they are, they get the WSJ, which is more than unfunded bloggers can do.

The CPA is, of course, a nest of Republican operatives and a branch of the RNC (back).

Half a league, half a league, half a league onward.....

UPDATE A little tu quoque from alert reader pfc:

Cruise missles thrown at a plant in a Muslim country? Isn't that defined by this administration as "swatting at flies"?

Rapture index closes up 3, on Leadership, Global Turmoil, and Gog 

The "Help America Vote" Act turns even more Orwellian 

Yet more Americans disenfranchised:

Many overseas Americans - possibly thousands - may not be able to vote in this year's presidential election because of an omission during the latest round of U.S. electoral reform, according to U.S. officials and organizations representing Americans abroad.

Left out of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 were young Americans who have never lived in the United States but who do have U.S. citizenship through an American parent.

While some states allow these youths to register at the voting address of their parents, more than three-quarters of the states do not, leaving a significant slice of U.S. citizens abroad effectively disfranchised as they come of age.

"There is no federal legislation on this at present," said Polli Brunelli, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. "The states are the ones who administer elections. They pass the laws on voting."

Gee, I wonder if there are more disenfranchised voters in Red States or Blue States? What do you think? Let's look:

Twelve states allow Americans who have always resided abroad and are children of U.S. citizens to use a parent's voting address, Brunelli said in a telephone interview from Washington. The states are Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Organizations representing Americans abroad put the number of civilians overseas at 4.1 million.

Of those, the number who have always lived abroad and have turned 18 since the last presidential election in 2000 - when overseas absentee ballots became an issue in the Bush-Gore count - is unknown.

"There could be thousands in that category," said Lucy Laederich, a Paris-based nonpartisan advocate for overseas Americans. "But of course we'll never know until we're counted in the census."

fawco.org has a full panoply of information about voting for overseas Americans, with links to many other sites. www.fvap.gov is the official site of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
(via The Herald Trib)

A razor thin election, and yet more Blue State voters disenfranchised. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Can we get some international monitors for election 2004?

Memes and the memo 

An interesting sample from Reuters. Content aside:

K.B. Forbes, a Republican operative who has worked on the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes, said most undecided voters would make up their minds on the election in September and October, by which time the memo would be a footnote.

"I don't think it's politically damaging. What is hurting Bush much more than this is the quagmire in Iraq," he said.

(via Reuters)

Looks like the reporter has been reading the blogosphere, doesn't it? "Operative", "quagmire"....

I also love the way that the SCLM goes to Republicans all the time for "objective" advice. Working on the principle that this is just disinformation, it looks like the memo must be really hurting Bush. And why wouldn't it?

Things must be really bad: President earpiece is holding a news conference! 

And in other news, Xanax stocks are up.

As he further defended his administration's actions prior to Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush said Monday that he would answer questions surrounding the information in a pre-Sept. 11 intelligence memo in his first press conference of the year Tuesday night
(via WaPo)

Iraq insurgency: Bush's rhetoric of "tough" 

OK, you want to read my sympathetic post on the guy, go back.

Snark.

Mode.

ON!

From Dear Leader:

We're plenty tough and we'll remain tough.
(via WhiteWash House)

Where to begin? Who ever said toughness was the essential here? Has being "tough", all by itself, ever done any good? Don't honesty and intelligence count? I don't care if the President is a wuss or fucks goats, as long as he leaves the country in better shape than he found at—and at this Bush has been a miserable failure

Bush is confusing being tough with being vicious. We all know Bush is vicious and vindictive toward those he sees as enemies: McCain, Plame, Iraqi insurgents—it's all the same to Bush.

But Bush, tough? When he just got rolled on the PDB? I don't think so.




Iraq insurgency: Getting our supply lines in order 

A top priority:

The military has been trying to regain control of supply routes after several convoys were ambushed at least 10 truck drivers kidnapped. Nine were released, but an American -- Thomas Hamill of Macon, Miss. -- remained a captive.

On Monday, a convoy of flatbed trucks carrying M113 armored personnel carriers was attacked and burned on a road in Latifiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad. Witnesses said three people were killed.

A supply truck was also ambushed and set ablaze Monday on the road from Baghdad's airport. Looters moved in to carry away goods from the truck as Iraqi police looked on without intervening.

An attack on a convoy Sunday killed a Romanian working for a security company, Romania's ambassador to Iraq said. Two German security guards were killed on a highway last week, prompting Germany to urge all of its citizens to leave Iraq on Monday.

Securing roads has now become a top priority for the military, U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Monday.
(via SF Chonicle)

Funny thing: I remember our supply lines being vulnerable a year ago in the war—all the way from the gulf up to Baghdad. I sure hope the cities Sadr seized weren't, you know, strategic or anything....

NOTE The Agonist has a good round up.

Good question! 

And asked by a Republican, James Pinkerton:

If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?
(from Newsday via Josh Marshall)

From drip, drip, drip to splash, splash, splash....

Bush at prayer 

Bush's words:

And today, on bended knee, I thank the good Lord for protecting those of our troops overseas, and our coalition troops and innocent Iraqis who suffer at the hands of some of these senseless killings by people who are trying to shake our will.
(via WhiteWash House)

There's a lot I could say about Bush's words, but I want to focus on the act of prayer itself. Let's look at how one author with enlightenment values (Shakespeare) portrays a ruler at prayer, and what it means for a ruler to pray. Bear with me for the long quotation: I think it's important and revealing.

[KING:] O, my offence is rank it smells to heaven; ...
         Then I'll look up;
My fault is past. But, O, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn?
'Forgive me my foul murder'?
That cannot be; since I am still possess'd
Of those effects for which I did the murder,
My crown, mine own ambition and my queen.
May one be pardon'd and retain the offence?
In the corrupted currents of this world
Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law: but 'tis not so above;
There is no shuffling, there the action lies
In his true nature; and we ourselves compell'd,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.
What then? what rests?
Try what repentance can: what can it not?
Yet what can it when one can not repent?
O wretched state! O bosom black as death!
O limed soul, that, struggling to be free,
Art more engaged!
Help, angels! Make assay!
Bow, stubborn knees; and, heart with strings of steel,
Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe!
...
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.
(via href="http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.3.3.html">Hamlet, Act III, scene 3)

I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and take his claim that he prays seriously, seriously.

All the same, I doubt very much whether Bush's prayers are efficicacious.

"May one be pardoned and retain the offense"? Bush starts a war, politically timed, fuelled by lies, run by operatives from his party, benefitting party contributors, and used for political purposes to portray him as a "war president." That's "retaining the offense," in my book. If the Lord is keeping the troops safe, it isn't because Bush is praying for them.

"Oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself / Buys out the law: but 'tis not so above." The tactics that worked so well for Bush in Florida won't work when Bush prays.

"We ourselves compell'd, Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, to give in evidence. " Bush can't stonewall the Lord, or tell him he'll only talk with Dick Cheney by his side, or give the Lord only one hour.

"What can it when one can not repent?" Bush never apologizes for anything; but that is a sign of a deeper character flaw: he isn't capable of repentance. How much would it have cost him to say what Clarke said before the 9/11 commission, and ask for forgiveness? Nothing. And it would have been a political masterstroke. But he can't repent.

"O limed soul, that, struggling to be free, / Art more engaged!" This is an exact description of a quagmire, or should I say qWagmire: the more Bush struggles, the deeper he gets. Sad but true: Bush's spiritual quagmire is mirrored in our Iraq quagmire.

You know, I started out this post by calling Bush's prayer a "shameful piece of sanctimony," and then I that out. Reading Shakespeare's words, I almost feel for Bush, as much as one can feel for a Shakespearean villain. No wonder Bush looks "drawn and somber" (here. King Claudius probably did too. Like Claudius, Bush seems to think that the outward form of "kneeling" will be efficacious in itself, when in fact prayer is inward.

"Words without thoughts never to heaven go."

No, they don't. And now, of course, it's too late for his words to mean anything. You know, they call Hamlet a tragedy for a reason....

UPDATE Alert reader pansypoo asked for the Macbeth reference. It was back here (check the links ;-).

White House Releases Second PDB 

Washington (AP) -- Seeking to stem a rising tide of incredulity, the Bush Administration released a second President's Daily Briefing today, to show reporters what National Security Advisor Condi Rice meant by describing them as "historical", with "no actionable items." The latest one is a copy of today's PDB, and unlike the August 6, 2001 PDB, unredacted.

President's Daily Briefing and Word Jumble for April 12, 2004

Soviets Determined to Achieve Supremacy in Outer Space; Suspected Islamists Determined to Bomb Oklahoma City Federal Building

Today in History


  • Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin became the first human being to travel into space. During the flight, the 27-year-old test pilot and industrial technician also became the first man to orbit the planet, a feat accomplished by his space capsule in 89 minutes. He orbited Earth at a maximum altitude of 187 miles and was guided entirely by an automatic control system. The only statement attributed to Gagarin during his one hour and 48 minutes in space was, "Flight is proceeding normally; I am well."
  • The Civil War started. No foreign involvement suspected.

True Americans Born on this Day

  • Vince Gill
  • Tom Clancy

Also this Month

  • On April 19, 1993, members of a Texas faith-based group trying to exercise its First and Second Amendment rights were killled in cold blood by jackbooted thugs from the Clinton Administration.
  • Exactly two years later, terrorists exploded a home-made bomb outside the Alfred R. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of people including children.
  • Although some concluded from the coincidence that the attacks were in revenge for the earlier killings in Texas, and although two American men were convicted in the attacks, suspicions remain of Islamist involvement. Currently there are 70 investigations underway seeking to establish this connection, both within government agencies and in the press. Although no evidence has been found, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as we know.


Today's Word Jumble
NMOAIUMM TIRNTEA

________ _______

PSUNTKI

_______


Connect the Dots

Draw a line connecting the items in Column A with the correct item in Column B
A                                                        B
Saddam Hussein                              Oklahoma City
                                                        World Trade Center 1993
                                                        9/11
                                                         Joe Wilson

Your Fortune

You work hard and have the respect of all god-fearing true Americans. You've earned a vacation.


George: Do you bring an umbrella when it looks like rain? 

[BUSH] "There was not a time and place ..."

Well.

I don't think George takes an umbrella with him when the forecast calls for rain. Weather forecasts often use percentage chances, don't give specific times (4:13 pm) and specific places (George's neighborhood).

A big tip of the Corrente hat to alert reader midderpidge!

Totally Awesome Teen Tales 

And other great momemts in minor development.

[snip] "Hi its been a long time my dad got fired from his job becuz of librals and then we had to cut off the internet too but now we're back since my mom and dad both work at mcdonalds opposite shifts plus my dad works overnights at a kinkos store. George Bush is awesome for creating a country where there's so many jobs that people can have two at the same time! I do not know how people complain about the jobs in america because the jobs are like so everywhere if you are not lazy and go look for them and you aren't a girl who doesn't get married and has libral sex and a baby." [snip]

Most likely to become a right wing radio talk show host.
Go read some more at: Angry 15 Year Olds For Bush


Sunday, April 11, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Our CEO President 

Is this the worst alibi you've ever heard, or what?

[BUSH] "There was not a time and place of an attack," he said. "It said Osama bin-Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that."
(via VOA)

Sheesh. No one ties up the package for him with a nice pretty bow?

Let's play a little word substitution game (original here):

The document, entitled "Drug Dealers Determined to Saturate Crawford" ... said the Texas Rangers had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in Crawford consistent with preparations for dealing Xanax and other prescription drugs, including recent surveillance of clubs and bars in Crawford, Austin, and Waco."

Now, we know about about the proclivities of the Bush twins (a picture should be here, but I can't bring myself to post it).

And so does Bush.

So, faced with this report, what does Bush do? Take a nap, or maybe shake the tree a little? Maybe call the twins in, and ask them about their party plans for the next few evenings? Oh, there's that word... Plan... What was I thinking?

Fortunately, it seems that the press isn't buying the Bush spin, according Editor and Publisher. Perhaps the whores have turned....

Howell Raines on our parade 

From the print edition of the May 2004, Atlantic we have these words of wisdom from deposed Times editor Howell Raines:

The Times's image as a bastion of quality had become even more important as tabloid television, Britain's declining newspaper values, and the unsourced ranting of Internet bloggers polluted the journalistic mainstream of the United States.

Well.

Remarkably, Howell Raines manages to write a very long apologia for his ceaseless efforts to revitalize the Times newsroom without mentioning Whitewater (Jeff Gerth), the coverage of Gore in Election 2000 (Kathryn Seelye), or WMD (Judith "Kneepads" Miller), let alone the Dunciad-reminiscent prose stylings of the post-Raines "public editor," hapless and overworked Daniel Okrent.

Are they so arrogant and ignorant that they think no one is keeping track?

Memo to Howell: Read The Daily Howler.

Memo to the blogosphere: When we can work out a funding model, we'll eviscerate the Times. The "sources" of which Raines is so proud are, after all, the same 1,500 who laughed at Bush's sick jokes about WMDs.

NOTE For good Times coverage, see The A1 Project. Howell: If, as you profess, you still love The Times, you should read that too.

Bush sees Iraq war as a religious war 

That's what Bush dynasty members say, anyhow. And they release this news on Easter, yet. Disgusting!

Ask Bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and George W. Bush's Christian faith and you get some strong answers.

"George sees this as a religious war", one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.
(via LA Times)

Feel safer now?

The insurgents see the war as a jihaad.

Bush sees it as a crusade.

Mirrror images, anyone? And when you place two mirrors opposite each other, what happens? The reflections go on forever. Just like Bush's (very profitable) war will.

What we need is a not a war on terror but a Campaign Against Fundamentalism—at home and abroad. Of course, the wingers at the Hoover Iinstitute who shared this noxious little tidbit with us think that "Even those who don't share Bush's religious convictions should see them as a good thing. His faith compels him to wrestle with ethical questions that less religious men might simply ignore." Oh, I have to stop typing now, my head is exploding.

UPDATE As alert reader Rook reminds me: FTF.

UPDATE A-and another thing: America's most vicious and vincdictive political dynasty is in charge of a blood feud in the Middle East? In what part of their base feels is the End Times? The mind reels....

Iraq insurgency: Anatomy of a clusterfuck 

I said I wouldn't use the word "clusterfuck," but there doesn't seem to be another word that's quite as appropriate.

Let's watch the self-sucking ice cream cone at the CPA in action. Some of it will seem very familiar! Here are some of the juicy details from WaPo:

"There was a conclusion early on that this guy [Sadr] was trouble and needed to be contained," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition he not be identified by name. "But there was not a clear plan on how to go about it."
(via WaPo)

"No clear plan." Sound familiar? Of course, the RNC-infested CPA has plenty of plans for shovelling money at well-connected Republican firms, back. But for managing an occupation? Zip, zilch, nada!

But the overall commander for the Middle East at the U.S. Central Command, Gen. John P. Abizaid, was hesitant to move on Sadr out of concern that arresting or killing him would simply elevate his stature, the officer said. Moderate Shiite clerics also advised the occupation authority against an arrest.

The people who will have to risk their lives, and the experts in the field, raise caution flags. Sound familiar?

With the planned handover of sovereignty less than 100 days away, political officers within the occupation authority called for more aggressive efforts to disband Sadr's militia

"Political officers." Translation: Republican operatives with their eyes on the November election. Sound familiar?

When Bremer ordered the shutdown of al-Hawza, there was no intention to use force to apprehend Sadr or leaders of his militia, according to occupation authority officials familiar with the decision.

One U.S. official said there was not even a fully developed backup plan for military action in case Sadr opted to react violently. "In hindsight, it was a huge mistake. The best-case scenario was that he would ignore it, like the earlier threat, or that he would capitulate. The worst case was that he would lash back. But we weren't ready for that."

There's no plan, but owing to political pressure, they go ahead anyway, hoping for the best. In fact, the worst happens. Sound familiar?

At the time, occupation authority officials figured that Sadr had between 3,000 and 6,000 militiamen, only 2,000 of whom were armed fighters -- a figure that turned out to be a vast underestimate. "We were relying on the most optimistic predictions possible", the official said.

The intelligence was bad, and the numbers were wildly optimistic. Sound familiar?

And while top officials may not have been familiar with military details, one senior administration official said that Washington had repeatedly advised Bremer and U.S. commanders in Iraq to ensure they were prepared for trouble if they went after Sadr.

The WhiteWash House and the DOD play cover-your-ass when things go bad. Sound familiar? (When in fact, given the fact that the CPA in Baghdad's "Republican Palace" is an arm of the RNC, there is certainly a back channel from Bush and Rove right to Bremer, and it's doubtful he makes any moves without getting the OK straight from the top. "Plausible deniability, don't you know.")

[The same day that Bremer closed Sadr's newspaper] in an unrelated incident, four American civilians working for a private security firm were ambushed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades as they drove through Fallujah.

"Unrelated incident," eh? Maybe. It would still be nice to have some real detail on what (those unfortunate) men were doing in Fallujah. That delivering food story doesn't ring true to me.

As soon as word of the incident reached Baghdad, "it was clear we would have to deliver a serious response," a senior U.S. official said. "We were going to have to do something significant to clean up the town."

So the CPA used the incident to do what it had wanted to do all along. Sound familiar?

Instead of de-escalating, the Americans kept increasing the pressure on Sadr. On Saturday, April 3, U.S. forces arrested Yaqoubi, Sadr's top deputy, on charges of involvement in the killing of Khoei, the Shiite cleric.

"We didn't choose the time for the uprising. The occupation forces did. It's clear that by arresting Sheik Yaqoubi and closing the Hawza newspaper, they wanted to provoke the Shiites," Tarfi said. "We didn't want to choose this time for the uprising."

Looks to me like Bush and the CPA operatives decided if it was going to happen, it had better happen now—before the November election. It's just that they weren't competent to execute what they had decided on. Sound familiar?

And so a cycle of violence begins. Many Americans will die. Many more Iraqis will die. But for the Republican operatives and companies that are part of the Iraqi self-sucking ice cream cone, the violence will be very, very profitable. In fact, for them, worse is better. Up to the point where they clear out with the cash and leave the mess for the Democrats to clean up. Sound familiar?

UPDATE And in related news, Bush gives prayer a bad name.

"I pray every day there are less casualties. but I know what we are doing in Iraq is right, right for long-term peace, right for the security of our country," Bush said.

"It's hard work. I thank the Good Lord for protecting those of our troops overseas and our coalition troops and innocent Iraqis suffering at the hands of these senseless killings," he added.
(via Reuters)

Oh please.

Iraq: Maybe they want their country back? But there is a plan, and that's not part of it 

From a nice piece by Naomi Klein in the ever essential Nation. Forgive the long quote, but in fact there is a plan, and Iraqi sovreignty isn't part of it. Here it is:

As the June 30 "handover" approaches, Paul Bremer has unveiled a slew of new tricks to hold on to power long after "sovereignty" has been declared.

Lots of privatization.
Some recent highlights: At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution.

Assuming that Sistani, who has Bush by the balls (back), and regards himself as a source of law in his own right, accepts this "prohibition," of course.

Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licenses the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."

Which is too bad for the Iraqis, since the mobile network our pigs at the trough are forcing on them won't work.

The CPA has also confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4 billion the US government is spending on reconstruction will be administered by the US Embassy in Iraq. The money will be spent over five years and will fundamentally redesign Iraq's most basic infrastructure, including its electricity, water, oil and communications sectors, as well as its courts and police. Iraq's future governments will have no say in the construction of these core sectors of Iraqi society.

Well, we'll have to start over again with the Police. It looks like a lot of them have vanished into the militias, carrying the weapons we thoughtfully gave them.

Retired Rear Adm. David Nash, who heads the Project Management Office, which administers the funds, describes the $18.4 billion as "a gift from the American people to the people of Iraq." He appears to have forgotten the part about gifts being something you actually give up. And in the same eventful week, US engineers began construction on fourteen "enduring bases" in Iraq, capable of housing the 110,000 soldiers who will be posted here for at least two more years. Even though the bases are being built with no mandate from an Iraqi government, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations in Iraq, called them "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East."

This paragraph is the money, I think. The bases, and a Status of Forces Agreement with some Iraqi government, any Iraqi government. For "at least two years," read "indefinitely." Saudi Arabia must be a lot more unstable than we're being told... And right astride the oil and the pipelines. Any doubts now as to why the Iraq war was fought?

The US occupation authority has also found a sneaky way to maintain control over Iraq's armed forces. Bremer has issued an executive order stating that even after the interim Iraqi government has been established, the Iraqi army will answer to US commander Lieut. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. In order to pull this off, Washington is relying on a legalistic reading of a clause in UN Security Council Resolution 1511, which puts US forces in charge of Iraq's security until "the completion of the political process" in Iraq. Since the "political process" in Iraq is never-ending, so, it seems, is US military control.

In the same flurry of activity, the CPA announced that it would put further constraints on the Iraqi military by appointing a national security adviser for Iraq. This US appointee would have powers equivalent to those held by Condoleezza Rice and will stay in office for a five-year term, long after Iraq is scheduled to have made the transition to a democratically elected government.

There is one piece of this country, though, that the US government is happy to cede to the people of Iraq: the hospitals. On March 27 Bremer announced that he had withdrawn the senior US advisers from Iraq's Health Ministry, making it the first sector to achieve "full authority" in the US occupation.
(via The Nation)

Eesh. The Iraqis get to handle the injured, the dying, and the dead, and everything else is for us. Anyhow, that's the plan. Where to begin?

The June 30th date is clearly meaningless except as a photo op for domestic political consumption. The Iraqis really don't have any sovreignty before or after that date, since the entire country is being run by the CPA.

The whole exercise is probably the biggest exercise of the spoils system in the history of the world. The RNC is running the CPA (back), and through the CPA is running the reconstruction effort, and funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars to Republican-connected firms, all without any significant budgetary oversight. And the RNC is running the mercenaries (ibid), also Republican-connected, who have formed the world's largest private army, without any oversight either. This doesn't look a lot like democracy to me, but then maybe the Republicans genuinely believe it does. Who knows?

And given that the entire exercise depends heavily on foreign contractors to build the bases, build the embassies, build the wireless networks, train the policemen, redesign the courts, et cetera, et cetera, it looks like the insurgents are doing the strategically savvy thing by targetting them, and the tactically smart thing too, since the contractors don't tend to travel in tanks or wear body armor.

So expect the hostage-taking, the kidnapping, and the shootings to keep getting worse. (Sorry, contractors, but as it turns out that's why the pay was so good. Some of you may be genuinely in it for good, but Bush has made sure you won't be seen that way.) All this will play very badly on domestic TV (as opposed to Al Jazeera). So look for the CPA, when more of those images show up on our enabling SCLM, to defend its operatives by further embroiling the regular military in its, well, quagmire. Fallujah is, then, a prototype not only for the insurgents, but for us. "Bring it on...."

Bottom line for me is that the whole CPA is a cancer not only on Iraq but on the American body politic, given that it's a self-sucking ice cream cone infested with Republican operatives. If and when Kerry gets elected, one of his jobs will be to cut this cancer out, if it's not too late.

UPDATE Alert reader smiley (George Smiley?) points out that permament bases in the Mideast have always been part of the PNAC blueprint. So obvious I forgot to point it out....

Iraqi insurgency: Helicopter shot down in Baghdad 

More proof that we're winning:

Insurgents shot down a U.S. Apache attack helicopter in western Baghdad Sunday, according to a U.S. military spokesman, killing its two-member crew.
(via WaPo)

Too bad the crew can't go fishing, eh George?

Saturday, April 10, 2004

Whiney Joe to David "I'm Writing As Bad as I Can" Brooks: I'll always be here for you. 

Disgusting. Brooks quotes Lieberman as if Whiney Joe were somehow either responsible or a representative Democrat. Man, there's nothing lower than trolling for media coverage in Brooks's column, is there?

And I think I'll put in this quote from Brooks: "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up."

Two reasons:

First: To lay down a marker for when we know that Bush's policies have totally ... Well, make up your own coarse expression.

Second: This means that the Shi'ite Sistani has Bush by the balls, right?

Oh, and third: Kos—targetted and abused by wingers, operatives, and the overly pliant for his very success—got this analysis spot on from the word go, when nobody else was saying it: Sistani is the one with whom we must ultimately make a deal. Maybe Bush should have Karl make a call...

Iraq insurgency: Some unfiltered information 

A letter from an unnamed contractor, via Josh Marshall:

The fighting two nights ago was loud and widespread throughout the northern and northwestern parts of Baghdad ... areas such as Yarmouk, Sadr City had almost continuous gunfights and rocket attacks. When we heard US forces using the main gun on M-1 tanks at 1 AM we knew it was serious insurgency at hand. ... There was a report of a massive ambush by one security firm that tried to drive in from Amman. Reports have 25-40 gunmen opening up on them. They lost all of their vehicles and had to be given a mercy lift by a passing Iraqi minivan. ... The abductions of the Japanese hostages is a sign that we have entered a new phase of bad as abduction requires a permissive environment for the hostage taker.
(via here)

A new phase of bad... Eesh.

General Kimmet is wrong if he thinks that he will destroy the Badr brigade or Sadr Army as a military organization because there isn't really one ... he will disperse them into small, highly armed teams of friends and ... voila! Al Qaeda-Iraq or Hezbollah-Iraq will be borne in numbers we will not be able to control. Since the ICDC [the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps] seem to have run off and joined the opposition in Nasiriyah it may reflect the true loyalties of the new Iraqi army and Police. No one is going to cross their family, tribe or religious community for the Americans.

Leaderless resistance.... You'd think the wingers would understand that....

The correct answer is to back off, leave Sadr alone and start to throw lots of money into jobs projects and utilities for the south before this summer's electricity and gas shortages ... will that work? Probably not. But we have just antagonized the core of the Shiite resistance and putting them to work is better than letting them fight us 24/7.

An actual policy prescription. I don't think the operatives in the "Republican Palace" are going to go for "jobs projects" in a big way, though, do you?

Don't sign this petition! 

It calls for Bush not to accept the nomination in 2004. And there are several Republican signers. As one of its authors writes:

Core Republicans are experiencing an Oh Shit Moment where they are realizing that Bush could actually lose the election. Even though the polls for the last month have indicated a close race between Bush and Kerry, core Republicans have always believed their candidate would prevail in the end.
(via Smart Genes Weblog)

I like the idea of an "Oh Shit Moment" for Republicans. (Seems like some RNC hacks are feeling that way: "Mr. [Roger] Stone, who worked to help Mr. Bush win the Florida ballot fight in 2000 [said:] "While the conduct of the war was probably a plus for the president, it now has the potential to be a negative."

We want the Republicans to lose, right? Since only a Democrat can start to undo the damage the Republicans can do. Like cockroaches in the ktichen cabinets, it isn't so much that they're there, it's what they leave behind....

