Around the Horn with the Press Conference of the Century

Edward Pig has an excellent overview of the Press Conference of the Century.

Rubber Hose also watched the Press Conference of the Century and provides a more personal take on it.

Bark Bark Woof Woof reviews an article discussion what the Press Conference of the Century says about President Bush's mental state.

Dohiyi Mir discusses one of President Bush's stranger statements at the Press Conference of the Century.

And Then . . . comments on President Bush's repeated mention of the 50 Tons of Mustard Gas found in the Press Conference of the Century.

It's Craptastic reminds us all of President Bush's apparent inability to answer a simple question.

Corrente read the same Saletan Article I did (see below) and had a somewhat negative take on it.

And there were some other great posts this week that inexplicably did not mention the Press Conference of the Century. But I urge you to read them anyway.

Pen Elayne on the Web has a great essay on what a liberal vision should be. She makes a lot of great points.

Chris "Lefty" Brown considers the proposition that a vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush.

BlogAmy has a plea for the ol' March of Dimes although she also covers her personal misgivings about their use of animal research.

Musing's Musings reviews his thoughts on the Israel Palestinian Peace process and makes some cogent analysis. What I find a little tragic is that he has to state repeatedly that he is a friend to Israel and recognizes Israel's right to exist. But on the other hand, I understand why he does it; in many circles there is apparently no difference between criticizing Ariel Sharon and calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea.

A New York Time Editorial on the Press Conference of the Century

You may be wondering why I keep referring to the Press Conference that occured on Tuesday as the "Press Conference of the Century." Well, I don't know either. Just seems to be one of those things. Anyway came across a New York Times editorial that slams into President Bush on his performance at the Press Conference of the Century.

"Americans knew George W. Bush was an incurious man when they elected him, but the hearings of the 9/11 investigating commission, which turned yesterday from the F.B.I.'s fecklessness to the C.I.A.'s blurred vision, have brought that fact home in a startling way. The president is trying hard to present himself as a hands-on manager who talked terrorism incessantly with the director of central intelligence, George Tenet. ("I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time.") But Mr. Tenet had to concede yesterday that he was not in Crawford, Tex., for the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Mr. Tenet told the panel he didn't meet with Bush all that month, but the C.I.A. later said there had been two meetings. No one has been able to say whether Mr. Bush followed up in any way after he asked his intelligence agencies whether there was a domestic threat from Al Qaeda, and got a loud "yes" in response.

As the president rightly said on Tuesday night, the only people responsible for the slaughter in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, were Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists. But to watch these hearings is to endure a terrifying review of the chances missed and balls dropped in the last two administrations."

Something to consider. I have my own thoughts as well, and will cover this again later.

And yet another opinion on the Press Conference of the Century

Robert Novak, of Valerie Plame fame, thinks that President Bush did ok with his Press Conference.

"The result was an unprecedented hybrid: the president delivering a 17-minute speech to the nation over the heads of reporters, who anxiously waited their turn. Bush was ready to parry Democratic claims that Iraq was becoming another Vietnam, contending that the "false" analogy "sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy." Facing the anticipated onslaught of press demands that he apologize or admit error, the president wisely avoided an answer that would have been repeated endlessly on television.

Inexplicably, however, Bush seemed adrift when asked whether he had ever made a mistake other than trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs when he owned the Texas Rangers. He apparently did not anticipate being asked why he and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on testifying together to the independent commission, and simply refused to give a responsive answer even when the question was repeated. That is why the president avoids press conferences."

I guess it depends on what the goals of the press conference were. If it was to shore up the base, than probably it worked well enough. If it was to convince those who didn't already agree with the President, than it probably wasn't that successful.

More on the Press Conference of the Century

Maybe you are tired of my commentary on the Press Conference. It's hard to imagine, but it might be possible. Here's some other commentary on it.

"My heart sank when the President said, "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with [an] answer, but it hadn't yet." Has ever a President uttered more demoralizing words in the course of seeking to reassure Americans and the world? ("I am not a crook," maybe.) I wish the President to stand by our troops now in peril on foreign shores. I wish the President to protect us from terrorist attacks at home. I wish the President to preside wisely over a vigorous and free economy and society. I wish the President were able to stand up to the pressures of those jobs. But the President cannot even come up with an answer to a question he said, mere seconds before, he has "oftentimes [thought] about" over the last couple of years: "You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?" The President replied, "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it." And then he then explained about the pressure of press conferences.

Honestly, I was truly astonished to feel so saddened at that moment. I hadn't supposed any appreciable confidence in the President's ability remained in me. But it turns out I am enough of a Pollyanna to have held out some secret hope, at least till then." - Eric Rauchway for Altercation.

"I've just watched the press conference later on C-SPAN. Not only was the transcript encouraging. I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance. I found it Bush at his best. He needs to do it more." - Andrew Sullivan

"To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true. - William Saletan

"Set aside the source for a moment: every word of this [President Bush's assessment of the war on terror] is profoundly true, the importance is the song, not the singer. I honestly don't care all that much about the singer and have many differences with him in other areas. But somehow, someway, this particular man grasped on 9/11 that all of the incidents listed above ARE connected, cannot be addressed piecemeal, cannot be addressed in a defensive mode - as every Western leader and every American president, Republican and Democrat alike, had previously done - and that decisive, resolute, offensive action was the only possible way to win this war, a war we did not seek, and in fact assiduously sought to avoid prior to 9/11.

The question of the moment is, is Iraq a genuine part of this war? It sure as hell is now. As Bush very keenly stated, the key to this war is to stay on the offense, to keep taking the battle to the enemy." - Eric Olsen

That's enough to get you started.

Further selections from President Bush's press conference

"And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it's -- it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on war ever since."

"Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war."

"And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier -- prior to 9/11 the country really wasn't on a war footing."

I'm not exactly sure what President means by us being on a War Footing. Other than the obvious; we declared war on and defeated both Afghanistan and Iraq (although the new government of Afghanistan has little power outside of the capital and there is a very active Iraqi Insurgency). But the homefront isn't really on a War Footing is it?

The only sacrifice the President (well, to be fair, more his advisors and supporters in the right wing media than himself) have asked, is for liberals to sacrifice their voice. Maybe I just don't understand the term "War Footing."

Wait a minute, maybe I was wrong.

I'm afraid I might have been wrong in my assessment of Mr. Bush and his inability to admit to a mistake.

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

. . . I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

He should have just said "This Press conference, maybe." That would have gotton a big laugh. Oh well, I'm glad the President is confident that he is capable of making mistakes, even if he can't think of any examples.

An Exchange from the President's press Conference

Should have pointed this out earlier, but if you missed the press conference or chose not to watch it live (as I did), you can catch it Text and Video at the White House Website. Anyway this exchange piqued my interest.

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

I find myself wondering what, exactly, Mr. Bush thinks would happen if he admitted to a little personal responsibility?

Somewhere in west Asia a young Saudi man sits, thinking. "Hmmmm. I think this terrorism thing is probably not the best way to go. Time to move on and get a real job. Wait a second, what did the President of The Great Satan say? He's admitting a mistake? Oh my. That proves that now is the time to attack."

Two Misstatements

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - Senator John Kerry

"Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and . . ." - President George W. Bush

Commented on the second of these last night, but other than noting it for posterity, didn't have much to say about it. After thinking about it, I have a bit more to say.

The first statement was clearly a boneheaded soundbite that Senator Kerry gave the Republicans. It fuels their suggestions that he's a flip-flopping ninny, and, naturally enough, it found its way into an attack ad almost immediately.

In the second example we all know that President Bush meant to say Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. In the first example, do we all know what Senator Kerry meant? We should, but in case we don't, let me run it down.

