Monday, September 30, 2002
Was Jeb Bush Unfairly Fed Questions Before Debate ???
(Dedalus sent this information to me.)
I'm not accusing, just asking. Anyone who watched the Florida debate picked up pretty quickly that the moderator was giving a lot of favors to Bush - lots of extra rebuttals compared to McBride.
The transcript of the debate confirms that the candidates were not supposed to have received the questions in advance (they were pre-recorded "man on the street" type questions):
THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED WILL BE ASKED BY CITIZENS FROM AROUND THE STATE.
FLORIDA NETWORK STATIONS COLLECTED MORE THAN 100 QUESTIONS BY VOTERS AND WE SELECTED THE ONES WE THINK REFLECT THE CONCERNS OF MOST FLORIDIANS.
THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THE QUESTIONS. THEY WILL BE DIRECTED TO THEM ALTERNATELY AND THEY'VE HAVE 90 SECONDS TO RESPOND OR LESS, IF THEY CHOOSE.
Something strange happened during the debate. Consider this section from the transcript. Note first that the fourth question was ask by a Ms. Fran Gosselin.
Putney: NOW THE FOURTH QUESTION... IT IS FROM FRAN GOSSELIN, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH VOTING PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA.
Fran Gosselin: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN'T CLEAN UP THIS MESS ABOUT VOTING. IT'S NOT FAIR FORT PEOPLE THAT VOTE AND DON'T GET THEIR VOTES COUNTED.
Putney:GOVERNOR BUSH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU. MR. McBRIDE AND PARTY LEADERS HAVE SAID THE PROBLEMS WITH VOTING IN MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY, PARTICULARLY, IN THE SEPTEMBER 10th PRIMARY, THAT YOU ARE, TO A LARGE DEGREE, ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. ARE YOU?
Gov. Jeb Bush: THANKFULLY I'M NOT. BUT IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING ELECTIONS.
AFTER THE 2000 ELECTION, WE DID ACT. I ASKED JIM SMITH TO PUT TOGETHER A COMMISSION, WE PUT A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF PEOPLE TOGETHER AND WE MADE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO REFORM OUR LAWS.
TODAY IN FLORIDA, THAT ARE UPDATED QUALITY FOR MACHINES. WE HAVE A SINGLE STANDARDS FOR RECOUNT, AND WE HAVE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS, SO IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS IN THE PRECINCTS, THE POLL WORKERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO USE THESE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOTE. WE'VE REFORMED THE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCESS.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, WE'RE NOW SPENDING MONEY AT THE STATE LEVEL. $32 MILLION. NEVER BEFORE WAS MONEY SPENT FOR MACHINES AND FOR NEW TRAINING.
65 COUNTIES IN THIS STATE GOT IT RIGHT, UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT GOT IT RIGHT. TWO COUNTIES DIDN'T.
THEY HAVE PLEDGED TO IMPROVE THE ELECTION, WHICH IS SO SESSION FOR THE VOTERS. WE'VE OFFERED ASSISTANCE, BUT IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE ELECTION WORK.
Now look at the section in bold. If you listen to the audio from the debate here, starting at about 17:30, you notice that what Jeb actually says is.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, Sylvia
Ah, what's the big deal? He flubbed her name. Well, it's made just a little bit suspicious by the fact that the *next* questioner is :
Putney: AND QUESTION FIVE... IT'S FROM SYLVIA SCOTT FROM MIAMI.
Sylvia Scott: WHAT CAN YOU OR WHAT WILL YOU DO TO ASSIST THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE SKYROCKETING INSURANCE RATES?
Coincidence? Oh, probably...
It's also possible they were given a list of the questioners' names in advance but not their questions. Perhaps someone should ask...
(Dedalus sent this information to me.)
I'm not accusing, just asking. Anyone who watched the Florida debate picked up pretty quickly that the moderator was giving a lot of favors to Bush - lots of extra rebuttals compared to McBride.
The transcript of the debate confirms that the candidates were not supposed to have received the questions in advance (they were pre-recorded "man on the street" type questions):
THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED WILL BE ASKED BY CITIZENS FROM AROUND THE STATE.
FLORIDA NETWORK STATIONS COLLECTED MORE THAN 100 QUESTIONS BY VOTERS AND WE SELECTED THE ONES WE THINK REFLECT THE CONCERNS OF MOST FLORIDIANS.
THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THE QUESTIONS. THEY WILL BE DIRECTED TO THEM ALTERNATELY AND THEY'VE HAVE 90 SECONDS TO RESPOND OR LESS, IF THEY CHOOSE.
Something strange happened during the debate. Consider this section from the transcript. Note first that the fourth question was ask by a Ms. Fran Gosselin.
Putney: NOW THE FOURTH QUESTION... IT IS FROM FRAN GOSSELIN, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH VOTING PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA.
Fran Gosselin: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN'T CLEAN UP THIS MESS ABOUT VOTING. IT'S NOT FAIR FORT PEOPLE THAT VOTE AND DON'T GET THEIR VOTES COUNTED.
Putney:GOVERNOR BUSH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU. MR. McBRIDE AND PARTY LEADERS HAVE SAID THE PROBLEMS WITH VOTING IN MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY, PARTICULARLY, IN THE SEPTEMBER 10th PRIMARY, THAT YOU ARE, TO A LARGE DEGREE, ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. ARE YOU?
Gov. Jeb Bush: THANKFULLY I'M NOT. BUT IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING ELECTIONS.
AFTER THE 2000 ELECTION, WE DID ACT. I ASKED JIM SMITH TO PUT TOGETHER A COMMISSION, WE PUT A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF PEOPLE TOGETHER AND WE MADE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO REFORM OUR LAWS.
TODAY IN FLORIDA, THAT ARE UPDATED QUALITY FOR MACHINES. WE HAVE A SINGLE STANDARDS FOR RECOUNT, AND WE HAVE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS, SO IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS IN THE PRECINCTS, THE POLL WORKERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO USE THESE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOTE. WE'VE REFORMED THE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCESS.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, WE'RE NOW SPENDING MONEY AT THE STATE LEVEL. $32 MILLION. NEVER BEFORE WAS MONEY SPENT FOR MACHINES AND FOR NEW TRAINING.
65 COUNTIES IN THIS STATE GOT IT RIGHT, UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT GOT IT RIGHT. TWO COUNTIES DIDN'T.
THEY HAVE PLEDGED TO IMPROVE THE ELECTION, WHICH IS SO SESSION FOR THE VOTERS. WE'VE OFFERED ASSISTANCE, BUT IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE ELECTION WORK.
Now look at the section in bold. If you listen to the audio from the debate here, starting at about 17:30, you notice that what Jeb actually says is.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, Sylvia
Ah, what's the big deal? He flubbed her name. Well, it's made just a little bit suspicious by the fact that the *next* questioner is :
Putney: AND QUESTION FIVE... IT'S FROM SYLVIA SCOTT FROM MIAMI.
Sylvia Scott: WHAT CAN YOU OR WHAT WILL YOU DO TO ASSIST THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE SKYROCKETING INSURANCE RATES?
Coincidence? Oh, probably...
It's also possible they were given a list of the questioners' names in advance but not their questions. Perhaps someone should ask...
What Jeff Cooper says.
I'm sorry, but this is intolerable. It's pernicious nonsense like this that justifies Samuel Johnson's description of patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is entirely possible to love one's country, to recognize that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done evil things and will do more in the future if unchecked, to believe that terrorism must be opposed forcibly, and still to harbor grave doubts about the course on which we are now set. This is especially so when the administration's public argument for action against Iraq is so deeply based on demonstrable lies—lies recognized as such even by the Washington Times, for goodness sake. Given the dishonesty with which the case against Iraq is presented, it is, I would think, a demonstration of devotion to one's country to question the wisdom of pursuing unilateral action in the face of our allies' opposition, and indeed to question the motives of those who repeatedly rely on falsehoods to press their case.
Or, as I would say it -- piss off, Mr. Quick.
I'm sorry, but this is intolerable. It's pernicious nonsense like this that justifies Samuel Johnson's description of patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is entirely possible to love one's country, to recognize that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done evil things and will do more in the future if unchecked, to believe that terrorism must be opposed forcibly, and still to harbor grave doubts about the course on which we are now set. This is especially so when the administration's public argument for action against Iraq is so deeply based on demonstrable lies—lies recognized as such even by the Washington Times, for goodness sake. Given the dishonesty with which the case against Iraq is presented, it is, I would think, a demonstration of devotion to one's country to question the wisdom of pursuing unilateral action in the face of our allies' opposition, and indeed to question the motives of those who repeatedly rely on falsehoods to press their case.
Or, as I would say it -- piss off, Mr. Quick.
From the be careful what you wish for files:
Sept. 30, 2002 | Getting what they want
Just four days ago, Republican senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester demanded that Bob Torricelli step down. "Mr. Torricelli has disgraced himself and New Jersey," he said. "The people of New Jersey deserve better. I reiterate my call for Mr. Torricelli to resign his office and apologize to the people of New Jersey." But before Torricelli decided to follow his rival's advice Forrester's friends began whining.
"This is a cynical attempt by party bosses to manipulate democracy," cried the executive director of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee." In other words, they've suddenly realized that the Torch's resignation would allow Gov. Jim McGreevey to name a new Democratic senator -- who would probably beat Forrester in a special election. Some people are just never satisfied.
Sept. 30, 2002 | Getting what they want
Just four days ago, Republican senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester demanded that Bob Torricelli step down. "Mr. Torricelli has disgraced himself and New Jersey," he said. "The people of New Jersey deserve better. I reiterate my call for Mr. Torricelli to resign his office and apologize to the people of New Jersey." But before Torricelli decided to follow his rival's advice Forrester's friends began whining.
"This is a cynical attempt by party bosses to manipulate democracy," cried the executive director of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee." In other words, they've suddenly realized that the Torch's resignation would allow Gov. Jim McGreevey to name a new Democratic senator -- who would probably beat Forrester in a special election. Some people are just never satisfied.
Haha, Clinton's Cock will never lose its power to Strike Fear in the Hearts of repressed conservatives.
UPDATE:
Dreher adds:
THE OTHER SENATOR CLINTON?: [Rod Dreher] I'm talking on the phone just now with a friend, and we're discussing Sen. Robert Torricelli's possible withdrawal from the New Jersey Senate race later today. The Torch has said he would quit if a suitable replacement could be found. My friend said, "Is Bill Clinton available to move to New Jersey?" Please, somebody tell me that Jersey has residency requirements that would keep Clinton away from this race.
Posted 2:20 PM | [Link]
UPDATE:
Dreher adds:
NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!: [Rod Dreher] Andrew Napolitano, formerly a judge in New Jersey, just said on Fox that Bill Clinton has until Monday to relocate to the Garden State if he wishes to seek the Democratic line in the Senate race there.
Lord help us.
The uncertainty has caused tension between the military and its civilian masters. According to one knowledgeable source, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has engaged in frustrating, circular discussions with his generals. In a scene that has repeated itself more than once, Rumsfeld, an impatient questioner, demands to see a plan of attack. The generals respond that they can’t plan without knowing exactly what they are planning for and with what tools, i.e., what bases and what forces.Rumsfeld becomes vexed and insists on “out of the box” thinking. The generals look perplexed or exasperated and fall back on traditional notions of the American way of war, which is to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. Such a campaign takes a long wind-up and a massive attack, which prompts the basic questions—from where? with what forces?—all over again. Some Pentagon officials are already mocking the massive assault proposed by CENTCOM’s Gen. Tommy Franks as “hey-diddle-diddle, straight up the middle.”
