Certainly lately, since the transfer of sovereignty, things seem to be looking up....
--Peggy Noonan on Iraq, column posted Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
10 dead as car bomb rocks Baghdad; And governor of Mosul assassinated
--AP story posted July 14, 2004, 04:09 PM
Bulgarian hostage in Iraq beheaded: Al-Jazeera
--AFP story posted July 13, 2004, 4:41 PM
Child killed as mortars hit Baghdad house
--AP story posted July 9, 2004, 04:25 PM
5 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraqi mortar attack
--AP story posted July 8, 2004, 06:02 PM
Iraq oil exports halved as looters strike; Workers struggle to repair downed line
--AP story posted July 5, 2004, 08:31 AM
In the thirteen days before the surprise early "transition" non-ceremonies, there were 19 American military deaths in Iraq. In the thirteen days since, there have been 31.
--blog post by Tom Englehardt, July 13, 2004, 10:40 am
Thursday, July 15, 2004
BOOGA BOOGA!
Here's the headline of a story by Bill Gertz in today's Washington Times:
British report links al Qaeda, Baghdad
Here's the sum total of links between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime discussed in paragraphs 1 through 15 of the story:
Yup, nothing. The booga-booga headline apparently refers to this damp squib of a conclusion (paragraphs 16-19):
British intelligence assessments of connections between al Qaeda and Saddam's government were similar to U.S. intelligence assessments, the report said, adding that there were "contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi Directorate General of Intelligence since 1998."
"Those reports described al Qaeda seeking toxic chemicals as well as other conventional terrorist equipment," the report said. "Some accounts suggested that Iraqi chemical experts may have been in Afghanistan during 2000."
The British concluded that the contacts did not lead to "practical cooperation" because of mutual distrust.
"Intelligence nonetheless indicates that ... meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al Qaeda operatives," the report said. "Some reports also suggest that Iraq may have trained some al Qaeda terrorists since 1998. Al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided."
The story does say this about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who may or may not be curreently affiliated with al-Qaeda:
A March 2003 British intelligence report stated that Zarqawi "has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city."
"These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons," the report said, noting that "it is also possible that they have received [chemical-biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]."
The report also said that "al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."
I guess this demonstrates a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, according to right-wing logic: We can surmise that Zarqawi was working with Saddam's regime because he was making plans for what happened after Saddam's ouster. We can surmise that Zarqawi and Saddam were jointly planning intercontinental attacks on U.S. civilians because Zarqawi wanted to get really, really close to U.S. troops so he could attack them.
Here's the headline of a story by Bill Gertz in today's Washington Times:
British report links al Qaeda, Baghdad
Here's the sum total of links between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime discussed in paragraphs 1 through 15 of the story:
Yup, nothing. The booga-booga headline apparently refers to this damp squib of a conclusion (paragraphs 16-19):
British intelligence assessments of connections between al Qaeda and Saddam's government were similar to U.S. intelligence assessments, the report said, adding that there were "contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi Directorate General of Intelligence since 1998."
"Those reports described al Qaeda seeking toxic chemicals as well as other conventional terrorist equipment," the report said. "Some accounts suggested that Iraqi chemical experts may have been in Afghanistan during 2000."
The British concluded that the contacts did not lead to "practical cooperation" because of mutual distrust.
"Intelligence nonetheless indicates that ... meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al Qaeda operatives," the report said. "Some reports also suggest that Iraq may have trained some al Qaeda terrorists since 1998. Al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided."
The story does say this about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who may or may not be curreently affiliated with al-Qaeda:
A March 2003 British intelligence report stated that Zarqawi "has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city."
"These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons," the report said, noting that "it is also possible that they have received [chemical-biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]."
The report also said that "al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."
I guess this demonstrates a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, according to right-wing logic: We can surmise that Zarqawi was working with Saddam's regime because he was making plans for what happened after Saddam's ouster. We can surmise that Zarqawi and Saddam were jointly planning intercontinental attacks on U.S. civilians because Zarqawi wanted to get really, really close to U.S. troops so he could attack them.
Shouldn't the Republican National Committee repudiate T-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers -- produced by a company called AuthenticGOP.com -- that say 10 OUT OF 10 TERRORISTS AGREE: ANYBODY BUT BUSH?
Look, it's a free country -- but this company ties itself by name to the GOP; its logo is an elephant; and the front of the T-shirt says, "Grand Old Party, Established 1954," surrounding the word "BUSH." The company boasts that the shirts were first sold at Washington State's GOP convention.
It's time for the GOP, and the President himself, to say once and for all whether they believe everyone who disagrees with Bush is an ally of terrorists. If they do, then we can stop talking about Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg -- the leaders of one of our major parties will have told us that they believes anyone who doesn't support them is an accessory to mass murder and to the killing of U.S. troops. If the GOP and the President do not believe that opposition to Bush is loyalty to terrorists, they have no choice -- they need to tell AuthenticGOP.com to dissociate this product from the GOP. AuthenticGOP must either stop marketing these items or stop putting "Grand Old Party" and "Bush" on them, and if the products continue to be sold, the use of "GOP" in the company name is unacceptable.
I think it would be entirely appropriate for the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign to raise this issue.
Look, it's a free country -- but this company ties itself by name to the GOP; its logo is an elephant; and the front of the T-shirt says, "Grand Old Party, Established 1954," surrounding the word "BUSH." The company boasts that the shirts were first sold at Washington State's GOP convention.
It's time for the GOP, and the President himself, to say once and for all whether they believe everyone who disagrees with Bush is an ally of terrorists. If they do, then we can stop talking about Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg -- the leaders of one of our major parties will have told us that they believes anyone who doesn't support them is an accessory to mass murder and to the killing of U.S. troops. If the GOP and the President do not believe that opposition to Bush is loyalty to terrorists, they have no choice -- they need to tell AuthenticGOP.com to dissociate this product from the GOP. AuthenticGOP must either stop marketing these items or stop putting "Grand Old Party" and "Bush" on them, and if the products continue to be sold, the use of "GOP" in the company name is unacceptable.
I think it would be entirely appropriate for the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign to raise this issue.
Turkish Foreign Minister Gul Denies Claims CIA Has Torture Center In Turkey
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul denied on Wednesday claims that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States had a torture center in Turkey.
Responding to a question with notice of Republican People`s Party (CHP) deputy Kemal Anadol, Gul said that a Turkish press organ published a news referring to an article of the New York Times.
Gul noted that the press organ claimed that CIA had torture centers in some countries including Turkey, but the mentioned article did not make any reference to Turkey....
--TurkishPress.com/Andalou Agency
Meanwhile, a Swedish Muslim freed from Guantanamo is saying he was tortured ("They dragged me to the interrogation room and used it as a refrigerator. They put it on freezing and it became tremendously cold and you had to freeze there for hours. You had to sit there for 12-14 hours, in chains"). The Pentagon denies this.
Also, yesterday General Jay Hood, the commander of the Guantanamo facility, showed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee some Gitmo DVDs -- but only a few of the many available; "Based on the staff's review of a small number of the videos, it does not appear that prisoners at Guantanamo were subjected to the types of egregious abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or at Baghram detention facility in Afghanistan," Senator Pat Leahy said in a written statement.
And, as you may already know from Atrios guest blogger Athenae, Seymour Hersh has said in a speech that the Pentagon has video from Abu Ghraib in which boy prisoners are sodomized ("The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking").
ALSO: Congress is still trying to get to the bottom of all this:
Before Congress goes into recess at the end of the month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner wants the Pentagon to provide witnesses for another public hearing into the issue....
His committee is getting a closed-door, classified briefing Thursday on where several Defense Department investigations into abuse now stand....
The committee also will be briefed on previous International Committee of the Red Cross reports into mistreatment of Iraqis. The House Armed Services Committee had a similar briefing Wednesday and Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., blasted the Defense Department afterward, saying the documents were so long in coming they were relatively useless....
The recent charge she referred to was the Red Cross allegation Wednesday that while it has visited thousands of prisoner in Iraq and elsewhere, the United States might be hiding more detainees in other lockups across the globe.
Terror suspects the FBI reported as captured have never turned up in detention centers, and the United States has failed to reply to demands for a list of everyone it's holding, said Antonella Notari, spokeswoman for the Switzerland-based ICRC...
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul denied on Wednesday claims that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States had a torture center in Turkey.
Responding to a question with notice of Republican People`s Party (CHP) deputy Kemal Anadol, Gul said that a Turkish press organ published a news referring to an article of the New York Times.
Gul noted that the press organ claimed that CIA had torture centers in some countries including Turkey, but the mentioned article did not make any reference to Turkey....
--TurkishPress.com/Andalou Agency
Meanwhile, a Swedish Muslim freed from Guantanamo is saying he was tortured ("They dragged me to the interrogation room and used it as a refrigerator. They put it on freezing and it became tremendously cold and you had to freeze there for hours. You had to sit there for 12-14 hours, in chains"). The Pentagon denies this.
Also, yesterday General Jay Hood, the commander of the Guantanamo facility, showed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee some Gitmo DVDs -- but only a few of the many available; "Based on the staff's review of a small number of the videos, it does not appear that prisoners at Guantanamo were subjected to the types of egregious abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or at Baghram detention facility in Afghanistan," Senator Pat Leahy said in a written statement.
And, as you may already know from Atrios guest blogger Athenae, Seymour Hersh has said in a speech that the Pentagon has video from Abu Ghraib in which boy prisoners are sodomized ("The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking").
ALSO: Congress is still trying to get to the bottom of all this:
Before Congress goes into recess at the end of the month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner wants the Pentagon to provide witnesses for another public hearing into the issue....
His committee is getting a closed-door, classified briefing Thursday on where several Defense Department investigations into abuse now stand....
The committee also will be briefed on previous International Committee of the Red Cross reports into mistreatment of Iraqis. The House Armed Services Committee had a similar briefing Wednesday and Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., blasted the Defense Department afterward, saying the documents were so long in coming they were relatively useless....
The recent charge she referred to was the Red Cross allegation Wednesday that while it has visited thousands of prisoner in Iraq and elsewhere, the United States might be hiding more detainees in other lockups across the globe.
Terror suspects the FBI reported as captured have never turned up in detention centers, and the United States has failed to reply to demands for a list of everyone it's holding, said Antonella Notari, spokeswoman for the Switzerland-based ICRC...
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
OK -- Ditka's not running for Senate, possibly because he was pissed off that the press showed up at a meeting he was going to attend with leaders of the Illinois GOP. Ooooh -- scared of a few reporters. What a delicate flower this alleged tough guy is.
The problem with calling Bush a liar isn't, as Nicholas Kristof would argue, that it coarsens the debate. The problem with calling Bush a liar is that it makes it awfully easy for him to beat the rap. A U.S. congressional committee focuses the blame for intel failures on intelligence gatherers, or a British inquiry criticizes the work of both U.K. intelligence agencies and the British government but finds that no one acted in bad faith, and self-righteous Bush defenders can wave a triumphant finger in the air and say: See -- he did not lie. "Liar" was your name for him; he uttered nothing that wasn't believed to be true by Good Men, so he's no liar, and you're a scoundrel to say he is one.
If Bush is seen as blameless because it looks as if he didn't lie, then we're in trouble. We're like DAs who charged someone with Murder One in a jurisdiction where the jury can't choose to convict on a lesser charge.
I don't think it matters whether Bush lied; what matters is that the decision to go to war with Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision, the worst foreign policy judgment, by a U.S. president in living memory.
My opinion is that Bush didn't lie. Infinitely slicker than Clinton, Bush conveys erroneous impressions about Iraq every time he talks about Iraq, while tiptoeing carefully around actual lies like a man trying to escape alive from a minefield. His typical speech on the subject is: al-Qaeda Taliban al-Qaeda Taliban terrorism Iraq Saddam Hussein safe haven for terrorists weapons of mass destructions we must not forget the lessons of September 11. There are no lies; there's just proximity. It's Saturday Night Live's Mr. Subliminal.
Bush made a horrible judgment based on excessive receptiveness to bad, ideologically poisoned intelligence ultimately traceable to liars, frauds, and bunko artists. I'm sorry that doesn't have the same ring as "Bush lied."
If Bush is seen as blameless because it looks as if he didn't lie, then we're in trouble. We're like DAs who charged someone with Murder One in a jurisdiction where the jury can't choose to convict on a lesser charge.
I don't think it matters whether Bush lied; what matters is that the decision to go to war with Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision, the worst foreign policy judgment, by a U.S. president in living memory.
My opinion is that Bush didn't lie. Infinitely slicker than Clinton, Bush conveys erroneous impressions about Iraq every time he talks about Iraq, while tiptoeing carefully around actual lies like a man trying to escape alive from a minefield. His typical speech on the subject is: al-Qaeda Taliban al-Qaeda Taliban terrorism Iraq Saddam Hussein safe haven for terrorists weapons of mass destructions we must not forget the lessons of September 11. There are no lies; there's just proximity. It's Saturday Night Live's Mr. Subliminal.
Bush made a horrible judgment based on excessive receptiveness to bad, ideologically poisoned intelligence ultimately traceable to liars, frauds, and bunko artists. I'm sorry that doesn't have the same ring as "Bush lied."
From "Noted Now" at ABC News:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and several top Republicans, including state house GOP leader Tom Cross, expected to endorse the idea of a Ditka candidacy Wednesday night at the Navy Pier...
Hmmm ... if Ditka throws his hat in the ring, I wonder how much these are going to go for (especially autographed).
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and several top Republicans, including state house GOP leader Tom Cross, expected to endorse the idea of a Ditka candidacy Wednesday night at the Navy Pier...
Hmmm ... if Ditka throws his hat in the ring, I wonder how much these are going to go for (especially autographed).
So I see from yesterday's paper that everything we know about Zarqawi is wrong:
...Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has described him as a Qaeda operative, but a senior American military official said recently that sources now indicated that Mr. Zarqawi was "a separate jihadist."...
Mr. Powell stands by his statement, a spokesman said this month, even though other parts of that speech have been discredited and Mr. Powell mistakenly identified Mr. Zarqawi as Palestinian. He actually is of the Beni Hassan tribe, with roots deep in the Jordanian desert.
Other American information about Mr. Zarqawi has also been incorrect. At first it was said that he had a leg amputated during a Baghdad hospital visit, but now, a senior United States military official said in an e-mail message, "we believe Zarqawi has both legs, and reporting of the missing limb was disinformation." ...
