What lying to our troops gets us
Today I was reading today's Boston Metro on my way to work on the "T" and came across a tiny blurb that said more than its few words.
"A female Army soldier in the notorious 320th Military Police Battalion meted out ''vigilante justice'' on Iraqi prisoners she believed had raped former POW Jessica Lynch, according to a letter from her battalion commander obtained by The Associated Press."
It has been well documented that Jessica Lynch's story was embellished to arouse patriotism (read this versus this). Her rescue footage was released while other items were classified, and many dispute her "all guns blazing capture" and there is no evidence of rape. That initial story from the Post, has been widely discredited.
Of course, the current female foot soldier in question is denying she abused prisoners and further that her commanding officer is making it up. "It's funny how the leadership continues to point downward," said then-Master Sgt. Lisa Girman Girman, a 35 year old Pennsylvania State Trooper in civilian life. (Watch for more low level troops to rat out their commanding officers as court martial trials start).
What struck me about this story, even if the Lynch-"revenge" angle isn't true, is that the story is credible. Most of the troops over in Iraq still think they are avenging 9/11, when Iraq had nothing to do with it. Why would they think such a silly thing? Well all the right-wing media, all there commanding officers, and all their civilian leaders (all the way up to the president himself) lead them to believe it, because they wanted to believe it too.
It's already unbearable when American troops are dying because of a lie, and Iraqi civilians are as well, but not that there is proof people are tortured because of it, how do the Vulcans (Bush's war cabinet of Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc) not feel shame? Appearantly not.
Now Rumsfeld and his ilk are disgustingly pleased that an American contractor was beheaded on an Al-Qaida affiliated website, because they now have a good excuse for holding back the rest of the photos and videos. One of these yet-to-released tapes or pictures is of a rape in progress of a female Iraqi. So much for the rape rooms being closed.
And so now the pressure is on CNN (I saw this morning) to do a Fox News style "here's all the good things the US has done in Iraq" segment since people flooded the site with right wing emails. The American people, no the world, demands transparency and concrete steps to fix this problem, not distracting it away with Tit-for-tat vigilantism.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
I'm not with stupid
Last night, as I was brushing my teeth, I listened to BBC world news. The one great thing about radio is that since their audience (particularly public radio’s) is so small, there is less pressure to be snappy and ratings grabby like CNN's constant drone of Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson (whatever happened to Scott Peterson or Martha Stewart...oh that’s right I don’t give a rat's a**) so they can do longer clips from press conferences and give more in depth analysis.
Anyway, back to what I heard. When George W. Bush went to the Pentagon yesterday to meet with Rumsfeld and company in the E-Ring for an hour, he was only shown a few selected photos and videos of the torture of Iraqi prisoners. That means there must be a lot more nasty stuff coming down the pike. But when Bush got out to speak before reporters, that's when he gave us yet another clue that he is not in charge. His speech was not that of a man trying to find the most palatable words, but one who was trying to remember his lines.
At this, my fiancée shouted, "What an idiot!" with disgust. And that got me thinking (ironically) A) this is why I am going to law school in a few months and B) boy that article was spot on.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg, the author of Bushisms (a book which is a collections of "the accidental wit and witticisms of George W. Bush") has an article pointing out that Bush isn’t dumb, he’s something far scarier: someone who works hard at seeming and being dumb for his personal benefit.
Bush is in fact a very smart man; he is a shrewd evaluator of politics knows how to seem like a simple man when he is actually just as aristocratic as John Forbes Kerry and Albert Gore, Jr.
Until he was 40, Bush acted out the classic rebellious teenager of a rich daddy routine: getting out of anything he wanted, coasting by in school, becoming borderline alcoholic, and so on. After recovering from a nasty hangover on his 40th birthday, Dubya decided his “youthful intercessions” must end, and gave up liquor cold turkey. He “found Jesus” thanks to Reverend Billy Graham and was reborn a God-fearing Christian.
Soon there after, Bush got to be the pretty face for the MLB's Texas Rangers and then got to revenge his father's embarrassment (via her speach at the 1992 Democratic Convention) by defeating Texas Governor Ann Richards in 1994. In all the sadness among Democrats after the loss of the US Congress, few noticed that man that would make things even worse for them in the 21st century. (My Dad did: "And the worst of it is, George Bush's son won in Texas; watch out for him." -1994)
But all this seems like a history lesson you say, why do I care? Well because the man who used stupidity to get back at his dad for never being there continues use stupidity to defeat the opposition who "misunderestimated" him. Bush’s willful ignorance comes at a price, along with not having to worry one’s pretty head with policy matters and details, comes the need to ignore things that don’t fit into ones paradigm.
The result? A war whose premise was sought for and falsified, whose execution was excellent but whose ensuing occupation was an instruction manual for "How not to occupy an Arab country." The prisoner abuse scandal is yet another example of this. Bush didn't know about this because he didn't want to know, lower level people didn't want to bother the president and his cabinet with unpleasant facts because those that do get yelled at.
From an administration (read Cheney) that says Fox News is the gospel truth, its not surprising that they have trouble hearing the other side. Sure, I will be among the first to admit that I have trouble watching/listening to right wing newscasts, but I at least am highly skeptical of the Times, the Post, and the Journal, and other media outlets, as well as campaign sources.
Bush has proven repeatedly that he doesn’t have the desire to learn from his mistakes and evolve his policy to fit the facts on the ground. He hasn't made sound judgments from day one. Woodward tells us the military and intelligence segment had to convince Bush et al to go into Afghanistan, seemingly on the promise that Iraq would be next.
Dubya needs to be driven out of office. If we want any home of fixing Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and reduce our risk to terror, removing the 43rd president is our best bet. Let me translate this into Limbaugh: Bush wins re-election, the terrorists win.
Last night, as I was brushing my teeth, I listened to BBC world news. The one great thing about radio is that since their audience (particularly public radio’s) is so small, there is less pressure to be snappy and ratings grabby like CNN's constant drone of Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson (whatever happened to Scott Peterson or Martha Stewart...oh that’s right I don’t give a rat's a**) so they can do longer clips from press conferences and give more in depth analysis.
Anyway, back to what I heard. When George W. Bush went to the Pentagon yesterday to meet with Rumsfeld and company in the E-Ring for an hour, he was only shown a few selected photos and videos of the torture of Iraqi prisoners. That means there must be a lot more nasty stuff coming down the pike. But when Bush got out to speak before reporters, that's when he gave us yet another clue that he is not in charge. His speech was not that of a man trying to find the most palatable words, but one who was trying to remember his lines.
At this, my fiancée shouted, "What an idiot!" with disgust. And that got me thinking (ironically) A) this is why I am going to law school in a few months and B) boy that article was spot on.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg, the author of Bushisms (a book which is a collections of "the accidental wit and witticisms of George W. Bush") has an article pointing out that Bush isn’t dumb, he’s something far scarier: someone who works hard at seeming and being dumb for his personal benefit.
Bush is in fact a very smart man; he is a shrewd evaluator of politics knows how to seem like a simple man when he is actually just as aristocratic as John Forbes Kerry and Albert Gore, Jr.
Until he was 40, Bush acted out the classic rebellious teenager of a rich daddy routine: getting out of anything he wanted, coasting by in school, becoming borderline alcoholic, and so on. After recovering from a nasty hangover on his 40th birthday, Dubya decided his “youthful intercessions” must end, and gave up liquor cold turkey. He “found Jesus” thanks to Reverend Billy Graham and was reborn a God-fearing Christian.
Soon there after, Bush got to be the pretty face for the MLB's Texas Rangers and then got to revenge his father's embarrassment (via her speach at the 1992 Democratic Convention) by defeating Texas Governor Ann Richards in 1994. In all the sadness among Democrats after the loss of the US Congress, few noticed that man that would make things even worse for them in the 21st century. (My Dad did: "And the worst of it is, George Bush's son won in Texas; watch out for him." -1994)
But all this seems like a history lesson you say, why do I care? Well because the man who used stupidity to get back at his dad for never being there continues use stupidity to defeat the opposition who "misunderestimated" him. Bush’s willful ignorance comes at a price, along with not having to worry one’s pretty head with policy matters and details, comes the need to ignore things that don’t fit into ones paradigm.
The result? A war whose premise was sought for and falsified, whose execution was excellent but whose ensuing occupation was an instruction manual for "How not to occupy an Arab country." The prisoner abuse scandal is yet another example of this. Bush didn't know about this because he didn't want to know, lower level people didn't want to bother the president and his cabinet with unpleasant facts because those that do get yelled at.
From an administration (read Cheney) that says Fox News is the gospel truth, its not surprising that they have trouble hearing the other side. Sure, I will be among the first to admit that I have trouble watching/listening to right wing newscasts, but I at least am highly skeptical of the Times, the Post, and the Journal, and other media outlets, as well as campaign sources.
Bush has proven repeatedly that he doesn’t have the desire to learn from his mistakes and evolve his policy to fit the facts on the ground. He hasn't made sound judgments from day one. Woodward tells us the military and intelligence segment had to convince Bush et al to go into Afghanistan, seemingly on the promise that Iraq would be next.
Dubya needs to be driven out of office. If we want any home of fixing Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and reduce our risk to terror, removing the 43rd president is our best bet. Let me translate this into Limbaugh: Bush wins re-election, the terrorists win.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Throw Grandmama from the train
Well good and bad news for Democrats out of the Utah GOP convention on Saturday. The good news: Acting Governor Olene Walker (female for those of you who don't know Utah names) lost before the primary to run for Governor this fall.
"It's kind of like throwing your grandma from the train," State Democratic party Chairman Donald Dunn told the Salt Lake Tribune. Olene is in her seventies. "It just shows that the Republican delegates are nominated by kind of the right-wing agenda and I think they're out of touch with Utahns."
The bad news is, a moderate and wacko/criminal right-winger are paired together could win the GOP nomination (they still have a primary on June 22) and in November. Jon Huntsman Jr., whose Dad has given tons of money to the state and is a good old Mormon and ex-Bush ambassador to Singapore to boot got the nod, along with the a "moderate" Board of Regents Nolan Karras and his LG candidate, Enid Greene Waldholz.
Does Enid's name sound familiar? Remember back, way back, 10 years ago when Republicans first took over the House of Representatives? Well Enid had just beaten my family friend and previous Representative Karen Shephard, and Enid was sitting pretty with a seat on the Rules Committee, which was unheard of for a Freshman (let alone Freshwoman). Turns out her Husband Joe Waldholz, who was also her campaign treasurer, illegally funneled over $2 Million into her campaign in the closing weeks via the sale of his Dad's house. Joe, is out of prison now. Meanwhile, Enid pretended to be deceived by Joe and cried in the hospital with a pity parade about her new baby and a husband in the slammer.
Instead of resigning (or being investigated), Enid said she wouldn't run for re-election in 1996 and she disappeared ever since. Now, non-hacks must agree that either Enid was in on the scam (in which case she should have gone to jail too) or she was incompetent (how could you not notice $2M coming in overnight) and was unfit for office.
In the closest (Ok well second closest) congressional race last time around, Utah's 2nd district, the GOP couldn't get 70% necessary to have a single candidate and will also be having a primary. John Swallow, who lost to Congressman Jim Matheson by a mere 1600 votes last time, would seem to have the leg up. However, Tim Bridgewater bested Swallow in the" convention 54%/46%.Tim Bridgewater, who failed at this in 2002 as well. Tim is a millionaire, but has a horrible voice. I think both will not be as strong against Jim this time, although they will have more money than last time.
Jim has busted his hump in places he did poorly in, taking advantage of incumbency to get pork for Southern Utah and going out of his way to meet and get to know folks down there. It is much easier to hate a stereotype of a Democrat than an actual person, who is a pretty conservative Democrat anyway.
Let's just hope his brother Scott Jr. does as well against Nolan or Jon as his little bother.
Well good and bad news for Democrats out of the Utah GOP convention on Saturday. The good news: Acting Governor Olene Walker (female for those of you who don't know Utah names) lost before the primary to run for Governor this fall.
"It's kind of like throwing your grandma from the train," State Democratic party Chairman Donald Dunn told the Salt Lake Tribune. Olene is in her seventies. "It just shows that the Republican delegates are nominated by kind of the right-wing agenda and I think they're out of touch with Utahns."
The bad news is, a moderate and wacko/criminal right-winger are paired together could win the GOP nomination (they still have a primary on June 22) and in November. Jon Huntsman Jr., whose Dad has given tons of money to the state and is a good old Mormon and ex-Bush ambassador to Singapore to boot got the nod, along with the a "moderate" Board of Regents Nolan Karras and his LG candidate, Enid Greene Waldholz.
Does Enid's name sound familiar? Remember back, way back, 10 years ago when Republicans first took over the House of Representatives? Well Enid had just beaten my family friend and previous Representative Karen Shephard, and Enid was sitting pretty with a seat on the Rules Committee, which was unheard of for a Freshman (let alone Freshwoman). Turns out her Husband Joe Waldholz, who was also her campaign treasurer, illegally funneled over $2 Million into her campaign in the closing weeks via the sale of his Dad's house. Joe, is out of prison now. Meanwhile, Enid pretended to be deceived by Joe and cried in the hospital with a pity parade about her new baby and a husband in the slammer.
Instead of resigning (or being investigated), Enid said she wouldn't run for re-election in 1996 and she disappeared ever since. Now, non-hacks must agree that either Enid was in on the scam (in which case she should have gone to jail too) or she was incompetent (how could you not notice $2M coming in overnight) and was unfit for office.
In the closest (Ok well second closest) congressional race last time around, Utah's 2nd district, the GOP couldn't get 70% necessary to have a single candidate and will also be having a primary. John Swallow, who lost to Congressman Jim Matheson by a mere 1600 votes last time, would seem to have the leg up. However, Tim Bridgewater bested Swallow in the" convention 54%/46%.Tim Bridgewater, who failed at this in 2002 as well. Tim is a millionaire, but has a horrible voice. I think both will not be as strong against Jim this time, although they will have more money than last time.
Jim has busted his hump in places he did poorly in, taking advantage of incumbency to get pork for Southern Utah and going out of his way to meet and get to know folks down there. It is much easier to hate a stereotype of a Democrat than an actual person, who is a pretty conservative Democrat anyway.
Let's just hope his brother Scott Jr. does as well against Nolan or Jon as his little bother.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Today's unplanned community service
This afternoon I went to a nearby park to shoot around (hoops) and ended up playing with two young (like less than 10) african-american boys and "teaching" them how to play ball.
Oh and I got help from a total stranger: a GOP-leaning political science PhD candidate at Harvard from Upstate New York. I think all in all, I played "basketball" for about 3-3.5 hours. Mostly trying to keep the two boys from tackling each other when one had the ball or watching them chase after a fumbled catch.
Still I think I had fun playing with the kids, although I would have liked more competition although Mr. Harvard and I played 3 1-on-1 games to 11 (I think I won).