Text of the Bush PDB: It's money 

Is here in HTML, via The Agonist, and in proprietary PDF, via CNN.

And you know, the funny thing is, there's no money sentence. That is, there's no sentence that says: "AQ is going to hijack four airplanes on 2004-09-11 and fly them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House." So, no "actionable intelligence," right? File and forget, and get on with the vacation....

But not so fast. The entire PDB is money.

Remember the old Sherlock Holmes story?

HOLMES:... And the curious incident of the dog in the night.
WATSON: The dog did nothing in the night.
HOLMES: That was the curious incident.


So, what are the curious incidents in the PDB? In fact, there are two:

1 There are no action points in the memo. There is no plan. We know that the intelligence people "had their hair on fire" over the summer about AQ chatter. (Read Clarke's book, or see here.) And here's a memo all about AQ, and there's no plan for dealing with AQ. In a CYA town like DC, that's almost unheard of. And if the memo doesn't have any CYA in it, that means there was no pressure from Bush to do anything. Otherwise, the action points would have been there. Bush's passivity here is almost surreal. (Bush's defenders keep sliming Clinton for an inadequate response on the AQ-attacked USS Cole. All the more reason for action points in this PDB!

2. There was no followup. The widows keep asking for it, and noone can show it, for the good reason that there wasn't any. Here again, Bush is almost surreally passive.





NOTE For background, back here and here.

Yep, we negotiated with 'em. So they aren't terrorists, right? 

Wonder how many phone calls to Crawford this took?

The US-led coalition and insurgents in the Sunni bastion of Fallujah agreed to a 12-hour ceasefire beginning today at 0600 GMT (1600 AEST) after six days of fierce clashes which claimed the lives of hundreds of people, an Iraqi mediator said.

However, the insurgents threatened to kill a presumed American citizen unless the siege of the Sunni Muslim town was lifted in the latest example of their new tactic of kidnapping foreigners to win concessions on the ground and put pressure on US allies in Iraq.

"The two sides have agreed to observe a 12-hour ceasefire tomorrow, Sunday, at 10am," or 0600 GMT (1600 AEST), a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Hatem al-Husseini, said.

"This will pave the way for the gradual pullout of US Marine troops from Fallujah," Husseini said after a meeting with coalition officials in Baghdad on his return from the mediation talks in the town west of the capital.

A senior coalition spokesman had no comment on the negotiations but said a statement would be issued later today.

The apparent breakthrough came after the coalition suspended offensive operations in Fallujah and offered the talks.
(via The Age)

Weird. We offered the talks.

So tell me again what our policy is here? Did we get the "bad guys" in Fallujah we started this thing for? Have we arrested Sadr? And why are we negotiating with his army if we want to arrest him, or did we flipflop on that?

So tell me again why the war in Iraq should make me feel safer? 

From drip, drip, drip to splash, splash, splash:

Americans are also increasingly concerned that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration has increased the risk that large numbers of people will be killed or injured in a future terrorist attack on the United States. Forty-two percent of those polled now share that concern, whereas just 28 percent of those polled at the end of the last year were similarly worried.
(via Newsweek)

More blowback.

But it's OK! Since Bush has been serious about funding the first responders... Oh, wait....

Iraqi insurgency: "Negotiating with terrorists" verbiage now inoperative 

Following up on this Atrios post, it seems that the military (never mind the operatives in the "Republican Palace" in the Baghdad green zone) don't believe they are fighting terrorists, at least not in Fallujah:

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the coalition military spokesman in Baghdad, dropped references to the insurgents as terrorists and criminals - "We do not negotiate with terrorists" - and described them as likely remnants of Saddam Hussein's military.

"We believe what we are seeing in Fallujah are former military, perhaps former Saddam fedayeen, perhaps former Republican Guard," he said. "How they fight indicates military training, rather than terrorist training."
(via Knight Ridder)

Former Republican Guard, eh? You mean the guys Bremer fired, while allowing them to hold onto their weapons?

When I wear my tinfoil hat, I can almost believe this chaos is exactly what Bush wants, since he seems to be achieving chaos so brilliantly.

Iraq insurgency: Meet the new boss 

The RNC-... Oh, I'm sorry, CPA-picked Iraqi Interior Minister "resigned"—if it were the US, we'd say "to spend more time with his family"—and the RNC... Sheesh, I keep saying that, I meant to say CPA (back) immediately picked a new Interior Minister. Stirling Newberry has some useful analysis on the meaning of these latest orchestrated events:

After pressuring the old Interior Minister, Nori al Badran, to resign, military governor Bremer appointed hardliner and long time Provisional Iraqi Governing Council member Samir Shakir Mahmoud Sumaiday to the Interior Minister Post.

Mahmoud's appointment, combined with the decision to lift sanctions against weapons sales and exports to Iraq, signal that the US is going forward with preparations for an all out "Iraqetization" of the occupation, with the intent of equipping the police force. Sumaiday is a proponent of an appointed new Iraqi government, a "security first" policy and a refusal to negotiate with violent or even dissident elements in Iraq.

However, taken together, his public statements paint a clear picture as someone who has been unwavering in toeing the US line on Iraq, and an active and charismatic spokesman for it. His promotion to Interior Minister sends a clear signal that the US intends to escalate, not negotiate, through he current crisis.
(via The Agonist)

Though I must say, it isn't clear who to negotate with, or what to negotiate about. Perhaps Bush had decided, as President Clinton did in the context of a far more slow-moving coup, "We'll just have to win, then."

Incidentally, Sistani has his own militia, and they're still on the sidelines. What's up with that?

President Vacation flipflops the flipflop of the original flipflop and releases the PDB 

On Easter Saturday, yet, as alert reader Xan points out. Details:

At the demand of the 9/11 commission, the White House made public on Saturday a classified intelligence document from a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that told President Bush of al Qaeda plans to attack the United States with explosives or hijack airplanes.

The document, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States" ... said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
(via Reuters)

Airplane (dot!) ... Hijack (dot!) ... Buildings in New York (dot!)....

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice insisted in her public testimony to the 9/11 commission last week that the memo contained mostly historical information and did not warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Her account could be contradicted by the fact that the memo included information from three months beforehand that al Qaeda members were trying to enter the United States for an attack with explosives.

Maybe to Condi three months is history.... Anyhow, President Vacation reads the memo, and ... Takes a long nap, and goes back to cutting brush.

Operation Mellifluous Footwear continues! (back).




One tank: $100,000,000. One grenade: priceless [update] 

More proof that we're winning:

A U.S. tank was set on fire on a highway west of Baghdad on Saturday and locals said it had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by a 10-year-old boy.
(via Reuters)

The problem with asymmetrical warfare is that, well, it's asymmetrical.

No, but seriously. If our invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought happiness to just one small boy...

UPDATE Leah reminds us to check out 1 Samuel 17:49.

TROLL PROPHYLACTIC: Yes, I'm sorry the troops in the tank are in danger. And I'm even sorrier they were put in that position by the fecklessness and strategic masterminding of President Vacation (back).

UPDATE Kerry's reaction to this incident:

“I saw on television before I came in here, the images that have not been as present as they might be to Americans, they're the images of a tank being hit by a rocket, RPG, the images of the wounded—our soldiers—our young men, scrambling out of the tank, bloody. That is the price of serving your country. We honor, every single one of us here today, we come here today first and foremost to say to our troops how proud we are of them, how grateful we are for their service to country, and how much we support them even as they carry out a difficult task at a difficult policy. No matter what our feelings about the war, we support the troops.''
(via MSNBC)

Damn straight. And who made the policy so goddamned "difficult"?



Spit in the Ocean 

Atrios points us to the news that the Pentagon is recognizing reality and is going to request more troops. This being the Bush Administration, of course, there's the fine print:

Abizaid told reporters in Iraq he wanted several thousand more troops, and indicated they may come from the 3rd Infantry Division, which only returned from its last Iraq deployment six months ago.

How sick is this joke? Earlier this week, while I was in France, Le Figaro quoted an analyst with Jane's Defence Weekly about the necessary U.S. response to the burgeoning revolt (no link, sorry). Advised the analyst: send in overwhelming force. "The first rule of counterinsurgency is that more troops you have, the fewer deaths you suffer." According to Jane's analyst, the conventional metric would dictate at least 500,000 troops in Iraq. We currently have 135,000.

Bush is sending in a few thousand. How long before people wake up to the lethal incompetence we've unleashed on ourselves?

"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." --Catch-22

Reading Terminal: Philly shoots itself in the foot yet again 

So I'm blogging away, enjoying the Reading Terminal's new WiFi facility—and recharging my battery.

And a security guard walks up, and tells me I can't be plugged into the wall.

"Why?" I ask.

"Because it's wireless."

"That doesn't apply to the wire running into the wall! Can I talk to your supervisor?"

And so the supervisor comes over.

"Why can't I plug my computer into the wall?" I ask.

"Because you aren't paying for the electricity."

"Can I give you a quarter?"

"It's a policy."

"It's a stupid policy. I'm not going to spend my money here if I can't do this. Why did you get the WiFi installed? Can I talk to the marketing director?"

"I'm the marketing director. I'm the head of security."

Well. In some ways, no big thing. The security people were perfectly good humored and courteous. But it's still a stupid policy. I could be writing a laudatory posting about the Reading Terminal Market, just like I did last Saturday, hoped to this Saturday, and for many Saturdays to come, and instead I'm writing this.

Sheesh. Looks like I need to write to info@readingterminalmarket.org, attention "Kelly Novak," about how stupid this policy is. Readers, especially if you're from Philly, please feel free to write too.

"Bring it on!" 

They are, aren't they?

Editor and Publisher on Judy "Kneepads" Miller 

It's a three-ring circus! After Miller gets done clowning, Okrent comes on, and then Sulzberger. And none of them talk about the circus elephant: The way the Times, and so much of the SCLM, enabled the Iraq war by serving as "house organs" for Bush.

so far the public editor has looked the other way in failing to comment on the damning recent statement by Sulzberger on the Miller/WMD controversy. It constituted an indictment of the way he, and Miller's editors, saw her role in covering WMD and the war from "the inside" (reported at E&P Online, March 22).

Sulzberger admitted that Miller's sources were wrong "absolutely." But then "the administration was wrong ... So I don't blame Judy Miller for the lack of finding weapons of mass destruction. I blame the administration for believing its own story line to such a point that they weren't prepared to question the authenticity of what they were told."

Well, if [Miller's sources] weren't going to question themselves, wasn't it the role of the press to question them -- instead of so often acting as stenographers for inside sources and defectors? No one is blaming Miller for not finding WMD in Iraq (though she tried mightily while she was there), but rather for hyping their existence before and after the war. The Times too often swallowed the government's narrative on these weapons of mass disappearance.

And some high-placed intelligence analysts (not to mention other members of the media and vast numbers of the American public) surely believed in the authenticity of what the Times was telling them. One imagines a circle of blind animals, linked to one another: The Times tied to the tail ohttp://209.11.49.220/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000477825f the government which was tied to the tail of Iraqi defectors who were tied to the tail of the Times.
(via Editor and Publisher, from American Leftist)

A "circle of blind animals" ... Well put.

Fortunately, all the institutional problems that led of Miller's stenography have now been fixed, and current coverage of the Iraq war, the 9/11 commission, and the various criminal investigations under way against the Bush administration are in no way affected. Oh, wait...


Iraq insurgency: Contractor captured, held hostage 

More proof that we're winning:

Television footage on Saturday showed an American, apparently a civilian, being held hostage by Iraqi guerrillas.

Britain's Sky News aired film from Australia's ABC showing the man saying he had been seized after a convoy was attacked.

The Pentagon had said on Friday that several civilian contractors and two U.S. soldiers were missing after a military fuel convoy was ambushed on the main highway west of Baghdad.

"They attacked our convoy," the American said, sitting beside a hooded gunman in the back of a car before it sped off past a burning tanker truck on a major road.

In Washington, a Pentagon official said he was aware of the footage but could make no further comment on it. Up to four civilians may be missing after Friday's convoy attack, he added.

"I had as few as two and as many as four. But I haven't any hard numbers on contractors unaccounted for," he said.

Civilians are widely employed by the U.S. military in Iraq, as truck drivers and security guards among other tasks.
(via Reuters

This whole concept of privatizing the war isn't looking so good now, is it? Maybe the "largest mercenary army in the world" (See "Republic of Mercenaries," back) could go in and rescue the guy... Or maybe not...

NOTE As usual, get your war coverage (the Iraqi war, I mean) from The Agonist.

More troops to Iraq: Rummy to Abizaid: "Thanks for your input, now I'll decide." 

Sigh... Those cakewalkers just don't want to let go, do they?

U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid has requested more forces for Iraq and was discussing plans Friday with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a senior defense official confirmed.

Abizaid told reporters in Iraq he wanted several thousand more troops, and indicated they may come from the 3rd Infantry Division, which only returned from its last Iraq deployment six months ago.

Pentagon officials said it was unlikely the 3rd ID would be called up so quickly.

The senior defense official said Abizaid's request was too specific for a warfighting commander to make. The forces Abizaid gets will be decided on by the Joint Staff in Washington. He is supposed to limit his requests to capabilities and Washington decides, based on scheduling and skills and equipment, how to fill those requirements.

Rumsfeld promised this week if Abizaid wanted more forces he would get them.
(via UPI)

Funny we need to do this to fight some bitter-enders, isn't it?

Remember how Shinseki was ridiculed and humiliated by exactly the same Washington cakewalkers who are now deciding for Abizaid? Sheesh!

Hey, here's an idea! Why don't we give a few (more) billions to Blackwater, and let them fight the whole thing?

NOTE For some very nice quotes on the cakewakers being very publicly wrong see the as-ever excellent Kos.

Iraq Insurgency: Iraqi Governing Council tottering 

An Iraqi "vocal supporter" just turned against us:

As the U.S. sought to stamp out uprisings across central and southern Iraq, its civilian administrators faced a different kind of turmoil in Baghdad.

A Shiite member of the Iraqi Governing Council, Abdul Karim Mohammedawi, suspended his membership in the 25-member body and four others threatened to follow suit to protest what they described as collective punishment of Fallouja residents by Marines.

"We condemned U.S. military operations in Fallouja which [were] a form of mass punishment in response" to last week's killing and mutilation of four U.S. security contractors, Adnan Pachachi, a senior council member, told Al Arabiya television. Pachachi has been one of the occupation's most vocal supporters.
(via LA Times)

Man, we can't even hold onto the stooges....

NOTE Excellent analysis from Billmon here.

The War President 




(for larger image visit: Michael Moore)

Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill
Speak to the hungry of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.
--Bertolt Brecht

NOTE For the original artist and mirror sites, see back here.




Bush flipflops the flipflop on the PDB 

Bush is a meta-flipflopper!

The classified briefing delivered to President Bush five weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks featured information about ongoing al Qaeda activities within the United States, including signs of a terror support network, indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives, according to sources who have seen the document and a review of official accounts and media reports over the past two years.


The information on current threats in the briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," stands in contrast to repeated assertions by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration officials as recently as this week that the document is primarily historical and includes no warning or threat information.

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, which has demanded that the 11/2-page document be declassified, referred to it in a March 24 report as "an article for the president's daily intelligence brief on whether or how terrorists might attack the United States."

White House officials, after indicating Thursday that the briefing document could be declassified within a day, announced yesterday that they were delaying any release until at least next week.

"We are actively working on declassification and are not quite ready to put it out," said Sean McCormack,
(via WaPo)

It takes a while to fill up a slime bucket as big as the one they'll need to beat this one.

"Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says" 

Well, well, well.

WASHINGTON, April 9 — President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

A "government official"—Deep Throat2?

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions ...

Masterful understatement!

that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.
(via The Times)

And now Bush is on vacation again. Impeachment, anyone?

Calypso Fly Swat Jamboree 

The best posts are the ones that write themselves. Or better yet, the ones that someone else writes for you. Which is exactly the case as it applies to the following entry from MJS. Plus, you can dance to it.

SWAT THE FLIES AND SHAKE THE TREES
by MJS

I was shaking the trees when a monkey fell out
He landed hard and he started to shout:
"Why everybody always messing with me?
I’m just a stupid monkey in a stupid tree!"

I was swatting at flies when the monkey came round
He got real mad and he jumped up and down:
Why everybody got to remind me
I need a fly swatter and a strategy!

(chorus)
Come on down now, come on down
Come on down now, come on down
Swat at the flies that are buzzing around
Swat the flies and shake the trees
That stupid monkey just do what he please

I was drinking a soda in the Lone Star state
Looking at the sky and thinking of fate
Just then a monkey on the radio station
He say: Don’t ask me nothin’ when I’m on vacation.

I was dodging a bullet in the sands of Iraq
I was hoping my buddies had covered my back
Just then a monkey fell out of they sky
And gave us fake turkey and a plastic pie

(chorus)
Come on down now, come on down
Come on down now, come on down
Swat at the flies that are buzzing around
Swat the flies and shake the trees
That stupid monkey just do what he please

I was shaking the trees when a monkey fell out
He landed hard and he started to shout:
Why everybody always messing with me?
I’m just a stupid monkey in a stupid tree

I was swatting at flies when the monkey came round
He got real mad and he jumped up and down:
Why everybody got to remind me
I need a fly swatter and a strategy!

(repeat chorus)

Lyrics by MJS.

Friday, April 09, 2004

5:00 horror: Bush flipflops on the PDB 

Like we knew he would (back):

The Bush administration announced Friday that it would declassify a top-secret presidential briefing paper [, titled ""Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,"] that outlined the threat from Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

It remained unclear whether the entire document would be declassified or the government would black out certain sections, claiming national security requirements.

"It comes from the most sensitive sources and methods that we have as a government," Vice President Dick Cheney [in2002, when the document was first requested]. "It's the family jewels, from that perspective."
(via Miami Herald)

Dick "Dick" Cheney's "family jewels"? Eeew....

And isn't it great that all the "foreign leaders" the wingers and their MWs were whining about can see that Bush can be rolled? Now that's really great for the country, isn't it?

"Bush Administration Says Voting Was Free From Fraud" 

In Algeria ...

Still, the kind of headline I like to see! (via AP)



The Days Of Our Lives 

This day, Tresy has returned from Paris. We may love Paris in the Springtime, (and we do) but we love Tresy all the days of our lives.

And now to two of our Friday not-regular features:

TODAYS QUESTION: Who said or implied that there was a "silver bullet" that could have prevented 9/11, by which, to be completely clear, we mean what happened on that day in 2001, and do not mean could have prevented the date or the day themselves from happening?

ANSWER TO TODAY'S QUESTION: No one. Absolutely no one. Mention of a "silver bullet" in relation to 9/11 occurred only in Condi Rice's rhetorical answer yesterday, during her public testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission, to a non-existent accusation.

TODAYS RIDDLE:

If 233 is the answer, what are the questions?

Okay, it's a trick question. Here's a hint. Yes, there are two correct answers.

Another hint: If 78 is the question, what is the answer? Or, if 5 is the answer, what is the question? Last hint: If 500 is the answer, what are the questions? Yes, there are two correct answers to that one, too.

If we were as classy as the NYTimes Sunday Crossword Puzzle, we'd withhold the answer until tomorrow.

But we ain't, so here are the answers:*

233 is the number of days the Bush administration had been in office on the morning of 9/11, 2001; to be absolutely clear, that number does not refer only to that morning; the entire day was their 233rd day in office. For the reference see Condi Rice and at least one of the Commissioners.

233 is also the number of days since taking office that President George W. Bush has spent at his Crawford Texas ranch.

78 is the number of visits since taking office that he has made to Camp David.

5 is the number of visits since taking office that he has made to the family manse in Kennebunkport.

500 is the number of total days, thus far, that President Bush has spent in visits to these three "retreats."

500 days is also 40% of the number of days, thus far, that President Bush has been in office.

Please note: farmtoons accompanying illustration can be found here

We apologize if we may have seemed excessively tendentious in our phrasing of this post, but we are blogging under oath today. Exactly what oath we are, unfortunately, unable to specify in a PG-13 world, and on this, a family blog.**

*Answers courtesy of Josh Marshall and the WaPo.

**This is a family blog in the sense that all who post here are members of their own families, we like to think of Corrente and its readers as one kind of family and blogtopia, (thank-you skippy) itself as a proudly post-modern extended family that includes all manner of humankind, elfkind, hobbits, all animals, all non-vertebrates, all manner of flora and fauna, the oceans and all other waters, rising and not rising, the very planet itself, and all the rest of the universe. ***

***Andrew Sullivan liberal idiocy or liberal self-parody prophylactic: This statement is a willful exaggeration (see also irony, parody, and satire) of liberal inclusivity, though it is true that I loved the three Lord of the Ring movies, am inordinately fond of animals, wild and domesticated, plants as well as foodcrops, cultivated and uncultivated, as well as the planet itself and its human inhabitants, in the sense that Gary Snyder means in his brilliant little book, "The Practice Of The Wild," and I love a fair number of those humans; I'm not that fond of the universe - fascinating yes, but also awfully scary.

Updated for numerical accuracy: the correct number should have been 233, not 322. I win the booby prize.

UPDATE See farmer's portrait of President Vacation.

Red and blue 

Excellent analytical material here, on a series originally published in (where else...) the Austin American-Statesman.

Laugh along with aWol 

Jay Leno:

"The White House Easter egg hunt will be open to the public, but President Bush will not be there. How embarrassing would that be? It's bad enough he can't find weapons of mass destruction, what if he can't find any Easter Eggs either."

"President Bush has begun his Easter week vacation in Crawford, Texas. It's part of his plan to get in touch with ordinary Americans, to see what it's like to be at home and not working."
(via Reuters)

If only it didn't hurt so much when I laugh....

Bush in the White House: The lights are on, but nobody's home 

The numbers tell the story:

President Bush spent the second straight day out of public view on his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.
(via WaPo)

Of course, I guess we can all be thankful that Bush isn't working any more than he is ....

Ben-Veniste: Grandstanding by 9/11 commission members blew it 

If they didn't lay a glove on Condi, that's because they weren't punching.

As Ben-Veniste told Paula Zahn on CNN last night: "The difficulty was, in the format [with eveh member being given 10 minutes to speak], we just didn't have enough time to go into long answers and get our questions addressed."

He added: "Our point is this. We had intelligence information regarding al Qaeda operatives. We knew about planes as missiles. The question is, if we had butted heads together, because we knew the FBI wouldn't talk to the CIA. The CIA wouldn't talk to the FBI. This is a leadership issue to butt heads together and shake the trees and get the information that was in the system into the hands of individuals who could make a difference. We didn't do anything to protect our airports.

"There were CYA ["cover your ass"] missives going out, yes, there's a potential for hijacking. But nobody did anything different."
(Froomkin in WaPo)

Condi was waiting for the tree to shake, instead of shaking the tree herself.

Kerry weighs in on Iraq: Administration gridlocked by ideology and arrogance 

It's good to hear this said at last. Also, I like the measured way Kerry is talking here.

"This administration has been gridlocked by its own ideology and its own arrogance," Kerry told about two dozen Democratic donors at a breakfast meeting. "Yes, we can succeed but, boy I tell you, it's a lot tougher."

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said President Bush should admit the conduct of the war in Iraq and the country's subsequent reconstruction "is more complicated than they thought it was."

Critics have complained that Bush rushed into war with Iraq on the advice of hawks in his administration like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and without a realistic plan for its aftermath.

Kerry said Bush had failed to minimize the risk for U.S. soldiers in Iraq as well as the cost to taxpayers.

"This administration has stubbornly refused to involve other countries in the real decision-making," the Massachusetts senator said. "I think this is a failure of diplomacy, a failure of foreign policy, a failure of creative leadership."

Kerry said the United States now had three options in Iraq.

The first -- to continue along the same lines -- would mean American troops would remain exposed, taxpayers would bear billions of dollars in costs and "we will go down a very dangerous road where the outcome is very difficult.

Option two, you could just say 'okay, you guys don't want democracy? We'll see you. We're out of here.' Not acceptable, because nobody believes that we are better off with an Iraq that is unstable.

The third alternative -- what Kerry called the "smart" approach --- was to reach out boldly and clearly to the international community, explain their stake in not having a failed Iraq and give them real say in its transformation.
(via Reuters)

He's talkin' sense, Merle!

And Bush will reach out to anyone else when hell freezes over. Looks to me like the June 30 deadline is a fig leaf for option 2: "we're outta here." As usual, Atrios is right: We need to find something that works."

Readers, what do you think of Kerry's options? Are there others?

UPDATE Comment from alert reader SW:

Option #2 isn't a Bush option. They are building 14 permanant bases. We might cut and run regarding the pretense of reconstruction the country. But there is no way these guys are giving up their bases. The bases are why they fought the war. Getting someone to sign the treaty granting basing rights is the only purpose for the interim government that we are going to "hand off" soverignty to 9/30. So we are never leaving Iraq. They've got Gitmo in their eyes.

See Chalmers Johnson's The Story of Empire on this point.


Friday cat photos 

A little old, but still timely!

An elaborate Neolithic burial site uncovered in the Shillourokambos settlement on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus reveals that the friendship between cats and humans may go back 9,500 years. Prior to the discovery, Egyptians were thought to be the first to keep cats as pets, around 2,000 to 1,900 BC.

Scientists, who published their findings Thursday in the journal Science, say a skeleton of a young cat was found just a few inches from the remains of a human, buried in a similar fashion.
(via CNN)

And the cats weren't listening to us back then either (unless they wanted to, of course).

Paris in the Springtime 

Boy, look what happens when you go away to Paris for 2 weeks to catch a little RnR.

Watching the US screw up from a foreign vantage point is an interesting experience. First thing you discover: the rest of the world goes on. While the French press amply covered the disintegrating situation in Iraq, the main show was its own confrontation with the privatization and austerity policies of the Chirac government, reaction to which recently catapaulted the Left into the catbird seat in regional elections. If you want to see what vigorous public debate on domestic economic issues looks like, watch the French when their cherished social safety net is threatened. I realize (and so do the French, from the amount of play that foreign reaction to the anti-"reform" vote got in its own press) that with unemployment rate over 9%, a VAT of 19%, and public debt exceeding EU limits, the French may arguably be in a state of denial about the need for change.

But you know what? From what I could tell, they don't much care what the outside world thinks. And one has to admire a country that can actually drive the President to roll back at least one austerity measure because of its adverse effect on "young artists." As Tom Frank scathingly points out in the current Harper's, in America the Right can be on the verge of rolling back every progressive reform instituted since Teddy Roosevelt, and the very regions and sectors being decimated will vote to return the Right to power, as they have at every opportunity over the last 20 years. Thank you sir, may I have another?

Who's in denial?

There was also extensive, nearly obsessive coverage of the 10th Anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, and the extent of French complicity in the tragedy. I'll go out on a limb and guess there was nearly no such coverage in the US press, despite ample reason for self-criticism on our part.

