From the L.A. Times today:
U.S. Hand Seen in Afghan Election
Mohammed Mohaqiq says he was getting ready to make his run for the Afghan presidency when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dropped by his campaign office and proposed a deal.
"He told me to drop out of the elections, but not in a way to put pressure," Mohaqiq said. "It was like a request."
After the hourlong meeting last month, the ethnic Hazara warlord said in an interview Tuesday, he wasn't satisfied with the rewards offered for quitting, which he did not detail. Mohaqiq was still determined to run for president — though, he said, the U.S. ambassador wouldn't give up trying to elbow him out of the race.
"He left, and then called my most loyal men, and the most educated people in my party or campaign, to the presidential palace and told them to make me — or request me — to resign the nomination. And he told my men to ask me what I need in return."
Mohaqiq, who is running in the Oct. 9 election, is one of several candidates who maintain that the U.S. ambassador and his aides are pushing behind the scenes to ensure a convincing victory by the pro-American incumbent, President Hamid Karzai....
Sound familiar? This is from The Hill back in January '03:
White House seeks to steer Senate races
White House officials have put pressure on at least two House Republicans to put their Senate ambitions on hold and leave the way clear for the administration's favored candidates, Republican sources say.
To engineer victories in South Dakota and Washington, Reps. William Janklow (R-S.D.) and George Nethercutt (R-Wash.) have been asked to let former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.) weigh their options first.
The White House operatives have also played up preferred candidates in the Carolinas, North Dakota and Nevada. Some Republicans are holding back for fear of taking on the White House.
The White House apparently seeks a repeat performance of the 2002 midterm elections, when President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, persuaded several Senate hopefuls not to run....
Yeah, it sounds a bit familiar.
Now, in Iraq the election rules are somewhat complicated, as today's New York Times reports:
Under the electoral system, drawn up by the United Nations, voters will select not individual candidates but lists, whose members will take a number of seats in the National Assembly roughly proportional to the shares of the votes their parties receive.
Nevertheless, there are signs of election scheming, at least according to the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- and, curiously, the scheming involves U.S.-affiliated parties:
Ayatollah Sistani is concerned that the nascent democratic process here is falling under the control of a handful of the largest political parties, which cooperated with the American occupation and are comprised largely of exiles.
In particular, these sources say, Ayatollah Sistani is worried about discussions now under way among those parties to form a single ticket for the elections, thus limiting the choices of voters and smothering smaller political parties.
The Bushies couldn't successfully run a two-car parade, but they know how to game an election.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
NBC/Wall Street Journal: Bush 48%, Kerry 45%.
"The difference between those couple of points and being in a dead-even race is modest," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "This is not a difficult race [for Kerry] to get quickly back to being functionally tied."
In fact, the results among registered voters are virtually identical to the results from past NBC/Wall Street Journal polls — even though many experts claim that Bush had a resoundingly successful convention, and noted that Kerry (dogged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who attacked his Vietnam record, and Democrats who questioned whether his campaign had a concrete message) had a dreadful August....
We're still in it.
"The difference between those couple of points and being in a dead-even race is modest," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "This is not a difficult race [for Kerry] to get quickly back to being functionally tied."
In fact, the results among registered voters are virtually identical to the results from past NBC/Wall Street Journal polls — even though many experts claim that Bush had a resoundingly successful convention, and noted that Kerry (dogged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who attacked his Vietnam record, and Democrats who questioned whether his campaign had a concrete message) had a dreadful August....
We're still in it.
COMPARE & CONTRAST
While Mr. Kerry has certainly lost support among women, some polls show he is still slightly ahead of Mr. Bush.
--Katharine Q. Seelye in today's New York Times
Among women nationwide, 42% say they would vote for Bush and 50% say they would vote for Kerry.
--poll results released today by the American Research Group
While Mr. Kerry has certainly lost support among women, some polls show he is still slightly ahead of Mr. Bush.
--Katharine Q. Seelye in today's New York Times
Among women nationwide, 42% say they would vote for Bush and 50% say they would vote for Kerry.
--poll results released today by the American Research Group
I have two reactions when I hear about Yusuf Islam, aka Cat Stevens. One is a bit embarrassing: I still like some of his songs, which I think hold up a lot better than those of other '70s soft-rockers. The other has to do with the Salman Rushdie fatwa: He supported it, and I can't forgive him for that. So when I read that a London-to-D.C. flight on which he was a passenger was diverted to Maine because he was onboard and that he's now going to be deported, I have trouble working up outrage.
You may have heard that he didn't really call for Rushdie's death. But here's the 1989 press release in which he attempted to correct what he saw as misleading press accounts:
Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair
Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.
