|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidates - Give 'Em $25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, April 26, 2003 |
|
|
|
Thank God for the Canadians
The Toronto Star is reporting that one of its reporters has discovered documents detailing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Top-secret Iraqi intelligence documents, unearthed by the Toronto Star in the bombed-out headquarters of the dreaded Mukhabarat intelligence service in Baghdad, have established the first clear link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization. The documents were found by correspondent Mitch Potter, the Star's Jerusalem bureau chief. Potter, who has been in and out of Iraq since the war began, was digging through the rubble of the Mukhabarat's Baghdad headquarters with his translator Amir when they uncovered the intelligence treasure trove.
Bin Laden's name appears three times in the handwritten Iraqi file, but each of the references was clumsily concealed with White-Out and then blackened with ink, "presumably by agents of the Mukhabarat," writes Potter, who was travelling with Amir and Inigo Gilmore of London's Sunday Telegraph. In his dispatch, Potter details how his translator, sitting on the end of his hotel room bed today, carefully scraped away the White Out with a scalpel to reveal bin Laden's name hidden underneath. And he writes of Amir's stunned reaction when the name became apparent: "It says Bin Laden! It says Bin Laden!" The full account will appear in tomorrow's Star. The discovery of the document coincides with the Friday capture of Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi spymaster the United States claims was the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Hijazi, according to U.S. allegations, met bin Laden prior to the Sept. 11 attacks during Hijazi's term as Iraq's ambassador to Turkey. "The document in question is in every way possible entirely like the hundreds of others we've been poring over in our spare hours these many nights in the safety of our hotel room while intermittent gunfire pops away in the distance," Potter writes. Spies from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who scoured the building after it was bombed into rubble, apparently missed the document.
The presence of bin Laden's name on the document has been verified by four Arabic interpreters.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Damage
It looks as if our attempt to inflict "consequences" on the French will end up harming Africans instead.
From the Washington Post
The Bush administration has moved to drastically scale down a French-backed U.N. proposal to send more than 250 U.N. peacekeepers to the former French colony of Ivory Coast, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.
Bush wants to send around 40 peacekeepers. That ought to really help stop the "massacres of civilians, rape, reprisal killings and systematic looting."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 7:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SARS = Enemy Combatant
The Washington Post is reporting that the US may be unprepared for an outbreak of SARS because federal officials are worried that quarantining those infected might - get this - "trample civil liberties."
Why not just designate any suspected SARS-infected person an "enemy combatant" - then we don't have to worry about violating their civil rights and liberties at all.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 7:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ramifications of Nepotism
Do you remember, back in 2001, when President Bush nominated Strom Thurmond's 28-year old son to be a US Attorney even though he had only been out of law school for 3 years, in comparison to the average US Attorney, who was 50 years old and had 22 years of experience?
Well, it seems as if Strom Jr. is out to make a name for himself - from the NYT
At the time, Brett A. Bursey says, he seemed to be having a 60's flashback.
There he was at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport with his antiwar sign. There were the thousands of Republicans gathering to welcome a president. There were the police officers arresting him for trespassing.
The first time this happened was in May 1969, before a visit by Richard M. Nixon. The charges against Mr. Bursey were dropped after the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that if protesters were on public property - as the antiwar demonstrators were - they could not be charged with trespassing.
Last Oct. 24, 33 years later and about 100 yards away, the now graying Mr. Bursey was again arrested for trespassing, this time before a visit by President Bush. The charge was soon dropped. But last month, the local United States attorney, J. Strom Thurmond Jr., brought federal charges against Mr. Bursey under a seldom-used statute that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting. He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 7:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 25, 2003 |
|
|
|
The Devil's Advocate?
Jim Lewis has a great article in Slate on Diane Sawyer’s manipulative and insincere interview with the Dixie Chicks on Primetime Thursday - or, as he puts it, the hour Sawyer spent engaged in a “Stalinist show trial … trying to bend the Chicks with a combination of false sympathy and crass sensationalism."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical Revisionism at the Wall Street Journal
A column in today's WSJ by Mary Anastasia O'Grady on the Allende and Pinochet regimes in Chile is an astonishing piece of historical revisionism. (As always, accessing articles on WSJ requires a subscription, but I've pasted in the best bits below.)
O'Grady takes Secretary of State Colin Powell to task for recent comments he made about Chile:
...a 17-year-old in the BET audience told Mr. Powell that "the United States staged a coup in Chile on September 11th, despite the wishes of the Chilean populace against the coup and the populace in support of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende, the CIA, regardless, supported the coup of Augusto Pinochet and that resulted in mass deaths." Mr. Powell lamely responded: "With respect to your earlier comment about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."
The secretary might as well have been reading from an Oliver Stone script, blessing Castro's version of world history. Not only did he passively accept utter nonsense but he also suggested that the U.S. should regret its efforts to combat Soviet expansion in Latin America during the Cold War. That is a rather strange viewpoint given what we now know about the cruelty of communist repression.
O'Grady goes on to suggest that the 1973 coup by military strongman Augusto Pinochet was actually some sort of democratic revolt:
...in the succeeding three years Allende would ruin himself by destroying the country. Chileans would drive him from power. The military had the idea to send him into exile but instead, according the Journal's crack reporter, Everett Martin, who interviewed Allende's doctor, he committed suicide. This has been disputed by Allende supporters but put to rest by reliable testimony....
The Pinochet dictatorship was difficult for everyone. Yet as Cuba shows it could have been far worse. Chileans went with the lesser of two evils, broadly supporting an unprecedented military coup to save their country, not only from economic ruin but also from the shackles of communist repression. That took courage. It doesn't seem very fair for Mr. Powell to suggest that the U.S. deserves the credit.
Where to begin? Let's start with O'Grady's assertion that the U.S. was not involved in coup. Declassified government documents archived by George Washington University's National Security Archive project tell a different story. The Nixon administration urged the CIA use any steps necessary--including instigating a coup--to prevent Allende from taking office when he was elected in 1970. Throughout the early '70s, the U.S. funded Allende's opponents, including militant right-wing groups. And, even though the CIA has never admitted direct involvement in the '73 coup, the agency's own web site notes that it actively supported earlier coup attempts and other destabilizing measures. The GW documents show that Nixon urged the CIA to take steps to "make the [Chilean] economy scream" under Allende's rule.
Then, there's O'Grady's attempt to, in a twist on the old cliché, praise Pinochet with faint damnation: "The Pinochet dictatorship was difficult for everyone." No argument there. It was particularly inconvenient for the more that 3,000 Allende supporters who were killed under Pinochet, to say nothing of the thousands who were tortured or exiled. I'm not sure how this could be so much preferable to the "cruelty of communist repression" cited by O'Grady.
And, while there are conflicting reports regarding whether Allende committed suicide or was murdered, O'Grady is more than stretching the truth by claiming that Pinochet's junta, out of the goodness of its heart, only wanted to exile him. According to recordings of Pinochet unearthed in 1998, the dictator did in fact offer to fly President Allende out of the country, but he left instructions that the plane should come crashing down while in flight.
Finally, there's the preposterous notion that Pinochet's coup was a popular uprising and a victory for democracy. O'Grady rightly notes that Allende assumed the presidency in 1970 with only 36% of the vote. However, she neglects to mention that in the 1973 parliamentary elections six months before the coup, Allende's Popular Unity coalition garnered a 43% share and gained six congressional seats. (See the link to "Salvador Allende's Leftist Regime" on this page.) Allende's victories were always narrow, but his government actually gained support during his rule. Regardless, I don't see how anyone could suggest that doing what Pinochet did--overthrow a democratically elected government, torture and kill its supporters, dissolve the legislature, suspend the constitution, ban opposition, and impose strict controls on the media--was somehow a victory for democracy.
All of this goes to show that those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to get a column in the Wall Street Journal.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 4:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Yapping, More Action
Isn't it about time people started calling their Senators, urging that Santorum step down from his leadership position? In fine liberal fashion, the facts have been laid bare in the blogosphere, available for anyone to see. At this point, the only background that's even necessary to link to is the entire transcript.
Working for Change has a form where you can urge Majority Leader Frist to denounce his remarks.