Senator Kerry apparently had nothing intrinsically against funding the $87 billion request; he did not, however, see the wisdom in adding to the national deficit when there are things that could be done to offset the $87 billion, such as limited or restructuring the Bush Tax Cuts (those that go to the wealthiest among us). He was willing to sign the bill, and in fact signed the bill with an amendment that would have called for a repeal of some of the Bush Tax Cuts. But of course, this didn't fly. Neither his Republican colleagues nor the White House would consider such an action. So in the end he ended up voting against the $87 billion in a protest vote (presumably he knew that it would pass, I would imagine everybody did).

Now you might disagree with his actions; fine. You might want to put the blame for some of the difficulties our troops are facing on John Kerry (for failing to vote for a bill that passed anyway); certainly the Bush Administration is in favor of that (much preferable to taking responsible for their own failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq). But is that really a flip-flop? Or is just a misstatement? An inelegant phrase?

Hard to say, but if the Bush Campaign has anything to say about it, you'll never even consider what Senator Kerry meant to say, will you?

Interesting revelation in the President's Press Conference

President Bush gave a press conference tonight, as I'm sure you all know, and among other things, he said the following. "Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign minister are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control."

For those of you who do not know, Donald Rumsfeld is, in fact, the Secretary of Defense (unless something has changed that I don't know about. Traditionally the United States has had only one Secretary of State at a time.

Here's the link to MSNBC, although there is a good chance it will be scrubbed eventually.

But, you ask me, what does this mean? In reality not that much. He misspoke; he's done it before, he'll do it again, who cares? But it is gratifying to point out, inasmuch as I'm not enthusiastic about President Bush.

Edited to change Secretary of Defense to Secretary of State above--screwed it up the first time around. I also don't want to give the impression that I think this type of mistake is extremely important. It was something that struck me as amusing when I read it so I posted it. There are reasons why President Bush's misstatements are a bit galling to me, but I've covered that ground before, so won't run over it again now.

A Second Announcement

It has been brought to our attention that, while our position on making attacks on the President verboten is approved, it would be nice and fair minded of us to find some nice things to say about the president. Certainly, we here at Make me a Commentator!!! are concerned about being fair-minded, and so we are going to find some nice things to say about the President.

First of all, we largely approved of the No Child Left behind act, although we were a little disappointed at his decision to underfund it in his proposed budget. We also felt that he gave an exceptional speech directly following September 11th.

We hope this clears up all doubts as to how fair minded we at Make Me a Commentator!!! are.

The Power of the Press Conference

President Bush has called a Press Conference tonight, the third of his term. I would gather that the big three networks as well as the news networks will give him the time. The question is, however, why a prime time Press Conference? If it simply to answer questions raised by Richard Clarke and the September 11th hearings, or to encourage us to stay the course in Iraq, well, I'm not sure what I think about that. It seems like a political use of his office.

On the other hand, perhaps he has a change in our policies in Iraq, in response to what is happening there; if that's the case, than we'll have to see what happens.

The New York Times presents the press conference in strictly political terms, talking about the concern the White House must feel about the upcoming election. " . . . other Republicans close to the White House expressed concern, noting polls that revealed growing questions among Americans about where the nation is heading, a measure that pollsters historically regard as a barometer of trouble for an incumbent. Of particular note, one Republican close to the White House said, were indications that a spate of Bush television advertisements intended to undercut Mr. Kerry had been partly blunted by the distractions of Iraq and the hearings by the independent commission on Sept. 11."

Anyway, I'll be busy watching 24, but I'll catch it on C-SPAN.com or Whitehouse.gov and comment on it. Unless I forget or get bored.

Trash Can Sinatras

The Trash Can Sinatras might be experiencing a comeback, according to PopMatters. Who knows? But since I really like the Trash Can Sinatras, this is great news.

Party Out of Bounds

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Well his program; he wasn't there. The guy they had doing it started hammering on the theory that the September 11 attacks were the fault of Senator John Kerry, Democratic Candidate for President of the United States. Most of this is from an NBC News report, quoted at John Kerry's Website.

In 2001, a man named Brian Sullivan, a former special agent for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), was concerned about security at Logan Airport, Boston. He helped a local TV news program run a story in which he and a fellow agent snuck illicit items on to airplanes. They succeeded 9 out of 10 times.

The news story generated publicity around the problem, and Mr. Sullivan expressed his concerns on the FAA's Hotline. He also sent a letter to John Kerry. John Kerry then passed on the letter to the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, and asked him to look into it.

According to Mr. Sullivan, who instigated this whole story, " I think Senator Kerry did get it to the right people and that they were about to take the right action." We suspect Mr. Sullivan will regret that comment when he gets offers to write about Senator Kerry's culpability for 9/11. He is already changing his tune, according to the New York Post, which quotes him as saying, "He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck"

Now here's where it gets shaky. The question becomes what should Mr. Kerry have done? Launched a full scale congressional investigation? Gone to Logan airport himself to investigate? He got a letter from a constituent, passed it on to the correct people, and put the weight of his office behind it.

There's also the story of Steve Elson, Ex Navy Seal (so naturally he's a specialist in airport security) who tried to force a meeting with Senator Kerry and was rebuffed. The Post quotes him as saying, "Enhanced security would have prevented the hijackings, virtually without question."

I guess that's probably true; the advantage we have now looking at Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Elson is that we know what happened. It's easy enough to look at what happened in light of their warnings. However, the parallel to President Bush does not work exactly. For one thing, Senator Kerry's sphere of influence in this area was pretty limited. The President has considerably more power and, consequently, more responsibility.

I have to say it's also a bit suspicious to me that Mr. Sullivan didn't provide the same letter to the President. And that Mr. Elson only tried to warn Senator Kerry. They just happened to provide this information exclusively to the future Democratic Presidential candidate? The more likely scenario is that Sullivan sent his letter to a bunch of people, but slamming into Kerry now is the best way for him to get his 15 minutes of fame, so that's who he and Mr. Elson and the Post are choosing to focus on.

Article on Taxation

This is interesting.

"Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super rich -- the top 1/100th of 1 percent of Americans.

People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more.

. .. All of these actions reward cheats at the expense of honest taxpayers, but because "tax" is a four letter word in Washington, nothing is done. Those who support tax law enforcement are denounced on the campaign trail as advocates of higher taxes.

While letting rich tax cheats run wild, Congress did finance a crackdown on the poor. The working poor, most of whom make less than $16,000, are eight times more likely to be audited than millionaire investors in partnerships.

The audits of low-income taxpayers found little cheating. Two-thirds of the poor get either their full refund or more than they sought."

The article is here for those who are interested.

Some points of View

What about the Democratic claim that you're playing the spoiler again this year?

The Democrats should stop their whining and go to work. Stop whining. If we all have an equal right to run, no one would use the word "spoiler." If we all have the right to run, everyone's a spoiler. Everyone's trying to get more votes than everyone else. So the use of the word "spoiler" to a third-party candidate is a scarcely veiled designation of second-class citizenship to the candidate. Which of course is what the two parties have always legislated. They want third-party and independent candidates out. They have all kinds of barriers state after state. But that doesn't mean the rest of us should adopt that classification. Especially since in our history some of the greatest reforms were led by third parties: abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, the trade union movement.
- Ralph Nader, Salon Interview.

". . . I don't believe that the best way to do justice to Ralph Nader's legacy is to vote for him for president. Re-electing George Bush would undo everything Ralph Nader has worked for through his entire career and, in fact, could lead to the dismantling of many of his accomplishments.

Voting for Ralph Nader, or for any third-party candidate for president, means a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House. To underscore the danger of voting for any third-party candidate in elections this close, a statistic from the 2000 campaign may prove useful: a total of eight third-party candidates won more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush nationwide."
- Howard Dean, New York Times Editorial Page.

Now cut out the two quotes carefully and tape them to two hermit crabs. Get the hermit crabs to fight. See which one wins. Send in the results of said crab fight here, and then we'll know!

