IRAQ LANGUAGE
I keep wondering what would happen if the Democrats framed the Iraq debate using language we already know is politically potent: the language of public assistance.
What would happen if pro-pullout Democrats, accused of advocating a "cut and run" strategy, simply changed the metaphor and said Iraqis need to know there's a limit to our "security welfare"?
You'll say that the presence of U.S. troops is making Iraqis less secure, but never mind: the official line is that Iraqis still need us to keep order -- and maybe that should just be called "welfare." Americans hate "welfare." They hate "government handouts." Republicans trained Americans to hate "welfare" and "government handouts." These Republican language-weapons could be turned against Republicans.
Democrats could talk about the "culture of dependency" our deployment is creating. Those for whom the way of speaking comes naturally (not you, Senator Kerry) could talk about ending the Iraqis' dependence on "Uncle Sugar."
Just a thought.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
STAB IN THE BACK
It appalls me to think it might happen, but I wonder if Karl Rove will recognize that the brutal deaths of Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca may have greater potential to motivate his party's base than more positive developments such as the formation of the new Iraqi government and the killing of Zarqawi.
The folks over at Lucianne.com "know" who really killed and mutilated these two soldiers: John Murtha and The New York Times:
We need to let fighters fight -- and we need seditious Congress members and "journalists" in the dock! Start with Sandy Berger and Pinch Sulzberger.
****
The MSM is more concerned about Muslims who get pink panties put over their heads.
****
Next up, the NY Times editorializing on the torture at Gitmo. Time's cover on the horrors of Haditha. Newsweek's scoop on how Bush lied.
****
They know exactly what to do to turn Murtha, Kerry, Reid etc into blithering idiots. I hold them an others like him for their death. THEY are the ones that encourage such subhuman activities. How many others have died and will die due the the encouragement given to the enemy????
****
Well, you know what the MSM will say, that this was done because of the grave US abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Haditha. So the US will still be to blame, once again. And Murtha and Co. will say this is more evidence that the US is not wanted.
****
And after Sandy Berger is frog marched away, a fighter jet on maneuvers should take out the NY Times as the mouthpiece for the terrorists.
It's also time to fight back against the fifth column inside the US that would condemn us all to the slavery of communism/socialism or the barbarism of Islam.
****
Perhaps if we could defeat the media savages and their political brethren first we could move on to finding the terrorists in Iraq without so much trouble. One thing that is beginning to tell the real story is the media and the democrats has found themselves with no place to hide. Their statements and actions are printed in indelible ink and splashed across the pages of America on a daily basis. The Democrats have had ample countless chances to back away from the media's lies but have chosen not to. They've essentially said..."Ta' Hell with America, We're with the terrorists", Media and 'Rats...we've known this from the gitgo! Count your days as numbered!
Eventually, as Kevin Baker argued recently in Harper's, the right in America will fully embrace the notion that what went wrong in Iraq was the result of a "stab in the back" from effite liberals who hate America. The Lucianne crowd clearly isn't waiting for "eventually" -- and that's the crowd Rove needs to drive to the polls in November.
Rove isn't going to admit defeat anytime soon, or even acknowledge that the war plan isn't working, but this is a bloody shirt he could wave while still claiming that victory is in sight -- and I wonder if he'll do just that. I wonder if the the soft-fleshed little noncombatant will invoke these two young men the next time he gives one of his Democrat-baiting neo-McCarthyite war speeches. Or maybe he'll wait till late October or the first couple of days of November.
It appalls me to think it might happen, but I wonder if Karl Rove will recognize that the brutal deaths of Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca may have greater potential to motivate his party's base than more positive developments such as the formation of the new Iraqi government and the killing of Zarqawi.
The folks over at Lucianne.com "know" who really killed and mutilated these two soldiers: John Murtha and The New York Times:
We need to let fighters fight -- and we need seditious Congress members and "journalists" in the dock! Start with Sandy Berger and Pinch Sulzberger.
****
The MSM is more concerned about Muslims who get pink panties put over their heads.
****
Next up, the NY Times editorializing on the torture at Gitmo. Time's cover on the horrors of Haditha. Newsweek's scoop on how Bush lied.
****
They know exactly what to do to turn Murtha, Kerry, Reid etc into blithering idiots. I hold them an others like him for their death. THEY are the ones that encourage such subhuman activities. How many others have died and will die due the the encouragement given to the enemy????
****
Well, you know what the MSM will say, that this was done because of the grave US abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Haditha. So the US will still be to blame, once again. And Murtha and Co. will say this is more evidence that the US is not wanted.
****
And after Sandy Berger is frog marched away, a fighter jet on maneuvers should take out the NY Times as the mouthpiece for the terrorists.
It's also time to fight back against the fifth column inside the US that would condemn us all to the slavery of communism/socialism or the barbarism of Islam.
****
Perhaps if we could defeat the media savages and their political brethren first we could move on to finding the terrorists in Iraq without so much trouble. One thing that is beginning to tell the real story is the media and the democrats has found themselves with no place to hide. Their statements and actions are printed in indelible ink and splashed across the pages of America on a daily basis. The Democrats have had ample countless chances to back away from the media's lies but have chosen not to. They've essentially said..."Ta' Hell with America, We're with the terrorists", Media and 'Rats...we've known this from the gitgo! Count your days as numbered!
Eventually, as Kevin Baker argued recently in Harper's, the right in America will fully embrace the notion that what went wrong in Iraq was the result of a "stab in the back" from effite liberals who hate America. The Lucianne crowd clearly isn't waiting for "eventually" -- and that's the crowd Rove needs to drive to the polls in November.
