The Hammer is apparently being smashed flat in the latest opinion polls to come out of his Sugar Land district. He will most likely share the same fate as another former House Majority Leader - Thomas Foley of Washington - who was swept out of his seat in 1994. And Foley wasn't even involved in any significant scandals at the time!
Meanwhile, DeLay's hopes of making a quick return to his leadership post were dealt a serious blow the other day when the judge in the case refused to throw out the most serious charges against him. That means the case will go to trial and won't be completed until after House Republicans hold new elections for their leadership.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Failing grade for Bush administration
In what should have been the most important and most pressing measure by which to judge our nation's leadership these past three years, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have recieved a big, fat F.
A final report from the former 9/11 Commission on Monday gave Congress and the White House a blistering review of their work to secure the nation, warning that terrorists will strike again and could cause catastrophic destruction with nuclear weapons.
Some of the sharpest criticism of this administration came from the Repubican members of the bi-partisan commission:
"The American people ought to demand answers," said James R. Thompson, a Republican commissioner and a former Illinois governor. "Why aren't our tax dollars being spent to protect our lives? What's the rationale? What's the excuse? There is no excuse."
Wow! Imagine if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 occurred and then three years later we still have no idea where Osama bin Laden is and a report like this comes out. Needless to say, Repubicans would be writing up articles of impeachment as we speak.
A final report from the former 9/11 Commission on Monday gave Congress and the White House a blistering review of their work to secure the nation, warning that terrorists will strike again and could cause catastrophic destruction with nuclear weapons.
Some of the sharpest criticism of this administration came from the Repubican members of the bi-partisan commission:
"The American people ought to demand answers," said James R. Thompson, a Republican commissioner and a former Illinois governor. "Why aren't our tax dollars being spent to protect our lives? What's the rationale? What's the excuse? There is no excuse."
Wow! Imagine if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 occurred and then three years later we still have no idea where Osama bin Laden is and a report like this comes out. Needless to say, Repubicans would be writing up articles of impeachment as we speak.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Abuse of power
Damn right there needs to be an investigation into this!
Why even bother to have staff attorneys at the Department of Justice who are experts in various fields if their opinions ultimately carry no weight?
What I want to know is what does it mean specifically under the 1965 Voting Rights Act for states to get Justice Department approval for redistricting maps? Does it mean that a political flunky can just rubberstamp any old plan that suits the partisan purposes of the party in power without regard to how it effects minority voting rights? I somehow don't think that was the intent of the law.
This is really sad if they can actually get away with this. For people who think our government system is screwed up today, here is a classic example of why.
And let's not forget that this is not an isolated case. There is a clear pattern of this abuse of power happening continuously with this administration:
In recent weeks, developments in the Justice Department and elsewhere in the government have involved instances in which political appointees countermanded the judgment of professional staff experts whose conclusions were not in line with the administration's philosophy.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department lawyer who has led the civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry for five years announced that she was retiring because of disagreements with supervisors.
"I didn't feel like I had the support at all times of the political team," the lawyer, Sharon Y. Eubanks, said.
Last month, the nonpartisan examiners at the Government Accountability Office said that the Food and Drug Administration had relied on politics and ideology rather than science in rejecting over-the-counter sales of the morning-after contraceptive Plan B.
In broadcasting, the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting found that its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, had repeatedly crossed boundaries in the law intended to protect public television and radio from political interference.
And to think we have three more years of this garbage to contend with. I just hope people get good and sick of it by then.
Why even bother to have staff attorneys at the Department of Justice who are experts in various fields if their opinions ultimately carry no weight?
What I want to know is what does it mean specifically under the 1965 Voting Rights Act for states to get Justice Department approval for redistricting maps? Does it mean that a political flunky can just rubberstamp any old plan that suits the partisan purposes of the party in power without regard to how it effects minority voting rights? I somehow don't think that was the intent of the law.
This is really sad if they can actually get away with this. For people who think our government system is screwed up today, here is a classic example of why.
And let's not forget that this is not an isolated case. There is a clear pattern of this abuse of power happening continuously with this administration:
In recent weeks, developments in the Justice Department and elsewhere in the government have involved instances in which political appointees countermanded the judgment of professional staff experts whose conclusions were not in line with the administration's philosophy.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department lawyer who has led the civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry for five years announced that she was retiring because of disagreements with supervisors.
"I didn't feel like I had the support at all times of the political team," the lawyer, Sharon Y. Eubanks, said.
Last month, the nonpartisan examiners at the Government Accountability Office said that the Food and Drug Administration had relied on politics and ideology rather than science in rejecting over-the-counter sales of the morning-after contraceptive Plan B.
In broadcasting, the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting found that its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, had repeatedly crossed boundaries in the law intended to protect public television and radio from political interference.
And to think we have three more years of this garbage to contend with. I just hope people get good and sick of it by then.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Bush cronies overruled Justice Department
Wow! Bombshell story in the Washington Post today.
What this memo says essentially is that the U.S. Justice Department had overwhelmingly rejected Tom DeLay's mid-term re-redistricting scheme in 2003 but they were overruled by Bush appointees.
Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections...
The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule.
This is truly disgusting. I really don't know what more there is to be said about it except that this has to be the most corrupt bunch of yahoos to ever hold political office in our nation's history.
What this memo says essentially is that the U.S. Justice Department had overwhelmingly rejected Tom DeLay's mid-term re-redistricting scheme in 2003 but they were overruled by Bush appointees.
Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections...
The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule.
This is truly disgusting. I really don't know what more there is to be said about it except that this has to be the most corrupt bunch of yahoos to ever hold political office in our nation's history.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Keeping track of the corruption
With so many Republican scandals happening all at once it is getting difficult to keep track of which Republican politicians have been indicted, which have pled guilty and which are still under investigation. Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to take advantage of the confusion by claiming falsely that this tsunami of corruption is evenly spread between Republicans and Democrats.
So to help things out a bit I’ve started a list of politicians who have been convicted, indicted or are reportedly under investigation for various crimes in just this past year.
Convicted
Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.
Michael Scanlon, former aide to Tom DeLay
Former Gov. John Rowland, R-Conn.
Gov. Bob Taft, R-Ohio
Indicted
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, former House Majority Leader
Lewis “Scooter” Libby, top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney
David Safavian, a former Rove business partner serving as the top White House procurement official
Jack Abramoff, GOP lobbyist
Under Investigation
Karl Rove, top aide to President Bush
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas (again)
Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio
Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Senate Majority Leader
Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.
Kenneth Tomlinson, former Republican Chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
And there are many more who have been linked to various scandals but are not yet under investigation (as far as we know) including a few Democrats. But as this list should make absolutely clear, the vast, overwhelming majority of the corruption is confined to Republicans and members of the GOP (Greedy Old Party).
So to help things out a bit I’ve started a list of politicians who have been convicted, indicted or are reportedly under investigation for various crimes in just this past year.
Convicted
Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.
Michael Scanlon, former aide to Tom DeLay
Former Gov. John Rowland, R-Conn.
Gov. Bob Taft, R-Ohio
Indicted
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, former House Majority Leader
Lewis “Scooter” Libby, top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney
David Safavian, a former Rove business partner serving as the top White House procurement official
Jack Abramoff, GOP lobbyist
Under Investigation
Karl Rove, top aide to President Bush
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas (again)
Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio
Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Senate Majority Leader
Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.
Kenneth Tomlinson, former Republican Chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
And there are many more who have been linked to various scandals but are not yet under investigation (as far as we know) including a few Democrats. But as this list should make absolutely clear, the vast, overwhelming majority of the corruption is confined to Republicans and members of the GOP (Greedy Old Party).
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Bait and switch
As anyone can tell from his well-researched op-ed in the local paper, my friend Bill Crawford is deeply committed to supporting the war in Iraq. He devotes the bulk of his blog to highlighting the good things that the U.S. military accomplishes in Iraq everyday.
I don’t take issue with the facts that Bill lays out in the article. I will grant that good things are indeed happening in Iraq. And I will acknowledge that they do not always get as prominent of play in the national media as the negative events such as kidnappings and suicide bombings (although not for the reasons that Bill espouses).
Who could be upset by our efforts to “repair the Iraqi education system” and provide textbooks to underprivileged Iraqi schoolchildren? What kind of Scrooge would denounce our work at reparing that nation’s electrical grid, roads, bridges, health system, water system and oil infrastructure?
Surely, these are all good things that are being done. So what is the problem?
The problem is that this whole Iraqi invasion has been one giant bait and switch from the very beginning.
All of these wonderful things that Bill likes to point out each day (while ignoring all the bad things that are happening) are completely superfluous to the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place.
We did not go into Iraq to carry out a massive humanitarian mission and nation building project. If that had been the stated reason, most Republicans I know of would have been opposed to it - including George W. Bush who ridiculed Al Gore during the 2000 campaign over the notion of “nation building” projects. Republicans and conservatives have never been big on foreign aid spending and that is what this misadventure in Iraq amounts to today - a massive foreign aid program.
Imagine if President Clinton or President Gore had proposed sending our troops into some blighted region of the world to help overturn a repressive government and give assistance to the disadvantaged people living there. Republicans would have gone absolutely nuts opposing such an operation. This is the U.S. military, not the Peace Corps, they would say.
We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration insisted that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to U.S. security and the only way to prevent an impending attack was to go in and strike first. I, along with many other Americans, suspected this was a lot of B.S. at the time, but we did not have access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. So many folks, including a lot of Democrats in Congress, felt pressured to give him the benefit of the doubt and support a resolution authorizing military force as a last option. Now we know that a military invasion was the first option for the Bush team almost from day one.
Since then, we have learned that Bush relied on faulty intelligence reports when making his case for launching an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion. Not only were the reports flawed, but other intelligence reports that countered or questioned the ones the Bush administration was touting were either ignored or covered up. We now know that Hussein was a delusional old man who had never fully recovered from the whooping he received during the first Gulf War. Most of the crimes Hussein was accused of were actually committed prior to Gulf War I while he was being supported by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. The U.N. sanctions had been effective in limiting and degrading Iraq’s military structure to the point that Hussein was actually less of a threat to the U.S. by 2003 than he was immediately following the end of Gulf War I.
There was no need to invade Iraq in 2003. I don’t care how many new schools or hospitals we build, it was not worth the cost in blood or dollars that the American people have been forced to make. President Bush should have declared victory and brought our troops home a long time ago. The fact that he is still running around the country making speeches and trying to bone up support for the war three years later is a sure sign that the wheels have fallen off this cart.
I don’t take issue with the facts that Bill lays out in the article. I will grant that good things are indeed happening in Iraq. And I will acknowledge that they do not always get as prominent of play in the national media as the negative events such as kidnappings and suicide bombings (although not for the reasons that Bill espouses).
Who could be upset by our efforts to “repair the Iraqi education system” and provide textbooks to underprivileged Iraqi schoolchildren? What kind of Scrooge would denounce our work at reparing that nation’s electrical grid, roads, bridges, health system, water system and oil infrastructure?
Surely, these are all good things that are being done. So what is the problem?
The problem is that this whole Iraqi invasion has been one giant bait and switch from the very beginning.
All of these wonderful things that Bill likes to point out each day (while ignoring all the bad things that are happening) are completely superfluous to the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place.
We did not go into Iraq to carry out a massive humanitarian mission and nation building project. If that had been the stated reason, most Republicans I know of would have been opposed to it - including George W. Bush who ridiculed Al Gore during the 2000 campaign over the notion of “nation building” projects. Republicans and conservatives have never been big on foreign aid spending and that is what this misadventure in Iraq amounts to today - a massive foreign aid program.