An Announcement

It's been brought to our attention that we are perhaps a little too hard on President Bush. After all, for all his faults and despite the somewhat questionable way he became President, the fact remains that he is our President, and as such perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt more than we have. In this spirit, I am pleased to announce that, for the rest of the week, all criticism of the President will be verboten.

Still, all things considered, you should probably expect to see a lot of verboten.

Holding The Line

William F. Buckley, who is far from a raging liberal (or even a normal liberal) takes the Bush administration to task for holding to their June 30, 2004 date to hand over the reins of power to the Iraqi Governing Council.

"What does appear to be stupid, given our determination to see the venture through, is to stress our commitment to turn over authority to the Iraqi Governing Council on June 30. That is 11 weeks away. The notion that we can stick to that deadline at a moment when three cities in Iraq are in enemy hands, and when a Shiite clerical leader preaching the holy cause of dead Americans is snugly holed up in a mosque surrounded by death-to-the-end bodyguards, defies reason."

I have to say, I've had some of the same questions. But delaying the date to transfer power is problematic as well. It puts the stamp on the failure of the Bush administration to bring peace to the country. It would be an admission on their part that they have failed to plan adequately; and this administration is incapable of admitting mistakes.

Still, I wish they would in this case. Turning "limited sovereignty" to borrow a phrase from Colin Powell at a time when the new government will clearly be reliant on the American military to maintain it's position cannot help but undermine the legitimacy of the new government. Nobody on this side of the world will be calling the new Iraqi Governing Council our puppets; everybody on that side will. We will be committing ourselves to propping the new government up, financially and militarily, which will tie up our armies for quite a long time. Or else we will watch the government we set up fall apart almost immediately as forces who have defined themselves as Anti-American will come in.

Some of you may wonder how an Iraqi could feel negatively towards the United States after we liberated them from Saddam Hussein. Mr. Buckley comments on that as well. "Some are saying in Iraq that life was better even under Saddam Hussein. That should not surprise. The same point could have been made, at certain moments in history, about life under Hitler or Stalin. Many who are suffering at this point in the war did not suffer under Saddam Hussein, and enjoyed such fruits of stability as a tyrant can induce. Anarchy is never, ever preferred over government, however hideous."

Anyway, we'll see what happens in between now and June 30th. It is a bit sad to consider that, potentially, the key factor in determining the future of Iraq is not in the hands of the Iraqi people but in the electoral necessities of the United States.

This is a couple of days old

But that doesn't make it any less true.

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

Also, the Republican Party would like to remind you that if you don't vote for mighty President Bush, Terrorists will get you.

New Quote

Once again we bring you a thrilling new quote. And don't forget to look it up on your Quote Chasers Almanac.

Our Allies

So what about our allies in the War on Terror? Surely they are negligible given the massive military might of the United States. Or are they?

Nicholas Kristof suggests that perhaps they are not.

"Mr. Bush is now recognizing what critics of the Iraq war pointed out from the beginning: We could win the initial invasion on our own, but to win the peace we need allies. The administration's ham-handed diplomacy has left the American troops in Falluja dangerously alone and exposed.

Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, will almost certainly be pulling the 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq over the next few months. Ninety percent of Spaniards are against the Iraq war, and U.S. pronouncements about progress in Iraq have the same credibility as the cheery bombast of Saddam's last information minister."

The article covers the situation on the ground in Spain, that country we are all due to hate this summer. 90% of Spaniards are against the Iraq war, so you'd think in a democracy that'd be enough. But what you forget is that while America is fine here in the US, other nations should basically do what we say.

Wal-Mart and the Road to Serfdom

Rich Lowry writes an article defending Wal-Mart and suggesting that the Market will eventually take care of any miniscule problems Wal-Mart might cause.

He defends Wal-Mart the same way he defends President Bush; by suggesting that any disdain for Wal-Mart springs from irrational hatred, rather than from anything specific Wal-Mart has done. When he finally gets around to one of the biggest complaints about Wal-Mart (the effect it has on small businesses), he disposes of it with a comparison to FAO Schwarz and this line. "Yes, the killer store snuffs out charming local retailers, but most consumers simply value convenience and low prices more than charm."

Funny how often American jobs can be written off as negligible, but then all the people who don't have jobs are lazy and immoral.

It also highlights another interesting paradox in Conservative Ideology. Conservatives argue quite passionately that smaller government and local government is better. In other words, the political decisions for your community are best made in your community, by people who know your community and live in your community.

On the other hand, economic decisions in your community (a word I apparently never tire of) are best made by people who do not live in your community but live wherever the headquarters of a large corporation is. Corporations make the call as to how much people make in your community, whether or not people have health care and so on and so forth. Conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, are maniacally pro-corporation, and lukewarm at best towards small business.

Of course I'm not calling for any form of socialism; but it is an interesting contrast in attitudes. Of course one need hardly point out that your local mayor or city council has little to no power to take on Wal-Mart or any other corporation.

Just something to think about.

Your Weekly Rush; Maybe I Spoke too Soon

Last week I wrote an article on the unique world view of the Limbaugh Conservative, in which I commented that, among other things, Limbaugh Conservatives have total disdain for the moderate or centrist. I then foolishly commented something to the effect that Rush would obviously downplay his attacks on moderates in an election year.

You know sometimes we bloggers don't get everything right, and I just want to take a moment to apologize for incorrectly assessing Rush Limbaugh's temperament. As it turns out, yesterday he did take the opportunity to slam into moderates.

"This confirms what I've always said. You independents and moderates are a bunch of frauds. You're probably the ones buying Clarke's book."

So you see, anybody who is not already in the conservative camp, you might as well join us Democrats and Liberals. I mean Rush doesn't want you. Certainly anybody interested in what Richard Clarke, a man who was Terrorism Czar for many years, has to say is not welcome in the party of Rush Limbaugh. How I wish President Bush would invite Rush to express this unique viewpoint at the Republican Convention.

But I suppose that's not very likely.

Round the Horn

Corrente has two interesting pieces. One covers another of President Bush's flip-flops, the other involves the 9/11 Widows and Condoleeza Rice.

Kick the Leftist has a truly surreal tale from President Bush's time on the fundraising trail.

Mercury X23 discusses a recent article by Robert Reich on what a second term for President Bush is going to go.

Musing's Musings is covering another President Bush flip-flop, this one concerning our attitude towards that most hated of nations; France. Didn't Richard Perle and David Frum suggest we treat France as functional enemies?

Trish Wilson (of Trish Wilson's Blog fame) has a reaction to the news that increasing worker productivity may be great for management, but might not translate so well down to the workers.

The Fulcrum has an analysis of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's grasp of reality. It's not really that comforting.

Collective Sigh does a brief, but seemingly complete, overview of our plans in Iraq. Hard to believe it hasn't worked out.

The Invisible Library has a very interesting comparison between 1904 and our current year (which, in case you hadn't known, is 2004). I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's worth checking out.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has a great little bit on everybody's favorite Supreme Court Justice, Atonin Scalia.

Enjoy.

Earlier this week, I referenced an article by Thomas Friedman to make some comments on NAFTA and our relationship with Mexico.

We now have some additional comments on this subject by Conrad for your reading pleasure.

"Hmm.

You know, I'm not sure that Mexico actually belongs in a "North American community" that includes only it, the US, and Canada. It would be like one of those "which one doesn't fit" puzzles.

I'll admit freely that I'm not basing this on a deep, educated understanding of economics or foreign policy... just sort of a notion, and I'd be interested in seeing someone else logically defeat my argument here. Or to back me up using actual facts as opposed to broad generalizations.

But, Mexico has very little in common with the US and Canada, while the latter two have much in common with each other.

1. Culture. Although Canada and the US are very diverse countries, the mainstream culture is Anglo. That's why in geography we call them Anglo America as differentiated from Latin Aerica. I'm not saying that Canada and the US are culturally identical; just that when compared to each other they are much more similar than when compared to Mexico.

