April 30, 2004
All the partisan lies that fit
Bob Somerby catches the New York Times casually publishing unattributed partisan lies in the letters to the editor.
Today's Howler prompted me to dash this off the Times.
I'm curious about the standard for letters that get published by the Times. You published a letter on 4/29 that claimed John Kerry received three Purple Hearts for what amounted to nothing more than "fingernail scrapes." That is categorically, verifiably untrue. Moreover, the letter writer, Cook Barela, was not identified as a former Californian Republican congressional candidate, which would have lended important context to the letter.Since the standard at the Times seems to be "unattributed partisan lies are A-O-K," I'd like to get mine published. Please select from the following list and I will reply with a more detailed letter.
- Dick Cheney kept alive on strict diet of live puppies.
- George Bush's National Guard service records read "Lt. Bush has not been seen on base. And we really wish he'd come back and pick up his rather large collection of dwarf porn. It's freaking the rest of us out."
- John Ashcroft's real reason for covering up statues of naked women is that they remind him of his own embarrassing man-breasts.
Actually, that last one's true.
Sincerely,
John Moltz
But our rape rooms are cleaner
One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young, male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him [...]
But our abuse is so much more well-meaning and, really, statistically less than Saddam's abuse that I'm sure the Iraqi people will understand.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
April 29, 2004
Liberal elitist!
Yes, Moltz.net is your source for Daily Show quotes.
GOP strategists hope the revelation of Kerry's wealth might debunk his status as a, quote, "man of the people" and reveal him to be a bit of a fat cat. Unlike the president who, as we all know, before attending Andover and Yale, was a cockney matchstick girl dying of tuberculosis.
Cha-laaaaaaaaa-bi!
(Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld going over Defense expenditures)
WOLFOWITZ: Don, did you send the monthly check for $340,000 to the INC?
RUMSFELD: No, not yet. Here, I'll just make that out right now... pay to the order of... Ahmed... Chalabi. Three hundred... and... forty thousand... U.S. taxpayer... dollars. Heh. Chalabi... Cha-laaa-bi. Ha-ha!
WOLFOWITZ: Heh-heh. Cha-laaaaaaaaa-bi!
RUMSFELD: Cha-laaaaaaaaa-bi!
WOLFOWITZ: CHA-LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-BI!
RUMSFELD: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
WOLFOWITZ: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
PERLE: (stick his head in the door) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Iraq congress members under investigation (link via Pandagon)
Ha-ha! Cha-laaaaaaa-bi!
In fact, the former head of the weapons hunt, David Kay, questions why a group that provided “fabricated information” is still on the U.S. payroll. “You know, once taken, excused," says Kay. "Twice taken you’re an idiot. And I think we’re now at the point of we’re really an idiot.”
Oh, wait a minute. That's not funny.
Good One
Kerry hits some excellent points here.
Kerry Says Bush Ignoring Imminent Threats
"So if we know it's a matter of when, then when are we going to stop pretending that all has been accomplished in our shared mission to keep America safe?" he asked. "When are we going to start dealing with dangers that we still know exist in this country?"
...
The mayors applauded loudly when Kerry said the Bush administration is asking them to protect the homeland, then sticking them with the bill.
...
Kerry said Bush has accommodated the chemical industry, which favors voluntary efforts to improve security, because of campaign contributions from executives.
And here's where Kerry is able to use his Senate record to his advantage.
The plan mirrors legislation Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, sponsored in early 2003 with Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., and other Democrats. It stalled in the Senate over opposition from Republicans, who said it sought to inappropriately micromanage the nation's $450 billion chemical industry.
"We're strong on terror! Unless it inappropriately micromanages key contributors!"
April 27, 2004
Guard Doodie
Kevin Drum points out the Bushies really stepped in it in attacking Kerry's military record.
...the most obvious consequence of doing this is that it gives the press an excuse to revive the issue of George Bush's military service, which until now had been allowed to die a conveniently quiet death.
Fortunately, it looks like Kerry realizes (link via Uggabugga) the press only deals in "he said, he said" story lines. Now if he can just play the game as well as they do.
Incomparable.
Bob Somerby hits the furrowed brows over Kerry's 33-year-old statement right between the eyes and otherwise sticks it to the sad state of political journalism in this country.
It's as if they say "What will we write about this week? Eh, we'll just tune into Rush and right-wing radio and see what they're saying about Kerry."
That's where the whole war wound "controversy" came from and they've sailed happily on to that oh-so-troubling statement about the medals. Bush and others in his administration just make crap up and lead us into war on false pretexes, but they'll happily spend their time parsing Kerry's words from 1971.
