A Cartoon

This one is from Don Asmussen, and I like it.
 
 

Edited to add this is from the last election cycle, not the current one. I think.

New Quote

Yep, a brand new quote here from your buddies at Make me a Commentator.  And to top it off a new Quotes Page.

Your Weekly Rush - Fear and Loathing in Tallahassee

Well, Rush Limbaugh has finally explained it all.  Now it can be told why we Liberals are so upset with President Bush.  

"They have rage. They have anger that is irrational, and I know the root of it and we'll talk about it when we have more time. Well, it's in their own -- they feel powerless. That's really, folks, if you want to understand it, the rage and anger stems from their utter feelings of powerlessness, and you look at them and you think, "My gosh, these people are strong and they're united. They got a sense of purpose. They know what they want." They are scared to death, and that's why they hate, and that's why they have rage, and that's why they have anger, and they are scared to death because they sense they have no power. "

That's it, my readers.  Forget all you might have heard about Liberals being upset with the war in Iraq or with the pressure on the economy from the deficit, or the Patriot act, or anything else.  Liberals are angry because of an irrational feeling of powerlessness. 
 
Personally I think this is a bit of projection.  Limbaugh Republicans, while controlling the Congress, the White House and having a good stake at the Supreme Court, having new ways of getting their message out, still feel like they don't have enough power in America and are overly persecuted. 
 
I personally have all the power I need.  A little more money would be nice. 

Round the Horn Part L7

Yep it's another round up of the old Liberal Coalition.
 
All Facts and Opinion has a piece on the Underblogs and the Overblogs, and their secret plan to conquer Earth.  Or just get more hits. 
 
Gamer's Nook has an anecdote on the perils of carrying a sword to a hardware store. 
 
In other news of smart guys around the world, Iddybud has a tale of a man and a his fishing hook.
 
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has a witticism about the new Will Smith movie "I, Robot," which was apparently suggested by an Issac Asimov story.
 
Left is Right has an account of the Bush Campaigns ongoing effort to hold Hollywood against Future President Kerry. 
 
T. Rex's Guide to Life has a response to those who would argue that claiming this war was unnecessary trivializes the dead (based on a comment he received).
 
Collective Sigh has a report on new information coming out of Abu Ghraib.  Disturbing information which could put the whole "abuse" theory to bed. 
 
Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a bit on Future President Kerry's service in Vietnam as contrasted with someone else's service in the National Guard. 
 
And finally The Fulcrum has a suggestion that we all relax every now and again along with a nice picture. 

A New Link

Just added a new link to to the old Website, for the web page A Scrivner's Lament.  Seems like they have a fair amount of good information and stories over there.   Check it out!

Get up get down turn all around

I just read an interesting column from Ellen Goodman in which she decries the optimism assault during the political campaign. Apparently it's hard to get elected unless everybody thinks you are optimistic. I think personally that goes back to having a vision of what American could be and articulating that vision.

With his mouth President George W. Bush hasn't been able to articulate that vision very well, but with his actions he's done a little better (it involves manliness, stump removal, and no books). Kerry's got the opposite problem, he's good at talking about what his vision is (his current campaign theme "Let America be America again" is brilliant) but he doesn't project that vision as well. Edwards joining the campaign, however, should help with this a bit. Which, of course, is why the Bush camp is in such a hurry to discredit him.

I do think, however, the closing words of her article are pretty dead-on accurate.

"In my book, any politician who thinks he can beat the odds and become president of the United States qualifies automatically as an optimist. With the possible exception of Ralph Nader. But I am not willing to concede that a candidate's optimism is the political trump card. Attitude is no substitute for sober judgment. A cheerleader is not always a leader.

Some of our greatest accomplishments and some of our greatest disasters were all begun with optimism. The "can-do spirit" is fine and Yankee Doodle Dandy. But a leader needs to know the difference between what we can do and what we should do, and what we'd better not do.

That would give me reason for optimism."

Two for the Price of One

Two stories for the price of one.

First of all Larry Elder writes a column touting the negativity of the Kerry Edwards campaign. He begins his column with this paragraph.

"We're running a very positive and affirmative campaign," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Indeed, Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., renounces nastiness: "We have not stood up," he said, "and attacked our opponents in personal ways." Really?

Let's go to the videotape."

He then quotes 11 Democrats / Liberal saying mean hurtful things about President Bush. Many of them are justifiably questionable statements; others aren't. But out of the 11, only one comes from the Candidate for President or the Candidate for Vice President.

Two come from the recent star-studded Hollywood fundraiser, so I guess we could put those in the camp of coming from the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

But 8 or 72.73% came from outside the campaign. They are all Democrats; but it certainly seems like nonsense to suggest that all Democrats are responsible for the actions of all other Democrats.

Incidently, the one statement by John Kerry? Made off stage. It was an open mike gaffe. He didn't apologize for the words, though, so I guess it counts.

On the other hand we've had on stage comments by both President and particularly Vice President slamming Kerry and Edwards. Their campaign website spends a lot of bandwidth ripping into Kerry and Edwards (the Kerry site doesn't reciprocate, merely pointing out discrepancies in the Bush attacks). They ran an web ad comparing Democrats to Adolph Hitler. So I think I'm going to continue believing that the Kerry Edwards people are running a far more positive campaign.

The second story is by Marvin Olasky, and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. He writes on a visit to Turkey and a comparison between the Haggia Sophia and the Sultan Ahmet. He moves from that to a discussion of the Crusades and the age old struggle between the Muslims and the Christians bringing it right up to the modern day.

" Those Christians saw a clash of civilization that went on for centuries, and their paintings are very much in an Onward Christian Soldiers motif, with lots of red ochre, green, and cobalt blue. In places of Cappadocia without cliffs, the Christians went underground: 32 Thirty-two underground cities probably housed at times 20,000 or more, with multiple entrances and exits for escape.

I visited one underground city at Derinkuyu that went down eight levels and included a church, classroom, baptistry, storerooms, bedrooms, dining rooms, wine cellars, stables on the first and second stories, wells, tombs, and 52 ventilations shafts to a depth of 75 to 90 yards. Christians apparently built the city by hollowing out airshafts and excavating from the sides of the shafts.

