A Rational Animal

2003-07-13T17:22:00.000-07:00

We've moved!

You are hereby invited to join us at our new home! Don't forget to update your blogrolls and bookmarks!

2003-07-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

Around Blogtopia (y! stbkctp!)

All right, it's time for some long-overdue linking. I've been meaning to post a lot of these for several days now, so forgive my tardiness, all.

Steve at Yellow Doggerel Democrat has a great new bit of doggerel up, reminding W whose shoes he'll never be able to fill.

Cowboy Kahlil has (fortunately for us) repeatedly broken his pledge to limit his postings to Sundays for the month of July. There's too much there that you should read to post individual links; just start reading an keep going until you reach the spot where you left off last time.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft informs us that another two dozen detainees have arrived at Gitmo - and in addition to the fact that many of the existing 625 inmates have been held for more than a year, four of the 15 suicide attempts by inmates have occurred in just the last three weeks.

Dean supporters take note: Aziz at Howard Dean 2004 tells us that Dean himself will guest-blog for Lawrence Lessig all next week whil Lessig's vacationing.

Over at dKos, they're all over the Niger lies, and the evidence is mounting.

And finally, one I've been intending to post all week, and that I really regret not posting sooner: The folks at Lunaville are doing all of us a tremendous service. They're doing the difficult work of maintaining and updating a database, with humanizing details, of the coalition casualties in Iraq. It's in a wonderfully accessible format, and we'll shortly have the chart posted on our page with a link to Lunaville. They're also maintaining Billmon's archives of quotes, here and here, and Quiddity's archive of quotes, here. Lunaville's got some of the best, and best-organized, information I've seen - please make them a daily read.

2003-07-12T20:41:00.000-07:00

Anne Appelbaum, WaPo Wing-Nut.

I don't ever want to hear another word about how liberal the Post is, ever again. Their editorial board's slew rightward continues, this time by ed board member Anne Appelbaum, who has a column in today's Telegraph:

You Brits have not been cheated by the US

[snip]

"Many high-ranking members of the US Administration would be enormously surprised, for example, to learn that the Prime Minister has been so loudly criticised in his own country for failing to extract more favours from George Bush.

As far as we are concerned, Blair received everything he asked for, in return for his support on Iraq. After all, what he really, really wanted, as practically no one in Britain seems to remember now, was for the US to stick with the convoluted United Nations weapons inspection process, and for America to request a second UN resolution, in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion."

"As far as we are concerned"? Who you including in that "we"? Speak for yourself, Annie, girl - well, and maybe for your fellow Ann-without-an-e-and-the-tongue-of-a-viper, the Coulter broad. You don't speak for me.

"Everything he asked for." Right, Anne. We did not stick with inspection process - if we had, we wouldn't be in this mess today, with American troops dying daily and untold numbers of Iraqi civilians dead.

Oh, and that second U.N. resolution? Yeah, right. Like we gave the U.N. any sort of choice, and like it would have made any damn difference anyway. The cowboys at 1600 were determined to go to war, evidence and international support be damned. And now we're damned, by what they've done in our name.

"Even if you don't remember this episode in Britain, we recall quite vividly the humiliating spectacle of American diplomats grovelling before Cameroon's UN delegation, and the sight of Colin Powell, our dignified Secretary of State, begging and pleading and nevertheless failing to get the Mexicans, our next door neighbours, to sign on - and all in order to pass a resolution that we thought, quite frankly, completely pointless. But the Prime Minister's lawyers told him he needed it, and, despite the embarrassment, we dutifully tried."

"Humiliating"? I'll tell you what's "humiliating," Anne. "Humiliating" is the sight of our supposed leaders behaving like a bunch of petty tyrants, imposing their will on the rest of the world, and destroying an entire nation in the process.

Oh, and again about that "we" - maybe you thought the resolution was completely pointless, but a lot of the rest of us sure as hell didn't. In fact, we thought it was absolutely essential to the legitimacy of the whole thing. So don't go speaking for me there, either.

"No one ever denied that there were also other reasons for the war - humanitarian and strategic, and (yes) oil, Israel, revenge for the Twin Towers, and democracy in the Middle East - and so no one feels particularly cheated. For this reason, we don't feel, or at least not yet, that the British-American partnership in Iraq was a terrible political disaster."

Damn, but you're big with that "we," aren't you? Um, hate to break it to you, honey, but I feel particularly cheated, and I feel that the whole thing, from start to finish, "was a terrible political disaster." Oh, and I don't recall oil, Israel, or revenge - or humanitarianism, for that matter - ever being offered as reasons for the war. What I do recall is that we were clerly told that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the U.S., which we now know, unequivocally, was not true.

"Over here, we thought British and American soldiers fought gallantly, side by side. Over there, you thought the British troops spent most of their time correcting American mistakes. Over here, when Bush and Blair stand together, we all gasp in awe at the Prime Minister's eloquence. Over there, you all cringe in horror at his subservience."

I imagine most Brits think that the troops of both nations "fought gallantly," as you put it. And maybe we "gasp in awe" at Tony Blair's eloquence in part because it so dramatically underscores the bumbling ineptitude of the current occupant of the White House. But many an American, myself included, also "cringe[s] at [Blair's] subservience." We appreciate his loyalty to the U.S., but we wish, no pun intended, that he'd picked his battle more wisely.

"Worse, the vast gulf in perception continues. Last Friday, the President told his CIA chief to fall on his sword and apologise for allowing some allegedly dodgy British intelligence about Iraq to appear in a presidential speech."

"Allegedly dodgy"? C'mon, Anne, I'm going to have to start calling you Coulter II. We know it was dodgy - hell, the whole world knows now.

"If Blair is facing a crisis over WMD, Bush is in trouble because he implicitly promised Americans that their troops would be home from Iraq within weeks."

Um, you think that's the only reason W's in hot water? Does the phrase "Niger forgeries" ring any bells? How about the phrase "Bush lied?" Hmm, guess not. It hasn't been able to penetrate that wing-nut fog around your brain.

Thanks, Annie. It's not like we didn't have enough problems with credibility on the world stage already. But remember this, you administration suck-up: You don't speak for me.

2003-07-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

Oh, for . . . .

Will no one rid us of this turbulent egomaniac?

The Telegraph is reporting that Ralph Nader has definitely decided to run again in '04:

"Ralph Nader, the maverick Green candidate held responsible by many for the defeat of Al Gore in the last presidential elections, is preparing to stand again in 2004."

[snip]

"Unimpressed by muted Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq, and unhappy with the party's timid campaigning tactics, the 69-year-old veteran activist is now contemplating a repeat performance. Privately, he has told the American Green Party that he is prepared to run again on a 'strong liberal message'.

"'The Democrats seem incapable of defending our country against the Bush marauders,' Mr Nader told The Telegraph last week. 'One benefit of me running again would be to teach the Democrats how to deconstruct the Bush regime.

"'Look at the recent examples of corporate crime at companies such as Enron. These are the companies that fund the Republican cause. They are [Vice-President] Dick Cheney's buddies. But the Democrats have never led with the issue. Bush's foreign policy also needs to be taken on aggressively, not hesitantly. We need to get across the message that he's endangering America.'"

Warning: profanity alert.

Who the fuck does this arrogant asshole think he is? The Messiah? Well, yes, I suppose so. Hey, Ralphie, I got news for ya: I can think of nine (well, eight - Joe Lieberman's a hooker for the GOP) who are already getting that message across a hell of a lot better than you ever could. Oh, and by the way: When the Telegraph called you "straight-talking," they didn't have the faintest idea what they were talking about. Any moron who couldn't see "a dime's worth of difference" between W and Gore should have been committed forthwith. That's not straight talking, that's certifiable insanity.

More wisdom straight from the horse's ass:

"While Democrats have never forgiven him for splitting the liberal vote, Mr Nader refuses to accept that his candidacy may have handed the presidency to George W Bush.

"'Twelve times more Democrats in Florida voted for George W Bush than voted for the Nader ticket. Gore couldn't even get his home state of Tennessee, which would have made him president. He couldn't get the state of Arkansas. And he didn't do well on the debates.'

This time around, he argues, Democrats could defeat him by adopting his message. 'What are they complaining about?' he said. 'If I'm a danger they can always take my agenda. And if liberals believe that a tongue-tied, timid Democrat can really beat Bush, then they can vote for him.'"

No, Ralphie. We believe that a strong, assertive, principled Democrat will beat Bush. That would be someone completely unlike you, you unprincipled, egomaniacal, pompous ass.

2003-07-12T19:26:00.000-07:00

News Flash! Howell Raines Says Something Sensible!

The Guardian is givng Howell Raines a platform to blast his former employers at The New York Times. But buried among his whinging and bluster is one passage that this nation's "leaders" (and one in particular) should read and emulate:

"'Nevertheless, I was captain of the ship, the ship hit a rock under my watch. The details of how it happened are irrelevant to the fact that the responsibility was mine,' he said."

What a novel concept! Taking responsibility! Can you picture le dauphin debile doing the same?

Nah. Neither can I.

2003-07-11T20:17:00.000-07:00

Dean all over the administration on the Niger lies.

Howard Dean was just interviewed by Jonathan Karl on CNN, and he lets the administration have it with both barrels:

On Tenet's gallowglass routine:

"So I don't know what the president knew and when the president knew it, but I know that this intelligence-handling is a disaster for the administration at best, and either no one got to the secretary of defense or the president, or his own senior advisors withheld information.

So this is a serious credibility problem, and it's a lot deeper than just the Iraq-Niger deal, it has to do with assertions by the secretary of defense that he knew where weapons were that turned out not to be there, it has to do with assertions by the vice president there was a nuclear program that turned out not to exist, and assertions made by the president himself, not just about the acquisition of uranium, but also about the ability of [deposed Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] to use chemical weapons on the United States. We need a full-blown public investigation not held in Congress but by an outside bipartisan commission. '

On Rice pointing the finger at Tenet:

"It's beginning to sound a little like Watergate. They start throwing people over the side. The deeper you go, the more interesting it will be. It's very clear that it may be George Tenet's responsibility, but that information also existed in the State Department and it also existed in the vice president's office, so they will not get away with simply throwing George Tenet over the side."

Let's hope Congress recognizes the wisdom of those words.

2003-07-11T19:21:00.000-07:00

Blogathon 2003!

That's right, folks! I'm blogging for charity on July 26th - 24 hours straight. And I need SPONSORS!

I know that both M.B. at Wampum and Jesse at Pandagon are also participating. M.B.'s raising money for Cure Autism Now; Jesse, for Amnesty International. Both are extremely important and worthy causes, and if your charitable interests lie in either of those directions, please, go to their sites and end some money their way.

I'll be blogging on behalf of Relief International, an NGO doing important work on the reconstruction in Iraq, including the rebuilding (and simply building) pf the educational and health infrastructures. They place special emphasis on programs that aid under-served groups, including women, children, the elderly, and Iraq's minority populations.

So if you've been feeling as frustrated as I have over the war and the ensuing humanitarian crisis, and you're looking for a substantive way to make your own contribution, please sponsor me for a few bucks. It will be money well spent. (And if you're feeling really flush, then sponsor me and M.B. and Jesse - get a three-fer and bank some good karma!)

Note: Due to technical difficulties, my "Sponsor Me" logo/link won't be posted until sometime Sunday. If you want to commit between now and then, drop me a note at Lilith@arationalanimal.org. I'll send you a reminder when the link's functioning properly.

2003-07-11T15:06:00.000-07:00

Media Spines, Part II

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift gets kudos for this one:

No Mistakes Were Made
Haunted by his father’s defeat and the accidental nature of his own presidency, Bush won’t ever concede missteps on Iraq

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

July 11 — President Bush is certain he did the right thing by going to war in Iraq. Bush never second-guesses himself, a trait that permeates his administration and contains the seeds of his undoing.

Clift takes off the gloves - and draws blood:

"HOW CAN BUSH fix the mess in Iraq if he denies any missteps? This administration’s unwillingness to ever admit a mistake makes it unlikely it will expand the force size in Iraq, take responsibility for the phony intelligence Bush touted as a prelude to war or eat enough humble pie to get military and financial help from other nations. The White House won’t acknowledge anything that might chip away at Bush’s commander-in-chief image. That’s the nature of the reelection machine that Karl Rove has constructed in his role as Bush’s consigliere. To admit flaws risks losing the luster of the wartime president.

"Bush’s insecurities are at the heart of it. Haunted by his father’s defeat and the accidental nature of his own presidency, Bush never wants to hand his enemies ammunition. He can’t let cracks appear or the whole edifice could crumble. The moment Bush landed on the USS Lincoln, he was caught in his own net of hubris. The juvenile taunt—”Bring ‘em on”—diminishes the seriousness of sending men and women into an urban guerilla battle that nobody prepared them for. American soldiers in Iraq are going on the record with reporters to say how unhappy they are, and how vulnerable they feel. You don’t do that in the military unless the conditions are dire."

Other gems:

"The American taxpayers are paying the price for the way Bush went into Iraq, arrogant and alone. Under persistent questioning, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraq is costing $3.9 billion a month. But he and others are vague about the administration’s strategy, except to stay the course and admit no mistakes. 'If they have a plan, why aren’t they sharing it?' said a frustrated Senate Republican."

[snip]

"Claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger wasn’t a judgment call. By the White House’s own admission, it was a fraud, a lie. The envoy sent to investigate the intelligence in February 2002, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, sought out the information and informed the administration. The only question is how high up the food chain his report got. Did it stop at low-level officials as the White House claims, or did it go all the way to the president and vice president?"

[snip]

"CIA director George Tenet sent Wilson to Niger after Vice President Cheney asked for an investigation. Wilson asks why Cheney’s office would demand this inquiry and not want to know the result. If Bush really was misled, wouldn’t he want to know who embarrassed him? Who made him a liar? In a White House as obsessed with loyalty as this one, the fact that no heads rolled strongly indicates this could go all the way to Cheney, if not to Bush himself. Who knows how much Cheney tells the boss. Bush is not a detail guy. He may not have wanted to know."

Clift softens it a bit in her final paragraph, opining that most Americans don't care, and/or dismiss attacks on Bush & Co. as partisanship. However, she concludes with a scenario guaranteed to give you nightmares:

"The hawkish neocons who urged the war on Iraq are dismayed over what’s happening because Iraq was supposed to be easy. 'Iraq was the low-hanging fruit,' says a Republican Senate aide, who backed the war. Taking down Saddam was a test case for the real thing, regime change in Iran. Now the administration is standing down on its rhetoric toward Iran, a welcome intrusion of reality in Bush’s fantasy presidency."

And how about those final three words? "Bush’s fantasy presidency"? Talk about your double entendres!

2003-07-11T14:55:00.000-07:00

News Flash! Sudden Upsurge in Media Spines!

In the just the last two hours, two major outlets of the SCLM have posted pointed critiques of the administration to their Web sites.

The first comes to us from The New York Times, via Michael Gordon's "Dispatches," which he's been writing for the paper from Iraq:

"The Defense Department has come up with a novel explanation for the looting, robberies and shootings that have afflicted Iraq since Saddam Hussein was overthrown: They are the unavoidable consequence of a triumphant war plan.

"The undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas J. Feith, made the case this week. Having just returned from four months with American forces in Iraq and Kuwait, I can attest that this is an argument that I have heard only in Washington. But the argument reflects the Pentagon's line in an increasingly partisan debate over the security, or lack thereof, in post-Saddam Iraq. It deserves a hearing and it is useful to spell it out."

You can feel the scorn underpinning Gordon's description of Feith's rationalization - er, rationale:

"Allied forces, Mr. Feith argues, gained tactical surprise by invading Iraq with far fewer forces than the United States employed in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The element of surprise and the swiftness of the allied advance were central to a strategy that was intended to topple the regime before it could resort to chemical and biological weapons or employ a scorched-earth policy.

"Thus, the allies did not have to contend with weapons of mass destruction, blown-up bridges or dams, food shortages, hordes of refugees and the widespread destruction of Iraq's oil fields. But it also meant that the allies did not have sufficient troops to keep order in and around Baghdad immediately after the regime was driven from power.

"'We are facing some of the problems brought on by our very success in the war, in particular, our ability to use speed to pre-empt many of the actions that we were afraid Saddam might take,' Mr. Feith said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'War, like life in general, always involves trade-offs. It is not right to assume that any current problems in Iraq can be attributed to poor planning.'

" In short, the Pentagon seems to be asserting that there was nothing it should have done differently. The disorder that afflicted Iraq in recent months was a necessary and acceptable consequence of a broader strategy for quickly winning the war. It was not preventable, and the strategy accepted this risk.

"The assertion that Pentagon planning for the occupation of Iraq was flawless is quite a claim, given the mounting allied casualty toll, the difficulty the United States has had in restoring basic services and the continued threat of economic sabotage. Democrats have been quick to question the administration's handling of the postwar situation, and some experts on Iraq also challenge the Pentagon's claim."

Gordon quotes Walter Lang, retired from the DIA and chief Middle East analyst during Gulf War I, as calling Feith's explanation "nonsense."

Gordon concludes:

"In his testimony to Congress this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that a special military team had been established to study the lessons of the war.

"Critics will be watching to see if that assessment will be based on the experience of the forces who were sent to Iraq or on the analyses of senior Defense Department civilians who have insisted all along that they had the perfect formulae."

[Next: The Clift Critique.]

