Cheney offensive

In trying to defend the Bush administration's mishandling of the Iraq war and its misuse of U.S. intelligence, Vice Presidet Dick Cheney gave an address today in which he says that failing to confront Saddam Hussein would have been "irresponsible in the extreme."
Cheney asserted that "the safety of the American people was at stake" and that Bush was unwilling "to place the lives of our citizens at the mercy of Saddam Hussein."

But that is why the WMD controversy is so pertinent here. Without these elusive weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to anyone except his own people. Our safety was never at stake, nor were we ever at the mercy of Saddam Hussein.

Cheney continues:
"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," Cheney said. "The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?"

Who was ignoring the threat!!?!! We were enforcing U.N. dictates and pressuring Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into his country. We were doing everything necessary to keep Hussein in check, but then Bush decided to dive headlong into a pre-emptive invasion in direct defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Now we are stuck over there and our soldiers are getting picked off one-by-one by guerrilla snipers (five killed in the last two days).

Who said this?

“After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons. The fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead. If the president refuses to resign for the sake of the nation, I believe he should be impeached and face Senate trial.”

It was former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, right-wing Republican extrordinaire, speaking about President Clinton in December of 1998 after the president ordered a U.S. airstrike against Iraq.

I wonder if Mr. Armey still thinks that misleading a nation into war should be an impeachable offense?

Everyone makes mistakes...

It looks like former President Bill Clinton is being the bigger man here by accepting the Bush administration's latest excuse for the WMD controversy.
It must be grating for the Republicans who sought to remove Clinton from office for lying about sex to have him now offer them absolution for a much more serious truthbender in the State of the Union address.
Ironies never cease.

What he says...

Haven't had much time for blogging lately, so I thought I would pass along this from Matthew Yglesias.

He does a good job of summarizing the reasons why the Niger uranium story is important for those folks like Andy Sullivan who just don't get it.

What Sullivan isn't coming to grips with, however, is the evidence — clear and compelling — that the White House deliberately made claims that they knew to be false in order to bolster public support for the war. This is a serious issue, especially since the sorts of matters they lied about (classified intelligence) are not amenable to independent scrutiny by the public. If the president says that US intelligence says something or other, we pretty much have no choice but to take his word for it. That's a very serious responsibility and we need someone in the White House who's capable of discharging it.

Pete Rose redeemed

Nice article in Slate this week about an ESPN television special in which Pete Rose gets his day in court.
The final verdict was 8-4 in favor of Rose. I don't think there should be any question that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. I don't care if he gambled on baseball or anything else while he was managing the Reds. He got his due punishment - jail time, a fine, lost his managing job - so why do people insist on banning him from the Hall of Fame on top of all that?
Until Pete Rose is enshrined at the Hall of Fame it will always have an asterisk next to it noting the fact that the all-time hits leader is left out. And I won't waste my time or money on the place.

Bush's crumbling credibility

Apologists for President Bush have repeatedly argued that he did not know the Niger documents were forgeries before referencing them in the State of the Union. But what is becoming more clear is that Bush’s ideologically driven administration persisted in its habit of accepting information that it agreed with without question, and dismissed information that it disagreed with regardless of its merit and authenticity. We have seen that in Bush’s economic estimates where info that went against the Republican tax cut mantra was chunked down the memory hole. We saw it in the environmental reports that were purged of scientific data showing evidence of global warming. And now we see it very clearly in the intelligence gathered in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Today, the Washington Post reports that the Bush administration had access to the forged Niger documents more than three months before Bush’s State of the Union speech. This was in addition to the first-hand report from a U.S. diplomat who debunked the Niger story almost a year earlier.

”The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war.”

An AP story today reports that the White House is attempting to make excuses by claiming that even though some agencies had accessed the forged documents, the CIA did not get around to analyzing them until after the president made his speech.

”The White House sought to bolster its case as U.S. officials said that documents alleging Iraq sought uranium from Africa were obtained months before Bush cited them in making his case for war. But intelligence analysts did not look at them closely enough to know they were forgeries until after Bush had made the claim, U.S. officials say.”

This is bunk. Further down in the story an intelligence official says the reason the CIA had not formally analyzed the documents at that time is because they had already determined they were bogus.

”The official suggested analyzing the documents was not a top priority at the time because the CIA had already investigated their substance.”

This is no doubt why the CIA included the “footnote” in the National Intelligence Estimate that the White House is citing today.

“The material released by the White House also included a "footnote" by the State Department that said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."

Bush has already lost credibility around the globe and, as more people begin to pay attention, he is losing it here at home as well.

Alternate State of the Union

Eric Alterman submits the following speech that Bush could have delivered on the State of the Union if he had not intended to deceive and mislead the American people:

 “Saddam Hussein has no nuclear-weapons program. He has destroyed most of his weapons of mass destruction. He has no ties with al-Qaida, nor, insofar as we can determine, with any other major terrorist group, and even the CIA can’t pin anything on him for at least a decade. He’s a bad guy, to be sure, but one of many in the world, and we’ve used his badness when we thought it convenient. Hell, Don Rumsfeld even paid him a visit as Ronald Reagan’s private emissary and didn’t find time to mention it.
           Now, we are about to embark on a war that may never end. Sure, we will cream them in the main combat phase — how could we not? — but after that our troops will remain in Iraq, alone and vulnerable to daily attacks, and increasingly resented by the population, surrounded by murderous chaos. We will pay for this war by increasing the time of service of our enlisted men and women to at least a year in that country, away from their families, while I explode the deficit (robbing future generations), and cut deeply needed services to give enormous tax breaks to the wealthy.

For the Clinton obsessed

I can't think of a better way for conservatives to spend their money than to send it to John LeBoutillier to help him build his Counter-Clinton Library in Little Rock and Washington. Read all about it here.

That's right, an anti-Clinton Library that he wants to build next to the actual Clinton Presidential Library under construction in Little Rock.

"We already hear he's going to bring a bunch of egghead economists to his library to say how great the economy was when he was president," said former U.S. Rep. John LeBoutillier, R-N.Y. "And we'll find our own who can say it had nothing to do with him."

Yeah, the economy was so awful during the Clinton years. I'm so happy that Bush Jr. is in there now taking us back to the economic glory days of his father's administration.

Boutillier was briefly elected to Congress in 1980 during the Reagan landslide, but didn't stay there very long. His district is currently represented by Democrat Greg Meeks.

He says he only needs $5 million to create a place where people can relive the Whitewater investigation, the Paula Jones civil suit, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and much more!! So dig into your wallets and get those checks in the mail!

Bad news all around

David Broder, the “dean” of the Washington press corps, makes a point today that I think has been obvious for some time - that George Bush’s 2004 election is not going to be the cakewalk that so many Republicans have thought it would be.
He cites a lot of negative stories topping the evening newscasts, but just skimming the headlines in today’s papers makes the same point.

The Washington Post is reporting that the federal budget deficit may surpass $455 billion - a remarkable turnaround in just three years.

War, tax cuts and a third year of a flailing economy have pushed this year's budget deficit to $455 billion, the Office of Management and Budget announced today. That is 50 percent higher than the Bush administration forecast five months ago.
The deficit projection is nearly $55 billion more than economists anticipated just last week, and it underscores the continuing deterioration of the government's fortunes since 2000, when the Treasury posted a $236 billion surplus. That represents a fiscal reversal exceeding $680 billion.
"It's shock and awe," said a senior Republican Senate aide yesterday as early details about the size of the deficit were first reported.

Let me summarize - The war is now costing $4 billion a month; the tax cuts have depleted our treasury and wiped out our surplus; and the economy is not looking like it will turn around any time soon.

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s latest assessment is not very promising, according to the AP:

The Federal Reserve stands ready to reduce interest rates even further if necessary to boost the sluggish economy and guard against a destabilizing fall in prices, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Tuesday.
Greenspan said that the Fed was prepared to leave interest rates at low levels "for as long as it takes" - even though rates are at a 45-year low.

It is no wonder that the Bush administration wants to keep our focus on foreign affairs. But they don’t want us to think too long and hard about this story from the NY Times:

North Korean officials told the Bush administration last week that they had finished producing enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs, and that they intended to move ahead quickly to turn the material into weapons, senior American officials said today.

So while we’ve been flailing about in Iraq looking for non-existent nuclear weapons programs based on forged documents, North Korea has been moving right ahead with its very real nuclear production capabilities.

Meanwhile, Bush is quoted today in the Washington Post making statements that directly contradict what his aides said just last week about the bogus uranium intelligence.

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

Talk about revisionist history!

Truth vs. Accuracy

It depends on what the definition of "truth" is.... That is the new line coming from Bush officials like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Since trying to blame the whole bogus uranium story on the CIA chief hasn't worked as well as they had liked they are now, according to the NYTimes trying to renege and say the information was technically accurate - so no harm done right? "Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate"

Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that "the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."

