Something for Saturday

Probably going to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 later on today. Still debating, I might go see it Monday.

But wanted to start out today with a quote and a lamp. To those who feel bad about how badly President Bush is treated let's look at what Talk Show Host Rollye James, from Austin Texas, said about President Clinton.

"I really don't think that I'm going to be able to cause anybody to take out Bill Clinton. But if I can, I hope their aim is good and I hope that bullet passes through Al Gore first. And if you want a trifecta, take Hillary, too."

Hmmmmm. Austin, Texas. Maybe this is where President Bush learned the word Trifecta?

Anyway along with that cheery thought, here's a lamp.

I'm Still Mad at Brent Bozell or Remember the Good Old Days

"Even in its smallest notes, "Fahrenheit 9-11" is full of cheap and sleazy laughs, such as showing Paul Wolfowitz combing his hair down with his own spit. - Brent Bozell, from the article referrenced below.

Remember back when old Rush Limbaugh had a TV show? For some reason it never took off the way he expected it to, and it didn't last long. He may be ok behind a microphone, but he doesn't seem able to do anything else.

Anyway remember this charming joke. Mr. Limbaugh commented that the White House had just acquired a White House Cat. He put up a picture of the Cat, before commenting, and of course they already have a White House dog, flashing a picture of young Chelsea Clinton (must have been, what, 12 or something).

Yeah, I feel bad that Mr. Wolfowitz got filmed when he wasn't looking his best.

The Test

"The Devil came by this morning / Said he had something to show me." - The Chemical Brothers, "The Test."

Just read Brent Bozell's latest column on Fahrenheit 9/11. As the President of the Media Research Center, dedicated to documenting "liberal bias" in the media, he naturally has a point of view on the movie. And here it is.

"For the Left, this film is a test to separate the wheat from the chaff, the honorable from the dishonorable, the serious from the unserious. In the Clinton years, conservatives needed to step away from the unsubstantiated videos that talked in conspiratorial tones about all of Clinton's heinous secret crimes. To be taken seriously, every liberal today should criticize "Fahrenheit 9-11" as an affront to journalism and civil discourse."

A couple of points.

1. Let's make one thing clear, you and your kind will never take liberals seriously unless we become conservatives. You've made that abundantly clear, so criticizing Mr. Moore's movie in order to curry your favor? It's a pretty stupid idea. It won't work.

2. You compare Michael Moore's movie to ads put out by the Republican Party. Michael Moore is a private citizen, as are the people who produced and distributed the film, and so such a comparison is false.

3. You exaggerated Mr. Moore's movie's points in order to better fit them to your own ends. The most outrageous example of this is your statement on how Mr. Moore presents the connections between the Bush Family and the Saudi Royal Family. You state, "The Bushes and the bin Ladens plotted September 11 together?" Mr. Moore did not state that in the movie. I know that because many people who do believe that President Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose (LIHOP) or made it happen on purpose (MIHOP) are upset that Mr. Moore didn't present their beliefs (for the record I ascribe to neither LIHOP nor MIHOP).

At any rate, this distortion of Michael Moore's beliefs to suit your own political ends is probably libelous.

At any rate Mr. Bozell, you've settled it for me; I am going to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 this very weekend, and then come back here and praise it. I just don't like being bullied (I won't blind myself to it's flaws, though, and I'm sure it has some).

Round the Horn Part -2(B*x3)

Going to be looking at some of the recently added members to the Liberal Coalition list. I should note that some of these new additions had already been contributors to the Liberal Coalition, and so it wasn't that big of a jump.

All Facts and Opinion has a section on the Supreme Court's ruling this last week on the rights of the accused in the War on Terror.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has a brief on why the Supreme Court may have made a couple of bad calls this week.

Rubber Hose chimes in with his take on the Supreme Court's decision, and how it didn't reflect all that the Administration wanted.

archy continues in the same vein, but rather than pointing his laser-like focus at the Supreme Court he aims for John Ashcroft and his reaction to the Supreme Court decision.