In February, American officials in Baghdad released a 6,700-word letter - outlining a terror strategy to drag Iraq into civil war - that they said had been found on a CD from Mr. Zarqawi to Al Qaeda's leadership. But people who know Mr. Zarqawi wonder if he was the author. They said the lengthy political analysis, the references to seventh-century kings and embroidered phrases like "crafty and malicious scorpion" do not sound like him.
"The man was basically illiterate," Mr. Abu Doma said, though he acknowledged that a learned acolyte could be helping him.
...On May 11, a video appeared, titled "Sheik Abu Musab Zarqawi Slaughters an American Infidel." It showed the beheading of Nicholas Berg, the young Pennsylvania businessman. American officials believe that Mr. Zarqawi may have been the killer.
Back in Amman, there are questions. The killer on the video cuts with his right hand. While Mr. Hami said he thought Mr. Zarqawi was right-handed, Mr. Rababa and Mr. Abu Doma, who shared the same room with him for several years, insisted that he used his right hand only for eating and shaking hands.
I don't know if we're dealing with incompetence, bad faith, disinformation from insurgents and terrorists, or a combination of one or more of these things. Surely it's politically important for the Bush administration to say that Zarqawi in Iraq = al-Qaeda (therefore Iraq war = war against the 9/11 terrorists). I'm not sure who benefits if it's believed erroneously that Zarqawi killed Nick Berg -- Zarqawi earns respect and fear in his world, I guess, and the Bushies get to draw a line from Berg's beheading to the Twin Towers. As for the letter, it's always seemed peculiar to me -- why did some passages seem to echo contemporaneous U.S. propaganda?
"There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the mujahidin has begun to tighten", the letter, which was found on a compact disc, states. "With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening".
Professor Juan Cole said he thought the letter was genuine (though written with a collaborator); Cole later posted the comments of Bernard Haykel, a Middle East scholar, who believes the letter is a forgery.
I assume Zarqawi's a really bad guy; I assume that much of the terrorism he's blamed for really is his doing. But have we ascribed more than we should to him because doing so implies that we're just one evildoer away from restoring stability to Iraq?
(Juan Cole links via Billmon.)
...Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has described him as a Qaeda operative, but a senior American military official said recently that sources now indicated that Mr. Zarqawi was "a separate jihadist."...
Mr. Powell stands by his statement, a spokesman said this month, even though other parts of that speech have been discredited and Mr. Powell mistakenly identified Mr. Zarqawi as Palestinian. He actually is of the Beni Hassan tribe, with roots deep in the Jordanian desert.
Other American information about Mr. Zarqawi has also been incorrect. At first it was said that he had a leg amputated during a Baghdad hospital visit, but now, a senior United States military official said in an e-mail message, "we believe Zarqawi has both legs, and reporting of the missing limb was disinformation." ...
In February, American officials in Baghdad released a 6,700-word letter - outlining a terror strategy to drag Iraq into civil war - that they said had been found on a CD from Mr. Zarqawi to Al Qaeda's leadership. But people who know Mr. Zarqawi wonder if he was the author. They said the lengthy political analysis, the references to seventh-century kings and embroidered phrases like "crafty and malicious scorpion" do not sound like him.
"The man was basically illiterate," Mr. Abu Doma said, though he acknowledged that a learned acolyte could be helping him.
...On May 11, a video appeared, titled "Sheik Abu Musab Zarqawi Slaughters an American Infidel." It showed the beheading of Nicholas Berg, the young Pennsylvania businessman. American officials believe that Mr. Zarqawi may have been the killer.
Back in Amman, there are questions. The killer on the video cuts with his right hand. While Mr. Hami said he thought Mr. Zarqawi was right-handed, Mr. Rababa and Mr. Abu Doma, who shared the same room with him for several years, insisted that he used his right hand only for eating and shaking hands.
I don't know if we're dealing with incompetence, bad faith, disinformation from insurgents and terrorists, or a combination of one or more of these things. Surely it's politically important for the Bush administration to say that Zarqawi in Iraq = al-Qaeda (therefore Iraq war = war against the 9/11 terrorists). I'm not sure who benefits if it's believed erroneously that Zarqawi killed Nick Berg -- Zarqawi earns respect and fear in his world, I guess, and the Bushies get to draw a line from Berg's beheading to the Twin Towers. As for the letter, it's always seemed peculiar to me -- why did some passages seem to echo contemporaneous U.S. propaganda?
"There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the mujahidin has begun to tighten", the letter, which was found on a compact disc, states. "With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening".
Professor Juan Cole said he thought the letter was genuine (though written with a collaborator); Cole later posted the comments of Bernard Haykel, a Middle East scholar, who believes the letter is a forgery.
I assume Zarqawi's a really bad guy; I assume that much of the terrorism he's blamed for really is his doing. But have we ascribed more than we should to him because doing so implies that we're just one evildoer away from restoring stability to Iraq?
(Juan Cole links via Billmon.)
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, we learn about this study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study finds that media coverage of both Bush and Kerry's characters is negative this year -- but that coverage of Kerry's character has been negative by a factor of five to one, whereas coverage of Bush's has been negative by a factor of three to one. Bush is regularly depicted as arrogant and lacking in credibility, the survey says, but also as a strong and decisive leader, whereas Kerry is depicted as a flip-flopper, a very liberal person, an elitist, and, sometimes, as a tough guy. Oh, and there's been far more coverage of Bush than of Kerry -- the margin is 72% to 28% -- so Kerry loses on quantity as well as quality.
Flashback:
Ditka fined $20,000 for unsaintly gestures to fans
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
New Orleans Saints coach Mike Ditka was fined $20,000 by the club yesterday for the obscene gestures he directed toward heckling fans during and after Sunday's loss to Tennessee at the Louisiana Superdome.
As a group of fans screamed obscenities and derided Ditka, the coach flashed an obscene hand gesture while walking off the field at halftime. When the game ended with Tennessee winning 24-21, Ditka grabbed his crotch while he walked off the field...
Ditka, of course, was the longtime coach of the Chicago Bears before his stint with New Orleans, and now may become the GOP's candidate for Senate in Illinois -- even though
Ditka's wife has said she will divorce him if he throws his hat in the ring, and he is not apparently even registered to vote in this state.
Ditka fined $20,000 for unsaintly gestures to fans
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
New Orleans Saints coach Mike Ditka was fined $20,000 by the club yesterday for the obscene gestures he directed toward heckling fans during and after Sunday's loss to Tennessee at the Louisiana Superdome.
As a group of fans screamed obscenities and derided Ditka, the coach flashed an obscene hand gesture while walking off the field at halftime. When the game ended with Tennessee winning 24-21, Ditka grabbed his crotch while he walked off the field...
Ditka, of course, was the longtime coach of the Chicago Bears before his stint with New Orleans, and now may become the GOP's candidate for Senate in Illinois -- even though
Ditka's wife has said she will divorce him if he throws his hat in the ring, and he is not apparently even registered to vote in this state.
Yesterday's line of the day from the Bush administration was "LOOK OVER HERE! BIG SCARY LIBYAN NUKES WE SAVED YOU FROM!" Rather an odd retroactive justification for a war, really -- "We abandoned the fight against the Afghanistan-based terrorists who attacked you to go fight in Iraq to save you from nukes that were in the early stage of development in Libya" -- but hey, the Bushies got The New York Times to carry their water by splashing this phony-looking photo-op photo across the front page, so I guess it worked, hunh?
Monday, July 12, 2004
Did you blink? Well, you might have missed the Bush boom:
Retail sales slowed in June. Auto purchases declined. Several technology companies warned about weak software and hardware spending at the end of the second quarter.
Less than three years since the United States emerged from a recession, a patchwork of unexpectedly soft economic reports is raising doubts about the vigor of the recovery.
... stock prices have faltered since the end of June, as corporate earnings have disappointed investors....
Signs of the end of consumers' exuberance have popped up in several areas. Year-over-year growth in spending slowed to 4.1 percent in May, in real terms, the slowest pace since January....
June was also sour for automakers. The General Motors Corporation reported sales that fell 15 percent and the Ford Motor Company reported an 8 percent drop from the same month a year earlier. Citing the "difficult new vehicle retail environment that we are operating in," AutoNation Inc., America's largest automotive retailer, trimmed its earnings forecasts for the second quarter.
...New orders of nondefense capital goods, excluding aircraft, fell 2.1 percent in April and 3.5 percent in May. And business spending on technology has seemingly remained weak. Since the beginning of July, 32 technology companies have issued warnings of lower second-quarter profits, according to Thomson First Call, while only one has increased its earnings projections.
..."Now the only real positive for the consumer is income and job growth," Mr. Harris at Lehman said. "If the labor market really slows down it would be a blow to the consumer and we could talk of growth slipping to below trend."...
--New York Times
Retail sales slowed in June. Auto purchases declined. Several technology companies warned about weak software and hardware spending at the end of the second quarter.
Less than three years since the United States emerged from a recession, a patchwork of unexpectedly soft economic reports is raising doubts about the vigor of the recovery.
... stock prices have faltered since the end of June, as corporate earnings have disappointed investors....
Signs of the end of consumers' exuberance have popped up in several areas. Year-over-year growth in spending slowed to 4.1 percent in May, in real terms, the slowest pace since January....
June was also sour for automakers. The General Motors Corporation reported sales that fell 15 percent and the Ford Motor Company reported an 8 percent drop from the same month a year earlier. Citing the "difficult new vehicle retail environment that we are operating in," AutoNation Inc., America's largest automotive retailer, trimmed its earnings forecasts for the second quarter.
...New orders of nondefense capital goods, excluding aircraft, fell 2.1 percent in April and 3.5 percent in May. And business spending on technology has seemingly remained weak. Since the beginning of July, 32 technology companies have issued warnings of lower second-quarter profits, according to Thomson First Call, while only one has increased its earnings projections.
..."Now the only real positive for the consumer is income and job growth," Mr. Harris at Lehman said. "If the labor market really slows down it would be a blow to the consumer and we could talk of growth slipping to below trend."...
--New York Times
THE CONNECTION
Saddam wasn't working with al-Qaeda, but we know who had an operational link with the Bush administration:
But the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report provides evidence of how administration officials held preconceived notions that appear to have affected how they viewed the intelligence information they received.
One senior intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence Agency told the committee that some officials working for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were convinced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack and may even have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"They did not tell us what to say," the intelligence officer told the committee. "There wasn't pressure in that sense. But you certainly had to make sure that your analysis was on target and that you were very precise in the words that you used."
--Washington Post
Laurie Mylroie is the author of two books on Saddam Hussein. The most recent, Study of Revenge--Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, assembles evidence that Saddam was behind the bomb plot to topple the World Trade Center towers in 1993 and that two Iraqi intelligence agents were masterminds of the plot.
The Defense Policy Group for the Defense Department, this panel of very esteemed Washingtonians, people from power in the past and such, recently came to some decisions. Can you tell us about that?
I was not at the Defense Policy Board meeting. Some people who were, some friends, told me about it. And what I heard was that, in some respects, my work on terrorism played a prominent role. There are people [who are] involved in this debate with the book who are familiar with this book [and] who have endorsed it. I think it makes a compelling case that Iraq was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993, and then it raises questions -- serious questions -- about whether Iraq has not been involved in subsequent terrorism.
--biography and exchange from an interview with Laurie Mylroie, 10/18/01, posted at the Web site for PBS's Frontline
Saddam wasn't working with al-Qaeda, but we know who had an operational link with the Bush administration:
But the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report provides evidence of how administration officials held preconceived notions that appear to have affected how they viewed the intelligence information they received.
One senior intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence Agency told the committee that some officials working for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were convinced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack and may even have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"They did not tell us what to say," the intelligence officer told the committee. "There wasn't pressure in that sense. But you certainly had to make sure that your analysis was on target and that you were very precise in the words that you used."
--Washington Post
Laurie Mylroie is the author of two books on Saddam Hussein. The most recent, Study of Revenge--Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, assembles evidence that Saddam was behind the bomb plot to topple the World Trade Center towers in 1993 and that two Iraqi intelligence agents were masterminds of the plot.
The Defense Policy Group for the Defense Department, this panel of very esteemed Washingtonians, people from power in the past and such, recently came to some decisions. Can you tell us about that?
I was not at the Defense Policy Board meeting. Some people who were, some friends, told me about it. And what I heard was that, in some respects, my work on terrorism played a prominent role. There are people [who are] involved in this debate with the book who are familiar with this book [and] who have endorsed it. I think it makes a compelling case that Iraq was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993, and then it raises questions -- serious questions -- about whether Iraq has not been involved in subsequent terrorism.
--biography and exchange from an interview with Laurie Mylroie, 10/18/01, posted at the Web site for PBS's Frontline
The party that loves traditional morality and hates celebrities who stick their nose into politics may be on the verge of running an erection-pill-endorsing ex-football coach for U.S. Senate:
Mike Ditka won't rule out U.S. Senate run
Hall of Fame football coach Mike Ditka says he's just a regular guy but that shouldn't rule him out as a replacement Illinois U.S. Senate candidate.
The 66-year-old former head coach of the Chicago Bears appeared on television news shows to talk about a possible bid for Senate. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition for Republicans to draft Ditka as the "people's choice" for November.
"I'm getting excited about it. I'm just thinking about it," Ditka told WGN-TV, Chicago....
--Washington Times/UPI
If this happens (in the wake of Jack "Sex Swap" Ryan's departure from the race), the jokes will be about Ditka's Levitra ads -- but what's up with the GOP and celebs? Schwarzenegger. Dennis Miller. Kelsey Grammer. And now Ditka. Celebrities bad? No, celebrities good! Four legs good, two legs bad? No, four legs good, two legs better!
Mike Ditka won't rule out U.S. Senate run
Hall of Fame football coach Mike Ditka says he's just a regular guy but that shouldn't rule him out as a replacement Illinois U.S. Senate candidate.
The 66-year-old former head coach of the Chicago Bears appeared on television news shows to talk about a possible bid for Senate. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition for Republicans to draft Ditka as the "people's choice" for November.
"I'm getting excited about it. I'm just thinking about it," Ditka told WGN-TV, Chicago....
--Washington Times/UPI
If this happens (in the wake of Jack "Sex Swap" Ryan's departure from the race), the jokes will be about Ditka's Levitra ads -- but what's up with the GOP and celebs? Schwarzenegger. Dennis Miller. Kelsey Grammer. And now Ditka. Celebrities bad? No, celebrities good! Four legs good, two legs bad? No, four legs good, two legs better!