And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does — did say that — and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."

But of course, the British intelligence is based on the same forged documents that the CIA already rejected! So it is just as untrue.

Here is Time magazine's take on the issue

Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.


The big question I would like answered and no one even seems to be asking is who made these forged documents in the first place and why?

Well, that settles that...

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer has finally cleared up that little matter about the bogus uranium report making it into the President's State of the Union speech... He says it's all just "a bunch of bull."

Thanks, Ari! I'm glad that is all finally cleared up. Now we can move on to more pressing matters like what to do about all these soldiers who keep coming home in body bags.

Iraq history quiz

(Note: The following information is compiled from an article by journalist Robert Hennelly published in The Village Voice on Aug. 11, 1992)

1. When did Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq?
2. Who first placed Iraq on the list of terrorist nations?
3. Who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations and when?
4. The Iran-Iraq War began in late 1980 and lasted for eight years. How many lives were lost during the conflict?
5. Place the following events in chronological order - Iraq announces it has a new chemical weapon capable of killing 100,000 people at one time; Iraq provides safe haven for Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal; the U.S. agrees to provide $210 million in federal loan guarantees to Iraq.
6. Iraq first uses chemical weapons in its war with Iran in March 1984 killing how many Iranians?
7. In June of 1984, Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of Calif. Tries to get Iraq recategorized as a terrorist state. Who dissuades him and why?
8. On Nov. 13, 1984, what diplomatic action does President Reagan take concerning Iraq?
9. On March 13, 1985, Iraq launches 32 chemical attacks killing how many Iranians?
10. From 1985 to 1990 the amount of loan guarantees to Iraq from the U.S. Export-Import Bank grows from $35 million to how much?
11. We’ve heard repeatedly how Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons “against his own people” i.e. the Kurds, but when did most of these attacks actually take place?
12. When did President George H.W. Bush sign a top-secret directive calling for closer ties to Iraq and authorizing an additional $1 billion in U.S. government backed commodity credits for Iraq?



Answers

1. July 16, 1979
2. Jimmy Carter in Dec. 1979
3. Ronald Reagan in March of 1982
4. About 750,000
5. The events are in the order that they occurred in 1982
6. Press reports cite the deaths of 5,000 soldiers contaminated by nerve gas.
7. Secretary of State George Schultz (for Reagan) saying it would “disrupt our diplomatic dialogue.”
8. He reestablishes full diplomatic ties with Iraq for the first time since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
9. Close to 5,000
10. $267 million
11. 1988: A particularly heinous attack occurs on Aug. 25, 1988, just five days after a cease fire takes hold in the Iran-Iraq War.
12. Oct. 2, 1989

My point in putting together this little quiz is to try and demonstrate the irony of our current stance on Iraq. Many of the atrocities that were cited as reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003 actually occurred prior to the first Gulf War when we were supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. Back then, Hussein was seen as the lesser of two evils and we helped to build up his army with billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees so that he could counter the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran. I find it extremely ironic to read back over the history of U.S.-Iraq relations in the 1980s and see all the reports of Hussein building up chemical weapon stockpiles, seeking nuclear weapons capability and consorting with terrorists - and all the while having the Reagan and Bush administrations apologizing for and supporting him at every turn. Up until the point when he was suddenly no longer useful.

For an excellent summary and links to documents check out Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein at The National Security Archive.

Scapegoat time...

I've always wondered why Bush decided to leave a Clinton-appointee - George Tenet - in charge at the CIA. Now it is becoming more clear....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Friday pointedly cited the CIA's role in clearing President Bush's State of the Union address, amid growing questions over the administration's prewar claims about Iraq.

"The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said, en route to Uganda.

"If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," Rice said.


How convenient to be able to throw everything into Tenet's lap.

Want a strong economy? Elect Democrats!

A ranking of U.S. presidents based on economic performance courtesy of P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law and Autism:

1) Roosevelt (1933-45): +5.3%
2) Johnson (1963-69): +3.8%
3) Carter (1977-81): +3.1%
4) Truman: (1945-53): +2.5%
5) Kennedy (1961-63): +2.5%
6) Clinton (1993-2001): +2.4%
7) Nixon (1969-75): +2.2%
8) Reagan (1981-89): +2.1%
9) Ford (1975-77): +1.1%
10) Eisenhower (1953-61): +0.9%
11) Bush (1989-93): +0.6%
12) Bush (2001-present): -0.7%
13) Hoover (1929-33): -9.0%

The scary part is how much worse things could get before Bush Jr. catches up to Hoover.

About Me

I’m Mike Thomas and I started this blog to talk about politics and pop culture things that interest me. I’m 50 years old. I live in San Antonio, Texas. I have two children - a boy born in 2003 and a girl born in 2005.

I was born at Reese Air Force Base near Lubbock, Texas while my father was in pilot school. He flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam and received the Silver Star for heroics during the Tet Offensive. He passed away a few years ago. My mom lives in Houston half way between my sister (who is in Louisiana with her husband and four kids) and me.

I was an Air Force brat through the fourth grade. The first place I can remember clearly is Grissom AFB in Indiana. When my dad got out of the service we moved back to Texas and he went to work in the oil business. We lived for a short time in McAllen. I spent my junior high years in Victoria and went to high school in Premont, which is a small town in South Texas near Kingsville. I was in Little League Baseball, Boy Scouts, Methodist Youth Fellowship, 4-H, FFA and UIL Speech and Debate.

I went to Texas A&M University and was in the Corps of Cadets for four years. I thought I would go into the Air Force like my father, but things didn’t work out that way. In the mid-to-late 80s the military was trying to cut back on personnel and they did this by raising medical entrance standards. Even though I don’t wear glasses, my eyesight was determined to be too poor to be a pilot or navigator. I was offered a missile officer slot for a short time until they determined that I am colorblind. Since I was not in a technical major that only left the non-tech officer slots of which there were very few and as my grades were not competitive enough I soon found myself bumped out.

Once it became clear that I was going to have to do something with myself other than join the military I decided I had better change my major to something more practical. So I went from Speech Communications to Journalism and figured I would end up doing public relations type work. During the extra year and a half that it took to make up for switching majors in my senior year, I lived in apartments off campus and supported myself by working first in the Sears parts department and later took a job at the A&M library. In my final semester I met my wife who was finishing up two degrees in biology and chemistry.

On the same day I learned I had an interview for a reporter position with the Bryan/College Station Eagle, my wife was offered a position as a research scientist at Bristol-Myers Squibb in Wallingford, Connecticut. There was no question as to which job was better, so we loaded up our belongings and began a three year adventure in New England. In 1991, the Northeast was in still in a recession and newspapers were hurting. I spent the first six months there doing freelance work until I convinced an editor at a small weekly paper in Durham to let me pretend to be a full time reporter there while being paid on a per story basis. After a while I attracted the attention of the group publisher and was moved into a full-time reporting position at a paper in Old Saybrook.

By 1993, we were ready to move back to Texas and I found a job at a small daily paper in Kerrville. I covered county and city government, the school board and local politics. One politico I interviewed during that time was an up-an-coming businessman by the name of George W. Bush who was running for governor against Ann Richards. In 1995, I took a reporting job at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal so my wife could go back to school at Texas Tech for her doctorate. Once again I covered education, city government and local politics. I must have interviewed then-Gov. Bush at least a half dozen times over the next several years – Lubbock was a favorite place for Republican politicians to come visit.

When my wife graduated we decided to move one more time and wound up in San Antonio where we hope to stay indefinitely. I’m currently director of communications for the Bexar County Medical Society where I edit the San Antonio Medicine magazine.

Here are some more things about me:

Name: Mike Thomas

Age: 50

Height: 6’

Level of Education: B.S. Journalism - Texas A&M University 1989

Occupation: Editor and Director of Communications at Bexar County Medical Society

Birthplace: Lubbock, Texas

Places you’ve lived: Grissom AFB, Indiana; Springdale, Ark.; McAllen, Texas; Victoria, Texas; Premont, Texas; College Station, Texas; Branford, Connecticut; Kerrville, Texas; Lubbock, Texas; San Antonio, Texas.