And talk about security: Christians built not bolt locks but bolt stones -- two feet thick and weighing half a ton -- that could be rolled across passageways in case of attack. Which leads to a question: What kind of bolt stones do we have today? We need to pray for peace and work to build honest Muslim-Christian friendship. But we must also be discerning, so that terrorists don't force us into a position of weakness where all we can do is hide."

I'm not sure what the point of Marvin Olasky's article is intended to be. It is a bit like an old time "Muslim Menace" article, and perhaps that's it. We should respect Muslims if they are willing to convert to Christianity or something, but otherwise we are enemies forever? I don't know. Certainly reminding us all of the Crusades in the middle of our current conflict isn't meant to encourage understanding of the Muslim world.

So you Want to be a Rock and Roll Star

I know my titles aren't making a lot of sense lately, but thems the breaks as they say.

I got this link from REMs website. The groups name is November 2 (I think), and they are apparently group of lefties that want to encourage as many as people to register and vote in the upcoming elections (which if memory serves, are being held on December 13).

That'd be funny if the Bush Campaign, last election, hadn't put out ficticious flyers in Democratic Districts (two bits of alliteration there, in case you didn't notice) which encouraged voters to go vote the day after the election.

Anyway the site has a really cool countdown to the election. It's apparently in 110 days 12 hours and 7 minutes, so get ready now. Book your parties in advance. I'm available to perform, but I must warn you that I no longer create balloon animals as part of my act.

A Functional Relationship

You know it really is a lot easier to debate when you just ignore the other sides position. Or distort it all out of reason. That's what today's William Safire column does.

"Think about that. Do today's groupthinkers believe that Osama bin Laden would sit down with Saddam in front of the world's cameras to sign a mutual assistance pact, establishing a formal relationship? Terrorists and rogue states don't work that way. Mass killers collaborate informally, without a photo op, even secretly."

The difficulty in uncovering evidence of a conspiracy is that failure to produce evidence is taken as proof of the conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to find any evidence of a collaboration between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda is not evidence that such a link didn't exist but evidence of their skill in disguising that link.

Let is be clear on our terms. When we Democrats say there is no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, we don't literally mean no link. We mean no operatative link. They weren't working together to hurt America.

It's impossible to prove a negative, of course, and perhaps some Democrats are making overly strong statements denying such a link. But the other side of the argument is that the Administration and it's defenders have had three years to prove an operative link, and they haven't succeeded yet. After a while, the failure to prove the link becomes a kind of evidence.

Which you don't seem to Understand

If you have already watched the add to get one day access to Salon, you might as well check out this interview with Ralph Nader as well. I don't think either Nader or Talbot comes of particularly well.

Here are a few exchanges.

"Nader: This is ridiculous. You're treating Republicans like they're all criminals. Did you ever hear of Republicans who might work with us on issues over the years, who might believe in civil liberties even though they might prefer a Republican ticket?

Talbot: Look, you and I know that those kinds of Republicans are few and far between. And I challenge you to show me that the bulk of this money you're getting from conservatives is meant to advance the cause of American consumers. I just don't believe that. And if that's not the case, why is your own running mate, Peter Camejo, saying that you should give back this money?"

Yep, some Republicans aren't criminals. Nader's final comment before hanging up on Talbot is as follows.

"Nader: We're not going to play the fascist game of the two-party monopoly barricading itself from any competition, with all kinds of statutory obstruction that cost third parties immense time and money if they can surmount them. This is a dictatorship, which you don't seem to understand..."

Nader has the right to run, but he is showing a lot less attractive face than he did four years ago.

Goofy Article at Salon

Salon has a pretty negative opinion of Michael Moore, one they've had it for a long time. In 1997, they published an article by Daniel Radosh which stated, "For most people on the left, Moore is welcome news. Some of us, however, have had enough." They have taken the occasion off and on since then to take shots at Mr. Moore, and today they take another shot. But unlike some of their earlier efforts which made good cogent points, this one seems a little bizarre.

The story is this. Michael Moore has claimed that soldiers appreciate Fahrenheit 9/11. Bill Warhop, the author of this article, doubted this claim. So he took four soldiers with him to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and recorded their disapproval of it. This, along with the fact that the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 was empty, proves that Michael Moore is a filthy liar.

Huh?

Well, maybe Mr. Warhop isn't going quite that far. After all he does spend nearly two thirds of his article telling us of the difficult he had to go through just to get four soldiers to go see the movie with him. I mean that's surely the most interesting part of the article, isn't it? The struggles of the reporter to round up people to talk to. Much more interesting than the abbreviated comments of these four soldiers you managed to watch the movie with.

Anyway it turns out the four soldiers didn't like the movie and felt it portrayed the military in a bad light. They make some good points.

"They particularly disliked the scene of a U.S. patrol on Christmas Eve raiding an Iraqi house in search of a male suspect. Marks said, "They just showed the two women crying, 'He's a student.' They don't show you what those soldiers said before that. Maybe this Iraqi guy killed an American soldier, planted a bomb ..."

"We don't know why they're looking at this guy," Garcia complained. "We don't know if maybe they found 10 RPG rounds or 200 pounds of C4. All we get is the family screaming.""

That's a fair complaint; we don't know. Odds are Mr. Moore doesn't know either or he knows that the guy was guilty. One has to assume that if Mr. Moore had known that this guy was totally innocent he would have made that explicit in his narrative. Pity Mr. Warhop didn't spend more time with the story rather than with his difficulty in getting the story.

Incidently, as for the question of whether the Military supports Fahrenheit 9/11, the answer is clearly, we don't have enough information. Mr. Moore has put up letters from soldiers who do support his work, and I'm sure that many exist. On the other hand, I'm sure that there are many who don't like Michael Moore and what he stands for. I don't know if you can really assess how it shakes out based on a handful of letters and four guys Mr. Warhop took to the movies.

