here's an actual photo from the birth of Jesus
24 December 2004
Rummy vs the Neocons
Round 1, from Shrillblog via Brad DeLong.
and keep an eye on Josh Marshall's prediction from yesterday.
23 December 2004
compare and contrast
Bush: “We’ve increased Pell Grants by a million students. That’s a fact.”
versus
NYT: Students to Bear More of the Cost of College
Because of the changes, which take effect next fall and are expected to save the government $300 million in the 2005-6 academic year, at least 1.3 million students will receive smaller Pell Grants, the nation's primary scholarship for those of low income, according to two analyses of the new rules.Funny 'fact'... so 1 Million more students will receive Pell Grants (according to fortune telling Bush), but they're all receiving LESS money. That doesn't seem like a good thing.
latest report on Iraq
(full .pdf report here)
Here is a piece from Salon.com covering the report, which was compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-partisan think tank in Washington
"Denial as a method of warfare"
A new report offers scathing criticism of
By Dan Glaister
Dec. 23, 2004
America's handling of the occupation of Iraq came in for scathing criticism Wednesday, with government officials accused of living in a "fantasyland" and failing to learn from mistakes made in Vietnam. A report issued by the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington charged that the occupation had been handled by "ideologues" in the Bush administration who consistently underestimated the scale of the problems they were facing and that this had contributed to a culture in which facts were willfully misrepresented.
"They greatly exaggerated the relevance and influence of Iraqi exiles, and greatly underestimated the scale of
The report lays responsibility for these errors with the policymakers in
Under the heading "Denial as a method of counterinsurgency warfare," it notes that the
22 December 2004
uhhhhh
from C-SPAN.org
ok... this is just plain weird. go to 16:47 in this video and tell me what the #$^& just happened to Bush? (link will open in RealPlayer).
GOP: party of the moral majority
riiiiight
Roll Call reported on Friday that a Republican House staffer was arrested for allegedly attempting to steal a plasma television from the Financial Services hearing room. Said an eyewitness: "There was this guy standing there, and on a dolly there was something large wrapped in cardboard...He seemed a little surprised to see me."
Now an email is floating around the Hill gives a little more detail, and adds a coda:
just found out this guy is NOT some lowpaid staff ass...he's the fucking republican chief economist on the small bidness committee!!!!
more 'progress' in Iraq
I wonder when we'll finally admit that our President and his cronies made horrible errors in judgement by force-feeding the American public a plate full of lies, just so they could have their war.
21 December 2004
fascinating...
What's worse:
(a) Not understanding the financial challenges facing your own Country as President? Or,
(b) misspelling the word "challenge" duing a blustery attempt to show the World that as President you intend to overcome those challenges?
I'm torn. But looking at this picture, I don't think there's any other viable choice except for (b)
source: 'Challenges' Prove Too Much for White House
source: 'Challenges' Prove Too Much for White House
09 December 2004
Yeah, I bet he does
Rumsfeld wants armor problem resolved
now that he's had his ass handed to him from his own soldiers.
Maybe he should have wanted this problem resolved BEFORE the manipulative march to war.
28 November 2004
stonewall, obfuscate, and hide
This guy voted for Bush, and hates John Kerry... and, I gotta say... I'm shocked.
Moral of the story - don't tell the NCAA anything, let them figure it out themselves. If that sounds dishonest, well, honesty buys you nothing with this group. Stonewall, obfuscate, and hide as much as you can. I won't do you any good to be honest.
25 November 2004
24 November 2004
23 November 2004
Dolphins are officially the coolest animals on the planet
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (Reuters) - A pod of dolphins circled protectively round a group of New Zealand swimmers to fend off an attack by a great white shark, media reported on Tuesday.
Lifesavers Rob Howes, his 15-year-old daughter Niccy, Karina Cooper and Helen Slade were swimming 300 feet off Ocean Beach near Whangarei on New Zealand's North Island when the dolphins herded them -- apparently to protect them from a shark.
"They started to herd us up, they pushed all four of us together by doing tight circles around us," Howes told the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA).
Howes tried to drift away from the group, but two of the bigger dolphins herded him back just as he spotted a nine-foot great white shark swimming toward the group.
"I just recoiled. It was only about 2 meters away from me, the water was crystal clear and it was as clear as the nose on my face," Howes said, referring to a distance of six feet.
"They had corralled us up to protect us," he said.
The lifesavers spent the next 40 minutes surrounded by the dolphins before they could safely swim back to shore. The incident happened on October 30, but the lifesavers kept the story to themselves until now.
Environment group Orca Research said dolphins attacked sharks to protect themselves and their young, so their actions in protecting the lifesavers was understandable.