I am wipped out. Maybe now I can catch up with what happened yesterday and today with Rumsfeld and all that nastiness in Iraq. As expected, they knew more than they initially led on, there were some bad people put in charge..."the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours." (NYT)
My favorite are the opplogists for these sadists. The top reasons are: They're at war; these are bad people; just letting off some steam; etc. I am sorry but NO. America prides itself in standards of human rights (well since 1865/1968 anyway), we have stict laws on the treatment of prisioners even in war. We pushed for the Geneva Convention rules. The US is supposed to be above all this. Even if these people raped your sister, you are supposed to treat them better than they did to your family and than "they deserve" not just because it the right (and by the way Christian) thing to do, but the law!
The entire National Security team of the Bush White House (including the Commander-in-Chief himself) has proven over and over that they are not up to the job and they are forfitted their credibility and right to continue to represent America. The only way to fix this Pottery Barn warehouse of Iraq is to clean out and get rid of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Cheney, and of course el Presidente.
With new management, the world will finally take us seriously and we might still have a chance to fix Iraq if a President Kerry were to make fixing it (and Israel-Palestine) his number 1 foreign policy goal. I know the "War on Terror" is an on going mission, but really without peace in these two hot zones, we will never be able to stop the impending onslaught of angry Arabs who want to harm America and her insterests (and our Allies'). Just my $0.02 for the day,
This afternoon I went to a nearby park to shoot around (hoops) and ended up playing with two young (like less than 10) african-american boys and "teaching" them how to play ball.
Oh and I got help from a total stranger: a GOP-leaning political science PhD candidate at Harvard from Upstate New York. I think all in all, I played "basketball" for about 3-3.5 hours. Mostly trying to keep the two boys from tackling each other when one had the ball or watching them chase after a fumbled catch.
Still I think I had fun playing with the kids, although I would have liked more competition although Mr. Harvard and I played 3 1-on-1 games to 11 (I think I won).
I am wipped out. Maybe now I can catch up with what happened yesterday and today with Rumsfeld and all that nastiness in Iraq. As expected, they knew more than they initially led on, there were some bad people put in charge..."the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours." (NYT)
My favorite are the opplogists for these sadists. The top reasons are: They're at war; these are bad people; just letting off some steam; etc. I am sorry but NO. America prides itself in standards of human rights (well since 1865/1968 anyway), we have stict laws on the treatment of prisioners even in war. We pushed for the Geneva Convention rules. The US is supposed to be above all this. Even if these people raped your sister, you are supposed to treat them better than they did to your family and than "they deserve" not just because it the right (and by the way Christian) thing to do, but the law!
The entire National Security team of the Bush White House (including the Commander-in-Chief himself) has proven over and over that they are not up to the job and they are forfitted their credibility and right to continue to represent America. The only way to fix this Pottery Barn warehouse of Iraq is to clean out and get rid of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Cheney, and of course el Presidente.
With new management, the world will finally take us seriously and we might still have a chance to fix Iraq if a President Kerry were to make fixing it (and Israel-Palestine) his number 1 foreign policy goal. I know the "War on Terror" is an on going mission, but really without peace in these two hot zones, we will never be able to stop the impending onslaught of angry Arabs who want to harm America and her insterests (and our Allies'). Just my $0.02 for the day,
Friday, May 07, 2004
Friday Roundup
- A LA House panel voted 4-1 to approve a bill that would ban low-slung pants. Bill sponsor/LA state Rep. Derrick Shepherd (D): "In our society we have a line of decency that should not be crossed, and that line starts around the waist area" I guess there aren't a lot of skaters in his district, at least ones that vote.
- "I know the left like I know every inch of my square body" -- Rush Limbaugh on his show today. Talk dirty to me Rush! Limbaugh on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation [which Kerry and Bush are a part of] and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?" Josh Marshall has the best response yet: "You know when you're worked to the bone and you really need to unwind there's just nothing like grabbing a half dozen Arab dudes, stripping them naked, tying their bodies together against their will and pressing one guy's penis up against another guy's butt to make it like they're having anal sex. Right?"
- Arizona Senator John McCain blames Karl Rove for the loss of New Hampshire's "Man of the Mountain," on tape!
- The class of 2004 at William and Mary College are so lucky: Jon Stewart (class of who knows) will return to W&M to receive an honorary doctorate (and give a speech), Stewart once offered this sage advice to W&M students: "If you're gonna go to Nags Head, and you're gonna get high. ... Just wait til you get there. There are a lot of cops on Yorktown Pike."
- Quote of the Day: "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy" -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790).
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Two little words
The "three little words" that are hard to say are "I love you," for George W. Bush, they are only two little words: "I'm sorry"
Those words, or their equivalant will never, apparently be uttered by this President. Clinton too likes to blame others for his actions (see his upcoming memoir, My Life), but he did say "I'm sorry" after he got caught with Moncia Lewinsky. Bush who has gotten caught with lying/being fundamentally deceptive on many issues, especially Iraq, has never come close.
Even as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal widens and finally threatens Rumsfeld's job, Bush couldn't say 'I'm sorry" to the Arab people who are now convinced he is just as bad as Saddam.
I have avoided talking about Abu Ghraib because all the facts are still streaming in, and we still don't know who knew what when. Appearantly, a lot of top people don't read reports like Major General Taguba's March 3rd report to the US Army (and Rumsfeld and Bush), which outline lots of bad stuff. And CBS News sat on these photos for two weeks thanks to Joint Cheifs Chair Meyers, who supposidely never told the president about it. How many more photos or eyewitnesses are there out there in Iraq with similar stories? What about Afghanistan, are there similar experiences?
Even if these folks were 100% Al-Qaeda/Bathist-torturers, do two wrongs make a right? Shouldn't the US live up to higher standards of human rights and shouldn't they follow their own executive orders?
Will there ever be any objectively good news out of Iraq? Or for this president? Can anyone name one thing he did that Gore wouldn't have done? I bet Gore would have done tax cuts, (just better, more targeted ones) Education Reform, and Faith-Based stuff as well, since he campaigned on that.
How is Kerry not cruising versus this "I'm never wrong" President (besides $180 million)? This is why people don't trust politicans. Bush won't admit mistakes, and Kerry won't admit to falling when snowboarding. Who cares? If you cooled your ego for a second, I think people would see that you two are just two men, and the one that looks like a real man that can own up to his own mistakes and be a human, well they just might win.
The "three little words" that are hard to say are "I love you," for George W. Bush, they are only two little words: "I'm sorry"
Those words, or their equivalant will never, apparently be uttered by this President. Clinton too likes to blame others for his actions (see his upcoming memoir, My Life), but he did say "I'm sorry" after he got caught with Moncia Lewinsky. Bush who has gotten caught with lying/being fundamentally deceptive on many issues, especially Iraq, has never come close.
Even as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal widens and finally threatens Rumsfeld's job, Bush couldn't say 'I'm sorry" to the Arab people who are now convinced he is just as bad as Saddam.
I have avoided talking about Abu Ghraib because all the facts are still streaming in, and we still don't know who knew what when. Appearantly, a lot of top people don't read reports like Major General Taguba's March 3rd report to the US Army (and Rumsfeld and Bush), which outline lots of bad stuff. And CBS News sat on these photos for two weeks thanks to Joint Cheifs Chair Meyers, who supposidely never told the president about it. How many more photos or eyewitnesses are there out there in Iraq with similar stories? What about Afghanistan, are there similar experiences?
Even if these folks were 100% Al-Qaeda/Bathist-torturers, do two wrongs make a right? Shouldn't the US live up to higher standards of human rights and shouldn't they follow their own executive orders?
Will there ever be any objectively good news out of Iraq? Or for this president? Can anyone name one thing he did that Gore wouldn't have done? I bet Gore would have done tax cuts, (just better, more targeted ones) Education Reform, and Faith-Based stuff as well, since he campaigned on that.
How is Kerry not cruising versus this "I'm never wrong" President (besides $180 million)? This is why people don't trust politicans. Bush won't admit mistakes, and Kerry won't admit to falling when snowboarding. Who cares? If you cooled your ego for a second, I think people would see that you two are just two men, and the one that looks like a real man that can own up to his own mistakes and be a human, well they just might win.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Darn, lost laugh
Yesterday, I went onto Nader's site out of morbid curriousity. I found a fundraising ticker with a whopping $651 dollars for the week. OK it was Tuesday but that is freaking pathetic. But I waited too long, becuase a few other morons gave him money and how it is at $27,067-- more than I take home in a year, but not enough to print out enough posters to cover Panguitch, UT.
Still, who are these people that give Nader money? Those people that give loose change to fountains in the mall? Probabbly more like the ones that give cash to homeless people.
Their heart's in the right place, no doubt (except the Bush supporters), but there are better ways to do what they are trying to do, even with less money (both in the case of helping the homeless and getting rid of "corporatism" in America). Maybe they are helping Kucinich run ads in Oregon now too. I call them the St. Jude-ists, after the patron saint of lost causes.
PS The Utah GOP primary is on Sunday and I am excited to find out who will face the Matheson boys (Jim-- 2nd Congressional District, Scott Jr.-- Governor) in November. PPS watch Ken Salazar's 2 minute (I know that is super long in TV terms) ad here (Windows Media Player Required, sorry).
Yesterday, I went onto Nader's site out of morbid curriousity. I found a fundraising ticker with a whopping $651 dollars for the week. OK it was Tuesday but that is freaking pathetic. But I waited too long, becuase a few other morons gave him money and how it is at $27,067-- more than I take home in a year, but not enough to print out enough posters to cover Panguitch, UT.
Still, who are these people that give Nader money? Those people that give loose change to fountains in the mall? Probabbly more like the ones that give cash to homeless people.
Their heart's in the right place, no doubt (except the Bush supporters), but there are better ways to do what they are trying to do, even with less money (both in the case of helping the homeless and getting rid of "corporatism" in America). Maybe they are helping Kucinich run ads in Oregon now too. I call them the St. Jude-ists, after the patron saint of lost causes.
PS The Utah GOP primary is on Sunday and I am excited to find out who will face the Matheson boys (Jim-- 2nd Congressional District, Scott Jr.-- Governor) in November. PPS watch Ken Salazar's 2 minute (I know that is super long in TV terms) ad here (Windows Media Player Required, sorry).
Cinco de Mayo
Despite what corporate raiders want you to think, it is not yet another excuse to drink tequila or Mexican Beers (sorry Corona). Its too bad that all our holidays are becoming so Hallmark-ed that people don't even know what they really stand for anymore. Like Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus, not marshmallow bunnies and Cadberry Eggs. St. Valentine's Day is another wired one, but you know the story. But I bet you didn't know the one for Cinco de Mayo.
I always thought it was Mexico's independence day from Spain, but really it is about defeating the French (Napoleon III particularly) with some help from US troops along the Texas border in 1862. But Mexicans know how to party and have been pretty thankful since to the US, helping make up a large chunck of our Armed Forces, and jumping at the chance to join after Pearl Harbor (and I bet after 9/11).
Mexicans, well actually all immigrants, really impress me. The move to a foreign country, where many people openly discriminate against them, get stuck in crappy, dead-end low-wage jobs. Yet they still manage to send lots of money back home to their families and loved ones. Theirs is an amazing sacrifice and testament to what America is supposed to all about.
Despite what corporate raiders want you to think, it is not yet another excuse to drink tequila or Mexican Beers (sorry Corona). Its too bad that all our holidays are becoming so Hallmark-ed that people don't even know what they really stand for anymore. Like Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus, not marshmallow bunnies and Cadberry Eggs. St. Valentine's Day is another wired one, but you know the story. But I bet you didn't know the one for Cinco de Mayo.
I always thought it was Mexico's independence day from Spain, but really it is about defeating the French (Napoleon III particularly) with some help from US troops along the Texas border in 1862. But Mexicans know how to party and have been pretty thankful since to the US, helping make up a large chunck of our Armed Forces, and jumping at the chance to join after Pearl Harbor (and I bet after 9/11).
Mexicans, well actually all immigrants, really impress me. The move to a foreign country, where many people openly discriminate against them, get stuck in crappy, dead-end low-wage jobs. Yet they still manage to send lots of money back home to their families and loved ones. Theirs is an amazing sacrifice and testament to what America is supposed to all about.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Picture of the Day
In this picture George W. Bush is attempting to read Americans' minds, and change them (if they are against him).
And you thought he wasn't that clever. Oh, according to the LA Times, nearly $1 billion could be spent on this 2004 White House race. $300 million or so has already been raised by Kerry and Bush alone (of course $180 million of that is Bush). Thanks Wonkette!
Also, so a plug for my old job trying to do a blog (without comments, of course; just like Bush, they don't like to not have control of content) on Education. The DLC/PPI is very-pro-charter schools (so don't expect unbiased reporting) but they read all those boring education studies for you, as Mickey Kaus said, so it is nice on that end.
Have a jolly good day folks!
In this picture George W. Bush is attempting to read Americans' minds, and change them (if they are against him).
And you thought he wasn't that clever. Oh, according to the LA Times, nearly $1 billion could be spent on this 2004 White House race. $300 million or so has already been raised by Kerry and Bush alone (of course $180 million of that is Bush). Thanks Wonkette!
Also, so a plug for my old job trying to do a blog (without comments, of course; just like Bush, they don't like to not have control of content) on Education. The DLC/PPI is very-pro-charter schools (so don't expect unbiased reporting) but they read all those boring education studies for you, as Mickey Kaus said, so it is nice on that end.
Have a jolly good day folks!
Friday, April 30, 2004
Quote of the Day
"It's easy to complain about the press -- I've been doing it for a good part of my career. It's part of what goes with a free society. What I do is try to focus upon those elements of the press that I think do an effective job and try to be accurate in their portrayal of events. For example, I end up spending a lot of my time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets" [emphasis mine] --Vice President Dick Cheney
Five words for you: Out of Touch with Reality
"It's easy to complain about the press -- I've been doing it for a good part of my career. It's part of what goes with a free society. What I do is try to focus upon those elements of the press that I think do an effective job and try to be accurate in their portrayal of events. For example, I end up spending a lot of my time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets" [emphasis mine] --Vice President Dick Cheney
Five words for you: Out of Touch with Reality
Abstinence makes the Heart grow fonder
I do apologize with my lack of postings this week, my boss and I are trying to close a $22.5 Billion deal so to speak.
Things are looking pretty good for our clients and what we wanted. I would like to say it is all my doing but I think it is another sign that the economy is picking up, at least here.
Which means that if he wants to win, Kerry can't rest on Bush's failures, he has to talk explicitly what he will do differently beyond a line by line program list, ala Gore. Talk about your vision for America. Clark had one, Dean had one, Clinton had one, Bush believe it or not, has one.
I hate to sound like a broken record but Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam and how bad Bush is, and starting talking about what will happen after January 20, 2005 if he were to win.
Oh and if you are wondering about the title, there was a big march on Sunday entitled "The March for Women's Lives" which was a linking of arms of liberal and/or feminist organizations (1M+ purportedly). Meanwhile, pro-lifer and "abstinence-only" education supporter/Bush-lackey Karen Hughes indirectly compared these pro-choice warriors to Al-Qaida. That's why.
I do apologize with my lack of postings this week, my boss and I are trying to close a $22.5 Billion deal so to speak.
Things are looking pretty good for our clients and what we wanted. I would like to say it is all my doing but I think it is another sign that the economy is picking up, at least here.
