A few simple observations

A Government of Laws, Not Men

2005-12-17T20:10:00.000-05:00

A republic is "a government of laws and not of men."

Those words were written by John Adams. Some seem to have forgotten them, if they ever knew what they meant in the first place.

In the last few days, we've learned, definitively, that the President of the United States, George W. Bush, has ordered his subordinates to break the law. He repeatedly and knowingly ordered employees of the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without a warrant, and in the process, commit felonies.

Some, including a few congressmen, are actually praising the President, evidently believing that he should be able to do anything he wishes in the name of "fighting terrorism". To most of the rest of us (thankfully, virtually everyone), the idea that the President can simply ignore the laws he doesn't like and justify it on national security grounds goes against the most basic of American values, and represents a grave threat to our democracy.

The most damning aspect of the whole affair is that the law violated (the Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act) contains provisions specifically allowing for emergencies. Should an emergency situation arise that calls for immediate response, the Attorney General can authorize such survelliance as is necessary in the short term, so long as a warrant is then sought after the emergency has passed. In other words, there literally is no excuse for what the President did.

FISA exists for a reason: it prevents the kinds of abuses that have already taken place in our history. The intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of this country have tremendous power, and have been used in the past to intimidate and punish political opponents. What's more, the power of search and seizure and to violate the privacy of Americans without due process is unconstitutional. FISA is an important cornerstone for keeping dangerous power in check.

I can envision only two reasons why Mr. Bush would have taken the actions he did. The first was a blatant and flagrant and arrogant disdain for following the law, and hence, fulfilling his oath of office. The second is that the spying that was done really had nothing to do with terrorism at all.

Neither scenario exhonerates the President; in fact, both condemn him.

Under any theory of government, under any set of American values that can truly be called such, the President has committed an impeachible offense, and should resign or be removed. Should Congress fail to carry out its duty in this, any and all members that so fail should also be removed.

Those government employees who carried out the orders should be held accountable in a court of law, and a full and proper and public investigation into what went on should commence immediately.

This is truly a crisis: we have a President who feels he is above the law. Either he is shown the error of his ways, or we are no longer a Democracy; we are a dictatorship.

Dropping like flies

2005-11-05T01:20:00.000-05:00

The "Wingnut Crony Sting Operation" continues to net corrupt right wingers. This time, it's Ken Tomlinson of "let's make Public Television more 'fair and balanced'" fame.

Raw Story has the details.

You'd think they would figure out that being appointed by Bush, and the accompanying irresistable temptation to break the law, was something to avoid. Even drug dealers have a pretty good idea which cars not to approach. These guys are smarter than drug dealers, right?

So.

2005-10-29T16:10:00.000-04:00

Well, quite a lot has happened, hasn't it? What a year. I suppose, with the administration beginning to suffer "death from a thousand indictments", the GOP's public image in shambles and an election year approaching, now would be a good time to start writing again.

And write I shall.

For today, I'll simply note a couple of things on current events.

First, given Fitzgerald's MO, the actual text of the indictment against Scooter Libby and what we know of this case, I feel fairly confident in saying the Fitzgerald investigation isn't over. It would be wise not to assume anything at this point.

Second, even if the indictments begin and end with Libby, the GOP is looking at a long trial with discovery, testimony, witnesses, etc. exactly at a time when they'd prefer to be putting on a good public face for the voters (next year). Plus, an extremely senior right wing loon and liar is going to go down: make no mistake about it, Libby is screwed. So despite the crazed, shrill triumphalism coming from some parts of the right wing, things really aren't looking too good for wingnuts right now. And that's without any further indictments.

We'll see what we'll see. Me, I kinda think things are looking up.

President tells outright lie to the nation

2005-01-11T14:20:00.000-05:00

It's hardly news any more, is it? But we'll point it out, anyway. Today, George Bush said, "If you're 20 years old, just starting out, I want you think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust".

There is no forecast of the future of Social Security that says the system will be "flat bust".

Mr. Bush is telling outright lies about the system to scare people, and it is to be hoped that the media will call him on it (well, we can dream)...

"Modernization"

2005-01-11T13:43:00.000-05:00

How cute. It would appear that the GOP's now trying to frame Social Security phase-out as "modernization".

Here's another principle that should appeal to conservatives: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I think we're all a little tired of the GOP's idea of "modernization". They've "modernized" our standards for going to war, our adherence to the Constitution, our adherence to international law and the Geneva Conventions, they've "modernized" our standards for accountability in government, they've "modernized" our expectations for decent job growth and economic performance...the list goes on and on.

I'll stick with the old, thank you. The GOP's idea of "upgrades" to basic standards of morality, ethics and smart ideas is a little too much to take.

Opening our Tent: A Framework for Winning

2004-11-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

I had several major revelations on my way to work the morning after the election, and unfortunately, I don't work at a place where I can participate in political activities during working hours. The most important revelation came from a comment I read on Daily Kos this morning: that we couldn't compete with 4 million evangelicals who went to the polls, and that we had every "sane voter" vote for Kerry, yet we were still in the minority.

Now, I don't know about you, but "4 million" out of a country of 290 million (or even 120 million voters) doesn't sound like a majority to me. The problem we have, I think, is that too often we think of things in the same terms as that of the CNN exit poll: liberals, moderates and conservatives.

But the actual situation is far, far more complex. There is no "majority" in this country. There are only factions and coalitions of minorities. And frankly, the Republican coalition (even the "conservative" one) is chock full of contradictions, competing motives and interests, and held together by twine and duct tape. Many of the factions in that contentious coalition are swayable, and given the direction the GOP has been going in the last four years (and longer), ripe for the picking. In fact, we managed to do just that, to a degree. It just wasn't quite enough.

So we need to peel off a few more (or a lot more) from the GOP. We need wedge issues, and we need to drive them home. More than that: we need to cast liberal principles in terms that appeal to the various GOP coalition members.

Religion
A couple of ideas that I thought of -- getting liberal Christians organizaed and maybe starting a liberal Christian radio network -- seem to have already been bandied about on liberal blogs. Great minds, and all that.

In addition to those ideas (on the same topic of focusing more as a party and a political philosophy on welcoming and bringing in people of faith), I think liberals would do well to commit some time and effort to casting basic liberal principles in terms of Christian Scripture. The same could be done with criticism of the things Republicans are doing in government and the positions they take in public and private.

The thing is, such casting wouldn't have to be sold to the masses as blatant scripture. This is one of the things Bill Clinton (and now Barack Obama) does extremely well: finding scripture passages to sell ideas that will be recognized by Christians, yet sound simply like poetic and eloquent phrasing to everyone else.

That's not to say that selling liberal ideas and criticism of the GOP ("Gang of Pharisees" -- love it!) in terms of explicitly identified scripture is a bad idea, especially when done with an evangelical Christian audience available (such as in letters to the editor in many local and rural papers).

The key, of course, is to remind strongly Christian voters that there are more Christian principles than being anti-abortion and anti-homosexual. We should own this voting bloc -- many Christian principles have a very liberal bent (especially New Testament principles).

One final thing: I think it's important to remind people of faith that Jefferson's Separation of Church and State protects both; in fact, it's critical to the survival of both institutions.

Terrorism
It's time we put Terrorism back where it belongs. This isn't a "values" or "patriotism" issue: it's a foreign policy issue. And looking back on it now, I'm becoming convinced that it was a mistake to not harp far more than we did on the lack of an Osama bin Laden capture.

But that's neither here nor there, now. I think there's a major opening on this front at this point, thanks in part to bin Laden's re-emergence. We (as citizens and as Democratic spokespeople--you know who you are) need to continuously hold Bush's feet to the fire in terms of going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. It should be mentioned constantly, in terms of pressing Mr. Bush to go after the villians, and especially in terms of specific tactical and policy recommendations. We shouldn't let Bush duck the question of bin Laden once again; we shouldn't let him treat bin Laden and al Qaeda as things that we "shouldn't be that concerned about".

By doing this, we gain several advantages. 1) We keep the national defense focus where it should rightfully be in the public eye, 2) We come off as more serious on the issue than Bush (also true enough), 3) We keep the discussion in the realm of the real issue, rather than an abstract realm of values and patriotism.

The downside? There really isn't one. If bin Laden is actually caught and al Qaeda actually addressed, so much the better. An enemy of the country is brought to justice, and terrorism is taken off the table as an issue.

Finally, some themes
I'm going to write more on this last topic in the future. For now, I'm going to bring up the fact that there are multiple axes of political emphasis on which various issues and voting blocs lie. By understanding this, and by understanding which buttons to press, we can begin to unravel the GOP coalition.

The axes I like are the following (discussed at the links):
Altruism vs. Individualism
Organization vs. Anarchy
Democracy vs. Constitutionalism
Equality vs. Merit
Cooperation vs. Competition

Here are some liberal themes that fall into each. These were from a 10-minute brainstorming session; I'm sure there are lots more.

1) Altruism vs. Individualism
1a) Watching each other's back
1b) Taking care of each other
1c) Looking out for your neighbor
1d) Selflessness
1e) Duty to others
1f) Sacrifice
1g) Honor
1h) Taking care of children
1i) Taking care of parents
1j) Charity and donation
1k) Giving
1l) Helping the needy and weak

2) Organization vs. Anarchy
2a) Rule of law, law abiding
2b) Chain of command, discipline
2c) Responsible, efficient government
2d) Respecting the rules
2e) Justice
2f) Family

3) Democracy vs. Constitutionalism
3a) Will of the people
3b) Fair representation
3c) Enfranchisement
3d) Legitmate government

4) Equality vs. Merit
4a) Equal opportunity
4b) Fair reward for hard/smart work
4c) Equal treatment under the law
4d) Civil rights
4e) Everyone deserves a shot

5) Cooperation vs. Competition
5a) National unity
5b) Pulling together for the cause
5c) International coalitions

I believe most issues can be discussed in these terms, and the importance of doing this is to identify points of agreement with GOP coalition members ripe for peeling off and adding to our number. Note that the important thing here isn't to change our positions or tell people what they want to hear. Rather, the important things are to 1) identify points of agreement with voting blocs we'd like to court, so those points can be emphasized and nurtured, and 2) learn to speak their language, such that we can sell them on the idea they have more in common with us than with the GOP. Most people vote their interests. If they're convinced that the Democrats will better help them get what they want, they will align themselves with us.

One more thing on this point: I don't mean to suggest by the above that all liberals must take liberal positions on all the axes. We have coalitions just like conservatives do, and different "brands" of liberals fall at varying places on the various axes. Furthermore, liberal positions don't have to fall all the way on the leftward side of the axes. For example, "equal opportunity" embodies both equality (egalitarianism) and merit. The same goes for the support of regulated capitalism.

We have much to do, and little time to do it. But we have a great start. Liberals seem to have finally awakened to the need to pull together and fight, and they have the beginnings of an excellent organizational structure capable of fighting and winning elections. The next step is figuring out that we can't do it alone. Hopefully, what I've discussed here can serve as a framework for broadening our tent a little.

Attention, Bush supporters!

2004-11-07T01:49:00.000-05:00

Just so there are no misunderstandings, this is what you voted for on November 2nd:

Christian Conservatives Must Not Compromise
*Voters reject liberalism, an evil ideology.

Christians, in politics as in evangelism, are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology.

In the weeks and months to come, we will hear the voices of well-meaning people beseeching the victor to compromise with the vanquished. This would be a mistake. Conservatives must not compromise with the left. Good people holding false ideas are won over only if we defeat what is false with the truth.

...

The left bewitches with its potions and elixirs, served daily in its strongholds of academe, Hollywood and old media. It vomits upon the morals, values and traditions we hold sacred: God, family and country. As we learned Tuesday, it is clear the left holds the majority of Americans, the majority of us, in contempt.

Simply, a majority of Americans have rejected John Kerry and John Edwards and the left because they are wrong. They are wrong because there are not two Americas. We are one nation under a God they reject. We remain indivisible despite their attempts to divide Americans through their relentless warfare against class, ethnic and religious unity.

...

The nation has now resoundingly rejected the left and its agenda. We do not want to become European. We do not want to become socialist. We do not want to become secular. We are exceptional. We are unique. And we are the greatest force for good in the world, despite what the left, the terrorists or the United Nations may claim. It is for these reasons that we remain the last great hope in the world for freedom.

There are many Bush supporters who doubtlessly think the above is right in every detail.

But let's be clear: for a majority of Bush supporters, it is highly likely that handing the wingnut Christian evangelicals the keys to the castle was not foremost on their minds. Yet, these are the people Bush most closely represents, and these are the people who are now demanding their due.

Welcome to the world, under "Pastor-in-Chief" Bush, that you've created for us. I hope it was what you wanted. Because a country moving inexoribly away from Thomas Jefferson's dream of a secular nation and towards radical Christian Right theocracy is exactly what we got.

Just the beginning

2004-11-03T14:57:00.000-05:00

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

I haven't posted much lately, since I've been concentrating on keeping up with all the news as it comes in. As is now clear, though, George W. Bush has "won" a second term.

Congratulations to him. No, really. He's going to get to be in power when his chickens come home to roost. And he'll have to clean up his own mess in Iraq, or suffer the wrath of history to an even greater extent than he already will.

There can be very little doubt that Mr. Bush's victory is a victory for dishonesty. As has been well documented, most of Mr. Bush's supporters are actually quite in the dark about what he stands for and supports, as well as the consequences of his actions and basic facts on issues of importance. Likewise, most of his supporters were doubtlessly swayed by the lies Bush told about John Kerry.

It's clear we have a lot of work to do. Fortunately, this election galvanized liberals into real action, and we had some astounding successes for such a young set of organizations. This is just the beginning, and I guarantee you, we will live to see the right wing just as powerless and hopeless as many liberals feel today.

Never give up. The future is ours.

380 tons

2004-10-25T09:24:00.000-04:00

The lead story today is that 380 tons of the world's most dangerous conventional explosive (RDX) was left unguarded at a massive storage site in Iraq after we invaded, and all of it has mysteriously gone missing. It is very likely this stuff is now being used in attacks on our troops in Iraq.

The real scandal, though, is that we knew, or should have known, about the stuff. It was under International Atomic Energy Agency watch, since aside from being military grade explosive, RDX has the dual use of being a triggering explosive in nuclear bombs.

Folks, let's be clear: big deal about this isn't that the RDX went missing. The big deal about this is that this is one of those things for which we should have planned. Like the looting of storage sites for radioactive material and other hazardous/dangerous things, like the looting of museum artifacts, this is one more example of the complete lack of planning the administration put into this little fiasco. Just about the only thing that was secured were sites critical for oil revenues.

So once again, here's what we have: the administration was warned before the war that it wouldn't be a cakewalk. They were warned we'd need several hundred thousand troops to secure the country. They were warned of civil unrest. And all of those warnings came not from fringe hacks, but from the State Department, from high-ranking military officials and the likes of the U.S. Army War College.

The administration didn't listen. They ignored all the expert advice and went instead with the neocons' "no casualties" fantasyworld in which we'd be welcomed with flowers and everyone would be so happy to see Saddam gone that an ordered, lawful democracy would magically spring into being once he was overthrown.

Reasonable planning for this war would have included contacting the IAEA (which doesn't have an army itself capable of securing sites against mobs of looters) and finding out what needed to be looked after. That was not done.

Furthermore, the site is still being looted, despite the administration's own assertions that Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-run "Coalition Provisional Authority" was informed of it last May. The administration's primary actions in all of this (even assuming we indeed only found about it last May) has been to CYA, demanding the Iraqis keep the issue quiet for fear of impacting the U.S. elections.

The bottom line is 760,000 pounds of the world's most dangerous high explosive is being used to kill our troops and innocent Iraqis; worse, some of it most likely has found its way onto the international black market.

Just what we needed to win the peace and the War on Terror. Do we feel safer yet with Bush in charge?

Standard Operating Procedure: Dirty Tricks

2004-10-17T22:41:00.000-04:00

Josh Marshall has been doing a nice job putting out feelers for End-of-race Karl Rove dirty tricks. This is the time, in a close-fought race, that Bush's "boy wonder" campaign strategist (better described as political hit man without a conscience or shred of decency) is known to employ exceedingly sleazy campaign tactics to smear his camdidate's opponent.

There are many such cheap, rotten tricks that litter Karl Rove's past like pies behind a cow. Here are some of the highlights:

Straightforward smear: the publication of serious-sounding, yet groundless (and sometimes easily-debunked) untruths is a common one. The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", which has been solidly tied to the Bush campaign and Rove, qualifies. The key to such a smear is that it is played for the "impact" angle. The smear itself matters less than getting the media asking, "what will the effect be on the candidate?" Once this is accomplished, the smear gets lots of airplay, the charges seem to come from all directions, and voters are left with the impression that there must be some truth to the smear. It is helpful if those conducting the smear are able to respond to debunkings with ever-shifting rationales and new charges. Other smear attempts might involve out-of-wedlock children or affairs, child-porn charges (sexual matters make for great material), criminal behavior, etc.

Push-polls: the use of "telephone polling" to spread a smear is another known Rovian trick. In this trick, callers masquerading as pollsters are really used to spread rumors about a candidate.

Other rumormongering: Rove has a long history of using various techniques to spread rumors about an opponent. He is known to have started false rumors that Ann Richards, then governor of Texas, was a lesbian. For another example, potential rumors against John Kerry that anonymous people (with Rovian connections?) have tried to get going involve the idea that Kerry urinated on and burned American flags during his anti-Vietnam-war activites.

