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?
Friday, October 15, 2004


More on Zarqawi

Eugene had a good post earlier today about the Bush administration finally getting around to freezing the assets of a radical group tied to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has been called a "terrorist mastermind." (Zarqawi entered Iraq from Afghanistan roughly three years ago.) Yet the assets issue is only one area where, in the case of Zarqawi, the Bush team has been asleep at the wheel.

In a fact sheet issued on July 1, 2003, the White House claimed that efforts in Iraq were paying off and cited a number of accomplishments, including this one:
"Eliminated from Iraq the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi network ..."
Now, let's jump ahead to eight months later -- March 2, 2004. On this day, Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and said:

CHENEY: Well, it's a terrible tragedy, what happened today, obviously. ... we don't know specifically about this attack yet. It has the hallmarks, in my opinion, of an attack orchestrated by a man named al-Zarqawi.

BLITZER: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

CHENEY: That's right. We've talked about him a lot before. He, at one point, ran a training camp in Afghanistan before we went into Afghanistan. He took refuge in Iraq ... He has recently written a letter to senior management of Osama bin Laden's group, al Qaeda, that we intercepted, where he talked specifically about his strategy in Iraq, and that includes, among other things, launching terror strikes against Shia in order to try to start sectarian --

BLITZER: So you see his fingerprints there.

CHENEY: And this looks very much like that kind of an attack.

In other words, the Bush administration was forced to admit that the radical Muslim leader whom they claimed to have put out of business was still operating freely in Iraq.

On the same day as Cheney's CNN interview, NBC News linked Zarqawi to "more than 700 killings in Iraq" and also reported that Zarqawi was trying to develop chemical weapons.

Fast-forward to September 2004 when Zarqawi is still operating feely in Iraq -- and U.S. authorities have still not gotten around to freezing assets linked to his radical group. Also during September the CIA reveals that it believes Zarqawi personally beheaded American citizen Eugene Armstrong.

Did the Bush team really have a chance to kill or capture Zarqawi before he murdered so many innocent people? Absolutely. NBC News reported that in 2002 "the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself -- but never pulled the trigger."

Why? The reason, NBC News reported, was that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:30 PM




I Don't Care About Truth

Slate's William Saletan catches President Bush admitting as much yesterday
Here's what he said at a rally in Oregon, according to a White House transcript:
Once again, last night, with a straight face, the senator said—well, shall we say, refined his answer on his proposed global test. That's the test he would administer before defending America. After trying to say it really wasn't a test at all, last night he once again defended his approach, saying, I think it makes sense. (Laughter.) The senator now says we'd have to pass some international truth standard. The truth is we should never turn America's national security decisions over to international bodies or leaders of other countries. (Applause.)
You heard that right. The president explicitly refuses "to pass some international truth standard." Because evidence is the fundamental test applied in France as well as in the United States, Bush thinks he shouldn't have to back up his claims or decisions with evidence.

[edit]

When Bush replied last night that he refuses to pass this "truth standard," there's really no other way to interpret his position. He's saying that he doesn't have to show you any evidence, because evidence is the sort of thing a Frenchman would ask for.
And it is clear that Saletan is getting fed up with Bush
I know I've been hard on the president lately. I'd like to say something nice about him. I'd like to be "fair and balanced." But my first responsibility as a reporter is to the truth. When one candidate tells half the truth, and the other says the truth doesn't matter, it becomes irresponsible for me or any other journalist not to report that by that standard—the standard of respecting the truth standard—one candidate is head and shoulders above the other.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:14 PM




Good Timing

From Reuters
The United States on Friday ordered a freeze on assets of the militant group led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which has claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq.

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control added Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad group to its list of suspected terrorists and terrorism financiers.
So let that be a lesson to you. If you blow up several hundred US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and behead a dozen or so contractors, the US will eventually get around to freezing your assets.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:56 PM




Remember Poland?

Recall the first presidential debate when the discussion turned to the grand coalition that the Bush team built for its war in Iraq?
KERRY: "... [President Bush] went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, 'We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies.' He didn't do any of those things. ... And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. ... But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away ..."

BUSH: "... My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?"

(Moments later)

KERRY: "The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."

MODERATOR: "Thirty seconds, Mr. President."

BUSH: "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved ..."
Well, Mr. President, it looks like you too should forget about Poland. Today, the New York Times is reporting:
... Poland said it planned to reduce the number of its troops in Iraq early next year, and will not remain there "an hour longer than is sensible." Poland has about 2,500 troops in Iraq and has often been cited by President Bush as an important contributor to the multinational coalition in the country.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:31 PM




Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary

I am so frustrated that the mainsteam media is fanning the flames of the non-controversy of Kerry very respectfully mentioning Dick & Lynne's LESBIAN DAUGHTER, MARY CHENEY, in the last debate. It's just so incredibly stupid. But I was reading through some of the reactions of other famous PFLAG moms & dads -- Ellen Degeneres's mother, Dick Gephardt, etc.-- I and came across this:
Mary Cheney and her partner were an established couple and owned a house together in Colorado when her father was picked as Bush's running mate in 2000. Mary Cheney, who had run a gay and lesbian outreach program for Coors Brewing Co., wears a gold band on her left hand.
So, like a lot of long-term gay couples, they consider themselves to be married. In addition to that, clearly the Cheneys consider Mary's partner, Heather Poe, part of their family. In press appearences whenever the happy family prop is utilized, both Mary and Heather are there.

So what this is really about? Neither Cheney parent has explained why on earth they are offended. It's pretty obvious-- they're mad that Kerry made them appear gay-friendly on national tv, in front of their anti-gay audience. Even John McCain confirms it,
"Maybe Sen. Kerry didn't appreciate the sensitivity" of the subject, McCain told reporters on Air Force One. "Whether intended or not, it was very inappropriate."

BC04 is trying to tarnish K/E, although I'm not exactly sure what their message is. It's surreal that they're accusing Kerry of "attacking" Mary Cheney when Kerry's comment was kind, supportive and accepting. Frankly, it's an interesting contrast to the way the Cheney family is responding to this.

Overall, they're acting like it's an insult to call a gay person gay. Dems need to figure out way to spin this back at them, make them look like the schmucks that they are.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:22 PM




Who Dat?

