I Told You So

One of the things you hear from time to time is that liberals want things to go badly in Iraq. I don't think it can be denied that it is human (rather than liberal or conservative) to feel a bit of schadenfreude when a politician of the other party messes up or excitement when developments in the world tend to make it more likely that your party is going to do well in the next election. But even though Dubya's approval ratings are so low they're making history, and they're still falling, I've got to say that I'm not feeling very good these days.

Yes, we were right about Iraq. And while a there's a solid minority of the public that still thinks the war was a good idea and has very strong views on the subject, it is a minority. And, similarly, most folks have now figured out what we have been saying for years, namely that Bush and his administration lie regularly and have hardly "restored honor" to the Oval Office. The insane fiscal policy isn't so popular anymore, either. So now that Lincoln's adage about fooling all of the people all of the time is being borne out, we should be gloating, right?

Except I don't feel like it. Bush has been an utter disaster, and he's been so in ways that continually demonstrate that I and others like me were right when most Americans were wrong. Much as I'd like to say, "I told you so," I'm too devastated by what he's done to my country. Thousands of dead American soldiers, tens or even hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the dismantling of civil liberties, the swelling of the ranks of terrorist organizations, the further immiseration of the poor in America, the ever more rapid destruction of the environment, the crushing public debt, the rocketing antipathy toward the U.S. even among our allies, the cutting and running from Afghanistan, the wave of corruption in Washington, the naked power grabs of the re-redistricters, the attempt to phase out Social Security, the Terri Schiavo insanity, the vilification of anyone who opposes the administration, the trashing of veterans by a cabal of chickenhawks...this is supposed to make me feel good?

Yes, we told you so. But you know what? I wish we had been wrong. The damage these people are doing is going to be with us for decades. I love my country. I don't like to see it treated this way. I wouldn't wish for this to continue any more than I'd wish for a friend to get beaten after spurning my advice to leave her abusive husband.

Update: So don't go buying me this for Christmas.

Maybe Someday We Can Do the Same For People

What is the difference between the people of Darfur and two cheetahs?

US soldiers flew two endangered cheetah cubs to this Ethiopian capital yesterday, after instigating their rescue from a village where a restaurant owner had held them captive and abused them.

The male and female cubs, whom the soldiers had named Scout and Patch, were released on the grounds of the Ethiopian president's official residence after their 680-mile journey from the eastern hamlet of Gode, in the Ogaden.

''This is the first kind of rescue of animals, let alone cheetahs, that we have done," said Sergeant Leah Cobble, 26, of Washington, as she cuddled the two cubs at Bole International Airport before handing them to a government veterinarian, Fekadu Shiferaw.

The saga of the cubs started last month when US counterterrorism troops, carrying out humanitarian work in the Gode region, found that the animals' owner was keeping them tied up with ropes around their necks at his restaurant and forcing them to fight each other for the amusement of patrons and village children. One cub is blind in one eye.

The soldiers alerted the Ethiopian government and a US-based cheetah rescue organization, drawing international attention to the cubs' plight. They also tried to persuade the restaurant owner, Mohamed Hudle, to hand over the cubs, but he wanted $1,000 for each animal.

That sum amounts to 10 times the average income in this impoverished nation of 77 million people in eastern Africa.

Fekadu, the veterinarian, intervened. He flew to the village Saturday, confiscated the cubs, and handed them over to US forces for transport. The vet said that the owner had not been paid for the animals, and that both cheetahs had received antibiotic treatment and appeared to be in good health.

''Had we not had the help of the US military, it would not have been possible to rescue these animals," Fekadu said after arriving with the cubs aboard the US plane.

I Guess This Means We're Never Leaving

CNN reports:

The White House held out the prospect Tuesday that U.S. troop levels in Iraq could be reduced soon, but President Bush insisted he would not withdraw U.S. forces "without having achieved victory."

And CNN also reports:

Bush is scheduled to make a Wednesday address that will launch a new series of speeches aimed at bolstering public support for the increasingly unpopular conflict.

I think I know the talking point that will be at the top of Bush's list: "Who are you going to believe -- me or your own eyes?"

Extradition

A couple of interesting cases to keep our eyes on in December. Dutch courts have a very convenient practice of announcing ahead of time the date on which they will issue their decisions, so I'll be watching the news on December 12 and 22. Courts will hand down decisions on those dates in two separate cases in which the U.S. is seeking extradition.

The December 12 case (Dutch article) has gotten more publicity. A Dutchman of Iraqi origin was caught on videotape in Fallujah in 2003 with a group of insurgents who were preparing explosives for an attack on U.S. troops. The suspect, Wesam Al D., claims that he was forced to participate under threat of death, that he had gone to Fallujah for his wedding, and that he's now caught in an impossible position among the Dutch prosecutors, the Americans, and the insurgents. He says the insurgents have already taken revenge on his brother back in Fallujah. I think it's pretty much accepted here that his story doesn't wash. The Dutch authorities had already charged him with a crime before they received the American extradition request, which they are supporting on the grounds that the U.S. has a greater interest in prosecuting Wesam. His lawyer, opposing extradition, has naturally raised the specter of Guantanamo.

The same specter also features in the case to be decided on December 22 (Dutch article). The suspect is M.A., an Egyptian-Dutchman. The U.S. wants to prosecute him for fraudulent usage of telephone cards. He says the extradition is just a pretext; once the U.S. has its hands on him, it will get out the thumbscrews and investigate his alleged financial connections to terrorist organizations. The American embassy in The Hague sent a letter to the Dutch court promising that A. will not be tried before a military court, that he will not be treated as an enemy combatant, and that all of his rights will be respected.

I have no idea what the likely outcome of these cases is. Intuitively, I'd guess that both suspects will be extradited, but that's an area of law that I know little about in general and nothing about with respect to Dutch proceedings.

I just find these cases interesting. What's especially interesting right now is that the suspects' claim that the U.S. can't be trusted to respect basic due process seems to be considered plausible enough to deserve serious coverage in the Dutch press. As I reported last week, and as the Dutch conservative (English-language) blog Zacht Ei also discussed, even staunchly pro-war elements of the Dutch establishment are seriously troubled by some of the American excesses in the War on Terror.

The "Duke-Stir" is Permanently Dry-docked

Back in June the "Duke" was claimed he was innocent of all charges, however something made him realize that he's miles away from the Land of Plausible Denial. (Heck, he's in the wrong hemisphere.)

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques.

Cunningham, 63, entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.

Cunningham answered "yes, Your Honor" when asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted bribes from someone in exchange for his performance of official duties.

Cunningham, an eight-term Republican congressman, resigned after his guilty plea. He had announced in July that he wouldn't seek re-election next year.
...
After the hearing, Cunningham was taken away for fingerprinting. He will be released on his own recognizance until a Feb. 27 sentencing hearing. He could receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

He also agreed to forfeit to the government his Rancho Santa Fe home, more than $1.8 million in cash and antiques and rugs.

In a statement, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted to receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid to him by several conspirators through a variety of methods, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.

"He did the worst thing an elected official can do — he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said. The statement did not identify the conspirators.

Ooh, rugs! Too bad you can't take any of them with you to your prison cell.

(Lest you forget, the Duke initially raised suspicions when he was living rent-free on a defense contractor's yacht the "Duke-Stir." The very same contractor bought Duke's California residence house at an inflated price, turned around and sold it for a $700,000 loss.)

But Will There Also Be a Silk Pajama Outfit?

Another day in the Netherlands: Dutch Prince doll with Nazi uniform goes on sale. So the Queen's father was once a Nazi. He gave that up and fought with the Allies. What he didn't give up was ****ing everything in a skirt, such that the Queen has half-brothers and -sisters all over the world.

British Coverage of U.S. News

I'm behind on my reading, but even if these items are a bit dated, I thought it might interest readers back home to get a look at how the U.K. press covered a couple of stories out of Washington earlier this month. From the 11-24 November issue of Private Eye:

CHARLES AND CAMILLA VISIT 'GROUND ZERO'

PRINCE Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have said it was a humbling experience to visit the site of America's worst catastrophe, the Bush Presidency.

"Nothing can really prepare you for seeing 'Ground Zero', or the Oval Office as it's also known, at close hand," a clearly shaken Prince told reporters afterwards. "This place really brings into focus just what wickedness lurks in the heart of men."

Charles and Camilla later joined in a minute's silence to remember Lewis 'Scooter' Libby who gave his career so that thousands of American troops could die in Iraq.