Then they'll let themselves off the hook by pretending their job is nothing more than to sit by the fax machine, wait for a press release and then make a couple of calls to get some quotes. It's easy to write "Conservative radio hosts wondered whether or not Kerry has syphillis. A Kerry spokesperson denied the allegation, but refused to provide the names of all the women he's slept with since 1971." He said, he said. Simple.
It's finding out the truth about things that matter that's hard.
Richard Clarke apologized to the families of the 9/11 victims. The political press and the cable news networks should apologize to the families of the military who've died in Iraq.
Un-fucking-believable
U.S. News chooses to compare and contrast Bush and Kerry in 1971, showing Bush on its cover in his TANG uniform and Kerry... in a suit and tie.
Kos says it best.
War hero John Kerry is depicted in a suit and tie.AWOL coward George Bush, who explicitly refused overseas duty and spent time playing all-day pool volleyball games with "ambitious secretaries" is depicted in military dress uniform.
Here's one they could have used.
Right
Noam Alaska at Demagogue noted yesterday that NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez complained that pro-choice marchers in D.C. over the weekend were "crass" and "angry" and needed some "healing", compared to the anti-abortion protesters who gathered "quietly" with "no yelling" and "no hating".
That seemed, well, not at all like any of the anti-abortion protesters I've ever seen, and Noam provided an image of one them not hating (I guess he lets his god do his hating for him).
So, I wasn't surprised when, on last night's Daily Show, they had a clip of one of those oh-so-polite anti-abortion folks calling out to the marching women with a megaphone:
Submit back to the kitchen!
Hmm. Now... was that the "healing" part or the "no hating" part Lopez was talking about?
Although, she was right about one thing. You don't have to yell if you have a megaphone.
April 26, 2004
Dowd
I usually find her too trite, but this is a good one (link via Dan Gillmor).
In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from....
In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.
Cheney lies, too
College Leader "Disappointed" by Cheney
Westminster College's president said Monday he was so "surprised and disappointed" by Vice President Dick Cheney's attacks on John Kerry during a speech that he is inviting the Democrat to visit for a reply.Fletcher Lamkin told The Associated Press that Cheney's staff approached him last week about using Westminster as the backdrop "for a major foreign policy address. Nothing was said about a stump speech."
Smooth, Dick. Keep pissing people off.
It is imperative we parse this sentence!
Nnnnnnnedra! actually writes a reasonable article and leaves the unreasonableness until the end.
Kerry Demands Bush Prove Guard Service
In 1971 Kerry was interviewed and the host notes he had won Purple Hearts, and Bronze and Silver stars.
Kerry says, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."
What does it mean?! Is he trying to say he only threw back his "others" or that he threw back the medals AND the others?! We know he only threw away his ribbons and has consistently said so, but we must beat this sentence to death! This sentence from 1971 is a vitally important indicator to how Kerry would perform as president!
Can we all remember that this is, effectively, a two-party system? OK, now can we all remember these statements?
"Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"...like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm..."
Multiple statements that Saddam refused to allow in inspectors.
Multiple funding proposal he spoke of that he never funded.
"I've been to war."
I could go on, but there are whole sites dedicated to this stuff. I just don't have the time.
April 24, 2004
Wrong
Hug an Evangelical (link via This Modern World).
Why do "liberal" columnists so often think that their job is to "school" liberals?
First, Kristof uses Evangelical Christians and Christians interchangeably in this piece. Got enough straw in that straw man, Nick?
Some conservative Christians are all too quick to sentence outsiders to hell. And liberals denounce stereotypes of Muslims but not of "Christian nuts."
Kristof's careful to note that it's only "some" conservative Christians, but apparently all liberals don't worry about Christian stereotypes. Even the Christian ones. Pardon me if I find that hard to believe.
It's encouraging that the right is less hostile to gays and lesbians than it used to be. President Bush argued in his 1994 run for governor that gay sex should be illegal, while now he feels comfortable hitting up gays for campaign contributions.
Now, that's progress! He'll still try to deny you equal rights, but he'll take your money now! Congratulations, gay people!
Take Ted Turner. He has called Christianity a "religion for losers" and once ridiculed CNN employees observing Ash Wednesday as "Jesus freaks." Later, he apologized.
Then there are the T-shirts: "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions."
Yes, Ted Turner was wrong and rightly apologized. But exactly how pervasive are those bigoted t-shirts? I'm a fairly liberal lefty atheist and I've never seen or heard of them until now.
And in polite society, conservative Christians — especially Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses — are among the last groups it's still acceptable to mock.