"They could have sensed the danger to the swimmers and taken action to protect them," Orca's Ingrid Visser told NZPA.
sleep tight
"There is no question in my mind that there are suicide bombers in the U.S., but they don't want to do anything yet because they want to wait to make a statement and hit us hard."
- Jerome Hauer c/o Washington Square News
democracy under assault
'Stinking Evidence' of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida
"On the porch was a garbage bag," Bev said, "and so I looked in it and, and lo and behold, there were public record tapes." Thrown away. Discarded. Waiting to be hauled off. "It was technically stinking, in fact," Bev added, "because what they had done was to have thrown some of their polling tapes, which are the official records of the election, into the garbage. These were the ones signed by the poll workers. These are something we had done an official public records request for."
When the elections officials inside realized that the people outside were going through the trash, they called the police and one came out to challenge Bev. Kathleen Wynne, a www.blackboxvoting.org investigator, was there
"We caught the whole thing on videotape," she said. "I don't think you'll ever see anything like this - Bev Harris having a tug of war with an election worker over a bag of garbage, and he held onto it and she pulled on it, and it split right open, spilling out those poll tapes. They were throwing away our democracy, and Bev wasn't going to let them do it."
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." - Wally O'Dell, CEO Diebold
Clear Channel propagandizing for Bush
A billboard recently put up in Orlando bearing a smiling photograph of President Bush with the words “Our Leader” is raising eyebrows among progressives who feel the poster is akin to that of propaganda used by tyrannical regimes.
RAW STORY confirmed the billboard’s existence Monday evening. At our behest, a member of an Orlando media organization drove past the billboard on two occasions and verified that it was indeed the one pictured.
The billboard pictured, which is on I-4, says that it is a “political public service message brought to you by Clear Channel Outdoor.”
The member, who declined to be named out of concern for their employer, discovered a second billboard bearing the same image along the same route, paid for by Charles W. Clayton Jr.
The Clear Channel-sponsored billboard was not lit up for drivers Monday evening. The Clayton billboard was.
Clear Channel Outdoor Orlando said they could not respond to requests for comment this week because their press person was “away.” They referred calls to their San Antonio corporate parent, which did not return two messages for comment.
22 November 2004
DOJ sells out another reporter
CNN.com - Reporter convicted of contempt
A Providence, Rhode Island, television reporter was convicted of criminal contempt Thursday for refusing to say who gave him an FBI videotape showing a city official taking a bribe. Jim Taricani, of WJAR, is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres on December 9. The undercover tape was aired prominently and repeatedly by the station. Taricani faces up to six months in prison.So, when does Novak go to jail?
how to create terrorists: part MCDXVII
CNN cameraman Kevin Sites, has written an open letter to the Marine unit in which he was embedded during the recent 'sweep' through Fallujah (for background, MSNBC has this).
(excerpt)
One can only wonder how many more similar occurences have taken place since we sent America's finest young men and women to fight in Iraq. These soldiers, many of them KIDS, are fighting against people whose perspective they are thoroughly unprepared to understand. "Officially", we brought war on Iraq to 'liberate' it's people from Saddam... but with every mistake like this one, we undermine our ability to succeed LONG TERM by amplifying an already fervent anti-American sentiment. Unofficially, our actions in Iraq validate the rhetoric of actual terrorists... and THAT does not keep you safe. Worse than that, I'm not conviced that the architects of this war really care....We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot... please... yesterday I was shot over there -- and talked to all of you on camera -- I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."
because they're smart
The Washington Post opposes the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
Read the full editorial here.
America's failing schools
Only a Third Believe Darwin's Evolution Theory
Furthermore, forty-five percent "also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
20 November 2004
18 November 2004
operation eliminate smart people
I haven't really posted my own thoughts on the ravaging occuring over at CIA... yet. I've been grappling with how to adequately express (as even-handedly as physically possible) how much this bothers me... but its starting to look like I'm the only person on the frickin planet who hasn't already said something about it. Maybe I'll just throw down these thoughts, and then post the all the articles that I saved... and be done with it.
I think it's outrageous. I think it affects everyone... short term and long term. At the same time it's a glimpse into the looking glass of the how Bush administration intends to conduct business during its second term; more my way or the highway stuff.
The "purge of the possibly soon-to-be disloyal" deals a major blow to intelligent decision-making. Certainly these folks could have helped prevent many bad decisions from occuring in the first place. But the administration’s problem here is its approach, which generally does not embrace an environment conducive to debating issues. Decisions often seem to just get made… period. End of discussion. That's a pretty poor framework for intelligent decision-making.