* * *

LATE U.S. SUPREME COURT NEWS

THE Republican Party has welcomed George Bush's latest nomination for the Supreme Court, Judge Attila the Hun.

"We would, in an ideal world, have preferred someone whose politics were slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, but we will accept this nomination," said a senior Republican (cont. p. 94)

Free Speech Survives in the Netherlands. Barely.

One recent case does get close to the line where even the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment might not protect the speaker, on the theory that his words were an incitement--but I doubt the "clear and present danger" requirement would be met on these facts. And Hirsi Ali should know better; or are only she and her collaborators permitted to say things that other people find outrageous?

The other case is just appalling. This is a democracy, isn't it?

Imagine L.A. Without Free, Safe Drinking Water

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles has a population of roughly 3.7 million. The Chinese city of Harbin has 3.8 million people, and it has just been forced to shut down its water system. The panicked situation has sent residents scrambling to purchase bottled water, and it follows a chemical plant explosion that sent toxic benzene into a nearby river. More details from the Associated Press are here.

Sparrow Porn

From the And Now For Something Completely Different Department: sparrow porn. Or, as I like to call it, just another day in the Netherlands.

First, from the mind of John De Mol, the man who gave the world "Big Brother," came a seemingly less noxious kind of reality TV: a televised attempt to break the world record for domino toppling. But then tragedy struck. A sparrow flew into the exhibition hall where "staff had spent weeks setting up four million dominoes" and set off a chain reaction that knocked over 23,000 of them (dominoes, not staff). Whereupon an exterminator was called upon to shoot the sparrow.

Almost instantaneously, a website (translated URL: www.deadsparrow.nl) was set up to mourn the sparrow and has gotten more than 400,000 hits.

The website features a condolence register. Readers can also post messages and discuss articles about the sparrow, whose plight has made international headlines....

Some contributors showed great empathy for the bird and even wished its 'relatives' the courage to get on with their lives. Others took the time to compose poems in memory of the fallen sparrow.

There are also many posts on the site criticising the fuss about the killing of the little bird.

Animal rights group Dierenbescherming [Animal Protection] is taking the issue very seriously. It launched an investigation into the legality of the shooting and it compelled the provincial government to do the same. The man who fired the shot has received death threats.

A radio DJ offered a reward of more than $3000 for anyone who could knock down more of the dominoes before the record attempt (this led to another tragic death, this time of a mouse). Staff members began receiving threats.

The head of a bird protection agency appealed for calm....

Hans Peeters of the Dutch Bird Protection Agency appeared on Friday's television programme and said that though it was a "very sad incident" it had "been blown out of all proportion".

"I just wish we could channel all this energy that went into one dead sparrow into saving the species," he said.

Organizers of the website take his point:

Fuss over a dead sparrow is of course really over the top. Therefore, it has taken on more of a symbolic character. Thanks to Bin Laden, Volkert [who killed Pim Fortuyn], Mohammed B [who killed Theo van Gogh] & Bush...hope is dead...We hope that the Netherlands will always take death seriously.

Next to this message is a scrolling display of the messages written by visitors, many of which (from my quick, unscientific sampling) ridicule the whole thing.

The TV station that will broadcast "Domino D-Day" (I think they really ought to consider changing the program's title at this point) has also taken notice.

SBS 6 said it would begin its coverage on Friday with a tribute to the dead bird. "We will stand still for a moment in light of the events of the last week," a spokesperson said. "There was no other option than to eliminate the sparrow".

So how does porn come into it? I'm glad you asked. It seems that during the initial frenzy when the site was getting a ton of traffic, someone hacked in put "very explicit porn" on the site. I think it's something about Friesland, the Dutch province that has its own language and (I gather) is viewed as a bit different. The slaughter took place in Leeuwarden, the province's chief city; is it a coincidence that the Ingrid and Durkje scandal originated in Friesland as well? I merely ask the question.

VVD: The Sky Is Blue

It should have been obvious that we're not winning any hearts and minds in the Muslim world by torturing people and locking them up incommunicado and without charge for years at a time. And plenty of people--we Demagogues having contributed in our own small way--have been pointing this out for a very long time. And yet it's still news when a pro-war party admits the obvious.

The VVD, or Liberal Party, is an important (albeit junior) partner in the center-right coalition that governs the Netherlands. The VVD strongly backed the government's decision to back the war, and although the Dutch didn't participate in the invasion, they did have troops in Iraq for a while during the occupation phase.

Now the VVD has said that violations of international law do matter, no matter what the Bush administration thinks. This is important on two levels. One is that the VVD might be right, and that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the torture facilities in Eastern Europe are counterproductive for public opinion both in the West and in Muslim countries. The other is that even if the VVD were wrong about that, the VVD believes it; in other words, whether our allies are right or wrong in their moral or political judgment, an administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" will continue to lose allies.

The Liberal Party (VVD) has warned its support for Dutch involvement in international military missions cannot be taken for granted if international laws in relation to warfare are not respected.

Liberal Party (VVD) Defence spokesman Hans van Baalen said the Abu Ghraib scandal, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and rumours of secret US detention centres damaged the moral authority of the West....

Van Baalen said close cooperation between the US and Europe,
particularly within Nato, was essential to tackle many of the major problems in the world. These include Iraq, Iraq, North Korea and the Middle East.

He said [that] European countries, including the Netherlands, had to increase military spending and play their roles in military missions.

But Van Baalen said the "excesses" exposed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and the rumours of secret US detention centres in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, undermined the battle against international terrorism.

"The Dutch government must continue to insist the US adheres to humanitarian laws to guarantee the continued support of the VVD for international operations," Van Baalen said.

"The battle against international terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan must not be lost due to public opinion in the US and Europe, including the Netherlands, as happened in Vietnam. That would play into the hands of the extremists in the Muslim world, while the fight is being won on the ground," he said.

Tomorrow's press conference: What Bears Do in the Woods.

More About the Free Press in DR Congo

A friend and I were talking the other day, and I remarked that when you're in the same neighborhood as Angola, Rwanda, and Burundi, and you're the local basket case, you know you're in trouble.

I mentioned earlier today the regime's sensitivity to the importance of protecting journalists' sources. But having to divulge a confidential source at gunpoint is really getting off pretty lightly in Kinshasa.

They Love Us ......... in Mongolia

In today's New York Times, reporter David Sanger summarizes Bush's trip to Asia:

If Mongolia won its way into Mr. Bush's heart with its unflagging support for the war in Iraq, its attitude was the exception on his four-day trip. The war is deeply unpopular in Japan, his first stop, and his motorcade did not exactly attract huge crowds.

Things were worse in South Korea, where the defense minister announced, as a fact, that South Korea planned to trim its more than 3,000 troops in Iraq by a third next year. Mr. Bush's aides scrambled to win a retraction .... The number of South Korean troops, [U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley told reporters, "will depend on the political evolution and the security evolution."

Apparently, that evolution happened quickly; on Monday, 48 hours after Mr. Bush left South Korean soil, the country's cabinet approved the reduction of forces next year.

Then came the Chinese, with their highly attuned sense of political leverage. It is impossible to say exactly what led President Hu Jintao to conclude that he would not pay a high price for making vague commitments on revaluing China's currency and for offering no commitments on improving human rights or increasing the pace of democratization.

Administration officials were clearly surprised that not only did China fail to release any dissidents on a list of human rights cases turned over to Mr. Hu in September, but it also detained more dissidents just before Mr. Bush's arrival.

Administration officials also seemed vexed that Mr. Bush's statements in China were largely unheard by most of the nation. So perhaps it was no surprise that aides traveling with Mr. Bush were striving to note some accomplishments.

A Head of State Nancy Reagan Can Appreciate

No, this is not from The Onion, although you'd be excused for thinking it might be. A report by the Associated Press:

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has said he will not answer reporters' questions until next year because the alignment of the planets is not in his favor.

"Right now Mercury ... is in a corner perfectly aligned with my star. Mercury is no good, so if it's not good, I am going to request not to speak. I'll just wait until next year to talk," Thaksin told reporters Sunday after returning to Bangkok from a trip to South Korea and China. He added that Mercury moves slowly and will not steer clear of his star until next year.

Considering President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, one would think that Thaksin's superstitions might have led him to avoid keeping company with the prez. But as the photo below confirms, the two dizzy heads of state enjoyed some quality time together during Bush's recent Asian tour.