Which means that if he wants to win, Kerry can't rest on Bush's failures, he has to talk explicitly what he will do differently beyond a line by line program list, ala Gore. Talk about your vision for America. Clark had one, Dean had one, Clinton had one, Bush believe it or not, has one.
I hate to sound like a broken record but Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam and how bad Bush is, and starting talking about what will happen after January 20, 2005 if he were to win.
Oh and if you are wondering about the title, there was a big march on Sunday entitled "The March for Women's Lives" which was a linking of arms of liberal and/or feminist organizations (1M+ purportedly). Meanwhile, pro-lifer and "abstinence-only" education supporter/Bush-lackey Karen Hughes indirectly compared these pro-choice warriors to Al-Qaida. That's why.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Taking it
Kerry's team has decided to let Bush blow $50-60 Million these past two months against them in TV ads while camp Kerry mostly travels around quietly raising money ($50M or so).
The ads Johnny's put out are alright, but not nearly as inspiring as his primary ads that were done Pre-Shrum muscle flex (he pushed out the guy that did those ads). Why do campaigns keep hiring this idiot. If I hear one more rich-ass white man talking about the people and the special interests who he trains, I will vomit.
Still, although Kerry is now seen in a less positive light than February, it was inevitable that Bush et al would take him down some notches and make him look wishy-washy, because he is.
But this brings me to the site of the day
John Kerry Is A Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway.com This is the ultimate ABB-BKOK (Anybody But Bush, But Kerry's OK) not a glowing endorsement but I think Kerry will be thousands of times better than Bush.
I also think, that Kerry showed some real guts on the Environment, specifically CAFE standards. (We will see if UAW/Michigan will get make him flop on that too).
I just wish he would stop sending me e-mail messages asking for money. I know he needs it but I am going to give my tiny sum when he really needs it-- the fall. That way, he will get matching funds for my contribution too.
Kerry's team has decided to let Bush blow $50-60 Million these past two months against them in TV ads while camp Kerry mostly travels around quietly raising money ($50M or so).
The ads Johnny's put out are alright, but not nearly as inspiring as his primary ads that were done Pre-Shrum muscle flex (he pushed out the guy that did those ads). Why do campaigns keep hiring this idiot. If I hear one more rich-ass white man talking about the people and the special interests who he trains, I will vomit.
Still, although Kerry is now seen in a less positive light than February, it was inevitable that Bush et al would take him down some notches and make him look wishy-washy, because he is.
But this brings me to the site of the day
John Kerry Is A Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway.com This is the ultimate ABB-BKOK (Anybody But Bush, But Kerry's OK) not a glowing endorsement but I think Kerry will be thousands of times better than Bush.
I also think, that Kerry showed some real guts on the Environment, specifically CAFE standards. (We will see if UAW/Michigan will get make him flop on that too).
I just wish he would stop sending me e-mail messages asking for money. I know he needs it but I am going to give my tiny sum when he really needs it-- the fall. That way, he will get matching funds for my contribution too.
Friday, April 23, 2004
playing TAPS for the first time in public
It looks like someone finally got through the Pentagon/Bush Administration ban on photos of coffins coming home from Iraq. While this picture made it into the Seattle Times and the web several days ago, it wasn't until today that the big newspapers and media stations started airing the photos.
The New York Times has an article about the website (thememoryhole.org) that filed a Freedom of Information Act request what was granted "mistakenly." I would show you those pictures but the site has crashed from so much traffic, but here is the mirror site. Here are some 361 pictures on the site, three of which were part of "all the news that is fit to print":
Meanwhile the brave photographers who took the Seattle Times picture (see below) were canned per request of the DoD, lest any press start growing balls.
Godspeed to our fallen countrymen. I hope we can do more for these young (most are in their late teens to early thirties) men and women than hide their deaths and let them tap into their savings. We should let all servicemen and -women become citizens of the US automatically, and we pay them more. That way, they won't be so damned poor that they have to tap into their retirement savings.
It looks like someone finally got through the Pentagon/Bush Administration ban on photos of coffins coming home from Iraq. While this picture made it into the Seattle Times and the web several days ago, it wasn't until today that the big newspapers and media stations started airing the photos.
The New York Times has an article about the website (thememoryhole.org) that filed a Freedom of Information Act request what was granted "mistakenly." I would show you those pictures but the site has crashed from so much traffic, but here is the mirror site. Here are some 361 pictures on the site, three of which were part of "all the news that is fit to print":
Meanwhile the brave photographers who took the Seattle Times picture (see below) were canned per request of the DoD, lest any press start growing balls.
Godspeed to our fallen countrymen. I hope we can do more for these young (most are in their late teens to early thirties) men and women than hide their deaths and let them tap into their savings. We should let all servicemen and -women become citizens of the US automatically, and we pay them more. That way, they won't be so damned poor that they have to tap into their retirement savings.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Good Neighbor Day?
Wanda Baucus, the wife of Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), "has been charged with assaulting another woman" after a 4/20 dispute over mulch at a DC garden center. On 4/21, a DC Superior Court Judge "released" Wanda Baucus "on her own recognizance and ordered her to stay away from the victim and the garden center." DC Metro's Joe Gentile: "It's not exactly clear what happened, but at some point it appears Ms. Baucus was loading bags of mulch in her vehicle." Gentile "added that in the process of loading the mulch at Johnson's Garden Center," Wanda "placed a bag of mulch in the path of another woman's car. The other woman's car was then blocked and she was unable to back out." Gentile "said words were exchanged, and then Wanda Baucus allegedly assaulted the other woman." The woman "suffered bruises to the face and scratches on her shoulder, Gentile said."
Wanda's atty "said she did not hit the other woman." Atty David Schertler: "I can't tell you about the incident in detail, but I do feel it is much ado about nothing. ... There is no basis for a criminal charge. I don't believe a crime was committed" (Monoson/Farrell, Billings Gazette, 4/22).
"Reliable Source" reports that prior to "obtaining an arrest warrant, a police officer" talked to alleged victim Tierney Barron "and three people who saw the incident in the parking lot" (Leiby, Washington Post, 4/22). Sources said Wanda "was upset because another customer was getting help with mulch ahead of her." It was reported that she "drove from the scene, and returned a while later with her husband. That is when she talked to police about the incident" (NBC4.com, 4/21).
Sen. Baucus, in a statement: "We are trying to sort it out, going through the proper channels. ... I stand by her 110 percent" (AP, 4/22).
Meanwhile, "Heard on the Hill" reports that Baucus' office issued a press release 4/19 noting he and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) "had introduced a resolution that would designate" 9/26 as "National Good Neighbor Day" (Bresnahan, Roll Call, 4/22).
On a side note: I got GMail and so can you if you have a blogger account! No it is not a myth or joke.
Wanda Baucus, the wife of Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), "has been charged with assaulting another woman" after a 4/20 dispute over mulch at a DC garden center. On 4/21, a DC Superior Court Judge "released" Wanda Baucus "on her own recognizance and ordered her to stay away from the victim and the garden center." DC Metro's Joe Gentile: "It's not exactly clear what happened, but at some point it appears Ms. Baucus was loading bags of mulch in her vehicle." Gentile "added that in the process of loading the mulch at Johnson's Garden Center," Wanda "placed a bag of mulch in the path of another woman's car. The other woman's car was then blocked and she was unable to back out." Gentile "said words were exchanged, and then Wanda Baucus allegedly assaulted the other woman." The woman "suffered bruises to the face and scratches on her shoulder, Gentile said."
Wanda's atty "said she did not hit the other woman." Atty David Schertler: "I can't tell you about the incident in detail, but I do feel it is much ado about nothing. ... There is no basis for a criminal charge. I don't believe a crime was committed" (Monoson/Farrell, Billings Gazette, 4/22).
"Reliable Source" reports that prior to "obtaining an arrest warrant, a police officer" talked to alleged victim Tierney Barron "and three people who saw the incident in the parking lot" (Leiby, Washington Post, 4/22). Sources said Wanda "was upset because another customer was getting help with mulch ahead of her." It was reported that she "drove from the scene, and returned a while later with her husband. That is when she talked to police about the incident" (NBC4.com, 4/21).
Sen. Baucus, in a statement: "We are trying to sort it out, going through the proper channels. ... I stand by her 110 percent" (AP, 4/22).
Meanwhile, "Heard on the Hill" reports that Baucus' office issued a press release 4/19 noting he and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) "had introduced a resolution that would designate" 9/26 as "National Good Neighbor Day" (Bresnahan, Roll Call, 4/22).
On a side note: I got GMail and so can you if you have a blogger account! No it is not a myth or joke.
You got served
Swaziland's King Mswati reportedly fired ex-PM Sibusiso Dlamini last year "via a text message on his cellphone"
Just in case he fails to protect us again, Pres. Bush said "Americans who expect another terror attack in this country have reason for such fears." Bush: "This is a hard country to defend." He added: "Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem"
Who's gonna play Bush and Clarke in the "Against all Enemies" Movie? Here are my nominees:
Guess which one is supposed to be Pinky.
Ex-NYC Police Commis. Bernard Kerik, who is very Republican --the Bush White House put in charge of training the Iraqi army (you know, the one with a 10% of its members working against the coalition?) said of "another terrorist attack": "If you put Sen. Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen ... and I don't want to see another Sept. 11" according to the NY Post. Congratulations, you have officially stooped to a new low! Threatening a 9/11-level attack if Kerry wins. AKA If Bush loses, the terrorist win. Bush and his cronies are looking more Nixonian every day: using the power of the White House to lie, cheat, scare, and smear. Shame on them
Swaziland's King Mswati reportedly fired ex-PM Sibusiso Dlamini last year "via a text message on his cellphone"
Just in case he fails to protect us again, Pres. Bush said "Americans who expect another terror attack in this country have reason for such fears." Bush: "This is a hard country to defend." He added: "Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem"
Who's gonna play Bush and Clarke in the "Against all Enemies" Movie? Here are my nominees:
Guess which one is supposed to be Pinky.
Ex-NYC Police Commis. Bernard Kerik, who is very Republican --the Bush White House put in charge of training the Iraqi army (you know, the one with a 10% of its members working against the coalition?) said of "another terrorist attack": "If you put Sen. Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen ... and I don't want to see another Sept. 11" according to the NY Post. Congratulations, you have officially stooped to a new low! Threatening a 9/11-level attack if Kerry wins. AKA If Bush loses, the terrorist win. Bush and his cronies are looking more Nixonian every day: using the power of the White House to lie, cheat, scare, and smear. Shame on them
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Third Time's the Charm?
After Paul O'Neill's, Dick Clarke's and now Bob Woodward's book, will any of them have a lasting effect on this president?
Along with the traditional 60 Minutes sneak preview, Woodward has been leaking tidbits of the book in some small newspaper he works for (I think it's called the Washington Post) almost daily with fun filled facts like the date Bush decided to go to War with Iraq, or a Saudi Oil Price agreement, or this week's juicy nugget: Cheney and Powell hate each other. It seems all that butt-kissing in the first GWB book really paid off with some 75 interviews with top people. Combined with his charm offensive, Woodward gets folks to spill the beans.
What emerges is several facts gleaned from the Horse's mouth and 2 other previous insiders:
All this Woodward stuff goes towards damaging the Bush White House's credibility with the media. They won't get any more free passes. So why is Bush leading by 5 points (Margin of Error is 4) in most polls?
The American people don't care about the past; they care about the future. Bush may have lied to us to get us into a war, but we are there now, and we can't pull out like Spain did this weekend. Kerry needs to focus on the future and a positive vision of what he will do differently. Voters see Bush as a decisive leader, even if he makes bad decisions, that to them is better than Kerry who has been (semi-) accurately portrayed by all of Bush's $50 million in advertising as some one lacking such convictions.
Howard Dean was the Democratic Party's backbone transplant surgeon. Now he still needs to perform another operation on Senator Kerry. Seems John's body is rejecting the implant.
If Kerry can say how we can get out of Iraq with honor, how we can fix our alliances, our economy, our health care, and all that without simply saying "George Bush is wrong" repeatedly, then he would be on to something.
After Paul O'Neill's, Dick Clarke's and now Bob Woodward's book, will any of them have a lasting effect on this president?
Along with the traditional 60 Minutes sneak preview, Woodward has been leaking tidbits of the book in some small newspaper he works for (I think it's called the Washington Post) almost daily with fun filled facts like the date Bush decided to go to War with Iraq, or a Saudi Oil Price agreement, or this week's juicy nugget: Cheney and Powell hate each other. It seems all that butt-kissing in the first GWB book really paid off with some 75 interviews with top people. Combined with his charm offensive, Woodward gets folks to spill the beans.
What emerges is several facts gleaned from the Horse's mouth and 2 other previous insiders:
- Bush and his foreign policy team (save Powell) was focused on Iraq since before they got in office and it was priority number one
- Their obsession with Iraq (and China and Russia thanks to Condi) might have helped along a culture of marginalizing of Al-Qaida and all the pre-9/11 warnings.
- Powell has been fighting for control of diplomacy since day 1. He has lost many battles to Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz, but won a temporary victory in September of 2002 only to lost the overall stance to the UN.
- Bush is not a details man. He doesn't like to work hard or look back and think deeply about himself or history
- Bush is overly dependent on Cheney, who has more power than any VP in the history of the office, as far as I can tell.
All this Woodward stuff goes towards damaging the Bush White House's credibility with the media. They won't get any more free passes. So why is Bush leading by 5 points (Margin of Error is 4) in most polls?
The American people don't care about the past; they care about the future. Bush may have lied to us to get us into a war, but we are there now, and we can't pull out like Spain did this weekend. Kerry needs to focus on the future and a positive vision of what he will do differently. Voters see Bush as a decisive leader, even if he makes bad decisions, that to them is better than Kerry who has been (semi-) accurately portrayed by all of Bush's $50 million in advertising as some one lacking such convictions.
Howard Dean was the Democratic Party's backbone transplant surgeon. Now he still needs to perform another operation on Senator Kerry. Seems John's body is rejecting the implant.
If Kerry can say how we can get out of Iraq with honor, how we can fix our alliances, our economy, our health care, and all that without simply saying "George Bush is wrong" repeatedly, then he would be on to something.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Fun Facts
According to USATODAY, Police accused Lithuanian prostitutes of discrimination for charging NATO troops $125 and hour and Lithuanian citizens only $35 an hour. Meanwhile, prostitution is "illegal."
According to USATODAY, Police accused Lithuanian prostitutes of discrimination for charging NATO troops $125 and hour and Lithuanian citizens only $35 an hour. Meanwhile, prostitution is "illegal."
Thursday, April 08, 2004
More reasons why Bush and his associates can't be trusted
- Reporters recording Antonin Scailia's comments on the constitution were ordered to erase 12.5 minutes of the tape. The nerve of reporters! To record a [Bush 41-appointed] Sumpreme Court Justice's views on something so private as the constitution. It's not like interpeting the constitution is his job for life or anything.
- In other scandals, a lab took DNA samples 4/7 to determine whether President Bush's brother Neil Bush "fathered a child by a woman married to another man." Two swabs each, "one from each cheek," were taken, according to the Houston Chronicle.