Electioneering

There's a lot of talk this week about increased speculation that they may postpone elections in the case of a terrorist attack. I think that Joshua Micah Marshall over at Talking Points Memo has the right analysis.

"Added to my suspicion [about plans to reschedule the elections] is the increasingly common refrain from the White House that the Madrid bombing was responsible for Spanish 'appeasement' in Iraq and the obvious subtext that the answer to any future terrorist attack would be to 'not give in', i.e. reelect President Bush."

I personally don't really think there is any serious plan to postpone elections. The race is still pretty tight, and any terrorist attack close to the election will help President Bush not hurt him (unless he does something really unpresidential).

On the other hand this is another slam duck victory for the conservatives. When the elections are held on time, they will get to go on and on about how we Democrats didn't believe that we could trust the President to hold elections. "You Democrats, you didn't believe that we would even hold elections. You thought President Bush was some kind of dictator. Well look at what's happened now." That kind of thing.

Intelligence Failures

As we all know the Senate Intelligence Committee has published a report which would seem to place the blame for the Iraqi War squarely with the CIA. The CIA misled the President and the President then inadvertently misled the American people. This report does have several unanswered questions the chief being were the CIA pressured into providing President Bush with a specific answer. This question won't be addressed any time soon, if at all. After all the Congress and the House are firmly in the control of the Republicans who have no interest in an answer to that question. Instead, they are happy to have a report that exonerates the President. Sort of.

We're a long way from "the buck stops here" though.

Anyway for more details on this story, check out this article at Salon.

In other news, David Limbaugh places the blame for taking us into Iraq can rest squarely on the shoulders of John Kerry and John Edwards. Yep, they are the one's who took our country into Iraq. I can imagine it now.

President Bush: I just don't know if the evidence is strong enough for us to invade Iraq.

Vice President Cheney: Yes, perhaps we shouldn't invade just now.

Senator Kerry (bursting into the Oval Office with John Edwards right behind him): Mister President, I demand that you invade Iraq immediately. Don't give a second thought to it.

Senator Edwards: Yeah, you'd better invade. So what if the intelligence isn't that great? Invade now and ask questions later.

President Bush: Well if you guys say so.

Actually I think David Limbaugh's point is that if Future President Kerry calls President Bush a liar he's a hypocrite because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). Kerry has explained that he voted for the IWR in order to give President Bush mower power to force Saddam Hussein to open his country to inspectors again. President Bush then chose not to let the inspections process run it's full course but invaded prematurely.

It's interesting watching David Limbaugh condemning John Kerry for doing something Limbaugh probably thinks was a good idea. In other words, Tom Delay voted for that IWR as well. Is he also a liar? No. Because of course, Senator Tom Delay is a Republican. When you strip aside all the attempts to take a highminded tone, David Limbaugh and his brother have a pretty simple agenda. Republicans Good, Democrats Bad.

A Campaign of Ideas

Here's what Rush Limbaugh was talking about last week (which is apparently important enough to give a prominent spot near the top of his website).

"If you haven't seen this yet, what you need to do, you need to go to the Drudge Report, www.DrudgeReport.com and take a look at the pictures there. Uh, you gotta click on the link that says "Can't Keep Hands Off Each Other." Looks like these guys are bringing that old Frankie Valli song from 1967: "Can't Keep My Hands Off of You." They're bringing it to life Kerry and Edwards are. You've got to look at these pictures. My gosh it's a couple of metrosexuals, and I'll tell you why. The issues have just gone south on them. The job numbers are the best they've ever been since 2000. We've got the situation in Iraq straightening out. So all these guys can do is act weird! It's absolutely el strange-o out there. Greetings -- and to me it looks like John Kerry finally, ladies and gentlemen, has found what's he's been looking for his whole life, and that is a trophy wife, in his vice presidential nominee, John Edwards."

And here's what Bob Herbert of the New York Times is talking about today.

"If we know that bin Laden and his top leadership are somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that they're plotting an attack against the United States, why are we not zeroing in on them with overwhelming force? Why is there not a sense of emergency in the land, with the entire country pulling together to stop another Sept. 11 from occurring?

Why are we not more serious about this?

I don't know what the administration was thinking when it invaded Iraq even as the direct threat from bin Laden and Al Qaeda continued to stare us in the face. That threat has only intensified. The war in Iraq consumed personnel and resources badly needed in the campaign against bin Laden and his allies. And it has fanned the hatred of the U.S. among Muslims around the world. Instead of destroying Al Qaeda, we have played right into its hands and contributed immeasurably to its support."

Hmmmmmm. So who sounds more serious about protecting America? Of course there is always the possibility that this isn't a fair comparison. I mean Rush Limbaugh is America's Truth Detector. He is show prep for the rest of the media. The views presented on his program make more sense than anything anybody else is saying. I know all this because he says it every hour on the hour (right before he complains about how boastful John Kerry is).

But still, I think Mr. Herbert's comment is at least as germane as Rush Limbaugh'.

There are only two choices

You can read this comment thoroughly and leave a comment saying how great it is or you can appease the terrorists.

There are only two choices.

You can go see that great new Dodgeball (A true Underdog Story) movie or you can appease the terrorists.

There are only two choices.

You can either run around with no pants or you can appease the terrorists.

There are only two choices.

You can either appease the terrorists or you can appease the terrorists.

There are only two choices.

"There are two approaches to terrorists. One is to fight them with every weapon you can -- the military, intelligence services, interdiction of money flows, diplomacy. That is what George W. Bush is doing against the Islamist terrorists who struck Sept. 11. The other way is appeasement. Give the terrorists some of what they want, and hope that they will stop being terrorists any more."

The above quote is from Michael Barone. You can fight the war in the way President Bush has fought it or you can be an appeaser.

There are only two choices.

Only in the real world, there are a lot more choices. For example, you don't have to read this thoroughly (although if you got this far, my guess is that you have). You could have just skimmed it. You could have skipped it and read down to where I talk about comic books. You could of moved over to, say, Pen-Elayne on the Web. There are any number of things you could do.