2003-07-10T20:12:00.000-07:00

GO DEAN!!!

He's got the goods on the Niger lies.

Whether you're a Dean supporter or not, go check it out.

(Via Oliver Willis.)

2003-07-10T20:08:00.000-07:00

Yeah, the Post is really liberal.

Not with headlines like this:

Democrat Left Back in Vogue
Analysis: Progressives upend Clinton's efforts to move party to the center.
– David Von Drehle

(Yeah, it's only the headline on the Web site's home page, but that's even worse - more people will see it than the one that appears on the page with the actual article.)

You know, I really wish that supposedly nonpartisan and/or apolitical entitie would learn that it's not being balanced to buy into the Republicanized label. It's the Democratic Party - proper name, proper noun. It's not as though the -ic was something tacked on for descriptive purposes.

(Oh, why do I even bother? As my mother would say, consider the source.)

2003-07-10T19:28:00.000-07:00

CBS News takes the gloves off!

In the best display of spine by a U.S. media outlet I've seen thus far on the Niger forgeries story, CBS comes out swinging:

"The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true."

[snip]

"'There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,' said Powell.

"But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.

''I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,' Powell said."

Thanks to groovy Maru at WTF is it NOW?!? for scooping this! (And while you're there, check out her entire site.)

2003-07-10T18:51:00.000-07:00

How does Colin Powell manage to keep a straight face?

Earlier today, Powell defended W's inclusion of the Niger uranium story in the SotU, which the U.S. media dutifully reported:

"'There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,' Powell said in Pretoria, South Africa, where he was traveling with Bush. 'The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time.'''

[snip]

"'I didn't use it [in the presentation to the U.N.], and we haven't used it since,'' Powell said. 'But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union Address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion.'''

That statement, lest we forget, was made in the State of the Union address on January 28th.

According to The Independent, however, here's what Powell actually said:

"'I didn't think it was strong enough,' General Powell told reporters in Pretoria, South Africa, where he is accompanying the President on his tour of Africa. '[The information] was not standing the test of time ... I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since.'"

Funny how the Times/A.P. missed that part of it. Funny, too, how it once again takes a U.K. publication to point out that Powell decided the information was too weak to use on February 4th. That's right, folks - in a scant seven days the information went from being gospel truth to not strong enough to use - and we're only just now hearing that "admission."

I'd go bang my head against the wall, but it all seems so pointless.

2003-07-09T22:07:00.000-07:00

Anthony Cox, Google-Bomb Genius

He's the guy behind the "weapons of mass destruction"/"I'm feeling lucky" error page. Read how and why, here.

2003-07-09T21:27:00.000-07:00

Iraq: an audit of war

I must have overlooked Sunday's Observer, because I certainly missed this complex, nuanced piece by Jason Burke. He makes a real effort at balance, abd in fact probably errs on the side of giving too much credit to the official line. But still he is perpetually brought up short (perhaps in spite of himself) by the suffering:

"Electricity is described locally as the 'beating heart of Iraq'. At the moment the administrators are trying, without success, to resuscitate it. In the first two weeks of June, the last period for which figures are readily available, power provision to Baghdad actually fell, from 1,300MW to 800MW.

"Without electricity, there is no light, sanitation, water purification, irrigation, manufacturing capability and, as everyone here keeps saying, sleep. The rich - and journalists, NGO workers and CPA officials - have generators. Most simply sweat it out. "

[snip]

"But a few miles away is what once was the Saddam Children's Hospital. When I first visited Baghdad in 1999, the government minders took me, as they took every reporter, to see the children who, they said, were dying because of sanctions stopping the import of key medicines. I was shown a small boy, in intense pain and only hours from death.

"Last week the children were still dying. Saif Fallah, aged six, lay on a filthy, stained bed in a foul-smelling ward. His grandmother flicked the flies from the blood running from his nose and eyes. A year ago the boy was diagnosed with acute lymphoplastic leukaemia. By combining various drugs, the doctors were able to help Fallah fight the disease into remission. But the war interrupted the therapy, Fallah relapsed, and now there is little chance, without new and more effective medicine, that he will survive.

"Fallah's doctor, Ali Hussein, told me that four patients had already died because they had relapsed after a break in their treatment forced by the war. 'We were treating 200 people. All of their therapy was interrupted,' he said. 'Many more will die. We do not have the proper drugs nor do we have proper electricity, water, sanitation or oxygen supply. We had all of that before the war.' "

And crime is not just a problem for the troops. Burke refers obliquely to the rise in whaat he calls "sexual violence" - what only one other major news story I've seen has called "rape." Why isn't the rape of Iraqi women and girls a bigger story?

"The priority for most Iraqis is security. Although a foreigner driving around Baghdad does not feel threatened in the way he might in Mogadishu, Johannesburg or parts of Washington, locals are frightened. The looting in the immediate aftermath of the war has now evolved into more organised criminality. There are still 10 gunshot wounds treated each night in Ghadban's hospital - down from 30 or more each day two months ago. But before the war, with the state's monopoly on violence rigorously enforced, they never saw any such wounds. Now, in Baghdad and in the southern port city of Basra, nights are punctuated by automatic gunfire. Those police not purged by the post-war de-Baathification are not motivated, respected or, often, paid. Few of the 40,000 criminals released by Saddam in the last days of his rule have been caught.

"Though in some parts of Iraq religious groups or local community leaders have provided makeshift law enforcement, there has been a massive increase in crime almost everywhere. Carjacking and sexual violence are now widespread. Extortion is a growing business. The victims include many of those who are needed to get the country running again."

Burke concludes:

"Many Iraqis are still prepared to give the coalition a chance. But the British and American governments tipped an hour-glass when they invaded Iraq and the fine desert sand is falling fast. "

No question about that.

2003-07-09T20:48:00.000-07:00

Retired U.S. intelligence official says administration lied on Iraq.

The Guardian is reporting that Gregory Thielmann, who retired last September as a director in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and was involved in the ramp-up to the war, told reporters:

"'I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq.'

"He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: 'Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided.'"

[snip]

"At a press conference yesterday, Mr Thielmann said that, as of March 2003, when the US began military operations, 'Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbours or to the United States'.

"In one example, Mr Thielmann said a fierce debate inside the White House about the purpose of aluminium tubes bought by Baghdad had been 'cloaked in ambiguity'.

"While some CIA analysts thought they could be used for gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, the best experts at the energy department disagreed. But the national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said publicly that they could only be used for centrifuges.

"Mr Thielmann also said there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida. He added: 'This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude ... "We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support those answers".'" [Ed. note: emphasis added.]

I think Mr. Thielmann's statement speaks for itself.

2003-07-09T18:24:00.000-07:00

Oh, sure.

Now Rummy "would welcome participation by troops from France, Germany, and other countries" - so they can serve as cannon fodder just like our troops.

He adds: "'There seems to be a widely held impression that [Saddam Huessin's Ba'ath Party] regime loyalists are operating freely throughout the country, attacking coalition forces at will. That is clearly not the case. Large portions of Iraq are stable.'" Not "attacking coalition forces at will." Really? Tell it to experts at the href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-usa-occupation.html">War College.

2003-07-08T20:13:00.000-07:00

They're giving fake numbers in the attacks on the troops.

A new piece just posted on the Washington Post's Web site explains the sordid reasoning:

"The explosion, which military investigators say they believe was caused by a land mine planted on the side of the bridge, was witnessed by a Washington Post correspondent who was less than 30 yards away, driving onto the bridge and toward the Humvee. Although none of the Humvee's occupants was killed, the incident illustrated how resistance attacks have become an everyday occurrence for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Because the blast did not result in a death or serious injury, it was not mentioned to reporters by the U.S. military's public information office. But military officials acknowledged that such non-fatal attacks are more widespread than daily casualty figures reflect.' [Ed. note: emphasis added.]

This is also news to me:

"[Bremer] said the fatal, point-blank shooting of a soldier on Sunday at Baghdad University was the eighth incident that involved a shot to the neck area, above the soldier's flak jacket but below the helmet."

So in other words, it's the eighth execution of an American soldier. Let's call it what it is.

2003-07-08T20:01:00.000-07:00

The Exterminator Speaks.

Tom Delay on the evidence that the administration based its "reason" for waging war on Iraq on known forgeries:

"'It's very easy to pick one little flaw here or one little flaw there. The overall reason we went into Iraq was sound and morally sound. And it's not just because somebody forged or a made a mistake on whether Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear material from Niger or whatever.'"

I wish I had those creation-of-alternate-reality skills. I'd never have to face another problem again.

2003-07-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

MUSThe?

Why, why must le dauphin debile drag his religion into every single interaction he has with people of other nations?

There's been a lot of chatter tonight about his speech in Senegal, and how he supposedly came close to apologizing for slavery in the U.S. Okay, fine. But was this really necessary?

"In America, enslaved Africans learned the story of the exodus from Egypt and set their own hearts on a promised land of freedom. Enslaved Africans discovered a suffering Savior and found he was more like themselves than their masters."

This, in a nation that's 95% Muslim.

One point of amusement (or embarrassment): Apparently, his speechwriters can't spell any better than he can: " We can fairly judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery 'an evil of callosal magnitude.'" I wonder how he pronounced it.

2003-07-08T17:40:00.000-07:00

"My way or the highway," as usual.

Obviously not sated by his recent binge of telling Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and Israel what they will and won't do, le dauphin debile has begun bossing around another continent: Africa.

I missed it when he actually gave this speech on June 26th (maybe because the SCLM saw no reason to draw attention to his - ahem - inconsistencies?), but I heard part of it on C-SPAN early yesterday morning, so I went and pulled it off the White House Web site. A few choice words (Ed. note: emphasis added):

" The United States is also pressing forward to help end Africa's longest-running civil war in Sudan, which has claimed an estimated 2 million lives over 20 years. Progress over this past year, aided by the leadership of Kenya, has brought us to the edge of peace. Now the north and south must finalize a just and comprehensive peace agreement, and the world must support it.

"I've asked my Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan, former Senator John Danforth, to return to the region in two weeks. He will make clear that the only option on the table is peace. Both sides must now make their final commitment to peace and human rights, and end the suffering of Sudan."

The ONLY option?

"But there's a problem. There's a problem. At present, some governments are blocking the import of crops grown with biotechnology, which discourages African countries from producing and exporting these crops. The ban of these countries is unfounded; it is unscientific; it is undermining the agricultural future of Africa. And I urge them to stop this ban.

Nigeria's former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Hassan Adamu speaks for many in Africa. He speaks the truth. Here's what he said: 'To deny desperate, hungry people the means to control their futures by presuming to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic, it is morally wrong."

Presuming to know what's best for them? Paternalistic??? Oh, the irony.

"Under my proposal, money will go to developing nations whose governments are committed to three broad strategies: First, they must rule justly. Second, they must invest in the health and education of their people. And third, they must have policies that encourage economic freedom. "

In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

"Corrupt regimes that give nothing to their people deserve nothing from us. Governments that serve their people deserve our help, and we will provide that help."

Of course, it all depends on what your definition of "corrupt" is.

"Many African leaders are currently pledged to the path of political and economic reform. That shared commitment is expressed in the standards of NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Yet those standards are mocked by some on the continent, such as the leader of Zimbabwe, where the freedom and dignity of the nation is under assault. I urge all nations, including the nations of Africa, to encourage a return to democracy in Zimbabwe."

Would that be the same way we've encouraged a return to democracy in Iraq?

"America is committed to the success of Africa because we recognize a moral duty to bring hope where there is despair, and relief where there's suffering. America is committed to the success of Africa because we understand failed states spread instability and terror that threatens us all. America is committed to the success of Africa because the peoples of Africa have every right to live in freedom and dignity, and to share in the progress of our times."

If Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication, God save Africa from his "moral duties."

For that matter, God save us all from his "moral duties."

2003-07-08T16:41:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday . . .

to Tom.

2003-07-08T16:22:00.000-07:00

Steve Bell . . .

on real grounds for impeachment.

2003-07-07T22:19:00.000-07:00

So much for "smaller government."

2002 Federal Register Is Longest Ever
Page Count of Regulations Grows Under GOP, Study Finds

2003-07-07T22:05:00.000-07:00

NOW they tell us.

Today's Post will be running the following:

Iraq Claim in Error, Aide Says
White House: Uranium story shouldn't have been cited in State of Union.

"The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have claimed in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report that raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.'

Somehow I doubt it was prompted by the Brits. Their conclusions are old news at this point. No, I think the real hero here is most likely Joseph C. Wilson, IV, who authored that damning OpEd in Sunday's New York Times. After all, whatever comes out of the Commons can easily be dismissed as "Old Europe." It's a little tougher to contest the words that come straight out of the proverbial horse's mouth. (Although I must say that I'm surprised this bunch hasn't already launched a campaign to smear Wilson; Rove must be slipping.)

Of course, they are trying Condi's old "hindsight" spin:

"'Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech,' a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House."

Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. In other words, knowing that you'd get busted, you shouldn't have included it.

And this is really rich:

"A senior administration official said yesterday that a classified version of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs, completed last September, contains references to intelligence reports that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from three African countries, not just Niger. The other two countries are Namibia and Gabon, according to intelligence sources. The sources said the reports about other countries have not been confirmed and that some government analysts do not consider the information reliable."

Um - would that be less "reliable" than the freakin' forgeries? Yeah. Those forgeries. The ones you knew were forgeries nearly a year prior.

2003-07-07T20:34:00.000-07:00

What I can't understand about Kucinich supporters.

Now, before anyone goes crazy, let me say right off the bat that I can understand, at least in general terms, why people might support Kucinich. And although I'm currently backing Dean, if it were to come down to a race between Dennis and le dauphin debile, you can bet your sweet ass I'd vote for Dennis in a heartbeat.

However, I'm having some serious difficulty understanding how so many liberal bloggers can continually call him "clearly" or "obviously" the "most liberal" or "most progressive" of the Democratic candidates. Describing Kucinich this way completely ignores his well-established record on one issue that is traditionally high on the list for liberals and progressives: reproductive freedom.

Yes, I know, I know that he's had a sudden change of heart, and he now says that although he personally opposes abortion, he has never opposed Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to control her own body. Forgive me if I'm skeptical, but his voting record completely belies any such stance. I can't see this as anything more than an opportunistic "change of heart" by a candidate who nows that he doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chance being elected President as a Democrat unless he makes all the proper noises about supporting reproductive rights.

And I'm sorry, folks, but for me, this is a deal-breaker.

Some facts:

Dennis Kucinich had, until this year, anywhere from a 90% to a 95% approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee. The NRLC maintains on its Web site the voting records for every member of Congress going back to the 105th Congress. Below are summaries of Kucinich's votes (details available here):

105th: 20 possible votes. 1-18 concerned abortion-related issues; 19 and 20 were campaign finance reform. Dennis's score: 100% on the first 18.
106th: 20 possible votes. 1-17, abortion-related; 18, campaign finance reform; 19-20, assisted suicide. Dennis's score: 100% on all but #18.
107th: 16 possible votes. 1-4, 8-9, 11-16, abortion-related; 5-7, cloning; 10, campaign finance reform. Dennis's score: 71%, owing to "incorrect" votes (by their lights) on #9 (amendment to repeal ban on abortions in military medical facilities; #10 (as before, CFR); #11 (amendment to narrow prohibition on transportaqtion of minors across state lines for abortion); and #13 (amendment to IDE ban to preserve a woman's health). He also voted "present" on #14 (ban on IDE) and #16 (ban on "discriminating" against health-care providers, insurers, etc., who refuse to perform abortions or related services). These two votes were apparently acceptable to the NRLC.
108th: 5 possible votes thus far. 1-2 concerned cloning; 3-5, abortion-related issues. Dennis's score: Down to 40%, because although he voted per the NRLC on #1 and #2, he flipped on 3-5. Those votes occurred on May 22nd (3) and June 4th (4-5).

Call me cynical, but pro-choice votes in only the last six weeks do not, to my mind, a pro-choice legislator make - especially since those votes only occurred since his announcement on February 19th that he was forming an exploratory committee. And the current squatter in the Oval Office is an object lesson in the time-honored tradition of making campaign promises that a candidate has no intention of keeping, once given the chance to wield a little power.

Now, I will agree that, on economic issues, environmental issues, etc., Kucinich is probably the most liberal of the bunch. However, I don't see how he can reasonably be labeled "clearly" the "most liberal" in the entire field if his record on reproductive choice is so abysmal. And as I said, for me, that issue is a deal-breaker - it's too vitally important to women (and men, and children, and families) everywhere.

What's really astounding to me is that the fervently pro-Dennis members of the blogosphere [or blogtopia, if you prefer (y! sctp!)] have conmpletely ignored this - and I find it dificult to believe that none of them believes that this is a crucial issue. So, please, please - keep this in mind before assuming that someone is the perfect liberal candidate, or before denigrating the other candidates as insufficiently liberal. And, yes, Kucinich becomes the Democratic nominee, I'll vote him - but with great trepidation, and only because I'm a believer in Anybody But Bush.

2003-07-06T18:58:00.000-07:00

My God.

I don't know what to say. I don't think I can do it justice by excerpting it. Ed Vulliamy has a piece in the Guardian/Observer detailing the human horror left behind in al Nasiriyah. Go read it. It's going to be hard, but you need to know. And then ask whatever you believe in to have mercy on all our souls.

2003-07-06T18:01:00.000-07:00

And while I'm still belatedly on the subject . . . .

