Enemy of the People

Good Riddance

2004-11-15T17:23:00.000-05:00

Bill Safire is finally giving up his New York Times column. He won't be missed. For 30 years he's been the biggest pimp in the business. He was Nixon's bitch. He was Kissinger's bitch. He's been Sharon's bitch for years. Now the question is whether the Times turns over his slot to another neocon hack.

...They Just Fade Away

2004-11-15T13:19:00.000-05:00

Another indication of the neocons consolidation of power in the second Bush Administration. Powell's resignation, had it occurred at any number of critical junctures over the last two years, could have meant something. As it is, it's just a concession of defeat offered to his neocon opponents.

Powell was nothing more than a useful idiot in Bush's "I'm a moderate" charade. He was a beard, nothing more, and as such his resignation merits notice only because it unmistakably signals the absolute ascendancy of the neocons.

I will give Colin his props in one respect, however. He would on occasion tell the truth. He would on occasion forego the lies the media charitably characterize as spin and, whether out of principle or his own sense of dignity, acknowledge the truth. He did so on May 16, 2004 following a humiliating attempt by his staff to silence the Secretary of State in the middle of an appearance on Meet The Press. After Powell insisted that the interview continue, the following exchange between Russert and Powell took place:

RUSSERT: How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

POWELL: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed.

But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.

One needn't be particularly imaginative to speculate as to the response Rumsfeld or Cheney might have offered - most likely a condescending lecture about how "the world isn't perfect, Tim." Powell's expression of disappointment and regret was an admission of culpability that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would never have the decency to acknowledge.

Goodbye, Colin. It would have been nice had you remained in office as a counterweight against the neocon cabal, but you'd already demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to act as that counterweight. Enjoy your board memberships, honoraria and celebrity. And console yourself that you were right on Iraq and the neocons were wrong. But are you satisfied that you did all you could have done to avert this catastrophe?

It took McNamara nearly 30 years to finally tell the American people the truth about Vietnam. How long will it take you to tell the truth about Iraq, Sec. Powell?

P.S. I can't quite believe what I just saw. As I was finishing this post Powell came to the podium at the State Dept. to make a statement and take a few questions. As the first question was being asked the camera swung away from Powell and focused for a period of perhaps 8 seconds on the entrance to the press room - an incident eerily reminiscent of the Meet The Press contretemps.

Failure In Fallujah

2004-11-10T09:02:00.000-05:00

In terms of the primary objective of Operation Phantom Fury - destroying or substantially impairing the insurgency - we are again failing to effectively engage the insurgency. Provided with ample opportunity to prepare, courtesy of Bush's policy of trumpeting action in Fallujah pre-election but delaying the body bags until after, the insurgency was able to booby-trap Fallujah and establish escape routes. It is apparent that we will again take territory, in the process incurring heavy casualties due to IEDs and boobytraps, but do nothing to degrade the ability of the insurgents to return in force once we leave. And if we don't leave Fallujah, the insurgents will merely occupy whatever territory we vacated in order to take Fallujah.

In terms of the secondary objective of Operation Phantom Fury - improving prospects for January elections in Iraq - the operation is already officially a failure. The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in the Iraqi government, has withdrawn from Allawi's government. Iraq's pre-eminent association of Sunni clerics has called for a Sunni boycott of the upcoming election. President Ghazi al-Yawir is vehemently opposed to the Fallujah action, likening it to "shooting horses to kill horseflies." If, as appears likely, Sunnis organize a functional boycott, the legitimacy of the election will be fatally undermined.

There are no significant reports of killed or captured insurgents. Past experience with Pentagon casualty figures indicates that any dead Iraqi is deemed an insurgent, and therefore official Pentagon Kill Counts should be heavily discounted in assessing damage to the insurgency.

We are not killing or capturing insurgents in numbers large enough to materially impair the insurgency. We are rapidly losing Iraqi hearts and minds. There is now no possibility of nationwide elections in Iraq in January, and the prospect of elections anytime in the foreseeable future that enjoy popular support and participation is rapidly receding.

How and when do we get out of Iraq? How many lives are we willing to expend just to save face?

We're On To Something

2004-11-07T08:17:00.000-05:00

The New York Times appears willing to believe anything. I'm not.

Didn't anyone at the Times bother to check the 2000 election returns in these rural counties? If they had, they would have noticed that Bush had massive majorities in these counties in 2000 as well, only marginally less significant than in 2004. Does the Times really believe that the Bush campaign decided as a strategic matter to focus on counties that were already ostensibly pro-Bush, and that the key to victory lay in increasing the Bush vote in these counties from the high 50's (as in 2000) to 64% (the Bush vote in the counties in Florida where 20,000 or fewer votes were cast)? It's ridiculous. For the Times, it's worse than ridiculous - it's proof of the crackbrained gullibility of certain reporters for the nation's putative premier press organ.

But the Times article is welcome in one respect. It demonstrates that Rove and the Bushies are a little concerned, a little worried that these outlandish results in rural Florida are arousing suspicion.

A note on the "Dixiecrat" theory - the theory that these rural counties exhibited the same proclivity democrats exhibit across the south of voting republican in presidential elections. This tendency is undeniable, but far less pronounced today than in the days of Nixon and Reagan. Here are the party affiliation numbers for a number of deep-south states:

The Dixiecrats have been switching parties for years. The deep-south state that gave Bush the biggest majority - Alabama, 63% - now has more registered republicans than democrats. There is still a significant "dixiecrat" vote in Alabama, as evidenced by the huge Bush majority in a state that now has approximately the same number of registered republicans and democrats.

But there were numerous small, rural counties in Florida that were 2 to 1 democrat but voted more than 2 to 1 for Bush. This kind of massive crossover cannot be found in any of the deep-south states. The crossover vote in these rural Florida counties is an order of magnitude greater than the crossover vote in any of the deep-south states.

This stinks like a dead manatee.

We simply have to get this into the mainstream media. I'm calling Dale Van Natta, whose by-line is on this morning's Times article, and this is my message: you simply can't explain these kinds of massive Bush majorities in democratic counties by arguing that the Bushies revved up their base, or that this is just another example of dixiecrat crossover. It doesn't wash.

It's time to get this in high gear. Kos has picked up the story. Calpundit and Atrios have to pick it up soon. There was something rotten in Baker county. And Dixie county. And Liberty county. And more than 20 other rural Florida counties.

Where To Look For Vote Fraud? I Know Where I'm Looking!

2004-11-06T13:11:00.000-05:00

Dwight Meredith, of the "Wampum" website, has made a number of good points and prompted me to sharpen the analysis of the 2004 Florida voting results that I first covered in my prior posts "Classic Rovian Misdirection" and "Ohio Was A Diversion." Thanks Dwight.

Dwight points out that in rural areas of Florida voters tend to be "dixiecrats", i.e., registered democrats who habitually vote republican. This is absolutely true in rural counties in Florida, just as it is true throughout the south. But what is surprising is not that these counties would support Bush, but that they did so in 2004 in numbers so startlingly different than in the last pre-Bush presidential election: 1996. Here are the 1996 election results for the small, rural counties that I cited in my prior post:

What is striking is that Clinton won most of these counties in 1996. Even assuming that most (say, 70%) of Perot votes came from Dole, Clinton still would have won many of these counties and ran strong in most others even without the Perot factor. Compare to this table which shows Bush winning by better than 2 to 1 in eleven of these 26 counties. Man, that's a seismic shift in voting patterns.

What is even more striking is that the difference between 1996 and 2000 is almost as great. Gore, although running ahead of Clinton's 1996 pace statewide, got clobbered in these counties. We can all agree that John Kerry would not fair as well as Bill Clinton in these Florida counties, but Gore should have faired nearly as well as Clinton. He's southern, and actually received a higher percentage of the vote in Florida than Clinton did in 1996. What was the big difference between 1996 and 2000? The Bushies. (Optical scans certainly were in much wider use in 2000 than in 1996, but were common in Florida in 1996.)

These kinds of apparent voting abberations don't prove anything, but they do suggest that other factors may be at work. My point is not that this proves fraud, but that this information, considered with other evidence, suggests that the small Florida counties are where we should be looking for vote fraud.

Dwight also makes the point that the Florida supervisors of elections in the various small, heavily democratic counties should be democrats. Perhaps, but the concern here should be the optical scan machines, and any fraud would likely be the product of systematic manipulation of the op-scan machines or software, not vote-rigging by the county election officials.

Dwight also suggests that these counties were "fine-toothed" in 2000, but that's not really the case. What's required here is manual recounts, and the 2000 manual recounts were limited to those large counties where Gore and the democrats expected to mine large deposits of undercounts. These small counties were not manually recounted.

Rove didn't want us looking in Florida. Where did you keep hearing the phrase "Ohio could be the Florida of 2004"? The cable news networks, Rove's echo chamber. Hell, Florida is the state where the President's brother is governor, where things were so messed up in 2000, where Jeb Bush was caught earlier this year screwing with the felon purge list. Rove was delighted for the media to be suggesting that any place other than Florida might be the "Florida of 2004." Where did the republicans engage in a massive pre-election litigation campaign? Ohio. Where did they make a big stink about "challengers" being present at the polling places? Ohio. Was it because they expected Ohio to be tight? Well, as a matter of fact, Bush was looking pretty good in Ohio, up by a few points in most polls, whereas things were tighter in the pre-election polls in Florida. Just check out RealClearPolitics.com for confirmation of this, where their poll-of-polls had Bush up by an average of more than 2 points in Ohio, but by only half a point in Florida. Florida is where they expected the tightest race. The 5 point margin in Florida must have surprised the hell out of even Rove.

Or perhaps it didn't surprise Karl at all.

Ohio was just a diversion. Florida is where we're most likely to find vote fraud, aided and abetted by the prez's younger bro. And it's in the small counties where no one is paying attention. As one of my more historically astute friends points out, when Landslide Lyndon Johnson stole the 1948 senate election in Texas, he didn't fool with Houston and Dallas - he manipulated the vote in the small, rural Texas counties.

Remember, this isn't about a recount. As Dwight notes, the number of votes in these small counties won't amount to enough to permit Kerry to overcome a deficit of hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida. No, this is about revealing vote fraud in Florida. It's about whether the Bushies attempted to steal this election, regardless of whether or not they succeeded.

The Election Is Over. Now For The Harsh Realities - In Fallujah And At Home

2004-11-06T10:18:00.000-05:00

My pro-war friends are up in arms. No, not "arms" as in weapons - they're too good to do the fighting in Iraq. No, they're upset because they believe John Kerry tried to scare people about a draft. To which I respond: if the truth is scary, so be it. To paraphrase Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Kerry wasn't trying to scare the kids; this President's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country.

It is important that we discuss this now because coalition forces are about to engage in a massive offensive in Fallujah, an offensive that can only have two results: a brutalization of the innocent Iraqis in Fallujah that causes the metastasis of the insurgency or, worse, door-to-door and hand-to-hand combat that will be effective in rooting out the insurgency but at a cost in American lives so grievous as to shock the conscience of the nation. Either way, the consequences of Rumsfeld's failed "war-lite" strategy will be exacerbated. We are about to increase the scope and intensity of the war. Where will we get the troops?

Let me directly address my pro-war friends. Would you fault John Kerry for "scaring" people if his warnings of a draft were well grounded? Would you fault Kerry for scaring people if his warnings about a draft were intended to fairly respond to the Administration's untenable twin positions: we will do whatever is necessary to prevail in Iraq, but we will not institute a draft to address the single most needed asset in Iraq - more troops.

I assume you're criticizing Kerry because you believe his warnings of the potential for a draft are not well founded, and therefore his warnings nothing more than fearmongering. But it is obvious that, given the circumstances that obtain today, a draft is far closer to an inevitability than a baseless, fearmongering tactic.

Do you really believe that we can continue indefinitely to rotate the same 140,000 or so troops through Iraq? Coalition members are announcing withdrawal dates monthly, and replacements from the international community are not forthcoming. Enlistment rates are falling short of goals and are declining - even prior to the report that 19 U.S. troops declined a "suicide mission" because of the lack of adequate armor and equipment.

The Defense Science Board, a group of outside defense experts commissioned by Rumsfeld, have reported that inadequate total numbers of troops mean that the United States "cannot sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments."

And yet the Administration continues to insist that a draft will not be instituted. Let's face facts. In light of our inability to secure international support, our inability to pacify Iraq and therefore draw down our forces, and our inability to sustain necessary force levels by means of enlistment, there is only one basis for the Administration's claim that a draft will not be necessary: Iraqification.

We could discuss the viability of an "Iraqification" policy, but it is so absurd as to not merit a moment's thought.