2. Economics. Canada and the US are rich. Mexico is poor. Easy one.

3. Political Stability. The US and Canada are, and they have been consistently for a long time. Mexico is less so.

I'm sure there are other reasons. I just can't imagine any kind of "community" involving just those three countries that involves an equal relationship of any kind. On the other hand, I can imagine many kinds of "communities" in which Mexico gets exploited.

This whole thing seems like a jealous, keep-up-with-the-joneses kind of reaction to the EU. HYowever, it seems to me like European countries, their individual senses of national and cultural identity notwithstanding, really are mostly very similar to each other, or at least taken together they form some kind of continuous cultural/political/economic spectrum.

Mexico is just so jarringly different from the US and Canada and so much more like the rest of Latin America. It seems like all we really have in common with Mexico is that we're on the same continent and we border each
other.

In Case You are Wondering

You're not paranoid. Pretty much everybody is out to screw you.

For those interested in the Truth

We Salute you.

Dr. Rice gave testimony today before the 9/11 committee. Presumably some of you watched it on TV. The Center for American Progress has provided a fact check on some of Dr. Rice's statements.

Thanks to This Modern World.

Arianna Huffington Writes the Most Linked To Column Ever

Well maybe not, but she does write an article about how great bloggers are. She doesn't reference this site specifically, but it's implied that we are great.

"I also love the open nature of the form -- the links, the research made visible, the democratic back and forth, the open archives, the big professorial messiness of it all. It reminds me of my schoolgirl days when providing the right answer wasn't enough for our teachers -- they demanded that we "show our work." Bloggers definitely show their work. It's why you don't just read blogs -- you experience them.

All of which has made the blogosphere such a vital news source in our country -- and has made me besotted with blogs. It's a crush that I'm betting will quickly progress to going steady."

Anyway these are good days to blog around.

Ann Coulter tackles the tough subjects

In her ongoing quest to personally make every Liberal get down on their knees and cry, Ann Coulter goes after some very relevant figures in today's article; Neville Chamberlain and James Earl Carter.

Thank goodness someone finally exposed the flaws of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement process.

But, of course, we are meant to believe that modern Democrats would appease the Terrorists, just like Chamberlain when he kept allowing Hitler to claim larger and larger portions of land to appease him. I'm not sure what is meant by appease the terrorists; what exactly are we supposed to give them to appease them?

If it's a pullout of Iraq, frankly I think it more likely that President Bush will give them that, for domestic political reasons (He's got to be able to pretend like Iraq was a success before the election. I'm not saying it won't end up as a success, President Kerry could make it happen. But I don't think it will become a success based on an arbitrary timeline imposed by an election).

This is a deception being practiced by those on the Right. There is President Bush's plan or there is capitulation to the Terrorists. Those are you choices in November. You can vote for President Bush's plan to fight the terrorists or President Kerry's plan to capitulate to the terrorists. Given that choice, it seems easy doesn't it?

But of course it's based on lies. Senator Kerry also plans to fight terrorists and defend America. He does not plan on surrendering to the terrorists; he plans on defeating them. Read on down to the next article to get a sense of what he's actually saying.

Anyway all of this is based on Sean Hannity's latest book "Deliver us from Evil." Here's an interesting review / commentary on the book and Sean Hannity himself.

A Few Words from John F. Kerry

As the spring and summer wear on, look for more quotes from John F. Kerry, in a new continuing series sort of thingy.

The right wing is furiously trying to turn Kerry into a pacifist, but, as we all know, it's somewhat of a distortion. Here's a sample of how he actually looks at the War on Terror.

"As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future."

Yeah, that sounds like Kerry is ready to surrender at the drop of a hat.

Maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a great idea after all.

Good article by Jessica Stern over at Salon (you may have to watch a brief ad to read the article). She concludes with these chilling sentences.

"The war in Iraq has split the allies, not the terrorists. It has turned Iraq into a Mecca for international terrorists, and mobilized local Shiite and Salafi jihadist groups that had previously posed a minimal threat. It has facilitated connections between terrorists and those with formal military experience in Saddam's army, the lethal nightmare that the invasion was supposed to have thwarted. Antipathy toward the United States, not only in Iraq and throughout the entire Islamic world, but in Europe as well, has become a dangerous trend exploited by terrorists. Even as we tout our successes in rounding up al-Qaida terrorists, the broader movement inspired by bin Laden and ignited by the invasion of Iraq is recruiting new nihilist minions throughout the world. The war in Iraq has not only been a distraction from the war on terrorism; it has strengthened our enemies in ways that continue to surprise and horrify us."

It need hardly be mentioned that the Bush administration cannot and will not admit any error in invading Iraq and their future foreign policy, should they win a second term, will presumably involve invading Syria and Iran.

Tax Info

As Tax Season is fast upon us, I thought I'd share another tidbit from the Charitable Contributions Booklet referenced below.

On the list of items not decuctible as a charitable contribution is listed the "Value of blood given to a blood bank."

Which means, you know, somebody tried it.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator

In his latest foray into the unknown, Shapiro takes on the wacky study of Scientology. First of all he assures us that Scientology isn't a real religion the way Christianity or Judaism are, in the traditional way; he makes fun of their beliefs.

He then reveals the shocking truth; Scientoligists, despite being a weird religion, get to deduct their donations. Of course he's careful to obsuficate this matter so he can get to his real beef; Christians and Jews do not get to deduct contributions to religious schools. You see Scientoligists get to deduct their religious contributions, which are often payments for spiritual services they believe they require. On the other hand, Christians and Jews who want to send their kids to a private school do not get to deduct their tuition.

He references a secret deal in 1993 (which is so secret he knows all about it, but fails to provide any link to or information on), but this strikes me as open and shut. Looking at this Charitable Contributions booklet the IRS puts out, Scientology donations are covered as donations to a religion (defined in the booklet as Money or property you give to Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and other religious organizations).

On the other hand, schools fail in two areas. First of all, as most schools are run to make a profit, they are, in the words of the IRS, groups that are run for personal profit. Also the IRS specifically forbids counting Tuition as a charitable contribution.

One might also point out that the Donations made to the Scientologists are necessary in order to achieve their version of enlightenment / salvation (in the same sense that the tithes and offerings many Christians give are a part of their religious experience). I don't know of any Christian or Jewish Sect that teaches one must go to a specific version of grade school in order to be saved. But if one existed, that might strengthen Shapiro's case.

Much of Shapiro's case rests on comparing these religious donations to tuition, and saying that Christians get a bum deal because they have to pay tuition. He states that liberals will oppose this on the basis of Church and State; but simple fairness might be a stronger argument. After all, tuition given to non religions primary and secondary private schools will continue to be non-deductible, won't it? So that might be a better argument to make.

Remember Afghanistan? CGEORC does.

It was the country we invaded before Iraq, but we've stopped caring about it because, frankly, Iraq is a lot easier to spell. But it turns out our policy of not really caring about Afghanistan may have a downside, according to an article in the New Yorker.

"A year and a half later, the Taliban are still a force in many parts of Afghanistan, and the country continues to provide safe haven for members of Al Qaeda. American troops, more than ten thousand of whom remain, are heavily deployed in the mountainous areas near Pakistan, still hunting for Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. Hamid Karzai, the U.S.-backed President, exercises little political control outside Kabul and is struggling to undercut the authority of local warlords, who effectively control the provinces. Heroin production is soaring, and, outside of Kabul and a few other cities, people are terrorized by violence and crime. A new report by the United Nations Development Program, made public on the eve of last week’s international conference, in Berlin, on aid to Afghanistan, stated that the nation is in danger of once again becoming a “terrorist breeding ground” unless there is a significant increase in development aid."

The article is about how the invasion of Afghanistan was compromised by the Bush Administrations determination to shift the focus over to Iraq, and makes several references to Richard Clark and his book. It's worth reading.

Behind the Scenes

Just to give you an idea of what happens around here behind the scenes, here's a selection of stories I am looking at to post on.

