Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Saturday, February 07, 2004


Last Nail in the Coffin...

on Dr. Dean's campaign. AFSCME is withdrawing their support.

As an early supporter, I really respected and liked Dean. I think he'll go down in the history books as the "Dean effect" on the 2004 race-- Dean lit a fire under the Democratic Party's belly that could very well lead us to victory in November.

So, thanks for the galvanization, Howie, we really needed it. You played an invaluable role in this election and quite possibly changed the course of history.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 6:39 PM




Those Petty, Partisan Democrats

The Washington Post reports on Democratic objections to the Bush administration's ads regarding the new Medicare bill

At the request of several congressional Democrats, the General Accounting Office has decided to investigate whether the Bush administration is using for political purposes a federally funded $9.5 million television advertising campaign and $10 million worth of brochures about the new Medicare prescription drug law.

The inquiry, initiated by nine Democratic lawmakers, is part of an escalating, multipronged effort by the law's critics to undermine public support for the legislation. The law, enacted three months ago, will add drug benefits to the program and create a larger role in it for private health plans.

So it is not that Democrats are upset because the administration is using tax dollars to run what are essentially re-election ads, its that Democrats just want to destroy the legislation.

That is odd, considering that even the conservative National Taxpayers Union realizes that the ad blitz is nothing but blatant campaign ploy

The Bush Administration's new $12.6 million ad campaign on behalf of the forthcoming Medicare prescription drug benefit drew a swift rebuke today from the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which called the White House's effort a "political and fiscal insult to taxpayers."

"First it was the blimp, and now it's the blitz," said NTU President John Berthoud, referring to the federal government's use of an airship last year to advertise Medicare's information services. "Forcing Americans to pay millions for hyping a program that will eventually cost them trillions is truly a two-handed slap at taxpayers."

Berthoud noted that such a major ad buy ($9.5 million for television and $3.1 million for print, radio, and Internet) for a program that won't actually take effect until 2006 has all the timing of an election-year ploy rather than a genuine public service announcement

Worse, the ads appear deliberately designed to gloss over many taxpayers' concerns that the benefit scheme will worsen Medicare's precarious financial condition.

[edit]

"Late last year, 46 citizen groups representing millions of politically-active Americans urged Congress to reject the fiscally irresponsible Medicare prescription drug proposal," Berthoud observed. "Elected officials failed to heed our warning then, but now they at least have the chance to shut down this anti-taxpayer propaganda mill."

I guess the Post really is part of the "liberal media conspiracy" because if the Democrats had said that, the Post would slam them for their petty political maneuvering. But since conservatives said it, the Post just ignored it entirely.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 5:27 PM




Where the WMD Commission Is Vulnerable

I agree with Arnold's Saturday post -- it's ridiculous to call President Bush's newly announced commission on pre-Iraq war intelligence "independent." Independent would imply that he is not the only one appointing its members, which is not the case. Having said that, I hope that prominent Democrats and presidential candidates will not waste any more soundbites (as Pelosi and Harkin did yesterday) on this line of attack.

There are two major problems with the new WMD commission.

First, most Americans who hear members of Congress whining that Congress should have appointed some of the commission's members will interpret it as more of a battle over turf than anything else. In other words, who cares who names the commission members so long as those serving seem to reflect diverse points of view? Indeed, some have ideological or political affiliations that are distinctly different from the Bushies. Patricia Wald is a former judge on the D.C. Circuit, a Carter appointee. Chuck Robb was a moderate-to-liberal member of the U.S. Senate from Virginia. And Lloyd Cutler was an insider in the Carter and Clinton White Houses. I've heard nothing about Levin, the president of Yale Univ., that makes me feel he's going to be a patsy for the administration; one Yale alumnus tells me that Levin's a Dem. And John McCain, while a GOPer, has often been a thorn in the administration's side.

Second, there are other, more effective reasons to attack the commission:
* SCOPE -- Evidence increasingly shows that the Bush administration overhyped the info they were receiving from the CIA. In some cases, as this Washington Post article notes, Bush officials in 2002 jumped the gun and made assertions before a final intelligence report was issued on Iraq. The commission should have a broader scope and should consider how and why the White House misinterpreted or misrepresented CIA analysts' findings.

* TIMELINE -- The American people deserve at least an interim report (if time makes a full report impossible) before the November election. Putting the delivery of the final report off until two months after the next president is inaugurated is a shameless way for the administration to significantly lessen the potential fallout.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:03 PM




A Dead Giveaway

Want to know whether the panel Bush appointed to investigate pre-Iraq War intelligence is really "independent"?

Here's a hint: he named its members on a Friday afternoon.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:43 PM




Justice for Lord's Army?

See the preceding post for links to Eugene's and Helena's previous discussions of the hideous Lord's Resistance Army. In my in-box today was an e-mail newsletter from the American Society of International Law containing the following item:
International Criminal Court (ICC): Investigation into the Lord's Resistance Army rebel group, Uganda (January 29, 2004)

The Prosecutor of the ICC has determined that there is a sufficient basis to start planning for the first investigation of the ICC into the activities of the Lord's Resistance Rebel group in Uganda for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Good thing the U.S. isn't party to the ICC treaty; I'd hate for us to be involved in actually bringing homicidal monsters to justice. I mean, it's not like we've used that as a pretext for invading Iraq or anything.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:30 PM


Friday, February 06, 2004


Forget About the Kidnappings, Are those Children Having S-e-x?

Uganda has got to be one of the scariest places to be a kid these days. The Lord's Resistance Army has been abducting kids from their homes to become child soldiers, leading to the eerie night commuter phenomenon. Here's a recent update from the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Both Eugene and I have posted about this all before.

But what's our recent government funding bringing to improve the lives of children in Uganda? The Silver Ring Thing. The Kampala Monitor reports.
"What we would bring is the ring and Bible which now cements that decision, giving an African child something to look at as a visible daily reminder that they have made a vow," Pattyn told the BBC Focus on Africa programme on Monday night.

Silver Ring has been holding public rallies in the United States where students vow to stay virgins until marriage in return for a Bible and a silver ring to constantly remind them of their promise.

The organisation believes that total abstinence is the only way to avoid catching sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/Aids. Pattyn said his project has received support from Ms Museveni who has been preaching sexual abstinence to the youth.

Once the US government releases the initial $1.5 million requested for, a ring-making factory is to be built in Uganda to produce rings at a low cost.

"The students themselves will be trained by American jewellers on how to make these rings," Pattyn said.
I can't even wrap my mind around how ridiculous that is.

posted by Helena Montana at 5:36 PM




"For Humanitarian Reasons"

I am currently reading a book by John Dinges called "The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents."

The following section documents the CIA's role in promoting the overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende, which succeeded on September 11th, 1973.

I am sharing it simply because I found it interesting.

A CIA internal memo laid it out in unsparing terms

On September 16, 1970 [CIA] Director [Richard] Helms informed a group of senior agency officers that on September 15, President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime was not acceptable to the United States. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him and authorized up to $10 million for this purpose .... A special task forces was established to carry out this mandate, and preliminary plans were discussed with Dr. Kissinger on 18 September 1970.

To extremists in the military, people like Manuel Contreras and other later placed in charge of security forces, Kissinger and the CIA sent an even more dangerous message that would echo later in Condor operations. The CIA "agreed with" and supported plans by military plotters to kidnap the top commander of the Chilean Armed Forces, an action considered "an essential step in any coup plan." The officer, General Rene Schneider, was shot to death in the operation. Schneider's offense, according to the CIA, was excessive devotion to democracy: "Schneider was a strong supporter of the Chilean constitution and a major stumbling block for military officers seeking to carry out a coup to prevent Allende from being inaugurated."

According to declassified documents, the CIA provided three submachine guns to one group of plotters at 2 a.m. on the day of the kidnapping. The CIA has always insisted that the weapons were never used and that a different group killed Schneider. Weapons and money were also promised to that second group but were never delivered, according to the CIA. The distinction between the two groups seems insubstantial, however, since the CIA never abandoned the tactic of kidnapping the army chief and was providing support to plotters on the same that it actually happened.

The United States thus gave its operational endorsement to acts of terrorism in furtherance of the cause of anti-Communism. It was okay to remove a moderate leader who became a "stumbling block" to the removal of a perceived Communist threat. The message could only have been reinforced when the agency a few weeks later sent $35,000 to one of the kidnappers who had escaped. The reason given: "to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:45 PM




Screwing the Armed Forces

Bush and the Republican Party love to talk about how much they respect and appreciate our armed forces. They sure do have a funny way of showing it...
VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief


Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."

VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.

"This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA. Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment. This is inexcusable, especially when no member of this administration or Congress would wait this long for their health care.

"What the administration is proposing for veterans is a shell game. Veterans are being asked to pay for their own health care to make up for shortages in the budget. We are adamantly opposed to charging veterans an enrollment fee and we are opposed to increasing payments that veterans make for prescriptions and for other health care services, especially when millions of this nation's veterans are already locked out of the system," Banas said. "To ask this nation's veterans to subsidize their health care is outrageous. They have already paid for their health care with their sweat and with their blood.