Given Thaksin's style of governing, he and Bush appear to have much in common. Reports the AP:

Since taking office in 2001, Thaksin has shown hostility toward the media, and his critics accuse him of trying to restrict press freedoms by manipulating coverage, canceling TV and radio shows, and through media takeovers by his political and business allies.

Judith Miller in the Heart of Darkness

Here's what would have happened if Judith Miller had been Congolese: she would have been arrested soon after publishing the offending articles and forced at gunpoint to reveal her source. Then he, too, would have been arrested. Much more efficient than a two-year investigation with a lengthy stay in jail for contempt and appeals up and down the federal judicial system.

Actually, Judith Miller wouldn't have suffered any of the above had she been Congolese. Her articles were pro-government.

Freedom Kebabs?

At first glance, the Swiss boycott of kebabs seems to make more sense than Freedom Fries, since kebabs actually do have a connection with Turkey. But it turns out otherwise.

If Demagogue Were My Mistress, She Would Have Left Me

I don't know how anyone can manage to have an affair. A one-time thing when you're out of town on business, sure, but anything that could be called a "relationship" seems impossible. Between the kids, work, and household chores (I think I'm forgetting something; oh, yeah, sleep), I haven't had time to post anything lately. No self-respecting floozie would tolerate such treatment. As I always say to Mrs. C whenever she (jokingly) asks if I'm having an affair, "Who has the time?"

Anyway, a couple of things I've noticed lately and would have said more about if I'd had the energy and time to do it. To quote Linda Richman, "Talk amongst yourselves. Discuss:"

Will the GOP leadership support this bill? If not, why not?

Also on voting: To a lot of people, the notion that citizens should permanently lose their right to vote when convicted of any felony sounds like a good idea. In fact, that's the law only in a tiny minority of states (including Florida), but almost all states disenfranchise at least some felons for at least some period (e.g., only Vermont and one other state that I can't recall permits people to vote when they're still in prison). But whatever you think the law should be, this lawsuit by Ed Still in Alabama shows how felon-disenfranchisement statutes are kind of like the death penalty: you can support them in principle, but the way they are administered is so error-prone, random, and arbitrary that you'd still have to agree the system needs fixing.

And if Ed's case doesn't convince you, check out this study of nationwide variations in administering felon-disenfranchisement laws (pdf).

Reason #17 I Oppose the Death Penalty

This is from my good buddy David over at the National Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty who works so passionately, tirelessly on this very difficult issue.

The Houston Chronicle has published a two-part series strongly suggesting that Ruben Cantu, executed in 1993 under the watch of Texas Gov. Ann Richards, was innocent.

Ruben Cantu was 17 when he was accused of being involved in a robbery-murder and the case against him was shamefully flimsy. Even the prosector who sought the death penalty in Cantu's case now regrets it, "It's so questionable...There are so many places where it could break down. No physical evidence tied Cantu to the crime and investigators never interviewed witnesses who could have provided an alibi for Cantu."

I only hope that if it can be verified that an innocent minor was sentenced to death that the American public will actually care. I guess we might find out pretty soon.

(Why) I Hate Polls

Michael Crowley pretty much sums it up

A new Pew Institute poll helpfully reminds us not to take U.S. public opionion about foreign affairs too seriously. When asked whether certain countries posessed nuclear weapons, nearly a third said that Libya does. More people--55 percent--believe Iran has nuclear weapons than think Great Britain (52 percent) or France (38 percent) does. Only 48 percent got Israel right. And just over one-fifth didn't know or weren't sure about Russia--Russia! Which has some 20,000 nukes. Yeesh.

The Bush Dynasty's True Legacy?

Apparently it's unpopularity.

Back in August, when George W. Bush crossed the Mendoza Line with a disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll of 56 percent, he still had four men left to pass for the title of most unpopular president in modern history: Jimmy Carter (59 percent), George H. W. Bush (60 percent) Richard Nixon (66 percent), and Harry Truman (67 percent)...This week's Gallup puts his disapproval at 60 percent, which means father and son share third place on the all-time list.
...
It's an awesome achievement for one family to produce two of the four most unpopular presidents in modern times. If there were a Mount Rushmore for rejection, the Bushes would have half the place to themselves.

Does Ann Coulter Have a Brother?

If she does, this could very well be his blog. You can almost feel the spittle.

Treason Lobby Making It's Moves
...
How did it come to this? Are the Democrats so shallow that they would sacrifice the prestige and power of the United States in their quest for power? [Um, huh?] Do they want the US military to be in a post war funk like it was after Vietnam? [I'm sure our soldiers would rather be dead than sad.] Would they really want to abandon Iraq, leaving it open to Al Queda and other Wahhabi terrorist groups, to possible civil war, and to Iran? [Possible civil war?]Is that what they call Patriotism, to call for the surrender of ones own country?

Well, it isn't patriotism in my book. [We know, in your book true patriotism is never questioning anything a Republican leader says.] These Surrender-Dems are an embarrassment. [Um, our goal was to take down Saddam, right? I don't remember rebuilding the country and fighting a civil war as part of the pre-war "to do" list.] We aren't discussing taxation or health care. We are discussing America at War. A shooting war. [Don't forget the bombs, chemical weapons and torture.]Iraq is part and parcel of a long term strategy against international and Middle Eastern terrorism, whether the Left likes it or not. All the Left is doing is emboldening the enemy, just like they did during Vietnam.

Now, they are welcome to speak their minds. That is their Right. And it is my Right to call them what they are: Traitors. [If you really believe that why aren't you advocating that we all be brought up on treason charges?]

Things like this are too unhindged and divorced from reality to be infuriating, especially since most of America now sees this war for what it is-- a disaster. But it is a window into how the other side thinks in Right-Wing Lunatic Bizarro World. It's sort of fascinating in all its twisted glory.

Pennsylvania Souring on Santorum

When Zoe made this post on Nov. 3, polls showed Rick Santorum -- the senator from Pennsylvania who votes like he's from Alabama -- was trailing Bob Casey by 19 percentage points. The most recent numbers?

Rick Santorum (R) -- 34%
Bob Casey, Jr (D) -- 54%

Yep, he's now behind by 20 points. But there's still a long way to go.

Taking the Pro-Life Argument to its Logical Conclusion

Too bad this didn't happen in Georgia - I'm sure Feddie would have gladly represented her

A pregnant woman ticketed for driving in the carpool lane will have her day in court next month to argue that her unborn child counts as a second person in the car.

"I understand the reasoning for the HOV lane," said Candace Dickinson, 23. "But whether my son is in a car seat versus in my stomach, I don’t get it. It’s the same thing."

The near-full-term Ahwatukee Foothills woman was driving to work on Interstate 10 near Interstate 17 at 6 a.m. last week when a Phoenix police officer pulled her over.

"He asked how many people were in the car with me, and I said, ‘Two’ and he said ‘No, one.’ I said I was nine months pregnant and had my son in the car with me," she said. "The way the law is written, he can occupy the vehicle without occupying a seat."

This morning on CNN...

it was like watching Jon Stewart without the jokes.

The other day it was Soledad O'Brien who seemed to finally get the point of her job, today it was her co-anchor, the other O'Brien, Miles. This morning around 7 am in a segment called "Fighting Words" Miles O'Brien was reporting breathlessly on the fight over pre-war Iraq intelligence, Murtha's comments and the GOP's response. In itself this is not at all newsworthy. However, what truly surprised me was O'Brien/CNN decided to do more than a cursory paragraph, they outlined a few of the GOP's current talking points via clips from Bush and directly questioned the validity of the arguments-- then used facts to address that Bush isn't being honest, that the GOP is manipulating the truth. O'Brien came within inches of saying the following talking points are lies.

1) Before the Iraq war congress had the same intelligence that the Bush Administration did. (Not true, Bush Administration had full access, congress did not.)

2) That independent, bipartisan investigations have established that there was no manipulation of intelligence by the Bush Administration. (Soledad O'Brien also caught this lie when interviewing Dan Bartlett the other day.)

They spent a good chunk of time talking about this instead of the usual short attention span story jumping, when they did change the subject they talked about the suicide bombing in a Iraqi mosque. After that they showed clips of the Murtha-bashing GOP which didn't play very well all strung together. It's all Iraq, all the time, as it should be, we are at war for f*ck's sake.

I'm not overly optimistic but we *could* be in a historical turning point right now, all thanks to Murtha.