From what I could tell, the semi-official French stance on our unfolding catastrophe in Iraq is one of genuine horror at the human tragedy and apprehension at the implications for the world economy. But it's hard to miss the self-desconstructing discourse of an editorial in Le Figaro reflecting this stance, headlined "Don't Taunt the Americans," which in the course of advising its readership to resist "Schadenfreude", couldn't help but recall that France pretty much advised, based on its own unhappy colonial experience, that this would happen. Still, Le Figaro insisted that fingerpointing be put aside in favor of supporting constructive solutions that recognize the critical importance of a stable Iraq to the world at large. Whether this is to include adding troops to Iraq, however, as the delusionary minds in our government seem to hope for, I very much doubt.

Meanwhile, meta-coverage of our own press "coverage" of the Falluja atrocities marveled at its willingness to self-censor the worst images for the sake of not repeating the Somalia experience, and unduly undermining the war effort. As one article drily observed, it's hard to maintain the official line about "foreign terrorists" and "dead enders" if you display footage of children kicking charred corpses.

As for the French "war on terror," obviously I can only speak from anecdotal evidence, but for the record, every subway and railway station trash can has been nailed shut, and street-level trash cans have been replaced by transparent plastic garbage bags. Every railway station is continually patrolled by teams of uniformed soldiers toting military assault weapons. Ubiquitous signs advise citizens to report any unattended parcels, which citizens seem to do: the Musee d'Orsee was evacuated while we were there for just this reason.

Meanwhile, while standing in line at Customs in the Atlanta airport yesterday, I was able to discard my sandwich wrapper into a lovely metal trash can.

Then again, as Condi was testifying at more or less the same time, "no silver bullet" can stop a terrorist attack.

President Vacation 





BUSH: "I can't swat at flies anymore." (via Condi here).

Now we know why!

NOTE Thanks to The Agonist for the snappy headline.

UPDATE The latest lyrics from MJS "Swat the flies and Shake the Trees," up here.



A little reality therapy on the jobs numbers from Paul Krugman 

We all should have thought of this as soon as the numbers came out. Where's our war room?

For perspective, it helps to remember what solid job growth looks like. During Bill Clinton's eight years in office, the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average: a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were 23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy added 493,000 jobs. This tells us not to make too much of one month's data; payroll numbers are, as economists say, noisy. It also tells us that by past standards, March 2004 was nothing special.

And we should be seeing something special, because our economy should be on the rebound. Bad times are usually followed by big bouncebacks; for example, last year long-suffering Argentina had the fastest growth rate in the Western Hemisphere (8.7 percent!), not because of the excellence of its economic policies, but because it was recovering from a severe slump.

America hasn't had an Argentine-level slump, but we have a lot to recover from. After three years of lousy job performance, we should be seeing very big employment gains — and even after last month's report, we're not. It would take about four years of reports as good as the one for March 2004 before jobs would be as easy to find as they were in January 2001.
(via The Times)

We're still too easily intimidated....

Bush has now managed to unite the Shi'ites and the Sunnis 

We always knew he could do it!

Anbari, like other Sunni clerics, insists that while the insurgencies may reinforce each other, they do not share a command. "There is no connection. Each is its own phenomenon," he said. "But finally both of them are aiming for the benefit of the country, because the enemy is the same."

The notion of occupier as enemy appears to be spreading here. Several Baghdad residents said they were responding to the Fallujah appeal with the urgency and resolve seen after a catastrophic natural disaster. As appeals issued from the minaret loudspeakers, hotel workers, security guards and businessmen listened intently to the call for assistance to "the good people of Iraq who are facing the fire of coalition forces," then returned to work wearing solemn expressions.

"We don't need a call from the mosque," said Mohammed Najem Mausoumi as he gave blood in Kadhimiya. "A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim. This is the real Islam."

Like others in the cheerfully crowded tent, he bristled at being asked whether he was Shiite or Sunni.

A few moments earlier, Wan, the elderly contributor, had done the same. "Muslim!" she shouted, stamping a foot for emphasis. "Mohammed!"

The Sunni-Shiite divide, already narrower in Iraq than in some parts of the Muslim world, is by all accounts shrinking each day that Iraqis agree their most immediate problem is the occupation.
(via WaPo)

Well, when Bush comes back from vacation I'm sure he'll take care of it.

NOTE Kos (as usual) has excellent analysis, interpreting this as the beginning of a true Iraqi nation-state. Who knew?

Down the memory hole with Fat Tony 

Of course, Scalia never wants anything taped ("plausible deniability") except he forgot to announce that at this particulular event.

A federal marshal guarding Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ordered two reporters to erase audio recordings they were making of Scalia's speech to a group of high school students in Mississippi on Wednesday, prompting protests from local journalists who said they were victims of official interference with the press.

"I find it very curious where a Supreme Court justice spends a significant amount of time talking about the Constitution, he seems to omit the part about freedom of the press," said Jon Broadbooks, executive editor of the [Hattiesburg] American. "What authority does the marshal service have to try to confiscate reporters' tape recorders?"
(via WaPo)

None whatever, Jon. Your point?

In the Light of the Silvery Naked Moon! 

John Gorenfeld has the Rev. Syung Myung Moon's latest post "cornonation" caper which features a recent photo of the majestic Rev. Moon hisself dressed up like some guy from one of those old Emperial margarine commercials. Also includes a link to a fundraiser dinner where the True Parental unit heaps chicken-ala-king onto that Jesus shoutin' hillbilly Roscoe Bartlett's banquet plate. Harold Ford Jr. too. (yeeks - what's with that guy?)

Plus, there's some nudity stuff and sex stuff too.

By all couples sleeping naked together will get rid of all homosexuality. In the night everything will be unified into one.


Cool. Just like sophmore year in college. At least back in the mid-seventies. Before there were homosexauls. Well, maybe there were one or two hairy-backed fruits chasing Andrew Sullivan around the Boatslip in P-Town, but that was about it. Otherwise, no, but lots of cheap Ludes! And 40 cent Buckhorns! Cheap Ludes and 40 cent Buckhorns and skinny-dip swimmin' with bow-legged women! Where do you think two thirds of the current suburban population of Columbus, Ohio came from anyway. Huh?

Well, that was back when you could feel confident about sleeping naked with just about anything over the age of 16 wearing a halter top or a Foghat T-shirt. Sadly, those halcyon days are gone, by and by, and I myself no longer sleep naked with anyone at all anymore - ever. Including Mrs. Farmer who was carted off by the UPS "man" (who I had always warned was a night feeding homosexual) several years ago during a freakish ice storm. Ever since that cold barbaric nordic evening I have slept in a pair of Kangaroo Upland Bird Boots and a warm pair of neoprene socks, one on each foot, so that I can easily flee in the dead of night, in the event homosexual teenage girls come for me too, and try to charm me with cheap quaaludes or force me listen to Grace Jones records!

"In the night everthing will be unified into one."

Beware the tuxedo Moonie. Flee in the night. Flee in comfort. Flee in Neoprene!

*

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Bush about to flip flop on PDB 

You know, the one presented to Bush at his "ranch" with the title "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Members of the commission, who have been allowed to read the August 2001 report but have not been allowed until today to discuss most of its contents, joined unanimously on Thursday in calling for the entire document to be declassified and made available to the public.

In response, the White House said it was hurriedly trying to declassify the report, and White House aides said it could be made public as early as Friday, an extraordinary reversal by the White House given its insistence a year ago that the contents of the President's Daily Brief were so highly classified that they could not be released even to the commission.
(via NY Times)

Extraordinary? What's extraordinary about (a) Bush caving and (b) using classification to cover his ass, all the while claiming he's acting on principle, and then (c) throwing the principles overboard when the heat gets too great?

Bush lied, people died 






Thanks to American Leftist. (This site doesn't seem to make individual posts addressable, so scroll down to "Sunday, April 04, 2004". There are fullsize images there, and mirror sites.)

Via The Poorman via Sisyphus Shrugged.


Republic of Mercenaries: Large part of the Iraqi war completely privatized—and completely out of control 

I can't believe today could get any weirder, but it has.

Under assault by insurgents and unable to rely on U.S. and coalition troops for intelligence or help under duress, private security firms in Iraq have begun to band together in the past 48 hours, organizing what may effectively be the largest private army in the world, with its own rescue teams and pooled, sensitive intelligence.

"There is no formal arrangement for intelligence-sharing," Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command headquarters in Baghdad, said in an e-mail in response to questions. "However, ad hoc relationships are in place so that contractors can learn of dangerous areas or situations."
(via WaPo)

Ad hoc? WTF? Sounds like plausible deniability to me.

There is no government vetting of contract workers who carry weapons. "The CPA has let all kinds of contracts to all kinds of people," said one senior Defense Department official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject. "It's blindsided us."

Combine that with the this Letter from a contractor (via Atrios) about Ugly American behavior from the mercenaries, and you get a very, very ugly picture.

Wait 'til one of these cowboys blows up a bus with pilgrims in it...

NOTE For more on Iraq mercenaries, and how they are being run by Republican operatives see back here.

How to fight the Qaedasphere? 

I don't know, but the first step is surely understanding the enemy, which Bush, Condi, Rummy, Cheney and the rest of the gang have consistently failed to do.

"It's a loose network of the willing," a Marine colonel lately returned from Baghdad told me Wednesday. "We are a hierarchy, so we look for other hierarchies to fight. But it's clear that what we are facing in Iraq is network-based. There's no one leader or leadership -- just like the first Palestinian intifada against the Israelis. That was a network of local groups who were able to give the appearance of a national movement. You can deal with that, but it takes maybe 10 years. We can't even plan for the next two months."
(via Alexander Cockburn in Salon)

Leaderless resistance, eh? Why the heck can't the wingers understand that?

Lots of other good stuff in this article. Get the Salon day pass.

Republic of Mercenaries: Get your mercenary gear! 

From the Blackwater Pro Shop.

Yech. Though on the other hand, why not appropriate the imagery? (via TBogg).

Bush diplomacy: Piss all over them, then demand their help 

Is this pitiful, or what?

The United States has asked more than a dozen countries to join a new international military force to protect the United Nations in Iraq, a proposal critical to persuading the world body to return there after two massive suicide attacks against its Baghdad headquarters last year, State Department officials said.

Washington has approached France, which led opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as India, Pakistan and other nations that were reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq, U.S. and European officials said. The list includes "a good global mix," said a State Department official familiar with the proposed force. But no Arab countries or neighbors of Iraq are on the list, with Turkey notably absent.
(via WaPo)

Asking for help from the cheese-eating surrendur monkies... Oh, heck, that was just a little towel-snapping, Jacques! All in fun ... And that "old Europe" stuff? Well, you know Rummy... And the UN—we're all paid up now, right? No? I'll put Condi right on it....

Perjury! 

We know that Bush took time off from massaging contributors in Crawford today to phone Condi and tell her she did a great job. But he didn't say at what. Whatever it was, it wasn't lying, 'cause these lies aren't any good at all!

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
(via CAP)

Of course, if it were something important, like a blow job....

Readers? Any lawyers out there who can say whether this is perjury as opposed to just liking? It looks like a direct contradiction to me, and she was under oath.

From Crawford, Bush panders to so-called "hunters" 

I guess if you've got $20,000 dollars free you can call yourself a sportsman or whatever you damn please.

Bush roamed his 1,600-acre ranch with about 20 representatives of hunting and fishing groups.

But one of the current president's own aides has strongly criticized the practices of one of the hunting groups visiting the ranch on Thursday.

Matthew Scully, a presidential speechwriter, accused Safari Club International of mistreating animals in his 2002 book, "Dominion."

The club's members pay up to $20,000 to hunt elephants, lions or other animals, either abroad or in American "safari ranches," where the animals are penned in by fences.
Scully said the organization turned nature "into an endless theme park and the creatures into so many animatronic figures."

Scully did not return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment.
(via AP)

Heh. Wonder how long Scully's going to keep his job?

The Widows rip Condi a new one 

It was Condi's job to get the information

MATTHEWS: You once said that she was either lying or she’s incompetent. What do you think of her now? Do you think that’s still a fair judgment, I mean if it ever was one?

BREITWEISER: I have to say, with a laundry list of questions that that Commissioner Lehman asked her, she said she didn’t know a lot of things. And I would question what exactly did she know? And if she didn’t know it, who else would know it?

It’s her job to know that information. It’s her job to relay that information to the president and to actually, in our opinion, inform the public.
(via MSNBC)

Condi had to have known that airplanes could have been used as missiles

MATTHEWS: Let’s go through the points mentioned.

Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.

BREITWEISER: Not only the Atlanta Olympics, but they were doing workups for the Utah Olympics. So you know what? How does she not know that? You take the G8 Summit…

Unasked and answered question: Why no meetings to "shake the trees"?

KLEINBERG: Right. And the other thing that strikes me is that they’re talking about the FBI and the CIA not speaking to each other. Historically, that has been the case. What I don’t understand is that, considering that we knew that there was this threat, OK, why they didn’t have them in a meeting?

You know, Richard Clarke said that during the millennium plot, they had all of the principals involved in a meeting together to make sure that they could overcome that stone wall. Why couldn’t we do that? And why did they poo-poo it and they say no big deal and we didn’t need the meeting? How did they know that? Maybe if the FBI, the CIA, and the attorney general and everybody was in one room and they were talking about all of the issues – and where the threat was coming from-- they would have been able to pull at these threads.

Unasked and unanswered question: Why weren't the fighters scrambled?

MATTHEWS: I want to talk to you about the people who may have dropped the ball.

VAN AUKEN: Well, my first reaction is there’s another part to Condoleezza Rice’s statements, which was that they were focused on traditional hijackings. And they did nothing to thwart a traditional hijacking on that day either.

So when a plane misses its mark in the sky – you have a very crowded Northeast corridor – you can’t have errant planes running around there. Nobody sent up a fighter jet to go see what was happening, not to shoot the plane down, but to intercept it. So I don’t understand, if they were focused on traditional hijackings and even had that as a warning inside the PDB, why they were so slow to respond.

Unasked and answered questions: How did some officials know to stop flying?

LORIE VAN AUKEN, WIDOW OF 9/11 ATTACK: We also know that people stopped flying domestically. Ashcroft stopped flying. Pentagon officials stop flying the day before September 11. They were warned not fly on September 11. We think San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly. That’s all domestic. You know, everybody keeps telling us how they were focused outward.

MATTHEWS: You’re talking about before 9/11 they were warned?

VAN AUKEN: Yes. Yes, right.




Fact checking Condi's ass 

Nice to have this in the same news cycle!

Thanks, Center for American Progress (via Atrios).

Say, how's that perjury charge against Richard Clarke coming? 

Condi: Waiting for the tree to shake, instead of shaking the tree 

I guess this glossary thing is catching on. Slate's William Saletan has a good one: "Decoding Rice's self-serving testimony". My favorite:

Chance: Factors that the administration couldn't be expected to influence because they were non-systematic. Example (answering charges that the administration might have disrupted the 9/11 plot by holding regular Cabinet "principals" meetings on terrorism): You cannot depend on the chance that some principal might find out something in order to prevent an attack. That's why the structural changes that are being talked about here are so important. Synonym: Lucky. Example: I do not believe that it is a good analysis to go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by "shaking the trees." … We had a structural problem.

Bottom line: They didn't have the information because they didn't make it a priority to get the information. Just like Clarke said (back here).

First Thoughts on Condi 

Blame The Clenis™!

"We believed very strongly that an inadequate response would embolden the terrorists"—or words to that effect.

This in response to Gov. Thompson's half-assed question meant to give Ms. Condi a chance to alibi why the Bush administration had absolutely no response to the Cole bombing. Granted it had happened on the Clinton watch, but only two months before they left office, and they passed onto the Bush administration their policy, which was well along in establishing on an "actionable" basis that Al Queda and Osama were to be blamed, and such action would have included following through on their strategic previous promise to the Taliban that were there to be another attack, like the Cole, that could be tied to AQ and Osama, the Taliban government would be held responsible and be the object of direct sanctioning action, including possible military action.

Note that once the Bushies had the confirmation that it was the usual suspects, which had to be early in their administration, they did nothing - nothing strategic, nothing tactical. That was the distinction Condi made for Sen. Kerrey when he also asked about the Cole. Essentially, the Clinton administration had determined that they too needed to frame a strategic response to the Cole, for which they needed to pin down responsibility to the Afghanistan based Taliban, but they ran out of time. The Bush administration at the highest levels—Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy, and Condi—decided a response to the Cole profited them nothing, and they didn't need to worry about getting criticism because Clinton could always be blamed.

Note the assumption that whatever was good for the Bush administration was what was good for America. Note also, that their lack of response did not keep them and their surrogates, and with Condi's testimony today those at the heart of this administration have to be included here, from blaming the Cole on Clinton, and basking in the ignominy that accrued to their predeccesors' so-called lack of response, though their lack of response was based on better intelligence than the Clinton administration had, but for exactly the same reasons. Audacious arrogance!

"You cannot depend on the chance that something will fall out of an agency, a meeting, or whatever the hell those stupid Clinton people claim they were doing when they were at THEIR so-called battlestations," or words to that effect.

This at the end, in response to Thompson. Yes, but what you can depend on is that nothing, no information, no dots to be connected, will fall from nothing, from no meetings, from a total lack of attention.

Condi revels in heaping scorn on "process," that favorite of the do-nothing Clintons; that process is substance and substance is process is too post-modern for Condi; maybe why she doesn't see that saying what your policy is, talking about grand strategic visions, "framing" arguments are not the same, though not unrelated to, TAKING ACTION! The Clinton battlestations had worked to thwart any AQ attacks on American soil for the eight years following the first Trade Center bombing; maybe until they had their own doubtless superior battlestations up and running, it wouldn't have been a bad idea to continue some of what had worked for the previous administration.

Note also how meaningless were those daily briefings of the President by CIA chief Tenant. And not because of any fault of the President necessarily. The Clinton administration's daily meetings at the next level down made more sense.

The emphasis on the August 6 briefing of the President by Condi in Crawford is amusing - as if anyone really expects this President to connect any dots on his own. If Condi et al didn't connect the dots, they weren't going to be connected.

Initial response to this morning: Condi seemed defensive, had clearly come with talking points she looked forward to using to gain control of the hearing. She looked combative, contemptuous; where was all that charm - or do they just mean her smile, which I'll give her, is an exceedingly nice one. And note that she gave them exactly three hours and not a minute more. The rightwing will revel in her contempt for this process and the Commissioners tasked with carrying it out. I don't think most other Americans will. I don't think she beat back Clarke, and I don't think this is over.

One indication - MSNBC has the four widows on right now, and they are ripping all kinds of new orifices in Condi's testimony. Mindy Kleinberg has just asked the question that even if no dots could be connected before 9/11, what about that morning, what about the President finally hearing that two different airplanes had crashed into the WTC, wasn't that the time that any decently prepared administration would have finally had to connect the dots, in which case, why did President Bush read a story to a class of children?

More later: let us know what you thought.

Clarke on Condi: She proves my point 

They didn't have the information because they didn't take the trouble to get the information. Important, just not urgent.

Clarke: Well, Peter, I was asked by Senator Gorton if the adoption of the strategy in February, as opposed to September, would have stopped 9/11, and I said no. And Dr. Rice said no. I think we agree on that.

The adoption of the strategy would not have stopped 9/11. What I've said might have had some effect on 9/11 would have been if Dr. Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.

And frankly, I think that Dr. Rice's testimony today, and she did a very good job, basically corroborates what I said. She said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet.
She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. And as some of the commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.


So I don't see that there are a lot of factual problems with what Dr. Rice said.

There are one or two other minor points here or there that I think are probably wrong, but overall I think she corroborated what I said. She said it was inefficient to bring the Cabinet members together to have them work to stop the attacks that they had been informed were coming.
(via ABC)

Wham!

While Crawford slept ....

Rice transcript 

9/11 Commission: Bush still suppressing documents 

First, Bush hides them. Then, he tries to suppress them. Then he flipflops and says he'll release them. The commission goes through them and says what it wants. Then Bush flipflops again and holds some of them back. Stonewall!

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks announced yesterday that it has identified 69 documents from the Clinton era that the Bush White House withheld from investigators and which include references to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and other issues relevant to the panel's work.

The White House turned over 12 of the documents to the commission yesterday, officials said. But 57 others, which were not specifically requested but "nonetheless are relevant to our work," remain in dispute, according to a commission statement. The panel has demanded the documents and any similar ones from the Bush administration.
(via WaPo)

Meanwhile, the WhiteWash House says they're "continuing to cooperate." Man, if this is cooperation, I wonder what resistance looks like? Come to think of it, I do know. They haven't actually tried to arrest any Democrats yet, like they did on the House floor last year... Yeah, cooperation....

Condi-lie-zza under oath: An instant "gap analysis" from Walter Pincus 

Walter Pincus chatting:

Toronto, Canada: You wrote that there were some gaps that critics would pursue. What were the most glaring gaps, in your opinion?

Walter Pincus: One obvious gap is just what the Aug. 6 PDB said about FBI concerns about then current al Qaeda highjacking talk and what was done about it. Another was what followup came after the July 5 meeting she had with Clarke where the commissioners have been told the warning about a spike in terrorist threats never was passed down the line to FBI field offices, for instance. And what did Chief of Staff Andy Card do to follow up.
(via WaPo (live))

And because of the deal Kean made to get Condi to testify, they can't call her (or anyone) back, to reconcile the gaps. And people call this commission partisan?!

So how's Condi doing? 

Feel free to post the play-by-play here.

And watch for the questions (back) ....

UPDATE Now they tell us. The Pulitzer-impaired World's Greatest Newspaper (not!) found space on its front page for an article about sushi this morning, but not for a guide to Condi's appearance before the 9/11 Commission. Sigh. Anyhow, they've published one now.

UPDATE Rice weaseling:

Rice said that when the Bush administration took office, the emphasis was on continuity, and several Clinton national security officials, including counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, were retained. But she did not attempt to directly rebut Clarke's charges that the Bush administration did not take the terrorist threat as seriously as the Clinton administration had.

Commissioners grandstanding:

The panel decided in a closed-door meeting last night that each member would have about 10 minutes of questioning and that they would proceed in alphabetical order, several members said. The approach is a departure from the commission's previous practice of appointing two lead questioners who had more time than the others, and reflects the members' desire to be aggressively involved in the high-profile hearing.
WaPo

The problem is, that you can't accomplish very much in 10 minutes. Bad idea.

Families applauding as a PDB gets read from (an old one, though):

Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, was the first of the 10 members of the bipartisan panel to challenge Rice, focusing particularly on a briefing given to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at which a document was presented entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

As members of the audience, including some family members of 9/11 victims applauded, Ben-Veniste demanded that the report be declassified. He said even its title had been kept secret until now. Rice said it contained no specific threats.
Retuers

Which Condi says is "old reporting."

Condi, your point?

The point is not that the information was not in that report. The point is that the administration didn't believe it was urgent enough to follow up on. It's their job to figure out what imformation is important, and go get it!

Condi (if she isn't lying) seems to think of herself as a passive consumer of intelligence: if it isn't "actionable," she does nothing. Where was the plant to get actionable intelligence? Well, the man with a plan had to wait eight months for a meeting....

A taxonomy of lying 

From CNN here, Rutgers law professor Sherry Kolb:

This quote stings:

Suppose that -- as many suspect has already occurred with respect to the Iraq War -- our executive branch officials lie to the American people in order to motivate important votes, and those lies lead to unnecessary and unwanted death and injury.

In that case, such lies, whether under oath or not, should be treated as the crimes that they are and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



The news hook is Condi testifying under oath. I wonder why?

Explosions inside the Green Zone 

Retrain your attention here 

Say hello to Approximately perfect

Oh. My. God
A picture of John Ashcroft made entirely with little photos of porn people.


There's an oily lubricant joke there somewhere.

Hey! Remember when we were all going to be retrained to work in high paying high tech gizmoparks on whirring computers and learn how to plug one fancy gizmopark into another fancy gizmopark and deliver lusty bid'ness to bid'ness "services" to whoever the hell wanted that crap in the first place? And then - all retire to our all humming networked wonder homes in the Pacific Pallisades at the age of 45? Rememeber all that bullshit? So we all went out and got ourselves a heapin' helpin' of retrainin' and relearnin' and gizmopark accessorizin' including plowing through reams of imbecilic computer-lingo techno-jibberish HELP! books written by functional illiterates who couldn't compose a coherent sentence if their reproductive organs depended on it - and all that? Whatever. Well, forget it. Its time to git retrained in something else.

I'm not yet sure what that something else is but I have a feeling it might involve ringing doorbells and asking some poor tired bastard hiding inside if they've heard the good news; Jesus Holyrollin' Christ is coming, and I have a little booklet written by functional illiterates that I'd like you to read right now.

Or, maybe we'll all be retrained as porn stars? In either case, your reproductive organs may depend on it!

Oy.

Visit: BUS CAMPAIGN LIES: and read....... Bush Campaign Lie #22: The Bush Plan Will 'Double the Number of Workers Receiving Job Training'.

*

Night of the Condi 

Condolizzard Rice channels her inner reptile in preparation for today's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

When The Music's Over (rearranged)

What have they done to the earth? - Ravaged and plundered And ripped her - And bit her - Stuck her with knives - In the side of the dawn - And tied her with fences - And dragged her down

I hear a very gentle sound - With your ear down to the ground - We want the world and we want it, We want the world and we want it, now - Now? Now!

Persian night! babe - See the light! babe - Save us! Jesus! Save us!

Turn out the light - For the music is your special friend - Dance on fire as it intends - Music is your only friend - Until the end - Until the end - Until the end

With apologies to The Doors

*

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

A Republic of Mercenaries 

Excellent analytical post on Iraq mercenaries by Kathryn Cramer.

Did you know that "British mercenary firms now qualify as the UK's most lucrative export earner from the country in the past year"? I certainly didn't.

Of course, in our country, mercenaries both foreign and domestic are
run by Republican operatives.

Maybe this is what is meant by becoming a service economy...

Condi-lie-zza's "mindset" excuse; How stupid do they think we are? 

I have to say, if Condi, her handlers, and (now that Bush is vacationing once again) Acting President Rove think this piece of spin is going to win for them, they should think again:

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice plans to testify tomorrow that the Bush administration was acting in a pre-Sept. 11 mindset in its efforts to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and must be judged in that context, administration officials said yesterday. (via WaPo)

So, she agrees! The Bush adminsitration's focus on states prevented them from seeing the real menace clearly—or listening to anyone would could have set them straight.

It's their job to get into the right mindset.

And then, in their post-9/11 mindset.... They invaded Iraq.

And here we are. I don't care if she she sings like Condi-lie-zza Minelli...