Imagine if President Clinton or President Gore had proposed sending our troops into some blighted region of the world to help overturn a repressive government and give assistance to the disadvantaged people living there. Republicans would have gone absolutely nuts opposing such an operation. This is the U.S. military, not the Peace Corps, they would say.
We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration insisted that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to U.S. security and the only way to prevent an impending attack was to go in and strike first. I, along with many other Americans, suspected this was a lot of B.S. at the time, but we did not have access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. So many folks, including a lot of Democrats in Congress, felt pressured to give him the benefit of the doubt and support a resolution authorizing military force as a last option. Now we know that a military invasion was the first option for the Bush team almost from day one.
Since then, we have learned that Bush relied on faulty intelligence reports when making his case for launching an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion. Not only were the reports flawed, but other intelligence reports that countered or questioned the ones the Bush administration was touting were either ignored or covered up. We now know that Hussein was a delusional old man who had never fully recovered from the whooping he received during the first Gulf War. Most of the crimes Hussein was accused of were actually committed prior to Gulf War I while he was being supported by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. The U.N. sanctions had been effective in limiting and degrading Iraq’s military structure to the point that Hussein was actually less of a threat to the U.S. by 2003 than he was immediately following the end of Gulf War I.
There was no need to invade Iraq in 2003. I don’t care how many new schools or hospitals we build, it was not worth the cost in blood or dollars that the American people have been forced to make. President Bush should have declared victory and brought our troops home a long time ago. The fact that he is still running around the country making speeches and trying to bone up support for the war three years later is a sure sign that the wheels have fallen off this cart.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Moral equivalence
In his Nov. 25 column, Mark Harden takes great exception with a Nov. 18 column by Mansour El-Kikhia. Mark is incensed by what he sees as “anti-Western vitriol” in El-Kikhia’s writing. In particular he cites El Kikhia’s reference of a reported case of canabalism during the Crusades of the 11th Century as being offensive to non-Muslims. He also accuses El-Kikhia of trivializing the Holocaust by comparing it to the Crusades.
While I think Professor El-Kikhia fails to make his point by using these two examples, I do not believe that he intended them as an “insult to the Jewish people” and I think Mark goes way over the line in equating him with Holocaust denier David Irving. El Kikhia’s point is to try and equate the suffering of the Arabs with the Jews and show that they both view themselves today as victims of past wrongs.
What I find most objectionable in El-Kikhia’s column, however, is his assertion that Western societies have forfeited their moral standing in the world due to the past actions of people 50 and 1,000 years ago. If I were to critique El-Kikhia’s column, I would start with this statement:
“...it is strange for Western society to claim to uphold lofty social, religious and political values when its history is replete with valueless adventures that brought misery and injustices to many in the globe.”
So we are not allowed to uphold lofty values today because we still bear the sins of our fathers some 1,000 years later? What kind of nonsense is that? Does he expect me to walk around all day long with my head held in shame because one of my ancestors may have participated in some ancient atrocity? And if that is the case, which nation or culture could possibly live up to that standard with a blemish-free past?
As far as comparing the Holocaust with the Crusades, I think it is a silly and useless excercise. Does the fact that fewer people may have been killed during the Crusades make them any less heinous? Do we consider a mass murderer who butchered 10 people to be 10-times more righteouss and upstanding than someone who killed 100 people? Of course not!
Furthermore, the actual body counts have more to do with the times when these atrocities occurred and not with the moral rectitude of the people responsible for the crimes. You can be sure that fewer people would have died if the Holocaust had occurred in 1096 if for no other reason than fewer people were around back then. Likewise, if the Crusades had occurred in 1944 there would have been far more casualties because of the technological advancements in moving armies great distances and in creating weapons of mass destruction.
I think that El-Kikhia is trying to make a good point by saying that Muslims need to get past their feelings of victimization and “rely on their own power, hard work and intellectual sweat.”
But I also think that he is undermining his own point by focusing on things that happened 1,000 years ago and expecting to draw meaningful corelations from ancient history. I mean, what reaction did he expect to get by raising the specter of canabalism?
I also think he is being unfair to Western societies by expecting them to be totally free of discrimination as waves of immigrants continue to pour into their countries looking for a better life. Certainly, there is room for criticism in the treatment of these immigrants in many cases. But does El-Kikhia really believe that Arab nations would be any better if the situations were reversed? If, for instance, the European nations were poor and the Arab nations were prosperous we would expect to see a flood of European immigrants going in the opposite direction. Would the Arab nations be more accepting of these non-Muslim immigrants and do more to integrate them into their societies? Does El-Kikhia seriously believe there would be no backlash against these immigrants from right-wing nationalists in those countries?
While I think Professor El-Kikhia fails to make his point by using these two examples, I do not believe that he intended them as an “insult to the Jewish people” and I think Mark goes way over the line in equating him with Holocaust denier David Irving. El Kikhia’s point is to try and equate the suffering of the Arabs with the Jews and show that they both view themselves today as victims of past wrongs.
What I find most objectionable in El-Kikhia’s column, however, is his assertion that Western societies have forfeited their moral standing in the world due to the past actions of people 50 and 1,000 years ago. If I were to critique El-Kikhia’s column, I would start with this statement:
“...it is strange for Western society to claim to uphold lofty social, religious and political values when its history is replete with valueless adventures that brought misery and injustices to many in the globe.”
So we are not allowed to uphold lofty values today because we still bear the sins of our fathers some 1,000 years later? What kind of nonsense is that? Does he expect me to walk around all day long with my head held in shame because one of my ancestors may have participated in some ancient atrocity? And if that is the case, which nation or culture could possibly live up to that standard with a blemish-free past?
As far as comparing the Holocaust with the Crusades, I think it is a silly and useless excercise. Does the fact that fewer people may have been killed during the Crusades make them any less heinous? Do we consider a mass murderer who butchered 10 people to be 10-times more righteouss and upstanding than someone who killed 100 people? Of course not!
Furthermore, the actual body counts have more to do with the times when these atrocities occurred and not with the moral rectitude of the people responsible for the crimes. You can be sure that fewer people would have died if the Holocaust had occurred in 1096 if for no other reason than fewer people were around back then. Likewise, if the Crusades had occurred in 1944 there would have been far more casualties because of the technological advancements in moving armies great distances and in creating weapons of mass destruction.
I think that El-Kikhia is trying to make a good point by saying that Muslims need to get past their feelings of victimization and “rely on their own power, hard work and intellectual sweat.”
But I also think that he is undermining his own point by focusing on things that happened 1,000 years ago and expecting to draw meaningful corelations from ancient history. I mean, what reaction did he expect to get by raising the specter of canabalism?
I also think he is being unfair to Western societies by expecting them to be totally free of discrimination as waves of immigrants continue to pour into their countries looking for a better life. Certainly, there is room for criticism in the treatment of these immigrants in many cases. But does El-Kikhia really believe that Arab nations would be any better if the situations were reversed? If, for instance, the European nations were poor and the Arab nations were prosperous we would expect to see a flood of European immigrants going in the opposite direction. Would the Arab nations be more accepting of these non-Muslim immigrants and do more to integrate them into their societies? Does El-Kikhia seriously believe there would be no backlash against these immigrants from right-wing nationalists in those countries?
Confronting the "liberal media"
While I was out, two of my blogging buddies and political sparring partners had back-to-back op-ed pieces published in the local newspaper. Congratulations to both Mark Harden and Bill Crawford for their tenacity in getting their views published. Despite their misgivings about the “liberal media,” both have been willing to work through this medium in a pragmatic way in an effort to affect changes that they deem necessary.
While I may not agree with them about the changes they want to make, I think it is highly commendable that they have chosen a proactive approach rather than withdrawing in disgust like so many other people do - canceling subscriptions and refusing to read newspapers or other media apart from right-wing radio shows.
I will be posting my own thoughts and reactions to Mark’s and Bill’s op-ed pieces later today.
While I may not agree with them about the changes they want to make, I think it is highly commendable that they have chosen a proactive approach rather than withdrawing in disgust like so many other people do - canceling subscriptions and refusing to read newspapers or other media apart from right-wing radio shows.
I will be posting my own thoughts and reactions to Mark’s and Bill’s op-ed pieces later today.
Monday, November 28, 2005
I love a parade
I recorded NBC’s coverage of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York while I watched the coverage on CBS (ABC did not bother to cover the parade at all).
That was fortunate because as it turned out, CBS gave about the same amount of coverage to the parade as ABC did. Instead, they used the parade as a backdrop for their endless promotions of CBS sitcoms and interviews with various celebrities. Throughout the three hours of their parade broadcast I would guess you might have seen about 10 minutes of actual parade coverage, and that was mostly the brief snippets as they were fading to or coming back from a commercial.
NBC did slightly better in their coverage, although it was mostly confined to watching actors dance and lip-synch to current Broadway show tunes. The only way to get the TV cameras to pay attention to any of the floats was to have some current pop star onboard ready to lip-synch on cue to their latest “hit.” Funny how I had never heard any of these songs before and they all sounded the same. I guess that means I’m getting old.
I always loved watching the Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day parades when I was growing up so it is really upsetting to see them get such short shrift today. I don’t particularly like big crowds, so the thought of actually going to a big parade is not high on my list of things I want to do, but it looks like that is what I may have to do if I want my children to ever see a real parade.
Here is what I would like to see a network do with its parade coverage: Set up a camera in one spot and show the floats and bands and balloons as they pass by. That’s it. If the announcers don’t have anything interesting to say about the particular float or band that is on camera at that moment, then have them put a sock in it because I could really care less about whatever it is they were gaggling about the other day.
That was fortunate because as it turned out, CBS gave about the same amount of coverage to the parade as ABC did. Instead, they used the parade as a backdrop for their endless promotions of CBS sitcoms and interviews with various celebrities. Throughout the three hours of their parade broadcast I would guess you might have seen about 10 minutes of actual parade coverage, and that was mostly the brief snippets as they were fading to or coming back from a commercial.
NBC did slightly better in their coverage, although it was mostly confined to watching actors dance and lip-synch to current Broadway show tunes. The only way to get the TV cameras to pay attention to any of the floats was to have some current pop star onboard ready to lip-synch on cue to their latest “hit.” Funny how I had never heard any of these songs before and they all sounded the same. I guess that means I’m getting old.
I always loved watching the Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day parades when I was growing up so it is really upsetting to see them get such short shrift today. I don’t particularly like big crowds, so the thought of actually going to a big parade is not high on my list of things I want to do, but it looks like that is what I may have to do if I want my children to ever see a real parade.
Here is what I would like to see a network do with its parade coverage: Set up a camera in one spot and show the floats and bands and balloons as they pass by. That’s it. If the announcers don’t have anything interesting to say about the particular float or band that is on camera at that moment, then have them put a sock in it because I could really care less about whatever it is they were gaggling about the other day.
Isn’t She Lovely
When the nurse handed me my daughter just moments after her birth last week the radio in the operating room was playing “Isn’t She Lovely” by Stevie Wonder .
I really can’t think of a more appropriate song for the occasion.
I remember about two years ago in that same room when they handed me my son for the first time the radio was playing “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic” by The Police. That just happens to be one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite bands and one that I included on a tape of music that I recorded for my wife when we first started dating.
She is lovely, indeed. And everything about the birth of my son and daughter has been magic.
I did not intend to be absent from blogging for this long but with the combination of a new baby in the house, lots of friends and family coming by and the Thanksgiving holidays upon us, the time just kept slipping by. And then my computer crashed.
