John Moltz

Cubs/Braves

While Kerry Wood should certainly be commended for this game, here's a note to whichever of the announcers who lauded Wood for running on Lofton's single.

There were two outs. If he hadn't run, he'd be an idiot.

And why didn't anyone tell me about Wood's wife? Yow.

And to the Yankees?

Boo-hoo.

Ha-ha-ha!

Shitweasels

A couple of erudite readers (Although if they're so erudite, why do they read this blog? Hmmm?) have pointed out to me that "shitweasels" are something from a Stephen King book (Dreamcatcher, for those of you playing at home) that do things to you that should not be mentioned in polite company.

So... if you know anything about VeriSign then you'd know Damien Barrett was right.

For the learning impaired

If Valerie Plame was not an operative, why is the CIA requesting an investigation? Also, why does the Justice Department think she was and why does the White House counsel think she was? From a Reuters article today:

Justice Department lawyers notified the White House counsel's office on Monday night that they had begun a probe into "possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee," according to a memo sent to White House staff by counsel Alberto Gonzales. (Emphasis mine.)

So cut the shit, OK?

Go, Howard!

Fortunes Change in Democratic Money Race

Not everything is Plame, you know.

Dean is set to make the record books and once again won my praise by a small, but important, thing.

On the Dean weblog they posted a video message from the candidate in Windows Media format. I found it wouldn't play correctly in Windows Media Player for the Mac and several Mac users noted so in the comments.

Within four minutes Matthew Gross had posted a comment saying they'd have a Quicktime version up within ten minutes. I hit refresh and there it was. Good job.

More scary electronic voting news

Via Mr. Barrett via Boing Boing I see the most recent attack on verifiable electronic voting has come in the form of VeriSign being tapped to provide online absentee voting for those overseas. Damien says it best:

Mark my words, if Verisign goes ahead with this contract and is able to supply their "expertise" in building the first important online voting system, hanky-panky will ensue. What is there to make me think Verisign won't sell my online vote to the highest bidder? Their word? Ha!

He also calls them shitweasels. I'm not sure what, exactly, a shitweasel is but it sounds about right.

"The solution we are building will enable absentee voters to exercise their right to vote," said George Schu, a vice president at VeriSign. "The sanctity of the vote can't be compromised nor can the integrity of the system be compromised--it's security at all levels."

Ooh, yeah! Spin it, baby! Shake that money-maker!

Wonder if they use Access as the underlying database, too?!

I won't be happy with this shit until someone fucking shows me that it is secure and verifiable. The truly frightening thing about this is that 90% or more of the country, including the politicians who are purchasing these systems, don't have a clue about the issues involved and why this is a big fucking deal.

"Computers is great! Me like to surf net!"

Press conference

See if you can spot where the real transcript ends.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this --

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?

McCLELLAN: Define "clairvoyant".

QUESTION: Well, having the power or faculty of discerning objects or events not present to the senses.

QUESTION: Or the ability to perceive matters beyond the range of ordinary perception.

QUESTION: Yeah.

McCLELLAN: No. No, the president is not clairvoyant. Next --

QUESTION: Well, can he read minds - is he a mind reader?

McCLELLAN: I have no evidence to indicate that the president is a mind reader, per se --

QUESTION: What does that mean... "per se"?

McCLELLAN: Well, it means by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves. As such.

QUESTION: No, no, I know what it means but what do you mean when you say the president isn't a mind reader per se?

McCLELLAN: While the president does not have the ability to read minds, he does have other supernatural methods at his disposal to discern the passage of events that he was not, personally, witness to.

QUESTION: What?!

QUESTION: Wow... really?

QUESTION: How, exactly, does the president do this?

McCLELLAN: I don't think we need to delve into all the super powers the president may or may not have --

QUESTION: Is it card reading or channeling?

McCLELLAN: No...

QUESTION: Are goat entrails involved?

QUESTION: Does the president speak to people beyond the grave?

McCLELLAN: Look, I really shouldn't have even mentioned it --

QUESTION: Can he travel through time?

QUESTION: Does he have an animal familiar that he can inhabit?

McCLELLAN: You're way off.

QUESTION: Is it anything involving ritual sacrifice of a goat?

QUESTION: Will you get off the goat thing?

McCLELLAN: No goats.

QUESTION: Damn.

QUESTION: I told you.

McCLELLAN: We should move on --

QUESTION: Astral projection!

QUESTION: What?

McCLELLAN: Uh... well... I'm not at liberty to confirm or deny --

QUESTION: YES! It's astral projection! I knew it!

QUESTION: Oh, you are the man!

QUESTION: Whoa! That is far out --

McCLELLAN: Again, I believe it's best to leave this up to the Justice Department where --

QUESTION: You're sure it's not something involving a goat?

Vaudeville

White House Denies Leaking CIA Identity.

McClellan urged anyone with information about the alleged leak to contact with Justice Department.

Maybe they should put that request on the back of some milk cartons. You know, just to show they're serious.

"If there was ever a case that demanded a special counsel, this is it," [Sen. Charles Schumer] said.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Schumer's request.

The rules for appointment of a special counsel give Attorney General John Ashcroft wide latitude to either appoint one outright, conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if such a counsel is needed or to conclude that it would be better for the Justice Department to handle the probe itself.

Hey, John Poindexter is looking for work!

Remember, when Poindexter is announced, I called it first!

Wow

I've been at the Mariners game this afternoon (they swept Oakland to make a fine finish to a good, if ultimately unsatisfying, year), but there's been a lot going on this weekend.

I read this Atrios post and thought for sure he was quoting another blogger.

Rumsfeld's interference "got so bad that even doctors sent to restore medical services had to be anti-abortion," a member of the original team said.

Turns out he's quoting the AFP. And there's more:

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is outside the neo-con circle reportedly told Rumsfeld: "I can take hostages, too," Newsweek said.

"How hard do you want to play this thing?"

Powell lost, Newsweek said. His number-two, Richard Armitage, gave at least a partial explanation for difficulties he had with Pentagon officials: spies.

"Bats," Newsweek reported Armitage as saying.

"Because they hang upside down all day, with their wings over their eyes, pretending they don't see anything. But at night, they spread their wings and fly off to whisper, whisper, whisper."

Jeez. This administration gives all appearances of being ready to come apart at the seams. Time to microwave some popcorn, as they say.

Developing...

In case you missed it at Calpundit or Atrios...

Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry.

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday. ...

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.

It'd be a shame if Karl Rove had to do time. A darn shame.

But, joke all you want, there are very good reasons this is illegal. It could have gotten someone killed. For all we know, it did get someone killed.

Whew

Flawed E-Voting Standard Sent Back to Drawing Board. (Link via Boing Boing.)

The IEEE standard will now go back to its drafting committee, Project 1583, which holds its next meeting in Austin, Texas, in October. Once finalized, the U.S. and other governments worldwide will likely adopt the IEEE electronic voting standard, since IEEE sits on a technical advisory board established by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

State the obvious, lose your job.

Microsoft Critic Forced Out. (Link via Dan Gillmor.)

A technology executive whose company does business with Microsoft Corp. has been forced out of his job after he helped write a cybersecurity report critical of the software giant, according to sources with knowledge of the situation...