I'm sorry I never posted anything about this New York Times article from Friday, in which Muhammad al-Zubaidi, a veteran anti-Saddam exile who worked with Iraq defectors, describes how those defectors' stories changed after they began working with Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress:
In February 2002, a third defector, Harith Assaf, a major in the Iraqi intelligence service, was filmed by the CBS News program "60 Minutes" speaking about mobile biological weapons laboratories that he said were put into seven refrigerated trucks. Mr. Assaf also described a meeting between a member of the Iraqi government and Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan.
When Mr. Zubaidi objected and tried to stop the interview, Mr. Musawi [of the INC], who had come with the television crew from London, said he insisted that it continue. "I told him, 'It's not your call. I'm allowing the story to be told,' " Mr. Musawi said.
Mr. Zubaidi said that the major, Mr. Assaf, had not revealed the purported bin Laden meeting and the mobile laboratories during discussions that had begun three months earlier. His diary entry for Feb. 11, 2002, says: "After the interview, an argument with Nabil about their way of working, especially the connection with bin Laden." In a follow-up story in March 2004, "60 Minutes" reported that Mr. Assaf had been deemed unreliable by American intelligence.
I've added this to the links at right (in a repost by Information Clearinghouse, which I hope will remain available for a while), along with two other articles about Chalabi and the INC: "The Manipulator" by Jane Mayer, from the 5/29/04 issue of The New Yorker, a history of Chalabi which I find most interesting for its discussion of the INC's document-forgery shop (“It was a room where people were scanning Iraqi intelligence documents into computers, and doing disinformation. There was a whole wing of it that he did forgeries in”) and "How Chalabi Played the Press" by Douglas McCollam, from the July/August Columbia Journalism Review, which talks about information supplied to the press by the INC ("...the stories, however, advanced almost every claim that would eventually become the backbone of the Bush administration’s case for war, including Saddam Hussein’s contacts with al Qaeda, his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and his extensive chemical and bioweapons facilities — all of which are now in grave doubt").
In February 2002, a third defector, Harith Assaf, a major in the Iraqi intelligence service, was filmed by the CBS News program "60 Minutes" speaking about mobile biological weapons laboratories that he said were put into seven refrigerated trucks. Mr. Assaf also described a meeting between a member of the Iraqi government and Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan.
When Mr. Zubaidi objected and tried to stop the interview, Mr. Musawi [of the INC], who had come with the television crew from London, said he insisted that it continue. "I told him, 'It's not your call. I'm allowing the story to be told,' " Mr. Musawi said.
Mr. Zubaidi said that the major, Mr. Assaf, had not revealed the purported bin Laden meeting and the mobile laboratories during discussions that had begun three months earlier. His diary entry for Feb. 11, 2002, says: "After the interview, an argument with Nabil about their way of working, especially the connection with bin Laden." In a follow-up story in March 2004, "60 Minutes" reported that Mr. Assaf had been deemed unreliable by American intelligence.
I've added this to the links at right (in a repost by Information Clearinghouse, which I hope will remain available for a while), along with two other articles about Chalabi and the INC: "The Manipulator" by Jane Mayer, from the 5/29/04 issue of The New Yorker, a history of Chalabi which I find most interesting for its discussion of the INC's document-forgery shop (“It was a room where people were scanning Iraqi intelligence documents into computers, and doing disinformation. There was a whole wing of it that he did forgeries in”) and "How Chalabi Played the Press" by Douglas McCollam, from the July/August Columbia Journalism Review, which talks about information supplied to the press by the INC ("...the stories, however, advanced almost every claim that would eventually become the backbone of the Bush administration’s case for war, including Saddam Hussein’s contacts with al Qaeda, his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and his extensive chemical and bioweapons facilities — all of which are now in grave doubt").
NO, MICHAEL, GIVE ME A BREAK
I believe there were WMDs, and the issue is, what happened to them?
If you don't believe that, you will have to explain how every major intelligence service in the world agreed there were WMDs. Do you think Ahmad Chalabi duped the Israelis? The Russians? The French?
Give me a break
--Michael Ledeen at National Review Online, 7/10/04
Ahmad Chalabi, the onetime White House favorite who has been implicated in an alleged Iranian spy operation, sent Iraqi defectors to at least eight Western spy services before the war in an apparent effort to dupe them about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons programs, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said.
--Bob Drogin in the L.A. Times, 5/23/04
I believe there were WMDs, and the issue is, what happened to them?
If you don't believe that, you will have to explain how every major intelligence service in the world agreed there were WMDs. Do you think Ahmad Chalabi duped the Israelis? The Russians? The French?
Give me a break
--Michael Ledeen at National Review Online, 7/10/04
Ahmad Chalabi, the onetime White House favorite who has been implicated in an alleged Iranian spy operation, sent Iraqi defectors to at least eight Western spy services before the war in an apparent effort to dupe them about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons programs, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said.
--Bob Drogin in the L.A. Times, 5/23/04
SORRY, YOUR BILLBOARD IS OBSCENE. HOW ABOUT A SHIRTLESS UNDERWEAR MODEL SAYING "DEMOCRACY MAKES ME HOT"?
A group of antiwar advocates is accusing Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation's largest media companies, with close ties to national Republicans, of preventing the group from displaying a Times Square billboard critical of the war in Iraq.
The billboard - an image of a red, white and blue bomb with the words "Democracy Is Best Taught by Example, Not by War" - was supposed to go up next month, the antiwar group said...
Last night, the president and chief executive of Clear Channel, Paul Meyer, said the company had objected to the group's use of "the bomb imagery" in the proposed billboard. Mr. Meyer said Clear Channel had accepted a billboard that would replace the bomb with a dove....
[Project Billboard spokesman Howard] Wolfson said that earlier, Clear Channel had rejected the ad with the dove as well as the one with the bomb, demanding that the words be changed, too....
--New York Times
Go to the Times link. The bomb doesn't even look like a real bomb you'd use in a war -- it looks like a cartoon bomb, for Pete's sake. It's like something out Rocky & Bullwinkle. And besides, if you wanted to spare New Yorkers' feelings in a post-9/11 world, shouldn't you ban images of airplanes?
I love this:
A lawyer for Project Billboard, Doug Curtis, said that at one point Clear Channel suggested that the group use a less provocative billboard ad, one with the image of a little girl waving a flag accompanied by the words, "Democracy is best taught by example."
Yeah, that's almost exactly the same message, isn't it?
A group of antiwar advocates is accusing Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation's largest media companies, with close ties to national Republicans, of preventing the group from displaying a Times Square billboard critical of the war in Iraq.
The billboard - an image of a red, white and blue bomb with the words "Democracy Is Best Taught by Example, Not by War" - was supposed to go up next month, the antiwar group said...
Last night, the president and chief executive of Clear Channel, Paul Meyer, said the company had objected to the group's use of "the bomb imagery" in the proposed billboard. Mr. Meyer said Clear Channel had accepted a billboard that would replace the bomb with a dove....
[Project Billboard spokesman Howard] Wolfson said that earlier, Clear Channel had rejected the ad with the dove as well as the one with the bomb, demanding that the words be changed, too....
--New York Times
Go to the Times link. The bomb doesn't even look like a real bomb you'd use in a war -- it looks like a cartoon bomb, for Pete's sake. It's like something out Rocky & Bullwinkle. And besides, if you wanted to spare New Yorkers' feelings in a post-9/11 world, shouldn't you ban images of airplanes?
I love this:
A lawyer for Project Billboard, Doug Curtis, said that at one point Clear Channel suggested that the group use a less provocative billboard ad, one with the image of a little girl waving a flag accompanied by the words, "Democracy is best taught by example."
Yeah, that's almost exactly the same message, isn't it?
Sunday, July 11, 2004
The Bush administration continued to collect evidence against Hussein, but for a different purpose: trying him once he was toppled. "We wanted to be ready with a database, records outlining abuses," Pierre-Richard Prosper, ... the current ambassador for war crimes issues, told me. "When the environment was right, Saddam could be tried and held accountable for his actions." A onetime assistant United States attorney in Los Angeles and an original prosecutor at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosper has a suite of offices down the hall from Secretary of State Colin Powell. On Sept. 10, 2001, Prosper was given two JAG officers to dispatch to Europe to meet with Kurdish exiles who'd witnessed Iraqi atrocities. "It had nothing to do with the invasion," he said. "We just knew one day he wouldn't be in power."
--New York Times
Insert conspiracy theory here.
--New York Times
Insert conspiracy theory here.
PEOPLE WITH DEEPLY HELD POLITICAL OPINIONS: NOT OUR KIND, MUFFY
In this weekend's New York Times Book Review, Alan Wolfe looks at contemporary books on politics and declares that they're deficient as books, and therefore beneath him. He then notes that they resemble the partisan pamphlets of early America, so he decides to examine them as pamphlets -- for no reason, apparently, because he clearly believes that pamphlets are beneath him as well. In fact, any passionate expression of a political opinion is beneath him, and ought to be beneath you, too. ("If the only choice we have is between no politics and vituperative politics, the latter is -- just barely -- preferable.")
To give him his due, Wolfe is appropriately appalled at the fact that Ann Coulter once speculated on a Democratic ticket consisting of Al Gore and Gray Davis and called it "the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire." But he apparently sees no difference between this and the statement by T. D. Allman (in Rogue State: America at War with the World) that the Bush administration has pursued a "middle-finger foreign policy."
It's all equally awful to Wolfe -- a mildly colorful metaphor and a literal wish that opposition figures will be shot and killed. But why should he bother distinguishing one from the other? All that matters is that they're both signs of our fall from grace. The Eden we've left behind is one in which "an American Establishment, a bipartisan group of bankers, politicians and journalists ... shaped the contours of national opinion" and "decided which television programs we would watch and how much dissent we would permit." Sounds swell, doesn't it?
Eden existed "before Watergate and the collapse of Vietnam," yet for some reason "the way we argue now has been shaped by cable news and Weblogs"; given that cable news didn't become contentious until the mid-1990s and blogs came along somewhat later, it's not clear what sort of limbo we were in from Nixon's resignation until the debut of The O'Reilly Factor.
You and I know, of course, what went on in those years: The rise of the liberal-bashing Reagan, and then, with his departure, the ascendancy of Rush Limbaugh and his imitators. Wolfe, like most mandarins, thinks nasty rhetoric, even between hard covers, was invented by Ann Coulter and Michael Moore; I don't imagine it ever occurred to him to crack a copy of Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be, which is now a dozen years old and is the Ur-text, the template for all the polemics, right and left, that followed.
I don't recall hearing much from Wolfe when nearly all the nastiness was coming from the right; like most mainstream elitists, he became distressed only when liberals started fighting back. Will it surprise you if I point out that he focuses on nine liberal books and only five conservative ones?
The Book Review used to ignore nasty political books, even the ones that needed to be discussed because they were setting the terms of the national debate. Now the Book Review says that such books are pretty much all alike, and we'd be better off without the whole damn lot of them. That's not much of an improvement.
In this weekend's New York Times Book Review, Alan Wolfe looks at contemporary books on politics and declares that they're deficient as books, and therefore beneath him. He then notes that they resemble the partisan pamphlets of early America, so he decides to examine them as pamphlets -- for no reason, apparently, because he clearly believes that pamphlets are beneath him as well. In fact, any passionate expression of a political opinion is beneath him, and ought to be beneath you, too. ("If the only choice we have is between no politics and vituperative politics, the latter is -- just barely -- preferable.")
To give him his due, Wolfe is appropriately appalled at the fact that Ann Coulter once speculated on a Democratic ticket consisting of Al Gore and Gray Davis and called it "the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire." But he apparently sees no difference between this and the statement by T. D. Allman (in Rogue State: America at War with the World) that the Bush administration has pursued a "middle-finger foreign policy."
It's all equally awful to Wolfe -- a mildly colorful metaphor and a literal wish that opposition figures will be shot and killed. But why should he bother distinguishing one from the other? All that matters is that they're both signs of our fall from grace. The Eden we've left behind is one in which "an American Establishment, a bipartisan group of bankers, politicians and journalists ... shaped the contours of national opinion" and "decided which television programs we would watch and how much dissent we would permit." Sounds swell, doesn't it?
Eden existed "before Watergate and the collapse of Vietnam," yet for some reason "the way we argue now has been shaped by cable news and Weblogs"; given that cable news didn't become contentious until the mid-1990s and blogs came along somewhat later, it's not clear what sort of limbo we were in from Nixon's resignation until the debut of The O'Reilly Factor.
You and I know, of course, what went on in those years: The rise of the liberal-bashing Reagan, and then, with his departure, the ascendancy of Rush Limbaugh and his imitators. Wolfe, like most mandarins, thinks nasty rhetoric, even between hard covers, was invented by Ann Coulter and Michael Moore; I don't imagine it ever occurred to him to crack a copy of Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be, which is now a dozen years old and is the Ur-text, the template for all the polemics, right and left, that followed.
I don't recall hearing much from Wolfe when nearly all the nastiness was coming from the right; like most mainstream elitists, he became distressed only when liberals started fighting back. Will it surprise you if I point out that he focuses on nine liberal books and only five conservative ones?
The Book Review used to ignore nasty political books, even the ones that needed to be discussed because they were setting the terms of the national debate. Now the Book Review says that such books are pretty much all alike, and we'd be better off without the whole damn lot of them. That's not much of an improvement.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Despite insults from the GOP and the so-called liberal media ("Cute, Sure, but Is He Electable?"), Edwards has given Kerry a bit of a bump in a couple of polls:
Newsweek:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry got a boost in the polls after picking Sen. John Edwards as his running mate and would beat President Bush if the election was held now, according to a new Newsweek poll.
The Kerry-Edwards ticket is leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by a margin of six percentage points, 51 percent to 45 percent, the poll said....
Rasmussen:
Senator Kerry now leads President Bush in the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll, 49% to 45%. Today's results reflect a five-point net gain for the Democrats since John Edwards was named as Kerry's running mate. In our last survey before the announcement, President Bush had a one-point edge, 47% to 46%.
Today is the first time since Kerry wrapped up the nomination that either candidate topped the 48% mark in our daily Tracking Poll. Prior to today, both candidates had stayed within three points of the 45% mark on every single night of polling for more than 120 days....
Our latest Electoral College projections show Kerry leading Bush 247-203....
Nice. And here's a bonus from Rasmussen:
While Republicans are presenting Kerry and Edwards as the most liberal ticket ever, a majority of Americans say that John Edwards is a political moderate. Edwards is also viewed more favorably than the man he hopes to replace, Dick Cheney.
Newsweek:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry got a boost in the polls after picking Sen. John Edwards as his running mate and would beat President Bush if the election was held now, according to a new Newsweek poll.