"This budget indefensibly will not meet the increasing health care needs of our veterans, nor will it lessen the many months they wait for disability benefits.

"As our veteran population ages and service men and women return from Afghanistan and Iraq, we must have a system that meets the health care needs of all veterans. It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields, we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this disgraceful budget. Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's veterans, especially at a time of war," Banas said.

There's a teeny, tiny part of me that is a little glad that both of my grandfathers-- paratroopers in the 82nd airborne during WW2-- aren't still around to witness all of this. Then again, they sure as hell are rolling in their graves.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:39 PM




Rwanda

Tacitus travelled there in December and offers up this excellent post (via The Department of Louise)

If you are interested, you can read excerpts of Romeo Dallaire's book "Shake Hands With the Devil" here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:59 PM




Buried a Thousand Pages Deep

The Center for Budget and Policy says Bush is trying to cover up unpleasant budget information (via the Progress Report)

The President’s budget proposes much larger cuts in domestic discretionary programs than has been generally understood or been reported to date in the media ... By 2009, funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut $50 billion below the 2004 level, adjusted for inflation ... The large majority of domestic discretionary programs throughout the government would be cut, including popular programs that the Administration claims it is increasing based on its funding request for 2005. The cuts generally would start in years after 2005 and grow wider with each passing year.

There is a good reason that these cuts have been overlooked in the initial reporting of what is in the budget. The budget tables that would normally show these cuts are missing from the budget books that OMB issued on February 2. To find these cuts, one must have access to the 1,000-page OMB computer run that covers all budget accounts and underlies the budget.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:26 PM




Welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee: Where The Irony Never Ends

The staffer who resigned in response to the probe into how Republican staff members gained access to Democratic memos has filed an ethics complaint

The senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who resigned in the investigation of leaked Democratic Judiciary Committee strategy memos has filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee.

In a letter delivered to the committee Friday morning, Manuel Miranda says he has read "documents evidencing public corruption by elected officials and staff of the United States Senate."

Miranda says the evidence of wrongdoing is contained in previously undisclosed Democratic memos obtained by Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Fourteen of those memos were leaked to the press last November. Two sources familiar with the memos tell NRO there were dozens of additional memos - perhaps as many as 100 - that were downloaded by Republicans but never made public.

[edit]

Miranda says the proof of his allegation is contained in Democratic documents downloaded between 2001 and 2003 by a young GOP Judiciary Committee staffer. Those documents are on a computer hard drive which was seized by the Senate's sergeant-at-arms as part of the investigation into the leaked memos.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:06 PM




A Sign of the Apocalypse?

I am approvingly citing Ann Coulter.

Former front-runner Howard Dean sat out this week's primaries, but still managed to make news by ridiculing the FCC's plan to investigate MTV's halftime show at the Super Bowl. Dean pronounced the proposed investigation "silly." He explained that, as a doctor, a naked breast is "not exactly an unusual phenomenon for me."

That's an interesting standard. Presumably a primetime exhibition of Janet Jackson having a full pelvic exam and pap smear would not be "exactly an unusual phenomenon" for Dean either. Let's just be grateful Dean's not a proctologist.

That is actually funny.

I feel so ashamed.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:44 AM




In a Parallel Universe

Bush vows to take on North Korea. Here is the statement

America also confronted a gathering threat in North Korea. The dictatorship of Kim Jong Il was one of the most brutal, corrupt, and dangerous regimes in the world. For years, the dictator funded terrorists and gave reward money for suicide bombings. For years, he threatened and he invaded his neighbors. For years, he murdered innocent North Koreans by the hundreds of thousands. For years, he made a mockery of United Nations' demands that he account for his weapons. For years, Kim Jong Il did all these things. But he won't be doing any of them this year. Instead, he's sitting in a prison cell. And he will be sitting in a courtroom to answer for his crimes.

[edit]

We had a choice: either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time. September the 11th, 2001 was a lesson for America, a lesson I will never forget, and a lesson this nation must never forget. We cannot wait to confront the threats of the world, the threats of terror networks and terror states, until those threats arrive in our own cities. I made a pledge to this country; I will not stand by and hope for the best while dangers gather. I will not take risks with the lives and security of the American people. I will protect and defend this country by taking the fight to the enemy

Obviously I simply changed all of Bush's references to Iraq and Hussein to North Korea and Kim Jong Il, but everything listed (outside of funding suicide bombers) applies to both. As such, when can I expect the US to invade North Korea?

Also, I found this passage particularly ironic

And as we began to recover from that, we discovered that some of our fellow citizens forgot what it meant to be a responsible citizen. In other words, they didn't tell the truth. They didn't tell the truth to their employees, and they didn't tell the truth to their shareholders. And that affected the confidence of our economy. By the way, we passed laws to hold those corporate criminals to account. They will understand now that there is a consequence for not telling the truth.

Clearly he was blaming companies like Enron for "not telling the truth," but the same allegations could just as well apply to his own administration.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:31 AM




There's Just no Beating Around the Bush

Bush's support is slipping, slipping, slipping. A new poll shows that only 37% say they'll vote to re-elect him and 43% say they'll "definitely" vote for someone else.
"I think he's run the country into the ground economically, and he comes out with these crazy ideas like going to Mars and going to the moon," said Richard Bidlack, a 78-year-old retiree from Boonton, N.J., who says he voted for Bush in 2000. "I'm so upset at Bush, I'll vote for a chimpanzee before I vote for him."

Apparently it's not just liberals who "hate" Bush...
And for the best part!
Bush's 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father's at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:37 AM


Thursday, February 05, 2004


The Myth of Lieberman's Decency

Pretty much everyone I know is deliriously happy that the Joementum Express has finally sputtered to it's end. Apparently, a little wind-up engine doesn't get you very far, and it's just as well considering that the GOP incumbent is running on jet fuel.

In fact, I was at a Washington bar where everyone was gathered around the widescreen to watch the results on Tuesday night, and the only time the crowd actually cheered and clapped was when the first Joebituary passed at the bottom of the CNN screen. Yeah, it was pretty heartwarming.

It's not much of a stretch to say that Democrats do not like the man. But I don't hear many people articulating why, except for vague mentions of him being too conservative. And I think he is, but that's not really why I dislike him. I dislike him because, like William Bennett, he claimed this halo of moral decency and showboated against paper tiger examples of cultural depravity. Well, I just want to make sure we remember Joe for the campaign that brought him into the Senate.

Surely I'm not the only one who remembers how he got to the Senate? He ran to the right of a honorable and decent Republican incumbent, Lowell Weicker. And as this piece points out, he did it with a pretty sleazy ad.
An animated bear portrayed the portly Weicker as hibernating in the woods, skipping Senate votes and leaving the cave only for as long as it took to find some honey, or speaking fees. Lieberman characterized his opponent, essentially, as fat and lazy.

Weicker turned the other cheek, and lost. He recently declined to talk about that stinging defeat.

The spots helped Lieberman squeeze out a 10,000-vote victory in one of the year's biggest upsets and take his political career to the next level -- Washington.
Goodbye and good riddance.

Update: I see here that Weicker was a Dean endorser.

posted by Helena Montana at 6:17 PM




Stephen Breyer, je vous accuse!

I have found, as the White House flaks would put it, proof positive of that there are French-influenced officials spreading evil at the highest levels of our government.

Stephen Breyer--one of only two Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, someone who voted against the Dear Leader's accession to the throne in Bush v. Gore, supported the homosexual agenda in Bowers and Lawrence, and has sided with women, the elderly, the disabled, and even patent holders against the sovereign states in numerous cases--delivered this address in French at the Troisième congrès de l'Association des cours constitutionnelles ayant en partage l'usage du français.

What's worse, in light of the Supreme Court's disturbing new tendency of reading the opinions of constitutional courts in other countries, Breyer said:
Le sujet exact de cette conférence concerne le principe de la fraternité au sein des Constitutions. On s'attend à dire qu'un tel principe n'existe pas dans la Constitution américaine - jusqu'à ce que l'on commence à penser sérieusement au sujet. Alors l'on se rend compte que le principe de la fraternité se manifeste au fond de la Constitution américaine. Certes on ne peut jeter aucun coup d'oeil sur le terrain du droit américain sans le trouver partout.
And he gave examples:
Aussi trouve-t-on le principe de la fraternité au coeur de certaines matières constitutionnelles spécifiques telles que la discrimination positive, ce qu'on dénomme "affirmative action." Ma Cour est actuellement en train de décider si certains critères d'admission à l'université, critères qui procurent des avantages à des personnes appartenant à des races ou à des nationalités minoritaires enfreignent la disposition de la Constitution qui défend aux États de priver les individus d'une protection égale devant les lois. Nous avons reçu plus de cent mémoires de groupes différents exprimant des positions juridiques différentes au sujet de cette question.
Alors! Orrin Hatch should be notified; impeachment proceedings, and a full investigation of French influence on our judiciary, must begin toute suite.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:22 PM




The MisLeaders in the Bush White House

Arnold's most recent post shares several statements in which the Bush administration misled the public about the existence of WMDs in Iraq. He wondered aloud whether these statements were collected on a single website -- the answer is "yes." The folks at ElectronicIraq.net have reprinted this list of statements that first appeared in The Chicago Tribune. The National Network to End the War Against Iraq has produced a similar document.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:04 PM




Tenet's Speech Raises New WMD Questions

The Associated Press reports on this morning's long-awaited speech by CIA Director George Tenet:
"In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat."
Very interesting. If the intelligence experts weren't reporting "an imminent threat," why was the Bush administration?