Framing an opponent: One of Rove's trademark techniques is to do something that falsely implicates a political enemy in wrongdoing. Karl Rove is known to have planted a bugging device in his own office to induce outrage that an opponent was involved in dirty tricks. Another example is the distribution of material with over-the-top, outrageous attacks against Rove's own candidate, designed to look as though the opponent was the one disseminating the attacks. Other examples of such behavior might be staged break-ins, staged vandalism, fake assaults, etc.

Voter suppresion: Rove has a long history of involvement in activites (criminal and non-criminal) aimed at voter suppression. He has ties to people who have illegally jammed get-out-the-vote telephone banks, ripped up voter registrations, and other dirty tricks.

The key to recognizing and defusing Rovian smears is simply to expect them. Just about any "bombshell" accusation or announcement just before the election should be considered suspect, since nothing less at that point will have much effect on the outcome of the election. That includes both announcements or accusations against one candidate or another and announcements of a different nature, the truth of which cannot be verified before the election (e.g. the threat of a terrorist attack, the capture of Osama bin Laden, etc.).

So be on the lookout. The one constant of campaigns in which Rove is involved is sleazy campaigning. He doesn't know how to do anything else, so expect it. A lot can happen in two weeks, and it should be accepted as a given that Rove will try something. It will be sweet, sweet justice to see his candidate trounced in the upcoming presidential election.

Nasty, Brutish and Too Long

2004-10-06T06:35:00.000-04:00

My impression of the vice-presidential debate last night is that it could serve as a metaphor for the entire campaign thus far.

Early on, Vice-president Dick Cheney started making nasty and misleading claims about John Kerry and John Edwards. Indeed, Mr. Edwards seemed rocked back by the impossibility of rebutting the sheer quantity of dishonest talking points Cheney dished out in rapid-fire fashion.

Later, John Edwards seemed to hit his stride, and came back more effectively on domestic issues.

As in the campaign, we saw very little from Mr. Cheney in the way of defending Mr. Bush and his policies. There were a few, well-rehearsed talking points about how well things are going in Iraq, but the vast majority of his statements were simply false attacks on John Kerry and John Edwards' record.

It almost makes you wonder whose idea it's been to produce all the lies the Bush/Cheney campaign has been foisting on the public over the last nine months. Are we sure it was Rove?

There's that "fantasy world" thing, again

2004-10-02T13:37:00.000-04:00

Not two days after getting his clock cleaned in the first debate, George Bush is back at his old tricks, misrepresenting what John Kerry said:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - President Bush said on Saturday Democrat John Kerry's debate remark that U.S. preemptive military action should be subject to a "global test" would give other nations a veto over American national security decisions.
. . .
Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
. . .
Bush called it the "Kerry doctrine" and summed it up this way: "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use troops to defend ourselves." The friendly crowd responded with boos for Kerry.

"Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions," he said.

There are, of course, two things Bush gets wrong in this assessment.

First, "pre-emptive" war and defending ourselves are not necessarily the same thing at all, as Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq amply demonstrates. Second, as a Kerry spokesman pointed out today, "The global test is not asking for a permission slip. It's making sure that your decisions stand up to scrutiny and are backed by facts."

The "global test" Kerry was referring to was not a poll of world opinion, and it was not asking for permission. He was referring to a course of action in which "your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

In other words, he's talking about the same thing he's always talked about: only taking action when there's a darned good, legitimate reason and you've made those reasons clear.

Mr. Bush is once again lying about his opponent and lying about the war in Iraq. But it's all he has.

So much for "fair and balanced"

2004-10-02T10:00:00.000-04:00

Those who follow such things know that Fox News is hardly the "Fair and Balanced" news source it claims to be. In the past two years, they've been rocked by scandal after scandal throwing light on the clear right wing, pro-GOP slant they bring to their reporting.

The first incident that comes to mind is a court case in February, 2003, in which Fox News argued (successfully) that they had the right to lie to and deliberately mislead their viewers:

A Florida Appeals court ruled on February 14 that it is legal for press organizations to lie, conceal, or distort information. The decision, which reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of Fox Television journalist Jane Akre, declares that no law is being broken if false information is given in a television broadcast.

In the August 2000 trial, Akre charged she was pressured by management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information in a story about the use of growth hormones in dairy cows. The six-person jury was unanimous in concluding that Akre was fired because she threatened to report the station for pressuring her to report the false information.

Fox’s attorneys’ arguments failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case dismissed since there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the airwaves.

In a written decision, the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

(More here)

In March of this year, when the Richard Clarke story was breaking, Fox News released the transcript of an interview with Clarke that had been conducted "on background" (meaning Clarke was not to be identified). Clarke's statements from the interview were taken out of context and used in an attempt to discredit him and the damning things he was saying about the Bush administration at the time. Apart from the fact that the White House released the transcript, Fox News apparently requested permission to release Clarke's name, which raised serious ethical questions regarding Fox. Clarke's interview with Fox was done with the understanding, between Clarke and Fox, that he would not be identified. Yet Fox News sought the permission of the White House to abgrogate that understanding in an effort to do damage control for the Bush administration.

In July of this year, a slew of internal Fox News memos came to light that brought into stark relief just how much the "news" network deliberately slants its coverage.

At around the same time, Britian's Office of Communications cited Fox News for deliberately spreading misinformation (which is against the law in the UK).

And now, thanks to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, we have cut-and-dry evidence that Fox News' chief political correspondent has virulently anti-Kerry views, and feels comfortable about expressing them internally to other Fox News staffers:

Is Fox News literally making stuff up out of whole cloth about John Kerry?

I don't expect much from this Republican operation. But this does seem to break new ground.

If you go to the front page of the Fox News site, there's a link right there up front to "Trail Tales: What's that Face".

. . .

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

. . .

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

. . .

"I'm metrosexual — he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.

It has now been revealed that Cameron (the author of the piece) made up these quotes as part of a "joke" and forwarded them. They were "accidently" included in the piece that appeared temporarily on Fox's site.

Folks, this isn't a "joke". I know of employees at actual news outfits that get in trouble merely for having political signs in their yards. Yet Fox News sees fit to employ people, in positions to heavily influence political reporting, with known political biases on par with those found at "Free Republic" and "Little Green Footballs"? Employees who express such views to each other, and joke amongst themselves about it?

Fox News likes to pretend that they're the "Fair and Balanced" ones because it muddies the waters, potentially fooling some uninformed people into taking their word for things. But the facade is getting harder and harder to maintain...

Consistent? Bush?

2004-09-22T23:06:00.000-04:00

Folks, let's get one thing straight: the only thing Bush has been consistent on is his willingness to lie. And that includes telling blatant falsehoods about John Kerry, to paint him as waffling on issues.

I've looked at John Kerry's record. He's a smart man, and a detailed man. He understands different sides of issues. And yes, unlike Bush, Mr. Kerry has changed his mind over time on certain issues, just as a normal person should, as new facts come to light.

But John Kerry is a man of deep convictions, enduring principles and remarkable consistency. As one lobbyist told the Washington Post: "He wouldn't carry anyone's water".

So the next time you hear the Bush campaign saying John Kerry's a "flip-flopper", consider the source. If there's one thing George Bush has not flip-flopped on, it's being willing to say anything, absolutely anything, in order to win.

That's not strong, consistent leadership. That's being a craven worm. There's a slight difference.

Yep. Bush is all about Compassion

2004-09-21T22:31:00.000-04:00

Looks like the Grinch is making an early appearance--in the form of a Bush administration proposal to cut rent subsidies for poor families:

The Bush administration has proposed reducing the value of subsidized-housing vouchers given to poor residents in New York City next year, with even bigger cuts planned for some urban areas in New England. The proposal is based on a disputed new formula that averages higher rents in big cities with those of suburban areas, which tend to have lower costs.

If left unchanged, the proposals could have a "significantly detrimental impact" in some areas by forcing poor families to pay hundreds of extra dollars per month in rent, according to United States Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican. That extra burden could be too much for thousands of tenants, "potentially leaving them homeless," Mr. Shays wrote in a recent letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The changes would affect most of the 1.9 million families who participate in the Section 8 program, the government's primary housing program for the poor, including 110,000 in New York City. People in the program receive vouchers to help them rent private apartments from landlords who agree to participate.

But remember: Bush feels your pain. He just feels the pain of billionaires a little more.

Getting us out of Iraq

2004-09-21T06:55:00.000-04:00

As Josh Marshall notes today, the effort on the right to distort and downplay John Kerry's superb speech on Iraq yesterday has begun. Basically, it comes down to the assertion that Bush is already doing what John Kerry is suggesting. The implication is that Kerry has nothing new to offer, so why change?

These are, of course, Bush campaign talking points. And they ignore a crucial aspect of what Kerry brings to the table: someone with respect for other countries, an ability to work diplomatically with them and who hasn't burned all his bridges and credibility with them.

It's important to remember that many of Bush's problems aren't just the result of other countries being belligerent. That's what Bush would like people to think, but the reality is that Bush has been snubbing the international community his entire term -- that's not a process that began in the Iraq War runup.

So what does Kerry bring to the table? New blood and new ability. Bush would like us to ask the question, "why should John Kerry be any better at getting other countries to help us?" When the question should be "how can we ever succeed at getting other countries to help us if we stick with a leader who has no credibility with those countries and no real interest in working with them?"

The whole point isn't to offer a brand new set of broad ideas for getting us out of Iraq. Bush hasn't failed because of the idea of international involvement itself. He's failed because he's not up to the task. The point is to let someone else, someone with more ability, more experience and more interest to have a crack at it.

And that's the point that Bush desperately wants people to avoid considering.

As long as we're talking "resignations"...

2004-09-20T21:34:00.000-04:00

As Nick Confessore notes, calling for Dan Rather's resignation over failure to fully vet documents before going public with them has become all the rage on the right. Given that no one got killed over the Burkett memos, we can only imagine how strongly the same resignation-hawks must feel about Bush's use of bogus intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD without proper vetting -- indeed, when Bush specifically ignored doubts about it.

We eagerly await the calls for Bush to do the right thing.

Exactly right

2004-09-20T21:24:00.000-04:00

Matthew Yglesias puts things perfectly:

Bush didn't try to back out of the "town hall" debate because he was afraid of the format. That was just a clever trick. He's going to kick ass in all three debates, but especially in the town hall. John Kerry's nuanced ways may go over okay with the elite press corps, but when he gets to speak mano a mano with average Americans, George W. Bush's rhetorical skills are unmatched. Like regular people he eschews details in favor of broad principles and compelling moral language, positively exuding the combination of decency and boldness that people are looking for in a leader. The debates are going to be a rough ride for Kerry, whose strength lies in the formal address. If he manages to get through the ordeal without utterly humiliating himself, I'll be happy.

Exactly. God help Kerry. This is the part I've feared ever since -- well, ever since I realized the Democrats had to run someone against Bush. The guy is nearly unbeatable, and his talent for flawless delivery and steel-trap command of the facts are an extremely potent combination.

It will be a victory in and of itself if Kerry can just get through the debates against Mr. Bush, without losing it completely.

Getting a little carried away

2004-09-20T18:13:00.000-04:00

It would seem that the Bush campaign is eagery attempting to capitalize on Bill Burkett's forged documents. They are implying that the Kerry campaign had something to do with the documents:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan says the CBS statement admits for the first time those documents ''were likely forged.''
McClellan says there are now questions that need to be answered about the source, Bill Burkett -- who he says has reportedly had senior level contacts with the John Kerry campaign.

Folks, let's be clear about something: McClellan's full of crap. You knew that already? Good for you.

The "senior level contacts" McClellan is referring to is one person: Max Cleland. And here's the story:

Former Sen. Max Cleland, a surrogate for the Kerry campaign, says he knew nothing about the contents of potentially forged documents questioning President Bush's National Guard service, depite talking last month with the man who gave them to CBS.

. . .

In an interview with The Associated Press, Cleland said Monday that he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Georgia Democrat said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

"People call me with stuff all the time," said Cleland, who was campaigning in Ohio for Kerry on Monday. "I don't know whether this guy is legit or fraudulent. I have no idea. I just referred him to the campaign."

Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information, but Ginsberg couldn't confirm whether there was any future contact between Burkett and others in the campaign.

In an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats, Burkett said he spoke to Cleland after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in Kerry's campaign. He says he had told him he had some information to counter questions about Kerry's military service.

In the memo, obtained by The Associated Press, Burkett says he asked Cleland whether he wanted to "counterattack or ride this to the ground and outlast it, not spending any money." Cleland told him to counterattack, he said, "so I gave them the information to do it with."

Burkett wrote that no one at the Kerry campaign called him back.

Cleland said he didn't recall telling Burkett to "counterattack" and had never heard of Burkett until he got the call on his personal cell phone.

"All I know is this guy called me out of the blue, said he's got some kind of George Bush information, something about Guard or whatever," Cleland said. "We haven't had anything to do with this guy."

So, let's recap.

The available evidence strongly suggests that the Kerry campaign didn't forge these documents. Had that been the case, Burkett wouldn't have had to contact the campaign in order to give the documents to them. In fact, there's no evidence at all to suggest that the Kerry campaign had any hand in the creation of these documents.
Everyone agrees that Burkett tried to work with the Kerry campaign regarding organizing a "counterattack", but after talking with Cleland, no one called him back, much to his frustration.
Burkett was a Democratic partisan who wanted to hit the Republicans back hard. He had also been talking to the media for years about stories of Bush military documents being destroyed. It's logical to conclude that, when the Kerry campaign didn't contact Burkett, he started talking more widely about his memos (in part, to internet discussion lists). CBS heard about it (they had been searching for such documents), and contacted him.

At worst, we're looking at a situation in which someone in the Kerry campaign contacted CBS with a news tip. I'm sure that's not an uncommon thing, and it's hardly a scandal. But to reiterate, there's no evidence at all that this took place (more's the pity. I'd like to think that the Kerry campaign could act on some juicy stuff with a little more effectiveness).

So, what do we have? Well, as you might have guessed, we're looking at attempts by the Bush campaign to smear John Kerry. Again.

Anything to get the public to stop concentrating on Bush's utter record of incompetence and failure. If that includes wild, unsubstantiated slanders, then so be it, right?

UPDATE: USA Today is reporting that CBS gave the Kerry campaign Bill Burkett's telephone number and requested that they contact him, apparently as a quid pro quo to get Burkett to turn over the forged documents. Burkett and Joe Lockhart both say they spoke briefly a few days before the CBS story ran as a result of the request, and that the conversation didn't involve the documents.

From this additional information, it would appear to be more clear than ever that the Kerry campaign wasn't involved in getting the documents to CBS, since CBS already knew about the documents before Burkett spoke with Lockhart.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that, if Burkett were coordinating with the Kerry campaign, that he'd need CBS to set up a phone call between them.

Burkett is appearing more and more like a bit of a nut who thought he was going to save the Kerry campaign by forging documents and giving the Kerry campaign advice on how to defend themselves.

RNC chairman Ed Gillespie is claiming this meeting might have had something to do with the Democrats' subsequent "fortunate son" TV advertisement. However, that ad used some footage from the 60 Minutes II broadcast (no insider information necessary) and didn't even use the Burkett documents.

I know, I know, that must have been because they knew the documents were forgeries, right? Well, considering how fast questions about the documents made the news, they wouldn't have needed to conclude that beforehand, would they?

Or maybe, just maybe, they had the spot mostly done with what they knew, then added 60 Minutes II footage for impact after that aired?

This has gotten truly silly. The Republicans are out to create a sense of impropriety, when even a cursory look at the reporting on the matter reveals that everyone involved agrees the Kerry campaign had very little to do with Burkett and nothing to do with his documents. Something to keep in mind as the Bush campaign tries to whip up this new scandal...

Exactly what America DOESN'T need

2004-09-19T20:20:00.000-04:00

Today, Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert demonstrated the lack of judgement and ill-temperament that has gotten us into such trouble in the War on Terrorism. They are the same basic flaws shown so often by George Bush and his administration, so it's no coincidence that Hastert is backing Bush:

At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

Oh, but wait. It gets better. When asked about Hastert's comments, his spokesman dissembled:

His spokesman, John Feehery, said Sunday that the speaker's comments "were consistent with the speaker's belief that John Kerry would be weak on the war."

"If John Kerry is perceived as being weak on the war, then of course, his election would be perceived as a good thing by the terrorists," Feehery said in a written response to questions about Hastert's remarks.

"The fact that John Kerry can't make up his mind about the war only strengthens that perception."

This is pure Bush/Cheney propaganda, and is, of course, nonsense. Kerry has been entirely consistent on "the war", regardless of whether you're discussing the Iraq war or the War on Terror. The fact that Hastert and his spokesman confuse the two makes the Republicans' inadequacy for defending us from the threats that we face all the more clear. The party leadership doesn't even know who were fighting or why.

Of course, some Republicans get it:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — Reflecting rising concerns, one senior Republican senator said today that the United States was in "deep trouble" in Iraq, another denounced administration "incompetence" in Iraqi reconstruction, while two others said that unless American-led forces quickly retake several areas from insurgents, credible elections cannot be held in January.

The senators' comments, made on televised political programs, underscored mounting worries even within President Bush's party about the murderous attacks of recent weeks, and about the coalition's failure to bring some Iraqi cities under control.