Bigotry 101

The publication Inside Higher Education reports:

Many colleges would be thrilled to have an alumnus as loyal as Tim Smith.

He graduated from Baylor University in 1983, with a degree in accounting, worked his way up in the business world, picking up a Harvard MBA, working with a venture capital firm, and running a technology company.

In the last decade, he has personally given about $65,000 in gifts to Baylor, and he raised another $60,000 to endow a fund in honor of a business colleague and the colleague’s wife — the couple had met at Baylor.

For the last nine years, Smith has given an annual talk in an entrepreneurship class, and for the last five, he has served on the advisory committee for the business school.

But this fall, he received an unexpected call from the business dean telling him he would need to leave the advisory committee because he is gay.

“It makes me very, very sad. Here is a university that I love and that has done a lot of very good things for me. So it’s sad, being rejected like that,” Smith said. “Also I feel very angry. My money was good enough for them and my time was good enough for them. I haven’t changed, but they find out I’m gay and that disqualifies me. That’s just wrong.”

Who Shot Down the Plane?

One of the central mysteries of the Rwandan genocide is who shot down the plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana on April 6, 1994; the incident that set off a genocide that killed nearly one million people in 100 days.

The general consensus has been that it was shot down by hardline Hutus who were opposed to Habyarimana's willingness to agree to a power-sharing agreement with the Tutis rebels, the RPF.

But now a former RPF member says that it was, in fact, the rebel leader, and currrent Rwandan president, Paul Kagame who ordered the plane shot down

The major allegation in a book entitled "Rwanda. L'histoire secrete" by Lieutenant Abdul Ruzibiza, recently published, is that the current Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, ordered the shooting down of a plane carrying former president Juvenal Habyarimana on April 6, 1994 thereby triggering off the genocide.

"It is him who gave the order to shoot down the plane", firmly says 35-year old Ruzibiza - a defector from the former rebel Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) now in power in Kigali.

Ruzibiza claims to have been a member of the "network commando" which shot down the plane.

[edit]

Of the 491 pages in the book, Ruzibiza narrates in 15 pages details of the preparation of the air attack and points out the authors. According to him, Paul Kagame chaired many meetings to plan the assassination, the last of which was held at the RPF headquarters in Mulindi (Byumba, northern Rwanda) on March 31, 1994.

Many of Kagame's associates were present, among them Colonels Kayumba Nyamwasa, Theoneste Lizinde and Lieutenant Colonel James Kabarebe.

In Ruzibiza's opinion, Habyarimana's death "was not an answer to Rwanda's ills but a way to grab power".

The author continues that the RPF first considered shooting Habyarimana "at close range on the route" but that that option was abandoned because he had reduced his travel by road.

The only remaining possibility was shooting down his plane. RPF then decided to transport to Kigali SA-16 missiles from the Ugandan arsenal. They could shoot the plane as it landed at Kigali airport.

The RPF managed to smuggle the missiles into Kigali by hoodwinking the Ghanaian contingent of the UN peacekeepers.

The weapon "was chosen because of its power, speed, and preheating which took less time".

Habyarimana "was almost killed on April 5, 1994 as he returned from Zaire, but it was not possible to place the missiles at the site in broad daylight".

The right occasion came up the next day when the president was returning from Dar es Salaam. He arrived over Kigali as night was falling.

Missiles had been placed on Masaka hill. Lizinde, a former officer in the Rwandan army, had picked out the spot.

The attack was carried out by two gunmen, a soldier who was deployed to protect them and a driver.

"The first person to fire, Captain Eric Hakizimana, touched the plane on its right wing but without bringing it down. 2nd Lieutenant Frank Nziza sent the next missile flying 3-4 seconds later and shot down the plane".

"I am an eye witness to what took place when the SA-16 was fired because I was present", writes Ruzibiza.

After the attack, soldiers of the RPF who had been readied in advance were assembled to immediately launch attacks which culminated in the fall of Kigali on July 4, 1994.

I don't know how credible Ruzibiza is, but this is certainly an interesting additon to attempts to answer this enduring and important question.

Downward Momentum

How low can he go?

Bush's current job approval rating stands at 34%, compared with a positive rating of 88% soon after 9/11, 50% at this time last year, and 40% in August.

If he crosses into the 20s does that mean he can be successfully impeached and/or pressured to resign?

The Oreo Cookie Conspiracy, Revisited

I wrote the other day about the story that Maryland Governor Ehrlich and Lt. Governor Steele are peddling about evil, racist liberals throwing Oreo cookies at Steele, a black Republican. ("Oreo" is derogatory slang, stands for black on the outside, white on the inside.)

It turns out there may have been an Oreo or two at the September 26, 2002 debate, but they were not thrown as reported (one allegedly rolled on stage and ran into Steele's foot) and it is very unclear whether their presence was anything other than an audience member having a snack. A Maryland professor traces the myth of the Oreo Cookie Conspiracy.

In Ehrlich's recent defense of the Oreo story I noticed something interesting. Both Ehrlich and Bush have used the same odd term in the past week. Apparently whenever someone, especially a Democrat, questions the validity of a story that a Republican is telling it is called "revisionism." Ehrlich and Bush have stated that they think "revisionism" is "dangerous" and "irresponsible." It's an interesting attempt to communicate that asking questions about the past is off-limits. I suppose I would too if I were in either of their shoes.

The Teacher Who Wishes She Were a Detective

Valerie Schultz is a substitute teacher living in Tehachapi, Calif. And the only good news here is that she's a substitute. Schultz penned an essay in the most recent issue of the Los Angeles Times magazine apparently to let parents know how perceptive (and nosy and presumptuous) she is.

In her essay, Schultz tells parents:

You don't know me, but I know a lot about you from your child .... I know the value you place on a good education if your teenager remembers to bring a pencil to school.

... I know your income bracket by the brand names on your child's back .... by the casual way your child wastes food.

I know the shaky state of your finances when your child does not have $20 to go on the field trip to the Museum of Tolerance, does not have lunch money, does not have lunch.

I know if you are religious by some of the questions I am asked, even though we are not supposed to discuss it in public school ...

Everyday, we all make assumptions, and some of these assumptions are of the sort that Schultz has made. But the whole tone of Schultz' essay basically creeped me out. It's as if she taught school for the sole purpose of getting the low-down on her students' parents.

Schultz seems a little too proud of the conclusions she draws and a little too sure that her conclusions are dead-on accurate. Is it really fair to assume that every student who arrives at school without a pencil has parents who don't place much value "on a good education"? Even good parents have kids who might lose a pencil or forget to bring one to school.

And this line really annoyed me:

I can guess the state of your marriage by the way your child treats classmates (or teachers) of the opposite sex.

Well, "guess" is the appropriate word. But why can't a substitute teacher resist the temptation to engage in self-indulgent guessing games about parents?

Instead of playing amateur sleuth, Schultz might do better to take students and their questions at face value and stop drawing conclusions that may or may not be true.

Just focus on teaching the kids, and stop wondering what income bracket their parents happen to fall into.

Operation Enduring Kickbacks

President Bush, Nov. 14, 2005 speech:

"The Iraqi people are proving their determination to build a future founded on democracy and peace. And the United States of America will help them succeed."

Even if it takes a few bribes and kickbacks to help them. Or so it appears -- according to NBC News:

A criminal complaint unsealed in federal court in Washington on Wednesday alleges a web of corruption and bid rigging in Iraq by officials who worked with the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led agency that ran Iraq for more than a year after the 2003 invasion.

The complaint accuses an American-Romanian businessman, Philip H. Bloom, of paying officials from the coalition’s south-central region "bribes, kickbacks and gratuities, amounting to at least $200,000 per month," in order to obtain reconstruction contracts through a bid-rigging scam.

According to the complaint, Bloom "conspired with United States government contract employees and military officials to obtain fraudulently government contracts."

... A government affidavit alleges that in one instance, the officials rigged bids for contracts in Hillah and Karbala, two cities 50 to 60 miles south of Baghdad.

In some cases, Bloom’s companies performed no work, Patrick McKenna Jr., an investigator for the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq, said in the affidavit.

Comic Relief

Long-Awaited Beer with Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports

How Do Same-Sex Marriages Hurt Opposite-Sex Marriages?

The following is the only example in existence, and a pretty shoddy one at that. A progressive church in Northern Virginia has decided to protest the state's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment by declining to legally marry anyone--nonbinding commitment ceremonies for everyone!

Traditional marriages are out. "Celebrations of commitment" are in.