In his speech today at Georgetown University, Tenet said of CIA intelligence analysts: "No one told us what to say or how to say it." Two reactions. First, I'm not sure that I believe Tenet. As Sidney Blumenthal wrote in The Guardian (London, UK) last Nov. 1st:
"Early last year, before Hans Blix, chief of the UN team to monitor Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, embarked on his mission, Wolfowitz ordered a report from the CIA to show that Blix had been soft on Iraq in the past and thus to undermine him before he even began his work. When the CIA reached an opposite conclusion, Wolfowitz was described by a former state department official in the Washington Post as having ‘hit the ceiling.'"
But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume Tenet is telling the truth. That still doesn't settle the issue. After all, telling intelligence analysts what to say is only one way to politicize intelligence. Another way is to take what the analysts have given you and reinterpret it when speaking to the public, the UN, etc. Tenet's speech seems to suggest that this is what happened.

While Tenet insists that CIA analysts did not speak of "an imminent threat," the Bush administration did all it could to make the threat from Iraq seem imminent. Consider the following:
"To ignore (Saddam Hussein's) threats is to encourage them -- and when they have fully materialized, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to terrorize and dominate the region, and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group."
President Bush, weekly radio address, Sept. 28, 2002

"Should we wait until the people inside Iraq who are ready to help us give up hope? Or should we wait until Saddam Hussein finishes preparing weapons of mass terror -- weapons that will further endanger our troops, or which he can use on the Iraqi people as he has in the past? Those very weapons are the source of our concern."
Deputy Defense Sec. Paul Wolfowitz, address to the VFW, March 11, 2003
If the CIA wasn't telling them the threat was imminent, then why was the Bush inner circle saying that to the American people?

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:47 AM




Liars?

In comments to this post, our federalist friend Steve takes me to task for saying that Bush lied. I'm betting there's some liberal website out there that has compiled a list of false statements about Iraq, along with the evidence that what was said was known to be false. I'd appreciate it if someone could point the way to that site (if it exists).

But in the meantime, I coincidentally happened across this tidbit shortly after responding to Steve's criticism.
“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”
—Report of International Atomic Energy Agency Director Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council, 3/7/03

“We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
—Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, nine days later

“Yeah, I did misspeak. We never had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon.”
—Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/14/03
Now, this is Cheney, not Bush. But for Steve and any other conservatives out there, this gives you a flavor of the kind of thing we liberals have been noticing, week after week, month after month, from this administration, that has caused us to conclude that they're a bunch of liars.

Sure, there are absolute partisans on both sides who will think the worst of the folks on the other side (and see no evil in their allies) no matter what happens. I don't think I'm like that--and Steve's comment was quite gracious in suggesting he doesn't think I'm like that either. Still, it's probably natural that I'm more likely to perceive malfeasance by politicians whose policies I disagree with than with those I support. But I don't think that's what's happening here. I genuinely think this administration's lies have been so frequent and so brazen that any fair and disinterested observer would have to conclude they have "truth issues."

It started with the campaign, when Bush repeatedly misrepresented what his own documents said about his plan to "save" Social Security. Maybe the first few times could be chalked up to wishful thinking--speaking off the cuff, he said what his audience wanted to hear and what he hoped would be true, not realizing that he was mistaken. But after opposing candidates and the press pointed out that the things he was saying were false, and he just kept saying them, you had to conclude that he was either willfully lying or incompetent. And when Gore correctly pointed out the indisputable numerical facts in the debate and Bush responded with his jibe about Gore "inveting the calculator" (thus perpetuating the falsehood that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet) and accused Gore of using "fuzzy math," there could no longer be much doubt: Bush didn't care about the truth and didn't think he needed to admit it when he was caught in a lie. He's still the same, still unwilling to admit even that he was mistaken about Iraq; he's completely passing the buck to the intelligence agencies and ignoring the actions of his own administration.

This was the guy who was supposed to bring honor back to the White House. After three years, there's no reason to withhold judgment any longer: George Bush has no integrity.

posted by Arnold P. California at 11:34 AM




Mitt on Marriage

In today's Wall Street Journal, Massachusett's governor Mitt Romney offers what he calls a "citizen's guide to protecting marriage." Most of what he says is boilerplate stuff for the anti-gay marriage crowd--warnings about "activist judges," the endorsement of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, etc. However, one passage caused me to raise an eyebrow:
With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

I'd say it's more than a stretch to equate the Dred Scott decision sanctioning slavery with the Massachusetts ruling that gay couples have the same rights as straight ones.

Even more bizarre, in the print and online editions of the Wall Street Journal, Romney's piece is accompanied by a picture of Lincoln:



Line drawings such as this are a WSJ trademark. However, the drawings usually portray either the author of the piece or a person discussed at length in the story. In Romney's op/ed, Lincoln is mentioned in passing (given about as much ink as Bill Clinton). Is the image supposed to suggest that Lincoln would endorse banning gay marriage?

Okay, maybe I'm being too sensitive. I'm sure no one on the Right would ever argue that liberals had perverted Honest Abe for their political purposes.

[Note: The WSJ.com version of Romney's piece requires a paid subscription. A free version, sans Lincoln drawing, is available on OpinionJournal.com.]

posted by Noam Alaska at 10:54 AM




Pretty Damn Evil
An overseas Internet site is shipping counterfeit versions of a popular Johnson & Johnson birth control patch, versions that won't provide any protection against pregnancy, federal health officials warned Wednesday.

Do not use Ortho Evra patches -- or any other drugs -- ordered from the Web site www.rxpharmacy.ws the Food and Drug Administration warned.
Granted, it's not big-league insane dictator evil, but still...

posted by Helena Montana at 9:12 AM


Wednesday, February 04, 2004


If It's Good Enough for the Gipper...

Seems like only yesterday (actually it was four months ago) that everyone was up in arms about CBS' "The Reagans" miniseries. The media complained that the show portrayed the Gipper as being--gasp--insensitive regarding AIDS and withdrawn. There was talk of boycotts. All the cable talk shows--Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly, Hardball, Buchanan & Press, Capital Gang--went on at length about how unfair it was to portray Reagan in non-heroic terms. The Washington Times accused CBS of "smearing Reagan's legacy." The Wall Street Journal said the movie was "pure, and nasty, fiction" that was "not ready for prime time. Due to the intense pressure, CBS decided not to air the program. Instead, it ran on a sister network, premium cable channel Showtime.

I'm sure that all the righteous indignation brought to bear on "The Reagans" will now be directed toward the History Channel for producing a "documentary" accusing LBJ of involvement in JFK's assassination.

posted by Noam Alaska at 5:27 PM




Coming Attractions?

Tim Wildmon of the nutty American Family Association apparently has an inside scoop, "And as of yesterday, we have assurances from the White House that President George W. Bush is going to announce very soon that he is wholly and fully supportive of a federal marriage amendment." This group is one of the few "old school" anti-gay groups that says exactly what they think-- all that "homosexual agenda" nonsense. (If you don't know them, the AFA also got a little help from the blogosphere recently with their anti-gay marriage poll they were going to deliver to congress until it didn't give them the answers they wanted.)

Dems need to get on the offense and frame this issue FAST before the Republicans club them to death with it. However, I'm glad it's starting up this early. America's attention can be diverted to this issue for a little while, but the bottom line is that Bush is sinking and the Democratic candidates don't support gay marriage anyways. All of the people who don't like Bush aren't suddenly going to vote for him based on this one single issue. As for the "undecided moderates," this issue won't do much to attract them either. It might get the Right breathing hot and heavy, but that doesn't take much, now does it?


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:20 PM




Move On

MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group with the increasingly high profile, began during the Clinton impeachment controversy. Its name came from what was initially its only issue: advocating that Congress censure Clinton and move on to other things.

Now, they're calling on Congress to censure Dubya for lying about WMD. At first blush, two obvious objections came to me: a Republican Congress will never do it; and who really cares about a purely symbolic gesture anyway? And then a third: if censure was what they advocated for Clinton's misdeeds, surely lying our way into war should merit something more severe.