Gamer's Nook has a story on how safe our highways are for Non-Muslims. And how dangerous they might be to Sikhs.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has an article on Nabil el-Marabh, who I admit to having missed. Apparently this dude was a terrorist, planning a martyr attack in the US and we shipped him off to Syria.

Left is Right has a treatise on the potential mental health risks our soldiers may face after returning from Iraq.

The Invisible Library reports that a shifting focus until the election, due to the probable lack of news on the election.

Bark Bark Wolf Wolf has a missive on the level of discourse in our great country.

And that's it for this week. Tune in next week, when Round the horn will be made with the support of the letter B, and Q, and the number 502.

Go look at this

This document is reportedly from the Bush Campaign. It's a PDF, so requires Adobe to read.

I'm particularly curious to know what churchg going readers think.

Changes

Made some additions to the Liberal Coalition Roll over there on the side. Say hello to All Facts and Opinion, Gamer's Nook, Happy Furry Puppy Story Time, Left is Right, Stradiotto (currently on hiatus), and the Yellow Doggerel Democrat.

You'll notice that Edwardpig and A Rational Animal are on hiatus as well; hope they come back at some point, as both are pretty good.

A Ray of Sunshine

Usually when I title a post "A Ray of Sunshine" it means that I have something particularly depressing to discuss. But not today; today I am talking about a literal ray of sunshine. Molly Ivin's, known liberal, writes a great article on the occasion of our nation's Birthday (which, if I'm not mistaken, is July 4).

"So let's salute all that makes America special, starting with us, the people. Here's to all the musicians from country to hip-hop to rock to classical to jazz to folk to be-bop to norteno to polka to reggae, and to all the fusion forms thereof. Here's to all the artists who get no respect -- the washboard players and lute strummers, harmonica blowers and banjo pickers. Here's to their endless generosity in playing special benefits for retired musicians who are ill and have no health insurance, all over America, every night. And here's to the great Ray Charles, bless his heart. May we all hear his version of "America the Beautiful" this holiday."

I could be churlish and contrast this with how Conservatives think Liberals look at America by why bother? Instead I'll cut this short in the hopes that you'll go read Ms. Ivin's article.

Analyzing Ann

Turns out that analyzing Ann has proven too exhausting to continue. After skipping too articles, I've realized even analyzing the title of this weeks article ("Saddam In Custody -- Moore, Soros, Dean Still At Large") is making my stomach knot. I mean Ann Coulter really wants to see Moore Soros and Dean in prison?

Actually, she's already answered that question hasn't she. She did, after all, write a book called Treason which called for a very "liberal" application of that term to a vast number of Democrats.

Then there's this great distortion, 'bout half way though.

"There's Michael Moore, who has said he hopes more Americans will die in Iraq. His movie, "Fahrenheit 7/11" as we call it, apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein."

I don't know what to make of Fahrenheit 7/11 except to say that Ann is the only person I've seen calling it that, and I'm not sure I understand the reference. But the first part of the statement is a gross distortion of what Mr. Moore actually said. I assume she is referring to a statement Mr. Moore made when he was dealing with the question of whether or not we should press for more United Nations Troops. His opinion was, and I'm paraphrasing, that as the Iraqi war was our mistake, we should bear the costs of occupying Iraq, and one of those costs is more troop casualties. I mean how is the United States supposed to learn not make mistakes if when we make one we get bailed out immediately?

For the record I disagree with Moore here; I don't think America learning a lesson is the only consideration. More UN troops and less US troops makes it more likely that the Iraqi people can make the transition to a stable democracy (slim as that hope is), and I think that should be our top priority.

Now they tell me

In reference to Vice President Cheney's remarks to Sen. Leahy on the Senate Floor last week, I'd like to quote President Bush (from an interview with Brit Hume, September 22, 2003)

". . . I don't think we're serving our nation well by allowing the discourse to become so uncivil that people say, use words that they shouldn't be using."

Thank you Mr. President.

Quote from a new book entitled "Take Them at their Words; shocking amusing and baffling quotations from the G.O.P. and their friends, 1994-2004," which I just got today. Expect me to use it again in the future, as there is a lot of great stuff in here.