And there are a lot of different strategies for dealing with Terrorism, many of which, in my opinion, would be more effective than what President Bush has done. I could go into ideas and suggestions, but that's not really the point. I just want to point out the inherent fallacy in saying . . .

There are only two choices.

New Quote - Huzzah!

Yep, a new quote and a new Quotes page. Enjoy.

Comic Book Round Up

I've written on comic books before but here a couple of recent purchases that I think are worth checking out.

Terra Obscura from America's Best Comics, is a little hard to describe. But take a bunch of golden age type heroes and place them in a modern world, albeit a world that was under the thumb of an alien race through most of the time they missed. This worlds "Batman," the Terror is now a completely electronic intelligence and has turned his city into a crime free police state. He has a ward, Tim, and their relationship might be the creepiest thing about this comic. It is at heart a sort of mystery, but in true Alan Moore style, it covers a lot of ground.

The Magnent. "I'm good at finding things . . . and when a man's partner's killed, he's supposed to do something about it.

Morgue attendent. "Isn't that a Humphrey Bogart line?

The Magnent. "So? It's still true."

Supreme Power from Marvel's Max line is a title I might have mentioned before. But I just got Issue 11 and it's revitalized my passion for this comic. Supreme Power is the retelling of the history of Squadron Supreme, a sort of alternate universe knock of DC's Justice League. As such they have a Superman named Hyperion, a Wonder Woman named Power Princess, and a Batman named Nighthawk. This is a very different Superman however. For one thing he's been raised by "parents" who are United States operatives working to ensure that he stays loyal to the United States of America (and completely and justifiably frightened of him). There's a chilling discussion held by a General in which he calmly discusses potential ways of killing Hyperion, over Hyperions crib. It's a dark story, but it also has a lot of humor and it works.

The Blur (to Hyperion): "You ever see one of those English Border Collies? Fast, strong, and smarter than any other dog on the planet. But you got to keep them busy, you get to give 'em homework and projects and goals.

I knew a guy had one, didn't keep it's mind occupied and over the summer it took apart his front porch with its bare teeth, board by board.

You don't give a dog like that something to do, a problem to solve, it goes crazy. And the last thing the world needs is somebody like you going crazy, you know what I'm saying?"

The Losers is from DC's Vertigo line. It's pretty testosteroni. It's about a CIA team sent into Afghanistan and betrayed by their leaders. In essence its a caper comic book, about guys who steal things from other guys. It's got great characters and great action. This one has the most distinct artwork (although the artwork in all these comic books is quite good). Strong characterization, but as mentioned above, full to the brim with masculine energy (if I can use such a new age cliche. But then again, who's going to stop me?)

Aisha (the only female character): "I was born in a desert place. War was my only mother. As a child, I moved through the battlefield and slit the throats of screaming Russian boys. I firebombed my first tank when I was twelve years old and machine-gunned the crew as the fled, burning.

And yet perhaps you expect me to be afraid of you? Tell me, what do you think?

Guy with Aisha's Knife against his ribs: "I think you have a very persuasive negotiating style."

I haven't been very diligent

I meant to post a fair amount today, but work caught up with me. I'll post on comic books tomorrow. Expect some Chuck Austin bashing.

In the meantime, a vaguely political cartoon from old Walt Kelly.

Round the Horn Part 2b or not 2b

Here we go.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has commentary on the story that the Bush Administration is putting pressure on Pakistan to have some major captures during the Democratic Convention.

On a similar note, Trish Wilson (Of Trish Wilson's Blog) has a letter from our president to that guy who runs pakistan. It's brilliant.

It's Craptastic has the low-down birds-eye scoop on President Bush's dissing of John Edwards political experience.

Musings Musing has even more fantabulous stuff about the Bush administration trashing John Edwards. It's so great I have to post two links (links go to different stories: here and here)

HLVictoria, over at New World Blogger, has a bone chilling story about the menace of Nepalese Buddhists with video cameras. There's also something in there about wrongful arrest of a guy who clearly is innocent; but that's the price you pay for being foreign.

Respectful of Otters has a solid round up of issues related to the nomination of John Edwards as the Vice Presidential Nominee. She's rounded them up. She's put them in the corral. All you have to do is read them.

Corrente has a lot of great stuff; one story that struck me was on how individual American citizens are Supporting the Troops and how the Bush Administration isn't.

Echidne of the Snakes has a bit on the perils of . . . well just the general peril of having ideas.

Speedkill has the 411 on how Vice Presidential people are picked, as well as a very funny letter to the NYPOst.

Chris "Lefty" Brown has some thoughts on Green Lantern, which is nice because I plan on talking about comics myself later on today.

Reality used to be a Friend of Mine

Incidently, our big catchphrase, which was haphazardly introduced and quickly forgotten, is still "Reality is Partisan." But that's a story for another day.

In 2000, Senator John McCain ran against then-governor Bush. The race was very dirty, and, of course, President Bush went on to become President (despite the handicap of having lost the election).

In 2004, The day Senator Kerry announces his running mate, Senator McCain is proud to appear in ads with President Bush, which clearly imply that he was Kerry's first choice and that he favors President Bush.

It might be instructive to remember how dirty the 2000 campaign against McCain was. The Bush Campaign ran leaflets accusing McCains wife of being a illegal drug user. The Bush Campaign ran leaflets in South Carolina insinuating that a little girl they had adopted from Bangladesh was McCain's illegitimate daughter. President Bush stood on stage with a man who called McCain a traitor and a Manchurian Candidate.

For more details check out Joe Conasons latest article, which I cribbed from. Mr. Conason has some strong questions for Mr. McCain.

This is not a sentence

Ann Coulter's latest article takes on John Edwards. For those who don't like subjecting yourselves to bile and venom, here's the short version. Edwards is a light weight and a trial lawyer, and the Democratic Party are liars.

Now for some venom and bile (notice how I reversed those two words? That's the mark of a good writer; always throwing change ups).

"I guess with John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate, he really does want to stand up for all Americans, from those worth only $60 million to those worth in excess of $800 million."