How many children: 2 - a boy age 12 and a girl age 9 (as of Aug. 2015)

Do you drink (alcohol): No

Do you smoke: No

Favorite outdoor activities: Playing with my kids

Favorite indoor activities: Blogging, reading, watching movies

Favorite color: Maroon

Favorite types of music: Rock, Jazz, Country, Classical

Favorite musical groups/performers: The Police; The Beatles; Elvis Presley; Bing Crosby; Bruce Springsteen; Bob Dylan; Louis Armstrong; Duke Ellington; Benny Goodman; Bix Biederbecke; Led Zepplin; The Black Crowes; Red Hot Chili Peppers; The Rolling Stones; The Beach Boys; Buddy Holly; Johnny Cash; Ray Charles; Willie Nelson; Dwight Yoakum; The Dixie Chicks; U2; REM; Cheap Trick; ZZ Top; Tom Petty; Electric Light Orchestra; The Bee Gees; Smashing Pumpkins; Stevie Wonder; The Eagles; Billy Joel; Elton John; Queen; Rod Stewart; Robert Earl Keen; Stone Temple Pilots; Guns-n-Roses; Van Halen; The Who; Aerosmith; Alison Krauss; Andrews Sisters; Peggy Lee; Asia; Heart; Loverboy; J. Geils Band; John Mellencamp; Billy Squier; Boston; Buffalo Springfield; Neil Young; Paul Simon; Chuck Pyle; Dar Williams; Vance Gilbert; Tish Hinojosa; Michael McNevin; Ellis Paul; Foreigner; Rush; Santana; Jimi Hendrix; The Doors; David Bowie; Alabama; George Strait; Garth Brooks; Herb Alpert; The Kingston Trio; Deep Purple; Kiss; Prince; Danny Kaye; The Faces; Foo Fighters; Hall & Oates; INXS; Jamiroquai; Green Day; The Offspring; Jerry Jeff Walker; JET; Miles Davis; Dizzie Gillespie; Count Basie; John Denver; John Waite; Los Lobos; Lyle Lovett; Nickel Creek; Trans Siberian Orchestra; Rage Against the Machine; Public Enemy; Rick Springfield; Enya; Mannheim Steamroller; The Chieftains; Stevie Ray Vaughn; Lynyrd Skynrd; Def Leppard; Frank Sinatra; Weird Al Yankovic

Favorite soundtracks: Urban Cowboy; Grease; Saturday Night Fever; Chess; Aladdin; Dumbo; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly; Chariots of Fire; O Brother, Where Art Thou; Sound of Music; Mary Poppins;

Favorite broadway shows: Miss Saigon; Ragtime; Chicago; Les Miserables; Phantom of the Opera; Hello Dolly; Evita; Into the Woods; Cats

What’s in your home CD player right now: Veggie Tales: Silly Songs with Larry

What’s in you car CD player right now: Dixie Chicks - Taking the Long Way

Do you play an instrument: No

Croutons or bacon bits: Neither (I prefer sunflower seeds)

Favorite salad dressing: Newman’s Own Ranch

As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up: Baseball player, preferably a catcher like my hero Johnny Bench

What would be your dream job now: Editorial writer/columnist

Places you’d most like to visit: England

Your first car: 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme

Your current car: 2005 Dodge mid-size pickup truck quadcab

Toothpaste: Vanilla-flavored Crest

Shampoo/Conditioner: Something for gray/silver hair

Favorite season: Baseball season

Favorite holiday: Halloween

Favorite hobbies: Collecting movies, books, music and baseball cards

Favorite sport to play: Baseball, basketball, golf, tennis

Favorite sports teams: San Antonio Spurs; Texas A&M Aggies; Houston Astros; Texas Rangers; New York Yankees; Cincinnati Reds (1972-78); Dallas Cowboys; Houston Texans

Do you have any siblings: Yes, a sister with four kids

Favorite places to visit: New England; Boston, New York; Chicago; Disney World

Favorite scent of candle: Vanilla

Favorite flower/plant: Cactus

Favorite subject in school: History

Least favorite subject in school: Math

Favorite authors: J.R.R. Tolkien; Richard Adams; Isaac Asimov; Charles Dickens; Mark Twain; Noam Chomsky; John Kenneth Galbraith; Hans Kung; Marcus Borg

Favorite columnists: Molly Ivins; Michael Kinsley; Paul Krugman; Joe Conason; Sidney Blumenthal; Eric Alterman;

Favorite book genre: Non-fiction

Favorite books: The Hobbit; Lord of the Rings; Watership Down; In Cold Blood; Gone With the Wind; Great Expectations

Daily reads: New York Times; San Antonio Express-News; Wall Street Journal; Washington Post online;

Favorite magazine: New Yorker

Favorite movie you have seen recently: Inside Out (Pixar)

Favorite movie of all time: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Other favorite movies: The Star Wars Trilogy; Raiders of the Lost Ark; Back To the Future; Karate Kid; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly; JFK; Aladdin; Casablanca; On the Road to .... (Hope/Crosby movies); The Searchers; Planet of the Apes; Wizard of Oz; It’s a Wonderful Life; The Court Jester; A Fish Called Wanda; The Matrix... (For a complete list of my favorite movies go here. )

Favorite actors/actresses: Clint Eastwood; John Wayne; Tom Hanks; Bob Hope; Bing Crosby; Harrison Ford; Paul Newman; Cary Grant; Charlton Heston; Jimmy Stewart; Johnny Depp; Tom Cruise; Humphry Bogart; Steve Martin; Katherine Hepburn; Woodie Allen; Mel Gibson; Steve McQueen; Yul Brynner;

Favorite TV programs (current): Lost; ER; Boston Legal; Walking Dead

Favorite TV programs (all time): Star Trek (all of them); X-Files; Twilight Zone; Sliders; The Muppet Show; Frasier; Buffy the Vampire Slayer; The Carol Burnett Show; Nash Bridges; Judging Amy; Doctor Who

Favorite cartoon character: Bugs Bunny; Daffy Duck; Donald Duck; Goofy; Speed Racer; Danger Mouse;

Favorite food: It changes, but I always like a big breakfast with pancakes, bacon and eggs.

Favorite ice cream: Blue Bell Homemade Vanilla

How would you characterize your political leanings:
Liberal pragmatist with conservative sympathies. I vote Democratic.

Green gringo fate?

Can anyone tell me what's up with this quote in this Express-News story?

San Antonio businessman Laurent Perron started the Margarita Man business in 1984 with the idea of rescuing the drink from the "insipid, green gringo fate to which she has all too often been subjected."

Maybe I'm missing something here since I don't drink alcohol, but does this strike anyone else as being just a bit offensive? The Express-News apparently thought the quote was cute enough to put in the lead of the story and it apparently inspired the headline for the story - "Margarita rescue".

Rescued from what? Those insipid green gringos? Does one have to be a member of a particular ethnic group in order to make a proper margarita? That would seem to be the implication of this quote, although the story kind of drops the matter and does not explain it further.

And The Party Never Ends...

From the NY Times:
"Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month."

The Road Goes On Forever...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Insurgents launched fresh assaults on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, killing at least two servicemen and wounding a third in shootings and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, the military said Thursday.

A soldier was fatally shot Wednesday evening near the city of Mahmudiyah, 15 miles south of Baghdad, said Spc. Nicci Trent, a spokeswoman for the military.

Another soldier was killed and one wounded Wednesday in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a five-vehicle convoy near Baqouba...

Summer Movie Bust

Is it just me or has this been a really disappointing summer for cinema fans? With the exception of "Finding Nemo" there just haven't been a lot of new movies coming out lately that have generated a great deal of interest or enthusiasm. Admittedly, I haven't seen any of these films, but just based on the reviews I've seen and the box office numbers that have come in there have been an inordinate number of stinkers this season.

The Matrix Reloaded was the last film that I got out to see and I liked it OK, but apparently a lot of other people did not and it hasn't made the big splash that Hollywood was anticipating. Then the Hulk came to town with a grandiose marketing campaign and lots of spin-off products in the toy stores, but the movie itself just kind of fizzled.
Charlie's Angels II seemed to be pretty flat as well and now Terminator III had a less than impressive showing over the holiday weekend.

Fortunately, It looks like the new Disney action/comedy "Pirates of the Caribbean" might be pretty good. It has been getting excellent reviews from the New York Times and Salon. And of course there is always Lord of the Rings: Return of the King to look forward to.

Coulter and Weiner get whacked!

Poor Ann Coulter can’t even catch a break on her own turf.
Coulter’s latest published screed against the left entitled “Treason” has been lambasted and ridiculed since its release - all of which she could no doubt explain away as the natural reaction of the treasonous liberals who control the media, but yesterday the other shoe finally dropped when Coulter was taken to task on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz penned a scathing indictment of Coulter’s book and even takes a personal slap at Coulter calling her “the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives” (Ouch! That had to hurt!).

I didn’t think too much of the matter until I found out later in the day that MSNBC had just fired Michael “Savage” Weiner, the right-wing shock jock they hired a few months ago to replace Phil Donohue. That meant that two far-right wingnuts had been slapped down in one day and that is when I became suspicious. I think I see the hand of Karl Rove in all of this.

That’s right. I think Bush has been sitting back like Michael Corleone in Godfather II and surveying the political landscape in preparation for the 2004 election season. Now he has sent out his counseilere (Rove) to whack the uncooperative wingers who might have a tendency to embarrass him during the long campaign. So that just leaves one question. Which rightwingers out there should be looking over their shoulders right now?