The uncertainty has caused tension between the military and its civilian masters. According to one knowledgeable source, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has engaged in frustrating, circular discussions with his generals. In a scene that has repeated itself more than once, Rumsfeld, an impatient questioner, demands to see a plan of attack. The generals respond that they can’t plan without knowing exactly what they are planning for and with what tools, i.e., what bases and what forces.Rumsfeld becomes vexed and insists on “out of the box” thinking. The generals look perplexed or exasperated and fall back on traditional notions of the American way of war, which is to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. Such a campaign takes a long wind-up and a massive attack, which prompts the basic questions—from where? with what forces?—all over again. Some Pentagon officials are already mocking the massive assault proposed by CENTCOM’s Gen. Tommy Franks as “hey-diddle-diddle, straight up the middle.”
Clueless has a long screed against all things not science, engineering, or 'professional.' In other words, Liberal Arts and Humanities. He's entitled to his opinions, but it morphs into a paternalistic rant about the evils of African-American Studies in which he says:
American blacks make up 12% of our population. I brood about the fact that 12% of our best minds are going to waste, being directed away from useful study and productive contribution in science and engineering and business and law and medicine, instead to bury themselves in ideologically-warped anthropological and sociological studies of race, because they will somehow feel that they have a racial obligation to major in "Black Studies" instead of chemical engineering -- or computer engineering, where I might have been able to hire them. I think about all the miracles they would be creating, all the advances they'd produce. I think of all the fantastic work I've seen done by Chinese men and Indian women, and I know that blacks would be just as valuable. I brood over the lost opportunity, the resource wasted, the opportunity lost.
Without getting into the merits of Black Studies programs, as I (and likely nor Mr. de Beste) know little about the curriculum, I would like to point Mr. de Beste to this article.
Nationwide less than 1 percent of all African-American college students major in black studies. But at some of our highest-ranking institutions with top-rated black studies programs, the percentage of black students who select the major is significantly higher.
So, not to fear.
On the news that Torch may be dropping out, let me be the first (before Eric Alterman wakes up) to suggest running Bruce Springsteen in his place.
UPDATE: Here's the story.
The punchline is that in order for their to be a new candidate on the ballot, Torch has to resign.
Under New Jersey law, a political party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 48 days before the election. But only 36 days remain until the Nov. 5 election, meaning Democrats would have to seek approval from the state attorney general. That would likely result in a court challenge from Republicans.
Under state law, if the candidate resigns his office or dies with more than 30 days to the election, the governor can appoint a new candidate. If it happens with less than 30 days before the election, the race can be canceled and the governor can set a new date for a special election.
UPDATE 2: Anyone know what the timetable is for setting a special election? It looks like Torch can resign, a replacement can be appointed, and the election cancelled/postponed.
UPDATE 3: Here's the statute, thanks to my legal analyst Melic.
19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.
The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.
It sounds like if Torch quits within 30 days of the election, the Gov. can appoint a temporary replacement and put off any election until '04.
UPDATE: Here's the story.
The punchline is that in order for their to be a new candidate on the ballot, Torch has to resign.
Under New Jersey law, a political party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 48 days before the election. But only 36 days remain until the Nov. 5 election, meaning Democrats would have to seek approval from the state attorney general. That would likely result in a court challenge from Republicans.
Under state law, if the candidate resigns his office or dies with more than 30 days to the election, the governor can appoint a new candidate. If it happens with less than 30 days before the election, the race can be canceled and the governor can set a new date for a special election.
UPDATE 2: Anyone know what the timetable is for setting a special election? It looks like Torch can resign, a replacement can be appointed, and the election cancelled/postponed.
UPDATE 3: Here's the statute, thanks to my legal analyst Melic.
19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.
The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.
It sounds like if Torch quits within 30 days of the election, the Gov. can appoint a temporary replacement and put off any election until '04.
Watch out Kenny Boy.
.
In an action that could prompt companies to beef up oversight of 401(k) plans, the federal government issued a court brief this month that sides with Enron workers. It said former chief executive officer Ken Lay and other top executives could be personally liable for millions of dollars in retirement plan losses.
The Department of Labor document is significant because it spells out the agency's position on an employer's duty to 401(k) plans and potential liability if there are losses. It could benefit a lawsuit by Enron workers and many other 401(k) lawsuits that have proliferated as accounting scandals take a toll on retirement plans loaded with employer stock.
Although the judge in the Enron 401(k) lawsuit is under no obligation to accept the agency's view, it should be influential because the Labor Department interprets and enforces pension law.
"It's a very significant position that will help participants in a lot of situations if it's upheld by the courts," says Norman Stein, a University of Alabama law professor who specializes in pension issues.
Though the policy it describes is not new, the brief represents the agency's most detailed clarification of many legal issues relating to retirement plans. Directors and executives often haven't understood their legal obligations.
If the courts agree, the Labor Department's position could have more impact than pension reforms being considered by Congress, says Fred Reish, a Los Angeles pension lawyer. "It will provide a clearer road map for all employers," Reish says. He also says it will mean that executives' own "bank accounts and investments are on the hook."
Labor Department officials would not comment beyond the brief itself. Among other things, Labor Department lawyers say in the brief that if Enron executives were aware that workers were misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they were obligated to protect them. According to the brief, remedies available to Enron included notifying all investors of the risk, freezing the investments or removing Enron stock as an investment option and as the company matching contribution.
The duty to protect workers doesn't rest only on the trustees who directly oversee a 401(k) plan, the Labor Department says. Any top executives or directors who appoint the trustees are responsible for monitoring the plan and are liable for breaches in fiduciary duty, the brief says.
Okay, maybe I'll have to stop muttering bad things about Lisa Beamer:
To the Editor:
Re "Fellow Democrats Fret and Fume as Torricelli Campaign Struggles" (front page, Sept. 22):
We are New Jersey voters and 9/11 widows who wish that the media would focus on the positive work that Senator Robert G. Torricelli has done. He certainly has been a strong advocate for the nearly 700 affected New Jersey families. For example, he was one of the very early supporters of an independent investigation into all aspects of 9/11, just now supported by the White House, an investigation that we hope will prevent future security failures and save other American lives.
Closer to home, his long record of public service shows that he is a tireless champion of all his constituents. He gets things done, and he stands up for what we believe. That's what our state needs — and gets — in Washington and what the voters deserve to know.
LISA BEAMER
NIKKI STERN
Princeton, N.J., Sept. 22, 2002
The letter was signed by 10 other 9/11 widows who live in New Jersey.
To the Editor:
Re "Fellow Democrats Fret and Fume as Torricelli Campaign Struggles" (front page, Sept. 22):
We are New Jersey voters and 9/11 widows who wish that the media would focus on the positive work that Senator Robert G. Torricelli has done. He certainly has been a strong advocate for the nearly 700 affected New Jersey families. For example, he was one of the very early supporters of an independent investigation into all aspects of 9/11, just now supported by the White House, an investigation that we hope will prevent future security failures and save other American lives.
Closer to home, his long record of public service shows that he is a tireless champion of all his constituents. He gets things done, and he stands up for what we believe. That's what our state needs — and gets — in Washington and what the voters deserve to know.
LISA BEAMER
NIKKI STERN
Princeton, N.J., Sept. 22, 2002
The letter was signed by 10 other 9/11 widows who live in New Jersey.
This is why you lie. Because the press will continue to repeat it. Over and over.
By the end of the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA assessments indicated Saddam was six months away from building an atomic bomb. Inspectors discovered that the oil-rich nation had imported thousands of pounds of uranium, some of which was already refined for weapons use, and had considered two types of nuclear delivery systems.
By the end of the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA assessments indicated Saddam was six months away from building an atomic bomb. Inspectors discovered that the oil-rich nation had imported thousands of pounds of uranium, some of which was already refined for weapons use, and had considered two types of nuclear delivery systems.
Please read this
I linked it below, but I'm not sure I put enough red flashing neon signs around it.
This is what is being proposed. As the author concludes:
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
Yes. So, let's stop pretending it's about the women and children, or the free pie, or anything else.
I linked it below, but I'm not sure I put enough red flashing neon signs around it.
This is what is being proposed. As the author concludes:
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
Yes. So, let's stop pretending it's about the women and children, or the free pie, or anything else.
Oh, it's about the women now...
This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of that country, and in particular its women want a change of regime as much as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as citizens of Afghanistan did"
Don't roll, Congress...
Oh, and on CNN Wolf Blitzer says:
BLITZER: The Bush administration believes the stakes in Iraq have never been higher. A new government in Baghdad could unite the nation and help stabilize the region. The right kind of government, the administration believes, could even help ease the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
and free pie, too!
This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of that country, and in particular its women want a change of regime as much as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as citizens of Afghanistan did"
Don't roll, Congress...
Oh, and on CNN Wolf Blitzer says:
BLITZER: The Bush administration believes the stakes in Iraq have never been higher. A new government in Baghdad could unite the nation and help stabilize the region. The right kind of government, the administration believes, could even help ease the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
and free pie, too!
Sunday, September 29, 2002
It is really rather disturbing that the outrage is directed at the democratic congressman who said that Bush would mislead the American people on Iraq instead of at Bush who has mislead the American people on Iraq.
Strange times.
Strange times.
Oh jeez.
The refined uranium caught by Turkish police Saturday weighed far less than originally thought, an official source in southwestern Turkey said Sunday.
It was originally believed that the Turkish paramilitary police had seized over 15 kg of weapons-grade uranium in the operation that also resulted in the detention of two men accused of smuggling the substance. The actual weight of the uranium turned out to be hundreds of grams, a fraction of the initial estimate. .
UPDATE: CNN just said "authorities have released the two men [caught with the material.]" No wonder Oliver has his tinfoil hat on this weekend.
UPDATE 2: Here's the story. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) --Turkish authorities Sunday released two men accused of attempting to smuggle a quantity of uranium, saying the amount in their possession was only a fraction of what officials originally
estimated.
Turkish officials announced Saturday they had seized a box filled with nearly 35 pounds (15 kilograms) of uranium. But Muzaffer Dilek, the mayor of Sanliurfa, a Turkish
city near the Turkey-Syria border, said Sunday that the material amounted to only 140 grams -- about five ounces.
The two men arrested with the material were released due to lack of evidence and have since disappeared, Dilek said.
The refined uranium caught by Turkish police Saturday weighed far less than originally thought, an official source in southwestern Turkey said Sunday.
It was originally believed that the Turkish paramilitary police had seized over 15 kg of weapons-grade uranium in the operation that also resulted in the detention of two men accused of smuggling the substance. The actual weight of the uranium turned out to be hundreds of grams, a fraction of the initial estimate. .
UPDATE: CNN just said "authorities have released the two men [caught with the material.]" No wonder Oliver has his tinfoil hat on this weekend.
UPDATE 2: Here's the story. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) --Turkish authorities Sunday released two men accused of attempting to smuggle a quantity of uranium, saying the amount in their possession was only a fraction of what officials originally
estimated.
