So glad the right wing press is where fairness and balance reside:



"The Fanatic Fiends of Fallujah". Like these:



According to reports, there are still about 200,000 civilians living in Fallujah.

A better illustration of why the far right is unfit to manage our foreign policy we'll likely never see.*

*but then, they do keep surprising me.

It has become increasingly easy to see how this country went to war based upon very dubious premises without a general outcry from the mainstream media. It seems every time you turn over a rock, a right wing slug is clinging to a position of power.

In fact, it would appear that the "mainstream" media is riddled with them. And during the runup to the Iraq war, they were all very busy, decrying any criticism as harmful to the United States, harmful to the troops, and unpatriotic.

Every time you shake the trees, they fall out. Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. are only the most obvious. The best-known of the "mainstream" Republican-controlled conglomerates is surely Clearchannel Communications, a media giant which controls over 1000 radio stations around the nation. And the latest to come to light is an ABC affiliate, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, whose executives are major Republican hard- and soft-money donors and are angling for a large piece of Fox News' action. Sinclair has now decided to overtly insert itself into the effort to re-elect President Bush.

This Friday, ABC News' Nightline will consist solely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. Troops killed in Iraq. This is something that has been done before, in many venues. For example, the names of the U.S. fallen are inscribed on the Vietnam memorial. The names of local U.S. soldiers killed in every conflict since World War I are inscribed in a hallway in my alma mater's Student Union. It is considered a time-honored way to honor the fallen and reflect on the magnitude of their sacrifice. They were people with families; people who served their country; people with names.

Unfortunately, Sinclair has decided the reading of the names this time (while things aren't going so well in Iraq) is motivated by a "political agenda" and won't show the edition.

It is truly unfortunate that Sinclair execs (and perhaps many other Republicans) want to claim anything that might harm President Bush is a sign of a "political agenda" and must be supressed. One naturally wonders just how much bad news doesn't make it past Sinclair's "political agenda" filters. Regardless, it is clear the real story is that company's executives believe they can abuse their position of public trust in order to further a political agenda of their own.

Reading the names of the fallen will, of course, have political overtones. But the reason for that is not in the reading of the names; it is in the circumstances of their deaths. Imagine the reaction had this sort of program been broadcast during the Afghanistan conflict in late 2001. Given the circumstances, support for the war and President Bush would have likely been bolstered.

Now consider the current circumstances: support for the Iraq war has plummeted, with most Americans not understanding why we invaded and feeling like we're worse off now than before. It is those circumstances, driven home by the direct acknowledgement that over 500 U.S. soldiers have paid the ultimate price, that has the potential to harm President Bush. If so, that is the reality of the situation and how the American public feels about what has happened in Iraq, and Sinclair has no business supressing it -- and the only reason they will do so is blatant partisanship.

I have little doubt that Sinclair's executives have been more than happy to beam images of President Bush using the deaths of soldiers to further his own political agenda by praising their sacrifice for "freedom". Given their stance on preventing the public from simply seeing just how big that sacrifice has been, it is crystal clear who, in this dispute, has an agenda to sell, and who is genuinely interested in honoring America's finest. The Sinclair Broadcast Group's actions are shameful, and as far as I'm concerned their behavior reflects on the entire GOP.

Today at Tapped, Matthew Yglesias writes:

The real mystery in all this, if you ask me, is why Republicans persist in raising an issue that can't help but make their man look bad when the Bush and Kerry military records are contrasted. The worst they seem to be able to say about Kerry is that one of his three wounds endured in combat for which he volunteered maybe wasn't so serious and that he's been known to refer to ribbons as "medals." Meanwhile, the best they can say about Bush is that he supported the war but went out of his way to avoid serving in it, choosing instead to do something that put him at no personal risk and had no beneficial impact on American security.

Well, here's a thought: to the Bush campaign, it may be better than the alternative. And it might just be the key to winning the election.

The Bush campaign may be thinking that the last thing they want voters to start asking themselves is the classic Reagan question, "are you better off now than you were four years ago?". That's because they literally have nothing to run on: jobs, the economy, the environment, education, terrorism and the war in Iraq -- it's all bad, compared to where we were before Bush took office. His tenure has literally been a model of incompetence and lack of accomplishment.

So, what's the alternative? Well, they could deliberately make events from 30 years ago an issue, gambling that in the end, most voters won't really care that much about things that happened that far back.

The thinking may be that, to the average voter, what the candidates were doing three decades past won't have that much impact. The result of such a focus may well be that voters decide there's not much room to change, especially since a case can be made that Bush, like everyone else, has made mistakes in his past, learned from them, and isn't the same person he was back then. He certainly seems likeable now, right?

It seems to me that it is worthwhile for Kerry's supporters to refute the current slander efforts coming out of the GoP slime machine. But the overall focus must be on much more recent history. And John Kerry should do his best to stay focused on where Bush has failed over the last four years, and even more on what he's going to do better. The last thing Kerry needs is to finish the election cycle with voters having no good idea why Kerry is a better choice to lead the country today.