But, on reflection, I think this is a worthy cause, and it won't take more than a couple of minutes of your time to sign their petition and have messages in your name transmitted to your Congressman and Senators. It's always worthwhile to point out the rank hypocrisy of the governing elite in Washington, and the silence from the Republican establishment that only five years ago put Clinton on trial (literally) for lying about a peripheral issue in a civil lawsuit is deafening.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:15 PM




VA Lawmakers Reject Confederate History Month

A few hours ago, the Virginia Senate voted to kill a resolution that would have re-created Confederate History Month in the state. This vote follows a state Senate committee's favorable 11-3 vote on Jan. 29 that sent the proposal to the Senate floor.

Proponents of the Confederate History Month in Virginia were seeking to undo a March 2001 decision by the state's previous governor, Republican Jim Gilmore, to change the official name of this proclamation to "Civil War History Month."

Gilmore's decision angered a host of right-wingers, states' rights cheerleaders, and others who, regardless of ideology, insist on trying to romanticize the South's rebellion. Bragdon Bowling, a top official with the Virginia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, had called Gilmore's decision for "honoring people who invaded this state and murdered, raped and pillaged."Ah, now I get it. Ulysses Grant was really the 19th century's Genghis Khan, and no Southern troops ever took liberties with women or property. The anarchic-libertarian government-haters at LewRockwell.com were also apoplectic. Proving that hell hath no fury like a revisionist scorned, David Dieteman at LewRockwell.com wrote:
"The state which Lee and Jackson defended ... has turned its back on them.

"... Surely, if Gilmore is a 'conservative,' he must be interested in conserving the history of his state."
Uh, dude, I hate to break the news to you, but I don't think political "conservative" equates to "one who wants to conserve." If that were the case, conservatives would be rabid proponents of environmental conservation. Last time I checked, that wasn't the case.

Dieteman signed off his diatribe with these words:
"Goodbye, history. Hello, 1984."
Only the Right could interpret the rewording of Confederate History Month in Virginia as the wholesale destruction of history. Talk about histrionics.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:43 PM




What is Reasonable?

Dahlia Lithwick weighs in on the Cheney-Scalia duck hunt and, in doing so, notes that Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Sec. 455 of the US Code reads

Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Which, I suppose, explains why Scalia's response to allegations of impropriety was "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

That is odd, because I am currently questioning Scalia's impartiality.

But then again, I am pretty unreasonable.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:00 PM




A Man Who Knows Something About Nipples Focuses on a More Important Media Issue

Yesterday, while most of the American press was covering Boobgate (if I were a Republican, I'd make a joke here about the rest of the press covering the boobs who are running for the Democratic nomination), Larry Flynt of Hustler fame lost a First Amendment case in the D.C. Circuit.

Apparently, there may actually be some reason to get Hustler for the articles, to paraphrase the old joke about Playboy. Hustler has published a number of articles by its reporter on the ground in Afghanistan, including one stemming from his accompanying U.S. troops on a search for al Qaeda operatives (or analysts, I can't remember which). When the invasion began and the rest of the press was dutifully accepting the information being fed to them by the armed forces, Flynt requested that his reporter be given access to American troops who were already in-country--in other words, to be, as it would later be known in Iraq, embedded. The Defense Department refused, noting that the only troops on the ground in Afghanistan at that point were special operations forces involved in very dangerous activities. So Flynt sued.

He lost, as I think he should have. As important as it is for citizens to have access, via the press, to unvarnished information about what our military is up to, courts have to show some deference to the military's judgments about what measures it can reasonably take to accomodate reporters. Based on the D.C. Circuit's opinion, it doesn't seem as if Flynt was able to make any kind of showing that would throw doubt on the rationale he was given, namely that Special Ops weren't in a position to offer protection to embedded journalists (though Flynt's reporter was free, if he wanted to try it, to hire a truck, head into Afghanistan, and try to cover the war on his own). It seems that what Flynt wanted was a rule that the press automatically has access to troops in battle, irrespective of the operational details. That surely isn't required by the Constitution, so he lost.

But at least he was trying, unlike the more respectable press, to get a view of the war other than the one the government wanted to give us.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:51 PM




"Thanks for Volunteering for a Program I'm Cutting"

The Bush administration's new budget proposes to eliminate the Even Start literacy program. Federally funded Even Start is designed to help both children and parents to build or improve reading skills. The idea is simple: Children in homes with illiterate parents will acquire reading skills at a slower pace; helping their parents learn how to read will accelerate the same learning by their kids.

Now, Bush wants to ax the program. But, two years ago, you'd have almost thought Bush wanted to increase funding for Even Start.

Consider this history: in the spring of 2002, President Bush journeyed to New Mexico and lavished praise on Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with Even Start. In a story published on April 29, 2002, the Associated Press (AP) reported on Bush's visit and quoted his words:
"One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself ... Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important ... And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve."
Two months before Bush's visit, on Feb. 4, 2002, the AP reported on a Bush proposal "to slash funding 20 percent for the Even Start program, which offers tutoring to preschoolers and literacy and job training for their parents" -- yes, the very program for which Salazar volunteered her time and won Bush's praise.

In a normal world, one might expect the media to report this shameless hypocrisy -- Bush seeking a photo-op that was made possible from a program he'd proposed cutting only about 90 days earlier. But I guess the folks over at FOX News just wouldn't consider that to be "fair and balanced." If Bush has his way, the issue will be moot since Even Start will be dead.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:19 PM




Bush Does Have a Primary Opponent: Meet Bill Wyatt

President Bush may not be losing any sleep that he has a little-known, no-name opponent in the GOP presidential primaries. But that hasn't stopped the cantankerous Bill Wyatt from seeking votes from Republicans -- even though he often sounds a lot like a populist Democrat. One thing I like about this guy: Like most of us, he's never served in the military and actually says so unapologetically.

Yesterday, Wyatt managed to capture a surprising 10% of the vote in the Oklahoma GOP primary, winning more votes than Democrats Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich combined. Not bad for someone who's not running TV or radio ads. Was it a protest vote? Did any of these 6,600 voters Wyatt's ideology is hard to pin down. He's quite anti-war, but, according to this article from the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, Wyatt is also "protesting Bush's policies toward illegal immigrants."

On his rather unorthodox campaign website, Wyatt (he's from Los Angeles) shares his views about the military and foreign affairs. Although he's grammatically challenged, Wyatt espouses views on the military that (while stated rather bombastically) I sort of find appealing:
"I can start a campaign based on my non-service in the military. I fought no wars and don't plan on fighting any in the future. I use my brains to avoid conflict.

"What is this macho crap? Joining the military and shooting people is like going to the fair, they'll let anybody in and give you a gun, big deal. The reason why [Bush's and Kerry's] military service is no [sic] credible is that they both pursued the service for credentials. I respect those that joined the military because they wanted to further their education more than these two bozos. Please stop posturing with your military service so that we can think about the reality of solving problems without using the military.

"I can't believe this (Congressman Billy) Tauzin guy either, quitting right away. If I get elected I'll renegotiate that Prescription benefit right away and ban Halliburton from any future contract while I'm at it. We've got to stop these exploitive forces from looting our government."
And you thought Howard Dean sounded angry?


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:50 PM




We Are as Dangerous as Terrorists

Sean Hannity has a new book coming out soon.

The title?

"Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism"

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:11 PM




News Flash

The Massachusetts high court just ruled that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples - rather than civil unions - are constitutional.

Consider the ante on this issue officially upped. We're not playing for just nickels anymore. In mid-May, "legal" gay marriage will be a reality for the first time in this country.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 12:06 PM




Primary Annoyances

Please wake me when it's over -- the primary process, that is. Watching CNN's coverage last night was a test of the bounds of human patience. Some stream-of-consciousness observations:

1) Who Chairs the D.C. Chapter of the Mean-To-Dean Club?

I'm beginning to think the answer is CNN's Judy Woodruff. I've been more than willing to use this blog to take a shot at Howard Dean's strange decisions and verbal diarrhea, but Woodruff always seems to have it out for the former Vermont governor. Almost anything Dean says or does receives a pissy comment from the usually milquetoast Woodruff.

Last night, she pointed out that Dean was addressing supporters in Washington state and wondered whether Dean's decision not to remain behind in one of Tuesday's 7 primary or caucus states signaled that he had "given up" on the voters in those states. Earth to Judy Woodruff: Making a speech in St. Louis or Albuquerque at 8 or 9 p.m. would be too late to influence the voting in those states anyway. Far from giving up, Dean was focusing on Washington state -- where he probably has the best shot of breaking through next Saturday with a 1st or 2nd place finish. Interestingly, John Kerry delivered his speech last night in Washington state, but Woodruff either missed or ignored that fact.

I agree with this blogger who referred to a Woodruff-Dean interview as evidence that she is "nothing but contemptuous of Dean."

2) Dole Flacks for the Prez

Last night, CNN's "special edition" of the Larry King Show was not terribly special. It featured the same dull, monotoned stuffed suits who gave commentary on the night of the New Hampshire primary: Bob Woodward of the Washington Post and crusty GOPer Bob Dole. Woodward is smart and a talented writer, but TV is not a place where he shines. Why? Woodward's cadence is slow and labored, he wears specs the size of a welder's glasses, and he speaks in a twang that makes you wonder if he's Mary Matalin's cousin.