Turkish officials announced Saturday they had seized a box filled with nearly 35 pounds (15 kilograms) of uranium. But Muzaffer Dilek, the mayor of Sanliurfa, a Turkish
city near the Turkey-Syria border, said Sunday that the material amounted to only 140 grams -- about five ounces.
The two men arrested with the material were released due to lack of evidence and have since disappeared, Dilek said.
Someone had better check and see if Pat Buchanan is okay:
Spanish-language newscast most-watched in Bay Area
By Edwin Garcia
Mercury News
One of the Bay Area's smallest television stations, which broadcasts in Spanish, is drawing some of the region's biggest ratings.
This summer's Nielsen Station Index crowned KDTV's ``Noticias 14'' at 6 p.m. as the most-watched newscast among Bay Area adults ages 18 to 49. It was the San Francisco station's best showing ever -- and the first time a Spanish-language newscast has topped all 6 p.m. local news programs for a major sweeps period in that age group.
The surging popularity of KDTV (Ch. 14) and other Spanish-language stations nationwide reflects an audience that is intimately bonded to its newscasts. Their success is also prompting a growing number of English-language stations to take notice. Some are diversifying their staffs and programming, while others are offering a Spanish simulcast.
Spanish-language newscasts in Miami and Los Angeles in the past few years have outranked all stations in their respective markets. And KDTV, owned by Univisión Communications, has occasionally ranked No. 1 among young adults.
But the recent sweeps-month ratings show KDTV increasing viewership among older adults and inching closer to the news audience most advertisers crave: 25- to 54-year-olds. Its ratings will probably continue to grow when Nielsen updates its population figures for the November sweeps period to reflect the latest census data.
An estimated 71,000 viewers ages 18 to 49 watched ``Noticias 14'' on an average weekday during the sweeps period that ran July 11 to Aug. 7. In second place was ``KTVU Channel 2 News at 6'' with an average daily viewing audience of 59,000. (The 6 p.m. local news ratings leader among all viewers over 18 years was KGO, with 176,000.)
An excellent post over at PLA on changing the tone, to which the Greenehouse effect has some follow up.
Max has a thoughtful well-written discussion of the D.C. protests.
UPDATE: Nathan Newman has more about the police tactics.
UPDATE: Nathan Newman has more about the police tactics.
The Digby Doctrine:
Do a Google search on Turkey + Uranium and you will find that there have been a dozen incidents like this over the past few years. If it's rogue uranium your worried about it looks like we should think about invading Turkey instead of Iraq. There has been a lot of speculation that they are building a bomb, too. This report proves nothing.
I don't object to going into Iraq because I think Saddam doesn't want nukes. Of course he does. So do a lot of people, including al Qaeda. And a lot of unstable regimes already have them, like the countries of the former Soviet Union and Pakistan. I object because I don't believe there is any new evidence that he's on the verge of getting them or that he had anything to do with 9/11, or that he’s crazy because he gassed his own people (without our objection at the time), or that he’s just plain so evil that we simply must invade without delay, all of which have been presented as reasons over the past few weeks. There are reasons why we are planning to invade Iraq, but they have nothing to do with the reasons stated and are based upon political and ideological not security goals.
I particularly object because I deeply mistrust the people who are insisting that Saddam presents an urgent danger because they have been agitating for invasion and regime change, offering a variety of rationales, for 11 years. Pardon me for being skeptical but there is an entire cottage industry in the GOP devoted to the destruction of Saddam for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with an imminent threat to the US. Until they concocted this bogus 9/11 connection, even they never claimed that the threat was to the US, but to Israel, moderate Arabs and the oil reserves.
I very much object because among these obsessives are the authors of the Bush Doctrine, which is nothing more than a warmed over version of the PNAC defense policy document that was based upon Cheney's 1992 defense dept. draft laying out the neocon case for ensuring the continued status of the US as the only superpower after the cold war. They did not take the threat of terrorism into account when they formulated this strategy and have made no adjustments since the threat emerged. Instead they are cynically using the fear created by 9/11 to advance goals that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and in fact will make another attack more likely. We will not be able to protect ourselves against another 9/11 by asserting a doctrine of unilateral preventive war in Iraq or anywhere else. Terrorism is a different animal that requires a completely fresh approach with an emphasis on cooperative intelligence, creative police work and stealthy military strategies. We can't invade every country that contains people who are potential terrorists. And the more we try to solve this problem through military force the more terrorists we will create.
This is my main objection to invasion of Iraq without convincing evidence of collusion in 9/11, without mideast allies and using a dubious doctrine of a right of preventive war. I believe it will make more terrorist attacks on the United States more rather than less likely. We should be trying very hard to avoid that rather than rushing toward it at warp speed without due consideration.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. The Republican establishment itself is divided on this issue. Plenty of very smart, hard headed realists know that this new doctrine of pre-emptive unilateral regime change is a bad idea and their lobbying succeeded in convincing the President that he should go to the UN over the objections of his more unilaterally minded advisors.
The result has been that the administration position has been incoherent ever since. One day we must invade because Saddam is close to getting nukes, another it's that he already has chemical and bio weapons. The next he's a genocidal maniac. Blair and Powell say they want disarmament one day, Rummy and Cheney argue that regime change is the goal the next. According to next week's Time Magazine, an administration source admits that they are throwing everything out there and hoping that something will "stick."
Now the process is getting bogged down again, the inevitable is not looking quite so inevitable. Saddam might acquiesce to inspections. The security council is not cooperating. Public opinion is opaque. The bandwagon effect may not be working. So what do they do? After weeks of insisting that the reason for "regime change" is Saddam's impending acquisition of nukes ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") suddenly the rationale is once again that Iraq is harboring al Qaeda.
How fucking convenient. No more need for the UN, no more need for congressional resolutions or convincing the public, now we can invade on the basis of the post 9/11 resolution giving Bush the power to attack any country associated with the attack on the WTC.
Doesn’t this inconsistency make you just the tiniest bit suspicious of what's really going on?
I have said before that if Bush will take yes for an answer and allow the UN to make another resolution demanding inspections, I will be more than happy to let him take credit for a hugely successful bluff. If Saddam fucks up we will then at least have the support of the international community to go to war on the basis of his intransigence instead of on the basis of a spurious right to "pre-emptive regime change” without convincing evidence of a threat.
More importantly we will not have implemented the delusional Bush Doctrine or engaged in unilateral “pre-emptive” military action in the mideast and thoroughly screwed up the coalition needed for terrorism prevention by striking at the hornets nest of Islamic anti-Americanism for no good reason. At this point, I’ll be thrilled if we can avoid WWIII and keep from burning all of our bridges in the very countries where we need cooperation to prevent more terrorism on US soil.
*For the record, I didn't write that "sanctions would work." I said "sanctions and tough inspections would work." And you conveniently neglect to mention that the comment you quote was said in the context of your contention that nuclear armed Pakistan was not currently a threat. I wrote that since you were willing to bet that Musharref could hold off his Islamic crazies for the forseeable future I was willing to bet that sanctions and tough inspection would keep Saddam from obtaining fissile material for the forseeable future. There was a tiny bit of irony, there, that perhaps you didn't get.
Do a Google search on Turkey + Uranium and you will find that there have been a dozen incidents like this over the past few years. If it's rogue uranium your worried about it looks like we should think about invading Turkey instead of Iraq. There has been a lot of speculation that they are building a bomb, too. This report proves nothing.
I don't object to going into Iraq because I think Saddam doesn't want nukes. Of course he does. So do a lot of people, including al Qaeda. And a lot of unstable regimes already have them, like the countries of the former Soviet Union and Pakistan. I object because I don't believe there is any new evidence that he's on the verge of getting them or that he had anything to do with 9/11, or that he’s crazy because he gassed his own people (without our objection at the time), or that he’s just plain so evil that we simply must invade without delay, all of which have been presented as reasons over the past few weeks. There are reasons why we are planning to invade Iraq, but they have nothing to do with the reasons stated and are based upon political and ideological not security goals.
I particularly object because I deeply mistrust the people who are insisting that Saddam presents an urgent danger because they have been agitating for invasion and regime change, offering a variety of rationales, for 11 years. Pardon me for being skeptical but there is an entire cottage industry in the GOP devoted to the destruction of Saddam for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with an imminent threat to the US. Until they concocted this bogus 9/11 connection, even they never claimed that the threat was to the US, but to Israel, moderate Arabs and the oil reserves.
I very much object because among these obsessives are the authors of the Bush Doctrine, which is nothing more than a warmed over version of the PNAC defense policy document that was based upon Cheney's 1992 defense dept. draft laying out the neocon case for ensuring the continued status of the US as the only superpower after the cold war. They did not take the threat of terrorism into account when they formulated this strategy and have made no adjustments since the threat emerged. Instead they are cynically using the fear created by 9/11 to advance goals that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and in fact will make another attack more likely. We will not be able to protect ourselves against another 9/11 by asserting a doctrine of unilateral preventive war in Iraq or anywhere else. Terrorism is a different animal that requires a completely fresh approach with an emphasis on cooperative intelligence, creative police work and stealthy military strategies. We can't invade every country that contains people who are potential terrorists. And the more we try to solve this problem through military force the more terrorists we will create.
This is my main objection to invasion of Iraq without convincing evidence of collusion in 9/11, without mideast allies and using a dubious doctrine of a right of preventive war. I believe it will make more terrorist attacks on the United States more rather than less likely. We should be trying very hard to avoid that rather than rushing toward it at warp speed without due consideration.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. The Republican establishment itself is divided on this issue. Plenty of very smart, hard headed realists know that this new doctrine of pre-emptive unilateral regime change is a bad idea and their lobbying succeeded in convincing the President that he should go to the UN over the objections of his more unilaterally minded advisors.
The result has been that the administration position has been incoherent ever since. One day we must invade because Saddam is close to getting nukes, another it's that he already has chemical and bio weapons. The next he's a genocidal maniac. Blair and Powell say they want disarmament one day, Rummy and Cheney argue that regime change is the goal the next. According to next week's Time Magazine, an administration source admits that they are throwing everything out there and hoping that something will "stick."
Now the process is getting bogged down again, the inevitable is not looking quite so inevitable. Saddam might acquiesce to inspections. The security council is not cooperating. Public opinion is opaque. The bandwagon effect may not be working. So what do they do? After weeks of insisting that the reason for "regime change" is Saddam's impending acquisition of nukes ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") suddenly the rationale is once again that Iraq is harboring al Qaeda.
How fucking convenient. No more need for the UN, no more need for congressional resolutions or convincing the public, now we can invade on the basis of the post 9/11 resolution giving Bush the power to attack any country associated with the attack on the WTC.
Doesn’t this inconsistency make you just the tiniest bit suspicious of what's really going on?
I have said before that if Bush will take yes for an answer and allow the UN to make another resolution demanding inspections, I will be more than happy to let him take credit for a hugely successful bluff. If Saddam fucks up we will then at least have the support of the international community to go to war on the basis of his intransigence instead of on the basis of a spurious right to "pre-emptive regime change” without convincing evidence of a threat.
More importantly we will not have implemented the delusional Bush Doctrine or engaged in unilateral “pre-emptive” military action in the mideast and thoroughly screwed up the coalition needed for terrorism prevention by striking at the hornets nest of Islamic anti-Americanism for no good reason. At this point, I’ll be thrilled if we can avoid WWIII and keep from burning all of our bridges in the very countries where we need cooperation to prevent more terrorism on US soil.