The Kerry-Edwards ticket is leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by a margin of six percentage points, 51 percent to 45 percent, the poll said....
Rasmussen:
Senator Kerry now leads President Bush in the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll, 49% to 45%. Today's results reflect a five-point net gain for the Democrats since John Edwards was named as Kerry's running mate. In our last survey before the announcement, President Bush had a one-point edge, 47% to 46%.
Today is the first time since Kerry wrapped up the nomination that either candidate topped the 48% mark in our daily Tracking Poll. Prior to today, both candidates had stayed within three points of the 45% mark on every single night of polling for more than 120 days....
Our latest Electoral College projections show Kerry leading Bush 247-203....
Nice. And here's a bonus from Rasmussen:
While Republicans are presenting Kerry and Edwards as the most liberal ticket ever, a majority of Americans say that John Edwards is a political moderate. Edwards is also viewed more favorably than the man he hopes to replace, Dick Cheney.
Friday, July 09, 2004
I missed the Howard Dean-Ralph Nader debate today, but I heard excerpts on All Things Considered.
In one clip, Ralph referred to "the Democrat Party."
That's it. That's the shibboleth. I've never heard anyone say that who wasn't a Republican. Maybe I still haven't.
Anyone who still thinks Nader's enemy is "the two-party duopoly" is delusional. Nader is running against Democrats -- period. (Just as he was in 2000, by the way.) He's happy to let Republicans help get him on the ballot in (at least) Oregon and Michigan, and now this.
Sorry, folks -- Nader's not Eugene V. Debs. He's Zell Miller. He's an opponent of the Republicans in name only.
(Michigan link via Pandagon.)
In one clip, Ralph referred to "the Democrat Party."
That's it. That's the shibboleth. I've never heard anyone say that who wasn't a Republican. Maybe I still haven't.
Anyone who still thinks Nader's enemy is "the two-party duopoly" is delusional. Nader is running against Democrats -- period. (Just as he was in 2000, by the way.) He's happy to let Republicans help get him on the ballot in (at least) Oregon and Michigan, and now this.
Sorry, folks -- Nader's not Eugene V. Debs. He's Zell Miller. He's an opponent of the Republicans in name only.
(Michigan link via Pandagon.)
Bush lost Howard Stern a long time ago. Now he's lost Donald Trump.
The Donald has turned thumbs down on the President's war in Iraq, calling it a "mess."
"What was the purpose of the whole thing?" Donald Trump asks in an Esquire interview. "Hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs?"
People think that all New Yorkers are Chardonnay-swilling foreign-film buffs, but the New York area is full of people who live for the Yankees and drink Bud. They love Howard. They admire Trump. And Bush has pissed both of them off.
The Donald has turned thumbs down on the President's war in Iraq, calling it a "mess."
"What was the purpose of the whole thing?" Donald Trump asks in an Esquire interview. "Hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs?"
People think that all New Yorkers are Chardonnay-swilling foreign-film buffs, but the New York area is full of people who live for the Yankees and drink Bud. They love Howard. They admire Trump. And Bush has pissed both of them off.
ROCKEFELLER: THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD
Now, the report does an excellent job of pointing out the intelligence community's shortcomings. I have to say it is only an incomplete picture of what occurred during the national debate over the decision to invade Iraq. The report we are releasing today is a first phase of the two- part committee investigation. Regrettably, whereas I consider reform incredibly important, I also consider the nature of the interaction or the pressure or the shaping of intelligence by endless numbers of public statements emanating from all levels high up in the administration, virtually saying that, Time has run out, you know, mushroom cloud, grave and growing, imminent by some, evidence supports the fact that they are developing their nuclear weapons program -- all the rest of it.
That whole aspect is being relegated to the second part of our report and I regret that. I felt that we should and could have addressed all of these matters as a single matter, because under the rules of the committee we can do that. But that was not possible and so we moved forward. We've moved forward and produced a very good piece of work. The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was, in this senator's opinion, exaggerated by the Bush administration officials was relegated to that second phase, as yet unbegun, of the committee investigation, along with other issues.
We've done a little bit of work on the number three guy in the Defense Department, Douglas Feith, part of his alleged efforts to run intelligence past the intelligence community altogether, his relationship with the INC and Chalabi, who was very much in favor with the administration wanting them to come on in. And was he running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful. As a result, the committee's report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which the intelligence community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly.
It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that, and to many others, that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war....
The national intelligence estimate was given to us, at our request -- at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about 10 days before the vote came. It was done in three weeks. It was thrown together. It was based upon fragmentary intelligence, ancient intelligence. And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, They've got them, they're ready to use them, and watch out.
I don't think that was an accident. Let me just finish by saying, again, an emphasis on this relentless public campaign prior to the war, which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons program in more ominous and threatening terms than any intelligence would have allowed. In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims.
--Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, at a news conference with Chairman Pat Roverts to discuss the committee's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq
Now, the report does an excellent job of pointing out the intelligence community's shortcomings. I have to say it is only an incomplete picture of what occurred during the national debate over the decision to invade Iraq. The report we are releasing today is a first phase of the two- part committee investigation. Regrettably, whereas I consider reform incredibly important, I also consider the nature of the interaction or the pressure or the shaping of intelligence by endless numbers of public statements emanating from all levels high up in the administration, virtually saying that, Time has run out, you know, mushroom cloud, grave and growing, imminent by some, evidence supports the fact that they are developing their nuclear weapons program -- all the rest of it.
That whole aspect is being relegated to the second part of our report and I regret that. I felt that we should and could have addressed all of these matters as a single matter, because under the rules of the committee we can do that. But that was not possible and so we moved forward. We've moved forward and produced a very good piece of work. The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was, in this senator's opinion, exaggerated by the Bush administration officials was relegated to that second phase, as yet unbegun, of the committee investigation, along with other issues.
We've done a little bit of work on the number three guy in the Defense Department, Douglas Feith, part of his alleged efforts to run intelligence past the intelligence community altogether, his relationship with the INC and Chalabi, who was very much in favor with the administration wanting them to come on in. And was he running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful. As a result, the committee's report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which the intelligence community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly.
It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that, and to many others, that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war....
The national intelligence estimate was given to us, at our request -- at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about 10 days before the vote came. It was done in three weeks. It was thrown together. It was based upon fragmentary intelligence, ancient intelligence. And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, They've got them, they're ready to use them, and watch out.
I don't think that was an accident. Let me just finish by saying, again, an emphasis on this relentless public campaign prior to the war, which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons program in more ominous and threatening terms than any intelligence would have allowed. In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims.
--Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, at a news conference with Chairman Pat Roverts to discuss the committee's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq
The Nixon-Lodge campaign has issued the following statement:
"It is unconscionable that the Democratic Party condones the 'blue' humor of monologist Alvy Singer, who, at a Democratic fund-raiser last night, said of an unnamed woman that he was 'trying to do to her what Eisenhower has been doing to the country for the last eight years.' We call on the Kennedy-Johnson campaign to repudiate such indecency, which weakens our moral fiber as we fight to overcome the global Communist menace."
Well, is that any sillier than the Bush-Cheney campaign's reaction to Whoopi?
"It is unconscionable that the Democratic Party condones the 'blue' humor of monologist Alvy Singer, who, at a Democratic fund-raiser last night, said of an unnamed woman that he was 'trying to do to her what Eisenhower has been doing to the country for the last eight years.' We call on the Kennedy-Johnson campaign to repudiate such indecency, which weakens our moral fiber as we fight to overcome the global Communist menace."
Well, is that any sillier than the Bush-Cheney campaign's reaction to Whoopi?
Dick Cheney has been more visible on the campaign trail lately. And yesterday Tom Ridge made an announcement about a possible massive al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.
Is there a connection? I think so. Take a look at the front page of today's New York Times.
Read the top of the page from right to left, the way you're supposed to. The main headline, top right, is "BIN LADEN SAID TO BE ORGANIZING FOR A U.S. ATTACK." Then, just to the left of that and dominating the above-the-fold area, is a big picture of Tom Ridge and Dick Cheney at "the new Homeland Security Operations Center" -- which looks just the way you'd expect it to from every ten-minutes-to-Doomsday movie you've ever seen.
Then, just to the left of that, is a story about John Edwards.
Surely the Bush people always planned to get Cheney out in public more around the time Kerry announced his running mate -- there's nothing sinister in that. But I think they also had a detailed plan for a pick of John Edwards (or, say, Tom Vilsack -- anyone who wouldn't instantly be associated with foreign policy, such as McCain or Clark or Graham). That plan, I think, is what we're seeing now. And the latest booga-booga terror warning is a part of it.
The message: We live in perilous times. In perilous times, you can't rely on lightweights. You need tough men, men who may even at times seem secretive and unsavory ... men like hardened, snarly Dick Cheney.
Cheney = safety and security. Edwards = mass destruction and death at the hands of terrorists.
I think Bush and Rove believe Cheney's story -- even the parts many of us find offputting or criminal -- confers certain advantages. I think they believe they can sell Cheney as an archetypal figure, the unsavory but ultimately straight-up guy you need to fight the real bad guys. Think Harrison Ford in Star Wars; think Kurt Russell in Escape from New York (and all the Clint Eastwood performances Russell based Snake Plissken on); think Vin Diesel in the cult sci-fi movie Pitch Black (though I guess its big-budget sequel sucks).
That's why Cheney is in that photo.
Edwards has a brain as well as a thousand-watt smile. He can go toe-to-toe with Cheney, and he will, but I wish he'd hurry up. Very soon, he and Kerry need to drop the waving-and-smiling schtick and start making a few hard-nosed policy speeches.
*******
(By the way, some of you may think it's appropriate to continue reading across the top of the Times front page to the far left, where Ken Lay is doing a perp walk. You might conclude that the terror warning is meant to drive Kenny Boy off the front pages. Well, maybe -- but if so, I wonder why it didn't happen yesterday. I think the Bush team is happy that Lay is being indicted -- "See? We're tough on white-collar crime." And, of course, he's being indicted just as the campaign is heating up. Think there might have been a little pressure on prosecutors to get this done now?)
Is there a connection? I think so. Take a look at the front page of today's New York Times.
Read the top of the page from right to left, the way you're supposed to. The main headline, top right, is "BIN LADEN SAID TO BE ORGANIZING FOR A U.S. ATTACK." Then, just to the left of that and dominating the above-the-fold area, is a big picture of Tom Ridge and Dick Cheney at "the new Homeland Security Operations Center" -- which looks just the way you'd expect it to from every ten-minutes-to-Doomsday movie you've ever seen.
Then, just to the left of that, is a story about John Edwards.
Surely the Bush people always planned to get Cheney out in public more around the time Kerry announced his running mate -- there's nothing sinister in that. But I think they also had a detailed plan for a pick of John Edwards (or, say, Tom Vilsack -- anyone who wouldn't instantly be associated with foreign policy, such as McCain or Clark or Graham). That plan, I think, is what we're seeing now. And the latest booga-booga terror warning is a part of it.
The message: We live in perilous times. In perilous times, you can't rely on lightweights. You need tough men, men who may even at times seem secretive and unsavory ... men like hardened, snarly Dick Cheney.
Cheney = safety and security. Edwards = mass destruction and death at the hands of terrorists.
I think Bush and Rove believe Cheney's story -- even the parts many of us find offputting or criminal -- confers certain advantages. I think they believe they can sell Cheney as an archetypal figure, the unsavory but ultimately straight-up guy you need to fight the real bad guys. Think Harrison Ford in Star Wars; think Kurt Russell in Escape from New York (and all the Clint Eastwood performances Russell based Snake Plissken on); think Vin Diesel in the cult sci-fi movie Pitch Black (though I guess its big-budget sequel sucks).
That's why Cheney is in that photo.
Edwards has a brain as well as a thousand-watt smile. He can go toe-to-toe with Cheney, and he will, but I wish he'd hurry up. Very soon, he and Kerry need to drop the waving-and-smiling schtick and start making a few hard-nosed policy speeches.
*******
(By the way, some of you may think it's appropriate to continue reading across the top of the Times front page to the far left, where Ken Lay is doing a perp walk. You might conclude that the terror warning is meant to drive Kenny Boy off the front pages. Well, maybe -- but if so, I wonder why it didn't happen yesterday. I think the Bush team is happy that Lay is being indicted -- "See? We're tough on white-collar crime." And, of course, he's being indicted just as the campaign is heating up. Think there might have been a little pressure on prosecutors to get this done now?)
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Perhaps you wanted to read the James Pinkerton column I cited this morning. Well, I didn't put the link in the post -- I've been making that mistake a lot lately. The article is here. (And I fixed the original post.)
From WorldNetDaily:
Hillary's cursing 'would make Howard Stern blush'
Hillary Clinton, who recently urged Dick Cheney to get anger-management help after the VP unleashed a rare, F-word-studded rebuke on Sen. Pat Leahy, curses in a way that "would make Howard Stern blush," claims a new book on the former first lady.
"American Evita," a new biography of Hillary Clinton by Christopher Anderson and published by William Morrow, reveals a sharp tongue and ready foul mouth, according to a report in the New York Post....
A few examples from Anderson's book of, well, unpresidential language from both Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to the report:
* On inauguration morning, Hillary was running late, and the president-elect was heard to mutter, "That f---ing bitch."
* When Hillary slid into the car next to her husband, she addressed the new president by saying, "You stupid motherf---er!"
* When Bill finally fessed up about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which Hillary says in her book "Living History" made her feel like she been punched in the stomach, her actual reaction, says Andersen, was to yell, "You stupid, stupid, stupid bastard!" – and then slapped him in the face....
OK -- one of those wasn't even Hillary. But "Bastard"! "Motherf---er"! Whoa!
Assuming Anderson has transcribed these remarks accurately, would they, in fact, make Howard Stern blush?
Let's go to this Stern radio transcript:
HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral.
I think we have our answer.
Hillary's cursing 'would make Howard Stern blush'
Hillary Clinton, who recently urged Dick Cheney to get anger-management help after the VP unleashed a rare, F-word-studded rebuke on Sen. Pat Leahy, curses in a way that "would make Howard Stern blush," claims a new book on the former first lady.
"American Evita," a new biography of Hillary Clinton by Christopher Anderson and published by William Morrow, reveals a sharp tongue and ready foul mouth, according to a report in the New York Post....
A few examples from Anderson's book of, well, unpresidential language from both Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to the report:
* On inauguration morning, Hillary was running late, and the president-elect was heard to mutter, "That f---ing bitch."