As best I can tell their replacements have been chosen based on 2 factors: 'how close are they to the President?' and 'how loyal will they remain if things go bad?'. Rarely has the Bush administration replaced outgoing members of it's administration with officials based on qualifications or merit. I find that disturbing.
I titled this "operation eliminate smart people", because hey, when in doubt be as direct as possible and call something exactly what it what it is. 'Operation purge dissent', 'operation eradicate intelligence', and 'curtail dissent' all sounded too simple, or too gratuitous, or just hackneyed to the point that they had no effect. By now the purge itself is no mystery... but the marginalization of these same people began long ago. Most probably back to the first day of the Bush administration.
Look, terrorism was Clinton's problem, and from the Bush cabinet's perspective the nature of the threat from bin laden was overstated... right up until 9/11 happened. Terrorism didn't make it into the Bush administration's inner circle because they were interested in invading Iraq. They say so themselves. But that doesn't mean that people weren't working to hunt down al qaeda long before January 20th, 2001. Why do you think these guys are quitting?
Bush and company's systematic disposal of employees who don 't parrot political messages, flawed as many [read: most] of them are, is happening because these people remain an unmitigable risk for the Bush administration. There have been too many opportunities for intelligence officials to contradict public statements made by the President... whether it involves Iraq, WMD, al qaeda, whatever.
This week the sharp end of the loyalty sword has cut through the CIA. The new director of intelligence has told his workforce at Langley:
"We support the Administration and its policies in our work. As Agency employees we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the Administration or its policies. We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker." [via War and Piece]
That's pretty straight forward.
Which agency is next is anyone's guess… fear is that next week, or sometime in the not-too-distant future, similar things will occur at State. More cutting will occur though, you can count on that. The Bush administration has a bad habit of looking for creative new ways to deal with whistleblowers.
We played a lot of games and stretched a lot of facts to to legitimize the war in Iraq in the first place. And Saddam never struck me personally as threat that warranted the extent of destruction that we've already seen. America was told that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction... and that the use of these weapons by Saddam Hussein's regime, or the threat of the transfer of these weapons to terrorists constituted an emerging threat, unlike the type of threat that traditional rules of war were formulated to address. Namely, that YOU (if you're an American citizen) were directly impacted by this threat, and that by not dealing with it you may find yourself in peril. So it was incumbent upon the President to address this threat... preemptively... or else a mushroom cloud might appear over some city, somewhere sometime, which may or may not kill hundreds of thousands of people. When that didn't work we figured we'd better be liberating Iraqis instead.
The problem? Seems to me reality in Iraq didn't materialize the way those who pushed so hard had expected. All of their screaming from the proverbial mountaintops about how Bill Clinton was so delinquent with his means of dealing with Iraq proved to be hollow, venomous, and barely more than partisan rhetoric. Rather than admit that they were wrong, they chose this route: 'blame the cia, claim the agency is in turmoil and then overhaul it in our favor'. That's the appearance anyway.
This makes it easy for the Bush administration to exact revenge against many of the same folks who could have warned the administration before or during our march to war that: a) the weapons weren't there, or b) the War on Terror doesn't point to Iraq, or c) our military is stretched too thin, or perhaps most importantly d) our actions in Iraq are contributing to an increased threat of terrorism against Americans; the actual threat to you.
Sorry for sounding so... whatever... but we must allow for honest dialogue to take place between competing points of view, especially when making decisions about issues that affect so many people, not just Americans. If we don't we're going to see a hell of a lot more mistakes like the ones we've already seen.
Of immediate concern to me is how are these new people going to help fix the mess in Iraq? And I'm concerned that they're about to sidetrack themselves, again.
--------------------------------------------------------
CIA Official Challenges Agency on Terrorism: LATimes
CIA whistleblower sees 'long war': BBCNews
Deputy Chief Resigns From CIA: WashingtonPost.com
CIA plans to purge its agency: Newsday.com
Two Top CIA Officials Quit Amid Revolt at Spy Agency: My Way News
C.I.A. Shakeup Continues as 2 Senior Officials Quit: The New York Times
Purging the disloyal at the CIA: Salon.com Politics
CIA veterans clash with new chief: MSNBC
It's war: the CIA vs Bush: The Australian
An internal war at the CIA: Christian Science Monitor
Goss Isn't Done With Housecleaning at CIA: LATimes
CIA staff told to avoid politics: BBC NEWS
the text of the DCI’s Statement to the Workforce: War and Piece
PORTER GOSS' STATEMENT TO THE WORKFORCE: The Washington Note Archives
prewar iraq "intelligence" report
The U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence has (oddly) decided to publish their report on the the intelligence community's pre-war intelligence assessments on Iraq. Here are the report's conclusions.