I think we should all donate some cash to Daniel Mongiardo who is running against Sen. Jim Bunning in Kentucky.

Bunning's behavior is becoming increasingly erratic and, because of it, "Dr. Dan" is closing in. The Washingon Post had a short article on the race today
[In recent weeks, Bunning has] stalked out of a news interview, compared his dark-complexioned opponent to one of Saddam Hussein's sons, and accused Mongiardo or a member of his campaign staff of roughing up Bunning's wife at an event over the summer.
But Bunning's behavior regarding his recent debate is the most bizarre, as recounted in Salon
Saying falsely that he was needed in Washington this week for Senate votes, Bunning tore up his own carefully crafted debate agreement and refused to return to Kentucky on Monday for his one scheduled debate with Mongiardo. It was to have taken place at 2:30 p.m. Monday in the Lexington, Ky., studio of WKYT-TV. Instead, Bunning insisted on "debating" via satellite from the womblike conditions of the Republican National Committee headquarters studio in Washington.

The senator refused to allow a member of the Kentucky media to be present at the RNC studio to monitor whether Bunning was receiving assistance with his answers, according to Mongiardo campaign manager Kim Geveden and WKYT news director Jim Ogle. And Bunning refused to engage reporters via satellite in a previously agreed upon post-debate news conference, insisting instead that his 15 minutes of answering questions occur by telephone, without accompanying video footage.
And now Bunning is admitting that he used a TelePrompTer to deliver his opening and closing remarks during the debate (apparently Bunning's campaign manager is equally insane, given his defense of Bunning: "The debate agreement specifically said notes could be used and it did not specify a specific medium. Notes are notes.")

Kos reported the other day that the rumor around Kentucky is that if Bunning wins, he will resign office, and Kentucky's Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher, will appoint himself to the seat.

This truly is unbelievable and disgraceful. If you feel inclined to try to do something about it, you can make a small donation to Mongiardo.

And, if you are feeling generous, a donation to Richard Morrision, the man taking on the World's Biggest Asshole, is another good way to spend some money.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:39 AM




Edwards Can Mention Her, But Kerry Can't?

The buzz continues over John Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney in his remarks about gay marriage at the final presidential debate. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, have done their best to play the role of wounded parents, blasting Kerry's reference as "a cheap and tawdry political trick."

This morning, CNN made this the subject of its daily e-mail question to viewers -- i.e., did they think Kerry stepped over the line. The network said the 2,000-plus responses it received were among the most it has ever received on any subject. I was heartened to see that many viewers (judging from those remarks that were read on the air) did not share the Cheneys' overblown reaction.

Eugene had a good post on this yesterday in which he shared a quote from an Aug. 24 town-hall meeting in Iowa in which Dick Cheney himself raised the fact of his daughter's sexuality. It's also worth noting that Mary Cheney is not totally disconnected from the campaign; indeed, she is managing her father's campaign office.

Most significantly, during the vice presidential debate, Cheney had no problem whatsoever with John Edwards' reference to his daughter. According to USA Today.
Thursday's exchange contrasts with the polite discussion of Mary Cheney's sexuality during the vice presidential debate last week.

Edwards at the time expressed “respect for the fact that (the Cheneys are) willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing.” Cheney thanked him for the “kind words.”
So why the sudden show of hypersensitivity? The only difference between Edwards' remark and the one made by Kerry was that Kerry made it within the context of stating that he doesn't believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Is that what set the Cheneys off?

It's ironic that the Cheneys would portray Kerry's statement as "a political trick." After all, does anyone doubt for a moment that one of Cheney's reasons for mentioning his daughter's sexuality back in August was his desire to revive the GOP's "compassionate conservative" image and appeal to more swing voters?


posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:31 AM




Thank you Alan Keyes

You just made my Friday.

It's nice when an arrogant, egomaniacal holyroller like Alan Keyes gets caught red-handed being Mr. Unethical Douchebag.
The Federal Elections Commission fined Alan Keyes' 2000 presidential campaign $23,000 Thursday, and an ethics group filed a new complaint alleging misconduct by his current U.S. Senate campaign.

The FEC found that Keyes took excessive contributions when he sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. It ordered him to pay a fine and repay the government $95,302 in public funding that his campaign accepted.

His presidential campaign admitted accepting $168,200 worth of contributions over the individual donation limit, which in 2000 was $1,000 per person. It also acknowledged it had taken at least $15,000 in anonymous contributions, among other violations.

Also Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an FEC complaint alleging that Keyes' current Senate campaign had improperly coordinated with a group running ads that target his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama.
Barak Obama thanks you too. You weren't much of a threat before, but you certainly can't stand on the stump and do your judgemental, moralistic screed any more. Well, actually, you can and probably will because your moral compass is clearly broken.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 11:27 AM




Daily Darfur

The World Health Organisation claims that the death toll in Darfur is now 70,000 - frankly, I suspect that this estimate is far too low. Eric Reeves estimates that it is more like 280,000.

The World Food Program is warning that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in the Darfur.

John Prendergast called the actions of the United Nations and leading world powers on behalf of Darfur "timid, contorted and legalistic."

The Voice of America reports that the US is using "private contractors rather than sending American troops to provide logistical support for African forces headed to Sudan's troubled western region of Darfur."

China continues to fight the possibility of sanctions in an effort to protect its own oil imports.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:53 AM




Servant of Democracy

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has drawn his share of fire this election season for making a series of decisions that are . . . how to put this diplomatically . . . might be viewed by some as aimed more at electing Republicans than at allowing the voters' will to be expressed. Some of his decisions don't have such a partisan valence to them, but just seem to express a general preference to disqualify as many voters as possible. He's had to back down on at least one issue, namely his refusal to accept voter registration forms printed on normal paper.

He endured another loss, at least temporarily, in federal court this week. The issue is "provisional ballots," which the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires in some circumstances. There's litigation over the issue in several states, including Ohio, Missouri, and Florida (What do these states have in common? Two words: Battle. Ground.). The idea of a provisional ballot is that when a person's right to vote is disputed, the person can fill out a ballot that will be counted once it is decided that he was entitled to vote. For example, if you show up at your precinct on Nov. 2 and aren't on the list of registered voters, but you claim that you have registered, you have a right to cast a provisional ballot and then later establish the fact that you did register.

