Post 9/11

Ellen Goodman has a good article on the lessons of September 11th. It's a point I've harped on before, but why not harp on it again?

But three years and one Iraq War later, what exactly does the president mean when he talks about the lessons of September 11 and how his opponent didn't learn them?

"First of all," he says, "we face an enemy which has no conscience. They are cold-blooded. Therefore, you can never hope for the best with them. You cannot negotiate with them. ... The only way to secure America, to keep us safe, is to find them and bring them to justice before they hurt us again."

Of course you cannot negotiate with zealots who fly planes into buildings. You cannot reason with people who kill and die in the name of heaven and the hope of 72 virgins. You can only stop them.

But the central lie of this campaign is in the way the administration has conflated the war on terror and the war in Iraq. It's the way he had morphed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the religious fanatic and the secular dictator, September 11, 2001, and March 19, 2003. It's the way he has drawn a composite of one intractable "enemy": the jihadist in the cockpit.

The lesson of September 11, says Bush repeatedly, is that "we must take threats seriously before they come to hurt us." His punch line is: "And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein."

Bush no longer claims directly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He tells us rather that he "saw" a threat. This is the Bush doctrine. And anyone who doesn't accept his vision -- even when it clashes with reality -- is dismissed as "soooo September 10th."

The Revolution

Just went and saw I Heart Huckabees. Good tonic to my agitation over the election. We are all connected and stuff.

So in retrospect my previous post might have a bit elevated. Not that anything I said was untrue (and I'm definately standing by the fact that Republicans are going to challange as many black voters as they can). But there are nicer ways to express oneself.

I am of course not the most elvated person out there. After all the Vice President has been going around talking about how voting for Kerry could lead, more or less directly, to the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. I don't know that anybody in the Kerry campaign has gone that far, but others have, suggesting that if Kerry doesn't win this election, this might be the last election we have.

The truth is whoever wins, life will probably go on more or less the same for most Americans (people in the middle east might notice a big difference). Which, I suppose, is its own kind of tragedy.

Howls

Three days left in this election. It feels like everything has been focused on this moment--only in true Chinese water fashion, there's a pretty damn good chance the election won't be over for a couple of months. We do our part and then the lawyers on both sides take their crack at it. Democrat Lawyers arguing that every vote should count, Republican Lawyers saying "vote fraud" over and over again like automatons. Hopefully the margin of victory will be wide enough that this won't happen, but who knows what the future holds.

Electoral Vote.Com has Bush at 480 votes and Kerry at 243. They also have a suspect methodology but since they are currently giving Florida to George W. Bush, I feel more positive toward them.

But part of their suspect methodology is that they rely on polls, which may very well be totally wrong. Beyond the usual problems, there are thousands of new voters this time. The Wall Street Journal, if memory serves, suggested that we had 1.5 million new voters here in Florida. Republicans, taking a glass is half empty approach, see millions of new voters as a bad thing, suggesting that it must be due to Voter Fraud.

By the way if you are Black I would get to the polls early, as Republicans have a pretty specific idea on what color of skin those most likely to commit voter fraud. It may make some of you uncomfortable that I would hint at racism in the Republican Party. So let's not hint. The Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, would rather not see Black People voting in this election, and they will challenge black voters at every opportunity.

They'd rather not have any poor people voting, but it's too complicated at the polls to ask voters to pull out their bank statements. So they'll focus on the blacks.

Anyway the whole thing is driving me nuts. I'm like angry 90% of the day. I just can't understand living in a nation that looks at George W. Bush, looks at his record over the last 4 years, and says "Sign Me Up for four years of that." What the hell is wrong with you people?

I don't need to catalog his failures again; we all know them. I suspect even most conservatives know them. Part of me is surprised that they are fighting so hard for a second term. The check for President Bush's massive failures is going to come due in the second term, and you'd think they would want to be out of the restaurant before that hits the table.

Of course that begs the question, if the next term really is going to be such a disaster why do I want Kerry in the white house? Wouldn't it be better to let President Bush get hoist in his own petard? The answer is that I think Senator Kerry is man enough to handle it.