Rove isn't going to admit defeat anytime soon, or even acknowledge that the war plan isn't working, but this is a bloody shirt he could wave while still claiming that victory is in sight -- and I wonder if he'll do just that. I wonder if the the soft-fleshed little noncombatant will invoke these two young men the next time he gives one of his Democrat-baiting neo-McCarthyite war speeches. Or maybe he'll wait till late October or the first couple of days of November.
WE'RE SCREWING UP A WAR WE SHOULD HAVE WON, DRUG LORDS AND EXTREMISTS ARE GAINING STRENGTH, BUT THE NAMES OF OUR OPERATIONS SOUND LIKE VAN HALEN SONGS, SO EVERYTHING'S COOL
Suspected Taliban guerrillas in the southern province of Helmand ambushed and killed 32 people on Sunday, all of them relatives and tribesmen of an influential member of Parliament, among them a former local government official, the legislator said Monday.
The attack, in broad daylight, was the latest sign of the strength of the suspected Taliban insurgents in Helmand, a poppy-growing province where NATO and the Afghan Army have recently increased their troops in an effort to contain the spreading insurgency....
--New York Times
In their biggest show of strength in nearly five years, pro-Taliban fighters are terrorizing southern Afghanistan -- ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity.
"We are faced with a full-blown insurgency," says Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia.
Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country. More than 10,000 U.S., Canadian, British and Afghan government troops are scouring southern and eastern Afghanistan in a campaign called Operation Mountain Thrust....
--USA Today
Suspected Taliban guerrillas in the southern province of Helmand ambushed and killed 32 people on Sunday, all of them relatives and tribesmen of an influential member of Parliament, among them a former local government official, the legislator said Monday.
The attack, in broad daylight, was the latest sign of the strength of the suspected Taliban insurgents in Helmand, a poppy-growing province where NATO and the Afghan Army have recently increased their troops in an effort to contain the spreading insurgency....
--New York Times
In their biggest show of strength in nearly five years, pro-Taliban fighters are terrorizing southern Afghanistan -- ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity.
"We are faced with a full-blown insurgency," says Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia.
Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country. More than 10,000 U.S., Canadian, British and Afghan government troops are scouring southern and eastern Afghanistan in a campaign called Operation Mountain Thrust....
--USA Today
Ann Coulter really likes to promote herself, and she really likes to get herself photographed with Marines in uniform. Her fans at Free Republic expend a great deal of effort aiding her in these twin endeavors:
Recent photo at a party for her new book.
Photo from last year.
More photos from last year (scroll a bit).
The last two links are from a party that followed her appearance on Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show on NBC. The Freepers say they had a big contingent in the audience, pointedly including uniformed Marines:
Perhaps [Ferguson] decided NOT to attack her as aggressively as he intended -- when he found out that there were a LOT of "Ann Coulter fans" in the audience -- including TWENTY Marines, just back form Iraq, in their full dress uniforms.
Hmmm -- what do Marine Corps regulations say?
1. Members of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve, including retired Marines, are prohibited from wearing the Marine Corps uniform while engaged in any of the following activities, functions or circumstances unless specifically authorized by the CMC (Public Affairs(PA):
a. Soliciting funds for any purpose from the public outside of a military base or establishment.
b. Participating in any type of show or event which is commercially sponsored for advertising purposes, where it could be implied or construed that the Marine Corps "endorses" the product advertised.
c. "Endorsing" commercial products in such ways as to involve the uniform, title, grade or rate, or in any way establish or imply their military affiliation with such products.
d. Appearing or participating in any event in public that would compromise the dignity of the uniform.
(Emphasis mine.)
Ann Coulter's books are commercial products, as is Ann Coulter's overall work as a pundit. Is somebody inviting these Marines to TV show tapings and after-parties and encouraging them to show up in uniform to spread the notion, highly beneficial to her career, that she's the voice of The Few and The Proud? If so, why do the Freepers besmirch the honor of our troops?
****
BY THE WAY: Do I need to point out that a woman who goes out of her way to pose with Marines who've served in the Iraq War has a goddamn nerve criticizing Max Cleland, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, and the Jersey Girls as unattackable?
Recent photo at a party for her new book.
Photo from last year.
More photos from last year (scroll a bit).
The last two links are from a party that followed her appearance on Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show on NBC. The Freepers say they had a big contingent in the audience, pointedly including uniformed Marines:
Perhaps [Ferguson] decided NOT to attack her as aggressively as he intended -- when he found out that there were a LOT of "Ann Coulter fans" in the audience -- including TWENTY Marines, just back form Iraq, in their full dress uniforms.
Hmmm -- what do Marine Corps regulations say?
1. Members of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve, including retired Marines, are prohibited from wearing the Marine Corps uniform while engaged in any of the following activities, functions or circumstances unless specifically authorized by the CMC (Public Affairs(PA):
a. Soliciting funds for any purpose from the public outside of a military base or establishment.
b. Participating in any type of show or event which is commercially sponsored for advertising purposes, where it could be implied or construed that the Marine Corps "endorses" the product advertised.
c. "Endorsing" commercial products in such ways as to involve the uniform, title, grade or rate, or in any way establish or imply their military affiliation with such products.
d. Appearing or participating in any event in public that would compromise the dignity of the uniform.
(Emphasis mine.)
Ann Coulter's books are commercial products, as is Ann Coulter's overall work as a pundit. Is somebody inviting these Marines to TV show tapings and after-parties and encouraging them to show up in uniform to spread the notion, highly beneficial to her career, that she's the voice of The Few and The Proud? If so, why do the Freepers besmirch the honor of our troops?