And for those of you who will be able to follow along at home, here are the questions the 9/11 "Family Steering Committee would like Condi to answer. Let's see if any of them get asked. Here's a good one:

5. After the revelation of the Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing which warned that terrorists may hijack planes, you explained,

“It was an analytic report that talked about UBL’s [bin Laden's] methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.
It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense and, in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives.” LINK

Comment: Al Qaeda attacks have one goal--- killing as many people as possible, usually in a spectacular way. Further, al Qaeda’s attacks are often lethal, well-planned, simultaneous strikes against symbolic or high-profile targets. Those characteristics are inconsistent with the conclusion that the most likely scenario would be hijackings in the traditional sense, especially when coupled with bin Laden’s declaration in 1998 that "every American should be a target for Muslims,” and that it is “the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill British and American citizens." LINK

Please describe the analysis of al Qaeda methods of operation and what bin Laden had done historically which led you to conclude that an al Qaeda attack would be simple hijackings?

Good question! I certainly hope Condi's handlers have prepared for it, and I hope someone on the 9/11 commission asks it.

Iraq insurgency: Sunnis and Shi'ites joining forces, while Sistani calls for calm 

More doubleplusungood news:

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, issued his first official comments about the violence on Wednesday evening, condemning the U.S. approach to dealing with the Shiite uprising. In a written statement bearing his seal, Sistani called for both sides to pursue a peaceful resolution and "refrain from escalating steps that will lead to more chaos and bloodshed."

But across Baghdad, Sistani's moderate message appeared to have been drowned out by an increasingly vocal cry from mosque minarets for people to resist the occupation and to donate money and blood to help resistance fighters in Fallujah. In perhaps the clearest sign yet of the convergence of Sunni and Shiite uprisings, announcements from Shiite mosques called on people to help Sunnis in Fallujah, while residents of Sunni neighborhoods lauded Sadr and his followers.

Portraits of Sadr and graffiti lauding him have appeared on mosques and government buildings in Sunni towns west of Baghdad, according to Arab media reports. On Monday night, gunmen loyal to Sadr joined with Sunni insurgents in Baghdad in attacking U.S. soldiers on patrol in the first reported act of collaborative Sunni-Shiite resistance activity.

"The Sunnis and Shiites are now together," said Fatah Abdel-Razzaq, 31, the owner of a falafel stand in Sadr City, a sprawling slum of 2 million that has long served as Sadr's stronghold.

In Karbala, as with Kufa and other cities south of Baghdad, Sadr's militiamen have assumed effective control of the municipality. Black-shirted members of the Mahdi Army have taken over police stations and government buildings.
(via WaPo)

It's great that we sought out Sistani (really rather moderate) so now when we need a calming influence. Oh, wait ...

It is possible, of course, that Sadr launched his uprising because he knew he was on the way out, and so good will come of all this, since the Iraqi majority will... well, do what, exactly?

Vote for Chalabi? Well, maybe not.

Split the country into three parts? Turkey would be very unhappy about a Kurdish state, and we would be very unhappy if (say) a Shi'ite south allied itself with (nuclear capable) Shi'ite Iran, and (nuclear) Pakistan. Well, maybe not.

Let us occupy their country for the forseeable future? Well, maybe not.

What are the good outcomes from this, anyhow? Readers?

NOTE From alert reader Xan, Juan Cole gives the reasons Iraq and Iran won't get together, even if they're both Shi'ites; but then we counted on the Shi'ites never getting together with the Sunnis either ....

Well, There's Still Afghanistan To Feel Good About 

Much more to say about Iraq, but listening to Rumsfeld's afternoon news conference, yes, we're finally sending more troops, made me so angry, I have to calm down before I can have anything sensible to say.

So, let's look at the good news from Afghanistan. No, not this. Or this. Or this.

The good news is that an official report has bubbled up to the surface of media consciousness that lays out specifically the ways in which the Bush administration went for a quick, cheap, dirty victory against the Taliban, and achieved almost nothing of lasting value, not even any certainty that the Taliban is truly vanquished.

I know you knew that, but this story puts the issue back in play.

Better news even than that, Sy Hersh is all over the report, the retired military man who wrote it, and you know what that means.

Everything you ever suspected about bribing war lords and not giving a damn about putting Afghanistan back together is true.

Go read.

He's A Uniter, Not A Divider 

Something so satisfying about this headline:

"Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus"

And the reporter isn't just talking about in the last forty-eight hours.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.

Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said.

"I'm kind of hoping for regime change," one official who quit told Reuters

There's more.

Life in a democracy is so much cheerier when journalists actually do some journalism.

This wasn't necessarily an obvious story, and not particularly glamorous, but it's the kind of connecting the dots summary I surely do admire.

Props to Caroline Drees and Reuters

So much for real estate with an ocean view 

And goodbye Manhattan....

The Greenland ice sheet is all but doomed to melt away to nothing, according to a new modelling study. If it does melt, global sea levels will rise by seven metres, flooding most of the world's coastal regions.

Jonathan Gregory, a climatologist at the University of Reading, UK, says global warming could start runaway melting on Greenland within 50 years, and it will "probably be irreversible this side of a new ice age". The only good news is that it a total meltdown is likely to take at least 1000 years.
(via New Scientist)

Heck, they vote Blue... Who needs 'em ....

Say, what about AQ's #2? I thought we were going to capture him in Pakistan? 

Just asking.

Of course, all the Iraqi stuff may have gotten in the way .....

Ouch! 

This one's gotta sting:

The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone.
(via Harold Meyerson in WaPo from Atrios)

Welcome to the party, Harold...

And this one too:

"Where are the people with the flowers, throwing them in the streets, welcoming the American liberators the way Dick Cheney said they would be?" Kerry said. "This is one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."
(via Newsday


Everything Is Going As Predicted 

Doesn't the following read like a parody?

SHIELDS: In Fallujah, Iraq, four American security workers were killed in an ambush by machine gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades. A cheering crowd dragged their burned and mutilated bodies through the streets and hanged two bodies from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

SHIELDS: Al Hunt, what will be the impact of this atrocity on Iraq, on American policy and American politics?

AL HUNT, CAPITAL GANG: Well, Mark, it gives lie to the theory that we've turned the corner in Iraq or that this is -- the violence is the work of foreign Islamic militants. To watch that vitriolic, vituperative, teeming crowd cheering the mutilation of those Americans, women, you know, throwing things at the body, their shoes at the body, a 12-year-old poking the corpses, was -- was as unsettling about our future as it was repulsive to watch. And the Bush administration, thinking about its own reelection, has come up with this foolish June 30 turnover date. Turn over to whom? The Iraqi governing council, over one third exiles, has no credibility in the country. From talking to people who have been there -- and I certainly have not -- the Sunni triangle is as anti- American as ever. The majority Shi'ites have a virtual veto power, and are willing to use it, over almost anything we want to do. And we're still paying a price because Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz ignored General Shinseki, who said we're going to need more troops there afterwards.

The final, ultimate irony is the one Bush hope, the only hope right now, is that the United Nations special envoy, Brahimi (ph), can somehow negotiate something over the next six to eight weeks.

SHIELDS: Bob Novak, General Anthony Zinni, the CENTCOM command commander prior to -- prior to the war, Marine four-star general, said this will scare off international participation. We're going to find ourselves increasingly alone in Iraq.

BOB NOVAK, CAPITAL GANG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) alone right now. Anybody who thought that being an occupying power in Iraq hasn't read their history in the slaughter of the British troops in 1918 and 1919. But we are there, and this is not like Somalia under the Clinton administration, where there was a very small commitment, and you could cut and run and it wasn't even much of a political embarrassment. I would think that this would strengthen the resolve of the American people, the outrage over it.

I think, quite frankly, Democrats who take the line that -- who follow Al's line and decide they're going to make this a Bush-bashing -- Bush administration-bashing operation are making a mistake, and I think Senator Kerry, instead of limiting himself to outrage over this, saying, Oh, this is because we didn't bring the U.N. -- I think that's a political mistake.

SHIELDS: Political mistake, Margaret?

MARGARET CARLSON, CAPITAL GANG: Well, you know, America's there, America must stay. But the people who didn't read about occupying forces and what they might meet is the Pentagon, not the State Department but the Pentagon, who insisted on believing Ahmad Chalabi, who said we'd be met with sweets and flowers. The United States has never recovered from not being prepared for the aftermath of the war and taking over in Iraq. And now the wages of that are haunting us still.

And June 30 is a -- is a mirage. It just -- I don't see how it can happen because the very people that the United States would be turning it over to are the very people who bamboozled us about what we'd find in Iraq, and that's the Ahmad Chalabi and the other exiles on the Iraqi governing council.

SHIELDS: Pete King, let me ask you this. The Marines are outside of Fallujah. There has to be a necessary military response, necessary military response will inevitably involve civilian casualties and Marine casualties. Does that -- doesn't that start again a cycle of violence, I mean, the portraits of this further inflaming anti-American feeling? I mean, there's a sense that you don't know how to get out or really what to do.

KING: Well, there's bound to be some anti-American feeling, but there's going to be more if we do nothing. The fact is, we have to make the tough decision. We do have to go into Fallujah. I think the Marines will do it. It'll probably be done within the next several days.

But I also have to disagree with Margaret and Al to this extent. First of all, we can go back and debate what happened after the war, but all of the things that people said were going to happen, as far as refugees, as far as utilities, as far as these mass uprising -- did not happen. It is confined to an area. I've been in Baghdad. I've been in Mosul. The fact is, there it is relatively under control. Fallujah has been a city which we stayed outside of, and this group made the mistake of going through the town. They were not supposed to. This was an unauthorized -- they were supposed to go around the city. They went through it. It's terrible what happened. But I think we make a mistake if we say this thing is, you know, just collapsing. It's not.

Also, John Kerry -- who is he saying we should bring in? I mean, the U.N. won't come in. The French won't come in. The Germans won't come it. So it's not like people are waiting to come in and we won't let them in. And as far as the June 30 turnover date, that was a date insisted upon by the Europeans. They said there won't be any hope of getting help unless we set a date.

Now, we're still going to have our troops there, but we are going to gradually be turning it over to a government. And you know, again, I don't know what the answer is, other than what we're doing now, which I think, in the context of history, will be looked upon as the right thing to have done.

SHIELDS: More of the same, Bob? Is that the answer?

NOVAK: Well, it's -- there's no -- there's no choice to it. You see, the problem is that we're -- we're seven months from a-- from an election. It seems like seven days from an election, not seven months. And-- and there is just a tendency that whatever happens, you-- the politicians are saying, Gee, how can I -- how can I protect myself or how can I bring this to my advantage, when I think ordinary Americans out there are just outraged by this -- by this -- by this barbaric treatment, and the last thing they want is some kind of a bug-out or turning it over to the French.

HUNT: Well, we certainly can't...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Well, we certainly can't bug out, but we have the -- we have-- that what Brahimi is doing over there now, Bob. Bob has this wonderful formulation. He says, basically, anybody who didn't read history wouldn't understand what was going to happen. Terrible things have happened. Obviously, Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld didn't read the same history that Bob Novak did. The aforementioned General Zinni said it in February, not afterward, and this week said...

SHIELDS: He did.

HUNT: ...this week again said the fact that...

NOVAK: So what did...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ...have a post-war plan is shocking. Bob, you have to stay. You can't cut and run.

NOVAK: All right.

HUNT: But what you want to do is basically say, Hey -- but there's no accountability. There ought to be accountability from...

CARLSON: And by the way...

HUNT: ...the people who made this mistake.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: ...politics, Al! You know that!

HUNT: That's not politics. That's called accountability.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: First of all, the war was won. Secondly, the fact is, there was no mass migration of refugees out of the country. There was not mass rebellion throughout the country. The fact is, 75, 80 percent of the country wants us to stay. It's 8 to 1 that people say life will be better in Iraq next year than it is now. They're optimistic about the future.

Or is it just me?

Shields comes closest to getting a handle on what has always been the fundamental contradiction in Bush's grandiose "Initiative" to bring the blessings of democracy to the Middle East by means of a full-scale invasion and years-long occupation of a Saddam-less Iraq, but do any of these fine people sound as if for them the people of Iraq are anything but an abstraction?

Note that diversionary ploy employed by Rep. King; it continues to be trotted out so often it's achieved meme status, i.e., whatever unanticipated bad things are happening in Iraq, they're less bad than the most terrible of the pre-war predictions, none of which happened, so that pretty much absolves the Bush administration of responsibility for any of the predicted less bad possible negative results of invading Iraq that have happpened.

Aside from the fact that war-skpectics weren't the ones who made those predictions, which weren't really predictions so much as projections of potential humanitarian crises by the international organizations whose job it is to prepare for such crises before they happen, the predictions of the war-skeptics have proved entirely more prescient than those invocations of the liberation of Paris in 1945 offered up by that corporate tag-team, Rummy, Wolfie & Rice.

However, since we're dealing with matters of life and death, national security, and as the President would have it, the path to a more peaceful world, it would be rotten form for any of us to point out who was right and who was wrong. We might be accused of gloating, or worse, of being on the side of our enemies.

Eric Alterman doesn't care, bless his liberal bleeding heart.

What we said before the war, in no particular order

The invasion of Iraq will cause, not prevent, terrorism.

The Bush administration was not to be trusted when it warned of the WMD threat.

Going in without the U.N. is worse than not going in at all.

They were asleep at the switch pre-9/11 and have been trying to cover this up ever since.

And they manipulated 9/11 as a pretext for a long-planned invasion of Iraq.

Any occupation by a foreign power, particularly one as incompetently planned as this one, will likely create more enemies than friends and put the U.S. in a situation similar at times to Vietnam, and at other times, similar to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon; both were disasters.

An invasion of Iraq will draw resources and attention away from the genuine perpetrators of the attack on us, and allow them to regroup for further attacks.

Bonus: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” will increase anti-Semitism worldwide.

You can find more of Eric telling them we told them so, with links to prove it, here

Here's an interesting prediction to look back at from November of last year. Anthony Cordesman of CSIS could hardly be considered either left-leaning or anti-war, except perhaps from the fun-house mirror perspective summed up by the words FreeRepublic.com, but he has been skeptical of both the Bush doctrine and its application in Iraq. Months into the occupation, about the time that Bush went off to London with his six chiefs to sup with the Queen, CSIS released Cordesman's analytical critique of how the occupation was going, which is summarized nicely in this news analysis from The Independent, as posted to Free Republic here, which has the added advantage of including some freeper responses.

The report...is all the more devastating because of the unusual level of access provided to its author, Dr Anthony Cordesman, a specialist on Iraq. He concludes that US soldiers are dying because of the ideological approach of the administration, and "two years into office, the Bush national security team is not a team".

Mr Cordesman accuses the administration of preparing the ground for "a defeat by underplaying the risks, issuing provocative and jingoistic speeches, and minimising real-world costs and risks." Senior US officials were also deeply scornful of claims by administration officials that Saddam and his former aide Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri are orchestrating guerrilla attacks.

The report, based on a visit to Iraq by Dr Cordesman earlier this month, entitled Iraq: Too Uncertain To Call, says the army is confident it can contain guerrilla attacks but says they are becoming more sophisticated and tactics are changing.

Dr Cordesman suggests the Coalition Provisional Authority should abandon its heavily fortified headquarters in Saddam's old Republican Palace in central Baghdad. He says: "The CPA's image is one of a foreign palace complex replacing Saddam's and far too many CPA Americans in Baghdad are talking to Americans who should be working with Iraqis." He says, after extensive talks with US officers in the main combat divisions, that the CPA is seen as an over-centralised bureaucracy, isolated from the military, relies too much on contractors "and is not realistically evaluating developments in the field."

Dr Cordesman points to an important flaw in US planning since mid-summer when the Interim Governing Council was established as the Iraqi face of the occupation. He says that it has delayed "nation-building" in Iraq because of divisions, personal ambitions and lack of local following. A critical question here, which may determine the success or failure of President Bush's plan to create a provisional Iraqi government with real legitimacy, is how far the failings of the council are carried over into a new body.

Iraqi politicians independent of the US-appointed governing council interviewed by The Independent all believe that the council wanted to delay elections because its members feared they would not be elected. "They just want time to loot the country and then get out," said one Iraqi leader bitterly.

There is little in the track record of the US administration to suggest that Dr Cordesman's recommendations will be carried out, particularly at a time when Washington wants to show results on the ground in Iraq in the months before the presidential election.

(edit)

The report concludes that there is an overall problem with the US administration's advocacy of "democracy" in the Middle East. "It is largely advocating undefined slogans, not practical and balanced specifics.'' It was often seen as showing contempt for Arab societies, or as a prelude to new US efforts at regime change.

"Empty slogans" Like this, perhaps?

"When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat. "

That statement, the work of Bush speechwriters, is at least coherent and not content-free. But when those speechwriters have the President say, " And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos," the rhetoric is emptied of meaning by the fact that Iraq had been in a state of perpetual chaos from the moment those GI's pulled down that statue of Saddam.

When Bush isn't reading a speech, when he's recalling talking points, the emptiness of the rhetoric is more obvious, but oddly, the President is the best spokesman for what his Iraqi policy is really about. Here he is yesterday, in Arkansas:

THE PRESIDENT: Bob was telling me Brian Mackham (phonetic) is here. Where's Brian? Somewhere. Brian, thanks. You just got back from Iraq?

MR. MACKHAM: My dad did.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay. Hi, Dad. Thank you. I appreciate your service. (Applause.) Mr. Mackham. Mr. Mackham. Colonel Mackham. What are you?

CORPORAL MACKHAM: -- Lance Corporal.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel now as far as I'm concerned. (Laughter and applause). Thank you for your service. Thank you for helping make America more secure.

We've got tough work there because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom. That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. and we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs. See, we don't think freedom is America's gift to the world. We know that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. That's what we know. (Applause.)

And Mackham will tell you there's a lot of brave people there that want to be free, but they've been tortured and terrorized and traumatized by a tyrant. And it's going to take a while for them to understand what freedom is all about. We will pass sovereignty on June 30th. We will stay the course in Iraq. We're not going to be intimidated by thugs or assassins. We're not going to cut and run from the people who long from freedom. Because, you know what? We understand a free Iraq is an historic opportunity to help change the world to be more peaceful. That's what we understand in this country.

So, some Iraqi's are a little too damaged to really understand what freedom is all about. But in general, they long for freedom, too. Because God has given to all human beings a desire to be free. True enough, say I. But what do Iraqi's mean by "freedom." What does the President? Or, for that matter, God?

And here he is on Monday in North Carolina:

Saddam Hussein once again defied the demands of the world. And so I had a choice: Do I take the word of a madman, do I trust a person who had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, plus people in the neighborhood, or do I take the steps necessary to defend the country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.) Thank you.

We're still being challenged in Iraq, and the reason why is a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of terror. Terrorists can't stand freedom. They hate free societies. And yet, we know that free societies will be peaceful societies. We also believe that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person in this world. It's one of the values that we hold dear. These killers don't have values. They want to shake our will. So we've got tough action in Iraq.

But we will stay the course. We will do what is right. We will make sure that a free Iraq emerges, not only for our own security, but for the sake of free peoples everywhere. A free Iraq will change the Middle East. A free Iraq will make the world more peaceful. A free Iraq will make America more secure. We will not be shaken by thugs and terrorists. (Applause.)

"Empty slogans."

Cordesman's prescience feels almost revelatory, doesn't it? Then again, you can't go wrong in assuming that this President will always eschew complexity, nuance, and reality in favor of the simple, the direct, the abstract, the comforting, however compelling and undeniable are the facts have to be ignored.

Here's an abstract of Cordesman's latest CSIS report (fair warning, it's a PDF file)on how we're doing on that nation-building mission in Iraq.

Republican operatives now running mercenaries and paramilitaries in Iraq and at home 

Let's put two and two together. First, this story from WaPo:

The role of Blackwater's commandos in Sunday's fighting in Najaf illuminates the gray zone between their formal role as bodyguards and the realities of operating in an active war zone. Thousands of armed private security contractors are operating in Iraq in a wide variety of missions and exchanging fire with Iraqis every day, according to informal after-action reports from several companies.

The Blackwater commandos, most of whom are former Special Forces troops, are on contract to provide security for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Najaf.

The Defense Department often does not have a clear handle on the daily actions of security contractors because the contractors work directly for the coalition authority, which coordinates and communicates on a limited basis through the normal military chain of command.

(via WaPo)

OK, then.

There's one chain of command for the military—hat would be the one that operates Constitutionally, is accountable to Congress, does press conferences, and has personnel who took an oath to serve their country.

Then there's a second chain of command for the CPA—that's the one that operates in a "gray area," is accountable to noone but the CPA, doesn't do press conferences, and has personnel who signed a contract to perform certain services.

So now we know the CPA is running the mercenaries. And what is the CPA? Why, a branch of the Republican National Commitee (the RNC), of course:

Republican figures also permeate the wider CPA staff, including top advisers to U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and the Iraqi ministries.

The U.S. team stands in deep contrast to the British team that works alongside it, almost all of whom are civil or foreign service employees, not political appointees. Many of the British in Iraq display regional knowledge or language skills that most of the Americans lack.
(via Detroit Free Press)

The CPA politicized? By the Bush administration? Why, you could have knocked me over with a feather! But then, of course, the only language these guys need to know is American English and whatever it is that Bush speaks, and the only regional knowledge they need to have is of voting patterns in the swing states.

Anyhow, the UK has noticed this and they're not pleased:

British officials say that ... the Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer has become too "politicized," meaning that events are orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind.
(via The Times)

OK, so we've now got Republican operatives, accountable to no one, running a private army in Iraq, and "orchestrating events." Hmm.... Like Fallujah?

Can it get worse?

Of course. This is the Bush administration, remember? No matter how bad it is, it can always get worse. The RNC is also running paramilitaries domestically (back here). All part of privatization ("A Republic of Mercenaries," back) don't you know.

This is a thousand times worse than Iran-Contra. Ollie North wanted off-the-shelf capabilities for covert action outside Constitutional restraints. Here we have a off-the-shelf overt private armies, again outside Constitutional restraints, and the SCLM doesn't even cover it as a story.

Iraq insurgency: A good roundup from The Agonist 

Texas Republicans: Being a drag queen is OK, it's just being gay that's evil 

Readers, I am not making this up!

Photographs of a male Republican candidate for the Texas House in women's clothing surfaced last week, and party leaders urged the candidate, Sam Walls, to withdraw. Mr. Walls, 64, rejected the calls on Monday, saying he would not give in to "blackmail" from opponents trying to use "very old, personal information" to force him out of the race. "Now my opponent is using the private information in an attempt to intimate that I am a homosexual, which I am not," Mr. Walls said in a statement.
(via The Times)

And the beauty part is a Republican whining about the use of "private information." Say, does being a drag queen rise to the level of an impeachable offense?


Can it be true that Bush is on vacation right now? 

Even I can't believe this. Readers?

Iraq insurgency: More doubleplusungood news 

Nice one, hitting a mosque. I'm sure that will cool the situation down. Heck, they weren't Christians anyhow.

U.S. forces battling Sunni insurgents in this violent city apparently hit a mosque filled with people Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed.

It was unclear what hit the mosque. Until that incident, reports showed at least 30 Americans and more than 150 Iraqis were dead in the fighting for the city.

Anti-American violence intensified and spread to cities in northern Iraq on Wednesday as a U.S. helicopter went down and a Marine commander confirmed 12 of his men had been killed in fighting west of Baghdad.
(via AP in the Boston Glob)

I guess I can't use the word "clusterfuck" any more, though it's totally appropriate for what Bush is doing. It's not respectful enough of the dead, though.

Eesh.

Bush keeps saying "I didn't have the information"—but why didn't he? 

Presidents are supposed to know this kind of stuff. Condi keeps saying the same thing, and she had more reason to know.

So the real question is, Why didn't Bush have the information?

To which the answer is that he, his Russian specialist enabler Condi, and the neo-con cabal were all focused on threats from states, instead of threads from non-state organizations like AQ. That's why the focus on missile defense, for example.

So Bush didn't have information on AQ because he didn't go looking for it, and he didn't go looking for it because he and his advisors didn't think it was important.

As things turned out, Clarke could have told them the information was important, but it took him eight months to get a meeting.

Then comes 9/11. And they keep the same mindset, refused to let the facts confuse them, and go to war with a state: Iraq.

And here we are!

Zing! 

Leno:

"Yesterday, Vice President Cheney threw out the first pitch at the Cincinnati Reds opening game. President Bush, he threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals game. It's nice to see they've got time for that kind of stuff now that everything in Iraq is under control."
(via Reuters)

Bush really should hire himself a professional comic... Instead of Dennis Miller....

Bush holds back public speech Condi-lie-zza was going to give from 9/11 commission 

Condi was going to give a speech, in public, and the 9/11 Commission can't get a copy of it? Is that ridiculous, or what?

he White House has refused to provide the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks with a speech national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to deliver on that day touting missile defense as a priority rather than al Qaeda, sources said on Tuesday.

With Rice slated to testify publicly before the commission on Thursday, the commission submitted a last-minute request for access to Rice's aborted Sept. 11, 2001 address, sources close to the panel said.

But the White House has so far refused on the grounds that draft documents are confidential, the sources said.
(via Reuters)

Then again, maybe Bush will cave.
The White House could still back down and provide the full speech to the panel. Bush has backed down in the past.

Heh.

Condi's never-given speech, of course, focussed on Republican boondoggle missile defense, and not on terrorism or AQ, showing the Bush administration was focussed on states, instead of entities like AQ, so it's entirely natural that Bush would hold it back.

Stupid, but natural.

Your Gratuitous Morning Weirdness 

Todays idiocy: Little Green Booger Flickers




The excitable magnificos from the ranks of the LGBF, here, are having a Blanche Du Bois moment. Listen:

4/6/2004: Hosting Matters Does Right

I’d like to thank Hosting Matters for being a really stand-up company, and not bowing to pressure from people with a transparently vindictive agenda: Hosting Matters Support Forum - What’s up with the racists?

The LGF haters, probably inspired by Markos Zuniga and his sycophants, are trying every avenue to hurt us today, including this one. They have also written hateful notes to our advertisers, of course.


Bold emphasis above is mine. Evidence for this vindictive "probably" conspiracy event, all apparently orchestrated by none other than Markos Zuninga and his legions of sneaky leftist tools, apparently revolves around the dramatic allegations contained within this startling seditious communique: HERE.

Awful isn't it? The horror, the horror! Why it's grounds for a duel, or something theatric like that. Anyway. The busybody web-fauna of the LGBF have wasted no time when it comes to backfilling their own comments section with so much appalled consternation, quivering indignation, and other such histrionics. Whatever.

In any case, none of this really has anything to do with anything and it's actually just a chance for me to introduce my new nationally syndicated cartoon series called Little Green Booger Flickers. (See illustration above)

If the vibrating tuning forks of LGF are as much fun as I think they may be I expect to enjoy a long and rewarding working relationship mining their comment threads. I also expect that the silly bastards will do most of the work for me. Which is the way it should be, right?