Geer was one of several corporate and academic security experts who wrote the report, which argues that Microsoft's dominance over personal-computer operating systems and other software programs makes it easier for malicious hackers to attack millions of machines and networks at once.

At Gillmor's suggestion I'm linking to a PDF of the report here: CyberInSecurity: The Cost of Monopoly - How the Dominance of Microsoft's Products Poses a Risk to Security.

Mariners are out

Well, the Mariners have reached that part of the season that used to occupy the entire season for them back in the day - the part that was entirely meaningless.

This team reminds me of a Milhouse quote from The Simpsons: "Perfectly level flying is the supreme challenge of the scale model pilot."

The team is built around the idea that slow and steady wins the game. The problem is, when slow and steady is all you can aspire to, you can never get hot. The lineup needs some pop and I have my doubts about them getting it in the off-season.

Still saddled with the contract of Jeff Cirillo who has been in unmitigated disaster, the Mariners have to ask what they'll do with Mike Cameron and Edgar Martinez, two of their "power hitters." I suspect Edgar will be back for another year on a limited contract, a la Jay Buhner.

Cameron I'm not so sure of. He is a fan favorite. I'll still love him for being the one player to run around the field and give the crowd a show when the Ms swept Chicago in the first round of the 2000 playoffs. Not A-Rod, not Edgar, not Wilson - they were all in the clubhouse - but Mike Cameron in his first year with the Mariners.

Still, I think he's gone. He strikes out too much and we have three center fielders. My fear is they'll say "Well, Edgar will be back and he provides the pop in our lineup." That ain't gonna cut it.

This team is pitching rich and hitting poor. The question is if they can put together a trade for someone with some power rather than another "gap hitter."

They may still finish the season with enough wins to take the central division in either league. Unfortunately, they're not in the central division. Someone should have told them that.

We have tickets to the last game of the year against Oakland. We'll go, we'll drink beer, we'll watch some of these guys play for the last time in a Mariners uniform.

Then it's Go Sox!

I knew I'd be glad I bought that hat when I went to Fenway.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Lieberman Slams Clark Following Debate.

On the day after a 10-way Democratic presidential debate, Lieberman took issue with Clark expressing support for the Bush administration's policies in a May 2001 address to the Arkansas GOP.

Do we have to go back and find an instance where Lieberman expressed support for Bush's policies?

Shut up, Lieberman! Shut... up! Cut his mike! Cut his mike!

Er, uh, sorry. Talk like... Bill O'Reilly day, dontcha know. And, I must say, Atrios is so good at it it's creeping me out.

Looking good

Bush Facing Touch Election, Poll Suggests

Just over half, 53 percent, said the country is on the wrong track, while 39 percent said it is headed in the right direction, according to the poll conducted by GOP pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

Bush Faces Doubts on Jobs, Postwar Iraq

A survey last spring found that most respondents said the war in Iraq had reduced the risk of terrorism in the United States. That is no longer the case. An ABC News poll earlier this month found that, by a 48 percent to 40 percent margin, more Americans say the Iraq war has increased the risk of terrorism in this country.

Bush's numbers continue to slide and his critics in the media and in congress continue to come out of their shells. Meanwhile, the administration and its supporters continue to spin the same old lines, confused as to why they no longer work with impunity the way they once did. Their arguments ring hollow or venture off into the realm of the bizarre, like this one from the New Tribune this morning:

Literally thousands of terrorists from other countries have poured into Iraq since Hussein was deposed, attacking U.S. soldiers, trying to get us to leave. Could it be that they are starting to get worried about their future as terrorists?

Ah! So, it's all about job security!

They're running on fumes right about now. That's not to say that will remain the same, but if the administration is going to turn their debacle around, they'd better hurry. As people really start paying attention to the impending election, it would behoove them to have their story straight because we all know what it looks like when you try to change it mid-course.

Wait a minute, what the hell am I doing dispensing advice to the administration? Eh, you guys are fine! Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead! Bush is a genius! Flypaper! Popular wartime president! If you think the economy is bad now, just think what it would have been like without the tax cut! Deficits are good!

Insert Ann Coulter joke here

Casting Call for the Wives of Stepford.

...more than 2,000 would-be Stepford wives and husbands lined the streets Monday in New Canaan ... today to audition as extras for a remake of "The Stepford Wives,"...

(Ann is from New Canaan...)

Some fun this Friday

The Horse is calling for Friday to be Talk Like O'Reilly day.

You can sharpen your skills by testing them on your boss the first thing Friday morning. When he approaches you at your desk and attempts to assign you a task, simply yell "SHUT UP!" before he has a chance to finish a sentence. Each time he opens his mouth to talk to you, scream "SHUT UP!" or "SHUT UP! SHUT....UP!"

Once you've detected a fair amount of frustration on his face and your coworkers begin to gather on the scene, point to someone at random and yell "You! You! Cut his mic! Cut his mic!"

Oooh, that is great.

Clark Caught In Another Lie

Shocking news from the Clark campaign this afternoon. As the latest entrant to the Democratic field struggled with accusations that he lied about Karl Rove not returning his calls, Clark was caught in yet another falsehood.

In New York to unveil his economic plan, Clark quipped to supporters "I just flew up from Washington and, boy, are my arms tired!"

According to records obtained from American Airlines and forwarded by members of the Republican National Committee, Clark did fly up from Washington D.C. earlier in the week, but on a Boeing 727, not under his own power as he indicated.

RNC spokesperson Nancy Wright said "Clark's outrageous claim to possess the ability of independent flight shows that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the American people."

A spokesperson for the Clark campaign stared at reporters incredulously for several moments before yelling "It was a fucking joke! Are you people dense?! What is your major malfunction? Jeez!"

(Note: Continetti backs up his "Clark is a liar" crap with the bullshit George Will contention that you can only believe if you didn't read Clark's original words. Did he say he was called by the White House or anyone "around the White House"? No. He said the White House was pushing Iraq/9-11 ties and he received a call. He didn't say from whom. But, Will's fabrication makes a nice smokescreen to prevent having to discuss Clark's allegation. This shit is contemptible.)

Riiiiiiight...

Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.

The United States, he said, had not only unseated Saddam Hussein but also defended "the credibility of the United Nations."

That must have been when he went around calling it "irrelevant". I think that's what he's talking about... you know... when he says... defending its credibility... 'cause... yeah...

Bush slide continues

From Daily Kos I see Bush Job Approval Ratings Drop to Lowest of Presidency

48% disapprove, 47% approve.

Time for Jon Stewart to change his "Race From The White House" joke about the Democrats.

Scary stuff

I've now had the time to read Salon's interview with Bev Harris on electronic voting machines and Diebold that all the kids have been linking to.

As someone who's been using Microsoft Access professionally for ten years I was shocked that it's the key database behind these systems.

Holy fucking crap.

Access is a good off the shelf office productivity tool for small to mid-sized databases. It is a lousy tool to base a democracy on.

This crap should all run on open-sourced, verifiable systems. Farming this out to private concerns is a recipe for disaster.

Dean's Right, RNC's Wrong

Dean Assails Bush and Republican Right.

Dean quipped that Bush was like King George, prompting the following comeback.