****
BY THE WAY: Do I need to point out that a woman who goes out of her way to pose with Marines who've served in the Iraq War has a goddamn nerve criticizing Max Cleland, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, and the Jersey Girls as unattackable?
The two U.S. soldiers missing since an attack on a checkpoint last week were found dead near a power plant in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi defense official.
General Abdul Aziz Muhammed, head of operations at Iraqi Ministry of Defense said in a news conference in Baghdad this afternoon that the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.
--Washington Post
This is the reality of Iraq right now, not Bush sneaking into Iraq and prancing around as if he owns the place. America gets it, which is why Bush didn't get a bump in the polls for his surprise-visit stunt -- we've seen this kind of thing before and we know the bloodshed never ends in Iraq.
And yet I see no evidence that Americans are actually cheering on the notion of withdrawal, even if they're coming around to it. I'm waiting for a sign that America is truly capable of shutting down its emotional investment in the fighting of this war -- that a large majority of citizens are capable of saying, "Our leaders, those bastards, sent our kids off to die in that hellhole, and for nothing." Instead, there's still a large chunk of the populace that thinks of this as our war, and that reacts to every soldier's death primarily with outrage at the killers, and only then, if at all, with exasperation at the American leaders who sent the soldiers into the killers' paths.
The tradeoff is still "Let's keep fighting" versus "Let's admit we made a mistake" -- and while the "mistake" faction is growing, there's no pride in it, except for those of us who are angrily anti-war. So Bush's hapless stutting is still capable of holding voters, which is why Republicans aren't doomed in '06. (I don't think the problem is that Democrats haven't truly joined together in opposition to the war, because America thinks the Democratic Party is full of war opponents anyway.)
I've always thought Bush and Rove -- Rove, certainly -- could see this from the beginning. I think their plan was to keep fighting optional wars if Iraq really did turn into a cakewalk, and fight them in part to keep the majority of the country wary of Democrats, a party that could be characterized as full of war skeptics even if only a few Democrats expressed skepticism. I think the White House wanted to create a generational fault line, whith Republicans on the side of fighting and pride and vengeance and Democrats painted as the other side. I'm afraid it's still working, if barely. Bush may never again be a popular president, but Americans either have to stick with his party's approach or embrace an alternative that's dispiriting -- which means he may still have us where he wants us.
General Abdul Aziz Muhammed, head of operations at Iraqi Ministry of Defense said in a news conference in Baghdad this afternoon that the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.
--Washington Post
This is the reality of Iraq right now, not Bush sneaking into Iraq and prancing around as if he owns the place. America gets it, which is why Bush didn't get a bump in the polls for his surprise-visit stunt -- we've seen this kind of thing before and we know the bloodshed never ends in Iraq.
And yet I see no evidence that Americans are actually cheering on the notion of withdrawal, even if they're coming around to it. I'm waiting for a sign that America is truly capable of shutting down its emotional investment in the fighting of this war -- that a large majority of citizens are capable of saying, "Our leaders, those bastards, sent our kids off to die in that hellhole, and for nothing." Instead, there's still a large chunk of the populace that thinks of this as our war, and that reacts to every soldier's death primarily with outrage at the killers, and only then, if at all, with exasperation at the American leaders who sent the soldiers into the killers' paths.
The tradeoff is still "Let's keep fighting" versus "Let's admit we made a mistake" -- and while the "mistake" faction is growing, there's no pride in it, except for those of us who are angrily anti-war. So Bush's hapless stutting is still capable of holding voters, which is why Republicans aren't doomed in '06. (I don't think the problem is that Democrats haven't truly joined together in opposition to the war, because America thinks the Democratic Party is full of war opponents anyway.)
I've always thought Bush and Rove -- Rove, certainly -- could see this from the beginning. I think their plan was to keep fighting optional wars if Iraq really did turn into a cakewalk, and fight them in part to keep the majority of the country wary of Democrats, a party that could be characterized as full of war skeptics even if only a few Democrats expressed skepticism. I think the White House wanted to create a generational fault line, whith Republicans on the side of fighting and pride and vengeance and Democrats painted as the other side. I'm afraid it's still working, if barely. Bush may never again be a popular president, but Americans either have to stick with his party's approach or embrace an alternative that's dispiriting -- which means he may still have us where he wants us.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The New York Times has an article today about people who make amateur star Trek videos. There are accompanying photos.
Say, is that George W. Bush on the left? It does kinda look like him....
****
And on that high-minded note, I'm outta here till Monday night.
Say, is that George W. Bush on the left? It does kinda look like him....
****
And on that high-minded note, I'm outta here till Monday night.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Yesterday morning I watched Ann Coulter's appearance on The Tonight Show (I think this YouTube link still works).
Coulter slunk out on stage in her usual black cocktail dress -- but what's odd is that there's nothing genuinely charismatic or sexy or radiant about her. I've watched far too many starlets making talk-show entrances over the years, and they exude not just sex appeal but vitality and a glow of health. Coulter, by contrast, is frail -- she all but tottered out, on Karen Carpenter legs. If you didn't know who she was and you'd been told she was a well-known abuse survivor making the TV rounds and putting on a brave face, you'd believe it. You'd write off the cocktail dress as an eccentricity; you'd think she's had a hard life and just doesn't know any better than to wear her hair in a style suited to a twelve-year-old girl.
She got off zingers, but her delivery was awful. At one point, commenting on a joke Jay Leno had previously told in which he'd compared to her to the Wicked Witch of the East, she asserted -- no, she proclaimed -- that she disagreed with the point of the joke and thinks of herself as Dorothy. Hearing this proclamation was like hearing a joke at an office party from the shy person who never tells jokes and is, temporarily and ill-advisedly, feeling confident about public speaking; Yes, you're telling a joke, but you're also telling us you're telling a joke. That's why it's not funny.