Both Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush are extremely wealthy, and President Bush was born into privilege and stayed there. He was more or less a complete washout as a business, but very skilled at being the President's son, and so managed to get bailed out by investors. They weren't investing in his company; they were investing in him and his connections.

"What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did. I assume strippers make more money than their alcoholic fathers who abandoned them did, too. This isn't a story of progress; it's a story of devolution."

Here we see the traditional Republican love of our American Justice system. I'm coming to believe that Republicans like Ann Coulter live in a fantasy world where all we need are Charles Bronson and Dirty Harry to have the power to blow criminals away and we can do away with the American Justice system all together. I mean the only purpose of the American Justice is to punish criminals, and if the cops could do that without getting Lawyers involved, so much the better.

It's not like there would ever be a legitimate reason for a person to sue a corporation or another person.

"So while Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Crazy Al Gore and the rest of the characters from the climactic devil-worshipping scene in "Rosemary's Baby" provide the muscle for the Kerry campaign, Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot."

That's just nice, isn't it? The Democratic Party as Satan Worshippers.

Anyway, that's all the bile and venom I can take today.

Left Behind

I am busy right now reading this website that is analyzing the Left Behind books in some detail. He makes this comment which I find fascinating.

"Evangelical Christianity, at its core, is radically inclusive. Evangelicals, born-againers, want everybody else to become born-again too.

Granted, this inclusivity isn't always expressed in the most winsome or persuasive manner, but it's the heart and soul of evangelicalism. As the Sunday school chorus quoted at the top of this post shows, the goal of evangelicals has traditionally been to reach out to the lost, to the "untold millions" of the unsaved.

Most evangelical fiction has conveyed this evangelistic impulse -- albeit with the unfortunate awkwardness and fecklessness that characterizes too much of their evangelism. But that's not what one finds in Left Behind. Here you find little concern -- and even less of a sense of responsibility -- for the plight of the untold millions. What one finds instead is a sense of triumphalism. Those "inside the fold" feel no sense of obligation to those on the outside -- they are bad people who are getting what they deserve and the godly remnant gets to watch, more in delight than in sadness.

Anyway if you have any interest in this subject, this website is the bees knees.

What does it mean to be an American?

Here's some comments on that subject by Archy, a fellow member of the Liberal Coalition, that are well worth checking out. I really can't add much to what he says; he's right.

Also, for good measure, here's a picture of a lamp.

More on Edwards

Nicholas D. Kristoff has an interesting article on the Edwards appeal today.

"The oddity is that President Bush manages to come across as a real guy (a triumph of marketing), while John Kerry still has the whiff of an aloof Massachusetts liberal.

This is where Mr. Edwards comes in. If you look at the Democratic ticket through the prism of places like Yamhill, Mr. Edwards, the son of a millworker and a postal worker, appears down-to-earth and trustworthy, a fellow who strikes a chord on values as well as issues. So the Democrats gain street credibility among blue-collar voters, and a leader who can help win back the Reagan Democrats."

This is a good point. The people's acceptance of President Bush as a normal down-to-earth guy is somewhat baffling, although I know he's worked very hard (or not worked at all) to give that impression. Edwards will help provide a contrast to that image.

But unlike Lieberman (who could play the religion card if nothing else) Edwards program is pretty solidly progressive. This is a guy who understands what kind of America most people live in and will fight to improve that America.

Also note the end of the article, where we have a story on Genocide occurring in the Sudan. You might also check out this post at This Modern World.

Edwards is the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate

Here at Make me a Commentator, our top reporters bring you yesterdays big story. After it's news but before it becomes nostalgia, like an old fish.

OK, maybe I need a better slogan writing department.

Basically the consensus is that Edwards is a good pick. Even some of the Conservatives are saying that, although they are also trying to find ways to pick apart Kerry and Edwards. That is, after all, their jobs.

What is interesting is that while many democrats seem excited by the prospect of a debate between Senator John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney, comparatively few Republicans seem enthused by the possibility.

Instead they are trying to get him dismissed sight unseen by suggesting that the selection of Senator Edwards means that the Kerry Campaign doesn't care about the War on Terror. That's Jonah Goldberg's point.

But of course having a President in the White House who understands combat and the value of our troops lives might make a bit of a difference.

Linda Chavez compares Edwards to Dan Quayle, " minus Quayle's more impressive Senate accomplishments." The difference there is that Edwards had run an impressive campaign, giving people the opportunity to know what he stands for. I can understand how lazy conservative commentators might not know much about him, but most tuned-in Americans probably do.

Salon has an article on the upcoming vice presidential debates, with this fascinating quote.

""I can't imagine two human beings that are more polar opposites than John Edwards and Dick Cheney," said Alan Schroeder, a professor at Northeastern University and expert on presidential debates. "I see Cheney as this dour character who exists on the dark side, with a sense of suspicion and almost paranoia about him, and then you've got the sunny optimist Edwards, who was very reluctant to criticize his opponents in the primaries, never went negative, and had a message that was serious but not the least bit paranoid. There is so much that's different in their personalities and their politics; their debate could be an unpredictable, volatile mix of elements."

Should be fun.

More on Moore

I've criticized the movie. I don't think many will find the movie flawless. But I do want to point out the difference between liberal criticism such as the Daily Howler or Paul Krugman might make, and the way that Republicans are portraying such problems.

You see, Conservative Republicans, particularly Limbaugh Republicans, don't want people to see the film. They have made and are still making efforts to limit your ability to see the film, but such efforts have largely failed. So they have to talk you out of seeing it. Here's the game; Small flaws in an otherwise fine and thought provoking film are magnified to an enormous extent. Finding small things to pick apart, so that they don't have to grapple with the larger questions that Mr. Moores movie asks.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:3-5

Simple right?

The key problem with Mr. Moore's movie, from the viewpoint of the Limbaugh Right, is that it reminds us all of the cost of war. The Bush administration doesn't want us thinking about the cost, because then we might compare that to the reasons we invaded Iraq. Let's run down the reasons.

1. Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Just today the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released information that the Central Intelligence Agency had been provided with evidence from relatives of Iraqi Scientists that Saddam had abandoned his programs to develop unconventional weapons. The official story is that they chose not to pass on this information to the President. I guess we know why George Tenet resigned.

2. Iraq has operational agreements with Al Qaeda.

They didn't, and nobody is claiming they do at this point. Even the Administration has backed of on this one, now claiming that Iraq merely had a relationship with Al Qaeda. Well, so did the Central Intelligence Agency. The only kind of relationship that would have justified invasion is a collaborative relationship to attack the United States. They haven't even come close to proving that. Instead they just like saying Saddam and Al Qaeda together a lot so that we get the subconscious idea that they are connected.

3. We want to liberate the people of Iraq, and give the Middle East a freedom- loving democratic state to emulate.

I wish this were possible, and maybe it is. Someday. But things like Abu Ghraib and other horror stories we've heard don't strike me as the way to accomplish this goal. Seems like it's more likely to push Iraq the other direction. I guess it would be nice if the idiots that run this country hadn't bought into this notion that Invading and holding Iraq would be a cakewalk. Our troops were able to defeat Saddam's army, but the administration has failed that effort and sacrifice by failing to plan for the peace.

Anyway I'm closing with the words of Michael Moore from a recent article, on putting out the Flag, that he posted at his website.

. . . I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions - and demand truthful answers - when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war.

If we don't do that - the bare minimum - for those who offer to defend our country, then we have failed them and ourselves. They offer to die for us, if necessary, so that we can be free. All they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. And with this war, we have broken faith with our troops by sending them off to be killed and maimed for wrong and immoral reasons.

I guess I'm not doing very good at being non-political. Oh well.

I'm Sick of Politics

Taking a break for at least a day.

One other point to the movie; they used Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" as the outtro music for the film, but they chopped it up something awful. I am guessing in part to make the words fit the message of the movie better? I don't know. Anyway here are the lyrics of the song. I'll italicize the one's they used in the movie.

Rockin' in the Free World

There's colors on the street
Red, white and blue
People shufflin' their feet
People sleepin' in their shoes
But there's a warnin' sign
on the road ahead
There's a lot of people sayin'
we'd be better off dead
Don't feel like Satan,
but I am to them
So I try to forget it,
any way I can.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

I see a woman in the night
With a baby in her hand
Under an old street light
Near a garbage can
Now she puts the kid away,
and she's gone to get a hit
She hates her life,
and what she's done to it
There's one more kid
that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love,
never get to be cool.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand
We got department stores
and toilet paper
Got styrofoam boxes
for the ozone layer
Got a man of the people,
says keep hope alive
Got fuel to burn,
got roads to drive.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

Great song from a great album.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Just got back from seeing it. Very very powerful movie, even though it has some problematic bits. The section on the Saudis being allowed to fly out of the country could have been put a bit more clearly, although it is not as deceptive as Republicans make it out to be.

On the other hand the tracing of the links between President Bush and his family and Osama Bin Ladin and his family are very clear, and are not something people are as aware of as they should be. Also shocking are statements made by some in the administration early in 2001 to the effect that Saddam Hussein was being effectively contained.

I don't understand how anybody could see this movie and come away with the belief that Michael Moore doesn't love his country. The only people who believe that are the liars and sophists who want to convince us all that the only way to love America is to be conservative and those blamed fools who believe them.

The most gut-wrenching parts of the movie center around Flint Michigan resident Lila Lipscomb, and her son, who was killed in Iraq. It's hard not to watch those scenes and not be affected. Her visit to the white house grounds, where she is accused of staging her visit, and urged to "Blame al-Qaeda" for her son's death are terribly emotional.

But it doesn't answer the question of whether the war should have been entered into at all. If you believe that the war was beneficial and had good reasoning behind it, well, as painful as it is to say this, Ms. Lila Lipscomb's story becomes irrelevant. Good people have died in every war since this country was founded; people who didn't deserve to die, and many of those deaths have been needless. Civilians have been terrorized and killed in many if not most wars. It's part of war, and if you accept war as part of the foreign policy, you have to also accept the cost of war.

On the other hand, if you believe, as I have come to believe, that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, waged for false and deceptive reasons, than that cost seems unbearable. To paraphrase the current Democratic Presidential Candidate, how can we ask Lila Lipscomb to give her son for a mistake? How?

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Why didn't we invade Afghanistan with a sufficient force to catch Osama Bin Ladin?

Why did we let Afghanistan become a crap hole after we invaded it?

Why do we buy the idea that just having "relations" with al-Qaeda is good enough? The United States had "relations" with Osama bin Ladin, are we committed to invading ourself?

Why doesn't President Bush look at Saudi Arabia, the country where 15 of the Hijackers came from, as well as Osama bin Ladin and his family?

I don't have the answers to these questions and dozens of others. I suspect I never will.

Those Darn Libertarians.

William Safire writes an interesting piece today on Libertarians and Civil Liberties. Basically it's a pretty tight retelling of how our attitudes on civil liberties haven't been consistent over the war on terror.

He comes down hard on Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House Counsel, and the article is a sort of puckish "I Told You So," but it's worth checking out.

New Quote

From the author of the Declaration of Independence, no less. And a new Quotes Page. And a Lamp for good measure.

Something for Saturday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Test

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

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

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

A couple of points.

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

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

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

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

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

Round the Horn Part -2(B*x3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go look at this

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

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

Changes

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

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

A Ray of Sunshine

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

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

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

Analyzing Ann

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now they tell me

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

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

Thank you Mr. President.

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

Mythology and the American Spectator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Perils of Having a Weekly Column

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

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

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

"Good Servants but Bad Masters"

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

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

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

She ends with this painfully true statement.

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

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

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

The Transfer of Power

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

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

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

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

It's all in the Wrist

A Trio of Ralph Nader stories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crocodile Tears

Well Michael Moore has David Limbaugh pretty riled up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big News

From the New York TImes.

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

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

From Fox News.

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

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

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

Bush Survived !!!

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

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

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

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

New Quote - Hurrah!