Fade to Black

The WSJ has a story today about the decline of “old-style” animated movies prompted by the poor showing over the weekend of DreamWork SKG’s “Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas.”
The Sinbad film, which cost $70 million to make, pulled in just $6.8 million during the July 4th weekend and the studio is already preparing to write it off as a $50 million loss. This comes on the heels of Disney’s disasterous “Treasure Planet” which cost $140 million and prompted a $98 million write-off for the Mickey Mouse company.

Now, the WSJ is reporting, Dreamworks is sworn off of the old 2-D animation and has nothing but computer-animated films in the pipeline. Disney still has a few traditional features in the works - including “Brother Bear” and “Home on the Range” - but is increasingly reliant on its relationship with computer animated champ Pixar for box-office hits.
Perhaps this is an inevitability - like color pictures taking over from black and white - but it still seems like a shame. “Aladdin” is still one of my all-time favorite films and I just can’t see it being done with computer animation. I like computer animation just fine - I’m a big Pixar fan - I haven’t even seen “Finding Nemo” yet and I’m already sold on the movie - but why can’t I have both?

In the end, I believe that quality makes more difference than the medium. I can’t really speak about Sinbad and Treasure Planet since I haven’t seen either one, but somehow I think that they just don’t measure up quality-wise to something like Miyazaki’s “Spirited Away” which won the Oscar for best animated film this past year. I think Miyazaki demonstrates that there is still life left in the old-style animation as long as you have a powerful story to tell and the talent to pull it off.

Baseball and Robert Earl Keen

As a birthday treat for me (No. 38), my wife got us tickets this weekend to see a San Antonio Missions baseball game. Some friends from Houston drove down for the occasion and we were treated to an outstanding pitching performance by Clint Nageotte who threw a one-hit shutout with 14 strikeouts to lead the Missions to a 3-0 win over the El Paso Diablos. The Missions were the champions of their league last year and look to be on course for a repeat this year.

The highlight of the game for me was getting to meet former Boston Red Sox pitcher Luis Tiant who was on hand to sign autographs on behalf of a local insurance company. I dug up one of my 1976 Topps ballcards of his and got him to sign it. He also signed his picture in the new book “The Long Ball: The Summer of ‘75” which was one of my birthday presents. It tells all about the 1975 baseball season which I remember quite vividly as my favorite team the Cinncinnatti Reds went all the way to win the World Series that year.

After the game, there was a Robert Earl Keen concert followed by a fireworks display. Keen is one of those talented Texas-based performers who I am just now beginning to catch up with. I expect that I will find the time to collect more of his music now because it was really good. Most of his songs have a small-town Texas theme and he ends every concert with his biggest hit-to-date “The Road Goes On Forever and The Party Never Ends” (not sure what the actual name of the song is) which turns into an extended jam session at the end.

Haunting Words

I can hardly believe Bush actually said this, but here it is....

"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on."

Now one day later it seems Bush
got his answer...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 10 American soldiers have been wounded in attacks on Thursday in Iraq, according to U.S. military officials.

The attacks came a day after President Bush -- saying he was confident that U.S. forces in Iraq were well-protected -- said to those in Iraq looking to harm American troops, "My answer is, bring them on."

Here is
Adam Felber's satirical take which would be even more funny if it were not so tragic:

Bush Double-Dog Dares Militants to Hurt US Soldiers

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on..."


"...in fact," the President continued, "I don't think Iraqi militants have the guts to kill more Americans. I think they're yeller." Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule, made his remarks a mere 6,211 miles from the front lines."

Jobless Rate Hits 9-Year High

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June, the highest level in more than nine years, in an economic slump that has cost nearly a million jobs in the last three months."

Umm, weren't all those big tax cuts supposed to jump start the economy?

Postwar Blues

The WSJ is reporting today that 63 American troops have died in Iraq in the two months since Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared victory. That is nearly as many as died during the three weeks of fighting that led up to the fall of Baghdad.

The other day San Antonio buried its second hometown boy killed during the Iraq war and aftermath. He was a 19-year-old Army private who was killed in a grenade attack. His death did not get a lot of national media attention partly because he did not die immediately. Instead the news was that some soldiers were wounded and by the time he died the next day the grenade attack was old news.

The WSJ goes on to report that the rising casualty figures are causing Bush's poll numbers to decline from a 71 percent approval in April to 61 percent in July.

Those poll numbers are likely to drop further the longer our troops remain in harm's way. And it doesn't look like Iraq is going to embrace a U.S.-style democracy any time soon.

More on the Supremes

The same NYTimes article referred to below has the following observation from former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger:

"This term suggested a split between two kinds of conservative Republicans. (Justices Kennedy and O'Connor) share the sensibilities of corporate Republicans, who often have a bit of a libertarian streak in them, (while on social issues) Scalia and Thomas represent the Moral Majority strain, which is vocal but not necessarily dominant."
"Chief Justice Rehnquist, Dellinger adds, often occupies a middle position between the two groups."

If this analysis is accurate - and I think it is - then how would you classify the four remaining justices on the court? Might we say that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter represent the "corporate Democrats," while Justice Stevens occupies a middle position between this group and the now vacant far left position once filled by Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan.

This means that we currently have a court that is lopsided to the right. However, social conservatives who still lose out on their pet issues in this case might disagree.

Supreme moderation

The New York Times has a big rundown on the latest Supreme Court session with a great graphic showing how all the judges voted on 13 major cases. The first thing that jumps out at you is that Sandra Day O'Connor was on the winning side of all but one of the decisions, demonstrating in my opinion that she, and not William Rehnquist, is the de facto chief justice on the court.
However, it is also noteworthy that Rehnquist - who normally forms part of the far-right troika on the court along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - broke away from the conservative side on four cases, as did Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Here is the NYTimes breakdown on all of the contested cases (41) decided during this term:

"The voting patterns this term gave Justice Scalia ample cause for disaffection. Thirty of 71 cases decided by published opinions were unanimous, leaving 41 contested cases. In these, Justice Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the court's most frequent dissenters, with 16 and 21 dissenting votes respectively. This was a change from recent terms, when Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's most liberal member, was consistently the most frequent dissenter.

"Justice Stevens dissented 15 times this term as did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The fewest dissenting votes, as usual, were cast by Justice O'Connor, with eight, followed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, with nine - making the indisputably conservative chief justice appear almost a centrist in the court's current spectrum."

William Rehnquist turning into a moderate after all these years. Imagine that! I guess wisdom really does improve with age.

All-Star Voting

Just cast my vote for the Baseball All Star Game. In the past I had done like everyone else and just voted for the players on my favorite team. This year I took it a bit more serious and actually compared stats before deciding who to vote for (not that it will matter, it is still just a big popularity contest).
So here are my picks for 2003:

American League
1B Carlos Delgado - Blue Jays
2B Alfonso Soriano - Yankees
SS Nomar Garciaparra - Red Sox
3B H. Blalock - Rangers
C Jorge Posada - Yankees
OF Ichiro Suzuki - Mariners
OF Manny Ramirez - Red Sox
OF Garrett Anderson - Angels
DH Edgar Martinez - Mariners

National League
1B Todd Helton - Rockies
2B Jeff Kent - Astros
SS Edgar Renteria - Cardinals
3B Mike Lowell - Marlins
C Javy Lopez - Braves
OF Albert Pujols - Cardinals
OF Gary Sheffield - Braves
OF Barry Bonds - Giants

For the past several years I have been a Yankees fan (long story), but now that they have traded away so many of their players I have begun to lose interest and I am once again looking for a team to support. I am trying to like the Astros again.

Katharine Hepburn 1907 - 2003

I'll always remember Katharine Hepburn as the determined old lady who was a match for John Wayne in "Rooster Cogburn" - the first film I ever saw her in. But I really became a big fan after seeing her in "The Philadelphia Story" some time later.
When I lived in Connecticut in the early '90s, I worked for a weekly newspaper in Old Saybrook where Hepburn lived. I never saw her there, but I talked to townsfolk who would tell stories of running into her in the local grocery stores on ocassion. That was enough to give me a slight feeling of connection with her and made me even more of a fan later on.
The only movie of hers that I have in my video collection right now is "The African Queen," so I will need to remedy that situation. Maybe they will come out with a nice collectors set on DVD soon.

A Zero Sum Game

Affirmative Action is not fair, there is just no way around it. It was and still is a flawed effort to right a wrong brought about by years of racial discrimination. There are two key problem with affirmative action as it relates to university admissions polices. The first is that it places the burden of righting a historical wrong directly onto the backs of students who had nothing to do with it. For every minority student who recieves beneficial treatment to get to the front of the admissions line, there is another student who is pushed back through no fault of their own.