* When Hillary slid into the car next to her husband, she addressed the new president by saying, "You stupid motherf---er!"
* When Bill finally fessed up about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which Hillary says in her book "Living History" made her feel like she been punched in the stomach, her actual reaction, says Andersen, was to yell, "You stupid, stupid, stupid bastard!" – and then slapped him in the face....
OK -- one of those wasn't even Hillary. But "Bastard"! "Motherf---er"! Whoa!
Assuming Anderson has transcribed these remarks accurately, would they, in fact, make Howard Stern blush?
Let's go to this Stern radio transcript:
HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral.
I think we have our answer.
STRUNG UP BY THEIR FEET
Yesterday I wrote about Americans who were arrested in Afghanistan while running their own jail and interrogation facility. According to this AP story, the U.S. and Afghan governments are distancing themselves from the men -- for good reason:
...Afghan officials also dismissed claims by the apparent ringleader, Jonathan K. Idema, that he was a "special adviser" to their security forces, saying the three had posed as military agents on a self-appointed hunt for terrorists.
The Americans and four Afghans who were detained along with them "formed a group and pretended they were fighting terrorism," Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said. "They arrested eight people from across Kabul and put them in their jail."
Another Afghan security official said intelligence and police officials who raided the group's house Monday found the prisoners strung up by their feet.
"They were hanging upside down," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said a report showed the men also were beaten....
One police official said Idema's group appeared to be behind the disappearance of a man in west Kabul three weeks ago.
The missing man was identified as Abdul Latif, and his wife told authorities she believed he had been taken into custody by members of the NATO-led force that patrols the capital, said the police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity....
Anarchy. The U.S. left the job half-done in Afghanistan; al-Qaeda survived, a the Taliban and warlords still make trouble in the hinterlands, and maroons like this can set themself up as a cure that's it's only marginally distinct from the disease. Mission not accomplished, Shrub.
(By the way, the linked story gives some of Idema's background; read it if you think I was slandering the guy yesterday; there's no reason to doubt that Jonathan Idema is Keith Idema, and is a shady character.)
Yesterday I wrote about Americans who were arrested in Afghanistan while running their own jail and interrogation facility. According to this AP story, the U.S. and Afghan governments are distancing themselves from the men -- for good reason:
...Afghan officials also dismissed claims by the apparent ringleader, Jonathan K. Idema, that he was a "special adviser" to their security forces, saying the three had posed as military agents on a self-appointed hunt for terrorists.
The Americans and four Afghans who were detained along with them "formed a group and pretended they were fighting terrorism," Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said. "They arrested eight people from across Kabul and put them in their jail."
Another Afghan security official said intelligence and police officials who raided the group's house Monday found the prisoners strung up by their feet.
"They were hanging upside down," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said a report showed the men also were beaten....
One police official said Idema's group appeared to be behind the disappearance of a man in west Kabul three weeks ago.
The missing man was identified as Abdul Latif, and his wife told authorities she believed he had been taken into custody by members of the NATO-led force that patrols the capital, said the police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity....
Anarchy. The U.S. left the job half-done in Afghanistan; al-Qaeda survived, a the Taliban and warlords still make trouble in the hinterlands, and maroons like this can set themself up as a cure that's it's only marginally distinct from the disease. Mission not accomplished, Shrub.
(By the way, the linked story gives some of Idema's background; read it if you think I was slandering the guy yesterday; there's no reason to doubt that Jonathan Idema is Keith Idema, and is a shady character.)
Why is the CBS News Web site reproducing The Weekly Standard's snarky "abridged version" of Bill Clinton's book, which is also up at the Standard's site?
Don't bother. You can try to placate the right all you want, but they're still going to call you "the liberal media." It's Murdoch's magazine -- let him post this at Fox News.
Don't bother. You can try to placate the right all you want, but they're still going to call you "the liberal media." It's Murdoch's magazine -- let him post this at Fox News.
So Bush wants the Pakistanis to get bin Laden and other high-value al-Qaeda targets before the election, preferably during the Democratic convention, according to The New Republic.
Is this a huge surprise? It's election time. For the Bush team, the world is one big ward; if you got goodies from the machine candidate this term, and are hoping for more if he gets reelected, you owe.
The Pakistanis got a free pass on A. Q. Khan's nuclear program from the U.S., and the TNR article says they won't get F-16s if they don't nab some al-Qaeda guys in a timely fashion. So of course they owe, big time.
Nothing is beyond politics to Bush right now. We know he doesn't even think Jesus is sacred -- hey, Baptists, you like the partial-birth law? You want Chief Justice Thomas? Give up the church rosters, pronto, and no whining. Same deal with the Catholics -- hey, why aren't all the American bishops with the campaign?
Is this a huge surprise? It's election time. For the Bush team, the world is one big ward; if you got goodies from the machine candidate this term, and are hoping for more if he gets reelected, you owe.
The Pakistanis got a free pass on A. Q. Khan's nuclear program from the U.S., and the TNR article says they won't get F-16s if they don't nab some al-Qaeda guys in a timely fashion. So of course they owe, big time.
Nothing is beyond politics to Bush right now. We know he doesn't even think Jesus is sacred -- hey, Baptists, you like the partial-birth law? You want Chief Justice Thomas? Give up the church rosters, pronto, and no whining. Same deal with the Catholics -- hey, why aren't all the American bishops with the campaign?
FURRINERS!
(UPDATE: Link fixed.)
Oh, this is pathetic -- James Pinkerton, Newsday columnist and former Reaganoid, is chiding John Edwards because he claims to be a "man of the people" but has the audacity to invest some of his money in ... European and Asian stocks!
How do we know this? We can peruse Edwards' 2003 senatorial disclosure forms, reprinted in yesterday's USA Today. On page five of the paper is a list of Edwards' assets, including a holding worth between $1 and $5 million - that's the deliberately obscuring style of "full-disclosure" forms - in "American EuroPacific Growth Fund." Actually, once we look at the prospectus, we learn that it's really the "EuroPacific Growth Fund." And that's honest billing; on page eight, the prospectus tells readers, "Normally, the fund will invest at least 80 percent of its assets in securities of issuers located in Europe and the Pacific Basin."
That's the truth. On page 10, we see a list of the fund's holdings by country: Japan accounts for 21.5 percent of its assets, followed by the United Kingdom at 13.4 percent. And in a breakdown by industry, as opposed to country, we see "commercial banks," 9.40 percent, and pharmaceuticals, 8.67 percent. And specifically what companies are involved? The top five listed are AstraZeneca, Vodafone, KPN, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, and Nestlé - foreign companies all.
Oh my God, that's appalling! What a hypocrite! What a traitor! I bet he's taken Bayer aspirin! I bet he once drank a Heineken!
I don't get this. If Edwards criticizes firms that shut down operations in the U.S. and shift jobs overseas, does that mean he can't put money in companies that have been established overseas for decades? Where's the hypocrisy?
Now, perhaps I'm misreading the tenor of the times. Perhaps, in the weeks and months to come, anger over outsourcing will develop just as Pinkerton predicts, and eaters of Nestle's Crunch bars will be savagely beaten by vigilante thugs from Hershey, Pennsylvania. But somehow I doubt it.
(UPDATE: Link fixed.)
Oh, this is pathetic -- James Pinkerton, Newsday columnist and former Reaganoid, is chiding John Edwards because he claims to be a "man of the people" but has the audacity to invest some of his money in ... European and Asian stocks!
How do we know this? We can peruse Edwards' 2003 senatorial disclosure forms, reprinted in yesterday's USA Today. On page five of the paper is a list of Edwards' assets, including a holding worth between $1 and $5 million - that's the deliberately obscuring style of "full-disclosure" forms - in "American EuroPacific Growth Fund." Actually, once we look at the prospectus, we learn that it's really the "EuroPacific Growth Fund." And that's honest billing; on page eight, the prospectus tells readers, "Normally, the fund will invest at least 80 percent of its assets in securities of issuers located in Europe and the Pacific Basin."
That's the truth. On page 10, we see a list of the fund's holdings by country: Japan accounts for 21.5 percent of its assets, followed by the United Kingdom at 13.4 percent. And in a breakdown by industry, as opposed to country, we see "commercial banks," 9.40 percent, and pharmaceuticals, 8.67 percent. And specifically what companies are involved? The top five listed are AstraZeneca, Vodafone, KPN, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, and Nestlé - foreign companies all.
Oh my God, that's appalling! What a hypocrite! What a traitor! I bet he's taken Bayer aspirin! I bet he once drank a Heineken!
I don't get this. If Edwards criticizes firms that shut down operations in the U.S. and shift jobs overseas, does that mean he can't put money in companies that have been established overseas for decades? Where's the hypocrisy?
Now, perhaps I'm misreading the tenor of the times. Perhaps, in the weeks and months to come, anger over outsourcing will develop just as Pinkerton predicts, and eaters of Nestle's Crunch bars will be savagely beaten by vigilante thugs from Hershey, Pennsylvania. But somehow I doubt it.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.
...The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.
Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment....
--Financial Times
The righties are ecstatic, but I'm not buying this. If even the Bush administration doesn't think it can sell this story, why should I believe it?
Want to change my mind, Tony? Show your cards. Saddam and the gang are all in prison or dead -- secrecy time is over. Come on, Tony -- show us the intel. Or are you afraid it won't stand up to scrutiny?
...The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.
Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment....
--Financial Times
The righties are ecstatic, but I'm not buying this. If even the Bush administration doesn't think it can sell this story, why should I believe it?
Want to change my mind, Tony? Show your cards. Saddam and the gang are all in prison or dead -- secrecy time is over. Come on, Tony -- show us the intel. Or are you afraid it won't stand up to scrutiny?
Americans arrested while running an illegal prison in Afghanistan?
Afghans say hold three Americans after shootout
Afghan security forces have arrested three Americans and four Afghans after a shootout in the capital and accused them of illegally detaining and interrogating locals, security officials said Wednesday.
A U.S. Embassy spokesman identified one of the Americans as Jonathan Idema, who the military says has misrepresented himself in the past as an American government or military official.
...A senior intelligence Afghan official, who did not want to be identified, said the suspects had used a private house to detain local people.
"They carried illegal arms," he said. "They arrested and interrogated people illegally."
...U.S. Embassy spokesman Roy Glover said he understood three of the men had identified themselves as Americans, including Idema, who had been visited by U.S. consular staff.
"The public should be aware that Idema does not represent the American government and we do not employ him," the U.S. military said in statements this week....
--Reuters
Now ... regarding Jonathan Idema:
It's too complicated to explain how I know this, but let me walk you through a few links that mention this name.
Here's someone trying to find out information about "a Jonathan Keith Idema" who "said they were in Special Forces Reserves...."
OK, so now we have the names Jonathan Idema and Jonathan Keith Idema.
So let's turn to the index of The Hunt for bin Laden by Robin Moore. There we find "J. Keith Idema." J. Keith Idema is identified (on page 116 of the hardcover edition) as part of "a civilian team of former Special Forces operators" helping to fight the war in Afghanistan. Now, here's a Free Republic discussion of an appearance by Keith Idema on Don Imus's radio show to promote the Moore book. Scroll down to post #26:
J. Keith Idema "Jack" is a former Special Forces Sgt with a very checkered past. He was also playing in Afghanistan selling AQ Tapes like the famous CBS tape for $50,000.00USD and other to the press. While he was telling people he was with the Northern Alliance though the NA's Washington Office diened any of this in Writing. Idema was also assiting Ismail Kahn the Afghan Warlord who was being backed by Iran. My sources also tell me that he assited Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a real bad guy. Idema is suing the likes of Oliver Stone because Idema claims that Stone stole one of his movies scripts.
Confused? Here's a story about al-Qaeda videotapes being aired on CBS; the tapes were "discovered ... by J. Keith Idema, a former U.S. Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer and counterterrorism specialist who now advises the Afghan military." And here's a story (from a site apparently connected to Idema) about a suit he filed against Steven Spielberg's production company (not Oliver Stone's):
The Peacemaker is strikingly similar, and in many instances it is virtually identical, to the JK Idema story.
But there's more to Idema's legal history than that one lawsuit. Scroll down here and you see Idema suing Fox News. Scroll down here and you'll see J. Keith Idema ("I am a special investigator for the General Counsel of a Fortune 1000 company and have been an investigator for Mike Wallace at CBS News 60 Minutes and other news organizations") boasting of suing Allstate. Oh, and here's a Fayetteville Observer story about "Keith Idema, a former Special Forces soldier," who "has been doing what he terms 'humanitarian relief' work in Afghanistan for the past few weeks"; the story mentions in passing that
In the early 1990s, he was charged by federal officials with business fraud -- a charge on which he was convicted in 1995.
Go here (SOCNET: The SpecialOperations.com Bulletin Boards) and read the responses when a UPI reporter asks about J. Keith Idema:
He started doing some fraudulent stuff. Not paying creditors, not delivery goods. He got arrested tried and convicted on a bunch of wire fraud charges....
Note that Keith was a rigger. That is a Quartermaster MOS, not an SF MOS. IF he was ever fully SF qualified he wasn't serving in an SF position when I first became aware of him. As far as I know, he's a 'SF support guy' - he was in the 11th's Support Battalion, packing chutes, but not an SF soldier.
In other words, Idema may not even have been the full-fledged member of the Special Forces he says he was. And other respondents to the UPI questioner have similarly wary responses:
Idema reinvents himself on a whim it seems.... Maybe if they billed him as "loser-at-large" and left it at that they'd get it right. what a puke....
Oh my gosh, he's a LEGEND... in his OWN MIND.
Go here (a guestbook for the website of the Special Forces Association's Chicago-area chapter) and read
If one does try to confront him or print anything (such as this posting)even mildly about him, they will find themselves receiving legal threats, hate email, hate phone calls.
And this guy is running around loose in Afghanistan -- operating a prison? WTF?
Oh, and here's Idema insisting there was a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Naturally.
Afghans say hold three Americans after shootout
Afghan security forces have arrested three Americans and four Afghans after a shootout in the capital and accused them of illegally detaining and interrogating locals, security officials said Wednesday.
A U.S. Embassy spokesman identified one of the Americans as Jonathan Idema, who the military says has misrepresented himself in the past as an American government or military official.
...A senior intelligence Afghan official, who did not want to be identified, said the suspects had used a private house to detain local people.
"They carried illegal arms," he said. "They arrested and interrogated people illegally."
...U.S. Embassy spokesman Roy Glover said he understood three of the men had identified themselves as Americans, including Idema, who had been visited by U.S. consular staff.