Last night we reformatted the computer and after long struggles with uncooperative software it seems to be stable once again. I have much that I would like to blog about during the next few days as I can get to it.
I really can’t think of a more appropriate song for the occasion.
I remember about two years ago in that same room when they handed me my son for the first time the radio was playing “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic” by The Police. That just happens to be one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite bands and one that I included on a tape of music that I recorded for my wife when we first started dating.
She is lovely, indeed. And everything about the birth of my son and daughter has been magic.
I did not intend to be absent from blogging for this long but with the combination of a new baby in the house, lots of friends and family coming by and the Thanksgiving holidays upon us, the time just kept slipping by. And then my computer crashed.
Last night we reformatted the computer and after long struggles with uncooperative software it seems to be stable once again. I have much that I would like to blog about during the next few days as I can get to it.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Happy Birthday!
My wife woke me up at 4 a.m. on Thursday because she was starting to have contractions. Fortunately, we were planning to go to the hospital at 5 a.m. anyway for her scheduled c-section, so we just went in an hour early.
Everything went fine with the delivery and mother and baby are doing well.
Isabel Grace Thomas was born at 7:30 a.m. weighing 7 lbs. and 2.7 oz. and was 19 3/4 inches long.
Blogging will be light for the next few days as we adjust to the new addition to our family.
Everything went fine with the delivery and mother and baby are doing well.
Isabel Grace Thomas was born at 7:30 a.m. weighing 7 lbs. and 2.7 oz. and was 19 3/4 inches long.
Blogging will be light for the next few days as we adjust to the new addition to our family.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
More bad news for Bush
I bet the Bush administration just hates getting out of bed these days. Everyday it seems they get hit with a flood of more bad news for Bush and his team.
The latest polling has Bush at an all-time low of 37 percent approval rating. The remarkable thing about that is that they can still find that many people who say that Bush is doing a good job.
Yesterday the Senate rebuffed the administration over its Iraq policy by demanding more oversight and passing a resolution saying that there should be a drastic reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006. It is clear that the Republicans have lost control of their agenda in the Congress and are now being forced to put up watered-down Democratic proposals to try and make it look like they are still in charge of things.
The New York Times is reporting a new torture scandal in Iraq.
173 detainees American troops discovered over the weekend in the basement of an Interior Ministry building in a Baghdad suburb had been tortured by their Iraqi captors. A senior Iraqi official who visited the detainees said two appeared paralyzed and others had some of the skin peeled off their bodies by their abusers.
Hopefully, the new Iraqi government will deal with this promptly and decisively rather than trying to cover it up and stonewalling it like their political benefactors are apt to do.
But the big news today is in the Washington Post where we finally get hard evidence about which oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s secret task force that devised our current energy policies. Apparently, oil company executives were still lying to Congress about those meetings as recently as last week.
Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who chairs the Commerce Committee, may have been privvy to that deception because he conveniently (over Democratic objections) refused to put the oil execs under oath when they testified before his committee and swore they were not involved in any secret task force meetings. That effectively shielded them from any perjury charges, but it is still supposed to be a crime to lie to Congress anyway.
And finally, the Washington Post has the bombshell story about Bob Woodward of Watergate fame testifying to the grand jury investigating the CIA Leak scandal. It turns out that someone in the Bush administration had blabbed about Valerie Plame to Woodward more than two months before her identity was exposed to the world in Bob Novak’s column. What does this mean?
It means that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is alive and well and continuing to overturn more rocks in this seedy look at the underbelly of power politics in Washington.
The latest polling has Bush at an all-time low of 37 percent approval rating. The remarkable thing about that is that they can still find that many people who say that Bush is doing a good job.
Yesterday the Senate rebuffed the administration over its Iraq policy by demanding more oversight and passing a resolution saying that there should be a drastic reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006. It is clear that the Republicans have lost control of their agenda in the Congress and are now being forced to put up watered-down Democratic proposals to try and make it look like they are still in charge of things.
The New York Times is reporting a new torture scandal in Iraq.
173 detainees American troops discovered over the weekend in the basement of an Interior Ministry building in a Baghdad suburb had been tortured by their Iraqi captors. A senior Iraqi official who visited the detainees said two appeared paralyzed and others had some of the skin peeled off their bodies by their abusers.
Hopefully, the new Iraqi government will deal with this promptly and decisively rather than trying to cover it up and stonewalling it like their political benefactors are apt to do.
But the big news today is in the Washington Post where we finally get hard evidence about which oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s secret task force that devised our current energy policies. Apparently, oil company executives were still lying to Congress about those meetings as recently as last week.
Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who chairs the Commerce Committee, may have been privvy to that deception because he conveniently (over Democratic objections) refused to put the oil execs under oath when they testified before his committee and swore they were not involved in any secret task force meetings. That effectively shielded them from any perjury charges, but it is still supposed to be a crime to lie to Congress anyway.
And finally, the Washington Post has the bombshell story about Bob Woodward of Watergate fame testifying to the grand jury investigating the CIA Leak scandal. It turns out that someone in the Bush administration had blabbed about Valerie Plame to Woodward more than two months before her identity was exposed to the world in Bob Novak’s column. What does this mean?
It means that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is alive and well and continuing to overturn more rocks in this seedy look at the underbelly of power politics in Washington.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Manipulation by omission
Kevin Drum has compiled a list of misleading claims made by the Bush administration prior to the invasion of Iraq along with details of the dissenting opinions in the intelligence community that were kept hidden from the public. Click through to the original post to access all the links to the supporting material.
1. The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.
What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.
2. The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.
What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.
3. The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.
4. The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link.
Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.
5. The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.
What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.
As Kevin notes today in a follow-up post, this was a clear abuse of power by the Bush administration for which they should rightfully be held accountable.
And all these protestations noting that Democrats shared Republican concerns about the threat posed by Hussein’s regime completely miss the point that the argument was about how to respond to that threat, not whether or not the threat existed. I don’t blame Bush because there were no WMDs in Iraq. I blame him for blowing that threat all out of proportion and making it the overriding concern of our military when we should have been more concerned with tracking and countering al-Qaeda operations.
1. The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.
What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.
2. The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.
What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.
3. The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.
4. The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link.
Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.
5. The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.
What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.
As Kevin notes today in a follow-up post, this was a clear abuse of power by the Bush administration for which they should rightfully be held accountable.
And all these protestations noting that Democrats shared Republican concerns about the threat posed by Hussein’s regime completely miss the point that the argument was about how to respond to that threat, not whether or not the threat existed. I don’t blame Bush because there were no WMDs in Iraq. I blame him for blowing that threat all out of proportion and making it the overriding concern of our military when we should have been more concerned with tracking and countering al-Qaeda operations.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Liar, Liar
The WaPo today pokes holes in Bush's speech that tries to refute his critics over the Iraq war.
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
In other words, LIARS!!!!
The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
How convenient. Set up several investigative committees and tell them they are not authorized to look into how the administration used the intelligence, and then claim afterwards that those same investigations have exonerated you.
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
In other words, LIARS!!!!
The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
How convenient. Set up several investigative committees and tell them they are not authorized to look into how the administration used the intelligence, and then claim afterwards that those same investigations have exonerated you.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Inept Republicans giving up on budget bill
Wow! The Republicans are really starting to miss The Hammer up on the Hill.
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders scuttled a vote Thursday on a $51 billion budget-cut package in the face of a revolt by lawmakers over scaling back Medicaid, food stamp and student loan programs.
The development was a major setback for the GOP on Capitol Hill and for President Bush, who has made cuts to benefit programs a central pillar in his budget plan.
What a mess. Hopefully, by this time next year we will be able to see things set right again after the gavel is passed to Speaker Pelosi.
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders scuttled a vote Thursday on a $51 billion budget-cut package in the face of a revolt by lawmakers over scaling back Medicaid, food stamp and student loan programs.
The development was a major setback for the GOP on Capitol Hill and for President Bush, who has made cuts to benefit programs a central pillar in his budget plan.
What a mess. Hopefully, by this time next year we will be able to see things set right again after the gavel is passed to Speaker Pelosi.
Frist’s values
This is really shameful.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he is more concerned about the leak of information regarding secret CIA detention centers than activity in the prisons themselves.
No wonder Republicans are losing support all over the country. By embracing torture and secret prisons they have essentially abandoned the basic principles that underlie the U.S. system of justice. In other words, they don’t share our values.
The New York Times in today’s editorial gets it about right on the hypocricy of the GOP leadership suddenly demanding a new leak investigation.
In the last couple of days, the Republican leaders of Congress have been piously demanding a full investigation into the sources of a Washington Post article about the Central Intelligence Agency's chain of secret prison camps. These same leaders have spent 18 months crushing any serious look at the actual abuse of prisoners at those camps, and at camps run by the American military. And for more than two years, they have expressed no interest in whether the White House leaked the name of a covert C.I.A. operative to punish a critic of the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he is more concerned about the leak of information regarding secret CIA detention centers than activity in the prisons themselves.
No wonder Republicans are losing support all over the country. By embracing torture and secret prisons they have essentially abandoned the basic principles that underlie the U.S. system of justice. In other words, they don’t share our values.
The New York Times in today’s editorial gets it about right on the hypocricy of the GOP leadership suddenly demanding a new leak investigation.
In the last couple of days, the Republican leaders of Congress have been piously demanding a full investigation into the sources of a Washington Post article about the Central Intelligence Agency's chain of secret prison camps. These same leaders have spent 18 months crushing any serious look at the actual abuse of prisoners at those camps, and at camps run by the American military. And for more than two years, they have expressed no interest in whether the White House leaked the name of a covert C.I.A. operative to punish a critic of the Iraq war.
More happy news
The Alaskan Wildlife Refuge gets a last-minute reprieve.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- regions currently under a drilling moratorium.
The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions.
President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities.
Bush’s unpopularity is starting to drag down his right-wing political agenda, just like it drug down Republicans in yesterday’s election.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- regions currently under a drilling moratorium.
The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions.
President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities.
Bush’s unpopularity is starting to drag down his right-wing political agenda, just like it drug down Republicans in yesterday’s election.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Happy election news
The Democrats took home most all of the electoral prizes the other day including the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey.
President Bush proved to be so unpopular that a Democratic Mayor in St. Paul, Minnesota was soundly defeated (by another Democrat) because he had crossed party lines to endorse Bush in the last election.
And out in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger was rebuffed on every one of his political initiatives and now it looks like the one-time GOP rising star’s political fortunes may be taking a dive. Some folks have already taken to calling him the One-Term-inator.
Republicans really had very little to cheer about Tuesday unless you count Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s re-election in New York City. Of course, anywhere outside of New York City and Bloomberg would be mistaken for a Democrat anyway.
Here in Texas, there are some GOPers who will no doubt try to console themselves with the lopsided approval of Prop. 2, the anti-gay marriage amendment. But this was in reality a strategic mistake by the right-wing. Prop. 2 is absolutely meaningless. Gay marriage is already illegal in Texas and the only way it would ever become legal here is if it is handed down through a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would overrule the Texas Constitution anyway.
The only reason for these anti-gay amendments is to rally the religious right and get them out to the polls. But it is a one-shot deal and they used it here in Texas during an off-year election when there were no big races that could be affected by it. So next year, when we have a governor’s race they will not be able to use it and that is just as well.
The main reason I ventured to the polls yesterday was to support the Alamo Community College District (ACCD) bond initiative and I was happy to see that it passed this time.
President Bush proved to be so unpopular that a Democratic Mayor in St. Paul, Minnesota was soundly defeated (by another Democrat) because he had crossed party lines to endorse Bush in the last election.
