John Moltz

He's very busy

How important does Bush think 9/11 is?

Well, it's worth a whole hour of his time.

So... er... uh...

Not so important, apparently.

I wish we knew how long he spent choking on and being saved from choking on that pretzel. I bet it was more than an hour.

CHENEY: [PUTS HAND OVER PHONE RECEIVER] How long do you think you can talk in a circle?
BUSH: Hmm... I don't know... About an hour?
CHENEY: [INTO PHONE] Tell them they can have an hour.

What?!

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnedra!

Kerry: Bush Has Failed in 9/11 Response.

Democrat John Kerry, widely assailed by Republican critics, said Friday that President Bush has failed in his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and faulted the Republican for breaking promises on the economy, education and health care. (Emphasis mine.)

The hell?

What the hell kind of standard are they using at the AP? "Every Democrat must be identified by the degree to which he has been criticized by Republicans."

Unbelievable.

I do requests

James, in an email, thought it was interesting that if you Google "hate George Bush" and "hate John Kerry" or "hate Democrats", you come up with more hits for the first than the second two.

As tempting as it might be to point to this as "the pulse of the nation," I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the "hate George Bush" hits are from conservatives sites complaining about all the people who "hate George Bush".

That got me thinking. I've been accused in comments and emails of having an irrational hatred of George Bush. But do I hate George Bush? I don't really know. I hate his policies, certainly. I hate the job he's doing as president, without a doubt. I hate it that he appears to not have the capacity for self-critical thought and doesn't even seem to understand the concept.

But I have some conservatives friends who probably voted for Bush and will probably do so again. Not many, true, but I do have some. Should I hate them, too? Not coincidentally, they are all big drinkers. I mean, hell, we have to have something in common. I definitely have some conservative relatives who also will probably vote for Bush again. They also happen to be big drinkers.

Hmm, there's probably a trend in there.

As a matter of fact, James is a big drinker.

Don't get him started on the Mirror Pond Pale Ale, man. Whew.

Anyway, do I necessarily hate those who subscribe to a different political ideology? No, I don't. I have a certain respect for people who truly believe that the way to "embiggen the smallest man" (see Springfield, Jebediah) is to get him out from under the yolk of government and that free markets are the ginchiest. I don't share those beliefs because I find them overly simplistic and unrealistic and, well, wrong, but I can respect that someone might think that a pure interpretation of them would promote economic freedom.

I don't really know George Bush. Growing up, I did know a lot of people that I think were like him - born to privilege and never questioning their self-imagined superiority. I know I didn't like them, but I knew them. I personally interacted with them. I've never personally interacted with Bush (damn "free speech zones").

I guess, like movie stars and atheletes, I ultimately don't hold much stock in my assessment of whether or not I like or hate politicians. It's not like they're coming over to lunch any time soon.

I certainly hope not because our house is a disaster right now.

So... hate George Bush?

Eh.

It's enough to hate practically everything he stands for.

Sent to letters@washpost.com

(After reading this Daily Howler.)

I was dismayed to see that Jim VandeHei (Kerry Donors Include "Benedict Arnolds" - 2/26/2004) would so uncritically regurgitate Republican spin. "Kerry has come under attack from President Bush... for... lambasting special interests after accepting more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years."

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

According to the National Review, Kerry is in the middle of the pack in accepting special interest money. So I would say to Mr. VandeHei, "Prove it."

The entire article is based on the thinnest of assumptions - that there is something hypocritical about Kerry deriding companies that move abroad while taking money from people who work for them. A grand total of $140,000 out of $30 million from individuals at these corporations, amounting to a whopping 0.47%.

But, wait! Two of his top fundraisers (TWO!) are executives at firms where guys worked that... knew a guy... who... went to high school with... a guy... and they... might have... visited the... Cayman Islands once.

Someone please call the sergeant-at-arms.

Is Kerry supposed to return this money? Is he supposed to say "A pox on thee and thy entire house, ye takers of companies abroad!"? I don't get it. These are individuals, most of them not executives.

And this ran on A1? Give me a break.

Well, fortunately, I'm sure you'll do a similar story on how much Bush is getting from people who've lost their jobs in the last three years.

Right?

Oh, I forgot. The nits only get picked on the Democrats. The Gore-ing of Kerry has begun.

(Actually, looking at it again, that should read that Kerry's in the back of the pack, not middle. 92nd out of 100.)

Aaaagh!

The damage of the gayness is spreading!

Why doesn't Mr. Maudling do something, before it's too late?!

Gay marriage is affecting my marriage

An actual conversation that occurred between me and my wife this morning at 6:30.