This president and the pentagon are assuring us that no draft will be necessary and disparaging the views of anyone who suggests otherwise on the basis of nothing more than the hope that we will be able to draw an inside straight by implementing the policy that failed so disastrously in Vietnam.

Can you give me one other means other than Iraqification that would permit us to sustain necessary troop levels for a commitment the Administration measures in years? If not, do you really believe that Iraqification will work? Are you aware that our Iraqification strategy last spring in in response to the expanding insurgency resulted in rates of Iraqi desertion - and worse, defection to the insurgents - so great that we scrapped the whole idea in a matter of days?

The day when we expect the political opposition to refrain from criticizing ridiculous and dishonest government policies and pronouncements (such as the Administration's baseless assurances that a draft will not under any circumstances be necessary) rather than arouse due concern among the American people is the day we can just scrap democracy altogether.

This is a serious subject. I'm really attempting to lighten up and reduce my boorishness quotient, but this is one subject that hits pretty fucking close to home. I'd really like to hear the views of my pro-war friends on whether Iraqification can work, and whether there any viable alternatives to a draft if it doesn't work. Unfortunately, however, they appear to this point more inclined to transpose the Bush campaign tactic of distortion and puerile ridicule to any attempted serious discussion of the immediate future of our children.

Classic Rovian Misdirection

2004-11-05T08:57:00.000-05:00

Here are some hard facts about Florida's voting.

It wasn't the touchscreen, paperless voting that produced the anomolous results. It was the optical scan voting in very small Florida counties that produced an amazing number of huge Bush majorities in counties in which the overwhelming majority of registered voters are democrats.

The following table is a list of all the counties in Florida in which there were approximately 20,000 or fewer votes cast. What you see over and over again is that counties with huge majorities of registered democrats voted overwhelmingly republican. If you focus on the percentages in the leftmost column, the "percent change" is the amount by which actual votes cast exceed the vote that would have been projected by assuming that each voter in the county voted in accordance with their party affiliation. A "100%" or higher figure for republicans indicates a huge Bush majority in a county that was overwhelmingly comprised of registered democrats. This phenomenon is simply not observed in the larger counties. Only two counties in which 20,000 or more votes were cast had a 100% republican vote variation from the projected vote based on party affiliation (and both of those counties, Columbia and Putnam, were also relaively small, i.e., approximately 30,000 or fewer votes cast), and yet every single county in Florida in which 20,000 or fewer votes were cast exhibited a 90% pro-Bush variance relative to projections based on party affiliation. There are 38 counties in Florida where more votes were cast than in Putnam county, and not a single one approached a 90% variance (the highest such variance being 61% in Bay county).

The other side of the story is that a similar phenomenon, albeit less pronounced, is observed in the 2000 election. But Jeb was Gov in 2000, too. And remember, no one recounted the small counties, as Gore focused his firepower on the larger counties with potentially rich undercount totals. The interesting thing is that this phenomenon is virtually absent in the last pre-Jeb election in Florida, 1996, in which Bill Clinton even won some of these small counties. Sure, Bill was a southernor, but Gore was too. And Gore actually got a higher percentage of the statewide vote in 2000 than Clinton received in 1996.

Bottom line: since the Bushies have taken control of Florida, we've seen a tidal shift in the small counties to almost Saddam-like republican majorities.

There's a paper trail somewhere. It would be startling to find that they hadn't already covered their tracks, but even if they have there are people who know about this, and someone who will confound the Rove postulate that humans are infintely corruptible.

These are small counties. Let's do some manual recounts and compare to the op-scan totals. It will not be a huge undertaking.

Ohio Was A Diversion

2004-11-04T21:19:00.000-05:00

I haven't alleged anything. I have, however, noted the following odd confluence of facts and circumstances.

First, it is a fact that the Florida tally was way out of step with the pre-election polls. It is extremely anomalous, from a statistical perspective, that the final Florida results fell outside of the range of the all of the major pre-election polls, other than the Quinnipiac poll, which had Bush +8. Only one other of the Florida polls cited by RealClearPolitics conducted post October 1st (36 such polls, in all) produced an 8 point margin, and none produced a more lopsided result. Further, no other Florida poll conducted within the final two weeks (other than a Rasmussen single day poll that produced a 5 point Bush bulge on Oct. 27) produced a Bush margin more than four points.

Second, consider in light of point one that the late day exit polls (as distinct from the 2:00 PM exit polls) were very accurate, with the exception of a few 50% to 49% type results that had the right margin but the wrong winner. But the late day Florida poll had Kerry by 51% to 49%, way off the final 52% to 47% Bush margin.

Then you may recall the recent Sarasota Herald-Tribune article that cited a May 2004 e-mail in which a FL bureacrat notes that the republican Governor of Florida rejected advice to scrap a manifestly flawed felon purge list that disenfranchised black felons but permitted Hispanic felons to vote.

And then you may recall the 58,000 ballots that were lost in heavily democratic Broward County. Who was responsible for sending out the 58,000 ballots? Supervisor of Election Brenda Snipes - a republican appointee.

And, conveniently, Florida is one of a limited number of "no paper trail" states, where e-voting disappears into the ether once the votemeter is reset.

And who made the e-voting machines? A company called Deibold Election Systems, whose CEO and Chairman is one Walden O'Dell, one of Bush's elite fundraisers - a member of the exclusive "Pioneers and Rangers" big-bucks pimps for Dubya. But not to worry, Diebold's board adopted a policy that bans its executives from any political activity other than voting. They adopted this ban in the wake of the disclosure that its CEO was a big Bush backer and the author of a letter that pledged his commitment to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President. That's right - Ohio, Walden's home state, another of Diebold's biggest clients and another "no paper trail" state.

Finally, you may remember the problems in the Sunshine State in 2000.

Oh, yeah, and the republican Governor of Florida is the brother of the President - did I mention that?

If it comes time to form a commission on this matter, George would do well to engage the services of one Arlen Specter, whose facile ingenuity helped pave the way for the Warren Commission report by formulating the "single bullet theory".

Thanks, John. You Fought The Good Fight

2004-11-03T13:35:00.000-05:00

I've never had any particular sympathy for losing presidential candidates, but I feel badly for John Kerry.

I was not a John Kerry fan before he landed the nomination, and even for many months afterward. I think he conducted too cautious a campaign and missed an opportunity in April to firmly seize the Iraq issue. But I think he comported himself with dignity and even a measure of chivalry. I continue to believe his service in Vietnam was honorable and his opposition to the war in Vietnam principled. I still find it implausible that every Vietnam vet who politically opposes George Bush - Kerry, McCain and Cleland - is guilty of having conducted himself disgracefully in Vietnam.

I imagine Kerry was stunned and surprised at the ferocity of the Swift Boat attack. But I can't even imagine how difficult it must have been for him to realize that much of the country scorned his service and were willing to denigrate it for political ends. That must have hurt.

I wanted to believe that my country opposed an immoral war. I will have to console myself with the thought that millions of my countrymen, albeit a minority, opposed this war.

Something Is Weird In Ohio

2004-11-03T02:21:00.000-05:00

Fox called Ohio for Bush hours ago. NBC has also called it for Bush. Bush's lead is holding at about 120,000. The cable news networks are talking about the provisional ballots in Ohio. BUT NO ONE IS MENTIONING THAT NOT A SINGLE PRECINCT IS REPORTING FROM THE 6TH AND 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS!

The Democratic candidates for the house in the 2002 midterms rolled up a 130,000 vote margin over their Republican opponents. There is every reason to believe that Kerry will emerge with a 150,000 to 175,000 margin in these two districts, because (i) the two Democratic candidates in these districts are UNOPPOSED this year, and (ii) turnout will be significantly higher in this presidential election year than it was in the 2002 midterms.

I have not heard a single news commentator or reporter mention the 6th and 11th districts or the huge Kerry swing that will occur when these two districts report.

I am predicting right now that Kerry will win Ohio. He will win it even before a single provisional ballot is counted.

UPDATE: For some reason, the Ohio vote totals this morning still indicate that none of the precincts in the 6th and 11th congressional districts have reported. This is obviously not accurate, and it led me to conclude that the Ohio presidential election figures did not reflect the votes from these two heavily democratic districts.

Polls, Schmolls - Give Me The Oliphant Index

2004-11-02T01:16:00.000-05:00

A Divided Nation, United In Shame

2004-10-29T01:02:00.000-04:00

It's funny how these things work. The culpability of the Administration for failing to secure an Iraqi weapons depot has been conclusively established by videotape taken by an ABC news affiliate on April 18, 2003. After all the swift boat and national guard and "flip-flop" nonsense, this story that wasn't even on the radar until 8 days before the election will follow voters into the booth and confirm all their suspicions that the Administration's mulish refusal to send enough troops to Iraq permitted the rise of the insurgency and caused the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops. The belated disclosure of this consequence of Administration incompetence, a misdemeanor on a bill of particulars against this Administration bulging with capital offenses, will defeat the Deserter and deliver us from evil.

But the real scandal, the one that has inexorably built since the first bomb was dropped on Baghdad, will have negligible impact on the election and cause barely a ripple in the public consciousness. The real scandal is not the incompetence, but the policy that sought to subdue a popular insurgency by means of terror and mass aerial slaughter. A Johns Hopkins School of Health study concluded that 100,000 or more civilian Iraqis have been killed in the 18 months since the beginning of the war, most since "mission accomplished", most as a result of aerial bombardment. As I've noted before, the targeting may have been precise, but the blast radius was deadly. The Iraq/Vietnam analogy is now undeniably apt in one respect. The killing of 100,000 innocent people in 18 months is a rate of carnage that matches the barbarity of the "Rolling Thunder" that devastated Vietnam during our last descent into national insanity.

Is the killing of 100,000 innocent people justified by the risk that a country that had never threatened us might one day threaten us? Is it any better if the 100,000 are buried separately rather than in "mass graves"? Is the killing of 100,000 innocent Iraqis justified by the fact that we deposed a dictator who killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis more than a decade ago? If so, does it matter that there was no evidence of an ongoing atrocity in Iraq at the time we began bombing Baghdad? 100,000 deaths later, can one still maintain that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with our concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people?

I will no longer volley idiocies such as the argument that it doesn't really matter if Iraq had the capacity to threaten us. I will no longer indulge in refutations of the rationalizations of our aggression offered by my wingnut friends. There are 100,000 innocent people who are dead because we deluded ourselves into believing that precise targeting or our innate humanity or putative good intentions could mitigate the effects of dropping bombs the size of SUVs on areas as densely populated as Manhattan and northwest D.C. There is too much of the element of sport in our little scrums now. Our effete, bloodless debates demean the enormity of this catastrophe.

I beg those of my wingnut friends who applauded the torture at Abu Ghraib and urged the levelling of Fallujah to show a little respect and restrain your delight at the Iraqi toll and your pride in the proficiency of our death machines. The 100,000 may have been Iraqis and muslims, and therefore presumptively terrorists in your eyes, but they were humans before we rained death upon them and reduced the vessels of their souls to carrion.

This Is Important

2004-10-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

I would ask my 'pub friends to read the following, and then answer these questions:

1. Do you believe the meeting took place?
2. Do you believe a decision by Jeb Bush to implement the flawed "felon purge list" is defensible, or is it evidence of an attempt by the Governor of Florida to improperly influence the election?
3. Is this something that needs to be investigated, and if it is, can the investigation wait until after Nov. 2nd?
4. Why should I trust the election results that come out of Florida in 16 days?

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is in possession of a May 4, 2004 e-mail in which a State of Florida tech-type working on the infamous Florida "felon purge list" informs a colleague that the top tech-type in FL had advised Jeb Bush in May that the purge list had the problems that ultimately led to it being junked in July, after the problems were publicly disclosed, but that Bush ordered that the purge list be nonetheless implemented. Just this morning Jeb Bush denied that any such meeting ever took place.

This is how the AP reported it:

The e-mail said state election officials "weren't comfortable with the felon matching program they've got," but added, "The Gov rejected their suggestion to pull the plug, so they're 'going live' with it this weekend."

The writer of the e-mail identified the person who informed him of Jeb's decision as Paul Craft, the FL dept. of state's top computer expert. When the Sarasota H-T attempted to contact Craft by telephone, Craft hung up. If the meeting between Bush and Craft didn't take place, why didn't Craft say so? If the meeting didn't occur, why didn't Craft explain that the e-mail writer was mistaken? It's not clear why Craft didn't debunk the meeting story, but it's perfectly understandable why he would hang-up. Mr. Craft must realize that his job, and more, is on the line if he crosses the Bush family.