But when Coulter did it, the audience roared approval.
I think I understand this. Her appearance of ill-health, her odd grooming choices, her deficiencies as a public speaker -- I think all this makes her seem like the victim, the underdog, the embodiment of How The Liberals Beat Us Down. She's not the sex bomb of right-wing vitriol -- she's a plucky little girl surviving in a liberal world she never made.
Yes, I know -- her fan base doesn't think of her that way. Her fan base thinks of her a sexy, tough, gun-totin' dame. But I think her fan base is responding to the victim as much as to the dame. She is who they think they are (victims) as well as who they'd like to be. Somewhat similarly, the alpha male of her pack, Rush Limbaugh, regularly declared during his rise to fame both that he was a guy with "talent on loan from God" and that he was "just a harmless little fuzzball." He was (and is) both aggressive and rotundly asexual. He was (and is), for his fans, the picked-on fat kid from fourth grade speaking truth to power.
Preceding both of them as right-wing victim-heroes, of course, were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan; the former was successful only temporarily, the latter until his death (and even beyond). Nixon obviously couldn't sustain an air of innocence; Reagan exuded innocence and frailty and eventually suffered a literal gunshot wound, so he seemed like a plucky Boy Scout or toothless grampa even as practically every word out of his mouth accused liberals of some crime or other against humanity.
There are other approaches to creating an air of right-wing victimhood that don't require the victim to seem weakened -- Bill O'Reilly, for instance, has mastered the Put-Upon Dad, tut-tutting in a disgruntled way (when he's not verbally kneeing interviewees in the groin) -- but top-dog status on the right requires some show of being hobbled or wounded and yet soldiering on bravely. That's what, Michelle Malkin, say, doesn't understand, and Ann Coulter apparently does.
Coulter slunk out on stage in her usual black cocktail dress -- but what's odd is that there's nothing genuinely charismatic or sexy or radiant about her. I've watched far too many starlets making talk-show entrances over the years, and they exude not just sex appeal but vitality and a glow of health. Coulter, by contrast, is frail -- she all but tottered out, on Karen Carpenter legs. If you didn't know who she was and you'd been told she was a well-known abuse survivor making the TV rounds and putting on a brave face, you'd believe it. You'd write off the cocktail dress as an eccentricity; you'd think she's had a hard life and just doesn't know any better than to wear her hair in a style suited to a twelve-year-old girl.
She got off zingers, but her delivery was awful. At one point, commenting on a joke Jay Leno had previously told in which he'd compared to her to the Wicked Witch of the East, she asserted -- no, she proclaimed -- that she disagreed with the point of the joke and thinks of herself as Dorothy. Hearing this proclamation was like hearing a joke at an office party from the shy person who never tells jokes and is, temporarily and ill-advisedly, feeling confident about public speaking; Yes, you're telling a joke, but you're also telling us you're telling a joke. That's why it's not funny.
But when Coulter did it, the audience roared approval.
I think I understand this. Her appearance of ill-health, her odd grooming choices, her deficiencies as a public speaker -- I think all this makes her seem like the victim, the underdog, the embodiment of How The Liberals Beat Us Down. She's not the sex bomb of right-wing vitriol -- she's a plucky little girl surviving in a liberal world she never made.
Yes, I know -- her fan base doesn't think of her that way. Her fan base thinks of her a sexy, tough, gun-totin' dame. But I think her fan base is responding to the victim as much as to the dame. She is who they think they are (victims) as well as who they'd like to be. Somewhat similarly, the alpha male of her pack, Rush Limbaugh, regularly declared during his rise to fame both that he was a guy with "talent on loan from God" and that he was "just a harmless little fuzzball." He was (and is) both aggressive and rotundly asexual. He was (and is), for his fans, the picked-on fat kid from fourth grade speaking truth to power.
Preceding both of them as right-wing victim-heroes, of course, were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan; the former was successful only temporarily, the latter until his death (and even beyond). Nixon obviously couldn't sustain an air of innocence; Reagan exuded innocence and frailty and eventually suffered a literal gunshot wound, so he seemed like a plucky Boy Scout or toothless grampa even as practically every word out of his mouth accused liberals of some crime or other against humanity.
There are other approaches to creating an air of right-wing victimhood that don't require the victim to seem weakened -- Bill O'Reilly, for instance, has mastered the Put-Upon Dad, tut-tutting in a disgruntled way (when he's not verbally kneeing interviewees in the groin) -- but top-dog status on the right requires some show of being hobbled or wounded and yet soldiering on bravely. That's what, Michelle Malkin, say, doesn't understand, and Ann Coulter apparently does.
REALLY BRIEF HIATUS
I've had a combination of Internet glitchiness and real-life complications. The computer glitch has resolved itself, so I'll post something I had ready before I lost service. After that, I'm not sure how much posting I'll be doing until Monday night. (Don't worry -- there won't be a test on any of this.)
I've had a combination of Internet glitchiness and real-life complications. The computer glitch has resolved itself, so I'll post something I had ready before I lost service. After that, I'm not sure how much posting I'll be doing until Monday night. (Don't worry -- there won't be a test on any of this.)
Friday, June 16, 2006
I GUESS THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE TO HIM
In the self-blame department, White House spokesman Tony Snow had a political doozy.
...Last week, Snow gave reporters a routine account of a meeting President Bush conducted with members of Congress on Iraq. In the retelling, Snow confused one African-American Democratic female lawmaker for another.