WIFE: You know, he lived with that woman for years without marrying her.
ME: Well, you know why he didn't marry her.
WIFE: Why?
ME: Gay marriage.
WIFE: Oh, really.
ME: Sure. The thought that there were two committed people of the same sex out there ruined it for him.
WIFE: Hmm. That's funny because I've talked to him about this and he's never mentioned gay marriage before.
ME: Well, I'm sure if you pushed him you'd find out the real reason was gay marriage. It's ruining everything.
WIFE: That may be true. Gay marriage ruined popsicles for me.
ME: See? Was it... what they... do with the popsicles?
WIFE: Well, yes. I don't want a popsicle up my ass.
ME: That's understandable.
WIFE: It'd be all cold.
ME: And now just looking at a popsicle...
WIFE: I can't not think of it.
ME: Gay marriage is ruining everything good and wholesome.

See, so don't let anyone tell you gay marriage isn't affecting heterosexual marriages. It's clearly affected our morning comedy routine.

How gay is that?

The AP would like to point out that between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats are gayer.

Yep. Big raging homos.

Well, OK, maybe not technically gay... all of them... but they are "in bed" with gays and that makes them pretty damn gay if you ask the AP.

And most real Americans don't support that gay marriage nonsense, the AP goes on to note.

'Course... they don't support changing the Constitution to ban it, either.

But the AP won't tell you that, because what's important here is how gay the Democrats are.

So, they will tell you that it's "unclear what the impact would be on his re-election campaign" if most of the one million gays who voted for Bush in 2000 don't vote for him again.

Uh... he'll lose again but this time by a margin actually wide enough to keep him out of office?

Yeah, but, see, those are gay votes so they're worth, like, two-thirds a "regular" vote.

Or, at least they will after the next Constitutional amendment.

The company you keep

You know the saying about being judged by the company you keep...

Yay, totalitarianism! Go, team!

Ah, the Bush dividend

Greenspan Urges Cuts to Social Security to Rein In Deficit

God forbid we touch those tax cuts to the rich. They need their... uh... what is it they need again?

Divider, not a uniter

Wonder why the administration is hot on gay marriage right now? Josh Marshall knows.

The White House has decided that the long-predicted rising economy won't float them through this election. The situation in Iraq looks wobbly and likely to get worse before it gets better. So deprived of the ability to run on his record he's decided to save his political hide by trying to tear the country apart over a charged and divisive social issue which is being hashed out through the political process in the states.

In other words, "Look over there! Gay people! AND THEY'RE GETTING MARRIED!"

(Whoops - I just noticed I screwed that quote up. Fixed now.)

The Daily Show agrees

Last night they quoted RNC chairman Ed Gillespie saying "If Ralph Nader runs president Bush is going to be re-elected, and if Ralph Nader doesn't run president Bush is going to be re-elected."

Stewart then said "So, I guess the only way Democrats are going to win is if there's a scenario where Nader is simultaneously running and not running." To which their mock physicist noted that in the world of sub-atomic particles, events can occur and not occur... depending on whether they're observed.

So... Kevin Drum was right.

Just ignore Ralph.

More conservative wet dreams

Just how many times does a guy have to say "I will support the eventual nominee." before Glenn will believe it?

You can't get good help anymore

Pentagon Opens Halliburton Criminal Probe

Sheesh, is this what they pay Dick Cheney for? Only a full and complete acquittal will restore my faith in the defense appropriations process!

Sent to npickler@ap.org

Dear Ms. Pickler,

I thought you might find this useful if you plan on quoting Saxby Chambliss' concerns about John Kerry's voting record on defense programs again:

"When Saxby Chambliss criticizes John Kerry's '32-year history of voting to cut defense programs', he neglects to mention that Kerry has only been in a position to vote on defense programs for 20 years."

It's in your style and everything.

I seem to recall that you were good enough with math to note that Howard Dean misstated the number of years John Edwards had spent in the Senate. I'm sorry your brain has suddenly atrophied. I hope you get better soon.

Sincerely,
John Moltz
Tacoma, WA

Agreed.

Calpundit says just ignore Ralph.

Done and done.

Calling James Butler...

Attending a Roy Moore speech might be a better way to get involved than getting arrested.

Although I think getting arrested might be more palatable.

As for me...

"Gee, I'd really love to want to help you, [Hesiod], but... Marge... was... captured in the... Holy Land, and..." - Homer Simpson

Just to review...

Activist group solicits independent videos - one of which happens to compare Bush to Hitler - and posts them to the Internet: BAD.

Secretary of Education calls the National Education Association "a terrorist organization": OK.

I don't know... have teachers been blowing themselves up recently and I just never read about it?