That sounds fine, but I think it's time to act directly. A friend in a congressional office said they have received hundreds of calls supporting Santorum already. So call them up already! Or go here to get all the contact info you need.
posted by
Helena Montana at 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bump? Pump? Vault? Dim? Prism? Burnish? Highlight?
The lovely albeit distant Helena Montana already tweaked Howard Kurtz once today, but as they say, once is never enough. Today Kurtz offers his typically vapid and vacuous analysis of the 2004 Democratic Presidential race in which he writes something like 25 inches on the current campaign but manages to evade discussing a single issue. (He does mention Gephardt and health care, but not in the context of whether Gephardt's plan is good or bad -- rather, in the context of whether advancing such a costly proposal helps the Missouri Democrat or hurts him.)
Mainly, Kurtz writes about the money and the horse race:
"So if Edwards' financial report doesn't show he's more popular, more effective, or better armed than Kerry, why should it overturn the race? Because it has given Edwards 'a bump to rise above the crowd' (GOP consultant Scott Reed), 'raised his standing' (Post), 'pumped new momentum into his presidential effort' (Roll Call), helped 'vault him into the major league' (Hartford Courant) and 'reposition him back in the top tier' (Brazile). It has 'dimmed' Kerry's image (Charlie Cook) and 'created a new political prism through which the campaigns are viewed, burnishing the image of some candidates while highlighting weaknesses of others' (AP). Bump? Pump? Vault? Dim? Prism? Burnish? Highlight? Weird metaphors like these are always a sign that the article you're reading has stopped explaining and begun evading."
Kurtz also raises, in a similarly shallow the fashion, the specter of a 2004 Ralph Nader candidacy -- first by quoting a Green Party official who says it's going to happen, then by shooting down said candidacy by quoting another Green Party supporter who says such a challenge by a third party candidate would be disastrous.
The more things change...the more they don't. To read more of Kurtz's prattle, go here.
posted by
Tyler at 3:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage and the Mafia
Right around the same time that Rick Santorum was making bigoted comments to an Associated Press report, Pope John Paul II was doing his best to keep the Catholic Church firmly entrenched in the 18th Century. More interestingly, however, was the reaction of the editor of the Catholic magazine America. Commenting on the pope's April 17 encyclical, the editor borrowed a page from Santorum's book by equating divorced people with the Mafia and "notorious criminals."
In the encyclical, the pontiff issued a stern reminder to Catholics who divert from church teachings that they are not worthy to receive communion. Many Catholics who are divorced have long hoped that someday the pope might reverse the ban on their taking communion. Vatican teachings strictly forbid divorce and consider Catholics who remarry after divorce to be "living in sin." Although the pope did not specifically refer to divorce in the encyclical, the editor of the Catholic magazine America said that the pontiff's views clearly applied to divorced Catholics.
"That is what the Vatican is saying for years about the nonadmission of public sinners to the Eucharist whether they be divorced or Mafia or people who are notorious criminals," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of America. Isn't there just a little bit of difference between someone who wants to end a marriage and someone who wants to end a life?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those Unprepared Southerners
As the flap over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about gays and the Texas sodomy law continues, an Associated Press article examines gay issues in a political context, arguing that Howard Dean and other gay-friendly Democratic presidential hopefuls will suffer electorally in the South. Hardly a shocking assertion, but the comment from the story that was perhaps most revealing -- and equally unshocking -- was offered by a Mississippi legislator.
Republican State Senator Richard White explained why Dean and other Democrats who support gays on civil unions, anti-discrimination laws, and other issues, would meet with a hostile reception in Mississippi. "The people down here," White said, "they are not going to put up with that kind of stuff. We're not prepared for all that in Mississippi or anywhere else in the southern states."
No kidding. Unlike the Boy Scouts, Southern states have long had problems when it comes to being "prepared." In 1962, for example, Mississippi wasn't prepared to allow James Meredith to attend the state university. Governor Barnett's venomous statements about the "illegal forces of tyranny" helped spark riots on the college campus, and George Wallace later followed a similar game plan of fanning the flames of racism behind the veneer of states rights.
To be fair, as Trent Lott reminded us last year, sometimes Mississippians are prepared and willing to take the lead. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead (in supporting Strom Thurmond in 1948)," Lott said last December, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." 'Nuff said.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santorum's Got Nothing on This Guy
As something of a follow-up to this earlier post about William Pryor, a Bush nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, we've learned that, several years ago, Alabama passed a law banning sex toys, stating that
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.
Pryor, as Alabama's Attorney General, defended the law, claiming
Alabama argues "a ban on the sale of sexual devices and related orgasm stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex" and that "it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
Update
Nthyear.com makes a good point about on this quote
This makes him look like an ultra-conservative prude and something of an odd duck. He may well be. However, it is important to note that the above quoted statement was issued in Pryor's official position as Alabama's Attorney General. It was his job to argue on behalf of his client, the state of Alabama, and as such the quote does not necessarily reflect his opinion.
In the recent Michigan Democratic gubernatorial primaries, opponents of then-Attorney General Jennifer Granholm (a Democrat) aired ads that claimed that she was an opponent of abortion rights. They based these claims on actions that now-Governor Granholm took as Attorney General to a Republican Governor and Republican-led legislature. She effectively argued in debates that she had no choice -- that her job was to represent the state of Michigan in court. She is in fact pro-choice.
If anything, the Pryor quotation indicates that the state of Alabama may be run by a bunch of ultra-conservative prudes. It, on it's own, does not say anything about the potential ultra-conservative prudishness of Mr. Pryor.
Fortunately, Sam Heldman, who is doing a great job exposing Pryor, steps in to clarify
Under Alabama law, the AG does NOT have to appeal a decision of a U.S. District Court that is adverse to the State. Indeed, the AG does not HAVE to defend the constitutionality of any state law that he believes to be unconstitutional. But certainly he doesn't have to appeal, having lost at the District Court level. This may or may not be true in other states, but it's absolutely true in Alabama, where there is AL S.Ct. precedent making perfectly clear that the AG -- and no one else -- gets to decide what legal positions will be taken by the State and its agencies. Pryor has doggedly pursued the State's Right to ban vibrators because it fits within his vision of constitutional law and the good society, not because he "had to."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Perfect Target
Via Atrios we get this ABC News article in which Administration officials admit that we went to war in Iraq not over WMDs, but in order to keep the rest of the world in line
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East - and not just Saddam Hussein.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always be looking for someone to hate - and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.
The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Squeezing Blood from a Stone?
The IRS has launched a major investigation of the millions of poor working people who claim the Earned-Income Tax Credit. (In a nutshell, the EITC is a tax credit for single people who make less than $11k, couples with dependents who make no more than $34k.) The IRS says poor folks who claim the EITC fall into a "high-error category" and will be required to provide, within 6 months, very specific documentation to prove they deserve the credit. There are many problems with this, one being that the kind of proof they are asking for can be very difficult to provide within the required 6-month time limit. Considering the IRS's limited resources and scarce funding, seems like they're going after the wrong end of the tax bracket. Consider this:
An I.R.S. briefing paper on the new rules states that in 1999 the Treasury lost $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion by paying earned-income tax credits to filers who should not have received them. A separate analysis, by two Treasury Department specialists, says subsequent measures may have reduced these erroneous payments by $2 billion. By comparison, corporations managed to sidestep as much as $54 billion in 1998, by hiding about $155 billion in profits in tax shelters, according to a study by a Harvard economist, Mihir A. Desai.
What is their justification for targeting those who may have made actual mistakes on their taxes and not those who deliberately evade paying their taxes via shelters? Why are they going after the people who need the credit to help them afford life's most basic necessities? Hmmm...do you think they're targeting the poor because they are less likely to have lawyers and C.P.A.'s who can fight on their behalf?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 12:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theories Require Evidence
And Katherine Harris is doing what she can to validate the Peter Principle.
From the Miami Herald
Former Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a national Republican hero for her role in the 2000 presidential election, said Thursday she may jump into next year's U.S. Senate race in Florida.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waiting for the 500 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut
While out stumping for his tax cut package in Ohio yesterday, Bush made the following argument
Some in Congress say the plan is too big. Well, it seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package? If they believe tax relief is important for job creation, they ought to join us and join this administration and join many in Congress and have a robust package that creates enough work for the American people.