I sit back on the front porch with a cool glass of traditional family value home squeezed lemonade like some big daddio master overseerer while talkative right wing ditto birds do all the chirping and I laugh and profit from their noisy recorded labor. Hehehe... it's the 'Merican way. Hain't it? Sure it is. I can't wait for the Little Green Booger Flicker Christmas card royalty checks to start rolling in!

Praise Jeebus and Joseph and Jack Daniels and all the Little Green Booger Flickers of the latter days!

*

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Bush Iraq Clusterfuck: Was the plan for dealing with Sadr a case of "wag the dog"? 

Here's what the plan wasn't:

A secret plan to have American forces snatch Mr. Sadr was scrapped last fall only days before it was to have been carried out, senior Bush administration and military officials said, confirming a report in The Wall Street Journal.

They said the decision to scrap the action had been made by senior American officials on the advice of other Shiite clerics in Iraq, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who described Mr. Sadr as inconsequential and warned that his stature would only be enhanced if he was arrested, the American officers said.
(via NY Times)

And here's the plan now:

While combating attacks by Mr. Sadr's militia on Tuesday, American officials are seeking for now to enlist other Shiite clerics in a plan to marginalize Mr. Sadr...

And there has also a continuing plan to arrest Sadr:

[A] secret warrant for [Sadr's] arrest was issued months ago by Iraqi authorities in connection with the killing of Ayatollah Khoei last April, shortly after he was returned to Iraq by American military forces.

In describing the warrant, American officials indicated that a decision had been made to seize Mr. Sadr soon, with a spokesman, Dan Senor, saying there would be "no advance warning".

But the American officials in Baghdad declined to say when they would execute the warrant.

But there's not a word in the article that would explain how shutting down Sadr's newspaper—the spark that ignited this uprising—fits into any of these plans. It sure didn't marginalize Sadr, and it sure didn't help get him arrested.

In addition, there are these curious facts about dates:

A senior Defense Department official who outlined the likelihood of a slower approach said American concerns had been complicated by two dates now approaching — an anniversary and a holiday.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of the killing of Mr. Sadr's father, a leading cleric, and his two elder brothers, deaths that occurred under the rule of Saddam Hussein. And Friday is the first day of the Shiite religious festival of Arbayeen, which will bring hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims to the Iraqi holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

So, again, why on earth shut Sadr's paper down now???

Recall the British concerns "events are orchestrated .... with the American political agenda uppermost in mind" (back here). And recall also that the CPA is dominated by Republican operatives.

Could it be that there are other dates Bush has in mind? That is, the date Condi is going to testify, and the date Bush and Cheney are going to visit? Let's get that commission stuff off the front pages and off the air...

Bush Iraq Clusterfuck: Sunnis and Sadr Shi'ites join against US 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But even as the Coalition Provisional Authority declared Sadr -- son of Mohammed Sadr, a renowned Shiite religious figure killed by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1999 -- an outlaw, much of Iraq vented its frustration with the yearlong U.S. occupation by openly supporting his efforts.

But Tuesday afternoon, one of the worst possible scenarios the CPA could imagine came true in a public way when the Sunni-led resistance forces publicly declared their support for Sadr.

This development would have been unthinkable a week ago as the previous resistance organizations have been led by religious Sunni -- who consider the Shiite heretics in Islam -- and former Baath members whose secular regime brutally oppressed the Shiites for decades.

But even as U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles surrounded Sadr's headquarters in a vast Shiite neighborhood named for his father, emissaries arrived from the tribal leaders of Sunni regions and from the largest resistance movement in Iraq to offer their services to Sadr in his fight against the Americans.

Inside the Sadr office building, which was defended by about 100 armed and 400 unarmed men and boys, was cordoned off by the U.S. military, three obviously Sunni clerics arrived with a letter for the leaders of the Mehdi Army.

"We have come to see how our friends are doing," Sheikh Hudor al-Abari told United Press International.


(via UPI)

Granted, it's UPI...

Bush Iraq Clusterfuck: Remember the Agonist? 

Now that major combat operations have broken out again, it's time to check out the Agonist again. He's not back to the old intensity, but it looks like he's gearing up....

Bush, feeling tense, snaps towel at everyone in sight 

And no wonder, since he's a "hypertense, death-dealing fiasco" (back here)

Anyhow, he's on a campaign trip to Arkanas. First, Bush insults a guest:

"You and my mother go to the same hair-dye person," Bush said to Briery, whose blondish bob bore little resemblance to Barbara Bush's shock of white hair.

The audience in the gymnasium laughed, and Briery smiled, but replied firmly: "President Bush, I'm a natural blonde."

"Oh, yes," Bush agreed.

"I'm just a natural blonde," she repeated.

"I couldn't help myself, sorry," Bush shrugged.

Uh uh. When you snap the towel twice, it's on purpose.

Then, Bush insults his host!

He turned to Bob Watson, superintendent of the El Dorado Public Schools - who had opened the meeting by inadvertently insulting Bush.

"Governor - excuse me, President," Watson said.

Bush muttered, "How quickly they forget."

When Watson offered to shake Bush's hand, the president shot back: "Just don't hug me."
(via AP)

What a... likeable guy. Bush seems nice until things don't go his way. No wonder his handlers won't let him in front of the 9/11 commission alone.

Also, there's no byline on the AP story. Wonder if AP is shielding their reporter from retaliation by The Goon Squad?

National DNA registry, anyone? 

No. They would never do that!

Read this disgusting proposal. Aside from the truly disgusting civil liberties implications, will the results be kept private? I doubt it.

The hair, saliva and sweat of federal workers could be tested for drug use under a government policy proposed Tuesday that could set screening standards for millions of private employers.

The proposal will expand the methods to detect drug use among 1.6 million federal workers beyond urine samples. It is being implemented with an eye toward the private sector, however, because it would signal the government's approval for such testing, which many companies are awaiting before adopting their own screening programs.

The rule is subject to a 90-day public comment period. A final plan could be issued by year's end.
(via AP)

Notice this is all done by Bush fiat. No discussion, no law, no public debate.

And hey! When the Bush twins take the test, I'll take the test!

Last of illegal arrests at RNC 2000 in Philly thrown out—just in time for RNC 2004 in Manhattan 

Given that for the Republicans, homeland security and electing Bush are one and the same, I always assumed that Tom Ridge was appointed DHS head because of the fine job he did throwing activists in the slammer illegally during the RNC 2000 convention in Philly.

And presumably, he's setting up to do the same thing this September.

A judge cleared three activists Tuesday of charges they brawled with police during street demonstrations outside the 2000 Republican National Convention.

Judge William J. Mazzola acquitted the trio of riot and assault charges after reviewing a videotape of the fracas shot by another protester.

About 400 people were arrested during the protests, most of which occurred several miles from the arena in which Republicans met to nominate George W. Bush. Only a few people were convicted.

(via AP)

Tactically, this means that RNC activists should video everything. And bring lots of cell phones that take pictures, beam them to blogs, and we'll RSS them live...

I also wonder if the NYPD has any great reason to love Bush, given how he's stiffed the first responders. Wonder if they would stand aside... Readers?

Bite the Big Apple, George....

Kerry hits back on "flipflops" 

Some young Republicans have no manners?! Film at 11! They could start to improve by not calling people who disagree with them traitors. Then they could disassociate themselves from the LGFers....

Greeted by a small group of protesters shouting and clapping together rubber beach sandals called flip-flops, the Massachusetts senator rebuked them, saying, "Obviously some young Republicans are proving that they're very rude and they have no manners. They don't want to hear the truth."

"You want to talk about flips and flops?" he asked hundreds of supporters at a rally in Cincinnati. "This president said one day Condoleezza Rice is not going to testify and the next day she is going to testify." Kerry also said Bush had flip-flopped on taxes and education, as well as his 2000 election promise to maintain fiscal discipline in Washington. The U.S. budget deficit has now reached a record $500 billion.
(via Reuters)

Good to see, but Kerry needs to read the blogosphere. We have a much better list for him here.

UPDATE Here's a good Bush flip-flop site. 96, count 'em, 96. Those young Republican's aren't just impolite: they're entirely delusional.

I guess the Lexicon of Liberal Invective is working. Kinda. 

"SCLM" comes up #3 on Google.

Not "aWol," alas, though this is interesting. Nor "YABL."

Hmmm....

Readers, any ideas on how to propagate these memes more effectively?

Republican coup 2004: Jebbie's electronic voting machines a disaster 

Think it can't get any worse?

The new touch-screen voting machines that we're using in South Florida are seriously flawed. Yet again, Florida has the potential for another Election Day debacle. However, that's not the bad news. The bad news is that our leaders are in a state of denial about the problem.

While computerized voting is here to stay and conceptually superior to anything else, that's not the issue. The issue is that the current systems are flawed. Until we fix these problems, we'll just have to bear the cost of creating a voter-verified paper trail. That's the backup, and while expensive, it pales in comparison to the costs of the presidential election fiasco of 2000.

In a paper published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Symposium on Security and Privacy, the authors said the following regarding one particular commonly used electronic voting system: ``We identify several problems, including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats and poor software development processes.''

In case you're not a techie, this loosely translates into, ``The system is a disaster.''
(from The Miami Herald via AJP)

And all those Democrats that were illegally removed from the rolls in 2000? That's all been fixed, right? Oh, wait....

More fun with operation names 

Here's the original post on noxious, testesterone-fuelled, Orwellian operation names, and here are some suggestions from alert readers:

Operation Bubble Gonads—for just about anything Bush does

Operation Talking Wood—the joint appearance of Bush & Dick before the 911 Commission (d. wineman)

Operation Steaming Load—Iraq qWagmire (d. wineman)

Operation Snapping Towel—When Bush visits with Waura, Condi, KaWen,and Mary Matalin (emal)

Operation Bohica Summer—from my GW1 vet e-pal: Bend Over, Here It Comes Again (pansypoo)

Thanks, alert readers! There's a lot of great stuff here, and maybe some of these will start showing up in future headlines....

And Operation Bohica Summer is especially appropriate for those cancelled troop rotations, isn't it?

Bush Iraq clusterfuck: US forces spread too thin? 

Looks like Shinseki was right on the force levels we'd need in Iraq. For which the Piranha Brothers in the WhiteWash House (back here) promptly nailed his head to the floor. Anyhow:

British experience in Northern Ireland showed that 20 troops per thousand of population -- the equivalent of 500,000 in Iraq -- was the strength best suited to maintaining order in a restive community, Clarke said.

But a sudden call for reinforcement could also fan the flames, [Michael Clarke, director of the International Policy Institute at King's College London, ] added: "That in itself is a big step toward a manifest crisis -- being seen to have to reinforce."

The prospect of simultaneous Sunni and Shi'ite uprisings -- the nightmare scenario for any force in Iraq -- has been faced before, when a Western army tried to pacify Iraq eight decades ago.

"The British took three years to turn both the Sunnis and the Shias into their enemies in 1920," journalist Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent newspaper. "The Americans are achieving this in just under a year."

Britain crushed that revolt with massive air strikes that killed thousands of Iraqi civilians.
(via Reuters)

Pessimistic? Or realistic?

Bush Iraq clusterfuck: The rule of law 

I love this quote from Bremer:

"We will suppress these minor-sized militia, which are illegal."
(via The Times)

So, now these clowns want the rule of law. The only problem is that we need to use our army to get the job done. If these clowns really wanted the rule of law in Iraq, they would have arranged for the effort to be truly international (i.e., not the Coalition of the Billing), wouldn't have allowed Iraq to degenerate into chaos after the invasion (Bush thought it would be a "cakewalk," remember?), and would have visibly and powerfully upheld the rule of law from the beginning.

One really obvious way to uphold the rule of law would have been to try Saddam's sons, instead of killing them. Since we are now trying Saddam, apparently we learned from that mistake—but these guys, given the situation they've gotten us all into, shouldn't make the same mistake once.

Oh, and I like "minor militias," too. Minor enough to cancel the troop rotations, apparently.

Bush Iraq clusterfuck: Bush cares about one thing and one thing only: getting elected 

Surprise! Of course, we already know that the "Republican Palace" (!) is a nest of Republican operatives. But it seems that the Brits know too, and they're not pleased.

British officials say that while they are sympathetic with the daunting management task that Americans have undertaken, they also believe that the Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer has become too "politicized," meaning that events are orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind.
(via The Times)

On the latest escalation, Bush must have figured "better now than later."

But the Brits don't want their troops dying so that Bush can get elected.

Say, doesn't that apply to our troops too?

And from the Pulitzer-heavy LA Times.... 

Pessimistic or realistic?

Now that thousands of rioting Shiites have been added to the persistent Sunni insurrection targeting the U.S.-led occupation, it is absurd to define the enemy as only foreigners or agents of the captured tyrant Saddam Hussein. The "coalition" forces are the foreigners, in fact, and the U.S.-financed quisling local government fools no one, regardless of the planned "handover" of power.

Under the false conceit that the adventure made sense as part of the fight against terror, the U.S. seized a country containing a major portion of the world's most valued and scarce resource. Yet our leaders expect the natives to believe that the corporate camp followers of the U.S. military are only swarming over their country for the purpose of humanitarian reconstruction.

Just how dumb do we think they are?

while it would be great if that country were to end up in the column of democratic societies, the tragic events of recent days once again remind us that it is an outcome made less likely by each additional day we presume to know what is best for the rest of the world — and we impose those views with our awesome military power.
(Robert Scheer in LA Times)

"Just how dumb do we think they are?" Good question....

Poor old Times sinks further into mediocrity 

One solitary Pulitzer....

UPDATE Thanks to alert reader upyernoze for the correction; hands typing faster than brain.

Isn't information on 9/11 exactly the kind of information a President should have? 

So why does Bush think saying "Had we known" is going to help him?

Especially when it took Clarke eight (8) months to get a meeting with him?

And Condi had numerous examples of terrorists using airplanes as missiles (kamikazis, anyone)?

And we know from whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (back here) that there are plenty of documents showing AQ plans for attack on US soil?

Waiting for Thursday, Condi-lie-zza....

And for whenever our sock President and his puppet master deign to appear....

UPDATE Gary Hart rips Bush a new one in Salon here, thanks to alert reader Budman:

Suppose that in March or April, 1941, 14 Americans with lengthy backgrounds in national security affairs had reported to President Franklin Roosevelt that the United States was going to be attacked somewhere, sometime, somehow by the Japanese, that this attack would result in large numbers of American casualties, and these officially-appointed Americans had strongly recommended to the Roosevelt administration that it take urgent steps to help prevent such an attack. Further suppose that Roosevelt had done little if anything in response to this warning, and that almost eight months later, as it happened, the Japanese attacked American facilities at Pearl Harbor, and almost two thousand Americans died. Suppose after this attack official inquiries were launched, as it also happened, as to why there was a failure of intelligence, what actions were or were not taken based on what intelligence there was, and what could be done to prevent such catastrophic surprises in the future. And finally suppose that the official commission created to investigate the tragedy of Pearl Harbor failed to call upon the original 14 Americans who forecast the attack and forewarned against it.
Now move this supposed scenario forward to 2004 and you have virtually a perfect fit and an actual set of circumstances.

FDR. Now there was a war President. Even if, wheelchair-bound, he couldn't prance on a flight deck.

Your Bill Bennett ~ Traditional Marriage Moment... 

For no particular reason.




Here comes the hunka-hunka burnin' love bride:

The bride is a woman of wonderous fascination and a remarkable attractiveness, for with manner as enchanting as the wand of a siren and a disposition as sweet as the odor of flowers, and spirit as joyous as the caroling of birds and mind as brilliant as those glittering tresses that adorn the brow of Winter and with heart as pure as dewdrops trembling in a coronet of violets, she will make the home of her husband a paradise of enchantment like the lovely home of her girlhood where the heaven-toned harp of marriage, with its chords of love and devotion and fond endearments sent forth the sweetest strains of felicity that ever thrilled the senses with the rhythmic pulsing of ecstatic rapture." ~ The Charlotteville Chronicle social/society page. 1926


Sweet screechin' mother of creeping baby Jesus!
Where do you go from there? I hope she comes with extra batteries and a good pea soup recipe.

*

George Bush's Zippo War 

"President Bush is not fazed by other candidates' war records. He said, 'I may have not fought in Vietnam, but I created one." - Craig Kilborn

Catalexis on blogging, the right wing windmill, framing the debate, and the media's fun house of mirrors. Read: George Bush's Viet Nam

And thanks pansypoo...
Friday, April 02, 2004
a little news item in today's paper just struck me. In Irving, TEXAS, a gate at a sewage plant forced 70 millions of raw sewage into a river. the shit flow sent at least 8 manhole covers skyward and shit geysers at least 4 feet and closed part of a golfcourse and park.

so that's where all of george's shit has been hiding.


...for the Kilborn line. :-) (Which predates Ted Kennedy's recent remarks)

*

Iraq clusterfuclk: "End of major combat operations," eh? 

Fallujah beseiged, 4 Marines dead.

U.S. troops battled Iraqi guerrillas Tuesday on the edges of Fallujah, which hundreds of Marines and Iraqi troops have surrounded in a major operation to pacify one of Iraq's most violent cities. The military reported four Marines killed in the area.

The Americans were killed by hostile fire Monday, bringing to five the number of Marines killed that day.

The military did not give details on the deaths, saying only that they took place in Anbar province, where Fallujah is located.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have sealed off the city for more than 24 hours, blocking roads and digging trenches in preparation to move in to root out insurgents after the slaying and brutal mutilation last week of four American civilians.
(via AP)


UPDATE More from a WaPo embedded reporter:

EMBEDDED WITH THE MARINES IN FALLUJAH, April 6--U.S. Marines are inside the flashpoint city of Fallujah in force. They have met significant pockets of resistance but have overpowered it, killing an undetermined number of enemy fighters and taking some prisoners.
(via WaPo)


Monday, April 05, 2004

Iraq clusterfuck: Sadr, Sistani, Chalabi all playing both ends against the middle 

While our troops get shot. (Hey George! What's the latest on that body armor?)

[W]hat is now transpiring is also a battle for control of the Shiite street to see who will eventually lead Iraq's largest ethno-religious group.

These latest events are also a clash of leadership between Sadr, who demands an immediate withdrawal of U.S. and other coalition troops from Iraq and the milder, more-moderate stance adopted by the older Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who favors a quieter transition and advocates a more cautionary approach.

Sadr, on the other hand, is opposed to waiting for the June 30 hand-over date, demanding the U.S.-led coalition leave immediately. With Shiites forming about 60 percent of Iraq's population, Sadr believes his coreligionist should assume immediate control of their destiny.

Sadr is relatively young and inexperienced but commands, nevertheless, a following strong enough to stir trouble, as became evident this past weekend. He rules over much of the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, named after his father who was killed by Saddam, and is believed to have about 5,000 armed followers.

The development to watch for now is to see if the mainstream Shiite movement falls in behind Sadr, and joins the anti-U.S. movement, or instead, if they opt to wait on the sidelines for the United States to remove Sadr from the political scene.

Politically for Sistani, allowing the Americans take out Sadr would be the most advantageous move. The removal would leave the political playing field clear for Sistani, who would then be the only Shiite leader left standing. Since Saddam's downfall last spring, a number of prominent Shiite leaders have been killed.

However, if Sistani, or the Iranian-backed al-Badr Brigade, with more than 10,000 armed supporters jump into the fray, it could spell real trouble for the United States. Iran, one must also suspect, is not without interest in the outcome of events in neighboring Iraq. Tehran's ayatollahs would undoubtedly revel in Washington becoming ingrained in an urban war in the slums of Baghdad.

Already, Monday there was talk of sending more troops to Iraq to help quell the troubles. In its last rotation, the United States has downsized the number of American troops in the country from 130,000 to about 100,000. But if the violence continues, additional forces would certainly be needed.

Another danger, of course, is that Sadr would attempt a "hostile take-over" of the Shiite leadership by trying to physically eliminate Sistani, a possibility that should not be discounted. Should Sadr prove to be successful, it could place the militant ayatollah in an unprecedented position of power and give the U.S.-led coalition a genuine cause for concern. On the other hand, an attempt on Sistani could also pitch Shiite against Shiite, making the June 30 deadline for handing the country over to Iraqis highly questionable, and that despite the fact President George W. Bush reaffirmed Monday the date was not subject to revision.

Regardless of the outcome, there is one Shiite who stands to gain by the removal of either ayatollah -- Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress -- and the man on the fast track to become the next nexus of power in Iraq.

Second, what is unsettling about this turn of events is until now at least, most of the violence emanated from the Sunni population and was mostly limited to the area referred to as the Sunni Triangle. The horrendous killing and mutilation of four civilian contractors last week, for example, took place in Fallujah, in the heart of Sunni-populated territory.

But this recent outbreak involving the Shiite community sets a dangerous precedent and has moved the conflict to previously quieter areas of the country. If not intelligently addressed, it could rapidly broaden into a quagmire and draw the United States into a vicious version of an Iraqi intifada, and a conflict without a foreseeable end.
(via UPI)

Eesh. Thank God Bush has a plan. Uh, what's the plan?

NOTE to Kerry: Your message on this, whatever it is, is coming through as "more diplomacy." That's not going to cut it, analytically correct though it may be.

Run Away O'Reilly 

Bill O'Reilly - go screw yourself.

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Last week, radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy told Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson of CNN's Crossfire that he would like "a shot at Bill O'Reilly," after he was asked what conservative would he most like to take on during the 'rapid fire' segment of the show.


G Gordon Liddy: "O'Reilly is an embarrassment to our side," - "O'Reilly is no good at radio and part of that reason is because his most nuanced response to a complex question is "SHUT UP."

O'Reilly's producer (FoxTV) invites Liddy to appear on O'Reilly Factor if he apologizes for statements. Liddy responds: "Tell Bill to pound sand, I'm not apologizing for anything." - Offer to appear withdrawn.

Liddy: "Bill did what all bullies do, he ran when someone stood up to him. I found this to be true of bullies as a child and I found it to be true in prison."

Heh. Liddy Takes Aim at O'Reilly

Atrios has more O'Reilly capers here: O'Lielly (as if you didn't know that already)

"Crooks": More successes for school vouchers! 

Not!

One school that received millions of dollars through the nation's oldest and largest voucher program was founded by a convicted rapist. Another school reportedly entertained kids with Monopoly while cashing $330,000 in tuition checks for hundreds of no-show students.

But so far, efforts to impose more rigorous academic standards on voucher schools have failed.

Milwaukee's 14-year-old voucher program has served as a model for others around the country. It doles out state money to allow poor parents to send their children to private schools. Wisconsin will spend $75 million this year on vouchers for more than 13,000 students.

The schools are required to report virtually nothing about their methods to the state, or to track their students' performance. Proponents say that frees the schools from onerous bureaucracy. But some say the lack of oversight makes them a prime target for abuse.
(via AP)

Stealing an education from children... Pretty low. But what we've come to expect from Republicans.

Iraq clusterfuck escalating 

Not good....

Meanwhile, US Apache helicopters sprayed fire on the private army of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr during fierce battles on the western Baghdad district of Al-Showla, witnesses and an AFP correspondent said.

"Two Apaches opened fire on armed members of the Mehdi Army," said Showla resident Abbas Amid.

The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.

Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.
(via iafrica.com from Atrios)

Eesh. I wonder what the plan is, here? (And, at this point, I'd really like to hear what Kerry has to say.)

Bush mini press conference: YABL, YABL, YABL 

From Dear Misleader:

"What is important for them to hear is not only that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, this country immediately went on war footing and we went to war against al-Qaida," the president said.

"It took me very little time to make up my mind, once I determined al-Qaida did do it, to say, 'We're going to go get them,' and we have," Bush said.
(via AP)

Well, the only problem with Bush's statement is that only nine days after 9/11, Bush had already decided to sidetrack our entire military into Iraq, which had nothing to do with AQ or 9/11 at all. See here:

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

I just wish they'd stop lying. We all know they had the agenda to remove Saddam from Day One and 9/11 supplied a good excuse for it. Why not just 'fess up?

Bush wants you to shop—just not to comparison shop 

Bush uses the same style of argument for Iraq and for his tax policies.

With Iraq, the question is not: (1) Was it good to overthrow Saddam? The question is: (2) Was war in Iraq the best use of our military, given AQ?

To make the best use of your resources, you have to "comparison shop" between a lot of good things, and the very few best things—and that's what Bush doesn't want you to do. (Since if you answer "yes" to (1), you might well vote for him, but if you even think of asking (2), you probably won't.)

The economist's term for "comparison shopping" is "opportunity cost" (back here) , and that's what a successful CEO takes into account when deciding where to invest.

So with tax cuts, the question is not: (1) Will tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy? The question is: (2) Are tax cuts for the rich the best way to stimulate the economy?

And again, to make the best choice, you have to comparison shop. Most professional economists will answer "Yes" to question (1), the question Bush wants you to ask, but answer (2), the question Bush doesn't want you to ask, with a resounding "No!"

"Almost any tax cut or spending increase would succeed in boosting a sluggish economy," said William G. Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "The key question is, therefore, not whether the proposals provide any short term stimulus but whether they are the most effective way to provide stimulus."

Gale and others argue that a more effective economic stimulus would be tax cuts more narrowly targeted to lower-income people, who would tend to spend a larger portion of their tax cut than would wealthier people. According to an analysis of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, more than half the tax relief this year went to taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year.
(via LA Times)

Bush is like an 18th century doctor who, because his remedies of bleeding and purging didn't actually kill the patient, claims credit for the cure.

And the economy is rebounding in spite of Bush's medicine, not because of it. Not that you or I see any benefit from the rebound, of course (back) but that is a separate issue.

NOTE Of course, the RNC attack machine has started AstroTurfing on Bush's Orwellian "tax relief" (see American Journal of Politics). The bogus letter begins: "President Bush’s economic policies are right for America and home state>.." and AJP notes the usual lies in it.

And speaking of thumbsuckers, how about this inane lead from "C"BN? 

That would be the SIC stronghold "Christian" Broadcasting Network.

The American military is preparing to take serious action in Fallujah after last week's atrocities against Americans there. The military is promising a massive response that will be targeted at finding "the bad guys in town."
(via "C"BN)

"The bad guys"? Who do they think they're writing four? Six-year-olds playing cowboys and Indians?

Talk about infantilizing the audience! And remember—this is Bush's base!

Fun with operation names 

"The operation, code-named 'Vigilant Resolve'"....

Man, these overcompensatingly macho, testesterone-fuelled, and totally Orwellian "operation" names are getting to be too much. Back in the day, these names were just random words, put together for security purposes. I wish we could return to that practice, to make the news just a little less noxious, and to stop the news anchors from having to say them with a straight face. Except for FUX, of course. They can say anything with a straight face.