(CORRECTION: Whoops! Matt Deatherage in comments points out NEA in this case does NOT stand for National Endowment for the Arts but for National Education Association. In related news, Valerie Plame actually worked for the Culinary Institute of America! Who knew?! Any-hoo, I changed my humorous comment from "performance artists" to "teachers".

Is it just me or does Deatherage only post comments to correct me?! Sure, just because HE'S been published in magazines and stuff! Bah!)

Ready? Go!

OK, once you've digested that last post, you're ready to get going, right? Well, here's an easy example.

On Atrios, there's a post about the New York Times parroting verbatim a Bush campaign ad that lies about Kerry without pointing out that it's a lie.

Then he links to this Josh Marshall post about the Bush's campaign chairman lying on NPR and not getting called on it.

Email the New York Times (remember to include your address and phone number per their requirements for submitting letters) and NPR and ask them why they don't bother to call the administration on its lies.

Go!

Campaigns

In response to James' comment on the previous post, here's a post by Josh Marshall on getting out "the big bat" for the Democratic candidate.

Remember all that money Dean raised? Well, each and every one of those people who donated to him are free to donate the same amount to the eventual nominee (assuming they can afford it).

Sure, there are going to be some pie-eyed Deanies who simply can't believe the establishment Democrats were so mean to Dean, and there are going to be some fringe fools who decide to prop up Ralph Nader instead of trying to get involved in progressive Democratic organizations that might actually influence the party. But Nader will be much less of a factor in this election than he was in the last. He has no party behind him so he will have a hard time even getting on the ballot in most states (although I'm sure the GOP will give him a hand).

But, as I said before, there's only one person this election cycle who's done more to motivate Democrats to get involved than Howard Dean and that's George Bush.

As a former Dean supporter, the minute the nomination is sealed up, I'll be giving the nominee as much as I can, which will probably be more than I ended up giving Dean. I'll also be giving to the Democrat's ePatriots fund.

It's not just money, though. It's action, too. Blogs are a great place to express ideas and offer critiques of other ideas, but they're not outreach. Rather than get yourself arrested, turn out at events, argue with your co-workers, send letters to newspapers, both local and national (important note for folks who are married to reporters - you probably can't editorialize to the hand that feeds you, but you can editorialize to other papers). Go to Meetup.com, punch in your zip code and go to a meetup for Democrats in your area. Get on MoveOn.org's mailing list - they give you things that are easy to do, like emailing your congressperson or national media.

Sure, Bush has a lot of money, but he has no record to run on. Ezra Klein on Pandagon had a good post yesterday about what a crappy job Bush's campaign has done to date. Like everything Bush has done, it's nothing but bluster backed up with a mighty arsenal of masking tape and gum.

This bitch has nothing.

Whoa

Bremer Says Iraq Elections Not Possible for a Year

U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer has said it would not be possible to hold elections in Iraq for a year to 15 months for "technical reasons," an Arabic television channel said on Saturday.

Doesn't he know there's an election here in November?

Jeez, do you sometimes get the feeling there won't ever be elections in Iraq, there'll just be a bunch of shooting and bombing and killing for ever?

Dude, you DID NOT just post that!

[butthead]

Huh-huh.

He said "snowballing."

Huh-huh.

"Gay marriage is snowballing."

Huh-huh.

[/butthead]

(I guess Kevin hasn't seen Clerks.)

Women in the U.S. Senate

Melina Mara is a photographer at the paper my wife works for and a friend of ours. She recently shot a series titled "Changing the Face of Power: Women in the U.S. Senate" and you can see some of them on her web site. They are absolutely fabulous photos - she really has a great eye - so I encourage you to check them out.

A show of them is currently touring the nation and will be opening in Seattle at the Museum of History and Industry on Friday, February 27th, starting at 7pm, if you're in the neighborhood.

Pryor in.

Or...

Petulent man-child subverts process to inflict extremist religious beliefs on country.

Whatever. Pryor's gone in 2005.

(Correction: Whoops, that's Pryor, not Pickering. Got my extremist judges mixed up.)

Troubling

This (link via Atrios) is what the president finds so troubling.

I don't know about anyone else, but seeing those pictures just makes me want to get married to my wife again.

Game form?

Dismal Six Weeks for Bush Has Supporters Edgy

Bay Buchanan, who ran her brother Pat Buchanan's maverick 1996 and 2000 presidential bids, said: "They do not have their campaign legs yet. There has been a bit of fumbling. It's not critical but it cannot go on or it will become critical. Bush is not in game form and he needs to get into form quickly."

Actually, seems to me like Bush is doing exactly what he's always been doing. It's just that in the past he's gotten a free pass from the Democrats and the press. The curtain's down now, and people are having a good look at the all-powerful Oz.