Well, it seems like to me that Bush might have some explaining to do. If he thinks that bigger tax relief packages create more jobs, then why isn't he pushing for a total repeal of every tax across the board? By his logic, repealing the sales, income, payroll, estate, gasoline, luxury, gift and every other tax ought to create massive job growth. Of course, the federal, state and local governments would all shut down, leaving Bush unemployed. But with all the newly created jobs, I'm sure he'd be able to find work relatively easily.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking Issue with Spinsanity
Spinsanity has just posted a short piece taking a few media people to task for misrepresenting Santorum's comments.
I'm not taking issue with their facts here, but there are plenty of distortions and misrepresentations to go around in this mess, most of them Santorum's. I wish Spinsanity's Ben Fritz had taken off the blinders a bit to acknowledge that. Santorum reiterated plenty of old Religious Right canards about gays that certainly qualify as misleading political rhetoric.
If nothing else, he might have simply pointed out the logical leaps in the one paragraph of Santorum's he chose to quote. In it, Santorum claimed that if the right to privacy first outlined by the Griswold case, and expanded in Roe, would overturn sodomy laws, then it could logically include polygamy, incest and adultery. This completely confuses the right to sexual privacy, sodomy laws in this case, with the right to marriage. The Religious Right always does this and they are two different things. No matter how expansive the right to privacy is interpreted I can't see how it would impact the definition of marriage - a completely public institution by any definition.
But beyond that -- the graph he cites is only about half of the entire response to the AP reporter's question, which went out on the wire on Tuesday. Here's it is, with the part Fritz did not quote italicized:SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _ I think that qualifies as equating gay sex with polygamy, adultery and "all of those things," and as destroying the basic unit of our society too. I admire plenty of Spinsanity's work, but if one only examines what is said in the top media outlets you risk becoming as incisive as Howard Kurtz.
Of course, the lovely Zoe pointed out the less reported, but more disturbing, parts of Santorum's interview already.
posted by
Helena Montana at 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Childish
The Washington Post says that France is not the only country facing "consequences" for their failure to support our war
Chilean President Ricardo Lagos was to be a victor in Washington, at last triumphant in the long quest to sign a free-trade agreement with the United States. Instead, [U.S. Trade Representative Robert] Zoellick last week suggested that because Chile, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, had declined to support the U.S. position on Iraq, final congressional approval of a free-trade pact between the two nations would be delayed indefinitely.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's In A Name?
The Washington Times reports, under the unintentionally amusing headline "Annan Irks U.S. by Urging Respect for Law," on UN Secretary General Koffi Annan's demand that U.S. forces in Iraq uphold their responsibilities as an "occupying power" as set forth in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration takes exception to this designation, preferring to think of itself as a "liberating force" - a category not covered by either the Geneva or the Hague Convention.
Apparently, just as one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter," one man's "occupying power" is another man's "liberating force." Fortunately for us, the "one man" who gets to decide which is which always seems to be the President of the United States.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 24, 2003 |
|
|
|
Oh, How I Needed This!
Everyone is writing about Santorum and that's just grand. But, I just get kind of tired after watching so many smart people devote so much bloggy energy to document what freaking idiot this guy is. Frankly, it gets me down.
So, I needed some satire to hold me over till the Drum the Bum Out train comes around. Luckily, the lovely Susannah, substitute-blogging for dirty Neal Pollack, was my oasis. She calls him all sorts of infantile names and ends with:In closing, I would say that I think this kind of Senator is not a great kind. He is sort of judgmental and also makes me want to barf. How is he going to enact all these No Dog Humping laws anyway? And what about cats? And stuffed animal dogs? And what about Triumph: The Insult Comic Dog? If I were gay, I'd be mad at this Senator. But if I humped dogs, I would be totally pissed off. You know, this whole thing was just screaming for the keyboard of a professional sex writer. OK, now that I am rejuvenated, where's the PA blogging contingent to lead the effort?
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phyllis Has Some Questions For You
The national Republican Party recently mailed a survey to its faithful, but hyper-conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly was horrified to find that only one of the questions specifically addresses the issues of "border security and immigration." So on her organization's Web site, Schlafly has suggested additional questions that should have been on the survey -- in all, 19 of them, and they all cover the issues of immigration and foreign-language speakers.
The foreign-born seem to be one of Schlafly's newest obsessions. One of her 19 questions reads: "Do you favor a general policy of drawing a bright line of difference between U.S. citizens and aliens so that law-abiding American citizens are not treated like potential terrorists or hijackers?" In other words, if you're a non-naturalized resident of this country, you're a "potential" terrorist or hijacker.
Schlafly is also dying to know if her fellow GOPers "favor stopping the racket of smuggling very-pregnant aliens into the United States so they can give birth to their babies (here) ... thereby becoming immediately eligible for citizenship and welfare." Now there's a question that could have been written by the Imperial Wizard himself. By the way, what evidence is there of such a "racket" of pregnant women streaming across our borders? Others on the Right have picked up on this theme. A NewsMax.com contributor laments, "Here in California, at our common border with Mexico, we have suffered economically and culturally -- in every way -- at the hands of foreign invaders." It's the kind of rhetoric that would put a smile on Jean-Marie Le Pen's face.
Schlafly and her anxiety-ridden soulmates are unlikely to feel better until we can seal up America's borders like a Ziploc bag. Of course, they seem to be forgetting that immigrants contribute $10 billion a year to the nation's economy. If Schlafly and her friends are determined to send them packing, perhaps they're willing to write a personal check to cover that amount.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Emptive Comfort
The GOP leadership is sending out a special memo letting Republicans know that Bush's numbers will "drop to more realistic levels" soon and polls may reveal that he is trailing behind the undecided Democratic opposition. (again) The letter attempts to assuage fear and doubt by stating declaratively that "the sky is not falling."
Apparently it is not a sign of weakness that as the country refocuses on domestic issues even the GOP knows that Bush's popularity is guaranteed to plunge.
Especially when you consider the possibility that the reason we couldn't find any WMD in Iraq was because Iraq had already disarmed-- oops!-- something Bush acknowledges in a speech he gave today in Ohio.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Kings?
From the Los Angeles Times
Army commanders said Wednesday that American military personnel had removed about $12.3 million from huge caches of U.S. currency that were found by fellow soldiers in recent days in an exclusive neighborhood once home to senior Iraqi officials.
Investigators have recovered all of the stolen money, officials said, and commanders have ordered soldiers not to search for more hidden cash in the area where they discovered about $656 million in boxes inside cottages on Friday. Civil affairs officers found an additional $112 million Tuesday inside kennels in the same area.
One commander said three galvanized aluminum boxes containing an additional $12 million found at the cottages were allegedly removed and hidden by five soldiers for several hours before being recovered by investigators Saturday morning.
Those three boxes of cash had not been reported to commanders. With that amount, a total of about $780 million has been found in sealed structures in a tree-lined Tigris River area at the edge of the sprawling Presidential Palace complex in central Baghdad.
The currency apparently was left behind by Baath Party and Republican Guard officials as they fled the U.S. invasion.
Two of the three stolen boxes, each originally containing $4 million in tightly wrapped bundles of $100,000, were still sealed when they were recovered in a stone-lined canal near a mansion, commanders said. The third, which had been pried open, was retrieved near the operating base of soldiers implicated in the thefts.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're freaking me out.
I promise this will be my last Santorum-related post.
OK, so not only does Santorum equate homosexuality with "man on dog" and "man on child" sex (those are his words), but he has some very disturbing views on the Catholic Church's priest sex abuse scandals. In the interview, Santorum refers to the Catholic Church priest scandals as "a basic homosexual relationship" between "post pubescent men" (the boys) and the priests. Santorum knows that these cases weren't all about teenagers. For pete's sake, a priest was dismissed from Santorum's church last year due to accusations of abuse. The priest was accused of abusing a pre-pubescent boy and a "post-pubescent" 16-year old. I'd really like to hear what these men have to say about Santorum's description of consensual sex between priests and their young parishioners.
To borrow a line from Jon Stewart last night-- Homos say What?!?!?