And out in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger was rebuffed on every one of his political initiatives and now it looks like the one-time GOP rising star’s political fortunes may be taking a dive. Some folks have already taken to calling him the One-Term-inator.
Republicans really had very little to cheer about Tuesday unless you count Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s re-election in New York City. Of course, anywhere outside of New York City and Bloomberg would be mistaken for a Democrat anyway.
Here in Texas, there are some GOPers who will no doubt try to console themselves with the lopsided approval of Prop. 2, the anti-gay marriage amendment. But this was in reality a strategic mistake by the right-wing. Prop. 2 is absolutely meaningless. Gay marriage is already illegal in Texas and the only way it would ever become legal here is if it is handed down through a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would overrule the Texas Constitution anyway.
The only reason for these anti-gay amendments is to rally the religious right and get them out to the polls. But it is a one-shot deal and they used it here in Texas during an off-year election when there were no big races that could be affected by it. So next year, when we have a governor’s race they will not be able to use it and that is just as well.
The main reason I ventured to the polls yesterday was to support the Alamo Community College District (ACCD) bond initiative and I was happy to see that it passed this time.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Leaky Republicans
You just can’t trust those Republicans with classified information.
Earlier today, Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leaker Bill Frist announced plans to probe an alleged leak of classified information that resulted in a Washington Post story about secret CIA-operated prisons where terrorism suspects are disappeared to.
But now it looks like they may have spoke too soon.
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) told CNN's Ed Henry Tuesday afternoon that he believed it was a Republican senator who gave information about secret CIA jails abroad to the Washington Post, RAW STORY can report.
Lott said that much of the information contained in the Post report -- which stated that the U.S. was holding terrorist suspects in secret CIA jails overseas -- was discussed at a meeting of Republican senators last Tuesday.
So by all means let’s get this investigation going!
Earlier today, Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leaker Bill Frist announced plans to probe an alleged leak of classified information that resulted in a Washington Post story about secret CIA-operated prisons where terrorism suspects are disappeared to.
But now it looks like they may have spoke too soon.
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) told CNN's Ed Henry Tuesday afternoon that he believed it was a Republican senator who gave information about secret CIA jails abroad to the Washington Post, RAW STORY can report.
Lott said that much of the information contained in the Post report -- which stated that the U.S. was holding terrorist suspects in secret CIA jails overseas -- was discussed at a meeting of Republican senators last Tuesday.
So by all means let’s get this investigation going!
Monday, November 07, 2005
Hoist on his own petard
One of Josh Marshall's readers makes an excellent point about Tom DeLay's efforts to have his trial moved out of "liberal" Travis County.
Ronnie Earle should simply ask the judge, "If Travis County is too liberal for DeLay to get a fair trial, then why is it that 2 of 3 U.S. Representatives representing Travis County are Republicans? Why are both state school board members representing Travis County Republicans? If you lump in State Senators and State Reps, too, you get a total of 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats." I'd say it looks more than fair to Republicans.
Hoist him on his own petard, perhaps...
Ronnie Earle should simply ask the judge, "If Travis County is too liberal for DeLay to get a fair trial, then why is it that 2 of 3 U.S. Representatives representing Travis County are Republicans? Why are both state school board members representing Travis County Republicans? If you lump in State Senators and State Reps, too, you get a total of 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats." I'd say it looks more than fair to Republicans.
Hoist him on his own petard, perhaps...
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Gurwitz flails and falls flat
Jonathan Gurwitz is really flailing around wildly in his latest column as he desperately tries to dismiss the ever escalating CIA Leak scandal that has landed squarely on the back of the Bush administration.
Gurwitz is usually pretty good about sticking to the facts when trying to make his case, but this time he falls flat and makes some blatantly false assertions in his column. For instance, take this passage:
The saga begins more than two years ago when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson mounted a public relations campaign against the Bush administration and its rationale to go to war in Iraq. Wilson also happened to be an adviser to presidential candidate John Kerry.
Reading this, one would assume that Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign when he "mounted his public relations campaign against the Bush administration" which consisted of writing one op-ed piece for the New York Times. But as you can see
here, Wilson did not sign on with the Kerry campaign until long after he authored the NYTimes article. In fact, you could say it was probably the Bush administration's vicious attacks on Wilson (that resulted in exposing his wife's role as a covert CIA agent) that drove him to join the Kerry campaign.
Gurwitz compounds this error later in the article stating:
That includes Wilson's own report from 2002, which — contrary to his later statements in the service of the Kerry campaign — tended to support the existence of uranium dealings.
No, Mr. Gurwitz. Wilson was not "in the service of the Kerry campaign" at the time that he first made those statements. Futhermore, only a warped reading of Wilson's report would lead anyone to conclude that it was supporting Iraqi uranium dealings with Niger.
I will compliment Gurwitz in that at least when he quotes from the section of additional comments by three Republican senators on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee he does not make the mistake of attributing it to the final report as so many other right-wing pundits have done. But that Republican slander against Joseph Wilson has nothing to do with the crime of exposing a covert CIA operation.
Neither does this ballyhoo the GOP has made that Valerie Wilson "proffered her husband for the Niger assignment."
There was absolutely nothing wrong with that! Nothing!! The CIA did not have to accept her suggestion if they did not want to. And, unlike Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, and half the flunkies populating the Bush administration, Joseph Wilson was extremely qualified for the assignment having served as ambassador to Iraq and having extensive contacts in Africa and Niger. Jeez!! What a ridiculous red herring this is! But the right-wingers keep bringing it up over and over again as if it were some kind of scandal. Are they just stupid? Or are they trying to intentionally throw up a smokescreen to distract people from the real crime that was committed here?
At least Gurwitz grudgingly acknowledges that the charges against Scooter Libby are serious.
..members of the intelligence community must know that the law will protect them when or if political functionaries do not.
I agree wholeheartedly.
But then Gurwitz goes off on an unrelated tangent against the media for first supporting NYTimes lier, I mean reporter, Judith Miller for her efforts to cover up for the lying Libby.
Then he tops it off with this outrageously slanderous statement:
For partisan purposes, liberals who don't care a whit for the CIA, its people, its front companies or its mission are now duplicitously arguing for an outrageously broad interpretation of statutes that protect its clandestine operations.
Excuse me!?!? I happen to care more than just a whit for the people who risk their lives everyday to keep our nation secure. I am outraged because it was the Bush administration, for partisan purposes, that ruined the career of one of those agents, exposed a covert operation and a CIA front company and may have done untold damage to our ability to gather vital intelligence information in the future.
Outrageously broad interpretation?? How about an interpretation that simply does what it is supposed to do and protects our covert agents by punishing officials who are trusted with classified information and then cavalierly misuse that information?
This was a truly sad column coming from Mr. Gurwitz. I usually expect better of him. I would have to say that the quote he borrowed from the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would best summarize this particular column:
"(He) gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated and misleading."
Gurwitz is usually pretty good about sticking to the facts when trying to make his case, but this time he falls flat and makes some blatantly false assertions in his column. For instance, take this passage:
The saga begins more than two years ago when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson mounted a public relations campaign against the Bush administration and its rationale to go to war in Iraq. Wilson also happened to be an adviser to presidential candidate John Kerry.
Reading this, one would assume that Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign when he "mounted his public relations campaign against the Bush administration" which consisted of writing one op-ed piece for the New York Times. But as you can see
here, Wilson did not sign on with the Kerry campaign until long after he authored the NYTimes article. In fact, you could say it was probably the Bush administration's vicious attacks on Wilson (that resulted in exposing his wife's role as a covert CIA agent) that drove him to join the Kerry campaign.
Gurwitz compounds this error later in the article stating:
That includes Wilson's own report from 2002, which — contrary to his later statements in the service of the Kerry campaign — tended to support the existence of uranium dealings.
No, Mr. Gurwitz. Wilson was not "in the service of the Kerry campaign" at the time that he first made those statements. Futhermore, only a warped reading of Wilson's report would lead anyone to conclude that it was supporting Iraqi uranium dealings with Niger.
I will compliment Gurwitz in that at least when he quotes from the section of additional comments by three Republican senators on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee he does not make the mistake of attributing it to the final report as so many other right-wing pundits have done. But that Republican slander against Joseph Wilson has nothing to do with the crime of exposing a covert CIA operation.
Neither does this ballyhoo the GOP has made that Valerie Wilson "proffered her husband for the Niger assignment."
There was absolutely nothing wrong with that! Nothing!! The CIA did not have to accept her suggestion if they did not want to. And, unlike Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, and half the flunkies populating the Bush administration, Joseph Wilson was extremely qualified for the assignment having served as ambassador to Iraq and having extensive contacts in Africa and Niger. Jeez!! What a ridiculous red herring this is! But the right-wingers keep bringing it up over and over again as if it were some kind of scandal. Are they just stupid? Or are they trying to intentionally throw up a smokescreen to distract people from the real crime that was committed here?
At least Gurwitz grudgingly acknowledges that the charges against Scooter Libby are serious.
..members of the intelligence community must know that the law will protect them when or if political functionaries do not.
I agree wholeheartedly.
But then Gurwitz goes off on an unrelated tangent against the media for first supporting NYTimes lier, I mean reporter, Judith Miller for her efforts to cover up for the lying Libby.
Then he tops it off with this outrageously slanderous statement:
For partisan purposes, liberals who don't care a whit for the CIA, its people, its front companies or its mission are now duplicitously arguing for an outrageously broad interpretation of statutes that protect its clandestine operations.
Excuse me!?!? I happen to care more than just a whit for the people who risk their lives everyday to keep our nation secure. I am outraged because it was the Bush administration, for partisan purposes, that ruined the career of one of those agents, exposed a covert operation and a CIA front company and may have done untold damage to our ability to gather vital intelligence information in the future.
Outrageously broad interpretation?? How about an interpretation that simply does what it is supposed to do and protects our covert agents by punishing officials who are trusted with classified information and then cavalierly misuse that information?
This was a truly sad column coming from Mr. Gurwitz. I usually expect better of him. I would have to say that the quote he borrowed from the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would best summarize this particular column:
"(He) gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated and misleading."
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Bush's Free Trade failure
The South American summit was clearly
a disaster for the United States. There is no hope of getting the Free Trade Area of the Americas plan approved.
"A two-day summit meeting of leaders of 34 Western Hemisphere nations in Argentina, attended by President Bush, broke up Saturday without a clear agreement on when and how to resume stalled talks aimed at achieving a hemispherewide free trade agreement.
Mr. Bush had hoped to persuade his counterparts from Latin America and the Caribbean to deliver a resounding endorsement of the plan, the Free Trade Area of the Americas. But suspicions of American intentions prevailed in the end, and by late Saturday no final communiqué had been issued.
The White House, smarting from the failure of the talks, sought to play down the importance of an agreement."
The only message to come out of the summit was the one that protesters made as they angrily denounced the U.S. in general and President Bush in particular.
It's a real shame because the free trade agreement is something the U.S. has been working on for a long time, but now that Bush has turned the U.S. into and international pariah it is unlikely to ever happen.
Oh, but wait, you say! 29 of the countries are on board in supporting the U.S. plan and only five countries are opposed.
That sounds promising until you look at a map of South America and see that those five unhappy countries - Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela - make up the vast majority of the South American continent.
George W. is without a doubt one of the worst presidents we have ever had when it comes to diplomacy. I have no doubt that Daddy Bush could have pushed this deal through with no problem, (same with Clinton) but then Daddy Bush was a 10-times better diplomat than Junior even when he was throwing up all over the Japanese prime minister.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Another missed opportunity
I remember before the war there were reports that Saddam had completely caved on all the U.S. demands and was willling to allow U.S. troops to come in and inspect any suspected weapons sites they chose. Now it turns out that Saddam was even working on a deal to go into exile.