Set that bar nice and high

I don't really read the Corner much, mostly because I have a weak gag reflex (really, I do - I have the damndest time swallowing large pills), but I followed a link on Counterspin over there and was amused to see how high Jonah Goldberg sets the bar for Kerry.

In one post Goldberg asserts that because Kerry can't sweep the veteran vote, his military background isn't much of an issue.

Uh-huh.

And then in another, he notes that the other candidates combined got more votes than Kerry in every contest... but two.

Uh... he does know there were several other guys in the race, doesn't he?

Well, Jonah, if it'll make you feel better, I think that trend will stop right... about... now.

All hail, new imperious... uh... wha... zzzzzzz...

Josh Marshall's got a good point here.

If/when Kerry wraps up the nomination, maybe one of the first tasks of Dean's organization should be to spruce up the guy's web site.

Snore.

He does have a decent email campaign, though.

Hmm, lessee here... cell A7...

From one MBA to another, your spreadsheet's fucked, George.

White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast (link via Atrios)

The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.

Bush, himself, stopped short of echoing the prediction.

"I think the economy's growing, and I think it's going to get stronger," said Bush, the nation's first MBA president.

Remember... MBA, but not a statistician.

So... uh... what is it again about Bush's MBA that's supposed to make us all wet?

And this response by Kerry really takes the sting out of Dean dropping out.

"Now George Bush is saying he's going to create 2.6 million jobs this year alone - and his advisors are saying, 'What, you didn't actually believe that, did you?' Apparently George Bush is the only person left in the country who actually believes the far-fetched promises he's peddling," Kerry said in a statement.

AP says Dean dropping out today

Dean to End His Campaign

Howard Dean will end his campaign for the presidential nomination and oversee a new effort to keep his issues alive and his supporters organized on behalf of Democratic causes, two party officials said Wednesday.

Dean was to announce his plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The sources said the shape of the new effort is still to be determined but that Dean would eventually support the Democratic Party's nominee. One official said Dean would help elect Democrats to Congress in the fall.

What happened to fighting on after Wisconsin? And what happened to the conservative wet dream of him bolting the party and starting a third-party candidacy and paving the way somehow for Hillary's nomination?!

Well, it's been inevitable for a while now, so I'm not surprised. How long can you continue to get less than 20%? But I'll be happy to see him continue to contribute. He did more for the resurgence of the Democratic Party than anyone... other than Bush.

Gross? It's disgusting!

Prosecutor in Terror Case Sues Ashcroft

A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington.

Well, shit, what good's a war on terra if you can't take political advantage of it?!

Who needs satire?

Polaroid Warns Film Users Not to "Shake It"

Outkast fans like to "shake it like a Polaroid picture," but the instant camera maker is warning consumers that taking the advice of the hip-hop stars could ruin your snapshots.

Next they'll be telling me not to "get jiggy wit it."

Suck-ahs!

Just got this email from the system admins at school:

If your work or home computer is running any of the following versions of Microsoft Windows, you must act now to secure your computer from possible attack and keep your UW network connection:

o Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
o Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0
o Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
o Microsoft Windows Server 2000
o Microsoft Windows Advanced Server 2000
o Microsoft Windows XP Professional
o Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
o Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition
o Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2003
o Microsoft Windows Server 2003
o Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64-bit Edition

If your work or home computer is running any earlier versions of Microsoft Windows, or any other Non-Windows Operating System, including but not limited to

o Windows 3.x
o Windows 95
o Windows 98
o Windows 98 SE
o Windows ME
o MAC OS 9 and below
o MAC OS X, Jaguar or Panther

you are NOT vulnerable at this time and do NOT need to apply the patch.

Sometimes it's nice being in the minority.

Krugman

The Real Man

There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he is willing to cut corners when it's to his personal advantage. His business career was full of questionable deals, and whatever the full truth about his National Guard service, it was certainly not glorious.

[Gasp!] Doesn't Paul know he's talking about a pop-oo-lar wartime preznit?

Bush has agreed to release all of his records, apparently.

And props to the Senate

Senate's Iraq Probe to Include Bush, Aides (link via Atrios)

See? Some Republicans can do the right thing.

And you all said they were the lot of them nothing but evil trolls that fed on the bones of small children.

Pff.

Only some of them are.

Props to... USA Today?

Ex-officer: Bush's file's details caused concern (link via Talking Points Memo)

I think one of the most interesting side notes to Bush's AWOL flap is how both the Boston Globe and the New York Times seem to be so confused about the issue and USA Today seems on top of it. Granted, there are a lot of moving parts, but perhaps it's USA Today's facility with charts and graphs that gives it the edge in this coverage. I just imagine somewhere there's a white board or Visio document (or OmniGraffle!) at USA Today that has all the players and memos and coke dealers and hookers and paid assassins... you know... if there were any... all laid out.