"The Boston Tea Party was also a revolt against higher taxes, which is exactly what we can expect from a Howard Dean presidency," said Christine Iverson, an RNC spokeswoman.

Not exactly. It was a revolt against taxation without representation. From Benson Bobrick's Angel in the Whirlwind:

British politicians considered the Americans' reaction irrational. In their view, the cornerstone of liberty, as protected by the British constitution, was the supremacy of Parliament, which, as the contemporary jurist William Blackstone put in his Laws of England, "hath sovereign and uncontrolable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws." Since the power to tax was "a necessary part of every supreme legislative authority," if Parliament "have not that power over America they have none, and then America is at once a kingdom of itself." Americans, on the other hand, believed that the legality of all parliamentary statutes was to be measured against the constitution; on that basis, being unrepresented in Parliament, they denied the right of that body to tax them directly according to the principles of constitutional law. As historian Daniel Boorstin has remarked, the United States "was born in an atmosphere of legal rather than philosophical debate."

Considering more people voted for the other guy in 2000, I think we have a case for taxation without representation against Bush. Dean's spot on.

The Pledge

I've signed the Pledge on Interesting Times.

We hold this truth to be self-evident:

Having George W. Bush as President has been and will continue to be a disaster.

We will not let our partisanship towards any particular candidate for President cause us to lose sight of this basic truth. As such, we pledge ourselves not to become enablers of any campaign designed to divide us in our struggle to remove Bush from power. We pledge that no more will we be:

Tools of those who would disrupt the Anybody-But-Bush movement.

Partisans who would rather bring down the other guy's candidate then find reason to elevate our own.

Dupes who will automatically assume that anything negative about the other guy's candidate is more likely to be true than the negative things said about our guy.

Fools who lose sight of the ultimate goal: the defeat of George W. Bush on November 2nd, 2004.

We will uphold this pledge to the best of our ability.

We will encourage others to do the same.

This we do solemnly swear.

In addition to the Pledge, I'm donating some money to ePatriots today. I encourage you to do the same. There's no better way I can think of to show your support of the Pledge.

More on Clark

From the Daily Show:

Many party insiders regard Clark as a dream candidate. Why? Well, after graduating in the top of his class at West Point, Clark was named a Rhodes Scholar. He then served in Vietnam where he survived several injuries, then rose to become Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during its operations in Kosovo. He also speaks four languages and has been faithfully married for 36 years.

On the downside, he is a heroin addict.

It's a joke, but don't be surprised when Howard Fineman quotes it as fact in an upcoming article.

Shorter David Brooks

Caught In The Iraqi Dramatics.

I can't see the forest for the trees.

or

We don't know where we're going but we're making good time.

or

Plan? We don't need no stinking plan!

Apologies to Busy Busy Busy.

Strange

I find Clark's meteoric rise to the top of the field very strange. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could really know what Clark's all about, other than the fact that he's a retired general, when Clark hasn't had much of a chance to articulate what he's all about. I think what's happening to a certain degree is people haven't really been paying attention to the field and the buzz around his late entrance has actually served to help him stand out.

I'm not trying to denegrate Clark with that assessment. I like him, although not perhaps as much as Dean. But I'm not bitter. If I want to be bitter about a horse race I'll be bitter about the Mariners.

Also, will his strong numbers against Bush (link via Atrios) stop the loopy winger claims that the Clintons are pushing a "weak candidate" so Hillary can run in 2008? Probably not.

Let's nip this in the bud

Some disturbing indications via the Horse of shrill Dean supporters saying they'll "sit out" 2004 if their man is not the nominee. A writer to Josh Marshall's site claims she knows many Democrats who will do so.

There are only two words for people of this kind: ass clowns.

First of all, I somewhat disagree with Josh Marshall's effort to show "they all did it" - meaning they all had subtle vaguaries to their support or lack of support for the Iraq war - so Dean supporters shouldn't claim Clark is waffling. Fine, they did. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't lay those positions out on a spectrum and look at who was not only against the war but who was willing to stand up and say something about it. Clearly Dean has some claim to the high ground on this issue and Clark, in my estimation, is just shy of him.

Now, I support Howard Dean. I support him because he is not afraid of the administration. But let's get this straight: Clark is ten times the man and would be twenty times the president Bush is. He might be a little rough around the edges, but he's better than a knife in the back.

My first choice is Dean, but if he loses the nomination I'll support 100% any of the Democratic contenders - including Lieberman. And I'll back that up with my vote and my wallet. I'm giving 'till it hurts on this one and I encourage you to do so, too.

If you support the field the Democrats have put forth over Bush, think about clicking on the link on the left to ePatriots and giving to the DNC's fund that will support the eventual nominee. There is no room in this race for petulant support of one Democratic candidate over another.

Cause and effect

An interesting editorial in the New York Times indicating most suicide bombings are not carried out by Muslims. It also gets at why they do it.

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.

Gosh, I thought it was because they hated our freedoms.

So, what are victim nations to do?

How should democracies respond? In the past, they have tended to react with heavy military offensives, only to find that this tends to incite more attacks and to stir public sympathy for the terrorists without hampering their networks...

When one considers the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, it becomes clear that America's war on terrorism is heading in the wrong direction. The close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements shows the folly of any strategy centering on conquering countries that sponsor terrorism or in trying to transform their political systems. At most, occupying countries will disrupt terrorist operations in the short term. But over time it will simply increase the number of terrorists coming at us...

In the end, the best approach for the states under fire is probably to focus on their own domestic security while doing what they can to see that the least militant forces on the terrorists' side build a viable state on their own.

It's fairly obvious. They don't "hate our freedoms". They just don't want us there, and the entire Bush agenda has dumped more troops into the Middle East and, it's now become obvious, sold off assets to western, predominantly American, companies.

Bush: like gas on a fire.

Voting Machines

The EFF has issued a statement of concerns about the IEEE's draft electronic voting machine standard (link via Wil Wheaton). This stuff always makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Even more problematic, the standard fails to require or even recommend that voting machines be truly voter verified or verifiable, a security measure that has broad support within the computer security community.

To make matters worse, EFF has received reports of serious procedural problems with the P1538 and SCC 38 Committee processes, including shifting roadblocks placed in front of those who wish to participate and vote, and failure to follow basic procedural requirements. We've heard claims that the working group and committee leadership is largely controlled by representatives of the electronic voting machine vendor companies and others with vested interests. (Italics mine.)

And what are those vested interests?

The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The EFF has a form to fill out to send an email of your concerns.

The Administration In A Nutshell

Can You Hear Me Now, Mr. Bremer? (Link via Counterspin.)

In mid-May, the Pentagon, without going through any of the normal bidding procedures, awarded a $45 million contract to WorldCom/MCI to build a cellular network. The award prompted much grumbling among industry insiders, since that company—besides having just settled the largest financial fraud case in American business—had no prior experience at building cellular networks...

Not until July did the cellular network in Iraq start up, and it turned out to be less than occupation officials expected—or needed. According to officials who were there at the time, they could use the phones (which cost a staggering $4,000 a piece) to talk only among themselves. The network did not extend, or link, to Iraqi telephones.

So, let's see, avoided open bidding (hey, aren't conservatives supposed to love the market economy?), shovelled public funds to a felonious crony that didn't have any experience, and left the people on the ground without the resources they needed.