- Bush aides say Pres. Bush "didn't indicate he was planning to watch" the live TV broadcast of NSA Condoleezza Rice's 9/11 Commis. testimony from his TX ranch. First of all YEAH RIGHT...second of all, if true, its because Condi isn't reading the newspapers and/or watching TV for him. He's a busy man, after all he is spending the week at his multimillion dollar "ranch" in Crawford, TX.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Another Hard hitting Interview
Talk about your softball questions...OK enough puns for now.
And the Bush Picture of the Day is...(drum roll please)
- Wlw AM interviewed VP Dick Cheney during the Reds-Cubs game at Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park 4/5. It was the Reds opener. Some excerpts from the transript. Action questions to Cheney are in italics:
Q: "I'd love to see a club go back to Washington. I really would." Cheney: "Me, too. It's a great baseball town." Q: "A ball and a strike to Grudzielanek, and the stretch and the pitch: breaking ball drops in for a called strike, and a 1-2 count to Mark Grudzielanek. He is one for two this afternoon, has scored a run. Busy year for you folks, huh?" Cheney: "Looks that way."
Q asked: "Are you pleased with the way things look as far as the economy is concerned?" Cheney: "I am. I think all the signs are headed in the right direction." Q: "One-two pitch, swung on and missed. And Lidle picks up his second strike-out."
More Q: "Well, I got to tell you, I enjoy you when you're on with Tim Russert." Cheney: "Yes." Q: "You might be -- you might be his favorite guest." Cheney: "We've done that a number of times over the years, and Tim does a great job." Q: "He really does." Cheney: "Good moderator." Q: "He sure does. Patterson to the plate. He takes, low and inside, a ball. Corey, a home run and was hit by a pitch. And he's scored two of the five Chicago runs. Lidle works, and Patterson a swing and a miss on a breaking ball -- way out in front. Now it evens, 1-1. So now you're in New Orleans tonight?"
Later, Q says: "I'll tell you, [MO Sen] Jim Bunning when -- I played against him." Cheney: "Sure." Q: "And you talk about a competitor." Cheney: "He was. I served with him in the House of Representatives before he ran for the Senate." Q: "Pitch inside, and the full count to Patterson." Cheney: "I see a lot of him now because my only real job is as President of the Senate, under the Constitution, so I have lunch up there every Tuesday. And I usually see Jim at those lunches."
Talk about your softball questions...OK enough puns for now.
- Celebs, including ex-Gov. Gray Davis (D-CA) and Grateful Dead drummer Mickey Hart, "join regular people to talk about how they use Yahoo services" in a $100M ad campaignlaunching 4/8. The ads "use a split screen to show two Yahoo users simultaneously." Davis is "paired with a junior high school student who's using Yahoo Mail to persuade classmates to vote for her as treasurer of the eighth grade." He "is using Yahoo's search engine to find an agent" because if an ex-actor can be gov., "he says, maybe a 'former governor can be an actor'"
- Coors CEO Pete Coors (R) "will enter" the CO Senate race today, according to CO Gov. Bill Owens (R). Owens: "I think Pete Coors would make an oustanding senator" More Owens: "I'll need to talk to ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer and make sure he's going to stay in the race, and I'll make a judgment between these two candidates shortly" Right, like you would chose that loser over a millioniare with instant name recognition...and a great slogan. "Free beer if you vote for me!" Wow, that just might work.
And the Bush Picture of the Day is...(drum roll please)
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Tid-Bits
Just 741 people came to a theater in the famously liberal city of Portland to sign a petition last night for Ralph Nader -- fewer than the 1K signatures Nader needed to make the OR ballot. So Nader's camp said he could collect 15K signatures over a three-month period instead. Good luck. But Ralph, ever the optimist, told the LA Times "Even the best basketball player doesn't get a slam dunk every time." Ralph, you couldn't even hit a layup from six inches away.
Quote of the Day: "I apologize for any embarrassment caused to my supporters by my opponent's disclosure of a small part of my personal past" -- state House candidate Sam Walls (R), who had "an apparent fondness for women's apparel"
Runner up: "Jennifer Lopez is no longer the only one in her family with a million-dollar booty" -- New York Post, on Lopez matriarch Guadalupe winning a $2.4M jackpot playing $1 slots in Atlantic City.
Just 741 people came to a theater in the famously liberal city of Portland to sign a petition last night for Ralph Nader -- fewer than the 1K signatures Nader needed to make the OR ballot. So Nader's camp said he could collect 15K signatures over a three-month period instead. Good luck. But Ralph, ever the optimist, told the LA Times "Even the best basketball player doesn't get a slam dunk every time." Ralph, you couldn't even hit a layup from six inches away.
Quote of the Day: "I apologize for any embarrassment caused to my supporters by my opponent's disclosure of a small part of my personal past" -- state House candidate Sam Walls (R), who had "an apparent fondness for women's apparel"
Runner up: "Jennifer Lopez is no longer the only one in her family with a million-dollar booty" -- New York Post, on Lopez matriarch Guadalupe winning a $2.4M jackpot playing $1 slots in Atlantic City.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Around the Horn
- According to the Globe, AZ Sen. John McCain "unleashed an attack on his own party" 4/1. McCain, "criticizing GOP stands" on environmental and minority issues: "I believe my party has gone astray." More McCain: "I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy. But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."
McCain made the comments at a seminar hosted by MA Dem US Rep./Kerry backer Marty Meehan "as he again ruled out" a VP bid. He also "took on" Pres. Bush, saying: "You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that." And he said: "Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not," adding that the debate "will be part of this presidential campaign" - The WH announced that Pres. Bush "has accepted an invitation to speak" at LSU's 5/21 commencement. Bush's visit to Baton Rouge, his third LA visit this year, is another sign" that Louisiana's Electoral Votes are in play. Bush is also doing the same thing at the Air Force Academy (in the possible swing state CO). Both are signs that Bush is worried that once "Red" states may turn "Blue" (and right now might be "Purple").
- Two-Thirds of Bush's campaign ads are negative. Yet another sign that even his own people know he is in trouble.
- Just who are those "independent contractors" that died in Fallujah anyway? DailyKos got a lot of flack when he called them "mercenaries" and didn't feel so bad about them dying. Blackwater Security Consulting, the company that employed the 4 fallen contractors, is one of several independent contractors working for the U.S. government that have come to the "forefront of the thriving business of going to places that most people--even the U.S. military--would rather not go." The 3/31 violence has depicted this "large, expensive and shadowy presence of private security companies" working in Iraq in an "unwelcome spotlight." Some of the "highly trained civilian commandos" who work in war zones are paid up to $2K/day and "as long as nothing goes wrong, their presence there goes largely unnoticed to the outside world." Most of the companies, many using ex-military personnel, take on responsibilities such as protecting coalition contractors and defending oil fields and important buildings. Blackwater handles security for Bremer.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the presence of security companies in Iraq is expected to "linger" as the U.S. approaches the 6/30 power transition deadline and intends to put a private security contractor in charge of protecting the Green Zone, the area of Baghdad where coalition officials live and work. TX-based security contractor company Meyer & Meyer pres. Tim Meyer says that "private security is going to be the stopgap. It's really cheaper for the U.S. government to have private security than to keep rotating forces in and out." He adds that they are also more "politically palatable" because they have a lower media profile; if something goes awry, private companies are "a little less scrutinized than if something happens with the military."
The Globe says, because there is no "official" estimate of how many security specialists are active in Iraq and reconstruction contracts are not made public, the costs of the "growing security burden" in Iraq to American taxpayers is "hard to gauge." However, security costs, as indicated in proposals submitted to the government by contractors, appear to constitute a "larger share" of the $18B that the U.S. government has set aside for rebuilding Iraq. Analysts estimate that companies have roughly 30K to 40K workers in Iraq and they set aside "about" 10% of their costs for security. Bigger question: Why do we have to hire people to go into these areas? - According to the US Treasury, 24,987 Americans (including a whopping 996 Ohioians and 111 New Mexicans) benefit from the top tax rate reductions that John Kerry would reverse if elected president. Here's a great gimmick: the Kerry camp should offer to write a letter of apology to those 25K people ask them to give back more (Clinton Levels) to help our country fight terrorism, improve schools, care for the elderly, disabled and destitute. Then they can say, "I would rather be one of the 25K having to pay a bit more to help my society than the millions of Americans without work or health insurance. I challenge any of my fellow top rate payers-- especially president Bush-- to explain why he can't give a bit more to help move our country in the right direction."
Thursday, April 01, 2004
More proof that Clarke was telling the truth
(try and that ten times fast, especially with a loose tooth)
This morning the Post notes that, "On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration [foreign] 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." By the world of yesterday, did she mean the Cold War? Nope, she meant the Clinton Administration!
"It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States." In fact, Rice was to have chided the Clinton Administration for not doing enough about the "real threat" -- long-range missiles.
Meanwhile, Slate's Fred Kaplan noted the overlooked but obvious: "If Clarke is spewing nonsense-- If the president and his national security adviser really did consider Al-Qaeda 'an urgent matter' —[CIA Director George] Tenet is the man to say so. It's hard to imagine that the White House hasn't tried to recruit him to do so. Yet so far he hasn't." Also MIA from the attack hounds, Colin Powell.
When asked about Clarke, Powell said the following on PBS' Newshour: "I know Mr. Clarke. I have known him for many, many years. He's a very smart guy. He served his nation very, very well. He's an expert in these matters." His book "is not the complete story," but, Powell added, "I'm not attributing any bad motives to it."
Asked if he had been recruited to join the campaign against Clarke, Powell replied, "I'm not aware of any campaign against Mr. Clarke, and I am not a member." Note, that means that A) Colin Powell is out of the loop and B) he is using a non-denial denial to answer questions about a coordinated campaign to smear Clarke coming from the Commander-in-Chief himself.
Powell said the following about Clarke's charge that the Bush administration didn't see Al-Qaeda as an "urgent threat" is also telling:
Kaplan notes that Tenet and Powell could have said something to despute or refute Clarke's substantive charges, yet they chose not to do so. And their silence speaks volumes.
(try and that ten times fast, especially with a loose tooth)
This morning the Post notes that, "On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration [foreign] 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." By the world of yesterday, did she mean the Cold War? Nope, she meant the Clinton Administration!
"It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States." In fact, Rice was to have chided the Clinton Administration for not doing enough about the "real threat" -- long-range missiles.
Meanwhile, Slate's Fred Kaplan noted the overlooked but obvious: "If Clarke is spewing nonsense-- If the president and his national security adviser really did consider Al-Qaeda 'an urgent matter' —[CIA Director George] Tenet is the man to say so. It's hard to imagine that the White House hasn't tried to recruit him to do so. Yet so far he hasn't." Also MIA from the attack hounds, Colin Powell.
When asked about Clarke, Powell said the following on PBS' Newshour: "I know Mr. Clarke. I have known him for many, many years. He's a very smart guy. He served his nation very, very well. He's an expert in these matters." His book "is not the complete story," but, Powell added, "I'm not attributing any bad motives to it."
Asked if he had been recruited to join the campaign against Clarke, Powell replied, "I'm not aware of any campaign against Mr. Clarke, and I am not a member." Note, that means that A) Colin Powell is out of the loop and B) he is using a non-denial denial to answer questions about a coordinated campaign to smear Clarke coming from the Commander-in-Chief himself.
Powell said the following about Clarke's charge that the Bush administration didn't see Al-Qaeda as an "urgent threat" is also telling:
- We knew that al-Qaeda was a threat to our country. We knew that the Clinton Administration understood this and was working against al-Qaeda. We did not ignore al-Qaeda. We spent a lot of time thinking about terrorism, what should we do about it...We were working on terrorism and trying to understand it.
Kaplan notes that Tenet and Powell could have said something to despute or refute Clarke's substantive charges, yet they chose not to do so. And their silence speaks volumes.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Oh the power (and abuse) of incumency
The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a liberal rag, discovered that "The [US] Treasury tapped civil servants to calculate the cost of Sen. John Kerry's tax plan and then posted the analysis on the Treasury Web site."
Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury tax official appointed by Reagan, said that using the analysis of the Kerry plan for political purposes "stepped over the line" that's supposed to protect career officials from political influence. "This type of release tends to reduce the reputation of the department as a fair and neutral arbiter of what constitutes good tax policy," Mr. Steuerle said.
Dan Maffei, a Democratic spokesman for the House Ways and Means committee, called the effort "highly suspicious." If the Tresury's investigation had "a legitimate legislative purpose, the first place you would go would be the Joint Committee on Taxation." Just watch, soon you will see ads by Bush that will say that Kerry's tax plan is "a tax increase of as much as $477 billion over 10 years on hardworking individuals and married couples." (The RNC has already used such figures in press releases).
The President already gets half-off all his political travel, and the security tab gets picked up by deficit-ridden cities and states. How? Well he just gives a policy speech on his way to the next fundraiser or rally. In fact, I often have trouble telling the difference between a campaign rally and a policy speech (both are equally staged).
This is not to say he is the first to do it, Clinton did as well, but never to this extent. Bush has raised $170 Million, and he would have much less cash on hand if these trips would be covered by his campaign. How about this: get the President and his lackeys out of the business of doing opposition research for his campaign, get the American people and the localities out of the business of picking up half of a campaign's tab. This would apply to both parties. No more Budget estimates by self-interested White House officials at OMB.
Make the Fed do all estimates of economic impact of budgets, tax plans etc. That way, no one can play political games with numbers. As Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain once said, "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a liberal rag, discovered that "The [US] Treasury tapped civil servants to calculate the cost of Sen. John Kerry's tax plan and then posted the analysis on the Treasury Web site."
Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury tax official appointed by Reagan, said that using the analysis of the Kerry plan for political purposes "stepped over the line" that's supposed to protect career officials from political influence. "This type of release tends to reduce the reputation of the department as a fair and neutral arbiter of what constitutes good tax policy," Mr. Steuerle said.
Dan Maffei, a Democratic spokesman for the House Ways and Means committee, called the effort "highly suspicious." If the Tresury's investigation had "a legitimate legislative purpose, the first place you would go would be the Joint Committee on Taxation." Just watch, soon you will see ads by Bush that will say that Kerry's tax plan is "a tax increase of as much as $477 billion over 10 years on hardworking individuals and married couples." (The RNC has already used such figures in press releases).
The President already gets half-off all his political travel, and the security tab gets picked up by deficit-ridden cities and states. How? Well he just gives a policy speech on his way to the next fundraiser or rally. In fact, I often have trouble telling the difference between a campaign rally and a policy speech (both are equally staged).
This is not to say he is the first to do it, Clinton did as well, but never to this extent. Bush has raised $170 Million, and he would have much less cash on hand if these trips would be covered by his campaign. How about this: get the President and his lackeys out of the business of doing opposition research for his campaign, get the American people and the localities out of the business of picking up half of a campaign's tab. This would apply to both parties. No more Budget estimates by self-interested White House officials at OMB.
Make the Fed do all estimates of economic impact of budgets, tax plans etc. That way, no one can play political games with numbers. As Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain once said, "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Rice, Rice, Cheney*
*sung to the tune of "Ice, Ice, Baby"
Sounds like the White House finally figured out people could see through their horsesh*t According to NBC News: "In a reversal, the White House has agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11, 2001 commission, NBC News has learned. In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to testify before the entire commission, not just the two co-chairmen. Their testimony will, however, remain private."