*For the record, I didn't write that "sanctions would work." I said "sanctions and tough inspections would work." And you conveniently neglect to mention that the comment you quote was said in the context of your contention that nuclear armed Pakistan was not currently a threat. I wrote that since you were willing to bet that Musharref could hold off his Islamic crazies for the forseeable future I was willing to bet that sanctions and tough inspection would keep Saddam from obtaining fissile material for the forseeable future. There was a tiny bit of irony, there, that perhaps you didn't get.
Senator Dayton.
What a difference an administration makes.
Congressional leaders who are hurrying votes on Iraq had very different views when the president was a Democrat named Bill Clinton. They made more sense back then.
After Saddam Hussein bounced U.N. inspectors in January 1998, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on Feb. 12: "I had hoped that we could get to the point where we could pass a resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical problems, if nothing else. . . . So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so quickly but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked and answered and that we have available to us the latest information about what is . . . happening with our allies in the world.
"The Senate is known for its deliberate actions. And the longer I stay in the Senate, the more I have learned to appreciate it. It does help to give us time to think about the potential problems and the risks and the ramifications and to, frankly, press the administration."
The Republican-controlled Senate took five more months to pass a resolution that year, and it did not authorize President Clinton to use military force. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Senate also deliberated five months before authorizing what became the Persian Gulf War.
Yet now Congress is being rushed to pre-approve whatever President Bush decides to do, which includes something no president has done before: start a war. According to researchers at the Library of Congress, the United States has never in its 213-year history launched a preemptive attack against another country.
Never.
During the past 50 years, our leaders have confronted dangerous dictators who possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet they protected our country and the planet by preventing war, not by starting one. Some members of Congress and the administration are now demanding that we rush to vote so that we can rush to war. Such haste is unnecessary, reckless and foolish.
For some of my colleagues, it seems a quick and easy decision to wave the flag, denounce an evil dictator and launch our military might. But war seldom is quick or easy. We know that the United States would defeat Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. But we don't know the cost in bloodshed, destruction and subsequent occupation. And we don't know the consequences of violating our national principle of not starting wars.
That principle, which has earned us enormous respect throughout the world, is the cornerstone of international stability. As the world's superpower, we set the standards for international conduct. We lead by our deeds. When we lead the world by our diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflicts, we make it more secure.
But if we attacked another country because it might threaten our national security, how could we dissuade others from doing the same? If nations that have nuclear weapons or that are developing them fear a preemptive strike, what might their responses be? Would the world be more or less secure?
The profound consequences of these decisions are compelling reasons to make them as carefully as possible. I believe that the president is right about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein before he obtains nuclear weapons and the ability to use them against us. But that threat does not appear to exist today or within the next few months. For now, the president is withholding his decision about U.S. military action. Congress should do the same, but instead it's "Vote quick, pass the buck, head for home and wish 'em luck."
This rush to vote is being driven more by political expediency than by military necessity. Gaining political advantage in a midterm election is a shameful reason to hurry decisions of this magnitude. If the president needs Congress to support his resolve never to let Saddam Hussein threaten our nation with weapons of mass destruction, we can pass such a resolution tomorrow. If the United Nations fails to exact Iraq's compliance with its previous restrictions, this Congress or its successor can convene at any time to authorize the appropriate U.S. military response.
That is what the Constitution intends when it authorizes Congress, and only Congress, to declare war. This would be an especially good time for Congress to do it right.
Saturday, September 28, 2002
New poll numbers:
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam
Hussein's rule?
Overall — 64 percent favor, but that drops to 33 percent if the United States
must act without allies.
Republicans — 77 percent favor, dropping to 43 percent if no allies.
Democrats — 42 percent favor; 13 percent favor if no allies.
Independents — 65 percent favor; 38 percent favor if no allies.
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam
Hussein's rule, even if it meant that U.S. forces might suffer thousands of
casualties?
Overall — 48 percent favor, but that drops to 25 percent if no allies.
Republicans — 66 percent favor; 20 percent favor if no allies.
Democrats — 35 percent favor; 13 percent favor if no allies.
Independents — 47 percent favor; 24 percent favor if no allies.
Sigh.
Middle panel sums it up:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent said in August 2001 that accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui might take control of an airplane and crash it into the World Trade Center if he was released from custody, according to a court document made public on Friday.
The document relates communications between FBI headquarters and its office in Minneapolis involving Moussaoui, who was being held in Minnesota in August 2001 on immigration violations after arousing suspicion at a flight school.
The agent said Moussaoui ``might take control of an airplane and crash it into the World Trade Center,'' prosecutors said in the document detailing what has been given to the congressional intelligence committees investigating the attacks.
Moussaoui, who was still in custody on Sept. 11 last year, later became the only person charged in the United States with conspiring in the attacks.
The prosecutors also described an FBI report concerning interviews with Moussaoui in mid-August 2001, in which FBI agents accused him of giving misleading and evasive answers.
The FBI report described how Moussaoui involved his right to a lawyer when confronted with information ``that he was known to be an extremist intent on using his past and future aviation training in furtherance of a terrorist goal.''
Questioning of Moussaoui then stopped.
Middle panel sums it up:
The news that Turkish police have recovered weapons-graded uranium is further evidence of the Bush administration's failed approach to national and world security. This isn't just a cheap shot - this is quite serious. The Bush administration has made sharp cuts in funds for nuclear nonproliferation programs - and has funded them way below the Clinton administration recommendations, policies we can assume president Gore would have followed. The overall spending on these programs is fairly small, but their value has been quite enormous.
This of course will be used to further bolster a case for war against Iraq, based on the usual misrepresentation of the position of war skeptics. Instapundit implies that all of us against war-as-a-first-resort will now have to admit our error in claiming that Hussein was not trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Of course, I have never seen anyone actually make that claim, but we're used to that by now.
This of course will be used to further bolster a case for war against Iraq, based on the usual misrepresentation of the position of war skeptics. Instapundit implies that all of us against war-as-a-first-resort will now have to admit our error in claiming that Hussein was not trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Of course, I have never seen anyone actually make that claim, but we're used to that by now.
More news on the Florida Podiatrist Terrorist.
TAMPA - Federal authorities charged a man they say owned five of the firearms recovered at the home of a podiatrist accused of plotting to blow up Islamic mosques and centers around the state.
Samuel Valiant Shannahan III of Dunedin was arrested at his home Wednesday night by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and charged with illegally transferring firearms, according to the criminal complaint filed in federal court in Tampa on Thursday.
Shannahan was denied bond after a Thursday afternoon detention hearing before U.S. Magistrate Thomas McCoun III. McCoun said he needed to investigate the case further before deciding whether to allow Shannahan to be released on bond to live with his father in Citrus County.
Shannahan, 42, was first questioned by investigators Aug. 23, the day Robert Goldstein was arrested. Police say the Seminole podiatrist had drawn up plans to destroy an Islamic education center and dozens of mosques.
Detailed, written plans referred to a ``Val.'' Shannahan, a federally licensed firearms dealer, told investigators he didn't know why he was named in Goldstein's document.
``He said he had no knowledge of why his name was mentioned,'' ATF Special Agent Warren Randall said during Shannahan's detention hearing. ``He described Mr. Goldstein as a person who dabbled with electronics. He later said he knew Goldstein to dabble with explosives.''
Goldstein's written plan that listed ``Val'' as an accomplice was scratched out with ``Mike'' handwritten over it throughout.
U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Steve Cole wouldn't comment on whether other people have been questioned.
``We're still trying to determine if anyone else is involved,'' he said.
Well, Eugene Volokh has one correct prediction in his surprisingly ignorant speculative piece. I'll let you guess which one. Max has more.
But, this is the thinking that's going to get us into Operation Deserter Storm...
But, this is the thinking that's going to get us into Operation Deserter Storm...
In my comments, Rea had this to say about the Moussaoui screwup:
Doesn't this shed ironic light on the claim that national security requires abolition of the civil service? Here's a monumental screwup by an at-will patronage employee, not a civil service guy, and do we see any mvoe to discharge him?
yes.
Doesn't this shed ironic light on the claim that national security requires abolition of the civil service? Here's a monumental screwup by an at-will patronage employee, not a civil service guy, and do we see any mvoe to discharge him?
yes.
So much for declining Welfare Rolls
To pay their monthly bills, many of these missing workers have turned to disability insurance, a government program under Social Security that has become the centerpiece of the new American welfare state. Since 1990, the number of people receiving disability pay has nearly doubled, to 5.4 million, and the government now spends far more on the program than it does for food stamps or unemployment insurance.
My quick glance says this increase basically offsets declines in welfare cases over the same period. Are these things comparable? Actually, I think they are. Though I haven't had any coffee yet so more on this later.
In any case, there's a great Katha Pollitt column lurking in these numbers.
Over to you, Mickey.
To pay their monthly bills, many of these missing workers have turned to disability insurance, a government program under Social Security that has become the centerpiece of the new American welfare state. Since 1990, the number of people receiving disability pay has nearly doubled, to 5.4 million, and the government now spends far more on the program than it does for food stamps or unemployment insurance.
My quick glance says this increase basically offsets declines in welfare cases over the same period. Are these things comparable? Actually, I think they are. Though I haven't had any coffee yet so more on this later.
In any case, there's a great Katha Pollitt column lurking in these numbers.
Over to you, Mickey.
Pandagon brings up an important point. When a report comes out that the Bush administration is lying about a key piece of evidence that they're using to justify their desire to attack Iraq, it barely makes a ripple. When two statements by Al Gore 11 years a part are taken out of context and twisted in two different ways in an attempt to say he's "lying" it's all over the media.
Why is that?
Why is that?
In a weird kind of way I almost agree with Instapundit, in that my objection to the death penalty has a lot to do with a reluctance to give the State the ultimate power to kill its own citizens. So, while I wouldn't quite put this in the libertarian-speak version "The problem with the death penalty is that it's just another big government program that doesn't work," I suppose my objections are kind of similar after they've been run through the appropriate decoder ring.
However, I don't see how that requires me to agree with this statement:
The notion that it's per se immoral for the state to kill peple is absurd -- or at least, proves too much, as killing people is the core function of nation-states, and always has been. Government power is based ultimately on violence; all else is superstructure.
[spock] Fascinating... [/spock]
However, I don't see how that requires me to agree with this statement:
The notion that it's per se immoral for the state to kill peple is absurd -- or at least, proves too much, as killing people is the core function of nation-states, and always has been. Government power is based ultimately on violence; all else is superstructure.
[spock] Fascinating... [/spock]
Friday, September 27, 2002
Moonie Times says:
what the hell.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.
In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.
The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report.
"He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."
Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991.
Many news agencies — including The Washington Times — reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times.
what the hell.
Conason on who we can blame for the Moussaoui screwup:
Who cares. I say we keep him locked up for daring to have 4 consecutive vowels in his name
FUBAR in the rocket docket
A Washington lawyer points out that the U.S. Attorney responsible for the government handing over those four dozen highly sensitive, classified documents to Zacarias Moussaoui by mistake is emphatically not a career prosecutor. In fact, Paul McNulty appears to be the very definition of a political appointee, selected by Bush and Ashcroft to oversee Virginia's "rocket docket" --the district just across the Potomac from the capital where Ken Starr always went to get his way. McNulty's resume includes stints on the staffs of House Majority Leader Dick Armey and the House impeachment managers. He has helped to write criminal statutes but appears to have little case experience. Oh, he was also an "adviser to the Bush campaign" and helped prepare the Attorney General for those grueling confirmation hearings. Is a patronage appointee like McNulty the best lawyer to prosecute sensitive cases like Moussaoui? Will he be fired or disciplined for this massive, potentially dangerous screw-up? Here's a hint: both questions have the same answer.