So, let's get this right, Santorum calls adult-minor sex abuse that has done inexplicable damage to the Catholic Church a "homosexual relationship" between two people. That's a really odd way of looking at it, since males under 18 are usually defined as minors, not post-pubescent men, and minors can't legally consent to sex....oh, yeah, and most people think minors having sexual relations with a priest is inherently not consensual. Sheesh.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 1:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. holding children at Guantanamo Bay
I have not seen this reported anywhere in the U.S. media. But other outlets are beginning to report the news that children aged 16 years and younger are among the detainees being interrogated at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Go here for more details.
posted by
Tyler at 11:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's no Hussein
...but Richard Delguadio has proved himself to be a well-rounded cretin, having just pled guilty to a child porn charge.
Now this is not the gloating session that it might appear to be. In fact, it doesn't even really fit my personal definition of child porn. Delguadio picked up a 16-year-old in a Baltimore neighborhood known for prostitution and paid her for a no doubt extremely creepy motel photo session. Disgusting and exploitative? Yes. Equivalent to raping a pre-pubescent child? Not really. Well, maybe we should ask Rick Santorum...you know, just to be sure.
Secondly, what stood out -- once the initial wave of revulsion had passed -- was how odd the quotes in this piece were. Witness:Dick Delguadio: "I've learned more about the court system than I ever wanted to learn."
Assistant State's Attorney Adam C. Rosenberg: "It certainly sends a message that you can't come into our city and take advantage of our children and take pictures of them."
Brother Eugene Delguadio: "It doesn't sound like him." Crikey! It sounds like dialogue from a Coen brothers movie.
What's the business end of this creep? When Delguadio wasn't busy putting together his personal porn albums he was a prodigious GOP fundraiser, raising big money for Oliver North and Casper Weinberger's legal defense, Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms' political campaigns and the legal defense of Laurence Powell, the officer accused in the Rodney King beating. And this episode certainly brings a whole new meaning to the title of his 2000 book, China Doll: Clinton-Gore and the Selling of a Presidency. By the way, you can buy it on Amazon for a penny according to my search.
posted by
Helena Montana at 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anything Is Better ...
... than life under Hussein's regime. Today, the New York Times reports on Hussein's use of torture
Farris Salman is one of the last victims of Mr. Hussein's rule. His speech is slurred because he is missing part of his tongue. Black-hooded paramilitary troops, the Fedayeen Saddam, run by Mr. Hussein's eldest son, Uday, pulled it out of his mouth with pliers last month, he said, and sliced it off with a box cutter. They made his family and dozens of his neighbors watch.
while the Christian Science Monitor has uncovered a cache of documents detailing Hussein's penchant for political assassination
Commander Hazal al-Nasire, the chief of the secret police's special "151" division, knew how to test the mettle of his officers. Mr. Nasire delegated Saddam Hussein's orders to kill political and religious opponents of the regime. He promoted successful assassins and ordered investigations into the motives of those who dared refuse him.
As late as the second week in March, according to secret and signed documents uncovered by the Monitor in a two-story stucco home in Baghdad, Nasire was still giving his orders to kill Hussein's opponents. On the cover of one white folder is scribbled, "Names of officers who did not agree to execute people in the street."
And the Washington Post reports on Uday's sadistic treatment of Iraqi athletes
Pregame phone calls from Uday Hussein, the powerful and cruel elder son of then-President Saddam Hussein, amounted to pep talks dominated by crude threats. If they lost, he warned, they would be imprisoned and tortured.
"The players would start crying," said Emmanuel Baba, 69, a former player who became a coach renowned throughout the Arab world, where he is known by his nickname, Ammo Baba. "They would tremble with fear.
"When they got out of prison, they would come to me and lift their shirts to show me the red stripes on their back. They had been beaten with a metal cable. Then the guards threw salt water at them, so the scars would stay for life."
After losing a competition, players and their retinue were taken to the Olympic Committee building, where they were harangued before being transferred to a prison, usually Radwaniya. They often had their heads shaved as a mark of shame and spent the first days in prison without food. Many said they were whipped on their backs, legs and arms by thick metal cables that hung from a wall in the prison and were named after snakes.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 8:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 |
|
|
|
Probing Santorum's Sanity
Simply put, Santorum is simply not fit for public office.
As a few others have pointed out, the whole Santorum interview is much more damning than the single controversial quote. Revealing his limited capacity for complex thinking, Santorum assigns all unmarried, non-hetero sex into a single other "deviant" category. It is deeply disturbing that he seems to make no distinction between rape and consentual sex between adults. When Santorum denies outright that there is a "right to privacy" and advocates that the government limit "individual passions" then all American should be nervous.
Perhaps even more outrageous than the gay-bashing is Santorum's belief that the Catholic Church's priest abuse scandals were consensual homosexual sex, not child abuse. (I'm waiting for the abuse survivors to speak out on this.) One other thing that truly creeps me out is how he talks about bestiality and incest with very descriptive language-- "man on child" or "man on dog" sex. Jeebus, who else but right-wing freakos even thinks and talks about bestiality, let alone describes it casually as "man on dog"!?!?! It's safe to say that bestiality and child abuse are fairly permanent cultural taboos, but for some reason freakazoids like Santorum like to talk about them like they're on the cultural horizon. Hmmm...that's truly twisted.
See for yourself.
SANTORUM: …In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that...
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 4:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing Today's Theme ...
... of disagreeing with other bloggers (see here or here), I'll now comment on this HobbsOnline post, discovered via Instapundit.
Hobbs makes a good point that our failure to find WMDs in Iraq is not proof that such weapons do not exist. If this were true, Hobbs notes, then our failure to find Saddam Hussein would mean that he doesn't exist.
As he says
Intel that indicates something exists is not necessarily intel on the thing's exact location. I know for a fact my Dad owns a shotgun and a real nice 30.06 rifle. But I don't know where in his house they are. In fact, for all I know, he moved them to the neighbor's house, or down the street to someone else's house.
That's what's happening with the WMD hunt. We know Saddam had the WMDs 12 years ago. Heck, we've got video of the stuff. And we know he didn't destroy his WMDs because neither he nor the UN inspectors ever provided evidence that his WMDs were fully eliminated and his WMD programs fully shut-down. Even Hans Blix says Iraq can't account for tons of the stuff. So we know it was there, and know it hasn't been destroyed. The only thing we don't know is where, exactly, it is right now.
I don't agree with much of what else he has to say in this post, but I would like to focus on an issue Hobbs raises in defense of his position: his claim that he knows his Dad owns a shotgun, but does not know where it is in his house. This seems like a straightforward enough point, but it is actually prone to the same skepticism as are claims that Iraq possesses chemical weapons, in that they both depend upon the reliability of the informant.
Hobbs says he "knows" his Dad has a shotgun - but I don't know that - I have to rely on Hobbs to assure me that it is so. If I trust Hobbs, which I do, then perhaps I too can claim that I "know" that his Dad possesses such a gun (provided we are all willing to ignore any epistemological questions or concerns.) If Hobbs then goes into his father's house but cannot find the gun, I will most likely trust him when he says they have been moved or hidden, and not assume that Hobbs was lying to me.
By the same measure, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc ... all claim to know that Iraq possesses WMDs and claim to have intelligence supporting that position. If I trust them, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they will eventually find these weapons. But if I don't trust them, then I will be more inclined to assume that they were lying to me all along.
Failure to find these weapons does not prove they don't exist - but it certainly isn't making me any more inclined to trust the people I didn't much trust in the first place.
And seeing as we have already checked out most of our best leads and found nothing, it is not unreasonable to suspect that either our intelligence was weak or this administration was intentionally lying.
Update This post has been corrected - the original post repeatedly misspelled Hobbs' name as "Hobbes"
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottum Feeders
Calling the recent rift between Sen. Tom Daschle and his bishop a "grave public scandal," the Weekly Standard's J. Bottum seems barely able to contain his glee. Daschle was recently directed by his bishop to stop calling himself Catholic, due to the his views on abortion. Here's how Bottum reports it in his piece "Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent":
Tom Daschle may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard, directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church. This isn't exactly excommunication--which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson is rather something less than excommunication--and, at the same time, something more: a declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal. He was brought up as a Catholic, and he may still be in some sort of genuine mental and spiritual relation to the Church. Who besides his confessor could say? But Daschle's consistent political opposition to Catholic teachings on moral issues--abortion, in particular--has made him such a problem for ordinary churchgoers that the Church must deny him the use of the word "Catholic."