But here's a hint as to why their coverage has been so cogent:

In an interview, Burkett said he recalled Allbaugh's words: "We certainly don't want anything that is embarrassing in there." Burkett said he immediately told two other officers about the conversation and noted it in a daily journal he kept. The two officers, George Conn and Dennis Adams, confirmed to USA TODAY in 2002 that Burkett told them of the conversation within days.

...

The meetings were confirmed in a 2002 interview by USA TODAY with William Leon, who was the state Guard's freedom-of-information officer in the 1990s. (emphasis mine)

2002.

USA Today was looking into Bush's National Guard record in 2002. Two years after the election and one year into the administration's realization that 9/11 could be a stick to beat its detractors.

And their timing couldn't have been better, because now people aren't so chatty.

Contacted at home Wednesday night, he refused to talk to a reporter. He said: "Don't ever call me again at home. I'll call your publisher and sue you."

Well! It's fairly obvious Leon doesn't know much about the law and the fourth estate.

But USA Today worked this story two years ago, when lips were a little looser. Now the Globe and the Times are playing catchup and calling around to people who don't want to be known as "the guy that confirmed Bush spent the summer of 1973 banging strippers and snorting coke in the back of a truck that he stole from the Air National Guard and then ran over 12 nuns and orphans with."

If... you know... that's what he did.

He blinded me with slyance

Bush Pushes Abstinence-Only Education.

The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.

"Both are important," said Dr. John Santelli, the lead author of the study, which has not been published.

In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception.

We must ask, is our children gettin' it on?

Sexual activity doubled? Wow, sounds like junior high kids want to get into that hot, forbidden action! Ooh, when you say it like that, George, it sounds so dirty!

Does Bush just want kids to get VD and get pregnant or are we just reverting to the dark ages?

ADVISOR: "Mr. President! Teen pregnancy has soared!"

BUSH: "Well, we're just going to have to start applying a lot more leeches! Apparently we haven't fully gotten the Devil out of them yet!"

The damage continues

Kay Says Bush Slowing Intelligence Reform

That headline could be true on so many different levels but here it means the national security type intelligence.

The Bush administration is hampering efforts to improve intelligence [see, you could just stop right here and it'd still be true] by clinging to the false hope that weapons of mass destruction may be found in Iraq, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector said Thursday.

He... must... go.

The lie

"Private Luis Moreno of the Bronx died at 19 from lying that nearly everybody is afraid to refute."

(Link via Atrios.)

The Clenis made me invade Iraq!

GOP Blames Clinton For Iraq Intel Lapse

All I have to say is, "Is this the best you can do... bitch?"

Jesus H. Christ, can these guys get any more dysfunctional? Cue the stereotypically Irish policeman dragging Porter Goss away.

"But... but... it was all Clinton's fault!"

"Shore, shore, it twas! Now you're goin' away fur a loooong rest!"

Goss said an effort at political correctness prompted intelligence agencies to stop using "distasteful people" for human intelligence, meaning America lost people who served as its eyes and ears around the world.

Yeah, but Bush hired those "distasteful people" right back and set them up in the Pentagon. Or, maybe he's not talking specifically about Rumsfeld's personal intelligence agency but about its sources like Chalabi who told us we'd be welcomed as liberators and Khidir Hamza who told us all about Iraq's reconstituted nuclear program.

Or maybe he's just blowing it out his ass.

When intelligence spending was increased in 1993, Goss complimented the Clinton administration "for going into this and seeing our true need," Boorstin quoted Goss as saying at the time.

Mmm, yeah. Pull the other one, Porter.

ADDENDUM: Look, I don't know about any other Democrats, but as soon as George Bush is out of office, I plan to erase him from my memory like a bad dream, even if we spend decades trying to dig ourselves out from under the deficit he's created.

Hisssssssss...

Is that the sound of a balloon deflating I hear?

White House Sees "Gutter Politics" in Bush Guard Flap

If you can't bear to wade through the morass of material on Bush's time in the National Guard, this clip from Reuters nicely sums up where we are.

The White House had hoped its release of pay and service records would show that Bush had met his duties.

But those records also showed long absences during his final two years of service -- a period in which Bush worked for some time on a political campaign in Alabama. Democrats and other critics said the records were inadequate.

In other words, the White House was hoping the press would prove as incurious as they did in 2000 and the matter would magically vanish. That has not occured. The problem with Scotty McClellan's assertion is that the press has realized no one has seen proof Bush completed his service adequately.

As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show last night about the White House press corps, "Where the hell have you been?!"