...However, that is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it. Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (fard'ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn't mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, theives and murderers. If we can't get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, 'Satanic Verses' which insults God and His prophets - including those prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims - this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying don't work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us.
So in his clarification he said death was the proper punishment for Rushdie, if only the law permitted it, and at the very least he wanted the book banned under Britain's blasphemy laws.
Hey, but it's all academic, right? Rushdie's alive and well, and Khomeini's dead. Yes, but:
In 1989, two bookstores in Berkeley, California were firebombed [for selling the book]. That same year, two moderate Muslim leaders, after publicly expressing opposition to the censorship of the book, were murdered in Brussels, Belgium. In July 1991, Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed by an assailant who demanded Rushdie's address. That same month, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the novel, was found stabbed to death at Tsukuba University. In October 1993, publisher William Nygaard, whose firm published a Norse translation of The Satanic Verses, was seriously wounded by gunshot outside his home in Oslo.
These are people very much like the people I work with, and like the people I worked with at the time. So I'm a bit sensitive about this subject.
I loathe Bush and Ashcroft, but many years ago Stevens/Islam poured a few drops of gasoline on a fire that really did burn some people. He may not deserve to be treated as a current threat to American society, but what he said in '89 was not harmless.
You may have heard that he didn't really call for Rushdie's death. But here's the 1989 press release in which he attempted to correct what he saw as misleading press accounts:
Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair
Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.
...However, that is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it. Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (fard'ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn't mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, theives and murderers. If we can't get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, 'Satanic Verses' which insults God and His prophets - including those prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims - this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying don't work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us.
So in his clarification he said death was the proper punishment for Rushdie, if only the law permitted it, and at the very least he wanted the book banned under Britain's blasphemy laws.
Hey, but it's all academic, right? Rushdie's alive and well, and Khomeini's dead. Yes, but:
In 1989, two bookstores in Berkeley, California were firebombed [for selling the book]. That same year, two moderate Muslim leaders, after publicly expressing opposition to the censorship of the book, were murdered in Brussels, Belgium. In July 1991, Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed by an assailant who demanded Rushdie's address. That same month, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the novel, was found stabbed to death at Tsukuba University. In October 1993, publisher William Nygaard, whose firm published a Norse translation of The Satanic Verses, was seriously wounded by gunshot outside his home in Oslo.
These are people very much like the people I work with, and like the people I worked with at the time. So I'm a bit sensitive about this subject.
I loathe Bush and Ashcroft, but many years ago Stevens/Islam poured a few drops of gasoline on a fire that really did burn some people. He may not deserve to be treated as a current threat to American society, but what he said in '89 was not harmless.
In two posts (here and here), Fubar at Needlenose discusses the story of Scott Taylor, a Canadian journalist who was recently kidnapped in northwest Iran by resistance fighters, then released. Fubar draws on Taylor's account of his ordeal and a subsequent interview at Antiwar.com. If what Taylor says in the interview is correct, we shouldn't expect too much help in defeating the resistance from Iraqi cops:
Everywhere we went, it was obvious that the militants had the full cooperation of the U.S.-trained Iraqi police. Whenever we transited outside the city, to the corners of Mosul or the checkpoints, the cops would see us bound in the back seats -- and offer cigarettes to our captors! ...
I learned that the Iraqi police on the checkpoints were contributing part of their salary to the resistance's local leader, the emir. After all, they're whacking the crap out of these police recruits all over the place throughout Iraq, so it's partially protection money.
One guy was laughing at me and saying how ironic it is that the Americans are being attacked with RPGs purchased with their own money. Sad to say, the U.S. taxpayer is actually funding the Iraqi resistance. By paying these cops' salaries, U.S. taxpayers are actually helping to buy the weapons that are killing American soldiers every day.
Wait -- it gets worse:
...my mujahedin captors told me in advance the exact time the U.S. air strikes would hit them. I said, "How the hell you know?" To which the guy laughed and said, "Don't be stupid, of course we know." They have infiltrated U.S. command even.
And then there's this gloss on U.S. forces, from Taylor's account:
Around 2 p.m. we had stopped near a remote desert house. The nearly 30 fighters had assembled around our car and began to conduct a mass prayer. Zeynep and I were instructed to remain in the car. It was as they were engrossed in their prayer that I spotted the two American helicopters coming out of the south – low and fast and headed straight towards our parked convoy. I cried out in alarm. At first the mujahedeen were angry at the interruption until they too spotted the approaching threat. Caught out in the open, they were sitting ducks. Nobody could move; they simply watched the helicopters steadily bear down on us.