16 November 2004
the great divide... go check it out
haven't read the book, (until today I hadn't even heard about it)... regardless, it's definitely worth reading what's there. Here's their press release.
15 November 2004
Atlantis... discovered?
Robert Sarmast says 'definitely'. He's the lead explorer who found evidence of an ancient civilization buried under the Mediterranean Sea, halfway between Cyprus and Syria.
BBC has more here.
powell resigning
Not unexpected, but still pretty sucky. Our government could use a few more men like Powell.
...well, except for that embarassment-in-front-of-the-UN thing.
'mapping the election'
Tom Engelhardt over at MotherJones.com pulled together this piece [Mapping the Election]... a nice compilation of the various Election 2004 maps, including this one covering just 18-29 yr old voters.
14 November 2004
13 November 2004
1984 redux
High school students pose threat to President with Dylan lyrics
for what it's worth, I don't think Jesus will forgive him either...
12 November 2004
what comes after
outrage fatigue?
Cause that's where I am right now. Just not feeling very much like blogging lately.
AHA! I know what I'll do... I'll cheer myself up by spending a few minutes trying to drop a brain into George's head.
why Josh Marshall doesn't get paid enough
Check out this morning's post (early this morning) about Robert Blackwell, former Iraqi policy director at NSC and his new association with the lobbying firm BGR. Apparently he, much like former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, will be focusing his attention on making lots of dough, now that we've "liberated" Iraq.
the new Firefox browser
Go download it... you won't be sorry. It's pretty damn cool.
Also, if you use Bloglines like I do, then check out the Bloglines: Firefox Center for the latest extensions.
Arafat... poisoned?
Jordanian doctor, Ashraf al-Kurdi, says it's quite likely. More, along with coverage of the funeral, here
10 November 2004
Alberto Gonzales: tough on crime (or... not)
from FT.com
"Mr Gonzales has also been at the centre of other high-profile disputes, including efforts to bar top White House officials from testifying before the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks, and the investigation into whether White House officials wrongly leaked the name of a CIA operative."So, let's see if I understand this correctly. Our nation's top prosecutor: 1) doesn't believe in honoring international law and thinks the Geneva Convention is "quaint", 2) provided legal counsel to Enron, 3) staunchly supports the continued secrecy of Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force, despite the Supreme Court's interest in the issue, 4) worked to protect White House officials from testifying to the 9/11 Commission, 5) worked to shield White House officials from the Plame investigation. I'm sure some people are happy about Gonzales' nomination, but I'm certainly not one of them. I think he's a paid-off legal loyalist, and a scourge to the rule of law and justice. Period.
BLOCK HIM IN CONFIRMATION
BBC: Bush 'picks new attorney general'
oh... and what he said.
oh#2... forgot that he was also once General Counsel for Enron, and participated in energy policy meetings.
There you have it folks. A major win for Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force... and a major obstacle for anyone investigating corruption, conficts of interest, and/or straight up fraud with intent to bilk the energy market for a short term gain. I'm sure that Grandma Millie is pissed right about now.
oh no
no no no no no
The man behind all the President's bad decisions, from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, is the front runner to be the new Attorney General.
the JURIST'S Paper Chase has more about Gonzalez here.
The man behind all the President's bad decisions, from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, is the front runner to be the new Attorney General.
the JURIST'S Paper Chase has more about Gonzalez here.
sorry World
but you're getting 4 more years of this. And no... we're not thrilled either.
photo courtesy of sorryeverybody.com
photo courtesy of sorryeverybody.com
bad news for...
spammers. Cool, now they can bother their cell mates about Viagra, Vioxx, hair growth treatment, or refinancing.
ya don't say
According to Jim Warren (deputy managing editor, Chicago Tribune), one of his 'best childhood friends' was Bill Kristol (managing editor, The Weekly Standard). Hmmmm, who knew?
update: this is interesting
liberation hypocrisy
Sunday's Washington Post has this editorial about the genocidal violence that's been occurring in Darfur, Sudan for years with (until recently) little or no international attention. In this case innocent civilians are being killed en masse by radical fundamentalist Islamic militias supported by the Sudanese government.
Based on our rationale for the war in Iraq, this presents a quandry for the Bush administration. Did we go to war to liberate the Iraqi people? Was it about ending a state that supports terrorism? Was it about oil? The situation in Sudan involves ALL of these things, so it seems pretty hypocritical that we sit on our hands while scores of Sudanese civilians are killed or displaced by precisely the kind of people we should be targeting in the "War on Terror".
Have we lost our priorities? Is our military stretched too thin? Or does political haymaking trump the lives of Sudanese men, women and children?
05 November 2004
Prepare to be liberated
bitches!