To protest Virginia's laws banning same-sex marriage, [Pastor] Ensign and the church's governing council decided recently that Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.

Any heterosexual couple who has their union "blessed" in a "celebration ceremony" at the tiny church will have to take the extra step of being officially wed by a justice of the peace at the courthouse.

"What we're saying is that in the commonwealth of Virginia, the laws that govern marriage are unjust and unequal," said Ensign, 45, who has served as the church's pastor since 2003. He said that the matter had been bothering him for months and that he suggested the policy to the congregation's leaders because his conscience would not allow him to continue performing legal marriages on the state's behalf.

Clarendon Presbyterian's stand comes as the state's General Assembly is set to take up for the second time a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, similar to amendments that have been passed in 19 states. It was cleared by the General Assembly last session and will have to be approved again before a statewide referendum in 2006 or 2007.

Supporters of the amendment said that Ensign's protest would have little effect -- and that he was only hurting his congregation.

"I think it's a shame that this clergyman would seek to undermine traditional marriage, which is the foundation of American society," said state Sen. Nick Rerras (R-Norfolk), one of the legislation's sponsors. "It's a terrible message to send to our youth."

Oh, no! A church standing up to defend people's families from discrimination-- why won't someone think of the children?

Predictably, I think this is a pretty fabulous gesture. Kudos to the leaders of the church, this is a move that will surely get them both positive and negative attention. Eventually I think everyone might have to marry this way-- separation of church weddings and state marriage license.

If It's Not About Religion, Why Is God Pissed?

Last night, I was discussing the Nov. 8 election results with a friend, and he offered an interesting observation about the aftermath of the school board election in Dover, Pa., in which pro-"intelligent design" (ID) board members were swept out of office.

He noted that ID supporters go to great lengths to insist that their movement is not in any way trying to advance religion or religious teachings. For example, in this August 2005 document, the Seattle-based, pro-ID Discovery Institute declared:

"Intelligent design is not creationism .... This debate is not about religion versus science, or creation versus evolution."

Well, if ID has nothing to do with religion or creationism, then why (my friend wondered) did Pat Robertson declare that Dover voters had "just voted God out of your city"?

SHOCKING!

OK, not so much. But this should be, but instead it's just another Bush Administration scandal to add the pile.

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

We've always known they were in bed together, only now Washington Post has proof-- they found BigOil's lacy, expensive underwear under Cheney's pillow.

A Proposal Worth Considering

I have never cared much for syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer -- being the caustic, neo-con that he is. Yet he actually makes a lot of sense in his most recent column. I don't agree with everything in this column, but I think there's a lot of wisdom in this idea:

Just yesterday we were paying $3.50 at the pump and ready to pay $4 or $5 if necessary. No blessing has ever come more disguised.

Now that we have lived with $3.50 gasoline, $3 seems far less outrageous than, say, a year ago. We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices.

Put a floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes.

Why is this a good idea? It is the simplest way to induce conservation. People will alter their buying habits. It was the higher fuel prices of the 1970s and early '80s that led to more energy-efficient cars and appliances -- which induced such restraint on demand that the world price of oil ultimately fell through the floor. By 1986, oil was $11 a barrel. Then we got profligate and resumed our old habits, and oil is now $60.

Surprise.

The worst part is that much of this $60 goes overseas to foreigners who wish us no good: Wahhabi Saudi princes who subsidize terrorists; Hugo Chavez, the mini-Mussolini of the Southern Hemisphere; and (through the fungibility of oil) the nuclear-hungry, death-to-America Iranian mullahs. This is insanity.

It makes infinitely more sense to reduce consumption, drive the world price down and let the premium we force ourselves to pay at the pump (which begins the conservation cycle) go to the U.S. Treasury.

If the gas price dipped low enough, Krauthammer would plow some of the tax revenue from the $3 "floor" into funding cuts in the Social Security payroll tax or the income tax. Neither of these strikes me as wise.

A better use for any unexpected revenues would probably be either: 1) additional federal aid for Medicaid (several states have cut services in recent years), or 2) shoring up the Social Security Trust Fund.

Answering History's Call With a Busy Signal

A post-script to my earlier post on Bush's speech Monday at Elemendorf Air Force Base. During his remarks, Bush tried to put the best spin on a bad situation:

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

"... We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and with a comprehensive strategy to win this war."

A linchpin of any comprehensive strategy in Iraq is maintaining order and curbing violence. Bush himself has said repeatedly that U.S. troops will leave once Iraq has an army and police force that can maintain domestic order. But if this is the standard, don't expect a pullout in the near future.

James Fallows examines the depressing situation in the new issue of Atlantic Monthly. After 2-1/2 years of U.S. occupation, this is the reality that Bush neglected to mention at yesterday's Elmendorf pep rally:

Early this year the American-led training command shifted its emphasis from simple head counts of Iraqi troops to an assessment of unit readiness based on a four-part classification scheme.

Level 1, the highest, was for "fully capable" units — those that could plan, execute, and maintain counterinsurgency operations with no help whatsoever. Last summer Pentagon officials said that three Iraqi units, out of a total of 115 police and army battalions, had reached this level.

In September the U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army General George Casey, lowered that estimate to one.

One out of 115 police and army battalions?

It's so good to know that the Bush administration is "answering history's call with confidence."

With all Due Respect, Mr. President, You're a Liar

Once again, the Bush administration is playing its favorite trump card: deception. This time, the goal is to rewrite both the prelude to the Iraq war and the aftermath of that war. In his speech yesterday in Alaska, the president declared:

... [Iraq] was judged by intelligence agencies around the globe to possess weapons of mass destruction.

How many of these very same intelligence agencies produced other reports -- ignored or downplayed -- that cast doubt on Iraq's possession of WMDs?

And what about the infamous 2002 Downing Street memo? In that memo, a British official concluded that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration to fit its policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Care to comment, Mr. President?

In his speech yesterday, the president gave this rosy assessment of Iraq:

Because we acted, the Iraqi people now live in freedom, and the people of the United States are safer.

He left out "and they lived happily ever after."

Yes, ousting Saddam Hussein's regime was very good news, but what kind of regime will emerge is still unclear. In his speech, Bush didn't talk much about day-to-day living conditions in Iraq, which were called "dismal" by a U.N. official earlier this year.

Since there were no WMDs in Iraq, it's flimsy at best for Bush to argue that invading the country makes America "safer."

Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

That's a lie, Mr. President, but at least it's a crafty one. True, your administration and members of Congress "looked at the same intelligence," but what was "looked at" was crafted and cleansed by your administration.

For example, before the invasion of Iraq, Senate Democrats were not shown the Defense Intelligence Agency's February 2002 report, which challenged the credibility of the supposed al-Qaeda informer whose allegations were used to push the "Saddam has WMDs" message.

I'll leave the last words to columnist Robert Scheer: "The Bush defense of what is arguably the biggest lie ever put over on the American people is that everyone had gotten the intelligence wrong. Not so at the highest level of U.S. intelligence, as [the 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report] so clearly shows. How could the president not have known?"

Does This Mean Bush is a Bad Christian?

Bishops from Bush's own denomination have recently expressed that they have some serious issues with Bush's warmongering and have outlined what they believe he should do.

Florida United Methodist Bishop Timothy Whitaker has endorsed two documents that condemn the war in Iraq as "unjust and immoral" and call on President Bush to present a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The documents consist of a "statement of conscience" signed by nearly 100 United Methodist bishops and a formal resolution adopted Nov. 4 by the Council of Bishops at a semi-annual meeting.
...
The "Statement of Conscience -- A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice" was written by retired Bishop Kenneth Carder of Durham, N.C., and circulated among the bishops for about two weeks prior to the council meeting.

It was signed by 96 bishops, more than half of the 164 active and retired United Methodist bishops worldwide.
...
The resolution restated many of the same points in the statement of conscience, but in addition it:

Supports a congressional resolution stating "it is the sense of the Congress that it be the policy of the United States to withdraw all U.S. military troops and bases from Iraq."

Calls on Bush "to immediately draw up and present to the Congress and the American people a plan and timeline for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Iraq."

Calls for the appointment of a United Nations envoy to encourage peace talks and for a multilateral approach to rebuilding Iraq.

If that isn't enough to make Bush think again there is also this:

[Florida United Methodist Bishop Timothy] Whitaker has been a consistent critic of the war, even before it was launched, based on the view that it did not meet traditional "just war" criteria.