I already linked to Oliver Willis's discussion of what America is. I'd like to add a couple of others.

Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged had a great post on the same subject. It appears the trolls have been at her about it. Go over there and read it, and if you feel inclined to tell her she did a great job, by all means, do so.

Cowboy Kahlil is back today, too, with another provocative post. Go check it out. But if you're going to read it, read it all the way to the end.

And thanks to everybody in blogtopia (y! stbkctp!) for giving me so many reasons this 4th, despite our many current crises, to be glad I'm an American

2003-07-06T17:37:00.000-07:00

Folklife Festival 2003

Sam Heldman's got it right: The annual Smithsonian Folklife Festival is one of the great joys of life in D.C. The people, the crafts, the food - I always learn something new and valuable. This year featured Mali, Scotland, and Appalachia, and I had a great time trolling the booths in the sweltering heat.

I have to say, however, that I think last year’s Folklife Festival was much better. Of course, since it was themed last year – “The Silk Road” – it included a great many more countries. But this year there didn’t seem to be the diversity of cultural booths, except in the section devoted to Mali - where I snagged a great mudcloth hat for twenty bucks. Which brings up another source of irritation: I came all ready to spend money, and this year the vendors weren’t permitted to sell their wares at their booths, like they did last year. I was told that I had to go find the mysterious “market,” although everyone only seemed to know that it was “over there” (hand wave vaguely in the direction of Constitution Ave.). Anyway, since I had to meet up with my crew for a late lunch, I never discovered where “over there” was, to the benefit of my wallet and the detriment of the vendors. Fortunately, the gentleman at the mudcloth exhibit was willing to make an exception, which kindness on his part probably prevented me from getting heatstroke.

Two other observations, one general, one specific: Much of the Appalachia section reminded me of the faux-historic Main Streets you find in a lot of towns today. Booth signs labeled “Ye Olde” such-and-such – I mean, c’mon, people! The one with the “Apothecary” sign out front was actually run by the Sustainable Living folks, which I don’t think is in any way inimical to Appalachia. Another booth consisted entirely of prepackaged lotions, bath oils, etc. of the Claire Burke school of marketing. Call me picky, but when I go to something billed as a folklife festival, I want to see something that I can’t buy in every mall from here to San Francisco.

My specific observation has to do with an unsettling incident I observed in one of the Malinese booths. As I’ve noted, it was hot - and humid, and undoubtedly miserable for the people staffing the booths all day. In one booth, a gentleman was trying to escape the heat by catching a little sleep, using the edge of what appeared to be a woven bell of some sort as a makeshift pillow. His colleague was available to answer questions and so forth. I walked up toward both men to inspect the gorgeous weavings hanging from the sides of the booth, when I noticed a white, fifty-ish woman in full earth-mother-wannabe rig, complete with Kenneth Cole mules, standing over the sleeping man. It took me a moment to process what she was doing: She was adjusting the lens of her camera. Now, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the festival can produce some pretty noteworthy pictures – it’s natural to want to capture images from distant lands that you know you’re not likely to see again. But good grief! The man’s tired – give him a little space. She caught my eye, and a little smile touched the avid look in her eyes, and then she refocused to take yet another shot, as she stood directly over him. I wish I’d said something – like, “Hey, lady, why don’t you give the man a little privacy? Quit playing the Great White Anthropologist.” From a photographer’s standpoint, it might have made an interesting shot, but that’s what zoom lenses are for – and she clearly had one. I can’t capture the same feel in recounting the episode, but it left me feeling distinctly grubby.

Nonetheless, it was still a great way to spend Independence Day afternoon - and replete with a whole host of lessons appropriate to the day.

2003-07-06T17:28:00.000-07:00

A D.C. 4th

I love D.C. I love working here, at the intersection of law and public policy, at the ground zero of government. I love living here, where I've made more and better friends faster than at any point in my life - people who have become my family. But I have to remind myself periodically just how lucky I am to be here.

The kids’ train arrived some three hours late on Friday, and after lunch at the Dubliner, I headed home to take care of dogs and other business. We met up early Saturday afternoon at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, where we played at designing our own jet fighters and wove and dodged through an incredible array of tourists from other countries. I’m always taken aback by how much more immigrants and foreign tourists seem to appreciate our capital and its symbols than do those of us who were born in the U.S. They have to see everything, and they pose proudly, grinning from ear to ear, for photos in front of every landmark, every monument, every conceivable thing associated with America in its most symbolic sense. Meanwhile, I was again struck by the boredom and irritation apparent on the faces of those born here, often accompanied by loud public arguments over nothing.

My friends had already bought tickets to the 3:00 IMAX showing, which sold out as I stood in line. So while they watched “Space Station 3-D,” I wandered out to the Mall in search of iced coffee and the joys of the Folklife Festival. I found my coffee almost immediately (thank God, since I was seriously caffeine-deficient at this point), for a remarkably low two bucks. Caffeine in hand, I was ready to greet the festival, about which I will post shortly.

After that, it was on to a less-than-great lunch. Don’t bother with the Austin Grill, folks – three of us had to send our plates back because they’d omitted the beef and chicken from our orders of beef and chicken burritos. (I don’t know why I bother with Tex-Mex joints; the food’s never authentic.) Then we snagged a spot on the northern slope of the Washington Monument to watch the fireworks – only to move a while later to the west slope, near the fence. This is the first time I’ve seen the fireworks with the Lincoln Memorial in the background, and I may never see them any other way again. Talk about bringing tears to your eyes! A local friend of mine joined us, and managed to squeeze in just before they started – she pointed out to me the gorgeous effect of the crescent moon behind the weeping-willow streaks of light. This year’s show was, I thought, especially impressive, although, as always, too short – but while it lasted, we oohed and aahed as pieces of ash rained down upon our hot, sticky arms and legs and heads, and I nearly cried at the beauty of the gold starbursts, tipped in violet blue, as they turned to weeping willows descending slowly to earth. All in all, a good day to be alive, and to remember yet again what’s so important about this experiment called America.

And when my out-of-town friends headed home, J and I repaired to Gordon Biersch for fabulously cold, smooth pints of ale. I highly recommend it.

2003-07-06T17:19:00.000-07:00

Long weekends and short posts

Well, ever since Blogger's upgrade, it's impossible to post anything of any significant length. This puts me in the awkward position of breaking up posts into less cohesive components just to accommodate the new limits, whatever they are. Sorry about this - bear with us until we get our new site up and running.

So, in lieu of my lengthy rumination on how I spent my three-day weekend, I'll be serving individual courses, as it were. Herewith, the beginning of the story . . . .

It's been hotter than hell here in the nation's capital, running to mid-90's with ridiculously high humidity, giving us a daily heat index somewhere in the 100s. I've been miserable, the dogs have been miserable - everyone's lying around panting, hoping to sleep so that we can forget about the heat for a little while.

Then I remember our troops and the civilians in Iraq, and feel ashamed of myself. Some good friends lent me a window air conditioner the other day, so my living room is bearable; I can blog away in comfort. I can go to the fridge and grab a cold beer whenever I want. My living conditions aren't further complicated by raw sewage running into my home or forced subsistence on $60 a week – to say nothing of not having to worry about getting my ass shot off if I venture outside, or my living quarters blown up by a guerrilla’s bomb.

On Thursday evening, some friends arrived for the weekend; two of their relatives, ages 13 and 15, would arrive via Amtrak on Friday. Thursday night, we did our part for democracy at our local Dean Meetup. The Dean folks, I’m convinced, are indeed onto something – our task that evening was to write letters (by hand, mind you) on executive stationery (referring to it smaller size) to registered Democrats in Iowa. There are risks to this approach, but I think they’re far outweighed by their potential benefits. The idea of receiving a letter from a fellow ordinary person detailing why s/he supports a particular candidate, instead of those annoying mass-produced Courier-font solicitations for money, is certainly appealing to me. And for those concerned that the Dean campaign doesn’t speak to people of color, I’m happy to report a diverse mix at the Meetup I attended. Of course, D.C. is more diverse generally than much of the country, and I can only speak for my own experience, but it was not lily-white.

I wrote the requested three letters with my usual verbosity, which means they ran to three pages (single side, though, and my handwriting's a fairly large scrawl). I took a few addresses with me, which reminds me - I need to get those written. I also volunteered my writing services to DC for Dean. There's a lot that I can't do, for the same reason that I have to blog pseudonymously - my day job involves enough in the way of politics that I can't take public sides, even if it doesn't involve subject matter on which I work directly. And I love my job - I like to think I'm good at it, and that my efforts add something positive to the public discourse. But the situation has become too dire, and too important - I don't have any choice, morally, but to work on behalf of my candidate, in however small a way.

2003-07-03T23:01:00.000-07:00

Independence Day, 2003

Oliver Willis has a beautiful rumination on what it means to be American. A short excerpt:

"What America has is this unique ability to right itself. Some people like to denigrate the idea of America because it was started by rich white slaveowners. Speaking as a descendant of some of those slaves (well, the ones in Jamaica anyway), I wholeheartedly share disgust at the idea of one man owning another, or women being seen as property, or non-whites or non-landowners being seen as less than whole. But those same men gave us somehting bigger than themselves: the constitution and the republic. Those two entities, one physical and the other psychological, beat at the heart of Americanism. Why? Because these revered concepts are not chiseled into granite, never to be changed. As America grew, we collectively became aware of the injustices visited upon subgroups - blacks, native americans, women, the poor - and decided as a nation that simply saying "equality" in the constitution means nothing if it isn't practiced."

Go read the whole thing - it's an eloquent reminder of the best in us.

2003-07-03T21:47:00.000-07:00

Declaration of Independence, continued - true patriots

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr., Thomas Lynch, junr., Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, C. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.

IN CONGRESS, JANUARY 18, 1777.

2003-07-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

Declaration of Independence, continued - the bill of particulars

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

2003-07-03T21:38:00.000-07:00

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

2003-07-03T21:23:00.000-07:00

Independence Day

It's now officially July 4th. Take a moment to read my next posts, and remember why it is we should be celebrating today. (Twice now, Blogger has eaten this post on grounds of size, so rather than have it have it happen a third time, I'm putting the substance in separate posts.)

And if you're so inclined, re-read it, this time substituting the words "the Bush administration" for "Great-Britain" and "W" for "King" and "he." Suddenly seems a lot more relevant to us, doesn't it?

[Text available from the Library of Congress.]

2003-07-03T20:21:00.000-07:00

Giant blob on Chilean coast identified

Fanatical Apathy has the scoop, here.

2003-07-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

ARRGHH!

I just finished a wonderfully-executed post about a piece in tomorrow's Guardian detailing a study of the U.K. broadcast media's supposed anti-war bias - and Blogger just ate it! [Bugger all.]

I can't reconstruct it now; I don't have the patience. But here - go read it. It's important.

Oh, and one thing I will reproduce here: Horse, now that you're back, how about doing one of these for us on this side of the Pond?

2003-06-30T21:18:00.000-07:00

Is the Bush administration actively trying to get us all killed?

Judging from the latest news, that seems like the only logical conclusion.

The Guardian has just posted a piece based on a report in the current issue of Jane's Defence Weekly - not, of course, that any of the U.S. media will bother. It's truly frightening.

According to Guardian reporter Julian Borger:

"The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory.

Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-sufficiency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq."

Oh, where to begin?

First, God forbid that they should have learned the real lesson of the mess that is Iraq - that is to say, that in the global village such unilateral action is no longer feasible, that we need the support and assistance of a multilateral campaign sanctioned by the international community and with the support of international law. No, no. The lesson these armchair generals - these chickenhawk wannabe warriors with the world's worst case of combat envy, provided that it's from the security of their undisclosed locations - the lesson these dangers to global society took away from all of this is that we don't need no stinkin' allies! Cooperation? That's for wusses. We can blow up the entire planeet all by ourselves, thank you very much.

It gets worse. This isn't something scheduled for decades down the road.:

"A US defence website earlier this month invited bids from contractors to develop the technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three years.

According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling 'the government's vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and beyond)'."

Even the language of the RFP is scary:

"The Falcon technology would 'free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organisations', according to the Darpa invitation for bids.

The ultimate goal would be a 'reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) ... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours'."

Considering our recent record, I'm more than a little concerned about how they intend to define "react[ing] promptly and decisively," to say nothing of "destabilising or threatening actions" and "hostile countries or terrorist organisations." And if it frightens me, I shudder to think how Iran's leadership must feel about now.

DARPA says that the system will take 20+ years to develop. I doubt that will be especially reassuring, though, considering the timetable for testing:

"Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take a warhead into space and drop it over its target.

In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Common Aero Vehicle (Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity.

The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to attack.

Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems combined would be carried out by late 2007.

A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009.

SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even hours of a crisis developing.

The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, 'will provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term (approximately 2025)'. The range of this weapon is unclear."

Now, I'm not for a moment naive enough to think that this sort of R&D doesn't go on all the time - or even that it may be necessary. But it's absolutely insane to bully the rest of thw rold by making it public this way. And make no mistake: That's exactly what this is. In an administration as consumed with secrecy and and as unforgiving of the slightest perceived betrayal as this one is, failing to classify these bid requests (and thereby ensuring that the word gets out) could only be deliberate.

God help us all.

2003-06-30T15:46:00.000-07:00

Calling all D.C.-area bloggers!

The National Dean in 2004 Meetup Day is scheduled for this Wednesday, July 2. For those of you in the D.C. metro area who are (or who might be persuaded to become) Dean backers, please attend. On a purely selfish front, I'd like to be able to meet some of you in person. The event begins at 7:00 PM at the Visions Cinema Bistro Lounge, 1927 Florida Avenue, N.W. (between 19th and 20th).

If anybody's planning to attend and wants to let me know, e-mail me here.

See ya Wednesday!

2003-06-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

What really matters.

This will be a light blogging day; with the shorter work week, the Dean Meet-Up Wednesday night, and guests coming into town, I'm really stretched for time.

However, I had a vivid reminder today of what really matters.

One of my co-workers today received the call that no one ever wants to get - the one advising you that a loved one is dead. She lost her brother. This isn't the place for details, but suffice it to say that she's utterly devastated. Our office is small - only a half-dozen or so regular staffers - and it hit all of us quite hard, even though the rest of us didn't know him.

My only real purpose in writing this is to remind us all - myself in particular - that a lot of the sturm und drang of our daily lives is just that. A lot of it won't matter in five years, or five months, or even five hours. I need to remember to tell my loved ones that I do love them, and to appreciate the countless blessings that are mine every day of the week.

2003-06-29T16:49:00.000-07:00

I don't feel that this calls for a correction. Nonetheless . . .

never let it be said that I didn't give people an opportunity to make up their own minds.

Last week, I posted two very critical entries about the incident in Iraq in which our military's medical staff, with the support of its administrative leadeship, refused to treat some Iraqi children who had been badly burned playing with what turned out to be military explosives they found on the ground. If you haven't seen these posts, and would like to read them, scroll down to the entries for June 23: "How [NOT] to win hearts and minds in Iraq" and "David Accetta's real name is Scrooge." (Sorry, folks - links are bloggered, as usual. That'll be changing soon.)

Yesterday, thanks to Go Fish (by way of Suburban Guerrilla), I discovered that David Accetta is challenging the validity of the original story. Go Fish had also posted an entry critical of the military's response to these children's injuries. It appears that Major Accetta somehow discovered the entry at Go Fish and decided to e-mail Nicole, the site's proprietor, with his side of the story. In addition, he forwarded a copy of an e-mail he sent to the A.P. reporter who first covered the story. Nicole has offered to forward that e-mail to people interested in reading it; if you ask nicely, I'm sure she'll send it to you. Since she was kind of enough to forward it to me, you may also contact me directly and I'll forward it to you.

Now, after reading both messages, I have to say that I'm unconvinced. To me, they sound like pure company-line spin, spiked with the sort of "Oh, poor me; how could anyone accuse me of doing such a thing?" tales of personal woe that are more accurately known as "diversion." However, you should make up your own mind.

And by the way, you should visit Go Fish anyway, simply on the site's merits. It'll be appearing on our blogroll shortly. The same holds for Suburban Guerrilla, which already appears there.

2003-06-29T14:48:00.000-07:00

Now this is more like it.

2003-06-29T09:16:00.000-07:00

I knew there were gonna be consequences, but . . . .

Thanks to my dissing of Weiner Boy the other day, it brought this freak to my blog.

2003-06-27T20:03:00.000-07:00

Speaking of our men and women in uniform . . . .

I had planned, before Weiner Boy and Blogger hijacked my posts, to do another survey of current news clips like the one I posted the other day on the plight of the Iraqi civilians - only this one would have focused on the terrible conditions for our troops.

Well, Daily Kos has beaten me to it - and, predictably, their series is much better than anything I could ever hope to produce. Unfortunately, with the way events are unfolding, I'm sure I'll have another occasion to post on these issues. However, everyone - everyone - should go and read this at dKos. And then, you should forward it to your Democratic presidential candidate of choice, with an explicit request that s/he address these questions publicly by telling the voters actually what s/he intends to do to rectify the situation. Go. Read:

* about the "tipping point" toward guerrilla war.

* about the lies for which they're risking life and limb.

* about their six British comrades killed by an angry mob.

* about how an "embed" was allowed to hijack military strategy.

* about how they're stuck in a country completely FUBAR'd.

* about how their leaders' willfully tin cultural ear is risking their lives daily.