It is apparent that Jeb Bush was informed in May that the voter purge list would purge large numbers of black voters (who tend to vote dem) but almost no hispanics (who tend to vote 'pub in FL), because the purge list methodology required a perfect match between the race designation on the criminal record and the race designation on the voter registration records. The problem is that one or the other set of records (I forget which) generally didn't have a "hispanic" category, while the other set of records did, and accordingly in most cases hispanics were categorized as caucasians in one set of records. That's not a match, and accordingly hispanics weren't being included on the purge list and therefore would remain on the voter rolls even though they plainly should have been purged. Jeb Bush was informed of this in May 2004 according to this e-mail, but ordered that the purge list be implemented anyway.

This is precisely the kind of circumstance that obtained so often during the Clinton blow job scandal. Credible information confirming the culpability of an elected official would be presented, and frequently corroborated by documentary evidence (such as the May 4, 2004 e-mail detailing the meeting with Jeb), and yet the party faithful would stand by their man out of blind partisanship, at grievous cost to political comity and therefore our democracatic processes. I found the evidence of Clinton's deceit credible, and repeatedly called on Clinton to come clean, present his case to the public and trust the good judgment of the electorate. Clinton, rather than lying about Monica, should have said "yeah, I was blown by this girl - I fucked up, but the 'pubs aren't gonna lynch me." My 'pub friends similarly demanded the truth. It is time again for them to demand the truth. The integrity of our democracy is at stake. If this meeting took place, and Jeb nonetheless ordered the implementation of this defective purge list, it is imperative that we begin planning immediately for independent oversight of the election in Florida.

I don't want to hear the spin, or the Jeb Bush defense counsel response. It's time for my 'pub friends to step up, just like they did when credible evidence of Clinton's deceit was produced. I really want my 'pub friends to explain to me why I should trust the election results that come out of Florida in a few weeks, and why I should trust the Governor of Florida. I want my 'pub friends to explain to me why Jeb Bush should not be forced to resign from office today. This is no time for the usual partisan bullshit. I want someone to convince me that the democracy incessantly invoked by our president to justify the sacrifice of our troops' lives in Iraq is not being systematically subverted by his brother and his party.

What A Dick. What A Lynne.

2004-10-16T01:51:00.000-04:00

Our rightwing friends have been shouting at me through their cable news megaphones all day, telling me that John Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney was part of a sleazy campaign agenda, a cynical ploy to crudely exploit a sensitive issue for political gain.

Part of a campaign agenda? Exploitative? Cynical?

Let me tell you about cynical and exploitative. Cynical is proposing an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage, in full knowledge that it cannot pass, dividing the nation with a vulgar and meretricious appeal to prejudice for nothing more than partisan political gain. Exploitative is pursuing Rove's grand scheme to inflame that part of your base that considers homosexuality an abomination, and, unlike John Kerry, considers homosexuals children of a lesser god.

I want to be clear on the difference between an amendment to the Constitution and legislation, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. Legislation evinces the will of the majority, the exercise of the political will of the people at a given moment in time, as inconstant and ill-advised as such will may be. But an amendment to the constitution elevates issue to principle, and renders it beyond the ambit of the rabble, the majority be damned. Thus is your right to freedom of speech imbued with constitutional inviolability, even if every son of a bitch in the country disagrees with what you have to say, as long as five of nine old bastards in black robes can still glean the plain import of the 45 words of the First Amendment.

But what is an amendment that, rather than gaurantying a right to all (and most significantly, to the minority), enisles a minority and refuses it a right granted to all others? Man, that's as profound a stigma as the polity can attach to a minority. The proposal to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage said, in effect, "the union of two of the same gender is such an affront to decency that it is forbade, even if every living soul in a state desires passionately to grant such union the imprimatur of that state." This is no mere pruning of the "full faith and credit" clause, such as that effected by the lamentable Defense of Marriage Act. This pernicious amendment proposed by our President and his party would accord the stigmatization of homosexuals the same dignity as the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. This amendment would smuggle into the noblest document yet conceived by man a low and invidious "right" that cheapens the constitutional rights consecrated by blood at Gettysburg, Normandy, Khe Sanh and Baghdad. I would sooner put Saddam's lapidary likeness on Mount Rushmore than so defile the Constitution.

Lynne found John Kerry's remarks about her daughter, in which Kerry counted lesbians among "all god's children", to be "cheap and tawdry." You want cheap and tawdry? Cheap and tawdry is our President treating the Constitution of the United States as toilet paper, a cheap prop in his farcical campaign, and wiping his Texan ass with the sanctified parchment - our Constitution - just so he can scare up a few more votes from the haters.

That's cynical and exploitative. That's cheap and tawdry.

Cheney Of Fools

2004-10-05T15:13:00.000-04:00

For much of the day the lead story at the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN has been Bremer's less than earthshaking admission that there weren't enough troops in Iraq to secure the country.

I suppose they would justify the prominent play given the Bremer story by arguing that this is the first acknowledgment from anyone affiliated with the Administration that what has been so obvious for so long is, in fact, true. However, it's clear to me that the huge coverage of Bremer's truthful indiscretion is attributable to the "naked emperor" effect: the Deserter's manifestly delusional depiction of Iraq has rendered him without his raiments and, given his naked deceit, it is now permissible to observe the obvious.

Like liberated genies and discharged toothpaste, you can't undo this. The revelation that the our top man in Baghdad deemed troop deployments insufficient will require yet another lie from Cheney tonight. How many can he squeeze into 90 minutes before good Americans are filled with revulsion?

The First Article Of Impeachment

2004-10-03T10:37:00.000-04:00

It reads like a brief in support of an article of impeachment. From today's New York Times:

"On Sept. 13, The Times made the first public mention of the [aluminum] tubes debate in the sixth paragraph of an article on Page A13. In it an unidentified senior administration official dismissed the debate as a "footnote, not a split." Citing another unidentified administration official, the story reported that the "best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the C.I.A. assessments."

"As a senior Oak Ridge official pointed out to the Intelligence Committee, "the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts" in the Energy Department's laboratories in fact disagreed with the agency. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive forbidding employees from discussing the subject with reporters."

There were two assessments. One was crafted to Administration specifications and conveniently reached the Administration's desired conclusion. The other assessment contradicted the Administration's assessment and dismantled the Administration's case with devastating efficiency. The contrary assessment was confirmed on January 10, 2003 when U.N. weapons inspectors found the very same variety of tubes in Iraqi rockets - the likely intended use cited by the contrary assessment. The Administration nonetheless continued to rely on the discredited assessment and took us to war. The contrary, and accurate, assessment was muzzled.

The Administration will explain to us that there are always different analyses, different assessments. The Administration will imply that the choice of one or the other is arbitrary, and that there is no basis for judging the relative merits of two widely varying assessments. The Administration will not acknowledge that one assessment was objectively flawed.

Finally, the Administration will not acknowledge that yet again the assessment they relied upon was wrong, was never credible, was denounced by the nation's foremost experts and, all in all, constituted another fraud perpetrated on the American people.

I urge everyone to read the NYT article. A heinous crime has been committed, and we (as well the Iraqi people) are all victims.

It's Brass Knuckle Time

2004-09-06T13:42:00.000-04:00

I'm pissed. And I know many others are pissed. I can't understand why it has taken this long, but it's not too late. I am now led to believe that the Kerry campaign understands that it is in a fight with a punk armed with a shiv and a .22. It was foolish to ever think that the Deserter would fight any other way.

Surrogates for the Kerry campaign must start running this commercial, or some variant of it, immediately.

Note: If the link above doesn't work, go here, right click on "Leaderlite" and select "Save Target As" to download the file.

Th-Th-Th-Th-That's All, Folks!

2004-08-30T13:25:00.000-04:00

It's been fun. But I've said my piece.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are dangerous and dishonest men that would ruin our country. I am optimistic that they will be repudiated on November 2nd. I truly fear for our country if they are not.

I will make one last appeal to republicans of conscience. I understand that you are in a difficult position, and that the stakes are high. Please do not let history record that the deceptions of Bush and Cheney went unchallenged in their own party. Please do not let history record that not a single republican of national stature abjured the slanders and calumnies indulged in by small men like Bill Frist, Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay. At some level a national political party must police itself. Admittedly, the democrats largely failed to do this during the latter Clinton years. But we're not talking about a stained blue dress this time; we're talking about war and peace, about the good name of America in the world community, about the trust of allies who've stood by us as we've stood by them, and the soul of a nation that hasn't yet come to grips with the fact that we thuggishly stomped a small, backwards, desperately poor and defenseless country that posed no threat to us.

History is watching.

Stuck In The Mud

2004-08-24T10:47:00.000-04:00

The White House just can't seem to disassociate itself from the Swift Boat Slime.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Houston home builder Bob Perry, a key bankroller for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is listed as the co-host of a New York City fund-raiser next week for the Harris County GOP, whose guest list includes President Bush's top political adviser...

...Invitations to the Harris County reception and fund-raiser Sept. 1 at Tavern on the Green name Mr. Perry as an event sponsor, and those on the invitation list include former President George Bush, presidential adviser Karl Rove and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Meanwhile, from NPR's John McChesney:

"And over the weekend, another swift boat Veteran, William Rood, also broke 35 years of silence to support Kerry's version of how he won a silver star. Rood is now an editor with the Chicago Tribune. The Bush campaign denounced Rood's article in the Tribune as politically motivated."

The Swift Boat Slander has become too much for some people to bear, like the editors at the Los Angeles Times:

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions...

...No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.

Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing.

Dorothy? Any Reaction to the Schlesinger Report?

2004-08-24T10:22:00.000-04:00

Dorothy Rabinowitz, August 17, 2004:

It still remains to be seen whether those bent on portraying Pfc. England and her colleagues as victims, misled by superiors, will accord them the respect of judging them for what they were -- individuals who had at a certain time and place, obeyed the dictates of cruelty and sadism, imperatives that did not come to them from above -- rather than excusing them as creatures too lowly to know right from wrong.

Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2004:

A long-awaited report on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal will implicate about two dozen military intelligence soldiers and civilian contractors in the intimidation and sexual humiliation of Iraq war prisoners, but will not suggest wrongdoing by military brass outside the prison, senior Defense officials said Wednesday.

The report will recommend disciplinary action against two senior prison officers: the colonel in charge of the military intelligence brigade that oversaw interrogations at the compound near Baghdad and a general in charge of a reserve military police brigade in charge of the prison.

It also will recommend that the intelligence soldiers face criminal abuse charges similar to those lodged earlier against seven reserve military police soldiers, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Dorothy Rabinowitz is a disgrace, even by the lowly standards of the Wall Street Journal's neocon-infested editorial page.

What Is Happening At The Washington Post?

2004-08-24T09:12:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post, in "related content" that accompanied Michael Dobbs' August 21 article (which was revised on Sunday, August 22 and is attached here), falsely stated that self-inflicted wounds are not eligible for the purple heart. I e-mailed the Post on Saturday informing them that self-inflicted wounds are, in fact, eligible for the purple heart if incurred during the heat of battle and are not the product of gross negligence. This is plainly stated in military regulations. The Post had not corrected this misstatement by midday yesterday, so I submitted a message to Michael Dobbs during his online chat yesterday pointing out the error.

The Post has not corrected the error. It continues to incorrectly state that self-inflicted wounds are not eligible for the purple heart. It mistakenly gives the impression that there may be merit to the Swift Boat Liars' charge that John Kerry didn't deserve one of his purple hearts, when the truth is that Kerry deserved his purple heart even if the Swift Boat Liars' account of his wound is true.

It is just very sad to witness the degradation of a national institution like the Washington Post.

More Blowback

2004-08-22T10:56:00.000-04:00

From today's editorial pages around the nation.

Hartford Courant: Mr. Kerry volunteered to serve with the U.S. Navy and was in Vietnam for several months in 1968 and 1969. He was awarded five medals - a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts - for wounds suffered and actions taken as a commander of a small Swift boat on river patrol. Navy records and first-person accounts of men who served on the boat with him back him up and validate claims of heroism. He carries shrapnel in his body to this day.

But that hasn't stopped a political group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from running television ads and publishing a book claiming that Mr. Kerry lied about the actions that won him the medals. The group, which has ties to the family and political associates of President Bush, asserts that the Democrat is unfit to lead the nation.

Their claims are animated mostly by anger over Mr. Kerry's anti-war statements made when he returned, disillusioned, from Vietnam. One ad shows Mr. Kerry testifying in 1971 about alleged brutality by Americans in Vietnam. However, the group's claims about Mr. Kerry's wartime actions are filled with holes. They are contradicted not only by Navy records and the accounts of crew members who served next to Mr. Kerry, but also by their own comments.