Maybe Kristof's experience is different, but from my experience, the ones doing the harshest mocking of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant Christians, usually conservative ones.
Moreover, saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize — well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate.
Um, well, as far as I can recollect, homosexuals haven't come up onto my porch to have sex, whereas evangelical Christians have come up on to my porch to practice their religion. Evangelizing inherently involves attempting to convert someone. Homosexuality doesn't.
Although, I don't know, maybe it makes it hotter.
And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality.
Again, Kristof rails against imagined bigotry against bigoted Christians for being Christians, not for being bigots. This despite already arguing that you don't have to accept the bigoted interpretations to be Christian. If people on the left are bigoted, they're bigoted against bigots, not Christians. I've got to think that given the demographics of this country, most liberals are Christians.
And, at any rate, I think bigotry based on how a person was born is categorically more repugnant that bigotry based on beliefs a person chooses to follow. So, wrong.
I would just like to know where Kristof discovered this great cabal of atheists that hangs out together to denigrate the poor Christians (Or is it "Evangelical Christians"? I can't keep track.), because I'm apparently not on the mailing list. I run in circles where one might expect, based on Kristof's thesis, that I'd run into a lot of these Christian-bashers and, I gotta say, I'm not finding them. Almost all of the people I know are either Christians or deists.
I'm not saying there aren't people on the left who stereotype. There are. But that does not make it wrong to object to the bigoted views pushed by many Evangelical Christians.
(Whoops - it's "straw man", not "straw horse".)
April 23, 2004
I smell a lawsuit!
I missed this (link via Dan Gillmor) earlier in the week, but it appears that Diebold's lawyers told them in November that they were in violation of not only their contract with Alameda County, but California election law.
Birds of a feather?
In addition to the fine folks at Diebold, Skimble points us to a heartwarming tale of another good friend of George Bush.
See, when they're as rich as Skilling, you just call them "eccentric."
Get Your War On
He's right. His new fighting technique is unstoppable.
"If 'elitist' just means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I'll be an elitist!""Listen, man - What part of 'Democracy Freedom Stay the Course Terror Terror' don't you understand?"
"Hey, you're putting me 'under the spot' here. Can I go get my friend to hold my hand while you ask me questions?"
April 22, 2004
Die-bold! Die-bold! YOU SUCK!
Panel: Don't use Diebold touch-screen voting machines (link via Atrios)
Panel member Marc Carrel, an assistant secretary of state, said he was "disgusted" by Diebold, which has "been jerking us around." The company, he said, has disenfranchised voters in California and undermined confidence in the new and developing technology of touch-screen voting.
So, a company run by a close friend of the Bush administration tries to block and delay a panel investigating the company's lapses. Yuh-huh.
You can see why these people all run in the same crowd. The same crowd that all sucks so badly at what they do and doesn't cotton to uppity types who ask a lot of questions!
The secretary of state's investigative report of the March 2 elections found that 573 of 1,038 polling places in San Diego County failed to open on time because Diebold voting machines malfunctioned. Voters were told to come back later or try voting at the county's elections headquarters.
Yay, democracy!
Time for a VP?
Reading yesterday's Howler, it occured to me that it might really behoove Kerry to pick a VP sooner rather than later.
Why? Because a vocal and visible Democratic VP candidate would draw Dick Cheney out of his hidey-hole. And Dick, as the Howler points out, likes to say a lot of crazy shit that just isn't true.
Nice message
Kos is all over John O'Neill, the veteran the administration is trotting out to try to smear Kerry.
As satisfying as it might feel to point out the partisanship of O'Neill and his wife, it strikes me that an easy "gotcha" conservative response would be to point to the complaints about the smear campaign the administration launched against Joseph Wilson and Richard Clarke. "You're attacking the messenger but not refuting what he says!"
Fortunately, what John O'Neill is saying is somewhere between "partisan opinion" (which is charitable considering he wasn't even in Vietnam when Kerry was) and "objectively bullshit". And it's looking more and more like "objectively bullshit" by the hour.
Do Republicans really want to play this game? Do they really want to look into every military record and ask how bad were those wounds, really?
I suppose it's easy when hardly anyone in the administration has a military record, but the crappy-assed message they're now left with is either "Kerry's brand of bravery wasn't really all that brave" or "Military records are full of exaggerations intended to inflate heroics."
If it's the former, the easiest of responses would be "Compared to Mr. Do-Not-Volunteer-For-Overseas-Assignments' complete and utter lack of any bravery at all?" And if it's the latter, is that your message now? Because... damn.
Kevin Drum feels as sickened by these people as I do.