Mission accomplished!

They're doing us a favor

Could this be why we don't see a lot of Dick Cheney?

(Fair warning - it's work safe but may put you off your lunch.)

That liberal media...

Clinton Shadow Looms Over Clark Campaign.

There is no proof that Clinton is pulling the strings in Clark's campaign — indeed, most Democrats say they doubt the former president would be so bold.

But some party activists, particularly those lodged in rival campaigns, point to circumstantial evidence suggesting that the impressive list of political heavyweights rallying behind Clark may be a reflection of Clinton's endearment — if not endorsement...

Another theory: Clark's is the last hope for establishment Democrats who fear the other contenders have stalled while the current front-runner, Howard Dean, would be defeated by President Bush. (Emphasis mine.)

Left out of the article was the theory that Clinton and Clark are secretly lovers. Well, it was perhaps implied but not stated outright.

And we all know Howard Dean is soooo unelectable, but Clark isn't because... well... uh... well, jeez, they were both critics of* the war... hmm...

Clinton's ties to the Clark campaign have triggered speculation among conservative commentators and Clark's rivals that the former president is encouraging a weak candidate so that he will lose, leaving the field open for Mrs. Clinton to run in 2008.

Most Democrats said that theory seems far-fetched, though Clinton fueled speculation Thursday when he seemed to hint that Mrs. Clinton could seek the White House this year despite her promise to complete her term.

"That's really a decision for her to make," Clinton said.

But let's make sure we get some space to parrot the most extreme form of bullshit being hurled by the nuttiest elements of the right. Is that quote supposed to make me think Clinton was fueling speculation of a bid by Hillary? Because it doesn't.

But, yes, of course the nutjobs at the Free Republic are right. The Clintons are so power-hungry they'd rather give us four more years of Bush so Hillary could seek the nomination in 2008.

What a crock.

(*Changed "against" to "critics of" since, as Kos points out, the General is now saying he would have voted for the war.)

Ted Kennedy Reads This Blog

AP: Kennedy Says Iraq War Case a 'Fraud.'

OK, well, probably he doesn't, but still...

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," Kennedy said.

Eeeeyow! Someone woke up on the wrong side of Massachussetts this morning.

Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

"My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops," he said.

Boy, is that a Democrat accusing the administration of something? It's been so long since I've seen it I've forgotten what it looks like.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it...

I've been ruminating over the administration's ability to imply that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and their ability to get 70 percent of the nation to believe that that was true. It was an incredibly clever piece of propaganda and, with the help of their shills in the right wing media (Fox, talk radio, the Washington Times, etc.) they pulled it off better than you really should be able to.

We like to marvel at the "information age" and how the internet provides you immediate access to facts about just about anything. But the sad truth of the matter is most people simply don't take the time to question what they hear. On several occasions I've been shocked by coworkers, all college-educated and good business people, forwarding emails claiming the Postal Department was going to levy a 10 cent tax on each email you send, or a right wing diatribe supposedly by George Carlin or a list of people Bill Clinton had killed, all prefaced with something indicating their blind belief that what you were about to read was true.

None of them were, of course and in each case I was able to debunk them with a five minute search on Snopes.

People are gullible. And the administration found a way to make people think something was the case without ever having to actually say it was. Dear ol' Dick probably went the furthest they've ever gone just the other day on Meet the Press. But they needn't dirty their hands with such work. That's what the likes of Fox, Rush and oviporous Ann are for. Indeed, Cheney's appearance has been pretty resoundingly trashed since then.

So, here we had a false meme seeded by the administration and nurtered by others until it was believed by most of the people in this country. The press failed to call the administration on it and, even worse, so did the Democrats.

One of the things we have to recognize about the press is that they like to report things in a he said/she said manner. If Democrats (cough - Daschle - cough) don't want to exert the political will to stand up and denounce the falsehoods of the administration and prefer to say "We're with the President. He's a good man. He'll do the right thing.", the press is largely just going to say "Ooookay..." They're not going to go interview Kos or Atrios or Bartcop to find someone willing to say "The president's a fucking liar! Did you hear what he just said about his education budget?! He's fucking lying!"

This is why when Terry McAuliff called Kos on the phone he got a chilly reception. They weren't doing their fucking job.

Only now that the administration has gotten what they wanted, are they being asked, point blank, the question that they should have been asked back in March. First it was Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11) and now even Bush (Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11). Rice and Cheney are still spinning the "Saddam was from a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged" angle, which is akin to saying we're going to invade China because it's near North Korea.

We can only wonder what would have happened if, after the SOTUS, Daschle had stood up on the Senate floor and asked if Bush was implying that Saddam had a role in 9/11. The press would have been forced to ask Bush this question before we went to war and, at the very least, the American public would have been better informed. Aren't the Democrats supposed to challenge the President's assertions in the rebuttal? Instead we were treated to a tepid request by Gary Locke to seek U.N. approval and then a nice story about his family.

Now that Rumsfeld and Bush have let the facade drop slightly, what can we expect the reaction to be? People don't like to be made fools of and usually have one of two reactions - anger or denial. Because the administration has been careful to say they simply don't have any proof Saddam was involved in 9/11 (much in the way we don't have proof that Carrot Top was, or that the late Ferdinand Marcos was, or that Saruman from the Lord of the Rings was, or any other bad person was), I'm expecting denial and lots of it.

So there's a role for Democrats if they now feel like playing it. The administration will try to distance themselves from the statements they've made in the past, hiding under cover of statements such as Condi's that "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11." Statements that are technically true but mask their malfeasance. What the Democrats need to do (and not the candidates, either - I'm talking about Democrats in Congress) is make sure people remember what they said. "Iraq. 9/11. Saddam. 9/11. WMD. 9/11."

Another thing I'd really like to see is a MoveOn-sponsored ad that highlights what was said about a connection between Iraq and 9/11 in the rush to war versus reality, which most people are only learning about now. It's all well and good for the Whiskey Bar to put them up and it's a great starting point that has already been used effectively in one newspaper ad. But it's a fairly obvious thing to say that bloggers are not the ones who need to reached. I'd hazard a guess that even most conservative bloggers don't necessarily believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing half-assed ideas like creating a "terrorist flypaper" in Iraq.

As with most things this adminstration says, there's a reality that is somewhere far from it. The challenge is getting the message out.

Ooh, be still, my foolish heart

Daschle Joins Cheney-Halliburton Critics.

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle joined the critics Tuesday, several days after new statements from two Democrats who have been relentless on the subject: Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. and a presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

In my dream version of the Democratic party the Senate Democratic Leader actually leads the critics.

What the f...?

Sometimes following these polls is enough to make you pull your hair out.

Bush Leads Challengers in Election Poll.

So, let's follow along here.

Sixty-seven percent of those polled said the economy will matter more to them than the U.S.-led war against Iraq when they go to the voting booth in November 2004.

Hmm, OK, the economy is more important.

Fifty percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Bush has handled the economy, while 44 percent approve. Voters, by a 49-42 percent margin, said that a Democratic administration would do a better job.

Ah! Well, rightly so! He sucks!

President Bush leads all Democratic challengers — and even some who have not entered the 2004 presidential race — in a national poll released Wednesday.