Boston Globe: Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves.

Yet a group of Vietnam veterans is questioning Kerry's record, operating cynically and ignoring the evidence. Many in this group felt betrayed by Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam War after he returned home. A renewed debate on that war might be useful, though we believe most Americans now agree with Kerry's famous statement to Congress at the time that it was a mistake.

Rather than seeking debate, however, this group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is attempting political assassination, claiming in ads and a best-selling book that Kerry is "Unfit for Command." In many cases the charges conflict with statements the same men made in the past. Sometimes the allegations contradict documentary evidence. Last week a former swift boat commander, Larry Thurlow, said Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze Star because there was no enemy fire at the time, but this is contradicted by five separate accounts -- including the Bronze Star citation Thurlow himself was awarded in the same incident, as reported by The Washington Post.

While a few details and dates of Kerry's Vietnam record are open to question, most of the accusations are laughable. Kerry's record of service in Vietnam is clear and, one would think, unassailable. Given the contrast in their Vietnam-era records -- Bush even let his pilot's license lapse while still in the Guard -- Bush might be expected to change the subject.

Yet the Kerry opponents, working with funders and political operatives closely linked to Bush personally, are attempting what is known in politics as the big lie -- an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly.

Both parties do it, but Republicans are developing a shocking expertise. The smearing of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, the reprehensible attack to oust Senator Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002, and this utterly cynical campaign against Kerry by Bush's False Squad deserve only condemnation.

Kerry has faulted a few of his own supporters who lampooned Bush's National Guard record. Now Bush should call off his dogs.

Minneapolis Star Tribune: It should not be necessary to plow through all this minute detail about something that happened 35 years ago, wondering whether Kerry remembers it all with precise accuracy. But we must, because the Republican smear machine insists we do. Along with former and current Republican elected officials, Hinderaker and Johnson are serving as part of the effort to smear John Kerry, just as Republicans smeared Sen. John McCain in 2000, then-Sen. Max Cleland in 2002, and critics Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson in 2004. This serves two purposes: to sow doubts in voters' minds about Kerry and to divert attention from the serious issues that really should concern voters: health care costs, the anemic state of the American economy, the mess that is Iraq and the continuing, relentless Republican effort to shift the burden of paying for the federal government from America's wealthy to its middle class.

As the old saying goes, "Politics ain't beanbag," but this Republican crew, including Hinderaker and Johnson, take the art of slime-throwing to levels of immorality seldom seen. Voters need to awaken to this tactic, and realize how much contempt it shows for the workings of democracy and for the intelligence they bring to the task of choosing this nation's leaders.

Kansas City Star: One Republican group, calling itself “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” has mounted a particularly odious attack on Sen. John Kerry's military record.

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans largely sponsored, counseled and coached by individuals with long ties to President George W. Bush, his family and his Texas political base, has set out to destroy Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's record of decorated service in that war. And the president, to his discredit, appears perfectly content to let it do so.

Portland Oregonian: A s the appalling argument over Sen. John Kerry's war record rages on, it's worth mentioning that quite a bit more is at stake here than the outcome of the presidential election.

A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began attacking Kerry about a month ago. They said, among other things, that Kerry did not deserve the Bronze Star he received in Vietnam for rescuing Green Beret Jim Rassmann after an explosion blew him off Kerry's patrol boat.

We've already mentioned in this space that we agree with Sen. John McCain, who backs President Bush, that these attacks on Kerry are scurrilous. We might add that the record suggests the attackers' memories aren't too good, either.

Kerry shouldn't be above criticism, though, even from this group. His post-Vietnam antiwar activism ought to be fair game for those who, like French, believe he betrayed the trust of his fellow veterans. Kerry's views as head of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were widely known and influential back then, and it's fair to use them against him now.

And we're not arguing that no one should be able to challenge the official record. But the burden of proof in such cases belongs with those challenging the established accounts, not with those who witnessed them and provided contemporaneous testimony.

The Swift Boat veterans attacking Kerry fall well below that threshold and, we suspect, their tactics ultimately will do more to harm their own cause than help it.

Philadelphia Inquirer: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may sincerely believe the insulting, incendiary things they say. But their belief in what they're saying does not make it true. Again, the research shows little correlation between an eyewitness' confidence and the accuracy of his memory.

No matter what they say they "know," the only truth these Swift boat veterans are qualified to express is how long they have resented Kerry's antiwar stance, how hurt they felt to be shunned after they returned from an unpopular war.

The other truth this group puts on display is how worried Bush supporters must be.

Kerry's Vietnam service by itself hardly qualifies him for the White House (forget the over-the-top "band of brothers" riffs in Boston). But it should have at least inoculated him against the GOP right's habitual stereotype of Democrats as cowardly dupes of the enemy. Instead, a heavyweight GOP donor from Houston funded the Swift Boat Veterans to the tune of $200,000, seeking a way to revive that discredited line of attack. The group is technically distinct from the Bush campaign, but it is as much a partisan piece of the reelection effort as MoveOn.org is to the Democratic effort.

To put this sideshow to rest, four numbers are all you need to know: Five. Zero. Three. 2004.

Five is how many medals John Kerry earned, in the judgment of his commanding officers, during his volunteer service in Vietnam.

Zero is how long George W. Bush served in Vietnam and how many medals he earned there.

Three is how many prominent Vietnam veterans have now had their service, patriotism and suffering denigrated by Bush surrogates in recent elections. The sliming of Sen. John McCain, a former POW, and former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was even more despicable.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: TWO WEEKS AGO, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called upon President George W. Bush to denounce the scurrilous attack ads of a group that goes by the misnamed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mr. Bush refused. The White House says it does not question the military service of Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and had nothing to do with the ads. But that response won't wash. The smear campaign was funded and orchestrated by a coterie of Texans with strong ties to the Bush family and the president's political director, Karl Rove. The president should disown the ads and tell his friends that he wants them to stop.

Louisville Courier-Journal: The controversial television ad and book that accuse Sen. John Kerry of lying about his military service in Vietnam is as described by Sen. John McCain: "dishonest and dishonorable."

It is the inevitable result of the politics of character assassination: a campaign apparently motivated by pure malice and consisting of fabrications. The problem is not the subject matter. Sen. Kerry has emphasized his service in Vietnam and his decorations for courage and injuries under enemy fire, and he has used his military record to make the case that he is qualified to be commander in chief during dangerous times.

It is fair game for those opposed to his candidacy to raise information about Sen. Kerry's time in Vietnam, to pose questions, to criticize his antiwar activities after he returned from Southeast Asia or even to argue that he dwells too much on a war that ended 30 years ago.

Nor is it necessary to argue that Sen. Kerry is uniquely subjected to misleading advertisements. He isn't. Many ads about President Bush — both those officially paid for by the Democratic campaign and those produced privately — contain distortions or are hateful in tone.

But the Vietnam ad, the work of a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, shreds even the appallingly low standards of modern campaign discourse, as recent investigative reporting makes clear. Several of the resulting stories appear in the Forum and front sections of today's newspaper.

The anti-Kerry group received financing, advice and production expertise from individuals with close ties to the President and his family.

More important, their claims are devastatingly undercut by military files, assertions by Sen. Kerry's commanders and previous statements by several of the group's own members in praise of Sen. Kerry's Vietnam actions. Still, the swift boat veterans' charges have been circulated widely. They are repeated without challenge on right-wing talk shows. Conservative commentators treat them as a legitimate, alternative viewpoint.

The person who can bring this destructive ugliness to a halt is the President himself. Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., has called on him to renounce the ads.

Mr. Bush has not done so, however. Instead, his campaign has argued simply that it had no hand in the ads. That's unlikely, but in any case it's not the point. No president should allow the military service of an American veteran to be impugned recklessly and malevolently.

Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Bush has done.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: At the moment, Kerry is smarting most from the surrogate campaigning; in reality, his surrogates are a much bigger problem. He's smarting because campaigning as surrogate for Bush is the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which aired an ad in Wisconsin and elsewhere attacking Kerry's version of his Vietnam service. A more despicable and misleading ad is hard to find unless it's the one by another group - targeting African-American voters - that labels Kerry as "rich, white and wishy-washy."

Las Vegas Sun: We have written before that President Bush should have immediately denounced "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," the group that is using bogus charges to question John Kerry's war record in Vietnam. Perhaps then the group's objective, sinking Kerry's presidential bid by way of dirty politics, could have been blunted. Now, however, the group has achieved some small gains. Donations are coming in to finance more ads and public appearances by its members, and Kerry's poll numbers among veterans groups are slipping.

Fortunately there are new reports, published independently of the Kerry campaign, that we hope will restore the faith of veterans and others who may have been misled by the Swift Boat group. Last week both the Washington Post and The New York Times published lengthy investigative reports documenting that the group's attacks on Kerry -- who earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while commanding a Swift boat -- have no credibility.

For example, former Swift boat commander Larry Thurlow is alleging that Kerry was not under fire when he earned his Bronze Star for rescuing a soldier blown from another boat after a mine detonated. The newspapers reported that Thurlow, too, received a Bronze Star for his part in the rescue, with his award praising him for assisting "despite enemy bullets flying about him." Obviously, if Thurlow was under fire at the same time as Kerry was, then Thurlow isn't telling the truth as he seeks to denigrate Kerry's heroism.

The articles point out numerous such inconsistencies, as well as the strong ties that backers of the group have to President Bush and his inner circle. It's not too late for Bush to take the ethical high road and denounce the allegations of the Swift Boat group.

Blowback In Progress

2004-08-20T14:31:00.000-04:00

To the right are the results of MSNBC's Question of the Day. I started tracking it earlier this morning, at which point approximately 10,000 responses had been received. I was startled to see that the Swift Boat Liars were believed by 51% of respondents, Kerry by 49%. Things have swung decisively towards Kerry in the last few hours. Now, with more than 70,000 responses, the tally seems to have stabilized at Kerry 61%, Vets 39%.

Malkinism

2004-08-20T11:07:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin, from her own website, on last night's "Hardball" appearance:

Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.

I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

But character assassins never "say", do they? They insinuate, they suggest, they traffic in rumors and innuendo. And the transcript of last night's "Hardball" show is evidence that Malkin did, in fact, insinuate that Lt. John Kerry intentionally wounded himself.

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.

MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.

MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.

Malkin may very well be correct that Matthews goaded her, but if he did then she graciously accomodated his goading by unmistakably insinuating that John Kerry committed a wretched and detestable act.

Michelle perhaps can take comfort that by having disgraced herself she may have provided the impetus for the rejection by the American people of Malkinism and a return to decency.

The Welch Moment

2004-08-20T09:59:00.000-04:00

June 9, 1954. The Army-McCarthy congressional hearings.

MR. WELCH - Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyer's Guild.
SENATOR MCCARTHY - Let me finish this.
MR. WELCH - And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn.
MR. COHN - No, sir.
MR. WELCH - I meant to do you no personal injury and if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
SENATOR MCCARTHY - I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.
MR. WELCH - I'll say it hurts.
SENATOR MCCARTHY - May I say, Mr. Chairman, as a point of personal privilege, that I'd like to finish this.
MR. WELCH - Senator, I think it hurts you too, sir.

We are approaching a "Joseph Welch" moment in America, the moment when the American people, almost as one, suddenly recognize the utter recklessness of a right-wing campaign to slander and destroy good men and women for no other purpose than to gain fleeting political advantage, the moment when the American people recoil in revulsion at the realization that certain of its political leaders would change the Land Of The Free into "the land of slander and scare...the land of smash and grab and anything to win."

Fifty years after Joseph Welch spoke for all Americans of good will and gave voice to the essential decency and sense of fair play of the American people, who will say to the Malkins and the O'Neills and the Roves and, yes, the President, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

This Is Bushland, Not America

2004-08-20T02:16:00.000-04:00

"Our nation stands at a fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland. But I say to you that it is not America." Adlai Stevenson, 1956

The names of the men pictured above, left to right, are George Elliott, Roy Hoffman, Louis Letson, Adrian Lonsdale and Van O'Dell. They, along with former Nixon plumber John O'Neill, Larry Thurlow and others, have chosen to give voice to their grievances with John Kerry's antiwar activities in the early '70's by slandering his service in Vietnam. The claims they have made (and broadcast in an anti-Kerry television commercial) are in each instance contradicted by the recollections of John Kerry's boatmates, by official Navy records and by their own prior statements. Elliott, Hoffman and Lonsdale were lauding Kerry's service more than 25 years after serving with him. Hoffman said just last year, referring to Kerry's actions that earned the Silver Star, "It took guts, and I admire that." Today Roy Hoffman tells us that John Kerry didn't deserve that Silver Star.