The part where they turn on each other
This (link via BoingBoing) is a couple of days old now, but I meant to link to it then and just found it lurking in the back of my Safari windows.
At least it's encouraging to see the Wobblies beginning to understand that there are limits to power, and that the least wise foreign policy is one that advertises the exact limits of your power to the world on a daily basis. But any Iraq hawk who claims to be surprised at the problems we're having over there should really have the decency to refrain from commenting on this topic ever again.
Or, as I like to say, "Golly, who knew this would be so hard?!"
Any questions?
A quick comparison of Kerry and Bush's military records (link via Daily Kos).
And the creepy parallels between Bush and Nixon continue, as the administration trots out the same guy Tricky Dick used to attack Kerry.
More:
Kerry Military Records -- High Praise, Combat Kills
Kerry Highly Praised in Military Records
"Simply put, Kerry has a proud record of sacrifice and service whereas Bush has a record of cashed-in connections and evasion," McAuliffe said in a statement Wednesday.
That about sums it up. And let's just try to reconcile the whining...
Some talk radio conservatives and other critics question whether the future Democratic presidential candidate was severely wounded enough to leave the war zone.
... with the reality...
According to a naval instruction document provided by Kerry's campaign, anyone wounded three times while serving in Vietnam, regardless of the nature of the wound or treatment required, "will not be ordered to service in Vietnam and contiguous waters."
Kerry's tooling up and down the Mekong Delta getting shot at and charging after Viet Cong while Bush is going AWOL and Republicans are asking if Kerry getting hit three times was enough for him to go home. Frankly, I think the publicity this generates for Kerry's record is great, but ask yourself again why we're spending so much time on this issue.
Yet more:
On the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart said:
He earned several medals including three Purple Hearts for sustaining injuries. But now some are stepping forward to claim he was really only wounded by enemy fire twice. In other words... he's a pussy.
April 21, 2004
So-called "comics"
Nothing funny about these two, but laudable efforts by both.
First Get Fuzzy wonders why the return of our wounded servicemen doesn't get the attention it should.
Second, Doonesbury character B.D. loses a leg and, unless I'm mistaken, you see him with his helmet off for the first time in the series' 30-odd-year run.
How high?
Which is what the press asks when conservatives say "Jump!"
Kerry Campaign Posts Navy Records Online
Conservatives, talk radio hosts and some newspaper editorials have questioned the seriousness of his injuries and whether the Massachusetts senator was deserving of the three Purple Hearts, which resulted in his reassignment out of Vietnam.
W... T... F...
OK, well, I question the following:
- Bush's National Guard record... AGAIN.
- The Bush administration's total disregard for terrorism before 9/11.
- Who Dick Cheney consulted with on the administration's energy policy.
- Bush's conduct on 9/11.
- Bush's pre-occupation with Iraq when all evidence pointed to Osama bin Laden.
- Bush's rush to war against Iraq, an action that distracted us from going after bin Laden last spring and from maintaining stability in Afghanistan.
- The legality of diverting funds to the invasion of Iraq. (link via Atrios)
- The administration's mismanagement of the situation in Iraq since Bush declared "mission accomplished".
- The outing of Valerie Plame.
Feel free to ad your favorites in comments.
I'm sure these will now all merit another look by the press since "liberal blogs" are questioning them.
Nedra actually wrote a good one and even, I think, hit the right tone on Bush's service record. The real problem is that this is being written at all based solely on the unfounded smear of conservative pundits.
April 20, 2004
Where there's smoke, there's smoke
It seems the press is more interested in chasing the scent of scandal than actual evidence of scandal. Or, less charitably, they're just interested in chasing whatever the RNC puts out in its daily press releases.
Kerry, Under Fire, Releases Some Military Records
Democrats just don't know how to play the game like Republicans do. Why, when we still have no clear answer on how, exactly, Bush supposedly fulfilled his National Guard duty, is it Kerry's record that's at issue?
April 19, 2004
I wish
Someone should tell ESPN their standings are, uh, a little messed up.
It's sad that I wish the Mariners were playing .500 ball.
They also have the Yankees on top of the East but, believe it or not, the Orioles are on top of the East.
April 18, 2004
Important
Go. Read. (Link via Pandagon.)
Shit, what does a guy have to do to get impeached in this country? Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But, I understand... we're on an oral-sex only impeachment standard.
April 17, 2004
Fiddle harder
While Iraq and the economy burn, Glenn Reynolds worries if Kerry took a deduction for donating his underwear. Pathetic.