* about how, as this administration throws them casually into harm's way abroad, it completely fucks them financially here at home.

* and about how the administration's lack of planning and refusal to deal with the humanitarian crisis is getting our soldiers killed.

Yes, it's a lot to read. And, no, none of it's pleasant - in fact, it's downright tragic. But please - read all of it. And then do something about it. We owe it to our troops to do what we can to help, even - especially - if the administration that put them there won't fulfill its own obligations to them.

2003-06-27T19:27:00.000-07:00

Rummy strikes again.

The Guardian reports that Donald Rumsfeld appears to have done a one-eighty on the notion of a world peacekeeping force:

US proposes world peacekeeping force

Rumsfeld floats proposal to end Bush doctrine of unilateralism

Methinks the reporter got a bit carried away. He declares:

"The idea is an apparent sharp reversal of the Bush administration's staunchly unilateralist stance. It also runs counter to the administration's strong opposition, on taking office, to tying up troops in peacekeeping roles."

[snip]

"At a dinner in Washington last week, Mr Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders: 'I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking.

'I think it would be a good thing if our country was to provide some leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications [so] that they can work with each other.'" [Ed.: emphasis added.]

Notice what Rummy does here: He makes pleasant, sympathetic-sounding noises about peacekeeping - but he commits the U.S. only to "provide some leadership for training of other countries' citizens"! In other words, yeah, sure, we'll train you to go in there in the hot spots in your little blue helmets - and then, when it comes to taking the actual risks, you're on your own, folks!

The irony is running rich and deep here. Further down, the same article notes that "US military officials have complained that they have received little or no training for peacekeeping. Most US military police are reservists, given just one day of instruction on dealing with civilians."

Great. He's offering our services to train the poor schmucks in other countries to risk their necks, when the people who'd be doing this "training" have had a whole whopping one day of it themselves. Some investment in the process, huh?

As usual, Clinton had the right idea, but will get no credit: "A permanent US peacekeeping force was discussed during the Clinton administration.

"President Bush, however, promised to pull troops out of the Balkans, where the US has 5,500 soldiers stationed, and said he would review the commitment of US troops in dozens of other countries.

"The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said of the army at the time: 'It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.'"

Of course, I suppose I should just be glad that the British media are willing to point out this administration's previous contradictory on-the-record statements. Never happen on this side of the Pond.

2003-06-27T06:11:00.000-07:00

Ding-Dong, the Dixie Witch is Dead.

And I don't want to hear anything about “showing some respect for the dead.” He couldn’t trouble himself to show any for large percentages of the population while he was alive. Besides, I had only uncomplimentary things to say about him while he was alive; I see absolutely no reason to go all sanctimoniously hypocritical now that he's dead, and pretend that I think this is some loss to society.

Anyway, I’m too busy celebrating. That’s two segregationist snakes-in-the-grass this week. Hey, aren’t good things supposed to come in threes? C’mon, Jesse – can’t you make it a three of a kind?

P.S. Posts like this are attributable to me alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my blogging partner, 2BFogg. If he wants to endorse them, he’ll tell you.

2003-06-27T05:58:00.000-07:00

Bugger Blogger.

I haven’t really been able to post for two days – first, because they were in their (1-hour! Hah!) process of migrating me to The New and Improved Blogger for then entire day; and second, because they migrated me to the bloody New and Improved Blogger.

I was able to post yesterday’s WeinerBlogs only because I happened to stay late at the office, and used that P.C. – which, I might add, has exactly the same versions of exactly the same browsers as does my P.C. at home. But I get home and log on, and do they work? Of course they bloody well don’t work! The URL button is missing (along with the other format buttons, but I can work my way around those; without the URL button, I’m buggered). Which means that I’m writing this in Word, so that I can e-mail the attachment to myself, so that I can go in extra early just to post.

Oh, well, after impersonating Weiner Boy, I needed to take a break anyway – I needed a shower. Speaking of which, I hope he appreciates how good I made him look – I even corrected his spelling (see “Brigitte” v. “Bridgitte” – and this woman is his idol?).

2003-06-26T16:50:00.000-07:00

"Savage honors Bridgitte Bardot An otherwordly angel — with reasonable political views"

"SHE IS A world-famous actress, an animal rights activist and an author. Her latest book is the reason I like her even more than I did when she was in a bikini at age 17." I'll even forgive her for the "animal rights activist" part. I know, I know, it's big of me, but I can afford to magnanimous. After all, I'll get so much money from suing those puny little Web sites that thought they could mock me with impunity - or something. Hey, didja ever notice that "puny" and "impunity" sound an awful lot alike? I wonder if I'm using "impunity" right. But I digress. Actually, when I say I like her even more now than I did when she was 17, it's because now I have decades' worth of masturbatory memories from when she was 17.

"So this week instead of a Hollywood idiot, it is my pleasure to present this angel with the Hollywood Genius Award. The winner is Bridgitte Bardot. Would you believe it? You may remember her back when she was 17. ‘This woman has spoken passionately about threats to her country’s culture, in much the same way that I speak about America’s [threats], and I support that.’" Of course, I support anybody, as long as they agree with me. Besides, I keep remembering that bikini . . . hmmm . . . speaking of "support" . . . . Whoops! Where was I?

"Now I know what you’re thinking. Not only am I agreeing with an actress, but I am agreeing with the French. I am not getting anywhere near soft. This woman has spoken passionately about threats to her country’s culture, in much the same way that I speak about America’s, and I support that. She opposes what she calls the Islamization of France. In her autobiography, 'Initials B.B', she says, 'Our fathers gave their lives to chase all successful invaders from France.' (Smirk) Of course I'm not getting soft. I'm thinkin' about Brigitte Bardot in a bikini, f'chrissake!!! Besides, I get a hard-on just thinking about her calling for the same thing my other favorite broad, Ann Coulter, wants to do with Muslims: "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." What a concept, huh? Brilliant! Just brilliant!

Bridgitte Bardot has been attacked as a racist and she was convicted for inciting racial hatred in 1997, 1998, and 2000. All she did was complain about the growing number of mosques in her France, quote: 'While our church bells fall silent for want of priests.' Of course, I know everybody's complaining about the priests these days, but y'know what? Who cares? I mean, who friggin' cares? We've got Muslims runnin' around attacking good Christians like us, and communist pinkos callin' poor Brigitte a racist, and the Clenis behind it all, and these idiots are worried about a pedophile or two (hundred)???

"For that, the phony rotten stinking fake human rights groups, Nazis, called her a “hatemonger.” Let me tell you something, she is a patriot. And keep it up, Bridgitte Bardot. She may have been beautiful physically when you were a young woman, but right now, she’s beautiful like an otherworldly angel. Her soul and mind have more guts attached to them than all of those phonies who run that country of yours. Liberte, egalite, fraternite, not suicide, bebe." Especially the "fraternite" part - now that I've given you my award, Brigitte, baby, how's about I give you something' else? Aw, come on - I've been fantasizing about this since I was 17, already! We'll just put a bag over your head, and then I can pretend you still look - OW!!! What the hell was that for??!!! (Mutter . . . grumble . . . mutter . . . .) Women! I give her an award - my award - and she acts like I insulted her or somethin'. It's the Clenis's fault.

"So many people, as you well know, hate the U.S. What she is doing for France is what I would like to do for America." Heheheheheheheheh . . . .

2003-06-26T16:32:00.000-07:00

"Bore TV: Liberal network’s take on the news."

June 21 — Al Gore wants a liberal news channel. Michael Savage tells you why it will fail.

[Real ed.'s note: I couldn't parody this if I tried - it's already there. Read it and . . . laugh? weep? contemplate slitting your wrists? his wrists? something.]

"One of Al Gore’s pet issues is global warming. I can prove to you that it doesn’t exist in two words. Ice Age. It’s simple. The Ice Age ended, the ice melted long before there was industry, long before the internal combustion engine and automobiles. All the things that Al Gore points to as causes of global warming did not exist when there was the first example of global warming and the ice caps started to melt.

If Al Gore had been around at the end of the Ice Age, his TV network would probably have said civilization came to an end today due to global warming. It began when methane gases released by flatulent dinosaurs heated earth’s atmosphere and caused the polar ice caps to melt, leading to their extinction. So we want to outlaw dinosaurs. And that’s where the term fossil fuel came from."

[Real ed.'s note again: I warned you.]

2003-06-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

"Michael Savage on Hollywood, culture defense, and religion"

"May 31 — Michael Savage sounds off on real women, the law in all its majesty, and the real source of every single problem facing Americans today.

Three most important words. Let me pause here for a moment to remind you about the three most important words in ‘The Savage Nation.’ One is broads, two is lawsuits and three which applies in this case is the Clenis. I have been trying to tell you saving America from the liberal assault requires a thorough understanding of the proper role of broads, lawsuits and the Clenis. What is the Clenis*? It's the source of all evil and the cause of September 11th and the reason why our brave leaders can't find the WMD that we all know are in Iraq.

Broads. The perfect broad is Ann Coulter as a Stepford wife. Knows her place, but isn't afraid to call the nasty liberals the traitors that they are! Of course, Ann's a little too skinny for my taste - I remember when broads were voluptuous, like Brigitte Bardot (see my tribute to her). Now they're either too skinny or they're just plain fat. And they have opinions. What the hell's up with that? It's okay for Ann to have opinions, though, because they're the same as my opinions. See?

Lawsuits. 99.99% of the time, lawsuits = bad. In fact, lawsuits = evil. The only time (that would be .1 - wait, .10 - no, wait, 1.0 - oh, hell, this is why I flunked math) - wait, what was I sayin'? Oh, yeah, right. The only time lawsuits = good is when I file 'em. (Or Ken Starr, but that's a different kinda thing and I'll get to it later, anyway.) You see, that's why I need to sue these piddly little Web sites - 'cause they're makin' fun of me!!! And it's NOT FAIR!!! They've got all these resources at their disposal - the whole lefty-liberal-communist-pinko-criminal-conspiracy bloggers and whatever - and I've only got my teensy multi-million-dollar book and Web site and MSNBC gig platforms. How the hell am I supposed to fight them with just that?

The Clenis. *Ed. note: The "Clenis" is a conflagration - no, confabulation - no, confl - aw, hell. I flunked English, too. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah, It's "Clinton's penis" - get it? Hahahahahaha!!! Clinton's pe - [sounds of snuffling, choking, gasping, wiping of tears]. But they're telling me I can't say that word here in a family outlet. No, no, not "penis" - "Clinton." Anyway, as I was sayin' - the Clenis is the source of ALL evil in the world, and especially in America. Just look at what it did to Shrillary! Before she gazed upon the Clenis, she was a righteous, God-fearing, Goldwater-supporting All-American Stepford-Ann-Coulter in the making. And now look at her! She's actually in the Senate, f'chrissake! She don't belong there - women don't belong there unless they're from Wyoming and belong to a militia. And she wears pantsuits! And she wrote that stupid book, which the liberal media bribed everybody into sayin' is #1 on the bestseller list, which we all know ain't true, because it's really MY book that's #1, except that the liberal pinkos plotted to screw me out of my royalties, and oh, yeah, where was I? Oh, yeah, the Clenis. Well, they told me I'm running out of column space, so let me just say this: The Clenis is responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to this country, from King George to Saddam Hussein.

[Note from the real editor of this suddenly-hijacked blog: Credit to Atrios, I think, for coining "the Clenis."]

2003-06-26T15:55:00.000-07:00

Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day

(Courtesy of Neal Pollack)

All right, I know I'm late to this, but some of us have to work for a living. What follows is my own modest attempt to demonstrate support for Take Back the Media and the others who have fallen victim to this petty little man's insecurities.

And for anyone tempted to string us along behind the lawsuit bandwagon (this means you, Michael Weiner), what follows here is SATIRE - you know, that form of humor protected by the First Amendment? You wanted to be a public figure, so suck it up.

2003-06-24T22:21:00.000-07:00

And for anyone who still thinks that Russert was trying to give Dean a fair shake . . . .

Take a look at what Roger Ailes (no, not that one; the good Roger) found under the SCLM rock:

"Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate and former Vermont governor, was confronted with the Treasury Department figures on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday. . . . The research was prepared at the request of "Meet the Press," NBC and Bush officials said."

2003-06-24T21:43:00.000-07:00

Jude Wanniski gets it.

So why can't the SCLM - or, even more significantly, the arbiters of received Democratic Party wisdom?

Get a load of Wanniski's letter to Howard Dean.

[Via Jerry Bowles at Best of the Blogs.]

2003-06-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

Abdicating Responsibility

Tonight's blogging was to be devoted to the suffering of the Iraqi civilian population. Bremer bluntly demonstrated his own priorities yesterday, as he spoke from an air-conditioned building in his jazzy suit and shades, while ordinary Iraqis - those people we "liberated" - welter outside in 110-degree heat with no electricity or running water.

But there is so much - so much need, so much suffering, so much tragedy that I can't even begin to do it justice. It would take days just to skim everything out there, much less to turn it into a three-dimensional representation of the Iraqis' situation.

All I can do is provide a few examples, from the reporters who are bearing witness to conditions of existence so brutal, so lacking in humanity, that we pampered Americans can't even begin to imagine it. We, who can't imagine starting a day without a shower; who needn't worry that there'll be food on the table tonight; who live our daily lives in a succession of air-conditioned boxes, from houses to cars to offices; who run to the doctor for antibiotics at first sign of a sniffle - what do we know of this sort of deprivation and danger?

The answer for most of us, of course, is nothing. But we need to learn. And we need to take responsibility for it. We need to remember that when our "leaders" abdicate their responsibilities to these people whose lives they have torn apart, they do so in our name. We need to hold their feet to the fire, and make it clear that we won't stand for this sort of treatment of fellow human beings. Many of us opposed this war, on a wide variety of grounds, and we were frustrated by our inability to do anything about it. That's no longer the case. Now, we are being called, and it's time to answer. We may not have been able to prevent the war, but we sure as hell can do something about this. Call your representatives, your Senators, the White House. Flood the media with OpEds and letters to the editor. Talk to your friends, your colleagues, your churches/synagogues/mosques, your charitable groups and hobby circles. Organize. Volunteer for one of the Democrats' presidential campaigns. Donate money/sundries/time/expertise to the NGOs that are on the ground in Iraq. But DO SOMETHING. Use the following list as your own personal call to action. Go on, DO SOMETHING. TAKE BACK YOUR NAME. Ensure that what's done in it is done for all the reasons that truly make us great - those that demonstrate empathy, and compassion, and justice.

Herewith, a (believe it or not) very abbreviated collection of news items that draw a horrifying picture of what's been done in your name.
TAKE IT BACK.

No electricity.

From the Straits Times of Asia:

"Power out in Baghdad for more than 24 hours

Breakdowns and suspected sabotage add to citizens' woes in Iraqi capital

The Iraqi capital had been without power for more than 24 hours yesterday after a breakdown and the suspected sabotage of fuel pipelines, an official said.

The supply of electricity to Baghdad failed on Monday morning.

The official said it was a result of a breakdown at the al-Amin distribution centre, sabotage on Saturday night on a gas pipeline near the town of Hit and a fire in an oil link on June 12."

From Middle East Online:

"Amina Sami, 39, has six children and no money to buy a generator to power her refrigerator and fans.

'My youngest son is sick after eating food that went off in the fridge because of the power cut.

'We have had to go back to using oil lamps so that the older ones can study for their exams,' she said."

No water.

From Korea Times (South Korea):

"As a hydrologist, de Rooy puts special emphasis on water supply, water sanitation, immunization and personal hygiene for children in Iraq. 'No child has been routinely immunized since the start of military action on March 20, 2003,’’ he said. ``With temperatures hovering around 40 degrees Celsius now in Iraq, an increasing number of children are exposed to diarrhea and epidemics such as cholera.'"

From The Washington Post:

Even when you're 13, living in a soccer stadium has its down side.

The press box, your home for over a month, is at the top of the stadium, so every trek to the kiosk that sells gum (for you) and cigarettes (for your dad) is a five-story hike down steep, broken stairs. A trip to the outhouse -- a concrete structure over a hole in the ground -- is another walk down those same stairs.

But the worst part is the water. With only one hose available for all 700 people living in the stadium, there's always a wait. And even with the help of the men, it is a chore to haul the jerrycans up the narrow stairs.

Plus, the water's not the best. The people here say a baby died recently of diarrhea."

No food.

From The Independent:

“In one mental asylum in the city patients did not eat for 24 hours last week because the appropriate American official could not be found whose signature was necessary to spend $600 (£360) on food.”

“Instead, the US seems to have seen the looting at the end of the war as a commendable outbreak of popular fury against the regime.

‘If they had shot a few of them at the beginning it would have stopped,’ remarked one Iraqi doctor yesterday. ‘Instead, I saw American soldiers standing by, taking photographs, cheering them on.’”

Nowhere to go.

From The Washington Post:

"U.S. Army 1st Lt. John Evans, a cop from New York on reserve duty, looks dismayed when he learns of the reported death of another child at Shorja Stadium. It would be the third in two months. (A humanitarian organization investigated the death and found recent graves, but said none of them was child-size.)

'We've been trying to get groups in there to improve conditions,' he says. 'We have had health teams go in there. I'm not saying they don't need help, but we've not totally ignored them either.'