At about 800 metres distance, the gunships inexplicably banked away to the east without so much as a reconnaissance overpass of our mysterious group of vehicles in the middle of the desert. We had to have been in plain view, but the Americans turned away. "They always fly the same patrol routes" explained one of the fighters, "They see nothing."
Victory is not in sight.
Everywhere we went, it was obvious that the militants had the full cooperation of the U.S.-trained Iraqi police. Whenever we transited outside the city, to the corners of Mosul or the checkpoints, the cops would see us bound in the back seats -- and offer cigarettes to our captors! ...
I learned that the Iraqi police on the checkpoints were contributing part of their salary to the resistance's local leader, the emir. After all, they're whacking the crap out of these police recruits all over the place throughout Iraq, so it's partially protection money.
One guy was laughing at me and saying how ironic it is that the Americans are being attacked with RPGs purchased with their own money. Sad to say, the U.S. taxpayer is actually funding the Iraqi resistance. By paying these cops' salaries, U.S. taxpayers are actually helping to buy the weapons that are killing American soldiers every day.
Wait -- it gets worse:
...my mujahedin captors told me in advance the exact time the U.S. air strikes would hit them. I said, "How the hell you know?" To which the guy laughed and said, "Don't be stupid, of course we know." They have infiltrated U.S. command even.
And then there's this gloss on U.S. forces, from Taylor's account:
Around 2 p.m. we had stopped near a remote desert house. The nearly 30 fighters had assembled around our car and began to conduct a mass prayer. Zeynep and I were instructed to remain in the car. It was as they were engrossed in their prayer that I spotted the two American helicopters coming out of the south – low and fast and headed straight towards our parked convoy. I cried out in alarm. At first the mujahedeen were angry at the interruption until they too spotted the approaching threat. Caught out in the open, they were sitting ducks. Nobody could move; they simply watched the helicopters steadily bear down on us.
At about 800 metres distance, the gunships inexplicably banked away to the east without so much as a reconnaissance overpass of our mysterious group of vehicles in the middle of the desert. We had to have been in plain view, but the Americans turned away. "They always fly the same patrol routes" explained one of the fighters, "They see nothing."
Victory is not in sight.
Dr. Rihab Taha, aka "Dr. Germ," is being released after a second beheading this week of an American hostage. ("The United States sent Taha her first bugs in April 1986," the New York Daily News noted drily in 2002.) When the Bush invasion of Iraq was imminent, she gave an interview to ABC:
Although U.S. Seceteray of State Colin Powell says Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons, Dr. Rihab Taha says the weapons, including 2,200 gallons of anthrax, were all destroyed over a decade ago.
"In summer of 1991, the whole quantity was completely destructed by [the] Iraqi side and the bombs and the warheads, and UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] themselves verified this matter," Taha told ABCNEWS' Diane Sawyer.
In Iraq's declaration to the United Nations in December, the country rebutted claims it has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. and Britain dismissed the 12,000-page declaration and United Nations weapons inspectors reported a discrepancy between the amount of anthrax Iraq produced and what it had accounted for. However, Taha said the biological section of the report, which she said she helped compile, was honest and transparent.
"We spent a lot, hundreds of hours with them, clarifying these things to them. If they are fair, they should close this matter," she said.
At the time, that was seen as outrageous. It doesn't seem quite so outrageous now.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Kerry has at least one right-winger (at National Review Online's Corner) worried:
REVEILLE [Rick Brookhiser]
Yut-dut-dut-dut-da-da! Yut-duh-duh-dut-dut-daaa!
Wake up! Put down your Dan Rather teddy bears! The election is not going to be a smooth coast home, flipping through memos from Burkett to Barnes to Lockhart to Dan. As Rich says, Kerry has engaged the main issue.
The Nader vote, which was showing signs of life, will disappear again. Kerry has a position, finally, and the flip flop meme is about as valuable as mulch. Who cares what he said yesterday, if what he says today seems to make sense? A foolish consistency, etc.
...Bush will have to explain why Iraq was right, why it is better to have Saddam gone, and how we are going to prevail there; and how we intend to prevail over all. He will have to say it in big speeches, and he will have to say it in sound bites. It won't be Lincoln Douglas or the Federalist Papers, but it will be as close as we come.
I like it when they worry.
REVEILLE [Rick Brookhiser]
Yut-dut-dut-dut-da-da! Yut-duh-duh-dut-dut-daaa!
Wake up! Put down your Dan Rather teddy bears! The election is not going to be a smooth coast home, flipping through memos from Burkett to Barnes to Lockhart to Dan. As Rich says, Kerry has engaged the main issue.