Duuuuuh?! OK, look, I know you haven't seen these guys that much, but just fricking pick one. Like Edwards. He's the cute one. Just pick him. It's not like it means anything right now - it won't until it's Bush against just one of them - but you should at least be consistent.

AAAGH! and Mmmm...

The weasels at VeriSign have decided to reroute unregistered domain names to their server (link via Mr. Barrett), screwing up... well, screwing up lots of things that shouldn't be screwed up.

If you do business with VeriSign, please don't.

On the more pleasant side of technology, take a look at these pictures of the Apple G5 (link via Splorp). Mmm... so, so sexay!

If you're not using a Macintosh, please do.

Link?

One more time for those of you in the back of the country who may not have heard.

Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Of course, you could be forgiven if, for some reason, your TV only gets Fox.

HUME: Why is it that the Bush administration, in your view, has not stressed this terrorist connection more? It did for a while, but since the appeal that was made for the U.N. resolutions back last fall, you haven't heard much from the administration on this connection from.

IJAZ: You know, Brit, that's sort of a tough question to answer in one sense. But let me give you my opinion about that. That is, the Bush administration has their hands full trying to solve the problems on the ground in Iraq right now.

So, I guess we can put that brilliant analysis to bed.

No duh

Deficit Seen As Possible Issue in 2004.

Who'd-ah thunk it? Well, not the administration, I guess.

Sudden public doubts about President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq have both parties saying that record federal deficits — and the tax cuts and spending decisions behind them — could become a potent election issue.

I'm not sure why the use of "sudden" here - it's not like it spontaneously occured to people. It was pretty immediate after Bush's speech. People heard the price tag, and they didn't like it.

The Whiskey Bar had a good post about this subject the other day. There's not such thing as a free lunch. Or, in this case, a free pre-emptive war that you do piss-poor planning on.

And downerer...

Bush Rating Below 50 Percent in Calif.

Granted, it is California, noted communist refuge, but still...

Just 46 percent of the 649 registered voters questioned by the Field Research Corp. in the Sept. 3-7 survey said they approve of Bush's performance. Forty-eight percent disapprove.

And he's losing independents.

Republicans remain supportive of the president, with 74 percent approving of his performance. But 79 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents and minor party members were critical.

Dear god…

… this Times piece by Jodi Wilgoren is a piece of crap. Not only are the supposed corrections made by Dean a vapid attempt to make something out of nothing, her use of metaphor is trite and clumsily implemented.

President Bush's tax cuts, denounced by Dr. Dean for months as "$3 trillion" or, sometimes, "$3 trillion, including interest," became a $2.4 trillion cut, plus $600 billion in interest, during a rally on Friday in Plymouth, N.H.

So, Dean has said "$3 trillion, $3 trillion, $3 trillion." Ah, but he said it different ways. That rascal. But, of course, the president can go around making people think they're getting a $1,000 tax cut when really it'll be a couple hundred dollars all he likes.

The 91 percent of new mothers in Vermont who used to get home visits within two or three weeks now get visits "mostly in their homes, some in doctors' offices," within three or four. And when Dr. Dean told supporters at the Bektash Temple in Concord, N.H., on Friday that his campaign had 150,000 donors and the next-best number was 20,000, he slipped in a "that I know of," just in case.

Equivocator! I cast thee out! How dare thee qualify thy statement thusly! But, we'll let Bush outright lie (link via Atrios) about how much he's spending on education. That's OK.

The changes, perceptible perhaps only to the aides and reporters who trail him, show a subtle but significant shift for a candidate who sells himself as unscripted.

Subtle, yes. Significant? Not so much. But, by all means, let's pillory Dean for going home afterwards and checking his statements to make sure he's not continually misleading people or misstating. God knows we don't want that in a president.

Some have compared Dr. Dean to Seabiscuit, the thoroughbred who came from nowhere to become the most popular and successful horse to race in the 1930's. But now he is sounding a bit like War Admiral, the Triple Crown winner who for months shunned Seabiscuit's offer for a match race.

As if she weren't beating a dead horse enough using Dean's "pincushion" analogy ad naseum, she then actually switches to dead horses.

And, a note to Wilgoren: perhaps the reason "War Admiral… for months shunned Seabiscuit's offer" was because he was a fucking horse.

Handler 1: You know, I mentioned to War Admiral last month that Seabicuit wanted to race him and, uh, he hasn't said a thing about it. I think it's because he's scared.
Handler 2: He's a horse, Ted. I keep telling you, he can't talk.
Handler 1: ... I... I know. I just like to pretend. It's all I have.

Could, technically, be true

Bush Touts Energy Plan at Michigan Plant

"I'm interested in job creation and clean air," Bush said.

Except not so much "job creation" as "tax cuts" and not so much "clean air" as "energy company campaign contributions." Or, maybe he's "interested" in them they same way some people are interested in Hari Krishnas.

"Boy, I sure don't understand those guys! What's their deal?!"

"The idea was for the plants to hook on new pollution control equipment as they were modernized," Perciasepe said. "But with the new rules, a plant, over a period of years can modernize virtually an entire old plant without having to put on the air pollution equipment," he said.

Bush hears:

Hari krishna! Krishna, krishna! Hari rama! Rama, rama!

Oh... swell

New Terror Laws Used Vs. Common Criminals.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Your paranoia about this administration is justified.

CARS

By the way, any of you Crazy Apple Rumors readers, I'll have some stuff up this coming week.

I don't know what, exactly, yet, but "stuff" should cover it pretty well.

Mmmm...

After a day of ripping up tile and carpet in our foyer, we needed a break and a drink. My wife made herself a White Russian and I was going to have a gin and tonic but, to my horror, we were out of limes (and even the G&T backup, lemons).

So, I put two shots of orange vodka, two shots of cran-raspberry and a shot of lime seltzer into the martini shaker with some ice and you know what? It turned out damn nice. Reminds me of a "Kids In The Hall" skit: "It's a girl drink! Tastes like candy! Don't disappoint me, Ray."

Anyway, I plopped myself down on the couch and watched the end of the Big Dog at Tom Harkin's steak fry (or some such event) in Iowa(y) on CSPAN and sipped my girl drink.

These are the fruits of hard labor and, let me say, they're quite sweet. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of the Big Dog this election because one of Gore's tragic mistakes was letting the Republicans and the press make him feel like he couldn't bring him out.

People love the Big Dog.

Good idea

Bush gets polite welcome from war-weary 3rd Infantry.

"What I heard him say was, 'You went there. You took names. Came home. Now you're going back,'" Henry said. "He likes war. He should go fight in a war for two days and see how he likes it." (emphasis mine)

When I wrote this ridiculous little story it was linked to from the Free Republic and one of their charming readers emailed me and, after threatening me physically, said "Maybe you could visit Iraq personally and see if you could gain a littler (sic) respect for our Commander in Chief."

Apparently visiting Iraq ain't the charm.

New "Get Your War On"

Not sure when number 26 got posted. It says 8/19 and they're a little dated so maybe I just missed them, but if I haven't seen 'em then they're new to me!

Did I say "link"? Cause that's not what I meant.