The dispute in Ohio is about what to do with people who mistakenly go to the wrong precinct(don't laugh; I did it a couple of years ago when my block was assigned to a new precinct and I showed up at the old precinct out of habit). Blackwell wants to void their votes. The plaintiffs in the litigation say that as long as the voter is in the right county, he should be able to cast a provisional ballot and have his vote counted in the proper precinct. The legal issue turns on whether the word "jurisdiction" in HAVA means a county or a precinct. Blackwell lost round 1: the court ordered him to come up with a new policy for handling voters who go to the wrong precinct.

Blackwell has announced that he will appeal. Because of course his office doesn't have anything else to keep them busy these days--like, say, ensuring that people whose registration forms were rejected for being on normal paper are now put on the rolls and notified that they can vote on November 2. Last I heard, a lot of the forms were piling up in county election offices because of Blackwell's earlier edict not to process them. It's be a shame if folks who registered on time and showed up on Election Day couldn't vote because their forms hadn't been processed, but, really, why should it be a priority for the state's top election official to make sure votes are cast and counted properly? He's got other things to do.


posted by Arnold P. California at 8:00 AM




Apparently, They Really Mean It

Militant Establishment Clause zealots have challenged the tax-exempt status of churches and other religious organizations that engage in politicking this year. Not surprisingly, the crusade has been directed mostly at churches seeking to mobilize the conservative Christian vote. Also not surprisingly, there has been criticism from the right claiming that this is all just a plot to help liberals by silencing conservative voices.

Well, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is going after pro-Kerry churches as well, notably African-American churches.

It seems that the atheists are opposed to infidels of any stripe.


posted by Arnold P. California at 7:54 AM




Belgian Humor

I was recently working on a humorous presentation with seven German colleagues. They wanted me, as the native English speaker with presumably better timing and delivery of English humor, to do the presenting. I suggested that we ought to do it in German so that more of the team could participate (I don't speak German).

One of them looked at me and said, "Have you ever heard of a German comedian?"

If German comedy isn't word-famous, Belgium doesn't exactly conjure an image of rollicking good times. But this animation, which is at a .be URL and thus presumably from Belgium, is very funny. It's a take on the U.S. presidential election campaign, skewering both sides. It depends on caracatures of the candidates, so if jokes that rely on Kerry's being a flip-flopper or Bush's being an idiot annoy you, give it a pass. Also, the soundtrack is essential, so don't view it where you can't have the sound up. Otherwise, enjoy.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:06 AM


Thursday, October 14, 2004


The Proud, the Few, The Repressed

For just a fleeting moment, I bring you a non-presidential, genocide-free news story. Instead, let's talk about sex-- um, well, people not having sex.
Study: One in 100 adults asexual

LONDON, England (CNN) -- About one percent of adults have absolutely no interest in sex, according to a new study, and that distinction is becoming one of pride among many asexuals.
...
It was published in the latest issue of The Journal of Sex Research and is the focus of a report in this Saturday's issue of New Scientist.
...
[The study] offered respondent a list of options. One read: "I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all." One percent said they agreed with the statement.

That response level is close to the percentage of gay people in the population, which is around three percent, the New Scientist report says.
...
Activists have already started campaigning to promote awareness and acceptance of asexuality, it reports.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network has an online store that sell items promoting awareness and acceptance on asexuality.

Among the items is a T-shirt with the slogan, "Asexuality: it's not just for amoebas anymore."



posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:01 PM




Sean Hannity, Head Cheerleader

For my money, the funniest exchange in the post-debate pundit wars occurred between Sean Hannity and Wesley Clark. The transcript doesn't really do it justice but here goes:
HANNITY: [Kerry] is he is a modern day appeaser...

CLARK: He's not an appeaser.

HANNITY: He is weak on defense, he is weak on intelligence. And Saddam would still be in power.

CLARK: John Kerry was playing hockey when George Bush was cheerleader. John Kerry is not a weak.

HANNITY: Are you calling cheerleaders -- what are you saying -- what are you suggesting about cheerleaders? Was that an attack?

CLARK: I am suggesting John Kerry is a strong, decisive leader.

HANNITY: What are you saying about men that are cheerleaders? What are you suggesting? Just look in the camera, explain.
For Hannity, there is only one option--the nuclear option.


posted by Noam Alaska at 5:00 PM




Lynne Cheney Outraged By Husband's "Cheap Political Trick"

From last night
Lynne Cheney accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of pulling a "cheap and tawdry political trick," apparently for invoking her daughter's sexuality in his debate with President Bush.

[edit]

"Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said.

"Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
From August 24th
Q We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like to know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need to know what do you think about homosexual marriages.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:06 PM




Preview of a Nightmare (Part II)?

There is another possible post-election litigation-fest shaping up, and if I've got my facts straight, it's the Dems' fault.

You may have heard of Amendment 36, a measure on the Colorado ballot on Nov. 2. It would switch the state from a winner-take-all method to a proportional method of allocating electors. In other words, say Bush took 52% of the vote to Kerry's 48%. Instead of getting all 7 electoral votes, Bush would get 4 and Kerry 3.

I believe this was a Democratic initiative because the Dems envisioned exactly that scenario--a relatively narrow Bush win. Now that the state is "in play," of course, it's not clear whose ox would be Gored.

Anyway, there's an argument, drawing from the Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist position in Bush v. Gore, that having the voters change the system would violate the requirement of Article II of the Constitution that "the Legislature" be in charge of how the state chooses its electors. Indeed, it was on an analogous basis (except it involved Article I) that S, T, & R dissented when the Court declined to review the Colorado Supreme Court's striking down of the GOP's re-redistricting of the state's congressional districts.

Worse, there's a question about retroactivity. The amendment is touted as being intended to apply to this year's election. Forget that it's supposed to help Kerry, whom I obviously want to win: this is a very, very, very, very bad idea. You shouldn't change the rules after the fact. The candidates and voters should know during the campaign what the system is going to be.

Now, there's even a question about whether the authors of the initiative screwed up, so that even though they want it to apply to this year's election, its wording makes it start applying only in the 2008 election.

You can see all the possibilities for post-election litigation, and it's certainly not inconceivable that the 3 electoral votes that hang in the balance could decide the election. Professor Rick Hasen's listserv of election-law professors and election lawyers has been buzzing about this for the last few days, and you can read Rick's summaries of the discussion on his blog.