Something to think about.

Kerry was right about Iraq

2004-09-18T11:45:00.000-04:00

Much hay has been made about Kerry's statements on Iraq as well as his vote for authorizing the use of force, the point being to imply that Kerry supported Bush's war in toto, and has now flip-flopped and is against it. Folks, this is a Bush campaign talking point. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Independents for Kerry remind us of what Kerry's position towards Iraq has been all along:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Pretty straightfoward, when you don't put words in his mouth, huh?

It should be remembered that George Bush himself said the Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq was "a vote for peace, not war".

The long and the short of it is this: Bush said he'd use the authorization as leverage to get weapons inspectors back into the country, and if that didn't work he'd build a multinational coalition through the UN to force the issue. What did he actually do? He drove out the inspectors himself and attacked with a pitiful "coalition of the willing" (which could better be described as a "coalition of the bribeable and unwilling to criticize"). He alienated our allies, and attacked with no plan to win the peace.

It's also important to remember that even if you were for the war, it is still possible to be against the utterly incompetent manner in which the war has been waged. Bush has been warned time and again that his plans were inadequate. He's been presented with good ideas, and instead chose to take the worst path. Do we really want such a man to be given an extension on his contract?

An no one could possibly say that it was OK for the President to use known-bad intelligence to sell the need for holding Saddam accountable in the first place. He was warned that the intelligence he was using was shaky, but he and the administration used it anyway. He misled both Congress and the American people.

There is an ever-increasing rate at which our soldiers are being killed in Iraq. And make no mistake: that is because of Bush's incompetence and inadequacy as commander-in-chief. Some claim he, at least, has a "plan" for Iraq, while Kerry doesn't. Even if that were true (it's not), thus far, I'd take no plan over Bush's.

Kerry told the truth about Vietnam

2004-09-17T23:29:00.000-04:00

The Navy clinches it: proper procedures were followed in awarding John Kerry his medals. Moreover, Kerry's superiors (at least one of which is now slandering Kerry as part of the Bush-campaign-affiliated "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" smear group) correctly followed all procedures in awarding Kerry his medals.

What does this mean? To me, it means quite simply this: there's no evidence, as far as the Navy is concerned, that any of the Swift Boater's malicious charges are true. John Kerry told the truth about Vietnam and earned his medals by risking his life and showing true heroism. The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" who have been airing ads attacking Kerry are lying through their teeth, period.

Why would they have done this, you may ask? That's a very good question. These guys are mostly veterans, after all (although not all members of the group, as I understand it, appear on a registry of Swift Boat veterans), and they sure seem honest.

My theory is simply this: a not-insignificant number of the swift boat smear group's members are unhappy with Kerry because he exposed their misbehavior in Vietnam to the country. For example, a co-founder of the group, Admiral Roy F. Hoffman, evidently pushed his subordinates to commit war atrocities, according to eyewitnesses.

As for the others, I believe a combination of peer pressure, misplaced nationalistic belief that one should never criticize a war or a president in time of war, jealousy, personal dislike or simple partisanship explains it. John O'Neill (another group co-founder), for example, has been gunning for John Kerry since Nixon hand-picked O'Neill to discredit Kerry in the early 1970's. O'Neill is a hard-line Republican who has clearly never forgiven Kerry for opposing Nixon, despite the serious character flaws that president is known to have possessed.

The bottom line is this: out of 3600 men who served on swift boats in Vietnam, fewer than 250 have chosen to attack John Kerry's record (indeed, as noted above, many group members weren't swift boat veterans). Out of 12 crew members who actually served on Kerry's boat and were thus best suited to judge his actions and character, 10 back him unequivocally and say they'd "follow him to hell and back", one is deceased, and one, who John Kerry threatened to court-marshall for misbehavior, now criticizes him.

None of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" members have told the truth about John Kerry. They just don't like him. This isn't a matter of exposing what actually happened in Vietnam; it's a matter of irrational hatreds that competent psychologists should have been given the chance to address long ago.

I'll take a commander-in-chief who is loved by more than 90% of the people he's led into life-and-death situations any day.

Gallup -- doing the RNC's dirty work?

2004-09-16T20:47:00.000-04:00

You've gotta see this:

Outlier of the Year
by Chris Bowers

Thu Sep 16th, 2004 at 19:42:39 EST

The Gallup poll people have been talking about will be released tomorrow and will show Bush up 14 in a three-way matchup among LV's, 54-40-3 (link). Let's see if they release internals Party ID internals (doubtful, they hardly ever do), and what the two-way RV's are. Considering the five most recent polls, the Economist (Bush by one), Harris (Kerry by one), IBD / CSM (Kerry by two), Pew (tied), Rasmussen (Bush by 4.6, maybe more tomorrow), this is going to win the award for outlier of the year. At least it is in line with their crappy state polls.

The sad decline of a once great polling firm seems complete. From pushing the press to publish their likely voter models instead of registered voter models, even though they know damn well doing so until the final week of the campaign violates the entire purpose of likely voter models, to continuing to poll with Nader beyond all comprehension, and now engaging in shitty party ID weighting, Gallup has consistently been Bush's best polling firm this entire season. Even worse, this obviously crappy poll will get all the weekend press to itself. For shame.

Let's be very clear. Kerry and Bush are running neck-and-neck. What's more, Kerry is ahead in the electoral map, and coming on strong. This Gallup poll (like those before it) is completely off.

Something has gone very wrong at both Gallup and CNN, the media outfit that commissions their polls. Both have displayed increasingly blatant pro-RNC bias.

Gallup's recent work, in particular, is taken to task by statisticians who point out that the Likely Voter model Gallup is pushing (no one SHOULD be pushing likely voter models this far out) is deeply flawed. Furthermore, their party weighting appears to be flawed, too.

The bottom line, folks, is that this poll is worthless. Gallup is having very serious problems, and should be ignored for the time being...

Josh Marshall: RNC flunky?

2004-09-15T20:48:00.000-04:00

I want to voice my support for Josh Marshall, as he's apparently come under siege from Democratic faithful who feel we can't afford such niceties as intellectual honesty at this point.

The CBS memos were represented as originals, and several include Lt Col Jerry Killian's supposed signature. If they are not originals, then they are forgeries. I don't think that's the biggest story in all of this, but such is life.

However, I think a logical next step in this story, and one that might still pique the interest of a scandal-happy press, is this: what happened to the original memos? If, as Killian's secretary has said, the memos that CBS has put forth are accurate representations of ones that originally existed, this is a fair question. The question becomes all the more germane given the recurring stories of document destruction and coverup as pertains to Mr. Bush's National Guard follies (Bill Burkett, in particular, has alleged this). Are the CBS memos recreations of shredded or otherwise destroyed documents? If so, who destroyed them, when, and why? Were laws broken, and was Mr. Bush aware of the destruction?

Now that's more like it!

2004-09-13T15:21:00.000-04:00

As one of the "fretting Democrats" who were worried about John Kerry in August, let me take a moment to say I am much, much happier with how things have gone since the beginning of this month.

During August, John Kerry had to hold his fire, and Bush was much more free to frame the national debate. He managed to turn the attention of the country from his own failures to John Kerry, and that distraction helped Bush to rebound to a degree.

But since the end of Kerry's self-imposed moratorium on spending (necessitated by Kerry being limited to spending $75 million after the Dem convention), he's been kicking ass and taking names. He's been going after Bush, and frankly, Bush has been knocked back on his heels. And I and many other Democrats are saying, "it's about time".

Yeah, no one can worry like a Democrat. But Kerry has redeemed himself nicely. I'm seeing a coherent campaign with a focused message and a determination to take the fight to Bush (as he so richly deserves).

The truth is, despite all the public worrying by Democrats, Kerry was never actually doing badly. And the latest polls have Kerry drawing equal once again with Bush in the national horserace, and maintaining his lead in the electoral college.

Count me as a happy camper.

Forget "road to". Iraq is Hell

2004-09-13T14:43:00.000-04:00

Folks, it's official. Iraq is a failure. In no sense, no optimistic vision, no fantasy world could Iraq be called a success in any way, shape or form. Iraq has become a new 1980's-style Lebanon, and al Qaeda's new recruiting poster.

It didn't have to be this way. After selling the country on the notion that we needed to invade Iraq to stop Saddam from giving WMDs to al Qaeda terrorists, the administration didn't even bother to listen to those who warned our post-war plans were completely inadequate. Then, Bush refused to change course when any reasonable person could see that we should do so. Make no mistake: at every stage, where we are now was preventable, and Bush failed to do what should have been done--what any good Commander-in-Chief should have done.

Every excuse for why we invaded Iraq has turned into a farce. WMD? None. Collaboration with al Qaeda? None. Sowing democracy? Not going to happen. We have to stay or it will be even worse? Too late -- we made things worse by staying.

Some have questioned whether John Kerry, a man with actual experience leading men in life-or-death combat situations, a man with 20 years experience in foreign relations, a man who has been taking a stand for doing what's right all his life would do better. Where's his plan? Why should we switch Presidents when Kerry doesn't have a detailed roadmap for getting us out of Iraq?

The answer to this comes in two parts. Number one: there are no good options in Iraq, but some options are still better than others. Number two: Bush's history of incompetence on this matter (he got us into Iraq in the worst way possible, remember, and has refused all good advice, instead making disastrous mistake after disastrous mistake) leaves little doubt that whatever screw-ups remain to be made in Iraq, Bush will make them.

We've faced difficult times and poor choices in the past. But the key to dealing with such situations isn't to throw our hands up and say it doesn't matter what we do. Rather, we put our most competent people to work devising the best way out. And folks, that's something Bush just isn't up to doing. John Kerry, by contrast, is a competent, thoughtful man with a history of making the best decisions in situations with difficult choices. He is currently looking to the best of the best for foreign policy advice, and that's something I think we can expect to continue.

The bottom line is this: there is no magic bullet to get us out of the mess Bush's incompetence and arrogance got us into. But we can, at least, avoid shooting ourselves in the foot, and elect someone who can make the best of a bad situation.

It's not an "either-or" question, Don

2004-09-11T20:58:00.000-04:00

Mr. Rumsfeld evidently feels that torturing helpless Iraqi teens is OK, because what terrorists do is worse:

Washington- American abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were terrible, but they are not crimes on par with beheadings and other acts carried out by terrorists, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday.

First of all, Don, let's call it what it was: "torture".

Second, simply because you can find something worse doesn't mean the Abu Ghraib tortures were in any way made better. In fact, the two things have literally nothing to do with one another, and it's insulting to try to "put the Abu Ghraib tortures in perspective" by comparing them to what terrorists do.

There simply was no excuse for what we did at Abu Ghraib. And when I say "we", that is exactly what I mean: Sy Hersh's new book, which comes out on Monday, will make the clear case that the Bush administration knew about the abuses, and did nothing.

It is time that people such as Mr. Rumsfeld, who are burdened by such a morally bankrupt sense of right and wrong, are removed from positions of power. They have made this country immesurably less safe.

Naw, the Bushies wouldn't politicize the War on Terrorism

2004-09-07T20:32:00.000-04:00

Couldn't they at least wait a couple of days, out of respect for the dead?

Coincidences are the strangest things ...

AP: 'U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000 mark' ... 4:27 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

AP: 'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election' ... 4:40 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

Or if they don't respect the dead, how about out of respect for the intelligence of the American people?

Just how stupid do they think we are?

Cheney confuses his political career with a life and death issue

2004-09-07T20:28:00.000-04:00

Talk about the politics of smear and fear:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Umm...wow. And they say the Kerry campaign is in a state of panic and disarray.

Sounds like someone has done the math, and is a little concerned that their bounce won't go the distance. Hence, yet more of the politics of anything goes.

As with Bush's continual misrepresentation of Kerry's position on Iraq, Cheney's statement indicates a campaign willing to say anything to win. Too bad they can't tell the difference between good campaigning and something that makes them look desperate.

On second thought, maybe that's not "too bad" after all--at least for the country.

Iraq continues on its path to Hell

2004-09-06T22:12:00.000-04:00

The increase in the rate of American deaths in Iraq continues in September with today's deaths of seven marines thanks to a car bomb. These deaths bring the number of fatalities in September to 15 in the last six days, and the total number of U.S. deaths to 993. There's a good chance we'll pass the 1000 mark in the next few days. Will the media sit up and take notice?

"Bush is focused on the future!"

2004-09-05T09:31:00.000-04:00

The latest theme coming out of the Bush campaign is basically this: "Bush is focused on the future, Kerry is focused on the past". It's the theme they have to run with, since Bush's record in office is horrendous.

In driving this theme, Bush is capitalizing on his smears of Kerry. By getting Kerry to focus on his Vietnam war record and the Vietnam records of Bush, Cheney and others, Bush is making it look like Kerry is obsessed with what happened 35 years ago. They have correctly deduced that most voters want a discussion of something more recent, and by default, it would appear that Bush is the one doing that.

Kerry is getting all sorts of advice, from all sides, these days. But here's some advice I hope he takes to heart: Kerry himself, very badly, needs to focus entirely on re-directing any questions about his fitness for office to what's happened the last four years, and leave attacks on Vietnam-era service up to surrogates.

To his credit, Kerry already seems to know this: in his midnight speech, Kerry referred to "unfitness for command" as being defined by misleading the nation into Iraq and failing on the economy. So I have much hope.

Now, a couple of words about this "forget the past!" theme. This election, in essence, will be an employee evaluation. As he has so many times in his life, George Bush would like to weasel out of his misdeeds and convince people that his evaluation should ignore his actual job performance, which has been worse than dismal. No employer who wanted to stay afloat would ever fall for such a cheap gimmick. And neither should we.

While it's certainly true that John Kerry has leaped to defend his biography from Bush distortions, Kerry is putting forth a comprehensive set of plans for the future. His campaign is entirely about the future. George Bush, by contrast, offers nothing but re-tread broken promises from his first term.

For John Kerry, "focusing on the future" means presenting a real plan to make America better. For George Bush, "focusing on the future" means running from his past. Take your pick.

Bush up to dirty tricks again

2004-09-04T19:02:00.000-04:00

After Swift Boat fiasco, will backlash against new smear campaign hurt Bush?

Less than three weeks after two Bush campaign officials were forced to resign due to fallout over discredited attacks on John Kerry's military record, Bush campaign allies are once again attempting a series of smear attacks.

Two new ads will be run by "MoveOnForAmerica.org", a 527 organization. The first ad attacks John Kerry for fighting in 1982 to overturn the wrongful conviction of an innocent man who had spent ten years in prison, by pointing out the man later committed crimes.

Perhaps worse for the Bush campaign, the ad refers to Wille Horton, a well-known figure from a George H. W. Bush smear campaign against Michael Dukakis in 1988. "Willie Horton" has since become, in the minds of many voters, synonymous with "dishonest smear attacks". This is surely an unfortunate issue for Bush campaign allies to invoke.

The second ad uses Hitler images in an attempt to tie Kerry and Al Sharpton to extremism.

The over-the-top ads seem to be so poorly done that they are being dismissed by diehard Bush supporters as liberal propaganda, intended to paint the Bush campaign in a bad light. Nonetheless, the proprietor of Move On For America is Steven Marks, a longtime GOP consultant, former Jeb Bush employee, George Bush supporter and Bush family friend.

Indeed, Move On For America's Virginia headquarters appears to be in the same office complex where the Bush/Cheney Campaign headquarters is located.

The Bush campaign, which an ill afford to be tied to further smears, appears to be taking a significant risk by allowing its allies to engage in such tactics. Bush's greatest strength, and perhaps the centerpiece of his campaign, remains the popular impression that he is a straight-talking, compassionate man.

The Swift Boat smear campaign attacking John Kerry's military history resulted in more than half of those polled believing Bush was behind the campaign. Further evidence of involvement by Bush friends and supporters in smears thus threatens to do direct damage to Bush's bid for re-election.

Well. THAT didn't go as planned

2004-09-04T11:19:00.000-04:00

Looks like Bush's speech didn't do much for undecideds:

CLAYTON, Mo., Sept. 3 -- Half a dozen undecided voters who gathered here to watch President Bush's acceptance speech made it clear before he took the podium that they had serious doubts about his leadership and his political choices. After listening to 62 minutes of carefully crafted oratory, Christopher A. Jackson found himself leaning ever so slightly the president's way.

But, then, after listing all that bothered him about the speech, Jackson announced that he still wasn't sure.

"I honestly don't trust the guy," said Jackson, 41, a businessman and registered independent.

In Goffstown, N.H., Kate Tullgren, 18, said she was undecided and might vote for Bush. Yet she greeted the speech with whispered sarcasm and scowls of incredulity. When Bush mentioned judicial appointments, she said, "What about Roe v. Wade, buddy?"

. . .

The reactions of undecided voters in three battleground states who agreed to watch Bush's convention speech with Washington Post reporters suggest that Bush still has work to do to win their allegiance. Some expressed skepticism about portions of the speech, and others found themselves nodding in agreement with some of the president's comments. But none said that the president had overcome their doubts in his nationally televised address.

As several people have pointed out recently, the two main issues for this election are Iraq and the economy. And whenever either one comes up, Bush comes out the loser.

No wonder Bush wants so desperately to keep the focus on the Kerry of 35 years ago with lies and smears.