Evans is the man in charge at the Civilian Military Operations Center in Kirkuk, a small building beside the gutted and bombed former headquarters of Iraqi intelligence, where the U.S. occupation deals with humanitarian problems. Initially, the Army wanted to move the Kurdish families from the stadium, he says. But then they thought again: If they placed the families somewhere comfortable, that might attract dozens of new families. And then what?

Instead, the authorities made a tactical decision to leave the families where they were and not to improve conditions at the stadium too much for fear of attracting still more refugees. 'If you build something, it becomes a permanent structure, and that becomes another problem,' Evans says." [Ed.: emphasis added.]

[snip]

"'It's an unbelievable mess,'" says a representative for one such group, who visited the stadium recently. He asked to not be named because his group is vying for U.S.-paid contracts to help displaced people.

'The property issue, resettlement, none of it is being addressed by the OCPA [Office of Coalition Provisional Authority]. I've told them, "You're burning daylight, get moving," but nothing happens. They told me "days not weeks" to start addressing wide-scale problems. That was two weeks ago,' he says.

Even if the Americans don't want to evict anyone, he says, there is a lot of uninhabited land that could be quickly divvied up. Many Shorja families, for example, once lived on a several-mile-square lot about a mile from the stadium. Hussein had cleared the land to build apartment buildings for Arab families, but construction never began.

'There's low-hanging fruit here,' he says.

In response, Evans says that a lead humanitarian organization will be designated soon to take charge of aid to the displaced persons, and local officials should be ensconced in office soon to look at the land issue.

'Hopefully, we can get the government up and running as soon as possible,' he says. 'We want to step back. We're trying to back away as quickly as possible.'" [Ed.: emphasis added.]

Prisoners? Civilians? What?

From the Miami Herald:

"Tanks rumbled down Badaw's street and helicopters roared overhead before soldiers shot in his door and threw smoke bombs inside. He said he was thrown on the ground and handcuffed, and a bag was shoved over his head.

He's not sure where he was taken, only that he traveled by car and helicopter. For days, he lay in a cell in silence, and was alternately fed salt water and unsalted water. After five days, he and his 13-year-old son were brought back to their home.

'I didn't know if my family was alive or not,' Badaw said, holding out his arms and lifting his robe to show cuts on his wrists and ankles. 'It was a mistake to do this. Iraq is one big tribe. If you hurt one guy, people will talk and they will all hate the Americans.'"

Radioactive Iraqis?

From the Christian Science Monitor:

"Children play in school-yards all over Iraq where unexploded ordnance is scattered. Dr. Mohamed al-Hakin, the temporary coordinator of the Ministry of Planning and an Iraqi exile who lives in Boston, says there are an estimated 42 million land mines in the country, almost two per person in this nation of 24 million. There is an urgent need for education about land mines and unexploded ordnance."

From Environment News Service:

A convoy of vehicles bearing Greenpeace banners with a single activist walking in front carrying a white flag, today returned a uranium yellowcake mixing canister to U.S. military guards stationed at the Tuwaitha nuclear plant just south of Baghdad. The size of a small car and adorned with radiation symbols, the canister was brought into Tuwaitha on a flatbed truck.

The canister contains quantities of radioactive yellowcake uranium and had been dumped on a busy section of open ground near the Tuwaitha plant. Yellowcake, a fine powder, is the product of the uranium extraction process, and can be sent to a conversion plant that produces uranium hexafluoride as the next step in the manufacture of nuclear fuel.

The military was aware of the canister's presence, locals say, but it was left open and unattended for more than 20 days. Greenpeace is calling for a cleanup of radioactive contamination in villages surrounding the plant.

'If this had happened in the UK, the U.S. or any other country, the villages around Tuwaitha would be swarming with radiation experts and decontamination teams,' said Mike Townsley of Greenpeace. 'It would have been branded a nuclear disaster site and the people given immediate medical checkups.' [Ed: emphasis added.]

[snip]

In a week long survey Greenpeace radiation experts found abandoned uranium yellowcake and radioactive sources scattered across the community. Much of the material was looted from the facility by villagers who used it for house building and water and food storage. Local people are still storing radioactive barrels and lids in their houses, as they do not realize the potential danger.

The Greenpeace experts found radioactivity in a series of houses near Tuwaitha, including one source measuring 10,000 times above normal. Today Greenpeace took U.S. military personnel to the radioactive house where they verified the levels of contamination at 10,000 higher than normal, removed the source and took it back to the Tuwaitha complex for storage.

Another radioactive source outside a 900 pupil primary school measuring 3,000 times above normal was discovered by Greenpeace investigators.

They heard consistent and repeated stories of unusual sickness after coming into contact with material from the Tuwaitha plant and found several objects carrying radioactive symbols discarded in the community."

From Edinburgh News:

"Doctors in Iraq are becoming increasingly concerned about the extent of radiation sickness among people living near the country’s largest nuclear facility south of Baghdad.

Dozens of people are turning up every day at a hospital near a defunct nuclear plant suffering rashes, bloody noses and other symptoms of radiation poisoning, doctors have warned.

The Tuwaitha nuclear facility, 12 miles from the capital, was left unguarded after Iraqi troops fled the area in late March of this year on the eve of the war.

The facility is thought to have contained hundreds of tons of natural uranium and nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons.

United States troops did not secure the area until April 7. By then, looters had stripped it of much of its contents, including uranium storage barrels locals later used to hold drinking water.

People suffering from symptoms of radiation sickness started showing up at the hospital closest to the nuclear site two months ago, doctors said. Their numbers have since grown considerably. 'Some 30 to 40 patients suffering from bloody diarrhoea visit our hospital every day, probably due to their exposure to nuclear radiation,' said Dr Bassim Abbud at Mada’in General Hospital, about nine miles from Tuwaitha.

Dr Abbud said that after people were warned against using the contaminated equipment, some of the barrels were collected at a secondary girls’ school, where they remained while the girls took their final exams.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to Iraq earlier this month to see if any of the uranium was missing. The experts found most of the uranium on or near the site, diplomats said.

Plastic bags containing uranium were found where the looters emptied out the barrels and some bags apparently spilled, diplomats from the UN agency said.

The mission - whose scope was restricted by the US-led interim administration of Iraq - was not allowed to give medical exams to Iraqis reported to have been sickened by contact with the materials, the diplomats said.

2003-06-24T17:58:00.000-07:00

Steve Bell at The Guardian tells it like it is.

2003-06-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

David Accetta's real name is Scrooge

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

Those were the words of the pre-conversion Ebenezer Scrooge. Compare them with those of Major David Accetta, public affairs officer with the Third Corps Support Command in Iraq, in response to a question from The Associated Press asking why Army doctors refused to treat badly burned Iraqi children:

"Our goal is for the Iraqis to use their own existing infrastructure and become self-sufficient, not dependent on U.S. forces for medical care."

Of course, that presumes that an infrastructure actually exists, which, of course, it does not. The Daily Dystopian links to a piece in The Independent, which notes the following:

"Few Iraqis mourn the fall of Saddam but there is a growing, at times almost visceral, hatred of the occupation. 'They can take our oil, but at least they should let us have electricity and water,' said Tha'ar Abdul Qader, a worker at the Central Teaching Hospital for Children, the main door of which can only be entered by walking through a fast-flowing stream of raw sewage."

Lovely. The pediatric hospital is accessible only by wading through human waste.

Read the entire article. It's a graphic depiction of the hypocrisy of Bremer and Co. Among other travesties, Patrick Cockburn reports:

"As temperatures reached a scorching 45C (113F) in Baghdad last week people in al-Thawra, a sprawling working-class slum, unearthed hidden rifles and threatened to kill the manager of the local electrical sub-station if he did not resume power supplies.

'Some had guns and others threw stones at us, but I told them this was just a sub- station and we aren't receiving any electricity,' said Bassim Arman, the harassed-looking manager. 'Now I have to close down anyway, because employees are too frightened to come to work.'

Electricity is vital to life in the Iraqi capital where the temperature can soar as high as 60C (140F) at the height of summer. Without it there is no air-conditioning, no refrigerators to prevent food rotting and no light in a city terrified by looters. The failure to get the electrical system working has become a symbol for Iraqis in the capital of the general failure of the American occupation to provide living conditions even at the miserable level they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.

Asked about Baghdad's lack of electricity at an air-conditioned press conference, Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, looking cool in a dark suit and quiet purple tie, simply asserted that, with a few exceptions, Baghdad was now receiving 20 hours of electricity a day. 'It simply isn't true,' said one Iraqi, shaking his head in disbelief after listening to Mr Bremer. 'Everybody in Baghdad knows it.'"

And compare the words of Bremer and Accetta with this report, released today by the U.N. via ReliefWeb:

"There is rising frustration over the lack of security, poor living conditions and the delay in setting up an interim Iraqi administration. The need to establish basic services such as electricity, clean water and sanitation remains a priority: sixty per cent of Iraqis currently rely entirely on external assistance for their daily survival.*

The work of humanitarian organisations continues to be disrupted due to the lack of law and order. Organised attacks have occurred in Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah. NGO and diplomatic envoys have been targeted, as well as coalition forces."

[snip]

"Health services continue to be disrupted as most of the hospitals and warehouses for medical supplies have been looted. Hospitals are finding it difficult to cope with the huge demand for basic health services."

So much for Iraq's medical "infrastructure."

Not that that's even a valid argument. When we decided to bomb the hell out of Iraq. for whatever twisted "reason" the administration decides to use as the line of the day, we assumed responsibility for the Iraqi civilian population. And people wonder why they hate us.

2003-06-23T16:57:00.000-07:00

How [NOT] to win hearts and minds in Iraq.

Sergeant David J. Borell deserves a medal.

The A.P. explains why:

Burned Iraqi Children Turned Away

"On a scorching afternoon, while on duty at an Army airfield, Sgt. David J. Borell was approached by an Iraqi who pleaded for help for his three children, burned when they set fire to a bag containing explosive powder left over from war in Iraq.

Borell immediately called for assistance. But the two Army doctors who arrived about an hour later refused to help the children because their injuries were not life-threatening and had not been inflicted by U.S. troops.

Now the two girls and a boy are covered with scabs and the boy cannot use his right leg. And Borell is shattered.

'I have never seen in almost 14 years of Army experience anything that callous,'' said Borell, who recounted the June 13 incident to The Associated Press."

Wait'll you see the reason why:

"A U.S. military spokesman said the children's condition did not fall into a category that requires Army physicians to treat them -- and that there was no inappropriate response on the part of the doctors."

"No inappropriate response"??!!! What about "First, do no harm?" What about "We want to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people"? What about some goddamn human decency?

"For Borell, who has been in Iraq since April 17, what happened with the injured children has made him question what it means to be an American soldier.

'What would it have cost us to treat these children? A few dollars perhaps. Some investment of time and resources,'' said Borell, 30, of Toledo, Ohio.

'I cannot imagine the heartlessness required to look into the eyes of a child in horrid pain and suffering and, with medical resources only a brief trip up the road, ignore their plight as though they are insignificant,' he added.

Chalk up another item on the list labeled "growing morale problem."

In the words of our fearless leaders in Iraq:

"Maj. David Accetta, public affairs officer with the 3rd Corps Support Command, said the children's condition did not fall into a category that requires Army doctors to care for them. Only patients with conditions threatening life, limb or eyesight and not resulting from a chronic illness are considered for treatment.

'Our goal is for the Iraqis to use their own existing infrastructure and become self-sufficient, not dependent on U.S. forces for medical care,'' Accetta said in an e-mail to AP."

This would be funny if it weren't so deadly. WHAT infrastructure? We bombed it all to kingdom come. OF COURSE they're dependent on U.S. forces for medical care - they don't even have electricity or running water (except, of course, in Bremer's digs). And Accetta needs reminding: The kids were injured by what was very likely some of our materiel. That alone creates an moral responsibility for these kids. And I don't want to hear from the freepers that they shouldn't have been playing with it - I doubt they even knew what it was, and how many American kids do you know who would have done the same damn thing?

"When Borell talks about the children, he pauses between sentences, keeps his head down, clears his throat. . . . Borell's eyes cloud with pain when he describes the children."

[snip]

"Borell radioed his superiors, who contacted the base hospital.

Two Army doctors, both of them majors, responded.

One of them, according to Borell, 'looked at (Haidar) ... didn't examine him, didn't ask him questions.'

'(He) never looked at the girls,' said Borell.

'Through the interpreter, one of the doctors told the father that we didn't have any medicine here ... and were not able to provide them care,'' said Borell. 'And he also expounded on the fact that they needed long-term care.'

Borell said the combat hospital was fully stocked.

'Right before they left, I looked at the one doctor, asked him if he could at least give them comfort care,'' said Borell. 'He told me they were not here to be the treatment center for Iraq.''

'He didn't show any compassion,' the sergeant added.

Borell grabbed his first-aid kit and gave the father some bandages and IV solution to clean the wounds."

[snip]

"Borell said he felt betrayed by the Army, which he joined after high school. Besides the letter to his wife, he also wrote to his congresswoman and several media outlets describing the incident.

His superiors have not said a word, said Borell, 'although I get the impression that they're probably not very happy.'

Borell's wife gave him a silver bracelet that says: 'Duty, Honor, Country.' He wears it to remind him why he's in Iraq.

'After today, I wonder if I will still be able to carry the title 'soldier' with any pride at all,' said Borell."

Oh, yeah, and how did this story make it to the news?

"The incident came to light after an AP photographer took a picture of Borell being comforted by a colleague after the doctors refused to care for the children. When Borell's wife, Rachelle Douglas-Borell, saw the photo, she contacted AP with a copy of a letter he sent her describing what happened."

That picture ran on the front page of The New York Times. I guess that "liberal" media outlet couldn't be bothered with the story.

2003-06-19T20:35:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on treason.

One of the entries in Daily Dys's "Today in . . ." is a reminder that today was the 50th anniversary of the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for treason. When I was a kid, smack in the middle of the Cold War, their story was treated largely perfunctorily: Theyb were traitors, so we killed them. End of story.

But it always raiesd one huge question in my mind, and I've still never gotten a satisfactory answer.

The Rosenbergs apparently truly, passionately believed that what they were doing was for the good of the country. Now, you can argue with their conclusions all you like, and I seriously doubt that most Americans are going to contend that communism is best for the U.S. But, from what I remember of their story, I don't think there was ever any doubt that they did it out of pure conviction - certainly not for something as mercenary as money.

Which brings me to my question. Over the past 20 years, our intelligence services have been rocked by scandal after scandal, as traitors have been uncovered in the ranks. Jonathan Pollard, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen - all did far, far more damage than the Rosenbergs. Until Hanssen was finally exposed, Ames held the distinction of having compromised the U.S. in more cases than any other spy (at least any uncovered to date). His activities resulted in deaths - and he did it for the money. And where is he now? Living out his miserable life at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Every spy in recent memory has had one motive - greed. (I'm excluding Hanssen here, because the evidence isn't in yet.) They sold out their country for money - in some cases, a few pitifully lousy bucks. Not one of them did it out of principle - and yes, that bloody well includes Pollard. I don't believe anything that comes out of jailhouse conversion, especially when there's talk of pardons in the air.

This is just another manifestation of our leaders' pathology when it comes to communism. Over the last two decades, not one of them has seen fit to question the execution of two Jewish immigrants who acted on that most sacred of American concepts, the passionate commitment to a political belief. But not one of them has seen fit to suggest that, of those who choose to betray this country, those most deserving of the Rosenbergs' fate are the once who do it in pursuit of the almighty dollar. If anyone deserves to die, it's the latter.

2003-06-19T19:59:00.000-07:00

Another must-read.

Chris posted this at Interesting Times. (It originally came from Millennium Force over at Bartcop.) I hope someone out there will update this daily. Ideally, we'd add ages and hometowns, and then every single day, every single one of us would send it to every major SCLM outlet in the nation. Eventually, they might actually cover it, if for no other reason than to shut us up.

Note: Not updated to include today's casualty.

Roll Call:

Sgt. Atanacio Haromarin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Kyle Griffin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell died because Bush lied.
Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona died because Bush lied.
Capt. Andrew David La Mont died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Timothy Louis Ryan died because Bush lied.
Infantry Sgt. Kirk Straseskie died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes died because Bush lied.
Spc. Rasheed Sahib died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. William Lee Payne died because Bush lied.
Spc. David T. Nutt died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleibocker died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Griffin died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jakub H. Kowalik died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Richard P. Carl died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen died because Bush lied.
Brian K. Van Dusen died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jesse A. Givens died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco died because Bush lied.
Spc. Narson B. Sullivan died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Troy D. Jenkins died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Andrew T. Arnold died because Bush lied.
Spc. Roy R. Buckley died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Robert W. Channell Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Alan D. Lam died because Bush lied.
Cpl. John T. Rivero died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Johnny Brown died because Bush lied.
Spc. Thomas Arthur Foley III died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Spc. Richard A. Goward died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jason David Mileo died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gil Mercado died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Jeff Bohr died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Henry L. Brown died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jason M. Meyer died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles died because Bush lied.
Capt. Eric B. Das died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Anthony S. Miller died because Bush lied.
Spc. George A. Mitchell died because Bush lied.
Major William R. Watkins III died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr. died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Stevon Booker died because Bush lied.
Spc. Larry K. Brown died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Edward Smith died because Bush lied.
Capt. Tristan N. Aitken died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard died because Bush lied.
Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham died because Bush lied.
Capt. Travis Ford died because Bush lied.
Cp. Bernard G. Gooden died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Devon D. Jones died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Duane R. Rios died because Bush lied.
Capt. Benjamin Sammis died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Chad Bales Metcalf died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Wilbert Davis died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Mark A. Evnin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Edward J. Korn died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais died because Bush lied.
Spc. Ryan P. Long died because Bush lied.
Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn died because Bush lied.
Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Todd J. Robbins died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Erik H. Silva died because Bush lied.
Capt. James F. Adamouski died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson died because Bush lied.
Spc. Mathew Boule died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael Pedersen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lt. Nathan D. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Jacob L. Butler died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione died because Bush lied.
Spc. William A. Jeffries died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon Rowe died because Bush lied.
Capt. Aaron J. Contreras died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael V. Lalush died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brian McGinnis died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. James Cawley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Michael Curtin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. William W. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Eugene Williams died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar died because Bush lied.
Maj. Kevin G. Nave died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores died because Bush lied.
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Maj. Gregory Stone died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Evan James died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gregory P. Sanders died because Bush lied.
Spc. Jamaal R. Addison died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Edward J.ÝAnguiano died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael E. Bitz died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing died because Bush lied.
Sgt. George Edward Buggs died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Donald John Cline died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jose A. Garibay died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Howard Johnson II died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan died because Bush lied.
Spc. James Kiehl died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Lori Piestewa died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brendon Reiss died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Brandon Sloan died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Donald Walters died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams died because Bush lied.
Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski died because Bush lied.
Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon S. Tobler died because Bush lied.
Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson died because Bush lied.