"Cynthia McKinney made the point yesterday in the meeting with the president that the one thing they had gotten from generals there were thorough and honest assessments of what's going on," Snow said then.
But it was [Sheila] Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, who had made the point. McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, wasn't at the meeting. Reporters were unaware of Snow's mix-up because they had never seen the private session.
Snow said his mistake "prompted a phone call from Representative Jackson Lee, who was absolutely charming, and we had a wonderful little conversation."...
Despite the comity, the incident was poorly timed for Snow, the former news commentator who, in his first day on the job last month, raised eyebrows with his use of the phrase "tar baby."
"I don't want to hug the tar baby," Snow said at the time, sidestepping a question on an intelligence program that was in the news....
--Houston Chronicle
Er, both McKinney and Lee have been in Congress for more than a decade. I think Tony Snow has had enough time to learn how to tell them apart.
In the self-blame department, White House spokesman Tony Snow had a political doozy.
...Last week, Snow gave reporters a routine account of a meeting President Bush conducted with members of Congress on Iraq. In the retelling, Snow confused one African-American Democratic female lawmaker for another.
"Cynthia McKinney made the point yesterday in the meeting with the president that the one thing they had gotten from generals there were thorough and honest assessments of what's going on," Snow said then.
But it was [Sheila] Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, who had made the point. McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, wasn't at the meeting. Reporters were unaware of Snow's mix-up because they had never seen the private session.
Snow said his mistake "prompted a phone call from Representative Jackson Lee, who was absolutely charming, and we had a wonderful little conversation."...
Despite the comity, the incident was poorly timed for Snow, the former news commentator who, in his first day on the job last month, raised eyebrows with his use of the phrase "tar baby."
"I don't want to hug the tar baby," Snow said at the time, sidestepping a question on an intelligence program that was in the news....
--Houston Chronicle
Er, both McKinney and Lee have been in Congress for more than a decade. I think Tony Snow has had enough time to learn how to tell them apart.
HO-HUM -- ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER PERSON TARGETED FOR DEATH BY ANN COULTER
Coulter's description of John Murtha in a recent interview:
"The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"
I don't really have the time to do it, but I think -- for lazy journalists -- there's a real need for a Web site called "Ann Coulter Body Count." It would total up the number of people Ann Coulter has said deserve to be killed (e.g., Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and all of these people). Where she's demanded mass casualties, an attempt would be made to estimate the bloodshed. Anyone who wants to take this idea and run with it, be my guest.
Just for my own edification as a New Yorker, and in order to grasp the depths of Coulter's depravity, I'd particularly like to see an estimate of the bloodshed if a Timothy McVeigh-style truck bomb really had been driven up to the New York Times building, a scenario that was one of Coulter's most gleeful fantasies. Keep in mind that the Times building doesn't stand alone on a plaza -- it's on a narrow side street where buildings are wedged together, offering the potential, I think, for some nasty collateral damage. Also note that the OKC bombing happened at 9:03 A.M -- a time when, on a typical weekday in New York, there are still a lot of people streaming to work. (New Yorkers tend to get to the office a bit late and then stay late.) I don't want to go asking around about this -- that's all I need, to be the weird guy who wants some demolition expert's opinion on how much damage a fertilizer bomb could do to a New York office building -- but I've always wondered about this. It was an appalling thing to say, and she's never paid in the slightest for saying it -- it would be interesting to know how much death she was really talking about.
***
UPDATE: Here's Mickey Kaus in Slate a couple of days ago, comparing Ann Coulter to Kos:
I rag on Markos Moulitsas for his 2004 "screw them" comment about the four American security contractors killed in Fallujah. That comment was more offensive than anything Ann Coulter's book is currently being criticized for.
Right -- pull up the worst remark from Kos ever, but limit your Coulter search to what's in her current book, excluding her past remarks and, for instance, what she's saying in interviews now (see the Murtha quote above).
Yeah, that's fair.
Coulter's description of John Murtha in a recent interview:
"The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"
I don't really have the time to do it, but I think -- for lazy journalists -- there's a real need for a Web site called "Ann Coulter Body Count." It would total up the number of people Ann Coulter has said deserve to be killed (e.g., Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and all of these people). Where she's demanded mass casualties, an attempt would be made to estimate the bloodshed. Anyone who wants to take this idea and run with it, be my guest.
Just for my own edification as a New Yorker, and in order to grasp the depths of Coulter's depravity, I'd particularly like to see an estimate of the bloodshed if a Timothy McVeigh-style truck bomb really had been driven up to the New York Times building, a scenario that was one of Coulter's most gleeful fantasies. Keep in mind that the Times building doesn't stand alone on a plaza -- it's on a narrow side street where buildings are wedged together, offering the potential, I think, for some nasty collateral damage. Also note that the OKC bombing happened at 9:03 A.M -- a time when, on a typical weekday in New York, there are still a lot of people streaming to work. (New Yorkers tend to get to the office a bit late and then stay late.) I don't want to go asking around about this -- that's all I need, to be the weird guy who wants some demolition expert's opinion on how much damage a fertilizer bomb could do to a New York office building -- but I've always wondered about this. It was an appalling thing to say, and she's never paid in the slightest for saying it -- it would be interesting to know how much death she was really talking about.
***
UPDATE: Here's Mickey Kaus in Slate a couple of days ago, comparing Ann Coulter to Kos:
I rag on Markos Moulitsas for his 2004 "screw them" comment about the four American security contractors killed in Fallujah. That comment was more offensive than anything Ann Coulter's book is currently being criticized for.
Right -- pull up the worst remark from Kos ever, but limit your Coulter search to what's in her current book, excluding her past remarks and, for instance, what she's saying in interviews now (see the Murtha quote above).