Superb article -- CEO Test for Bush

2004-09-04T10:59:00.000-04:00

If you read anything today (and if you haven't read this already), I urge you to check out Juan Cole's "The CEO Test for Bush":

Bush's basic characteristic is not steadfastness, as the convention attempted to argue, but rashness. He is a gambler who goes for the big bang. He loses his temper easily, and makes hasty and uninformed decisions about important matters. No corporation would keep on a CEO that took risks the way Bush has, if the gambles so often resulted in huge losses.

Read the whole thing. It's obviously designed to put things in terms that anyone can understand. Would you, indeed, keep a CEO on the payroll who had run the company into the ground, and whose only argument for keeping his job is that he doesn't change his mind?

Bush's Iraq fiasco continues...

2004-09-04T10:45:00.000-04:00

Not only has the rate of American soldiers killed in Iraq increased dramatically since the "handover of sovereignty" at the end of July, but the violence and bad news in general continue unabated:

A suicide attacker detonated a car bomb Saturday outside the Iraqi police academy in the northern city of Kirkuk as hundreds of trainees and civilians were leaving for the day, killing at least 20 people and wounding 36, authorities said.

And this isn't good:

Rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared U.S. forces can never defeat his Mahdi militia in a defiant speech read out to 2,000 supporters during the first Friday prayers since the end of a brutal three-week standoff with troops.

How's the oil coming?

The strategic northern Iraqi oil pipeline from Kirkuk to the Turkish port of Ceyhan was ablaze Thursday after a huge explosion, which is seriously affecting oil exports.

(excerpts via the Iraqi Coalition Casualty page: http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Good job news?

2004-09-03T21:47:00.000-04:00

Not really. Today's news of 144,000 new jobs (seasonally adjusted) in August means the Bush economy is still not creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth. In other words: jobs are still becoming more scarce. So if it seems like the job market isn't great, you're right. It's not.

In fact, here's a little reminder of the kind of job growth we've seen under Bush, and the kind of job growth we used to have when a Democrat was in the White House (total nonfarm, seasonably adjusted):

And the unemployment rate (total, 16 yrs and older):

And here's why the unemployment rate isn't even higher: lots of people have given up looking for work. In fact, note the quick downturn in labor force participation at the end of the graph, which accounts for the "drop" in unemployment rate in August (labor force participation rate, seasonably adjusted):

No matter how Bush tries to spin it, and no matter how he tries to change the subject, the Bush economy sucks, and yes, it is his fault: he's refused expert advice that he do something besides cut taxes for the very well off.

America can do better.

Not much until Friday

2004-09-01T22:07:00.000-04:00

With the Republican "no mention" convention in full swing, what's there to say? It's the most stilted, forced, negative thing one could think of. In short: it's "Anyone but Kerry".

It kinda had to be this way. The Republicans have no vision for the future, and they have no past record of accomplishment to point to. They're a party co-opted by extremists and held in power by corrupt, sleazy and/or criminal tactics. Even now, they're trying to distort the polls and the Kerry campaign to paint Kerry as a loser. Unfortunately, it's a tactic for which too many Democrats are falling.

So, not much to blog until Friday. Until then, a new article in Salon regarding a witness to Bush's AWOL years, a related tape of a former Bush family friend who pulled strings to get Bush into the National Guard (hey, Bush brought this on himself, right? He deserves it -- he made Kerry's service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his underhanded smear campaign), the burgeoning FBI investigation into the Pentagon Neocons and plenty of whisky sours should get us through.

Bush admits he can't win War on Terrorism

2004-08-30T14:26:00.000-04:00

Here:

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

Well, Mr. President, I think we'd have a lot better chance of winning the War on Terrorism if we actually fought it. If we had spent the last three years mopping up al Qaeda, securing our ports and allocating decent resources to our first responders, rather than taking a vacation after a good start in Afghanistan and detouring into Iraq (which had absolutely nothing to do with those who attacked us on September 11, 2001), we might indeed have a shot at finishing this organization.

It is cynical beyond belief that this administration, which has shown very little interest in actually fighting terrorism, is trying to use September 11 as a vehicle for re-election. They want to use the deaths of 3000 Americans for political gain, just as they used them as an excuse to push a pre-existing plan (invasion of Iraq).

Utterly shameless.

A race with no incumbent

2004-08-29T10:35:00.000-04:00

It would appear, from the way things are shaping up, that the Bush campaign intents to run from here on out as though Bush hasn't been in office the last four years, nothing that's happened is his fault, and this is a straight-up election between two guys, with Bush being a basically good guy and Kerry a loser.

Don't you fall for it. George Bush is a failed president, and we re-elect him at our peril. John Kerry, by contrast, has a proven record, from his Vietnam service, his courageous stand against the Vietnam War, his term as a Leutenant governor, a prosecutor and his 20 years in the United States Senate.

George Bush has presided over the first presidency since Hoover to lose jobs overall. This is largely due to his ideological refusal to do anything but cut taxes mainly on the wealthy.
George Bush and his administration exaggerated the danger posed by Iraq to invade that country. They ignored responsible post-war plans, and nearly 1000 American servicemen have died there as a result -- more than were killed in the first four years of Vietnam -- and the country has basically fallen into chaos.
George Bush has ignored sound science and pushed back on responsible anti-pollution initiatives, with one result being that a chemical extremely harmful to fetuses (mercury) is more prevalent today.
After a decent start in Afghanistan, George Bush has basically ignored the threat posed by al Qaeda. In terms of money and resources, attention, and real improvements to security, this administration has failed utterly. We are now in greater danger than before 9/11.
George Bush and Congressional Republicans have presided over the biggest deficits in our nation's history. Their spending spree has been record-setting and utterly irresponsible.

And what about John Kerry? We've all heard about his flip flops and bad decisions, right? Would it surprise you to know that almost all of what you've heard is outright Bush campaign lies?

John Kerry didn't oppose the $87 billion for troops in 2003. John Kerry proposed a bill to provide the money by not running up the federal deficit. He voted against a different way that would have provided the money by running up the deficit. Bush himself threatened to veto the money, after taking our troops to war, if Congress tried to pay for the funds by not running up the deficit.
John Kerry has not voted to raise taxes hundreds of times. That is an outright lie from the Bush campaign.
John Kerry has not voted against dozens of weapon systems we need to fight the war on terror (such as F-18's, Bradley fighting vehicles, etc.). That is another outright lie from the Bush campaign.
John Kerry has never proposed to "gut" the federal intelligence agency budget. That is yet another lie from the Bush campaign.

And what about Kerry's actual record?

John Kerry was one of the first to push for control of the nuclear arms race in the 1980's.
John Kerry was absolutely instrumental in discovering the truth about Vietnam POW's and normalizing relations with that country.
John Kerry has spearheaded several extremely important and high-profile Congressional investigations into government corruption and criminal activity, including Iran-Contra.
Kerry was chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations, and in that role he investigated and rooted out the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the early 90's, a huge terrorist money-laundering organization which served clients such as Osama bin Laden. Kerry spearheaded a difficult effort that did tremendous damage to worldwide terrorist organizations.
John Kerry has sponsored or co-sponsored 56 bills that have passed the U.S. Senate, a very high rate of passage that demonstrates Kerry is a fighter who knows how to get things done.
Kerry's attendence record for Senate votes exceeds 95%, which is excellent, and demonstrates his focus and determination for getting his job done right.

I urge anyone who has formed opinions regarding John Kerry based upon negative advertising by the Bush campaign to double and triple-check everything you have heard. The Bush campaign has waged the most dishonest and negative campaign in history, one that would never get past false advertising laws if they applied to campaign advertising. John Kerry is a courageous and decisive leader who has always stood up for defending this country, who sees and can deal with the complexities of leadership (as opposed to Bush's simple-mindedness) and who has the good humor, integrity, honesty and intelligence to lead this country back to greatness.

Bush has nothing to offer this country but lies. America can do better.

Asking for it

2004-08-27T21:34:00.000-04:00

It's all the rage in right-wing circles these days to claim that John Kerry's military service is being smeared because he made his service "the centerpiece of his campaign", mainly at the Democratic Convention. This is, of course, nonsense: the smear campaign now underway was in the works as far back as last year. This has nothing to do with Kerry's focus at the convention. In fact, this is classing Bush campaign strategy when facing a combat veteran. Bush's friends know the drill, and whoever it is has his service smeared.

It's worth considering, though, what Bush has made the "centerpiece of his campaign" (besides John Kerry, that is). It's rather hard to decide, as it seems to have changed from week to week. Are we "turning the corner"? Are we seeing "steady leadership in times of change"?

Come to think of it, Bush doesn't seem to have a centerpiece. He seems to be hoping that he can make the focus entirely John Kerry, then sneak into re-election when no one is noticing. George Bush is trying very hard to disappear.

However, there are a few themes showing up, despite the Bush campaign's best efforts. It would appear September 11 is going to be a big one: Bush wants everyone to focus on one speech he gave at Ground Zero, shortly after September 11. But that leads directly into the issue of fighting terrorism (or not fighting it), Iraq, lack of attention on Afghanistan, etc. 9/11 is extremely dangerous ground for Bush to tread upon.

The ol' standby, "compassion", is always there. Just how "compassionate" is he? Was he "compassionate" when he allowed toxic mercury emissions to remain at dangerous levels? Was he "compassionate" when he reworked the tax code such that the burden now falls most heavily on the middle class? How "compassionate" was it to cut Veterans benefits or not go to any soldiers' funerals, even while daring insurgents to attack our troops?

And what about his past? Bush would like very, very much to become the ghost candidate. But it won't be enough to make "John Kerry" the centerpiece of Bush's campaign. Bush can't cruise all the way to election day by beating up on Kerry. As disorganized and flip-flopping as Bush's campaign has been, it simply won't be enough to pretend that this race doesn't have an incumbent, or that the incumbent was born four years ago.

Don'tcha just hate lawyers?

2004-08-27T20:54:00.000-04:00

In this day and age of evil lawyers (right, GOP?), Swift Boat Veterans for Truth instigator John O'Neill gives us an example we can all appreciate. After claiming it was "impossible" for John Kerry to have ever been in Cambodia and claiming that he himself had never gotten closer than 50 miles from the boarder, a tape of O'Neill contradicting himself surfaced. In it, he said,

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

Of course, since being confronted with his own words, O'Neill has tried to claim (in true Republican fashion) that up is down, black is white and he never claimed he was in Cambodia.

Take a look at this exchange in an online chat at the Washington Post web site:

Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O'Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.

I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.

Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?

Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?

If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?

John E. O'Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?

Despite O'Neill's assertion his own words "I was in Cambodia" cannot be ever fairly interpreted as saying he was in Cambodia, his rhetoric shows a distinct flair for misleading people. He notes that he was on "Bernique's Creek" (an American nickname for the Giang Thanh river, which at one point actually serves as a boarder demarcation between Cambodia and Vietnam). But, of course, he doesn't say when this was the case, nor does he claim that he was never on any of the other waterways that American swiftboats patrolled, many of which continued into Cambodia.

Furthermore, his claim that his second sentence refuted the first is simply ludicrous. "Along the boarder" can mean on the Cambodia side of the boarder. At the time, O'Neill gave no indication on what waterway he had been travelling. That is, of course, a recent addition.

In short, O'Neill is a clever man and a proven liar. Despite his claims, he is a hard-core Republican partisan and Nixonite smear artist. Nothing he says should be taken at face value.

Night is day, up is down

2004-08-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

From the "Ironic Titles" Department:

If Kerry Can't Handle the "Swiftees," How's He Going to Handle the Terrorists?
By Debbie Daniel
August 25, 2004
I've had more people chastise me for defending George Bush. They say they should have the right to say what they want about the President and he should not be above criticism.

Oh, I get it . . . we should have the freedom to besmirch the President of the United States, but how dare anyone malign John Kerry.

Starting a partisan hit piece with such a whiney sniffle is a pretty poor way to lead into the case that it's John Kerry who can't handle the current situation.

"No Coordination"

2004-08-24T20:56:00.000-04:00

This is beyond embarrassing.

Looks like yet another Bush campaign official is also involved with the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

Other Bush campaign officials were quick to disavow any coordination between the groups.

"Sure, there are some key people involved with both. But, you see", the official said, "when we think about the campaign, we don't think about the Swift Boat affairs. And if we're thinking about the Swift Boat group, we refuse to think about the campaign. It's quite simple. We only think about one or the other. Never both at the same time."

Bush is against political speech

2004-08-23T21:23:00.000-04:00

Coward Watch, Day Five -- rather than do the decent thing and condemn the slanders against John Kerry's war record by surrogates, George Bush today flip-flopped on the issue of free speech. Quite in contrast to his previous statements, he now urged the "condemnation" of all political advertising by outside groups. In other words, George Bush is now against anyone not in one of the political parties buying advertising to express a political opinion. Hey, it's easier than doing the decent thing, right? You can't be too hard on the guy. He's probably not all that sure what the "decent thing" really is.

This, of course, comes on the heels of a new dishonest ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for [Bush], which takes Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony out of context and uses creatively-edited excerpts to paint Kerry as personally accusing all veterans of atrocities, as well as giving Viet Cong nasty ideas about what to do with American POW's. The ad is very misleading, but even so, I doubt its effectiveness on anyone who doesn't already believe opposing a war is evil.

It's also worth commenting on a rationalization making the right-wing rounds regarding attacking Kerry's war record: that Kerry "made his war record the centerpiece of his campaign" (I thought it was "restoring trust and credibility to the White House"), and thus he brought all these dishonest attacks upon himself. This is, of course, baloney. George Bush has a long history of using surrogates to slander and besmirch the heroism of any decorated veterans who get in his way. This is simply par for the course.

Bob Dole -- war hero, tool

2004-08-22T23:20:00.000-04:00

Looks like Bob Dole, like all too many Republicans, is making the mistake of assuming his party and those who it calls allies still have good, honest intentions.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

Dole should know better, and if he'd read any of the excellent reporting on this topic over the last week, he'd know that all such allegations are false.

What's worse, by his own admission, Dole's first purple heart wound was for a "sliver of metal" from a grenade he himself threw. Dole is dishonoring himself by speaking ill of another decorated combat veteran without checking the facts.

Dole, in fact, is a perfect example of why the Swift Boat smears work on some people: they hear what they want to hear, they assume "it can't all be a smear", and ignore (or don't bother to listen to) contrary facts and reason. There's nothing special about combat veterans that makes them immune to such dishonesty. And that's too bad: you end up with a good man like Dole being used to spread lies about another good man.

Of course, as Josh Marshall is now noting, it might be worthwhile to find out exactly who is using Dole -- who booked him on CNN's Late Edition today, and who gave him his talking points. This question takes on a special meaning, considering the fact that the White House vehemently denies collaboration with those who question Kerry's war record, and claims to have nothing but the "highest respect" for his actions in Vietnam.

Deja vu all over again

2004-08-22T22:23:00.000-04:00

Even as efforts continue to blame the Abu Ghraib scandal on a few bad apples, it's worth reminding ourselves that John Kerry was fighting against such things, and for the common American soldier ordered to engage in un-American, inhumane activites, more than 30 years ago:

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that you would hear me, and, I am afraid, because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
-- John Kerry Senate Testimony, 1971

Note: you won't hear this entire quote in the latest Swift Boat ad. In fact, the quote they used was creatively edited to make it seem like John Kerry was accusing all veterans of engaging in atrocities, rather than relating what some other veterans had told him.

Sort of puts their claims in perspective, when they have to engage in such dishonesty to make their point, doesn't it?

Sound familiar?

2004-08-22T22:21:00.000-04:00

Does this remind you of anything?

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
--John Kerry, Senate Testimony, 1971

According to the latest Harris interactive poll, 60% of respondents now believe what the government said before the Iraq war about weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda was misleading.

Coward Watch, Day Four

2004-08-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

It's now been four days since John Kerry called George Bush out on his blatantly dishonest ads slandering Kerry's war record, and Bush still hasn't displayed the guts to discuss the subject one-on-one, preferring instead to hide behind surrogates as he once again slanders decorated veterans in his bid for power. The Swift Boat Smear Scandal ("SwiftGate"?) is taking on a life of its own, and the results don't look good for Dubya.

"Once again slanders veterans", I say? Yep. This is part of a pattern going back years. A hard-hitting new ad by the Kerry campaign demonstrates conclusively that Bush is simply up to his old dirty tricks. Every election he's demonstrated that he's willing to do anything to win, and all too frequently that includes dragging the good name of combat veterans through the mud when he himself deliberately chose to remain safely stateside during the Vietnam Conflict. Far from being a plain-spoken, basically good guy, this is an arrogant, mean rich boy who is more than happy to let his surrogates shamelessly slander good men who put their lives on the line for their country.

The Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, Knight-Ridder, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer and others have now run stories either documenting the blatant lies told by Bush's surrogate group or featuring the accounts of men who were in Vietnam, actually serving with Kerry, who back up Kerry and the official Navy position on what happened 30 years ago. The New York Times story cited above goes further, documenting close ties between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat smear group. "SwiftGate", indeed.

And so there's no doubt that Bush is behind the ads, a Bush campaign advisor has already resigned over his dual role in the campaign and the Swift Boat smear group. Furthermore, several collaborative ties between the Bush campaign/GOP and the smear group have turned up. Far weaker ties are frequently cited by the Bush administration as evidence for Iraq/al Qaeda links.