Rick Hasen's latest contribution to the discussion is perhaps the most chilling: he theorizes that the GOP would rather wait until after the election and sue in federal court than sue now in state court to preempt the initiative. Why? Because the Colo. Supreme Court has a majority of Democratic appointees and ruled against the GOP in the re-redistricting case, while the federal 10th Circuit (which includes Colorado) is quite conservative and dominated by Republican nominees. When the mainstream press picks up on that during the post-election litigation, that won't do any good for the public's perception of the eventual winner's legitimacy or the impartiality of the courts.

Let's hope the citizens of Colorado vote against Amendment 36 and spare us all of this, or that the election doesn't turn on Colorado's electoral votes so that any post-election controversy will be academic.


posted by Arnold P. California at 11:38 AM




Some Occasional Good News

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has decided not to spend $1.2 million on ads (produced by the same firm that did the Swift Boat Liars ads) targeting Russ Feingold, signaling that they don't think Republican Tim Michels has a legitimate chance at victory.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:10 AM




Daily Darfur

The World Food Program is cutting back on food aid because of deteriorating security. The WFP says 50,000 people will be affected.

Alex de Waal has written a lengthy, if complex, analysis of the history of the crisis in Darfur.

Eric Reeves has written an equally lengthy overview of the genocide.

Both are worth reading.

Nicholas Kristoff has produced another op-ed on Darfur: "As Humans Are Hunted"
The stories of those hiding in Darfur are heartbreaking. Zahra Mochtar Muhammad, from the village of Darma, saw the Janjaweed kill her husband. In the chaos of the gunfire and burning huts, she and her children ran in different directions, and she lost her 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son.

Later, she found her children's bodies where they had died of thirst. They were together - the older one had apparently tried to protect her brother.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:18 AM




You Have Two Minutes - Better Speak Slow

This cracked me up
Mr. Schieffer: Mr. President I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said, and this will be a new question to you, he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly would you like to?

Mr. Bush: What he's asking me is will I have a litmus test for my judges. And the answer is no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution. But I'll have no litmus tests.
Well, that took about 10 seconds and Bush didn't even bother to try to fill the rest of his time.

It was a new question, as Schieffer clearly explained, and not only did Bush not even come close to filling his 2 minutes, he didn't even address Schieffer's question. He asked Bush is he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade (which he obviously does) and Bush delivered some unrelated response to a fictional question never raised by Kerry.

You'd almost think Bush didn't want people to know that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and that he more or less sent his religious right supporters a coded message on the issue during the last debate.

But that can't be - real leaders don't do that sort of thing.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 8:56 AM




When Your Worst Suspicions Are Confirmed

It is always nice when a person you despise for being a complete asshole ends up being exposed for the complete asshole that he is - and as a sexual harasser to boot.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 8:46 AM


Wednesday, October 13, 2004


Memory Never Forgets Miracles

I have been reading a book about Rwanda that contained this speech, delivered in 2002, by Philippe Gaillard, who was the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross mission in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide.

I thought it was moving and thought I'd share a portion of it here
It is because of [those who died] that I am here today. You may kill as many people as you want or as you can. You cannot kill their memory. The memory is the most invisible and resistant material you can find on the earth. You cannot cut it like diamond, you cannot shoot at it because you cannot see it, nevertheless it is everywhere, all around you, plenty of silence, unsaid suffering, whispers, absent looks. Sometimes you can smell it and then the memory clearly speaks like the whisper of silence. Sometimes the smell is still unbearable, even when things have been forgotten for decades.

[edit]

War is destruction, negation of life. Humanitarian action works within this subtraction. It tries to reduce it. In case of a genocide, it may seem a stupid gamble, since it's well-known that genocidal logic is the complete negation of the humanitarian spirit and of the law.

Whenever you can reduce this negation it is a miracle. And the memory never forgets miracles.
You can read an interview from the Frontline documentary "Ghosts of Rwanda" with Gaillard here.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:41 PM




More Election Mischief

Want to prevent Democrats and minorities from mucking up our electoral process by voting? Here are two new strategies that the GOP is trying out in swing states.

Option 1: Rip up Dems' voter registration forms
The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

Option 2: Don't Supply Enough Ballots for "Urban" Voters
The mayor has requested more ballots for the Nov. 2 election, but the county executive has refused to provide them, citing concerns about voter fraud.

Mayor Tom Barrett complained that the 679,000 ballots the county agreed to print were less than the number prepared for elections in 2000 and 2002. He asked for almost 260,000 additional ballots, expecting a large turnout next month.

But in a letter, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said he had "serious questions" about the need for that many ballots because the city reported having 382,000 registered voters in September. He said "chaos" could occur at understaffed polling places where voters could grab ballots.
Would it surprise you to know that Walker is a state co-chairman of the Bush campaign?


posted by Noam Alaska at 1:27 PM




Thanks for the Support, Suckers

Via the Carpetbagger, I see that Bush is going to be in Las Vegas at the same time as the AARP is holding its "Life @ 50" national event. And though Bush has been invited to address the event, he has declined.

Considering that the AARP's endorsement of his Medicare bill was a key factor in getting it passed and that passage of this bill is one of the major accomplishments that he highlights on his campaign web page, during the debates, and during his stump speeches, you'd think he'd attend to thank them and bask in their adulation.

But apparently not.

Hmmm ... I wonder if that fact that most Seniors are confused and unhappy with Bush's one major domestic policy success had anything to do with his decision not to attend the event?
Ed Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said public opinion polling shows the law is unpopular among older Americans. "No presidential candidate wants to risk being booed off stage by thousands of seniors. This drug benefit is not the victory for seniors the president plugs it to be and the president and his handlers know that to be true," said Coyle, a critic of the law.
I guess that answers that question.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:26 PM




The Perfect Storm of Pork

The New York Times has a really good article on how the recent tax bill, designed to close an illegal $5 billion tax break, ballooned into a 663 page, $137 billion dollar tax give-away to corporations
"It was a perfect storm for pork, in that they added all these provisions that were really important to lawmakers in an election year,'' said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan public-interest group in Washington. "It will take days, if not months, to figure out everything that's in here.''