These men served honorably in Vietnam, but they have dishonored themselves. I am absolutely certain that the American people will recognize their discredited allegations as a gutter-dwelling smear campaign and, if the Deserter has not repudiated them in advance of the wave of public revulsion, will hold the Deserter accountable on November 2nd.

The Blowback Begins

2004-08-20T00:45:00.000-04:00

From Friday morning's New York Times, page one:

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

The New York Times also has a neat graphical depiction of deceit that refutes virtually every verifiable claim made by the Swift Boat Liars.

From this morning's Washington Post:

In its current TV ad, a Swift boat veteran says, "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. . . . I know, I was there, I saw what happened" -- a reference to the mission on March 13, 1969, when Kerry pulled Lt. Jim Rassmann from a river after an explosion knocked Rassmann off Kerry's boat. The ad says Kerry was not under fire. That episode is also a focus of O'Neill's book.

But The Post reported Thursday that military records of Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's accusers, show that Kerry's boat faced fire when he pulled Rassmann from the water.

The new 30-second Kerry ad says the Navy documented Kerry's "heroism and awarded him the Bronze Star." In the ad, Rassmann says: "All these Viet Cong were shooting at me. I expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine."

Here's Chris Matthews interviewing Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post on "Hardball":

MATTHEWS: Michael Dobbs is the “Washington Post” reporter who broke the story today about Larry Thurlow‘s Bronze Star citation. Let‘s talk about that citation. You report on a front page story in “The Washington Post” today, Michael, that the citation for Larry Thurlow, the gentleman we just talked to, his award was—his Bronze Star was earned because of—he was—as well as other things, he was under enemy fire at the time. He denies that again today on the show, and he says not only did he not go under enemy fire when he took the action he did, the brave action he took to save those crewmen on the other swift boat, but that that language in the citation came from John Kerry. Any evidence of that?

MICHAEL DOBBS, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: There‘s no proof of that at all. It‘s based on his claim and the claim of some other swift boat veterans that it was John Kerry that wrote the after-action report. In fact, Mr. Thurlow was the senior officer in that particular engagement, so it‘s just as possible to suppose that he wrote the action—after-action report as Mr. Kerry. There‘s no evidence from the document itself as to who wrote the report. Also...

MATTHEWS: Is it a fair assumption on the part of Mr. Thurlow that it was John Kerry‘s words because he was the only one that issued a report, or submitted one, that they would have had to get that information about being under constant enemy fire, automatic weapons fire, et cetera, from the person who filed a report, if no one else did?

DOBBS: I think probably the after-action report could have been the work of several different people, each reporting on what their own boat did. I don‘t think that all the language in Mr. Thurlow‘s citation could have come from that after-action report, either. And there were many things that Mr. Thurlow was doing that are mentioned in his citation that John Kerry was not in a position to observe.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin's outrageous "Hardball" appearance provided grist for both Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann:

MALKIN: Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...

MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.

MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.

MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

MATTHEWS: Give me a name.

MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).

MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...

MALKIN: These people have...

MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?

MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.

MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.

MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.

MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.

Look, thank you Mayor Brown. We‘ll stay with Michelle Malkin.

Still ahead, David Gergen and Dana Milbank on the battle for the White House. We are going to keep things clean on this show. No irresponsible comments are going to be made on the show.

Later in "Hardball" David Gergen bemoaned Bush's habit of slandering the patriotism of his political opponents.

Finally, on "Countdown", Keith Olbermann stated that Malkin "had made a fool of herself" on Matthews' show.

Blowback!

2004-08-19T20:42:00.000-04:00

Neocon lunatic Michelle Malkin was just on Hardball with Chris Matthews. I was on a business call and didn't hear it directly, but I have it on good faith from Mrs. Goldstein that Malkin suggested that Kerry intentionally wounded himself. Matthews apparently was aghast, and repeatedly challenged her to state unequivocally whether she was saying that Kerry intentionally wounded himself. Later in the show David Gergen expressed his dismay at Malkin's claim and seemed to predict an imminent backlash in response to the tactics of the Swift Boat Liars and their fellow travellers. According to Mrs. Goldstein, Keith Olbermann started his "Countdown" show by commenting on Malkin's outrageous claims and professing to be outraged.

Swift boat liar Larry Thurlow was also on "Hardball" at the same time as Malkin. Thurlow and other SBL's have claimed that one of Kerry's injuries was incurred when he fired a mortar into some rocks on the river's edge and was hit by rebounding shrapnel. It is possible that Malkin recklessly misconstrued Thurlow's claims or carelessly misspoke, but it really hardly matters. The net effect was that both Matthews and Olbermann reacted with indignation, thereby plainly indicating to the viewing audience that Malkin's assertions (and, unless the viewer were exceptionally discerning, Thurlow's assertions by association) were beyond the pale.

Malkin's indiscretion, coming as it does on the same day that Kerry launched a muscular counterattack on the SBL's and the Deserter, suddenly thrusts the Deserter and his minions on the defensive on an issue where they have been squarely on the offensive.

Things now get very dicey for the Deserter. He can cut his losses on this issue by immediately repudiating the SBL's, Malkin and the other rightwing haters, or he can wait for the blowback. If he waits for the blowback, it's already too late and he'll suffer the consequences. My prediction? I just can't see the Deserter repudiating his attack dogs. He won't repudiate, or he'll wait too long, and he'll get slammed by the full force of the blowback.

The Ballad Of The Chickenhawk

2004-08-19T17:44:00.000-04:00

Click on the Chickenhawk-in-Chief for a larger image and sing it to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies"!

How Thurlow Will They Go?

2004-08-19T09:57:00.000-04:00

Larry Thurlow, one of John O'Neill's swift boat hitmen, is not a particularly credible fellow, is he?

I will make one more appeal to all republicans for fairness. I have gone to the swift boat vets' website, expecting to find documentation of their claims regarding Kerry's service. Instead, I found that the site focused almost exclusively on Kerry's antiwar activities in the States. I respect the swift boat vets' service in Vietnam, and I can understand how bitter these men must feel if they believe John Kerry's antiwar stance in any way denigrated their service in Vietnam, but it is plain that they are untruthfully attacking John Kerry's service because they cannot harm him politically by criticizing his opposition to the Vietnam war.

These swift boat vets are unfortunately the same kind of people as those who are threatening Joseph Darby, the Abu Ghraib whistleblower. Their attitude is that we, the public, have no right to know what is happening in a war fought by our country if it may reflect poorly on any of the troops. This, of course, is an untenable position.

I would ask my 'pub friends to drop this issue so that any further discussion of this campaign can focus on the issues that matter: the war in Iraq, economic and fiscal policy, and the incumbent's desertion from the Texas Air National Guard.

"Let Me Be Clear"

2004-08-18T13:51:00.000-04:00

John Kerry, October 9, 2002

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

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

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, adopted October 11, 2002:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq..."

Hans Blix, March 7, 2003, from his address to the United Nations:

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties...Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

"As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons...Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities...No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found.

"There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground...During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.

"While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council...Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.

"The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it."

The Deserter, March 19, 2003:

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

But there were no "weapons of mass murder." Hans Blix told the Deserter and the world only twelve days prior that no weapons of mass destruction or proscribed activities had been found in Iraq even though U.N. inspectors had conducted "professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq."

John Kerry stated unequivocally that he supported war against Iraq only "if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies." Similarly, the resolution adopted by Congress conditioned authorization of military force upon a finding by the president that "diplomatic or other peaceful means" to "adequately protect the national security of the United States" or enforce the U.N. resolutions had failed.

The inspections were ongoing when the Deserter went to war. They were being conducted without interference from Iraq. They were effective. They were disarming Iraq. How could the Deserter have certified to Congress that diplomatic and peaceful means of disarming Iraq had failed only twelve days after Blix's report that inspections were working and Iraq was disarming?

UPDATE: The Associated Press reported at 1:18 PM that "Kerry, as a U.S. senator, voted for the war." Just incredible. The Associated Press apparently finds it immaterial that the authorization Kerry voted for was conditioned upon the existence of an Iraqi threat and a failure of "diplomatic or other peaceful means" to "adequately protect the national security of the United States" or enforce the U.N. resolutions. The Associated Press apparently believes that as of March 19, 2003 the Iraqi threat existed and diplomacy had failed, notwithstanding Blix's report to the U.N. on March 7, 2003. Would it really be so difficult for the A.P. to say that Kerry had voted to "authorize the use of force if diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq had failed"?

Why Would Dorothy Rabinowitz Lie?

2004-08-17T13:44:00.000-04:00

We have today the clearest indication yet that the neocon criminals in the Defense Department have much to fear from the investigations into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. The evidence can be found on the editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal, otherwise known as "Bartley's Wasteland."

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a dutiful neocon hag, devotes nearly 1400 words today to scapegoating the seven poor bastards who were merely following orders, concluding her screed with the following sentence:

It still remains to be seen whether those bent on portraying Pfc. England and her colleagues as victims, misled by superiors, will accord them the respect of judging them for what they were -- individuals who had at a certain time and place, obeyed the dictates of cruelty and sadism, imperatives that did not come to them from above -- rather than excusing them as creatures too lowly to know right from wrong.

Dorothy states unequivocally her belief that the orders to abuse the detainees "did not come to them from above", and yet the only evidence she cites in support of her contention is Pfc. Lynndie England's alleged omission to assert the "following orders" defense in her initial interview with military investigators. Dorothy must be held accountable, however, for her very selective evidentiary standards.

Why does Dorothy ignore the report prepared by General Taguba, in which he states the following:

I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of MI personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability. Gen. Taguba, ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800th MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE.

Why does Dorothy ignore Gen. Taguba's opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:

"During the course of my team's investigation, we gathered evidence pertaining to the involvement of several military intelligence personnel or contractors assigned to the 205th M.I. Brigade and the alleged detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib."

Why does she ignore the following testimony of Gen. Taguba before the Senate Armed Services Committee, during which Gen. Taguba responded thusly to a question posed by Sen. Clinton:

SEN. CLINTON: Now, if the problems were severe and located principally in this one unit, then I think it is appropriate to follow the chain-of-command up to the decision to send General Miller to that prison, whereas I understand the testimony thus far, he set up a specific joint interrogation unit. He did, however one wants to describe, either coordinate or direct the MPs' involvement in the conditioning of the detainees. Is that a correct statement, General?

GEN. TAGUBA: Yes ma'am.

Why does Dorothy ignore the evidence that the use of dogs to terrorize and attack Abu Ghraib prisoners was ordered by Col. Thomas Pappas , the head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib, and approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez? Why does she ignore Pappas' claim that the dogs were suggested by Maj. Gen. Miller D. Miller, former head of the detention center at Guantanamo in Cuba, who was dispatched to Baghdad by Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone?

Why does Dorothy ignore this picture, which was published by her very own Wall Street Journal, depicting military intelligence personnel engaging in the same abuses Dorothy attributes solely to the scapegoats?

The Wall Street Journal printed the following caption under this photograph on May 14, 2004:

Spc. Charles Graner etched numbers into this photo in order to identify himself and others at Abu Ghraib prison. Spc. Graner is labeled No. 1 in the photo, which shows Iraqi prisoners bound together. According to Spc. Graner, No. 2 is a civilian contractor for military intelligence, Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are military-intelligence soldiers, and Nos. 3 and 6 are military police. No. 9 is not identified. Lawyers are expected to use the photo in Spc. Graner's defense. Some notes by Spc. Graner have been cropped out of the photo.

Why would Dorothy lie? Why would she claim that the seven scapegoats of Abu Ghraib were acting on their own, an extraordinary assertion contradicted by overwhelming evidence that they were directed by military intelligence officials, who were themselves acting under the command of Gen. Miller, who was dispatched to Abu Ghraib by Stephen Cambone, Rummy's righthand man? Because the evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib leads right into the neocon's lair in the Pentagon, and because she has chosen to journalistically prostitute herself for the neocon criminals who have infected our nation's government and wield ultimate power in this country through their manipulation of an amoral and stunningly stupid president.

This Is How It Starts

2004-08-16T12:58:00.000-04:00

FBI harrassment of anyone who dares dissent. "The message I took from it was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' "

Intimidation of any group suspected of not supporting the current regime. "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a criminal investigation."

The criminalization of dissent. "Protesters often use the internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations."

Equating dissent with treason. "Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

The Deserter is launching a pre-emptive assault on the first amendment. It's only 45 words, but it is the bedrock upon which rests five freedoms necessary to the survival of our democracy: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. If, as the New York Times reports this morning, the FBI is knocking on the doors of protesters, in the absence of any probable cause to suspect illegal activities, then we are all in grave danger.