As Kerry says, "America can do better". We can do better than a lying coward who besmirches America by his very presence in office, and all of conservativsm by his shameless actions against Veterans -- a fact that even the Weekly Standard has now figured out.

Enough to make a fiscal conservative scream

2004-08-21T19:21:00.000-04:00

Check this out:

A pork-hungry Congress has long been with us, of course, but this year, with our armed forces engaged on two major fronts, Congress has pushed the pork in the defense budget to an all-time high, totaling $8.9 billion.
. . .
In parts of the bill that no one talked about, the Armed Services Committee raided the accounts that support combat readiness. Specifically, the committee cut Army depot weapons maintenance by $100 million (just when the repair backlog from the wars has grown to unmanageable proportions), and it removed $1.5 billion from the services' "working capital funds" for transportation and consumables (e.g. helicopter rotor blades, tank tracks, spare parts, fuel, food and much more). In one unseemly move, the committee also cut from one account $532 million for civilian repair technicians activated to support the deployed forces, claiming the money should have been credited elsewhere in the bill. But then it failed to add the money where it said it belonged.

In another feat of legislative trickery, the committee cut another $1.67 billion throughout the bill in anticipation of lower inflation in 2005 -- a pretense at a savings that OMB said in written comments to the committee "do[es] not exist." OMB concluded that "the practical effect of these reductions would be cuts to critical readiness accounts." In response, the Armed Services Committee did nothing and urged the Senate to endorse its bill, which it did by a vote of 97-0 on June 23.

Thereafter, the Senate Appropriations Committee used other gimmicks to reduce essential defense accounts in its bill. By the time Congress had finished with the appropriations measure on July 22, I counted $4.534 billion in reductions, mostly buried in the General Provisions section in the back of the bill. Ostensibly labeled as "unobligated balances," "general reductions," "excessive growth," "adjustments" and savings due to "management improvements," these were simply offsets to accommodate the $8.9 billion pork invoice the appropriators wrote. That more than $2.8 billion of these cuts came in military pay and the Operations and Maintenance budgets that support soldiers' salaries, training, spare parts, weapons maintenance and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan shows where the committee's real priorities lay.

While the article tries to heap blame on both sides equally, remember, this is a Republican-controlled Congress we're talking about, cutting spending on critical defense issues such as military pay and ramming through nearly $9 billion in pork at a time we're seeing record deficits. Nor has the White House done anything to stop the process.

At the very least, it oughtta be enough to keep a fiscal-conservative Republican home in November.

Iraq coalition casualty rate up

2004-08-21T08:53:00.000-04:00

The rate of US deaths in Iraq has increased since the "handover of sovereignty" at the beginning of July:

June 2004: 1.67 deaths/day
July 2004: 1.87 deaths/day
August 2004: 2.62 deaths/day

At this rate, within 20 days the U.S. death count in Iraq will exceed 1000.

No wonder Bush is terrified of talking about the issues, and prefers instead to wage an underhanded smear campaign to distract us...

Coward Watch, Day Three

2004-08-21T08:15:00.000-04:00

Three days after being officially called out by John Kerry, Geroge Bush still hasn't shown the courage or the integrity to condemn the ads produced by his surrogate group, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Instead, they're plaing games:

Underscoring how personal the dispute has become, Bush's campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, went on CNN and said the Kerry campaign has come "unhinged," and that Kerry himself "looks wild-eyed." Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Kerry is "losing his cool." In 2000, the Bush campaign used similar language to portray rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as potentially too unstable to run the country.

Does such a cowardly, lying bully deserve to run the country? This man has no grace, no decency, no honor. He has failed the country, and wants to take everyone down with him. He is running a vicious smear campaign through surrogates and claims noninvolvement even as his own campaign coordinates with and promotes the smear. And when their indecency and illegal activites are pointed out, the Bush campaign prefers to play games, mocking those they bully and, by extension, all of America.

You see, if you have a problem with the Bushies' unethical, gangster tactics, you must be "unhinged".

If you have a sense of fair play or a sense that America can do better, you must be "wild-eyed".

If you are outraged that Bush refuses to talk about what's going on in the country and the real problems of Americans, preferring instead to wage a lowest-of-the-low, Nixonian dirty tricks campaign, you must be "losing your cool".

George Bush is not a good man. His dream for the country is not the America we used to be. It is not an America most of us want. It is not the America we should be.

Time to put someone in office with a sense of ethics and decency, someone who knows what America ought to be. Someone like John Kerry.

We'll stop lying about you, if you stop telling the truth about us

2004-08-20T23:27:00.000-04:00

Isn't this nice:

And that's why we've called on the Kerry campaign to join us and call for an end to all of these ads. The President condemned all of these ads and activity that are going on by these shadowy groups. So that's why I pointed out that over the last year, the Kerry campaign has been noticeably silent on these shadowy groups, while at the same time fueling some of the very attacks that these groups have launched. We can put an end to it all if Senator Kerry would come out and join the President and say, let's stop this kind of unregulated soft money activity.

Aside from the implication that the Bush campaign can, indeed, stop the Swift Boat ads any time they wish and are thus coordinating their efforts with the group illegally, and aside from the inference that independent groups should have no right to exercise their first-amendment rights, the crass statement above means simply this: we're going to lie about you, and slander you, and it's all your fault.

Meanwhile, George Bush once again, today, refused to take the simple step of condemning the outrageous lies of his surrogate group, continuing to hide behind them rather than facing John Kerry like a man.

George Bush a coward? What else can you call it?

Washington Times gets into the act

2004-08-18T19:31:00.000-04:00

From today's right-wing, pro-GOP, Washington "Moonie" Times, front page, top, in font size usually reserved for "end of war" announcements:

Kerry's fellow 'Swiftees' dispute his Purple Hearts

I know there's a word for this, but it escapes me...ah! there it is:

"D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E"

True colors

2004-08-18T18:47:00.000-04:00

Here, a Bush supporter kindly demonstrates the cowardly and unAmerican traits so common in today's Republican Party.

"An unidentified supporter of President Bush tries to silence protester Kendra Lloyd-Knox (right) outside Southridge High School in Beaverton. Elsewhere in Portland, supporters of Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rallied on the waterfront."

To paraphrase Voltaire:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

George Bush afraid of normal people

2004-08-16T12:28:00.000-04:00

Does it ever seem that George Bush is beloved by all, despite his plummeting poll numbers? Well, that impression might just be due to televised pictures of him constantly surrounded by people who think he's the Second Coming of Christ. And now, the mainstream news is finally confirming what we've long suspected: those appearances aren't real. They're scripted. Yet another example of George Bush's courage:

Instead of taking questions from reporters, President Bush has become increasingly partial to playing talk-show host to an audience of sycophantic fans.

There were four "Ask President Bush" events last week and in each case, after a long speech and staged interviews with prepped guests, Bush opened the floor to some incredible softballs.

The format allows the president to come off as very smooth.

As John Harris writes in The Washington Post: "In loosening his style, Bush tightened his message. Fielding friendly questions at 'Ask President Bush' forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he presented his case for reelection with a force and fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments over the past year."

There's never a nasty question, never a heckler, nothing but love. That makes for great imagery and great soundbytes.

So, this is supposed to be the gutsy, take-no-crap George Bush, at whose name terrorists tremble and nations bow?

This guy is too cowardly to take actual questions from real people. How can we trust him to make courageous, difficult decisions as president? Do we really want to hand the reigns of power over to such a coddled, fearful, incapable man a second time?

To paraphrase Dick Cheney, "I don't think the people who beheaded Nick Pearl will be impressed by a man who is too much of a mamby-pamby coward to take real questions from real Americans".

Kerry's "Iraq" answer

2004-08-14T12:22:00.000-04:00

A lot has been made regarding Kerry's discussion of the "Iraq authorization of force" bill that he voted for in 2002. Some people, especially on the Left, see this as hypocrisy, or even an act of betrayal.

I think the PR about the question was handled rather badly, but I think it's also important to point out that Kerry isn't saying anything now that he hasn't said before.

Here is the relevant part of the Joint Resolution in question:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

The full text can be found here.

Based on his statements on the Iraq fiasco, I believe Kerry is saying this:

"There never was a vote to invade Iraq. Congress never declared war.

What there was was a vote to put restrictions on how and when Mr. Bush could use force. What I voted for, and what the bill specifically says, is that Mr. Bush could not go to war unless it was to deal with a threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce UN resolutions.

The vote in question was intended to give the President flexibility in putting pressure on Saddam. As Mr. Bush himself said at the time, 'this is a vote for peace, not war.'"

I would love to see Kerry come out and say, "yeah, it was a mistake to trust Bush with the power to invade another country", but it should be pointed out that Bush violated the Congressional resolution itself when he attacked Iraq without doing the honest work to determine whether there was a real threat, then misrepresented the threat to Congress and the American people. He wasn't acting on Congress' authority.

This being the case, a relevant question for people who think Kerry shares some blame for the Iraq War, and should express regret for having been so "stupid" as to have voted to "allow Bush to attack Iraq", is this: since Bush violated the resolution, and his administration indicated before the resolution that he didn't even think he needed Congressional approval, how did Kerry's vote have any impact at all on whether we invaded Iraq?

This has been spun by the Bush campaign and the right-wing media, of course. They've had a fairly good week, in terms of getting their slams into print. But this is hardly a disaster, and I can see several easy ways in which this can be turned back on Bush.

The bottom line is that Bush is trying to spread the blame, to put the onus for Iraq on Kerry. Kerry isn't interested in doing so. All Bush can do is misrepresent what Kerry said -- bad, to be sure, but not as bad as if he had actual, truthful material to use.

The "War President"?

2004-08-12T06:51:00.000-04:00

With the sudden flurry of terrorism warnings beginning in the middle of the Democratic National Convention (man, those terrorists have timing!), it's worth remembering that this administration basically took a two-year vacation from fighting terrorists in order to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.

Had Bush been concentrating on fighting terrorism like he should have, we might not now be dealing with new, unsubstantiated and non-specific terrorism warnings every day.

Truly ironic, then, that Bush looks to be planning on making 9/11 his sole basis for re-election. "We were attacked, and after Afghanistan I did basically nothing about it; re-elect me!"

There they go again

2004-08-05T13:59:00.000-04:00

It just wouldn't be a presidential campaign without Republicans and their allies bringing out the dirtiest, most rotten, most dishonest and most shameless crap you can think of.

I'm speaking, of course, of the ad that's just come out from the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", a right-wing pro-Bush group that has close ties to the Bush campaign.

Their ad, which is running in a few markets in battleground states, appears to be timed to hit when Kerry needs to save his money. Unfortunately, for the SBVT gang, the media's already on to them.

But so many people who served with Kerry now say he's dishonest!
The SBVT ad presents several veterans who claimed they "served with Kerry". This has only a tenuous connection with the truth: none of the veterans in the ad actually served on Kerry's boat. In fact, it would appear that the only common demoninator between Kerry and the vets in the ad is that they served, at some point, in Vietnam.

But the doctor who treated Kerry says he's lying about his first purple heart!
The doctor in question, Louis Letson, is claiming he treated Kerry's wound. But the medical records clearly show that a different doctor treated Kerry, removing shrapnel from Kerry's arm. Letson, rather lamely, responds that he treated Kerry's wound, but had another doctor sign the records!

Letson also claims that the crewmen (or crewman) who were with Kerry told him, long ago, that they received no enemy fire, and that Kerry probably was wounded by their own shrapnel. But both of the crewmen who were with Kerry (there were two) say that they think they received enemy fire, and don't know the source of the shrapnel that hit Kerry.

But Kerry's old commanding officer also said the wound was superficial!
Kerry's former commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, didn't question the wound at the time (in fact, his reviews of Kerry were uniformly glowing). Moreover, Hibbard now claims that he saw only a scratch on Kerry's forearm, and assumes that was the wound. But the medical records, once again, don't lie: Kerry had shrapnel removed from above the elbow.

Have others been more grievously wounded in battle? Of course. But Kerry met the qualifications for the purple heart. All three times

A vet who said he was "there at the time" says Kerry didn't deserve his bronze star!
The man Kerry saved, Jim Rassmann, a Republican, has volunteered to campaign for Kerry because Kerry saved his life. The details, as told by Rasmussen and the five men under Kerry's command, are the same: Kerry saved Rasmussen despite incoming fire and considerable danger to himself.

Larry Thurlow, who claims "he was there" and that they took no hostile fire, was the commander of another swiftboat that was there at the time. Mr. Thurlow also received a bronze star for bravery in the same firefight. So, is he lying now when he says they weren't taking enemy fire, and Kerry's (and his) medals were awarded mistakenly? Or was he lying then when he received his own medal for valor under fire?

Needless to say, similar claims from the group are equally suspect. For all that is known, they're paying down-and-out vets to make false claims.

So, it has come down to this. It was almost a certainty that the right-wing whackjobs, in the great tradition of Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon, would set new lows in lying and slime. It was expected. But it remains a sad part of politics today that we have to deal with the scum of the earth. Let's hope a solid drubbing in November will convince the Republicans to send the right-wing loons packing.

Excellent Kerry Resource

2004-08-02T21:24:00.000-04:00

Anyone interested in Kerry's past, including his Senate record and a good debunking of RNC myths about him would probably love this site. It's very thorough, and he brings a lot of things together from many sources.

What question would you have asked?

2004-08-02T13:09:00.000-04:00

Just listened to the Bush press conference on acceptance of some 9/11 Commission recommendations on the radio. He sounded tired, and his responses to several Kerry campaign talking points practically wrote Kerry's rebuttal for him.

The follow-up press conference was, as usual, rather softball in character. Here's the question I would like to have seen a reporter ask:

"Mr. President,
You initially opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Additionally, you fought the Commission's funding, its scope, its duration, giving the Commission documents and interviews with the Commission, both for yourself and for your staff.

Finally, many of the Commission's recommendations have been discussed publicly for more than two years, and you've not acted on them.

With that in mind, how do you respond to critics who charge that your adoption now of several Commission recommendations is an election-year ploy?"

"Nothing Complicated about Funding the Troops"

2004-08-02T08:41:00.000-04:00

From a White House press release:

VICE PRESIDENT: At first Senator Kerry said that he didn't really oppose the funding. He both supported and opposed it. (Laughter.) He said, and I quote, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) That sure clears things up. (Laughter.) But lately he's been saying he's proud that he and John Edwards voted no, and he explains that his decision was "complicated." (Laughter.) But funding American troops in combat should never be a complicated matter.

Oh, really, Mr. Cheney? Then perhaps you can explain this:

New York Times, October 22, 2003
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: APPROPRIATIONS;
White House Threatens a Veto Of Its Own Spending Bill for Iraq
by David Firestone
The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq.

Looks like the issue was complicated enough for you to threaten to veto money for the troops.

Don't you just love people who really, really hate to tell the truth?

Same-old, same old

2004-08-01T19:49:00.000-04:00

If you want a good indication that the Bush campaign is thrashing around, trying to get traction against Kerry, this should be of interest.

WASHINGTON, July 31 — President Bush's campaign plans to use the normally quiet month of August for a vigorous drive to undercut John Kerry by turning attention away from his record in Vietnam to what the campaign described as an undistinguished and left-leaning record in the Senate.

Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision.

What else can you say, but there they go again. Same old Kerry-bashing, anything-goes politics. They don't have a positive agenda to sell, and they don't have a record to run on, so they have to go back to slinging mud.

As I predicted, the Republican Convention is shaping up to be the "No-Mention Convention". No mention of the last four years, that is, and Bush's record of failure on virtually every measure.

America can do better!

Dowd spinning for all he's worth

2004-07-31T23:35:00.000-04:00

This was cute:

Bush's campaign strategist Matthew Dowd says Kerry has failed to sell himself. "They've spent over $100 million. No challenger has spent that kind of money to introduce himself to the public and still be in such a weak position," Dowd said, acknowledging that Bush's own approval rating hovers at 50 percent or less.

It's pretty safe to say that Dowd is correct, considering that no challenger has spent that kind of money at this point in the campaign, period. And much of Kerry's spending hasn't gone to advertising; rather, it's gone to campaign infrastructure.

Of course, no incumbent has dumped the kind of money Bush has into trying to "pre-define" his challenger with negative advertising, so this isn't surprising.

Kerry, of course, was very strong for a challenger going into the Democratic National Convention, and initial post-convention polling results are showing a bounce in the neighborhood of 10 points. According to the latest Newsweek poll, after Kerry's speech respondents put Kerry/Edwards over Bush/Cheney by a 54-41 margin.

The upcoming RNC "No Mention" Convention

2004-07-31T05:42:00.000-04:00

In honor of the GOP's attempts to slur the Democratic National Convention as an "extreme makeover" (evidently, the Democrats just won't act like the GOP's caricatures of them! How mean!), and mindful of the likely "look! Over there! evil John Kerry!" theme in the upcoming RNC National Convention at the end of August, I'd like to make a suggestion. I think we should think of the GOP gathering as the "No-Mention Convention".

Things you'll likely hear "no mention" of at the Convention:

"No Mention" of Bush's being the first term in 50 years to have negative job growth
"No Mention" that wages are falling
"No Mention" of no Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq
"No Mention" of no collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
"No Mention" of an exploding federal deficit

I'm sure there are many, many more. Please feel free to add your thoughts in comments!