And, I'm sorry, is the difference between a rich guy who argues for progressive taxation and a rich guy who argues for regressive taxation not apparent to the learned professor?
But Kerry's richer than Bush!
Yes, and he, like George Soros, believes he and other rich people should pay their fair share. Bush believes the rich should get to run over poor people with their cars, take their wallets and then meet at the club for martinis.
Got it, college boy?
Meanwhile, Kevin Drum asks the tough question they'll never answer.
So I'll end this post with my usual question to the hawks: why are you supporting this guy? Sure, he talks a good game, but in the real world he's betrayed everything you wanted out of simple political cowardice. Why does he retain your loyalty when he's made it so plain that he has neither a realistic plan to win the war nor the political will to see it through?
April 16, 2004
Indeed
If their grubby hands did overreach, you must impeach.
Expect the Justice Department's investigation of Bob Woodward to begin Monday morning.
Ah, spring!
It's springtime in Afghanistan and the poppies are blooming! And so is the drug trade!
Heroin trade in full bloom for Afghan poppy farmers, warlords
The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has allowed some local commanders to use profits from drug trafficking to fund their armies and amass power under the umbrella of the Bush administration's war against terrorism.
Ah, to be a young warlord in Afghanistan and to be... in love!
Or, just to be scoring some serious drug-fueled scratch that you'll eventually put toward funding anti-U.S. terrorism!
Kids get high, terrorists get funded, Americans get killed... everyone's a winner!
Hey... wait a minute...
But with the United States and its coalition partners increasingly preoccupied with trying to restore order and arrange a political transition in Iraq, Karzai isn't likely to get more money or support from Washington.
But, a-member... the preznit said we got 'em on the run and them women folk over there are being taken care of and...
Ooh, look, shiny Iraq!
Gentlemen, start your spit-takes
Ready? OK... here we go.
This is what Rush comes up with when he's off his meds.
Hillary gets on as Kerry's VP, somehow managing to look good and sabotage the campaign at the same time because, you know, she wants the nomination in 2008 so bad she's willing to take down the party and subject us to four more years of Bush.
No, no, that's not the spit-take part.
See, if Kerry does win, Hillary can just have him assassinated just like Vince Foster (link via Counterspin)!
PFFFFFFFFFT!!!
You know, in a rational world, slanderously accusing someone of murder (one that's only been investigated by partisan attorneys umpteen times) would get you bounced off the air faster than saying "fuck" would.
April 15, 2004
More required reading
Another from Slate.
Trust, Don't Verify - Bush's incredible definition of credibility (link via Backup Brain)
To all of this, however, Bush is blind. He doesn't measure his version of the world against anybody else's. He measures his version against itself. He says the same thing today that he said yesterday. That's why, when he was asked Tuesday whether he felt any responsibility for failing to stop the 9/11 plot, he kept shrugging that "the country"—not the president—wasn't on the lookout. It's also why, when he was asked to name his biggest mistake since 9/11, he insisted, "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons [not found in Iraq], I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." Bush believes now what he believed then. Incredible, but true.
Kind of makes you wonder if he's saying he'd still use WMD as an excuse to deal with Saddam Hussein.
"Trust, Don't Verify" is a great three-word phrase to put Bush's tenure into a nutshell.
Reasonable expectations
Sometimes I go back and forth on what the lesson of the 9/11 commission is. I don't buy the idea that the attacks were simply unpreventable. That's ridiculous. At the same time, I don't how well we can accurately look back, knowing what we know now, and impartially judge what should have been done (I won't even discuss the straw horse conservatives have set up about the lack of political will to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent the attacks - like that would have done anything).
But, still, I think it's incontrovertible that it would have been better to do something rather than nothing (link via Atrios).
The example I keep coming back to was the heightened alert around New Year's 1999. A border guard caught someone coming across between Vancouver and Seattle with explosives. Would the same kind of heightened alert have stopped 9/11? We'll never know. But at least it would have been doing something.
April 13, 2004
Bush's press conference
[This post written semi-live and semi-nude... OK, just semi-live.]
Is it just me or does nothing he ever says make sense or actually relate to reality?
Elizabeth Bumiller asks him a question that should have been a softball and he bumbled it like a 2004 Mariner.
And this is great...
Q: Mr. President, your opponents say you can never admit mistakes. Is that true?
BUSH: Blah, blah, blah, not on a war footing, blah, blah, blah, 9/11, blah, blah, blah, previous administrations, blah, blah, blah, historic opportunity, blah, blah, blah....
Soooooooooo... yes. That's a yes, right? Did you guys get "yes" out of that? Uh, I'm just gonna put down, "Yes, I can never admit a mistake."