Yeah, that's fair.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Awesome -- Zarqawi left behind a document saying he was the biggest screw-up in all Jihadistan!
The document describes "the current bleak situation" and says, "Time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance."...
The document cites the improved Iraqi national guard, massive arrest operations, a crackdown on financial contributions, as reasons for the crisis.
And guess where this document was found? ABC's Brian Ross will tell you:
Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie produced the document this morning in Baghdad, saying it was found on a computer disk in Zarqawi's pants.
His pants! Ha-ha! Just like Sandy Berger! Hilarity ensues!
Er, unless what we're being told about this oh-so-conveniently gloomy pants document isn't true:
Iraqi officials said there was no question of the document's authenticity.
"Well, if I find something in your pockets, then that's authentic, isn't it?" al-Rubaie said.
But U.S. officials said the document was not, in fact, found on or near Zarqawi's body but in a raid three weeks earlier on other targets.
"But as far an analysis, we haven't done it yet," U.S. Major General William Caldwell said.
And the English translation was devoid of the usual elaborate phrasing and religious references typical of previous al Qaeda and Zarqawi communications.
"This letter clearly stands out in its language from all the letters that we know Zarqawi has written or has received," Alexis Debat, Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, said.
Oh, but come on! Shouldn't we just believe? After all, Bush needs a win, and any story that links the bad guy and the word "pants" is just too good to check!
The document describes "the current bleak situation" and says, "Time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance."...
The document cites the improved Iraqi national guard, massive arrest operations, a crackdown on financial contributions, as reasons for the crisis.
And guess where this document was found? ABC's Brian Ross will tell you:
Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie produced the document this morning in Baghdad, saying it was found on a computer disk in Zarqawi's pants.
His pants! Ha-ha! Just like Sandy Berger! Hilarity ensues!
Er, unless what we're being told about this oh-so-conveniently gloomy pants document isn't true:
Iraqi officials said there was no question of the document's authenticity.
"Well, if I find something in your pockets, then that's authentic, isn't it?" al-Rubaie said.
But U.S. officials said the document was not, in fact, found on or near Zarqawi's body but in a raid three weeks earlier on other targets.
"But as far an analysis, we haven't done it yet," U.S. Major General William Caldwell said.
And the English translation was devoid of the usual elaborate phrasing and religious references typical of previous al Qaeda and Zarqawi communications.
"This letter clearly stands out in its language from all the letters that we know Zarqawi has written or has received," Alexis Debat, Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, said.
Oh, but come on! Shouldn't we just believe? After all, Bush needs a win, and any story that links the bad guy and the word "pants" is just too good to check!
We reached another unfortunate milestone today in Iraq, as the Pentagon announced that the number of U.S. military deaths has reached 2500. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked if the president had "any response or reaction." Snow responded:
"It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something."
--The Carpetbagger Report
What would be happening if a Democrat had said something like this? Already, Fox News would have dispatched reporters to the hometown of casualty #2500 to elicit expressions of outrage that he or she had died defending our country but had been "reduced to a number." Top Republican congressional leaders would be demanding apologies, and a resignation. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes would be putting together shows with the theme "Democrats: Disrespecting Our Troops Again?" Joe Klein would be hard at work on a column for Time about how the "Howard Dean wing" of the Democratic Party sees all the troops as numbers and can't even acknowledge the humanity of those who serve our country.
The resignation would be a done deal by Monday.
"It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something."
--The Carpetbagger Report
What would be happening if a Democrat had said something like this? Already, Fox News would have dispatched reporters to the hometown of casualty #2500 to elicit expressions of outrage that he or she had died defending our country but had been "reduced to a number." Top Republican congressional leaders would be demanding apologies, and a resignation. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes would be putting together shows with the theme "Democrats: Disrespecting Our Troops Again?" Joe Klein would be hard at work on a column for Time about how the "Howard Dean wing" of the Democratic Party sees all the troops as numbers and can't even acknowledge the humanity of those who serve our country.
The resignation would be a done deal by Monday.
COULTER: YESTERDAY'S SOCIOPATH?
Interesting take on Coulterpalooza from Michael Cader at the book publishing newsletter Publishers Lunch (current content subscription only):
Conventional press wisdom holds that Ann Coulter and Crown are masterful at marketing even if vile in the one-liners they use to get there. But Bookscan figures show opening week sales of over 48,000 copies for GODLESS--actually down significantly from her best opening week, at the same time of year, for TREASON in 2003, which sold 69,000 copies.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but this strikes me as a failure in many ways. The recurring tactic of outrageous quip-tossing and fight-picking with icons is losing its appeal to her core audience, or else that core is shrinking--at a time when Republicans and conservatives are supposed to represent the majority. Sure her numbers are still good, but they are a fraction of what Limbaugh, O'Reilly or even Fox News can attract. Along the way, she's marginalized herself from a provocative analyst to just plain provocative at any cost. No one needs to pay for that.
So her first-week sales are down 30 percent? Hmmm ... I did not know that.
Clearly, some conservatives are distancing themselves from Coulter. Now, if only the mainstream media would do the same.
Interesting take on Coulterpalooza from Michael Cader at the book publishing newsletter Publishers Lunch (current content subscription only):
Conventional press wisdom holds that Ann Coulter and Crown are masterful at marketing even if vile in the one-liners they use to get there. But Bookscan figures show opening week sales of over 48,000 copies for GODLESS--actually down significantly from her best opening week, at the same time of year, for TREASON in 2003, which sold 69,000 copies.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but this strikes me as a failure in many ways. The recurring tactic of outrageous quip-tossing and fight-picking with icons is losing its appeal to her core audience, or else that core is shrinking--at a time when Republicans and conservatives are supposed to represent the majority. Sure her numbers are still good, but they are a fraction of what Limbaugh, O'Reilly or even Fox News can attract. Along the way, she's marginalized herself from a provocative analyst to just plain provocative at any cost. No one needs to pay for that.