Maybe we could start inventing some "Operation" names for ourselves. I'll start:

Operation Fragrant Weasel—for the dirty tricks program The Goon Squad at the RNC is running (Arizona; Kerry's FBI files.

Operation Mellifluous Footwear—for Bush's Olympic-event-grade "flipflops" (back) on the 9/11 commission, and elsewhere.



Operation Xanax Cowboy... 'Nuff said.

Readers?

NOTE From a suggestion by alert reader ... Mellifluous.

UPDATE More up here.

Another thumbsucker from Elizabeth Bumiller 

Hey, a little fluffing is part of the job, but this is ridiculous. KaWen and Condi—Bush's valkyries. Along with Waura and Babs.

Enablers is more like it. And three "towel-snapping" references! Isn't that fabulous?

NOTE Thanks to alert reader Melanie.



Nailing Condi-lie-zza: The testimony of Sibel Edmonds 

From the Toronto Star (since naturally the SCLM isn't covering this:

When Condoleezza Rice takes her seat before the independent 9/11 commission here Thursday her assignment will be nothing short of halting the most serious assault yet on the credibility of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Sitting in the hearing room as Rice testifies will be a 33-year-old former FBI translator who may yet hold the key to the question now engulfing this nation — did an indifferent Bush administration ignore specific warnings that Al Qaeda was about to launch horrific attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001?

While allegations brought by former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke have swung the tide against the Bush White House in recent weeks, Sibel Edmonds delivered her own broadside against her government in private, during more than three hours of testimony to investigators for the 9/11 panel on Feb. 11.

Edmonds, who was hired as a translator by the FBI nine days after the attacks, told the investigative panel she has seen and handled intelligence documents and cables that show Rice, the national security adviser, is wrong when she says there was no advance warning of air attacks on U.S. soil.

She saw intelligence documents that pointed to the use of aircraft against skyscrapers in major U.S. cities.

"We had various information from various sources and investigations," she said in an interview yesterday.

"In terms of specific cities? Yes. It was not only New York and Washington, D.C. There were four or five cities specifically named.

"There were specific activities known. Domestic institutions were being targeted and airplanes were going to be used. That was known. Now, did it say Sept. 11, 8:30 in the morning? I am not aware of such information. Did it say it was going to crash the planes in the building? I am not privy to that information.

"But there was specific information on the use of airplanes. There were people issuing orders and information on people already in place in this country months before Sept. 11."

She said she is not passing on hearsay, but information on specific documents, the names of witnesses, the names of FBI agents and other information so investigators can rely "not on my word," but on the documents themselves. Most of them were dated April and May, 2001, she said. She has previously provided such information to congressional investigators.

Edmonds, a Turkish-born U.S. citizen, said she was "appalled" by Rice's public statements, delivered in a number of television interviews, that there was no information indicating planes would be used on domestic targets.

Had Rice indicated that she did not know, Edmonds may have given her the benefit of the doubt.

"Then I would say maybe the FBI did not take the information to her, maybe she didn't know," Edmonds said.

"But she's is saying `we' did not know, including herself, her advisers and the FBI. That statement is not accurate. I've never really been diplomatic in life. It's a lie and a lie is a lie."
(via Toronto Star)

And given that Bush tries to destroy the career of anyone who crosses him, Sibel Edmonds has shown great courage by coming forward. Good for her!

Musical Interlude: Fun with "Drunken Sailor" 

The lyrics are here. They're kind of fun, and the whole family can sing along:

What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor early in the mornin'?

[CHORUS]: Way-hey, and up she rises,
Way-hey, and up she rises,
Way-hey, and up she rises, early in the mornin'!

Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor early in the mornin'!
[CHORUS]

Throw him in the back of the paddy wagon,
Throw him in the back of the paddy wagon,
Throw him in the back of the paddy wagon, early in the mornin'!
[CHORUS]


Inspired by Kerry advisor Roger Altman's remark that "drunken sailor" describes Bush's budgetary policies.

Readers, can you think of any lyrics to add?

NOTE Thanks, Melanie.

UPDATE

""Put him in the bunk with the captain's daughter" (alert reader dwight meredith)

"Throw him back to the right-wing Orcas" (alert reader Bud)


The Wreckovery: Feel like you're not getting any benefits from it? That's because you aren't 

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt." Truer words... From Bob Herbert in the Times:

What is happening is nothing short of historic. The American workers' share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest on record. Employers took the money and ran. This is extraordinary, but very few people are talking about it, which tells you something about the hold that corporate interests have on the national conversation.

The situation is summed up in the long, unwieldy but very revealing title of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University: "The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation - Gainers and Losers from the National Economic Recovery in 2002 and 2003."

Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study, said: "This is the first time we've ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor [meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers] got 38 percent."

The study said: "In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a greater amount than labor compensation."

In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners.

The recent productivity gains have been widely acknowledged. But workers are not being compensated for this. During the past two years, increases in wages and benefits have been very weak, or nonexistent. And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no net increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001.

So if employers were not hiring workers, and if they were miserly when it came to increases in wages and benefits for existing employees, what happened to all the money from the strong economic growth?

The study is very clear on this point. The bulk of the gains did not go to workers, "but instead were used to boost profits, lower prices, or increase C.E.O. compensation."

I have to laugh when I hear conservatives complaining about class warfare. They know this terrain better than anyone. They launched the war. They're waging it. And they're winning it.
(here)

Nothing new here, of course (See "Jobs flatlined under Bush—a touch of the overseer's lash", back.)

But we can't say it enough. When Bush and the MWs say "the economy" ask "Whose economy?" and answer "Not mine!"

Pacification operations begin in Falujah and Shi'ite areas of Baghdad 

Winning hearts and minds....

Reports from Baghdad say U.S. forces have launched a helicopter strike on a Shi'ite district in the western part of the Iraqi capital.

U.S. troops also began a major operation code-named Operation Vigilant Resolve in Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim stronghold where four American civilian contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated by jubilant mobs last week.
(via VOA)

Who knows... Maybe the cakewalkersrunning the show (here) want Iraq to break up into Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish nations? Since that's certainly one obvious possibility.

Two minutes of hate.... 

One of the most bizarre comments in L'Affaire Kos (back; and back) came from none other than Glenn "I've got tenure" Reynolds readers. Quoted approvingly thus:

[T]here seems to be a lot of hate out there.
(via InstaHack)

Where has this guy been? After Rush... And Anne Coulter wanting to kill the liberals... And every day on Little Green Footballs.... And the freepers...

Wingers: If you want to see clearly, take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck of dust out of your brother's!

Bush's Iraqi clusterfuck 

Juan Cole asks a very pertinent question:

How did the CPA get to the point where it has turned even Iraqi Shiites, who were initially grateful for the removal of Saddam Hussein, against the United States? Where it risks fighting dual Sunni Arab and Shiite insurgencies simultaneously, at a time when US troops are rotating on a massive scale and hoping to downsize their forces in country? At a time when the Spanish, Thai and other contingents are already committed to leaving, and the UN is reluctant to get involved?

And one answer would be: The cakewalkers are running the show.

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Can someone explain to me how Bush's Iraq clusterfuck is making me safer? 

The latest:

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed and more than 24 wounded in clashes in a mostly Shiite neighborhood of the Iraqi capital, an Army spokesman said early Monday, as a week of protests and violence escalated across the country.
(via WaPo)

From the ever-informative Juan Cole:

So far, about 60% of clashes with Coalition troops had occurred in the Sunni heartland of Iraq. But the violent clashes in Najaf, Baghdad, Amara and Nasiriyah may signal the beginning of a second phase, in which the US faces a two-front war, against both Sunni radicals in the center-north and Shiite militias in the South.

Lovely. I know! Let's give them tax cuts!

Meanwhile, it turns out the the fighting is a major "combat operation" involving air strikes:

"This was combat operations today," said a senior coalition military official late Sunday as the fighting still raged on the southern outskirts of Baghdad. Aircraft were brought in, he said, because "we needed to add some combat power to change the terms of the battle." The official spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
(via Knight Ridder)

But have no fear! From deep within the—I kid you not—Republican Palace, the RNC's Baghdad office (here) has the spin well under control:

The political side of the coalition tried to put a good face on the day.

"These incidents are not insignificant," said Coalition senior advisor [and Republican operative] Dan Senor. But, "the majority of Iraqis are working with us." He characterized Sunday's fighters as "isolated pockets" and "a miniscule percentage" of Iraq's 26 million people.

I know! What the Shi'ites need is tax cuts!

Not looking good in Iraq. Cakewalk, anyone? 

Developing...

A demonstration in the southern city of Najaf turned deadly as Salvadoran soldiers -- under Spanish command -- exchanged fire with supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the city of Najaf. Reports from the scene indicate that at least 19 protesters and 4 coalition troops were killed.

The violent clash has left much of the Shiite sections of Iraq in near chaos.

This represents the most serious clashes between coalition forces and the Shiite population. Previous large scale fighting has usually occurred between coalition forces and Sunni population, from which more militant members and former Baath Party members had led a year long resistance to the U.S.-led presence.

But the Shiites -- which had suffered terrible oppression under Saddam's rule -- have been reluctant to resort to violence, preferring demonstrations and political maneuvering to confrontation.

If full scale fighting breaks out, which Sunday night it appeared as very possible -- between U.S. forces and the Shiite followers of Sadr, it would represent the largest setback for the U.S. occupation of Iraq so far, as Iraq's 60 percent Shiite population, which has rarely fought the coalition -- could be forced to choose sides. That would set the stage for a bloody civil war, or more widespread opposition to the U.S.-led presence from a population that has arguably benefited the most from the U.S. invasion.

After the estimated 5,000 demonstrators traded gunfire with the troops in Najaf, crowds turned out in Baghdad, Kerbala, and Sadr's home village of Kufa to "declare war on the American occupation," said one supporter.
(via UPI)

Not sure there are many good options here. Presumably some administration official who has credibility (assuming there is one) is on the phone to Sistani... Though this does remind me powerfully of the search for moderate Iranians in the Iran-Contra affair.

Yech. What a mess. What a fully forseen and warned of mess. Maybe somebody can explain to me how this Iraqi clusterfuck is helping make me safer?

Living in public and "The Kos Scream" 

Matt Stollar (via Atrios) has a brilliant post on the "The Kos Scream" (below) . To summarize, Stollar contrasts the (mostly winger) talk show sphere with the (mostly liberal) blogosphere, and points out that unlike radio, blogging creates a history.

The millions of words that Kos has posted over the years are all accessible over the Internet. Those words have gained him the trust of hundreds of thousands of readers.

But they are also targets of opportunity for any winger attack machine with data mining capability: A single ill-considered comment can be taken out of context, distorted, and magnified—just like the SCLM magnified The Dean Scream (and then apologized for pushing a distorted non-story well after the deed, and the damage, were done).

The Dean Scream only happened on TV. By contrast, The Kos Scream happened on the Internet, and so the attack machine was able to go after not only Kos himself, but anyone who is or was linked to him. And, by the "six degrees of separation" anyone is going to be linked to him. Meaning that any degree of distortion and magnification is possible. Talk about handing a winger a loaded gun...

What to do? It's the very strength of blogging—our willingness to put ourselves on the line in public, and to build a community through shared words—that has just been used against us. And it will only get worse, the wingers being who and what they are.

Oddly, when Stollar looks for a solution, he comes up with the following:

I don't have an answer to the combination of a reactionary media environment smacking up against an open and free wheeling discussion chamber. It'll probably be solved by a long-term cultural change in the media environment. The best I can do in terms of practical solutions is wonder if it might be a good idea for the major papers to assign someone to a 'smear' beat, so readers can better understand how the manipulation of information pushes the political culture. Because it's clear that smearing someone is now easier than ever, and this increasing ease-of-smear is going to continue to create uncomfortable pressure for all sides.

Stollar has an interesting idea, but aren't newspapers really too slow for this? And will they defend us?

Since we can take more smears from the wingers for granted, can't the blogosphere come up with an answer on its own? Like an RSS-driven smear alert? Readers?

UPDATE I'm reminded by alert reader MJS to mention that Mr. Stollar oddly omits The Howler from his discussion. Seems to me, though, that Bob Somersby is more about SCLMology than defending the blogosphere from winger attack. Still, he might welcome a new beat.

Back to making money on T-shirts, PayPal, and mugs 

God, it's like Junior High.

Kos said something inflammatory, InstaHack jumped on it and transmitted some winger memes, newly Beltway-compliant Kevin Drum decided the wingers would play nice if we did, and now Atrios has to pull his donation pages.

What a farce.

Of course, you can't blame the DNC types and the campaigns for being skittish, with the winger attack machine as efficient and effective as it is in transmitting its memes through the SCLM. So from the standpoint of winning, Kevin Drum (in his way) and Atrios (in his own way) and the campaigns (in their ways) are making the right decisions for us all.

On the other hand, the real issue is how easily the manufactured outrage by the wingers gets transmitted, and how the smallest slip—or even deviation from the CW—by us gets magnified. I'm not sure how to fix this problem.

I do believe that taking money from Democrats won't fix this problem; the official Democrats, and we, need to do our own things in our own ways for both of us to win.

And I also believe that caving to the likes of InstaHack and the LGFers and the MBFs won't fix this problem either. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Incidentally, analytically, Kos was right (back), as so often.

And it's exactly because Kos is so often right that InstaHack and his ilk seek to destroy him (and all of us). Kos has provided us all with many useful analytical and rhetorical tools, and we can't even begin to change our lives for the better, or save the Republic from its enemies, without such tools. Our readers know this, and the usual winger tactics of manufactured outrage and character assassination (via Atrios) won't change that.

So, back to making money on T-shirts, PayPay, and mugs!

UPDATE More up here.

Looks like some Shi'ites don't want to wait for the June 30 handover.... 

Was Fallujah only the beginning?

Iraq was wracked today by its most violent civil disturbances since the occupation started, with a coordinated Shia uprising spreading across the country, from the slums of Baghdad to several cities in the south.

By day's end, witnesses said Shia militiamen controlled the city of Kufa, south of Baghdad, with armed men loyal to a radical cleric occupying the town's police stations and checkpoints. More than eight people were killed by Spanish forces in a similar uprising in the neighboring town of Najaf.

In Baghdad, American tanks battled militiamen loyal to Moqtada Al Sadr, the radical cleric who has denounced the occupation and has an army of thousands of young followers.

At nightfall today, the Sadr City neighborhood shook with explosions and tank and machine gun fire. Black smoke choked the sky. The streets were lined with armed militiamen, dressed in all black. American tanks surrounded the area. Attack helicopters thundered overhead.

"The occupation is over!" people on the streets yelled.
(via The Times)

Sistani, of course, would prefer to take power through elections. Looks like Sadr is a little more hotheaded, and wants it all now.

Incidentallly, Steve Gilliard at Kos has said for some time that the Shi'ites are the story to pay attention to. From way back in 2003, when all things seemed possible ...

Meanwhile, official Washington is discovering that Bush has no plan for the June 30 handover either:

Asked whether the transfer of power is coming too soon, [Republican Senator Richard] Lugar said, "It may be, and I think it's probably time to have that debate."

The only problem: The Shi'ites are already having the debate, and in the streets.

Lugar said there are still far too many questions about what will happen after June 30.

He said the administration has shared no plans with his committee regarding an ambassador, who the 3,000 embassy staff will be, and how they will be kept safe.

"This is a huge new exposure of Americans," Lugar told ABC's "This Week."

He added, "At this point, I would have thought there would have been a more comprehensive plan."
(via AP

Mercy. Lugar expects a plan from the Bush administration? Where has he been living for the past three years?

It's starting to look like events in Iraq are moving faster than debates in Washington, or the desires of the Bush Election Campaign, either. "Events, dear boy. Events...."

And where is the positive liberal and Democratic position on what to do about the Iraqi qWagmire? (See Soros below) I know what Bush would say: Give the Shi'ites tax cuts! But what is our policy?

UPDATE More cakewalking.

Soros: WOT, and Iraq as part of WOT, plays into AQ's hands 

Soros makes a strategic contribution. Where is Kerry, where is the DNC, and where are we on a positive way forward from Iraq? We can't really have Fundamentalists flying airplanes into our buildings, or letting off loose nukes in our cities, can we? So what is the liberal, and what is the Democratic vision? How can our positive core values work in the 21st Century?

The Bush administration is in the habit of waging personal vendettas against those who criticize its policies, but bit by bit the evidence is accumulating that the invasion of Iraq was among the worst blunders in U.S. history.

War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. The metaphor suited the purposes of the administration because it invoked our military might. But military actions require an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result, the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states like Afghanistan that are harboring terrorists, not at pursuing the terrorists themselves.

This does not mean that we should not use military means to capture and bring terrorists to justice when appropriate. But to protect ourselves against terrorism, we need precautionary measures, awareness and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Declaring war on the very people we need to enlist against terrorism is a huge mistake. We are bound to create some innocent victims, and the more of them there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into the next perpetrators.

The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush administration is more likely to bring about a permanent state of war than an end to terrorism. Terrorists are invisible; therefore, they will never disappear. They will continue to provide a convenient pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy by military means. That, in turn, will continue to generate resistance, setting up a vicious circle of escalating violence.

The important thing to remember about terrorism is that it is a reflexive phenomenon. Its impact and development depend on the actions and reactions of the victims. If the victims react by turning into perpetrators, terrorism triumphs in the sense of engendering more and more violence. That is what the fanatically militant Islamists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks must have hoped to achieve. By allowing a "war" on terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing straight into the terrorists' hands: They — not we — are setting our priorities.

By using the war on terror as a pretext for asserting our military supremacy, we are embarking on an escalating spiral of terrorist/ counterterrorist violence.

And now the policy proposal that isn't:

If instead we were to set an example of cooperative behavior, we could not only alleviate poverty, misery and injustice in the world, but also gain support for defending ourselves against terrorism. We will be the greatest beneficiaries if we do so.
(from George Soros in the LA Times)

Though I'm not sure what "cooperation" would look like. Readers?

NOTE Clearly, nothing can be done until Bush is no longer President, because nobody in their right mind would trust him, and threats and force can only carry us so far. It also seems clear to me that the Fundamentalist forces abroad and in the United States are one and the same, in that they both seek to escalate the cycle of violence (see Campaign Against Fundamentalism, back here.) I'm not clear on how a policy of cooperation can be started without the uncooperative acts of preventing Bush from being elected, and ridding the SCLM and the policy making apparatus of Fundamentalist influence.

Why is Proconsul Bremer always surrounded by large men with goatees, sunglasses, and semi-automatic weapons? 

In other words, mercenaries.

Doesn't the Army have Special Forces that can do the job? What's going on?

The 9/11 Truth Page 

An interesting project from Disinfopedia. Check it out!

300,000 down 2,700,000 to go 

Alert reader Hobson points us to the following post by MaxSpeak (and it would sure be nice if the DNC was faxblasting stuff like this. Like they're paid to do.)

The question is WHEN, or HOW RAPIDLY. In January of 2001, the Bushies implied a return to trend that required over 300,000 new jobs a month. This month's is the first report that overcomes that hurdle. In terms of job accumulation over the past year, we are still way behind.

The problem with some conservative commentary is this:

If the job prediction was noithing more than a return to trend, then the White House was practicing hokum by implying that this return to trend depended on their tax cuts.

If the job growth they predicted was nothing more than a return to trend, then the tax cuts are ineffectual in producing jobs, since all we're doing is getting back to trend.

If the household survey is more accurate because it captures all those magical job gains in self-employment and entrepreneurial pastimes, then this month's report stinks badly.
(via MaxSpeak)

Don't confuse us with facts! Bush knows! So that that we may believe!

Never Give Up On A First-Rate Mind 

Truly first-rate that is. Not first in his class first-rate. Top-drawer first-rate. Someone like Leon Wieseltier.

No one could be more surprised than am I to find myself praising either Mr. Wieseltier or his mind.

It was not always thus. When he first began to make his presence known at The New Republic back in the early eighties, I was among his most devoted admirers. I looked forward to finding his name in the Table of Contents. But by the nineties I'd begun to dread seeing it there.

I'm not sure if I changed, or Mr. Wieseltier changed. I think it was the issue of race that ultimately divided us, as more and more he seemd to became comfortable with the Peretz apostasy on that and related matters; no, it wasn't a case of Wieseltier revealing himself to be a racist, only that he was too ready, like so many of TNR writers nurtured by Mr. Peretz, to accept a critique of liberal positions on race that were less a critique than an unearned assumption of intellectual and moral superiority, especially in regards to the issues of affirmative action, poverty, and "welfare." Wiseltier's pieces increasingly became jeremiads, his tone. scourging, as this or that Democratic policy position, this or that feminist, this of that black intellectual was shown to be a worthless fool. Occasionally, I would return to check out what he had to say and be rewarded with calm insight. Then I stopped even doing that; it was too painful to read his wrathful excoriations of anyone who didn't view the Israeli/Palestine horror the way he does.

Today, I noticed a Wieseltier piece online at TNR about the recent Supreme Court hearing, on the constitutionality of that magical phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, with this intriguing title and subtitle, "Under God And Over" "What America Can Learn From Its Atheists." The article does not disappoint. This is Leon Wieseltier at his best, wry, brilliant, insightful, the writing itself, majestic without being full of itself. Something else it is; unafraid to take on the fuzzy religiosity of so many of the voices one hears on this topic of what should be the church/state relationship in a secular democracy. Unfortunately, the article resides behind a subscriber wall, although I do think TNR has some form of day pass, so let me urge you to find a way to read it by giving you a brief sense of what Wieseltier has to say.

He starts with this brilliantly funny unlikelihood.

It was the first time that William Rehnquist ever put me in mind of Søren Kierkegaard.

The "it" refers to Wieseltier's presence in the chamber during oral arguments, those for the government handled by our old friend, Ted Olson, whose positions Wieseltier pretty much flays to the bone, and those for the plaintiff handled by the plaintiff, "Michael A. Newdow, the atheist from California who was defending his victory in a lower court..." whom Wieseltier ends up admiring, with a few reservations of course, but whose challenge to an official government vision of an America "under God" Wieseltier ultimately finds " terrifically stirring."

Wieseltier gives us as stirring an account of what it was like to be there at the Supreme Court that day, interwoven with a nuanced, learned, commentary on religious meaning, religion vs. morality, the founder's Deism, and the ways in which a defense of religion can become a denial of religion.

The discussion that morning fully vindicated the majesty of the chamber, as legal themes gave way to metaphysical themes and philosophy bewitched the assembly. But something strange happened. Almost as soon as philosophy was invited, it was disinvited. It seemed to make everybody anxious, except the respondent. I had come to witness a disputation between religion's enemies and religion's friends. What I saw instead, with the exception of a single comment by Justice Souter, was a disputation between religion's enemies, liberal and conservative. And this confirmed me in my conviction that the surest way to steal the meaning, and therefore the power, from religion is to deliver it to politics, to enslave it to public life.

Some of the individuals to whom I am attributing a hostility to religion would resent the allegation deeply. They regard themselves as religion's finest friends. But what kind of friendship for religion is it that insists that the words "under God" have no religious connotation? A political friendship, is the answer. And that is precisely the kind of friendship that the Bush administration exhibited in its awful defense of the theistic diction of the Pledge. The solicitor general stood before the Court to argue against the plain meaning of ordinary words. In the Pledge of Allegiance, the government insisted, the word "God" does not refer to God. It refers to a reference to God.

(edit)

At the Christian demonstration outside the Supreme Court that morning, one of the speakers remarked, as she reminded her listeners that "the Soviet Union was definitely not a nation under God," that "I guess it's not a surprise that if you don't acknowledge God you don't care about lying." Are there no religious liars? Not if you hold that religion and morality are the same; or if you deem a statement to be true because it includes a mention of God.

(edit)

Justice Breyer wondered, in a challenge to Newdow, whether the words "under God" referred only to a "supreme being." Citing United States v. Seeger from 1965.....Breyer suggested that the God in "under God" is "this kind of very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing." And he posed an extraordinary question to Newdow: "So do you think that God is so generic in this context that it could be that inclusive, and if it is, then does your objection disappear?"

Needless to say, Newdow's objection did not disappear, because it is one of the admirable features of atheism to take God seriously. Newdow's reply was unforgettable: "I don't think that I can include 'under God' to mean 'no God,' which is exactly what I think. I deny the existence of God." The sound of those words in that room gave me what I can only call a constitutional thrill. This is freedom.

(edit)

And there is another problem. It is that nobody worships a "very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing." Such a level of generality, a "generic" God, is religiously senseless. Breyer's solution was another attempt to salvage religious expression by emptying it of religious content. But why should a neutralized God be preferred to a neutral government? The preference is attractive only if religion is regarded primarily from the standpoint of politics.

(edit)

There is no greater insult to religion than to expel strictness of thought from it. Yet such an expulsion is one of the traits of contemporary American religion, as the discussion at the Supreme Court demonstrated. Religion in America is more and more relaxed and "customized," a jolly affair of hallowed self-affirmation, a religion of a holy whatever. Speaking about God is prized over thinking about God. Say "under God" even if you don't mean under God. And if you mean under God, don't be tricked into giving an account of what you mean by it. Before too long you have arrived at a sacralized cynicism:

And take a look at this wonderful reminder of the centuries-long tradition of religious leaders being among the most insistant supporters of a separation between religion and government.

Justice Stevens recalled a devastating point from the fascinating brief submitted in support of Newdow by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, which asserted that "if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously," that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God, "then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment" that "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain."

As Wieseltier reminds us, those ten commandments are not suggestions. Why oh why aren't any of those thirty-two members of the clergy ever invited on any of the cable/broadcast news shows to be the countervailing guest to the inevitable Christian fundamentalist, instead of or in addition to the inevitable Barry Lynde? Could it be because all that talk about Americans and their deeply held religious beliefs has the effect of denaturing them?

For the argument that a reference to God is not a reference to God is a sign that American religion is forgetting its reasons. The need of so many American believers to have government endorse their belief is thoroughly abject. How strong, and how wise, is a faith that needs to see God's name wherever it looks?

I'm among those who, while knowing that Michael Newdow is absolutely right about the Pledge of Allegiance, had wished he'd not brought his suit. Reading Leon Wieseltier, I too experienced "a constitutional thrill" along with a realization of how wrong and how cowardly is such a position.

Find a way to read the whole essay. It's a wonderful basis for initiating a discussion of how to craft better arguments in support of the church/state separation doctrine, and how to better frame our response to the right's organized insistence that their own constant efforts to undermine one of our most basic constitutional principles is only a response to some sort of left-wing secularist attack on religion in general, and Christianity in particular.



Coming Soon! ~ MASTERS of DELUSION! 

Learn to throw your voice!