Earlier today, residents said U.S. planes dropped leaflets urging women and children to leave the city
Today's Disinfopedia factoid
on the military-industrial complex:
Each major element of the George Walker Bush administration's national security strategy -- from the doctrines of preemptive strikes and "regime change" in Iraq, to its aggressive nuclear posture and commitment to deploying a Star Wars-style missile defense system -- was developed and refined before the Bush administration took office, at corporate-backed conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the National Institute for Public Policy and the Project for a New American Century.
Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top Defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy.
may as well bring this back to the top
editoriale: regime change for iran... to remind everyone of what's in store for the next 4 years. YAY! More wars!
from the 'sleep tight files'
The Australian: Terrorists threaten 'unbearable hell'
Nice going red state yahoos.
want the answer?
Q: Was Grover Norquist working for Islamic terrorists?
A: seemingly, and rapidly approaching 'probably'
related note: I encourage everyone to read the full text of Abdurahman Alamoudi's indictment, originally posted in June. It is revealing.
stating the obvious
I love Josh Marshall... I think he's a brilliant, insightful and invaluable reporter... but this post about the GOP's campaign tactics does little more than state what has been plainly obvious to me for a long time. From a GOP campaign perspective, this is all you need to know, and it's been no mystery that this is their approach to winning the hearts and minds of American voters:
"Tear the country apart. And once it's broken, our chunk will be bigger."
The only question I had was: could this calculated devisiveness be as effective as they had hoped it would be? Or would people finally begin to see through the fog and realize that they're being played? Obviously it worked. And don't think for a moment that it's going to get better from this point. Karl Rove has been positively reinforced... and the American voting public proved they were about as informed as I expected (not very). Karl lowered America's expectations of their President, and an underwhelming perfomer won his reelection bid as a result. Expect 4 more years of rhetoric, wedge issues, and an even more divided electorate in 2008, because what Bush plans to accomplish in this 2nd term will make his first term look sterile.
03 November 2004
so much for the hope for...
rational governing. We've got a mandate for culture war instead, at least according to Andrew Sullivan. I agree.
Today is JUST BE GLAD YOU'RE DONE WITH YOUR APPLICATION day
it's also the End of the World as we know it... but we're gonna try and forget about that for a while.
some mandate
No More Mister Nice Blog has this rundown of previously successful incumbents. Check it out. The short version: In the history of successful incumbent Presidents, none has ever won by so small a margin. But we're about to start hearing about a Bush 'mandate'.... ?
can Dems heal and move on?
reading this from Josh Marshall may help... or, maybe it won't. Who knows?
I do know this though, the Bush administration has (from their perspective) taken from this election the belief that they've received a mandate from America to continue pushing their backwards, outdated agendas. With more than 50% of the vote, and a stronger Republican majority in both houses of Congress, there isn't much chance that anyone can stop them.
Enjoy the next 4 years, America. You're about to get what you asked for, I hope you like it.
Diebold's Political Machine
Diebold's Political Machine
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"
today is TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY day
regretfully, it's also still finish your damn application day. But some things are more important.
30 October 2004
remember this?
Doesn't this (NYT: "Video Shows G.I.'s at Weapon Cache") pretty much make blaming the Russians a little pointless?
details details
their editors couldn't have picked a worse time to miss this one.
Alisa Bowen, head of Reuters.co.uk: "Reuters has reputation for accuracy"
Today is FINISH YOUR APPLICATION day
I'm putting this here so that every single time you look at this page today, you'll be reminded that you still have to finish that incredibly long application for Federal government employment. No, it won't do you any good to wait until after election day to decide whether or not you even want to work for the Feds, and no, it won't do you any good to cry about it either. So get off your ass and go finish up... Maybe when you're done you can play a poker tournament.
And stop talking to yourself in 3rd person.
29 October 2004
mmmmmm
looking for the perfect girl? Check liegirls.com for sexy women who are willing to say just about anything to make you happy. Click here to view their commercial. (windows media player)
Content disclaimer update:
Don't worry, this isn't an actual porn site. =)
28 October 2004
The Economist endorses...
Kerry for President, reversing their position from 2000. Bad news for republicans.
almost halloween: what are you wearing?
here are some suggestions... maybe "Jenna Bush's liver"... ? Or the "Arrested Protester"? Or the "Littlest Prisoner at Abu Ghraib"?
guess we killed enough
that we don't need to kill any more. I wonder if these gun nuts actually thought that an 84 lb baby bear (less than 1 year old) would end up hurting them? If so, they shouldn't be allowed to possess weapons in the first place.
update: Hey, whattya know? Here's exactly the kind of nut I was talking about.