Long-held questions over Bush's record, during a time when National Guard service was seen as a way for the privileged to avoid being drafted for Vietnam War duty, have resurfaced this year as Bush seeks to cast himself as a "war president" for his effort to win re-election in November.

This is good. The press has also made the connection that it's not just the Democrats' questioning of Bush's record that makes this an issue, it's Bush's very campaign strategy. And if Bush cannot talk about Iraq and 9/11 incessantly like he did Sunday without looking like... well... he did on Sunday, then what does he have to run on?

Fear has been the basis of this administration since 9/11, their message being "Be afraid and be afraid for ever, and welcome your Republican overlords." I think people are tired of being afraid. They'd rather get back to work.

Jen-NINGS!!!

As Kos notes, the press has finally smelled the red meat on Bush's AWOL skeleton and have surrounded the carcass.

The problem for the adminstration is that the material out there is extremely confusing, but the ball is rolling.

Kinda makes you wonder what Peter Jennings is thinking right about now.

"Uuuuhhhh... whoops."

Blogger and Safari

I don't know if this is new to Safari 1.2 or if it was in there before, but Safari not only works with Blogger, it presents an entirely different interface than I see with Camino (although apparently the same one as in the Mac version of IE).

Now if it only worked with my bank's website, I wouldn't need Camino anymore.

More scary electronic voting stories

Collect them all! Trade them with your friends!

E-Vote Machines Drop More Ballots

Will the election be hacked?

Uuuuuuh...

I won't sleep well tonight.

ARF

If I may steal from Dr. Clayton Forrester...

Kevin, baby... (link via Atrios).

To sum up, according to what Drum has discovered, Bush was assigned disciplinary duty because he failed to show up for a physical (wonder why?). The time he served that's shown on the notorious "torn document" was time with the Army Reserve Force, to which he was assigned for (apparently) disciplinary duty.

Now, Drum (nor I, certainly) doesn't know what the ARF points are for, but I find it hard to imagine that being assigned disciplinary duty gives you more flexibility in how you complete your service. So, those who say "Bush made his time up eventually" are going to have to figure that one out.

The thing that steams me is Drum indicates the complete copy of the torn document was FOIAed in late 2000.

What the fuck? It's been sitting in someone's desk this whole time? Why the hell didn't one of the clowns from the Globe or the Times who spent so much time arguing about this do the same? Reporters love to FOIA.

Actually, they love to threaten to FOIA and then get the information without having to, but FOIAing is SOP.

(Am I using enough acronyms for everyone?)

I just don't get it. How hard is it now for a national political journalist (not a California professor) to sit down with a flack from the National Guard or someone knowledgeable about this stuff and ask them, based on the documents now available, what happened?

Now, Drum has apparently received this document from Bob Fertik, who is not a journalist but a political strategist. Still, it is unlikely Fertik made this up out of whole cloth, as it would be easy for the Bush campaign to refute.

Of course, they'd have to release the real "torn document".

Bob Somerby, please call your office.

Kerry comes out swinging

Kerry Criticizes Bush Over Guard Service

Once again, a bad headline (this one's better: Kerry Raises Questions About Bush Service), but Kerry's raising the right question, and going where no candidate has gone before.

"The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

I heard Mara Liasson on NPR Friday saying Vietnam service doesn't matter, 9/11 matters. Kerry's proving her wrong and hitting Bush in the 'nads about Iraq.

Kerry, who watched Bush's interview with Warner at the governor's mansion, also took issue with Bush for saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had the ability to make deadly weapons.

"This is a far cry from what the president and his administration told the people in 2002," he said.

America!

The land of the...

Um...

The, uh...

Er...

What was that word?

Caucus

Just got back from caucusing, where Dean took 4 of the delegates from my precinct and Kerry took 7. Some of the other precincts in the room were split 50/50, though.

Overall there was some structure to it, but it was a bit of a zoo. Tacoma's mayor, a Kerry supporter, was our precinct chair and he didn't have us divide up into groups before moving on to the second round. There was some question if he was doing it the right way.

As far as I could tell, though, most of the people who fell below 15% already had picked their second choice anyway. The Deanies did canvass them a bit (I actually didn't see anyone from the Kerry side canvassing) but I only heard one or two people say they were swayed one way or the other and they were swayed to Dean (of course, I wasn't standing with the Kerry people). The pickups by Kerry and Dean were basically in proportion to what they each already had.

The worst part was it was in a middle school auditorium and with all the precincts in there it was very hard to hear anyone in your group speak.

The turnout was pretty amazing - over a thousand people for 7 or so precincts. People were jazzed and there wasn't any real animosity among candidate groups. Everyone who spoke was ABB (Anybody But Bush). The real debate was whether or not it was important to unite behind one candidate now or continue with a field.