- Got an e-mail from Caleb referencing an AP story that commented on the popularity of the Passion in the Middle East. Nice to see there is one thing that Muslims and Conservative Christians agree on.

- Also an article by Dennis Prager on why Christians don't become Suicide Bombers. He ducks the issue of Domestic Terrorism, much of which is pursued in the name of Christianity; to be fair, most domestic terrorists choose not to kill themselves along with their victims.

There's this quote from the Prager Article, that I could probably do something with, "There is Palestinian terror for the same reasons there is Muslim terror elsewhere. A significant part of the Muslim world wishes to destroy those non-Muslims -- Americans, Israelis, Filipinos, Nigerians, Sudanese blacks -- who prevent Islam from violently attaining power."

- Joel Mowbray takes on CAIR in his latest article. Apparently CAIR regrets the mistreatment of the bodies of those mercenaries, but not the deaths themselves, which, I have to admit, is a questionable position. On the other hand, Mowbray continues to obsuficate the actual nature of what these mercenaries were doing, describing them simply as Americans.

- There must be some way to tie these stories together; but they are all potential landmines (well, except Dennis Prager's which is clearly down on Muslims, despite his crocodile tears over how "good Muslims" must look. Certainly, it would be odd to go from defending Muslims against Prager in one paragraph, and in the next using them to comment on the possible anti-Semitism of "The Passion."

- Joel Mowbray's article is also problematic because it hinges on one factual question; are we at war with Iraqi resistance groups or not? Or are they simple terrorists? It's a tricky question, although I could probably do something with the idea that Conservative Commentators want it both ways. They want to remind us we are at war so we'll vote for President Bush on Monday and then they want us to see the war as over so they can portray our enemies as terrorists instead of soldiers on Tuesday.

- I'm note sure all these threads can fit together cleanly; maybe some sort of gimmicky technique to tie them all together? I know I'll pretend to write a behind the scenes column showing how I put my ideas together. That will save me the time of having to actually put them together.

Super NAFTA

I'm generally in favor of Free Trade, while hoping that we can address some of the problems it causes, both here and abroad, (instead of the conservative strategy of ignoring them or denying them). Thomas Friedman who is also in favor of Free Trade, but who favors the denial strategy for dealing with problems, talked about Mexico in a recent article for the New York Times. He has some suggestions on how we should help Mexico.

"Which is why it's time to start thinking out of the box - or maybe into a bigger box. "This situation doesn't have to end in crisis, but it will if Mexico, the U.S. and Canada fail to act," says Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and author of "Toward a North American Community."

Mr. Pastor has proposed a way out - deeper integration. Canada, Mexico and America have to go beyond Nafta and start building "a North American Community" - which addresses continental issues, from transportation to terrorism, in a wider framework. Among other things, Mr. Pastor proposes that the U.S., Canada and Mexico establish a North America investment fund, which, over 10 years, will invest in roads, telecommunications and post-secondary education in Mexico. (Amazingly, there is no highway today that runs directly from resource-rich southern Mexico to the U.S. border. You have to go through clogged Mexico City.) When the European Union brought in the poorer countries of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, it didn't just tell them, "O.K., now you're in our free-trade zone, let the market rip." The E.U. invested big, big money in roads and education in the four new states and narrowed their income gap with the rest of Europe, giving their workers an incentive to stay home."

To be fair there is a lot of positives in this statement. The problem, however, is that Mr. Friedman is not really talking about a partnership relationship. The relationship between the United States and Mexico would probably be a bit a bit more like Teacher / Pupil. The United States, particularly under President Bush's Administration, has little to no desire to treat Mexico like an equal partner (A big part of President Bush's world view is that other nations do what we tell them, not we listen to other nations).

So while there are elements to this idea I like (certainly Mexico could use some investments in "roads, telecommunications and post-secondary education"), I'm not sure it would really work in the long run, unless we had a change in how the United States dealt with other nations.

I Can't Remember What Happened Five Minutes Ago

Oh wait I can remember what has happened in the past. Remembering what happened in the past is a key skill when you're an unpaid internet commentator (like me). It helps me detect the flaw in this argument from Paul Crespo in his latest article. "As Kirk Victor of the National Journal magazine noted, "Kerry's Democratic rivals never seriously attacked him, allowing him to emerge virtually unscathed with the nomination."

One way to present a thoroughly ridiculous argument is to put it in the mouth of a third party, as Crespo does here. Another key point is that most people, apparently, didn't pay any attention to the Democratic Primary, so they won't realize that in fact Kerry was attacked pretty repeatedly. Now granted, Dean got more of the brunt of attacks, but that doesn't mean that Kerry was ignored.

The rest of the article is the standard Conservative story of Kerry. He's not really a war hero, he protested the war and shook hands with Jane Fonda, he cussed out his secret security agent for tripping him. Same old, same old. I really don't think replaying the sixties automatically leads to victory for the Conservatives as they seem to. And I've dealt with the incident on the slopes before.

And in conclusion let me just say this; Daylight Savings Sucks.

Daily Kos Scandal

I haven't much commented on this, because I came to the table late, but for those who are interested, here is a very good rundown.

A briefer rundown is this; A poster at the Daily Kos posted the following in the comments section of a post reacting to the tragic deaths in Fallujah.

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Right wing bloggers went predictably nuts, left wing bloggers condemned The Daily Kos, John Kerry delinked the website from his website (delink is a very inelegant term, I have to say). The author of the post quoted above explained it (very eloquently, I might add). Atrios has stated that this incident has forced some changes at his website.

Two comments. I posted something not entirely dissimilar at my website, although I used much softer language. It is more of a tragedy that we have lost so many troops than that we lost these four. If they had been aid workers that would be different; and I'm not saying that negates the tragedy.

It also bears noting that the reason the right wing feels comfy getting all aggressive on us is that we feel shame.

Liberals feel shame when we screw up, and the right wing knows that.

So the right wing loves the opportunity to ask us to defend or attack a fellow liberal. In that sense they isolate us. "Well you are an ok guy; I just wish other liberals were more like you instead of the hateful evil deceitful cementheads they are." And because sometimes our fellow liberals do say things or do things that we don't approve of, and because we feel shame, the technique works.

In other words, Limbaugh Republicans feel comfortable suggesting that the "Daily Kos" is representative of all liberals and Ann Coulter is just one person who does not reflect on all Conservatives. Which is funny when you think about it, because those who are on the Liberal side of the fence are far more ideologically diverse compared to those on the Conservative side.

At any rate I don't intend to Delink from the Daily Kos, in case anybody is wondering.

New Quotes

And a new Quotes Page.

More Eye Candy - Four Aces

Going through some old artifacts of my past to make more room for useless junk. Came across my dutch playing cards, so I'm putting up a scan of the four aces.



If you want to see the cards even bigger to appreciate the artwork and cross hatching (I don't know what that is, so it's possible that it doesn't exist on these cards), here's a bigger version.

Conservatives great Strength

I was reading Clyde Haberman's article on the new liberal Radio Network, referenced below, and he said something I've often thought and probably have commented on.

"Conservatives are particularly effective at complaining that - despite control of the White House, both houses of Congress, many statehouses, influential magazines and newspapers, Fox News and popular talk shows led by the likes of Mr. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Joe Scarborough - they are practically voiceless."

He's not wrong.

The Library of Congress

I'm a big proponent of taking your money (in the form of taxes) and spending it on preserving our natural heritage. So naturally I'm a fan of the Library of Congress. But being the generous person I am, I'd also like to point out to you that there's this website, called The American Memory that is really cool, and is part of the Library of Congress. Well worth checking out.

And in that spirit, here's my little quiz for the day. Below are five pictures from the American Memory site, taken somewhere between 1880 and 1910, I think, from five well known American Cities. The cities are Los Angeles, El Paso, Boston, Atlantic City, and New York. Can you match up the city to the picture taken over a hundred years ago (maybe)? Answers will be in the comments section below. Enjoy!