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

Fahrenheit 911 Opening

Went to the Fahrenheit 911 opening last night. Despite PABAAH's encouraging Conservatives to protest the movie theater, I didn't see any conservatives there. Instead I saw a very festive attitude among the local Liberal population.

Billionaires for Bush were in attendance, standing out on the sidewalk holding their signs (as witnessed by the following picture).



This is a good concept. There's a picture (created by the "Liberal" media) that all protesters are humorless and angry. I have to say this doesn't square with my observations.

Anyway there was also this gentleman who was passing out literature.



He was standing behind that fence because if he crossed the line he could be thrown in jail (according to him), but he was passing out a flyer that Michael Moore wanted film goers to have (again, according to him). It is an interesting flyer though, and it makes five general suggestions for film goers.

1. Get Behind the National Voter Registration Effort
2. Raise Hell About Halliburton's War Profiteering.
3. Buy a Ticket to New York City to Protest the Republican National Convention on August 29.
4. Join a Peace Group and Help End the Occupation of Iraq.
5. Educate your Family and Friends.

Personally I really like the first suggestion and the second suggestion. The third suggestion is a bit ambitious, but if you can, why not? The fourth suggestion I can see where reasonable people could disagree on the timing (some want us to leave immediately, some want us to clean up the mess we made, both views have good and bad points). The fifth suggestion is very good.

The movie seemed to be doing brisk business; I've never seen that theater so packed. It's the Miracle 5 here in town, and it was busier than I've ever seen it. This picture shows people waiting to get in the theater (despite the reflection from the window, which I don't know how to correct for).



I didn't end up seeing it myself (for various reasons), but I will go see it next week (probably).

What Women Want

Now normally I think purporting to divine the desires of an entire group of people based on their gender would be a foolish pursuit. I mean women come in all sorts of varieties, which implies all sorts of opinions and ideas on various subjects. But then I read, over at Media Matters for America, Michael Savage's discussion of what women want.

"But women in America don't really like anger. They don't even like the news, I don't know if you know that. They just want it to be calm, and safe -- and they want girl talk all the time. So I'll talk in a quiet, soothing voice today so that women don't get scared and run away. I'll make it friendly for women."

Hmmmmmm.

I don't know, but I'll bet there are some women reading that statement who really want to drive over Michael Savage with a tank.

Achtung Baby!

As many of you know the Bush Campaign has put together a internet commercial. It's not the sort of thing they could get on TV, but they can show it on the internet. Starts out with a black screen and white letters "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party: The Coalition of the Wild Eyed." It then shows clips from speeches by Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, Michael Moore and John Kerry. It also uses those two Nazi ads from MoveOn.Org.

For those of you who don't remember, MoveOn ran a contest called Bush in 30 Seconds which gave people the chance to do ads critical of President Bush. So far so good, but two ads used Nazi Imagery to equate Bush with Hitler. This created a controversy and MoveOn polled the videos from the site and disowned them, saying they were in bad taste (they were).

But there they are right in the middle of all these images of Democrats speaking. I wonder why they are there? I suppose the official reason is that they are another form of Democratic Wild-Eyed-ness. But the real reason might be closer to Salon's analysis.

". . . why resuscitate the Hitler/Nazi imagery if it's so harmful to the national discourse? One can only wonder, and a cynic is left to think that splicing the face of Adolf Hitler between images of leading Democrats was too irresistible for the creators of this web video, no matter how misleading and offensive the end result may be."

Those Darned Memos

While investigating some of the websites from Chenkoff (discussed yesterday), came across this article that presumably Chernkoff would rather I didn't read.

It's about those Memos we've all been discussing for weeks. You know the ones that we inevitably end up talking about in the context of the Geneva Convention? Well this article took a different tack. I particularly liked this section.

"What makes this memo disturbing is how it uses law and legal reasoning in a dishonest fashion to undermine core principles of the American legal and political systems. This includes the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Fifth Amendment's protection of due process, and the system of checks and balances built into the constitution to prevent any one branch of government from becoming dominant.

These values have been part of the US since its inception. Moreover, they are the basis for other US statutes such as the federal anti-torture statue enacted in 1994, which provides for the prosecution of an American national or anyone present in the US who, while outside the country, commits or attempts to commit torture. A person found guilty under the act can even receive the death penalty if the violence results in a victim's death.

By extending the jurisdiction of the prohibition on torture in such a way, but also by ratifying major international treaties forbidding torture under any circumstance and by regularly issuing statements against torture, the US has shown a commitment to the value that torture is absolutely forbidden and prosecutable. The Pentagon memo argues, in essence, that there are loopholes in this ban and, therefore, loopholes in American values."

The whole article is well worth reading.

One counter argument that I can hear some making is that the Constitution only applies to United States citizens, which is technically accurate. But I would argue that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence reflect American principles and Ideals that exist independently of the Documents themselves. While the 8th Amendment may only protect American Citizens it is a reflection of our belief that such techniques are immoral and un-American.

Right in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." All men.

Something to consider.

Round the Horn Part 1,334,002: Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting

T. Rex's Guide to life has provided a list of the last 256 service men and women killed in Iraq.

Kick the Leftist has the scoop on a recent affront by the "liberal" media.

Sooner Thought has a post on a more analytical approach to "Bush-isms."

The Gotham City 13 has an article on who might really get help from the terrorists in the fall election.

blogAmy has some rather strong, but well deserved language for those Republican Congresspeople who are complaining about the 9/11 commission.

Dohiyi Mir has a story on Farenheit 9/11 that I missed. Apparently some of those opposed to the movie are trying to use the Federal Election Commission to shut it down.

Congratulations to Pen-Elayne on the Web for getting what looks like a pretty nice car.

Bloggg has a piece on how some people have too much money and vindictiveness. Not recommended for extreme cat lovers.

And that concludes this episode. Tune in next time when we almost guarentee someone will have explosive amnesia.

Good News From Iraq

Was directed to Chernkoff today, who has provided a list of positive stories coming out of Iraq, along with the argument that these stories aren't being reported in the news. Of them, 22 or 43.1% come from American Media Sources (National Papers, Local Papers, TV Websites, Yahoo News and so on).