Mythology and the American Spectator

Here's a section from the Norse Myth concerning the death of the God Balder. Balder was killed by his Brother Hodur. All of the other Norse Gods wept, and one of them, Hermod, was sent to Hel to seek the release of Norse from the Goddess Hel (who ruled the land of the dead.

For nine nights he [Hermod] rode until he came to the river Gjoll and rode across its bridge. Modgud is the guardian of that bridge and she asked him his name and family and said that the day before five troops of dead men had ridden over the bridge, but the bridge resounded as much under him alone, and he didn't look like a man who has died. She asked him why he was riding on the road to Hel. Hermod replied he was riding to Hel to seek for Balder and asked if she had seen anything of him on his way there. She replied that Balder had ridden past over the bridge of the Gjoll.

Hermod rode on until he came to the gates of Hel. Hermod dismounted, tightened the stirrups on Sleipnir, remounted and dug his spurs. Sleipnir jumped over the gate with such energy that he came no where near the gate. Hermod then rode up to Hel's hall and dismounted. Inside, he saw Balder sitting at the high seat there. Hermod stayed that night in Hel and in the morning he asked Hel if Balder might be allowed to ride home with him. Hermod told Hel how all the Æsir wept for Balder and Hel said that this test should be made as to whether Balder was loved as much as people said. If all things in the world, both dead or alive, would weep for Balder the he would be allowed to return to the Æsir, but if anyone objected or refused to weep he would have to remain in Hel.

I have referenced this story before, but I'm referencing it again.

I was driving around at Lunch and listening to Rush Limbaugh and he pointed out an article that appears in the American Spectator (or at least at their website). The basic premise of the article can be summed up thusly; Democrats want to see America fail because that way they can get their power back. I'll deal with that point in a moment, but first let's talk about Vietnam and Iraq.

Vietnam was a mistake from beginning to end. It was entered into under false premises. It was not conducted in a sensible way, largely because the goal was not to win (which frankly we didn't even know what that looked like in that particular war), but to keep from losing. There were regrettably atrocities committed by both sides. And the reason we lost that war? Because some Americans pointed out these failings. Or so says Paul Breston, author of this particular article.

"They [American Liberals] wanted us out of Vietnam, and the way to accomplish that was to demoralize the American public, thereby emboldening the enemy and ensuring a protracted struggle, and more casualties. The body bags they pretended to decry were crucial to their success; they relied on death far more than did the warmakers they demonized. Theirs was the most bloodthirsty peace movement in American history."

Which of course brings us to Iraq. Iraq is not quite as bad as Vietnam. We are making more efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis (although we are certainly making our share of misteps as well). But there is also plenty to critique in how we have handled the Iraqi war. And many of those criticisms can find there way back to the Oval Office or to the Offices of those President Bush has appointed. So the solution? Liberals shouldn't criticize the President's handling of Iraq.

I notice that when Conservatives push President Bush to adopt a harder line with Iraq or to invade Syria or Iran, they are not accused of disloyalty or giving comfort to the enemy. I also note that during our conflicts during the Clinton Years, Republicans didn't feel it disloyal to continue their critiques of him as a Commander in Chief.

As for the suggestion that America has to fail for Democrats to succeed, that's just crap. It's not that we want America to fail; it's that the people who are in charge of this country aren't running it correctly. If you put a guy like President Bush or a foul mouthed guy like Vice President Cheney in power, there are going to be problems. I don't know that Kerry is going to be a flawless president (I'd be surprised if he was) but he has got to be better than those that we have in power now.

If nothing else, unlike President Bush, Kerry has been in combat and has some idea of what the life of an American fighting man is worth.

The Perils of Having a Weekly Column

One peril is when you write a weekly or bi-weekly column, you have to pontificate even if you don't have much to say. I have that problem too, but in theory I could back away and come back when I have something (I don't usually, but I could).

That peril strikes Cal Thomas today who serves up an uncomfortable mish-mash of issues. In one article he covers Dick Cheney's use of the F-Word, Bill Clinton's new book and Monica Lewinsky, Jack Ryan's withdrawal from the race in California, The Broadway play "The Producers," the ad at the Bush Website using Hitler imagery, and Al Gore's mental state. It's almost like a smoke screen of ideas designed to cloud the mind and make his ending argument a bit more plausible.