Days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates, but the deal fell through, a UAE government senior official told CNN.
Wow! So a little more prodding by the U.S. might have swayed the deal the other way and we could have achieved regime change in Iraq while avoiding this whole debacle of the never-ending invasion that has cost the lives of 2,000-plus U.S. troops and left U.S. taxpayers with a rapidly expanding $200 billion tab.
Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney were much too impatient to get their war going. After all, they knew it was going to be a slam-dunk victory that would be all wrapped up in a matter of months with a huge political payoff in the end.
Oh, here is the payoff, by the way: Bush's job approval falls to 35 percent
Days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates, but the deal fell through, a UAE government senior official told CNN.
Wow! So a little more prodding by the U.S. might have swayed the deal the other way and we could have achieved regime change in Iraq while avoiding this whole debacle of the never-ending invasion that has cost the lives of 2,000-plus U.S. troops and left U.S. taxpayers with a rapidly expanding $200 billion tab.
Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney were much too impatient to get their war going. After all, they knew it was going to be a slam-dunk victory that would be all wrapped up in a matter of months with a huge political payoff in the end.
Oh, here is the payoff, by the way: Bush's job approval falls to 35 percent
Watch your back, Karl
Well informed sources at the White House are telling the Washington Post that Karl Rove’s future in the Bush administration may be in doubt whether or not he is eventually indicted for his role in the CIA Leak case.
Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration...
he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame...
Oooh! Look out, Karl! It looks like someone is getting ready to stick a shiv in your back and shove you out the door.
Meanwhile, the Post reports that the Plame investigation is continuing to move forward with Rove in its crosshairs.
...there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak... Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe...
But even if he escapes indictment, there may be efforts to jettison Rove from the administration.
But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA...
Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration...
he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame...
Oooh! Look out, Karl! It looks like someone is getting ready to stick a shiv in your back and shove you out the door.
Meanwhile, the Post reports that the Plame investigation is continuing to move forward with Rove in its crosshairs.
...there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak... Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe...
But even if he escapes indictment, there may be efforts to jettison Rove from the administration.
But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA...
Getting it Right on Valerie Plame
Look here! A conservative who actually takes the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA cover seriously!
William F. Buckley Jr., the godfather of the far-right, thinks that exposing covert CIA agents is not a good thing. His sensitivity to this topic is no doubt influenced by the fact that he was himself once a covert CIA operative in the early 1950s.
...the root cause of the disturbance... had to do with revealing that Valerie Plame Wilson was secretly in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, using a cover employer to disguise her affiliation.
The revelation of a covert affiliation can have terminal consequences, as the interrupted career of Colonel Penkovsky (1919-1963) bloodily illustrates....
We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal. But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay — that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company....
The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.
Thank you, Mr. Buckley, for illustrating that even broken clocks can be right twice a day.
William F. Buckley Jr., the godfather of the far-right, thinks that exposing covert CIA agents is not a good thing. His sensitivity to this topic is no doubt influenced by the fact that he was himself once a covert CIA operative in the early 1950s.
...the root cause of the disturbance... had to do with revealing that Valerie Plame Wilson was secretly in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, using a cover employer to disguise her affiliation.
The revelation of a covert affiliation can have terminal consequences, as the interrupted career of Colonel Penkovsky (1919-1963) bloodily illustrates....
We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal. But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay — that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company....
The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.
Thank you, Mr. Buckley, for illustrating that even broken clocks can be right twice a day.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Methodist mistakes
I was really saddened to see this news about the Methodist Church taking a hardline stand against gays the other day.
In a series of rulings handed down Monday, the nine-member Judicial Council, the ultimate court of the Methodist Church, removed a practicing lesbian minister from her Philadelphia church, voided a decree by Methodists in the Pacific Northwest that there was a "difference of opinion among faithful Christians regarding sexual orientation and practice," and reinstated a Virginia minister who had not allowed a gay man to join his congregation.
I’ve been a Methodist all of my life and I’m not about to change because some intolerant right-wingers have apparently hijacked the church’s governing body at the national level.
I was heartened to see the church I currently call home coming out against these misguided rulings.
Homosexuality, as I’ve argued many times before, is not a sin. It is a biological condition over which people have little to no control.
When a spokesman for the church says “It's not the orientation, but the practice” that they oppose, it is like telling someone who was born left-handed that they are only allowed to use their right hand to be in the church.
There is no excuse for this kind of blatant bigotry based on ignorance and superstition. It is no different than this stupid, stupid Proposition 2 that is on the November ballot. I’ll never understand why some people think that the sanctity and happiness of their marriages is somehow dependent on making other people miserable and unhappy by not allowing them to marry.
In a series of rulings handed down Monday, the nine-member Judicial Council, the ultimate court of the Methodist Church, removed a practicing lesbian minister from her Philadelphia church, voided a decree by Methodists in the Pacific Northwest that there was a "difference of opinion among faithful Christians regarding sexual orientation and practice," and reinstated a Virginia minister who had not allowed a gay man to join his congregation.
I’ve been a Methodist all of my life and I’m not about to change because some intolerant right-wingers have apparently hijacked the church’s governing body at the national level.
I was heartened to see the church I currently call home coming out against these misguided rulings.
Homosexuality, as I’ve argued many times before, is not a sin. It is a biological condition over which people have little to no control.
When a spokesman for the church says “It's not the orientation, but the practice” that they oppose, it is like telling someone who was born left-handed that they are only allowed to use their right hand to be in the church.
There is no excuse for this kind of blatant bigotry based on ignorance and superstition. It is no different than this stupid, stupid Proposition 2 that is on the November ballot. I’ll never understand why some people think that the sanctity and happiness of their marriages is somehow dependent on making other people miserable and unhappy by not allowing them to marry.
They started it
Kevin Drum at Political Animal points to this excellent post at The Carpetbagger Report that helps clarify exactly where the blame should lie for the recent bit of unpleasantness in the Senate chambers the other day.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Give ‘em hell, Harry!
Democratic Leader Harry Reid forced the Senate into a rare closed session today in an aggresive move to highlight the failure of Republicans to clean house and provide oversight on the Bush administration.
?Here is the full text of Reid’s speech made prior to the closed session.
"This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.
"The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.
"As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.
"And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.
"Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.
"The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.
"There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.
"The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.
"Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.
"The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization."
"The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.
"What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.
"Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.
"Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.
"There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.
"For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.
"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.
"This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.
"The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.
"They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:
How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions?
Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?
"Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ? years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.
"At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.
"We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests."
?Here is the full text of Reid’s speech made prior to the closed session.
"This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.
"The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.
"As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.
"And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.
"Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.
"The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.
"There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.
"The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.
"Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.
"The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization."
"The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.
"What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.
"Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.
"Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.
"There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.
"For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.
"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.
"This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.
"The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.
"They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:
How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions?
Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?
"Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ? years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.
"At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.
"We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests."
Monday, October 31, 2005
Bush declares war, again
Man the battle stations!! Sound the alarms!!! George W. Bush has just launched a pre-emptive attack on the American people by tapping a totally unhinged, far-right wingnut for the Supreme Court. (Photo illustration courtesy of Whiskey Bar.)
I think it is appropriate that Bush would choose Halloween as the day to nominate the scariest Supreme Court nominee since Robert Bork. Booooooo!!! Judge Samuel Alito is a treat for the far-righties and a nasty trick for the rest of the country.
But it is a shame too, because as Sen Harry Reid made clear the other day, Bush owes us an explanation about his administration’s complicity in the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal.
Rather than give us that explanation, however, Bush would rather change the subject and thus he rushes out another Supreme Court nominee within days of throwing Harriet Miers overboard.
Far from being a stealth nominee, Alito (or Scalito, as he is known is some circles) has a long and loopy track record of demented decisions.
There is no doubt that he would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and would support any and all restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. I’ve always assumed that as a given with anyone who would be nominated by President Bush. But that is just the beginning of Alito’s extremism on judicial issues.
Most disturbing to me is Alito’s opposition to the popular Family and Medical Leave Act or FMLA which guarantees workers will not lose their jobs if they are forced to miss work to take care of a newborn or an ill family member. This strikes home especially hard with me since my wife is due to give birth to our second child next month and I am planning to take a couple of weeks off. God forbid that I would have to stay home longer than that, but if I did I might not have a job to come back to if Alito had his way. Ironically, it was the late-William Rehnquist who slapped Alito around for that bizarre opinion.
There is no question that Democrats are going to have to fight this nomination - filibusters and all. They will most likely lose the battle, but as long as they put up a good fight they will make significant progress in the war. Just like Bush is tapping Alito to satisfy his wingnut base, Democrats will have to oppose it to hold up their moderate-to-liberal base. There is not much else that can be done at this point other than prepare to take back the reins of government from these dangerously incompentent and corrupt people in 2006 and 2008.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Scooter Libby: Liar
While Scooter Libby has the presumption of innocence with respect to the five-count indictment for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice handed down yesterday, one thing should still be made clear. He is a liar. There is no doubt on that point. Whether or not he is ultimately convicted of a crime related to that lie will not change the fact that he did indeed lie repeatedly, and not just the innocent "it slipped my mind" kind of lie. It was an elaborate deception told over and over again to try and cover up and hide crucial facts from the special prosecutor.
Another thing that should be made clear is that he was without a doubt involved in the outing of a covert CIA agent, as was "Official A" who we now know to be Karl Rove. Whether or not he is eventually charged and convicted of a crime specific to that action will not change the fact that he played a central role throughout this entire scandal.
Those who would argue that Libby and Rove are thoroughly exonerated of all responsibility for this mess if they are never found guilty of a crime under the IIPA must also believe that Al Capone was an upstanding citizen who never did anything wrong beyond failing to pay his taxes.
They should also explain why they continue to allow themselves to get away with trashing Bill Clinton as a liar and perjurer despite the fact that he was exonerated of those charges by the Senate.
If President Bush had stuck by his initial promise to remove anybody from his administration who was involved with outing a CIA agent, then Rove and Libby both would have been gone a long time ago, along with a number of other officials. But then the man who promised to bring a new era of accountability to the White House set a new standard that they have to be indicted of a crime before he would take any action.
Another thing that should be made clear is that he was without a doubt involved in the outing of a covert CIA agent, as was "Official A" who we now know to be Karl Rove. Whether or not he is eventually charged and convicted of a crime specific to that action will not change the fact that he played a central role throughout this entire scandal.
Those who would argue that Libby and Rove are thoroughly exonerated of all responsibility for this mess if they are never found guilty of a crime under the IIPA must also believe that Al Capone was an upstanding citizen who never did anything wrong beyond failing to pay his taxes.
They should also explain why they continue to allow themselves to get away with trashing Bill Clinton as a liar and perjurer despite the fact that he was exonerated of those charges by the Senate.
If President Bush had stuck by his initial promise to remove anybody from his administration who was involved with outing a CIA agent, then Rove and Libby both would have been gone a long time ago, along with a number of other officials. But then the man who promised to bring a new era of accountability to the White House set a new standard that they have to be indicted of a crime before he would take any action.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Obstruction of Justice
In a twisted sort of way I almost have to admire Lewis “Scooter” Libby for his devotion and loyalty to the vice president. The man is facing up to 30 years in prison for perjury (2 counts), making false statements (2 counts) and obstruction of justice. All he would probably have to do to get out of it is cut a deal with the prosecutor and say “Hey, ‘Big Time’ Cheney made me do it.”