13 (or 25.5%) come from Middle Eastern Media sources, mostly Iraq Press and the Daily Star.

5 stories (or 9.8%) came from the British press and another 5 (or 9.8%) from the American Conservative Press. Separated out the Conservative Press (i.e. Fox News and the Washington Post as well as an editorial from National Review) because the point is that the liberal media is hiding the truth, and to mix them in would skew the numbers.

4 stories (7.8%) came from US Governmental stories, and 2 of the links (3.92%) were to websites that didn't fit into any easy category (specifically a link to the Iraqi Stock Exchange and another to a project to help Iraqi Children).

As far as content, 40 of the articles, or 70.4%, are straight news articles. There were 7 editorials (13.7%) 1 interview (2.0%), and 3 that I couldn't classify (5.88%). Overwhelmingly they were published since the beginning of June, the majority being put out in the last week.

There are a few questions that this analysis raises, that I don't have solid answers for.

1. Is he cherrypicking? A number of articles are Reuters articles or AP articles that might very well appear in the New York Times. Is he looking for those articles at local papers, so as to promote his story that the New York Times (bastion of the so called "Liberal Media") is ignoring good stories coming out of Iraq? For a lark I might go through and see if I can find some of these stories on Iraq.

2. How do you weigh these stories? Among others we see stories on how Baghdad Policemen are cracking down on Traffic Violations. We see stories on how Viagra sales are up in Iraq. We see stories on how Jordan is training Iraqi Bankers. I'm not sure these are stories that deserve big headlines. Although I do understand the argument that a lot of little positive stories add up to a larger, more positive picture of Iraq.

Anyway worth checking out.

Interesting Logic Chain

From Gary Aldrich's latest article in which he dutifully attacks Bill Clinton's New Book. I'm sure you're all sophisticaged enough to know that the next week will involve numerous articles on Bill Clinton's book from people who haven't read it. That's part of the methodology; Bill Clinton's book is so full of lies and crap that even reading it for a review is a waste of time. Instead all the articles will focus on how Clinton is a liar and therefore there is no reason to read his book. Plus it's long and boring. And Clinton's not a very good writer.

It's all the conservative editorialist version of "Pay no attention to what is behind the curtain."

But you knew all that already.

Gary Aldrich's article does contain some interesting statements.

"I think liberals tend to admire somebody who can lie and make their statements sound so believable."

Interesting.

"We loved that movie [The Sting} because on some level we admire people who have the skills to fool others. They can twist facts around so that a rube doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going. A con man has a devious mind and does it without thinking. Lawyers need to develop those types of skills; otherwise how would they ever get a killer acquitted?"

Interesting.

But of course just because liberals like people who lie, and "we" like people who lie, you can't jump to any conclusions. Oh, and occasionally lawyers get innocent people acquitted too.

On a related note, I love the movies "Oceans 11" and "The Italian Job," both of which involved a lot of lying.

Back for More

There's an AP story out there on Abu Ghraib, entitled "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws." There's a catchy title. It is on memos released by the White House about how the issue of torture is to be handled in the War on Terror.

A couple of key points jump out from the article.

1. It's unclear whether or not the prisoners at Guantanemo and Abu Ghraib are entitled to any protection from the Geneva conventions. What is clear is that the White House, without any application to specific issues, was considering eliminating such protections for enemy combatants captured in the War on Terror. For a bit more on this subject, here's a New York Times piece on the subject.

2. The White House has reportedly stated that the Geneva Conventions apply in Iraq. It is unclear what they mean by that, however, particularly in the light of the insurgency.

3. It is hard to read these memos or the excerpts provided in the media and get a clear sense of what the administration believed, exactly. Certainly there have been some troubling statements, but we do not yet have a clear picture of how these attitudes and ideas in the White House translated into what happened at Abu Ghraib.

4. It's also unclear how much of this debate is motivated by political motives and how much is motivated by a genuine desire to get at the truth. But then again I'm not sure it matters much. I think the American people should have a clear picture of how the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came to pass, and if Senator Patrick Leahy is working to get that picture, than I'm not sure if I care if part of this is politically motivated. After all, this is at least as important as President Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. We heard about that for a couple of years, and we've barely spent four months on this.

I Think I'm Getting Eye Cancer

But enough frivolity. Now let's turn to Ann Coulter's latest article, "Moby's Dick." In case that "clever" title didn't grab you, here's a synopsis of it. Conservatives could care less about Clinton and don't bother reading his new book.

More and more I am convinced that Ann Coulter's entire life is a myth. How else can you explain her arguing that Conservatives aren't pretty focused on Clinton? She offers as proof the fact that several books have been written on the impeachment by liberal, and she can only think of one written by a conservative (Rich Lowry's book which she fails to give the title for, but which I have discovered is titled Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. (You may wonder if Ann Coulter has an animus against Lowry that would cause her to leave off the name of Lowry's book. Apparently Lowry and Jonah Goldberg dropped her column from the National Review in the wake of her statement that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity (quote from memory)." She responded by calling them Girly Boys, showing typical Ann Coulter Wit)).

Of course I can think of several other conservative books that touch on the impeachment scandal. I could also point out that Ann Coulter herself mentions Clinton in 2 out of 3 columns. But why be churlish. If Ann wants to live in a fantasy world in which Liberals are obsessed with Clinton and Conservatives aren't, why not?

Ann Coulter takes several shots at the length of the book. Apparently really long books aren't Ann's favorite. Kind of figures.

She also takes issue with Clinton covering other parts of his life outside the Presidency. I'm not sure what to make of this. My standard response to this kind of critique (which boils down to "Why didn't you right the book this way.") is that that's the artists perogative. But in this case, the complaint is so disingenuous as to be nonsensical. Had he written a 300 page book, she would have written "Clinton didn't want the book to be too long in case he forgot his lies." If the book had focused just on the presidency, she would have written, "He focuses strictly on the most triumphal part of his life, another example of the classic Clinton ego." Simple.

Anyway, I should probably go get this eye cancer looked at. I'll be back later.