Now is the time to speak out. It wasn't yet too late in 1932, but by 1933 a nation had descended into madness. The people of this country must speak with one voice on this matter, and demand that the criminals currently pulling the levers of power in our government keep their bloodstained hands off of our Constitution and its most precious amendment.

Losing Hearts And Minds

2004-08-14T15:00:00.000-04:00

"About 10,000 demonstrators, some in buses, others on foot, arrived in Najaf on Saturday to show their solidarity with the militants and act as human shields to protect the city." MSNBC, today

Well, the Deserter is finally proving himself to be a uniter rather than a divider. He is uniting the Shiite populations of Iraq and Iran by attacking Najaf. He is uniting all Shiites in opposition to the United States. By killing native Iraqi Shiites in Najaf he is alienating the very people he professed to liberate, the very people upon whom he vaingloriously claimed to be bestowing democracy.

It is difficult to imagine a more self-defeating Iraq policy than that pursued by the Deserter and his neocon masters. It is now apparent that the U.S. presence in Iraq is the source of instability, not the safeguard against it. But it would be a mistake to attribute this foolish policy to mere ineptitude on the part of our neocon government. Rather, it is the very purpose of this policy to create chaos, for chaos in Iraq is the only remaining justification for continuing this benighted occupation.

How else to explain our wildly careening policy vis a vis Muqtada al-Sadr and Najaf? In March, in the midst of relative calm in Iraq, we ignited an uprising by al-Sadr's militia by shuttering their two-bit newspaper. Following weeks of chaos, we then basically ceded Najaf and large parts of Baghdad to al-Sadr and his followers and relative calm again descended upon those areas. Now, with little in the way of explanation for yet another sudden shift in policy, we again elect to confront al-Sadr's militia.

Why did we initially incite al-Sadr's followers? Why did we then suddenly retreat from confrontation? Why have we now suddenly and mysteriously reversed course again and precipitated a potentially cataclysmic confrontation? What kind of policy is this?

Sorties Of Shame

2004-08-13T14:53:00.000-04:00

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our Vice President. It is high time that we drop this silly pretension that we Americans have taken pains in Iraq to minimize civilian casualties and that our war in Iraq has been a uniquely humane war. The facts do not support this self-congratulatory lie.

We bombed Baghdad. We bombed non-strategic targets in Baghdad for no reason other than the "shock and awe" we hoped to engender. We bombed urban areas with population densities equivalent to those in Manhattan or northwest Washington, D.C. But we didn't want to know the truth. Just think how we comforted ourselves with the insane belief that our precision-guided bombs offered some assurance against civilian casualties. The targeting may have been precise, but the blast radius was deadly - where exactly does one drop a bomb in Manhattan or Washington, D.C. and not kill scores of innocent people?

The U.S.'s own bombing surveys and studies confirm that we fought a brutal war in Baghdad. Dick Cheney is absolutely right: you don't win wars by being sensitive. The startling thing is that so many people, and so many media outlets, believed we were being sensitive when we dropped bombs the size of economy cars on densely populated cities. These are the facts, courtesy of our own military's strategic bombing surveys:

1. Pentagon approval was required for any sortie with respect to which the military estimated a civilian death toll of 30 or more. The military submitted 50 such proposals. Each and every one was approved. Not once did the Pentagon find that the objective did not justify the extraordinary toll in innocent human life.

2. We conducted 50 Sorties of Shame - sorties directed at "high value targets" in the Hussein government, based upon intelligence received (generally be cell phone) only minutes before the sorties were launched. There was virtually no attempt to substantiate the intelligence. Not surprisingly, we were ZERO FOR FIFTY.

3. We were tracking the efficacy of the Sorties of Shame as they were conducted, and accordingly were aware early on that the intelligence upon which we based these sorties was not reliable. And yet we persisted for fifty sorties, actually stepping up the campaign as things threatened to bog down in Iraq in early April. Think of it: zero for twenty, zero for thirty, zero for forty, and still we kept bombing.

This is painful stuff, I know, but we have to face the facts. We're not talking about presidential palaces and baathist party structures. We bombed those purely for the "shock and awe." The HVTs had long cleared out of those places. The Fifty Sorties of Shame were directed primarily at areas like these, where seventeen civilians were killed:

We know for a fact that Chemical Ali was not there, and that 17 innocent people died for nothing.

We don't know how many civilians died in the bombing. We do know, however, that our military projected that at least 1500 people would die in the 50 bombing raids approved by our Pentagon. We will never know what price in innocent human life was too high a price to pay in the estimation of the Pentagon, because the Pentagon approved every such bombing raid. Would 2000 civilian casualties have been too many? Would 5000? Secretary Rumsfeld, how many civilians were you willing to kill?

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. However inadvertently, you spoke the truest words you've ever spoken. Wars aren't won with sensitivity. Let's stop pretending we've behaved with sensitivity in our war on Iraq.

Adrift In Iraq

2004-08-13T14:16:00.000-04:00

"Meanwhile, the U.S. military—the only force in Iraq remotely capable of keeping the country from falling apart—finds itself in a maddening situation where tactical victories yield strategic setbacks. The Marines could readily defeat the insurgents in Najaf, but only at the great risk of inflaming Shiites—and sparking still larger insurgencies—elsewhere. In the Sadr City section of Baghdad, as U.S. commanders acknowledge, practically every resident is an insurgent." Fred Kaplan, from his "No Way Out" analysis posted today at Slate.com

Tactical victories, strategic setbacks. Has Fred been reading this humble blog, which recently observed the same chasm between tactical and strategic outcomes in Iraq?

Kaplan begins his piece with the following note of despair: "This is a terribly grim thing to say, but there might be no solution to the problem of Iraq." He ends it with this even grimmer assessment: "The dismaying, frightening thing is how imponderably difficult it will be simply to avoid catastrophe."

It is indeed a grim prospect, but one which has been so apparent for so long that it is dismaying (to say the least) that this looming catastrophe has not moved front and center in Big Media's coverage. There is a willful and obdurate refusal of the media to acknowledge realities in Iraq. The New York Times, in a belated but unabashed acknowledgment of its delusion, only recently conceded the factual inaccuracy of its claim of a decline in U.S. casualties in Iraq following the June 29 sovereignty charade. Big Media's disgraceful abrogation of duty is the pillar upon which rests the Deserter's Big Lie - that we are fighting in Iraq to eradicate terrorism. We are fighting for one thing only: to occupy Iraq.

Midnight In Najaf

2004-08-11T12:47:00.000-04:00

We are preparing to attack Najaf. An assault on Najaf is a strategic defeat for our country, regardless of the tactical military victory we are likely to win.

We are not fighting terrorists in Najaf. We are fighting Iraqi nationalists who oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq. These are not people inclined to threaten or attack the U.S. These are Iraqis who do not believe that the Deserter, Cheney and Rumsfeld have good intentions in Iraq. The impending U.S. attack on Sadr's forces will create martyrs for Iraqi nationalism and turn other Iraqis against us.

Mr. President, what is this course on which you urge us to stay? What is this job we cannot leave unfinished? How are the avowed objectives of the U.S. in Iraq served by enmeshing us in a futile war against Iraqi nationalism?

It's the Economy, Deserter

2004-08-10T15:27:00.000-04:00

Greenspan just hiked interest rates.

Crude oil prices just hit a record high.

Productivity growth is sagging.

Economic forecasters are revising their predictions downward.

I can't wait for the new polls. I can't wait for November 2nd. I can't wait until this man who deserted during the Vietnam war and disgraced his country by launching a criminal war against Iraq is sent packing for Crawford.

G'bye, George. You won't be missed, but you won't soon be forgotten. Look at it this way, Deserter - you'll always have a place on the ash heap of history.

Veteran, Former Cop, Republican

2004-08-10T15:22:00.000-04:00

Jim Rassman, whose life was saved by John Kerry in Vietnam, wrote an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. This is an excerpt:

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

A Vietnam vet. A former cop. A republican.

We all know why the Swift Boat Whores have chosen to disgrace themselves. Let's hope they desist before further polluting the political atmosphere with their cowardly lies.

The Dishonor Roll Of Swift Boat Whores

2004-08-09T15:04:00.000-04:00

Here are some more men who have chosen to disgrace themselves and dishonor their admirable service to their country in Vietnam by slandering John Kerry's service record.

Grant Hibbard. Carl Cameron of Fox News reported that Naval records show that Hibbard lauded Kerry in 1968. Cameron reports that Hibbard "described Kerry in various favorable ways, as quote, 'One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility.' "

Alan Colmes, in an interview with chief Swift Boat Whore John O'Neill, confronted O'Neill with the following: "Here is what Grant Hubbard [sic], who's now part of your group, here's what he had to say back then about John Kerry. And he signed -- let's put it up on the screen -- a report on Kerry. He said on initiative, one of the top few. Cooperation, one of the top few. Personal behavior, one of the top few."

George Elliot. Carl Cameron of Fox News reported that Elliot, who now condemns Kerry, praised Kerry in '96 for going after the enemy.

Alan Colmes, again from his interview with John O'Neill: "Let me show you the report of George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam. Here's what was said. Here's what he said. 'In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.' That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott, who also graded Kerry."

Roy Hoffman. On May 28th, Alan Colmes confronted Hoffman with the following passage from Doug Brinkley's book, "Tour of Duty": "Hoffmann acknowledged that he had no firsthand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command he really didn't know Kerry much personally." In response to Colmes citation of this passage from Brinkley's book, Hoffman acknowledged that he did not know John Kerry personally. But on August 4th Hoffman stated that Kerry was the "most vain individual I've ever met - aloof and arrogant." The very next day, August 5th, Hoffman claimed to know Kerry well and to have "operated very closely with him."

Each of these men has made clear that they deeply resent John Kerry's decision to oppose the war upon his return from Vietnam. Each of these men has made clear that they were personally insulted by John Kerry's criticism of the conduct of the war in Vietnam, particularly his claims that atrocities occurred. However much I may disagree with their assessment of John Kerry's antiwar activities following his return from Vietnam, I would have to respect their right to forthrightly and honestly express their political differences with Kerry on the issue of Vietnam. However much I may admire John Kerry's willingness to oppose a war he viewed as unjust, I would have to respect the right of these men to condemn Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam war. They have chosen, however, to slander Kerry's service record and misrepresent their recollections of Kerry's Vietnam exploits rather than debate whether the Vietnam war was right or wrong, or whether Kerry's opposition to the war was principled or unprincipled, or whether Kerry truthfully testified to the events he witnessed in Vietnam. This is McCarthyism, plain and simple. This is an unamerican resort to lies and character assassination.

NOTE: For a comprehensive examination of the credibility (or lack thereof) of the Swift Boat Whores, go to Eriposte.com.

Iraqi Arrest Warrants Issued For Neocon Stooges Ahmed and Salem Chalabi

2004-08-08T15:13:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting the following:

Iraq has issued an arrest warrant for Ahmad Chalabi, a former governing council member, on money laundering charges and another for Salem Chalabi, the head of Iraq's special tribunal, on murder charges, Iraq's chief investigating judge said Sunday.

Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and other neocon war criminals vouched for the integrity of the Chalabis and unabashedly supported Ahmed Chalabi's bid to become the new Iraqi potentate. How long will we permit these neocon charlatans to disgrace and humiliate the United States of America?

Outsourcing Torture

2004-08-08T14:57:00.000-04:00

From today's Seattle Times:

The National Guardsman peering through the long-range scope of his rifle was startled by what he saw unfolding in the walled compound below.

From his post several stories above ground level, he watched as men in plainclothes beat blindfolded and bound prisoners in the enclosed grounds of the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

He immediately radioed for help. Soon after, a team of Oregon Army National Guard soldiers swept into the yard and found dozens of Iraqi detainees who said they had been beaten, starved and deprived of water for three days.

In a nearby building, the soldiers counted dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices: metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals. Many of the Iraqis, including one identified as a 14-year-old boy, had fresh welts and bruises across their backs and legs.

The soldiers disarmed the Iraqi jailers, moved the prisoners into the shade, released their handcuffs and administered first aid. Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson of Albany, Ore., the highest-ranking American at the scene, radioed for instructions.

But in a move that frustrated and infuriated the guardsmen, Hendrickson's superior officers told him to return the prisoners to their abusers and immediately withdraw. It was June 29 — Iraq's first official day as a sovereign country since the U.S.-led invasion.