"The public should be aware that Idema does not represent the American government and we do not employ him," the U.S. military said in statements this week....
--Reuters
Now ... regarding Jonathan Idema:
It's too complicated to explain how I know this, but let me walk you through a few links that mention this name.
Here's someone trying to find out information about "a Jonathan Keith Idema" who "said they were in Special Forces Reserves...."
OK, so now we have the names Jonathan Idema and Jonathan Keith Idema.
So let's turn to the index of The Hunt for bin Laden by Robin Moore. There we find "J. Keith Idema." J. Keith Idema is identified (on page 116 of the hardcover edition) as part of "a civilian team of former Special Forces operators" helping to fight the war in Afghanistan. Now, here's a Free Republic discussion of an appearance by Keith Idema on Don Imus's radio show to promote the Moore book. Scroll down to post #26:
J. Keith Idema "Jack" is a former Special Forces Sgt with a very checkered past. He was also playing in Afghanistan selling AQ Tapes like the famous CBS tape for $50,000.00USD and other to the press. While he was telling people he was with the Northern Alliance though the NA's Washington Office diened any of this in Writing. Idema was also assiting Ismail Kahn the Afghan Warlord who was being backed by Iran. My sources also tell me that he assited Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a real bad guy. Idema is suing the likes of Oliver Stone because Idema claims that Stone stole one of his movies scripts.
Confused? Here's a story about al-Qaeda videotapes being aired on CBS; the tapes were "discovered ... by J. Keith Idema, a former U.S. Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer and counterterrorism specialist who now advises the Afghan military." And here's a story (from a site apparently connected to Idema) about a suit he filed against Steven Spielberg's production company (not Oliver Stone's):
The Peacemaker is strikingly similar, and in many instances it is virtually identical, to the JK Idema story.
But there's more to Idema's legal history than that one lawsuit. Scroll down here and you see Idema suing Fox News. Scroll down here and you'll see J. Keith Idema ("I am a special investigator for the General Counsel of a Fortune 1000 company and have been an investigator for Mike Wallace at CBS News 60 Minutes and other news organizations") boasting of suing Allstate. Oh, and here's a Fayetteville Observer story about "Keith Idema, a former Special Forces soldier," who "has been doing what he terms 'humanitarian relief' work in Afghanistan for the past few weeks"; the story mentions in passing that
In the early 1990s, he was charged by federal officials with business fraud -- a charge on which he was convicted in 1995.
Go here (SOCNET: The SpecialOperations.com Bulletin Boards) and read the responses when a UPI reporter asks about J. Keith Idema:
He started doing some fraudulent stuff. Not paying creditors, not delivery goods. He got arrested tried and convicted on a bunch of wire fraud charges....
Note that Keith was a rigger. That is a Quartermaster MOS, not an SF MOS. IF he was ever fully SF qualified he wasn't serving in an SF position when I first became aware of him. As far as I know, he's a 'SF support guy' - he was in the 11th's Support Battalion, packing chutes, but not an SF soldier.
In other words, Idema may not even have been the full-fledged member of the Special Forces he says he was. And other respondents to the UPI questioner have similarly wary responses:
Idema reinvents himself on a whim it seems.... Maybe if they billed him as "loser-at-large" and left it at that they'd get it right. what a puke....
Oh my gosh, he's a LEGEND... in his OWN MIND.
Go here (a guestbook for the website of the Special Forces Association's Chicago-area chapter) and read
If one does try to confront him or print anything (such as this posting)even mildly about him, they will find themselves receiving legal threats, hate email, hate phone calls.
And this guy is running around loose in Afghanistan -- operating a prison? WTF?
Oh, and here's Idema insisting there was a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Naturally.
BUT AFGHANISTAN IS SO TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO
Taliban Kill Six Afghan Police, Kidnap Plot Foiled
Suspected Taliban guerrillas killed six policemen and wounded four others on Wednesday during a foiled attempt to kidnap four Turkish engineers in western Afghanistan, police said....
The attack in Farah was the second on police guarding a highway in the province in less than two weeks.
In late June, gunmen in military uniforms killed seven officers in an ambush in Farah's Del Khak district, an attack police said was the work of the Taliban or drug traffickers.
The province lies near the border with Iran, a key smuggling route for Afghanistan's massive narcotics output....
Hundreds have died in militant attacks this year despite the presence in the country of some 20,000 U.S.-led troops and 6,500 NATO-led peacekeepers. The violence has raised concerns about security for elections expected later this year.
--AP
Taliban Kill Six Afghan Police, Kidnap Plot Foiled
Suspected Taliban guerrillas killed six policemen and wounded four others on Wednesday during a foiled attempt to kidnap four Turkish engineers in western Afghanistan, police said....
The attack in Farah was the second on police guarding a highway in the province in less than two weeks.
In late June, gunmen in military uniforms killed seven officers in an ambush in Farah's Del Khak district, an attack police said was the work of the Taliban or drug traffickers.
The province lies near the border with Iran, a key smuggling route for Afghanistan's massive narcotics output....
Hundreds have died in militant attacks this year despite the presence in the country of some 20,000 U.S.-led troops and 6,500 NATO-led peacekeepers. The violence has raised concerns about security for elections expected later this year.
--AP
WHICH ONE'S TWEEDLEDUM?
Cheney was seen not primarily as a campaigner, but as an active participant in the coming administration, which even his fervent detractors admit he has been.
Bush was then filling in a gap, too -- his foreign policy inexperience -- but his pick was directed at governing, not campaigning.
--William Safire, conservative columnist for The New York Times
In campaign terms, Cheney brought almost nothing. He comes from Wyoming, a safe Republican state with only three electoral votes. He is a mediocre stump speaker.
What Cheney brought was an impressive governmental résumé, as a former White House chief of staff, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House and the secretary of defense during the Gulf War.
For the young governor of Texas, devoid of Washington experience, the choice of Cheney was an important boost in governance credentials.
--David Broder, liberal dean of the liberal Washington press corps for the liberal Washington Post
But don't they disagree otherwise on the merits of the Edwards pick, the subject of their columns? Oh, yeah sure. Safire says it's just appalling:
Kerry should have kept that criterion of "the best man ready to take over" uppermost in his mind.
In my view, he failed that test.
And Broder? What a resounding, enthusiastic thumbs-up:
The Democrats could have done a lot worse.
Cheney was seen not primarily as a campaigner, but as an active participant in the coming administration, which even his fervent detractors admit he has been.
Bush was then filling in a gap, too -- his foreign policy inexperience -- but his pick was directed at governing, not campaigning.
--William Safire, conservative columnist for The New York Times
In campaign terms, Cheney brought almost nothing. He comes from Wyoming, a safe Republican state with only three electoral votes. He is a mediocre stump speaker.
What Cheney brought was an impressive governmental résumé, as a former White House chief of staff, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House and the secretary of defense during the Gulf War.
For the young governor of Texas, devoid of Washington experience, the choice of Cheney was an important boost in governance credentials.
--David Broder, liberal dean of the liberal Washington press corps for the liberal Washington Post
But don't they disagree otherwise on the merits of the Edwards pick, the subject of their columns? Oh, yeah sure. Safire says it's just appalling:
Kerry should have kept that criterion of "the best man ready to take over" uppermost in his mind.
In my view, he failed that test.
And Broder? What a resounding, enthusiastic thumbs-up:
The Democrats could have done a lot worse.
Sadly, No! has a partial transcript of the German TV report on child prisoners in America's Iraqi prisons, along with a link to video of the TV report and a full German transcript.
Leon Holmes was confirmed yestrerday as a federal judge. I wrote yesterday about phony charges of anti-Catholic bias that were being leveled at his opponents (and alleged opponents -- Arlen Specter was targeted, but ultimately voted in Holmes's favor), but I should have mentioned this about Holmes:
Holmes dismissed concerns that a constitutional amendment banning abortion would not allow the procedure in cases of rape by saying that "the concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."
Unbelievable. And I don't care if he said this many years ago and later repudiated it. Do we want a federal judge who as an adult was as ignorant about sex as the typical thirteen-year-old?
Holmes dismissed concerns that a constitutional amendment banning abortion would not allow the procedure in cases of rape by saying that "the concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."
Unbelievable. And I don't care if he said this many years ago and later repudiated it. Do we want a federal judge who as an adult was as ignorant about sex as the typical thirteen-year-old?
Hunh?
When he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards made the obligatory appearance on "The Tonight Show." Jay Leno asked Mr. Edwards if he had been eating well on the campaign trail. "No," the senator from North Carolina replied, flashing his boyish grin, "I had two double cheeseburgers for lunch today."
The remark was classic Mr. Edwards, whose swift rise in politics has been hastened by his uncanny ability to make voters believe that, despite being a fabulously wealthy trial lawyer, he is really just a regular guy -- the kind of man who eats double cheeseburgers for lunch....
That's from a New York Times profile of John Edwards by Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The story actually gets better after that, but that's the lead.
What on earth is Stolberg's point? That, beyond a certain level of wealth, you never eat cheeseburgers? Has Stolberg ever heard of a guy named Paul O'Neill?
Instead of a detailed discussion, Bush was more interested in why the cheeseburgers he had ordered were slow to appear. He interrupted the talk to summon White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
"You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?" O'Neill recalled Bush saying. "Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room."
Oh, but it doesn't matter how rich Bush is -- he's a Republican, so he can't be a phony if he eats regular-guy food. And besides, as Stolberg's paper recently noted, Bush is ever so fond of "brush-clearing forays on his sweltering ranch in Crawford, Tex."
Of course, Edwards is actually saying he doesn't like subsisting on a steady diet cheeseburgers. If Stolberg wanted to paint that as elitist, she'd sort of have a point.
Dumb. Just dumb.
When he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards made the obligatory appearance on "The Tonight Show." Jay Leno asked Mr. Edwards if he had been eating well on the campaign trail. "No," the senator from North Carolina replied, flashing his boyish grin, "I had two double cheeseburgers for lunch today."
The remark was classic Mr. Edwards, whose swift rise in politics has been hastened by his uncanny ability to make voters believe that, despite being a fabulously wealthy trial lawyer, he is really just a regular guy -- the kind of man who eats double cheeseburgers for lunch....
That's from a New York Times profile of John Edwards by Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The story actually gets better after that, but that's the lead.
What on earth is Stolberg's point? That, beyond a certain level of wealth, you never eat cheeseburgers? Has Stolberg ever heard of a guy named Paul O'Neill?
Instead of a detailed discussion, Bush was more interested in why the cheeseburgers he had ordered were slow to appear. He interrupted the talk to summon White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
"You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?" O'Neill recalled Bush saying. "Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room."
Oh, but it doesn't matter how rich Bush is -- he's a Republican, so he can't be a phony if he eats regular-guy food. And besides, as Stolberg's paper recently noted, Bush is ever so fond of "brush-clearing forays on his sweltering ranch in Crawford, Tex."
Of course, Edwards is actually saying he doesn't like subsisting on a steady diet cheeseburgers. If Stolberg wanted to paint that as elitist, she'd sort of have a point.
Dumb. Just dumb.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Cheney Had No New Data on Saddam, Al Qaeda -- Panel
The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no evidence of collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.
The 10-member bipartisan panel investigating the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington said it reached its conclusion after reviewing available transcripts of Cheney's public remarks on the subject....
"The 9-11 Commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9-11 attacks," the commission said in a statement.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment...
--Reuters
You remember: "Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, 'Probably.'" That was a pure bluff. The 9/11 Commission's response to Cheney is essentially what Cheney said to Pat Leahy, but in much nicer language.
The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no evidence of collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.
The 10-member bipartisan panel investigating the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington said it reached its conclusion after reviewing available transcripts of Cheney's public remarks on the subject....
"The 9-11 Commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9-11 attacks," the commission said in a statement.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment...
--Reuters
You remember: "Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, 'Probably.'" That was a pure bluff. The 9/11 Commission's response to Cheney is essentially what Cheney said to Pat Leahy, but in much nicer language.
Abuse of minors in Abu Ghraib? A German TV documentary says yes. The English-language Aftenposten Norway has a story:
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.
In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air last winter. He then was covered with mud....
A story about the TV broadcast from Der Spiegel, translated here, has more:
According to "Report Mainz," a German television magazine, "107 children were registered held between January and May while in custody in at least six different internment centers," Florian Westphal, speaking for the International Red Cross told the magazine in Geneva....
An as-yet unpublished document from June 2004 states, "Children, which in Basra and Karbala had been arrested because of alleged activities directed against the coalition ... were routinely transferred into internment in Umm Kasr. Concern was expressed as to the classification of these children as legitimate detainees, their indefinite internment without contact of family members, and their denial of due process."
There's been Abu Ghraib fatigue in the U.S. for a while now. Will this story even reach America?
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.
In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air last winter. He then was covered with mud....
A story about the TV broadcast from Der Spiegel, translated here, has more:
According to "Report Mainz," a German television magazine, "107 children were registered held between January and May while in custody in at least six different internment centers," Florian Westphal, speaking for the International Red Cross told the magazine in Geneva....
An as-yet unpublished document from June 2004 states, "Children, which in Basra and Karbala had been arrested because of alleged activities directed against the coalition ... were routinely transferred into internment in Umm Kasr. Concern was expressed as to the classification of these children as legitimate detainees, their indefinite internment without contact of family members, and their denial of due process."
There's been Abu Ghraib fatigue in the U.S. for a while now. Will this story even reach America?
Right-wingers are once again attacking Democrats -- and Republicans who deviate from conservatively correct thinking -- as anti-Catholic bigots. And they're doing it by lying about Catholic belief:
Nearly a year after conservative critics accused Senate Democrats of anti-Catholic bias because of their opposition to federal circuit-court nominee William Pryor, many are leveling the same charge against a handful of Senate Republicans because of their suspected opposition to J. Leon Holmes, a district court nominee....
The Senate will vote today on Holmes’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas....
Holmes is ... controversial ... because of a 1997 article on the roles of men and women in Christian marriage that he co-wrote with his wife for a Catholic magazine....
In the article on gender roles for the Arkansas Catholic Register, Holmes wrote, “The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church/and as the Church subordinates herself to Christ, in that manner the wife is to subordinate herself to Christ.”
The conservative Family Research Council asserted in a statement that “incredibly, there are senators, including some Republicans, who have indicated they will not support Mr. Holmes because of an article he and his wife wrote for the local Catholic newspaper offering reflections on Ephesians 5.”
“It would be a great act of injustice if the religious bigotry leveled against Mr. Holmes should keep him from confirmation,” the group warned....