Be all you can be, when you want to!

Someone should tell all those National Guardsmen in Iraq that they're allowed to make up their time at a later date.

If I were them, I'd be on the first plane home with the promise I'd make it up the minute my unit was sent stateside.

But Kos takes the prize

Sweeeeeeet...

Some bloggers had their Wheaties this morning

Theoria on Kos shows us just how bad our intel was, with wacky results.

Atrios asks a simple question I think we'd all like answered and notes more people disapprove of Bush now than approve of him.

Matthew Yglesias finds some irony in Bush's budget that I'm sure won't get talked about as much as Al Gore talking about global warming on a cold day since, you know, it only involves national security and toxins and stuff.

Still at it.

Bush: Arms "We Thought" Were in Iraq Not Found

"We had a choice -- either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice I will defend America every time."

A few follow-up questions, Mr. President.

A - We had a choice? According to Dr Rice, we had no choice.
B - Again, defend against what? No WMD and a conventional army that was a pushover? What was the threat that was so immediate that we could not continue the policy of containment and inspections?
C - Since you say "I will defend", what size helmet do you wear?

Hey, that guy that runs Uzbekistan boils his enemies and he has no WMD, not much of a conventional army and no concrete ties to Al Qaeda. When are we going to choose to invade Uzbekistan?

Powell's Failure of Character

Al Rodgers on Daily Kos sums up the importance of February 5th.

Bush on MTP

Just sent this to MTP@NBC.com:

I understand the president will be on your show this weekend. Congratulations, I'm sure that's not an easy interview to get.

As an occasional viewer of your show, there are a couple of topics I'd be interested in seeing the president respond to.

First, Peter Jennings and Larry King have seen fit to question two of the Democratic candidates about the president's time in the National Guard. Surely this is an opportune time to ask the president about it and why he doesn't just release his records to clear up the matter.

Second, I understand from the Center for American Progress that the administration is spending $9.5 million of the taxpayers money to fund an advertising campaign to promote the president's Medicare bill. I'd be interested to hear why the president thinks this is a good use of taxpayer's money when we already have large deficits, and if he feels there's any conflict of interest in having a firm working on his election campaign receive a commission for placing the ad.

Third, the president recently said in defense of the Iraq war "We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a danger." Given that it now appears there will not be any weapons of mass destruction found and that our military quite handily mopped up the Iraqi army, I'd like to hear the president explain exactly what he meant by that statement. What, exactly, was the threat if it was not based on WMD or conventional weapons?

Finally, I'd just like to say that I look forward to Mr. Russert taking advantage of the opportunity to be as exacting with the president as he has been with the Democratic nominees.

Regards,
John Moltz

Well, duh

OK, does this surprise anyone?

This is the problem with Kerry.

But if it's a problem with Kerry, it's doubly a problem with Bush (which, by the way, was a central theme in Dean's rally last night).

Wonder if the AP will find time to report this, which is happening right now or if they're too busy digging up things on Democrats.

More cluelessness on the AWOL issue

Another candidate asked to repudiate an AWOL statement.

Until someone in the press can stand up and say, "Here is verified documentation that Bush completed his National Guard duty as required," asking Democratic candidates to "repudiate" those who say Bush was AWOL is the same as asking "Would you please give Bush a free pass on this issue?"

Got it, Larry King?

I understand that the candidates can only demur from repudiation, they can't actually push the issue (indeed, Kerry himself should not be the one talking about this and "I haven't decided" is dangerously close to the edge). But I'd sure love it if the next one out the door says "Larry, I've seen nothing that says Bush completed his service as required so why would I repudiate anyone who called him AWOL?"

The Dems are playing this one very well so far.

Somerby continues to hammer the press on this one. When will someone actually mention the torn document again? He should start a pool.

Outrageous

Un-fucking-believable.

Your tax dollars at work supporting Bush's presidential campaign and CBS will air this ad.

Absolutely outrageous.

The Irony Hut is open for business!

In yet another sign that I have too much time on my hands (like we needed another!), I slapped together some fine, high-quality images and put together a CafePress store hocking some cheap political irony-related merchandise!

It's the Irony Hut!

There are only a few items available right now, but I'll add more as soon as I think them up. All proceeds from the Irony Hut will go to the Democratic Party's ePatriots fund so buy, buy, buy! I command you!

Crazy Bush

I didn't get around to watching Monday night's Daily Show until today, but I was surprised to see that in talking about the Super Bowl, Bush said:

I've got some great sports memories of Huston... I'm still agonizing over the, um, Astros losing to the Phillies in 1980.

Stewart's analysis was as insightful as usual:

There you have it. He's still agonizing over a quarter-century old baseball loss. Total failure of U.S. intelligence? Eh, it happens! We'll look into it! But the Astros and the Phillies? Oooooh! Still!