The $87 billion issue, in brief detail

2004-07-31T05:36:00.000-04:00

Just a quick review of history regarding the infamous $87 billion troop funding bill that the GOP loves to bring up -- and misrepresent.

Kerry was telling the truth -- although he put it rather badly -- when he claimed that he "voted to provide the money before he voted against it". That's because there were two bills (hence, two options) for providing the funds. The first, which Kerry co-sponsored, was Senate bill S. 1634, called the "Iraq Security and Stabilization Fund Act" and introduced to the 108th Congress, 1st session on September 17, 2003. Other co-sponsors for that bill were Joe Biden, Jon Corzine and Dianne Feinstein.

The synopsis for that bill reads: "To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers."

The point of the bill was to avoid running up the deficit further, and it died in committee.

The bill that passed, S. 1689, had no provision for paying for the funding; thus, it provided $87 billion by running up the deficit further. An amendment offered by Biden which would have paid for the bill by rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy was voted down by the majority Republicans.

What's worse, as Bob Somerby noted yesterday, George Bush threatened to veto S. 1689 if it made the money a loan instead of charging the bill to the American taxpayers; in other words, by Bush's logic, he threatened to veto money for the troops.

The bottom line is this: Kerry proposed a bill to fund the troops. He proposed to pay for the funding, too, without further running up the deficit. Bush threatened to veto a bill for funding the troops if it didn't run up the deficit. The GOP agreed, their version passed, and now we have record deficits.

Wow -- it's kinda fun playing the GOP's spin game. And pretty easy, too!

B/C04 goes negative again, less than 24 hours after appeal for positive campaign

2004-07-31T05:18:00.000-04:00

Well, you can't beat them for consistency. To borrow a line, "there you go again, Mr. President".

Bush is again distorting Kerry's record and ignoring his own. He's claiming Kerry has done very little over the last 20 years in the Senate. But as Josh Marshall put it today,

This might be a plausible line of attack coming from another opponent. Unlike, say, Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy, there's no prominent piece of legislation with Kerry's name on it, though admirers of Kerry point to his critical role in a series of high-profile Senate investigations.

But coming from George W. Bush? A guy whose handlers had to get some of the more gullible run of journalists to refer to his life before he turned forty as his 'lost years'?

I mean, even if you grant that Bush's presidency has been a tenure of transcendent achievement (and it has undoubtedly been eventful), it's a bit hard to get around the fact that even by his own account he spent his first five decades kicking back, living off family connections and playing solitaire.

It's certainly true that Mr. Kerry said certain things in his war protestor days that can now be used against him with some audiences. But until he was well into middle-age President Bush's most noteworthy public utterances seem to have been limited to various invocations and inflections of 'par-TAY' and reciting the alphabet under legal compulsion.

You just can't beat these guys for self-parody. Bush is basically a walking Kerry commercial.

It's truly a pity that Bush has to stay so negative, but it's indicative of the fact that he doesn't have a record to run on. He simply doesn't have a choice.

Fortunately, we do.

Hillarious

2004-07-31T05:12:00.000-04:00

Shortly after accusing the Democrats of "an extreme makeover" and running the "Reinvention Convention", the Bush Campaign has re-invented itself. Its new themes are, in no particular order: "Results matter" (he'd better hope the American People don't agree), and an appropriate "we've turned the corner". Why appropriate? Because that's a line basically borrowed from Herbert Hoover, the last president before Dubya to finish his term with negative job growth.

Mr. Hoover lost, and lost badly, in his bid for re-election.

Bush's "Spain" moment?

2004-07-29T18:41:00.000-04:00

Of course, we're all glad that Pakistan captured a known al Qaeda terrorist. But the timing of the announcement, coming as it does hours before John Kerry gives his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, has to give even the most jaded pro-Bush advocate pause: the terrorist was captured last Sunday, after all. Why announce it now?

But the whole story is much, much worse.

You see, three weeks ago, three investigative journalists (John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari) of The New Republic published an explosive investigative report. The piece, which cited several sources, related that Bush administration officials have in the last few months been greatly racheting up efforts to capture "High Value Target" terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, apparently in an effort to improve their political standing in the runup to the elections. More important, however, was the revelation that Pakistani intelligence officals were saying the Bush administration wanted Pakistan to announce such captures during the Democratic National Convention.

Put all together, the evidence is clear and very, very hard to refute: the Bush administration, far from being strong on terrorism, has been playing political games with national security. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the Bush administration appears to only be interested in fighting terrorism when there's an upcoming election.

The bottom line is this: if they can capture al Qaeda terrorists on cue, then what the hell have they been doing for the last three years??

It would appear the administration blew off fighting al Qaeda terrorists in order to have their war with Iraq. Three thousand Americans died on September 11, 2001 and they still didn't get it. Let's hope, for our country's sake, that the same can't be said for the American people.

Dick Cheney in my inbox

2004-07-29T07:14:00.000-04:00

Dick Cheney showed up in my inbox last night. He made a now-debunked claim (he seems to be rather good at that):

When it came time to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for body armor and other vital support, Kerry and Edwards both voted no, even though Senator Kerry said such a vote would be "irresponsible." Senator Kerry then explained that, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

It seems Dick just can't tell the truth.

In the Senate, there were two options for providing the $87 billion. One, which John Kerry not only voted for but proposed, was to do it without running up the deficit. The other, which John Kerry opposed but passed thanks to the Republicans, funded the troops by further running up the deficit. George Bush threatened to veto the first option. George Bush is lying when he claims John Kerry opposed funding for the troops. But he doesn't have a record to run on, so all he can do is lie about Kerry.

Interestingly, on Friday, new figures will be released showing the federal deficit this year will set a new record.

Biggest Terrorist Bust Since the Start of the Dem Convention

2004-07-28T19:26:00.000-04:00

First we learn that a "Muslim Charity" has links to Hamas (an investigation that has been underway since 2001). And oh, look! A day later, we have an announcement of an arrest of a woman on a terrorist watch list in Texas.

A cynic might imagine the sudden slew of "terrorist-related" law-enforcement news might be conveniently timed. But we all know Ashcroft would never abuse the trust of the American People for partisan political gain, don't we?

The bottom line is that, were I Ashcroft, I would deliberately avoid making any such announcements this week. As it is, I find it more than peculiar that these announcements are coming right now, thick and fast.

All the more reason, in my opinion, to get rid of the current bunch in the White House. They simply can't be trusted not to play politics with national security issues.

Cramming for the test

2004-07-28T07:17:00.000-04:00

Various news reports have it that George Bush will push quickly for enactment of the various 9/11 Commission suggestions for defending against terrorism.

Folks, this is test cramming, pure and simple.

George Bush has had three years to act to defend this nation against terrorism. He was slow on the uptake before 9/11, and worse, he abandoned our efforts to fight al Qaeda after Tora Bora in Afghanistan. Instead, he switched tracks and went after his old enemy, Saddam Hussein. In the process, he divided the UN, Nato and the world and turned their good will into dislike and distrust. He let terrorists such as Zarqawi go to make the case that Iraq had terrorists in it. He pulled resources out of Afghanistan and elsewhere to fight in Iraq. He divided America into those "with him" and those "who hate America". And he made Osama bin Laden look like a hero and created thousands of new terrorists. In short, he threw rocks at a hornet's nest and turned Americans against each other.

So here we are, four months before the election. Bush fought the 9/11 Commission every step of the way, and has resisted suggestions they're making for three years (none of this is new). NOW he wants to say he backs them?

We need a president and a Congress who will act against al Qaeda more often than when there's an election coming up. We need an administration that will try to kill or capture al Qaeda leaders not just during the Democratic Convention, but the rest of the time, too.

In short, we don't need a man working for us in the White House who only does his job when we're standing over his shoulder. It's time to hire somebody who wants to work for us.

Obama nails it

2004-07-28T07:11:00.000-04:00

Barak Obama's speech last night was a winner. And he brought up a very good point: whenever right-wing pundits start talking about "class warfare" or "special interests", what they're really trying to do is pave the way for dividing America. Efforts to slash taxes mainly for one group of people, single out one group of people as terrorists, etc. are about creating classes of "better" and "worse" Americans. We can do better.

Theresa Heinz Kerry's speech was good, too. Not nearly the fire of Obama (she was quite soft-spoken), but solid and impassioned. That's one smart lady! I bet she keeps John Kerry honest...

Iraq getting worse

2004-07-28T06:53:00.000-04:00

Despite the pre-election attempt by the Bush administration to absolve itself of it's Iraq War, the bottom line is that the country is still in terrible shape.

Word comes this morning of a devastating car bomb in Baqubah which killed more than 50 people.

And as we approach the one-month anniversary after the "handover of sovereignty" in Iraq, Americans are still dying. In fact, more Americans have died already in July than in June, the month before the handover.

Things are getting worse, not better, in Iraq. The Administration's irresponsible war shows no sign of letting up.

How many casualties?

2004-07-25T21:59:00.000-04:00

"Over 900 Americans dead". It sounds horrific, doesn't it? That, of course, is the number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq War. The rate of deaths, in fact, has increased by more than 30% since the June 30th "handover of sovereignty" to Iraq.

But the number isn't enough. After all, tens of thousands have been killed in previous wars; millions lost their lives in World War II. And today, when America is facing a deadly enemy who thought nothing of snuffing out nearly 3000 lives by ramming airplanes into buildings, it's important to put all such numbers in context. After all, a soldier's job, if asked, is to put his or her life on the line for his or her country. And barring a relatively small number who have deserted, most would do so and have done so willingly.

So how does one judge whether "900 killed" is too many? Everyone has their own standards, of course. For myself, I think it's important to consider the trade off: what have we gained by the soldier's sacrifice, and what could we have reasonably expected to gain given the conflict and how the war has been fought?

The Iraq War was promoted as necessary to prevent a madman from giving terrible weapons to America's most deadly enemies. Needless to say, this is a fear that has been shown to have been utterly groundless: numerous reports have indicated that, of all countries in the Middle East (friendly and otherwise), Iraq was near the bottom in terms of connections with al Qaeda. There is no evidence they worked with each other, period. And Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Moreover, even if Iraq had worked with al Qaeda, it's questionable what they could have provided the terrorist organization that it didn't have already: as most of us now know, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Even its means of WMD production were completely shut down.

So, our leaders were wrong about the danger posed to America. What's worse, there is good reason to believe that not only is America no safer thanks to the war, but we're actually less safe: Iraq has become a recruiting poster for terrorists. Before the war, Osama bin Laden warned arabs that Americans wanted to "invade your countries, expropriate your property, rape your women, and humiliate your men". It's clear, then, that the Iraq War has turned bin Laden into a prophet in many arabs' eyes; arabs who, before the war, might have viewed bin Laden as an extremist.

A different case for the war, though, involves democratizing Iraq and the Middle East. This is an idea for fighting the problems that lead to terrorism. In order to judge whether American lives were worth the cost, we'll have to look at just how much has been accomplished in terms of spreading democracy and western ideas in Iraq. Before the war, of course, a brutal dictator and thug ruled the country. Iraq was a country broken by years of sanctions, military strikes and a crushing defeat in the Persian Gulf War.

So where do things stand now in Iraq? According to the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations, more than a year after the war, electricity provision and clean water supplies still haven't caught up to pre-war levels. Less than 2% of the reconstruction money allocated to Iraq in November of last year has been spent. Much of this is due to the basically insecure situation in the country, as well as a very-slow-moving occupation bureaucracy.

The new leadership in Iraq is also questionable. The new Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Alawi, belonged to Saddam's ruling party. Shortly before becoming Prime Minister, he is alleged to have brutally executed accused insurgents without a trial by personally lining them up and shooting them. He has pushed for martial law, and hinted that he may "postpone" elections in Iraq. What's more, he is a former Iraqi dissident who, like Ahmed Chalabi, was likely misinforming the U.S. about the state of Saddam's WMD programs.

To me, then, the actual outcome of war in Iraq thus far hasn't merited a single American life. But the best-laid plans and intentions can go awry, so one could argue that the risk of lost American lives was worth it, given good planning and high potential payoff. In other words, things can go terribly wrong in war despite everything, and a bad outcome doesn't necessarily mean that the gamble wasn't worth it. We'll discuss that in another post soon.

Ready for the July Surprise?

2004-07-25T17:27:00.000-04:00

With the Democratic National Convention coming up this week, I guess we'll see if the Bush Administration/Campaign can produce high-value al Qaeda targets on cue. They have asked Pakistani Intelligence to announce the capture of important al Qaeda operatives this week, and on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday in particular.

If nothing comes of it, then it will simply underscore the Bush administration's inability to capture bin Laden and others (admittedly, a difficult task). But if the so-called "July Surprise" materializes, it will be damning indication that not only could the Bush administration have likely captured high-ranking al Qaeda leaders before this point (but concentrated on Iraq, the wrong target), thus resulting in unnecessary deaths, but that the Bush administration sees national security as nothing more than a cynical campaign tool.

Time will tell...

Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit

2004-07-25T16:28:00.000-04:00

A fair amount of good stuff has been written lately regarding the Bush tax cuts and his overall stewardship of the economy. While I'll write more later regarding this information, I think this graphic from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says a lot:

There they go again

2004-07-20T21:47:00.000-04:00

Looks like the right wing scandal-mongers are looking to take maximum advantage of the Sandy Berger classified documents affair by feigning outrage and demanding a witch hunt. Not surprising, really: they're losing, they're scared, and they're falling back on something that seemed to work well for them in the 1990's. Of course, part of what let the right wing scandal fever of the 90's work was several serious missteps by the Clinton administration, who naively thought their antagonists were dealing from a position of good faith. I doubt very much the Kerry/Edwards campaign will make the same mistake, and allow a bogus politically-motivated "investigation" into a non-existent crime to proceed.

Furthermore, it's kind of tough to claim there's some sort of coverup when your party controls all three branches of government.

The bottom line, though, is this: what Sandy Berger is alleged to have done (all wingnut wishful thinking aside) is serious from a security standpoint, but pretty minor in terms of actual ramifications on anything outside the security issue itself. Berger inadvertently took notes regarding classified documents home, when he shouldn't have. Apparently, none of the material was disseminated beyond that point. More importantly, nothing he did would have affected the judgement of the 9/11 Commission in its final report (in fact, the Commission knew about the missing documents and didn't find them important), despite the claims of drooling wingnuts desperate to bring down Kerry and defend their incompetent president that there must be a scandal here.

Compare such an understandable mistake as Berger's with the known fact that someone high in the Bush administration deliberately disseminated highly classified information to the media regarding a CIA operative in order to score political points, and the additional fact that someone in or associated with the administration gave cryptographic intelligence (among our most closely guarded secrets) to the uncleared Ahmed Chalabi, who turned around and gave the material to Iran.

With such a comparison, it seems clear who is more trustworthy when it comes to classified material. It is also clear from the false outrage mustered by wingnuts over this issue, and the fact that the outrage has been strangely lacking from the same characters over much more serious breaches by the Bush administration, that political advantage, not what's best for the country, is the driving force at work. As usual, the right wing loons are playing politics with the national security of the United States.

It's also telling where the leak about the Sandy Berger investigation (which is unlikely to lead to any charges) probably came from. The conveniently-timed leak was promoted by the Bush campaign in multiple calls to news organizations, and mysterious anonymous sources have been claiming Berger was seen stuffing (presumably classified) material into his jacket and socks at the classified reading room where the breach supposedly occurred--a charge vehemently denied by every non-anonymous person queried on the matter.

The Bush campaign is desperate. They've been running a negative, dirty tricks campaign against Kerry from day one, and it hasn't been working. They have no record to run on, so their only option is to get dirtier. Which leads us to the Berger leak.

It's not surprising that the scum-of-the-earth veterans from the politically-motivated Clinton investigations are trying to hype this issue into a conspiracy and a scandal. I say let them come. This time, we're ready.

Proud to be a "Girlie-Mon"

2004-07-19T16:03:00.000-04:00

Looks like Schwarzenegger is reaching for the politics of Saturday Night Live in his efforts to score partisan points:

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men," Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.

Cute. All joking aside, however, there is significant evidence that Schwarzenegger's idea of the behavior of a "real man" seems to include sexually assaulting women. To say nothing, of course, of slashing education funding and lying about the very issue that brought this comment on.

So given a choice between being a "Girlie-Mon Democrat" and a "Chicken-Hawk Republican", I'll choose the former. Every time.

Bring it on, Gropenator.

The Infamous "July Surprise"

2004-07-10T12:26:00.000-04:00

Much attention has been paid to a recent article in The New Republic titled "Pakistan for Bush. July Surprise?". The premise is that the Bush campaign/administration has been secretly pressuring Pakistan to produce "High-Value Targets" (HVTs) before the November elections. In other words, they want the Pakistanis to capture and produce important al Qaeda operatives in time to help Bush win re-election. More to the point, John Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari (the TNR article authors) relate Pakistani Intelligence claims that the Bushies want the HVTs produced sometime on July 28, 27 or 28 -- during the beginning of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Now, much can be said about the crass politicization of national security involved in this -- to paraphrase Michael Froomkin of Discourse.net, is nothing sacred, is there no concern of national honor too important that the Bushies won't use it for political gain? (the answer of course, with this bunch, is "hell, no" -- playing politics with national security and the fears of the average American is the modern rightwing-dominated, dittohead GOP's stock-in-trade.) But no one can quibble with the fact that capturing al Qaeda leadership is a good idea.