(How exactly do you tell if a bear is bad? Would that be the one with the six year olds leg in his mouth?)How many 6 year olds have been eaten by a bear in the State of Maryland?
What happened at Al-QaQaa? Blame the Russians
according to Drudge (laugh), and the Moonie Times, quoting John Shaw, Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security, Russian Intelligence "almost certainly" removed the explosives.
Hmmmmm. I tend to believe Marshall far more than than flack that keeps coming from the echo chamber. Wake me when they get their story straight.
27 October 2004
from 
silly little wingnut
Rush's baby brother slings this crap about how Kerry can't keep you safe. So pathetic that it's actually funny.
Memphis Flyer for Kerry
EDITORIAL: FOR A STRONGER, SAFER, SANER AMERICA "Since its foundation in 1989, The Memphis Flyer has strictly adhered to a policy of not endorsing candidates for public office..... This year's extraordinary presidential campaign, however, requires our making an exception to our traditional non-endorsement policy. Four more years of George W. Bush is a potential disaster of such magnitude that we feel obliged to add our editorial voice to those of so many other newspapers around this country, and declare our support for John F. Kerry's candidacy for the presidency."
the GOP's new man at CIA
great question by laura rozen on the delay by the CIA in submitting their draft internal report, which reportedly calls out specific 'senior administration officials' for poor performance handling intelligence prior to 9/11.
"Will anyone remember the obstruction of Congressional oversight the next time it's time to approve a CIA budget?"
General Wesley Clark: hot off the press
via USNewswire, Wesley Clark issued this statement in response to Bush's curious quote from this morning.
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Statement from General Wesley Clark in Response to President Bush's Remarks Today" "'Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that '...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief.' 'President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.' 'By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief.'
bad news for republicans
36 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have switched their endorsements... and now support John Kerry.
"The Orlando Sentinel has backed every Republican seeking the White House since Richard M. Nixon in 1968. Not this time."more here
Kevin Drum hits a homerun
on Dick Cheney's recent outburst at a CIA briefer who pointed out to Das Vice Fuhrer that Saddam Hussein had not materially supported al-Zarqawi, contrary to the echo chamber's fear mongering talking points. Cheney's reaction after hearing this?
Cheney reacted with fury, screaming at the briefer that CIA was trying to get John Kerry elected by contradicting the president's stance that Saddam had supported terrorism and therefore needed to be overthrown.Kevin Drum, at The Washington Monthly:
"You can't excise a cancer if you spend your time screaming at the lab because the biopsy report isn't what you expected. Why would anyone think that Bush and Cheney can successfully fight terrorism if they willfully refuse to understand the true nature of the threat?"
and the winner is...
If there is a God in heaven, I hope he subscribes to The Washington Post and read today's edition. Today they cover the various electoral college scenarios that we might find ourselves dealing with (although highly unlikely).... in less than 1 week.
1 week? Is that all?
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU
And you still manage to &$@% things up?
"60,000 mailed ballots missing, Broward elections office says"
GOP hijinks in Florida
Looks like the GOP's plan wasn't super secret enough... this report from the BBC details more evidence of disenfranchisement, targeting (again) Florida's black voters. Rest assured they're trying this in other battleground States too.
A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.
Where's Osama?
According to 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman, he's living safely in Pakistan, still receiving money from his Saudi family. But don't worry, although this guy is pretty sure where he is, he's also pretty sure that we couldn't capture him because he's with so many like-minded terrorists who will protect him, and then something about Vietnam.
Whatever. It's sad how the Vietnam references fly when it comes to catching Osama, but they're shunned when mentioned in the context of Iraq.
So let me get this straight: We know where he is, but we can't kill him because there are too many people around him that are also bent on reigning Holy terror on America?
Does that make sense to anyone else? Where's the 'war' part of the War on Terror?
26 October 2004
Election 2004(th Estate)
Last week, Charles Peters, guest blogging over at Washington Monthly, had this very pointed post on the media's responsibility to ensure that the public is truthfully informed on election issues by cutting through the rhetoric coming from both campaigns. The major premise is that the majority of Americans who consider terrorism their #1 issue when determining who they'll vote for overwhelmingly support George Bush, despite a strikingly underwhelming record actually fighting it.
This brings me back to another issue that's been bothering me for some time; that the GOP (generally) has managed to convince their base that the media cannot be trusted, and that they shouldn't rely on anything that they hear from mainstream media because the entire media 'world' is out to get them, whether it's referring to CNN as the Communist News Network, or President Bush laughing at the mention of The Washington Post during the debates, or his ridiculous comment about 'the mainstream media' during the same debate. They ignorantly claim that news organizations are 'filtering' out good news in Iraq to paint an artificially uglier picture than reality would otherwise show... yada yada... Meanwhile FOX', The Weekly Standard, Newsmax, WND, et al receive "atta-boys" from the administration because their programming is based almost entirely on promoting a GOP agenda.