[edit]

Meanwhile, lawmakers pressed hard to win approval for pet tax breaks that had been lying around for years but rejected on previous occasions. Among the items that made it into the final bill were a $9 million tax reduction on bows and arrows; $27 million in tax breaks on gambling income of foreigners at American horse-racing and dog-racing tracks; and $11 million in reduced excise taxes on fishing tackle boxes, a longtime pet project of J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, whose district includes a big producer of tackle boxes.
And of course, the World's Biggest Asshole got himself some of that
Similarly, the final bill would also raise more than $60 billion by cracking down on major tax shelters and punishing companies that try to avoid American taxes by moving their headquarters outside the country. But in a gesture of mercy to a handful of oil service companies from Texas, House Republicans gave a green light to companies that moved offshore before March 4, 2003. The beneficiaries of that decision include the Noble Corporation, Weatherford International, Cooper Industries and Nabors Industries - all in or near the district of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.
You can read the bill here (pdf) - good luck trying to understand it
SEC. 211. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTAURANT PROPERTY.
(a) 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph (E) of section 168(e)(3) (relating to classification of certain property) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new clauses:

‘‘(iv) any qualified leasehold improvement property placed in service before January 1, 2006, and

‘‘(v) any qualified restaurant property placed in service before January 1, 2006."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:07 AM






Lynne Cheney's (Expensive) Obsession

Thousands of students who returned to school this fall were probably asked to write a brief paper on how they spent their summer vacation. If officials at the U.S. Department of Education had been given this same assignment, what would they have written? In this recent story, the Los Angeles Times offers a clue:
The Education Department this summer destroyed more than 300,000 copies of a booklet designed for parents to help their children learn history after the office of Vice President Dick Cheney's wife complained that it mentioned the National Standards for History, which she has long opposed.

In June, during a routine update, the Education Department began distributing a new edition of a 10-year-old how-to guide called "Helping Your Child Learn History." Aimed at parents of children from preschool through fifth grade, the 73-page booklet presented an assortment of advice, including taking children to museums and visiting historical sites.

The booklet included several brief references to the National Standards for History, which were developed at UCLA in the mid-1990s with federal support. Created by scholars and educators to help school officials design better history courses, they are voluntary benchmarks, not mandatory requirements.

At the time, Lynne Cheney, the wife of now-Vice President Cheney, led a vociferous campaign complaining that the standards were not positive enough about America's achievements and paid too little attention to figures such as Gen. Robert E. Lee, Paul Revere and Thomas Edison. At one point in the initial controversy, Cheney denounced the standards as "politicized history."

In response to the criticism, the UCLA standards were heavily revised, most critics were mollified and the controversy faded -- but not for Cheney and her staff.
It would be one thing if this administration decided it didn't want to mention these history standards in future booklets of this kind.

But how incredibly petulant is Lynne Cheney to push the Education Department to destroy hundreds of thousands of booklets that could have benefited parents? Most parents would probably not even notice any mention of the history standards. And never mind the huge expense of having to reprint all of these booklets simply to remove several stray references to history standards (which happen to be voluntary).

Cheney is often praised by Republicans for her scholarly credentials. But remember that this is the woman who, while campaigning in Minnesota a few weeks ago, made this intellectual contribution to the election dialogue:
"How about John Kerry's suntan?"
Thanks, Lynne, for raising the level of debate in this election.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:46 AM




I Smell Another Ethics Investigation

From the Hill
House ethics committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said last week that Republican lawmakers have threatened him in the wake of his panel’s recent admonishments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

Asked what response he has received from House Republicans since two ethics committee admonishments were issued in a span of seven days, Hefley said, “I’ve been attacked; I’ve been threatened.”
The article goes on to quote a bunch of Republicans who are furious with Hefley and the rest of the Ethics Panel for ... you know ... actually trying to do their job.

Maybe there ought to be an investigation into whether threatening the Chairman of the Ethics Committee is itself unethical. I suspect that it is.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:18 AM




Support the Troops!

While our "troops" are invoked and praised a lot by everyone, we very rarely hear their actual voices, their concerns, or their perspectives. Operation Truth is a new non-profit, non-partisan org for Iraq vets. In their own words veterans explain what challenges our troops really face, both on and off the battlefield.

Check out and support Operation Truth. Tell your friends and family about them. Give them a donation to help them get their stories out. My guess is it's pretty brave for them to talk as openly and frankly as they do, I'm quite sure it doesn't please the Bush Administration to have vets addressing issues such as the underfunded VA medical system, lack of proper counseling and support for newly disabled vets, criticizing the stop-loss "draft," the lack of support for military families, and so on. Also, they have a really good tv ad that they're trying to raise money for as well. It's not overtly anti-war, but it is in favor of Americans truly facing the human cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:08 AM




Daily Darfur

Reuters runs a first-hand account of the crisis in Darfur
Six months ago, I was forced to leave my home in the middle of the night when armed men from the Janjaweed came on horses and burned down our huts. I ran away with 200 other people in my village but 20 people were killed during the raid. My uncle was one of them. Lots of women and children were beaten.
The UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan said that violence and insecurity have driven another 220,000 people from the homes in the past month and that the security situation continues to deteriorate.

The Onion's "What Do You Think" asks about the genocide in Darfur
"I think the entire world will breathe a sigh of relief if the U.N. finds that it is not genocide. Well, everyone except for the half-million people who were murdered there."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:44 AM




Campaign Finance Debate

If you've been puzzled about the controversy over advertising by "527s" like MoveOn and the Swift Boat Veterans, check out this on-line dialogue/debate between Professor Rick Hasen and big-time Democratic Party lawyer Bob Bauer. These are two articulate spokesmen for their positions--Hasen being generally (though not always) in the pro-reform camp and Bauer among the leading antis--and their discussion is doing a good job of clarifying what the legal issues actually are. Campaign finance law can be a very confusing and complicated subject, but the basic outlines of what McCain-Feingold did and why it doesn't restrain 527s are not that hard to understand. Media reports on the issue seem to assume a depressingly low level of intelligence among the audience and thus usually don't even try to be precise about what's going on. Check out Hasen and Bauer for a more intelligent discussion. And check out their respective websites (Hasen's here and Bauer's here) for more on this and other election-law topics (early word to the wise: if there is another post-election legal fight, go to Hasen's blog for a balanced and accurate explanation of the legal issues).