But so far the indications are that he has not turned on his boss even though no one but the most blind partisans could doubt that Cheney was fully versed on the whole affair from the beginning.
Besides handing down indictments for a top White House aide, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did one other thing that is probably even worse in the eyes of the White House - he kept the investigation going. Karl Rove did not get indicted today, but he is still the target of the ongoing investigation and that is not good news for the Bush administration.
In his press conference today, Fitzgerald spelled out the seriousness of the obstruction charge against Libby and explained why it is significant. He compared it to an umpire having sand thrown in his eyes while trying to determine whether or not a pitcher intentionally threw a beanball that seriously injured a batter.
What is clear is that a beanball was thrown, a player was seriously injured, and the umpire is now going to have to take more time to rub the sand out of his eyes and try to sort everything out. More charges could still be handed down against Libby, Rove and others. If anything, the decision to continue the investigation is the worst possible outcome for the Bush administration because it means that it is not something they are able to put behind them at this point.
But so far the indications are that he has not turned on his boss even though no one but the most blind partisans could doubt that Cheney was fully versed on the whole affair from the beginning.
Besides handing down indictments for a top White House aide, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did one other thing that is probably even worse in the eyes of the White House - he kept the investigation going. Karl Rove did not get indicted today, but he is still the target of the ongoing investigation and that is not good news for the Bush administration.
In his press conference today, Fitzgerald spelled out the seriousness of the obstruction charge against Libby and explained why it is significant. He compared it to an umpire having sand thrown in his eyes while trying to determine whether or not a pitcher intentionally threw a beanball that seriously injured a batter.
What is clear is that a beanball was thrown, a player was seriously injured, and the umpire is now going to have to take more time to rub the sand out of his eyes and try to sort everything out. More charges could still be handed down against Libby, Rove and others. If anything, the decision to continue the investigation is the worst possible outcome for the Bush administration because it means that it is not something they are able to put behind them at this point.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Bush's Social Security failure
The Wall Street Journal last week wrote a post-mortem piece on Bush's failed effort to screw-up, I mean, reform Social Security.
Brad DeLong helpfully reprints the article here at the bottom of his post.
Through two campaigns, George W. Bush vowed to fix and partially privatize Social Security, the nation's most popular government program. This year, claiming a re-election mandate and enjoying a Congress controlled by his party, the president finally made his move. Yet now even the president has acknowledged Social Security is dead for this year, his biggest domestic defeat to date. How could it have gone so wrong?...
The article says Bush overestimated his post-election capital and underestimated his opposition.
Embittered Democrats were even more vehemently opposed to any privatization than the White House imagined.
I think that is about right. Bush swaggered into the Social Security debate with his typical mix of arrogance and condescenion and got knocked on his butt. What I would like to see now is for this "biggest domestic defeat to date" to scar his administration the same way the failure of health care reform hurt Clinton and the Democrats in 1993-94.
In some ways it has already hurt him. Bush is currently at the low point in his popularity with the latest polls showing him with only 38 percent support and a majority saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.
If you want to know why those polls are important when Bush won't ever have to face election again look no further than today's announcement that Bush is reinstating Davis-Bacon wage protections for workers cleaning up after Hurricane Katrina.
The Bush administration will reinstate rules requiring that companies awarded federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina pay prevailing wages, usually an amount close to the pay scales in local union contracts.
The only reason Bush did this is because he was going to lose a battle in the House. He no longer has the political capital to prevail in cases such as this and things are not going to get any better for him any time soon once Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald passes out his indictments tomorrow.
Brad DeLong helpfully reprints the article here at the bottom of his post.
Through two campaigns, George W. Bush vowed to fix and partially privatize Social Security, the nation's most popular government program. This year, claiming a re-election mandate and enjoying a Congress controlled by his party, the president finally made his move. Yet now even the president has acknowledged Social Security is dead for this year, his biggest domestic defeat to date. How could it have gone so wrong?...
The article says Bush overestimated his post-election capital and underestimated his opposition.
Embittered Democrats were even more vehemently opposed to any privatization than the White House imagined.
I think that is about right. Bush swaggered into the Social Security debate with his typical mix of arrogance and condescenion and got knocked on his butt. What I would like to see now is for this "biggest domestic defeat to date" to scar his administration the same way the failure of health care reform hurt Clinton and the Democrats in 1993-94.
In some ways it has already hurt him. Bush is currently at the low point in his popularity with the latest polls showing him with only 38 percent support and a majority saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.
If you want to know why those polls are important when Bush won't ever have to face election again look no further than today's announcement that Bush is reinstating Davis-Bacon wage protections for workers cleaning up after Hurricane Katrina.
The Bush administration will reinstate rules requiring that companies awarded federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina pay prevailing wages, usually an amount close to the pay scales in local union contracts.
The only reason Bush did this is because he was going to lose a battle in the House. He no longer has the political capital to prevail in cases such as this and things are not going to get any better for him any time soon once Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald passes out his indictments tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Polls and rumors
A new Gallup poll shows that Bush would lose an election to an unnamed Democrat 55 to 39 if it were held today.
Meaningless, I know. But still a delight to see the lights finally coming on for so many people who have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long. Bush has been such an awful president that people are finally beginning to have buyer's remorse. Too bad we can't take him back and exchange for someone more competent.
And then there is this poll which illustrates just how far out of the mainstream my friends over at All Things Conservative are by insisting that there is nothing to the CIA leak scandal.
Only 1 in 10 people in the poll believe that Bush administration officials did nothing wrong.
Meanwhile, the big rumor going around is that Fitzgerald will hand down 3 to 5 indictments tomorrow, possibly sealed. I can hardly wait!
Meaningless, I know. But still a delight to see the lights finally coming on for so many people who have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long. Bush has been such an awful president that people are finally beginning to have buyer's remorse. Too bad we can't take him back and exchange for someone more competent.
And then there is this poll which illustrates just how far out of the mainstream my friends over at All Things Conservative are by insisting that there is nothing to the CIA leak scandal.
Only 1 in 10 people in the poll believe that Bush administration officials did nothing wrong.
Meanwhile, the big rumor going around is that Fitzgerald will hand down 3 to 5 indictments tomorrow, possibly sealed. I can hardly wait!
Monday, October 24, 2005
Kay Bailey Hutchison: Raging hypocrite
Over at ATC, Bill, X, and the gang have spent the better part of the day hyperventilating over whether or not Leonard Pitts, a Miami-based syndicated columnist, may have been hypocritical in a column about the death penalty. It seems that Pitts was critical of what he called the “cynical” use of relatives of murder victims to attack a Catholic politician who says his religious beliefs prevent him from fully embracing capital punishment (although he says he would still uphold the law). But a while back, Pitts praised Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, for using her “moral authority” to oppose the war.
My response. Who cares?
It’s clear to me that the bigger hypocrite today is our own U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who went on the Sunday talk shows to test the waters on the Republican response to the pending indictments of top White House aides Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Hutchison’s tact is to poo-poo the charges as “some perjury technicality” and implies the 2-year investigation has been a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Here is the full quote:
"... if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
Of course, Sen. Hutchison was not so dismissive of indictable crimes a few years ago when the target was President Bill Clinton:
"I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."
So to sum up, Sen. Hutchison believes that in the case of a Democratic administration you do not need actual indictment to justify the removal of a public official from office. Vague charges of “manifest injury” to the Office of the President and “gross abuse of trust” is more than enough reason to have an impeachment in that case.
But, for a Republican administration, suddenly an indictment alone is not enough to warrant dismissal. Now, it has to be an indictment for something that she considers to be a crime and not something that the prosecutor might consider a crime but which she dismisses as a technicality.
Update
Sen. Hutchison's trial balloon over the weekend apparently got shot down because she is now backtracking on her "perjury is just a technicality and not a crime" theme.
Hutchison now says she was "misconstrued" and insists that perjury is a "terrible crime."
Welcome back to the reality-based world, Senator!
My response. Who cares?
It’s clear to me that the bigger hypocrite today is our own U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who went on the Sunday talk shows to test the waters on the Republican response to the pending indictments of top White House aides Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Hutchison’s tact is to poo-poo the charges as “some perjury technicality” and implies the 2-year investigation has been a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Here is the full quote:
"... if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
Of course, Sen. Hutchison was not so dismissive of indictable crimes a few years ago when the target was President Bill Clinton:
"I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."
So to sum up, Sen. Hutchison believes that in the case of a Democratic administration you do not need actual indictment to justify the removal of a public official from office. Vague charges of “manifest injury” to the Office of the President and “gross abuse of trust” is more than enough reason to have an impeachment in that case.
But, for a Republican administration, suddenly an indictment alone is not enough to warrant dismissal. Now, it has to be an indictment for something that she considers to be a crime and not something that the prosecutor might consider a crime but which she dismisses as a technicality.
Update
Sen. Hutchison's trial balloon over the weekend apparently got shot down because she is now backtracking on her "perjury is just a technicality and not a crime" theme.
Hutchison now says she was "misconstrued" and insists that perjury is a "terrible crime."
Welcome back to the reality-based world, Senator!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Future of the Democratic Party
This story in the Washington Post today gives me renewed hope about Democratic prospects of regaining the House.
With the Capitol all but deserted last Monday night, the Democratic "30-Something Working Group" seized the House floor and took aim at their Republican adversaries.
As C-SPAN cameras beamed their performance around the country, Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, 32, of Ohio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, 39, of Florida recited a litany of GOP misdeeds -- mismanaging Hurricane Katrina and neglecting education and health care, for example -- and offered the Democrats' alternatives.
Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch. Ryan described the problems of the poor as a moral obligation and asked of Meek: "Where is the Christian Coalition when you are cutting poverty programs? They are fighting over Supreme Court justices."
The two newcomers -- who have served a combined six years in the House -- are part of a new generation of Democrats who are working to try to topple the GOP. Their fresh ideas, modern media skills and aggressive political tactics have inspired a party that has drifted for much of the past decade -- wedded to old notions and seemingly incapable of capitalizing on White House and congressional Republican miscues.
As part of the new approach, House and Senate Democrats are devising an alternative agenda of key policies. Ryan is pushing proposals aimed at drastically reducing the number of abortions over the coming decade by offering support and services to pregnant women. Others are crafting a plan for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by using more domestic agricultural products, an approach that would have significant appeal to Midwestern voters.
And what do you know? They are even being labeled as Pragmatists!
Unlike some of their forbears, the newcomers are pragmatists who view the past decade of GOP rule not as an aberration but as a sea change in political campaigning, fundraising and lobbying to which Democrats must adjust. They arrived in Washington as challengers and are comfortable questioning the establishment -- because they have not been part of it.
"Everyone recognizes the bottom line: We've got to win the House," said Van Hollen, who is in his second term. "So people are looking for creative alternatives, and they're much more willing to experiment now."
The Republicans, through their inept incompetence, have opened the door for the Democrats to make a comeback that might otherwise have taken many more years to develop. If the old hardliners will allow this new blood to energize the party we could be back in the game sooner than expected.
With the Capitol all but deserted last Monday night, the Democratic "30-Something Working Group" seized the House floor and took aim at their Republican adversaries.
As C-SPAN cameras beamed their performance around the country, Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, 32, of Ohio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, 39, of Florida recited a litany of GOP misdeeds -- mismanaging Hurricane Katrina and neglecting education and health care, for example -- and offered the Democrats' alternatives.
Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch. Ryan described the problems of the poor as a moral obligation and asked of Meek: "Where is the Christian Coalition when you are cutting poverty programs? They are fighting over Supreme Court justices."