Note Bottum's smirking use of the term "Washington lobbyist" to refer to Daschle's second wife, a phrase only slightly better than "child molester" in the Weekly Standard's vocabulary. But, I digress.
This drive against pro-choice Catholic senators is not new. The right-wing American Life League has a campaign in place to attack what it calls the "deadly dozen."
What strikes me as contradictory, if not downright hypocritical, is that while Bottum and Daschle's bishop, Robert Carlson, bandy about the phrase "moral coherence" when it relates to Catholic politicians and abortion, but seem unwilling to apply it to other life-and-death issues for the Church, such as the death penalty. A number of Catholic senators, including Rick Santorum (R-PA), John Breaux (D-LA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) are on the record supporting capital punishment, but have not faced rebukes, either from their bishops or the Weekly Standard, on this issue. In fact, Voinovich's only reform regarding the death penalty occurred when, as Governor of Ohio, he signed a bill giving death row inmates the choice between electrocution and lethal injection. Voinovich ran no risk of occupying the moral high ground with that one.
What's more, none of the Senate's Catholics have cosponsored Russ Feingold's bill to abolish the death penalty. Does this qualify as moral incoherence? If so, why hasn't anyone taken the Senators to task for their apathy?
And, if you follow this line of reasoning, you might also wonder why so many Catholic Senators voted to support a resolution from last fall authorizing use of force against Iraq. After all, Pope John Paul II stated his opposition to the Iraqi war in no uncertain terms. You'd also think that this issue might also get Catholic staff members at the Weekly Standard in hot water with the clergy, given the magazine's vocal support for war in Iraq. And, if I were pontiff, I'd be a bit miffed being referred to by the Standard as one of the "losers of the postwar era" in a recent article.
I know this might be a stretch, but perhaps these Senators were simply voting their consciences. If so, its time for right-wing political rags to end their incoherent babble on "moral coherence"
posted by
Noam Alaska at 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They'll Screw You Coming and Going
Well, it seems that American Airlines' unions are fuming. (I'm sure that you are all shocked to hear that unions have something to be mad about.) And chief executive Donald J. Carty is ever so sorry that he didn't disclose the outrageous executive compensation packages while squeezing the airline's rank and defiled to give up their benefits.
Via this All Things Considered segment, aired yesterday, I found that the most recent issue of Fortune magazine is devoted to showing how these bastards get away with it. Check it out. There are seven articles, chock full of nauseating examples of CEO greed and incompetence.
Just so you don't think that reading this will be like choking down cod liver oil, the title of the cover story is: "Have They No Shame? Their performance stank last year, yet most CEOs got paid more than ever. Here's how they're getting away with it." Sounds more like The Nation than Forbes.
posted by
Helena Montana at 1:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Disagree
Both Tapped and Atrios have linked to this Wyethwire post comparing the "failed diplomacy" remarks made by Tom Daschle and Newt Gingrich
"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." Tom Daschle, 3/18/2003
"The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success. The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory." Newt Gingrich, 4/22/2003
Tapped especially sees hypocrisy in Gingrich's statement when compared to the countless allegations of treason leveled by right-wingers at Daschle.
I am not defending Gingrich (in fact, I've already commented on his speech) but I think his statement is markedly different from Daschle's.
Daschle criticized Bush personally for failing to consult, compromise, or in any way work with the global community in order to prevent war in Iraq. The implication is that Bush's policy and the president himself were responsible for the diplomatic failure and resulting war.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is blaming Powell and the State Department for failing to convince the international community to support Bush's policy. It is well known that Powell never fully supported the Hawk's unilateral drive toward war and his attempts to engage the UN angered Bush and his supporters. Thus, Gingrich sees Powell as responsible for the diplomatic failure, and does not question the policy itself or the president.
Those who supported the president and his call for war were angered that Daschle would blame the White House. Now, those who opposed Bush's plan and supported Powell's feeble attempts at diplomatic outreach are angry at Gingrich for blaming the State Department.
I do not see the hypocrisy - Daschle and Gingrich were saying different things and attacking different people.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Central LA Wiped Off the Map
From the BBC
South Central Los Angeles has been removed from the map of LA, in an effort to rid the area of its international image of gang violence and poverty. Members of the Los Angeles City Council passed the move, which has taken many residents by surprise, unanimously. In the future, the historically black suburb will be known as South Los Angeles. By taking the Central out of South Central, the local authority is hoping decades of negative images will be confined to the history books.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let Freedom Reek
The Bush-Cheney Re-Election Campaign is up and running ..... well, sort of. The closest thing to a TV ad for Bush's re-election has been airing on one of America's largest cable networks for over a week and appearing with frequency. The 30-second ad is racking up a lot of "rating points" -- a term media consultants use to measure how many viewers an advertisement is reaching. "Media buy" is another term that media professionals use, but it doesn't apply in this case. Indeed, this ad hasn't cost President Bush or the Republicans a single penny because it's officially a promo ad produced by the cable network MSNBC.
The ad, which features the tagline "Let Freedom Ring," features the spoken words of Vice President Dick Cheney, who pronounces the Iraqi war a noble cause. In the ad, an Iraqi man thanks President Bush by name. Couldn't MSNBC have found a single person who thanked "America" and not "Mr. Bush"?
The MSNBC ad offers a distorted picture of reality, folding nicely into the Bush administration's air-brushed, pre-packaged portrayal of an Iraq that's giddy and overflowing with gratitude for the U.S. One would never guess that any Iraqis were restless, hungry, homeless or hostile toward the U.S. The New York Times isn't reading from the same post-war script. An article in today's edition quoted a 30-year-old Shiite Muslim in Iraqi saying, "Anyone supported by the United States is cursed by us." He and millions of other Iraqis wanted Saddam Hussein out, and now they want the U.S. troops out. In Mosul, U.S. troops who entered the city were not greeted with shouts of "grazie," as another Times article noted. Marine Colonel Andrew P. Frick said the Iraqi locals were downright hostile to Americans. "There was a lot of pushing and shoving. A couple of (marine) drivers were spit on." Clearly, the Bush administration and MSNBC need to talk to this marine and set him straight. Heck, who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?
MSNBC's 30-second, kudos-to-Bush ad also offers no reference to the considerable number of Iraqis in the country's northern region who are being expelled at gunpoint from their homes by Kurds who insist they are simply reclaiming homes that were theirs before Saddam Hussein's regime forced them to leave. Weeks before, Human Rights Watch had warned the U.S. military of this problem and urged them to take "responsibility" for preventing a new wave of expulsions. But America was too busy letting freedom ring to take the necessary actions to head this off. And there's more. Iraqi Christians are deeply fearful of repression that could result from the creation of a fundamentalist Muslim state in Iraq. No doubt, these Christian and newly homeless Iraqis would feel much, much better if only they knew that freedom was ringing out all over their beloved country. Can't they see that? What's wrong with those people?
Interestingly, no one at MSNBC seemed at all sensitive to the fact that hackers who broke into Al-Jazeera's Web site in late March were briefly redirecting surfers seeking the independent Arab network to a new site that featured an American flag and the words: "Let Freedom Ring." As Time magazine's James Poniewozik sarcastically asked, "What better motto for people who shut down a news outlet?"
Even worse, MSNBC has chosen a tagline that is the very title of a book written by hyper-conservative commentator Sean Hannity, who co-hosts Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" program. MSNBC seems to share Hannity's affection for these three words, posting them on its Web site as the headline of an article by Martha Brant. These three words sounded profoundly beautiful when they were spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1963, but a cable network has cynically procured them, stripped them of dignity and used them as if they were selling nothing more than mouthwash.