--The Hill
But here's what what America's Catholic bishops actually say about the roles of men and women in marriage:
Marriage must never become a struggle for control.
For, unlike other relationships, marriage is a vowed covenant with unique dimensions. In. this partnership, mutual submission — not dominance by either partner — is the key to genuine joy.
That's the real Catholic doctrine: "mutual submission" -- each spouse submitting to the other.
So groups such as the Protestant-dominated Family Research Council have the nerve to tell us what does and does not constitute anti-Catholic bigotry -- and don't even know (or choose not to acknowledge) what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
Apparently it's working: The two Democratic senators from heavily Catholic Louisiana, Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, plan to vote for Holmes, The Hill reports.
Nevertheless, most Democrats plan to vote against Holmes (for fervent anti-abortion views as well as sexism). The swing votes will come from the GOP side, which is why Arlen Specter and Kay Bailey Hutchison are particular targets of this jihad, Specter because he's said to be lobbying against Holmes, Hutchison because she may sway other Republican votes if she votes no.
Nearly a year after conservative critics accused Senate Democrats of anti-Catholic bias because of their opposition to federal circuit-court nominee William Pryor, many are leveling the same charge against a handful of Senate Republicans because of their suspected opposition to J. Leon Holmes, a district court nominee....
The Senate will vote today on Holmes’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas....
Holmes is ... controversial ... because of a 1997 article on the roles of men and women in Christian marriage that he co-wrote with his wife for a Catholic magazine....
In the article on gender roles for the Arkansas Catholic Register, Holmes wrote, “The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church/and as the Church subordinates herself to Christ, in that manner the wife is to subordinate herself to Christ.”
The conservative Family Research Council asserted in a statement that “incredibly, there are senators, including some Republicans, who have indicated they will not support Mr. Holmes because of an article he and his wife wrote for the local Catholic newspaper offering reflections on Ephesians 5.”
“It would be a great act of injustice if the religious bigotry leveled against Mr. Holmes should keep him from confirmation,” the group warned....
--The Hill
But here's what what America's Catholic bishops actually say about the roles of men and women in marriage:
Marriage must never become a struggle for control.
For, unlike other relationships, marriage is a vowed covenant with unique dimensions. In. this partnership, mutual submission — not dominance by either partner — is the key to genuine joy.
That's the real Catholic doctrine: "mutual submission" -- each spouse submitting to the other.
So groups such as the Protestant-dominated Family Research Council have the nerve to tell us what does and does not constitute anti-Catholic bigotry -- and don't even know (or choose not to acknowledge) what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
Apparently it's working: The two Democratic senators from heavily Catholic Louisiana, Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, plan to vote for Holmes, The Hill reports.
Nevertheless, most Democrats plan to vote against Holmes (for fervent anti-abortion views as well as sexism). The swing votes will come from the GOP side, which is why Arlen Specter and Kay Bailey Hutchison are particular targets of this jihad, Specter because he's said to be lobbying against Holmes, Hutchison because she may sway other Republican votes if she votes no.
STELLAAAAAA!
Hitchens left his first wife, a Greek-Cypriot with whom he had two children, for Blue, a former Los Angeles Times reporter who now writes screenplays. Asked if Blue has a job, Hitchens replies, “She is the mother of my daughter. None of my women have worked.”
--from a profile of Christopher Hitchens in today's edition of The Hill
Hitchens left his first wife, a Greek-Cypriot with whom he had two children, for Blue, a former Los Angeles Times reporter who now writes screenplays. Asked if Blue has a job, Hitchens replies, “She is the mother of my daughter. None of my women have worked.”
--from a profile of Christopher Hitchens in today's edition of The Hill
By the second rally of his weekend campaign swing, Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to be getting the hang of it, delivering an entire line of his standard stump speech looking at the audience instead of the podium as he usually does.
Then the audience got a little too excited. Their cheers forced him to read the same line twice. The vice president is a man who likes to get on with things.
"You guys want to hear this speech or not?" he asked, not angrily but not quite kidding.
--New York Times yesterday
Yes, Edwards was an inspired choice.
Then the audience got a little too excited. Their cheers forced him to read the same line twice. The vice president is a man who likes to get on with things.
"You guys want to hear this speech or not?" he asked, not angrily but not quite kidding.
--New York Times yesterday
Yes, Edwards was an inspired choice.
AP says it's Edwards.
New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and NPR confirm.
Good news. And a deliciously embarrassing credibility hit for the New York Post.
...Oh, and so much for Matt Drudge and his "D.C. insider."
(UPDATE: The Post has expunged all evidence of its Gephardt snafu from its Web site. But in NYC and elsewhere you can still pick up a dead-tree Post with the Gephardt headline. Grab 'em while you can.)
New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and NPR confirm.
Good news. And a deliciously embarrassing credibility hit for the New York Post.
...Oh, and so much for Matt Drudge and his "D.C. insider."
(UPDATE: The Post has expunged all evidence of its Gephardt snafu from its Web site. But in NYC and elsewhere you can still pick up a dead-tree Post with the Gephardt headline. Grab 'em while you can.)
Monday, July 05, 2004
PLACATING DR. EVIL
The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials....
--New York Times
...Bush knew the "Austin Powers" movies inside out.
Bruni writes that Bush often lifted his pinkie to the corner of his mouth to mimic the Dr. Evil character in the Powers flicks.
--New York Daily News article on Frank Bruni's Bush book, Ambling into History
DR. EVIL: ...This organization will not tolerate failure.
He presses a button. The Revolutionary, the twin Nordic doctors, and the meter maid's chairs tip back and fall into a pit. Their chairs return empty and smoking.
--screenplay for Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials....
--New York Times
...Bush knew the "Austin Powers" movies inside out.
Bruni writes that Bush often lifted his pinkie to the corner of his mouth to mimic the Dr. Evil character in the Powers flicks.
--New York Daily News article on Frank Bruni's Bush book, Ambling into History
DR. EVIL: ...This organization will not tolerate failure.
He presses a button. The Revolutionary, the twin Nordic doctors, and the meter maid's chairs tip back and fall into a pit. Their chairs return empty and smoking.
--screenplay for Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
AP declares, with some hesitation, that Kerry might be about to declare John Edwards his running mate. ABC's World News Tonight had similar -- and less hesitant -- speculation tonight. (The ABC story isn't online, unfortunately -- the ABC site has just a version of the AP story. And yes, this contradicts The Note at the ABC News site, which is picking Gephardt.)
I hope the Edwards story is true.
I hope the Edwards story is true.
Via The Boston Globe, I see that The Note at ABC News has a VP pick for Kerry:
The ABC News online political newsletter "The Note" reported that Kerry held a late-night meeting last Thursday at the Washington home of former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and that the person he favors for his running mate attended. The newsletter said that in checking the schedule of Kerry's prospective running mates, only Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri was in town.
Hmmmm -- what if "the person he favors for his running mate attended" this meeting because "the person he favors for his running mate" is Albright?
I know the Right sees her as incompetent -- but how does the public at large see her? I'd say smart, gracious and tough. A foreign policy wonk who seems like your grandmother.
If the meeting involved Kerry, Gephardt, and Albright, I'd say she was the best choice in the room.
The ABC News online political newsletter "The Note" reported that Kerry held a late-night meeting last Thursday at the Washington home of former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and that the person he favors for his running mate attended. The newsletter said that in checking the schedule of Kerry's prospective running mates, only Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri was in town.
Hmmmm -- what if "the person he favors for his running mate attended" this meeting because "the person he favors for his running mate" is Albright?
I know the Right sees her as incompetent -- but how does the public at large see her? I'd say smart, gracious and tough. A foreign policy wonk who seems like your grandmother.
If the meeting involved Kerry, Gephardt, and Albright, I'd say she was the best choice in the room.
Friday, July 02, 2004
No tolerance, please, we're Mississipians:
JACKSON, Miss. - The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects comments of a George County court judge who said he believed homosexuals should be put in a mental institution.
The Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission last year asked the Supreme Court to publicly reprimand and fine Judge Connie Glenn Wilkerson, citing him for judicial misconduct....
Wilkerson's remarks about homosexuals were published in a 2002 letter to the George County Times, a weekly newspaper in Lucedale.
In the letter, Wilkerson expressed his opinion about a California law that grants gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members.
"In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them," Wilkerson said in the letter....
In 2002, the Mississippi Supreme Court amended the state's Code of Judicial Conduct to specifically call on judges to avoid "expressions of bias or prejudice," including demeaning remarks based on "sexual orientation."...
--story in today's Biloxi Sun-Herald (via AP)
Here's the letter:
Dear Editor:
I got sick on my stomach today as I read the (AP) news story on the Dog attack on the front page of THE MISSISSIPPI PRESS and had to respond! AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE!
I never thought that we would see the day when such would be here in AMERICA.
The last verse of chapter one of the book of Romans in our HOLY BIBLE is my reason for responding and sounding the alarm to this. You need to know as I know that God in Heaven is not pleased with this, and I am sounding the alarm that I, for one, am against it and want our LORD to see and hear me say I am against it.
I am sorry that the California Legislature enacted a law granting gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members. Also, that Hawaii and Vermont have enacted such a law, too. In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of a mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them.
I don’t know, but I believe if we vote for folks that are for this we have to stand in the judgment of GOD the same as them. I am thankful for our Legislators and pray for wisdom for them, on such unbelievable legislation as this. May GOD bless each one of them in JESUS CHRIST’s name I pray!
Thank you for printing this.
Connie Glenn Wilkerson
A woman gets mauled to death by a dog, her spouse-in-all-but-law sues, and this is the judge's reaction. And, of course, in today's story the judge says what they always say:
He said he didn't mean to offend anyone.
Yes, Judge, and you're dumber than a pile of dried muskrat shit. And, of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
JACKSON, Miss. - The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects comments of a George County court judge who said he believed homosexuals should be put in a mental institution.
The Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission last year asked the Supreme Court to publicly reprimand and fine Judge Connie Glenn Wilkerson, citing him for judicial misconduct....
Wilkerson's remarks about homosexuals were published in a 2002 letter to the George County Times, a weekly newspaper in Lucedale.
In the letter, Wilkerson expressed his opinion about a California law that grants gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members.
"In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them," Wilkerson said in the letter....
In 2002, the Mississippi Supreme Court amended the state's Code of Judicial Conduct to specifically call on judges to avoid "expressions of bias or prejudice," including demeaning remarks based on "sexual orientation."...
--story in today's Biloxi Sun-Herald (via AP)
Here's the letter:
Dear Editor:
I got sick on my stomach today as I read the (AP) news story on the Dog attack on the front page of THE MISSISSIPPI PRESS and had to respond! AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE!
I never thought that we would see the day when such would be here in AMERICA.
The last verse of chapter one of the book of Romans in our HOLY BIBLE is my reason for responding and sounding the alarm to this. You need to know as I know that God in Heaven is not pleased with this, and I am sounding the alarm that I, for one, am against it and want our LORD to see and hear me say I am against it.
I am sorry that the California Legislature enacted a law granting gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members. Also, that Hawaii and Vermont have enacted such a law, too. In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of a mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them.
I don’t know, but I believe if we vote for folks that are for this we have to stand in the judgment of GOD the same as them. I am thankful for our Legislators and pray for wisdom for them, on such unbelievable legislation as this. May GOD bless each one of them in JESUS CHRIST’s name I pray!
Thank you for printing this.
Connie Glenn Wilkerson
A woman gets mauled to death by a dog, her spouse-in-all-but-law sues, and this is the judge's reaction. And, of course, in today's story the judge says what they always say:
He said he didn't mean to offend anyone.
Yes, Judge, and you're dumber than a pile of dried muskrat shit. And, of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Christ, they're not even pretending that they want this to be non-political, or that it should be up to the Iraqis:
The current timetable for the new Iraqi government would put Saddam on trial sometime next year, but Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) discussed with President Bush and Vice President Cheney last week moving up the schedule to late next month.
Specter described the reaction of Bush and Cheney to his proposal as "just listening," but he has prepared a Senate resolution calling for a speedier trial to be introduced when Congress returns from recess later this month.
"To try Saddam would put a lot of other issues in perspective," Specter said, and let Republicans argue the war was fought mainly to topple a hated dictator and free the Iraqi people.
That's from a New York Daily News article that also quotes an unnamed GOP congressional source: "I think there will be a lot of interest in the White House to let the trial go on for the next several months."
The Iraqi judicial system is Bush Country!
The current timetable for the new Iraqi government would put Saddam on trial sometime next year, but Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) discussed with President Bush and Vice President Cheney last week moving up the schedule to late next month.
Specter described the reaction of Bush and Cheney to his proposal as "just listening," but he has prepared a Senate resolution calling for a speedier trial to be introduced when Congress returns from recess later this month.
"To try Saddam would put a lot of other issues in perspective," Specter said, and let Republicans argue the war was fought mainly to topple a hated dictator and free the Iraqi people.
That's from a New York Daily News article that also quotes an unnamed GOP congressional source: "I think there will be a lot of interest in the White House to let the trial go on for the next several months."
The Iraqi judicial system is Bush Country!
If you read the lead of this Washington Post story, you almost think the war, occupation, and handover have been a success:
New Guard Force Finds Welcome on Streets of Baghdad
BAGHDAD, July 1 -- A large Iraqi flag flapping on his Soviet-era jeep, 1st Lt. Shehab Abdul-Jabbar led an Iraqi National Guard patrol down Baghdad's heavily commercial Karrada Street. As he passed, merchants and shoppers smiled and waved their greetings. "Way to go," one man shouted from behind the small charcoal stove where he was grilling a splayed fish for lunch.
"People are comfortable with this," said Abdul-Jabbar, 38, an officer freshly minted from a U.S.-provided training course for the 35,000-man paramilitary force designed to bring internal security to Iraq.
The Iraqi guardsmen -- venturing out for the last several days in their own vehicles and flying the Iraqi flag conspicuously -- have found a warm welcome from most residents, some of whom have showered them with chocolates....
Keep reading.
Nevertheless, the Iraqi National Guard patrols on Baghdad's streets this week have been small and largely symbolic, mixed with U.S. troops who serve as backup and mentors. Moreover, according to U.S. military officials, only a fraction of the Iraqi National Guard roster has received enough training and equipment to mount even symbolic patrols in the still-dangerous streets of the capital.
Thursday's patrol, for instance, stuck to the Karrada neighborhood, a middle-class stretch of shops and cafes near the Tigris River. Karrada has not been a source of recruits for the anti-occupation insurgency; it is considered one of Baghdad's least dangerous areas for foreigners and Iraqis associated with them....