Anyway that's enough for now. Not making a lot of sense today I suppose. Hang in there. Expect big changes to this website after the election is settled (which could be a couple of months). I'm not going anywhere, just changing. Change is good.

More Incredible Narcism

2 Year Anniversary madness continues through one more post. Here are pages dedicated to my favorite posts over the last two years. They are somewhat enjoyable I hope, and certainly if you are interested in finding out what I'm all about, here's a good place to start.

Best Posts 2002 to 2004 Rush Limbaugh
Best Posts 2002 to 2004 Humorous
Best Posts 2002 to 2004 Serious

Anyway hope your day is going well. Frankly I'm starving, but I just can't take my eyes off of my amazing website. So if any of you want to bring me a sandwich . . .

Round the Horn Section 3, Paragraph B

1. In the event that supporters of Nader suggest that there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats, they are requested to read this post by T. Rex's Guide to Life.

2. Motions to place Pro Kerry back bumperstickers on the back of Non Kerry supporters cars are out of order unless the participants have previously perused this post at All Facts and Opinions.

3. Jokes involving Lightbulbs and the Bush Administration are strictly prohibited, unless they are in reference to this post at The Gamer's Nook.

4. In reference to subsection D, those questioning whether Iraq is better off now and whether the United States is better off now are directed to this post at Happy Furry Puppy Story Time.

5. Pursuant to the Truth in Advertising (yes even political advertising) Act of 1834, readers are respectfully required to read this post at LEFT is RIGHT.

6. Following the Precedent set by George W. Bush vs. Reality, all are encouraged to absorb this post by Edwardpig.

7. Those considering staying home on election day are required, according to the conditions laid forth in Section 2.331, to read this post at The Fulcrum.

8. Person A, hereafter referred to as the Boss, speaking to Person or Persons B, hereafter referred to as the American people, will be documented by this post at Bark Bark Woof Woof.

9. Pursuant to Item 7 in this list, potential non-voters are also instructed to view this eye-pleasing post from Dohiyi Mir.

10. Finally, those in need of a nice rundown of the alternate reality that the President and his advisors find themselves in are advised to read this post at Rick's Cafe Americaine.

2 Year Anniversary Spectacular - The Serious Side

My division of articles into serious and humorous was a bit arbitrary as you will see. But these are five posts I thought went particularly well. No runners up here.

5. July 27, 2004. This was my way of reviewing the Democratic Convention (of 2004) with Suzi Registered Voter and the Conservative Cat. They were both fun characters to write and I managed to slip in my normal commentary. I'm not sure the idea is as clever as I thought it was at the time, but it worked pretty well.

4. February 16, 2003. This was one of my reports on attending the Anti-War Rallies in town before the Iraq War. This article was also, in part, a reaction to many of the anti-protester articles I'd read, which classified protesters as idiots or anti American or anti-Soldier and so on. My take contrasted pretty sharply with that analysis.

3. August 16, 2004. Scenes from the war on Nuance.

2. May 22, 2004. This article could be a lot more despairing than it turns out to be--I'm surprised at how mild I sound. Basically this one covers one difference between Conservatives and Liberals, and discusses the creation of separate media organisms designed to serve each group. So basically one potential end for America. It's not to hard to imagine the divisions growing and growing until they tear us apart. But I remain hopeful that we will turn aside long before then. Perhaps that explains my mild tone.

1. February 20, 2004. Songs from the Struggle. A collection of rebel and leftist songs including tracks by Joan Baez, Gil Scott-Heron, Rage Against the Machine and so on. It's pretty cool, I think.

Anyway hope you have enjoyed. Check back tomorrow for a trip round the horn of the liberal coalition.

2 Year Anniversary Spectacular - It Does You Good To Laugh

This is our second retrospective of the day, looking back at some of my more humorous posts. The problem with humorous posts is that the jokes are always a little funnier in my head than they are in execution. Plus of course, humor is subjective, what might be hilarious to me, might not be as funny to a reader. Still some of these must be at least a little funny to you. I hope.