Wolfowitz Retracts al-Qaida, Iraq Claim. (link via Atrios)

So, even now, when it seems like the ill-conceived war has made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism, the administration is declining to go on the record categorically and say there's a firm link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Of course, that won't stop Fox from claiming it's true (link via Busy, Busy, Busy). Although, I have to say, the rationale that the administration hasn't made the case for a link because they have "their hands full trying to solve the problems on the ground in Iraq right now" seems a tad lame after Wolfowitz not only went to the trouble to mention a link, he then went to the trouble to retract his statement.

Sheesh.

What kind of country we want to be

Krugman again does an invaluable service by looking at the obsession with taxes in this country in the New York Times. Toward the end, he gets to one of my (least) favorite canards about taxes.

Politicians will, of course, promise to eliminate wasteful spending. But take out Social Security, Medicare, defense, Medicaid, government pensions, homeland security, interest on the public debt and veterans' benefits -- none of them what people who complain about waste usually have in mind -- and you are left with spending equal to about 3 percent of gross domestic product. And most of that goes for courts, highways, education and other useful things. Any savings from elimination of waste and fraud will amount to little more than a rounding-off error.

One of my major complaints about politics and opinion in this country is the use of anecdotes to imply a general trend that doesn't exist. People always assume crime is up because they just read about one in the paper the other day. People always assume their taxes are higher than they've ever been because some politician tells them they are. People always assume the government is wasting their money because the guy on talk radio said it was. Here's a local example of this kind of thought from a letter to the News Tribune.

There is a mindset within most government agencies and departments that their entire annual budgets must be spent or utilized for fear of seeing their budgets reduced in the following years. There are no incentives to save tax dollars.

When times are good and public treasuries are full, most public officials try to fund new programs with the excess dollars. When times are bad (as they are now), these same officials think of ways to continue these programs through tax increases or increased fees instead of cutting unnecessary and/or outdated programs and personnel. The result is a continuous ratcheting up of taxes and fees over the years.

Actually, as Krugman shows, taxes are the lowest they've been in 30 years.

Still, aren't taxes much higher than they used to be? Not if we're looking back over the past 30 years. As a share of G.D.P., federal taxes are currently at their lowest point since the Eisenhower administration. State and local taxes rose substantially between 1960 and the early 1970's, but have been roughly stable since then. Aside from the capital gains taxes paid during the bubble years, the share of income Americans pay in taxes has been flat since Richard Nixon was president.

You'd like to think we were smart enough not to have to have a return to the 1930s to learn the value of the social programs that were put in place since then.

America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.

But as Governor Riley of Alabama reminds us, that's a choice, not a necessity. The tax-cut crusade has created a situation in which something must give. But what gives -- whether we decide that the New Deal and the Great Society must go or that taxes aren't such a bad thing after all -- is up to us. The American people must decide what kind of a country we want to be.

Is it going to take bread lines and dead shut-ins before we give the right answer to that question?

Kerry plays the jerk

It's bad enough that Fox is taking Dean's comments out of context to try to demonize him, but Kerry's doing it, too.

I saw the original comment and resulting Fox flap on Busy Busy Busy. To quote them:

It's amazing what you can do with out-of-context quotes, isn't it? Here in reality, Dean was clearly expressing the opposite of support for Hamas - in fact he endorsed, or at least declined to oppose, the Israeli policy of assassinating Hamas leaders. He called Hamas leaders "soldiers" in the sense of "combatants", and hence subject to being killed, as opposed to being merely political leaders. Yet Fox's Carl Cameron played it as if Dean, although he thankfully "did condemn terrorism", was practically endorsing Hamas. Slick.

Now here's Kerry playing along to this phony tune in this AP story.

Also on Friday, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts released a statement criticizing Dean's characterization of Hamas as soldiers in a war. Kerry said members of the violent Islamic group that rejects the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East are not soldiers, but suicidal murderers. He suggested Dean's statement raises questions about his ability to be commander in chief.

"One remark like this from the lips of a president would send the peace process into a tailspin and endanger innocent lives," Kerry said. "George Bush has shown that the presidency is no place for on the job training - now Howard Dean has proved it."

To me, this just makes Kerry look like an asshole. Yeah, John, Bush has also shown that the presidency is no place for demagoguery, either. I don't think it's going to win you any pionts with your base to be reselling used material from Fox.

Nitwit.

Seriously, I sent this guy some money a while back. Since I can't get it back, I've half a mind to contribute the equal amount to Dean and send a nasty note to Kerry's campaign saying I've done the next best thing.

More on the poll numbers

One of the interesting things I've always suspected about polls is that they don't reflect people's knowledge of reality, but their perception of it. I'm not talking about the roughly two-thirds of this country that is under the mistaken idea that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm talking about people who know the facts accurately, but don't know what their opinion on them should be.

There will always be people on the right who scream "The U.N. is the anti-Christ! U.S. out of U.N.! Freedom fries!" and people on the left who scream "The U.N. is the path to the future! I love the U.N.! I want to marry it and have its babies!" Then there are a whole host of people who have no idea. As a leader, your job is to convince these people that your ideas and your plan are the right ones. The problem comes when the ideas and plan you've been pushing suddenly blow up in your face. The administration loudly declared the U.N. "irrelevant" seven months ago. People haven't forgotten that. "If the U.N. isn't going to enforce its resolutions, then by gum we're gonna!" It was stupid and it was wrong, but war all on our lonesome (for all practical purposes) was their plan.

When you suddenly have to turn yourself around and go back to the "irrelevant" international body and ask it for support for that thing you said you didn't need support for, people can smell a failure. You can fool some of the people some of the time… A lot of people gave Bush the benefit of the doubt and, as usual, he fucked them.

How many more times will people have to get fucked to understand that that's just what these people do?

Anyway, looking at the numbers on the Democrats, I was interested to see the theoretical addition of Clark to the field does not decrease Dean's numbers any more than anyone else's. Theoretical questions like that lead to theoretical answers, of course, so the numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt, but Dean's appeal is clearly more than just "Looks presidential, was against the war." And rightly so. One of the greatest appeals of the Dean campaign has been the campaign itself. Dean's ability to use technology, emphasis bringing people together, and make the campaign "cool" may only moderately reflect on his potential as a president, but it gives the campaign cachet.

The problem for Clark and the rest of the field is that Dean's already done it. The minute you try to act like the cool kids, you've doomed yourself to dorkdom.

Trust me, I know. Whoo. Been there. Whoa, momma. Yowza. And how. Amen. 'Nuff said.

Finally

Every time I read Krugman I think, finally, someone in the mainstream media said it.

Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power.

I'm sure some will be up in arms about this assertion, but it is not only a reasonable one, it's one that demands attention.

And he gets in a little shot at his new editorial page buddy, Mr. Brooks:

And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.

Down... down... down...

Bush's numbers are still trending down according to the latest (link via Daily Kos), including support for the war and pretty much everything else.

And the Horse has some timely quotes from how this trend was spun with the last results. "Oh, I'm sure it's leveled off now..." Gallup now describes it as "tumbling". But if I hear "popular wartime president" one more time...

A proper salute

Bush to Meet With Infantry Troops in Ga.

President Bush is saluting troops that stormed Baghdad and ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, a day after he visited an Army hospital to pin the Purple Heart on soldiers wounded in the war on terrorism.