Now, "Taps."

2003-06-19T19:31:00.000-07:00

Read these. Every day.

These are two blogs that I read every day, without fail. You should, too.

The Daily Dystopian has a daily feature called "Today in Dystopian History." In it, Dys reminds us of the major points, high and low, in our nation's history; most entries contain links to additional information. (Who knew there were so many on literally a daily basis?) Here's the link to today's. Go get educated!

Maru the CrankPot is indispensable - I can't read a single post on WTF Is It Now??? without a giggle. She's taken the art of giving new titles to our fearless leader (who is known at A Rational Animal as le dauphin debile, or ldd) to soaring new heights. Smirky the Sockstinker, indeed. (Jeez, I can't even type it with a straight face. Pardon me while I wipe my eyes.) And speaking of art, every day she posts a great new photo or other image. It's a one-stop culture-and-giggle fix - go!

2003-06-18T20:34:00.000-07:00

In Keating's own words:

Here.

Here's the money line:

"Obstructing justice, excusing and concealing those who victimize innocent children: these are not the actions of holy men. They are sins — and they are crimes. God may hold them accountable in the next world, but we will certainly hold them accountable in this one."

2003-06-18T20:30:00.000-07:00

And speaking of censorship . . . .

The New York Times just posted a piece on its Web site reporting that the White House has heavily censored the long-awaited EPA report:

"The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs."

[snip]

" Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic.

The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.

Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year.

White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.

In the end, E.P.A. staff members, after discussions with administration officials, said they decided to delete the entire discussion to avoid criticism that they were selectively filtering science to suit policy."

[snip]

" Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.

An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.'

Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because 'E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science.'"

[snip]

"Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report — on water quality, ecological conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and other issues — all start with a summary statement about the potential impact of changes on human health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities of the agency.

But in the 'Global Issues' section of the draft returned by the White House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence reading, 'Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment' was cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: 'The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future.'"

Sort of like NIH's new (forced) stance that abortions cause breast cancer, hmmm?

2003-06-18T20:10:00.000-07:00

Speaking of the Hitler flap . . . ."

Susan at Suburban Guerrilla has a link to great article about the increasing comparisons.

2003-06-18T20:04:00.000-07:00

Political Correctness

Never in a million years would I have thought I'd be defending Frank Keating, but here goes.

Keating, a devout Catholic, resigned the day before yesterday as chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' lay-run National Review Board. The NRB was set up to oversee handling of the church's sex-crimes scandals when it became apparent that allowing the the bishops themselves to do it wasn't going to achieve sufficient results. A few days ago, Roger Cardinal Mahoney (who should concentrate on the consequences of his own handling of sex-abuse cases in the Los Angeles diocese) took great and very public umbrage at comments made last week by a justifiably exasperated Keating.

Keating referred to the bishops' mania for secrecy as reminiscent of "La Cosa Nostra." The hue and cry went up instantly, slamming Keating for "comparing the Catholic church to the Mafia." His fellow board members bailed on him immediately, agreeing that the comments were "unfortunate words," "inappropriate," "extremely unhelpful," "a P.R. nightmare," and utterly destructive to his "credibility." (Credibility with whom, one wonders? But I'll get to that later.) I've seen reported in the SCLM only one - count it, one - supportive comment from a fellow NRB member. That would be the blunt Bob Bennett, who is forever on my good list for his work to defend President Clinton against the slings and arrows of outrageous wing-nuts. Bennett's advice? The bishops should "stop acting like risk assessment officers of insurance companies." Even Bennett, though, said earlier that Keating "clearly crossed the line."

Now, first of all, none of this is really about Keating's comments - he just handed them a convenient smokescreen. This is really his efforts to obtain crucial information via "the first comprehensive, academic study of priests who sexually abuse minors." On June 10, The Washington Post reported that the NRB was encountering significant resistance from the bishops, who didn't want to complete the surveys, allegedly on the groiunds that it might compromise the poor abusive priests' privacy. They were so opposed, in fact, that they planned to try to force a rewriting of the questionnaire at the annual bishops' conference later the following week.

Two days later, the L.A. Times named Mahoney as one of those attempting to derail the study, and on June 14, the Post reported that Mahoney had said he was "cooperating with a study of the extent of child sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church even though he believes the research is 'deficient in its assumptions, its design and its methodology.' In a five-page statement, Mahony denied that he has resisted the data-gathering effort by the National Review Board, a panel of 13 lay Catholic leaders headed by former Oklahoma governor Frank A. Keating (R). 'In fact, I have championed a fuller, deeper and more accurate statistical study,' Mahony said." That same day, the controversy over Keating's comments exploded.

Of course, the laity who suffered at the hands of sexually abusive priests support Keating wholeheartedly. If credibility's an issue here, it's his cred with them that really counts - and now he's got it in spades. Mahoney, in fact, has just damaged his own reputation very badly with a lay public that wants to see this wealthy, powerful, and, yes, secretive organization get its legal comeuppance for decades of protecting some of society's worst criminals. And keep in mind, we're far beyond the "presumption of innocence" stage here, at least for the church as an institution. I have yet to see a numerical accounting of the number of priests who have been convicted of or admitted to criminal sexual conduct, but just from the news reports, we know it's ridiculously high.

Now to the political correctness. Aside from the general obnoxiousness of using such a flimsy excuse to get rid of the pesky NRB chair who actually takes his duties seriously (imagine that! shocking, isn't it?), it's even more reprehensible to try to lay a charge of bias at his feet. Keating did not call the bishops "the Mafia" - those were Mahoney's words. He did not even compare them to the Mafia, at least in ordinary terms. What he did say in his letter of resignation was that the church is "'home to Christ's people. . . . It is not a criminal enterprise. . . . It does not condone and cover up criminal activity. It does not follow a code of silence. My remarks, which some bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology. To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church.'" One wonders whether such a tempest would have ensued had he simply said that the bishops practiced "omerta." Probably - the goal here, I'm convinced, was to get him ousted one way or another. One trumped-up excuse is as good as the next.

What Keating said, though, doesn't constitute bias. It's not racist, it's not ethnically biased, it's not biased on the basis of religion, although his opponents are doing their best to make it inot all of those things. No, bias would have been a statement like "itlaians are all mobbed up," or "Catholics are all part of the Mafia." That sort of sweeping generalization about an entire class of people qualifies. What Keating did was to use simple and muscular shorthand for concept that everyone understands - the sort of code of silence that's completely unbreakable.

This brings to mind the ruckus last year over the remarks by Germany's then-justice minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, who was - equally erroneously - accused of comparing Bush to Hitler. According to CNN: "She is alleged to have told a meeting of unionists that Bush was going after Iraq's Saddam Hussein to divert attention from domestic problems, adding: 'That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that.'" She argued that her remarks were taken out of context, but regardless, she did not compare Bush to Hitler. The very fact that she [allegedly] said "even Hitler" demonstrates that she was equating the two. And the fact of the matter is that, since September 11, Bush and his administration have indeed engaged a great number of acts that have disemboweled civil liberties in the supposed interests of national security - an accepted hallmark of the Nazi regime. (And no, I am not calling anyone a Nazi. But comparisons of actions are entirely valid discourse.)

Both of these people were ultimately forced out of their jobs. But Keating deserves great credit for refusing to pull his punches, even at the end. And we all need to quit allowing legitimate inquiry to be hijacked by shrieks of "bias" or "inappropriateness," now, more than ever. If we do, the terrorists will have won - and so will the pedophiles.

2003-06-18T08:33:00.000-07:00

You know the wing-nuts' knickers are in a twist.

Teenybopper nudist summer camp!

2003-06-17T21:21:00.000-07:00

Why does it take the BBC to break these stories?

The Beeb has a piece up about about the military's roundup of 400 Iraqis. Important story, yes, but not what's most significant in the article.

No, that distinction would be reserved for this, the last paragraph of the article's first subsection:

"The chief civilian administrator, Paul Bremer, also issued an order making it illegal for Iraqis to incite violent behaviour."

Now, I can't say that this shocks me, although given our own history of what officialdom defines as "to incite," I also can't say that I feel particularly confident that all arrests made under this new "law" will be for true incitement. No, what's surprising is the reason I put the word "law" in quotation marks. This sentence, almost an afterthought, a throwaway, is perhaps the clearest example yet that we are - Bremer's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding - an imperial presence in Iraq. What else can you call it when someone who has the bureaucratic, Soviet-sounding title "chief civilian administrator" and no defined portfolio can simply "issue an order" and bang! Something's illegal.

In other countries, there's a word for that. It's "dictatorship."

The piece concludes with the following:

"With Iraq's judicial system in disarray after the end of the war, Paul Bremer said a special criminal court would be set up.

He said the court would try people, '"in particular senior Baathists... may have committed crimes against the coalition, who are trying to destabilise the situation".

Mr Bremer said that in the meantime the current judicial system would be purged of corrupt and pro-Saddam judges.

He said the court would not try detained senior Iraqi officials who are being interrogated by US forces."

Hmmm. Let's take this apart:

Their definition of whom to try in this dandy new criminal court is disturbing - "'in particular senior Baathists... may have committed crimes against the coalition, who are trying to destabilise the situation.'"

First, I wonder how they'll define "senior" Ba'athists.

Second, what do they mean "may have committed crimes against the coalition'"? Does this mean that, oh, they may have, they may not have, but we're not going to be too picky? And what constitutes "crimes against the coalition"? Considering this administration's unfortunate tendency to label dissent treason, I don't think I feel too confident that their definition of "crimes" will be restricted to what we normally think of as criminal acts. Bush, Bremer, and Co. have already relabeled guerrilla warfare "terrorism."

Third, what's "'trying to destabilize the situation'"? See above. I'm afraid that dissent will come to be regarded as incitement, crime, and destabilization, all simultaneously. It's particularly troublesome if they're not going to try "detained senior Iraqi officials who are being interrogated by US forces." So they get a pass, but the poor slobs on the street are fair game?

And "the current judicial system would be purged of corrupt and pro-Saddam judges"? Notice it doesn't say "corrupt, pro-Saddam judges"; it says "corrupt and pro-Saddam judges." (Okay, so there really isn't likely to be a difference, but still.) And "purge" - there's a good imperialist word for you. Absolutely rings with echoes of Stalin.

Mmm, no. None of this inspires confidence. But it does make it clear that Bremer's title translates to "dictator-in-chief."

2003-06-17T19:35:00.000-07:00

Carl Levin gets a spine!

[Disclosure: Once upon a time, a very long time ago, Carl Levin was my senator.]

The Beeb has posted this:

Senator Queries WMD Claims
A senior US senator says he has evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deliberately withheld crucial information from the UN arms inspectors deployed to Iraq.

Levin is quoted as follows:

"Why did the CIA say that they had provided detailed information to the UN inspectors on all of the high and medium suspect sites with the UN, when they had not? Did the CIA act in this way in order not to undermine administration policy? Was there another explanation for this?"

[snip]

"It undermines the credibility of the director of intelligence to be making public statements relative to intelligence which are not factually accurate," Mr Levin said, adding that a lack of confidence in the intelligence services would affect security in the future.

Can you say "public hearings," boys and girls? How about "impeachment"?

2003-06-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

Off Iraq for a moment, but still on the wing-nuts . . . .

Norma McCorvey (that would be Roe, as in Roe v. Wade) has filed an "appeal" to get that decision overturned.

For those of you who don't know, Norma got taken under the wing of wing-nuts (pardon the pun) a few years back. I remember seeing a piece on 60 Minutes or some such, where she sat in a swing in an empty school playground and pined, "The swings are empty because we're killing all our children." She continues in the same gag-inducing vain today, announcing: "We're getting our babies back!"

To borrow from Maru, WTF???

Okay, let's just leave aside her notion that she's somehow "getting her babies back" with this move (especially since Roe v. Wade was decided too late for her to get an abortion in the first place; she gave the baby up for adoption). What idiot lawyer actually took this so-called "case"??? Let's see: malpractice suit, ethics grievance, Rule 11 sanctions . . . the mind boggles. I imagine the mind of the federal district court judge who has to hear the motion will boggle, too, when he sees the 5,400 pages of "new evidence" they've filed. (Apparently, the "evidence" consists largely of affidavits from 1,000 women who supposedly "regret" having had an abortion.)

Sheesh. As if we didn't have enough battles on this front already.

2003-06-17T18:44:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly wants the feds to regulate Web users instead of media conglomerates.

Susan at Suburban Guerrilla smacks him back down to size, as it were.

2003-06-17T18:19:00.000-07:00

Thank God for Paul Krugman.

I know some people get annoyed when he strays off economics, but really, how many opinion columnists have substantive experience in all the areas they cover? And frankly, Krugman's a rare voice crying in the wilderness, since most of the SCLM can't be bothered to fulfill their obligations as members of the press.

In today's column, Dereliction of Duty, he opens with a killer:

Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.

He holds the administration's feet to the fire, as usual, on that blasted tax cut:

But it's not just a matter of money. For one thing, it's hard to claim now that the Bush administration is trying to hold down domestic spending to make room for tax cuts. With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security wouldn't make much difference to the tax-cutting agenda. Moreover, Congress isn't pinching pennies across the board: last week the Senate voted to provide $15 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.

But here's the really great part - he tells it like it is on Rummy and Co.:

But it's not just a matter of money. For one thing, it's hard to claim now that the Bush administration is trying to hold down domestic spending to make room for tax cuts. With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security wouldn't make much difference to the tax-cutting agenda. Moreover, Congress isn't pinching pennies across the board: last week the Senate voted to provide $15 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, even on the military front the administration has been weirdly reluctant to come to grips with terrorism. It refused to provide Afghanistan's new government with an adequate security umbrella, with the predictable result that warlords are running rampant and the Taliban are making a comeback. The squandered victory in Afghanistan was one reason people like myself had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq — and sure enough, the administration was bizarrely lackadaisical about providing postwar security. Even nuclear waste dumps were left unguarded for weeks.

So what's the explanation? The answer, one suspects, is that key figures — above all, Donald Rumsfeld — just didn't feel like dealing with the real problem. Real counterterrorism mainly involves police work and precautionary measures; it doesn't look impressive on TV, and it doesn't provide many occasions for victory celebrations.

YES!!! Exactly right. Real counter-terrorism is real work. Hard, slogging, below-the-radar, thankless work. It shouldn't be flag-waving, headline-grabbing, global-junketing, photo-opping jingoistic lip service, which is what it's become under this bunch.

Krugman's conclusion is better than anything I could write:

But never mind — we won, didn't we? Maybe not. About half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now tied down in Iraq, facing what looks increasingly like a guerrilla war — and like a perfect recruiting device for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the real war on terror has been neglected, and we've antagonized the allies we need to fight that war. One of these days we'll end up paying the price.

2003-06-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

Sound familiar?

From two Brits who also resigned on principle over the war on Iraq:

"I think that is where the falsity lies, the exaggeration of immediacy," [former secretary for international development Clare] Short told the House foreign affairs committee.

[Former House of Commons leader Robin] Cook said that his experience convinced him that "instead of using intelligence as evidence on which to base a decision about policy, we used intelligence as the basis on which to justify a policy on which we had already settled."

The Brits do democracy so much better than we do these days. Read the whole story here.

2003-06-17T17:44:00.000-07:00

Speaking of le dauphin debile and his minions . . . .

This, from The New York Times:

Names of 9/11 Detainees Can Remain Secret, Court Rules
By MARK J. PRENDERGAST

A federal appeals court, reversing a lower-court decision, ruled today that the government did not have to disclose the names of more than 700 people detained in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, agreeing with the Justice Department that making that information public could "allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to map the course of the investigation."

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a rebuff to the civil liberties and other groups that were challenging the Bush administration's refusal to provide the names and other information about people, mostly immigrants, held in connection with the 9/11 terrorism investigation, on the ground of national security.

The court said the government could withhold the dates and locations of arrest, detention and release of all detainees, including those charged with federal crimes, and the names of lawyers representing them.