There were a few runner ups in this section as well. Such as my expose on reverse Seven Up, which featured an appearance by Doogie my late little buddy (January 7, 2003). There was the music review that might provide a future name for this blog (October 13, 2003). And there was the time I threatened to punch all my readers in the face (but didn't actually do it) (March 18, 2004). To be totally fair I'd also need to include that Interview with Make Me a Commentator!!! but as it is already readily accessible there to the right, I decided not to.

And now for the top five.

5. May 3, 2003. This is a slightly scatological story involving a new apartment and . . . well I don't want to give away the joke.

4. May 18, 2003. Which was a good month for humor sort of. This is actually a picture of a moo cow which I photo shopped. I have done several impromptu art shows (most recently with pictures of lamps) based on photo shop. Not really humorous I suppose, although the cow is kind of funny looking.

3. October 23, 2003. On my trip to New York City I enjoyed spending time at the theatre and wrote a vaguely humorous post on it. It's pretty funny, but I could have tightened it up quite a bit.

2. January 21, 2003. I have access to the Wall Street Journal here at work, and I've been amused by what they put on the front on a slow news days several times. I really enjoyed finding out that Z is the new S, but this story, about Wolverine being inhuman, beat it out slightly.

1. October 26, 2003. So I'm funniest in May of 2003 and October of 2003. Weird how that works out. Anyway this is my modest proposal on public urination. Again I'm not sure how well it came off; I was really angry at the time about the idea that we shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy because they figure out ways around them anyway. So this was my response.

Tune in later for five more favorites.

2 Year Anniversary Spectacular

Yep, this website was launched two years ago today, and in response we are having a two year anniversary spectacular. I originally suggested a five year anniversary special, but there's some legal reason why you are only to have as many year anniversary as you have actually been around. So it's a two year anniversary.

And so, borrowing from our friends on TV, we are having a clip show. Yep, get out the popcorn, lay back, and get ready to enjoy some of my favorite posts for the last couple of years. To start things off on a light note I thought we'd cover my top five posts dealing with that Commentator of Commentators Rush Limbaugh!

First of all the runner-ups, those columns that were good, but they just weren't quite good enough. These include the time that Rush talked about what American diplomacy should be and his ideas contrasted sharply with our current President's (February 15, 2003). There was that really weird exchange with a caller, leading into the idea that you can't express a negative idea in the War, or an Arab Newspaper might pick it up and our soldiers might read it (May 1, 2004). There was that laugh inducing moment when Rush Limbaugh claimed to be the best friend the working poor had ever had (June 10, 2003). And of course there was one of those times El Rushbo showed his mean side, suggesting that American Blacks have chosen to live on the plantation by remaining Democrats (July 29, 2003).

Well if those are the runner ups, can you imagine how wonderful our five finalists are? Well you'll have to imagine, because we've decided to keep that info to ourselves! No I'm just kidding.

5. May 5, 2004. Rush Limbaugh suggested that our fears that the Abu Ghraib scandal would inflame more hatred for us in the middle East were unfounded. Apparently the Terrorists already hate us as hard as they can, so this won't make them hate us any more. This was an easy enough argument to respond to, and I got to make Venn Diagrams. I enjoy commentating but I don't often get to draw Venn Diagrams.

4. June 19, 2004. Rush Limbaugh explains that Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a movie. Nope. Not a movie.

3. June 23, 2003. You'd think claiming Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't a movie would be hard to top, but on this day Rush claimed that the existence of affirmative action laws proved that we were not a racist society and so such laws were clearly not necessary. It's always a crowd pleaser to take on affirmative action, but your arguments should at least pretend to make sense.

2. January 28, 2004. Rush makes one of the harshest attacks on liberals I remember him making. A snippet. "You people [liberals] are reprehensible. You are absolutely reprehensible. You are the lowest piece of (blank) I've ever run to in this planet. I can't believe you people." Rush claims to be a harmless little goofball, but sometimes I wonder.

1. July 21, 2004. Eight Little Words. "My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" Yes, Rush. Sometimes we do. But probably not in the sense that you mean it.

Tune in later when we will have my five favorite humorous posts and five favorite serious posts. Also the first five callers will receive tickets to see Goobers on Parade.

Two Stories for the Price of One!