This was so good, I thought I'd pass it on in its entirety.

I am APPALLED.
by Maryscott OConnor
Tue Apr 27th, 2004 at 12:58:04 EST

The media's complicity with the GOP, the RNC, CREEP and Karl Rove are so utterly appalling to me as to have destroyed my ability to write a coherent and civil letter to the editor.
The latest attempt to eviscerate John Kerry on the basis of the "Medal Controversy" by ABC is just the cherry on top of this fetid, purulent sundae.

Fox News, on learning of Kerry's outraged response (to the effect that if George W. Bush and his surrogates wished to smear Kerry's service in Vietnam and his subsequent protests against the war, which he came to believe was wrong, then Bush should account for his own record in the National Guard), accused Kerry of reneging on a non-existent pledge to avoid talking about the National Guard issue. They then showed footage of Kerry insisting that he had not made an issue of it in the primaries and had asked his own staffers to refuse to make an issue of it. Et cetera. Chalk up another so-called "flip-flop" for Fox's dartboard.

Others before me have remarked that Kerry must now come out with guns blazing. I concur. I hereby submit my outraged, appalled and indignant response to this despicable, disgraceful, shameless slander of a Presidential candidate, a Senator, a Vietnam veteran, an American Patriot:

To: George W. Bush and his Committee to Re-Elect the President (never has that acronym been so apt), the GOP and the RNC
CC: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FNC, NYT, WaPO et al
From: Maryscott O'Connor; citizen of the United States of America.

In courtroom terms I have learned from countless hours of watching television, George W. Bush and his surrogates (this includes the mainstream media) have opened the door on the behaviour and speech of both candidates, going back over 30 years.

Since every arm of the Republican Attack Machine has seen fit to incessantly distort, exaggerate and take out of context the actions and speech of John Kerry going back over 30 years, I submit to you that George W. Bush, his past behaviour and stated positions and his very own "flip-flops" are fair game for the same treatment. You, ladies and gentlemen, have made this so. To claim that John Kerry should remain silent over issues he has heretofore stated were not relevant when you yourselves have made them relevant is disingenuous at best and malevolent regardless.

Therefore, in keeping with the open door policy expected of John Kerry's past, I would like to see the following issues addressed with equal ferocity and tenacity:

• George W. Bush was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. He pled guilty, paid a fine, and had his driver's license suspended for 30 days.
  
• George W. Bush's Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
  
• George W. Bush graduated from Yale University, after being admitted through his father's legacy, with a low C average.
  
• Through the use of family connections, George W. Bush skipped to the head of the line and joined the Texas Air National Guard. Several months of george W. Bush's purported service are unaccounted for. I hereby challenge the media and George W. Bush to produce verifiable evidence in the form of actual witnesses to George W. Bush's service during those as yet unaccounted for periods of time.
  
• George W. Bush refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about his drug use.
  
• By joining the Texas Air National Guard, George W. Bush was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam -- in fact, requested specifically to be stationed anywhere but overseas (unlike John F. Kerry, who volunteered for duty in Vietnam in the U.S. Navy, -- and volunteered for a second tour).

After surviving the Vietnam era by hiding out somewhere in Alabama or Texas (no one is sure, due to egregiously inadequate paperwork), George W. Bush's stellar career began in earnest:

• George W. Bush bought an oil company in 1975, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after he sold all his stock.
  
• George W. Bush then bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
  
• With the help of his father and their rightwing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), George W. Bush was elected governor of Texas.
  
• As Governor, George W. Bush changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. (During his tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog ridden city in America.)
  
• As Governor, George W. Bush cut taxes to favour the wealthiest of his constituents, many of whom he counted as friends and contributors, and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
  
• George W. Bush, the "pro-life compassionate conservative," set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
  
• All records of George W. Bush's tenure as governor of Texas are now in his father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. He has refused to make these documents public despite myriad requests from Americans in public and private life.
  
• All records of SEC investigations into George W. Bush's possible insider trading and his bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. He has refused to make these documents available to the public despite myriad requests from Americans in public and private life.

And, lest we neglect George W. Bush's more recent venality:

• With the help of his brother, the governor of Florida -- and the Republican Secretary of State and co-chair of George W. Bush's Florida campaign, Katherine Harris (and her well-documented purging of voter rolls) -- and his father's appointments to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush became President after losing the national election by over 500,000 votes.
  
• George W. Bush's largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of his best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron. Ken Lay has yet to be indicted.

-- George W. Bush's political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure his success with the U.S. Supreme Court during his election fraud. He has protected his friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

• George W. Bush changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts and has appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
  
• George W. Bush is the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
  
• George W. Bush is the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. He did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community, and contrary to his stated beliefs (during the 2000 Presidential Debates) about "nation building."
  