Thomas starts and ends his article with Dick Cheney's F-Bomb. And his concluding point is banal enough. More or less its that Politicians would be better off if they spoke frankly and in some way this justifies Cheney's comments. That's total crap, of course. We all know that were the conditions reversed and a Liberal stated something similar to a Conservative Senator, there would be no need for this foggy writing. Thomas would spend the entire article talking about how a senator deserves respect and how about this unnamed liberal's potty mouth shows the debased state of the modern Democratic Party.

"Good Servants but Bad Masters"

There's an interesting article by Cynthia Tucker which covers the Clinton Years in some detail (a popular subject right now, what with President Clinton's Book and all). There's some positive - such as here statement that "quite contrary to conventional wisdom, Clinton contained Saddam Hussein."

But there is also some strong negatives. She comments on how his instincts on race and on America's workers might have strongly benefited them, but he wasted that capital when he had his dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky. And then she states, "And then there is the matter of Osama bin Laden and his network of jihadists, al-Qaida. In his autobiography, "My Life," Clinton writes of a difficult period in 1998 when he was trying to salvage his marriage while also confronting al-Qaida attacks on U.S. embassies. On vacation with Hillary, he said, "I spent the first couple of days alternating between begging forgiveness and planning the strikes on al-Qaida."

That about says it all, doesn't it? Even Clinton, with his legendary ability to "compartmentalize," couldn't possibly have concentrated fully on the threat. He was not only distracted, but he was also boxed in by the scandal. Any attempt to deal more harshly with bin Laden would have been derided by political foes accusing him of trying to divert the public's attention."

She ends with this painfully true statement.

"If he genuinely believed that they [conservative Republicans] didn't have the best interests of the nation at heart, he had a moral responsibility to outmaneuver them. Instead, he gave them the ammunition they needed to impeach him."

I have reevaluated my opinions on Clinton in the last year or so. I really had a big problem with his affair with Ms. Lewinsky. Strip away all the rationalizations, and that was an enormous failing. This doesn't negate the attacks by the Right, and the many lies they have told about him over the years (such as the ones about Vince Foster). But it cost him, and more importantly it cost the country the ability to make some vastly needed changes.

"It is with our passions, as it is with fire and water, they are good servants but bad masters." - Aesop

The Transfer of Power

Salon has an interesting article on the transfer of power in Iraq yesterday.

"Forsaking public, self-congratulatory speeches, the much-anticipated transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people did not take place among pomp and circumstance, nor was it captured for history by a throng of journalists. Instead, the transfer occurred nearly in secret inside a well-secured building behind the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, witnessed by a handful of participants in the five-minute service. Coming off a weekend of unending violence, during which more than 100 Iraqis were killed by terrorists protesting the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the pageantry of a ceremony on June 30 suddenly seemed less inviting to both the United States and its Iraqi partners in the interim government, and the transfer of power was quickly moved up to Monday.

It was just the latest U.S. plan for the Iraqi occupation to go awry. That sovereignty is being passed to Iraq against a backdrop of violence so extreme that martial law is being seriously discussed by the new Iraqi government highlights how poor the postwar conditions are and how big of a challenge the new government faces. Indeed, the handover occurs as a wide range of foreign policy experts have concluded that the plan to invade Iraq as well as the postwar-construction phase have failed on nearly every front."

President Bush desperately needs American voters to accept this as a triumph. In his own words, "We have kept our word." And those who want to paint our involvement in Iraq with the noblest of platitudes will be able to take some comfort in the fact that we did give them de jure power. They can ignore the fact that the United States kept most of the de facto power for themselves.

It's all in the Wrist

A Trio of Ralph Nader stories.

The first is by Joe Conason and is posted at Salon (warning, you may have to watch a brief ad). Basically it concerns Nader's efforts to get on the ballot in Oregon and who's helping him achieve this goal.