Who cares. I say we keep him locked up for daring to have 4 consecutive vowels in his name
Charles Pierce who, when not busy writing letters to Eric Alterman, working his day job for Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, or appearing on Adam Felber's radio show Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, is a top national security analyst for the CIA. He has this to report regarding the Iraq reaction to news that Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo's decision to renege on his term limit pledge because his nation needs him in this time of ongoing threats:
"Tom Tancredo is....STAYING IN CONGRESS!!! WE GIVE! WE GIVE!"
-- Text of a CIA intercept from Presidential Palace, Baghdad. 27 September 2002. 0950A
Well, I think it was that Charles Pierce anyway.
"Tom Tancredo is....STAYING IN CONGRESS!!! WE GIVE! WE GIVE!"
-- Text of a CIA intercept from Presidential Palace, Baghdad. 27 September 2002. 0950A
Well, I think it was that Charles Pierce anyway.
Bill Schneider just said that the U.S. has never before gone into war with the majority of the public supporting it. Huh?? That's crap.
"Other countries of course, bear the same risk. But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said at a political fundraiser in Houston, Texas. "After all this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
Without comment.
Without comment.
Conason on Snitchens (Salon Premium, I think.)
A couple of years later, in a C-SPAN Booknotes interview, he mocked the wartime pretensions of the President: "Bush throughout that whole war and especially in the run up to it constantly compared himself to Churchill…In the Senate debate for and against the war, the Churchill-Munich analogy was used more often even than Vietnam as a test of which side you were on. I wondered why it is in the United States people are such pushovers for this English mythology."
But, he continued, "there was no way, however it was sliced, that Bush could come off as Churchill, as we now know. As a lot of us guessed at the time, the war with Saddam Hussein was a quarrel that had broken out between two business partners, Bush and Hussein, who were fighting over the spoils. They wanted to involve everyone else in it, and they wanted it to sound noble. They fooled a lot of people for some of the time, but the disillusionment with that war and the rhetoric with which it was fought is now pretty near total."
That interview with the gentle Brian Lamb also included his assessments of two "rogues" whose political shifts elicited his scorn. Paul Johnson he described as "probably the classic instance of the guy who, having lost his faith, believes that he's found his reason, in other words, a defector." But he was even tougher on P.J. O'Rourke, who "gets away, in my opinion, with murder." Why? "He's another ex-leftist, '60s radical dropout…Then saw the light, put on a collar and tie and became a young Republican and has been cashing in this chip ever since."
This Novak article should be read.
Tension between the military and civilians is kept private, but it is palpable. Many young officers heartily dislike Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The top brass respects Donald Rumsfeld as a strong secretary without particularly liking him and certainly not fearing him. There will be no repeat of Vietnam 40 years ago, when career officers were so intimidated by Secretary Robert S. McNamara that they failed to challenge his illusions.
The way Rumsfeld killed the proposed Crusader artillery system was deeply painful to the Army, but officers have saluted sharply and moved on. What lingers is resentment over the lack of U.S. cannon artillery four months ago in Operation Anaconda against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, when enemy mortar fire killed seven American troopers.
Last week, 105mm artillery finally arrived in Afghanistan for U.S. forces. The cover story was that these weapons compensated for removal from the theater of British artillery. Actually, Gen. Tommy Franks, the Afghanistan commander in chief, withdrew his objection to cannon artillery. When I asked a combat general about the issue last week, he replied: ''I will never go into action without artillery.''
Novak's an odd one. I can never quite figure out which power group he represents.
(via Groupthinkcentral who has some thoughts).
Tension between the military and civilians is kept private, but it is palpable. Many young officers heartily dislike Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The top brass respects Donald Rumsfeld as a strong secretary without particularly liking him and certainly not fearing him. There will be no repeat of Vietnam 40 years ago, when career officers were so intimidated by Secretary Robert S. McNamara that they failed to challenge his illusions.
The way Rumsfeld killed the proposed Crusader artillery system was deeply painful to the Army, but officers have saluted sharply and moved on. What lingers is resentment over the lack of U.S. cannon artillery four months ago in Operation Anaconda against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, when enemy mortar fire killed seven American troopers.
Last week, 105mm artillery finally arrived in Afghanistan for U.S. forces. The cover story was that these weapons compensated for removal from the theater of British artillery. Actually, Gen. Tommy Franks, the Afghanistan commander in chief, withdrew his objection to cannon artillery. When I asked a combat general about the issue last week, he replied: ''I will never go into action without artillery.''
Novak's an odd one. I can never quite figure out which power group he represents.
(via Groupthinkcentral who has some thoughts).
Neal Pollack is misunderstood.
He is the most important modern conservative thinker, writer, and playboy. He should be given the respect he deserves.
Due to a special arrangement between Neal, amazon.com, and yours truly, if you click the link to the left you can buy one of their only 3 remaining copies of his book. They say they're ordering more, but sometimes they lie.
He is the most important modern conservative thinker, writer, and playboy. He should be given the respect he deserves.
Due to a special arrangement between Neal, amazon.com, and yours truly, if you click the link to the left you can buy one of their only 3 remaining copies of his book. They say they're ordering more, but sometimes they lie.
Great post by Josh Marshall.
So, as I asked several days back, why the endless attempts to fudge? Why the resistance to having this debate on the basis of the very serious facts and threats at hand? Though the rationale for liberating Kuwait was powerful in 1990 there was also testimony before Congress at the time about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait which was later demonstrated to be entirely bogus. The immediate trigger for our involvement in Vietnam -- as opposed to the larger rationale for our involvement -- was later revealed to be based on exaggerations so great that they basically amounted to lies. And one finds this sort of thing in the lead-ups to many other wars, in this country and in others. It's almost like these little bogus stories are the bon-bons of war, the little morsels and appetizers to chum up those who can't quite swallow the whole complicated rationale whole.
In this case, and from someone like Colin Powell, can't we do better.
So, as I asked several days back, why the endless attempts to fudge? Why the resistance to having this debate on the basis of the very serious facts and threats at hand? Though the rationale for liberating Kuwait was powerful in 1990 there was also testimony before Congress at the time about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait which was later demonstrated to be entirely bogus. The immediate trigger for our involvement in Vietnam -- as opposed to the larger rationale for our involvement -- was later revealed to be based on exaggerations so great that they basically amounted to lies. And one finds this sort of thing in the lead-ups to many other wars, in this country and in others. It's almost like these little bogus stories are the bon-bons of war, the little morsels and appetizers to chum up those who can't quite swallow the whole complicated rationale whole.
In this case, and from someone like Colin Powell, can't we do better.
Self-made pundit on term limit hypocrites.
I have no beef with people who pledged to not serve more than X terms and who then violate that pledge. Or, more specifically, whatever problem I had was with the initial stupid pledge, not the subsequent breaking of it.
I do have a problem with people who run on mandatory term limits as a campaign issue who then break those pledges.
And, I also have a problem with the guy SMP busts:
Citing an ongoing "threat" to the nation, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said today he will no longer be bound by his pledge to limit himself to three terms.
....
"It is my deeply held, and now tremendously reinforced, belief that our nation is confronted with a physical, spiritual and philosophical threat that will require every ounce of our individual effort in its defense," Tancredo said.
I have no beef with people who pledged to not serve more than X terms and who then violate that pledge. Or, more specifically, whatever problem I had was with the initial stupid pledge, not the subsequent breaking of it.
I do have a problem with people who run on mandatory term limits as a campaign issue who then break those pledges.
And, I also have a problem with the guy SMP busts:
Citing an ongoing "threat" to the nation, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said today he will no longer be bound by his pledge to limit himself to three terms.
....
"It is my deeply held, and now tremendously reinforced, belief that our nation is confronted with a physical, spiritual and philosophical threat that will require every ounce of our individual effort in its defense," Tancredo said.
Cobb County says " we ain't descended from no monkeys!"
Adam Felber has his own "alternative theories of evolution."
Adam Felber has his own "alternative theories of evolution."
Kristof has a rather naive view of things:
Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place.
Sometimes you just want to go [jonstewart] WUUUUUUH? [/jonstewart]
I appreciate that our military makes an effort to avoid civilian casualties, but he makes it sound as if we never bomb cities.
Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place.
Sometimes you just want to go [jonstewart] WUUUUUUH? [/jonstewart]
I appreciate that our military makes an effort to avoid civilian casualties, but he makes it sound as if we never bomb cities.
Franklin Graham says:
"We in the west have never experienced this kind of behavior, have never seen this before, where religion is driving people to mass murder, where religion is killing innocent people," Graham said. "(This) Islamic revolution that has taken place, starting in Iran, is rising and getting stronger."
Never? I can think of a few...
"We in the west have never experienced this kind of behavior, have never seen this before, where religion is driving people to mass murder, where religion is killing innocent people," Graham said. "(This) Islamic revolution that has taken place, starting in Iran, is rising and getting stronger."
Never? I can think of a few...
Talk Left on Padilla.
Padilla is an American citizen. He was arrested at the Chicago airport in May. He has been in held in a navy brig in South Carolina since June when President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant"-- without any criminal charges, without access to his lawyer, and without any judicial review of his detention. Mr. Padilla is entitled to due process and he isn't getting it.
What more needs to be said?
Why does *this* even need to be said?
Padilla is an American citizen. He was arrested at the Chicago airport in May. He has been in held in a navy brig in South Carolina since June when President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant"-- without any criminal charges, without access to his lawyer, and without any judicial review of his detention. Mr. Padilla is entitled to due process and he isn't getting it.
What more needs to be said?
Why does *this* even need to be said?
Krugman on Mussolini-style fascism.
Federal regulators certainly seemed determined to see and hear no evil, and above all not to reveal evidence of evil to state officials. A previous FERC ruling on El Paso was, in the view of many observers, a whitewash. In another case, AES/Williams was accused of shutting down generating units, forcing the power system to buy power at vastly higher prices from other units of the same company. In April 2001, FERC and Williams reached a settlement in which the company repaid the extra profits, but paid no penalty — and FERC sealed the evidence. Last week CBS News reported that "federal regulators have power control room audiotapes that prove traders from Williams Energy called plant operators and told them to turn off the juice. The government sealed the tapes in a secret settlement" — the same settlement? — "and still refuses to release them."
If that's true, FERC caught at least one power company red-handed, in the middle of the crisis, at a time when state officials were begging the agency to take action — and then suppressed the evidence. Yet this story has received little national play.
For some reason it has never been cool to talk about what was really happening in California. When the crisis was in full swing, most commentators clung to a story line that blamed meddlesome bureaucrats, not profiteering corporations. When the crisis came to an end, it suddenly became old news.
Maybe our national faith in free markets is so strong that people just don't want to talk about a case in which markets went spectacularly bad. But I'm still puzzled by the lack of attention, not just to the disaster, but to hints of a cover-up. After all, this was the most spectacular abuse of market power since the days of the robber barons — and the feds did nothing to stop it.