In less than 2 weeks we will be in the midst of an election unlike any we have experienced before. The public is divided right down the middle... half scared to death, convinced that Kerry doesn't know how to fight the war on terror; strangely afraid to let go of the President who put them in this situation in the first place. The same man who scoffs when questioned about his ability to make it right in the end. And damnit if it doesn't seem like most of these people get their news exclusively from FOX.
Yeah, I realize I'm over-simplifying and generalizing, but the results are undeniable. There is a stark difference between reality and perception when it comes to FOX viewers. It has affected people in such a way that FOX alone has poisoned the well. The credibility of objective journalists is under assault by virtue this overtly biased programming.
It seems MOST crucial that, during the next 2 weeks, the media cut through campaign rhetoric and report the FACTS... period! When facts are being manipulated by campaign officials (or your own President or Vice President) for political expedience then there is an occupational responsibility for those in the news industry to hold those officials accountable for their misstatements. And no, I don't expect that FOX would change their ways, but that raises the stakes for the rest of the media to prove that they DO HAVE INTEGRITY. FOX has already proven that they have none.
We need reporters, journalists and editors to revisit why they entered the industry, because as a whole they are effectively proving the Bush administration’s rhetoric correct... that they are not objective arbiters of fact, but (more accurately) sounding boards for corporate owners and their wealthiest advertisers, all of whom happen to have gained the most from Bush’s silly tax cut.
Today, Laura Rozen has this post on today's Boston Globe article where she highlights how calculated misconceptions and deceipt by the Bush administration could have long-term effects on the public's trust in their government. These are the things that help me determine who I'm voting for. Simply put, I'm voting for the guy less likely to lie to me.
[From the Globe piece:] The explanation for the Bush divide seemed to come from another poll released last week, this one by the Harris organization. It found sharply diverging views of the facts about Iraq and the 9/11 attacks between Bush's supporters and Democrat John F. Kerry's. In many cases, Bush's supporters -- representing a large swath of the electorate -- went beyond the assertions of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in describing dangers posed by prewar Iraq.Forty-one percent of all respondents, for instance, agreed that ''Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the US on 9/11." This interpretation persists even after Cheney, in his debate with Democratic rival John Edwards, denied ever suggesting such a thing.
In addition, 38 percent believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the US invaded, despite the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that none existed.
And a large majority of 62 percent agreed that ''Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda," even though the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee said he did not.
[laura rozen] What are the consequences that so many people can be taught to believe something not true? They could believe anyone has done it. Those who push such falsehoods should beware. They could become the victims of their own deliberate conspiracy mongering. Because they have demonstrated that for a large number of people the truth doesn't matter, is something to be manipulated. It's a dangerous lesson.
Indeed.
RNC: Up is Down
from Salon.com Politics
As the mountain of newspaper endorsements pile up in favor of Sen. John Kerry, including dozens from dailies that backed Bush in 2000, the Bush/Cheney campaign is dismissing the trend as no big deal. "Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie told CNN last week. That spin comes straight out of the GOP handbook that insists the mainstream press tilts to the left, so of course newspapers love Democrats come Election Day. Only problem is it's not accurate. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Since 1940 when the industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior, corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, president Ronald Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy re-election win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. In 2000, the overwhelming trend towards Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four yeas ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally." E&P's results come from industry-wide surveys it conducted among 800 top newspaper executives one week before the election. Asked how they were going to vote in 2000, 59 percent of newspaper publishers signaled they were voting for Bush, compared to just 20 percent for Gore. And even among newsroom editors, Bush won support among 33 percent, compared to just to 24 percent for Gore. As E&P noted in 2000, "One has to wonder: whatever happened to the so-called 'liberal press'?" The better question for the Bush/Cheney team is, why have all those GOP publishers abandoned the president this time around? -- Eric Boehlert
Sawt Al-Jihad to Jihadists: "Intensify fight during Ramadan"
From MEMRI, through the CRA Terrorism Update.
In issue #27 of Sawt Al-Jihad, an Internet journal affiliated with the branch of Al-Qa'ida based in the
25 October 2004
Shorter NY Times: Alberto Gonzales is a bad man
whose chief concern is finding innovative ways to limit your freedoms.
After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
This is interesting though:
"Everybody who was involved in this process had, in my mind, a white hat on," Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White House counsel, said in an interview. "They were not out to be cowboys or create a radical new legal regime. What they wanted to do was to use existing legal models to assist in the process of saving lives, to get information. And the war on terror is all about information."