The Nader vote, which was showing signs of life, will disappear again. Kerry has a position, finally, and the flip flop meme is about as valuable as mulch. Who cares what he said yesterday, if what he says today seems to make sense? A foolish consistency, etc.
...Bush will have to explain why Iraq was right, why it is better to have Saddam gone, and how we are going to prevail there; and how we intend to prevail over all. He will have to say it in big speeches, and he will have to say it in sound bites. It won't be Lincoln Douglas or the Federalist Papers, but it will be as close as we come.
I like it when they worry.
So who has the "September 10" mentality now? Who cares more about America's security? The people who were cheering Kerry's speech yesterday -- or the people who talk as if we've already won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now seem to be spending all their time trying to turn Dan Rather into this year's Gary Condit?
Everything is wonderful. Freedom is everywhere. Freedom is good. Bush is good. Pay no attention to this:
Afghanistan's vice president is ambushed
A convoy carrying Vice President Nematullah Shahrani was attacked by remote-control explosives Monday in northern Afghanistan, just four days after President Hamid Karzai's helicopter was rocketed as it attempted to land at a school in southern Afghanistan....
The incident coincided with the deaths of two U.S. soldiers in a gun battle with Islamic militants in Paktika province, with reports that three Afghan soldiers were beheaded in Zabul province, and with warnings from a renegade Afghan militia leader in Pakistan that Afghan refugees there will be at risk of attack if they attempt to vote [on October 9]....
Afghanistan's vice president is ambushed
A convoy carrying Vice President Nematullah Shahrani was attacked by remote-control explosives Monday in northern Afghanistan, just four days after President Hamid Karzai's helicopter was rocketed as it attempted to land at a school in southern Afghanistan....
The incident coincided with the deaths of two U.S. soldiers in a gun battle with Islamic militants in Paktika province, with reports that three Afghan soldiers were beheaded in Zabul province, and with warnings from a renegade Afghan militia leader in Pakistan that Afghan refugees there will be at risk of attack if they attempt to vote [on October 9]....
An American was beheaded in Iraq yesterday, and the news is barely causing a ripple.
It's the subject of a below-the-fold story on the front page of The New York Times. It's not currently the subject of any of the "Top Stories" at Google News. Over on the right, the New York Post keeps it off the front page (where the top story is "MOMSTERS -- Lesbian duo beat son to death: cops"). And as I write this, none of the 25 most-blogged-about stories, as surveyed by Memeorandum, concern the beheading (12 of the 25 concern Dan Rather and the National Guard documents).
Back in May, right-wingers -- William Bennett and Jonah Goldberg, for instance, in National Review -- argued that the press was paying too little attention to Nick Berg's beheading. Funny -- I'm not hearing anything like that now. Could it be because the story that dominated the headlines back then was Abu Ghraib, which was embarrassing to Bush, and the story that tops the charts now is CBS's documents blunder -- an inadvertent gift to the Bush campaign?
It's the subject of a below-the-fold story on the front page of The New York Times. It's not currently the subject of any of the "Top Stories" at Google News. Over on the right, the New York Post keeps it off the front page (where the top story is "MOMSTERS -- Lesbian duo beat son to death: cops"). And as I write this, none of the 25 most-blogged-about stories, as surveyed by Memeorandum, concern the beheading (12 of the 25 concern Dan Rather and the National Guard documents).
Back in May, right-wingers -- William Bennett and Jonah Goldberg, for instance, in National Review -- argued that the press was paying too little attention to Nick Berg's beheading. Funny -- I'm not hearing anything like that now. Could it be because the story that dominated the headlines back then was Abu Ghraib, which was embarrassing to Bush, and the story that tops the charts now is CBS's documents blunder -- an inadvertent gift to the Bush campaign?
I'm genuinely sick of this story, but I see that USA Today is reporting that CBS agreed to put Bill Burkett, source of those National Guard memos, in touch with Kerry aide Joe Lockhart as a condition of Burkett's cooperation with CBS.
Now, what does this tell us? It tells us that the Democrats weren't giving Burkett the time of day, and he needed help to get in touch with them.
If the story is accurate, isn't it a strong indication that the the Kerry campaign wasn't involved in the dissemination of the documents, no matter what the Republicans might insinuate?
******
Meanwhile, there's this, from another USA Today story:
Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez....
Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted....
An acquaintance of Burkett, who he said could corroborate his story, said he was at the livestock show on March 3. The woman, who asked that her name not be used, said Burkett asked if he could put papers inside a box she had at the livestock show. Often, she said, friends ask to store papers in her box that verify their purchases at the livestock auction. She said she did not know the nature of the papers Burkett gave her, and he did not say anything about them.
Farfetched, right? Burkett's just making up an absurd story to conceal the fact that he forged the documents, right?