And if FERC was strangely ineffective during the California crisis, what can we expect from other agencies? Across the government, from the Interior Department and the Forest Service to the Environmental Protection Agency, former lobbyists for the regulated industries now hold key positions — and they show little inclination to make trouble for their once and future employers.
So we ignore California's experience at our peril. It's all too likely to be the shape of things to come.
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Mini book reviews:
Okay, there are a bunch of little pictures to the left which are my book recommendations. Of course, they're actually my desperate attempt to get the 37 cents amazon promises me if you click on the links and buy them. But, here are my reviews:
Neal Pollack's Anthology of American Literature : See him do to literary journalism what he's currently doing to Bloggers.
Philip Roth's The Human Stain: Forget what you've heard - this book is about clinton, monica, blowjobs, and the morally bankrupt disloyal hypocrites who thought it all mattered.
Eric Alterman's Sound and Fury: A prescient history of the punditry, updated fairly recently, though it's only gotten worse since...
"It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." -- Billy S.
David Neiwert's In God's Country: An excellent analysis of the modern "Patriot" movement.
Okay, there are a bunch of little pictures to the left which are my book recommendations. Of course, they're actually my desperate attempt to get the 37 cents amazon promises me if you click on the links and buy them. But, here are my reviews:
Neal Pollack's Anthology of American Literature : See him do to literary journalism what he's currently doing to Bloggers.
Philip Roth's The Human Stain: Forget what you've heard - this book is about clinton, monica, blowjobs, and the morally bankrupt disloyal hypocrites who thought it all mattered.
Eric Alterman's Sound and Fury: A prescient history of the punditry, updated fairly recently, though it's only gotten worse since...
"It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." -- Billy S.
David Neiwert's In God's Country: An excellent analysis of the modern "Patriot" movement.
You Go Girl!!!!
Speaking at a Democratic fund-raising breakfast in Wilmington, Del., Gore took issue with the administration's handling of intelligence information prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and for its treatment of some terrorism suspects since then.
"The warnings were there" before the attacks, Gore said. He asserted that Bush's Justice Department had devoted more time and agents to investigating a suspected brothel in New Orleans than to monitoring bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.
"Where is the sense of priorities?" asked Gore.
Speaking at a Democratic fund-raising breakfast in Wilmington, Del., Gore took issue with the administration's handling of intelligence information prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and for its treatment of some terrorism suspects since then.
"The warnings were there" before the attacks, Gore said. He asserted that Bush's Justice Department had devoted more time and agents to investigating a suspected brothel in New Orleans than to monitoring bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.
"Where is the sense of priorities?" asked Gore.
Dr. Limerick's muse returns, and he channels his former self:
It cannot have been accidental;
When Democrats stopped playing gentle
And threw a few stones,
The Dow and the Jones
Began rising, by means transcendental.
It cannot have been accidental;
When Democrats stopped playing gentle
And threw a few stones,
The Dow and the Jones
Began rising, by means transcendental.
Ted Barlow on Kaus:
This guy must have pictures of Bill Gates with a sheep. It's the only thing that makes sense.
This guy must have pictures of Bill Gates with a sheep. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Off the record conversations with newspaper bosses. Cute.
Ari: The President began his day with the regular intelligence briefings. Then he had a meeting with the Newspaper Association of America board of directors -- he met with many of your bosses, the owners of a lot of papers, large and small, across the country. He talked about the war on Iraq -- at war.
Q Is that on the record, something we might see in print?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was off the record.
Q Do you have a list of who he met with?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me see if I can release it.
Not fit to print I guess.
If I were just a bit more paranoid I'd say that was a little threatening...
Ari: The President began his day with the regular intelligence briefings. Then he had a meeting with the Newspaper Association of America board of directors -- he met with many of your bosses, the owners of a lot of papers, large and small, across the country. He talked about the war on Iraq -- at war.
Q Is that on the record, something we might see in print?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was off the record.
Q Do you have a list of who he met with?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me see if I can release it.
Not fit to print I guess.
If I were just a bit more paranoid I'd say that was a little threatening...
Jack Oliver, Deputy Chairman of the RNC was kind enough to email me his special message:
Some in Senate Put Special Interests Over Nation's Security
President Bush has asked the Senate to pass the bipartisan plan by Senators Phil Gramm and Zell Miller that creates a Homeland Security Department with the management flexibility and freedom needed to get the job of protecting the American people done right.
This bipartisan approach is stalled because some Senate Democrats are putting the special interests of a few federal government employee unions over the security of the American people.
Some in Senate Put Special Interests Over Nation's Security
President Bush has asked the Senate to pass the bipartisan plan by Senators Phil Gramm and Zell Miller that creates a Homeland Security Department with the management flexibility and freedom needed to get the job of protecting the American people done right.
This bipartisan approach is stalled because some Senate Democrats are putting the special interests of a few federal government employee unions over the security of the American people.
Man, MWO has the scoop. The "Harkin taping story" comes down to a Republican supporter openly taping the meeting and then giving the tape to a reporter. I notice it's magically disappeared from Drudge's page.
Typical.
Typical.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
You know, I really can't believe Zizka went on vacation right when Michael Kelly possibly is having his finest moment.
Conason on Sully:
Sullivan speciously charges the Clinton administration with "eight years of indolence and passivity" on Iraq. He knows that as soon as the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out of Iraq in December 1998, Clinton directed heavy airstrikes at Saddam's installations -- without concern for the fact that cheap politicians and their echoes like Sullivan would falsely accuse the president, against all the available evidence, of "wagging the dog."
Back then, Sullivan wrote the following Chomsky-like sentence in a column for a London newspaper: "The many Iraqi civilians being wounded or killed in Operation Desert Fox surely deserve some assurance that they are regrettable victims of a just war, not missile fodder for a narcissist's final gamble."
Sullivan speciously charges the Clinton administration with "eight years of indolence and passivity" on Iraq. He knows that as soon as the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out of Iraq in December 1998, Clinton directed heavy airstrikes at Saddam's installations -- without concern for the fact that cheap politicians and their echoes like Sullivan would falsely accuse the president, against all the available evidence, of "wagging the dog."
Back then, Sullivan wrote the following Chomsky-like sentence in a column for a London newspaper: "The many Iraqi civilians being wounded or killed in Operation Desert Fox surely deserve some assurance that they are regrettable victims of a just war, not missile fodder for a narcissist's final gamble."
Not playing politics, Ari?
I am not going to accept a bill where the Senate micromanages, where the Senate shows they're more interested in special interest in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Sept. 5 in Louisville, Ky.
"Senators need to understand I will not accept a homeland security bill that puts special interests in Washington ahead of the security of the American people. I will not accept a homeland security bill that ties the hands of this administration or future administrations in defending our nation against terrorist attacks." Sept. 7 radio address.
"For the sake of the security of our homeland, the Senate needs to be more worried about the American people, and less worried about special interest here in Washington, D.C." Sept. 19 in Washington.
"The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure. And people are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future. It'll help us determine how secure we'll be." Sept. 23 in Trenton, New Jersey.
"My message, of course, is that, to the senators up here that are more interested in special interests, you better pay attention to the overall interests of protecting the American people." Sept. 24 before a Cabinet meeting.
I am not going to accept a bill where the Senate micromanages, where the Senate shows they're more interested in special interest in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Sept. 5 in Louisville, Ky.
"Senators need to understand I will not accept a homeland security bill that puts special interests in Washington ahead of the security of the American people. I will not accept a homeland security bill that ties the hands of this administration or future administrations in defending our nation against terrorist attacks." Sept. 7 radio address.
"For the sake of the security of our homeland, the Senate needs to be more worried about the American people, and less worried about special interest here in Washington, D.C." Sept. 19 in Washington.
"The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure. And people are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future. It'll help us determine how secure we'll be." Sept. 23 in Trenton, New Jersey.
"My message, of course, is that, to the senators up here that are more interested in special interests, you better pay attention to the overall interests of protecting the American people." Sept. 24 before a Cabinet meeting.
Bye-bye Hitch...Don't let the door..
One can only hope his actions will serve as an inspiration to Marc Cooper.
One can only hope his actions will serve as an inspiration to Marc Cooper.
Why does America hate America so much?
And why do they seem to agree with known baby-killer Al Gore?
And why do they think this stuff?
A majority of Americans, 51%, also believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But while more think Hussein the individual is more dangerous than bin Laden, Americans nonetheless think that dealing with Hussein can wait. As many still see the al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, as a greater threat to their security than say Iraq is the greater threat, perhaps because bin Laden's whereabouts or fate remain unknown.
And when it comes to setting priorities, Americans narrowly say that bin Laden and al Qaeda, not Hussein, should be the nation's top priority overall.
Choosing which enemy to fight may not be a mutually exclusive choice, though: an overwhelming majority,70%, believes that members of al Qaeda are currently in Iraq.
And why do they seem to agree with known baby-killer Al Gore?
And why do they think this stuff?
A majority of Americans, 51%, also believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But while more think Hussein the individual is more dangerous than bin Laden, Americans nonetheless think that dealing with Hussein can wait. As many still see the al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, as a greater threat to their security than say Iraq is the greater threat, perhaps because bin Laden's whereabouts or fate remain unknown.
And when it comes to setting priorities, Americans narrowly say that bin Laden and al Qaeda, not Hussein, should be the nation's top priority overall.
Choosing which enemy to fight may not be a mutually exclusive choice, though: an overwhelming majority,70%, believes that members of al Qaeda are currently in Iraq.
Tbogg says of Michael Kelly:
Ever since 9/11 Kelly has been running around like a high school girl who discovers a big zit on picture day. His columns have become hysterical in a way that makes him sound like the freakish spawn of some bizzare mating ritual between Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan. Now that's a scary thought.
Indeed.
Ever since 9/11 Kelly has been running around like a high school girl who discovers a big zit on picture day. His columns have become hysterical in a way that makes him sound like the freakish spawn of some bizzare mating ritual between Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan. Now that's a scary thought.
Indeed.
[condi]
shutupshutupShutupSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!!
[/condi]
WASHINGTON - American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago.
West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, when Ronald Reagan was president, according to the Senate
testimony.
The Commerce Department under the first Bush administration also authorized eight shipments of cultures that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later classified as having "biological warfare significance."
Between 1985 and 1989, the Senate testimony shows, Iraq received at least 72 U.S. shipments of clones, germs and chemicals ranging from substances that could destroy wheat crops, give children and animals the bone-deforming disease rickets, to a nerve gas rated a million times more lethal than Sarin.
Poor Congressman Wilson:
shutupshutupShutupSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!!
[/condi]
WASHINGTON - American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago.
West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, when Ronald Reagan was president, according to the Senate
testimony.
The Commerce Department under the first Bush administration also authorized eight shipments of cultures that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later classified as having "biological warfare significance."
Between 1985 and 1989, the Senate testimony shows, Iraq received at least 72 U.S. shipments of clones, germs and chemicals ranging from substances that could destroy wheat crops, give children and animals the bone-deforming disease rickets, to a nerve gas rated a million times more lethal than Sarin.
Poor Congressman Wilson:
C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" segment started out yesterday morning as typically sedate -- two members of Congress soberly dispensing wisdom about the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But then Bob Filner, a five-term Democrat from California, said something that made South Carolina freshman Republican Joe Wilson go nuclear.