The first comes from the Drudge Report. Apparently those bastards at ABC are at it again. They have a tape from terrorists (apparently) threatening to destroy America before the election, suggestions that America will mourn in silence because we won't be able to count the dead. Well, instead of putting it on the air immediately, ABC is taking time to review and authenticate the tape. And they've turned it over to the CIA. How crazy is that? Since it would clearly help President Bush they are burying the tape while they "review it." If they were real Americans they would put it on the air immediately to show how confident the Terrorists are that they can breach President Bush's security.

As Atrios notes, isn't it bizarre that warnings of an impending attack by terrorists are a good reason to vote for President Bush who presumably we'd like to stop said impending attack?

Speaking of real Americans, I came across this story while trying to run down the Drudge Report story above. Apparently there's an article in the National Review Online that talks about how we need to preserve the Electoral College to protect real Americans. From Salon's War Room Blog, I lifted the following accurate analysis.

Of all the Republican arguments for maintaining the Electoral College, the one that Gary L. Gregg makes today in the National Review Online is both the most honest and the most appalling. Gregg's piece, titled a "Counting the Real People's Vote" argues that without the electoral advantage given to small, rural red states, American elections would be dominated by "a metropolitan elite who disdain the cultures and values of middle America." In other words, the urban vote needs to be diluted because it's so Democratic.

It's perfectly fair to argue that the Electoral College is needed to protect the interests of minority voters against the tyranny of the majority. But Gregg's argument is more sinister. By separating voters into "real people," whose votes should be given extra weight, and the "secular urban base" who don't quite count as fully legitimate citizens, he reveals one of the driving forces behind the modern Republican party -- a party which professes to embody Americanism while hating a great part of America. "Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 that the national popular vote can be won by appealing to a narrow band of the electorate heavily secular, single, and concentrated in cities," Gregg writes. This is an amazing statement -- if this band is so "narrow," how can it also be a major part of a popular majority? The answer, in the right-wing imagination, is that only a certain kind of citizens constitute real Americans, and thus are implicitly deserving of power despite the fact that they're a minority.

Nice to know that as a City Dweller I'm not a real American. But I guess as a Liberal I would have assumed that anyway.

Bush Hatred Strikes Again

E. J. Dionne takes on this timely subject, launching off of a poll that suggests that John F. Kerry supporters are more likely than George W. Bush supporters to believe that this is the most important election in their lifetimes (37% to 27% for those who are interested.

Of course Republicans want to play down those numbers and so are trotting out that old scarecrow, irrational Bush hatred. But Mr. Dionne has their number.

The phrase "Bush hatred" is invoked to imply a legion of citizens gone mad.

It's an odd argument when it comes from right-wing talk radio and cable television ranters who insisted in the 1990s that hatred of Bill Clinton was the highest form of patriotism. But their reaction is at least predictable. Anyone else who buys into the notion that the passions Bush has unleashed are primarily the product of unreasoning prejudices misses the central dynamic of this year's election.

The fervent opposition to President Bush is rational and its intensity is a direct response to Bush's own efforts to discredit all opposition to his policies. Criticism of Bush comes not simply from the far left or from fans of Michael Moore movies, but also from political moderates, including Republicans, who see Bush's fiscal, social and foreign policies as decidedly immoderate. The passion comes from a conviction that the president would prefer to use the fear of terrorism and cast his opponent as a dangerous appeaser than to risk the loss of power.

Anyway if you are thinking President Bush hasn't done the best job as Pesident, well you're not alone.

Ben Shapiro Boy Prognosticator Strikes Again

Yes, this week, Literary Ben writes an eulogy for President Bush, the greatest President of the 21st century. Yep here's what the future holds according to young Ben.

For Bush's opposition, this was the last straw. Weeping over supposed violation of international law, Democrats who had approved presidential discretionary use of force in Iraq now decided once again that they had been deceived. And so they slandered Bush as a warmonger and a traitor. They and their vile ilk claimed that Bush was a shill for Saudi oil. Their presidential candidate, John Kerry, derided Bush as a liar, even as Kerry himself refused to answer straight questions about either his record or his political opinions.

The pounding took its toll. Kerry, the perfect embodiment of leftist hatred for George W. Bush, fulfilled his lifelong ambition. And, like Winston Churchill, Bush was unceremoniously thrown from office.