Oh, don't do this to me. Don't pique my interest. I'm really, really ready to turn the page. Don't make me think he might be telling the truth about this. Don't make me think there are mysterious, shadowy figures setting him up.
Well, that's what I said way back. And Atrios, citing Bush's Brain coauthor James C. Moore, is speculating about Rove's involvement right now.
I suspect Burkett foolishly generated the documents himself, and is now afraid he'll face a forgery prosecuting for it -- but it would certainly be interesting if Moore, or someone else, demonstrates otherwise.
Now, what does this tell us? It tells us that the Democrats weren't giving Burkett the time of day, and he needed help to get in touch with them.
If the story is accurate, isn't it a strong indication that the the Kerry campaign wasn't involved in the dissemination of the documents, no matter what the Republicans might insinuate?
******
Meanwhile, there's this, from another USA Today story:
Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez....
Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted....
An acquaintance of Burkett, who he said could corroborate his story, said he was at the livestock show on March 3. The woman, who asked that her name not be used, said Burkett asked if he could put papers inside a box she had at the livestock show. Often, she said, friends ask to store papers in her box that verify their purchases at the livestock auction. She said she did not know the nature of the papers Burkett gave her, and he did not say anything about them.
Farfetched, right? Burkett's just making up an absurd story to conceal the fact that he forged the documents, right?
Oh, don't do this to me. Don't pique my interest. I'm really, really ready to turn the page. Don't make me think he might be telling the truth about this. Don't make me think there are mysterious, shadowy figures setting him up.
Well, that's what I said way back. And Atrios, citing Bush's Brain coauthor James C. Moore, is speculating about Rove's involvement right now.
I suspect Burkett foolishly generated the documents himself, and is now afraid he'll face a forgery prosecuting for it -- but it would certainly be interesting if Moore, or someone else, demonstrates otherwise.
Monday, September 20, 2004
I posted a link last week to Rising Hegemon's story about Phil Parlock, who's charged Democrats with roughing him up and/or destroying his pro-GOP signs at campaign rallies in 1996, 2000, and this year. Hard News Now has also looked at this and finds that the "union thug" who allegedly destroyed Poppa Parlock's Bush sign looks suspiciously like a member of a barbershop group at nearby Marshall University -- a barbershop group that includes a member named Phil Parlock (Junior?). And the backwards green hat worn by the "union thug" has a logo that just might be the logo of Marshall University.
Parlock continues to deny any wrongdoing, per AP (yeah, the story's inching up the media food chain).
Parlock continues to deny any wrongdoing, per AP (yeah, the story's inching up the media food chain).
John Kerry gave a hell of a speech today.
...the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The President's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
Maybe it's the Hail Mary pass some people have been hoping for. On the other hand, maybe it'll just be described as a flip-flop. In any case, read it. If you've been lukewarm in your support for Kerry, it really might inspire you.
...the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The President's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
Maybe it's the Hail Mary pass some people have been hoping for. On the other hand, maybe it'll just be described as a flip-flop. In any case, read it. If you've been lukewarm in your support for Kerry, it really might inspire you.
Oh, all right -- so the National Guard documents came from Bill Burkett.
CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.
Damn, I really liked my Karl Rove theory. And I was probably the first lefty blogger to bail on the documents, so I could've been Mr. Credibility.
So ... has anybody come up with proof that Bush fulfilled his duties in Alabama? Anyone collect the reward yet?
CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.
Damn, I really liked my Karl Rove theory. And I was probably the first lefty blogger to bail on the documents, so I could've been Mr. Credibility.
So ... has anybody come up with proof that Bush fulfilled his duties in Alabama? Anyone collect the reward yet?
Gee, just yesterday I was reading on the front page of The New York Times that however dire things may seem in Iraq now, as soon as the election is over we're going to give those nasty insurgents in Fallujah a good, satisfying ass-kicking.
Today, though, I'm getting a different message from Robert Novak: however dire things may seem in Iraq now, as soon as the election is over we're going to get the hell out of Iraq.
Surely both of these things can't be true.
Let's see: Voters tell pollsters they don't feel they know what Kerry plans to do about Iraq. Voters don't know what Bush plans to do, either -- but they haven't called him on it yet, nor has the press. Still, what does Bush do if that changes -- wht does he do in the unlikely event that he's actually held accountable for once in his life? Well, he could float one of these two scenarios as a trial balloon -- but one makes him look bellicose to soccer moms, while the other makes him look weak to NASCAR dads. So why not float both? And, just to make both seem plausible, why not have "senior officials" whisper the macho one to the "liberal" East Coast paper of record, while the peacenik one goes to a GOP apparatchik? Then all voters hear what they want to hear, and it seems that Bush has a plan. (Whichever one it is.)