Then there's Dole. The man whose TV testimonials helped launch (pardon the pun) viagara practically choked back tears at the news that Joe Lieberman was leaving the race. No shock there. Dole and fellow GOPers were hoping that the general election would feature two Republicans, not just one. But, as they say, Lieberman, like Elvis, has "left the building."

What annoyed me about Dole's commentary was that he was asked by Larry King if he had a question for John Edwards; he did. Dole whined about DNC chief Terry McAuliffe's statement that George W. Bush was AWOL during his national guard service, and Dole asked if Edwards would repudiate McAuliffe's remarks. Edwards artfully dodged the question. While the Democratic candidates shouldn't make this issue a centerpiece of their message, neither should they repudiate or criticize McAuliffe for one of the few times he has shown some backbone. In 2000, the press paid scant attention to Bush's military record (or the lack thereof) -- nothing even remotely close to the lengthy coverage of Clinton's efforts to protest or avoid serving in Vietnam.

3) "We Got Our Ass Kicked, But, Hey, We Beat Lieberman"

This isn't a CNN item, but it relates to Tuesday's primaries. The Rev. Al Sharpton was banking his hopes on a victory or a close 2nd in the South Carolina primary, where nearly half of the Democratic electorate is African American. (Jesse Jackson won the state's primary in 1988.) Sharpton not only failed to place 1st or 2nd, but he finished a very distant 3rd -- garnering 9.6% of the vote. Any sane person would call this a poor outcome, but this is politics, a world where candidates declare themselves "very pleased" to have been pissed on by the voters. This morning, NPR aired the following soundbite in which Sharpton explains why his SC performance was so remarkable:
"If I told you when you came on the road with me (to SC) that I'd double Howard Dean and triple Joe Lieberman, you'd have thought I was on crack."
Yes, Al, we would. And we do.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:47 AM




More Budget Cut Details

From the NYT

Among other actions, it would eliminate $34 million spent to help pay for secondary school counselors; $30 million for a program in schools to combat alcohol abuse; $38 million for projects to provide employment services to people with disabilities; and $18 million for a national writing project.

The administration also called for reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's budget for modernization of the air traffic system by $393 million. The Internal Revenue Service, which is struggling to crack down on abusive tax shelters and outright cheating, would see its budget for modernization reduced from $388 million to $285 million.

Despite proposing a big increase in spending on domestic security, the administration is also proposing cuts in federal grants to local police, fire and emergency rescue departments. Money for so-called first responders would be cut from $4.4 billion this year to $3.5 billion next year.

The idea that Bush would cut $100 million from the IRS is so irresponsible and counter-productive that it makes my head swim.

You'd think that since we are losing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to tax cheats, Bush would be willing to invest a little in the IRS to get it back. Seeing as we are facing massive deficits, shouldn't we be investing the money we have in ways that are going to improve our financial situation?

This is simply unbelievable. But then again, since every one of Bush's business ventures lost money while he got bailed out by sweetheart deals, I am not surprised that he isn't concerned with the basic rules of investing.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM




The Nation's "Subdued" Job Growth

There has been much talk about the jobless recovery -- major economists who predicted net job growth of 100,000 to 130,000 in December were stunned to find an anemic growth of only 1,000 across the entire country (i.e., an average of only 200 new jobs per state). But if the economy isn't producing many new jobs, what about existing jobs? How are those workers doing? Not so well.

A few days ago, the U.S. Labor Department released figures that got little play in the media. According to the Associated Press:
Workers' wages and benefits grew by 0.7 percent in the final quarter of 2003 -- the smallest quarterly increase in a year -- as companies still uncertain about the durability of the economic recovery kept a close eye on their bottom lines.

The 0.7 percent increase marked the smallest gain since the fourth quarter of 2002 and was down from a 1 percent gain in the previous quarter, according to the Labor Department report released Thursday.
Although the AP story noted that "the pace of layoffs is stabilizing," it also revealed just how isolated and out of touch the policymakers at the Federal Reserve are.

According to the AP, officials at the Federal Reserve issued a statement after their meeting last Wednesday that included the amazing understatement that "new hiring remains subdued ..."

Subdued? When new jobs fall 99% short of economic forecasts, that's more than subdued. In the world of understatements, that's kind of like saying that Osama bin Laden "has a testy side."

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:12 AM




Marital Troubles

The Right is funneling tons o' money and resources into Massachusetts because, according to the Family Research Council, "All of us agree that protecting marriage is the most important domestic issue in the presidential electionis the most important domestic issue in the presidential election." The "all of us" they're referring to is all of their fun, untrustworthy band of demagogues-- the Coalition for Marriage. This delightful coalition is a "marriage" of over twenty organizations, bound together in unholy matrimony by their overwhelming resentment of gay people. They're hoping to convince enough state legislators to get their "Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment" approved on February 11th at the Massachuetts constitutional convention. They would consider this a major victory.

Please take a minute to counter their efforts by going here. Hey, at the very least, if they lose this early battle, it would be fun to sit back and watch them all transform into Chicken Little and get all apocalyptic. (After all, everyone knows that heterosexual marriage is the only thing holding up the sky!)

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:58 AM




AWOL

From the Washington Post

The White House, the Republican Party and the Bush-Cheney campaign mounted a choreographed defense yesterday of President Bush's attendance record in the National Guard and denounced Democrats for raising questions about his service.

[edit]

Bush's aides did not release new information to clear up questions about a one-year gap in the public record of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Bush and his aides have said he reported to an Alabama unit during the period, from May 1972 to May 1973.

No paper record has surfaced that documents Bush's attendance. A former officer of the Alabama unit, to whom Bush was supposed to have reported, repeated on Monday to The Washington Post his assertion that he could not recall seeing Bush on the base. The officer, retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, hedged from a similar statement he made to the Boston Globe in 2000, saying he could not recall if he had been on base much at that time.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe accused Bush this week of being "AWOL" -- absent without leave. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential front-runner, told reporters in Tucson on Monday: "It is up to the president and the military to answer those questions."

Officials in both parties said Kerry, a Vietnam War hero, is much better positioned to exploit this issue than was Vice President Al Gore in 2000, even though Gore served in Vietnam as an Army journalist. Kerry, asked Monday whether he would try to make Bush's military record an issue, replied: "I haven't made up my mind."

[edit]

After McClellan's briefing, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot issued a statement saying Kerry is "supporting a slanderous attack" by not repudiating the McAuliffe comments. "By embracing this line of attack, Senator Kerry has made clear that he will accept and promote character assassination, innuendo and falsehood even when he doesn't have all the facts," Racicot said.

In other words, Racicot is furious that Kerry is co-opting the RNC's favorite tactic.

But I can't help but think that if the media had paid this much attention to the issue when it was raised in 2000, we wouldn't have had all of these problems over the years.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:55 AM




Early Candidate for Quote of the Year
"There's now going to be an FCC investigation into the nipple."
--Tom Freston, CEO of MTV Networks.

I think this really captures the reason for the shock. Sure, the children who watch football on TV see repeated shots from beneath of cheerleaders' bouncing mammaries, and the commercials are full of pneumatic bimbettes in bikinis that barely cover anything, but--my God--how can the Republic surivive when kids know that women have nipples?

I'm glad, though, that FCC Chaiman Michael Powell will now have something to distract him from his main job, which is handing over as large a share of the American market as possible to the man who brings this titillating news (un)coverage to the UK every morning. Although, to be fair, the Page 3 girls are covered up by something, namely Page 1. Here's today's front page:



Phew! Can't see her nipples, so that's OK, then.

posted by Arnold P. California at 9:52 AM




Muscular Justice



This is Faith Ireland, a Justice of the Washington Supreme Court and holder of age-group records in the squat and bench press. She won four events at last week's Women's National Powerlifting Championships.

No wonder she plies her trade in a city called Olympia. In any case, this is what I'd really call judicial activism.

posted by Arnold P. California at 9:38 AM


Tuesday, February 03, 2004


Come On, Oklahoma!

About a week ago (I'm too lazy to go find it and link to it), I said that I was strangely untroubled by the startling collapse of my man Howard Dean. I went on to say that I'm quite happy getting behind Kerry or Edwards, but I don't trust Clark.

Well, today is going very well for me in that light. Yes, Dean does seem to be all but dead. But Lieberman has finally put us out of his misery (though he was long since a non-contender). More important, if Edwards can hold on to what is now a razor-thin lead in Oklahoma, Clark will be deep-sixed. Oklahoma was the state Clark was supposed to win in the scenarios that had him emerging as the anti-Dean (boy, doesn't that seem a long time ago). If Edwards beats him in Oklahoma, as well as handily winning his native South Carolina, while Kerry cleans up elsewhere, this becomes a two-man race between two people I'm quite comfortable voting for. This is a change from Clinton, whom I had to vote for with my eyes somewhat averted, and Gore, who was uninspiring.