That's fine with me. In fact, I would have been fine with Condi testifying privately as long as she was under oath, that way, when she tried to lie, there would be legal consequences. Apparently, the press stink got so bad that this deal was made. The former Provost of Stanford also released this letter to the press as well. I wonder if the CIA is still going to declassify misleading segments of Clarke's 2002 testimony in classic Republican style (patented Selective Quoting, TM) or if the White House will drop that stunt too.
On Meet the Press two days ago, Clarke (whose 60 Minutes appearance is being used in a new MoveOn ad) asked for everything to be declassified: his 2002 testimony (the complete testimony), his memos and e-mails to Condi, all of it. Something tells me there is more there.
Plus, just on a basic gut level, it seems like more shoes could fall. After all, if you were in charge of intelligence during the the worst intelligence failure in US history, one would think you would lose your job. Yet George Tenet is still there, why? Does he have lots of fun memos lying in a vault where he told Bush what was coming and Bush said, "We need to go get Saddam" or "Nah, they couldn't hit us." before 9/11? Does he have stuff that has Bush begging him to find an Iraq connection after 9/11, despite overwhelming evidence that it was Al-Qaeda?
When I turned on CNN that fateful Tuesday morning, my first thought was, "Bush will try to blame this on Saddam and go after him." I was sick to my stomach for thinking that, and for all those people who were dying before my eyes, and their families. Turns out, my gut instinct was right.
I knew it wasn't Saddam, and I was just a International Relations major in my senior year of college, just imagine what George Tenet must have thought when he was asked to look harder and find an Iraq connection.
This is why elections matter; this is why I care about politics and public policy: People's lives (and well-being) are at stake.
*sung to the tune of "Ice, Ice, Baby"
Sounds like the White House finally figured out people could see through their horsesh*t According to NBC News: "In a reversal, the White House has agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11, 2001 commission, NBC News has learned. In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to testify before the entire commission, not just the two co-chairmen. Their testimony will, however, remain private."
That's fine with me. In fact, I would have been fine with Condi testifying privately as long as she was under oath, that way, when she tried to lie, there would be legal consequences. Apparently, the press stink got so bad that this deal was made. The former Provost of Stanford also released this letter to the press as well. I wonder if the CIA is still going to declassify misleading segments of Clarke's 2002 testimony in classic Republican style (patented Selective Quoting, TM) or if the White House will drop that stunt too.
On Meet the Press two days ago, Clarke (whose 60 Minutes appearance is being used in a new MoveOn ad) asked for everything to be declassified: his 2002 testimony (the complete testimony), his memos and e-mails to Condi, all of it. Something tells me there is more there.
Plus, just on a basic gut level, it seems like more shoes could fall. After all, if you were in charge of intelligence during the the worst intelligence failure in US history, one would think you would lose your job. Yet George Tenet is still there, why? Does he have lots of fun memos lying in a vault where he told Bush what was coming and Bush said, "We need to go get Saddam" or "Nah, they couldn't hit us." before 9/11? Does he have stuff that has Bush begging him to find an Iraq connection after 9/11, despite overwhelming evidence that it was Al-Qaeda?
When I turned on CNN that fateful Tuesday morning, my first thought was, "Bush will try to blame this on Saddam and go after him." I was sick to my stomach for thinking that, and for all those people who were dying before my eyes, and their families. Turns out, my gut instinct was right.
I knew it wasn't Saddam, and I was just a International Relations major in my senior year of college, just imagine what George Tenet must have thought when he was asked to look harder and find an Iraq connection.
This is why elections matter; this is why I care about politics and public policy: People's lives (and well-being) are at stake.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
I promised myself I wouldn't but...
Ralph Nader's first FEC report, covering the period from 10/09/03 to 02/29/04, yields a handful of contributors who are otherwise reliable GOP donors. We've tried to weed out obvious hedgers in favor of what appear to be conservatives aiming to give Bush a boost. All below donated to both Nader, and (unless otherwise noted) all donated Bush in the '04 cycle:
Physician Peter Blitzer [!] $1,000
Investor Wiley Buchanan III 500
Real estate exec. Donald Burns 2,000
Stoneham, MA resident Gary Hutchins 500
Oil company CEO Terrence Jacobs 500
Business theorist Robert A.G. Monks [@] 2,000
Philanthropist Millicent Monks [#] 2,000
Univ of. SC law prof William Quirk [$] 500
Shampoo company CEO Farouk Shami [%] 2,000
Actor/writer Ben Stein 500
[!] On 11/18/03, the same day heavily-GOP donor Blitzer maxed out for Bush, he gave $1K to Howard Dean.
[@] R. Monks' contributions include Bush in '99, Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), ex-Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY), ex-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY), the ME GOP -- plus two ME Dems, Rep. Mike Michaud and '02 SEN nominee Chellie Pingree.
[#] M. Monks gave to Bush in '99 and the ME GOP in '00.
[$] Quirk gave to Lazio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and to Pat Buchanan for his '00 run.
[%] Shami's only previous donation was to the RNC in '02.
Nader contributors who gave to Bush in the '00 cycle but so far have not in '04 include MA real estate exec. E. Denis Walsh and UC-Irvine medical prof Hazem Chehabi; both also gave more to Dems than anyone on the above list (Thanks Hotline!).
Ralph Nader's first FEC report, covering the period from 10/09/03 to 02/29/04, yields a handful of contributors who are otherwise reliable GOP donors. We've tried to weed out obvious hedgers in favor of what appear to be conservatives aiming to give Bush a boost. All below donated to both Nader, and (unless otherwise noted) all donated Bush in the '04 cycle:
Physician Peter Blitzer [!] $1,000
Investor Wiley Buchanan III 500
Real estate exec. Donald Burns 2,000
Stoneham, MA resident Gary Hutchins 500
Oil company CEO Terrence Jacobs 500
Business theorist Robert A.G. Monks [@] 2,000
Philanthropist Millicent Monks [#] 2,000
Univ of. SC law prof William Quirk [$] 500
Shampoo company CEO Farouk Shami [%] 2,000
Actor/writer Ben Stein 500
[!] On 11/18/03, the same day heavily-GOP donor Blitzer maxed out for Bush, he gave $1K to Howard Dean.
[@] R. Monks' contributions include Bush in '99, Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), ex-Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY), ex-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY), the ME GOP -- plus two ME Dems, Rep. Mike Michaud and '02 SEN nominee Chellie Pingree.
[#] M. Monks gave to Bush in '99 and the ME GOP in '00.
[$] Quirk gave to Lazio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and to Pat Buchanan for his '00 run.
[%] Shami's only previous donation was to the RNC in '02.
Nader contributors who gave to Bush in the '00 cycle but so far have not in '04 include MA real estate exec. E. Denis Walsh and UC-Irvine medical prof Hazem Chehabi; both also gave more to Dems than anyone on the above list (Thanks Hotline!).
Monday, March 22, 2004
Dick Clarke's American Grandstand?
By now, unless you have living under a rock, you have heard about Reagan-appointed former Terrorism expert Richard Clarke's allegations that the Bush White House dropped the ball on terrorism and might have been able stop September 11th.
The allegations are heavy, serious matters and the timing of his book and the general election (as well as his testimony before the 9/11 commission tomorrow) don't help his credibility. And I might have some doubts about a guy who was a cabinet-level man in the Clinton White House and was demoted (essentially) by Bush and left months after Afghanistan and Iraq already had happened.
One could also quibble with him since he worked for Clinton and not enough happened under that watch either (more on this later), if he hadn't worked for Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush. Further, the part that makes me believe him the most, besides my bias against Bush, is that it is the same thing that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said, the same thing that people told ex-General Wesley Clark, the same thing that lots of "sources" in the White House have also confirmed: George W. Bush and his national security team (save Clarke) were primarily concerned with the imaginary threat of Iraqi terrorism and other long-gone threats of quaint state-sponsored terrorism (that is so 1980s/early 1990s). When people told them they should look at Al-Qaeda, they said "Why should we worry about that little guy?" (Paul Wolfowitz Dep. Sec. of Defense and architect of the Iraq War). The NeoCons obession with Iraq in 2001 (well since 1991) helped them to overlook possible warning signs.
This is not to say that the Bush's have all the blame on their doorstep. 9/11 is a concrete example of how Bill Clinton's personal failures (his inability to control his appetites) impacted his job performance. Clinton's team was so pre-occupied with defending itself against Republicans and had lost so much political good will in the Congress that they were unable or unwilling to take aggressive actions oversees. For example, look at Rwanda or Bosnia in the mid-1990s. After Khobar Towers and the Embassy bombings, the Clinton response was sending in missiles, not troops. Would other presidents in the late 1990s have done the same? Probably, but you never know.
The Clinton administration was all set to do something after the USS Cole bombing of December 2000, but Al Gore lost the recount battle, and they felt that they shouldn't start a military action and leave it in the lap of the next president Bush (as Bush's father had did to Clinton in 1993 with Somalia-- just look how good that turned out), so they just warned and wanted meetings.
This is why Bush and his national security team (Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, etc) have tried to stall and thwart the 9/11 commission at every turn. They don't want to look bad and they want to somehow still blame Bill Clinton for everything (including the economy). Clarke may have a degree of mixed motives (he is teaching a class at Harvard with a Kerry foreign policy advisor, who also left the Bush White House in disgust over their lack of action on terrorism), but he is right about one thing: BushCo was more concerned about Russia and China and Iraq than Al-Qaeda in 2001. And they really wanted to have a tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda because, as Rumsfeld said, "there's no good targets" and there were plenty of targets in Iraq. [Saying this took a lot of guts on Clarke's part, because he knew the hounds would be unleashed. Maybe it should be a Kerry-Clarke ticket.]
So when there was no link, Bush folks insinuated a link, they tried to make one up, and they went ahead and went to war with Iraq after doing a half-assed job in Afghanistan. And the results speak for themselves. One year out of going to war with Iraq, there are still no weapons of mass destruction to be found. There is no tangible link to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and there is no diminishing of terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. The Iraq War was a recruiting bonanza for Hamas and Al-Qaeda. The country is experiencing daily attacks from terrorists and the county will fall apart when we pull out on June 30th for Bush's re-election plans.
Lying to go to war is a big enough crime. But trying to pretend you tried your best to prevent the worst intelligence failure ever when you didn't, and then diverting precious resources from finding the group that perpetrated 9/11 to go after a non-threat in Saddam's Iraq, that is a bigger crime. It is a spit in the face of the families of the victims of 9/11 and all those Americans who were killed by Al-Qaeda in 1998 and 2000.
By now, unless you have living under a rock, you have heard about Reagan-appointed former Terrorism expert Richard Clarke's allegations that the Bush White House dropped the ball on terrorism and might have been able stop September 11th.
The allegations are heavy, serious matters and the timing of his book and the general election (as well as his testimony before the 9/11 commission tomorrow) don't help his credibility. And I might have some doubts about a guy who was a cabinet-level man in the Clinton White House and was demoted (essentially) by Bush and left months after Afghanistan and Iraq already had happened.
One could also quibble with him since he worked for Clinton and not enough happened under that watch either (more on this later), if he hadn't worked for Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush. Further, the part that makes me believe him the most, besides my bias against Bush, is that it is the same thing that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said, the same thing that people told ex-General Wesley Clark, the same thing that lots of "sources" in the White House have also confirmed: George W. Bush and his national security team (save Clarke) were primarily concerned with the imaginary threat of Iraqi terrorism and other long-gone threats of quaint state-sponsored terrorism (that is so 1980s/early 1990s). When people told them they should look at Al-Qaeda, they said "Why should we worry about that little guy?" (Paul Wolfowitz Dep. Sec. of Defense and architect of the Iraq War). The NeoCons obession with Iraq in 2001 (well since 1991) helped them to overlook possible warning signs.
This is not to say that the Bush's have all the blame on their doorstep. 9/11 is a concrete example of how Bill Clinton's personal failures (his inability to control his appetites) impacted his job performance. Clinton's team was so pre-occupied with defending itself against Republicans and had lost so much political good will in the Congress that they were unable or unwilling to take aggressive actions oversees. For example, look at Rwanda or Bosnia in the mid-1990s. After Khobar Towers and the Embassy bombings, the Clinton response was sending in missiles, not troops. Would other presidents in the late 1990s have done the same? Probably, but you never know.
The Clinton administration was all set to do something after the USS Cole bombing of December 2000, but Al Gore lost the recount battle, and they felt that they shouldn't start a military action and leave it in the lap of the next president Bush (as Bush's father had did to Clinton in 1993 with Somalia-- just look how good that turned out), so they just warned and wanted meetings.
This is why Bush and his national security team (Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, etc) have tried to stall and thwart the 9/11 commission at every turn. They don't want to look bad and they want to somehow still blame Bill Clinton for everything (including the economy). Clarke may have a degree of mixed motives (he is teaching a class at Harvard with a Kerry foreign policy advisor, who also left the Bush White House in disgust over their lack of action on terrorism), but he is right about one thing: BushCo was more concerned about Russia and China and Iraq than Al-Qaeda in 2001. And they really wanted to have a tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda because, as Rumsfeld said, "there's no good targets" and there were plenty of targets in Iraq. [Saying this took a lot of guts on Clarke's part, because he knew the hounds would be unleashed. Maybe it should be a Kerry-Clarke ticket.]
So when there was no link, Bush folks insinuated a link, they tried to make one up, and they went ahead and went to war with Iraq after doing a half-assed job in Afghanistan. And the results speak for themselves. One year out of going to war with Iraq, there are still no weapons of mass destruction to be found. There is no tangible link to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and there is no diminishing of terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. The Iraq War was a recruiting bonanza for Hamas and Al-Qaeda. The country is experiencing daily attacks from terrorists and the county will fall apart when we pull out on June 30th for Bush's re-election plans.
Lying to go to war is a big enough crime. But trying to pretend you tried your best to prevent the worst intelligence failure ever when you didn't, and then diverting precious resources from finding the group that perpetrated 9/11 to go after a non-threat in Saddam's Iraq, that is a bigger crime. It is a spit in the face of the families of the victims of 9/11 and all those Americans who were killed by Al-Qaeda in 1998 and 2000.
Friday, March 19, 2004
"Who does number 2 work for?"
Admist the rumors and fighting between Pakastani forces and Al-Qaeda-like ones, DEBKAfile, is good for another dish: "Pakistani forces resume onslaught on al Qaeda and Taliban elements holed up in Waziristan after Taliban defense minister Mullah Akhund denies presence of bin Laden"s No. 2 Zuwahiri in area. He believes both are safe in Afghanistan and moving around all the time."
DEBKA was a great source of Israeli-intell during the war in Iraq. And we all know that the Israelis a life and death stake in their info being spot on. After all, even though they are attacked all the time (last this week with 10 dead for instance), they do stop a bunch of attacks and catch a lot of bad guys. Unfortunately, their leader antagonizes more terrorists to crop up. "Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall!" When will an American president have the cajones to say that?
Meanwhile, in the Madrid Masacre case: "Madrid judge orders five suspects held for further investigation – 3 Moroccans charged with belonging to armed group responsible for at least 190 murders, 2 Indians with collaborating with armed group. Suspects can be held two years without formal charges. Train bombing deaths reach 202 and 1,600 injured.