So, he's been offered twice to show some humility and both times... "Eh, I'll pass." Oh, wait... three times.
"If someone had told me exactly what was going to happen with plans with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining each one, then I would have moved heaven and earth to prevent the attacks of 9/11."
Wow, he just totally dodged the question about why he and Cheney were appearing together before the 9/11 Commission. First he tried to imply that they asked them to appear together and then the reporter followed up and he dodged it quite ineptly.
He's using the "oceans won't protect us line" again. He's floundering. Jesus, this is embarrassing.
Asked what his biggest mistake would be, he basically couldn't come up with an answer and said essentially (not verbatim) "I'm sorry I'm not quick enough to come up with an answer. Phew. Uh... You're puttin' me on the spot here..."
Uh, yeah, this is a PRESS CONFERENCE! Didn't you think they were going to ask you questions?!
He did FINALLY say "I don't want to make it seem like I don't make mistakes. I do." Well, at least there's SOMETHING we can agree on. If you need someone to point some out...
"One thing I think people have learned from me is that when I say something I mean it."
Like... "The British government has learned that Iraq recently sought quantities of uranium from Africa."? Like... "Mission accomplished"?
And Dan Rather decides not to vary from his pre-written synopsis and says the president was "confident".
"Confident"? I don't think you can uncomfortably dodge questions, hum and haw your way through answers and then admit you're not being a quick thinker and complain that you're being put on the spot and still be considered "confident"!
___________
Read Jesse and Ezra's live blog here. At least they were drinking while it was going on. I only broke for the Tres Generaciones tequila after the damage was done.
Glenn Reynolds invents a new standard in the never-ending quest for the ultimate in the soft bigotry of low expectations: Bush was confident and quick on his feet... for Bush.
I thought he sucked even for Bush. Honestly, there are times when he seems like a funny guy and they have him well-prepared with nice-sounding platitudes, but too much of the veneer was missing from this conference. The smell of failure was in the air.
Good wrap up by DHinMI on Kos.
Political Animal
Kevin Drum, typically, en fuego.
I'm baffled that war supporters continue to think that Bush is serious about the same things they are just because he says he is. I wonder how long it will be before substantial numbers of them finally become disillusioned with their all-hat-no-cattle president?
Press conference coming up.
Responsibility
Will Bush own Up? (link via Pandagon)
As Bob Somerby would say, try to believe he said it.
"We stand for a culture of responsibility in America. We're changing the culture of this country from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you got a problem, blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us are responsible for the decisions we make in life."
Yes, they stand for responsibility... for the other guy. Attacking Iraq was Bush's ultimate "feel good" moment and he's blamed everyone else and dodged every iota of responsibility for first making the mistake of going in there, and second fucking it up so badly afterward.
Maybe god forgot to mention it to him.
Ashcroft Said Not to See Terrorism as Top Priority
The top priorities cited were reducing gun violence and combating drug trafficking. It made no mention of counterterrorism.
When Dale Watson, the head of the counterterrorism division, saw the report, he "almost fell out of his chair," the report said.
April 11, 2004
Great
It'd be just my luck if the fate of George W. Bush was somehow cosmically tied to that of the Seattle Mariners.
Think about it... big year in 2001... wheels now really starting to come off...
Blech. O and 5 start.
ADDENDUM: Whew. 1 and 5. And a nice comeback in the 9th.
April 10, 2004
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Kids, when you're making World War II analogies to show that the current situation with Iraq and the war on terra is hunky-dory and that everyone should just look the other way until Bush's glorious fourth term, please try to keep two basic principles in mind:
1 - They should be factually correct in regards to the events of World War II which, y'know, are fairly well documented.
2 - They should not necessitate presidents rising from the grave to commit posthumous acts.
Cliff May, apparently, didn't get the memo on this.
April 09, 2004
And the hits just keep on comin'
I go out for some sushi and everyone's talking about the New York Times article.
President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
And when was he told that?
Why, the first day he started his vacation.
Funny how all these things always come out on a Friday night.
Disturbing synchronicity
Scary administration testimony, meet scary liberal conspiracy theory (link via the Whiskey Bar)!
Close
Atrios is close on his portrayal of the administration's MO, but the correct analogy is "A horsefly stung me so I'm going to whack that hornet's nest."
Cool
A budget simulator (link via BoingBoing) so you can see how smart you are, smart guy. You think it's easy? Huh?! Do ya?!
Well, eliminating the tax cuts does make it a lot easier...