As Michael Kinsley eloquently states in his latest column:

“Admission to a prestige institution like the University of Michigan or its law school is what computer types call a "binary" decision. It's yes or no. You're in, or you're out. There is no partial or halfway admission. The effect of any factor in that decision is also binary. It either changes the result or it doesn't. It makes all the difference, or it makes none at all. Those are the only possibilities.”


The second problem as pointed out by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent is that the program leaves all minority students with the stigma that they could not have made it on their own. Did Clarence Thomas need affirmative action in order to be accepted to Yale Law School? I don’t honestly know, but everyone just assumes that he did and I think that is his point. Regardless of whether he benefitted from affirmative action or not, the assumption will always be made that he did.

Express-News columnist Jan Jarboe Russell wrote a column in Thursday’s paper that took Thomas to task for his dissent in the affirmative action case largely because she believes he should be indebted to a “system that allowed him, the grandson of a Georgia sharecropper, to graduate from Yale University Law School and ascend to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

So Russell just automatically assumes that Thomas has had his entire life handed to him on a silver platter by a benevolent government that felt sorry for him and he did not have to do any work on his own to get to where he is. I wonder why this would make him resentful. Personally, I am no fan of Clarence Thomas and I did not support his nomination to the Supreme Court. I believe his rapid rise to the top of the judicial world was due not so much to his race as it was to the combination of his race and his right-wing politics. But this is all beside the point. Attacking Thomas personally is a logical fallacy because it is not addressing his argument, which in this case has some validity.

Russell goes on to make this point about the reverse discrimination that Thomas alludes to in his dissent:

“The discrimination that Thomas is so worried about is against white people, who for generations wrote admission policies that systematically kept minorities out of colleges and law schools. This is a case of Thomas, a victim of racial discrimination, standing by the side of history’s bigots to deny other minorities the same opportunity he has enjoyed.”

History’s bigots? I wasn’t even born when most of this stuff was going on and my children certainly were not. What this reminds me of is those Old Testament stories of condemnations being handed down to people for multiple generations. “You and your children and your children’s children will be cursed and will be forced to wander the world begging for food, etc.” Or in this case my children and grandchildren may be denied admission to a school they would otherwise qualify for because of this generational curse.

I have always been a strong supporter of education and I would gladly pay higher taxes to make colleges more affordable for everyone who wants to go. I would like to see more of our tax dollars spent on improving educational quality in underperforming school districts. I think financial needs should never be a barrier to anyone who wants to continue their education. But race should not be a barrier either and unfortunately it will continue to be one on several fronts.

A little history lesson from the South Plains

Recently the folks up in Lubbock helped to elect Randy Nuegebauer to the 19th District Congressional seat vacated by Larry Combest. This was not welcome news to the folks at Burnt Orange Report and understandably so. However, I thought that a little background on the situation with which I am familiar might demonstrate how things might have been much worse.
To win the seat, Nuegebauer, a real estate developer and former Lubbock city councilman, had to get past a number of other ambitious politicians including a former mayor and a current state representative.
Neugebauer’s victory was essentially a win for the Lubbock business community and the establishment wing of the local Republican Party. One hurdle to his victory was Lubbock State Rep. Carl Isett, a staunch member of the Lubbock Republican Party’s religious conservative or social conservative wing.
Carl Isett’s path to the state legislature seven years ago followed an unusual path that holds a powerful lesson for political enthusiasts today.
It all began when then-State Sen. John Montford, the powerful Democratic lawmaker from Lubbock who chaired the Senate Finance Committee, announced that he would be stepping down in the middle of his term to take the newly created post of chancellor of Texas Tech University. This resulted in what some political observers refer to as a spilled fruit basket with people announcing plans to run for the vacant position and creating new vacancies as a result.
Among the half dozen folks who made a bid for Montford’s seat was the sitting mayor and the sitting state representative. State Rep. Robert Duncan, a fairly moderate Republican, eventually won the seat but his departure from his own seat - District 84 - came too late for the state to set up a primary election before the general election. Therefore, it fell to the executive committees of the two local parties to pick candidates to place on the ballot for the general election.
The executive committees were made up of the precinct chairmen from each party in District 84. Precinct chairmen, who normally have little if any power, are selected in caucus meetings held at each polling location after they close.
For years, those caucus meetings had been poorly attended and paid little heed by the party establishment. But one group had been paying attention to the caucus meetings - the religious conservatives - and when it came time to pick a nominee for state representative in the fall of 1996 they held a 2-1 advantage on the executive committee. As a result, the committee passed over the establishment choice of a candidate - Lubbock school trustee Nancy Neal - and instead selected a little known certified public accountant (Isett) who was best known for his opposition to abortion and his advocacy for home schooling.
Once Isett’s name was on the ballot his victory was pretty much assured. Despite the Lubbock Democratic Party’s selection of a conservative attorney who won the endorsement and financial backing of a large contingent of the business community, Isett won in a walk on the strength of solid straight-ticket voting amongst the electorate.
I guess the moral of the story is that you should never take anything for granted in politics. Even those seemingly insignificant precint chairman positions can pay big dividends down the road.

A sad ending to a strange story in today's local paper.
A man who briefly became a local celebrity here in San Antonio for his odd beharior of riding a bicycle around town wearing nothing but a pair of thong underwear was found dead at the bottom of a canyon at Big Bend National Park over the weekend. It appears to have been a suicide, but authorities are still investigating.
Now with perfect 20/20 hindsight, it is apparent that "Thong Man," as he became known, was in need of some help. But at the time it was just an annoyance to keep seeing this 52-year-old man's naked butt in the paper and on the local news every evening.
I can't blame the local paper for doing the initial story on May 5th. It was an obvious story complete with angry neighbors complaining to authorities and legal experts determining that the man was adequately covered by law. But then the story just wouldn't go away as people yakked on and on about it in the letters section and on the local talk radio stations. Pretty soon a local radio station made "Thong Man" the grand marshall in a thong parade as part of a publicity stunt and that led to another round of stories and more TV news updates.
Then last week things seemed to take a turn for the worse when the man started riding his bike without even a thong and ended up in jail for disturbing the peace. Was this a final cry of desperation or just another effort to extend his 15-minutes of fame. Whatever it was that he wanted - attention or psychological help - he obviously was not getting enough of it.
He is back on the front page of the paper again today, possibly for the final time unless the authorites determine that foul play was involved in his death. That appears unlikely at this time.

Those Dixie Chicks just won't back off....

This is from a NYTimes review of the band's recent performance at Madison Square Garden:
"Before the group performed on Friday night, chosen songs were played, among them "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding," "Our Lips Are Sealed," "Band on the Run," "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)" and "Born in the U.S.A." During the set Ms. Maines mentioned "the incident" as she introduced "Truth No. 2," which begins, "You don't like the sound of the truth coming from my mouth." She dedicated it to Michael Moore, who made an antiwar speech at the Academy Awards.

"As the Dixie Chicks played "Truth No. 2," video screens showed protest marches for civil rights and abortion rights, followed by book and record burnings and the destruction of Dixie Chicks CD's. Its final image showed the words "Seek the Truth." There were cheers when Ms. Maines sang, "I don't think I'm afraid anymore."

I wonder which is giving right-wingers the worse case of heartburn these days - the Dixie Chicks sold out concert tour or Sen. Hillary Clinton's best-selling book? They just can't stand these women who don't know their place.

Here is an excellent post from Daily Kos that takes to task the Mallard Fillmore comic strip from this past Sunday's paper.

Mallard Fillmore runs on the editorial page of the San Antonio Express-News each day right beneath Doonesbury - I guess to provide "balance." But it is really not a fair fight.

Doonesbury uses a whole host of well developed characters and follows lengthy and complex storylines to make nuanced and often biting political statements that frequently skewer both sides of the political debate.

Mallard Fillmore is a crudely drawn gag strip that has no character development and serves only to take cheap political shots at liberal "strawmen." The stip's modus operandi is not unlike that of your typical junior high school bully and the intellectual level of its arguments rarely even rise to that level.
What is worse, however, is that the assertions made in the strip are often times blatantly false. But for some reason newspapers around the country continue to run the strips everyday without correction. For example, several weeks ago the stip did a series lampooning comedian and liberal activist Janeanne Garafolo because she had at one time promised to apologize to President Bush if weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The strip showed Mallard the duck waiting impatiently in front of the White House for Garafolo to show up to make her apology - the implication being that the WMDs had already been found. Of course, no WMDs have been found and there has been no retraction from the cartoonist who simply changed the subject and went back to attacking the Clintons once again.