"London counter-terror officers report: Moroccan al Qaeda bombers who carried out Madrid train attacks received logistical assistance from al Qaeda cells in Britain" Oh, and I wanted to note that the terrorists didn't win, Bush lost. This was another clear rebuke of Bush's foreign policy. Every foreign leader who has run on supporting Bush has lost, every one that has run away from him has won (Bush is 0-3). Even the new Spanish PM said he would keep troops in if the UN was in charge.
But NeoCons won't let that happen; because who needs allies right? It's not like the Pakistanis are the only ones fighting Al-Qaeda right now. We just need a "coalition of the willing." The trouble with this idea is that every time you mess up a foreign operation, like the Bush administration did, you have less countries willing to stick around and help pay the bill. There is a reason why for 50+ years the US had lots of long standing allies who were with us via treaty and thick and thin; it's because it worked. And clearly, Spain (and Japan and South Korea) shows that a Cheney-style "coalition" does not.
Admist the rumors and fighting between Pakastani forces and Al-Qaeda-like ones, DEBKAfile, is good for another dish: "Pakistani forces resume onslaught on al Qaeda and Taliban elements holed up in Waziristan after Taliban defense minister Mullah Akhund denies presence of bin Laden"s No. 2 Zuwahiri in area. He believes both are safe in Afghanistan and moving around all the time."
DEBKA was a great source of Israeli-intell during the war in Iraq. And we all know that the Israelis a life and death stake in their info being spot on. After all, even though they are attacked all the time (last this week with 10 dead for instance), they do stop a bunch of attacks and catch a lot of bad guys. Unfortunately, their leader antagonizes more terrorists to crop up. "Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall!" When will an American president have the cajones to say that?
Meanwhile, in the Madrid Masacre case: "Madrid judge orders five suspects held for further investigation – 3 Moroccans charged with belonging to armed group responsible for at least 190 murders, 2 Indians with collaborating with armed group. Suspects can be held two years without formal charges. Train bombing deaths reach 202 and 1,600 injured.
"London counter-terror officers report: Moroccan al Qaeda bombers who carried out Madrid train attacks received logistical assistance from al Qaeda cells in Britain" Oh, and I wanted to note that the terrorists didn't win, Bush lost. This was another clear rebuke of Bush's foreign policy. Every foreign leader who has run on supporting Bush has lost, every one that has run away from him has won (Bush is 0-3). Even the new Spanish PM said he would keep troops in if the UN was in charge.
But NeoCons won't let that happen; because who needs allies right? It's not like the Pakistanis are the only ones fighting Al-Qaeda right now. We just need a "coalition of the willing." The trouble with this idea is that every time you mess up a foreign operation, like the Bush administration did, you have less countries willing to stick around and help pay the bill. There is a reason why for 50+ years the US had lots of long standing allies who were with us via treaty and thick and thin; it's because it worked. And clearly, Spain (and Japan and South Korea) shows that a Cheney-style "coalition" does not.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Why isn't Kerry Talking About National Security?
I thought Democrats nominated Kerry to not only dispell the "weak on Defense" argument of Democrats but that he could actually take on Bush on the issues of National Security and Iraq that other couldn't (this was also the theory behind Clark by the way).
Yet, when Kerry and his surrogates on the left (Moveon.org and the Media Fund) responded to Bush's negative ads against the junior Senator from Massachusetts, they talked about Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy. These "kitchen table" arguments are ones that are tried and true for a reason: Democrats always beat Republicans on this issue. Where they haven't won on since Vietnam on is Defense.
So why isn't Kerry making the case for a Democratic view of international relations and national security? Why does Dick Holbrooke and Jamie Rueben have to do it for you? The case is quite compelling really: George W. Bush promised in 2000 (to the military) "help is on the way;" Democrats need to use that line right back on him. Candidate Bush said the military was overburdened, overstretched and low on morale without adaqute supplies or pay. Flash forward to 2004, the US military is now so overdeployed that National Guardsmen are in Iraq and Afghanistan for well over 6 months at a time. Confidential interviews with soldiers in military magazines like Stars and Stripes paint a picture of troops with extremely low morale. Despite the massive run up in defense spending the last 3 years, there still isn't enough flak jackets or armored humvees for our troops patrolling Bagdad, who are getting sniped and bombed daily. (Appearantly there still is plenty of money for failed missle defense systems and new boats built in Missippi). Whose soft on defense.
Howard Dean said the right thing at the wrong time (and he was probabbly the wrong messenger too): We aren't any safer with Saddam Hussien gone. Sure, I've wanted to get rid of him since 1991, and would have wanted to get rid of him in 1987 when he bombed the Kurds with Mustard Gas had I been aware of it at the time. I also wanted to get rid of Marcos in the Phillapines, or the Chinese out of Tibet, or the Tailban out of Afghanistan in 1998 when they started bombing budda statues and letting hijackers land planes there. But the point of that tangent is you can't get rid of everyone. You have to set priorities. Or you go after all of them.
But to claim that Iraq was an iminate threat, or even an emerging threat, was a stretch to say the least. Any one who was paying attention noticed that Iraq had been blanketed by bombs and UN quaruntines and was significantly weaker than it was in 1991. I wish Kerry had voted against the war this time and against it last time, but I understand why he thought he had to. Hopefully, he can get his story straight in time to explain it to the voters.
Believe it or not, Bush is vulerable to attacks on his record as commander-in-chief. We have two wars that haven't be 100% "won," we have allies that are alienated, we have Al-Qaeda's reimergence on the world scene, swiss cheese protection provided by the Homeland Security and so on. Bush is the one who is "wrong on defense."
Democrats need an ad late in the year that catalogues all the big lies the aministration has told before the American people. Those two methods of attack, plus actually laying out a counter proposal on what to do with Iraq and national security should be enough to be winning the defense issue.
I thought Democrats nominated Kerry to not only dispell the "weak on Defense" argument of Democrats but that he could actually take on Bush on the issues of National Security and Iraq that other couldn't (this was also the theory behind Clark by the way).
Yet, when Kerry and his surrogates on the left (Moveon.org and the Media Fund) responded to Bush's negative ads against the junior Senator from Massachusetts, they talked about Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy. These "kitchen table" arguments are ones that are tried and true for a reason: Democrats always beat Republicans on this issue. Where they haven't won on since Vietnam on is Defense.
So why isn't Kerry making the case for a Democratic view of international relations and national security? Why does Dick Holbrooke and Jamie Rueben have to do it for you? The case is quite compelling really: George W. Bush promised in 2000 (to the military) "help is on the way;" Democrats need to use that line right back on him. Candidate Bush said the military was overburdened, overstretched and low on morale without adaqute supplies or pay. Flash forward to 2004, the US military is now so overdeployed that National Guardsmen are in Iraq and Afghanistan for well over 6 months at a time. Confidential interviews with soldiers in military magazines like Stars and Stripes paint a picture of troops with extremely low morale. Despite the massive run up in defense spending the last 3 years, there still isn't enough flak jackets or armored humvees for our troops patrolling Bagdad, who are getting sniped and bombed daily. (Appearantly there still is plenty of money for failed missle defense systems and new boats built in Missippi). Whose soft on defense.
Howard Dean said the right thing at the wrong time (and he was probabbly the wrong messenger too): We aren't any safer with Saddam Hussien gone. Sure, I've wanted to get rid of him since 1991, and would have wanted to get rid of him in 1987 when he bombed the Kurds with Mustard Gas had I been aware of it at the time. I also wanted to get rid of Marcos in the Phillapines, or the Chinese out of Tibet, or the Tailban out of Afghanistan in 1998 when they started bombing budda statues and letting hijackers land planes there. But the point of that tangent is you can't get rid of everyone. You have to set priorities. Or you go after all of them.
But to claim that Iraq was an iminate threat, or even an emerging threat, was a stretch to say the least. Any one who was paying attention noticed that Iraq had been blanketed by bombs and UN quaruntines and was significantly weaker than it was in 1991. I wish Kerry had voted against the war this time and against it last time, but I understand why he thought he had to. Hopefully, he can get his story straight in time to explain it to the voters.
Believe it or not, Bush is vulerable to attacks on his record as commander-in-chief. We have two wars that haven't be 100% "won," we have allies that are alienated, we have Al-Qaeda's reimergence on the world scene, swiss cheese protection provided by the Homeland Security and so on. Bush is the one who is "wrong on defense."
Democrats need an ad late in the year that catalogues all the big lies the aministration has told before the American people. Those two methods of attack, plus actually laying out a counter proposal on what to do with Iraq and national security should be enough to be winning the defense issue.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
a pitstop in the Gore-ing of John Kerry
Amid all the late night talk show jokes and calls by the Bush aministration to name names,The Boston Globe's Patrick Healy, who quoted Kerry on "foreign leaders," who wanted him to defeat Bush, said 3/15 that "upon review of his tape, he realized that Kerry had in fact" said "more leaders." His reference to "more leaders," said Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter, "could mean anybody." Even Drudge has the full e-mail by Healy on his website.
Question #1 leaps to mind: Why didn't Kerry's people say, no my boss never said that? Why did they let the foriegn leaders quote go on for days and days with GOPers making snide, "I'll bet it was Kim Ill Jung and Chirac" remarks? Number two, boy does Healy has balls or what? He talked to the LA Times about sending out this e-mail and admitting to a mistake by the press and ending a storyline that the press core loved. The press I have decided, are not, in general overly liberal or conservative. They are overwhelmingly lazy. If on the first time they think they hear "foreign leaders" they will stick to it for months. If they get a press release, they will quote it extensively.
Remember the Bush ad that had 9/11 images and the families of survivors who were aghast at George exploiting the attack for his political gains? Turns out, those people were part of a group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, who's endorsed Dennis J. Kucinich, as pointed out by the Weekly Standard's Continetti. Yet none of the media bothered to mention the group's affilation when airing segments or writing articles. Why? Because they were too busy to look up the numbers of other victims; some liberal group had handed them the numbers and quotes and they ran with it.
Occationally, reporters do amazing jobs of investigative reporting, offering different views that the CW and inside views, but the last year has been partiuclarly void. While their were puffing up Dean, Edwards, and to some extent Clark, they were beating down Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the unmentionables. Then once they had Dean, Edwards and Clark riding high, they took them apart again. It seems to me that the Bloggosphere does have valuable things to offer, as it offers different spins and stories on what is going on and is not the echo chamber of the press rooms. I am glad that people are tracking particular reporters and keeping them honest, like the Wilgoren Watch, or the Adam Nagaourney watch .
Of course, many of us are dependent on the media for our information and there is the issue of Journalistic Ethics that bloggers tend to dissregard when it doesn't suit their fancy, but on a whole, bloggers offer a needed supplement to the lagging elite, lazy media.
PS Today is the IL primary. And with it comes the quote of the day: "Election Day is an unusual time for the homeless"-- Chicago Sun-Times' Brown, on IL SEN's Blair Hull (D) hiring homeless Election Day workers.
Amid all the late night talk show jokes and calls by the Bush aministration to name names,The Boston Globe's Patrick Healy, who quoted Kerry on "foreign leaders," who wanted him to defeat Bush, said 3/15 that "upon review of his tape, he realized that Kerry had in fact" said "more leaders." His reference to "more leaders," said Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter, "could mean anybody." Even Drudge has the full e-mail by Healy on his website.
Question #1 leaps to mind: Why didn't Kerry's people say, no my boss never said that? Why did they let the foriegn leaders quote go on for days and days with GOPers making snide, "I'll bet it was Kim Ill Jung and Chirac" remarks? Number two, boy does Healy has balls or what? He talked to the LA Times about sending out this e-mail and admitting to a mistake by the press and ending a storyline that the press core loved. The press I have decided, are not, in general overly liberal or conservative. They are overwhelmingly lazy. If on the first time they think they hear "foreign leaders" they will stick to it for months. If they get a press release, they will quote it extensively.
Remember the Bush ad that had 9/11 images and the families of survivors who were aghast at George exploiting the attack for his political gains? Turns out, those people were part of a group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, who's endorsed Dennis J. Kucinich, as pointed out by the Weekly Standard's Continetti. Yet none of the media bothered to mention the group's affilation when airing segments or writing articles. Why? Because they were too busy to look up the numbers of other victims; some liberal group had handed them the numbers and quotes and they ran with it.
Occationally, reporters do amazing jobs of investigative reporting, offering different views that the CW and inside views, but the last year has been partiuclarly void. While their were puffing up Dean, Edwards, and to some extent Clark, they were beating down Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the unmentionables. Then once they had Dean, Edwards and Clark riding high, they took them apart again. It seems to me that the Bloggosphere does have valuable things to offer, as it offers different spins and stories on what is going on and is not the echo chamber of the press rooms. I am glad that people are tracking particular reporters and keeping them honest, like the Wilgoren Watch, or the Adam Nagaourney watch .
Of course, many of us are dependent on the media for our information and there is the issue of Journalistic Ethics that bloggers tend to dissregard when it doesn't suit their fancy, but on a whole, bloggers offer a needed supplement to the lagging elite, lazy media.
PS Today is the IL primary. And with it comes the quote of the day: "Election Day is an unusual time for the homeless"-- Chicago Sun-Times' Brown, on IL SEN's Blair Hull (D) hiring homeless Election Day workers.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Spain’s Whirlwind Weekend
Just imagine this: 5:30 EST October 30th, 2004: a NJ transit train from New York explodes in multiple locations, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
The Bush administration says it was Syrian nationalist, and on Halloween, the US military begins bombing them into the stone age. Then a video surfaces; it was actually Al-Quaeda, and Ossama bin Laden himself is laughing at us from a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan. On the tape he says how he got all those terrorists from Baghdad into the US via ship containers.
Then on November 2nd, 2004, something amazing happens, instead of people rallying around the president like they did over 3 years ago, Americans vote in John Kerry by overwhelming margins, and Democrats take back both houses of congress. Exit polls show that the public didn’t like how quick Bush was to blame an easy target and how Iraq and the administration’s inability to protect the public again made them very angry.
Sound far fetched? That is essentially what happened in Spain from Thursday to Sunday, only the Spanish public was never behind the war on Iraq in the first place. The "Madrid Massacre,"as some like to call it is a horrific act of violence with no real reason other than violence itself.
I haven’t commented on these events at length so far because I wanted to have time to think about who was behind it and why. We can be fairly certain that it was an Al-Quaeda group, or at least a like minded group, given the evidence found in an unexploded bomb and the arrests made by the Spanish government.
Many have commented that liberals haven’t reacted strongly or properly to events such as these. Polls show that Americans still view Republicans and Bush as better on National Defense/Security and Iraq, despite Kerry’s current narrow lead. Why is this? Is it because, as neocons claim, liberals see this as a police action and not what it is, an act of war? (Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey hates the term "war on terrorism" because he says we are at war with Al-Quaeda, not a method. If we were at war with terrorism, we would have troops in Israel, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya, and many other places.)
At the same time, the war cannot be won "the old fashioned way" by knocking over client states like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. America is fighting a non-state actor who can live in countries that support them, like Afghanistan or Pakistan, but also ones that don’t like Germany, or the US. If the US really wanted to knock out all these states, it would have troops knocking in doors in Saudi Arabian Madrassas and charity groups.