"A complete list of names informing terrorists of every suspect detained by the government at any point during the Sept. 11 investigation would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation," the majority wrote today. "Disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation. Moreover, disclosure would inform terrorists which of their members were compromised by the investigation, and which were not."

Please. Like the don't already know who's been compromised. The only people who don't know are the loved ones of those detainees who were grabbed in the administration's sweeps of Arabs and Muslims on such pretextual grounds as visa violations. And even, assuming for the sake of argument, that knowing who is being held might give "the terrorists" (whatever that title encompasses in the minds of our fearless leaders) some information that they don't already have, I have yet to see a coherent case made that knowing who's being held will threaten national security in any way that excuses betraying some of our nation's most fundamental principles.

But in a sharply worded dissent, Judge David S. Tatel faulted his two colleagues, David B. Sentelle and Karen Lecraft Henderson, for showing "uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees."

Sentelle and Henderson. No kidding.

While noting that the government had a legitimate basis for keeping some information secret, Judge Tatel cited "another compelling public interest," which he defined as "knowing whether the government, in responding to the attacks, is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation."

"Citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail," Judge Tatel wrote in arguing that the government had overextended its use of an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.

Judge Tatel said fuller disclosure concerning the detainees would help the public determine whether people had been detained "mainly because of their religion or ethnicity" and whether the government was "holding them in custody for extended periods without charge or preventing them from seeking or communicating with legal counsel."

Bravo to Tatel! At least he hasn't bought the company line of crap.

But Judges Sentelle and Henderson said the judiciary owed a certain amount of deference to the government in determining what would and would not harm national security interests in the campaign against terrorism.

"America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," the judges wrote. "It is abundantly clear that the government's top counterterrorism officials are well-suited to make this predictive judgment. Conversely, the judiciary is in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executives judgment in this area of national security."

Oh, good. Now we're invoking the Cold War. And of course, our government never engaged in any unconstitutional excesses in the pursuit of Reds.

The case, brought by a large coalition of groups seeking the names under the Freedom of Information Act, is one of a handful of cases dealing with the delicate balance between civil liberties and public safety that are making their way through the courts in response to administration actions after Sept. 11.

On June 3, the groups' concerns and criticisms of administration actions gained credence when the Justice Department's inspector general reported that the roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after Sept. 11 had been plagued by "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions.

But today's appellate court decision was clearly a setback for the coalition.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a coalition member, said in a statement that the court's action could presage a "stunning rollback of rights in America."

"This ruling gives amazing deference to the Justice Department and cripples the critical role of oversight in protecting rights in America," Mr. Neas said. "This ruling allows the Department of Justice to bury these secret arrests even deeper. Now the public is denied access even to the names of attorneys representing detainees."

A principal lawyer for the coalition in the suit, Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies civil liberties group, said, "We are disappointed that for the first time in U.S. history, a court has approved secret arrests and we plan to pursue the case," according to Reuters.

The ruling can be appealed either to the full appellate court or to the Supreme Court.

Let's hope they do appeal. The gesture must be made, at the very least.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement on the Justice Department's Web site, "We are pleased the court agreed we should not give terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could allow terrorists to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."

A "virtual road map" - the key word here is "virtual." "Virtual" in the sense of not existing in the tangible world, perhaps?

In the lower-court ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court in Washington held that the Bush administration had no right to conceal the identities of hundreds of people arrested after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and she ordered that most of their names be released within 15 days, though she stayed her ruling to allow for an appeal.

Judge Kessler said that while it was the obligation of the executive branch to ensure the physical security of American citizens, "the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."

Kessler gets it, too. Put this woman on the D.C. Circuit!

The F.B.I. and the Department of Justice appealed. Speaking after Judge Kessler's ruling, Robert McCallum, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, asserted that government investigators "firmly believe that the information sought by the plaintiffs, if released, could jeopardize the investigation and provide valuable information to terrorists seeking to cause even greater harm to the safety of the American people."

But Judge Kessler dismissed as too speculative the government's argument that the release of the names would allow terrorist groups to track the progress of its investigation.

Kessler got it right; Tatel got it right. But talk about lousy luck getting Sentelle and Henderson assigned to the three-judge panel. Of course, considering Sentelle's involvement with the campaign to ruin Bill Clinton . . . .

2003-06-17T17:14:00.000-07:00

Rand Beers Named First Rational Animal

The blogosphere picked up the story of Rand Beers first thing yesterday, following the Washington Post's article about his resignation. On the off-chance that anyone reading this missed the story, here's the ten-cent version:

Rand Beers was a National Security Council lifer, having worked in that capacity under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and now le dauphine debile. Eight weeks ago, he held the title of special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. Five days before the launch of the war on Iraq, though, Beers apparnetly reached an internal crisis point, and he resigned. He told the Post: "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure. . . . As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

A selection of other quotes from his interviews with the Post:

"Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense. The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."

"The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."

"I continue to be puzzled by it [the decision to go to war on Iraq]. Why was it such a policy priority?"

"Terrorists move around the country [Afghanistan] with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan."

He described so-called current "homeland security" policy as "policy constipation. Nothing gets done." "Fixing an agency management problem doesn't make headlines or produce voter support. So if you're looking at things from a political perspective, it's easier to go to war."

"We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military. he described domestic anti-terror efforts as "a rhetorical policy. What else can you say -- 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' "

His wife, Bonnie, also said what he couldn't, talking about the administration: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

Now this alone - the decision to leave on principle - would be enough to garner him our title. But he went even further, and cemented his place at the top of the list. He has now joined the Kerry campaign as an advisor on terrorism and national security. According to the Post: "He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he 'never felt so strongly about something in my life' than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service."

But there's yet another reason that Beers is especially deserving - and this reason has less to do, affirmatively, with what he's done than it does with the response of others. When I logged onto &c, the blog of The New Republic, I was shocked to see this from a publication that still insists on thinking of itself as progressive:

WHAT WAS RAND BEERS THINKING?: Today's Washington Post piece about former White House counterterrorism official and current Kerry campaign national security adviser Rand Beers has quite literally been the talk of the town, or at least our small section of town. Though Beers, according to the Post, was a devoted and highly circumspect public servant, he apparently became so frustrated by the tack the Bush administration was taking in the war on terrorism that he felt he had no choice but to resign and work to deny his former boss a second term.

But a couple of details of Beers's story don't quite add up. First, Beers says that one major difference of opinion he had with the White House over fighting terror was the decision to go to war in Iraq, which, according to the Post's paraphrasing of his comments, "robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money." But if that's what Beers believes, doesn't that put him at odds with Kerry, who supported the war in Iraq? Why not instead sign on with someone like Bob Graham, who opposed the war on similar grounds?

In response Beers might say he thinks Bush's counterterror policy is so misguided that the highest priority must be ousting him from office, regardless of who ends up succeeding him. Since Kerry appears to be the Democratic frontrunner, his campaign would be the logical one to join. But if that's how Beers really feels--and it'd be kind of a cynical calculation for someone who claims to have resigned from the White House on principle--why not just sit out the primary campaign and join up with the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination? Beers might argue that that would effectively freeze him out of the top-ranks of the eventual nominee's staff--which would diminish his impact on the race--but that seems unlikely. It's hard to believe that any Democratic campaign could afford to turn up its nose at a former top White House counterterror official willing to criticize the administration on the issue. (Recall that the Bush campaign brought a relative nonentity like Ari Fleischer into its top ranks after his original boss, Elizabeth Dole, dropped out of the 2000 presidential race.)

Beers says the reason he didn't take a think tank or university job after leaving the White House is that he's "never felt so strongly about something in my life" as he does about changing the country's approach to battling terrorism. But wouldn't joining a think tank or a university faculty have allowed him to do the one thing he can't do now that he's working for Kerry, which is tirelessly push the set of policies he thinks are best? (You could argue that Beers is essentially doing this by working for Kerry--Beers will, among other things, probably be the author of any Kerry op-ed you read on terrorism. But certainly Kerry will spend less time talking and writing about terrorism than, say, former White House counterterrorism official Rand Beers would have.) Moreover, if Beers had devoted himself to writing op-eds and commenting on television and radio, surely his comments would have been picked up by all the Democratic presidential candidates, not just Kerry....

Okay, okay, I know the rag should really be called The New Republican, but there are so many things wrong here that one hardly knows where to begin. I'll confine myself to the final paragraph. Do they honestly think that if Beers had joined a think tank and become a pundit, his words would have any practical effect whatsoever? The most practical way to change the nation's policies on terrorism and national security is to get le dauphin debile the hell out of office, and send all his minions packing with him. And of course, the best way for him to make that happen is to help get a Democrat elected in '04. And talk about "help" - this guy's got expertise that, combined with Kerry's military record, could unmask ldd as the pretender he is.

So Beers chose Kerry. Fine. But why do I get the feeling that, had he gone to work for Lieberman, we wouldn't have heard a peep from TNR? Ever since he became Gore's running mate, TNR's put Lieberman on a freaking pedestal. I guess Marty Peretz still hasn't gotten over the fact that his buddy Al's not sitting in the Oval Office, and this is the closest he can come. And if that's what's driving this miserable sucker-punch of a post, then both Marty and Peter Beinart need to be smacked upside the head with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. I'm a Dean woman myself, at least at the moment, but Kerry's very viable for the primary, and certainly for the general election. As a Democrat, I'll take whatever help we can get, especially when it's so incredibly well-qualified. TNR should quit treating Democratic allies the way ldd treats the French.

2003-06-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

New Feature.

We're going to start a new feature here at A Rational Animal. Periodically, we'll award the title "Rational Animal" to public figures who 1) meet the literal definition of the term, and 2) meet the definition we outlined in our very first post. In other words, it'll be someone who believes that people are "endowed by nature with rights," who have "an innate sense of justice," and who stand firm in their belief that our leaders should "be restrained from wrong and protected in right" and "held to their duties by dependence on [our] own will." Translated, people who believe that our leaders have certain duties to the Constitution and the citizenry, and who aren't afraid to hold those leaders' feet to the fire when they abrogate those duties.

Read on to see who's won the title first.

2003-06-17T16:15:00.000-07:00

So many outrages, so little time.

I'm off-blog for one lousy day, and what do I find? Outrage on top of outrage. Well, I'm ba-a-a-ck.

This is gonna be a heavy-duty blogging night, folks. I know a lot of bloggers out there have already posted on a lot of these topics, but 1) I have to vent; and 2) mabe I can add a new twist or two to the general discussion.

Hang on. Here we go . . . .

2003-06-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

WTF???

I was so mired in work Friday that I didn't even get to the Washington Post until now. And what do I find but this:

"A covert Army Special Forces unit, operating in Iraq since before the war began in March, has played a dominant but ultimately unsuccessful role in the Bush administration's stymied hunt for weapons of mass destruction, according to military and intelligence sources in Baghdad and Washington."

[snip]

"Yet Task Force 20 has come no closer than its widely publicized counterpart, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, to the Bush administration's declared objective. Sources with firsthand knowledge of its mission and personnel, and others with access to its reports, said the team has found no working nonconventional munitions, long-range missiles or missile parts, bulk stores of chemical or biological warfare agents or enrichment technology for the core of a nuclear weapon. The administration cited all those components specifically as part of Iraq's concealed arsenal. The arms were forbidden to Iraq under U.N. Security Council mandate, and Bush used them as his primary argument for war."

Translated, what this means is that before the actual "war" even started, we had a Special Forces unit already in Iraq hunting for WMD. And guess what? They didn't find anything that falls under the WMD classification. And what that means is that the administration knew beforehand that they didn't have their so-called casus belli, the "imminent" WMD threat.

Atrios and Co. have got it right; we should all be shouting this from the rooftops: BUSH LIED; PEOPLE DIED.

Impeachment, anyone?

2003-06-14T18:22:00.000-07:00

What I'd like to see:

Every time one of the thugs on the right questions their patriotism for asking questions about the war, I'd like to see the democrats throw this quote back in their faces, along with the name of the person who said it.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Hermann Goering, 1946

Courtesy of Zizka.

2003-06-14T14:33:00.000-07:00

And while we're on the subject of rape . . . .

Also from the BBC:

Genital Mutilation "Still Common"

Go read this. Pay particular attention to the results of the Khartoum poll. 80% oppose the procedure, and 75% of the men would prefer to have an unmutilated wife. But 40% don't even know that it's illegal.

The punchline's in the penultimate paragraph:

"The rate of female genital mutilation remains so high despite its illegality because of confusing religious messages and ambiguous law, say the study's authors."

"Confusing religious messages." Why am I not surprised?

2003-06-14T14:26:00.000-07:00

And while we have our collective head up our ass searching for nonexistent WMD . . . .

The BBC reports that Iraqi women are being forced to take the veil.

Oh, yeah, and apparently reports of rape have also spiked.

2003-06-14T11:56:00.000-07:00

Can you say 'conflict of interest,' boys and girls?

So much for the administration's assurances that Dick gets nothing out of Halliburton's sweet deal in "post-war" Iraq:

Cheney is Still Paid by Pentagon Contractor
Bush deputy gets up to $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal

From The Guardian, by way of Dick Cheney's blog.

2003-06-14T09:23:00.000-07:00

Trailblazer???

That's the Secret Service's nickname for le dauphin debile.

Pardon me - I just choked on something.

(Courtesy of Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler. Go read and learn, children.)

2003-06-13T22:13:00.000-07:00

". . . snowfall in Miami."

I agree - everyone should visit Ruminate This and get educated about the Pryor nomination.

But this ain't the only one in the pipeline, folks. No, indeedy. Hear the one about James Leon Holmes? Eleanor Clift dissects his history here, but be warned - you have to scroll down a bit. Do it - it's worth the effort.

For anyone who can't get to the Clift piece, here's the 10-cent CV on Holmes:

* Authored a "1997 article for Arkansas Catholic magazine in which Holmes advanced the position that 'the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,' and 'the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.'" (Southern Baptist Convention membership, anyone?)

* Once said, “Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.” (And he would know this how?)

* Has since retracted the "snowfall in Miami"statement, but "explain[ed] that he read it somewhere and assumed it was true." (That's what I want - a judge who will assume everything I tell him is true! Let's see . . . how about "W lied about WMD and must be impeached - oh, and by the way, he also owes me a million bucks"?)

Holmes won't be the last, either.

2003-06-13T21:11:00.000-07:00

Somebody forgot to tell the army the war's over.

The Army Times, by way of Skippy.

2003-06-13T20:20:00.000-07:00

THIS is how the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

This, from tomorrow's New York Times:

June 14, 2003
DEMOCRATS SPLIT ON CHALLENGING IRAQ ARMS HUNT
by SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The war in Iraq is once again dividing the Democratic Party, with Congressional leaders and presidential candidates struggling over how strongly to challenge President Bush about the failure so far to find biological or chemical weapons.

Many party leaders say they are hopeful that questions about the weapons can be turned into a powerful political issue. But others are concerned that it may backfire, given the strong public support for Mr. Bush's war policies, the public's apparent indifference to the absence of weapons and the prospect that such weapons could turn up any day.
.
Do any of them really think that "such weapons could turn up any day"? Even if that were remotely likely, so freaking what??? After the avalanche of evidence showing that the administration's casus belli was rthe ultimate mind fuck, it doesn't matter if they someday find an eyedropper with a trace of botulinum toxin on it. It's abundantly clear that not only were there no WMD on the scale that they promised, but they LIED about what precious little they did apparently know. And frankly, if there really are WMD that haven't yet been found, that's almost worse: After two months, and with reports that our GIs are now being diverted to other tasks because they've run out of places to search, there will be no excuse for not having already found them if they do miraculously turn up later. What I want to know is why we aren't hearing Dems talking about impeachment - after all, it's one thing two blow an intern; it's quite another to blow the entire country, killing people in the process.

- snip -

One presidential candidate, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, went so far as to compare Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans to Richard M. Nixon. After Republicans announced they would hold closed-door hearings on the weapons issue, Mr. Graham accused the administration of "another shameful and dangerous display of secrecy," and suggested it had manipulated intelligence "to sell the decision to go to war."

So what's Lieberman's excuse? And Gephardt's? And Kerry's? And Kucinich's?

- snip -

But other prominent Democrats, including such presidential contenders as Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have struck a far more cautious tone, with their aides warning that such attacks could end up hurting the Democratic Party, depending on how events play out.

Several polls have indicated that the public remains largely supportive of the war, and that people are not particularly concerned that the weapons that Mr. Bush said would be found have not yet been located.

Some Democrats who supported the war, notably Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said they still thought it was likely that weapons would be found.

"The right tone is one of serious concerns but no allegations," said a senior adviser to one of the presidential candidates who, given the sensitivity of the issue, spoke on the condition that he and his candidate not be named. "I think we do ourselves a disservice to start screaming conspiracy. Let's give them the time to search.

Of Mr. Bush, the adviser said that "if we take a run on this guy and they find them, he'll come up at us stronger than ever."

Ah, there's the answer. Pitiful. Lisa English, with a little help from Edward R. Murrow, should give these would-be fearless leaders some civics lessons: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."

- snip -

At first, Dr. Dean aggressively challenged Mr. Bush's credibility on the issue. But he has since held back as pressure on the administration has built in Congress. "Howard Dean said for a long time that the president didn't make the case for war in Iraq," said Steve McMahon, one of Dr. Dean's senior advisers. "Now the question is, was the case the president made based on facts or ideology?"