(Novak column also available here.)
Today, though, I'm getting a different message from Robert Novak: however dire things may seem in Iraq now, as soon as the election is over we're going to get the hell out of Iraq.
Surely both of these things can't be true.
Let's see: Voters tell pollsters they don't feel they know what Kerry plans to do about Iraq. Voters don't know what Bush plans to do, either -- but they haven't called him on it yet, nor has the press. Still, what does Bush do if that changes -- wht does he do in the unlikely event that he's actually held accountable for once in his life? Well, he could float one of these two scenarios as a trial balloon -- but one makes him look bellicose to soccer moms, while the other makes him look weak to NASCAR dads. So why not float both? And, just to make both seem plausible, why not have "senior officials" whisper the macho one to the "liberal" East Coast paper of record, while the peacenik one goes to a GOP apparatchik? Then all voters hear what they want to hear, and it seems that Bush has a plan. (Whichever one it is.)
(Novak column also available here.)
One month ago, Kerry enjoyed a wide margin among women, leading the president by 14 points in a Time magazine poll. As Bush pulled ahead in several state and national polls after his convention, Kerry fell below the president among women voters by 1 point in the Time survey and clung to a narrow advantage in other polls....
--Chicago Tribune
Even odder, perhaps, was the gender gap on a question in the Times poll asking whether Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Twenty-nine percent of men said he was, versus 47 percent of women, putting them 18 points ahead - or maybe behind.
--John Tierney in The New York Times discussing his paper's recent poll
Coincidence?
Bush & Co. suggest a connection between Saddam and 9/11 every chance they get, segueing from one to the other in speech after speech. The fact that this is a Big Lie is not getting through to female voters, and that's really hurting the Kerry campaign. I don't know whose fault this is, but something needs to be done.
--Chicago Tribune
Even odder, perhaps, was the gender gap on a question in the Times poll asking whether Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Twenty-nine percent of men said he was, versus 47 percent of women, putting them 18 points ahead - or maybe behind.
--John Tierney in The New York Times discussing his paper's recent poll
Coincidence?
Bush & Co. suggest a connection between Saddam and 9/11 every chance they get, segueing from one to the other in speech after speech. The fact that this is a Big Lie is not getting through to female voters, and that's really hurting the Kerry campaign. I don't know whose fault this is, but something needs to be done.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
NOT FIT TO PRINT
Did anybody read today's front-page New York Times story about Tom Coburn, the GOP's wingnut candidate for Senate in Oklahoma, and wonder about this unexplained passage?
While criticizing state legislators in Oklahoma City, he used what he called "an inappropriate word" that even he conceded had gotten him in trouble.
Golly -- this is a guy who loves Jesus and calls for the death penalty for abortion providers. What on earth could he have said about those legislators that was so awful the Times wouldn't print it?
Here's your answer:
State Democratic Party Chairman Jay Parmley on Thursday called for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Coburn to apologize for comments made during an Altus Town Hall meeting.
Parmley said Coburn told supporters Aug. 21 that "you have a bunch of crapheads in Oklahoma City that have killed the vision of anybody wanting to invest in Oklahoma."...
Stumping in Stillwater on Thursday, Coburn told The Oklahoman that he wouldn't respond to Parmley's calls for an apology.
"Did I use an inappropriate word? Maybe ... "
"Craphead." He said "craphead."
That's too racy for the Times.
Also today, a review appeared in the Times book section of a memoir by Nick Flynn that focuses on Flynn's work at a homeless shelter and the time Flynn's father spent living at the same shelter; the book is entitled, as the Times puts it, Another Bull____ Night .... So what's that really supposed to be? Cover your eyes if you've got a delicate sensibility: The real title of the book is Another Bullshit Night in Suck City. OK -- I can see not wanting to print "Bullshit" in a "family newspaper," but "Suck City"? Is "suck" any more than a mild, TV-friendly vulgarism these days?
Incidentally, the fastidious nannies of the Times still offer the complete text of the Starr Report on the paper's Web site.
******
Speaking of books, I'm glad to see the Daily Howler saying this about Unfit to Command, the Swift boat book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi:
This summer, the overwrought pair published a book which may have transformed this White House campaign. But very few newspapers have dared to review it, and one thing readers are not being told is how kooky this important book is.