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:45 AM




Suppressing the Vote, Part LXVIII

We've recently heard many tales of official actions making it harder for generally Democratic populations to vote . There's been everything from an alleged Defense Department plot to suppress the expatriate vote to the Ohio Secretary of State's refusal to accept voter registration forms on anything other than 80-pound cardstock to fights over voter ID to (yet again) a screwed-up purge of disproportionately African-American "felons" from Florida's rolls--and don't get me started on provisional ballots.

Now it's the turn of Native Americans, according to this report from the Native American Times (via Ed Still's Votelaw blog):

The federal government has rescinded an order that prohibited voting drives at Indian Heath Service clinics.

The issue first came to light when the Washington Post published a memo that revealed IHS officials refused to allow even non-partisan get-out-the-vote efforts at their hospitals and clinics. The apparent reasoning was that since so many Native Americans vote Democrat, the drives would have amounted to partisan politicking. A law on the books prevents federal workers from using government resources for partisan work. Critics argued that the law was unfairly applied because the Department of Defense is allowed to conduct voting drives on military installations.

New Mexico Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman, citing the military base rule, publicly called on Heath and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to repeal the IHS voting ban. Thompson agreed.

Bingaman said the victory was bittersweet. Several states with large Indian populations have already seen their voter registration deadlines come and go.

As I think I've written before, my father used to be an Indian Health Service physician. I can remember the IHS hospital with whom our government-issue house shared a front lawn (how cool it was for a five-year-old to have helicopters land in my front yard!).

The hospital served the community in a variety of ways. Most were medical, of course--I recall lining up with my Catholic-school classmates at the front door of the clinic as we awaited vaccinations--but as one of the places where everyone on the reservation eventually passed through, the hospital had information-disseminating functions as well. That is apparently still the case. As long as it doesn't go so far as encouraging citizens to vote, that is.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:27 AM




Damned Clinton Judges

In a post that closed with the above words last November, I described a decision of the Sixth Circuit striking down a federal law protecting inmates' right to practice their religions. I predicted that the Supreme Court might want to review the issue, and it has now granted review in that very case. We'll find out the statute's fate by June.

As opposed to what you might think from listening to politicians and pundits, most Supreme Court cases--including many involving so-called "hot button" issues--do not break down neatly along liberal and conservative lines. In this instance, conservative states'-rights jurisprudence would tend to lead to striking down the law, partly because it's a federal law dictating what state governments have to do and partly because it circumvents a Supreme Court decision giving states more leeway to burden the free exercise of religion. On the other hand, liberal Establishment Clause hawks might also want to strike down the law because it supposedly privileges religion over non-religion. Of course, religious conservatives presumably like the law, and liberals who favor individual rights on social issues might also support it. Hence the strange bedfellows that I noted in my earlier post: Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy co-sponsored a predecessor of this law.

I actually think this is a pretty easy case as a matter of constitutional law. I think the Sixth Circuit will be reversed, and possibly by a vote as extreme as 8-1 (Justice Stevens is already on record as thinking that a law of this type violates the Establishment Clause). But it should be one of this Term's interesting cases to follow.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:05 AM




Dredful Scott

Living here among the Coalition of the Willing, I've been able to keep some distance from the sillier parts of the campaign back home. So while I had heard in a general way about Dubya's somewhat confusing response to the question in the second debate about Supreme Court appointments, I hadn't fully appreciated it. But law professor Steven Lubet zeroed in on the worst part of it (free registration required).
Bush explained that he would not pick judges who attempted to insert their personal opinions into constitutional interpretation. For example, he said, he would not nominate a judge who believed that the words "under God" could not be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. And then the president made this stunning statement: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all--you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." What woeful ignorance of American history.
Woeful indeed. Of course the Constitution "allowed slavery" at the time of Dred Scott; as Lubet points out, it even required the free states to cooperate in returning fugitive slaves to their owners.

The odd thing about this is that Dred Scott is nonetheless open to criticism as being the kind of "judicial activism" Bush claims to dislike. For what that case held was not that the Constitution "allowed" slavery--there was no dispute about that--but, among other things, that Congress could not decide whether U.S. territories (i.e., places that hadn't yet achieved statehood) would be free or slave areas. That was a much more tenuous reading of the Constitution, and it outraged not just radical abolitionists but large segments of free-state populations. It also overruled the delicate compromises that had held the Union together when new states were admitted in 1820 and 1850. No less an icon than Antonin Scalia likes to point to this case as an example of what would later be called "substantive due process" reasoning and a terrible example of what is wrong with judges' applying something other than the original meaning of the Constitution.

Still, it's hard to justify Bush's gaffe as a slip of the tongue. He could have accurately criticized Dred Scott as an example of judicial activism, but what he actually said was so horribly wrong on so fundamental a level that it's hard to believe he knew what he was talking about. The question at the debate was hardly unexpected, and Bush has spoken for years about judicial appointments and judicial activism, so perhaps somewhere in the debate preparations or in an ancient speech Bush was told how to use Dred Scott properly to support his pitch. If so, he showed at the debate that he didn't understand what he had been told. Either way, his apparent ignorance on rather fundamental aspects of American constitutional history--how much more basic does it get than slavery, the Civil War, and the 13th-15th Amendments?--should be very troubling.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:40 AM


Tuesday, October 12, 2004


How Bush Defines Success



I've spent well over a year trying to figure out how our president's brain works, but it all makes sense now. I just stumbled upon a Bush quote from a year ago that helps to explain why Bush sees Iraq as a great success.
"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."

President Bush, talking with reporters on Oct. 27, 2003
By "react," of course, Bush means to kill. So, in other words, the more successful the U.S. military is, the more the death toll will rise.
The Bush Axiom:
Low Success = Low Casualties,
High Success = High Casualties.
I know this must sound strange to many of you. If our troops were successful in capturing or disarming the insurgents, you're probably thinking, they'd be reacting (or killing) much less. But don't allow logic to confuse you.