Perhaps MSNBC is on the right track. The economy's still in the tank so we need to find something to cheer about. Let the parades begin. Sure, serious challenges remain in Iraq. Massive rebuilding must occur, the ambitions of the Shiite majority must be held in check, UN sanctions must be lifted, and thousands who are hurt or homeless urgently need medicine or housing. But we Americans already have plenty to worry about -- like whether our son's next SAT score will reach 1200 or whether we remembered to set the VCR to tape "Six Feet Under." Life is short. Look on the bright side. And let freedom ring.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's Good to be Prepared
From UPI
The Pentagon has produced plans to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant at Yongbyon, if the rouge state goes ahead with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods that would yield enough plutonium for six nuclear weapons, according to a published report Tuesday.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blogcest
I have to take issue with this Chris Mooney post on the war with Iraq, the conclusion of which is
So, here's the deal: I agree with a lot of this, in terms of suspicions of the Bush administration's motives. I don't think invading Iraq was a good next step in the war on terror. I don't think the "neocons in the DOD" care about the welfare of the Iraqis. I don't trust much of anything that the Bush administration does, and I'm dying for them to be kicked out of office. However, I do believe that regime change in Iraq was a sound policy. So did Clinton, so does Tony Blair. So where I differ from J.L. is that I want to consider not the Bush administration's motives but the policy itself. And when I do that, I support it.
First off, I would assume that every thinking and caring person supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal, oppressive dictator who was a danger to the Iraqi people, the region and the world. Nobody opposed "regime change" as such - what they opposed was the motivation behind it and the means by which it was to be carried out. As most everyone would agree that the removal of Hussein's regime in and of itself is/was a good thing, the discussion must focus on Mooney's view that is it possible to support a policy without supporting the motivation of those who are pushing for that policy. As it pertains to Iraq, I have already posted on this theme, but as a philosophical concept, I think this is a dangerous and illogical idea.
Being something of a Kantian, I feel that the actor's motivation and intent are key to deciding when and if their actions are good. To summarize and paraphrase Mooney's conclusion: regime change in Iraq is sound policy, regardless of Bush's reasons for wanting to carry it out. Would Mooney still support regime change if it was revealed that Bush carried it out mainly to get control of Iraq's oil supplies? Or to open up a base from which US forces could then launch similar military attacks against other Mideast regimes? Or to topple Hussein's "Muslim" regime and replace it with a Christian theocracy and convert the country to Christianity? Or to create a new slave trade using Iraqi citizens? These are outrageous hypotheticals perhaps, but all seemingly allowed under Mooney's belief that motivation should not matter. If Mooney supports "regime change" in order to liberate the Iraqi people, then he must admit that motivation does determine the legitimacy of the action because I don't think he would support the "regime change" policy if it was carried out in order to enslave the Iraqi people. In the end, the motivation of those who pushed for "regime change" in Iraq is an important component of determining whether or not their actions were legitimate, moral and justifiable. And this administration has failed on all three counts.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condemned to Repeat
For more than a century, the Department of the Interior has lost, stolen or never collected billions of dollars due to nearly 300,000 American Indians. The most recent twist in the on-going lawsuit stemming from this egregious mismanagement of the trust fund is the revelation that the Interior Department intentionally sanitized a report in an attempt to cover up failures of its Trust Asset and Accounting Management computer system, hoping to make it look like it was working well.
The department's fraudulent reports "were contrived to present a gilded portrait of the TAAMS system and avoid adverse consequences arising from contempt proceedings pending at the time.'' Interior Secretary Gale Norton had already been held in contempt for deceiving the judge about the agency's failure to reform the trust fund and for engaging in "fraudulent conduct" designed to convince him that steps were being taken to fix one of the worst accounting messes in U.S. history while, in reality, doing "virtually nothing."
And so, our long history of breaking our promises continues.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's Play Hardball
There are signs that the Bush administration's hardball tactics for pushing legislation through Congress are losing their effect. Yesterday, Senator John Breaux (D-LA) complained about pressure he'd received from the White House to vote for the Bush tax cut proposal: "Instead of going to war with Congress, you should try to reach an agreement. We went to war with Iraq. You shouldn't go to war with Congress."
The same approach appears to have doomed Bush's faith-based initiative, at least for the time being. Even conservatives are grumbling about how this effort was bungled by the White House. The Hudson Institute's Michael Horowitz grouses, "Once the program was crafted, it was 'We're going with it -- are you with us or against us?'" That formulation sounds an awful lot like Bush's post-911 admonition, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." And, once again, finding a "coalition of the willing" has proven tricky for Bush. Where is Senator Palau when you need him?
posted by
Noam Alaska at 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Onion
Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner Wishes Uganda Had Oil KAMPALA, UGANDA - A day after having his hands amputated by soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime, Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps. "But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane." Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002, then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 8:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 22, 2003 |
|
|
|
Iraqi Oil is for the Iraqis ... and Israel
Again, from our pal N.R., we learn of this
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad. The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria. Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check and Mate
The Liquid List has a great response to this quote in today's New York Times
"Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that [John] Kerry 'is going to have a hard time translating out of New England.' Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, 'He looks French.'"
TLL says
In the spirit of true American patriotism, I'll see your "French" and raise it to "Freedom" (like the toast and the fries). And Kerry sure does look like freedom to me.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cause and Effect
Today, Newt Gingrich gave a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on "Transforming the State Department." I, for one, welcome the speech, as it gives us an insight into the logic that drives the Hawks and serves as the basis for their foreign policy.
In Gingrich's view, the lack of support for the our war in Iraq is entirely the result of the State Department's failure to convince the rest of the world that the war was necessary and proper.
Gingrich's remarks highlight one of the most difficult intellectual obstacles in politics today - the disagreement over what is cause and what is effect. As he sees it
The State Department communications program failed during these five months to such a degree that 95 percent of the Turkish people opposed the American position. This fit in with a pattern of State Department communications failures as a result of which the South Korean people regarded the United States as more dangerous than North Korea and a vast majority of French and German citizens favored policies that opposed the United States.
The fact that Turkey, France, Germany, Russia and nearly every other country on this planet opposed the war is not, according to Gingrich, because Bush was wrong, but because the State Department failed to convince them that Bush was right. The important question to be asked now is whether widespread opposition to the war was the cause or the effect of the State Department's diplomatic failure? Obviously, Gingrich thinks that the case for war was so solid that any opposition to it was the result of some sort of State Department failure. Others could just as easily argue that the case for war was so weak that no arguments and no amount of cajoling could have convinced the rest of the world to support it.
But as Gingrich does not seem to be the sort prone to self-examination or reflection, he is convinced he, Bush, and the rest of the Hawks are right and is thus comfortable claiming that
Despite a pathetic public campaign of hand wringing and desperation the State Department publicly failed to gain even a majority of the votes on the UN Security Council for a second resolution. Opposing America and a world of progress had somehow become less attractive and more difficult than helping America eliminate the fear of Saddam’s wicked regime.
Again, the question of "cause vs. effect" should be raised - were the State Department's poor diplomatic efforts to blame for the failure to secure a second UN resolution authorizing the use of force, or was the administration's total disregard for the reservations or opposition of the global community to blame? Did the State Department cause the second resolution to fail, or was failure the effect of Bush's disdain for the international community and his clear intent to launch a war regardless of any and all opposition? Did Bush's "your either with us or against us" rhetoric cause many nations from refuse to side with the US against a brutal dictator, or was their reluctance the effect of a failed State Department effort?
It is clear where Gingrich stands on this issue. And if history is any guide as to how the question of "cause vs. effect" will be answered by this administration, we need look no further than the State Department, where this issue has already played itself out in a much smaller way: through Charlotte Beers' attempts to revamp American's image across the Arab world.
Beers was nominated to be Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and given the task of promoting a more positive image of the US to Muslims and Arabs around the world. Convinced that the problem stemmed not from US policy itself but from our inability to sell those policies, Beers chose a marketing strategy that stressed American values and beliefs, creating an exchange of common values and demonstrating the opportunities that result from democratization. It failed and she resigned.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd Be Happy to Take Your Questions"
Following up on this Washington Post piece in which Dana Milbank notes
For two years, lawmakers, journalists and watchdog groups have complained that the Bush administration has been stingy with information on everything from energy policy to Iraq rebuilding. But the less-is-more communications approach reached its logical extreme in a pair of briefings in Texas on Thursday and Friday by deputy White House press secretary Claire Buchan. In an exchange of nearly 3,800 words, the spokeswoman managed not to answer about 75 questions.