Call off the party
Iraq in Turmoil on Anniversary of Saddam's Fall
Bloody turmoil reigned in Iraq on Friday, the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein's fall, with Sunni and Shi'ite rebels battling U.S.-led forces and holding three Japanese and other foreign hostages.
Golly, nation-building's hard when you're a disinterested, insincere prima donna with delusions of grandeur.
Who likes to vacation. A lot (link via Demagogue).
April 08, 2004
Do they know the meaning of the word "irony"?
Two reporters ordered to erase tapes during Scalia speech
Scalia has long barred television cameras from his speeches, but does not always forbid newspaper photographers and tape recorders. On Wednesday, he did not warn the audience at the high school that recording devices would be forbidden.During the speech, a woman identifying herself as a deputy federal marshal demanded that a reporter for The Associated Press erase a tape recording of the justice's comments. She said the justice had asked that his appearance not be recorded.
Wait for the punchline...
The exchange occurred in the front row of the auditorium while Scalia delivered his speech about the Constitution.
...
"The Constitution of the United States is extraordinary and amazing. People just don't revere it like they used to," Scalia told a full auditorium of high school students, officials, religious leaders.
He said he spends most of his time thinking about the Constitution, calling it "a brilliant piece of work."
He then closed by saying, "You've been a great audience! Mississippi crowds are the best crowds in the U.S. of A.! Enjoy the buffet! I'm here all week!"
His whole level of paranoia is disturbing. Does he think electronic devices will steal his soul? I would have thought that was a moot point anyway.
Paper trail solution?
How'd you like an electronic number so you could check online after you voted electronically and make sure your vote was tallied correctly?
I'm sure there would be people who get home and forget who they voted for and will call up and yell at election officials that they wanted Lyndon LaRouche not Pat Buchanan, dammit! My wasted vote was wasted on the wrong candidate!
Still, it sounds like a good idea to me, but it's only useful for people who have a computer and an internet connection.
April 07, 2004
Indeed
As Skimble asks, what the fuck is wrong with him?
Did you know Bush was on vacation... again?
Apropos of nothing
I watched a Simpsons rerun last night and now I can't get this song Homer sang out of my head (to the tune of that "I get knocked down, but I get up again..." soccer hooligan song).
I drink a whiskey drink,
I drink a chocolate drink,
And when I have to pee,
I use the kitchen sink.
Stuff it
Can we just state for the record that our comments that the Bush administration has no plan for getting us out of Iraq, no ability to work with international bodies or other countries that doesn't amount to bullying them or buying them off and that Iraq has become a quagmire are:
A) valid criticism.
B) generally the way you get someone to admit they're going about things the wrong way and perhaps take something more seriously than they are.
C) barring B, designed to get someone in the White House who will have a better shot at making things better over there.
D) not because we hate U.S. soldiers, but because we honor and appreciate them and are concerned the conservative "everything's fine" approach might be screwing them.
Sheesh.
It's like they can only read and comprehend one sentence at a time (link via Demagogue). How do these people get through college let alone become professors when they don't understand the simple concept of context?
"All sentences must stand on their own!"
The debate on Iraq
Here's my summary of this transcript (link via Atrios).
FRANKEN: The situation in Iraq has become a quagmire. The Bush administration lied to get us in there, and now our troops are dying and they don't have a plan to get them out.
GRAHAM: Ted Kennedy is a drunk and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office.
April 06, 2004
Uzbekikitty!
Get Your War On brings us that lovable kitty from Uzbekistan!
Good friends. Good times.
WTF?
Bush Compares a Guest to His Mother (link via Political Animal.)
Bush insults a woman and then flies off the handle at some guy. Is he just losing it?
And Dean was unpresidential?
Right.
ADDENDUM: Jerome Doolittle points out another example.
Losing. It.
April 05, 2004
Supportin' the troops
Once again...
Turns out the plan ol' Rummy has tried to ram-rod through with "irreversible momentum", isn't working. And, of course, the ones who ultimately get screwed are the soldiers.
Coyle wrote in an e-mail, "The victims here -- besides U.S. taxpayers -- are our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who too often get equipment that doesn't work, and have to struggle in the field with inferior gear."
Meanwhile, troop rotations have been cancelled.
But the issue that has the pro-war bloggers up in arms is Kos' comment about mercs. Great.
Yikes.
Shiite uprising challenges central premise of U.S. policy
Some senior U.S. officials now say that with both Sunnis and Shiites rebelling against the occupation, they see no way out of Iraq, no way the United States can oversee a smooth transition to Iraqi democratic rule in the foreseeable future and little chance that U.S. forces in Iraq can restore security without more troops.
Golly, who knew this would be so hard?