The New York Times is one of the papers that haven't reviewed the book -- in fact, since 1996, the Times has reviewed only 17 Regnery books, and that total includes A Prima Donna's Progress: The Autobiography of Joan Sutherland and Ross Leckie's historical novel Hannibal. When lefty Nicholson Baker wrote Checkpoint, a novella about a yammerer who wants to kill Bush, the Times leapt on as soon as it was published -- and gave it a vicious pan. But Regnery's right-wing attack books go unreviewed in the Times year in and year out -- High Crimes and Misdemeanors, by Ann Coulter, Hell to Pay by Barbara Olson, Unlimited Access by Gary Aldrich, Betrayal by Bill Gertz, Dereliction of Duty by Robert "Buzz" Patterson, and Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman, to name a few. Most of those were big Times bestsellers. They help set the terms of America's political debate -- yet no one at the Times bothers to engage them. Unfit to Command is just the latest in a long series of Regnery stink bombs that were able to do their damage in part by getting under the elite media's radar.
Did anybody read today's front-page New York Times story about Tom Coburn, the GOP's wingnut candidate for Senate in Oklahoma, and wonder about this unexplained passage?
While criticizing state legislators in Oklahoma City, he used what he called "an inappropriate word" that even he conceded had gotten him in trouble.
Golly -- this is a guy who loves Jesus and calls for the death penalty for abortion providers. What on earth could he have said about those legislators that was so awful the Times wouldn't print it?
Here's your answer:
State Democratic Party Chairman Jay Parmley on Thursday called for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Coburn to apologize for comments made during an Altus Town Hall meeting.
Parmley said Coburn told supporters Aug. 21 that "you have a bunch of crapheads in Oklahoma City that have killed the vision of anybody wanting to invest in Oklahoma."...
Stumping in Stillwater on Thursday, Coburn told The Oklahoman that he wouldn't respond to Parmley's calls for an apology.
"Did I use an inappropriate word? Maybe ... "
"Craphead." He said "craphead."
That's too racy for the Times.
Also today, a review appeared in the Times book section of a memoir by Nick Flynn that focuses on Flynn's work at a homeless shelter and the time Flynn's father spent living at the same shelter; the book is entitled, as the Times puts it, Another Bull____ Night .... So what's that really supposed to be? Cover your eyes if you've got a delicate sensibility: The real title of the book is Another Bullshit Night in Suck City. OK -- I can see not wanting to print "Bullshit" in a "family newspaper," but "Suck City"? Is "suck" any more than a mild, TV-friendly vulgarism these days?
Incidentally, the fastidious nannies of the Times still offer the complete text of the Starr Report on the paper's Web site.
******
Speaking of books, I'm glad to see the Daily Howler saying this about Unfit to Command, the Swift boat book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi:
This summer, the overwrought pair published a book which may have transformed this White House campaign. But very few newspapers have dared to review it, and one thing readers are not being told is how kooky this important book is.
The New York Times is one of the papers that haven't reviewed the book -- in fact, since 1996, the Times has reviewed only 17 Regnery books, and that total includes A Prima Donna's Progress: The Autobiography of Joan Sutherland and Ross Leckie's historical novel Hannibal. When lefty Nicholson Baker wrote Checkpoint, a novella about a yammerer who wants to kill Bush, the Times leapt on as soon as it was published -- and gave it a vicious pan. But Regnery's right-wing attack books go unreviewed in the Times year in and year out -- High Crimes and Misdemeanors, by Ann Coulter, Hell to Pay by Barbara Olson, Unlimited Access by Gary Aldrich, Betrayal by Bill Gertz, Dereliction of Duty by Robert "Buzz" Patterson, and Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman, to name a few. Most of those were big Times bestsellers. They help set the terms of America's political debate -- yet no one at the Times bothers to engage them. Unfit to Command is just the latest in a long series of Regnery stink bombs that were able to do their damage in part by getting under the elite media's radar.
Here's my favorite passage from the lengthy Washington Post story on CBS's decision to include the Killian memos in the Bush National Guard story. It's from a document expert CBS consulted, one who raised objections early on:
Emily Will said she called the network that Tuesday and repeated her objections as strongly as possible. "If you air the program on Wednesday," she recalled saying, "on Thursday you're going to have hundreds of document examiners raising the same questions."
Oh, really? Gee, I thought Truth was suppressed in this case until The Power Of A Thousand Mighty Right-Wing Bloggers brought it to light. Is Will making the heretical suggestion that even without the existence of the right-wing Net commentariat these documents might have been discredited anyway, by experts, some of whom might even be liberals? Perish the thought!
Meanwhile, there are now AP and New York Times stories about a phone conversation between Bill Burkett, suspected source of the Killian documents, and Max Cleland. It sounds as if no one in the Kerry campaign really wanted to deal with this guy -- he complains in an e-mail of having to go through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" before he could talk to Cleland and about not hearing back after talking to Cleland -- yet the Bushies are cranking up a dry-ice machine next to a gun and insisting that the gun itself is smoking ("The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear").