He's right, the war on terror IS about information. In fact more information is exactly what the American people need. What they DON'T need are misleading interpretations of information, massaged information, or just plain old disinformation. If we expect to win the war on terror then we better start being truthful with the American public. INFORM THEM. Let them know the true nature of the terror threat. What is the terrorists' intent? Who is their enemy? What goal do they aim to acheive? And let the American public know what they can do to help.
Terrorists want to incite fear. So long as our government continues to be vague about the threat there will remain a heightened sense of unease. If we continue to use the threat index disingenuously, rather than as a bonafide warning system, then malaise will continue to be a factor in public perception. If we continue to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq, we will NEVER escape the cycle of violence associated with radical Islamic terrorism. Moreover, secret meetings held by administration officials with the express purpose of bypassing due process and granting unreasonable legal powers to the executive branch is not what the American public needed to keep them safe, but don't tell that to Gonzales' crew. And why do these guys habitually meet in echo chamber environments? In this instance without SoS Colin Powell, NSA Condoleeza Rice or consultation of Congress? Because dissenters are not welcome and opposing points of view be damned. They had a mission with an expected outcome, and nobody was going to interfere. Par for the course.
American Conservative Magazine
Endorses John Kerry for President
Well not exactly, but one of their editors does... another endorses a constitution party candidate, one is for nobody, this guy is endorsing some libertarian, here's that constitution party guy again, this frickin guy is endorsing nader?????, and here is 1 vote for some guy named bush.
Who was wrong?
The Bush administration swears that nobody warned them that coalition troops would not be treated like Santa Claus upon 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Of course, many in and around Washington know this to be patently untrue (or what you might call another one of those EX-A-GER-A-SHUNS).
And then there's this report from the USA Today: Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency
Cleveland Plain Dealer publisher: "Endorse Bush or no one"
like one of those oft-forwarded emails, this through julia (of sisyphus shrugged)... originally from skippy:
meanwhile, back at the liberal media skippy (y,sctp) informs us that the editorial board of the Cleveland Plain[s just Plain, so I'm told, and apparently a misnomer at that] Dealer, in prominent swing state Ohio, voted overwhelmingly to endorse Kerry and were overruled by their publisher, who insisted that they endorse Bush. The Plain Dealer will not be endorsing this year."
Josh Marshall: unanswered questions in Iraqi looting fiasco
"TPM Assignment Desk: a list of questions reporters might do well to get to
the bottom of in this looted explosives story ..."
Much more here.
Too scared to vote: Part DCXLVII
Bush: No Intel on Plans for Election Day Terror Attack... (but that won't stop me from hitting the morning talk show circuit to remind you that bad people want to kill you and your family, with weapons that they may not have, but we're not going to tell you that).
Sleep tight. George will take care of you.
Bill Vaughn on what's wrong with America
"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election." -from The Quotations Page
Ashlee Simpson = Milli Vanilli: Part III
OK, well it took about 48 hours... but finally everyone is on it. Here are more Ashlee Simpson links than you'll care to see, and HOT99.5 has the video so check it out for yourself.
24 October 2004
DonkeyRising: Kerry Leads in 10th Straight PA Poll
The Emerging Democratic Majority WebLog - DonkeyRising:
"John Kerry leads George Bush 48-46 percent of Pennsylvania RV's, according to a Morning Call/Muhlenberg College Poll conducted 10/17-22. This makes 10 straight Pennsylvania Polls showing Kerry leading."
Ashlee Simpson = Milli Vanilli: Part II
editoriale: Ashlee Simpson = Milli Vanilli
and now she's lying to cover her ass..... eyyeow... bad idea. Her band 'started playing the wrong song' so she 'decided to do a hoedown'???
Ummmm.... sorry Ashlee, but everyone saw you with their own eyes. It's a really bad move throwing a lie on top of it all.
You got busted. And with all the TALENTED musicians out there who don't get a chance to play on SNL, it's very enjoyable to see a no-talent wannabe get exposed for lip-synching. Priceless. Thanks for the memories, your 15 minutes are over now.
22 October 2004
eh, what does he know?
from OperationTruth.org...
From the Top down My name is Roy Vincent Edwards. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as Operation Desert Storm. I served in the U.S. Army twice. The first in 1990 to 1995 and then 2001 to 2004. I would have considered staying in if I felt that our current adminstration had been up front and honest to us and the American people. From the top down the civilian heads of our armed forces have lied and mislead the American public about the war in Iraq both in validation of reasons for the war and about the situation on the ground. The [sic] sent us in to this conflict without enough troops, not enough or sub-standard equipment, and tied the hands of our military leaders to do the job right.