But even there, soldiers said, patrol members were nervous that they had been ordered to maintain a checkpoint for two hours instead of the usual 20 minutes. That gave plenty of time for would-be attackers to note the position, get their weapons and mount an assault.
Two Humvees from the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division traveled along with Abdul-Jabbar's two Iraqi military vehicles, which carried a total of nine men armed with AK-47 assault rifles. And 1st Lt. Timothy Stith, 32, of Jonesboro, Ark., retained the final say on what to do....
Wake me when they take the training wheels off.
New Guard Force Finds Welcome on Streets of Baghdad
BAGHDAD, July 1 -- A large Iraqi flag flapping on his Soviet-era jeep, 1st Lt. Shehab Abdul-Jabbar led an Iraqi National Guard patrol down Baghdad's heavily commercial Karrada Street. As he passed, merchants and shoppers smiled and waved their greetings. "Way to go," one man shouted from behind the small charcoal stove where he was grilling a splayed fish for lunch.
"People are comfortable with this," said Abdul-Jabbar, 38, an officer freshly minted from a U.S.-provided training course for the 35,000-man paramilitary force designed to bring internal security to Iraq.
The Iraqi guardsmen -- venturing out for the last several days in their own vehicles and flying the Iraqi flag conspicuously -- have found a warm welcome from most residents, some of whom have showered them with chocolates....
Keep reading.
Nevertheless, the Iraqi National Guard patrols on Baghdad's streets this week have been small and largely symbolic, mixed with U.S. troops who serve as backup and mentors. Moreover, according to U.S. military officials, only a fraction of the Iraqi National Guard roster has received enough training and equipment to mount even symbolic patrols in the still-dangerous streets of the capital.
Thursday's patrol, for instance, stuck to the Karrada neighborhood, a middle-class stretch of shops and cafes near the Tigris River. Karrada has not been a source of recruits for the anti-occupation insurgency; it is considered one of Baghdad's least dangerous areas for foreigners and Iraqis associated with them....
But even there, soldiers said, patrol members were nervous that they had been ordered to maintain a checkpoint for two hours instead of the usual 20 minutes. That gave plenty of time for would-be attackers to note the position, get their weapons and mount an assault.
Two Humvees from the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division traveled along with Abdul-Jabbar's two Iraqi military vehicles, which carried a total of nine men armed with AK-47 assault rifles. And 1st Lt. Timothy Stith, 32, of Jonesboro, Ark., retained the final say on what to do....
Wake me when they take the training wheels off.
NOT EXAGGERATED. AT WORST, JUST PREMATURE.
The bulk of outsourced jobs never leave U.S. shores, the government said on Thursday in a new report suggesting concerns over American workers losing jobs to cheaper foreign labor may be exaggerated.
--Reuters/Fox News, 6/10/04
A report by an influential consulting firm is exhorting U.S. companies to speed up "offshoring" operations to China and India, including high-powered functions such as research and development.
In blunt terms, the report by the Boston Consulting Group warns American firms that they risk extinction if they hesitate in shifting facilities to countries with low costs....
"Successful companies ask themselves, 'What must I keep at home?' rather than 'What can I shift to LCC's [low-cost countries]?'" states the report. "Their question is not 'Why outsource to LCC's?' but 'Why not?' " ...
Particularly troubling is the report's information about confidential discussions with executives at Boston Consulting's client companies, many of whom conveyed low opinions of their American employees compared with labor available abroad. Not only are factory workers in low-cost countries much cheaper -- well below $1 per hour in China, compared with $15 to $30 per hour in the United States and Europe -- but they quickly achieve quality levels that are "equivalent to or even higher than . . . [the] best plants in the West," according to the report....
Indeed, the report undercuts the view that R&D jobs in Western countries will increase even as low-skill jobs migrate to nations like China and India....
--Washington Post today
The bulk of outsourced jobs never leave U.S. shores, the government said on Thursday in a new report suggesting concerns over American workers losing jobs to cheaper foreign labor may be exaggerated.
--Reuters/Fox News, 6/10/04
A report by an influential consulting firm is exhorting U.S. companies to speed up "offshoring" operations to China and India, including high-powered functions such as research and development.
In blunt terms, the report by the Boston Consulting Group warns American firms that they risk extinction if they hesitate in shifting facilities to countries with low costs....
"Successful companies ask themselves, 'What must I keep at home?' rather than 'What can I shift to LCC's [low-cost countries]?'" states the report. "Their question is not 'Why outsource to LCC's?' but 'Why not?' " ...
Particularly troubling is the report's information about confidential discussions with executives at Boston Consulting's client companies, many of whom conveyed low opinions of their American employees compared with labor available abroad. Not only are factory workers in low-cost countries much cheaper -- well below $1 per hour in China, compared with $15 to $30 per hour in the United States and Europe -- but they quickly achieve quality levels that are "equivalent to or even higher than . . . [the] best plants in the West," according to the report....
Indeed, the report undercuts the view that R&D jobs in Western countries will increase even as low-skill jobs migrate to nations like China and India....
--Washington Post today
Hussein, in Jail, Reportedly Said Little of Value
In the nearly seven months that he was held captive by American forces, Saddam Hussein revealed little of what his interrogators most wanted to know, about his weapons programs and the insurgency in postwar Iraq, senior officials involved in his custody said in a series of recent interviews....
--New York Times
I've read this story and I still can't tell: Did Saddam stonewall? Or did he just not give his interrogators the answers they wanted to hear?
In the nearly seven months that he was held captive by American forces, Saddam Hussein revealed little of what his interrogators most wanted to know, about his weapons programs and the insurgency in postwar Iraq, senior officials involved in his custody said in a series of recent interviews....
--New York Times
I've read this story and I still can't tell: Did Saddam stonewall? Or did he just not give his interrogators the answers they wanted to hear?
You know, it does give me pause to see Saddam in the dock and to read yet more stories that touch on the crimes of his era. Yeah, he was an evil son of a bitch. In isolation, it's obviously a very good thing that he's out of power.
But -- cold-blooded as it sounds -- it's still not enough to justify the war.
For Iraqis, it seems the choice is: torture chambers or car bombs? Rape rooms or widespread rape in the streets? For Americans it's done absolutely nothing -- we're less safe, we've lost nearly a thousand troops and billions of dollars, and we now have to get all the hornets back in the nest, the nest we whacked with the baseball bat of a war justified by WMD claims and al-Qaeda ties that were utterly specious, followed by an occupation we've screwed up.
However much the Iraqis suffered under Saddam, after 9/11 the Bush administration had an obligation to the American people -- namely, to focus on the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. Their real allies -- not those who engaged them in occasional conversations that led to nothing. You want cold-blooded? We were attacked, and we began to understand the potential for even worse attacks. We couldn't afford to waste time on Iraq, which was just a sideshow.
Contain and deter Saddam? Yes -- that was the best of a bad set of choices. There's no reason today to believe otherwise.
But -- cold-blooded as it sounds -- it's still not enough to justify the war.
For Iraqis, it seems the choice is: torture chambers or car bombs? Rape rooms or widespread rape in the streets? For Americans it's done absolutely nothing -- we're less safe, we've lost nearly a thousand troops and billions of dollars, and we now have to get all the hornets back in the nest, the nest we whacked with the baseball bat of a war justified by WMD claims and al-Qaeda ties that were utterly specious, followed by an occupation we've screwed up.
However much the Iraqis suffered under Saddam, after 9/11 the Bush administration had an obligation to the American people -- namely, to focus on the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. Their real allies -- not those who engaged them in occasional conversations that led to nothing. You want cold-blooded? We were attacked, and we began to understand the potential for even worse attacks. We couldn't afford to waste time on Iraq, which was just a sideshow.
Contain and deter Saddam? Yes -- that was the best of a bad set of choices. There's no reason today to believe otherwise.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
I don't have a problem if Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wants to write off Fahrenheit 9/11 as facile and unserious. But this is just silly:
The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself.
Protest in the late '60s and early '70s was widespread, often highly disruptive, and sometimes violent. Once in a while it rose to the level of terrorism. Beyond that, some protesters cheered on the enemy ("Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win"), expressed overt contempt for the country and the flag, and defied traditional mores of language and personal grooming, which a lot of the people at the time still took very seriously.
By contrast, all Michael Moore has done is make a frigging movie.
Nobody's shot a cop in the midst of a bank robbery meant to fund the Revolution. Nobody's plotting to blow up the ROTC building or dose the water supply with LSD. The worst you can say is that maybe a few half-eaten tubs of popcorn are being left in the aisles.
The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself.
Protest in the late '60s and early '70s was widespread, often highly disruptive, and sometimes violent. Once in a while it rose to the level of terrorism. Beyond that, some protesters cheered on the enemy ("Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win"), expressed overt contempt for the country and the flag, and defied traditional mores of language and personal grooming, which a lot of the people at the time still took very seriously.
By contrast, all Michael Moore has done is make a frigging movie.
Nobody's shot a cop in the midst of a bank robbery meant to fund the Revolution. Nobody's plotting to blow up the ROTC building or dose the water supply with LSD. The worst you can say is that maybe a few half-eaten tubs of popcorn are being left in the aisles.
The latest member of the liberal media whose delicate sensibilities are threatened by anti-Bush anger is Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe. No fan of Bush, she went to see Fahrenheit 9/11; she thinks it was OK in parts, but the audience! They were ... they were ... they were rooting for it! The animal savagery! And the movie has cheap shots! How will the Republic survive?
The simple fact that George Bush the First called Moore a "slimeball" makes me itch to call him a "genius." But that's the problem. If the right is after him, does the choir have to sing the filmmaker's praises as our own cuddly and amusing pit bull?...
In the election between Bush and Anybody But Bush, reason and civility are now designated for wimps. But what happens to the country when the left only meets the right at the American jugular?
The name of Moore's production company, you may recall, is Dog Eat Dog.
Yup -- and the production company of Limbaugh, Coulter, et al., is Unprovoked Dog Attack.
OK, I made that up. But remember? The Clintons killed Vincent Foster! Hillary wants to abolish capitalism because she's been an avowed Socialist since Wellesley! Say what you will about Michael Moore's rhetoric, but at least the war he's angry about is actually taking place.
I suspect that part of the problem with Goodman, Nicholas Kristof, and others is that they still really don't know what right-wing vitriol looks and sounds like -- they weren't paying attention to it during Limbaugh's rise, they weren't paying attention to it as the attack machine expanded in the '90s, and they're not paying attention to it now. Now, I'm sure if we were playing The $100,000 Pyramid, Goodman or Kristof could summon up a few decade-old factoids and get a partner to guess "Rush Limbaugh" ("He's fat, he's on the radio, he calls women 'feminazis'..."), but when was the last time either of them listened to an hour of Rush? Can either of them name three other right-wing radio talkers? Has either of them ever sampled the fare at Free Republic, Lucianne.com, World Net Daily, or Townhall.com?
Has either of them ever read an Ann Coulter book from beginning to end? How about an Ann Coulter column? What about books from Coulter's former publisher, Regnery -- y'know, the place famous for subtitles like How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America; How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror; How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity; and How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security. Ellen? Nick? Ever dip into a Regnery book? Ever write about one? Many of them were big bestsellers. They inform the debate. They influence votes. And the presses didn't stop turning with the Restoration on January 20, 2001.
I know what the response of Goodman and Kristof would be: Oh, all the political rage is icky, and, with the right-wing stuff, if we just put our fingers in our ears and sing "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" really loud it'll all go away. Except that this was the mainstream media's tactic throughout the '90s, and guess what? It didn't work. It still isn't working.
Ellen? Nick? I agree with you -- I wish our political discourse were on a higher plane. But we know that ignoring right-wing vitriol didn't make it disappear, and you insist that fighting fire with fire is Just Not Done. So -- got any other suggestions? I know the man-bites-dog conventions of journalism dictate that you should only write about anger when it comes from the peace-'n'-love side, but do you think maybe you could make an exception once in a while, and write about the longstanding, ongoing inchoate rage of the right?
The simple fact that George Bush the First called Moore a "slimeball" makes me itch to call him a "genius." But that's the problem. If the right is after him, does the choir have to sing the filmmaker's praises as our own cuddly and amusing pit bull?...
In the election between Bush and Anybody But Bush, reason and civility are now designated for wimps. But what happens to the country when the left only meets the right at the American jugular?
The name of Moore's production company, you may recall, is Dog Eat Dog.
Yup -- and the production company of Limbaugh, Coulter, et al., is Unprovoked Dog Attack.
OK, I made that up. But remember? The Clintons killed Vincent Foster! Hillary wants to abolish capitalism because she's been an avowed Socialist since Wellesley! Say what you will about Michael Moore's rhetoric, but at least the war he's angry about is actually taking place.
I suspect that part of the problem with Goodman, Nicholas Kristof, and others is that they still really don't know what right-wing vitriol looks and sounds like -- they weren't paying attention to it during Limbaugh's rise, they weren't paying attention to it as the attack machine expanded in the '90s, and they're not paying attention to it now. Now, I'm sure if we were playing The $100,000 Pyramid, Goodman or Kristof could summon up a few decade-old factoids and get a partner to guess "Rush Limbaugh" ("He's fat, he's on the radio, he calls women 'feminazis'..."), but when was the last time either of them listened to an hour of Rush? Can either of them name three other right-wing radio talkers? Has either of them ever sampled the fare at Free Republic, Lucianne.com, World Net Daily, or Townhall.com?
Has either of them ever read an Ann Coulter book from beginning to end? How about an Ann Coulter column? What about books from Coulter's former publisher, Regnery -- y'know, the place famous for subtitles like How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America; How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror; How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity; and How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security. Ellen? Nick? Ever dip into a Regnery book? Ever write about one? Many of them were big bestsellers. They inform the debate. They influence votes. And the presses didn't stop turning with the Restoration on January 20, 2001.
I know what the response of Goodman and Kristof would be: Oh, all the political rage is icky, and, with the right-wing stuff, if we just put our fingers in our ears and sing "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" really loud it'll all go away. Except that this was the mainstream media's tactic throughout the '90s, and guess what? It didn't work. It still isn't working.
Ellen? Nick? I agree with you -- I wish our political discourse were on a higher plane. But we know that ignoring right-wing vitriol didn't make it disappear, and you insist that fighting fire with fire is Just Not Done. So -- got any other suggestions? I know the man-bites-dog conventions of journalism dictate that you should only write about anger when it comes from the peace-'n'-love side, but do you think maybe you could make an exception once in a while, and write about the longstanding, ongoing inchoate rage of the right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)