If U.S. casualties were only in the 500's or 600's right now, we'd only be doing a medicore job. In Bush's world, the fact that the number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq has surpassed 1,000 tells him that we're on a roll.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:52 PM




Deja Vu

10:51 am October 11, 2004 - Vice President Cheney's Remarks at a BC'04 Rally in Medford, New Jersey
Nor can we think of our goal in this war in the way Senator Kerry described it yesterday in The New York Times. Quote: "We have to get back to the place," he said, where terrorism is "a nuisance," sort of like -? and these are his comparisons -- sort of like gambling and prostitution. This is --

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is naive and dangerous, as was Senator Kerry's reluctance earlier this year to call the war on terror an actual war. He preferred to think of it, he said, as primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation. This is all part of a pre-9/11 mind set, and it is a view we cannot go back to.

The 9/11 attack was the worst ever on American soil. We lost more people that day than we lost at Pearl Harbor. Since then, we've seen attacks all over the world -- Madrid, Casablanca, Mombassa, Riyadh, Istanbul, Jakarta, Bali, Baghdad, Beslan in Russia, most recently in Egypt. This is a global conflict. If we fail to aggressively prosecute the war on terror, destroying terrorists where we find them and confronting governments that sponsor terror, the danger will only increase. The terrorists will escalate their attacks, both here at home and overseas, and the likelihood will increase that they will acquire weapons of mass destruction to use against us. Ultimately the cost of dealing with this threat will be far higher than confronting it now.

Something Senator Kerry said in the first presidential debate reveals the same mind set, the same lack of understanding of the danger we face. He said that before America acts, we must pass a "global test."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The President and I know, even as we work to build international alliances around the world, that our job is not to conduct international opinion polls. Our job is to protect the American people. And we will never seek a permission slip to defend the United States of America. (Applause.)

When John Kerry suggests a global test, he goes right back to his beginnings in politics, when he ran for Congress the first time and he said he would only deploy troops under the authority of the United Nations.

AUDIENCE: Booo!
2:35 pm October 11, 2004 - Remarks of Vice President Cheney at a Victory 2004 Rally
Nor can we think of our goal in this war in the way Senator Kerry described it yesterday in The New York Times. "We have to get back to the place," he said, where terrorism is "a nuisance," sort of like -? and these are his comparisons -- sort of like gambling and prostitution.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is naive and dangerous, as was Senator Kerry's reluctance earlier this year to call the war on terror an actual war. He preferred to think of it, he said, as primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation. This is all part of a pre-9/11 mind set, and it is a view that we cannot go back to.

The 9/11 attack was the worst ever on American soil. We lost more people than at Pearl Harbor. Since then, we've seen attacks all over the world -- in Madrid, Casablanca, Mombassa, Riyadh, Istanbul, Jakarta, Bali, Baghdad, Beslan in Russia, and most recently in Egypt. This is a global conflict. If we fail to aggressively prosecute the war on terror, destroying terrorists where we find them and confronting governments that sponsor terror, the danger will only increase. The terrorists will escalate their attacks, both here at home and overseas, and the likelihood will increase that they will acquire weapons of mass destruction to use against us. Ultimately the cost of dealing with this threat will be far higher than confronting it now.

Something Senator Kerry said in the first presidential debate reveals a similar mind set, the same lack of understanding of the danger we face. He said that before America acts, we must pass a quote "global test."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The President and I know, even as we work to build international alliances around the world, that our job is not to conduct international opinion polls. Our job is to protect the American people. And we will never -- (Applause.) We will never seek a permission slip to defend the United States of America. (Applause.)

When John Kerry suggests a global test, he goes right back to his beginnings in politics, when he said as he ran for Congress the first time, he would only deploy troops under the authority of the United Nations.

AUDIENCE: Booo!
I know that the Bush campaign is maniacal when it comes to strictly controlling its campaign events, but I had no idea they had gone so far as to install lights telling the audience when to boo and clap.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:23 PM




Johnny Freedomseed

From the Chicago Tribune
President Bush, waging a broad assault against Sen. John Kerry in two Western states crucial to success in November, ridiculed his Democratic rival Monday for comparing terrorism to "a nuisance" such as gambling and prostitution.

[edit]

Kerry had been quoted in an article published Sunday as saying: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

"As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution," The New York Times Magazine quoted Kerry as saying. "We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
Here is what Bush had to say during a rally yesterday
Now, just this weekend, Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to -- quote -- "nuisance" -- end quote -- and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling. See, I couldn't disagree more. Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world.
Considering that just over a month ago, Bush was saying
"I don't think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
I don't see why he is criticizing Kerry.

So I think I am going to vote to re-elect George "Johnny Freedomseed" Bush, for he is making us all safe from terrorism by courageously "spreading freedom and liberty around the world," because that is far more realistic than the "naive" idea that terrorism can ever be reduced to a mere nuisance.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:44 AM




Jesus Receives Key Endorsement

I spent this past weekend with family at a rental property in rural West Virginia, with no access to the print editions of the Washington Post or New York Times -- only a very slow dial-up Internet access. The Charleston Gazette was the largest daily newspaper around.

The Charleston Gazette has a column called "Readers' Voice," which consists of excerpts from messages that are phoned in or e-mailed to the newspaper. A few gems worth sharing:
"To the caller who said St. Mark's United Methodist Church was supporting the Democrats because the ACLU uses the building, they pay to use it like many other people do. The only candidate St. Mark's supports is Jesus."

"The state needs to downsize their [sic] employees. I worked for the state 24 years. There wasn't enough work to keep me busy, so one of the girls taught me how to crochet. I made my first afghan while working for the state."
And, finally, some proof from "Readers' Voice" that Tip O'Neill was right -- all politics is local:
"If the people of Charleston don't start shopping at Town Center, we are going to lose the mall and be forced to go to the Barboursville Mall."
Good heavens! Not the Barboursville Mall! Say it isn't so.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:42 AM




Daily Darfur

Two aid workers from Save the Children were killed by a land mine on Sunday.

Prof. Yakin Ertürk, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, for the UN Commission on Human Rights reported on the crisis in Darfur
Women and girls have suffered multiple forms of violence during attacks on their villages, including rape, killings, the burning of homes and pillage of livestock. Women have also been tortured during interrogation by security forces for being relatives of suspected rebels. I heard numerous accounts of continuing violence against the displaced women and girls allegedly by government-backed militia and security forces. In particular, rape and beatings take place when women and girls leave the IDP camps to fetch wood or other necessities. Consequently, many women and girls endure the trauma of rape and loss, health problems and heightened risk of HIV/AIDS infection, as well as domestic violence and poverty. The fact that women head the majority of the households in the camps exasperates their vulnerability to violence and exploitation.
Sudan's President Umar al-Bashir will be visiting Russia to sign draft agreements on irrigation, dams, electricity and mining exploration (so I guess we won't be seeing any Russian support for sanctions any time soon.)