The two newcomers -- who have served a combined six years in the House -- are part of a new generation of Democrats who are working to try to topple the GOP. Their fresh ideas, modern media skills and aggressive political tactics have inspired a party that has drifted for much of the past decade -- wedded to old notions and seemingly incapable of capitalizing on White House and congressional Republican miscues.
As part of the new approach, House and Senate Democrats are devising an alternative agenda of key policies. Ryan is pushing proposals aimed at drastically reducing the number of abortions over the coming decade by offering support and services to pregnant women. Others are crafting a plan for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by using more domestic agricultural products, an approach that would have significant appeal to Midwestern voters.
And what do you know? They are even being labeled as Pragmatists!
Unlike some of their forbears, the newcomers are pragmatists who view the past decade of GOP rule not as an aberration but as a sea change in political campaigning, fundraising and lobbying to which Democrats must adjust. They arrived in Washington as challengers and are comfortable questioning the establishment -- because they have not been part of it.
"Everyone recognizes the bottom line: We've got to win the House," said Van Hollen, who is in his second term. "So people are looking for creative alternatives, and they're much more willing to experiment now."
The Republicans, through their inept incompetence, have opened the door for the Democrats to make a comeback that might otherwise have taken many more years to develop. If the old hardliners will allow this new blood to energize the party we could be back in the game sooner than expected.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Top 100 entertainment icons
Variety, the entertainment trade publication, has come out with their list of the top 100 entertainment icons of the 20th Century.
They ranked the Top 10 as:
The Beatles
Louis Armstrong
Lucille Ball
Humphrey Bogart
Marlon Brando
Charlie Chaplin
James Dean
Marilyn Monroe
Mickey Mouse
Elvis Presley
I think it is cute putting Mickey Mouse in the list, but I also think it kind of slights Walt Disney who should probably merit inclusion on the list in his own right.
The rest of the 100 in alphabetical order is listed below:
Woody Allen
Pedro Almodovar
Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers
Josephine Baker
Brigitte Bardot
Jack Benny
Irving Berlin
Chuck Berry
Lenny Bruce
James Cagney
Maria Callas
Johnny Carson
Johnny Cash
Ray Charles
Kurt Cobain
Gary Cooper
Bill Cosby
Walter Cronkite
Bette Davis
Miles Davis
Marlene Dietrich
Kirk Douglas
Bob Dylan
Clint Eastwood
Duke Ellington
Federico Fellini
Aretha Franklin
Clark Gable
Greta Garbo
Judy Garland
Cary Grant
D.W. Griffith
Woody Guthrie
Vaclav Havel
Edith Head
Jimi Hendrix
Katharine Hepburn
Audrey Hepburn
Alfred Hitchcock
Billie Holiday
Bob Hope & Bing Crosby
Harry Houdini
Michael Jackson
Robert Johnson
Al Jolson
Janis Joplin
Gene Kelly
Grace Kelly
Lassie
Laurel & Hardy
Bruce Lee
Jerry Lewis
Little Richard
Sophia Loren
Madonna
Bob Marley
Marcello Mastroianni
Steve McQueen
Edward R. Murrow
The Marx Brothers
Paul Newman
Jack Nicholson
Laurence Olivier
Pac Man
Edith Piaf
Mary Pickford
Sidney Poitier
Robert Redford
Rodgers & Hammerstein
Will Rogers
The Rolling Stones
Mickey Rooney
The Sex Pistols
Tupac Shakur
Frank Sinatra
Steven Spielberg
Jimmy Stewart
Igor Stravinsky
Barbara Streisand
The Supremes
Quentin Tarantino
Elizabeth Taylor
Shirley Temple
Rudolph Valentino
John Wayne
Orson Welles
Mae West
Hank Williams
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
I was upset at first when it looked like Bing Crosby had once again been snubbed until I saw that they had grouped him with Bob Hope. Still, that makes it seem like the only reason he is included is because of the popular Road movies he did with Bob. I would argue that Bing should have made the top 10 based on the fact that he was one of the most popular entertainers of the 1930s and ‘40s. But I’m still happy that he at least made the list.
One big omission in my opinion is Bruce Springsteen. How many others are there?
They ranked the Top 10 as:
The Beatles
Louis Armstrong
Lucille Ball
Humphrey Bogart
Marlon Brando
Charlie Chaplin
James Dean
Marilyn Monroe
Mickey Mouse
Elvis Presley
I think it is cute putting Mickey Mouse in the list, but I also think it kind of slights Walt Disney who should probably merit inclusion on the list in his own right.
The rest of the 100 in alphabetical order is listed below:
Woody Allen
Pedro Almodovar
Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers
Josephine Baker
Brigitte Bardot
Jack Benny
Irving Berlin
Chuck Berry
Lenny Bruce
James Cagney
Maria Callas
Johnny Carson
Johnny Cash
Ray Charles
Kurt Cobain
Gary Cooper
Bill Cosby
Walter Cronkite
Bette Davis
Miles Davis
Marlene Dietrich
Kirk Douglas
Bob Dylan
Clint Eastwood
Duke Ellington
Federico Fellini
Aretha Franklin
Clark Gable
Greta Garbo
Judy Garland
Cary Grant
D.W. Griffith
Woody Guthrie
Vaclav Havel
Edith Head
Jimi Hendrix
Katharine Hepburn
Audrey Hepburn
Alfred Hitchcock
Billie Holiday
Bob Hope & Bing Crosby
Harry Houdini
Michael Jackson
Robert Johnson
Al Jolson
Janis Joplin
Gene Kelly
Grace Kelly
Lassie
Laurel & Hardy
Bruce Lee
Jerry Lewis
Little Richard
Sophia Loren
Madonna
Bob Marley
Marcello Mastroianni
Steve McQueen
Edward R. Murrow
The Marx Brothers
Paul Newman
Jack Nicholson
Laurence Olivier
Pac Man
Edith Piaf
Mary Pickford
Sidney Poitier
Robert Redford
Rodgers & Hammerstein
Will Rogers
The Rolling Stones
Mickey Rooney
The Sex Pistols
Tupac Shakur
Frank Sinatra
Steven Spielberg
Jimmy Stewart
Igor Stravinsky
Barbara Streisand
The Supremes
Quentin Tarantino
Elizabeth Taylor
Shirley Temple
Rudolph Valentino
John Wayne
Orson Welles
Mae West
Hank Williams
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
I was upset at first when it looked like Bing Crosby had once again been snubbed until I saw that they had grouped him with Bob Hope. Still, that makes it seem like the only reason he is included is because of the popular Road movies he did with Bob. I would argue that Bing should have made the top 10 based on the fact that he was one of the most popular entertainers of the 1930s and ‘40s. But I’m still happy that he at least made the list.
One big omission in my opinion is Bruce Springsteen. How many others are there?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Smile!
I have to hand it to Tom DeLay. That was smart to make sure his mugshot looks like any other photo of himself that his PR people would be handing out.
When most people think of a mugshot they envision some guy who was just dragged out of bed, unshaved with his hair disheveled and a half-crazed look in his eye. But here we have a smiling Tom DeLay with his hair slicked back and dressed in his best suit and tie looking like he’s ready to shake your hand and kiss your baby.
Astros win the Pennant
Better a day late than never. The Astros have played much better this year than I had hoped. Last night’s 5-1 victory was a satisfying display of quality hit-and-run baseball combined with one of the best pitching performances you are likely to see these days from NLCS MVP Roy Oswalt.
I’d love to see the Astros go all the way and win the World Series, but even if they don’t it is great that they were finally able to get over this hump. I have to admit I did not have high hopes for the Astros this season after they lost Carlos Beltran to free agency and Jeff Bagwell went on the disabled list.
Oddly enough, the last two Major League baseball games I have seen in person was the Astros vs. the Reds at Enron, oops, I mean Minute Maid Park in Houston and the White Sox vs. the Tigers at U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y Night!
I was reminded reading this CNN piece on the dearth of TV programming on Saturday nights that it wasn’t always that way.
...during the early 1970s, CBS on Saturday night had the single best night of prime-time TV ever: "All in the Family," "M*A*S*H," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "The Bob Newhart Show" and "The Carol Burnett Show."
Wow! I remember watching those shows on Saturday nights when I was a kid.
Of course, today I don’t watch much television on any night of the week unless it’s a recorded version of Barney the Dinosaur.
I’m not particularly devoted to any TV shows these days with the exception of “Lost” and “ER.” I have been trying to watch the new show “Invasion” although I don’t know how long that will last. I’ve also caught a few episodes of the new “Night Stalker,” but I’m predicting it will be canceled after one season.
It’s kind of a shame that the networks aren’t even trying to do programming on Saturdays anymore, but I suppose it was inevitable with the advent of cable, DVDs and DVRs.
I think it would be interesting, though, to find out how many people stay home on Saturday nights to watch their DVD collections of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “M*A*S*H” and “All in the Family.”
...during the early 1970s, CBS on Saturday night had the single best night of prime-time TV ever: "All in the Family," "M*A*S*H," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "The Bob Newhart Show" and "The Carol Burnett Show."
Wow! I remember watching those shows on Saturday nights when I was a kid.
Of course, today I don’t watch much television on any night of the week unless it’s a recorded version of Barney the Dinosaur.
I’m not particularly devoted to any TV shows these days with the exception of “Lost” and “ER.” I have been trying to watch the new show “Invasion” although I don’t know how long that will last. I’ve also caught a few episodes of the new “Night Stalker,” but I’m predicting it will be canceled after one season.
It’s kind of a shame that the networks aren’t even trying to do programming on Saturdays anymore, but I suppose it was inevitable with the advent of cable, DVDs and DVRs.
I think it would be interesting, though, to find out how many people stay home on Saturday nights to watch their DVD collections of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “M*A*S*H” and “All in the Family.”
Hurricane Fitzgerald to hit D.C. next week
It could be raining indictments next week in Washington.
Rumors are rampant with some sources saying as many as 22 potential indictments could be handed down encompassing everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney all the way down.
Another widely circulated rumor states that if Cheney is forced to step down he would be replaced by Condi Rice.
Of course, no one knows what is going to happen at this point, a testament to the professional manner in which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has run a relatively leak-free shop.
But the NY Times reports today that
Fitzgerald “has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday....
By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.”
I think there is zero chance that he would just shut down his investigation at this point, so the odds are that the political firestorm is about to begin.
Rumors are rampant with some sources saying as many as 22 potential indictments could be handed down encompassing everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney all the way down.
Another widely circulated rumor states that if Cheney is forced to step down he would be replaced by Condi Rice.
Of course, no one knows what is going to happen at this point, a testament to the professional manner in which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has run a relatively leak-free shop.
But the NY Times reports today that
Fitzgerald “has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday....
By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.”
I think there is zero chance that he would just shut down his investigation at this point, so the odds are that the political firestorm is about to begin.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
One strike away...
Oh, agony! I can’t believe the Astros lost last night. They were one strike away from celebrating their first trip to the World Series ever and then everything just fell apart. That was one of the most painful, last-minute setbacks I have ever seen.
They still have two more chances to secure another victory and win a trip to the big game, but having that victory last night snatched away at the last possible moment may have shaken their confidence. I hope not.
The Astros and the Rangers are the two oldest teams in Major League Baseball to have never been to the World Series. It’s just not fair, I tell you!! If they don’t win tomorrow I’m going to stamp my feet and whine some more!
They still have two more chances to secure another victory and win a trip to the big game, but having that victory last night snatched away at the last possible moment may have shaken their confidence. I hope not.