The larger issue, I think, is the more serious question: if al Qaeda operatives can be captured and produced on cue, then why the hell have we been allowing them to roam free for the last three years? The answer, of course, once again has to do with politics: Bush wanted a war with Iraq, and couldn't afford the distraction or use of resources for dealing with actual dangers to the U.S. Just as the Bush administration nixed plans three times in 2002 and 2003 to nab Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist mastermind, because doing so would have undermined its case for invading Iraq, we now see that actual national security issues have been quite secondary for this bunch.

In other words, protecting America isn't the priority for the Bush administration or today's GOP. Rather, base ideology and political gain come first. Leaving such people in power represents an extraordinary risk for our country, and after September 11, 2001, one we dare not continue to take.

Smell the fear

2004-07-07T21:40:00.000-04:00

Imagine that -- the Bush Whitehouse has been caught red-handed using the "war on terror" for crass political gain:

a White House aide told [Pakistani Lieutenant General] ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] [High Value Target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Of course, this really isn't anything new. The Bush administration (and the Bush campaign) have been using people's fear of terrorism and capitalizing on the deaths of 3000 Americans for shameless, base political purposes since September 11, 2001. The War in Iraq, tax cuts, secrecy, lies...the list is endless.

The GoP likes to call this "playing politics". The only problem is that the GoP uses that term to intimidate legitimate criticism. In this case, you have a dirty tricks and lies campaign that would have made Nixon blush with shame.

And while we're at it, it's worth noting the Bush administration's lack of concern for capturing our enemies and protecting Americans when political capital wasn't at stake. Zarqawi, our latest al Qaeda boogeyman in Iraq, was allowed to go free by the Bushies in order to make the case for war with Iraq. He's been responsible for over 800 deaths since then -- deaths that are ultimately on the heads of the ghouls in the administration.

How anyone can in good conscience contine to support these traitors and charlatans is beyond me...

Bush campaign turns ABB

2004-06-24T23:48:00.000-04:00

("Anybody But Bush", that is)

Well, it's official. The Bush campaign has gone 'round the bend, off the deep end. They've lost it completely. They can read the polls and the zeitgeist as well as anyone, and they know their man is in very deep trouble. So what do you do when that happens? Why, start making ads for the other guy!

This ad was put on the Bush/Cheney campaign web site today. Check it out -- in whatever format you desire (we aim to please). You won't believe this is a Bush/Cheney ad. In fact, "parody" and "someone hacked the Bush/Cheney campaign site" are the two most common reactions.

Windows Media High Bandwidth

Windows Media Low Bandwidth

Real Audio High Bandwidth

Real Audio Low Bandwidth

Quicktime High Bandwidth

Quicktime Low Bandwidth

More Bounce Needed!

2004-06-22T00:24:00.000-04:00

Looks like that didn't last long. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll is out, and it really doesn't look good for Dubya. I guess the ghoulish "Reagan Bounce" wingnuts were counting on won't be enough to win the election for Bush, after all.

On the other hand, we now have a metric to gauge the effectiveness of the deaths of conservative/right wing icons on pro-Bush sentiment. By that measure, a few more might just put Bush over the top, especially around election day.

So, what do you say? Ann, Rush, Sean...who's willing to take one for the team? Come to think of it, one might not be enough -- after all, Reagan was the most popular president ever, right? It looks like we may have to ask all of you to step up and support the President (and, of course, the troops)...

Iraq planned to attack the U.S. after 9/11? Maybe, but...

2004-06-18T22:32:00.000-04:00

So today comes the story that Russian President Putin is claiming Russian intelligence warned the U.S. that Iraq may have been planning terrorist attacks "after 9/11, up to the time the Iraq War started".

Pardon me if I observe that this is just a tad vague.

You see, I seem to recall (though I haven't been able to dig up a reference yet) that there were stories shortly before the war that Iraq might retaliate for an invasion by launching terrorist attacks against the U.S. So I guess I'd like to know a little more regarding exactly when these plans for terrorism were cooked up.

I'll also note that Putin provided very few details, beside the fact that he claimed to know of no Iraqi involvement in any terrorism against the U.S.

So basically, we have vague word from Russian intelligence (any more accurate than our own before the war? I wonder...) sometime before we attacked Iraq that Iraq might have planned for terrorist attacks against the U.S.

You may also color me skeptical that Iraq would have carried out such attacks itself without provocation, knowing full well that we'd probably trace them back to where they came from. In fact, it was just this objection that prompted responses from the administration that Iraq might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, rather than risk such an operation itself.

Although I'm sure the administration will play this for all it's worth, at this point I'd have to say there's just not much "there" there...

Spinning, spinning, ever spinning

2004-06-18T22:02:00.000-04:00

Looks like the administration is once again on the defensive, struggling to re-write history as their own words come back to haunt them. It's so nice when the press gives up the "he-said-she-said" noncommittal "reporting" for "he-said-he-said".

Anyway, what I'm referring to, of course, is the administration's major players insisting that the press is mischaracterizing the 9/11 Commission's finding that Iraq and al Qaeda had no "collaborative relationship". They're insisting that the 9/11 Commission did not refute the assertion that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. This, of course, is completely correct -- and completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

The administration did far, far more than assert Iraqi officials and al Qaeda representatives once said "hello" to each other -- and the fact that they're now claiming otherwise is an outright lie. Not just "misleading", mind you: the administration referred to Saddam and al Qaeda as "allies", and asserted to Congress "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

This administration is certainly the most dishonest I've seen in my lifetime. It is to be hoped that their lies will be self-evident, as most Americans seem to have felt the case was made that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together.

Putting it all together

2004-06-16T22:23:00.000-04:00

Looks like the 9/11 Commission put it all together and tied it with a bow. They released a report today that had two major findings:

Al Qaeda originally envisioned a "9/11" attack that was potentially much worse, and they still desire to carry out devastating attacks

Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda

The moral of the story: al Qaeda is the enemy, and this administration decided to duck that fight in favor of fulfilling a dream of attacking Iraq.

If America is attacked by al Qaeda again (and we know they very much want to do so), the Bush administration's Iraq War, sold on lies, will be a major contributing factor.

A couple of notes regarding Reagan

2004-06-11T17:11:00.000-04:00

As has been noted by Atrios and others, many of the things the mass media (fed, no doubt, by RNC'ers and/or right-wing zealots) are saying about Reagan are untrue. To wit:

Myth: Reagan was the most popular president.
Myth: Reagan left office with the highest approval ratings in history.
Myth: Reagan was universally beloved.
Myth: Reagan presided over the longest economic expansion in history.
Myth: All of Congress came under Republican control on Reagan's watch.

All of these things are patently false, and it would be nice if the press would not promulgate them as facts -- not because it really makes much difference now (Reagan isn't running for re-election, after all, although the Bush campaign would prefer it that way) but because it's such a clear demonstration of just how poor a job our press core does at basic fact-checking in the face of a sustained right-wing press barrage.

Come on, guys: you don't have to paint Reagan as a god to honor him as a president.

Bush Campaign Reinvents Itself--With a Bizarre Twist

2004-06-09T10:38:00.000-04:00

No more "steady leadership in times of change". We're now talking "dead leadership ripped from the 80's".

Faced with the stark reality that even a deceased former president who had suffered from Alzheimer's Disease for the last 15 years can handle the presidency better than George Bush, the Bush-Cheney campaign has morphed into an attempt to win a third term for Ronald Reagan.

Word is that George Bush will be undergoing plastic surgery to take on the likeness of Reagan. And the campaign says it's now found a new rationale for Bush's repeated stubborn refusal to change policy course on multiple issues**, despite clear evidence of failure: since Reagan is dead and obviously cannot change his policies, George Bush is acting as the True Reagan Heir by emulating him. "At one time, you might have noticed some difference between Bush and Reagan, since Reagan obviously did change course when things didn't work out", the campaign said. "We now feel that Former President Reagan's death, long anticipated by his admirers, brings Reagan in line with George Bush, meaning the President can now take up the mantle."

The Bush/Reagan campaign plans to make Reagan's recycled speeches and "win one more for the Gipper" the new campaign theme. There has been no word, as of yet, as to whether Reagan's old campaign commercials would be recycled. There has been some speculation, however, that Dick Cheney might change his name to Bush, to make the transformation more complete.

** Unless a policy became a PR disaster, of course.

Bush flip-flops, quietly adopts Kerry's position on Iraq

2004-06-09T10:02:00.000-04:00

Looks like Bush, who never wanted UN involvement in Iraq, has now caved almost completely on the subject. He's adopted John Kerry's position and gotten a new UN resolution. Whether it will be enough, at this point, to make a significant difference in Iraq is an open question. The window may have already closed, and additional concessions and willingness to work with the UN may be too much for the Bush constitution to handle. He is, after all, no Ronald Reagan.

If things now take a turn for the better in Iraq, we will have John Kerry's judgement to thank for it. Of course, this latest Bush flip-flop comes a little late: more than 800 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq since the war and occupation started, and the long slog towards turning Iraq into a democracy has just started. If history is any guide (see, for example, the current state of Afghanistan), George Bush doesn't have the judgement, patience, skill or stomach for the hard work ahead (you thought our job was done? oh, no...at least, not if we want to keep the country from collapsing into a new terrorist haven)--which doesn't bode well for the Iraqis, should George Bush be elected in November. What will he do when he doesn't have an upcoming election to pressure him into doing the right thing?

Follow-up on the "Soldier's Letter to Kerry"

2004-06-05T13:06:00.000-04:00

After a brief exchange on this topic, I thought I'd bring another post here to the blog. This was posted in response to questions about a week ago on another forum.

It seems to me that your response is pretty much re-stating what the original letter said, without any new evidence (although it's stated somewhat more diplomatically).

Kerry's statements about wartime atrocities were relating what other soldiers had told him. And really, the fact that atrocities occurred in Vietnam isn't in doubt anymore, as a recent Pulitzer-prize-winning report by the Boston Globe detailed:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

It simply wasn't a matter of John Kerry slandering a bunch of fellow soldiers (much less all soldiers). Rather, this was a case of hundreds of other soldiers all telling the same story -- that they were ordered to do things that violated the rules of war, and wanted the atrocities stopped.

To some, that amounts to slandering fellow soldiers. I think a better way of putting it is "blowing the whistle".

Kerry and others went to Vietnam in 1992 as part of an effort to find MIAs. Task force personnel slogged through jungles looking for any trace of living MIAs -- and found none, as they reported back to the Senate POW committee (which Kerry chaired).

The effort to find any hint, any trace of MIAs, by all accounts, was dogged. They followed up every lead available, sometimes with extraordinary, unprecedented efforts. Nothing was found.

What's more, no other freelance "rambo" mercenaries or MIA activists more than happy to take money from the families of MIAs ever found any, either. However, Kerry, McCain and other Vets found (correctly) that sanctions against Vietnam were hurting American businesses without hurting Vietnam.

I'm sure that there are families of MIAs who will always feel the whole thing was a sham, and hate Kerry and John McCain (who co-chaired the committee) for it. Some others (such as Ted Sampley) appear to have had a financial motive in keeping MIA stories alive, preying upon the families of MIAs like parasites. But the records indicate the effort to find MIAs was extremely thorough and bipartisan. Kerry earned the respect of former foes such as McCain in the process:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-kerryprofile16jan16,1,1939981.story

(free registration required)

I'm not sure which of the "advanced tools" that our troops need have been voted against by Kerry. Most of the ones the Bush campaign is talking about -- F-18's, M-1's, Bradley's, etc. -- Kerry has not opposed. Rather, Bush is saying Kerry's votes against general Defense Appropriations and/or Pentagon Authorization bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996 count as votes against every individual weapons system in the bills. This is just nuts: you might as well claim Kerry was voting against having a military in the first place. That's just not how the Senate works -- the passage of some form of a defense appropriations bill each year is never in doubt. Voting against one version of the bill shouldn't be taken for more than that. The Bush campaign knows it, and their claims are dishonest.

The same goes for Kerry's vote against the bill passed last year to provide $87 billion for the Iraq War effort. Kerry didn't oppose the money; in fact, he proposed a bill to provide the money without running up the deficit, and Bush threatened to veto it. How this translates into Kerry "opposing the money" and Bush "providing money for our troops" is beyond me.

To be sure, Kerry has specifically opposed certain weapon systems -- 20 years ago. Mostly, these were nuclear systems (hardly the ones we're using to fight terrorism) as well as a few conventional ones back in the 1980's, such as the Apache (of course, Dick Cheney proposed cancelling the Apache, too, in 1989). And Kerry (along with many other Democrats and Republicans) proposed rather small cuts in defense spending several times in the 90's in order to reduce the deficit (in one instance, Kerry proposed using the funds to hire 100,000 new police officers -- surely something we could use today in the War on Terror).

Any way you cut it, most of the claims about Kerry's record on defense (or just about anything else) are out-and-out distortions promoted by the Bush campaign (as detailed, in part, in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html). Kerry's record on defense is actually a strong one, and one that has improved over time. Were I a defense contractor, I wouldn't be terribly worried about getting paid under a Kerry administration.

On Judgement and George Bush

2004-06-05T12:30:00.000-04:00

Evidently, recent polling finds that many Americans feel George Bush would have better judgement in a crisis than John Kerry. So, in honor of this sentiment, we'll present here a few examples of George Bush's judgement.

Before the September 11 attacks, George Bush was consistently warned about the possibility of terrorism. According to the accounts of several former insiders, Bush ignored these warnings. He even went on a month-long vacation before the September 11 attacks, after having been warned that "al Qaeda [was] determined to strike in the U.S.".
Immediately after the September 11 attacks, George Bush ignored the opinions of his experts and was determined to attack Iraq. Only the efforts of Tony Blair and Colin Powell re-directed him against targets in Afghanistan.
Bush allowed bin Laden familiy members (long-time friends of the Bushes) to leave the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks.
Despite the advice of world-class, experienced economists and the accumulated knowledge of the last 100 years, George Bush refused to do anything to help boost the American economy besides push for gigantic tax cuts for the super-wealthy. This continued even as dire predictions regarding the ballooning deficit increased, and bad news about job prospects continued.
Ignoring all scientific knowledge to the contrary, George Bush constantly advocated rolling back on environmental protections.
Even as the information regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was sketchy at best, and even while it was clear our forces were already being taxed by fighting terrorism worldwide, George Bush decided to commit America to another war, severely damaging ties to allies we need to fight al Qaeda in the process.
Bush's rush to war in Iraq sapped needed resources from our effort to stamp out al Qaeda; as a probable consequence, Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Bush under-committed our troops to the Iraq effort, resulting in an out-of-control security situation and over 800 American troops dead.
Someone high up in the Bush administration leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative to the press as a political reprisal. This action was a setback for WMD anti-proliferation efforts, as well as a felony. Bush could have pursued the identity of the leaker (who is a clear danger to national security), and has chosen not to do so.
The Bush administration (and likely, Bush himself) was warned about abused and torture going on at our foreign prisons, and did nothing. The scandal has done even more damage to our standing in the world; standing we need to fight terrorism.

This is just a sampling of George Bush's "judgement". Next, we'll look at John Kerry's.

Right wingers just don't get it

2004-06-05T11:58:00.000-04:00

OK, if there were any doubt before that right wingers don't get how American society should work, the latest inanity from the Bush campaign should put it to rest.

You see, according to aristocratic wingnuts, what you do doesn't count. It's what you are that matters. It's your status at birth that defines who you are.

When you think about it, this explains a lot. Wingnuts don't believe in equal opportunity, since some people are just worthy, and some aren't. Likewise, they cannot understand that liberals don't have a problem with rich people because they're rich; they have a problem with the elimination of opportunities for everyone else by endless accumulation of wealth by the already rich, and they have a problem with people who use their power and money for bad purposes.

Let's put this simply: being rich isn't evil. It's not wrong to be wealthy. What's wrong is endless greed that cuts off others from fulfilling their potential. What's wrong is rich kids who never have to stand on their own because their family connections bail them out. What's wrong is rich people who take every opportunity to screw the poor. What's wrong is wealthy folks who say being poor is a "state of mind". What's wrong is rich people who say "I don't understand how poor people think", and proceed to act on this lack of knowledge.

John Kerry isn't evil because he is rich and married into money. Likewise, George Soros, a billionare, isn't evil because he has money. Simply having money isn't a bad thing.

Both of these individuals work to make the lives of non-rich people better. Both attempt to improve American society for everyone. And both have earned success through a combination of talent, good fortune and--this is important--very hard work.

George Bush, by contrast, is a mediocre individual who has always been saved from his failures by his family status and connections. He lucked into money by virtue of birth, and currently has it despite a lack of talent or hard work. He disdains and doesn't understand the poor. He has used his entire executive career to push legislation that makes it much harder for regular folks to improve themselves, ranging from huge tax breaks for the very well off to deregulation, running up the deficit, underfunding educational initiatives...the list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that John Kerry, as a very rich man, votes against his own interest and tries to improve the lives of all Americans. George Bush, as a very rich man, has constantly looked out for his own interest and done his best to screw most Americans.

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think the Bushies aren't somewhat aware of their hypocrisy. They're trying to pass Bush off as a "regular guy", a symbol of how an average individual can "make it big". What's even more clear, though, is that this is a sick charade. George Bush has never had to "make it" in his entire life. The only true part is that he's very, very average.