For those Interested

I had 1,155 hits last month (March).

Of those hits, 24 were from parts unknown.

Of those counties who had posters, the USA came in first 1,069 hits.

Canada came in second with 20.

Great Britain came in third with 12.

Israel came in fourth with 6.

Australia and Germany tied for fifth with 3

France, Egypt, Netherlands, and Malaysia came in sixth with 2.

And coming in 7th we have Saint Kitts and Nevis, Russian Federation, Philippines, Japan, Libya, Finland, India, Sweden, Italy, and Singapore with one hit a piece.

I do find myself what someone from Malaysia or Egypt or India or Finland thinks of this page. So if you see this post and want to tell me, use the comment button down at the bottom.

Also, for those of you in, say the Russian Federation or Saint Kitts, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to move your nation up the list. Why by just looking at the website once a week, you cold have crushed Australia and Germany. This is a sport that all nations of the world can excel in. So look at my website, and make your country proud.

I Take My Stand

I am generally in favor of recycling. I don't do very much of it, but I think it's a good idea, and we should all get behind it. And buying recycled products is a good idea. But there are some recycled products that suck.

You know those bubble envelopes that protect cds and stuff you might want to send to one another? Well, they have a recycled version of it; which is filled with crumpled bits of paper to cushion whatever you might want to cushion. When you rip the envelope open, however, those little bits of paper go every where. Like, say, all over my car. So that's one area of recycling that I'm opposed to.

I am in favor of recycling lyrics to old songs, and on that note, here are the lyrics to the great Buffalo Springfield song "Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing."

Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing

Who's that stomping all over my face?
Where's that silhouette I'm trying to trace?
Who's putting sponge in the bells I once rung
And taking my gypsy before she's begun
To singing the meaning of what's in my mind
Before I can take home what's rightfully mine.
Joinin' and listenin' and talkin' in rhymes
Stoppin' the feeling to wait for the times.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.

And who's all hung-up on that happiness thing?
Who's trying to tune all the bells that he rings?
And who's in the corner and down on the floor
With pencil and paper just counting the score?
And who's trying to act like he's just in between?
The line isn't black, if you know that it's green.
Don't bother looking, you're too blind to see
Who's coming on like he wanted to be.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.

And who's coming home on the old nine-to-five?
Who's got the feeling that he came alive,
Though havin' it, sharin' it ain't quite the same
It ain't no gold nugget, you can't lay a claim
Who's seeing eyes through the crack in the floor
There it is baby, don't you worry no more
Who should be sleepin', but is writing this song
Wishin' and a-hopin' he weren't so damned wrong.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.



Have a nice day.

Round the Horn

It's time for another trip around the horn

blogAmy has two things of note; Beatnik Rumsfeld and a truly bizarre quote from President Bush. The Bush Administration, changing perceptions since 2001.

Edward Pig has a report on what the Bush Administration was focused on before terrorism, and he also does a good job of putting it into perspective.

Dohiyi Mir broke a huge story this week, one that is doubtless going to be of great comfort to the White House.

Iddybud has a response to former President George H. W. Bush's comments on how it effects him emotionally to see his son criticized.

And Then . . . reminds us all of the Plame Scandal which some of us might have forgotten. He also has a really solid listing of scandals in the Bush Administration.

Archy comments on the condescension of the Bush Administration in letting Condaleeza Rice testify.

For those interested in information on the Jew, here's a website. This is what's called a Google Bomb, and I'm not sure about the origin of the term. But apparently the first website in Google that pops up if you type in the word "Jew" is an anti Semitic site, and it would be better if the first site were a more legitimate site. Anyway this story comes via Rubber Hose via Normblog.

Bloggg reveals that this month is National Autism month, and provides links so you can find more about this issue should you chose to.

Sooner Thought has an uplifting story about how John Kerry is confounding democratic fundraising expectations by raising a lot of money. I hope that translates into putting his ads refuting the Bush campaigns deceptive ads into more markets.

Enjoy.

Club America Salutes You

Listening to Air America right now, the Randi Rhodes show which so far is the pick of the litter in my mind. She's cool. But I also enjoyed the O'Franken Factor, or those bits that I heard. And Unfiltered is pretty good as well.

Here's the website.

Oh, I forgot about the Majority Report, staring Jeneane Garofalo and Sam Seder. They also have a weblog.

A Rational Irrationality

My text today is suggested by this phrase in Ross McKenzie's latest article. McKenzie is relating the conditions in the upcoming election, and among others he suggests the following:

"Among Democrats, a venomous hostility - a meanness - toward Bush rarely seen toward any president."

The sort of sentiment is widely asserted across the right wing; that our desire to remove President Bush from office is born of an irrational hatred and it is the sort of hatred never before seen in modern times.

You have to assume they don't remember the 1990s and they're hoping we don't remember them either.

For example, in the 1990s I remember President Clinton being accused of murdering Vince Foster and many others (the infamous Clinton Body Count). I remember the Right Wing press jumping all over that case and pushing it aggressively. I don't remember liberals accusing President Bush of rubbing anybody out.

I remember the Right Wing slamming into Chelsea Clinton a number of times. I particularly remember that funny bit Rush Limbaugh did on his lousy television show about the First Cat and the First Dog. I don't remember anybody on the liberal side who has played such crude shenanigans with President Bush's family.

Of course some of you might say, "Well, is Rush Limbaugh really representative of what Republicans / Conservatives are all about? Be fair Bryant." OK. Let's be fair.

The Republican party currently has four branches (Well it probably has more, but for simplicity's sake). Call them the Religious Right, the Libertarians, the Classical Conservatives, and the Limbaugh Conservatives/Neo-Conservatives. These categories aren't mutually exclusive, of course. In particular, there's a lot of the Religious Right who are also Limbaugh Conservatives.

I generally have no problem with Classical Conservatives or Libertarians; I don't often agree with their philosophies but I think they have a lot to say. More to the point, these sort of conservatives do not as often stoop to the same sort of tactics as the Limbaugh Conservatives/Neo-Conservatives. You can, in general, talk to them.

The Religious Right and the Limbaugh Conservatives, however, are another matter. A key point in understanding the Limbaugh Conservatives is that they not only believe that they are right (both in the moral sense and in the practical sense) the believe that they are obviously right. Anybody who takes the time to study the issues and try to understand what's going on will, barring some outside influence, come to the same conclusions that they do. Or to put it another way, if a person disagrees with their interpretation of events, there must be some reason for it beyond a simple disagreement. A liberal isn't just a guy or gal who sees things differently, but is someone who is willfully choosing the wrong answer. Maybe it's because the Liberal is crazy or a dupe or is a sophist hoping to gain some kind of power by promoting a wrong (again, both morally and practically) philosophy.

Because the Limbaugh Conservative's viewpoints are correct, and liberal viewpoints (or frankly any viewpoints that disagree with theirs) are so clearly wrong, there can be no real compromise. Witness Rush Limbaugh's jokes, back in the day, about how Liberals would become so rare we would need to keep one or two around in Zoos so we don't forget how bad liberalism really was. Note also Rush's constant beration of Centrist Republicans. He used to often say that there was little to no difference between a moderate and a far leftist (he's moved off this subject, it being an election year and all). Which makes sense, when you think about it. If there is only one correct answer, than all the other answers are wrong. It's just that some wrong answers are obviously wrong, and other wrong answers are more disguised.

To be fair there are plenty on the liberal side of the fence who feel this way as well (particularly, for example, academic liberals), but they haven't coalesced into a power within the party the way Limbaugh and his followers have.

So it's understandable why they see our dislike of President Bush's policies as irrational. They have to see it that way, because their own opinions on him are so self evidently correct. Any moral, rational person would have to come to the same conclusions they have (President Bush has done good by tax cuts and in protecting America, but hasn't done as well at shutting down liberal programs or closing our borders to immigration). If Liberals have come to a different conclusion it must be that we are irrational.