The president was to fly on Friday to Fort Stewart, Ga., home of the 3rd Infantry Division, which has suffered more casualties than any other American military division in Iraq.

No word on whether or not the president was going to fly the plane himself or strut around in crotch-enhancing flight gear.

Although, I'm not certain how he could possibly salute the troops without doing that. It just seems impossible. I mean, when I was a project manager that's exactly how I'd thank the people on the project.

And, from what I was told, the crotch-enhancing flight gear was the highlight of the project for them. It's true.

Ah, but here's the real way he's saluted the troops:

Because it was the first to deploy to the Persian Gulf last fall in preparation for the war, some members of the 3rd Infantry had expected to go home shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April, only to learn their tours of duty were being extended. Members of the division served between six and 11 months in Iraq. The last of its troops returned home earlier this month.

Not to mention:

...rising violence against U.S troops, the death toll, which ticks up nearly every day and a lack of help from other nations.

9/11

Two years ago I woke up and heard something different in Bob Edwards' voice on NPR. My first real inkling of what was going on, coming out of my sleepy fog, was when Edwards said "We've just been informed that the North Tower has collapsed."

My first thought was for my father, who I feared was working just a few blocks from the WTC. Shortly I realized, though, that he had moved to a different office uptown several years ago.

I always expected to have known someone killed that day. Fortunately for me, as far as I know, that did not happen. My father, I believe, knew several.

We've come a long way since then and not in a good direction. The administration has squandered our good will abroad, abrogated our rights at home, and at every opportunity taken advantage of the catastrophe inflicted upon the United States.

They are not the solution. They are part of the problem.

ADDENDUM: The moment may have been one our finest, but our reaction to it has gotten away from us and into hands of an administration bent on their extremist agenda. I look forward to a time when this nation is lead by someone who can inspire us with more than fear and is motivated by more than a narrow ideology.

Tall buildings shake
Voices escape singing sad sad songs
tuned to chords
Strung down your cheeks
Bitter melodies turning your orbit around

Don't cry
You can rely on me honey
You can come by any time you want
I'll be around
You were right about the stars
Each one is a setting sun
- Wilco

Define "News"

Dean Asks Clark to Join Presidential Bid.

Interesting - depending on how you read it. I first read it as "Dean asks Clark to be his VP." That is apparently not what's meant.

"They've gotten together several times," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. "They talk about a lot of issues. Every time the governor talks to him he asks for Clark's support.

"I don't think there's any news in that. I hope every Democrat is asking for support."

Indeed, at the end of the story we read:

Other candidates have also courted Clark, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who spoke to the retired general in the past couple of weeks seeking his support.

So this story could just have easily been titled "Kerry Asks Clark to Join Presidential Bid", then?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to glean the news in this story and I don't see it. There is a story to be written about Clark and who is courting him, but the focus on Dean seems to be nothing more than hype about a Dean/Clark ticket that doesn't exist.

Not that that wouldn't be the kind of ticket I could get really excited about, but I'm distrustful of the media's attempt to crown Dean before the primaries. You know... this being a democracy (for the most part) and all.

Reality

And, just to show how McClellan is fully out of touch with it as I noted two posts down, take a look at the latest unemployment figures provided by Wampum Blog (link via Atrios).

Yep, that tax cut's workin' like a charm! Rollin' it back'd be a job killer! A killer, I say! Aaah! Boo! It's scary! Scary!

Fuck you! That's my name.

Foreign Views of U.S. Darken Since Sept. 11.

In the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, the view of the United States as a victim of terrorism that deserved the world's sympathy and support has given way to a widespread vision of America as an imperial power that has defied world opinion through unjustified and unilateral use of military force...

To some degree, the resentment is centered on the person of President Bush, who is seen by many of those interviewed, at best, as an ineffective spokesman for American interests and, at worst, as a gunslinging cowboy knocking over international treaties and bent on controlling the world's oil, if not the entire world.

And who understands us? China. Wonder why? Maybe Tibet and Tiananmen Square and Falun Gong. "Hmm, we've carried out an unpopular invasion and attempted to crush dissent in our country. Maybe these Americans aren't so bad after all."

In striking contrast to opinion in the United States, where polls show a majority believe there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists, the rest of the world remains skeptical.

I don't understand why the press continues to display this in terms of polls, as if it was something the American public was supposed to figure out on its own. This isn't a fucking reality show. People shouldn't call in on their cell phones to vote on whether or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. This is the kind of shit we rely on intelligence for.

Gone are the days, two years ago, when 200,000 Germans marched in Berlin to show solidarity with their American allies, or when Le Monde, the most prestigious French newspaper, could publish a large headline, "We Are All Americans."

More recently, Jean Daniel, the editor of the weekly Nouvel Observateur, published an editorial entitled, "We Are Not All Americans."

People who don't believe we need to have good relations with our allies need look no farther than Iraq (OK, that is kind of a long way, but you know what I mean) for why that might be stupid.

Flying in the face of reality

Bush "Open for Suggestions" on Iraq Resolution.

Which is a humorous enough title on its own. "Duh, I dunno. What do you guys think?"

But, it's little Scotty McClellan who provides the real laugher.

Bush said it would be an "absurd notion" to roll back his sweeping tax cuts to cover those costs, as suggested by Democrats alarmed at the growing government deficit.

"That would be a job killer move," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Because they've clearly created so many jobs to date. Or, well, I guess there would have been even more jobs lost if we hadn't had big tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Or something like that.

Not a closer

Over at the Whiskey Bar, Billmon describes members of the administration sounding like they came from an Amway convention and references a scene from The Natural with useless platitudes similar to the ones they're using.

Personally, I think this is an improvement as the administration has always sounded to me like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross:

Fuck you! That's my name. You know why mister? Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight. I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name.

Although Baldwin at least was a closer. Bush is more like George Costanza - selling stuff to himself to make comissions.

Having an MBA and having spent a number of years working in business, I'm pretty familiar with the reasons why you don't want to apply the principles of business to government. The administration has taken the worst of American business - cronyism, sweetheart deals, disregard for the environment, ruthless top-down management, and marketing schemes that sell lies - and brought it to Washington.

A humble man

That's what Bush called himself - a humble man.

So, what does a humble man do when he's under pressure for a terrible economic record, a quagmire in the Middle East and doubts about his truthfulness? Ask for more, of course!

President Bush on Wednesday was to call for tougher anti-terrorism legislation to deny bail to terror suspects, expand the death penalty and let investigators bypass grand juries to issue subpoenas.

Because clearly the threat of the death penalty is going to deter so many people who are already willing to give up their lives to kill us.

He gets thwarted in taking away the liberties he says the terrorists hate so much and he just keeps trying to do it. Humble.

(Edited to fix grammar.)

Priorities

Here's what we don't have, from the Post:

Investigators still have no firm grasp on why the hijacker pilots booked layovers in Las Vegas during apparent practice runs on commercial airliners in 2001. Authorities also have found no definitive explanation for why ringleader Mohamed Atta and another hijacker, Abdulaziz Alomari, began their suicidal journey on Sept. 11, 2001, with a seemingly risky commuter flight from Portland, Maine, to Boston -- coming within minutes of missing their flights out of both cities. And what exactly was discussed at a pivotal meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, where investigators believe -- but cannot prove -- that the Sept. 11 plot was put in motion?