Bush is right that it is a long battle with little apparent progress due to the covert nature of the work. But that fact that it hasn't happened again doesn't mean we are succeeding. In fact, it means the US has been damn lucky. Lucky that the shoe bomber's wick wouldn’t light. Lucky that they have decided on focusing their attacks on Iraq, Turkey and Spain and not the US.
To win this war, the US needs to search all points of entry, develop alternative sources of energy/reduce its dependence on foreign oil, stop supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world for the sake of "stability" and start supporting democratic uprisings, create a visa tracking system based on technology and crack down of violators, create a national id system that would ensure that identity theft is as small as possible and only authorized individuals receive them (and not track the movements of US citizens or permanent aliens). The US and its allies need to strike a new covenant with the very people that are strapping bombs to their bodies: we will support economic development, hope and opportunity. In exchange, you will realistically engage Israel and come to terms that the Jews will have their own country and aren't going to leave (but again the Israeli government will have to pull out of settlements).
200 people in Spain shouldn't have to die for the world to wake up to the problem, 3,000 people in the US shouldn’t have to die for America to wake up to the problem either. While Democrats and Republicans can play with fire and say the other can't be trusted to keep America safe, they both need to realize there is much more yet to do.
Just imagine this: 5:30 EST October 30th, 2004: a NJ transit train from New York explodes in multiple locations, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
The Bush administration says it was Syrian nationalist, and on Halloween, the US military begins bombing them into the stone age. Then a video surfaces; it was actually Al-Quaeda, and Ossama bin Laden himself is laughing at us from a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan. On the tape he says how he got all those terrorists from Baghdad into the US via ship containers.
Then on November 2nd, 2004, something amazing happens, instead of people rallying around the president like they did over 3 years ago, Americans vote in John Kerry by overwhelming margins, and Democrats take back both houses of congress. Exit polls show that the public didn’t like how quick Bush was to blame an easy target and how Iraq and the administration’s inability to protect the public again made them very angry.
Sound far fetched? That is essentially what happened in Spain from Thursday to Sunday, only the Spanish public was never behind the war on Iraq in the first place. The "Madrid Massacre,"as some like to call it is a horrific act of violence with no real reason other than violence itself.
I haven’t commented on these events at length so far because I wanted to have time to think about who was behind it and why. We can be fairly certain that it was an Al-Quaeda group, or at least a like minded group, given the evidence found in an unexploded bomb and the arrests made by the Spanish government.
Many have commented that liberals haven’t reacted strongly or properly to events such as these. Polls show that Americans still view Republicans and Bush as better on National Defense/Security and Iraq, despite Kerry’s current narrow lead. Why is this? Is it because, as neocons claim, liberals see this as a police action and not what it is, an act of war? (Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey hates the term "war on terrorism" because he says we are at war with Al-Quaeda, not a method. If we were at war with terrorism, we would have troops in Israel, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya, and many other places.)
At the same time, the war cannot be won "the old fashioned way" by knocking over client states like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. America is fighting a non-state actor who can live in countries that support them, like Afghanistan or Pakistan, but also ones that don’t like Germany, or the US. If the US really wanted to knock out all these states, it would have troops knocking in doors in Saudi Arabian Madrassas and charity groups.
Bush is right that it is a long battle with little apparent progress due to the covert nature of the work. But that fact that it hasn't happened again doesn't mean we are succeeding. In fact, it means the US has been damn lucky. Lucky that the shoe bomber's wick wouldn’t light. Lucky that they have decided on focusing their attacks on Iraq, Turkey and Spain and not the US.
To win this war, the US needs to search all points of entry, develop alternative sources of energy/reduce its dependence on foreign oil, stop supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world for the sake of "stability" and start supporting democratic uprisings, create a visa tracking system based on technology and crack down of violators, create a national id system that would ensure that identity theft is as small as possible and only authorized individuals receive them (and not track the movements of US citizens or permanent aliens). The US and its allies need to strike a new covenant with the very people that are strapping bombs to their bodies: we will support economic development, hope and opportunity. In exchange, you will realistically engage Israel and come to terms that the Jews will have their own country and aren't going to leave (but again the Israeli government will have to pull out of settlements).
200 people in Spain shouldn't have to die for the world to wake up to the problem, 3,000 people in the US shouldn’t have to die for America to wake up to the problem either. While Democrats and Republicans can play with fire and say the other can't be trusted to keep America safe, they both need to realize there is much more yet to do.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Smorgasboard
- Factiod: The typical Massachusetts legislator is a 50-year-old, white, male, Roman Catholic, Massachusetts-born, married Democrat with two children and a graduate degree (about half are law degrees) who ran unopposed in the last election, according to Boston Globe research and analysis.
- The typical Utah legislator is over 60, white, male, LDS (Mormon), Utah-born, married Republican with 6+ children and 20+ grandchildren who work in business who ran unopposed or virtually unopposed in the last election, according to my memory/Salt Lake Tribune.
- The last two CO GOP Sens first elected as GOPers -- Sen. Wayne Allard and ex-Sen. Hank Brown -- served as Reps. for the state's fourth CD. So did ex-Rep Bob Schaffer, who is in the running still on the GOP side.
- ex-AL Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore increasingly sounds like a right-wing protest candidate for the Constitution Party. Slate's Tim Noah interviewed him on NPR and he sure hedges a lot. "I would say that there's not much difference these days between those who run under one party or another because they're all after seeking power. Power's not what the Constitution was about. The Constitution was about a limitation on power. It was about the fact that the judiciary should stick to interpreting the law, not making it." Go, Roy, go!
- "Citing intense public interest in the gay marriage debate and the potential news value" of Romney's "views, most of Boston's television news outlets agreed" 3/11 "to provide live coverage in the event the governor delivered a short statement after" the vote. What would he say? Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesperson for Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), said Romney "is considering a plan to ask" the SJC "to stop the state from issuing" gay marriage licenses "if lawmakers approve" a marriage amendment. Fehrnstrom refused to "specify what" Romney had in mind, but "acknowledged that the legal options included a petition to the SJC to suspend" its ruling "until the voters had a chance to act" on a marriage amendment. Fehrnstrom: "On an issue as important as the definition of marriage the governor is not going to run and hide" Why hide when you can be on TV for free?
Back to normal, more of the same Bush crap
So now as my site traffic falls back down to earth (see this lovely chart thanks to sitemeter), I should change the subject back to all the other stuff happening in the world:
Nearly 200 people are dead in Madrid, Spain from a series of sequenced bombing attacks that smells like Al-Queada is being denied by ETA, a Basque-separatist group like the IRA in the 1980s. More sure to follow out of this. Keep in mind Spain was part of Rummy's "new Europe" AKA those that went to bat for the Bush Administration on Iraq.
Bush has out a negative attack ad on John Kerry which claims Kerry would raise taxes by $900 billion (cue Dr. Evil), weaken the PATRIOT Act that catches terrorists (like Jose Padilla?) and it uses a "generic terrorist" to do so. This looks like your average South Asian (Indian/Pakistani) with a sinister look on his face and shifty eyes (like that dog on the Simpsons).
"It undercuts the very thing the president committed himself to after 9/11," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. "It tries to create an identity between terrorists and that face. It can only be called a negative stereotype, it can only be called regrettable." Oh by the way, Zogby's the brother of that famous pollster too. "If they wanted to put Osama bin Laden up there that's fine, but using just a face stereotypes," he added, asking Bush to take down the "Muhammad Horton ad"
Bush folks don't get it, telling the Globe that the man was "generic" and not meant to stereotype. The right wing blogophere agrees with the tactic of using an Arab man saying they are "calling a spade a spade" DailyKos, of course, is more on Zogby's side. All of these links are thanks to TNR's Ryan Lizza.
But wait there's more! Bush as a companion dirty radio ad, along with this more "positive" attack ad with a nice fantasy touch, saying Bush will continue to "reduce health care costs" and "create jobs" as well as "reform education" while John Kerry will destroy all this by rolling back the tax cuts for the richest 1%.
First of all, Bush has lost just shy of 3 Million Jobs and created 21,000 jobs last month nearly all of which were government jobs so much for a smaller government George.
Secondly, there is nothing Bush has done to reduce health care costs, the prescription drug bill they force through congress by lying to their fellow Republicans (by threatening HHS officials with their jobs if they told the Congress the real cost estimates would be higher than $400 billion-- they ended up being $551 billion)...Oh and the bill specifically had no cost containment procedures; in fact, the law prohibited the government from trying to save money.
On Education Reform. OK well that is true, you reformed education. But change is not improvement, just ask any school district or state legislature in the country what they think of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I think you would get an earful about "unfunded mandates."
John Kerry's camp now has a a respons ad to the Bush attack ad up, "expected, the Globe says, "to be aired in the same competitive markets where the Bush ads are running."
Meanwhile, the Colorado Senate race beckons. It is looking more and more like Democrats are poised for a pick up! According to GOP sources of the National Journal, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will announce this p.m. that he will not run. Nor will Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO), according to the Pueblo Chieftain who says the retiring McInnis "reportedly will announce today that he also will forego the race." Also out are CO Gov. Bill Owens (R) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) who is choosing instead to defend his razor thin 100+ vote seat in Colorado's 7th. So who's left to challenge CO AG Ken Salazar (D)? Ex-RNC chair Jim Nicholson "indicated he may announce as early as today whether he'll join the race" according to the Rocky Mountain News.
That's the best you can get? Well I shouldn't laugh, just look at now MS Gov. Halley Barbour, also an ex-RNC chair. With that title comes lots of people you know who can give lots of money.
And in the Land of Lincoln, a Research 2000 IL poll of Dem likely voters found Barack Obama with 36% support; Dan Hynes 21%; Maria Pappas 15% and Blair Hull 14%. A poll of GOP likely voters found Jack Ryan with 36% support; Jim Oberweis 16%; Andrew McKenna 11% and Steve Rauschenberger 10%. The state primary is in on Tuesday. Obama vs. Ryan looks to be the results. Can't wait.
So now as my site traffic falls back down to earth (see this lovely chart thanks to sitemeter), I should change the subject back to all the other stuff happening in the world:
Nearly 200 people are dead in Madrid, Spain from a series of sequenced bombing attacks that smells like Al-Queada is being denied by ETA, a Basque-separatist group like the IRA in the 1980s. More sure to follow out of this. Keep in mind Spain was part of Rummy's "new Europe" AKA those that went to bat for the Bush Administration on Iraq.
Bush has out a negative attack ad on John Kerry which claims Kerry would raise taxes by $900 billion (cue Dr. Evil), weaken the PATRIOT Act that catches terrorists (like Jose Padilla?) and it uses a "generic terrorist" to do so. This looks like your average South Asian (Indian/Pakistani) with a sinister look on his face and shifty eyes (like that dog on the Simpsons).
"It undercuts the very thing the president committed himself to after 9/11," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. "It tries to create an identity between terrorists and that face. It can only be called a negative stereotype, it can only be called regrettable." Oh by the way, Zogby's the brother of that famous pollster too. "If they wanted to put Osama bin Laden up there that's fine, but using just a face stereotypes," he added, asking Bush to take down the "Muhammad Horton ad"
Bush folks don't get it, telling the Globe that the man was "generic" and not meant to stereotype. The right wing blogophere agrees with the tactic of using an Arab man saying they are "calling a spade a spade" DailyKos, of course, is more on Zogby's side. All of these links are thanks to TNR's Ryan Lizza.
But wait there's more! Bush as a companion dirty radio ad, along with this more "positive" attack ad with a nice fantasy touch, saying Bush will continue to "reduce health care costs" and "create jobs" as well as "reform education" while John Kerry will destroy all this by rolling back the tax cuts for the richest 1%.
First of all, Bush has lost just shy of 3 Million Jobs and created 21,000 jobs last month nearly all of which were government jobs so much for a smaller government George.
Secondly, there is nothing Bush has done to reduce health care costs, the prescription drug bill they force through congress by lying to their fellow Republicans (by threatening HHS officials with their jobs if they told the Congress the real cost estimates would be higher than $400 billion-- they ended up being $551 billion)...Oh and the bill specifically had no cost containment procedures; in fact, the law prohibited the government from trying to save money.
On Education Reform. OK well that is true, you reformed education. But change is not improvement, just ask any school district or state legislature in the country what they think of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I think you would get an earful about "unfunded mandates."
John Kerry's camp now has a a respons ad to the Bush attack ad up, "expected, the Globe says, "to be aired in the same competitive markets where the Bush ads are running."
Meanwhile, the Colorado Senate race beckons. It is looking more and more like Democrats are poised for a pick up! According to GOP sources of the National Journal, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will announce this p.m. that he will not run. Nor will Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO), according to the Pueblo Chieftain who says the retiring McInnis "reportedly will announce today that he also will forego the race." Also out are CO Gov. Bill Owens (R) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) who is choosing instead to defend his razor thin 100+ vote seat in Colorado's 7th. So who's left to challenge CO AG Ken Salazar (D)? Ex-RNC chair Jim Nicholson "indicated he may announce as early as today whether he'll join the race" according to the Rocky Mountain News.
That's the best you can get? Well I shouldn't laugh, just look at now MS Gov. Halley Barbour, also an ex-RNC chair. With that title comes lots of people you know who can give lots of money.
And in the Land of Lincoln, a Research 2000 IL poll of Dem likely voters found Barack Obama with 36% support; Dan Hynes 21%; Maria Pappas 15% and Blair Hull 14%. A poll of GOP likely voters found Jack Ryan with 36% support; Jim Oberweis 16%; Andrew McKenna 11% and Steve Rauschenberger 10%. The state primary is in on Tuesday. Obama vs. Ryan looks to be the results. Can't wait.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
A little taste of Home
A kid from South Jordan, Utah came to see me. Not over gay marriage (thank the Lord) but because he is a design student attending Utah State -- Go Aggies!-- and was looking at buildings today and just so happened to be touring the state house. (he heard a fellow Utahn was in the building I guess) What a day to see it in action! He was nice and it reminded me of the Utah accent that is subtle but distinctive. Not as distinctive as say a Bostonian accent, but still there. Plus, he had the lovely Mormon-isms of Heck and Dang and so on.
Just to be safe, I mentioned my impending marriage and we avoided talking about the gay marriage issue, since I would bet he is all for banning it, and he probably suspected I was a gasp Democrat. True to form, he had no clue where my alma mater was (Brown) or where Rhode Island was either (I said nearby to help him out). But he was nicely equipped with Western clothing like North Face and one of those rock climber bags that doubles as a school bag. Not that people out East don't wear this stuff, it just isn't the in style there like pea coats are in New England.
A kid from South Jordan, Utah came to see me. Not over gay marriage (thank the Lord) but because he is a design student attending Utah State -- Go Aggies!-- and was looking at buildings today and just so happened to be touring the state house. (he heard a fellow Utahn was in the building I guess) What a day to see it in action! He was nice and it reminded me of the Utah accent that is subtle but distinctive. Not as distinctive as say a Bostonian accent, but still there. Plus, he had the lovely Mormon-isms of Heck and Dang and so on.