Filner, who opposes unilateral U.S. military action, suggested that in the 1980s, when U.S. officials sided with Iraq in its war against Iran, Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States. "We gave it to him," Filner asserted.
"That is wrong. That's made up," Wilson fired back. "I can't believe you would say something like that."
When Filner calmly held his ground, advising Wilson to read newspaper reports and other documentation, the Republican erupted: "This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that."
As moderator Connie Brod sat by helplessly, Filner challenged: "Hatred of America? . . . Are you accusing me?"
"Yes!" Wilson shouted. For good measure, over the next minute Wilson accused Filner of harboring "hatred of America" four more times, of being "hateful" three times and of being "viscerally anti-American" once. Filner responded, "This is not worth replying to," and Brod finally regained control of the discussion by taking viewer phone calls.
Today:
I'm convinced.
Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm
trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't
when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks,
they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes
to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government.
Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in
concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of
Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons
of mass destruction around the world.
Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't
distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war
on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I
can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad,
and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.
I'm convinced.
The Blogosphere Hawks, busy building their Schroeder bonfires and lamenting his victory, failed to pick up on this comment by his opponent before the election:
Aware that Schroeder's anti-war rhetoric is proving a vote winner, Stoiber toughened his own stance on Thursday.
In a television interview, he said that, if elected, he might bar U.S. forces from using their German bases if Bush decided on an attack without U.N. backing, Reuters news agency reported.
Aware that Schroeder's anti-war rhetoric is proving a vote winner, Stoiber toughened his own stance on Thursday.
In a television interview, he said that, if elected, he might bar U.S. forces from using their German bases if Bush decided on an attack without U.N. backing, Reuters news agency reported.
Gene Lyons: (Arkansas readers don't look!)
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie...
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.
--"Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who
Now let me get this straight: Saddam Hussein is a deadly threat to American security, the worst since Hitler or Stalin. Why, it may take as long as two weeks to conquer Iraq. So now that President Junior's returned from a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, which he apparently spent rounding up and branding golf carts, the sky is falling and there's not a moment to spare.
A Democrat-Gazette headline last week actually quoted Bush stating "If you want peace, it's necessary to use force."
War is Peace. Where have I heard that before?
"Regime change," the man calls it. Translation: assuming Junior doesn't get diplomatically outmaneuvered by the Iraqi strongman (and especially if he DOES), the administration is determined to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked or threatened us, kill thousands of its citizens and install a dictator more to our liking. Preferably one who sells cheap oil and buys mass quantities of American-made weapons to replace the ones we're fixing to blow to smithereens.
Meanwhile, it's everybody's patriotic duty to keep a straight face. That's why the serious news broadcasts and the heavyweight pundits ignored Junior's unintentionally hilarious performance in Nashville last week. Speaking to one of his preferred audiences of schoolchildren, Bush told them Saddam can't be trusted.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee," he began. "I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--it says 'fool me once..." A long pause ensued. A befuddled, then somewhat panicky expression appeared on Bush's face. "Shame on...shame on...you." Second pause. "Fool me...can't get fooled again," he finally blurted out.
The irony of Bush's channeling The Who's caustic anthem was almost paralyzing. Written to satirize Sixties-style hippie utopianism, "Won't Get Fooled Again" all but took the roof off Madison Square Garden when they performed it with a backdrop of British and American flags before cheering cops and firemen at the 2001 "Concert for New York." Thirty years on, the song's acid pessimism, fierce anger and anarchic joy somehow made it the perfect 9/11 elegy.
Meanwhile, studio audiences watching Bush's fumbling recitation on the Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show" hooted derisively. Republicans counting on this stage-managed "crisis" to carry them through November's congressional elections should take heed. The Washington Post reports that even conservative Republicans say constituent mail is running heavily against a U.S.-only first strike against Iraq. CNN reports polls showing 51% oppose it.
Do voters remember that when Saddam actually used "weapons of mass destruction," spraying nerve gas on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish rebels 15 years ago, the Reagan-Bush administration reacted by selling him more helicopters? Probably not. Are they aware that as CEO of Halliburton until 2000, Dick Cheney used offshore subsidiaries to evade sanctions and sell $24 million worth of oilfield equipment to Iraq? The press hasn't exactly emphasized it.
But everybody knows Pete Townshend's song: "Meet the new boss/ Same as the old boss." Only perfervid ideologues like those Bush has surrounded himself with are convinced that democracy will flourish around the Persian Gulf after Saddam. To paraphrase Orwell, only a Washington chickenhawk (hardly anybody pimping for this war has ever fought one) could believe something so absurd. Civil war and chaos loom.
Should Democrats oppose a resolution giving Bush authority to use force if Saddam fails to heed the U.N. Security Council? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker thinks so. Warning that "a further destabilized Middle East could become the stage for World War III," Tucker says that even if "any Democrat who questions the president's insistence on invading Iraq will be defeated come November. I'm still naive enough to believe that there are issues worth losing an election over."
But this is no time for quixotic gestures. By taking the issue to the U.N., Bush did what Democrats asked. Hence a vote authorizing force if Saddam defies the Security Council signals American resolve. It's tactically a vote against war. Unless Saddam's the megalomaniac Bush claims, of which there's surprisingly little evidence, he'll fold. Moving against Iraq with U.N. allies is a far less dangerous proposition.
Six weeks before an election leaves no time to teach the influential Moron-American community the distinction between patriotism and flag-waving bombast. Stealing the presidency gave the GOP the ability to set the agenda. Handing them Congress would give Bush virtually unlimited power to finish wrecking the economy, shredding the social safety net, and gutting civil liberties. And the bitter truth is that Junior's apt to get his war either way.
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie...
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.
--"Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who
Now let me get this straight: Saddam Hussein is a deadly threat to American security, the worst since Hitler or Stalin. Why, it may take as long as two weeks to conquer Iraq. So now that President Junior's returned from a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, which he apparently spent rounding up and branding golf carts, the sky is falling and there's not a moment to spare.
A Democrat-Gazette headline last week actually quoted Bush stating "If you want peace, it's necessary to use force."
War is Peace. Where have I heard that before?
"Regime change," the man calls it. Translation: assuming Junior doesn't get diplomatically outmaneuvered by the Iraqi strongman (and especially if he DOES), the administration is determined to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked or threatened us, kill thousands of its citizens and install a dictator more to our liking. Preferably one who sells cheap oil and buys mass quantities of American-made weapons to replace the ones we're fixing to blow to smithereens.
Meanwhile, it's everybody's patriotic duty to keep a straight face. That's why the serious news broadcasts and the heavyweight pundits ignored Junior's unintentionally hilarious performance in Nashville last week. Speaking to one of his preferred audiences of schoolchildren, Bush told them Saddam can't be trusted.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee," he began. "I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--it says 'fool me once..." A long pause ensued. A befuddled, then somewhat panicky expression appeared on Bush's face. "Shame on...shame on...you." Second pause. "Fool me...can't get fooled again," he finally blurted out.
The irony of Bush's channeling The Who's caustic anthem was almost paralyzing. Written to satirize Sixties-style hippie utopianism, "Won't Get Fooled Again" all but took the roof off Madison Square Garden when they performed it with a backdrop of British and American flags before cheering cops and firemen at the 2001 "Concert for New York." Thirty years on, the song's acid pessimism, fierce anger and anarchic joy somehow made it the perfect 9/11 elegy.
Meanwhile, studio audiences watching Bush's fumbling recitation on the Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show" hooted derisively. Republicans counting on this stage-managed "crisis" to carry them through November's congressional elections should take heed. The Washington Post reports that even conservative Republicans say constituent mail is running heavily against a U.S.-only first strike against Iraq. CNN reports polls showing 51% oppose it.
Do voters remember that when Saddam actually used "weapons of mass destruction," spraying nerve gas on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish rebels 15 years ago, the Reagan-Bush administration reacted by selling him more helicopters? Probably not. Are they aware that as CEO of Halliburton until 2000, Dick Cheney used offshore subsidiaries to evade sanctions and sell $24 million worth of oilfield equipment to Iraq? The press hasn't exactly emphasized it.
But everybody knows Pete Townshend's song: "Meet the new boss/ Same as the old boss." Only perfervid ideologues like those Bush has surrounded himself with are convinced that democracy will flourish around the Persian Gulf after Saddam. To paraphrase Orwell, only a Washington chickenhawk (hardly anybody pimping for this war has ever fought one) could believe something so absurd. Civil war and chaos loom.
Should Democrats oppose a resolution giving Bush authority to use force if Saddam fails to heed the U.N. Security Council? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker thinks so. Warning that "a further destabilized Middle East could become the stage for World War III," Tucker says that even if "any Democrat who questions the president's insistence on invading Iraq will be defeated come November. I'm still naive enough to believe that there are issues worth losing an election over."
But this is no time for quixotic gestures. By taking the issue to the U.N., Bush did what Democrats asked. Hence a vote authorizing force if Saddam defies the Security Council signals American resolve. It's tactically a vote against war. Unless Saddam's the megalomaniac Bush claims, of which there's surprisingly little evidence, he'll fold. Moving against Iraq with U.N. allies is a far less dangerous proposition.
Six weeks before an election leaves no time to teach the influential Moron-American community the distinction between patriotism and flag-waving bombast. Stealing the presidency gave the GOP the ability to set the agenda. Handing them Congress would give Bush virtually unlimited power to finish wrecking the economy, shredding the social safety net, and gutting civil liberties. And the bitter truth is that Junior's apt to get his war either way.
Jesus Christ, Michael Kelly has morphed into a Blogger.*
No, that's not a compliment and yes I'm a Blogger too
No, that's not a compliment and yes I'm a Blogger too
This story is unbelievable (via Hesiod).
Tallahassee · Billionaire John Walton, son of the late Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder Sam Walton, has emerged as Florida's biggest individual political donor of this campaign season, giving $325,000 last month to Gov. Jeb Bush's re-election effort.
A major financier of the private-school voucher movement backed by Bush, Walton also sits on the board of directors of the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing giant that has had an exclusive, multimillion-dollar government contract for the replacement of trees destroyed under Florida's canker eradication effort.
Since 1998, when Bush became governor, the Florida Department of Agriculture has overseen at least two tree replacement programs that have disbursed $52 million in state and federal funds for consumers to spend only at Wal-Mart stores.
I do wonder why a rally supporting Fox Hunting and other Rural Stuff, which in no way was the libertarian uprising people seem to think it was (Take a way farm supports and most farms in the UK die. Period.) got so much attention 'round the 'sphere when this one didn't.
ROME (Reuters) - An estimated 300,000 people, led by film director Nanni Moretti, demonstrated in Rome on Saturday in protest against Prime Minister Silvo Berlusconi, accusing him of using his political power to evade justice.
Under banners proclaiming "Justice for all" and "No justice without democracy," the crowd filled the square in front of Rome's San Giovanni basilica, where Pope John Paul has in the past said mass for as many as 500,000 people.
Reuters cameramen and photographers at the scene estimated the crowd at least 300,000, while police said there were 100,000 and the organizers claimed more than 500,000.
The demonstration was called to oppose Berlusconi's plans to change the justice laws in a way critics say is tailor-made to help him escape trial on charges of bribing judges.
ROME (Reuters) - An estimated 300,000 people, led by film director Nanni Moretti, demonstrated in Rome on Saturday in protest against Prime Minister Silvo Berlusconi, accusing him of using his political power to evade justice.