"According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- whose name sounds as if Nader could once have been its founder -- the Nader presidential campaign received illicit assistance for its petition drive in Oregon last weekend from two local conservative organizations, which were "encouraged" by President Bush's campaign committee."

So I guess Nader's fantasy about taking votes from President Bush is justified. Yep, all these people helping his campaign are surely going to vote for him. Or are they?

Secondly here's a dissection of the Green Parties decision to run David Cobb as their presidential candidate rather than endorse Ralph Nader's independent run. Apparently the main reason for the Green Party's rejection of Nader was that they felt like he had ignored them in the early part of this election cycle and was taking the party for granted.

Cobb will distinguish himself from Nader in other ways. "Practically, Cobb plans to campaign for Green candidates in all 50 states, but only to aggressively seek votes for himself in the roughly 40 states where the Bush-Kerry contest is not expected to be close."

Finally here is Ralph Nader's letters to Michael Moore (Letter one and letter two). Truthfully I'm not sure I would have posted these letters on my website, as they sound a bit whiney and a bit pedantic. But as for the issues involved, Michael Moore has been focused on beating President Bush since the last election. Mr. Nader has been concerned with something else (some would say his own self-aggrandizement, but I'm not that cynical).

Crocodile Tears

Well Michael Moore has David Limbaugh pretty riled up.

"I wish we could finally graduate in this campaign year to a debate on the merits of the various issues: foreign policy, national security, the economy, social issues and judicial tyranny.

But that's not going to happen, because the Left can't win this year by playing fair. They engage not in debate but in smear."

That's pretty great coming just a few days after President Bush's own website put up a web ad linking John Kerry, Al Gore, and Adolph Hitler.

It's also interesting to note that President Bush has a section of his website called the Kerry Media Center, dedicated to tearing down his opponent. John Kerry has no such section; although he does have the D-Bunker, dedicated to exposing those half truths the republicans keep throwing around.

That's also interesting after he describes President Clinton as a "the granddaddy of all sociopathic fabricators."

It's also interesting in that most liberal attacks are based on steps the Bush Administration actually took.

David Limbaugh is simply crying crocodile tears, hoping that soft hearted liberals pansy out and contest the election on his terms. I can assure you he has no intention of stopping his smears on liberals, but gosh wouldn't it be nice if Democrats stopped even criticizing the President?

Big News

From the New York TImes.

"In a surprise, secret ceremony that was hastily convened to decrease the chances of more violence, United States officials today handed over sovereignty to Iraqi leaders, formally ending the American occupation two days earlier than scheduled.

In a tightly guarded room behind high walls, L. Paul Bremer III, the top United States administrator, presented a formal letter recognizing Iraq's sovereignty to Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi."

From Fox News.

"Iraq became a sovereign country on Monday, 15 months after the United States led a coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from power and two days before the June 30 deadline for control to be turned over to the interim Iraqi government.

"This is a historical day," Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (search) said. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

The opening paragraphs from both articles. Anyway, as always, we'll have to see what happens next.

Bush Survived !!!

That's a current storyline that's making its way around the world of Conservative Commentators. Basically it's this; after a couple of months of terrible news for President Bush, and attacks by Democrats and the "Liberal" media, he has survived politically and that shows just how great a president he is.

Larry Kudlow uses this theory in an article on the Iowa Electronic Market, and how it relates to the race. Apparently the Iowa Electronic Market thinks that George Bush is a safe bet right now (well, safer than Kerry). The Iowa Electronic Market is an interesting idea, and they worry me more than a lot of other polls.

But as for the argument that President Bush has finally weathered the bad news, that all depends on whether or not you believe the bad news has stopped coming. The Fed is going to raise interest rates here in a few days (apparently). We are going to turn "power" over to the Iraqis this very week. So who knows what the future holds?

I have to admit, it sound a little like I'm hoping things go bad for President Bush. I don't. I'd like it if his plans succeeded, if only because his plans impact the United States people, and particularly our military stationed in Iraq. But I don't think they will.

New Quote - Hurrah!

There's a new quote by G. K. Chesterton. Enjoy. And a new Quotes Page.