The rest is history. Faith in American republicanism has been undermined by candidates who will not acknowledge the legitimacy of majoritarian democratic results. America has been plagued by a sporadic but regular and devastating pattern of terrorist bombings and killings. The public, lacking a clear moral system, flounders for a vision. And it calls for the most convenient solution: more government.

So apparently John Kerry is going to win the election. And his election is going to destroy America. Kind of depressing in the long one, but nice in the short run. And John Kerry is the "perfect embodiment" of Bush hatred? That's wierd, I thought that would have been Al Gore. Or Al Sharpton.

That last paragraph is interesting--I think the whole nation is bracing itself for a long protracted court battle after the election to determine the victor. At any rate after criticizing how Al Gore performed in 2000, surely President Bush will just immediately concede the election after he loses. I hope.

Of course the nice thing about writing this column is how lazy it is. I mean Ben has no way of knowing whether his predictions of the future will come to pass or not. Certainly he seems to have little faith in the character of the American people. And, just as certainly, his review of the President's last four years is, shall we say, slanted? Extremely slanted with a side of inaccuracy.

What we know so far

On Monday, the New York Times reported that 380 tons of exposives went missing from the al Qa Qaa weapons depot. Obviously this is an enormous story, and everybody jumped right on it. Senator Kerry made it part of his speeches on Monday and today. But those who have a vested interest in reelecting President Bush also jumped on it needing to find a way to defuse this story immediately.

NBC came to their rescue, suggesting that the explosives were gone long before the Army arrived on the scene. Their source was an inbedded reporter who visited the Al Qa Qaa site with his group on the way to Baghdad. They stopped at the site and didn't see any of the explosives, hence they must have dissappeared before the Army even had a chance to contain the site. Drudge picked up this version of the story, and it biovaced into what the Pentagon was already saying. And of course this version of the story was enough for Rush Limbaugh to declare the story over and the New York Times and John Kerry completely disgraced and discredited.

Kerry is the focus. The media is going to survive all this as they always do. They're going to be damaged by it, but they're going to survive it. But Kerry is the candidate and Kerry's actions yesterday are what need to be focused on, his continued actions today, because he is demonstrating his utter irresponsibility, his utter lack of "integrity, integrity, integrity," his utter lack of concern for the decency of our troops in Iraq, his utter lack of concern for our victory in the war on terror. No, all that matters to John Kerry, even if it's a false planted story, even if it is so untrue that it can be documented in less than ten hours, Kerry will nevertheless use it to advance himself.

Except of course this version of events makes little sense. For one thing was that army unit and NBC news crew really qualified to determine that these weapons weren't there? Saying we didn't see them is a long way away from saying they definately weren't there.

There is also the question of where we watching Al Qa Qaa? Josh Marshell explains this problem with the NBC theory (and is a valuable source in general on this issue).

As we noted earlier, there's a relatively brief window of time we're talking about when this stuff could have been carted away -- specifically, from March 8th (when the IAEA last checked it) until April 4th when the first US troops appear to have arrived on the scene.

Certainly there would have been time enough to move the stuff. That's almost a month. But this would be a massive and quite visible undertaking. As the Times noted yesterday, moving this material would have taken a fleet of about forty big trucks each moving about ten tons of explosives. And this was at a time -- the week before and then during the war -- when Iraq's skies were positively crawling with American aerial and satellite reconnaissance.

Considering that al Qaqaa was a major munitions installation where the US also suspected there might be WMD, it's difficult to believe that we wouldn't have noticed a convoy of forty huge trucks carting stuff away.

Of course another criticism and perhaps a more fair one is that this is old news. The materials probably dissappeared a long time ago, so is it really relevant today? Well, the same team that allowed those explosives to dissappear is still largely in charge.

The Other Side

One criticism that might be leveled against me is that I am in essence doing just what I'm complaining that Karl Rove and David Limbaugh are doing. I'm focusing on the negative in President Bush so as to point you away from the weaknesses of my candidate. Well that's not true; I encourage you all to find out more about John Kerry. I think he can stand up to the scrutiny. Now, granted, if you go to NewsMax for your information, well, you won't be getting much accurate information, and hence might not have a very accurate impression of the candidate. But if you go to John Kerry, read a few of his speeches, look at his proposals, well, that might give you a more favorable impression of him.