Tickets available from the Office of Special Planning. (all purchases are non-refundable)

Have a nice day.

Saturday, April 03, 2004

What's a sock puppet without a hand? 

So, aWol and Dick "Dick" Cheney are going to "visit" with the 9/11 Commission together. Touching.

The arrangement confirms Bush’s inability to articulate anything without a script--or a tutor by his side. There’s a reason lawyers don’t take testimony in groups. The whole idea is to get individual recollections and then compare stories to uncover contradictions. Try thinking about it this way: can anyone imagine Bush’s father in a similar situation bringing his vice president? (For those who need a refresher course, the elder Bush was a rocket scientist compared to his son, and the vice president was Dan Quayle.)
Even President Reagan testified alone on the Iran-contra scandal. He didn’t insist on having Vice President Bush sit beside him.
(via TBogg from Eleanor Clift here)

Heh. A Republican strategist calls the letter of agreement on this goofy arrangement "the Wizard of Oz" letter—Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Speak for yourself, George! Or can't you?

UPDATE From alert reader MJS:

GEORGE: Take your hand out of my ass.

DICK: What, and give up Show Biz?

[Applause. Laughter.]


Hey, is there any reason to believe the Fallujah mercs were really delivering food? 

I know that's how the story reads, but is there any evidence it's true?

UPDATE Apparently not. See Body and Soul.

TROLL PROPHYLACTIC Nobody deserves to die, and the mercs didn't deserve what happened to them.

Bring back marital capture! It's in the Bible! 

Allen at The Right Christians quotes a nice take on Bible authority and gay marriage:

Many are now lifting up the Bible to prove that God does not want loving people of the same sex to enjoy the privileges of marriage, though an argument might be mounted on biblical grounds that marriage is a spiritual union of two people who are dedicated each to the other. Or not.

Perhaps we can mount a crusade in favor of marriage by capture, a form popular for centuries in the ancient biblical world, or the habit of powerful biblical characters to have a house full of both wives and concubines.

Or should we pursue marriage by purchase? Neither Rachel or Leah seemed to appreciate it, charging their father with selling them.

A form of marriage very popular among some groups then and now is the patriarchal, where the wife is subservient to the husband. In the most extreme forms, the wife becomes chattel property of the husband. Even in the Ten Commandments the wife is listed along with the house, slaves, donkeys, oxen, or anything else owned by the husband.
(via The Right Christians)

FTF...

Jobs report: 300,000 down, 2,700,000 to go 

Remember, Bush promised us 300,000 jobs a month a year ago, and he's lost 3,000,000 since being in office. And a lot of the 300,000 is California grocery workers coming back from their strike.

(Perspective from Oliver WIllis.)

FTF [draft] 

Vulgar. "Fuck the Fundamentalists."

Usage example: "My tax dollars are paying for a book in the Grand Canyon gift shop that claims the earth is 6000 years old. FTF."

See also "Campaign Against Fundamentalism," here

Republican donors giving to Nader 

I wonder why?

In February, the first month of the Nader campaign, it received generous donations from 11 people who had previously given money to Mr. Bush or to the Republican Party.
(via The Times)

Being Republicans, they've all got a plausible deniability thing going for them, but... Come on.

Ralph!

Productivity is how much work for how much money. And the employers have been stealing the money! 

No wonder the productivity numbers are high!

Experts on compensation say that the illegal doctoring of hourly employees' time records is far more prevalent than most Americans believe. The practice, commonly called shaving time, is easily done and hard to detect — a simple matter of computer keystrokes — and has spurred a growing number of lawsuits and settlements against a wide range of businesses.

Another reason managers shave time, experts say, is that an increasing part of their compensation comes in bonuses based on minimizing costs or maximizing profits.

"The pressures are just unbelievable to control costs and improve productivity," said George Milkovich, a longtime Cornell University professor of industrial relations and co-author of the leading textbook on compensation. "All this manipulation of payroll may be the unintended consequence of increasing the emphasis on bonuses."

In the punch-card era, managers would have had to conspire with payroll clerks or accountants to manipulate records. But now it is far easier for individual managers to accomplish this secretly with computers, payroll experts say.
(via Times)

Why? Like so much else in Bush's America: As the punchline to the old joke goes, "Because they can!" Sounds like the old punch cards protected us just like mechanical voting machines did. When computers came in, everything got easier to fake.

Because Bush guts our protections, those who can steal from us, do. Yech.

Flashmob supercomputers 

AP here.

Wonder what a supercomputing flashmob could do at the RNC ... Probably simulate the whole thing, since it's going to be very predictable anyhow.

Or provide a central nexus for hundreds of bloggers doing "live play by play" and cell phone sending live pictures...

Surely more interesting than breaking windows and giant puppets? Just a thought....

You'll never win the NASCAR dads without Merle Haggard 

And what is the WhiteWash House going to do? Threaten to fire him?

Country singer Merle Haggard says he's as red, white and blue as they come, but has been disappointed by how President Bush responded to the panel probing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Haggard, 66, has been critical in songs and in interviews of the Iraq war and of what he views as an erosion of individual freedom. ...

On Thursday he cited the administration's flip flop on National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's requested testimony to the Sept. 11 panel as another example of poor leadership.

"There have been some things, like saying no with (Condoleezza Rice) to begin with and then having a White House reversal," Haggard said in a telephone interview from California. "I don't think a White House reversal looks good anytime."
(AP via The Chicago Tribune)

Funny, you'd think an "outlaw" like Merle Haggard would identify with Bush. Maybe Haggard is mellowing...

A vision of the liberal body politic at the Reading Terminal Market 

The Reading Terminal is one of Philadelphia's great institutions. It's a combination of a Central Market and a food court—except, unlike at a mall, none of the restaurants and stands are chains, they all sell real food, and because they're local, the money stays in Philly. And it's right in Center City, so you can walk or take the train to it. And now the Reading Terminal has free WiFi.

So this morning, I've been blogging from the Reading Terminal ($2.00 home-made ginger snaps described, of all places, in the Times).

All around: Tommy Dinic's Roast Beef and Pork. Johnny Yi's Fish Market; in neon: "Eat Fish, Live Longer." Famous Philadelphia Hoagies (run by Koreans). Food for the Skin (Bath - Body - Spirit) by Terralyn. Mezze Mediterranean Foods. Martin's Fancy Meats and Sausages.

And lots of Philadelphians—old, young, black, white, rich, poor, local, out-of-town—sitting down at the smae table and happily chowing down the food of their choice. You want lean? We got lean. Cholesterol bomb? We got that too. Kosher? No problem.

This is, I think, a paradigm of the body politic as a liberal conceives it. People get to choose their own food, and all sit down together. Also, a lot of small businesses making it on a playing field that the government makes sure is level by providing the right infrastructure.

This is, I think, also the opposite of how the Fundamentalists conceive the body politic. If they had their way, there would be only one kind of food, and only those who wanted it would sit down together. Everyone else would be out in the cold. "They only have one book, and it tells them to burn all the other books," as Neil Stephensen observed in another context in The Diamond Age. FTF ...


Bush leaks more selective intelligence—and it doesn't even help him! 

I thought KaWen would have gotten these guys all straightened out by now. Apparently not; the WhiteWash House just isn't on top of its dirty game right now. Probably too busy getting themselves lawyered up for the criminal investigations....

The Bush administration has released a previously classified document about its plan to attack Osama bin Laden in an effort to protect its beleaguered National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, against claims that she failed to recognise the threat posed by al-Qa'ida.

After a week of damaging allegations that the administration failed to heed warnings that al-Qa'ida was planning to attack the US, the White House released information which showed that a week before 11 September 2001, President Bush ordered his military planners to draw up plans to strike the terror network.
(via IIndependent)

And that's the point! This "defense" of Condi proves Clarke's point! He had plans to strike AQ ready from Day One. It took him eight months to get a meeting. And it took them nine months to give the order even to draw up a plan.

Some defense of Condi. I guess they really are going to heave her over the side.

And, oh yeah, it's OK to declassify intelligence if it helps the Bush election campaign, and it isn't, when it doesn't. So there are rules. Now I feel better.

Times editors pen the most thumbsucking headline ever, bar none. Wait for it... 

"The Mystery Deepens"
Here's what the brainiacs on the editorial board of The World's Greatest Newspaper (not!) can't understand:

The Bush administration's handling of the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy grows worse — and more oddly self-destructive — with each passing day. Following its earlier attempts to withhold documents from the panel and then to deny its members vital testimony, we now learn that President Bush's staff has been withholding thousands of pages of Clinton administration papers as well.

This latest distressing episode followed the White House's pattern of resisting the commission in private and then, once the dispute becomes public, reluctantly giving up the minimum amount of ground.

it is astonishing that it would still withhold anything that did not pose an immediate and dire threat to national security. The American people would like to know that they have a government that freely gives information to legitimate investigations on matters of grave national interest, not one that fights each reasonable request until it is exposed and forced to submit. The White House is serving no public purpose by acting less interested than the rest of us in having this commission do its vital work. Its ham-handed behavior is also gravely damaging the entire concept of executive privilege.
(via The Times)

Tut tut!

Pshaw!

For shame!

Readers, can anyone help the Times editors solve this mystery?

NOTE: FWIW, my speculation is that the heart of the mystery is in the PDBs (Tom, back). My guess: Condi passed on a PDB, probably when Bush was on vacation, which said that AQ would use airplanes as missiles (a well-known fact anyhow, back), and that Bush either initialled the PDB or added some annotation that would prove that he read it. This would explain why Bush won't even give the commission copies of the PDBs.

Why doesn't anyone ever ask Bush if he thinks the earth is only 6000 years old? 

Scientists, of course, know differently.

Fossil Illuminates Evolution of Limbs from Fins

The discovery of a 365-million-year-old forelimb is helping scientists better understand how ancient creatures made the transition from water to land. A report published today in the journal Science describes the fossil, which represents an intermediate stage in the evolution of fish fins into vertebrate limbs.

Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago and his colleagues recovered the bone, which was encased in a brick-size piece of red sandstone, from the side of a highway in north central Pennsylvania.
(via Scientific American)

FTF...

And make up your own jokes. Of course, the obvious one would be along the lines of the wingers not needing limbs, since they're still crawling in slime... But that is the sort of cheap shot that we here at Corrente pride ourselves in not taking.

A Republic of Mercenaries: Why billions for planes and tanks but no body armor for troops? 

Why is it that Bush hasn't gotten the troops their body armor yet? You'd think a war preznit could arrange that kind of thing with a stroke of the pen through an Executive Order. After all, just because John Kerry says to do it doesn't make it a bad idea.

Why is it that Bush screws up their payrolls, screws up their combat pay, screws up their health care, and screws up their benefits? Why does he send troops who aren't combat-ready into combat? (Guardian)

The answer came to me this morning: I think it's a variant of Starve the Beast. This may seem counter-intuitive, but hear me out.

Under Bush, the big defense contractors will never be privatized, in the sense of being forced to compete—and a great power does need weaponry (though perhaps not so very much, and it would be nice if it all worked).

However, the work that the troops, the grunts, do can be privatized, and is being so. The strategy is to keep wages and working conditions lousy (see above), keep turnover high, and cream off a percentage of those who leave the military into mercenary armies, like Blackwater. The mercenary armies are (a) doubtless large Republican contributors and (b) allow the President to make war whenever and however he wants, without being subject to all that pesky Congressional oversight.

Needless to say, that's not the kind of military a Republic can have, and stay a Republic. Praetorian Guard, anyone?

Now, Blackwater brings me to the events in Fallujah. In my original post on this, (Gruesome pictures, back), I wrote that I doubted that the contractors knew what they were really signing up for. Several alert readers wrote in to say that the victims were from Blackwater, and that they knew exactly what they were signing up for.

Those readers were right, though nobody deserves to be burned to death and hung from a bridge, whether it's a risk they knew they were taking or not.

But I think the distinction I tried to draw still has force. When a citizen joins the military, he or she takes an oath (ibid) to protect and defend the country. When an employee joins a mercenary army, he or she signs a contract. It's wrong to confuse an oath to defend the country with a contract to perform certain services for money, and to give both equal status.

In fact, to say that the oath which the troops take is the moral equivalent of the contract which mercenaries sign is to open the door to a privatized military: A Republic of Mercenaries. Mercenaries are now the third largest international force in Iraq, after the US and the UK. So Kos (thanks to alert reader Ricky Vandal) has this one exactly right.

Of course, the SCLM is behaving even worse than usual on this. As Kos points out, the deaths of contractors got more coverage than the deaths of the troops. That's wrong, and the SCLM was clearly (despite the handwringing) driven to push the story because of the photos which were, indeed, gruesome. So the SCLM is contributing, in its own way, to a Republic of Mercenaries as well.

You know, every so often a hiker gets lost in the woods, and the government has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to helicopter them back to civilization and treat them for exposure. The story is then generally treated by the wingers as a little parable of moral hazard, since if the hiker had known they would die if lost in woods, instead of being rescued, they would have taken care not to get lost in the first place.

Isn't using the full force of the US military to rescue or avenge mercenaries exactly the same case of moral hazard writ large? Shouldn't we be seeking to "pacify" Fallujah (if such a thing is possible) because the country has foreign policy goals it undertakes on behalf of its citizens, as opposed to "responding" on behalf of mercenaries who knew what they were getting into?

So, the future: Big Defense pocketing billions, mercenary armies pocketing billions, no democratic oversight, and all for the buck. After lying, looting is what Republicans do best!

UPDATE Kos to the wingers on this issue: Bring it on! Steve Gilliard has some heated commentary on the issue here.

Why do they hate America? 

The reaction to Bush's stonewalling tactics:

A CBS News poll taken this week said seven in 10 Americans believe the Bush administration is either hiding something or lying about what it knew before the Sept. 11 attacks about possible terrorist attacks against the United States.
(via AP)

It's the coverup that kills you. Either these people haven't learned anything from Nixon, or too much power makes you stupid. I wonder which it is?

Friday, April 02, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

Tomorrow is another day.

Bush "release" of Clinton files to 9/11 Commission: I knew there'd be a catch 

"All" never means "all" with these guys, does it? (back)

But even as the White House tried to convince the panel that it was not withholding valuable information, administration officials refused to make a commitment to let the commission have copies of the Clinton-era documents.

So what is the Commmission supposed to do? Use shorthand? Memorize them?

And the officials suggested that similar, highly classified Bush White House documents might also have been withheld from the panel.

Well. Now the Commission doesn't really know what it has, does it? And Kean traded away the right to recall witnesses. Smart move!

The disclosure by the White House on Thursday that it had withheld thousands of classified national-security documents gathered by the National Archives from the files of the Clinton White House drew protests from members of the commission, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as Congressional Democrats.

Mr. Lindsey said he had reviewed many of the 10,800 documents gathered by the National Archives, where Mr. Clinton's files are stored, and found them to be valuable to the commission's work. He said they included many documents about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the government's counterterrorism policies.

But the final decision on whether the documents could be handed over was left to the Bush White House, which decided to block transfer of three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of material, said former Clinton aides who say they were concerned that so many documents had been withheld.
(via The Times)

Just more stonewalling.

Why do the 9/11 families stand for it? And Lindsey must be able to make an educated guess about what Bush is withholding, and why—why doesn't someone just ask him?

More burglaries from The Goon Squad 

First Kerry's FBI records, now this. Anyone sensing a pattern?

Scottsdale Democratic Party officials feel targeted after a computer hard drive with donors' information and mailing list was stolen last month and the office was vandalized Wednesday.

"The fact that we've had two in the last three weeks is very, very suspicious," said Leon Chusid, District 8 treasurer, headquartered at 8350 E. McDonald Drive. "And it's also very terrifying."

The only thing taken in the first incident was a computer's hard drive with information about precinct committee members, mailing lists and fund-raising.

The computer monitor and keyboard were left behind and there were no signs of forced entry in the burglary, said Detective Sam Bailey, a spokesman for the Scottsdale Police Department.
(The Arizona Republic via Pandagon)

Actually, first (that we know of) the theft of the Democratic files on the Judiciary, then Kerry's FBI records, now this.

Oh, and Arizona is a swing state. Of course.

Yawning Boy to be on Letterman tonight! 

See Tyler Crott here (back)

Hey, I wonder if his Pioneer Dad prepped him better this time!

Readers, I don't have a TV.... So if any of you can fill us in on how it goes, that would be great. Thanks!

UPDATE The Orlando Sentinel has the video.

Bush caves on Clinton documents he sought to hide from 9/11 commission 

Of course, with Bush, "all" is a very elastic term.

The Bush administration gave the federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks access Friday to thousands of classified counterterrorism documents from the Clinton administration.

Bush officials granted the Sept. 11 commission's request to review the material after Bruce Lindsey, former legal adviser to President Clinton, said the administration failed to turn over all of Clinton's records to the panel.

Lindsey said Thursday that the commission isn't getting a full picture of Clinton's terrorism policies because the Bush administration had only forwarded 25 percent of the 11,000 records it wanted to provide the panel.

(via eh Guardian AP)

Ha. I wonder if Lindsey has given them any clues about where to look?

Does anyone feel safer yet? 

Three years on, the busses and trains aren't safe. Of course, the shadow government has its bunkers, so they're OK....

Bombs hidden in luggage could be used in a plot to attack buses and railways in major American cities this summer, U.S. security authorities said on Friday.

"We assess that buses and railways could be targeted," the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security said in a bulletin issued to law enforcement agencies, local governments and the transportation industry.

"The plot calls for the use of improvised explosive devices possibly constructed of ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) and diesel fuel concealed in luggage and carry-on bags to include duffel bags and backpacks," according to the bulletin.

It said, "al Qaeda and other groups have demonstrated the intent and capability to attack public transportation with conventional explosives, vehicle-borne bombs and suicide bombers."
(via Reuters)

Interesting that little mention of "other groups"... Sounds like the FBI has been reading their Orcinus, who has consistently pointed out how Bush and the FBI ignore the home-grown right wing threats—heck, they might need the militias to kill liberals!—and will reap the whirlwind if the wingers ally themselves with AQ, as they are showing signs of doing.


Impeach Bu$h - Now More Than Ever 

April 2, 2004
John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be Impeached

NOW with Bill Moyers - PBS tonight, April 02, 2004
BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write, quote, "The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."

JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states-- I cite one. I cite one that I found -- I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when-- Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.

BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at the time of the Gulf of-- Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. It subsequent turns out there wasn't an attack.

Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable offense but what is happening now is?

JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it comes up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an impeachable offense. That became a high crime or offense because Nixon had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson didn't tell anybody the game he was playing to my knowledge.

And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make-- when you take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it on bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.


Impeach Central: Petition / Articles of Impeachment

*

When hell freezes over! 

Nancy Pelosi:

"The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."
(via AP)

But what's sock puppet without a hand?

Hey, maybe Kerry could debate both Bush and Cheney at the same time! 

It's a tag team concept! And that way, Bush and Cheney could keep their stories straight! Just like Bush and Cheney "visiting" with the 9/11 Commission together....



Jobs numbers finally improve, despite Bush policies 

For all the people who were finally able to get jobs this month, I'm happy.

For Bush, who will now claim, based on one month's numbers, that he's made his numbers for his whole term, I'm happy.

For the millions who have left the work force entirely because they don't feel they can ever get jobs, I'm not happy.

For the millions of US citizens working on the minimum wage ($10,000 a year), I'm not happy.

For the millions who depend on overtime to pay their bills, and who Bush is still trying to screw, I'm not happy.

For the millions who are putting in more hours and working harder for the same money because of "the lash," (back), I'm not happy.

When will the total number of jobs under Bush gets back to where it was under Clinton? When that happens, maybe Bush can claim some success. Note that unemployment is at the same high rate as it has been, since people who were formerly discouraged have returned to the jobs force.

As it is, we're still in "the operation was a success, but the patient died" mode.

UPDATE An interesting final paragraph from the AP article touting Bush's elation:

West Virginia had the lowest labor force participation rate in the United States last year, 54.6 percent. Many people simply stopped looking for work and were no longer counted among the unemployed.

Like Edwards said: Two socities.

Gary Hart also warns White House, prior to 9/11 

Thanks to Elvis56 for pointing me to this article in Salon.com by David Talbot. [excerpt and link follows]

Condi Rice's other wake-up call - Former Sen. Gary Hart says he, too, warned Rice about an imminent terror attack on two occasions before 9/11. ~ By David Talbot [ See:Salon.com ]


Also, noticed this interview Hart gave to Australian radio program PM. Excerpts follow.

Transcript
This is a transcript from PM. The program is broadcast around Australia at 5:10pm on Radio National and 6:10pm on ABC Local Radio. You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA formats.

US national security commission terror warnings pre-September 11
STORY
PM - Friday, 26 March , 2004 18:30:00
Reporter: Geraldine Doogue

MARK COLVIN: [...]

Gary Hart was a Democrat Presidential candidate in the 80s. More recently he's been the co-chairman of the US Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. The Commission issued strong warnings throughout 2001 about America being at risk of a terrorist attack, including one just five days before September 11.

Geraldine Doogue asked Gary Hart if the Commission's warnings were the kind that the Bush administration could reasonably have acted on.

GARY HART: Well, yes and no. There were specific enough, and I quote our first report in September 1999:

"America will be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and Americans will lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers", end quote.

[...] [more at ABC Online Australia HERE



Backtrack February 2002 Five months after 9/11, VP Cheney addresses a Council of Foreign Relations gathering:

Throughout the time that I've been a member of the council, most of our debates were defined by the Cold War. When America's great enemy [Soviet Union] suddenly disappeared, many wondered what new direction our foreign policy would take. We spoke, as always, of long-term problems and regional crises throughout the world, but there was no single immediate, global threat that any roomful of experts could agree upon.

All of that changed five months ago. [9/11] The threat is known and our role is clear now. ~ [Vice President Dick Cheney speaking to a Council of Foreign Relations benefit in February 2002.] - Source: CFR transcript - Earlier reference: Flower of the Lupine


*

I'm with you, Tyler! 

This is before Acting President Rove left the horse's head in his bed, of course.





(via Wonkette)


Hey, wasn't it child abuse to leave a horse's head in The Yawning Boy's bed? 

The Yawning Boy is, well, the boy (Tyler Crotty) who yawned during a Bush campaign speech (fancy!). Krugman summarizes:

On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.

CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.

On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."

But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
(via The Times)

Well, now the control freaks in the WhiteWash House have take control of media access to the poor kid (and God knows what else. They'd better get him to sign a contract he'll never write a book). Probably the same team that handled the Jessica Lynch thing so well...

The White House, trying to get out in front of the Yawning Boy story, is now in charge of media access to the young man who was seen on David Letterman's show this week yawning his way through one of President Bush's less robust speeches.

OK, the horse's head got left at that point. Now we hear this:

"He's a young person who strongly supports the president and is excited about getting a chance to talk about it," White House assistant press secretary Reed Dickens told The TV Column yesterday.

But of course, there's no problem. After all, the Bush campaign is famous for being able to take a joke!

Dickens says the Bush campaign was tickled about the whole thing: "We think it's all in good nature, very good-humored."

That's certainly what the boy's Dad thought (not!):

[The elder Crotty, Richard, Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell] says, "was anxious when I first talked to him; he was deadly serious about this, saying, 'I accept full responsibility; I should have prepared him better.'

"Maybe he thought the wrath of the Bushes was going to come down on him.... Then he started to loosen up."

"I think whatever problems the Bushes might have had with the [Crotty] son they got over with pretty quick as soon as Dad reached 'Pioneer status,' " Maxwell says.

Yes, money talks. Letterman's reaction:

"This whole thing just smells. Doesn't it smell a little bit?" Letterman asked his audience last night.

"I mean, it just seems all just a little too tidy, just a little too neat. And now, the guy, the kid in Florida -- and his old man -- was really upset in the beginning. . . . Well, now everybody down there loves it. Everybody couldn't be happier; everybody thought it was hilarious. So you see, it's just a little too tidy. Stuff like this never ends happily, certainly not happily for me. I was waiting for the lawsuit, I was waiting to be arrested, I was waiting to be beaten to a pulp, and now, oh . . . we couldn't be happier."
(via WaPo)

Money.

An Open Letter To MoveOn.org 

Dear MoveOn,

Richard Clarke is right.

I refer to that ad you've made that makes use of Clarke's words and voice in a frontal attack on the Bush administration. Mr Clarke's discomfort was predictable and is entirely understandable. Not that there's anything wrong with being partisan; those of us who remain unpleased with our current President's performance in office are and should be proudly partisan.

My disagreement with your position takes nothing away from my admiration and support for MoveOn as a uniquely hopeful organization that is reviving American democracy from the grass roots up.

But Richard Clarke is about something else. He has taken pains to be clear that he is not a "partisan," that in writing his book and testifying before the 9/11 Commission he has acted without personal rancor, his single purpose, to inform, to enlighten, and not to take sides anywhere but in the voting booth. And since he clearly had some idea of the kind of personal attacks his going public was bound to unleash against him, I don't think it's excessive to view him as heroic.

Not that your ad claims him for our side. It doesn't. But let's be honest with ourselves; unfairly or not, your ad is bound to undermine his credibility, the maintenance of which, for the time being, is a far more important goal for us partisans than is the dissemination of his views, especially in thirty second soundbites. Hey guys, it ain't worth it. Nor is it fair to Richard Clarke.

The counter arguments you’ve made in response to his wish you withdraw the ads are good ones, both legally and ethically. But when all is said and done, aren’t they really beside the point?

This story isn't over. Let it play out. There will be time enough to use intelligently what we've learned from Mr. Clarke, and without drawing his ire, or giving such ready ammunition to those determined to attack his integrity.

As noted at TAPPED, this was the week that the SCLM seems to have discovered those four young 9/11 widows from New Jersey who're are the main reason there is a 9/11 Commission. One of them, Kristin Breitweiser, appeared last Thursday on Hardball (scrowl down) and made this statement about her response to the commission hearing at which Clarke appeared:

BREITWEISER: Frankly, the commissioners, I think, need to do a self-examination and determine who they‘re really representing on this commission. Are they representing the interests of the families and the rest of the nation? Or are they representing certain Washington individuals?

And I think that they really need to make that decision prior to their writing of the final report. The families want a transparent definitive comprehensive final report removed from politics.

It is such an insult to sit through hearings that we have waited two and a half years to have and have to bear witness to such partisan politics.

When Chris Matthews tried to get her to attack the Republican commission members to whom she was clearly referring, she refused to take the bait. But that didn't keep her from saying this about Condi Rice in regards to her statement that in the summer of 2001, no one could have imagined a terrorist attack using airliners as missiles.

You know, Chris, the families would like Dr. Rice to testify under oath in a public hearing. She made a very public statement and I think one of two things. Either she flat out lied or she‘s incompetent, because the historical record is replete with instances of planes being used as missiles.