• In his State of the Union Address, George W. Bush lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British intelligence failures; the lies and the misplaced blame have since been brought to light through the 9/11 Commission he refused to create until pressure from certain interested American citizens and the subsequent public outcry forced him to reverse himself, just one of the many reversals he has made in self-evident response to the polls he claims to reject.

And, ladies and gentlemen, I could go on and on. However, I am fully aware of your corporate interests in completely avoiding as much of these facts as you possibly can, so I will spare myself further effort. Suffice to say, your vigourous application of the standards of honesty in public service has been, till now, woefully lopsided in favour of the incumbent in this election season. If you feel it necessary to accuse the Democratic candidate of lying, it is your privilege -- but in the interest of the appearance of objectivity, I suggest you turn your attention to the blatant and latent dishonesty of the President you have thus far served with distinction to the detriment of your own credibility and the public interest you purport to promote.

I'd like to dig up a blog entry from just before the war last year (back when I was publishing at "the Daily Weasel Blog"). I must say that my sentiments were eerily prescient:

By way of explanation
I suppose I should commit to electrons exactly where I stand on the Iraq war thing. Those who have been reading this blog over the last few days might be surprised to know that I'm not a die-hard peacenik.

Far from it. I can see a pretty good case for going after Saddam. No, not because he presents any sort of realistic threat to us -- Iraq is a fourth-rate power with World War II-level capability, whereas we've the most powerful military the planet has ever seen. Nor because he supports terrorists -- if we're really worried about al Qaeda getting WMD's (TM), then the logical thing to do is dismantle al Qaeda.

The rationale I can see for unseating Saddam is that 1) he and his family dynasty do present a realistic threat to stability in the region, 2) he's a brutal tyrant to his own people and 3) the arab world really needs to be made to catch up, one way or another, with the rest of the world, politically, economically and socially.

So why am I against this war? It comes down to three things: 1) Every bit of evidence I've seen indicates that Bush and his administration are completely out of their depth when it comes to a project such as this, if they're even truly concerned with improving Iraq in the first place, 2) any such project, thanks to the Bush administration's handling of things, will now come at enormous cost to us, economically and politically, and 3) it's not clear to me that even under the best of circumstances, a military invasion would be the best solution to the problem of Hussein. Too often, the analysis stops with "well, he's a bad guy, he's a danger to others, and we need to help Iraq". The unspoken assumption is that a military intervention will do the trick.

Now, mind you I'm not saying it couldn't work. But from everything I've seen thus far, I believe this war, conducted by this administration has very little chance of success in terms of addressing the concerns above, and may drastically increase the danger to Americans in the process. A lot of lives are on the line. Shouldn't we make damn sure the venture has the best chance of success before we even consider going through with it?

I must admit, there's one other reason I'm against the upcoming war: in part, this intervention has been sold on "pre-emption" grounds. Admittedly, that makes me want to oppose the war, period, for fear that failing to do so here will give the green light to further adventurism on the part of pre-emption advocates later.

Just about every prediction I made has come true, save more wars. And I'm deeply afraid that, if Bush is re-elected, his sense of God-given mission will lead us to invade other countries, as well.

Oh, and I also pick lottery numbers, too.

In honor of today's phenomenal March for Women's Lives in DC, we'll bring back a brief discussion of what abortion rights are all about.

What it comes down to is that, with certain rare exceptions (such as some forms of criminal conviction), people, both male and female, have the right to control their own bodies.

A close analogy will suffice. Suppose you woke one morning, and found that another person had been surgically grafted to you such that the person depended upon you for life. The graft could not be removed without the death of the other person.

In such a case, you would have the right to have the other person removed, as no one can be forced to serve as a life-support machine for someone else. The right to control one's own body in this case is tantamount, and the "personhood" of the other is irrelevant (though a lack of personhood might make us feel better about the whole deal).

"But wait!" some might say, "in the case of an abortion, the mother chose to have unprotected sex! doesn't that make her culpable?" To examine this objection, let's add to our original analogy. Let's say, before you had received the graft, you chose to walk through a bad part of town -- a part where, according to newscasts, people were being abducted and receiving surgery which resulted in other people grafted to them.

So, in walking through that section of town, your behavior was undeniably stupid. But does it cause you to lose the right to control your body?

The law (and ethics) would say "no". Anti-choice types would have to say "yes". In fact, they'd have to go further and eliminate the right to control one's own body even if one hadn't engaged in foolish behavior. Otherwise, they'd get bogged down in whether the mother took reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy.

The morality that says women don't have the right to control their own bodies has some very serious consequences, such as justification for slavery and forceable organ donorship. There simply isn't a consistent philosophical rationale that says women should not have the right to an abortion, yet still prohibits these universally despised and condemned activities. One must be selective and situational with one's ethics, and that's a pretty dangerous and controversial way to make laws.

We congratulate the organizers and participants for a job well done. You got your message out, and made the "mainstream abortion opponents" at the march look like the extremists they are. They've been reduced to rhetoric comparing a fight for freedom with support for terrorism. For the average person, that's got to be a rather obvious contradition. And whenever people think, liberals tend to win.