But perhaps the biggest riddle -- one that has only become murkier in recent months -- centers on the support given to the hijackers while they were laying the groundwork for the attacks, and what that suggests about a pre-existing network of operatives in the United States.

But, hey, we've got a big-assed bill from our war with a country that wasn't really much of a threat to us.

So... that's nice.

Back

Spent a week in the San Juan islands with my lovely bride. Beautiful weather, but it's been so dry there was a burn ban which made our camping nights less enjoyable than they might have been. What good is camping if you can't make smores?

So, we cut the camping short and found a nice place to stay. A little biking, a little hiking and a little kayaking and you've got yourself a nice week there, mister.

Back in the saddle soon.

I'm off

I'll be back in a week.

While I'm gone I want you to think about what you've done.

You know what I'm talking about.

You know.

Finally getting it?

Pentagon May Have to Reduce U.S. Forces in Iraq - CBO.

The Bush administration may have to cut U.S. troops in Iraq by more than half to keep enough forces to face other threats, a congressional agency said on Tuesday in a report that fueled calls for more international help for peacekeeping in Iraq.

The Bush administration - endangering America since 2001! Aren't they wonderful, ladies and gentlemen? Let's give 'em a big hand.

Well, there may be some signs the administration is listening.

Bush Turns to U.N. for Help Stabilizing Iraq.

A senior U.S. official said Bush directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to open negotiations at the U.N. Security Council on a resolution aimed at building a wider multinational force and getting U.N. help to build political stability.

I'll believe it when I see it. The timing of this "leak" to coincide with the CBO report leaves me unimpressed.

"We've got language (of a draft U.N. resolution). It enhances, it elaborates, it talks about how countries can contribute," a State Department official in Washington said.

"It's on how to define further the vital role of the U.N. in political, military and economic areas and how to provide ways for the U.N. members to support efforts by the Iraqi people."

Uh, yeah. That says a lot. "I wonder how long can I talk without actually saying anything?"

ADDENDUM: I just noticed something in that quote that makes me call total bullshit.

"...define further the vital role of the U.N..." (Italics mine.)

See my previous posts about the "vital role" phrase.

All we get is spin.

Slow learners

Lawmaker's Now Question Bush's Iraq Policy.

Gah. Where to start?

First, I'll let the lede go only because it could be interpreted that Bush was "once" a "popular wartime president."

Once wary of criticizing a popular wartime president's handling of Iraq, members of Congress are shedding their inhibitions.

But the spin about the war just doesn't stop, no matter what the pesky facts are.

"I believe that the citizens of America have paid their fair share and more of this part of the war on terrorism," said Hutchison, a Senate Appropriations Committee member.

Was that the war designed to increase terrorism? Is that the one? That must be what he's talking about, since that's been the net effect of this action.

You could certainly argue that we've done a favor to Iraq's neighbors by deposing Saddam, but let's say we are successful in creating a U.S.-style democracy there. Which of the repressive regimes in the area do you think will be first to say "Golly, thanks, U.S., for showing us the way! Now, how much do you need?!"

Finally, when are people going to get the point that it's the administration's extremist conservative philosophy that has both driven countries away from our side and continues to keep the administration from making compromises that will reduce the cost of this war and help save American lives?

George Bush: too conservative to get elected.

ADDENDUM: Via The Whiskey Bar I see Paul Wolfowitz has an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal that turns the spin up a notch.

Wolfowitz essentially says "Don't think the war with Iraq was about terrorism? Well, what about the terrorism we created by invading?"

Wolfowitz neglects to mention that none of the terrorism he's talking about existed prior to the war. Yes, the adminstration was very good at making Iraq into a hotbed of terrorism. Good job, guys.

Wolfowitz closes by involking 9/11. Again. Despite the fact that a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been shown to be a fabrication, even in the aftermath of the war, if you were paying attention. He's counting on you to not.

And if you don't play along with the spin? Well, you're not doing what Wolfowitz (or the Journal) says you should do in the title: Support the Troops.

Yes, they're still shovelling the same pile of shit seven months later. Against the war? Well, you're not supporting the troops! Fortunately, this crap doesn't seem to be working anymore. Those opposed to the war are only pilloried by the most extreme conservatives like Coulter and Wolfowitz and they sound more and more full of it every day.

(Title changed from "The truth about George" when I added the addendum.)

Fun with Ann

Eugene Oregon notes that convicted pet strangler Ann Coulter (oh, wait, I'm thinking of Bill Frist) has an interesting perspective on reality.

Clearly what Coulter's doing is taking a liberal argument against conservatives - that the war was initially sold on argument X and then defended after the fact on argument Y - and trying to turn it around. It doesn't work, of course, unless you're in Coulter's conservative la-la land of pixies and elves where George Bush is the magic woodland king and supply side economics work and the shiny missile defense shield protects you from evil liberal laser-beams emanating from the eyes of Hillary Clinton.

Still, it seems kind of fun and I thought I'd give it a go.

Reality: Bush plays up supporting of the troops, demonizes anyone who questions the war as anti-troops, but quietly cuts military benefits.
Coulter's Alternate Reality World: Liberals say they're supporting the troops by wanting valid reasons for going to war, a true international coalition and a quick return home, but liberals are secretly rounding up veterans, killing them and putting them into meat pies that they eat at Al Franken book signings.

Hey, this is fun!

Reality: Bush accidentally dropped his dog, Barney, on his head.
Coulter's Alternate Reality World: Al Gore has never liked Barney and is actively pursuing having him assasinated.

Wow! Is it true? No! But who cares?! Coulter certainly doesn't!

Reality: Bush is a terrible speaker who can't string two intelligent words together.
Coulter's Alternate Reality World: Whenever Howard Dean speaks, God kills a kitten.

Gosh, I could go on like this all day but, with Coulter already doing it, I guess I don't have to.

A few questions

The conventional wisdom we hear from Kerry, Lieberman, Republicans and the media is that Dean is unelectable because he's "too liberal." Why is it we don't hear word one about Bush being too conservative? When Bush was running the first time, people expected him to be something like his father and the "compassionate conservative" mantra tried to sell him as a centrist. Clearly, the last three years have shown he is incredibly conservative.

So, now that we have three years of Bush under our belts, why don't we hear anything about how Bush is too conservative to get elected?

When the other Democratic candidates pillory Dean as "too liberal," they're talking about his position on the war. The reason they're trying to portray him as too liberal on that issue is because they all voted for the war. The lesson of the last six months is that the war was waged under false pretenses trumped up by the most conservative members of the Republican party and executed with no vision of the reality of its aftermath.

Isn't it obvious now that by not doing the right thing last summer and voting against the war, these Democrats were hamstringing their own candidacies?

Tom Tomorrow notes the start of a Republican marketing message that the terrorists want you to vote Democratic. But let's consider for a minute that a terrorist like Bin Laden might actually like it when the ranks of his organization are swelled by residents of a nation that was previously out of bounds for him and that an ill-advised act of American agression in the region might actually give him more legitimacy.

Which candidate, therefore, would Bin Laden like to see elected?