I eagerly await Charles Krauthammer's column detailing how deeply psychologically disturbed the president is.

Later

I'm off to see Big Howard Dean right here in beautiful Tacoma.

More on low down and dirty

Welcome to 2004.

The right has already started in earnest their attempt to hurl mud at whoever the eventual Democratic candidate will be and to whitewash Bush's miserable record.

But this time, they're not facing a silent opponent. Michael Moore has probably made the biggest splash, and that was for a candidate that doesn't even appear to have much of a chance anymore. Check out his latest retort (link via the Liquid List) which, contrary to my previously stated opinions, makes a good case for why this should be a campaign issue:

Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Regardless of how I think how a candidate acted in his early twenties should be treated, the simple fact of the matter is we are in a game that has already been debased by the other side and the officials are not making the right calls. Crying "foul" and continuing to try to play the game the way it should be played is no better than just packing up and going home.

Ideas like this from Ted Barlow (link via Atrios) are a good effort, too.

It's time to get creative. It's time to play the game by the rules we're stuck with.

More on Slyance

Stacking the Deck Against Science

The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be "independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential reviewers.

In other words, it would require that things be reviewed by people who don't know anything about them at all.

The OMB did not return repeated phone calls, and it's unclear when the OMB will advance the bulletin or if it will be revised.

Think about that. The government did not return repeated calls by a major publication about an issue of concern to Americans. If they cannot get them to call back, I can assure you that you cannot get them to call back so, essentially, this government answers to no one.

Comment of the year

I know the year is young, but in this post on Bad Attitudes which asks the question "If you were in combat, and in trouble, who would you want to be there to bail you out: Lt. George W. Bush or Lt. John Kerry?" lurks what may be the comment of the year by commenter Derelict:

As far as who I would want next to me in combat, I'd pick Bush. Kerry would no doubt fight like a tiger. But Bush would be rescued in mere seconds, allowing me to hang onto to the chopper skid and get the hell out of danger.

Now, there's a guy who knows how to protect his bacon!

Low down and dirty, just the way you like it

Another seminal piece (huh-huh... "seminal"... huh-huh) by Somersby on Bush's National Guard record. He links to this Times piece about Democrats making an issue of it in the election.

It sounds like Terry McAuliffe has realized what appears to be the simple truth of this issue based on the evidence available right now: the Bush campaign cannot prove their candidate fulfilled his National Guard obligation.

The only way the Democrats can get the press to actually take a good look at this issue is to make clowns like Jennings back up their assertions about "the facts."

I wish we lived in a world where the candidates' approach to the issues was what would make the difference in an election, but we don't.

So, I say to the Democrats, "More like this."

Free license

How much bullshitting can one administration do? Is there a limit? I think we're finding out the answer, in this case, is no.

Bush Wants Probe to Get to Bottom of Iraq WMD

Excuse me while I hack up my breakfast at the irony, which continues to get served up to us in heaping portions.

So, Mr. I Get The Most Objective Information From My Advisors suddenly wants to "know all the facts."

Riiight, like that Plame investigation. How's that going, by the way? Have we found the wrong-doer(s) yet?

If this were a Democratic president the Plame investigation would be covered 24X7 by the cable channels. But, you know... "Look! There's Janet's boob!"

I will give the wire services credit for consistently getting this bit right:

Claims that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the main reason cited by Bush for the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died.

Even if they screwed up the verb tense - "Claims was the main reason"? Sheesh.

But here's my favorite spit-take moment:

"What we don't know yet is what we thought, and what the Iraq Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that," Bush said as he met his Cabinet.

Did he just say "we don't know what we thought"? Golly, you'd think you'd take a look at what you thought before you go to the trouble to invade a country!

"We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a danger."

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Now, that's a typical administration spin point. But what the heck is he talking about? He can't be talking about WMD which, as Reuters faithfully points out, was what this was supposedly about. So, is he talking about conventional weapons? Of course not. Did anyone think the great Iraqi army was set to invade the U.S.? No, that's absurd. We crunched them good like an empty can of pop.

So, I'll ask again, what is he talking about? What was the threat he's referring to?

The answer, of course, is that he's still talking about WMD. Out of one side of his mouth he admits there are none there, yet out of the other side he still implies that he had them.

If anyone gets a follow-up question it'd be real nice it they tried to pin him down on this. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Boobs

Thanks to Dori Smith for pointing out the irony of CBS refusing to show MoveOn.org's ad so we could all get a good look at Janet Jackson's boob instead.

I'm glad the execs at CBS are thinking of the children who, apparently, support our wartime preznit and like boobs.