The Astros and the Rangers are the two oldest teams in Major League Baseball to have never been to the World Series. It’s just not fair, I tell you!! If they don’t win tomorrow I’m going to stamp my feet and whine some more!
Monday, October 17, 2005
Comics contest
The Express-News is letting its readers pick the comic strip that will replace Calvin and Hobbes when its limited run ends at the end of December. The good news is that two of the five comics in the running look to be really good - Candorville and Retail (which oddly seems to have no web presense whatsoever). The bad news is that two other choices seem to be really lame - Brevity and Bliss - and one is just awful - Prickly City.
The fact that they might bring back the wretched Prickly City is motivation enough for me to participate in their little survey.
The fact that they might bring back the wretched Prickly City is motivation enough for me to participate in their little survey.
Missing deadlines
I didn’t get the big Valerie Plame/Judith Miller story in my Sunday New York Times this weekend and this appears to be the reason.
Miller was so uncooperative working with her own newspaper that they busted their deadline and couldn’t get the story into the edition that went out to national subscribers like myself. And to top things off, they didn’t deliver my Monday paper so I can’t even see if they ran it the next day or not. So I had to settle for printing up a web version of the story which is highly annoying.
Miller was so uncooperative working with her own newspaper that they busted their deadline and couldn’t get the story into the edition that went out to national subscribers like myself. And to top things off, they didn’t deliver my Monday paper so I can’t even see if they ran it the next day or not. So I had to settle for printing up a web version of the story which is highly annoying.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Traditional values: $$$$
This story in the Washington Post really shows how rotten the core of the conservative movement has become since it gained power.
The Post tells the story of how a bill to ban Internet gambling went down to defeat back in the summer of 2000 after looking like it was on its way to being passed overwhelmingly. The bill was scuttled at the last minute, according to the story, by a senior aide to Tom DeLay at the behest of conservative super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I guess that DeLay managed to keep his hands clean on this one since the Post is forced to lay the whole thing at the feet of his senior aide Tony Rudy, as if it was a freelance operation and DeLay wasn't fully versed with what was going on.
Abramoff helped scuttle the bill on behalf of his client eLottery Inc. which would have been out of business if the bill had become law. What is most amazing is that Abramoff was able to pull this off with the help of a number of the key players in the religious right establishment which is popularly believed to be opposed to gambling.
The work Abramoff did for eLottery is one focus of a wide-ranging federal corruption investigation into his dealings with members of Congress and government agencies. Abramoff is under indictment in another case in connection with an allegedly fraudulent Florida business deal...
Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.
So the former head of the Christian Coalition and the leader of the Traditional Values Coalition were both on board this effort to prop up Internet gambling which is little more than outright robbery. That just shows that their real committment isn't to "values" so much as it is to the all-mighty dollar.
The Post tells the story of how a bill to ban Internet gambling went down to defeat back in the summer of 2000 after looking like it was on its way to being passed overwhelmingly. The bill was scuttled at the last minute, according to the story, by a senior aide to Tom DeLay at the behest of conservative super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I guess that DeLay managed to keep his hands clean on this one since the Post is forced to lay the whole thing at the feet of his senior aide Tony Rudy, as if it was a freelance operation and DeLay wasn't fully versed with what was going on.
Abramoff helped scuttle the bill on behalf of his client eLottery Inc. which would have been out of business if the bill had become law. What is most amazing is that Abramoff was able to pull this off with the help of a number of the key players in the religious right establishment which is popularly believed to be opposed to gambling.
The work Abramoff did for eLottery is one focus of a wide-ranging federal corruption investigation into his dealings with members of Congress and government agencies. Abramoff is under indictment in another case in connection with an allegedly fraudulent Florida business deal...
Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.
So the former head of the Christian Coalition and the leader of the Traditional Values Coalition were both on board this effort to prop up Internet gambling which is little more than outright robbery. That just shows that their real committment isn't to "values" so much as it is to the all-mighty dollar.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Will there be anyone left to turn out the lights?
What with former GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay doubly indicted and now GOP Senate Leader Bill Frist issued a subpoena as part of a growing SEC investigation into his all-too-convenient stock dealings, who is going to be left to lead the Republican’s in Congress?
And then, of course, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame scandal appears to be widening and is expected to soon lead to indictments of a number of Bush administration officials including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. This could lead to more infighting inside the administration and further deteriorate Bush’s anemic poll numbers which of course is all good news for Democrats in 2006.
And then, of course, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame scandal appears to be widening and is expected to soon lead to indictments of a number of Bush administration officials including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. This could lead to more infighting inside the administration and further deteriorate Bush’s anemic poll numbers which of course is all good news for Democrats in 2006.
No excuse for this
I used to think it was just a celebratory thing. After every strikeout the catcher would whip the ball down to first base and then it would go around the horn before being tossed back to the mound.
But last night the backup catcher for the Angels took the third called strike and just rolled it back to the mound in what proved to be a costly mistake that led to a White Sox victory in the ninth inning.
The catcher should have known better. Always throw to first after every strikeout, no matter.
I bet he doesn’t make that mistake again.
But last night the backup catcher for the Angels took the third called strike and just rolled it back to the mound in what proved to be a costly mistake that led to a White Sox victory in the ninth inning.
The catcher should have known better. Always throw to first after every strikeout, no matter.
I bet he doesn’t make that mistake again.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Bob Dylan: Song stylist
My good friend Jose Johnson has recently launched his own blog and commented the other day on the Martin Scorsese-directed documentary about Bob Dylan’s early days.
Joe notes that watching the film has made him rethink his opinion of Dylan who he admits he used to not like because of his “nasal, toneless voice that just absolutely grated on me.”
Now, Joe says he has a greater respect for Dylan as a songwriter and as “one of the few artists of that time who truly captured the zeitgeist of the era.”
But Joe concludes that he would still always prefer hearing Dylan’s music sung by someone else.
I have to disagree. While Dylan may not have the sweetest singing voice, it is still tremendously expressive and most of his songs are far from being what one would call sweet. Having a rough or gravely voice is certainly not an impediment to a singer, just look at Louis Armstrong.
Dylan was more than just a talented songwriter. He was a song stylist. Many of his songs were perfectly suited for his rough voice with their often-times bitter, angry and sarcastic themes.
While there are plenty of performers who did well singing Dylan’s songs - Peter, Paul & Mary, The Byrds, Johnny Cash - there are many more songs that wouldn’t be the same if they were sung by anyone else.
Joe notes that watching the film has made him rethink his opinion of Dylan who he admits he used to not like because of his “nasal, toneless voice that just absolutely grated on me.”
Now, Joe says he has a greater respect for Dylan as a songwriter and as “one of the few artists of that time who truly captured the zeitgeist of the era.”
But Joe concludes that he would still always prefer hearing Dylan’s music sung by someone else.
I have to disagree. While Dylan may not have the sweetest singing voice, it is still tremendously expressive and most of his songs are far from being what one would call sweet. Having a rough or gravely voice is certainly not an impediment to a singer, just look at Louis Armstrong.
Dylan was more than just a talented songwriter. He was a song stylist. Many of his songs were perfectly suited for his rough voice with their often-times bitter, angry and sarcastic themes.
While there are plenty of performers who did well singing Dylan’s songs - Peter, Paul & Mary, The Byrds, Johnny Cash - there are many more songs that wouldn’t be the same if they were sung by anyone else.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Chomsky Bashing
Expressing admiration or respect for Noam Chomsky these days can get a person into a lot of trouble. Chomsky is a popular target for ridicule and denigration from folks on both the right and the left.
While I don’t consider myself a Chomskyite or any such thing, I do acknowledge that he has influenced my political thought over time and I continue to hold him in high regard as an intellectual heavyweight of the Left. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or endorse all of his positions. Nor do I wish to defend all of his past controversial statements or make apologies for his mistakes. But I do like to read his thoughts on current issues. To that end, I find it interesting that he now keeps a blog which is updated fairly regularly and even allows for comments.
As an illustration of the unifying effect that Chomsky-bashing can have, I was amused to read the following exchange the other day by two frequent commenters at All Things Conservative in which they suddenly found themselves in agreement after going at one another for several rounds.
“I'm no fan of that putz Noam Chomsky,” declared commenter Libertas. “I am a socially conservative Libertarian. This is the direct opposite end of every spectrum from Chomsky's Atheistic Socialist totalitarianism.”
“It's a relief to know you are no Chomskyite,” chimed in commenter X “That was perplexing me. Someone so evenhanded, reasonable and generous in debate could not possibly be a Noam fan.”
It was almost touching the way these two fierce debating opponents were suddenly able to find common ground in their mutual disdain for Professor Chomsky. Maybe that has been Chomsky’s secret plan all along, to bring people with divergent views together by giving them a common enemy to despise. But, then again, maybe not.
While I don’t consider myself a Chomskyite or any such thing, I do acknowledge that he has influenced my political thought over time and I continue to hold him in high regard as an intellectual heavyweight of the Left. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or endorse all of his positions. Nor do I wish to defend all of his past controversial statements or make apologies for his mistakes. But I do like to read his thoughts on current issues. To that end, I find it interesting that he now keeps a blog which is updated fairly regularly and even allows for comments.
As an illustration of the unifying effect that Chomsky-bashing can have, I was amused to read the following exchange the other day by two frequent commenters at All Things Conservative in which they suddenly found themselves in agreement after going at one another for several rounds.
“I'm no fan of that putz Noam Chomsky,” declared commenter Libertas. “I am a socially conservative Libertarian. This is the direct opposite end of every spectrum from Chomsky's Atheistic Socialist totalitarianism.”
“It's a relief to know you are no Chomskyite,” chimed in commenter X “That was perplexing me. Someone so evenhanded, reasonable and generous in debate could not possibly be a Noam fan.”
It was almost touching the way these two fierce debating opponents were suddenly able to find common ground in their mutual disdain for Professor Chomsky. Maybe that has been Chomsky’s secret plan all along, to bring people with divergent views together by giving them a common enemy to despise. But, then again, maybe not.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Baseball playoffs
The Red Sox and the Padres are gone. The Yankees are on the ropes and now so are the Braves.
It's been a pretty good playoff series so far. Here is what it looks like for those who haven't been paying attention:
ALDS: Chicago White Sox defeat Boston Red Sox 3-0
ALDS: L.A. Angels lead N.Y. Yankees 2-1
NLDS: St. Louis Cardinals defeat San Diego Padres 3-0
NLDS: Houston Astros lead Atlanta Braves 2-1
I'd like to see the Yankees come back and I hope the Astros can finish off Atlanta in Game 4. If the Yankees don't make it, I will be rooting for the White Sox to go all the way and win the World Series, unless they end up playing the Astros. As long as the Astros are still in it they will be my favorites, but if they get knocked out I will revert back to either the Yankees or White Sox.
By the way, does anyone know why the Angels are now called the Los Angeles Angels if they are still playing in Anaheim?
It's been a pretty good playoff series so far. Here is what it looks like for those who haven't been paying attention:
ALDS: Chicago White Sox defeat Boston Red Sox 3-0
ALDS: L.A. Angels lead N.Y. Yankees 2-1
NLDS: St. Louis Cardinals defeat San Diego Padres 3-0
NLDS: Houston Astros lead Atlanta Braves 2-1
I'd like to see the Yankees come back and I hope the Astros can finish off Atlanta in Game 4. If the Yankees don't make it, I will be rooting for the White Sox to go all the way and win the World Series, unless they end up playing the Astros. As long as the Astros are still in it they will be my favorites, but if they get knocked out I will revert back to either the Yankees or White Sox.
By the way, does anyone know why the Angels are now called the Los Angeles Angels if they are still playing in Anaheim?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)