Now, I've enjoyed advancing the theory that Burkett was hawking this story but Karl Rove actually produced the fake memos and faxed them from a Kinko's near Burkett's house -- but I'm not going to stick with this theory if all the evidence continues to point to Burkett.
Look, CBS got fished in -- there's the problem. It's not the Democrats or Kerry or "the liberal media." (What liberal media?) An interesting tidbit in the Post story is that the White House saw the memos before CBS aired the story and no one there questioned their authenticity. Not enough time? That's White House spokesman Dan Bartlett's excuse: "How am I supposed to verify something that came from a dead man in three hours?" Well, Dan, you aren't -- you're supposed to say you don't know for sure and you have your doubts. Unless you know the documents are fake and you want CBS to embarrass itself.
OK, that's another conspiracy theory. The more likely explanation, of course, as others have noted, is that the White House didn't question the authenticity of the memos because what the documents said was accurate.
****
Meanwhile, a couple of days ago the L.A. Times ID'd "Buckhead," the Free Republic poster who first questioned the Killian National Guard documents, as Harry MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer who's a member of two right-wing lawyers' groups, the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Federation.
One last time, just for fun, a little utterly irresponsible idle speculation: Do you think Harry MacDougald is any relation to Jim MacDougald of St. Petersburg, Florida, the former president of Ceridian Benefits Services who retired in 2000 and attended this Florida confab with Karl Rove in 2003? (Nah -- probably not, right? And, as noted above, questions would have been raised about these documents in any case -- though it was awfully helpful to the White House to have them raised within hours, no?)
By the way, chrishardcore.com has collected some of Buckhead's non-pseudonymous writings. Typical right-wing blather, if mustily florid ("...one of the grand pooh-bahs of the chattering class in Washington is utterly bereft of any moral discernment...")
Emily Will said she called the network that Tuesday and repeated her objections as strongly as possible. "If you air the program on Wednesday," she recalled saying, "on Thursday you're going to have hundreds of document examiners raising the same questions."
Oh, really? Gee, I thought Truth was suppressed in this case until The Power Of A Thousand Mighty Right-Wing Bloggers brought it to light. Is Will making the heretical suggestion that even without the existence of the right-wing Net commentariat these documents might have been discredited anyway, by experts, some of whom might even be liberals? Perish the thought!
Meanwhile, there are now AP and New York Times stories about a phone conversation between Bill Burkett, suspected source of the Killian documents, and Max Cleland. It sounds as if no one in the Kerry campaign really wanted to deal with this guy -- he complains in an e-mail of having to go through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" before he could talk to Cleland and about not hearing back after talking to Cleland -- yet the Bushies are cranking up a dry-ice machine next to a gun and insisting that the gun itself is smoking ("The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear").
Now, I've enjoyed advancing the theory that Burkett was hawking this story but Karl Rove actually produced the fake memos and faxed them from a Kinko's near Burkett's house -- but I'm not going to stick with this theory if all the evidence continues to point to Burkett.
Look, CBS got fished in -- there's the problem. It's not the Democrats or Kerry or "the liberal media." (What liberal media?) An interesting tidbit in the Post story is that the White House saw the memos before CBS aired the story and no one there questioned their authenticity. Not enough time? That's White House spokesman Dan Bartlett's excuse: "How am I supposed to verify something that came from a dead man in three hours?" Well, Dan, you aren't -- you're supposed to say you don't know for sure and you have your doubts. Unless you know the documents are fake and you want CBS to embarrass itself.
OK, that's another conspiracy theory. The more likely explanation, of course, as others have noted, is that the White House didn't question the authenticity of the memos because what the documents said was accurate.
****
Meanwhile, a couple of days ago the L.A. Times ID'd "Buckhead," the Free Republic poster who first questioned the Killian National Guard documents, as Harry MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer who's a member of two right-wing lawyers' groups, the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Federation.
One last time, just for fun, a little utterly irresponsible idle speculation: Do you think Harry MacDougald is any relation to Jim MacDougald of St. Petersburg, Florida, the former president of Ceridian Benefits Services who retired in 2000 and attended this Florida confab with Karl Rove in 2003? (Nah -- probably not, right? And, as noted above, questions would have been raised about these documents in any case -- though it was awfully helpful to the White House to have them raised within hours, no?)
By the way, chrishardcore.com has collected some of Buckhead's non-pseudonymous writings. Typical right-wing blather, if mustily florid ("...one of the grand pooh-bahs of the chattering class in Washington is utterly bereft of any moral discernment...")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)