Some of Dr. Dean's supporters said he would be vindicated if no weapons were found. At the same time, Mr. Graham, who is the latest entry into the presidential race, has attacked Mr. Bush's credibility with a directness that has startled some rivals, who argued that Mr. Graham would be in political difficulty if weapons were uncovered.

Now, thus far, I'm backing Dean. And so far, I don't think he's backpedaled. But I have to say that Graham's "directness" is more than welcome. Has it ever occurred to these Beltway yutzes that, rather than causing Graham "political difficulty," this might actually enable him to make his mark as a man of principle?

But the risks for the Democrats are high. Mr. Bush has dismissed suggestions that he manipulated information, and Republicans were quick to try to paint Democrats as unpatriotic for raising such questions.

In announcing the closed-door hearings, Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Democrats of using the war for political gain. And Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said in an interview: "I think it's political posturing. Democrats are politicizing a very important issue."

Democrats, in keeping with tradition and fearing they would be labeled unpatriotic, refrained from criticizing the administration during the war. That has changed with most American forces out of harm's way.

And, of course, there's the whole
"Please-don't-say-I'm-unpatriotic-I'm-really-a-patriot-who'd-never-criticize-the-U.S.-and-of-course-I-support-our-troops-where's-my-yellow-ribbon" factor. [Sounds of gagging and retching.]

The rest is just more depressing drivel about how popular and credible le dauphine debile is.

I think I might go crawl back into my LEXIS-and-Bluebook hole.

2003-06-13T19:51:00.000-07:00

Poking my head back out into the sunlight - er, rain . . . .

Sorry, folks. Things have been light for a couple of days because my blogging partner's been dealing with the massive fallout that always accompanies a move to new digs, and I've been buried under a brief that's due on, shall we say, a very expedited schedule. I have a bit more accompanying documentation to put together, but that can wait until tomorrow.

2BFogg has said that he expects to make a significant number of changes next week, so with a little luck, very soon you won't have to deal with some of the typical blogger difficulties we've encountered - permalinks, comments, etc., etc.

So watch this space!

And now, I'm pissed off and in full blogging mode . . . .

2003-06-12T18:13:00.000-07:00

We owe a huge THANK YOU . . .

to Suburban Guerrilla and MadKane for adding us to their blogrolls. We're new to the blogosphere, and it's great to be welcomed by established pros. Thanks!

And for anyone reading this who hasn't checked out these women's blogs, do so immediately. They're both must-reads.

P.S. to MadKane: My partner will get you blogrolled here shortly.

2003-06-11T00:50:00.000-07:00

Also from next month's Atlantic Monthly:

Would somebody please explain to me why the hell they assigned Hitch the Snitch to review Sid's book???

2003-06-10T23:46:00.000-07:00

"What I really meant when I said they had WMD . . . ."

Check out MadKane's translation.

2003-06-10T22:57:00.000-07:00

Addendum to the "Death Chamber" Post

I don't know why, in my earlier post about the possible construction of an execution chamber at Gitmo, I was shocked. We're talking about Bush, after all.

I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. I have absolutely no doubt that people can commit crimes so outrageous, so completely unmitigated, that they have absolutely no "moral" right left to anything, including the ability to breathe air and take up space on the planet with the rest of us. That said, I have two problems with capital punishment: 1) If you're wrong about someone's guilt, you can't "give it back"; and 2) even if there were a way to ensure that there was absolutely no possibility that an innocent person could be wrongly convicted, it's still applied in a discriminatory fashion. Because of this, I support the moratorium movement.

This is a long-winded lead-in to a very important article highlighted by Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft. It seems that the upcoming issue of The Atlantic Monthly is running a piece by Alan Berlow. Get a load of the title and subhead:

The Texas Clemency Memos

"As the legal counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales—now the White House counsel, and widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee—prepared fifty-seven confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush's review. Never before discussed publicly, the memoranda suggest that Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of some of the most salient issues in the cases at hand."

This is huge - and especially so in light of the following damning paragraph:

"A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence."

Now, this, people, is malpractice. As noted by Berlow, Gonzales attempted to keep the memos confidential by labeling them thus under various forms of privilege - attorney/client, work product, and something called an "internal memorandum exception" to the TPIA. But this is just another example of the malady suffered by le dauphin debile and his administration, as well as evidence that it goes back to his days as governor - the mistaking of the chief executive's role for a private-sector position. As governor, Bush was not a free and independent agent; he represented (or was supposed to represent) the people of the state of Texas. That renders the staff of the governor's office, in effect, the staff of the people. I know, I know, privilege applies even to public officials, but I'm not making a technical argument here. My point is that if I, as a lawyer, failed to acknowledge the existence of mitigating or exculpatory evidence, the judge would have my head on the proverbial platter. And if it affected my client adversely, my malpractice premiums would be skyrocketing, at a minimum. As the ultimate "client," the people of Texas have an interest in being secure that defendants are not being wrongfully executed in the their name. From Berlow's article, it appears that they have no such assurances now.

Go read the entire article. Then write to your Senators.

2003-06-10T22:39:00.000-07:00

So you thought Ashcroft's TIPS was dead?
It's just gotten new and improved packaging. James Ridgeway has a thoroughly frightening piece in this week's Village Voice about "Cat Eyes," the sexy new moniker for an active citizen-spy network.

According to Ridgeway, "Cat Eyes" is "short for the Community Anti-Terrorism Training Initiative, [was] created by former U.S. military officers along with U.S. cops, and has been supported by the Justice Department and the Arab American Institute. The fledgling project supposedly tries to avoid racial profiling. Its motto: 'Watching America with pride, not prejudice.'

"Cat Eyes calls for block captains and block watchers who report to neighborhood coordinators, who in turn get chummy with local police or sheriffs, as well as provide training sessions for neighborhood recruits. The block captain, according to the program's literature, 'personally visits each home/apartment/business in his/her block, announcing the meeting and encouraging neighbors to participate.' The block watcher 'acts as eyes and ears for law enforcement and reports any suspicious activity.'"

It's frightening to think who would volunteer to be a "block watcher." Remember the New Jersey incident, shortly after September 11th, when heavily armed cops burst in on a Pakistani family, threw the wife face-down on the floor, and dragged the hisband away with no explanation? For days, she had no idea where he was being held, or if he was even still alive, and he was not permitted to contact her or anyone else. How did this happen? A neighbor saw the husband dump a bucket of dirty water in the backyard (the kitchen sink had backed up), and immediately assumed that he must be trying to poison the groundwater.

Ridgeway lists the jurisdictions currently using Cat Eyes: "Police departments in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio are doing Cat Eyes, as are various cities and towns in Florida, Nevada, and California. Park police in Washington, D.C., and university police at MIT are using the training materials."

Park police in D.C.? I'd be tempted to wonder why it's not the MPD or the Capitol cops, but I wouldn't want to give them any ideas.

He includes some quotes from those involved that we're all, apparently, supposed to find reassuring:
"'Citizens shouldn't worry about someone thinking, "They're going to think I'm crazy." Don't worry about that, report it,' Bedford County sheriff Mike Brown told the Lynchburg, Virginia, News and Advance. 'They may be the little pieces of the puzzle that we need to put the big pieces together. You never know where a lead is going to come from.'

"Sergeant Frank Hamilton of Perry Township, Ohio, told the Voice that he had been trained as a Cat Eyes instructor. 'A lot of agencies don't push it,' he said, 'but we intend to push it and get it out to as many people as possible.' Township police are organizing through schools and businesses, and classes are free in the community. 'This will be an enhancement to our neighborhood block watch program,' Hamilton added.

"In Teaneck, New Jersey, specially trained police officers are fanning out into neighborhoods, training people to be more 'diligent' and telling them what to look for. . . . 'There's been so many groups,' the spokesman added. "Many, many civic groups, religious organizations, councilmembers, politicians.' As a result, he said, even ordinary residents 'look at the world a little bit different.'"

Somehow, I don't feel reassured.

Ridgeway closes:
"That's just what Mike Licata, a high school teacher and retired air force officer who dreamed up and copyrighted the program, hopes for [i.e., looking at the world differently]. Licata told The Boston Globe, 'If I felt that my neighbor of 10 years was doing fundraising for a group, I'd turn 'em in.' He adds that the FBI will 'just investigate them—and if you're wrong, you're wrong. And if you're right, that's a big thing!'"

If he felt??? "If you're wrong, you're wrong??? Why do I know this is going to end badly?

2003-06-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

Ashcroft Folds!

But don't be fooled by the official line.

2003-06-10T20:33:00.000-07:00

And, of course, we want it both ways . . . .

Also from the BBC:

"Washington has asked the UN to grant US peacekeepers another year's exemption from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court.

It has also warned European governments that opposition to the US efforts to gain immunity will harm transatlantic ties."

Ahem. Well, our fearless leaders are nothing if not brazen.

Leave aside, for the moment, that we, lousy global citizens that we are these days, refused to ratify membership in the International Criminal Court. Leave aside, too, our self-indulgent little temper tantrum of last year, when we blackmailed the rest of the world into giving us a year's immunity from any war crimes' prosecutions by threatening to take all of our peacekeeing balls and go home. What the hell are they thinking?

We're already unbelievably unpopular with the rest of the world - including the "coalition of the shilling," which now realizes just how thoroughly bamboozled it allowed itself to be. We've squandered every last bit of the enormous goodwill we possessed on September 12th, 2001. And we're now in the lamentable position of trying to defend our decision to launch an unsupported and insupportable war when the reasons we gave are inexorably being proven false. And now - with questions abounding on the world stage about our motives and actions, and about our treatment of Arabs and Muslims both domestically and overseas, and we think we've got the right to threaten the rest of the world if they don't grant us another year's worth of immunity?

Come on.

Sadly, according to the BBC, "[o]ther council members, still bruised from the clash in the Security Council over the war in Iraq, are also eager to avoid confrontation, and the vote is likely to pass easily."

I'm sorry - this is one of the responsibilities of global citizenship. As a citizen of the only remaining superpower in the world, I'd really like us to be known as a global citizen, rather than as a global tyrant.

2003-06-10T18:19:00.000-07:00

Gitmo death chamber???

Once again, the Beeb is way out ahead of the U.S. media pack:

"Renovation work such as rewiring has begun on a number of buildings which could later be designated as courts for the tribunals.

General Miller told AP there are also plans to build a permanent prison block for those convicted and sentenced and an execution chamber should any be sentenced to death."

Bad enough that we've held these people for over a year, without access to counsel. Bad enough that we're denying them the most fundamental legal rights enshrined in the Constitution. Bad enough that we're determined to use "military tribunals," with no independent oversight to help prevent conviction of the innocent, that don't have the sanction of international law or the support of the international community. But now, without yet having held a single "trial," without the presentation of any evidence, and without a single "conviction," we're already drawing up plans for a death chamber.

Not that we're treating Gitmo justice like an assembly line or anything.

UPDATE: The A.P. reports on it here.

2003-06-09T18:29:00.000-07:00

Terrific column in Arab News.

Bander ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad has a column in today's paper entitled "It’s the Same Old Blame Game Again," which harshly criticizes an anti-U.S. diatribe he received via e-mail. No time at the moment to dissect it here; just go read it.

2003-06-09T18:13:00.000-07:00

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys to the rescue!

"France Evacuates Americans From Liberia."

2003-06-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

"Rubbing salt in the wound."

That's how an Egyptian reporter describes a speech by U.S. ambassador to Egypt David Welch to the American Chamber of Commerce in Cairo last week. Gamal Essam al-Din of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram says that Welch was "vociferously critical" of Egypt's progress on democracy and reform, trade and investment, and education and the media.

Among many specific examples al-Din cites are Welch's remarks on education: "In the educational sphere, Welch said he was disheartened by the press's mantra about 'the United States trying to change the curriculum, or that we want to change cultural and religious values. Ladies and gentlemen -- this is your business, not our business,' the ambassador said. At the same time, Welch posed a few tough questions to the audience: 'Why not more parental, business and community input into local schools? Why not more decentralised control over many aspects of school operations? Why not a student-centred, critical-thinking approach to education that encourages excellence?'"

Now, those may be admirable goals, for Egypt or any other nation . But when they're presented in an impolitic manner, no one's going to focus on the worth of the suggestions. And according to el-Din, "Welch's remarks, no less than the tone in which they were made, triggered an uproar within Egyptian intellectual and political circles, with many describing the US amabassador's attitude as being reminiscent of that adopted by British high commissioners, at the time of the British occupation of the country." He also indicates that, at least to many Egyptian officials, many of the collaborative efforts cited by Welch are not quite as rosy as described.

The title of the speech? "Reinforcing American-Egyptian relations in a volatile Middle East." Here it is, along with the subsequent Q&A. See what you think.

2003-06-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

And we're supposed to believe this why?

The A.P. reports: "There is a 'high probability' that al-Qaida will attempt an attack with a weapon of mass destruction in the next two years, the U.S. government said in a report Monday."

Considering the ongoing debacle over our failure to find any evidence of WMD in Iraq - and so reassure the rest of the world that we didn't merely trumpan excuse - you'd think the last thing the administration would want to do is start yelping that someone else now has them and is going to use them on us soon.

Now, it would not surprise me at all to learn that al-Qaeda does indeed have access to WMD, and it also wouldn't surprise me if they tried to use them on us within the next two years - or next month, or next week, or tomorrow. But after Iraq, I wouldn't bet even a plugged nickle that the administration actually has hard intelligence to that effect.

It's frightening to realize that you've so lost faith in your own government's credibility that when it warns of a potential WMD attack, your first reaction is to wonder what they're trying to deflect attention from now.

2003-06-09T16:18:00.000-07:00

Hey, go check out Suburban Guerrilla!

Susan's given her site a major new look!

2003-06-08T21:12:00.000-07:00

As the night follows the day . . . .

When a region is as bloody and strife-torn as the Congo, "a trail of rape" always appears at some point.

I haven't been concentrating on the Congo situation, and I can't claim to have anything more than the most rudimentary grasp of the issues involved. Jeanne d'Arc had a good post a few days ago, with a number of links; it's still up - just scroll down to the bottom of the page. But I do hope this gets some attention.

Remember during the war in Bosnia, when Muslim women were being gang-raped by Serbs? American conservatives opposed international attempts to recognize rape, in the context of its use as a tool of war, so to speak, as a war crime. I can't even begin to recount to [il]logical contortions they performed to reach that conclusion.

But for a subject that, on the sliding scale of awfulness begins at "horrific" and gets worse from there, circumstances have combined to sink the Congolese women's plight to new depths. First, to the Congolese, rape results in unadulterated shame for the victim. It's not discussed, period - sex isn't discussed, much less rape. So the crimes go unreported, the victims are shamed from within and without, and the criminals are emboldened to do it again - and again, and again. So far, reported victims range in age from 4 (that's right, f-o-u-r) to 80 (that's right, too - e-i-g-h-t-y); many of them are gang-raped. Mathilde Mahindo, who runs a center for rape victims in Buakvu, told The Times that "[t]here are no rituals in the culture to remove the stain of rape — not from the victim, her family or her community. 'Rape doesn't have a place in the culture,' she said."

How convenient. If something "doesn't have a place in the culture," how easy it must be for authorities to deny its existence altogether.

And keep in mind that this is happening against the backdrop of the African AIDS epidemic - which is of unprecedented proportions in the history of the virus.

Now, how many troops have we committed to deal with the hundreds of thousands of dead dying, and the women and children who are being brutalized this way? Oh, that's right - NONE.

A Rational Animal

We've moved!

Around Blogtopia (y! stbkctp!)

Anne Appelbaum, WaPo Wing-Nut.

Oh, for . . . .

News Flash! Howell Raines Says Something Sensible!

Dean all over the administration on the Niger lies.

Blogathon 2003!

Media Spines, Part II

News Flash! Sudden Upsurge in Media Spines!

GO DEAN!!!

Yeah, the Post is really liberal.

CBS News takes the gloves off!

How does Colin Powell manage to keep a straight face?

Anthony Cox, Google-Bomb Genius

Iraq: an audit of war

Retired U.S. intelligence official says administration lied on Iraq.

Oh, sure.

They're giving fake numbers in the attacks on the troops.

The Exterminator Speaks.

MUSThe?

"My way or the highway," as usual.

Happy Birthday . . .

Steve Bell . . .

So much for "smaller government."

NOW they tell us.

What I can't understand about Kucinich supporters.

My God.

And while I'm still belatedly on the subject . . . .

Folklife Festival 2003

A D.C. 4th

Long weekends and short posts

Independence Day, 2003

Declaration of Independence, continued - true patriots

Declaration of Independence, continued - the bill of particulars

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

Independence Day

Giant blob on Chilean coast identified

ARRGHH!

Is the Bush administration actively trying to get us all killed?

Calling all D.C.-area bloggers!

What really matters.

I don't feel that this calls for a correction. Nonetheless . . .

Now this is more like it.

I knew there were gonna be consequences, but . . . .

Speaking of our men and women in uniform . . . .

Rummy strikes again.

Ding-Dong, the Dixie Witch is Dead.

Bugger Blogger.

"Savage honors Bridgitte Bardot An otherwordly angel — with reasonable political views"

"Bore TV: Liberal network’s take on the news."

"Michael Savage on Hollywood, culture defense, and religion"

Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day

And for anyone who still thinks that Russert was trying to give Dean a fair shake . . . .

Jude Wanniski gets it.

Abdicating Responsibility