It is really a shame that so many papers waste space on the Mallard strip when there are so many other talented, and yes, conservative cartoonists out there who could do a better job. In San Antonio there is a conservative cartoonist named Leo Garza who does an excellent daily strip for the local paper called Nacho Guarache which is many times superior to the Mallard strip. If conservatives had any sense at all they would be trying to get Mr. Garza's strip a national syndication deal to take the place of the embarrassingly bad Mallard Fillmore.

There's always a first time...

Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has refused to certify the state budget because it is nearly $200 million out of whack. No state budget has ever failed to meet the state comptroller's certification since it was made a requirement in 1942, according to The Dallas Morning News.

This is also the first year that the Texas GOP has been in charge of every branch of government. I'm sure that is just a coincidence, however. I guess it's a good thing that Gov. Perry has already decided to blow an additional $1.7 million by calling all the lawmakers back at the end of the month for a special session. Maybe they will get it right the second time.

I think I see a pattern here...

The NYTimes is reporting today that the White House has "edited" an EPA report on the state of the environment to remove portions that describe the risks from rising global temperatures. How convenient! When a scientific study does not produce results that match the administration's ideologically-based predetermined conclusions - they just throw them out. I wonder if this was part of the reason that Christie Whitman decided to throw in the towel as Bush's EPA chief last month?

I suspect this same refusal to consider evidence that doesn't match a predetermined conclusion is also at the heart of the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction controversy.

The first two and a half years of the Bush presidency has coincided with what the Wall Street Journal today calls “one of the financial world’s most painful and protracted downturns ever.” I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

The same story goes on to suggest that there are signs of a recovery - “a 20 percent surge in stocks since March and a flurry of mergers and new intial public offerings” - but notes that Wall Street firms are behaving cautiously after having been burned by other “recovery” stories back in 2002. Securities firms have slashed a record 80,000 jobs since April 2001 as “deals dried up, initial offerings of stock in newly public companies all but vanished and banks turned off the money spigot to major corporations.”

I'm glad I was not downtown last night in the traffic snarl created by the celebrating Spurs fans. Instead, I weathered the game in the relative comfort of my home as the Spurs plodded along through three and a half quarters before finally exploding in the final six minutes to claim their first lead and the National Championship.
The Spurs seem to get only grudging respect from the other big media markets where they treat San Antonio like some kind of backwater hole in the wall rather than one of the Top 10 most populous cities in the nation. In the NY Times today, sports writer William Rhoden admitted that although Tim Duncan may be one of the most consistent and technically flawless players in the game today, he is still not a big fan because Duncan (and the Spurs) lack the "presence and charisma" of Shaquille O'Neal; the "spark" of Kobe Bryant; the "sense of theater" of Kevin Garnett and the "penchant for playing on the edge" of Allen Iverson.
Of course, there is one other descriptive term that matches all of those players -- LOSERS!!! HaHaHa!
Go Spurs!

Today the Washington Post is reporting that retired Gen. Wesley Clark is moving closer to announcing his candidacy for president. I'm not sure how serious Clark is about winning the Democratic nomination or whether this is just a move to build his name identification and make himself more appealing for a VP slot on the ticket. Quite frankly, a Kerry-Clark ticket would be a killer and would go along way towards neutralizing the Republican advantage on military issues. Remember that Sen. John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran.

Welcome to the "New and Improved" Rhetoric & Rhythm now with a 'comments' section!
Now, underneath every post there is a link where readers can post their own comments about my latest rant. So go ahead and comment away!

So many things to be outraged about... so little time to vent..
Here is one buried inside today's NYTimes:

The Organization of American States (OAS), which includes all the nations of North, Central and South America and the surrounding islands, has voted to exclude the United States from representation on its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the first time in the body's 44-year history. The reason for this symbolic rebuke is because the U.S. has done nothing but harp about Cuba since the Bush administration took charge.

"In private, several nations were critical of what they characterized as Mr. (Colin) Powell's excessive and narrow focus on Cuba at the expense of other issues."

This one-note focus on Cuba was made even more clear by the Bush administration's choice for its representative on the Human Rights commission - Rafael Martinez, a Cuban-exhile with no experience in human rights issues. But Mr. Martinez is the brother of Mel Martinez, Bush's Secrectary of Housing and Urban Development, and was a leading fund-raiser for the Bush presidential campaign among Cuban-Americans in Florida.

When Bush first took office, he played up his relationship with Mexico President Vicente Fox. But that relationship has since grown cold starting with Bush's refusal to stop the execution of a Mexican national in Texas (Mexico, like most civilized nations around the world, does not have a death penalty). And then when Mexico did not buy into all of Bush's lies about the immiment threat from weapons of mass destruction and thus did not support the U.S. pre-emptive invasion, Bush dropped Fox like a hot potato. His only other venture into foreign policy on this side of the Atlantic was to encourage and support the failed coup of the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Now, Bush's sole focus for the Southern Hemisphere is to vilify Cuba so as to bolster his support among anti-Castro Cubans in Floriday in the hope that he might actually win Florida during the next election rather than having it penciled in to his column by the Republican members of the Supreme Court.

Here is Howard Dean ( via Slate ) making some points that all the Democratic candidates need to pick up on:

"When Ronald Reagan came into office, he cut taxes, we had big deficits, and we lost 2 million jobs. When Bill Clinton came into office, he raised taxes without a single Republican vote; we balanced the budget; we gained 6 and a half million jobs. George Bush has already lost 2 and a half million. I want a balanced budget because that's how you get jobs in this country is to balance the books. No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years. …You had better elect a Democrat, because the Republicans cannot handle money. … We're the party of responsibility, and they're not."

Here is a graphic illustration to help make that point more clear.
We now have a record $400 billion budget deficit and the job losses keep mounting every week.

Why would anyone want four more years of this?

Oh goody! More song lists! This one is from VH-1 and purports to be the Top 100 songs of the past 25 years. I guess that means songs that go back to 1978 are included such as "Who Are You" by The Who and "Start Me Up" by The Rolling Stones. Well, here is the complete list along with my additions at the bottom (an X means I agree with the VH1 selection although not necessarily the placement) :

X1. Nirvana, "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
X2. Michael Jackson, "Billie Jean"
X3. Guns N' Roses, "Sweet Child O' Mine"
X4. Eminem, "Lose Yourself"
X5. U2, "One"
6. Run-D.M.C., "Walk This Way"
X7. Prince, "When Doves Cry"
8. Whitney Houston, "I Will Always Love You"
X9. The Police, "Every Breath You Take"
X10. Madonna, "Like a Virgin"
X11. Van Halen, "Jump"
12. Alanis Morissette, "You Oughta Know"
13. TLC, "Waterfalls"
14. Sinead O'Connor, "Nothing Compares 2 U"
X15. Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)"
16. No Doubt, "Don't Speak"
X17. Def Leppard, "Photograph"
X18. R.E.M., "Losing My Religion"
X19. Public Enemy, "Fight the Power"
X20. AC/DC, "You Shook Me All Night Long"
X21. U2, "With or Without You"
22. Cyndi Lauper, "Time After Time"
X23. Prince, "Little Red Corvette"
24. Celine Dion, "My Heart Will Go On"
25. Rick James, "Super Freak"
X26. Bon Jovi, "Livin' on a Prayer"
27. Grandmaster Flash, "The Message"
28. Britney Spears, "... Baby One More Time"
X29. Bruce Springsteen, "Born in the U.S.A."
30. Janet Jackson, "Nasty"
31. Dr. Dre feat. Snoop Doggy Dogg, "Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang"
X32. Pearl Jam, "Jeremy"
X33. Tina Turner, "What's Love Got to do With It"
X34. Peter Gabriel, "In Your Eyes"
35. The Sugarhill Gang, "Rapper's Delight"
X36. Joan Jett, "I Love Rock 'n Roll"
37. Alicia Keys, "Fallin'"
X38. The Clash, "London Calling"
X39. Tom Petty, "Free Fallin'"
X40. Michael Jackson, "Beat It"
X41. Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Under the Bridge"
42. Blondie, "Heart of Glass"
X43. The Go-Go's, "Our Lips Are Sealed"
44. Gloria Gaynor, "I Will Survive"
45. Aerosmith, "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing"
X46. Queen and David Bowie, "Under Pressure"
47. Shania Twain, "You're Still the One"
48. Naughty By Nature, "O.P.P."
49. Journey, "Don't Stop Believin'"
50. Lenny Kravitz, "Are You Gonna Go My Way?"
51. George Michael, "Faith"
X52. The Rolling Stones, "Start Me Up"
53. Marvin Gaye, "Sexual Healing"
54. Goo Goo Dolls, "Iris"
X55. Talking Heads, "Once in a Lifetime"
56. Sheryl Crow, "All I Wanna Do"
57. Eric Clapton, "Tears in Heaven"
58. The Notorious B.I.G. feat. Puff Daddy & Mase, "Mo Money Mo Problems"
59. Meat Loaf "Paradise By the Dashboard Light"
X60. Santana feat. Rob Thomas, "Smooth"
61. Backstreet Boys, "I Want It That Way"
X62. Pretenders, "Brass in Pocket"
X63. Beck, "Loser"
64. The Knack, "My Sharona"
65. Nelly, "Hot in Herre"
X66. Squeeze, "Tempted"
X67. John Cougar Mellencamp, "Jack and Diane"
68. Chic, "Good Times"
69. Mary J. Blige, "Real Love"
X70. Culture Club, "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me"
71. Dave Matthews Band, "Crash Into Me"
X72. John Lennon, "(Just Like) Starting Over"
73. LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out"
X74. Hall & Oates, "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)"
75. The Ramones, "I Wanna Be Sedated"
X76. Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)"
77. Missy Elliott, "Work It"
78. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
79. Destiny's Child, "Say My Name"
X80. Duran Duran, "Hungry Like the Wolf"
81. OutKast, "Ms. Jackson"
X82. Soft Cell, "Tainted Love"
83. Band Aid, "Do They Know It's Christmas"
84. Radiohead, "Creep"
85. Eminem, "My Name Is"
X86. Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car"
X87. The Who, "Who Are You"
X88. Metallica, "Enter Sandman"
89. Pat Benatar, "Hit Me With Your Best Shot"
X90. The Police, "Roxanne"
91. Melissa Etheridge, "Come to My Window"
92. Salt-N-Pepa, "Push It"
93. Nine Inch Nails, "Closer"
X94. Cheap Trick, "Surrender"
95. Oasis, "Wonderwall"
X96. Beastie Boys, "(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (to Party!)"
X97. Devo, "Whip It"
98. Hanson, "MMMBop"
99. Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why"
100. Madonna, "Ray of Light"