I can hold up the joint inquiry report. You see all the post-its on here, indicating instances of planes being used as missiles, of al Qaeda being interested in using plane as missiles of attacks in the homeland.

It's sting is directly proportional to Kristen Breitweiser's insistence on a stance of strict non-partisanship.

"A transparent definitive comprehensive final report removed from politics..." Isn't that what we all want? That the White House appears not to want that, whatever they claim, says everything about how they view in whose genuine interest such a document will prove to be.

Kristen Breitweiser's articulation of what should be the goal for all of us gives you a graceful way to withdraw the ad. May I respectfully submit that this is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.

As ever, your loyal MoveOn member



More loot for the insiders? 

Were those (good) job numbers leaked (Atrios)? If so, it would sure have meant a big windfall for whoever had advance notice and put money into the market before it jumped....

UPDATE WaPo was a very detailed story about the BLS Process, which indicates that the figures are to be released at 8:30AM, exactly. So (as Atrios asks) how was Reuters able to release them at 8:28AM?

Looting the 9/11 sites: FBI to restore Tiffany globe looted by underling, says nothing of Rumsfeld's looting 

I guess this is one looted item the FBI didn't give to "dignitaries" (back, Pioneers and Rangers?)

The Justice Department is looking for the owner of a Tiffany globe paperweight at the center of an investigation into FBI agents taking rubble from the World Trade Center.

An investigation by Fine concluded that an FBI agent improperly removed the globe from a debris collection site at the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island, N.Y. In all, the probe found that 13 agents improperly took items ranging from chunks of concrete to pieces of New York fire trucks, leading the FBI to adopt a new policy barring agents from taking anything from crime scenes.

The Tiffany globe, which wound up on the desk of an FBI secretary in its Minneapolis field office, was the item that sparked the initial investigation into removal of Sept. 11 debris. Tiffany sells the globes for about $350, but officials estimated that as a Sept. 11 artifact it could be worth $5,000 or more.
(via AP)

So, have the agents been discisplined?

And if they have, why hasn't Rumsfeld, who looted aircraft parts from the 9/11 site, which is a felony for which others have been prosecuted?

Could it be that under Bush, there is one law for high administration officials, and another law for everyone else?

Plame Affair: It's the coverup the gets you 

Bush officials? Lie? Huh?

Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent counsel inquiries of the 1990's, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration.
(via The Times)

"Like"?

Ha.

With one exception, of course. In the Plame Affair, laws could actually have been broken, and the whole thing isn't ginned up by The Goon Squad attack machine. Other than that....

The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House.

That's because the FBI wouldn't let them be interviewed together, so they could keep their stories straight! Bush and Cheney aren't going to make that mistake again...

At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House. It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

Funny how the WhiteWash House threatens to prosecute Clarke and O'Neill, but when they release classified information, there's never a peep. Why is that?

UPDATE Josh Marshall has a very interesting posting and memo that suggests why Acting President Rove may want to get himself lawyered up.

WhiteWash House supppressing Clinton-era documents from 9/11 commission 

I wonder why? Could it be they are trying to protect Clinton? Joke, son.

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job" Mr. McClellan said.
(via NY Times)

The icing on the cake for the latest cover-up is Scott "Sucka MC" McClellan's statement—surely it is up to the 9/11 Commission to determine what it needs, not the WhiteWash House? Wouldn't that be why the Commission has subpoena power?

Barbie and that "friend" of Barbie's 

Via Reuters: "Barbie Is a Lesbian......."

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City public schools will allow students to wear clothes with political slogans after settling a lawsuit with a teen-age girl who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt that said "Barbie is a Lesbian," her lawyer said on Thursday. LINK


Well duh. Like thats some surprise? Like ain't it pretty obvious that Ken is a lesbian too. Sheesh.

Team B 43? ~ Redux 

This post is essentially an addendum to one of Digby's recent posts titled There He Goes Again. The "He" in this case is Jim Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser for communications, who is attempting to defy the laws of empirical physical evidential reality by claiming that the Bush administration's primary foreign policy priority upon seizing the White House, and bolting the doors and drawing the shades, was the delicate task of crushing the al Qaeda menace. Not, as critics claim, selling defrosted Star Wars/NMD fantasias, stomping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Teaty to death, and chasing Saddam Hussein down a hidey hole. Heavens no.

So, before you read the rest of this post you probably should read Digby's post first, if you haven't already, because it essentially provides the background for what will follow here. Read: There He Goes Again

Digby cites a June 2002 Jason Vest article titled "Why Warnings Fell On Deaf Ears" which appered in The American Prospect. (See link to Jason Vest article available via Digby's post which is linked above).

Vest also wrote an earlier piece titled Darth Rumsfeld which appeared in the Feb. 26, 2001 issue of The American Prospect and also goes right to the point with respect to the designs Rumsfeld and the neocons had in mind long before they entered the White House in 2000. And those objectives and agendas have everything to do with trotting out rogue-state nuclear threat scare scenarios and reanimating space based missle defense programs and disposing of the ABM Treaty as a necessary step in realizing such objectives. Everything to do with what they were unboubtably focusing on prior to 9/11 when they should have been listening to guys like Richard Clarke who were emphasizing the dangers and threats posed by global terrorism networks such as al Qaeda in particular. See: Darth Rumsfeld

For example - Vest notes:
In 1998 Gaffney [Frank Gaffney - Center for Security Policy] gave Rumsfeld CSP's "Keeper of the Flame" Award for producing the document that revitalized the Reagan Star Wars concept.


That document was "The Rumsfeld Report" (1998). No surprise, Gaffney's CSP was funded by defense contractors who profit from those very same NMD programs being shined up by the Rumsfeld Report.

With respect to the ABM Treaty Vest relates:
Perhaps worst of all, for missle defense to become a reality, the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty needs to be amended-something the Russians are not eager to do. No matter, says Rumsfeld; at his confirmation hearings, he dismissed the ABM treaty as "ancient history" and said he had no compunction about abrogating it.


In July of last year I posted a long item to Eschaton called Team B 43?. It is essentially a summary of this same information - Vest's Darth Rumsfeld article mentioned above - so, if anyone wants to look at it, to glean any additional info you may find there, heres the link. Team B 43?" It's also mirrored here for some reason: Team B 43?

Just above my Team B 43? post, on the same Eschaton archive page, is a post written by Leah which details the increase in threat assessments as they relate to Iraq.
The January-June 2002 report, however, raised alarm at unprecedented levels rhetorically, though it provided little new evidence of increased capability. This report, which moved the nuclear program from the last program mentioned to the front of the assessment, devoted six long paragraphs to the nuclear weapons, mostly detailed narrative of Iraq's nuclear history and the IAEA inspections and dismantlement process. [See: Antidote to Instacrap Eschaton archives, July 2003]


Another article by Vest which can be found at The American Prospect, and details the "Rumsfeld clique" thinking on national defense and security as it relates to the above, can be found here: Punch-Drunk on Hardball: Online Sidebar to "Darth Rumsfeld" -- Vest writes:
While Rumsfeld's clique is hot on missile defense, weaponizing space, demonizing China and funding the Iraqi opposition, there are career officers and civilians leery of weapons programs with a ridiculous burn rate, who don't see a need to create additional enemies. Their views are closer to Powell's, and how they interface across bureaucratic lines will be interesting to watch. "If Powell and Rumsfeld come together and say, 'Let's use the collective capability of Defense and State and the power of the CINCs to do cohesive and coherent things in the service of sound policy,' it could be pretty awesome," the Pentagon veteran says. "But that depends on a lot of factors that aren't clear yet, and the picture could be much more fractured. Because one of the problems with defense modernization figuring out who the fuck the enemy is. Expect Rumsfeld and his people to create enemies."


So, as I said. This is just an addendum to what Digby posted. Just more reminders from the memory hole for anyone who wants to go back and take a second look at what the Bush cronies were really bothering about prior to 9/11.

And, as an added timely reminder, as it relates to the upcoming Dick and "W" one show only performance before the 9/11 Commission, consider this prediction by Vest in Feb 2001:
Conventional wisdom holds that the Bush administration will be unlike any other, with Bush as president and Cheney as CEO, or Bush as president and Cheney as prime minister (with oversight of the defense and diplomacy portfolios). In a sense, Ford all over again: Rummy back at the Pentagon, Cheney as the sitting president's right hand man, and a secretary of state who's potential trouble. [Darth Rumsfeld]


Ther ya have it. Jason Vest restoring the wise to the conventional wisdom.

*

What will the 5:00 horror be today? 

As we know, Bush tends to release information that's really for for him on 5:00 Friday, in the hopes that we'll all ignore it and he'll have plenty of time to get it spun by the talking heads on Sunday.

I have to say, the atmosphere inside the WhiteWash House must be getting more and more crazy and bunker-like.

First, the concept that Cheney and Bush are going to "visit" the 9/11 Commission together. Truly, truly weird. Bush can't speak for himself? They're worried the earpiece will get jammed?

Then, there's the whole Letterman thing: A kid yawns during one of Bush's campaign speeches (the Dad, a Pioneer, says he should have "prepped" the kid better). Letterman runs the tape. Bush says Letterman faked the tape (!!). It goes on from there, but isn't that weird enough already? I mean, as if Letterman had to do it, when Letterman can and does nail Bush whenever he wants. (Started by Atrios, but now it's made it to Krugman.)

And then, there's the whole sick jokes about WMD things.

I tell you, weird. I think these guys think they've already won, and they're giddy, and think they can do and say anything. It's up to us to prove them wrong.

What will the 5:00 horror be, this week?

"A" is for Alpha - "W" is for Weenie 

Steady Cheerleadership in Times of Change. Rah rah rah, sis boom bah...G. Weenie Bush, hah-hah-hah!

Gimme a "W"! (one for the yearbook)

*

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Goodnight, moon 

A good day, yes? And tomorrow the unemployment figures.

The Boston Globe gets letters 

A reader stands up for liberal, enlightenment values:

There was a Bush campaign ad on TV recently in which the president, facing the camera, gave a list of problems facing the country and in each case said, "I know" how to deal with these issues. The message given was that he had the answers.

Several months ago President Bush stated the the United States had a "calling" to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. In Bush's fundamentalist Christian world, that word has a special meaning. It is something preordained, not action taken after investigation and sober reflection of facts and alternatives. It is something dictated by a higher power.

Add this to his frequent statements that there is no middle ground between good and evil, his administration's plan for "faith-based initiatives," and his opposition to freedom of choice and his attempts to define "marriage." Do we not have a government moving toward decision-making based on someone's interpretation of certain religious teachings and beliefs?

How does this differ, except by degree, from the message of the imams and ayatollahs that government exists not to carry out the will of the people, but the will of the prophet as they choose to interpret it?

ANTHONY McMANUS
Dover, N.H.
(via the Boston Gblob)

We don't need a War on Terror. We need a Campaign Against Fundamentalistm—at home and abroad.
(See back here for WOT versus CAF analysis.)

Bush guts IRS power to track down AQ funds 

Is there something I'm missing?

So I'm catching up at Jerome Dolittle's fine blog, and I come upon this astonishing question:

Did you know that Bush just turned down an IRS request for 80 more criminal investigators to block the flow of funds to Al Qaeda?

No Jerome, and surely you jest, I think to myself. How could that possibly be true? Now? In the midst of what Richard Clarke has to say about their less than vigorous anti-Al Qaeda efforts? Not even this crowd would dare....and why would they risk...Risk? Risk what? When have they ever been called to account for anything, any outrage? Good God, the questions begin to answer themselves.

Turns out that Mr. Dolittle has sharp eyes indeed, because the NYTimes story he's discussing, by one of the paper's most trustworthy reporters, David Cay Johnson, whose book on the astounding tax iniquities the Reagan/Bush revolution hath wrought you shouldn't miss, appeared on page C3.

It's Jerome's catch, so go visit his excellent blog, Bad Attitudes, and do take his advice to read the actual NYTimes article carefully, twice if necessary. The White House response is especially amusing; yes, the eighty positions were zeroed out, but that doesn't take away from the "robust" increase in funding that demonstrates the President's "robust" committment to disrupt the financing of terrorism. That's so Bush & Co, isn't it? Every policy, with the possible exception of waging a war, is essentially symbolic, a shell without actual substance, an indicator of what you are supposed to believe about this President, because all actual policies, what actually gets done, is driven exclusively by politics, by the will to acquire and maintain power. And they're good at it, their sooo damn good at it.


Why is Bush afraid to debate Kerry? 

Does he think he'll have to take a medical exam first? Does he think someone will jam his earpiece? Funny what money can't buy, isn't it?

Saying it's time to "raise the level of dialogue," Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign called on President Bush's re-election campaign Thursday to agree to six debates in key battleground states.

"Democrats in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Washington, Ohio, Missouri and Florida plan to hold press conferences over the next several days to highlight the importance of a substantive discussion on issues affecting all Americans -- national security, homeland security and veterans' issues; education; environment and energy policies; the economy; health care; and equal opportunity for all," said campaign chair Jeanne Shaheen in a written statement.

Bush campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin told CNN Thursday, "The Bush-Cheney campaign looks for a vigorous debate at the appropriate time. But John Kerry should finish the debate with himself first -- being on both sides of each issue."
(via CNN)

That would be "a" debate as in "one"? Kinda like the "one" hour Bush was going to give to the 9/11 commission?

As for the "flipflops"—more winger projection! See back here.

Say, why doesn't someone ask Bush if he thinks the earth is 6000 years old? 

Or if there's some kind of question that it isn't?

Today researchers announced their discovery of a 365-million-year-old fossil limb bone of an ancient tetrapod. Tetrapods, including humans, are four-limbed animals with backbones. The fossil was found during road construction that revealed an ancient streambed.

Scientists say the find will help shed light on how early animals evolved limbs from fins. This crucial adaptation enabled Earth's animal life to crawl from water to land.
(via National Geographic)

Although, I grant you, not all wingers walk upright...

FTF...

Thanks, Ralph 

Small difference isn't the same as no difference.

An Idaho lawyer nominated to the federal appeals court won narrow approval Thursday from the Senate Judiciary Committee despite fierce opposition from environmentalists.

The committee voted 10-9 along party lines in favor of President Bush's nomination of William G. Myers III to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A straight-party line vote likely means that Democrats will attempt to make him the seventh Bush judicial nominee to be blocked in the full Senate.

Democrats cited Myers' opposition to environmental protections while Interior Department solicitor from 2001-2003 and as a private lawyer and lobbyist for cattle and mining interests.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she was disturbed by his "extreme" comments, including when Meyers wrote that environmental groups are "mountain biking to the courthouse as never before, bent on stopping human activity wherever it may promote health, safety and welfare."

Myers acknowledged during his confirmation hearing of sometimes using a "poor choice of words." He didn't immediately return a message for comment Thursday.
(via AP)

What a load of bollocks. As if environmental protections didn't make jobs too.

Bush losing the Beltway vote? "Dean" Broder's slightly stale CW on Bush flipflops 

Broder seems surprised that Bush would heave Condi over the side. Where has he been?

For nine days the White House and its allies did everything in their power to discredit Clarke, while trying to shield his old boss, Rice, from the commission's unanimous request that she give sworn public testimony in response to Clarke's stunning indictment.

When the effort to shoot the messenger failed to halt the political erosion, Bush did what he never should have done: He threw Rice to the commission. And, worse, he failed to do what he could have done long before: Offer the American people and the world a clear, coherent and detailed account of his own activities and state of mind in the months leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Instead of acting as the man in charge and saying to the commission, "No, you may not put my national security adviser on the mat, but I will answer to the public for what happened," he did just the opposite. He gave up Rice and then turned on his heel and walked out of the briefing room even as reporters were trying to ask him questions.

At a time when the American people -- and the world -- desperately need reassurance that the government was not asleep at the switch, Bush has clenched his jaw and said nothing that would ease those concerns. Instead, he has arranged that when he answers the commission's questions in a yet-to-be-scheduled private session, he will not face it alone. He and Vice President Cheney will appear together. It will be interesting to learn who furnishes most of the answers.
(David Broder via WaPo)

Of course, MoDo has the answer to that one. And to think that I thought Bush's letter to the Commission was beyond parody:

The Commission must agree in writing that it will not pose any questions directly to the President. Mr. Bush's statements will be restricted to asides on Dick Cheney's brushoffs, as in "Just like he said," "Roger that" and "Ditto."

(MoDo here)

Pass the popcorn!

Bush losing the Beltway vote? WaPo's O'Neal on Bush flipflops 

Of course, "flip flop" is a little polite for what Bush does. I prefer "cave" or "wuss out."

This week, President Bush, who is bashing Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry on the campaign trail as a typical politician who lacks principle and changes his mind often for political expediency, reversed his decision on allowing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath in public before the 9/11 commission.
(via WaPo)

Bush flipflops? Film at 11! Here, I think it's a good time to reprint Kos's list of Bush flipflops here:
  • Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

  • Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

  • Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

  • Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

  • Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

  • Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

  • Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

  • Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli
    Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian
    State.

  • Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

  • Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

  • Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

  • Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin
    Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really
    don't care.

  • Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

  • Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

  • Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

  • Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

  • Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on
    whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced
    he would not call for a vote


  • Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors.  Bush later admits it was his advance team.

  • Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.





  • Flip flops? I'd say Bush is a "Black Belt" flipflopper! (image source).

    More proof that we're winning 

    What to say?

    A roadside bomb injured three American troops on Thursday near Fallujah, a day after the grisly killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in the city. The top U.S. administrator in Iraq aid the deaths would not go unpunished.

    [Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt] said U.S. troops would hunt down those who carried out the killings.

    "We will pacify that city," he said. "We will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing."

    (via AP)

    "Cakewalk," anyone?

    Why do these people hate America? 


    The poll by the Los Angeles Times found that 52 percent of Americans agreed with charges by the former official, Richard Clarke, that Bush "failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough" before the attacks, while 40 percent disagreed.

    An even larger share, 57 percent, agreed with Clarke that Bush placed a higher priority on invading Iraq than on combating terrorism.
    (via Reuters)

    Drip, drip, drip....

    UPDATE Polling results from the LA Times. Very interesting. Looks like that money-driven bounce Bush got from all those ads isn't reflected in this poll...

    Those gruesome pictures... 

    Well, what happened to those contractors shouldn't happen to anyone.

    But it also makes me think that maybe the Republican idea to privatize war as much as possible isn't all that fair to the people actually doing the work. Our service men and women take the oath of enlistment. But these guys were contractors—did they really know what they were signing up for, and does this country have a right to ask that of them? Even the Blackwater guys, I don't think they asked for this...

    UPDATE More from the Times of London on what to expect over the long, hot, Iraqi summer:

    "Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the deputy director of the United States coalition force in Iraq, has just given a press conference to explain why US Marines didn't react immediately to yesterday's attacks on four American contractors. He's said that any response from the United States would have made a bad situation worse.

    "The General was today defending the decision not to go in to retrieve the bodies. He has told reporters that the it was established that the four contractors were dead, and that charging in could have resulted in more bloodshed.

    "It seems that there was also concern that the insurgents were patrolling the bodies and there was a genuine fear that there may have been some kind of boobytrap to kill more US troops had they gone in during or immediately after the attacks.

    "A Marine that a I spoke to today, who is based just outside Fallujah, said that the violence had not deterred American troops. He said that they were not afraid to go back in to the city. The Marines are gung-ho about that. They believe that these troubles are the result of a small minority of the people.

    "But many people in this city that I have spoken to are unrepentant. They say that American forces have threatened them ... and they want revenge.

    "There is a lot of hatred in Fallujah. They have had no aid, no assistance, there's major unemployment and the people have had enough. They're fighting back.

    "There's very much a feeling that this will be a blood vendetta. But the American coalition has laid down the gauntlet. They've said that the cycle of violence can end when those who perpetrated yesterday's acts are handed over to the authorities; or it can continue until they are found out.

    "General Kimmitt was quite firm and has said that there will be a response from the United States and in his words that response would be 'deliberate and precise and overwhelming'.

    Jobless claims fall very slightly while Bush lackies push Tinkerbelle theories on job creation 

    Wow. What a surprise.

    WASHINGTON -- The number of U.S. workers filing first-time applications for unemployment benefits declined slightly last week, signifying little improvement in the country's long-battered job market.

    Initial jobless claims fell by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 342,000 in the week ended March 27, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average was unchanged at 340,250, the lowest level since the week after President Bush was inaugurated.
    (Dow JOnes Quicken)

    Look for Bush to puff the figures up, of course. Wonder if they've threatened to fire any Labor Department statistiticans yet?

    And here's the (faith-based) CW:

    "Two-and-a-half years into the economic recovery, the pace of job creation in the United States has been distressingly slow," Federal Reserve Governor Ben. S. Bernanke said this week. Still, he said, "I continue to believe [With Tinkerbelle?—Lambert] that steady improvement in the labor market over the remainder of this year is the most likely outcome."

    We don't.

    The labor market is flatlined for the very good reason that Bush and the Pioneers, Rangers, and CEOs who own him want it that way. (See "Jobs flatlined under Bush—a touch of the overseer's lash", back.


    Poll: Bush mishandling WOT 

    "You can fool some of the people some of the time..."

    Fewer than half of all Americans think the country is safer now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and more than three-quarters expect the United States to be the target of a major terrorist attack at home or abroad in the next few months, according to a new poll.

    The survey findings come at a time when national security is a central issue in the presidential campaign, and after the Bush administration waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism and making the United States safer from foreign threats. The findings follow by one year the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to better focus government resources on the task of keeping Americans safe at home. And they exist in an environment in which numerous buildings and airports have been fortified with security checkpoints to ward off potential attacks.

    "These numbers present a big challenge," said Patricia McGinnis, president of the council, "because less than 50 percent feel more safe today than they did after September 11, after all that's happened."

    A spokesman for the Bush administration's National Security Council declined to comment on the record on the survey results.

    The council commissioned the poll by Hart/Teeter Research as part of a larger homeland security initiative that included a series of town hall meetings and will result in recommendations on what government, citizens and businesses can do to improve the fight against terrorism.

    The survey numbers show that the country is making progress, McGinnis said.

    Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in homeland security issues, said despite the progress, President Bush and other policymakers should not find much comfort in the poll results.

    "If I were in the White House, I would be worried because the essence of what I'm arguing is that I am now safer than I was before," Daalder said. "The total money that we have spent on the war on terrorism writ large is well over $200 billion. And if I can't get people to see that we're safer, that either means that I'm not spending the money well or my message is not getting out or, in fact, they've given up. They don't think we can actually do much about it."
    (via WaPo)

    Looks like our war preznit has some 'splainin' to do....

    It would be interesting to have a red/blue breakdown of this, given that the big blue cities are the ones actually in danger, from a loose nuke or a dirty bomb, for example. What would the averages in this poll conceal?

    "Important but not urgent" 

    On 9/11, the very day Condi-lie-zza was scheduled to give a speech on that winger boondoggle, missile defense. You know, that faith-based program Bush wants to throw billions at without actually testing?

    On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
    (via WaPo)

    Goodness.

    It's great this information has come out, and of course the sleepy Times newsroom missed it, but why didn't this information come out when it was news?

    WhiteWash House seeking to pull Republican strings on 9/11 Commission through "ex parte" contacts 

    Surprise!

    President Bush's top lawyer placed a telephone call to at least one of the Republican members of the Sept. 11 commission when the panel was gathered in Washington on March 24 to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, according to people with direct knowledge of the call.


    White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called commissioner Fred F. Fielding, one of five GOP members of the body, and, according to one observer, also called Republican commission member James R. Thompson. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, wrote to Gonzales yesterday asking him to confirm and describe the conversations.

    Waxman said "it would be unusual if such ex parte contacts occurred" during the hearing. Waxman did not allege that there would be anything illegal in such phone calls. But he suggested that such contacts would be improper because "the conduct of the White House is one of the key issues being investigated by the commission."
    (via WaPo)

    Naturally, the topic of conversation was how to attack Clarke.

    I'm only surprised it took so long to come out. Are these guys clumsy, or what?

    Sad Realities of Cheap Labor Conservatism 

    "They said that President Bush's war in Iraq has cost the former Spanish Prime Minister his job. So President Bush isn't losing American jobs anymore, he's branching out to other countries."
    - Jay Leno

    "President Bush is now focusing on jobs. I think the one job he's focusing most on is his own. The White House is now backtracking from its prediction that 2.6 million new jobs will be created in the U.S. this year. They say they were off by roughly 2.6 million jobs." - Jay Leno

    Ha Ha! Funny. But really fuckin' sad too. And Rick Perlstein of the Village Voice explains why:

    Outsourcing and the sad little movement to stop it
    The Jobs of the Future Are a Thing of the Past

    Then there is garden-variety apathy. Recently an angry thread broke out on a listserv of tech workers in North Carolina after a company called Keane (slogan: "We Get IT Done") began boasting, on the underwriting ads it broadcasts on National Public Radio stations around the country, of its prowess at helping American companies move jobs overseas. A letter-writing campaign was proposed, and it shouldn't have been hard to achieve. NPR invites listeners to e-mail ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin front and center on its website; Dvorkin receives some 4,000 such missives a week. He's gotten all of five complaints about Keane's underwriting on NPR.

    The ancient, everyday anxieties of workers suddenly finding themselves dispensable in a "dynamic" economy may finally be making it onto the cover of Time magazine; but the kind of people who read Time are turning out not to be very effective advocates for their own anxieties. Part of the problem is structural. Unions could be doing more to help. But the way the law works in the United States, you can't join a union if you serve in a "managerial" capacity. Service-oriented companies respond by classifying more and more of their workers as "managers"—where Charlene used to work, the official ratio of "managers" to "managed" is an unlikely 20 to one. [ Much more to read: Read the whole article ]


    Unleash the missives! Fire away at NPR.

    "In his annual economic report to Congress President Bush said that the transfer of American jobs overseas is actually part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time. So basically, losing your job to someone else can be a good thing. Of course we'll see how he feels about that in November." - Jay Leno

    Screw the Cheap Labor Laissez Faire Conservative Swindle!
    Unionize it!

    *
    RESOURCE LINKS
    1: Save Darfur.org
    2: Coalition for Darfur
    3: Passion of the Present
    4: Loaded Mouth
    5: Regional Map

    "In the lamentable literature of mass disaster, there is one overwhelming theme that occurs over and over again - the need for those to whom the disaster is happening to have some sense that the world is paying attention, and that the world cares. We owe it to the people of Darfur to know what is happening to them and to care."


    BOOKS BY TOM:

    NEW! 2005
    1~ The Other Missouri History: Populists, Prostitutes, and Regular Folk

    2~ The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995

    [Lexicon]

    The Lexicon of
    Liberal Invective

    News & Resource
    Links

    [Liberal Coalition]

    BLOGROLL

    Syndication

    Archives


    copyright 2003-2004
    Free for the taking.


    • Site Meter

    • Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

      This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?