In that spirit I have collected my own review of John Kerry's stands on the issues. I did this a while back on the website, but decided to collect them and place them to the right there just under the original Candidate Review.

For those who don't remember, the Candidate Reviews were done in the Spring of this year to review where the Democratic Primary Candidates stood on the issues. I trimmed out all the Kerry quotes (mostly from his speeches) and put them together. So you can look at that, and now you can look at my review of Kerry's platform.

To conclude, here's the closing lines from a speech by John Kerry at Green Bay today.

I want a world where no American mother should have to lie awake at night worrying what tomorrow will bring -- whether her husband will be safe at work or her children will be safe at school the next day. No one should have to fear that students on a graduation trip to our nation's capitol or one of our greatest cities might be attacked. I ask for your help - Republicans and Democrats and Independents. Let's unite America to make our country safer.

Our hope - our determination - is nothing less than this: to live our lives confident that we are safe at home and secure in our world. That is a great issue in this campaign and that is the great victory I will fight for as your President.

Good sentiments. One week to go Senator Kerry.

Judge for Yourselves

Paul Krugman writes another brilliant article today (a phrase used so often I should have it as a macro). In it, he makes this interesting and accurate statement.

Although President Bush's campaign is based almost entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance.

We are asked to judge President Bush based on our shallow impressions of him, and then only our positive ones. Karl Rove certainly doesn't want us judging President Bush on his pathetic performance in the first debate, for example. But we are to judge the President as resolved and determined and strong. But more and more it seems like every time we get a peek at how President Bush is actually performing, it reveals a negative impression.

I feel like I'm repeating myself (possibly because I am) but this brings us back to Kerry-hating. The Bush strategy seems three fold.

1. Put up a phony but admirable image of President Bush.
2. Keep President Bush's actual performance off the table.
3. Portray Senator Kerry as a raving yet passionless lunatic.

Will it work? A week from today we'll find out.

Can we trust President Bush?

David Limbaugh writes today on how liberals can't be trusted to handle national security. And by liberals he means Senator Kerry, but presumably he includes all liberals.

Both papers, amazingly, concede that the War on Terror and national security are the most important issues the next president will have to confront. Both admit that Kerry has been wishy-washy on these subjects. But both, ultimately, conclude that Kerry is the better choice, essentially, because he promises to do better. In other words, we should base our decision on some of Kerry's words, not his other words or actions to the contrary.

Well to be fair (although I don't know why Mr. Limbaugh would want to do that) maybe they've also factored in President Bush's poor performance in prosecuting the war on terror. Wait a moment, here's a quote from the New York Times endorsement of Senator Kerry. "There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure." So I guess they did look at Bush's performance too before making up their mind.

I could go down the list of President Bush's SNAFUs. Certainly I could include his failure to plan for enough troops and equipments to occupy Iraq (presumably based on his theory, explained to Pat Robertson, that there would be no casualties (unsurprisingly, the White House now denies the President ever making such a comment. I guess I would too.)). I could review the lawlessness that President Bush's occupation of Iraq allowed, leading both to loss of security for the Iraqi people, a loss of thousands of priceless artifacts from the dawn of human history, and, most importantly, a bonanza for those who would recruit allies to kill American soldiers. I could also review the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

I can already hear some of you saying, "But wait, Bryant, President Bush wasn't directly responsible for those things, was he?" What a weak response. Answer number one is that there is a chain of appointments that goes right back to the White House. Number two is that nobody in the chain of command, except a few lower level sergeants in the Abu Ghraib Scandal, has been held responsible in the slightest. We are a long way from Harry Truman and "the buck stops here."

Of course that brings us to our latest scandal, 380 tons of explosives disappearing in occupied Iraq. A top nuclear-proliferation expert commented on this disappearance in an interview with Salon Magazine.

That this happened is simply inexcusable. The administration knew the material was there. The IAEA warned them before the war. In their public statements to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 29, 2003, the IAEA noted that there were over 200 tons of HMX stored in Iraq. They continued to warn the administration privately after the war began, about the need to secure it.