Incidentally, it's clear that the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party has a lot of influence in the White House. You need look no further than Vice President Cheney's willingness to give up a half hour of his valuable time to appear on Rush's show. They presumably know that they need to keep Limbaugh Republicans happy in order to win in November. Given the Administrations handling of Foreign Policy, however, I wouldn't be surprised if this way of thinking were not somewhat common in the Bush White House.

Which I suppose is another irrational reason to dislike President Bush.

I don't really know what to do with this

In Fallujah, Iraq, today, five soldiers and four civilians were killed. The Soldiers were killed when their vehicle ran over a bomb some 12 miles to the northwest of Fallujah. And the four civilians were killed in an attack on their SUV's. This sort of thing happens all the time in Iraq, so why does this get special treatment? Because the citizens of Fallujah, according to MSNBC, "After ambushing the vehicle carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.

That's going to provide plenty of footage and pictures for both sides to use.

The left gets to comment that these attacks wouldn't have happened if President Bush hadn't put us in Iraq. Some on the left will also comment that our sorrow over these three or four American civilians will be much much greater than our sorrow for Iraqi civilians dead.

The right gets to use this to demonize the Iraqi resistance (not too hard a feat considering) and, by extension, all those who oppose President Bush's programs.

The whole thing makes me sick to me sick to my stomach.

That they died is bad ; but, frankly those are the risks they take (speaking of the Civilian Contractors). Presumably they felt they'd be compensated for the risk they were incurring. From the MSNBC story - "Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said at a briefing in Baghdad that it was not known what the coalition contractors were doing in Fallujah - apparently without a military escort - when the attack occurred." So we don't know what they were doing, but one can assume they didn't go to Fallujah on a whim.

What's worse is the mutilation of the bodies, which is already being compared to what happened on Mogadishu. We all remember Mogadishu, when President Clinton cut and run, which the Right has always portrayed as proof to the Middle East that we are a weak nation. So this action makes it more likely that we will stay in Iraq; there will probably also be calls to pacify Fallujah.

And of course there were five American soldiers who died as well. Unlike the civilians they didn't have a choice about being there. And they don't have much hope of coming out of this situation with the kind of compensation that the civilian contractors would have presumably recieved. It's sad that such events have become unremarkable.

Anyway I wish those familes of the deceased well.

The People's Republic of Kathleen Parker

First of all, allow me to provide a little background. Kerry, skiing in Idaho, apparently fell down and cussed out his secret service agent (calling him a "son of a bitch") who he felt was to blame. It's hard to say more about this story because most of the references I find to it are from conservative bloggists and commentators (like Kathleen Parker), and I suspect their interpretation may be biased.

Here's how the New York Times Reported it (and, remember dear readers, I had to spend $2.95 to get access to this article so you'd better appreciate it!)

"His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis -- just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, ''I don't fall down,'' then used an expletive to describe the agent who ''knocked me over.''

This is the defining moment of the Kerry Campaign, according to many right wing columnists (like Kathleen Parker). In her latest column, she compares Senator Kerry to a 7-year old. Of course she leaves out most of the context (even the little bit of context provided by the New York times). For example, she leaves out the bit where the secret service agent actually knocked him down. She also didn't spend a lot of time contemplating what it's like to fall down in the snow while skiing and have reporters immediately running over to ask for a comment.

She then goes on to fault his choice of leisure activity. "Then you catch Kerry, who shouldn't need to prove his manhood - he served in Vietnam, you know - engaging in preppy sports that require resorts and expensive equipment: skiing, snowboarding, windsurfing. Not exactly the populist sports of choice.

Can't the man shoot hoops? Or toss a football while, say, not skiing in Aspen? Catch much?"

There are a lot of skiers in America; all they all preppy wimps? Particularly in northern states like, say, Massachusetts, skiing is a popular activity. And the man was on vacation, wasn't he? After a grueling primary season, he was taking a couple of days off. President Bush, as we all know, understands the value of a vacation; why don't you, Ms. Parker?

Tony Blankely comments on this issue as well, but uses it to springboard into his request, nay, requirement, that Senator Kerry release his medical files.

"In the murky background, national tabloid papers speculate that he may be a victim of more embarrassing diseases. Such nasty rumors are commonplace in American politics (and inevitably have their effects), but they are fueled by candidates who refuse to release all their medical records -- as Mr. Kerry refuses. The limited, general, uncorroborated statements by his personal physician, Dr. Gerald J. Doyle of Boston, only keep the controversy on a slow simmer. The doctor said that "there was no evidence of metastic disease" and that Mr. Kerry's heart function "was above average for a man his age." Is that really the best his helpful doctor could offer up?"

Kind of a tricky technique there, isn't it? Without asserting anything specific, Blankley says a lot. In case you don't get it he's accusing President Kerry of having a Sexually Transmitted Disease while maintaining plausible deniability. Let me give you a parallel version.

"Well it's obviously unfortunate that tabloid papers could write speculative pieces on Mr. Blankley's continual private and ritualistic worship of Pan, the Goat God, despite his professed Christianity. Really the only way to put these rumors to rest is for Mr. Blankley to install security cameras and connect them to the web so that we can watch his house 24 hours a day."

See? Simple. And it works on anybody, because as we all know, tabloid papers will print anything.

Still slamming into Kerry on Health Issues may not earn Blankley any gold stars from the White House. David Talbot of Salon interviewed former Watergate Alumnus John Dean on the Bush Administration's need for secrecy. Among other things, Mr. Dean states, "I would add to the list Cheney's outrageous stonewalling about his health, which we know is bad, notwithstanding his effort to keep the details secret. The Congress lets Cheney do anything he wants because Republicans control it, and Cheney is their heavy in the White House for getting things done. Cheney, so long as Republicans control, will not have to answer, but should we return to divided government in 2004 or 2006 and Cheney is still in the White House, that will end.

There has never been a vice president -- ever (and even including Spiro Agnew who was Nixon's) -- who needed to be investigated more than Cheney. Nor has there ever been such a secretive vice president. Dick Cheney is the power behind the Bush throne. Frankly, I am baffled why the mainstream news media has given Cheney (not to mention Bush) a free ride. I don't know if it is generational, or corporate ownership, or political bias, but it is clear that Cheney has been given a pass by the major news organizations."

The interview is quite good, although you do need to watch an ad to read it.

CGEORC Strikes Back!

This time in an actual review of Mr. Clarke's book. Most people are focusing on his attacks on the administration (including your humble narrator), but there's more to "Against All Enemies" than just slamming the Bush Administration.

Christopher Dicky reviews the book and makes some interesting comments on President Bush's Neo-Conservative advisors and recent events in Isreal.

"Some of their common analysis is useful: the West must show more resolve, more unity, and less hesitation to act against clearly defined threats. Nothing to argue with there. But their absolutist approach refuses to consider the real grievances that help terrorists recruit. Even to raise the issue is portrayed as a lack of moral clarity. The only way to deal with people who are on the other side is to break their will, humiliate them, vilify them, even if that means subjecting whole societies to occupation and repression, first in the name of self-defense and then, curiously, in the name of freedom. This only makes sense over the long term if you think you can keep a lid on those societies indefinitely, or have the money and skills and manpower and blood to transform them completely. Or, if you believe as Netanyahu claims, that "in many regions of the world, especially the Middle East, anger precedes respect."

As a matter of obvious fact, anger begets more anger, more violence, more "inexorable, built-in escalation." Most Israelis understand that, which is why many have had second thoughts, and mounting concerns, since the Sharon government blew the spiritual leader of Hamas to smithereens last week. Will the killing of a septuagenarian paraplegic make anyone safer? Will it disrupt Hamas terrorism? Will it intimidate other Hamas leaders? Not likely. But the rage that followed made Gaza that much harder for any moderate force to govern."