So her first-week sales are down 30 percent? Hmmm ... I did not know that.
Clearly, some conservatives are distancing themselves from Coulter. Now, if only the mainstream media would do the same.
LIBEL
Next time you hear a right-winger whining about those vicious moonbat Democrats who get away with calling Republicans outrageous names, remember that today Michael Reagan -- talk radio host and son of the former president -- published this column:
Democrats Behave Like Sunni Insurgents
I've been wondering why there is something familiar about the behavior of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and suddenly it dawned on me that we have our own similar insurgency right here at home -- it is called the Democrat Party.
Think about it. Both are operating under the same motivation -- an unrequited lust for lost power. And both will do just about anything to retrieve it....
Saddam may have ordered the atrocities, but it was the Sunnis who carried them out, torturing, beheading and otherwise brutalizing the Shia and the Kurds and looting the nation's treasure.
They were very well compensated for their services -- and since being ousted by the U.S. invasion and the deposing of their benefactor they have been unable to accept their current powerlessness. They are, as the liberals like to say, "in denial." They just can't live with their loss of authority and act as if they can somehow regain what they lost by mounting an insurgency against the new Iraqi government....
Like the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Democrats cannot accept their minority status....
Like the Sunni insurgency, the national Democrat Party and its congressional contingent has demonstrated time and again that they will willingly sacrifice the welfare and security of the American people to get their way.
...In the end, all that matters to them is regaining the power the American people took from them in 1994, and, thank God, have kept it out of their hands ever since.
He won't ever be asked to apologize for this, either. And if he is, he'll refuse. And there'll be no negative consequences for that.
Republicans: The Ann Coulter party.
Next time you hear a right-winger whining about those vicious moonbat Democrats who get away with calling Republicans outrageous names, remember that today Michael Reagan -- talk radio host and son of the former president -- published this column:
Democrats Behave Like Sunni Insurgents
I've been wondering why there is something familiar about the behavior of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and suddenly it dawned on me that we have our own similar insurgency right here at home -- it is called the Democrat Party.
Think about it. Both are operating under the same motivation -- an unrequited lust for lost power. And both will do just about anything to retrieve it....
Saddam may have ordered the atrocities, but it was the Sunnis who carried them out, torturing, beheading and otherwise brutalizing the Shia and the Kurds and looting the nation's treasure.
They were very well compensated for their services -- and since being ousted by the U.S. invasion and the deposing of their benefactor they have been unable to accept their current powerlessness. They are, as the liberals like to say, "in denial." They just can't live with their loss of authority and act as if they can somehow regain what they lost by mounting an insurgency against the new Iraqi government....
Like the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Democrats cannot accept their minority status....
Like the Sunni insurgency, the national Democrat Party and its congressional contingent has demonstrated time and again that they will willingly sacrifice the welfare and security of the American people to get their way.
...In the end, all that matters to them is regaining the power the American people took from them in 1994, and, thank God, have kept it out of their hands ever since.
He won't ever be asked to apologize for this, either. And if he is, he'll refuse. And there'll be no negative consequences for that.
Republicans: The Ann Coulter party.
I know Chuck Schumer isn't likely to take advice from little old me, but if he decides to support the increasingly-likely independent run from Joe Lieberman he's really going to regret it.
He'll regret it doubly when Joe bolts the party AND loses.
--Atrios
Loses?
Let's look at the latest Quinnipiac poll, dated June 9:
In possible general election matchups:
...Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 56 percent, to 18 percent for [Ned] Lamont and 8 percent for [Republican challenger Alan] Schlesinger.
(Emphasis mine.)
And his overall approval-disapproval in Connecticut is 59%-37%. His approval is dropping, but it's still high.
Look, I'm sick of the sanctimonious little twerp, too -- but if he stays in this race, it appears now that he'll win in a landslide.
And, of course, if he does win, it appears he'll still caucus with the Democrats, thus contributing to a possible Senate majority -- which I thought was the point for people like us this year.
Though I guess there's no guarantee he'll stick with the Dems. Schumer, I suppose, is trying to make sure that happens.
I have to tell you I will be furious if this winds up a 50-50 or 51-49 Senate and a newly reelected independent Lieberman decides to tip the balance to the GOP by caucusing with the Republicans. I don't think that will happen, but I'd welcome some assurance that it won't.
In the abstract, of course it would be wonderful to get rid of Lieberman. But it's a safe seat for Democrats when the numbers are what's important, when we're clawing and scratching just to get to 51.
Why did this race become Priority #1 for so many angry progressives?
(Nothing wrong with anger, of course -- but it should be used more effectively than this.)
He'll regret it doubly when Joe bolts the party AND loses.
--Atrios
Loses?
Let's look at the latest Quinnipiac poll, dated June 9:
In possible general election matchups:
...Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 56 percent, to 18 percent for [Ned] Lamont and 8 percent for [Republican challenger Alan] Schlesinger.
(Emphasis mine.)
And his overall approval-disapproval in Connecticut is 59%-37%. His approval is dropping, but it's still high.
Look, I'm sick of the sanctimonious little twerp, too -- but if he stays in this race, it appears now that he'll win in a landslide.
And, of course, if he does win, it appears he'll still caucus with the Democrats, thus contributing to a possible Senate majority -- which I thought was the point for people like us this year.