Odd, though, that in the race to pick the President of 300 million people, a few hundred votes in a smallish state one year before Inauguration Day will decide so much. If it is a two-man race, Edwards will suddenly get a lot of cash flowing in and may be able to make a contest of the batch of primaries coming up in the next few weeks. If Clark scrapes by in Oklahoma, he will deflect a lot of the anti-Kerry energy, and neither one of them is likely to emerge as the clear challenger until it's too late to do much about it.

On the other hand, the last time around, a few hundred votes in one state settled the whole thing, and we ended up with a President who indisputably had fewer people vote for him than voted for his opponent. And that's before you consider that it is almost equally indisputable that more people went to the polls in Florida and attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush. So maybe the votes of a few hundred Okies should count for a lot this time around.

posted by Arnold P. California at 9:27 PM




Sharpton's Campaign is Orchestrated by the Right?!?

Sleeping with the GOP
by Wayne Barrett, Village Voice

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton. [read more...]

Is Sharpton a tool? Is he using Stone as a tool? Or maybe they're like the clown fish and the sea anemone-- some kind of bizarre, inexplicable symbiosis?

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:36 PM




Na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, hey-hey-hey, goodbye!

If Lieberman loses Delaware today, he'll drop out of the race.

Lieberman is finally facing the fact that his lame DINO-schtick* just doesn't work on Democrats. This news made me think of the "Jesse Helms Retirement Party" that I attended in his honor soon after his retirement annoucement. Perhaps this is worthy of a drink or two as well-- anyone up for a "Lieberman Finally Got a Clue Party"?

----------------------------------
(*Democrat in Name Only)

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:26 PM




Why Didn't Somebody Warn Us?

From the May 3, 2000 issue of the Washington Post

Candidates Duel Over Tax Cuts; Gore and Bush Trade Analytical Shots, Seeking an Imprimatur of Fiscal Responsibility

Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

3 May 2000
The Washington Post

Copyright 2000, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved

The presidential campaign veered into a dense economic thicket yesterday.

The Gore campaign, seeking to buttress its claim that George W. Bush's tax cut and spending plans are fiscally irresponsible, issued a detailed analysis that suggested the Texas governor would need to either slash government spending or increase the size of the national debt if his proposals were enacted.

The Bush campaign countered with updated budget projections that assert the rapidly expanding economy in recent months has added enough revenue to federal coffers to boost the projected size of the government surplus by 33 percent over the next 10 years--to more than $4 trillion--enough to pay for the Republican's proposals.

[edit]

The Gore campaign asserted that Bush's proposals would eat up so much of the projected surplus that he would need to cut nondefense-related programs by 20 percent for budget growth to keep pace with inflation. If Bush didn't cut these programs but merely kept spending increases even with inflation, then he would start running a deficit in 2005, Gore officials said.

This is just more evidence that Gore was a liar - Bush didn't wait until 2005, he started running deficits immediately.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:35 PM




The Real Killers

Brilliant.

posted by Arnold P. California at 2:31 PM




Mission Accomplished
A video camera captured images of a man shaking hands with a Kurdish official seconds before blowing himself up in one of the two suicide bombings during Muslim holiday celebrations that killed 67 people. Kurds blamed Ansar al-Islam, a militant group allegedly linked to al-Qaida, for the attacks.

[edit]

In Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Tuesday the U.S. investigation has not determined who was behind the Sunday attack, although he said it could have been carried out by Ansar al-Islam or al-Qaida.

Kimmitt also said there were an average of 23 engagements a day between U.S. soldiers and Iraqi insurgents over the past week, compared with 18 the week before.

[edit]

No group claimed responsibility for the attacks, the bloodiest in Iraq in six months. But Kurdish and U.S. officials blamed Muslim extremists -- particularly Ansar al-Islam, an armed group that operates in the Kurdish enclave and is believed allied with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida.

"All indications point to the involvement of Islamic terrorists with al-Qaida connections," Barham Salih, prime minister of the PUK-dominated sector of the Kurdish region, said by telephone from Washington.

Ansar al-Islam, or "Helpers of Islam," is a group of several hundred Kurdish militants who have vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in the north. It was formed in 2000 and began stepping up its activities in October 2001.

Kurdish officials say more Ansar fighters have entered Iraq since Saddam Hussein's fall.

[edit]

Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division, told reporters that the Irbil bombings, along with a Jan. 18 attack in the capital that killed 25 people, were "different from the sort of hit-and-run style" of Saddam loyalists thought to be behind anti-U.S. attacks in Baghdad and central Iraq.

"It concerns us that it could be another enemy, a different enemy, a foreign-influenced enemy, a terrorist network enemy," he said in Baghdad.
Don't you just feel like putting on a flight suit and prancing around on an aircraft carrier?

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:14 PM




Defining Moment

While reading AllAfrica.com, I came across this article on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

In the past two weeks, the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), hidden away in the dusty northern Tanzanian town of Arusha, has received far more attention than it is accustomed.

The first week brought Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who commanded of the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, to testify in the tribunal's most important case, known as "Military I". With Dallaire came international attention, as television crews and reporters from around the world descended to hear his testimony.

That very same week also saw a judgement delivered against Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, a former minister of education, and a news conference given by Hassan Jallow, the new chief prosecutor.

The tribunal was basking in the spotlight. "We have never had the press coverage that we have now," Roland Amoussouga, the tribunal's spokesman, told IRIN. "This is a defining moment for the tribunal in terms of reaching out to the rest of the world. It is helping the ICTR put its case to the international community."

Just out of curiosity, how many readers were aware that General Dallaire had spent a week testifying against Col. Theoneste Bagosora, the alleged mastermind of 1994 genocide? There certainly wasn't much coverage of it in the American media.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:06 PM




It Is All Powell's Fault

So saith David Frum

Can we recall please that it was Colin Powell’s insistence on working through the UN process that forced the United States to base its case for action in Iraq so very largely on the WMD issue? In his address to the UN a year ago, Colin Powell could have stressed Iraq’s record as a haven for terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. He could have, but he did not, because the UN is full of states that also shelter and support terrorists and denunciations of terrorism might offend them. He could have stressed the tyranny and cruelty of Saddam’s rule – but again that might have discomfited Zimbabwe and Burma and of course China.

There were other arguments too that could have been made, if not at the UN, then in other forums: arguments about strategy, about the need to cut the connection between the United States and Saudi Arabia, about the need for political change in the Middle East, about the need to show that anti-American radicalism is a weak and failing force not a strong and growing one. NRO readers know all these arguments well. It was as much because of Colin Powell as because of any other single person that these arguments were not made by the government of the United States to the American people and the world.

Shorter Frum: We had all sorts of good reasons for going to war. But since our "good" reasons would have made us look like hypocrites and would not have convinced anyone anywhere in the world, we had to cite the WMDs. Now the WMD claim turned out to be wrong and we all look like idiots, but it is Powell's fault for making us try to find a genuinely good reason for invading Iraq in the first place.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:41 PM




One Trick Pony

Dick Morris milks his Hillary Clinton obsession for yet another column

THE demise of Howard Dean's candidacy opens the door to a Kerry/Clinton ticket in 2004. As long as Dean was favored to get the nomination, Hillary likely wasn't interested in the second slot on the ticket. With the Vermont governor almost certain to go down to a massive defeat, Hillary probably wanted no part in the ensuing carnage. But now that the Democrats have a real chance to win, it makes all kinds of sense to offer her the nomination and for her to accept it.

I think I'll add it to my scrapbook, alongside this and this and this and this and this and this.

Aren't there some toe-sucking prostitutes around who can help Morris satisfy his fetish for all things Hillary so that he can stop writing the same column over and over?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:44 AM




Money Well Spent

In this article on Bush's attempts to please his base with his new budget, the Washington Post highlights some of the 65 programs that are going to get the axe

Meanwhile, the programs Bush seeks to eliminate will follow him on the campaign trail. Under his budget, the $247 million Even Start family literacy program would be eliminated. The Eisenhower regional math and science consortiums and the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education would be killed. HOPE VI, a $149 million program to revitalize blighted housing projects, would go.

Also gone: dropout-prevention efforts, elementary and secondary school counseling assistance, aid to migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the Smaller Learning Communities initiative, and a bevy of local law enforcement assistance programs.

Even as the economy fails to generate significant job growth, Bush would slice federal vocational and adult education funding by 35 percent, from $2.1 billion to $1.4 billion. Assistance for workers dislocated by the North American Free Trade Agreement would be eliminated. Rural development assistance would be cut, as would housing aid for Native Americans and the elderly. The foreign aid budget would dramatically boost funding to combat the spread of AIDS, but it would also slice $404 million from child-survival and child-disease programs.

So there you go - $2 trillion worth of tax cuts for the rich while students, workers, the elderly, migrants, Native Americans and children lose out.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:13 AM




Whoosh!