He said Friday that he did not see the documents as startling or unusual, given a previous statement by the bishops at the conclusion of last year's General Conference.

But he said they were more pointed and specific because of recent revelations about the manipulation of intelligence prior to the war.

"The discourse has moved to a different level. I don't think it's unfair to talk about these things," he said. "I think we have to have a public discussion about the war, how we got into it and how it's going to end."

Adding fuel to the fire is that Bush purportedly believes that God instructed him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder if Bush's recent comments accusing people of undermining the war by questioning the lead-up to the war extends to bishops from his own church?

Is Santa Claus Tripping?

Assuming some creative, hallucinating person didn't make it all up, this sure gives a whole new perspective on the origins of Santa Claus.

Steele Makes a Lousy "Token"

It's bad enough that people like MD Lt. Gov. Michael Steele like to pretend that being disliked for being a black Republican is the same thing as being disliked because you're black. It's another thing entirely when both Steele and Governor Erlich have been telling and retelling the story of an ugly incident about people throwing oreos at Steele during a 2002 campaign speech. (Oreo is a symbol for "black on outside, white on inside.") For the past few years both of them have used the story to support the notion that Steele is persecuted for his race instead of merely disliked or distrusted for his politics. Steele specifically has used the story to label his critics "racist." However, it appears that the incident might not have happened and when pressed they can't seem to find anyone to corroborate the story.

If there is a silver lining in this story it is this: right-wingers have also been using the infamous "oreo incident" as proof that liberals are all racists. Apologies anyone? What about you Michelle Malkin? You have anything to say? (I'm not holding my breath.)

I really hope this story is investigated further and ultimately I hope that it is made clear that Steele is disliked because he's a black Republican who has a track record of being surprisingly insensitive on issues of racial discrimination, not because he is black. As a Maryland voter it saddens me that so early in this race it already seems destined to be hot and ugly.

Her College Major Wasn't Marketing

The most candid explanation I've received in a long time came last night on a plane, traveling back from the west coast.

Minutes after a United Airlines flight attendant announced over the P-A system that a small selection of sandwiches and "snack boxes" would be offered for sale, the food cart came rolling down the aisle in my direction.

"What exactly is a snack box?" I asked the flight attendant.

Without blinking an eye, she replied, "It's basically a lot of junk food in a bag."

Actually, there was a small packet of trail mix tossed in there as well, but, otherwise, she was telling the truth.

Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?

In a word? No.

I just wasted half of my lunch hour milling around the local Border's. I even picked up Dowd's new "Are Men Necessary?", read the first chapter, and put it down. My blood pressure was at a low boil but quickly went to rolling when I saw that she was downstairs that very minute for her booksigning. It took a great deal of self-control and willpower to stop myself from marching downstairs and chucking her book at her. For starters, I don't really like her, but now I feel like she has committed a pretty unforgivable sin, a sin that I see committed all of the time by so-called feminist women against "all men." A sin that makes smoke come out of my ears. What is it? Blatant, unapologetically sexism against men by feminist women who fail to see the hypocrisy, the kind of sexism if reversed would make most women apopletic and provoke them to draw their virtual daggers.

I admit openly that I haven't read the whole book and don't plan to but I read enough to get steaming mad. I have troubles with the title of her new book for philosophical reasons as well as the more obvious socio-political frustrations. What kind of question is "Are Men Necessary?" besides a really frivolous, offensive one? Are any of us "necessary"? Next, if some high-profile male writer penned a book called "Are Women Necessary?" he'd have to go into hiding. I truly loathe women like Maureen Dowd who thoughtlessly undermine the modern feminist movement as well as give the anti-feminists fresh ammunition with their sexist, degrading mainstream work. Why? I just don't get it?

I think this rubs me wrong in an extra-special way because I am supposed to be the epitome of a man-hater-- I'm a socialist-leaning, hyperliberal lesbian feminist. In theory I have less use for men than over 95% of the female population. Except that I do have a use for men and not just because I want to have kids someday. I have a lot of men in my life whom I adore, men who are kind, thoughtful and worthy of the utmost respect. For starters, there are the men I write alongside every day. (I'm the only female voice on this blog.) I am close to a lot of men in my family, my two wonderful fathers (bio and step), my brother-in-law, a handful of wonderful male cousins, I have a beautiful godson and I was particularly close to both of my grandfathers when they were alive. I hope someday to be fortunate enough to be the mother of a son.

Additionally throughout my life the majority of my close friends have always been male, even now. (It's not because I'm a "dyke," I am much more of the lipstick-wearing variety than the tie-wearing kind, I don't think most people who know me would call me masculine.) I think it's because as a queer person I have a tendency to see beyond gender, to actually forget gender much of the time, to treat it as an incidental characteristic and see merely people as individuals. In my mind people are not divided into two categories the way it seems to be for most heterosexuals, men on one side and women on the other. Therefore the "war between the sexes" crapola is pretty meaningless to me, except as a frustration because it is so clearly a social construction. Regardless, time and again I find myself in the awkward position of having to repeatedly "prove" that I don't hate men because I'm a women with a wife instead of a husband.

Anyways, I hope Dowd's book tanks, I hope that feminists everywhere mock her and criticize her for her lack of self-awareness and for needlessly making the struggle that much harder for people who care about working for equality. Ultimately I hope people see this book for what it is-- Maureen Dowd advertising the fact that she herself is an unnecessary asshole.

(/feminist screed mode)

Calif. Voters: Much More Liberal Than Their Media

Conservatives spend a lot of time howling about how liberal the news media supposedly is. Well, consider this. Last week, California voters rejected four ballot initiatives that Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had campaigned in favor of. The four initiatives were:

Proposition 74 -- Delay teacher tenure 3 years
Proposition 75 -- Require unions to get signed permission slips from members to use dues for political/legislative activities
Proposition 76 -- Grant governor new powers over the state budget
Proposition 77 -- Remove legislature's ability to redraw state and congressional districts

Were the state's largest daily newspapers to the left or right of the voters? I examined the editorial positions taken on these 4 Props by the following major California newspapers: Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Jose Mercury News and Sacramento Bee.

We're talking about 6 newspapers, and each one of them took a position on all 4 of the Schwarzenegger-backed Props. So, in all, there were 24 instances in which these newspapers urged either a "yes" or "no" vote. (A "yes" position was in sync with the governor, and a "no" was in sync with the voters.)

The final tally? By a 17-7 margin, these major California newspapers urged "yes" votes. The Sacramento Bee was the only newspaper to oppose all four props. So much for the liberal media.

Newly Declassified Doc Shows Bushies Knew a Key Iraqi Informant Lacked Credibility

This excellent column by Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times was published on Election Day so it probably received scant attention. But it's worth a read:

Who in the White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it?

That's the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush. Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush's claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction.

The report demolished the credibility of the key Al Qaeda informant the administration relied on to make its claim that a working alliance existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was circulated widely within the U.S. government a full eight months before Bush used the prisoner's lies to argue for an invasion of Iraq because "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.

Al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — a Libyan captured in Pakistan in 2001 — was probably "intentionally misleading the debriefers," the DIA report concluded in one of two paragraphs finally declassified at the request of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) ...

The report also said: "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

... Americans came to believe the lie that Hussein was associated with the Sept. 11 hijackers.Even CIA Director George Tenet publicly fell into line, ignoring his own agency's dissent that Libi would not have been in a position to know what he said he knew. In fact, Libi, according to the DIA, could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training allegedly occurred.

In January 2004, the prisoner recanted his story, and the next month the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his false information.

... The Bush defense of what is arguably the biggest lie ever put over on the American people is that everyone had gotten the intelligence wrong. Not so at the highest level of U.S. intelligence, as DITSUM No. 044-02 so clearly shows. How could the president not have known?

Scheer has written a number of solid pieces on Iraq and a host of other topics, but you won't be reading his observations in the Times anymore. Scheer was just canned by the newspaper without explanation.

Suddenly, Evolution Isn't a "Huge" Issue Anymore

Zoe noted in this post today that Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is now singing a new tune on the issue of teaching so-called "intelligent design" -- Creationism Lite (CL), as I call it -- in the public schools. The new Santorum comes only days after Dover, Pa., voters defeated members of their school board who backed the teaching of CL.

The article that Zoe linked to included a reference to previous statements by Santorum. But to fully appreciate the magnitude of the senator's change of heart, let's review the record:

* Four years ago, Santorum sponsored an amendment that advised state and local education officials to design a science curriculum that will "help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist" on evolution.