For those of you who haven't acquired the book (like me), or are unable to purchase it, Dickey's article does give a pretty good overview. So go read it.

Krugman verses CGEORC!

Paul Krugman's latest editorial finds him swept up in the unholy power of CGEORC (Cant Get Enough Of Richard Clark)Syndrome. Let's see what happens.

"The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Well, what can I add to that? Except that you should go read the entire article.

Incidently, I don't want anybody to mistake my enthusiasm for the acronym CGEORC for a lack of interest in the story or in Richard Clarke. On the contrary, I am just as enthralled by the buffoonishbehaviorr of the Bush White House in their attacks on Mr. Clarke as anybody.

Here Comes CGEORC!

The Bush administration and their allies in the Conservative Media have spent a week trying to tarnish Richard Clarke, but up until now haven't really put forward their version of events. So now we have Mr. Rich Lowry stepping forward to clear up the facts of the case.

Clarke assertion #1. The Bush administration paid little attention to warnings of al-Queada and took a long time to commit to a strategy

Rich Lowry's Response. "But policy-making takes time. The Clinton administration's Presidential Decision Directive 39 identified terrorism as a national security concern, and was "signed in June 1995 after at least a year of interagency consultation and coordination." At least a year."

My Response. So you accept the facts as stated, but complain that the placing of blame for a failure to act is wrongheaded. Interesting that you hold up the Clinton administration as a standard for the Bush administration to live up to.

Clarke Assertion #2. The Clinton Administration was more open to suggestions on how to fight Terrorism.

Rich Lowry's Response. "He [Clarke] circulated among Clinton officials an anti-al-Qaida plan in September 1998. "This strategy was not formally adopted, and Cabinet-level participants ... have little or no recollection of it, at least as a formal policy document."

My Response. Who cares? Clinton is out of the White House now, and if you want to go to war over his record on fighting Terrorism all over again, well, I guess you have more time than I do.

Clarke Assertion #6. The Bush administration did not take terrorism chatter seriously in the summer and fall of 2001.

Rich Lowry's Response. "Not quite. In the summer of 2001, "the CIA again went into what the DCI [George Tenet] described as 'Millennium threat mode,' engaging with foreign liaison and disrupting operations around the world. At least one planned terrorist attack in Europe may have been successfully disrupted during the summer of 2001."

My Response. Now to put on my hypocrite boots. After having just declared Clinton verbotem I'm going to bring him up. Clinton claimed to have foiled all sorts of schemes around January 1, 2000, and yet you and yours still claim he didn't do anything serious to fight terrorism.

What's also interesting about this particular article is that the way it sets as it's key theme a deliberate misinterpretation of Clarke's words. "In explaining the discrepancy between previous comments he made about President Bush's anti-terrorism policy and the harsh ones that he is making now, Richard Clarke has said the difference is a matter of "tenor and tone." Indeed."

So then Lowry goes on to talk about how Clarke's current tenor and tone are dishonest. But of course what Clarke must have meant was that his tenor and tone in the earlier interviews (when he was still on President Bush's payroll) was different from his tenor and tone now. Because being outside of the structures of power he is more free to say what he thinks, isn't he? He's less guarded. So the idea that his tenor and tone are today picked very carefully doesn't make a lot of sense.

Son of CGEORC

I have to admit that I might be suffering from CGEORC syndrome. But that's ok.

Anyway good article from Common Dreams, a site I haven't checked in with in months. The author is John Nichols and I guess the article originally appeared in the Nation.

One selection. "No matter what goes wrong, the ironclad rule of the Bush administration has been to find someone outside the administration -- preferably a Democrat or a foreigner -- to blame. And if there is no way to blame someone else, the policy has been to keep expressing an Orwellian faith in the prospect that the failure will become a success, or that the lie will be made true -- witness Cheney's refusal to back away from his pre-war "they'll greet us with flowers" fantasy about the Iraqi response to a U.S.-led invasion.

Supposedly, this refusal to bend in the face of reality is smart politics. But a constant pattern of avoiding responsibility tends, eventually, to catch up even with the smartest politicians."

We can only hope that Mr. Nichols is right.

CGEORC

That's my new acronym for people who "Can't Get Enough Of Richard Clark." For those of you who are going to try to pronounce it, please have a glass of water on hand to sooth your throat afterwards.

At any rate, for those of you who are CGEORC, go check out Speedkill's very solid run down of the charges leveled against Clark by Republicans and Conservatives.

Another Mildly Discomforting Aspect to Diane West's Piece

Ms. Diane West opens her piece with these sentences. "Richard Clarke has very thin skin -- literally. It's the kind of complexion that shows the ruddy glow of a circulation system at work. But when asked a really tough question while testifying before the 9/11 commission, I wondered if the former White House counterterrorism honcho would have the decency to blush. "

Is this a lot different than me saying, "You know Rush Limbaugh isn't that attractive a person. Why does anybody listen to him?"

Or in other words, do you really think the way to bring Clarke down is by taking him to task for his physical appearance?

Some collected bits from around the web

"What we'll never know is how Clarke could say this. He probably assumed his 2002 background briefing would never pop up again. . . .

I was watching this week's hearing very carefully, but while Clarke might have reddened a shade or two when finally asked to square his two different versions of events, I can't be sure. He should have. At the very least, he should not have maintained under oath that his indictment of the Bush administration in his book and recent interviews are "consistent" with his past statements." - Diana West, "Which Clarke should you believe?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Is there any inconsistency between your sworn testimony before the September 11 Commission last week and two years ago before the congressional committee?

MR. CLARKE: No, there isn't. And I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony.

MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?

MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified."
Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.

Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.

The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda." Eric Lichtbrau, New York Times.

A couple of observations. First of all the White House and their allies in the Conservative Media need to eventually respond to the substance of Mr. Clarke's testimony, rather than simply trying to discredit him sight unseen. This current strategy of portraying him as an unscrupulous careerist just doesn't seem to be working for them. Suggesting that he's really a Democrat is also a meaningless accusation, unless the White House has a different set of stories to tell. But as the New York Times story suggests, they might not.

Second, Condoleezza Rice is really taking the bullet for President Bush in this story, as it's clear that the current "story" is Clark versus Rice. That picture of her angry face is showing up everywhere; and it doesn't compare favorably to Richard Clarke's more calm demeanor.

New Quote

Continuing my remembrence of things past, todays quote is from a song by the Psychedelic Furs after their career was kind of messed up.

For those who don't know much about the Furs they had kind a gritty cool style through their first four albums (their eponymously named debut, "Talk Talk Talk," "Forever Now," and "Mirror Moves."). Then they made "Midnight to Midnight," which produced a big single, but just sounded terribly poppy (even more so than "Mirror Moves") and bombastic. They turned back to earlier sounds immediately with the Brilliant single "All that Money Wants" from their first greatest hits collection ("All of this and nothing) and then made two further albums that dropped off the face of the planet "Book of Days" and "World Outside") Richard Butler went on to record albums under a new monicker Love Spit Love and had some success there. At any rate, if you are interested, check out "Talk Talk Talk" (recently rereleased) or Love Spit Love's "Tryone Eatsome." Both are really good.

Oh, and I updated the Quotes page.

For those of you who think I make to many typos.

Allow me to point you to this story from MSNBC.COM

"In his book and agaun this week before the commission, Clarke accused the Bush administration of cutting off his access to senior officials, who he said did not consider terrorism to be an “urgent problem.” In contrast, he said, the Clinton administration gave the terrorist threat its “highest priority.”

Ha! And those MSNBC Pooftahs have a bunch of editors and what not to check up on what they do.

Incidently, the story refers to an attempt by Congressional Republicans to release private testimony from last year that they claim contradicts his current testimony and would therefore make him guilty of perjury. So they aren't going to call him a liar for what he said, but for a failure to be completely consistant. Whatever works, I guess.