Let's hope that such isn't lost on the voters.

Pretty impressive

2004-06-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

I must say, watching the slow train wreck that is the Bush administration provides a never-ending source of entertainment. If only it didn't come at the expense of so many ruined lives.

The chaos currently gripping the White House is like nothing I've ever seen.

The Return of Dittomail

2004-05-29T22:15:00.000-04:00

Remember four years ago when all sorts of "joke" email went around slandering Al Gore? Near as I can tell, no one has ever looked into the real origin of most of the dittohead chain-mail that blanketed the 'net. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think most of it came straight from the RNC, though.

And, glory be, it's back with a vengeance. The best example I've found thus far is the one below. I've included my own commentary; as you can see, this piece is little more than Bush campaign lies.

Soldier's Letter to Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect.

As we'll show below, the writer's time might have been better spent drooling, mumbling to himself or however most freeper/dittoheads normally pass the time. His "research" doesn't even rank as "shoddy".

You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy.

The above may be the only accurate material in this letter, and if so, the author deserves thanks for his service, as do the many others who have served their country. But we don't know whether the author is being truthful. There is one listed "Michael Connelly" in Dallas, Texas. There is no record of a "Michael Connelly" from Texas having donated any money to the Bush campaign, though -- which is rather odd, given his supposedly deep convictions about Kerry.

As always, with unsourced chain email, one must treat the claims of the author with a good deal of skepticism.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.

This drivel appears to be straight out of RNC/freeper/talk radio talking points. The record (and eyewitness reports) clearly shows that Kerry earned his silver star by charging a wounded enemy soldier who was armed and about to blow Kerry's boat apart. The VC soldier was not "retreating". Additionally, Kerry also selflessly saved another man despite mortal danger to himself. We can only hope Mr. Connelly and the rest of our fighting soldiers have the courage Kerry displayed in Vietnam combat.

Furthermore, The medical record of Kerry's wounds also indicates they were considerably worse than "scratches". Needless to say, there have been soldiers wounded far more grievously in battle than Kerry (such as Max Cleland, who was subject to many of the same RNC slanders and who lost limbs in Vietnam). But Kerry's wounds met the stated criteria for purple hearts. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his leg that pains him from time to time.

Finally, Kerry did not "leave Vietnam early". The policy of Coastal Squadron One (swiftboat command) was that anyone wounded three times was sent home, unless he specifically asked to stay. In other words, Kerry followed the rules, and left right on time -- after two tours of combat duty and more than a year in Vietnam.

The same, of course, cannot be said for Bush, who this author evidently doesn't see fit to treat with remotely the same level of scrutiny. This, alone, should warn the reader that the author of this piece has a partisan axe to grind.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East . Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime. You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.

This paragraph is, like the one before, riddled with distortions and outright falsehoods.

Kerry did not "publicly charge his fellow fighting men with being war criminals and urge their defeat by the enemy". Kerry related stories other soldiers had told him regarding atrocities. There is no record, anywhere, of him urging the defeat of American soldiers by the enemy.

(And really, the facts of atrocities in Vietnam are well known; it is rather silly, and a sign of desperation, that dittoheads and RNC flacks are trying to make this into an issue by denying the atrocities took place.)

Moreover, Kerry never referred to anyone as "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists and dime-store Rambos". This phrase, in fact, was uttered by Sen. John McCain during Senate discussion of normalization of relations with Vietnam on Tuesday, January 25, 1994. Moreover, McCain was not referring to the families of POWs and MIAs when he spoke. Rather, he was referring to mercenaries and other snake-oil salesmen who had been conning the families of MIAs out of money, claiming they would go to Vietnam and track down missing soldiers. McCain's actual statement was:

Joint Task Force personnel have, often at great risk to their own welfare, crawled through some of the worst and most remote terrain in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, searching for any clue as to the fate of our missing. Their efforts have been dismissed as a charade by many POW/MIA activists who_unlike my friend, Senator Smith, whose opposition is honorable_cloak their opposition in character assassination. In truth, JTF personnel are responsible for locating more information, for resolving more of the mystery surrounding this question than all the professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime store rambos who attend this issue have ever or will ever contribute collectively. They are truly unsung heroes.

Everyone involved in our efforts in Vietnam will testify to the greatly increased cooperation from Vietnam. It is their word, not mine, nor Senator Kerry's that Senators should listen to as they consider our amendment. Everyone of these fine individuals believes that the time has come to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam. They recognize that the accounting process has not and should not end, and that there is more cooperation we will require from Vietnam before our efforts can conclude. But they feel, as do I, that lifting the embargo will facilitate and accelerate that cooperation.
(excerpted from Lexis Nexis Congressional record, 103rd Congress, 2nd session, 140 Cong Rec S 130)

As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win . Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

The above statements have been debunked as the Bush campaign falsehoods they are. John Kerry has never "voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment", nor against funds necessary to improve our intelligence capability. In fact, Kerry proposed a bill providing the infamous $87 billion in funds requested by the Bush administration for our Iraq War efforts, a bill that would have paid for the funding without running up the already skyrocketing federal deficit. The Bush administration threatened to veto a bill that didn't run up the deficit (no alternative was proposed, by the administration or Republicans in Congress). Moreover, the Bush administration sent our troops into combat without sufficient body armor, and despite having received all the funds they have requested, our soldiers still don't have enough. (For a thorough debunking of these and other Bush campaign lies about Kerry, please see the following articles by the non-partisan Factcheck.org: More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record, Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately, Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?, and Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's.)

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight.

Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No !

Sincerely,

Michael Connelly February 14, 2004 Dallas, Texas

Mr. Connelly, assuming he actually exists, is of course free to vote for anyone he wants. But it would seem that he's being mighty selective with the application of the standards he alleges are important to him in a presidential candidate.

The RNC would love Americans to forget George Bush has a one-year gap in his attendance record for the National Guard during the Vietnam War -- non-dangerous duty he lucked into (or, perhaps, luck had less to do with it than family connections). They would love Americans to forget that George Bush himself has led the United States into the worst foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam, and probably before. They would prefer that Americans not ask questions regarding the Bush administration's criminally negligent behavior about Geneva Convention violations, the exposure of a CIA agent working in anti-WMD proliferation, and lies and exaggerations used to get us into Iraq in the first place. They would love to gloss over the numerous shortcomings in Bush's military, fiscal and homeland security record; shortcomings that, by right wingers' own standards, should be damning.

Distortions such as the ones in this email should be seen for what they are: a sign that an increasingly panicked GOP is once again willing to throw over all principles of honesty, decency, shame and supposed respect for military service to country for partisan gain.

UPDATE 8/22/2004: These slanders against John Kerry's service are nothing new, as veterans who oppose George Bush have, over the years, routinely been subject to such smear campaigns. This John Kerry internet ad, featuring John McCain, puts things in perspective:
John Kerry ad -- Old Tricks

Does Kerry need to win over Bush supporters?

2004-05-28T10:45:00.000-04:00

I missed this the other day. Matthew Yglesias at the American Prospect's Tapped weblog says:

That sums up Kerry's dilemma pretty well -- how to gain the support of the legions of disillusioned former Bush supporters. Still, getting the other guy's natural constituents to stay home is half as good as getting them to vote for you, so this kind of sullen attitude may be all Kerry needs.

I think Matthew's more right than he knows, here. Historically, Republicans don't win the presidency unless they get over 90% turnout of their base voting for them.

In other words, John Kerry really doesn't have to do anything much to "gain the support of the legions of disillusioned former Bush supporters". They can vote for Kerry or stay home. Either way, Bush won't have the votes he needs to win -- especially if, as appears likely, the Democratic core is energized enough this year for a very strong showing at the polls.

Still here

2004-05-22T09:47:00.000-04:00

Sorry, folks -- a combination of lack of time and the whirlwind of the recent events have contributed to a lack of will to blog.

We're not gone.

Weapons of MisDirection

2004-05-18T06:48:00.000-04:00

My only surprise is that it didn't happen sooner. I'm speaking, of course, of the discovery of two old chemical munitions in Iraq.

Strictly speaking, it's hard to refer to these items -- two old artillery shells likely found in a dump somewhere -- as Weapons of Mass Destruction. By all accounts, they're a pair of old, rusting relics of the Iran-Iraq War: barely functional, surely more dangerous to the user than the victim, and beyond the high explosive used in the warhead, hardly capable of inflicting mass casualties. Still, it's hardly surprising to find President Bush's supporters, who have received literally no good news for months, latching on to this find like a life preserver, despite the fact that doing so will once again re-open just how badly Bush misled America on the threat Iraq posed.

So, do these two items "count" as vindicating Bush's warnings? Well, I suppose that depends upon where you think the bar should be. Bush, after all, warned of hundreds of tons of chemical and biological stockpiled and ready to use. I'm unable to find in those warnings the dire prediction that a few largely useless stray artifacts from two decades ago were pointed in our direction.

Still, some will refer to this find as "the weapons of mass destruction". So I guess the question we have to ask is, "were two artillery shells filled with hazardous material worth over 750 American lives and $200 billion?"

That's a question each of us will have to answer. I would imagine the wingnuts will come to one conclusion, and the families of the dead will come to another.

A predictable result

2004-05-11T21:54:00.000-04:00

Many lefty bloggers seem to be seizing on today's release of a brutal videotape depicting the beheading of an independent American contractor in Iraq. This act was evidently carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who the Bush administration declined to go after in 2002 and 2003 three times, for fear that doing so would have undermined its case for invading Iraq (the Pentagon knew al-Zarqawi was making ricin and knew where he was). Much of the talk seems to be centering around the idea that the beheading is revenge for the torture of Iraqi prisoners (as claimed on the videotape by al-Zarqawi), pointing out that "violence begets violence".

As much as I sympathize with the "cycle of violence" sentiment, al-Zarqawi (assuming he's responsible) doesn't need a reason to kill Americans -- or anyone else who gets in his way. He's a vicious bastard, period, and has proved it many times with unprovoked killings of troops and civilians alike. However, just as al-Zarqawi didn't need a reason, we've now given him an excuse. We've handed al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda another powerful recruiting tool, as people across the arab world who before might have been willing to give us the benefit of the doubt are now cheering al-Zarqawi on.

Don't get me wrong: violence does indeed beget violence. We've doubtless created new al-Zarqawi's by the torture of Iraqi civilians. But this act wasn't revenge. It was worse: it was the cold, calculated and predictable result of the Bush administration's breathtakingly stupid and shortsighted bending of the rules. We needed, more than ever, to do things by the book in order to root out al-Qaeda's support. Instead, the Bushies tore up the book and threw it out. As a result, al-Zarqawi gleefully pounced on the opportunity we've given him. He used it to his advantage. In fact, he would have been stupid not to, just as he and other militants would be stupid not to continue to use it.

You know, I saw the Friedman-esque rationales for the Iraq war, and agreed with many of them. The thing that made me come down against it in the end was the fear that the Bush administration would handle the aftermath incompetently. I worried that the war would end up making us less safe, and make things even worse for the Iraqis.

But I really had no idea just how completely they'd screw this thing up. Their capacity for incompetence has truly defied all reasonable prediction. This isn't a partisan judgement, much as I'd like to see Bush defeated in November for other reasons. There is just no way to put lipstick on this pig and turn it into a swan.

I'm hoping against hope that Bush will, somehow, figure out how to clean up this mess soon. We can't afford to let this go on any longer. Fixing this problem can't wait for a new president. Mr. Bush, do what you have to do, but fix this, for the country you say you love, and the Iraqis you claim to care about.

Kerry and the Geneva Conventions

2004-05-10T00:15:00.000-04:00

Looks like the wingnuts have come up with yet another way to slime Kerry. In their desperation, it would seem they've recently discovered concern over the rules of war and treatment of prisoners.

So, just to follow the logic, here's a hypothetical conversation with a wingnut on the subject.

WINGNUT: Did you know that John Kerry admitted to having violated the Geneva Conventions and committed war crimes? What a hypocrite he is now, condemning war crimes in Iraq.

NORMAL GUY: You mean to tell me that John Kerry was caught red-handed and confessed to having tortured prisoners?

WINGNUT: Well, no, but it's the same thing. He admitted to having shot civilians in free-fire zones! On national TV! That's against the Geneva Conventions.

NORMAL GUY: So, wait a minute. He wasn't torturing prisoners?

WINGNUT: No, but like I said, it's the same thing.

NORMAL GUY: But he was caught and charged, right?

WINGNUT: Nope. He got away with it.

NORMAL GUY: He wasn't caught or charged? Then why did he admit to it on TV?

WINGNUT: Well, because he was stupid. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: But I heard that he protested against the war. Wasn't he protesting atrocities?

WINGNUT: Well, yes. But that doesn't matter. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: And wasn't his admission part of an attempt to draw attention to the fact that both he and thousands of others were ordered to fire on civilians under combat conditions? Isn't that quite a bit different than torturing a bunch of helpless prisoners and not blowing the whistle on the crime?

WINGNUT: John Kerry hated America. And he committed war crimes.

NORMAL GUY: Well, if trying to stop atrocities means he hated America, then why are you complaining about the atrocities he supposedly committed? Doesn't that mean you hate America, too?

WINGNUT: Four more years! Four more years!

Of course, the wingnut may complain that it wasn't the atrocities, but the hypocrisy that they're complaining about. But if John Kerry worked tirelessly to end atrocities in Vietnam, it makes little sense to claim he's being hypocritical in condemning atrocities in Iraq. In fact, he appears to have been remarkably consistent.

Yet another reason to vote Kerry in November: basic, bedrock principles.

Basic Principles

2004-05-09T02:19:00.000-04:00

When people complain about the torture of Iraqi prisoners, why don't they remember that we're dealing with bad people? These people aren't decent and they have no sense of mercy or morality. Besides, Saddam tortured people worse than we have.

Have people forgotten the lessons of September 11?

I've seen these sentiments expressed in one form or another over the last few days. I find them profoundly disturbing and deeply shortsighted.

We've been dealing with "not decent people" since the founding of the country. There is absolutely no reason to assume that we now have to abandon basic principles of decency and civilized behavior.

People keep saying that 9/11 justifies an "anything goes" attitude. But far more than 3000 Americans have died throughout history to create a country based upon basic civil rights, a country that respects the rule of law, a country that eschews abhorrent treatment of prisoners and the accused, regardless of what those prisoners have allegedly done or the treatment they are used to.

Do we really want to get into a discussion about whether our torture was "quite as bad as Saddam's"? Isn't the whole idea that we have torture in common with Saddam sickening?

Torture isn't justified. It is a bad way to get reliable information, and it's a very good way to ensure that the same thing will be done right back to us. Additionally, a main part of our strength in the world is the moral authority we carry. That means we keep our word, like adherence to the Geneva Conventions. That means we uphold a standard of conduct which all people should abide by, even if our enemies don't. That means we don't throw over our high-minded principles the moment things get rough.

Many of the people at the prison in question were never tried nor convicted. A fair number were civilians. And even for those who were guilty, nothing, and I mean nothing, justifies what was done in our name. There will be serious, long-term consequences for us all.

American civilization is supposed to be better than a petty, vengeful, mindless mob. We have to be; otherwise, this country is no longer worth fighting for.

"Yeah, well, what about 9/11?"

2004-05-06T23:11:00.000-04:00

Remarkable, isn't it? The Pentagon is involved in (evidently systemic) abuses and torture of prisoners, and the reaction from our alleged moral compass on the right is to ignore and confuse the issue. We have Rush Limbaugh comparing the torture to college hazing (the last I checked, "college hazing" involving deaths, chemical burns, sexual molestation or electrocution would be rewarded with prison sentences. But Rush wants to coddle criminals, it seems).

And, of course, we have Sean Hannity, claiming John Kerry, by virtue of having "admitted to Geneva Convention violations", is in no position to criticize what's going on now. This might be true -- if Kerry hadn't returned from the war a hero, and promptly blown the whistle on military officials who had ordered him and hundreds of others to engage in Geneva Convention violations, then spent the next few years working tirelessly to end the atrocities and the war. His actions likely ended the war earlier than would have otherwise been the case, and saved many lives. One wonders what Hannity's credentials are to lick Kerry's boots, much less criticize him.

But my favorite of the reprehensible tactics: "yeah, well, what about the 3000 people killed on 9/11?"

It should go without saying, but no one was not apalled and revulsed by 9/11. But there were good ways and bad ways to react to that atrocity. Good ways were to go after the perpetrators and wipe out them and their organization. Surely among the bad ways, however, was to engage in activities which would make the United States less safe and threaten to make a repeat of 9/11 more likely. The Bush administration has done exactly this. In fact, it's hard to imagine actions that would have been more wrongheaded than those promoted by the administration and its apologists in the two and a half years since 9/11.

To the right wing, losing 3000 people on 9/11 evidently justifies throwing over the principles that far more than 3000 Americans have died to instill in this country. To the right wing, 9/11 literally justifies anything -- because nothing matters to such people besides power, and 9/11 is the perfect excuse. Never again can they claim to have any sort of moral compass. They have no morality besides personal and political gain.

They're not true Americans. In fact, I think they're barely human beings. These are the guys who would have held the door for the gas chambers in World War II. For our soldiers and for the rest of us, kicking this scum of humanity out of government and off our airwaves can't come soon enough.