Under banners proclaiming "Justice for all" and "No justice without democracy," the crowd filled the square in front of Rome's San Giovanni basilica, where Pope John Paul has in the past said mass for as many as 500,000 people.
Reuters cameramen and photographers at the scene estimated the crowd at least 300,000, while police said there were 100,000 and the organizers claimed more than 500,000.
The demonstration was called to oppose Berlusconi's plans to change the justice laws in a way critics say is tailor-made to help him escape trial on charges of bribing judges.
Neal Pollack gives his unconditional support to Big Pharma:
One of the many pharmaceutical companies who sponsor this website recently sent me the most wonderful product, called Minty-Fresh Testostogrease. It is, in fact, male testosterone distilled to its essence, manufactured into a chemically-enriched gel, and shot through with a bit of blue food coloring to give it that extra jolt of goodness. I have absolutely no qualms about praising PharmaMed of Switzerland, fully support their mining practices in Sri Lanka, and don't think it's a conflict of interest that Interior Secretary Gale Norton sits on their board of directors.
For the last two weeks, I've been squeezing a dollop of this magical testosterone substance onto my hairy chest, rubbing it in while rhythmically chanting the name of Ayn Rand, and feeling raw male power surge through my increasingly muscular body. Within minutes of use, I find myself surfing the news channels faster and faster. By the half-hour point, I'm able to absorb both the information coming out of the broadcaster's mouth and from the ticker at the bottom of the screen.
One of the many pharmaceutical companies who sponsor this website recently sent me the most wonderful product, called Minty-Fresh Testostogrease. It is, in fact, male testosterone distilled to its essence, manufactured into a chemically-enriched gel, and shot through with a bit of blue food coloring to give it that extra jolt of goodness. I have absolutely no qualms about praising PharmaMed of Switzerland, fully support their mining practices in Sri Lanka, and don't think it's a conflict of interest that Interior Secretary Gale Norton sits on their board of directors.
For the last two weeks, I've been squeezing a dollop of this magical testosterone substance onto my hairy chest, rubbing it in while rhythmically chanting the name of Ayn Rand, and feeling raw male power surge through my increasingly muscular body. Within minutes of use, I find myself surfing the news channels faster and faster. By the half-hour point, I'm able to absorb both the information coming out of the broadcaster's mouth and from the ticker at the bottom of the screen.
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Gallup Poll: (not sure why there's a big space here, but scroll down...)
|
Range of Support for U.S. Military Action Against Iraq |
||
|
|
|
|
|
% |
% |
|
|
In general |
57 |
38 |
|
If other countries participate in invading Iraq |
79 |
18 |
|
If the United Nations supports invading Iraq |
79 |
19 |
|
If Congress supports invading Iraq |
69 |
28 |
|
If the United States has to invade Iraq alone |
38 |
59 |
|
If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq |
37 |
58 |
|
If Congress opposes invading Iraq |
37 |
59 |
Neal Pollack weighs in on the Gore speech and other issues.
Al Gore's comments on President Bush's Iraq policy are so beneath contempt that I can barely muster the energy to write 1,000 furious words about them. But I can ask Mr. Gore this: Do you negotiate with monsters? Do you invite a pedophile over to have a beer and watch the game? Is there no level to which you won't stoop for personal and political gain?
There is no room for dissent in our society, particularly not from a one-time loser like Al Gore. I can just see the smug looks on the faces of the San Francisco politburo in that room where he gave his so-called speech. God, I can't restrain myself. Excuse me while I howl.
As does Charles Johnson:
Al Gore has really marginalized himself now, taking a position that’s so far left it verges on the loony variety. Daily I thank the Almighty Omniscient Hanging Chad that he isn’t president.
Which American city are you willing to sacrifice, Mr. Gore?
As does Vodkapundit:
You say we need to focus on the Terror War, but ignore Iraq? Albert Jr., you know better than that. Saddam finances and supplies terror, and may well be providing it sanctuary now, as well. The Iraq War will be just a phase in the broader conflict -- and a quicker, cleaner, easier effort than the others lying before us. Pick the low-hanging fruit early. Then again, you've never been a big fan of that, or you wouldn't have lost your home state in the 2000 election.
We aren't going after Jesse James, Mr. Gore. We're going after Saddam Hussein. He is a self-declared enemy of our nation, in violation of every agreement he has signed with us, and of every UN resolution mandated against him. The proper Old West analogy would be High Noon, with the US in the Gary Cooper role.
You lost the election. Now leave the rest of the nation alone to win this new war.
and Andrew Sullivan:
DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: But, as befitting a man whose administration slept while al Qaeda's threat grew, Gore seems more concerned with what Germany and France think than with any threat to this country or elsewhere from Saddam's potential nukes and poison gas. He says we now live in a "reign of fear." Because of the continuing threat of terrorism? Because of Saddam's nukes? Nope. Because of the Bush administration, a statement of moral equivalence that I'm genuinely shocked to hear from his lips. (He also slipped in a sly analogy to the Soviet Union's "pre-emptive" invasion of Afghanistan. So Gore thinks Bush is the equivalent of the Soviet Union?) He says we have "squandered" the good will generated by the attacks of September 11. Really? A liberated Afghanistan, where women can now learn to read, where a fledgling free society is taking shape? No major successful terrorist attack on the homeland since the anthrax attacks of last fall? Growing support among Arab nations and at the U.N. for enforcing U.N. resolutions that Gore's own administration let languish? Signs that Arafat may soon be sidelined on the West Bank? Squandered? The only thing that's been truly squandered is what's left of Gore's integrity. At least Lieberman has been consistent. I must say, as a former Gore-supporter who was appalled by his campaign lurch to the left, that there are few judgment calls I'm prouder of than having picked Bush over Gore two years ago. Now I'm beginning to think we dodged a major catastrophe in world events.
Oh, and here's Jack Kemp. On the issue, not the speech.
Certainly, this wisdom is proving true in Afghanistan. We aren't sure about Osama bin Laden and haven't brought to justice most of his lieutenants. Al-Qaeda's basic infrastructure and financial network appear to be frustrated but essentially intact. Afghanistan is a mess and almost certainly will require more U.S. troops and a longer, larger commitment to nation-building lest the Taliban come back. Al-Qaeda cells fester like a cancer inside Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Egypt, awaiting the day they can destabilize these regimes and gain access to "Islamic Nukes" or chemical and biological weapons. And, al-Qaeda cells infect Kurdish safe areas of Iraq hoping a U.S. invasion will splinter the nation and give them a chance to turn the country into another Afghanistan or at least a Kurdish state on Turkey's border.
In addition to these dangers, the administration believes Saddam Hussein is on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them against us. Outside the White House complex, there is some doubt on this score. I am not convinced and I do not believe the majority of Americans are yet convinced that it is wise or prudent to divert resources away from the difficult struggle against the fanatical Islamic Jihadists and the task of rebuilding Afghanistan.
And, finally, Jim Robinson:
IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?
I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.
(sent in by Seize the Fish)
I suppose we should let Al Gore speak for himself:
And, I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first, especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.
I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling that network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.
We have other enemies . . .
We have other enemies, but we should focus first and foremost as our top priority on winning the war against terrorism.
Al Gore's comments on President Bush's Iraq policy are so beneath contempt that I can barely muster the energy to write 1,000 furious words about them. But I can ask Mr. Gore this: Do you negotiate with monsters? Do you invite a pedophile over to have a beer and watch the game? Is there no level to which you won't stoop for personal and political gain?
There is no room for dissent in our society, particularly not from a one-time loser like Al Gore. I can just see the smug looks on the faces of the San Francisco politburo in that room where he gave his so-called speech. God, I can't restrain myself. Excuse me while I howl.
As does Charles Johnson:
Al Gore has really marginalized himself now, taking a position that’s so far left it verges on the loony variety. Daily I thank the Almighty Omniscient Hanging Chad that he isn’t president.
Which American city are you willing to sacrifice, Mr. Gore?
As does Vodkapundit:
You say we need to focus on the Terror War, but ignore Iraq? Albert Jr., you know better than that. Saddam finances and supplies terror, and may well be providing it sanctuary now, as well. The Iraq War will be just a phase in the broader conflict -- and a quicker, cleaner, easier effort than the others lying before us. Pick the low-hanging fruit early. Then again, you've never been a big fan of that, or you wouldn't have lost your home state in the 2000 election.
We aren't going after Jesse James, Mr. Gore. We're going after Saddam Hussein. He is a self-declared enemy of our nation, in violation of every agreement he has signed with us, and of every UN resolution mandated against him. The proper Old West analogy would be High Noon, with the US in the Gary Cooper role.
You lost the election. Now leave the rest of the nation alone to win this new war.
and Andrew Sullivan:
DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: But, as befitting a man whose administration slept while al Qaeda's threat grew, Gore seems more concerned with what Germany and France think than with any threat to this country or elsewhere from Saddam's potential nukes and poison gas. He says we now live in a "reign of fear." Because of the continuing threat of terrorism? Because of Saddam's nukes? Nope. Because of the Bush administration, a statement of moral equivalence that I'm genuinely shocked to hear from his lips. (He also slipped in a sly analogy to the Soviet Union's "pre-emptive" invasion of Afghanistan. So Gore thinks Bush is the equivalent of the Soviet Union?) He says we have "squandered" the good will generated by the attacks of September 11. Really? A liberated Afghanistan, where women can now learn to read, where a fledgling free society is taking shape? No major successful terrorist attack on the homeland since the anthrax attacks of last fall? Growing support among Arab nations and at the U.N. for enforcing U.N. resolutions that Gore's own administration let languish? Signs that Arafat may soon be sidelined on the West Bank? Squandered? The only thing that's been truly squandered is what's left of Gore's integrity. At least Lieberman has been consistent. I must say, as a former Gore-supporter who was appalled by his campaign lurch to the left, that there are few judgment calls I'm prouder of than having picked Bush over Gore two years ago. Now I'm beginning to think we dodged a major catastrophe in world events.
Oh, and here's Jack Kemp. On the issue, not the speech.
Certainly, this wisdom is proving true in Afghanistan. We aren't sure about Osama bin Laden and haven't brought to justice most of his lieutenants. Al-Qaeda's basic infrastructure and financial network appear to be frustrated but essentially intact. Afghanistan is a mess and almost certainly will require more U.S. troops and a longer, larger commitment to nation-building lest the Taliban come back. Al-Qaeda cells fester like a cancer inside Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Egypt, awaiting the day they can destabilize these regimes and gain access to "Islamic Nukes" or chemical and biological weapons. And, al-Qaeda cells infect Kurdish safe areas of Iraq hoping a U.S. invasion will splinter the nation and give them a chance to turn the country into another Afghanistan or at least a Kurdish state on Turkey's border.
In addition to these dangers, the administration believes Saddam Hussein is on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them against us. Outside the White House complex, there is some doubt on this score. I am not convinced and I do not believe the majority of Americans are yet convinced that it is wise or prudent to divert resources away from the difficult struggle against the fanatical Islamic Jihadists and the task of rebuilding Afghanistan.
And, finally, Jim Robinson:
IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?
I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.
(sent in by Seize the Fish)
I suppose we should let Al Gore speak for himself:
And, I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first, especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.
I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling that network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.
We have other enemies . . .
We have other enemies, but we should focus first and foremost as our top priority on winning the war against terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)