Here is the transcript of that press briefing - it surely must go down as one of the least informative briefings of all time.
To paraphase Seinfeld: anybody can just take questions, Buchan, you just don't seem to be able to answer them. And that is really the most important part - the answering.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take that, Rupert Murdoch!
Here's a nice little nugget to suck on --
"More people (4 million) tune in to [Jon Stewart's] Daily Show in a given week than watched Fox news at the height of the war (3.3 million)."
Let me get this right-- more people watch a latenight, left-leaning show that MOCKS the news than a 24-hour right-wing tv station that makes a MOCKERY of jounalism?
(Maybe I'll reconsider unpacking those bags I had ready for Canada.)
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploiting 9/11
Bush has already exploited the September 11th attacks in order to raise money and justify a war, so I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that he plans to keep exploiting it to help him get re-elected.
From our friend N.R. we get this New York Times article
President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.
The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2. The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Best and the Brightest
With anti-American sentiment on the rise in postwar Iraq, it's a relief to see that the President is consulting the kind of people who can help to diffuse this tense situation. People like Jerry Falwell, who has referred to the prophet Muhammad as a "terrorist." Here's the scoop from the Washington Post:
Muslims were upset that Franklin Graham, who had condemned Islam as evil, preached at the Pentagon last week. Now comes word that the White House held a private briefing for 141 evangelical Christian leaders March 27 to discuss the Iraq war and other subjects.
Those invited included Jerry Falwell, who apologized last year for calling the prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," and broadcaster Marlin Maddoux, who has proclaimed an "irrefutable connection" between Islam and terror. Also invited were the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is sending food to Iraq labeled "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ," and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said Iraqis are "desperately in need of the gospel." Invited, too, was D. James Kennedy, whose ministry published an article calling Islam "one of the greatest challenges to Christianity."
A White House spokesman said Bush does not share these views and that similar briefings were held for groups such as veterans and think tanks.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 21, 2003 |
|
|
|
Clinging to the Past
When it comes to determining our country's next president, two states have long cast a shadow over the rest. For many years, the Iowa caucuses have been held in each January of a presidential election year, and the New Hampshire primary has followed a week or so later. But other than the all too compelling "we've always done it that way," why should Iowa and New Hampshire wield such a disproportionate influence on the process?
According to U.S. Census data, nearly one in four Americans (24.8%) is either African American or Hispanic. But only 4.9% of Iowa's population is black or Hispanic. In New Hampshire, these two minorities are even more invisible, accounting for only 2.4% of the state's population. And there's more.
The average American is more than twice as likely as a New Hampshire resident to be foreign-born and is more than three times as likely to be foreign-born than the typical Iowan. People in these two states are also much less likely to be living in poverty. The poverty rate in Iowa is roughly 25% lower than the national average, and New Hampshire's poverty rate is barely half the national average.
African-Americans, Hispanics, the poor and those of foreign birth are already underrepresented at the polls and in civic life as a whole. Aren't we simply adding to their marginalization by choosing to give these two states such a powerful role in shaping the campaign and, thus, determining each party's presidential nominee?
The answer to this question would seem to be "no" if you asked Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe. If McAuliffe thinks otherwise, he isn't saying so. No top official (or candidate) in either party has the backbone to publicly question why these two states -- as unrepresentative as they are of the nation as a whole -- would be handed such a major role, while other states that would be far more representative (Illinois, for example) sit on the sidelines and watch.
To their credit, some Democrats have tried to challenge the unwritten rule that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first in the presidential sweepstakes. An April 21 Washington Post article by Dan Balz explained how Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan had pushed to move the primary in his state to the same day as New Hampshire's, Jan. 27. In the end, however, the DNC refused to budge from its wornout embrace of the status quo. Michigan had to settle for Feb. 7.
This isn't just about tradition -- it's about party rules. Sadly, the DNC has actually written into its rules that no other state but Iowa and New Hampshire can hold primary or caucus events before February. This is pitting the national party against Democrats in the District of Columbia, who want to set their presidential primary for Jan. 13, making it first in the nation. No doubt, DNC officials will be playing hardball behind the scenes and may already have threatened D.C. party leaders that any delegates chosen on this pre-Iowa and pre-New Hampshire date will not be seated.
The people of D.C. have no vote in the House and not even a mannequin in the Senate. Will the citizens of D.C. be treated as a pariah by a political party to which they have shown far greater loyalty than either Iowa or New Hampshire? Only Terry McAuliffe knows the answer.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 8:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newsflash! Republican Leaders are Off-Message!!!
In a rare Republican moment, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) and RNC Chairman Mark Racicot aren't reading from the same talking points. It's one of the few issues they're having trouble getting everyone together on-- homosexuality.
While Santorum is comparing "homosexuality" to "incest":
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in an interview published on Monday by the Associated Press... "All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum continued. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."
Racicot recently had a historic meeting with 300 people from the Human Right Campaign which is making professional gay-baiters like the Family Research Council a little nuttier than usual. FRC's president has a hissy fit:
"An RNC spokesman said the chairman was "honored" to meet with HRC and to express "our party's commitment to tolerance and inclusion." Inclusion of what? Inclusion of views that are diametrically opposed to the stated principles of the Republican Party?...Some GOP leaders are so arrogant as to believe pro-family voters have nowhere else to go and that they will continue to vote for Republicans even while the RNC chairman holds secret meetings with the homosexual lobby. Well, pro-family voters do have somewhere else to go - home! (If only!)
Get it straight, guys-- how do you really feel about gay people?
[Note: As a native Pennsylvanian, I've always loved that spellchecker often tries to replace "Santorum" with "sanitarium."]
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 5:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRS Comes Through for GOP
You can't keep a good political funding scam down. Or, at least, that seems to be the message from the IRS. I just received in my cute little Outlook box a message that has confirmed that not one, but 5 martinis will be needed this evening. Apparently, the IRS, that perennial bogeyman of Conservatives, has decided to VINDICATE Newt Gingrich and his cronies for being slimier and snarkier and sneakier and more detrimental to the democratic process than any two-timing Democrat getting hootchie in the Oval Office could ever hope to be.
Unfortunately, I can't link directly to Roll Call, so let me just give ya the hot stuff:
In a remarkable about-face, the Internal Revenue Service has restored the tax-exempt status of two groups whose political activity became the basis of the ethics case against former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga).
The decision to reinstate the tax-exempt status of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation and the Howard H. Callaway Foundation — disclosed in two April 4 letters to the groups — has stunned tax experts who monitor the interaction of charitable and political organizations.
"This is an extraordinary decision," said Fran Hill, a University of Miami tax law professor. "The IRS does not go back and fix things like this. In a reasonable system of tax administration this would not happen. But we of course have a system of tax administration that from time to time is subject to political influence."
The action marks a complete turnaround by the IRS and came despite a U.S. Tax Court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed by the two groups. IRS officials refused to comment on the matter, citing confidentiality concerns.
In the wake of a lengthy investigation by the House ethics committee that led to a formal House reprimand and $300,000 fine against Gingrich, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of the two groups in 1999.
At that time, the IRS said it was imposing its most serious sanction because the two groups operated on behalf of the private interests of the Republican Party and GOPAC, the political action committee once headed by Gingrich.
The activities of ALOF — a charitable organization that effectively operated as a bank account for GOPAC projects — constituted the heart of the ethics case against Gingrich and had been considered a clear-cut example of the kinds of political activities that are forbidden for tax-exempt organizations.
AAARGH!!!!! Here's the best part! We can look forward to a deluge of this kind of crap:
The IRS reversal has "enormous implications" for the future of charitable groups that want to engage in partisan politics, Hill said. "It’s open season for 501(c)3 groups to serve as political conduits," she said.
Gosh, I am SO thankful that McCain-Feingold went through.
posted by
Theora at 5:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He Says F-L-O-R-I-D-A. I Say B-O-R-I-N-G.