* Three years ago, in this Washington Times op-ed, Santorum didn't equivocate. Referring to efforts to require the teaching of CL in Ohio's public schools, Santorum wrote that "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

* If the evolution issue didn't really matter that much to Santorum, one would have expected him to let it go after '02. But, just this August, Santorum gave an interview to National Public Radio in which he declared that the evolution-versus-CL debate "has huge consequences for society .... if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us."

Of course, evolution doesn't address how the world and its plant and animal life came into being; it only speaks to how these life forms evolved over many centuries. And believing in evolution doesn't mean you are a person without a sense of moral obligation. But try telling all that to the Religious Right.

Meanwhile, Santorum has decided that an issue that he once said "has huge consequences" is no longer worth the fuss. This is how Santorum operates. Just as he did in the months leading into 2000 (the year he was re-elected to the U.S. Senate), Santorum is trying to tone down his rhetoric long enough to fool the centrist voters of Pennsylvania.

We'll see if it works.

Clift on a Senate Filibuster

Writing in Newsweek, Eleanor Clift offers Senate Democrats this advice on the Samuel Alito nomination:

Democrats should mount a tough fight and expose Alito and his conservative cheerleaders so the voters know what they’re getting.

Highlight the ruling where Alito said Congress has no power to regulate machine guns under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Play the abortion card -- but stop short of a filibuster.

With President George W. Bush’s approval rating at 35 percent in the latest CBS poll, Democrats have finally sprung to life. That’s a good thing, but a bruising battle over cultural issues is better for Bush than for the Democrats.

Rather than risk the filibuster in an unwinnable fight over Alito, Democrats should save it for when and if that awful day arrives when the most liberal member of the court, John Paul Stevens, 85, steps down while Bush is still president.

I basically agree with Clift that a filibuster is highly unlikely to succeed, and such an attempt may simply earn Bush some public sympathy.

Having said that, I'm bothered by Clift's argument that Dems should "save" their filibuster for when (or if) a Republican White House seeks to replace Stevens with a conservative justice. Diane Feinstein has made a similar argument -- that Sandra Day O'Connor's seat should be filled by someone whose judicial philosophy closely reflects conservative-centrist views.

The view that a specific seat on the court is somehow reserved for a conservative, a centrist or a liberal is both intellectually and politically bankrupt.

Hell Just Got Air Conditioning...

and it has Rick Santorum to thank.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.

Santorum's comments to The [Beaver County Times & Allegheny County] Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."

What could have changed Santorum's tiny little mind? What do you think happened recently that made the Pennsylvania senator nervous about supporting ID in the science classroom? (cough, cough, Dover, cough, election)

All kidding aside, if a school board election in small PA town can make a right-wing Christian zealot like Rick Santorum stop supporting ID in public school science classrooms we might have a decent shot at keeping this country from being totally overrun by fundies after all.

Soledad O'Brien v. Dan Bartlett

CNN's Soledad O'Brien is not known for being a hard-hitting, edgy journalist; I've never seen her question anything an interviewee is saying...until this morning.

This morning O'Brien aggressively challenged Bush's latest talking points.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Well, actually, there's only one committee in the Senate that's charged with determining if there was misleading and that committee hasn't yet done its work yet, right?

[White House spokesperson Dan] BARTLETT: Well, Soledad, they did an investigation to see if any analysts were pressured, to see if there was any changes made to the intelligence. And the Silverman Rob (ph) Commission, an outside bipartisan investigation, found there was no pressure put on it either. Now the public comments the president made at the time and the administration made at the time were very, very similar to the comments made not only by Democrats in the House and Senate, but also by the Clinton administration. So every step of the way, there has been no evidence whatsoever that the president deliberately misled the American people. And the fact that Democrats are willing to advance this type of argument I think shows a deeply irresponsible behavior.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: I'm going to stop you right there because actually the jury's not in yet. The Silverman Rob Commission, which you mentioned, actually they said very explicitly that it wasn't their job to determine the scope of that investigation that you mentioned. No misleading. That was not the job of that commission. It's stated in the report. So they're still waiting for the select committee on intelligence to come back with their report is really where it stands.

BARTLETT: Well, Soledad, what they want to look at, and what the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to look at, is the public comments the president and the administration and members of Congress made during the run-up to the war. Everybody can look at those comments now and understand that while the intelligence was wrong, it was not based on a willful manipulation or misrepresentation of those facts. And if you look at the identical comments of what President Bush has said and compare them to, let's say, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, who said that Iraq was an eminent threat, that they had nuclear weapons, that's the type of rhetoric and the type of statements that the administration was making as well because we all thought that to be true.

Soledad sharply questioned Bartlett's assertion and accused him of being deliberately misleading while he was claiming that Dems are being misleading when they accuse the Bush Administration of misleading the American public. Bartlett seemed thrown off-guard, I'm sure he didn't expect a CNN newsanchor to throw facts in his face or to contradict him-- especially not Soledad O'Brien! She stopped just short of calling him a liar.

Soledad O'Brien has apparently discovered that she doesn't have to just accept what people are saying when they are interviewed, that she can counter it and have the research to undermine it, to call people on their claims. Hopefully this is evidence of a change in the media where Bartlett and other White House spokespeople have to be prepared to be challenged even by the likes of a typically sunny, nonconfrontational newsanchor like Soledad O'Brien.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet

Sen. Landrieu's plan to lead a sizable U.S. delegation to view the Netherlands' water defenses is a good idea that falls into the "better late than never" category. But this is the nature of things: the Dutch Delta Works, which are one of the modern wonders of the world IMHO, didn't get started until after the disastrous North Sea flood in the 1950s, which killed more people than Katrina.

I just hope our government has the attention span to continue carrying out the necessary work over the long term, even when most of the country has forgotten Katrina. The Delta Works took 30 years to complete.

If the Dutch Ambassador wanted to be cruel, he could have made the invitation contingent on Landrieu's pronouncing his name correctly. For those who don't know the name of the Dutch Ambassador to the U.S. off the top of your heads, it's Boudewijn J. van Eenennaam.

The GOP: America's Self-Proclaimed Masturbation Police?

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) thinks he knows what people are thinking about as well as what they are doing when they're alone, especially when it comes to sex. From Salon:

"I think most Americans agree and know that pornography is bad. They know that it involves exploitive images of men and women, and that it is morally repugnant and offensive," Brownback said, kicking off a hearing of the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, which he chairs. "What most Americans don't know is how harmful pornography is to its users and their families."

With those words, Brownback kicked off a 90-minute discussion of hardcore sex scenes, self-gratification and its negative impacts. "This is not just a simple, benign form of expression, but rather a potentially addictive substance," explained one of the subcommittee's panelists, Jill Manning, a sociologist from Brigham Young University. "People watch a movie, read a book, listen to music, but they masturbate to pornography. In that difference, you have a different stimulation to the brain."

C'mon, is masturbation that widespread of a problem? Have large numbers of people locked themselves in their bedrooms or stopped going to work? While I agree one should keep their pornography away from their children (it is something best enjoyed alone or with another consenting adult) and if someone has a problem with pornography taking up too much of their life, they should get help. However, is it really something that rises to the level of a congressional hearing? Well, I suppose it is if you're an unattractive, repressed senator seeking out reasons to obsess about kinky sex, talk openly about it in public.

Of course, Brownback and other folks like him should probably start by looking in their own backyards first before attacking the whole porn-hungry nation. Additionally, a decade or so ago it might have been safe to take on Big Porn. But now? I suggest strong caution.

"Typical of his hearings, he has stacked the panel," said Tom Hymes, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, the porn industry's trade group, which claims to represent several billion dollars in yearly revenue and more than 1.2 million adult Web sites. In a telephone interview after the hearing, Hymes pointed out that porn is widely, and regularly, consumed by consenting adults in each of the 50 states. "Red states, in fact, enjoy the adult material more than the blue states," he said. "The hotel rooms in Utah, for instance, download more adult movies than any other state. I have that on a very good source."

However, as much as Brownback seems to fantasize about stopping the spread of evil, dirty porn, his proposals about what to do are, well, rather flaccid.

To date, Brownback has put forward no specific legislation to address the problems he sees with pornography. But he mentioned several possible options, including a law that would encourage families to file civil suits against porn producers if they felt harmed by the material, a strategy that might put Brownback at odds with many of his Republican peers, who have championed restrictions on civil litigation. He also talked about a federal public education campaign, along the line of anti-drug advertising, to inform Americans about the dangers of watching explicit sex.