Though I guess there's no guarantee he'll stick with the Dems. Schumer, I suppose, is trying to make sure that happens.
I have to tell you I will be furious if this winds up a 50-50 or 51-49 Senate and a newly reelected independent Lieberman decides to tip the balance to the GOP by caucusing with the Republicans. I don't think that will happen, but I'd welcome some assurance that it won't.
In the abstract, of course it would be wonderful to get rid of Lieberman. But it's a safe seat for Democrats when the numbers are what's important, when we're clawing and scratching just to get to 51.
Why did this race become Priority #1 for so many angry progressives?
(Nothing wrong with anger, of course -- but it should be used more effectively than this.)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
I hate these people:
Bill would limit consumers' credit rights
Congress is considering pre-empting laws in 17 states that allow anyone to freeze their own credit and instead restricting the privilege to ID theft victims.
...A credit freeze cuts off access to your credit history.... Under the bill, backed by the financial services industry, simply having your data lost or stolen isn't enough. You must file a police report describing a specific instance of it being used to commit a crime.
"It's like telling someone you can't put a deadbolt on your front door until after you've been burglarized," says Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna.
...The bill also would pre-empt laws in 29 states requiring companies, institutions and agencies to notify individuals about security breaches compromising their data. It sets national criteria for data protection and breach disclosures, and puts banking and Treasury officials in charge of compliance....
For "national criteria," read "whatever lax standard the financial services industry would prefer."
The bill, by the way, goes by the Orwellian name "Financial Data Protection Act of 2006."
Bill would limit consumers' credit rights
Congress is considering pre-empting laws in 17 states that allow anyone to freeze their own credit and instead restricting the privilege to ID theft victims.
...A credit freeze cuts off access to your credit history.... Under the bill, backed by the financial services industry, simply having your data lost or stolen isn't enough. You must file a police report describing a specific instance of it being used to commit a crime.
"It's like telling someone you can't put a deadbolt on your front door until after you've been burglarized," says Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna.
...The bill also would pre-empt laws in 29 states requiring companies, institutions and agencies to notify individuals about security breaches compromising their data. It sets national criteria for data protection and breach disclosures, and puts banking and Treasury officials in charge of compliance....
For "national criteria," read "whatever lax standard the financial services industry would prefer."
The bill, by the way, goes by the Orwellian name "Financial Data Protection Act of 2006."
NOT THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN
The new New York Times bestseller list is out -- and, yeah, Coulter's #1.
In fact, Coulter, Anderson Cooper, and Tim Russert are 1-2-3, with Thomas Friedman at #5, John Stossel at #7, and William Bennett at #13. You may want to rethink your citizenship. (Interestingly, though, Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse is #10.)
You'll be able to see this list on the Times Web site this weekend.
The new New York Times bestseller list is out -- and, yeah, Coulter's #1.
In fact, Coulter, Anderson Cooper, and Tim Russert are 1-2-3, with Thomas Friedman at #5, John Stossel at #7, and William Bennett at #13. You may want to rethink your citizenship. (Interestingly, though, Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse is #10.)
You'll be able to see this list on the Times Web site this weekend.
A FOLLOW-UP TO THIS POST
When things have been truly desperate in Iraq -- in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990 -- long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape....
Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen....
--Bush defender Amir Taheri in Commentary (UPDATE: Try this link instead.)
In one of the first comprehensive tallies of Iraqis fleeing Iraq since the American-led invasion, an American refugee advocacy group has counted 644,500 Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005.
The figure, provided by the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a nongovernmental group based in Washington, is equal to about 2.5 percent of Iraq's population, and substantiates the overwhelming evidence of an exodus that has been accumulating in Iraqi passport offices and airline waiting rooms in recent months.
... In all, as of the end of 2005, 889,000 Iraqis have moved abroad as refugees since 2003, according to the group's tally, more than double the 366,000 counted at the end of 2004.
"It's the biggest new flow of refugees in the world," said Lavinia Limon, the committee's president....
In Baghdad, evidence of the departures abounds. Faris al-Douri, a travel agency director, said on Tuesday that airline tickets are booked weeks in advance, and that airlines have added flights to Jordan and Syria. Passport offices are packed.
"As if we were giving out cars, not passports," said Maj. Gen. Yassen al-Yassiry, director of passports for the Iraqi government....
--New York Times today
I guess Faris al-Douri and Major General Yassen al-Yassiry hate freedom.
When things have been truly desperate in Iraq -- in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990 -- long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape....
Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen....
--Bush defender Amir Taheri in Commentary (UPDATE: Try this link instead.)
In one of the first comprehensive tallies of Iraqis fleeing Iraq since the American-led invasion, an American refugee advocacy group has counted 644,500 Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005.
The figure, provided by the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a nongovernmental group based in Washington, is equal to about 2.5 percent of Iraq's population, and substantiates the overwhelming evidence of an exodus that has been accumulating in Iraqi passport offices and airline waiting rooms in recent months.
... In all, as of the end of 2005, 889,000 Iraqis have moved abroad as refugees since 2003, according to the group's tally, more than double the 366,000 counted at the end of 2004.
"It's the biggest new flow of refugees in the world," said Lavinia Limon, the committee's president....
In Baghdad, evidence of the departures abounds. Faris al-Douri, a travel agency director, said on Tuesday that airline tickets are booked weeks in advance, and that airlines have added flights to Jordan and Syria. Passport offices are packed.
"As if we were giving out cars, not passports," said Maj. Gen. Yassen al-Yassiry, director of passports for the Iraqi government....
--New York Times today
I guess Faris al-Douri and Major General Yassen al-Yassiry hate freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)