I simply don't know what to say. I do not understand our policy in Iraq. I cannot conceive of a justification for this abrogation of duty by our military in Iraq. The good name of this nation is being dragged through the mud by the criminal enterprise that has usurped the executive branch of our government.

Swift Boat Whores For The Deserter

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

Who are these "patriots"?

John O'Neill, who 33 years ago led a similarly spurious veterans group formed to slander John Kerry. Remember Chuck Colson, confessed dirty trickster for Nixon and chief of Nixon's notorious "Plumbers", who did jail time for his involvement in Watergate? Colson recalls, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." So here is John O'Neill again, fronting a bogus veterans group, resuming his slander against a genuine war hero.

Larry Thurlow, who manned one of the swift boats engaged in the action that resulted in John Kerry's first purple heart, who now claims, contrary to the accounts offered by each and every man who was on John Kerry's swift boat, that no enemy fire was received on that day. Thurlow conspicuously failed to make this charge when he was awarded a Bronze Star for his participation in the very same action that he now claims didn't happen!

Louis Letson, who makes the following outrageous claim in the Swift Boat Whores' scandalous television ad: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." In fact, Letson confirms that he removed shrapnel from John Kerry's arm, but argues that Kerry did not deserve the purple heart because the injury was not a result of enemy fire. Of course, Letson was not on the river that day, and would have no direct knowledge of what occurred.

Isn't it odd that every Vietnam veteran who runs against the Deserter is slandered and accused of lying about his Vietnam service? Isn't it odd that John McCain was accused of being a traitor in Vietnam by groups opposing his challenge to the Deserter in the 2000 republican primaries?

The Swift Boat Whores are a disgrace. They have harbored a grudge against John Kerry for more than 30 years because they resent Kerry's courageous and principled participation in antiwar protests following his return from Vietnam. Rather than forthrightly proclaim their political opposition to Kerry's antiwar stance, they have elected to slander his service in defense of his country. They are cowards and liars.

The Swift Boat Whores cannot change the basic, uncontroverted facts: One candidate for president volunteered for service in Vietnam and served with valor. The other candidate for president avoided service in Vietnam, untruthfully claimed to have volunteered for service in Vietnam, and ultimately reneged on his commitment to the national guard.

Trust, Don't Verify

2004-08-08T11:34:00.000-04:00

The United States, in a stunning shift of policy, now opposes the inspection and verification provisions of a proposed new treaty designed to restrict production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. This has received very little attention in the press, even as the Deserter incredibly professes to be protecting America from the threat of nuclear proliferation. Condi Rice, with an apparent lack of concern for her dwindling credibility, reiterated the Administration's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation this morning on Meet The Press, and Little Russ didn't even ask her about this outrageous and inexplicable shift in policy. Advice for Little Russ: WAKE UP!

The New York Times, in an August 6th editorial entitled "Washington's Gift to Bomb Makers", properly notes the utter lack of justification for U.S. opposition to the inspection and verification provisions:

The Bush administration argues, unpersuasively, that such inspections might interfere with making fuel for American nuclear submarines and might allow foreign inspectors to glimpse secret American nuclear technology. To the extent that these are legitimate concerns, it would be better to try to persuade other nations to grant narrowly tailored exemptions instead of eliminating inspections. Washington also claims that an enforceable treaty would generate a false sense of security and that it would be easier to get other countries to sign an unenforceable one. Those are generic arguments that can be deployed against any enforceable arms control treaty. They ignore the enormous positive trade-offs of a verifiable fissile materials treaty, like strict limits on the material available for making nuclear weapons.

We've gone from "trust, but verify", Reagan's memorable admonition, to "trust - don't bother to verify."

While Korea and Iran continue to develop their nuclear programs, the Administration is working to undermine nuclear non-proliferation efforts. While the international community continues to implore India, Pakistan and Israel to permit oversight of their nuclear weapons programs, the Administration works to effectively kill an international treaty that would have required inspections of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production in those countries.

It is apparent that the new U.S. policy, as yet unstated by the Deserter's Administration, is to permit the unabated proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, and to respond militarily when this foolish policy inevitably leads to a potential nuclear crisis.

Why?

"We Have Nothing But Fear Itself"

2004-08-03T14:10:00.000-04:00

There was a time when our leaders sought to assure us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. It was a message of hope, a recognition that although our problems were very real, only fear could shake the resolve of the American people to persevere.

Regrettably, there have also been times when our leaders sought to promote fear for political purposes, most notably during the Red Scare so cynically exploited by Joe McCarthy and millions of hysterical rightwingers. Like McCarthyism, its socio-political antecedent, Bushism feeds upon fear and ignorance. Like McCarthyism, it champions a distinctly unamerican hostility toward dissent under the guise of patriotism and american ideals. Like McCarthyism, it thrives because decent people driven by fear are willing to overlook transparent lies by their government as long as those lies feed the fear, because in the minds of the hysterics fear = vigilance.

When critics decried the fear-mongering of McCarthyism, his defenders could talk only of the threat of communism. When critics assailed the fundamental unfairness of McCarthyism, his defenders could talk only of the threat of communism. When critics condemned guilt by association and trial by slander, his defenders could talk only of the threat of communism. The threat justified all, but most importantly it justified for Tailgunner Joe and his followers the abnegation of reason and the fomentation of hysteria.

Reasonable questions have been raised regarding the timing of the terror alerts and the timeliness of the underlying intelligence. The Administration has offered nothing in response to explain the timing of the terror alert. It has, however, taken umbrage at the suggestion that politics may have played a part. Tom Ridge insists today that "[w]e don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," even though he interjected into the threat announcement on Sunday a transparently political pitch, hailing "the President's leadership in the war on terror."

We cannot know whether Ridge's motivations are pure or not. We can infer, however, that fear of terror benefits the Administration; the polls confirm this, and the Administration itself must believe it or it would not bleat so incessantly about the terror threat. We can also infer from prior statements by Ridge and the administration that the terror alerts are more art than science, frequently based on nothing more than very general threat indications. The very subjectivity of the terror alerts assures that decisions regarding the timing of terror alerts will be driven in part (perhaps large part) by political considerations. Every call is a close call, and on the margin the considerations underlying an elevation of the threat level will inevitably be political. It is laughable for the Deserter and his henchman to suggest otherwise.

Fear is this Administration's greatest ally. The only question is whether the Administration cynically exploits fear for political purposes. I would ask everyone these questions: Did the Administration seek to exploit fear of Saddam for political purposes? Did the Administration attempt to engender fear by exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq, and hyping the WMD case? Did the Administration seek to politically leverage fear in the weeks leading up to the 2002 mid-term elections by pushing through an unconstitutional, "blank check" war resolution?

Reasonable people will wonder about the timing of the terror alerts. The Administration will piously reject any suggestion of impure motives. But let's get real here - fear and terror are this Administration's metier, and increasingly its only claim upon widespread political support. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

Say It Loud Enough For The World To Hear: "Bush Lied"

2004-07-28T15:13:00.000-04:00

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." Adlai Stevenson, during his 1952 presidential campaign.

For a while it seemed as if the Democrats had taken Adlai's facetious proposition seriously. They couched their criticisms of the Deserter's Iraq War malfeasance in terms of faulty policy, poor intelligence, failure to adequately plan for the post-war period, insufficient troop strength, etc. They timidly insinuated that the Deserter had "hyped" the Iraq threat and "exaggerated" the connection to Al Qaeda. They appeared willing, much to the Deserter's delight, to ignore the question of whether the Iraq War had been justified, restricting themselves to cavils regarding the administration of the Iraq occupation. Even as millions in this country could barely contain their outrage at having been deceived into war, it seemed as if no Democrat of national stature dared utter the terrible truth. Sure, Kennedy and Kucinich were speaking the truth, but it was too easy for the war criminals and their big media megaphones to dismiss them as paleoliberal pacifists.

And then came Howard Dean.

I was going down for the third time when I first heard Howard, utterly astonished that this nation could so rapidly descend into a Kafkaesque nightmare in which truth was banished and speakers of the truth hysterically condemned as heretics. I cannot fully convey the sense of relief I felt when Howard Dean forthrightly proclaimed that we had been deceived into war by the President, a deception so antithetical to democracy and monstrous in its implications for the future of this society that the silence of our leaders in the face of this lie was frightening and eerie, a deception so horrible that, like the macabre secret in a Sam Shepard play, it seemed to exert a truth warp that transmogrified every rhetorical attempt to navigate around it.

And then suddenly there was Howard Dean, the wonderful, pugnacious bantam from the Green Mountain State, his jaw clenched and looking vaguely pissed-off, speaking the truth and daring any rightwing brownshirt to question his patriotism. The other candidates recoiled at Howard's temerity, certain that speaking the truth would mean political doom. But then Dr. Dean began rising in the polls, drawing raucous crowds, appearing on the cover of Newsweek, raising millions of campaign dollars from people who were just plain grateful that someone was saying it aloud: Bush lied. Al Gore stepped forward: Bush betrayed us. And soon even Kerry and Edwards were saying it: we were deceived.

We must defeat the Deserter. He could ejaculate on a thousand underaged virgins in the oval office and not do the damage that he has done to the nation and our democracy with his criminal war. I understand why John Kerry must tack to the middle and flank the Deserter on the issue of strength against terrorism. But it was very disconcerting to hear, as we did in the days leading up to the Democratic convention, that the Democratic party would avoid the subject of Iraq, that "Bush bashing" would be off-limits even though he deceived us into war. How depressing. It was as if the truth, although no longer banished, was deemed too shrill, too "hot" for the cool medium that will carry the convention to millions, too politically inconvenient.

I am proud to say, as a Democrat and as an American, that the truth is being spoken at the 2004 Democratic convention. It is not yet clear that the candidate will speak the precious words, and perhaps even likely that he won't, but Democrats are LOUD and PROUD and they are unafraid to say what must be said if our democracy is to be fully preserved and principles of our republic vindicated: Bush lied, he sought to mislead and confuse, he assiduously employed deception to gull a peace-loving people into an unjust war.

Wouldn't we be safer with a President who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq? Al Gore

We also were sure that [Presidents Truman and Eisenhower] would not mislead us when it came to issues involving our nation’s security. President Carter

And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead. President Carter

We’re not going to be afraid to stand up for what we believe. We’re not going to let those who disagree with us shout us down under a banner of false patriotism. Gov. Dean

I’m proud of John Kerry’s leadership, and I intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with him as we fight for the things Harry Truman promised in 1948: health insurance for every American, a real jobs plan to create jobs instead of destroy them. Standing up for middle class and working Americans who got a tax increase, not a tax cut. And a foreign policy that relies on telling the truth to the American people before we send our brave American soldiers to fight in foreign lands. Gov. Dean

How could any President have possibly squandered the enormous goodwill that flowed to America from across the world after September 11th? Senator Kennedy

In the White House, inscribed on a plaque above the fireplace in the State Dining Room, is a prayer – a simple but powerful prayer of John Adams, the first president to live in that great house. It reads: "I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but [the] honest and wise ever rule under this roof." In November, we will make those words ring true again. Senator Kennedy

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. President Clinton

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world. Barack Obama

Meet The New Boss...

2004-07-16T10:43:00.000-04:00

...same as the old boss.

The Australian newspaper The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are reporting that two sources have confirmed witnessing Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi summarily execute with a pistol six or seven suspected insurgents at a Baghdad prison. They claim the executions were witnessed by as many as thirty people, including five or six plain-clothed American security personnel.

One of the witnesses claimed that before killing the prisoners - and they name three of the people alleged to have been executed - Dr Allawi had told them he wanted to send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents. "The prisoners were against the wall and we were standing in the courtyard when the Interior Minister said that he would like to kill them all on the spot. Allawi said that they deserved worse than death - but then he pulled the pistol from his belt and started shooting them," one of the witnesses said.

Mischievous disinformation propogated by anti-U.S. and anti-Allawi factions? Not likely. The Age claims that the two sources were contacted independently by The Age and that neither presented himself to The Age or were presented to The Age. They were interviewed separately by The Age, and neither was informed that the other had been contacted. Both purported to be supportive of Allawi's action, believing that harsh measures are necessary to quell the insurgency.

According to both Australian newspapers U.S. officials in Baghdad have declined to issue outright denials of the reports.

If these reports are true, the administration must get out in front on this or risk the last nail in the coffin of U.S. credibility in the world community. We were on notice from various Iraqi sources that Allawi was a thug, from his days as a Baathist ally of Saddam through his days as an anti-Saddam CIA stooge. I am under no illusions that the Deserter or his neocon war criminals give a damn about Iraqi freedom or democracy. I fully understand that they desire nothing more than their own Saddam-lite puppet. But the potential consequences of a failed cover-up of this scandal are too great.