NPR ran a report on "The U.S. Military's Growing Role in Africa."

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni is blaming British imperialism for the crisis in Darfur.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:25 AM


Monday, October 11, 2004


Chutzpah

American Conservative Union chairman David Keene came out swinging today at the Democrats on the House Ethics Committee for the "baseless charges" against the World's Biggest Asshole, Tom DeLay. Now, let's set aside for the moment that the Ethics Committee is bipartisan or that it rebuked DeLay for, among other things, bringing the Feds in to track down Texas state legislators during last year's redistricting battle and bribing a Michigan lawmaker into voting for the Medicare bill.

What I found breathtaking about Keene's defense of DeLay was his assertion that "these baseless charges are rooted in the cynical politics of personal destruction the Democrats perfected during the Clinton era of the 1990s."

You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of revisionist history. After all, what incident more epitomizes the politics of personal destruction than right-wing efforts to bring down the Clinton presidency, culminating in 1998's impeachment vote? And who, more than any other House member, made it his mission in life to run Clinton out of Washington over a blowjob? Tom DeLay, that's who.


posted by Noam Alaska at 2:05 PM




Karen Ryan Strikes Again!

You may recall earlier this year when the Bush administration got into hot water for using public money to air for commercials promoting the Medicare prescription drug law. Although essentially Bush-Cheney campaign spots, the videos were designed to look like news reports, right down to the dateline: "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." In May, the Government Accounting Office rebuked the Dept. of Health and Human Services for violating "the restriction on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."

One would have thought that would be the end of Karen Ryan. However, it appears that news of her retirement was greatly exaggerated. Today, the Associated Press reports that more phony news accounts, this time praising the centerpiece of Bush's education strategy, No Child Left Behind. At one point during the ad in question, Ryan intones, "For Valerie and many other parents of children with poor grades, this is a program that gets an A-plus." [Watch a clip of the video here.]

Not surprisingly, the spokesperson for the Department of Education plays dumb, wondering out loud what the fuss is all about: "Frankly, one has to wonder about the motives of those who are against informing parents that they have options." Whose motives should we be worried about again?

At least the folks at the Daily Show have the courtesy of describing their reporting as "fake news." What's the Bush administration's excuse?


posted by Noam Alaska at 1:26 PM




What the ... Oh, I See

From the debate:
The question is for President Bush, and the questioner is Robin Dahle.

DAHLE: Mr. President, yesterday in a statement you admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but justified the invasion by stating, I quote, "He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist enemies."

Do you sincerely believe this to be a reasonable justification for invasion when this statement applies to so many other countries, including North Korea?

BUSH: Each situation is different, Robin.

And obviously we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force. The hardest decision a president makes is ever to use force. After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us.

In the old days we'd see a threat, and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not. But 9/11 changed it all.
Is he saying that, in the past, presidents had known of plots against, or threats to, the United States and just didn't act because they didn't feel like it?

What kind of incompetent moron would do that?

Oh wait.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:00 PM




The Litmus Test is Dead, Long Live the Litmus Test!

From Friday's debate (with the actual order of the response reversed)
Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

[edit]

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it.
Um, that kinda sounds like a litmus test to me.

Anyway, I've never really understood this fascination with "strict constructionism"
I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Bush seems to have nothing but disdain for those who doesn't share his personal opinion that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted - go figure.

But does the Constitution prohibit the phrase "under God"? Nobody really knows. That is why we appoint judges to, in Bush's words, "interpret the Constitution of the United States." And saying that you won't appoint someone who would interpret the Constitution to ban the phrase "under God" is the exact definition of a litmus test.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:34 AM




Daily Darfur

"60 Minutes" ran a compelling story on Darfur last night featuring footage of dead bodies, destroyed villages, interviews with refugees and analysis from John Prendergast and Samantha Power.

The Christian Science Monitor has a good article on how Sudan has been playing the UN and the West for suckers.

And as if the UN was not already inefficient enough, Sudan has thrown its support behind a movement to expand the Security Council to include more nations from Africa (and Latin America).

Sudan says that it might be willing to accept up to 4,000 AU monitors - again, these are only ceasefire monitors with no mandate to protect civilians.

Newt Gingrich has an op-ed in the LA Times calling on the UN to remove Sudan from the UN Commission on Human Rights.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has a good piece on Samuel Totten and his work with the Darfur Atrocities Documentation Project.

The AP takes a look at the work the current AU monitors are doing in Darfur.

John Kerry discussed Darfur with BET's Ed Gordon
Here's what I would do precisely. I would try to provide all of the logistical support, all of the funding and leadership necessary to help the African Union be able to step in if necessary and feasible. But, if we were needed as a critical element, would I commit America's efforts to try to do that? I'd do everything possible to prevent a genocide from taking place, but we'd have to be in a position in Iraq and Afghanistan we we're able to do that.
That answer is meaningless.

A photo from AFP


Relatives mourn over the body of 1-year-old Ali, who died of malnutrition in a refugee camp in El-Geneina in the Darfur, Sudan.(AFP/File/Marco Longari)


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:28 AM




Ignorance Is Strength

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (via e-mail from Rick Perlstein)
But stories of battlefield heroics are getting harder to come by, as heightened concerns about medical privacy constrict information about wounded U.S. soldiers.

The latest barrier to full disclosure: a federal law called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Military families, veterans groups and even members of Congress are discovering that the new privacy law makes it difficult to get details about America's mounting war casualties in Iraq.

[edit]

Implemented about a year ago, HIPAA prohibits hospitals and other health care providers from releasing information about a patient without consent from the patient or next of kin. It also is intended to give people more control over their health records.

[edit]

Now, military officials are citing the law in refusing to identify soldiers wounded in Iraq or disclose details about their injuries.
It's the age old philosophical conundrum: if a soldier is wounded in Iraq and nobody hears about it ... well, it's just none of your business.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 8:59 AM




You Heard it Here First

"The Curse of Dubya." Practice saying it, Tim McCarver. It'll come in handy over the coming week.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:52 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com