Songs that did not make the list that should have include:

The Police, "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic"
Van Halen, "Running With the Devil"
Paul Simon, "You Can Call Me Al"
David Bowie, "Let's Dance"
J. Geils Band, "Centerfold"
Queen, "Another One Bites the Dust"
Asia, "Heat of the Moment"
ZZ Top, "Legs"
Loverboy, "Get Lucky"
Tears For Fears, "Sowing the Seeds of Love"
Peter Gabriel, "Sledgehammer"
Rush, "Tom Sawyer"
Foreigner, "Juke Box Hero"
Smashing Pumpkins, "Bullet With Butterfly Wings"
Stone Temple Pilots, "Vaseline"
Tom Petty, "You Got Lucky"
The Black Crowes, "Remedy"
Billy Joel, "Allentown"
Cheap Trick, "She's Tight"


That is just a sampling. I could come up with many more. I won't even comment on the order of the songs other than to say that placing "Born in the USA" out of the Top 10 is an unforgivable sin.

The Associated Press has determined that 3,240 Iraqi civilians were killed during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Or perhaps we should say that they were "liberated." Oh well, it was obviously unavoidable considering that Saddam Hussein was sitting on this huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. At least, that's what the Bush folks claimed before the war...

From the NYTimes: "President Bush said today that he was "absolutely convinced" that the United States would find proof that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programs."

We will find weapons! We will! We will! We will! We will! Bush said stamping his feet.

Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, 138 U.S. soldiers were killed during the war and, more disturbingly, 41 have been killed since May 1 when runner-up for President Bush declared the military action had ended. So what is going on?
Now the AP is also reporting that Saddam Hussein is rumored to still be alive and well in Iraq and paying a bounty for every U.S. soldier killed with the billion or so that he looted from the Iraq treasury prior to the U.S. invasion.

No WMDs, No Saddam Hussein, the Oil Ministry looted and in ruins (according to today's NYTimes). Can things get any worse in Iraq? They're not getting any better at home. Maybe Bush can start another war somewhere else to distract us from all of these problems.

While on the topic of Republican senators from tiny states like Idaho there is this fresh outrage from today's New York Times (Still the best newspaper in the country, hands down).

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is blocking the promotion of more than 850 Air Force officers, including young pilots who fought in Iraq and the general nominated to bail out the scandal-plagued U.S. Air Force Academy. His price to free the frozen promotions? Four C-150 cargo planes for the Idaho Air National Guard.

Senate rules give its members the power to hold up federal nominations and promotions, but no one has been stupid enough by my recollection to use this power to hold up military promotions which are typically whisked through the approval process. I would be just as upset with Sen. Craig if he were a Democrat and I would expect his fellow senators and party officials to knock him upside the head. But Sen. Craig is one of those politicos whose radical right views make it difficult to justify labeling him a "conservative." I guarantee that Craig voted for each and every one of Bush's budget-busting tax cuts, and now he turns around and demands a bigger piece of federal pork for his state. This is a fine example of why I often refer to the Republican Party as the Hypocricy Party.

I just wonder how many of my old Corps buddies in the Air Force are caught up in this mess that Sen. Craig has created. It's bad enough that the Bush administration is slashing veteran's benefits for the military personnel coming back from Iraq, but now they have to sit around and wait for their promotions while this Republican senator tries to blackmail the Air Force into giving his state more federal largesse. Never mind whether it is necessary for the security of our nation or even if the military can afford it today with all the pending budget cuts coming down the pike. The NY Times article spells it out pretty clearly that Craig is trying to bulk up the military base in Idaho with more aircraft so it will not be a target for closure during the next round of base closings gearing up for 2005.
I hope the Air Force officers don't have to wait much longer and I hope that the voters in Idaho will find a more honorable person to represent them in the near future.

Here is an interesting observation from blogger Nathan Newman about the U.S. Senate.

"If Senators had voting power proportionate to their state's populations, Democrats would have a significant majority in the Senate. Assuming that each Senator got one vote for every person in their state (as of 2000), the totals would be as follows (remembering each state has two Senators):
Democratic Votes: 301.5 million
Republican Votes: 246.8 million "

But Republicans control the Senate by a 51 to 48 margin (and 1 Independent) because tiny little states like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho with a combined population of slightly more than 4 million can send 2 Republicans each giving them the same voting power as California, Florida and New York whose Democratic senators represent states with a combined population of nearly 70 million people.

So what's going on in Bush's America today? Let's see....

Unemployment hits a 9-year high

Polluters get away with murder while toothless EPA does nothing

Republicans try to eliminate the filibuster rule in the Senate because 2 of Bush's 128 judicial nominees were not approved and Bush demands 100 pecent compliance from a rubber-stamp Congress.

A Pentagon spokesman explains that a DOD intelligence report issued prior to the war that said "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" was actually consistent with the administration's claims that Iraq had huge piles of Weapons of Mass Destruction that required an immediate, pre-emptive invasion to eliminate. The spokesman also goes on to explain that black is white, up is down and yesterday is tomorrow.

I'm a real sucker for lists. This one is from Country Music Television and purports to be the Top 100 Country songs of all time.
Lots of good ones on the list, but also some filler. I don't see "Luchenbach, Texas" anywhere.

Seeing as how the flag buring issue is bound to keep resurfacing every few years like some kind of zombie horror show I decided to dig up this old Letter to the Editor on that subject that I wrote during the first Bush presidency. This was published in the Bryan-College Station Eagle on July 13, 1989.

“The hysterical wave of nationalism that has swept across our country has encouraged our President to propose an amendment to our Constitution that would put a serious dent in the Bill of Rights. No, even worse than a dent, it would be a wedge that future leaders could use to pressure in even broader restrictions on our freedom of expression.
Some people seem to be surprised that the First Amendment protects more than just the spoken word. The Surpreme Court has consistently held that symbolic actions are protected as free expression as long as they are conducted peacefully. This is nothing new. What is new is this near idolatry of the flag. Having respect for what the flag stands for is one thing, worshipping the flag itself is something else.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was wrong in trying to compare flag burning to defacing a public monument. A protester cannot purchase a monument, but they can go to any store and buy their own flag. If they burn someone else’s flag then they should be tried for theft and destruction of another’s property. But they should not be penalized for expressing anger and resentment against the government in the most dramatic and shocking way - burning a symbol of that government. What if they fire up a copy of the Constitution or hang an effigy of the President? Would this not be equally offensive? Our founding fathers believed that goodness and righteousness would always prevail through forces of reason and therefore were not afraid to allow a free flow of ideas. Why are we afraid today?”

With folks like John Ashcroft and Tom Delay in charge of things these days maybe we should be afraid!