The West Palm Beach Post had this to say about the recent campaign forays of one Sen. Bob Graham. This is my favorite paragraph:
He plans to go to Iowa soon to do his first presidential campaign workday on a farm. The Graham family owns Angus cattle and sells bull semen. Graham, who in February had his aortic valve replaced with that of a Holstein cow, believes he has a natural connection to rural Iowa.
posted by
Tyler at 3:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People Who Suck
I realize it is a rather childish title, but then, these are rather childish individuals.
First we learn, via the Globe and Mail, that
Ontario health officials are worried a SARS-infected health care professional who should have known better attended funeral and church services last week and may have infected "hundreds."
At a press conference on Monday morning, Dr. Hanif Kassam, York Region's acting medical officer of health, said the man, who displayed symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome, ignored quarantine advice and attended the services.
When public health contacted the man, who works at an unidentified downtown Toronto hospital, and told him he should have quarantined himself, he became "obnoxious, threatening and belligerent," Dr. Kassam said.
And yesterday my afternoon was essentially ruined, thanks to this Washington Post profile of one Evelyn Y. Davis, who appears to be one of the most unpleasant individuals to inhabit this planet
"You never had a subject like me!" she crows. "You never had an interview like this!"
"People like me are very brilliant and complicated."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the News Through Right-Wing-Tinted Glasses
Columnist Thomas Sowell in the Washington Times says that the news media, especially CNN's Wolf Blitzer, has been far too critical of the Bush Administration in its coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to Sowell, Blitzer is guilty of pointing out that we haven't found any WMD-- yet-- and that the only "good" media has been the embedded journalists who have reported the news the way the government wants it to be reported.
There has been a systematic and persistent emphasis on the peripheral and negative aspects of this war in most of the media. Not only have the editorial office heroes fixed their attention on the little picture, they have accentuated the negative, such as collateral damage during the war and looting by civilians in captured cities... The more remarkable the successes on the battlefield in Iraq, the more desperate much of the media have striven to find something — anything — to complain about. The more the polls have shown overwhelming support for the war and the president by the American people at large, the more the media cover antiwar demonstrations and provide a forum for those who organize them.
This represents the essential communications strategy of the right-- say the exact opposite of what is true and try to convince anyone who will listen that when things are truly going your way that your perspective is being ignored. It's a simple (yet brilliant) strategy-- they use their persecution complex to successfully pressure the "liberal media" into giving them extra coverage of their "underexposed" perspective.
The squeaky wheel does get the grease-- if you always claim you're the underdog even when you're in charge of EVERYTHING then the actual underdog will be ignored.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survivor
What do White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and black disco chanteuse Gloria Gaynor have in common? They both survived. From there, however, these two individuals bear nothing in common. Gloria, of course, crooned the disco-era hit about being dumped by the man in her life, yet surviving the ugliness of it all. The White House Chief of Staff, on the other hand, survived something very different. Card recently told Fox News, "Thankfully, we have a very strong country that survived his leadership." He wasn't speaking of Warren Harding or Richard Nixon, but of Bill Clinton.
While Clinton-bashing is "so 1998" for most Americans, it remains all too fashionable to rabidly conservative GOPers. Clinton-bashing is like that two-toned shag carpeting that your Aunt Martha fell in love with in 1977, dropped on her living room floor, but has never seen fit to replace.
But, more to the point, precisely "what" does Card believe Americans survived? Does he mean to say that, somehow, we Americans survived the 20 million+ jobs that were created during the Clinton years, including the average of some 248,000 new jobs per month -- a record for any presidency? Or that we survived the lowest unemployment rate in three decades? If so, he might also want to note that Americans survived the fastest growth in real wages in decades, and the lowest inflation since the 1960s. Americans even survived seeing a large budget deficit eliminated. We had grown rather fond of all of that red ink, but President Clinton just couldn't leave well enough alone.
Card has plenty of ammunition, not all of which is on the economic front. During the Clinton years, we had to endure the lowest crime rates in 25 years, and Americans were forced to watch the successful Clinton-led effort to end the brutal rampage of Serbian troops in Kosovo. Yes, they were horrendous and difficult times, but somehow we muddled through them.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who's Your Daddy?
Speaking of history...the principles and values of our "founding fathers" are commonly used to justify just about anything either the right or the left puts forth. But somehow, this one hasn't come up much:
Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. Thomas Jefferson
Now, don't get me wrong. Cherry-picked quotes that cater to the slavish worship of historic figures, who as we all know said a whole lot of stuff, are not the basis for a solid argument. On the other hand, I do think that it's incredible that someone as widely quoted as Jefferson seems to be totally ignored when it comes to foreign policy/war and peace. OOH! Here's another nice one from TJ:
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
posted by
Theora at 11:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historians rule!
Well, they left their mark on the Sunday papers at least.
Anthony Lewis has a great piece in the NYT magazine, aptly titled, The Silencing of Gideon's Trumpet. He frames the Bush administration's current "infinite detention" policy in the context of constitutional history, making the complete disregard they have for the Sixth Amendment quite clear.
Laura Secor brings much-needed context to the evangelize Iraq debate in the Boston Globe's excellent Sunday Ideas section. She explains why Protestant missionaries are not likely to have much luck in the Islamic world.
And finally, Adam Hochschild points out just why chaos in the Congo suits the powers that be just fine. He should know, having written the premiere book on the subject, King Leopold's Ghost. I suspect that this is the article most people would skip over, but it's the one that most should read. Here's a teaser:Few Americans...seem to care about stopping a conflict with a death toll larger than any since World War II. Why?
American interest in Africa is erratic, but there is a larger reason that few countries have put much effort into ending this war. Simply, Congo's current situation — Balkanized, occupied by rival armies, with no functioning central government — suits many people just fine. Some are heads of Congo's warring factions, some are political and military leaders of neighboring countries, and some are corporations dependent on the country's resources. The combination is deadly.
posted by
Helena Montana at 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll Just Have to Trust Us
Judith Miller reports in today's New York Times that an Iraqi scientist is telling American troops that Iraq destroyed chemical and biological weapons just days before the war started.
Moreover
The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said.
This might be the "smoking gun" that retroactively justifies Bush's war, less one is bothered by the fact that all of this info is coming to us via the US military. As Miller reports, she "was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials" who "asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted."
Finally, while Miller was not allowed to interview this scientist, "she was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried."
What more proof could you possibly need? Its not like the government would lie about things like this, would they?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, April 20, 2003 |
|
|
|
"Is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf alive ..."
... and working in Washington?
There are reports that Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf may have hanged himself. But if he is still alive, he may want to apply for a job with the Club for Growth.
CFG's single-minded determination to destroy any Republican who may, in any way, oppose the organization's anti-tax agenda has led them to produce a misleading television ad showing Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich standing in front of the French flag.
As the Washington Post reports
Snowe and Voinovich have said they will support only $350 billion of Bush's $726 billion proposal, and their critical votes in the closely divided Senate this month led to a deal aimed at limiting the tax cut to $350 billion. This raised the ire of the Club for Growth, an anti-tax advocacy group with a penchant for throwing political rocks at moderate Republicans.
The TV ads, which will run for 10 days in Maine and Ohio, recall France's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They go on to say "some so-called Republicans," naming Snowe in the Maine ads and Voinovich in the Ohio ads, "stand in the way" of Bush's tax-cutting plans at home. Digitally inserted French flags flutter beside the senators' images.
Apparently, when Club for Growth says "We're trying to get the word out to even the lowest grass-roots level that if you're a Republican you aren't allowed to vote for taxes," they aren't kidding.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter Update
A little over a week ago, I wrote a post about Ann's inability to fact-check her columns, noting that she had claimed that Tariq Aziz was "Saddam Hussein's minister of information." As I pointed out, Aziz was Hussein's foreign minister. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf was the information minister.
Well, it appears as if Ann eventually noticed her error because she has quietly changed the sentence in the column archived on her web page. It now reads "Peter Arnett was fired from NBC for pinch-hitting for Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's minister of propaganda." But she did not bother to issue a correction or attempt to make her readers aware of the change.
So now the question is: did Ann go through the trouble of changing this sentence, only to get it wrong once again? "Minister of propaganda"? If I were inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would assume she was using the title in a figurative manner and that she did not make this obvious, embarrassing error twice in a row.
Knowing her history, I am not inclined to give her that much credit.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 8:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|