When Pollyannas ATTACK!
When/if Kerry wins in November, be prepared to get whiplash from how fast the folks who insist things are fine - nay, good, smashing, terrific - in Iraq, suddenly turn on the status of our glorious expedition.
Atrios notes the worst one of them all is in the White House.
Most of the country is starting to get it, though.
ADDENDUM: Although, Billmon points out it might be because people are just concerned about oil prices. I hope he's wrong, for more reasons than one.
Need a new PowerBook sleeve?
You might want to get this one (link via BoingBoing).
Possibly from these guys, but that's unconfirmed. Having been in their Seattle store I can say they certainly looked like they might have done it, and clicking on the About link further points to their guilt as deriders of Dear Leader. God damn hippies!
Glenn Reynolds' moral clarity
Kos saying "Screw the mercs"? Bad.
A reader who says "Look, this latest series of events in Iraq are a good thing."? Good.
Sure, twenty nine dead, but the glass is half full!
April 04, 2004
Shorter Safire
The Bush administration may have made mistakes in the past, but... forget all that.
Nice
I'm sure Glenn Reynolds will be up in arms about Kathleen Parker's lack of regard for human life.
(For the record, I think Kos's comment was wrong. His explanation was heartfelt, but not exactly apologetic. But all the hand-wringing from bloggers who run in circles that would just as soon "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out," is absurd.)
(ADDENDUM: I also think it's wrong of the Kerry campaign to de-link Kos. It's a great site and one heated comment from the proprietor is simply the nature of blogging. Who's "on" 24 hours a day?)
April 02, 2004
Iraq obsession
It's amazing how Bush At War became the anthem for the Bushistas, but the whole Clarke book and testimony, rather damning of the administration and Bush himself, is so clearly supported by Woodward's account. It was written with access gained at expense of impartiality, but even so there are apparently enough details to point out their obsession with Iraq that it should have been obvious well before we rushed to invade.
Yet no one batted an eyelash at Bush saying he was sure Iraq was involved in 9/11, or Wolfowitz putting the odds at 10 to 50%. It approached even money, according to Paul.
And the Democrats and the press let them get away with it. "We trust our righteous overlords!"
Ugh.
Oh, and Krugman
It's almost silly linking to him as you should read him all the time anyway.
Reading Krugman is like reading any of the blogs to the left... but in print! It's wacky! See, he's a "col-um-nist"... who's not a Washington Heather or conservative or just in the unholy thrall of the Bush administration! I've never seen anything like it!
Good
E-Vote Critics Demand Paper Trail
An effort to erase doubts about new ATM-style voting machines by backing up digital votes with paper records is gaining ground nationwide, as state officials heed warnings about security and potentially messy recounts.
But, they won't be in place by the fall, unless you live in Nevada, so vote absentee. I understand that's not perfect, either, but at least it's auditable.
If you live in Florida, of course, you're screwed.
Florida election officials ruled earlier this year that new touch-screen machines put into place after the 2000 election crisis are exempt from a law that requires manual recounts in close elections -- because there is no way to determine voters' intentions from the computer record.
I find that lack of concern disturbing.
Documents? What documents?
Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
Wow, they'll just block anything from that panel, won't they?! Kinda makes you wonder why they set it up in the first place!
Not that they... really wanted to...
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.
Hmm. I wonder if it's just that when you put the big pile of Clinton documents on al Qaeda and terror next to the little pile of Bush documents on al Qaeda and terror...
It also came as the White House, in an effort to bolster Ms. Rice's credibility before the hearing, released some of the language of a presidential directive awaiting Mr. Bush's signature on Sept. 11, 2001. It instructed the Pentagon to plan action against Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan, "including leadership, command-control-communication, training and logistics facilities."
White House officials said the language showed that the Bush administration had a tougher, more comprehensive plan than the Clinton administration had for dealing with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and the Taliban.
Which, the administration said, was very important to the president, and he was gonna sign it real soon, but he thought it was more important to... continuing... to... read... very... slowly... to... some... school... children... while... thousands... of... Americans... died.
And the Times gets to that in the final paragraph.
But because the policy was supposed to unfold over three to five years, it suggests that the threat posed by Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan was not considered an urgent one by the White House, bolstering Mr. Clarke's accusations.
Yep.
April 01, 2004
Save the poor Iraqis
That was the rationale when it was discovered there were no WMD in Iraq, right? Republicans screamed at opponents of the war "He gassed his own people! Democracy in Iraq!"
Well, the short attention span of conservative thought has wandered and now it's time to just bulldoze the place. Kill 'em all! Let god sort 'em out!