"Sen. Clinton calls husband a liar"
That is the screaming Page 1, top of the fold, banner headline in today's San Antonio Express-News. One would think, from the way the newspaper is playing the story, that Sen. Clinton had denounced her husband, the former president, just yesterday from the floor of the Senate. But the story is actually an Associated Press review of Hilary Clinton's new book "Living History" which is a memoir of her 8 years as First Lady. Sure, it reveals for the first time the pain she felt when her husband's infidelity was exposed during the Monica Lewinsky/Ken Starr debacle in the late 1990s. And I suppose that even makes it somewhat newsworthy. I could even see a newspaper teasing the story on its front page and then running it inside somewhere. But treating it like the major news of the day in such tabloid fashion is something I thought was beneath my local newspaper. It certainly helps to make the point that Eric Alterman makes in his book "What Liberal Media?" which is that there is no liberal bias in the news media, especially when it concerns the Clintons.

Meanwhile, runner-up for President George W. Bush has told one of the biggest lies in modern political history when he claimed repeatedly that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. So where are these tons of biological and chemical agents that Bush detailed in his State of the Union address and in multiple speeches leading up to our pre-emptive military invasion? If he was so concerned that they were there back then, why isn't he more concerned that they are missing now? Did they really end up in Syria or Iran or in the hands of Al Quaeda terrorists? Or is it more likely that these weapons were destroyed long ago and Bush purposely misread intelligence reports to make his case for a military confrontation?

I saw this quote floating around on the Internet and it is particularly apt to think about right now. "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" Yeah, and nobody lost their job either.

Interestingly enough, the AP story is not really that sensational. It is just the headline writers and editors at the Express-News whose bias is showing in this case. For example, inside on the jump page the story has the following statement "She (Hilary) concludes that what her husband did was morally wrong, but not a betrayal of the public." And what is the subhead for the story as it continues on Page 4A? "Sen. Clinton tells of betrayal"

I noticed on C-SPAN today that in the House they are debating a flag burning amendment once again. This is amazing. It is like an annual ritual that the Republican right must go through every year. They have been debating this thing since I was in college in the mid-1980s and they just keep bringing it back over and over again. I guess I should dig up the old letters to the editor I wrote about this issue back in College Station (where I was probably the only member of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets who was also active with Students Against Apartheid).

I guess it's not like we have anything more important to concern ourselves with. Like maybe these missing Weapons of Mass Destruction that we went to war over just a few months ago that nobody seems to care about anymore. Or how about the stagnant economy and the 2 million jobs lost since runner-up W. took office? No, the flag debate is a great distraction. Funny how I haven't noticed any flag burning during the past 15 years while our national symbol has remained unprotected by a Constitutional amendment. But I have noticed lots of people wrapping themselves in the flag on a regular basis.

I got to see the big dust-up between right-wing talkmeister Bill O'Reilly and liberal comedian/author Al Franken that was televized on C-SPAN today. I have to admit that it was never as nasty an exchange as I was led to believe. I thought that O'Reilly was pompous and kind of dry. Franken was just flat-out funny. I loved the way he kicked off his talk about his new book "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them" (with a picture of O'Reilly on the cover, by the way) by announcing that God had told him to write the book to correct the assertion by Bush that he had been chosen by God to be president. No, actually it was Clarence Thomas who chose him to be president, Franken says.

Molly Ivins was also on the bill with Franken and O'Reilly and it was wonderful to see her looking so well and nice to know that she is coming out with her own new book "Bushwhacked." I remember seeing Molly many years ago in College Station when she gave a talk at a local Unitarian Church. Back then, Bush Jr. was just a failed businessman who kept getting one incredible break after another eventually leading up to partial ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Today, Bush Jr. is our president despite the fact that myself and a majority of American voters (even in Florida) did not vote for him. And so far, his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Josh Marshall today talks about a new poll out that shows how America's image with other countries has plummeted since the war with Iraq began. And that image will only get more tarnished if it turns out that Iraq never had the WMDs that we used to justify a pre-emptive military invasion.

This is pretty neat! I'm a "Crunchy Crustacean" in the Blogosphere Ecosystem over at The Truth Laid Bear. The site uses a special program to track the number of inbound links to weblogs registered at the site and then ranks them accordingly.

So far I'm ranked at No. 2076 out of about 2612 web logs tracked on the site. I have 2 inbound links thanks to Off the Kuff and Easter Lemming - Liberal News which both were good enough to link to my May 20th rant about the sparcity of liberal voices in the national media.

Now all I need to do is get blogrolled by a couple more web sites and I can evolve up through the blogosphere food chain to become a "Lowly Insect"!

Today is Bob Hope's 100th Birthday!!! I'm glad to see that he made it this far, same as George Burns a few years ago. I just started reading his memoir called "Don't Shoot! It's Just Me!" but I need to finish reading my Bing Crosby biography first.
Maybe they will play some old Bob Hope movies tonight to celebrate. I can hope, anyway.
Check out the Official Bob Hope web site.

The administration's lies from the Iraq war are finally starting to catch up with them. Now it is just a question as to whether anyone will notice or even care.

The Washington Post reports here that Bush officials are starting to "hedge" on their certainty that Saddam ever had any weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, and remember at the beginning of the war when we bombed that underground bunker in the hopes of killing Saddam? Well, now it turns out that there was no bunker there.

And remember the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch's heroic rescue after being held as a POW in Iraq? Yeah, that's right, more lies. Read about it here.

Here is report today from the Financial Times in London about the economic disaster that Bush is creating for the country:

"The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totalling at least $44.2 trillion in current US dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.


But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the US is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase."

Saw X-Men II over the weekend and also saw Matrix Reloaded the week before that. So I guess I'm all caught up on my summer movie watching for awhile, at least until Finding Nemo comes out next week.
I give both movies a thumbs up. The Matrix sequel did not disappoint on the special effects action sequences and I thought the story line was advanced in an interesting direction with a particularly enticing tease at the end of the film that should be resolved in the final chapter.
Don't listen to the movie critics who are panning this film. Most of them probably panned the first film when it came out, but now hold it up as the gold standard and bash the sequel by comparison. I don't think you need to compare the two films any more than you need to compare two chapters of the same book. Which one did you like better? What does it matter? The only thing that matters is whether or not you like the book.

X-Men II on the other hand was not like the next chapter of a book so much as the latest issue of a comic book series and for my money it was a better movie than the first. Perhaps that is because the characters were already established for me and they could dive straight into the narrative of the story without any long detours to flesh out background details. Whatever the reason, I was entertained by the film and look forward to No. 3 which is undoubtedly in the works.

Some instructive reading in the Wall Street Journal today concerning Bush’s latest multi-billion dollar tax cut package.
The lead story makes the point that the tax cut “will likely provide a significant boost to the tepid U.S. economy, but at a potentially significant long-term cost.”
So short-term gain and long-term pain. So what exactly does that mean?
“It should boost consumer incomes and thus spending, encourage business investment and could lift stock prices...” but at the cost of “... driving up deficits and therefore long-term interest rates, and widening the gap between rich and poor.”

So Bush is willing to sacrifice the long-term health of our country in order to gain a temporary short-term boost to help with his re-election effort.

But there is more... The $350 billion price tag on the tax package is really an illusion pieced together with smoke and mirror accounting gimmicks...

“The true price tag would balloon to more than $800 billion if various temporary provisions are extended...”

The article goes on to spell out in very blatant terms about Bush’s true intentions for the tax cut...

“Mr. Bush is particularly eager to lift the economy and investors’ spirits before he has to face the voters in November 2004 — and avoid the election result his father suffered after winning a war with Iraq but letting the economy slide.”

Ah, but the difference here is that the economy has already slid long before the most recent Iraq war. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (his elusive weapons of mass destruction and non-existent nukes) in order to distract the public’s attention away from the economic mess on the homefront. His first big tax cut a year ago failed to provide any economic relief or job growth and instead served to sap away the budget surplus built up over the Clinton years and return the nation to huge deficits and a mounting debt burden.

A separate story on the front the the WSJ today makes this intriguing statement...

“As a former business executive, (Bush’s) instincts told him the economy needed some aid and he resolved to give it the largest dose possible.”

They failed to mention that Bush, the former business executive, ran each and every one of his companies into the ground and had to be bailed out each time by his Daddy’s wealthy friends. Please note that these wealthy friends did not bail out George’s companies necessarily, just George himself.
And now the process is repeating itself. Bush has effectively run the nation’s economy into the ground and now these same wealthy individuals are trying to bail him out - not by helping the country, but by helping Bush. Bush just the other day raised another $22 million at a campaign fund raiser.

By the way, aren’t Bush’s instincts a little dull if he is just now figuring out that the economy needs some aid?

There is more good stuff inside the WSJ today... In particular an article headlined “Get Ready for Era of Budget Deficits”

“The compromise 2003 tax bill would usher in a new era of federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see - especially if politicians, as expected, ultimately refuse to go along with an accounting gimmick that calls on key provisions to expire after a few years.”
“Even without the proposed tax cut, the Treasury’s ledgers would have been written in red ink through at least 2007, according to government estimates, thanks to the slowing economy, the war against terrorism and the first two tax cuts under President Bush.”