Brownback seems interested in bypassing the "Nanny State" altogether and turning the government into the Overbearing Daddy State, he just doesn't seem to have figured out how to regulate masturbation...yet.

Sentator Brownback, I know there seems to be a shortage of real, tangible problems facing America right now, but are you sure there aren't about 4 or 5 other issues that come before this? Aren't we, like, at war or something? Actually, I have a feel-good proposal for you to fantasize about next time you are alone. Why not push legislation banning the use of pornography by anyone in the military? It would certainly get the attention of the American public, raise awareness of your issue and you could say it is in the name of fighting terrorism! You could even sell "Support Our Porn-Free Troops" magnetic car ribbons! Or go truly below the belt with a campaign slogan that clearly states "Pornography Supports Terrorism!" or what about "Pornography=Terrorism at Home"? or "Just Say No to Self-Love"? Your base would certainly approve! What do you think?

Race to the Bottom

The Rev. A.R.P. Blair of St. Albion's Parish and his good friend the Rev. Dubya of the Church of the Latter Day Morons seem to be in similar straits.

According to MORI, the main British pollster, 36% of adults are satisfied with the way Blair is doing his job, 55% are dissatisfied, and 9% don't know.

And just in case you think American politics are uniquely screwed up, a plurality of respondents said they'd vote for Labour--i.e., to keep Blair--if an election were held tomorrow.

Is the GOP the Borg?

Is Senator Kittenkiller (aka Senator/Dr. Bill Frist) proof that the Borg exists?

Carpetbagger just posted on this but it bears repeating, ad nauseum.

Frist told reporters Thursday that while he believed illegal activity should not take place at [the black site] detention centers, he believes the leak itself poses a greater threat to national security and is "not concerned about what goes on" behind the prison walls.

His response is unflinching-- nail the leaker(s) and ignore the real story. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reveals that some members of the GOP are capable of ignoring the Borg's commands, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."

I truly hope that Frist runs in 2008 because I'd love to see that quote in a campaign ad in addition to his melt-down after the Dems shut down the senate, his actions in the Schiavo case, and his history of performing medical experiments at home on adopted cats. Then again, it would be lovely if he couldn't run because he's in jail for insider trading.

Only in Holland

The spate of recent gangland killings here is deadly (literally) serious stuff, but I had to chuckle at this. Where else but in the Netherlands does the mob use ride-by shootings?

Eyewitnesses said two people on bikes approached the victim on the Tjotterspad at about 8.15pm and shot him at close range, possibly with an automatic weapon.

The man, identified as 44-year-old George van Kleef, died at the scene. The killers escaped by bicycle in the direction of the Amsterdamse Bos (wood).

I ride my bike through the Amsterdamse Bos on my way to and from work, and I walk along the Gerrit van der Veenstraat, where the first murder occurred, every day. But I still must admit to being amused in a maccabre and unhealthy way by this story.

Intelligent Design Isn't Creationism?

Pat Robertson seems to have forgotten the script: Intelligent Design isn't a religious idea, but a valid scientific theory that should be taught as a competing theory to evolution by natural selection.

Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent design” and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck....

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there,” he said.

So much for that pretext. And, by the way, when did God become such an a**hole? "Don't ask for his help?" Is voting the school board out of office really so horrendous a sin that people cannot repent? Is there really no point in asking God's forgiveness?

That Must Have Been Awkward

From the Associated Press

Former Presidents Clinton and Bush received the International Rescue Committee's Freedom Award for helping the victims of December's tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

[edit]

The International Rescue Committee, which helps people around the world who have become refugees, gave its Excellence in Media Award to Terry George, writer and director of "Hotel Rwanda," the award-winning movie about the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

I wonder if George thanked Clinton for doing so little in 1994, as it made for a much better movie.

Thanks, Gretta, But We'll Take It From Here

Anyone who's got strong political opinions knows the feeling: a total nutcase espouses a position that you support, and your heart sinks. Now all the sane people who agree with you are going to have to waste their time disavowing the nutcase. A short-lived (thank goodness) example was Cindy Sheehan's insistence that the war in Iraq was a Zionist plot (I'm paraphrasing, of course). The right has all kinds of nuts who for some reason have been given access to high-profile media, and although the rational right has gotten a bit of a pass on having to disown the wingnuts, it seems as if that's starting to change.

Here in the Netherlands, the pro-Palestinian contingent has a Cindy Sheehan of its own, only Gretta Duisenberg, unlike Sheehan, doesn't have any good side to her actions. As a pro-Palestinian friend of mine who speaks Arabic and has spent considerable time in the Middle East put it, if Gretta weren't the widow of former European Central Bank President Wim Duisenberg, she'd just be another batty housewife from South Amsterdam. But, sort of like Sheehan, Gretta Duisenberg is given prominence in the media because of her relationship to a dead person.

TV execs know that they can count on the Gretta Duisenbergs of the world to provide controversy, so they scheduled her on a "discussion" show to debate against some pro-Israel people. The inevitable ensued (Dutch):

Gretta Duisenberg is once again the talk of the town because of anti-Semitic remarks. On the television program "The Black Sheep," which was broadcast on Saturday, she complained about the Jewish community in the Netherlands. "They should not think that they can annex Amsterdam just like the West Bank."

Lawyer Bram Moszkowicz [himself an embarrassing self-promoter: Arnold] confirmed to the newspaper De Telegraaf that he was investigating the possibility of lodging a criminal complaint against Duisenberg for discriminatory statements.

On the VARA [TV producer] program "The Black Sheep," Duisenberg debated among others the journalists Hans Knoop and Max van Weezel about the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. During the discussion, Duisenberg complained about the Jews where she lives in South Amsterdam; she is allegedly called names on a regular basis.

When she made her comments about the "annexation" of Amsterdam, she was branded an "anti-Semite" by Hans Knoop, whereupon Duisenberg became extremely angry, according to De Telegraaf....

Gretta Duisenberg had gained notoriety previously for her fierce position about the conflict in the Middle East. She flew a Palestinian flag from her balcony a few years ago, which most of her Jewish neighbors considered a provocation.

Last year, the public prosecutor slapped her wrist over comments she made in a radio interview. In answer to a question about how many signatures she was hoping to get on a petition against Israel, she said, "six million," and burst into laughter.

As I've written before, I'm thoroughly opposed to the notion that a criminal complaint can be made against someone for making anti-Semitic remarks; living here has given me even greater appreciation for the First Amendment. But Duisenberg is the sort of person whom even Voltaire might have had trouble defending.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Should Be Indicted...

if this is true.

Not only have US forces used chemical weapons during assault on city of Fallujah but the folks at the Pentagon might be lying about how it was used.

The Pentagon has always admitted it used phosphorus during last year's assault on the city, which US commanders said was an insurgent stronghold. But they claimed they used the brightly burning shells "very sparingly" and only to illuminate combat areas.

But the documentary Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, broadcast yesterday by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, suggested the shells were commonly used and killed an unspecified number of civilians. Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by treaty.

Gay cat to be let out of big gay bag, says Specter

Well, better this year than the next two election cycles, I suppose.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday that he would vote for the federal "Marriage Protection Act" when it is heard before a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday.

While Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he opposes the ban on gay marriages, he agrees with conservative senators that the measure should be voted before the full Senate. So he will support the bill in the subcommittee, bringing it one step closer to a vote before all 100 senators.
...
The Senate panel on 'Constitutional, Civil Rights and Property Rights,' which will hold the vote, is made up of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Many gay rights leaders were hoping the moderate Specter would oppose the measure and kill it for the year. But Specter said the bill's supporters, including Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, deserve their "day in court."

Actually, Senator, unless you are confusing the senate and the judiciary, I think you mean you want a day for people like yourself to demonize and villify gay people on the senate floor.

Hmmm. I wonder if the GOP is losing its confidence that they can't reliably win elections without a big dose of anti-gay demagoguery? I challenge them to try an election cycle or two without it, see how they do.

And Sometimes, You Lose and Do the Wrong Thing

The International Man of Principle--whose party holds a 66-seat majority in Parliament--goes down to defeat--by a 31-vote margin.

The Congressional GOP rebukes Bush over torture, the Parliamentary Labour Party rebukes Blair over detention without charge. It seems that judges aren't the only ones who care about technicalities like due process.