That's the sound of mainstream journalism officially going down the toilet.

Brit Hume of FoxNews has been named "Broadcaster of the Year" by the National Press Foundation. Ed Fouhy, chairman of the NPF committee that voted to give Hume the award, says that "Brit is an excellent journalist."

Apparently there's at least one journalist out there with some scruples. Geneva Overholser, former ombudsman of The Washington Post, has resigned from the board of the National Press Foundation because she says FoxNews and Hume practice "ideologically connected journalism," and that "Fox wants to do news from a certain viewpoint, but it wants to claim that it is 'fair and balanced. That is inaccurate and unfair to other media who engage in a quest, perhaps an imperfect quest, for objectivity." Why is she the only one objecting?



posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:47 AM




Indecent Investigations?

The government has launched an investigation in less than 24 hours after the incident because it was just so outrageous, inappropriate and may have violated "indecency standards." FCC Chairman Powell promises it will be "thorough and swift" because he is just so "outraged."

Hmmm. Seems very odd to me that a 3-second flash of Janet Jackson's right nipple requires such immediate action.

I find it especially surprising because the Bush Administration just doesn't seem very fond of investigations. Generally they have to be pressured into them over a prolonged period. They also don't like calling them investigations, they prefer the word "probe." Whenever they do acquiesce and launch an investigation into something it's generally several months after the fact. For instance-- 9/11, pre-Iraq intelligence, Novak's CIA leak, Republican aides breaking into the computers of Senate Democrats, and so on. Then there's the things they haven't really bothered investigating, such as Halliburton's little habit of repeatedly overcharging. Then there are the lost investigations, like the anthrax investigation. Whatever happened with that?

Addendum: There was another time when an investigation was launched immediately-- the day after Paul O'Neill's "60 Minutes" interview. They were awfully quick about launching that one. (Thanks to Noam for pointing it out.)

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:14 AM


Monday, February 02, 2004


Tossing the Right a Dirty Bone

The Right just got a nice juicy bone tossed in their general direction from General Ashcroft. From our friends at the Family Research Council.
Justice Department Getting Serious About Prosecuting Pornography

Finally, the U.S. Justice Department is getting serious about prosecuting illegal pornography. This week, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced he has hired veteran obscenity and child exploitation prosecutor Bruce Taylor to oversee the Department's pornography prosecution efforts. Mr. Taylor served as a senior trial attorney during the administration of President Bush's father. In that position he successfully prosecuted the world's top pornographer at the time, Reuben Sturman, as well as several other major distributors of illegal pornography. He has prosecuted more pornography cases than any other person in history. FRC applauds this move by General Ashcroft and we trust that now, with Mr. Taylor's leadership, the Department of Justice, after a nearly 12-year hiatus, will begin vigorously prosecuting illegal pornography.

I know they refer to "illegal pornography" but the Family Research Council thinks anything that could be defined as pornography should be illegal.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:32 PM




Hey, It's Groundhog Day, Not Bear Day

The Eighth Circuit decided two totally unrelated criminal cases today: United States v. Turning Bear and United States v. Weasel Bear.

Actually, Turning Bear looks like a very interesting decision, raising a number of vexing issues including how to protect children who are allegedly victims of abuse without interfering with the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:30 PM




Why Do I Despise Katherine Harris?

Florida's Secretary of State became a villain not so much because she reached decisions in the vote counting process that favored George Bush, but because of what she had done before the election to help him win. Her wrongful purge of "felons" from the voter rolls stopped tens of thousands of legal voters from casting their ballots. Considering that the voters she erased were disproportionately African-American, and that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Gore, it can be (and has been) said quite reasonably that Harris handed Bush the White House by stopping black folks from voting.

Just when my anger was starting to subside comes this story:
Collier County's Supervisor of Elections office began contacting 77 people on a list of felons from the state elections division this week to find out if, indeed, they belong on the list and to allow them a shot at getting back on the voter rolls.

It's a new felon list, whittled down from one in 1999 that had close to 350 names on it for Collier County. A second list that came a year later had 222 names.

In Lee County, the 1999 and 2000 lists contains 700 and 450 names, respectively, but the list for 2003 had only 66 names.

Those 66 already have been verified as felons without their rights restored or have been put back onto the rolls, said Cheryl Avitts, assistant supervisor of elections for voter registration in Lee.

Of the 66, 46 were found to be on the list erroneously, she said.
Let's get this straight: the Katherine Harris Era list of "felons" had (in these two counties, at least) somewhere between three and 10 times as many people on it as the new lists; and two-thirds of the people on the new lists shouldn't even be there.

For shame.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:18 PM




Remind Me to Ignore Him

Former CIA Director James Woosley has taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to defend both the intelligence community and the White House against allegations that they are fools and liars. In doing so, he makes the following argument

And Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear. Even if one focuses only on Iraqi ties to Abu Nidal and Ansar-al-Islam, the requirements of the administration's policy would seem to be met. And in the fall of 2002, Mr. Tenet wrote to Congress outlining a decade of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in poisons, gases and explosives. There was no need to show that Iraq participated in 9/11 or even that it directed al Qaeda in any operations -- describing occasional cooperation of the sort that is well chronicled was quite sufficient.

Oh, George Tenet assured Congress that Iraq and al Qaeda had connections for over a decade? Didn't he also assure them that Iraq had WMDs? At this point I do not put much faith in anything Tenet tells anyone.

And just for the record, before people start trumpeting the fact that Woosley was once Clinton's CIA director, it should be noted that he is a neocon who, in 1996, endorsed Bob Dole and that he is an advisor to Bill Bennett's "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism." Tom Paine gives you the low-down on them.

So you can take Woosely's arguments for what they are worth - which is more or less nothing.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:19 PM




Bush and the Illicit Tit

You're President of the United States. Naturally, you have to at least pretend to have some interest in one of America's major institutions-- the Super Bowl. Then a scandal erupts due to 3-seconds of partial nudity during the half-time show. Angry, prudish conservatives are apoplectic, calling it "soft-core pornography," and demanding an FCC investigation over the illicit tit!

When the press asks you about the brewing "Boobgate" scandal what would you say?

A) Change the subject. Say you weren't paying attention to the half-time show, you were too busy doing something related to your job, like preparing for the release of your budget.

B) Say you were getting a snack and missed it but at least mention what a great game it was!

C) Say you fell asleep before the second half of the Super Bowl and missed it and say "But you all can tell me about it." (Note-- the half-time show started at 8:30.)

D) Say you didn't see it but were offended and channel Mrs. Lovejoy, "won't someone please think of the children!"

E) Say you support artistic expression! Which is why you recently recommended that the National Endowment for the Arts get it's biggest fiscal boost in two decades!

------------------------------

Well, Bush answered C. Is it me, Mr. President, or are you actually trying to anger your conservative base?


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 4:12 PM




He's Just Crazy Enough to Do It

Rumor has it that ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (aka the "Ten Commandments Judge") is considering a run for the White House in 2004. Has the GOP finally found its own Ralph Nader? Like Nader, Moore has an overwhelming sense of self-confidence and relentless desire for self-promotion. And, he's developed a passionate, devoted following, particularly in the South. With him in the race, leaching support away from the president, some southern states might be in play for the Dems after all.

Run Roy Run!

posted by Noam Alaska at 2:40 PM




The Candidate's "Celebration" Letter (Part II)

That fundraising letter from Howard Dean also reminded me of another reason why the onetime frontrunner has managed to turn off many of those -- like myself -- who were once excited by his candidacy. In the letter dated Jan. 30, Dean (or at least his media consultant) informs us of the secret weapon who propelled him to his "remarkable turn around" in New Hampshire -- a distant 2nd place finish:
So much of the credit for this remarkable turn around goes to my wife Judy. Though she is not a politician and actually very shy, Judy was a real trouper campaigning in New Hampshire and making television appearances.
Does he really think people like me who contributed money to his campaign did so because his wife isn't "a politician" or happens to be reserved?

I used to work for a political media consultant so I've seen my fair share of spin and "messaging." I'm willing to shrug off most of it as just the way the game is played. But give me a friggin' break. If NH was Dean's idea of a "remarkable turn around," then it's not hard to see why Bush believes the U.S. economy is surging forward and raining jobs in every state.

One of the qualities that drew tens of thousands of young people to Dean's campaign and to Meet-Ups was the fact that Dean wasn't uttering the same predictable, empty soundbites that were flowing from the mouths of the more conventional candidates. But judging from the letter I received this weekend, Dean is now just one of the gang.

If there has been a "remarkable turn around," it lies not in NH or any other state, but in how Dean is operating his campaign post-Iowa. This is a makeover that would make Max Factor proud.

In early January, Dean's wife, Judy, remained in Vermont working as a physician. To me, the fact that Dean didn't feel the need to drag her away from a profession she loves and throw her in front of a TV camera was one of the candidate's admirable qualities. So much for that.