Just to be safe, I mentioned my impending marriage and we avoided talking about the gay marriage issue, since I would bet he is all for banning it, and he probably suspected I was a gasp Democrat. True to form, he had no clue where my alma mater was (Brown) or where Rhode Island was either (I said nearby to help him out). But he was nicely equipped with Western clothing like North Face and one of those rock climber bags that doubles as a school bag. Not that people out East don't wear this stuff, it just isn't the in style there like pea coats are in New England.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Salazar=Matheson
Hotline says, "According to a Democratic source, at a 5 pm presser in CO, AG Ken Salazar will get into the CO SEN race, and candidate Rutt Bridges will be at the presser to endorse Salazar. Update: Mark Udall is set to also be there to endorse Salazar."
Looks like CO Democrats managed to clear the field for the best candidate, Ken Salazar, whose brother John is running for a congressional seat at the same time (3rd district). This makes this successful Hispanic family much like their Utah neighbors the white Matheson family.
Both the Mathesons and Salazars will have brothers' names on ballots for a statewide race and a key swing House seats at the same time in November. [Jim is running for re-election in Utah's 2nd and Scott Jr is running for Governor against a huge field of big GOP names] It sounds like both will be unopposed in their respective primaries. I used to think the Mathesons were more like the Udalls (dad creating their political fortunes Mo for the Udalls and Scott Sr for the Mathesons) but now the Salazars may be the heroes of the Democratic party.
What a great pick up this could be! There is no better way to show to America that the Democratic Party cares about Blacks and Hispanics by placing them on the two biggest pickup chances in the US senate (Obama looks to be winning in IL)? It also helps that these guys are terrific candidates, no Al Sharptons here.
Hotline says, "According to a Democratic source, at a 5 pm presser in CO, AG Ken Salazar will get into the CO SEN race, and candidate Rutt Bridges will be at the presser to endorse Salazar. Update: Mark Udall is set to also be there to endorse Salazar."
Looks like CO Democrats managed to clear the field for the best candidate, Ken Salazar, whose brother John is running for a congressional seat at the same time (3rd district). This makes this successful Hispanic family much like their Utah neighbors the white Matheson family.
Both the Mathesons and Salazars will have brothers' names on ballots for a statewide race and a key swing House seats at the same time in November. [Jim is running for re-election in Utah's 2nd and Scott Jr is running for Governor against a huge field of big GOP names] It sounds like both will be unopposed in their respective primaries. I used to think the Mathesons were more like the Udalls (dad creating their political fortunes Mo for the Udalls and Scott Sr for the Mathesons) but now the Salazars may be the heroes of the Democratic party.
What a great pick up this could be! There is no better way to show to America that the Democratic Party cares about Blacks and Hispanics by placing them on the two biggest pickup chances in the US senate (Obama looks to be winning in IL)? It also helps that these guys are terrific candidates, no Al Sharptons here.
Make America Work For You
Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (and son of Truman's Secretary of the Interior) has his first ad up from the no-so-secret $100 million soft money pit known as "The Media Fund" which was expressly designed to counter Bush ads when the nominee would have no money left and Bush would have tons.
They combo Howard Dean's "Take our Country Back" Motto with a Kerry style attack on Bush's favoring of special interest over people. In reality though, it just a generic democratic ad attacking Bush where he is weakest: JObs. There is a bit of unionism in there and protectionism, but it also does nothing but bash Bush. No call Senator Kerry or how to vote or where to give money. It does give this lovely website address while it plays in all the same 17 battleground ("purple") states that will be overloaded with campaign comericals again (just make up your mind guys).
Tack on another million spent by Log Cabin Republicans, AKA Gay Republicans, are putting up this ad using VP Cheney's words on gay marriage in 2000 (during the VP debate) against him., and we got two outside groups slinging stuff at the Prez.
Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (and son of Truman's Secretary of the Interior) has his first ad up from the no-so-secret $100 million soft money pit known as "The Media Fund" which was expressly designed to counter Bush ads when the nominee would have no money left and Bush would have tons.
They combo Howard Dean's "Take our Country Back" Motto with a Kerry style attack on Bush's favoring of special interest over people. In reality though, it just a generic democratic ad attacking Bush where he is weakest: JObs. There is a bit of unionism in there and protectionism, but it also does nothing but bash Bush. No call Senator Kerry or how to vote or where to give money. It does give this lovely website address while it plays in all the same 17 battleground ("purple") states that will be overloaded with campaign comericals again (just make up your mind guys).
Tack on another million spent by Log Cabin Republicans, AKA Gay Republicans, are putting up this ad using VP Cheney's words on gay marriage in 2000 (during the VP debate) against him., and we got two outside groups slinging stuff at the Prez.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
"Where's the Jobs?"
Paul Krugman created this lovely chart and drove home the point in his column today. My favorite 'graph:
"Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis. "
Basically, this issue alone is going to sink Bush. Even if you hate gays getting married, worry about your guns getting taken away, still support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush last time, they might not this time. Why? He has no clue about the economy and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs on his watch. Only 1,000 were created in December, 21,000 in February not nearly enough to avoid being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.
If this fall, people are still afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their health care, and the economy is still idling, then it won't matter how far to the right Bush goes and how much he tried to scare us about John "flip-flop" Kerry, he will be booted out. If this was 2000, maybe he would be in better shape vs. Kerry than Gore, But the fact is, 2004 will be about his horrific record as president. Re-elections are always a referendum on the president, not the opposition. Any look at reality vs. their lies will tell you how to vote.
Paul Krugman created this lovely chart and drove home the point in his column today. My favorite 'graph:
"Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis. "
Basically, this issue alone is going to sink Bush. Even if you hate gays getting married, worry about your guns getting taken away, still support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush last time, they might not this time. Why? He has no clue about the economy and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs on his watch. Only 1,000 were created in December, 21,000 in February not nearly enough to avoid being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.
If this fall, people are still afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their health care, and the economy is still idling, then it won't matter how far to the right Bush goes and how much he tried to scare us about John "flip-flop" Kerry, he will be booted out. If this was 2000, maybe he would be in better shape vs. Kerry than Gore, But the fact is, 2004 will be about his horrific record as president. Re-elections are always a referendum on the president, not the opposition. Any look at reality vs. their lies will tell you how to vote.
Ready, set...SPLAT
Of all the proxy wars between Kerry and Bush that will be waged over the next 8 months, the most lopsided so far was on CNN's Paula Zahn's Now last night. On the program to discuss foreign policy was former UN Ambassador and wannabe Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke (the guy who authored most of the Dayton Peace accords) and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Pearle.
Boy, it wasn't even a fair fight, just read the transcripts. Pearle has, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, alienated nearly the entire world from the US with the way they pursued the war against Iraq and made up the case for going to war. Further, Pearle also boasts some shady ties to the military-industrial complex (and Saudi Oil) and had to resign in disgrace recently because of all the potential ethics violations regardless of actions regarding Iraq.
Pearle was jumping on Kerry's statement that he has been told my many "foreign leaders" that they don't trust the US anymore and would welcome him being president, or something like that. Pearle was snarkley trying all night (and finally did) say it was France! Ha Ha you are a wimpy French-looking French loving man.
Holbrooke pointed out that it is incredibly obvious that the world hates Bush and that it is hurting our foreign policy goals. He pointed to Turkey, a place Pearle had personally try to bully into supporting the war, and failed miserably. Turkey, Holbrook said, used to love us under Clinton (65% or something) now they hate us (15% or so like us under Bush); don't we need allies like this to win the war on terror and to have won the war against Iraq better?
Pearle was ready for this one with a snarky "Bush isn't running for Prime Minister of Turkey" and "We don't need the approval of other nations to do what's right for America; Bush is going to look out for America's interests."
But he missed the point. Many (in fact most) times, as Holbrooke and Clark have pointed out, it is in America's best interests to work with allies. Certainly, if our security is at stake and our friends aren't willing to help, then we must go it alone. But everyone was on the US's side after 9/11 and Bush said "no thanks and while you are at it, f*ck off too" and then is administration promptly insulted and bullied the world into a winnable war, but have lost the peace thus far. Provisional Constitution or not, we could have eliminated Saddam in a much more multilateral way. Sure France had ulterior motives in Iraq (the UN Oil for Program was a slush fund and the French still want money for all their loans and bids with Saddam), but we still could have at least made them and the Russians look bad. Instead, the world sided with France and Russia; how embarrassing is that?
Bush's record on foreign policy, like his record on the economy and jobs, is objectively horrible. All you have to do is look at what the world thinks of us, all the instability in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see what is wrong. You don't even need to look at the investigation of WMD's or Valerie Plame or the sorry state of homeland security to know that this President has made us less safe, and more scared.
On a lighter note...
My Fiancee, after bowing to pressure, has a blog of her own: SpongeBlog StinaPants. Her first major post is the kind of writing that made me fall in love with her 6 years ago. Lest I get too sappy, MONSTER TRUCKS, GIRLS IN BIKINIS, FOOTBALL! Ok, glad I got that out of my system. Oh, syndicate me via Atom (sorry, I like RSS too but I can't afford Blogger Pro).
Of all the proxy wars between Kerry and Bush that will be waged over the next 8 months, the most lopsided so far was on CNN's Paula Zahn's Now last night. On the program to discuss foreign policy was former UN Ambassador and wannabe Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke (the guy who authored most of the Dayton Peace accords) and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Pearle.
Boy, it wasn't even a fair fight, just read the transcripts. Pearle has, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, alienated nearly the entire world from the US with the way they pursued the war against Iraq and made up the case for going to war. Further, Pearle also boasts some shady ties to the military-industrial complex (and Saudi Oil) and had to resign in disgrace recently because of all the potential ethics violations regardless of actions regarding Iraq.
Pearle was jumping on Kerry's statement that he has been told my many "foreign leaders" that they don't trust the US anymore and would welcome him being president, or something like that. Pearle was snarkley trying all night (and finally did) say it was France! Ha Ha you are a wimpy French-looking French loving man.
Holbrooke pointed out that it is incredibly obvious that the world hates Bush and that it is hurting our foreign policy goals. He pointed to Turkey, a place Pearle had personally try to bully into supporting the war, and failed miserably. Turkey, Holbrook said, used to love us under Clinton (65% or something) now they hate us (15% or so like us under Bush); don't we need allies like this to win the war on terror and to have won the war against Iraq better?
Pearle was ready for this one with a snarky "Bush isn't running for Prime Minister of Turkey" and "We don't need the approval of other nations to do what's right for America; Bush is going to look out for America's interests."
But he missed the point. Many (in fact most) times, as Holbrooke and Clark have pointed out, it is in America's best interests to work with allies. Certainly, if our security is at stake and our friends aren't willing to help, then we must go it alone. But everyone was on the US's side after 9/11 and Bush said "no thanks and while you are at it, f*ck off too" and then is administration promptly insulted and bullied the world into a winnable war, but have lost the peace thus far. Provisional Constitution or not, we could have eliminated Saddam in a much more multilateral way. Sure France had ulterior motives in Iraq (the UN Oil for Program was a slush fund and the French still want money for all their loans and bids with Saddam), but we still could have at least made them and the Russians look bad. Instead, the world sided with France and Russia; how embarrassing is that?
Bush's record on foreign policy, like his record on the economy and jobs, is objectively horrible. All you have to do is look at what the world thinks of us, all the instability in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see what is wrong. You don't even need to look at the investigation of WMD's or Valerie Plame or the sorry state of homeland security to know that this President has made us less safe, and more scared.
On a lighter note...
My Fiancee, after bowing to pressure, has a blog of her own: SpongeBlog StinaPants. Her first major post is the kind of writing that made me fall in love with her 6 years ago. Lest I get too sappy, MONSTER TRUCKS, GIRLS IN BIKINIS, FOOTBALL! Ok, glad I got that out of my system. Oh, syndicate me via Atom (sorry, I like RSS too but I can't afford Blogger Pro).
Monday, March 08, 2004
T-minus 4 days
In Iraq, they finally signed that constitution, gold pens and all, after a show of strength by Sistani. This Shiite Muslim leader, without a doubt, will be the head of the Iraqi government soon after the Americans leave. Keep in mind too, this is an interim constitution and an interim government. The Shiite clearly hope that they can make Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy. Just goes to show that foreign policy will be topic A or B this year, right up there with the Economy/Jobs. Once again, the President's record on all this is horrific.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Angus "Beef" McQuilken is not going to request a recount after losing by about 1% or 343 votes. It really has no effect for the gay marriage vote since they weren't going to swear in the winner until next week anyway. I guess Angus thinks he can challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown in November and will win then. Good luck. Oh well, now Republicans have 7 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Big Deal.
Or is it? Romney's strategy of actually challenging incumbents is working and the democratic-controlled legislature is scared, begging their congressmen for money. In other bad news, the Boston Catholic church is so poor now thanks to all their sex scandals that they are closing parishes and schools, needless to say, like military base closing, this one won't go on without a fight. And those same churches have just started calling us up with their parishioners on same-sex marriage. They have the exact same talking points and message. Is this the will of the people or willed people?
Before ruling on Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark anti-sodomy case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the keynote address to an anti-gay group that was involved in the case, says the LA Times. Not that anyone didn't know how he and Thomas would rule, but please. And this is Bush's ideal of a model judge, one who looks at the "facts" and not his own biases, one who doesn't "interpret the constitution." Scalia is just plain old conservative, one who uses one set of arguments for one case and then abandons these reasoning's when in convenient. Like with Lawrence, he said foreign courts rulings don't matter (when they were citied by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion), but in another case, Olympic Airways v Husain, he ruled just the opposite way with Kennedy's reasoning [thanks Geekable and Atrios].
In Iraq, they finally signed that constitution, gold pens and all, after a show of strength by Sistani. This Shiite Muslim leader, without a doubt, will be the head of the Iraqi government soon after the Americans leave. Keep in mind too, this is an interim constitution and an interim government. The Shiite clearly hope that they can make Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy. Just goes to show that foreign policy will be topic A or B this year, right up there with the Economy/Jobs. Once again, the President's record on all this is horrific.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Angus "Beef" McQuilken is not going to request a recount after losing by about 1% or 343 votes. It really has no effect for the gay marriage vote since they weren't going to swear in the winner until next week anyway. I guess Angus thinks he can challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown in November and will win then. Good luck. Oh well, now Republicans have 7 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Big Deal.
Or is it? Romney's strategy of actually challenging incumbents is working and the democratic-controlled legislature is scared, begging their congressmen for money. In other bad news, the Boston Catholic church is so poor now thanks to all their sex scandals that they are closing parishes and schools, needless to say, like military base closing, this one won't go on without a fight. And those same churches have just started calling us up with their parishioners on same-sex marriage. They have the exact same talking points and message. Is this the will of the people or willed people?
Before ruling on Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark anti-sodomy case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the keynote address to an anti-gay group that was involved in the case, says the LA Times. Not that anyone didn't know how he and Thomas would rule, but please. And this is Bush's ideal of a model judge, one who looks at the "facts" and not his own biases, one who doesn't "interpret the constitution." Scalia is just plain old conservative, one who uses one set of arguments for one case and then abandons these reasoning's when in convenient. Like with Lawrence, he said foreign courts rulings don't matter (when they were citied by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion), but in another case, Olympic Airways v Husain, he ruled just the opposite way with Kennedy's reasoning [thanks Geekable and Atrios].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