The administration knew it was there. Why didn't they do anything about it? It was arrogance. I think you have to say that this is not incompetence as much as it is arrogance. They simply did not believe that they were going to have an insurgent or terrorist problem after taking the country. Even when the insurgency began, apparently there was no effort to try to go back and secure these materials.

We don't know yet if HMX and RDX are behind the roadside bombs that are going off almost daily in Iraq. We've been told that they were artillery shells or other munitions, which is certainly possible. But now that we know that nearly 380 tons of this material was stolen, it seems that this is the most likely use for it by insurgents. It's lightweight, it's highly insensitive, so it can be kicked around without it detonating, it can be pressed into a variety of shapes -- it's ideal for the kinds of terrorist attacks U.S. troops and Iraqis have been experiencing.

As John Stewart often remarks, it's hard to imagine how Senator Kerry could do worse. The only hope Limbaugh and his fellow Kerry Haters have is that people will compare an imaginary President Bush (strong, decisive, not a total screw up) with an imaginary Senator Kerry (weak, cowardly, evil alien from planet Z). Unfortunately there's still plenty of people who prefer the imaginary candidates to the real ones.

A Broken Promise

I promised to do a blog-around today. And I didn't. Here at Make me A Commentator!!! we deeply regret having dissapointed you that way. Life intervened and we will have to just write off last weeks blogaround until next week.

Fatboy's tripping

Apparently Tony Blair has been using the Fatboy Slim song "Right Here, Right Now" in his campaign. Well Fatboy Slim apparently isn't too keen on that.

I hated the idea that my mates might think I had sanctioned Labour’s use of the song, that on the sly I had been using a private hotline to Blair to cook up this plan and make a bit of cash.

The use of the song implies that I support Blair. Nothing could be further from the truth. The political voices I support are Tony Benn, Glenda Jackson and Ken Livingstone. People who are clearly left wing. I have a very specific opposition to the war in Iraq. It is an unnecessary conflict and Blair is primarily responsible for getting us into it.

I hope the public, and especially my mates, will realise that I have not sanctioned the use of 'Right Here..' and that I do not sanction the war on terror. I do not secretly hang out at Downing Street of an evening with my mate Tony Blair.

So word to the wise. Fatboy Slim's latest, Palookaville, is pretty tight, as I've already noted I think.

The Revolution will not be Carmalized

Anyway here's the score. I read this article this last weekend, but it's probably been out for a while. I thought about posting on it last night but decided not to. I've changed my mind for the simple reason that an article that stays in my head the way this one did probably deserves your attention as well.

It's by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, and its entitled "Party Down." The basic theory is that the Republican Party today is where the Democratic Party was in 1980. In a word deluded.

Just as the GOP in 2000 tended to look at the Clinton administration as an unfortunate detour on the road to a permanent Republican majority, so Democrats in 1976 looked back on the Nixon years as a temporary aberration from the natural order in Washington, one Democrats had and always would dominate. It wasn't just that the party was powerful; the Democrats, returning to the capital in the winter of 1977, thought their principles put them on the right side of history, and the country had come back around to seeing things their way.

But for all the party's political power and institutional strength, it was in an intellectual rut, returning again and again to ideas that had long ago stopped working.

Mr. Wallace-Wells then discusses the fractures in the party; the Republicans are not nearly as united as they would like us to believe.

There are a few differences between 1980 and today--for one President Carter was a moderate, trying to reign in his party's bad habits; President Bush is far more radical, giving aid and comfort to those elements in his party that are further removed from the mainstream. Also of course the Republicans had Reagan in 1980, and like him or loathe him, Reagan was one of the most charismatic politicians America has ever had. I'm not sure Kerry is going to be our Reagan (Clinton was probably that, despite his obvious flaws).

Anyway the argument is worth looking at.

New Quote, New Format!

Yes a new format and a new quote. And a new Quotes page.

Went and did early voting this morning. You shoudl all consider doing the same, for a number of reasons. For one thing if there are any hitches you can get them ironed out. For another it helps your candidate to see support early, rather than on election day. Just something to think about.