The campaign, reeling from Iowa, hastily arranged a nationally televised interview with ABC's resident-ditz, Diane Sawyer, in hopes that it will "soften" the candidate's image. Now there's a novel idea. Bill Clinton should have thought of that .... oh, yeah, he did -- January 1992 on CBS's "60 Minutes".

In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich wrote:
Though I have no vested interest in Howard Dean, it was refreshing that he initially refrained from using his wife as a prop on the campaign trail ... The Deans didn't want their marriage to be a proto-feminist, anti-feminist or even "Everybody Loves Raymond" role model. They simply refused to pose for the contrived and usually fictionalized marital snapshots that the political press demands and then analyzes to death.

... When post-Iowa panic drove Howard Dean to reverse himself, it was sad, even though his wife gave her assent ... [Judy Dean] seemed genuinely ignorant of the whole media game. "I don't like watching TV that much," she told Ms. Sawyer .... Not watching TV -- and not wanting to be on TV -- has in itself become a form of virginity in America, rarer than the other kind, so rare as to be poignant. There was nothing fun about watching it being violated for public consumption, even if the Deans were wholly complicit in their own video deflowering. (So much so that the Dean campaign would soon distribute 120,000 videos of the show to New Hampshire voters.)"
In the ABC interview, Dean said, "I won't ever use my kids or Judy as a prop, but I think people ... do have to understand Judy, because understanding Judy has something to do with understanding me."

But what's true for you, Howard, might be equally true for others. Perhaps my fellow bloggers and I don't like George W. Bush simply because we don't really understand him. And perhaps the key to understanding him is to understand her.

All right, everyone, it's time to get acquainted with Laura Bush -- who, by the way, looks simply stunning in this magenta blouse.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:28 PM




The Candidate's "Celebration" Letter (Part I)

A piece of political direct-mail arrived at my home -- the letter was dated Jan. 30. Guess who sent this delightful letter to me.

Dear Mr. _________:

You have been a generous supporter to this campaign; and it would have been wonderful if you could have taken part in this past week's celebration.
Celebration? But I haven't sent a financial contribution to the Kerry campaign -- I may decide to do so in the weeks ahead, but I haven't yet. This can't be from Kerry.
So much of the credit for this remarkable turn around ...
Yep, it must be from Kerry.
... for this remarkable turn around goes to my wife Judy.
Oops. Wait a second. Kerry's wife is Teresa Heinz. Howard Dean is the candidate with a wife named Judy. Dean has something to celebrate? Have I missed something.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:51 PM




A More Accurate Name for Bush's Education Plan

In the new issue of American Prospect, Peter Schrag has written an excellent article explaining why President Bush's much-ballyhooed "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act is all hype and little hope for schoolchildren. Schrag explains that
... the Bush administration is largely ignoring the law's requirement that states get qualified teachers into those schools that are getting extra funding to serve their large numbers of children from low-income families. Many districts try to honor the law's intent, but its mandate that districts put a "highly qualified" teacher into every classroom was always a little like King Canute commanding the waves to stop. Worse, despite pleas from some of NCLB's strongest supporters, the government isn't enforcing even those provisions of the law that require states to report on the qualifications of teachers at such schools.
And Schrag notes that NCLB provisions allowing parents to transfer their kids out of low-performing schools are rendered meaningless by other factors -- rural areas where other options (public or private) are extremely limited, as well as parents' desire to keep kids in neighborhood schools. NCLB, Schrag writes, is also viewed as one more unfunded mandate:
... If you listen to state legislators from both parties, however, the most frequent complaint is the administration's failure to honor its funding commitments. While the White House argues that school funding is up, current year appropriations for NCLB fall $8 billion short of what was authorized by the bill. "We were all suckered into it," said Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), who voted for the measure. "It's a fraud."

The underfunding complaints are accompanied by studies indicating that the states' costs of meeting NCLB requirements are running far beyond the money that the federal government is providing. In what's probably the most frequently cited report, published last year in Phi Delta Kappan, William J. Mathis, a Vermont school administrator, concluded that in seven of the 10 states he surveyed, school spending would have to increase 24 percent to comply with all the requirements of NCLB .... "We're being asked to do more with nothing," said Bob Holmes, who chairs the Georgia House Committee on Education.
Schrag adds that NCLB is generating a backlash:
In at least three states -- Minnesota, New Hampshire and Hawaii -- legislators passed or seriously debated resolutions urging those states to withdraw from NCLB even though it means losing the federal money that's tied to it.
Perhaps they should have called it No Child Learns Better.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:06 PM




Proud to Serve Our Troops (While Cheating the American Taxpayer)

Even as Halliburton was running ads highlighting the role the company is playing in providing meals to the troops in Iraq, they were overcharging the government for those meals - from the Wall Street Journal

Halliburton Co. allegedly overcharged more than $16 million for meals at a single U.S. military base in Kuwait during the first seven months of last year, according to Pentagon investigators auditing the company's work.

[edit]

This dispute focuses on meals served at Camp Arifjan, the huge U.S. military base south of Kuwait City. The e-mail memo that went out Friday said that in July alone, a Saudi subcontractor hired by KBR billed for 42,042 meals a day on average but served only 14,053 meals a day. The difference in cost for that month exceeded $3.5 million, according to Pentagon records. The Pentagon last year paid KBR more than $30 million for meals at the camp from January through July, a tab that included charges for nearly four million meals the government asserts were never served.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:30 PM




Just Because it is Interesting

The Congressional Budget Office provides this chart titled "Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2003."

The deficit column looks like this, beginning in 1992

1992: -$340.5 billion
1993: -$300.4 billion
1994: -$258.9 billion
1995: -$226.4 billion
1996: -$174.1 billion
1997: -$103.3 billion
1998: -$30.0 billion
1999: +$1.9 billion
2000: +$86.6 billion
2001: -$33.3 billion
2002: -$317.5 billion
2003: -$536.1 billion

Hmmm, I wonder if this might have anything to do with the tax cuts?

Revenues
1992: $1,091 billion
1993: $1,154 billion
1994: $1,258 billion
1995: $1,351 billion
1996: $1,453 billion
1997: $1,579 billion
1998: $1,721 billion
1999: $1,827 billion
2000: $2,025 billion
2001: $1,991 billion
2002: $1,853 billion
2003: $1,782 billion

It is probably just a coincidence.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:06 PM




In the Dark

We see that the White House, while demanding that the 9/11 Commission finish its inquiry by the end of May, is still doing everything in its power to undermine and delay it

The White House, already embroiled in a public fight over the deadline for an independent commission's investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is refusing to give the panel notes on presidential briefing papers taken by some of its own members, officials said this week.

The standoff has prompted the 10-member commission to consider issuing subpoenas for the notes and has further soured relations between the Bush administration and the bipartisan panel, according to sources familiar with the issue. Lack of access to the materials would mean that the information they contain could not be included in a final report about the attacks, several officials said.


[edit]

The latest dispute stems from an agreement reached in November that allowed a four-member team from the commission to examine highly classified documents known as the President's Daily Brief (PDB), including a controversial August 2001 memo that discusses the possibility of airline hijackings by al Qaeda terrorists. The deal allowed the team -- made up of three commission members and Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow -- to take notes on the materials that would be passed along to the rest of the commission, but only after the White House gave its approval.

The team completed its work several weeks ago but has been unable to reach an agreement with the White House on how to share its summaries with the seven commission members who were not privy to the material, officials said.

Given the fact that the two biggest issues during Bush's presidency (9/11 and Iraq)seem to revolve around failed intelligence, I can understand why this administration is so reluctant to have its failings disclosed publicly - it might negatively impact their chances for re-election.

I guess somehow we are all better off if the American public is kept in the dark regarding the fact that the White House is controlled by incompetent boobs. At least, that seems to be what the incompetent boobs think.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:08 AM




What Did You Expect?

Dana Milbank has a good analysis piece in today's Washington Post on Bush's decision to back an independent investigation into why our pre-war intelligence was so wrong.

As one would expect, he is more concerned with politics than with actually addressing the problem

But those close to the president say he is doing so while continuing to avoid any explicit public acknowledgment that the intelligence was wrong. Why the reluctance to state what appears increasingly obvious as Kay spent the past 10 days dashing prospects that significant weapons stockpiles would be found in Iraq? Although the tactic may appear to be obtuse, there is a real strategy behind the Bush response -- and one that has been used before, to great effect.

Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse. Conversely, by postponing an acknowledgment -- possibly beyond Election Day -- the White House is generating a fog of uncertainty around Kay's stark findings, and potentially softening a harsh public judgment.

[edit]

Administration officials now say it was a mistake to acknowledge that Bush should not have included in last year's State of the Union address an allegation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. The admission of error, they say, made Bush appear weak and encouraged more skeptical coverage than if the White House had refused to budge.

This final paragraph is mind-boggling.

"Hey, we tried to be honest once and all we got was grief, so we are just going to stick with lying from now on. Besides, it is what we are best at."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:50 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com