High Noonan

2004-07-15T11:56:00.000-04:00

Peggy Noonan is at it again in the Wall Street Journal's propaganda page. From today's column: "Certainly lately, since the transfer of sovereignty, things seem to be looking up, but that may well prove temporary." Twenty four dead Coalition troops in one week in July in the immediate aftermath of the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" and Peggy finds things "looking up." Two massive car-bombings in the last two days kill 22 and seriously wound dozens, and ol' Peggy finds improvement. There is simply no other way to say this: Peggy Noonan is an idiot. Check that. Peggy Noonan is a bloodthirsty, warmongering idiot. If you don't believe me, check out her "Message to Fallujah" column of April 1, 2004.

Peggy's message to Fallujah was as follows:

We know what the men and boys who did the atrocity of Fallujah look like; they posed for the cameras. We know exactly what they did--again, the cameras. We know they massed on a bridge and raised their guns triumphantly. It's all there on film. It would be good not only for elemental justice but for Iraq and its future if a large force of coalition troops led by U.S. Marines would go into Fallujah, find the young men, arrest them or kill them, and, to make sure the point isn't lost on them, blow up the bridge.

The atrocity she is referring to is not the murder of the American "contractors", but the dismemberment and desecration of the corpses. The attackers had long since fled, according to all reports, leaving a crowd of what has been referred to in press accounts as "townspeople" or "residents" who proceeded to dismember and set fire to the corpses.

There are two things that are striking about Noonan's "Message to Fallujah." First, she refers to the townspeople as being armed - she claims to have seen it on film. However, none of the photographs I've viewed includes a single armed Iraqi among the crowd. The WSJ's own news coverage of the event indicates that these were unarmed civilians:

"Residents in Fallujah said insurgents attacked the contractors with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. After the attack, a jubilant crowd of civilians, none of whom appeared to be armed, gathered to celebrate, dragging the bodies through the street and hanging two of them from the bridge. Many of those in the crowd were excited young boys who shouted slogans in front of television cameras."

Presumably, Noonan feels it necessary to put guns in the hands of these people so that she can advocate killing them. Does this shock the conscience of anyone else? Even if Noonan can find a gun somewhere in the films or photos of this event, the vast, vast majority of these people are unquestionably unarmed civilians. Yet Noonan believes we should "arrest them or kill them" for desecrating four American corpses.

Peggy Noonan is a disgrace.

Everything Changed On March 7, 2003

2004-07-14T09:33:00.000-04:00

Thank you, Kevin Drum. Thank you for citing the single most devastating indictment of the Deserter's rush to war. Thank you for reminding everyone that the "intelligence failure" rationalization is a scam, a diversion, an irrelevancy. Goldstein has been waiting for this for some time.

Kevin reminds us that it didn't matter what the intelligence said prior to March 7, 2003. It didn't matter what we thought we knew about Iraqi WMD, because on March 7, 2003 we learned that all of our intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD was dubious at best, fraudulent at worst. Goldstein has been harping on this for months.

On March 7, 2003 Hans Blix, the head U.N. weapons inspector, reported to the United Nations that that UNSCOM inspectors, provided with full and unimpeded access to all suspected Iraqi WMD sites, conducting unannounced inspections and armed with intelligence from the CIA indicating where these alleged arms could be found, reported that no WMDs had been found - none at all. CIA director George Tenet testified to Congress before the war that the CIA had provided the best U.S. intelligence to UNSCOM on over 100 sites where U.S. intelligence indicated WMDs may be found, including approximately 20 different sites the CIA referred to as "high probability" sites. UNSCOM searched these sites for WMDs, and as of March 7, 2003 UNSCOM had determined that not one of these sites contained WMDS or any evidence of WMDs.

[A]s of March 7, 2003 any prior assessment of the likely existence of Iraqi WMD caches or the reliability of U.S. intelligence regarding WMDs had to be radically revised. It was incumbent upon anyone who previously had been certain that Iraq had WMDs to honestly revisit that assessment, and desist from starting a war until that assessment had accounted for the vast gulf between the UNSCOM findings and U.S. intelligence. But the President didn't do this...He accelerated our rush to war and invaded Iraq just 12 days later, even though he knew that he didn't know what he thought he'd known.

One has to wonder why the Dems aren't screaming this at the top of their lungs everyday. It simply didn't matter what the CIA had told the Deserter. It didn't matter what the rest of the world's intelligence agencies thought. On March 7, 2003 we were informed by Hans Blix that our best intelligence on Iraqi WMD was way off target.

Twelve days later we started bombing Baghdad.

Will someone please explain to me why the Deserter and his neocon-men should not be prosecuted for war crimes?

The Time Machine

2004-07-13T16:59:00.000-04:00

Time for another edition of The Time Machine!

The date was July 17, 2003. The polls indicated that Iraq was a political winner for the Deserter. The republicans arrogantly believed they could parlay their warmongering into success in the 2004 presidential election. The democrats were lost, timidly avoiding the subject of Iraq and trying to ignore Howard Dean's courageous assault on our nation's War of Shame.

Goldstein was under seige from his wingnut friends, who were still basking in the glow of the Deserter's "Mission Accomplished" party in the Pacific. One of Goldstein's wingnuttiest friends ventured that "Iraq (and security) is a losing issue for the demos."

Goldstein, yet again prescient, responded thusly:

Let's all remember this one. I am offering even money right now that the Deserter's fly-boy grandstanding on the aircraft carrier will appear in at least one commercial for a democratic candidate for president. By the time 2004 rolls around the Deserter will wish he was Michael Dukakis in a tank and an oversized helmet.

Just think about it. Gen. Abizaid confirmed today that we are fighting a "guerilla war" in Iraq, more than two months after the Deserter declared victory and took a fighter jet taxi out to a big circle jerk in the pacific. Abizaid's statement is the first official confirmation that resistance is not episodic, but organized. There is increasing reason to believe that the resistance is being conducted on behalf of Saddam and the Baath party. We don't know where Saddam is, or where is alleged WMDs are. We did not destroy the Republican Guard. We did not disarm them. Just think how silly the exulting over the "fall of Bahgdad" looks now. Just as we were declaring victory, Saddam was initiating the real war, the guerilla war for which they are suited and we are not, for which they have the patience and we do not. As I've said before, the "fall of Baghdad" was nothing more than a deft strategic shift for Saddam, from a war of confrontation he could not win to a war of attrition we will not win.

As the U.S. casualties mount, and eventually exceed the casualties incurred prior to the Deserter's Top Gun stunt (and it is a certainty that they will), Iraq will hang around the Deserter's neck like a rotting corpse.

My wingnut friends are still waiting for their belly laugh at the expense of those who doubted Saddam's WMD capability. I'd be having my laugh today, at the expense of those who were crowing about the "fall of Baghdad" last May, claiming the Iraqi people welcomed our liberation of their country, predicting democracy for Iraq, wet dreaming of Syria and Iran falling at our feet, and predicting the unearthing of vast caches of WMDs - except for the fact that the consequence of the Deserter's Folly is the daily extinction of another young, American life.

Iraq is the democrats' issue - lock, stock and barrel.

Criminal Or Stupid, Take Your Pick

2004-07-13T13:10:00.000-04:00

So far the Deserter and his neocon henchman appear to be getting away with the absurd contention that they are mere victims of the CIA's faulty intelligence reports and therefore bear no responsibility for the criminal invasion of Iraq. Setting aside for a moment the mountain of evidence indicating that the neocons were the champions of Ahmed Chalabi's disinformation campaign and consistently attacked CIA analyses of Iraq's WMD capabilities that were distinctly equivocal, why shouldn't the Deserter and the neocons be held accountable for their failure to correctly interpret CIA analyses and adequately police the intelligence agencies? Why shouldn't the Deserter be held accountable for fully understanding that the CIA's case for Iraqi WMDs was weak (Deserter to Tenet in December 2002: "Is that all you've got?) but then going to war on the basis of Tenet's feckless "slam dunk" assurance?

Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative columnist at Antiwar.com. As best I can tell, there is little in the political sphere other than opposition to the Deserter's folly that Roberts and I agree on. But Roberts hits the nail on the head in his evaluation of whitewash report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The only open question is whether President Bush was an active participant in the disinformation or was deceived like the American public. If he knowingly participated in the deception, he must be impeached. If he was deceived by his own appointees, why hasn't he fired them? Bush's reelection would signify that the American people lack the competence or character for self-rule.

The report from the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence proves once again that government lacks the moral integrity to conduct an investigation. The senators did not bring responsibility to any individuals for a gratuitous invasion that has generated hatred of, and insecurity for, Americans for decades to come. Instead, the senators' report held accountable that which cannot be held accountable: "the process."

November will tell us whether there is any moral integrity left in the electorate or whether nothing remains but partisan politics – my party right or wrong.

Roberts is absolutely correct: either the Deserter and the neocon criminals participated in the fraud or they were credulous and incompetent victims of it. Either way, the SSCI intelligence report damns the administration, and the Deserter's murderous gang must go.

"We're Not At The Forefront Of A Jihadist War Here"

2004-07-12T16:45:00.000-04:00

American military officials have told the Associated Press that the insurgency in Iraq is backed primarily by Sunni revanchists, not foreign jihadists.

The Bush administration has long argued that the insurgency is primarily jihadist in nature, and that the jihadists have joined cause with a relatively small cadre of former Baathists. It has been known for some time that the Deserter and his flying monkeys were lying about the influence of the foreign jihadists and that the insurgency was primarily nationalist in nature. What was less clear was whether the nationlist insurgency was popular and broad based, or populated largely with Baathist recidivists. The Bush administration predictably argued that the indigenous insurgents were comprised of a fairly small number of Baathists. However, the military officials who spoke to the Associated Press had a quite different view, a view shared by many of the most informed observers of the Iraq situation.

Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.

Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops.

"Too much U.S. analysis is fixated on terms like 'jihadist,' just as it almost mindlessly tries to tie everything to (Osama) bin Laden," Cordesman said. "Every public opinion poll in Iraq ... supports the nationalist character of what is happening."

The Associated Press report cites estimates of the size of the insurgent forces of 20,000 or more, and notes that administration estimates of 5,000 insurgents are extremely questionable in light of claims by the U.S. military that 4,000 insurgents were killed in April alone.

This is the worst possible scenario for our nation and for our troops. A popular insurgency cannot be defeated without resorting to extreme brutality, an option that should be rejected by the American people on the grounds of both morality and the extremely high toll in U.S. casualties that such a policy would exact. The tragedy is that the insurgency will continue as long as we remain in Iraq, and the Deserter and his neocon coconspirators will cite the insurgency to justify an indefinite occupation of Iraq. Thus do we sink into the insanity of tautological war in which the product of the war, the insurgency, becomes the premise for continuing the war.

It is now plain that the sole remaining justification for our continued presence in Iraq - the war against radical Islam - is a fraud, just as the WMD justification was a fraud, and just as the Saddam/Al Qaeda link was a fraud. Our troops in Iraq are fighting Sunni nationalists, not radical Islam, and they will likely continue to die in large numbers until we leave.

The media no longer seem interested in casualty counts, as evidenced by the fact that levels of U.S. casualties are again threatening to return to the levels seen in April and yet the U.S. media that rightly publicized the April carnage now barely mentions the daily death toll. Check out Juan Cole's Informed Comment if you want to know the price our troops are paying every day for the criminality of the Deserter and his fellow war criminals. In the last week we've lost 24 coalition troops, as compared to 50 coalition troops in the entire month of June.

The Deserter would love for us to become innured to the death, and numb to the daily casualty reports. For the sake of our own souls we cannot permit this to happen. These deaths are as senseless as drive-by shootings in our inner cities. They serve no purpose but to feed the bloodlust of the warmongers. We are not safer as a result. We are not freeing Iraqis. We must leave Iraq now.

Don't Let The Terrorists Win

2004-07-12T12:25:00.000-04:00

Has anyone noticed that the same people who feared that the terrorists would win if we didn't [fill in the blank] are the very same people who are proposing to cancel or delay U.S. elections in response to a terror strike?

The Deserter and his supporters have in the past informed us that if we varied our routines in any way, then we've permitted the terrorists to win. Cancel holiday travel plans? The terrorists have won. Change our spending habits in response to the terror threat? The terrorists have won. Take any action that would be perfectly rational if the administration's hyped terror alerts could be taken seriously? The terrorists have won.

The Deserter and his supporters even went to so far as to insist that Spain handed the terrorists a victory when they elected a new government following the March 11, 2004 terror attack in Madrid. And yet now the administration is preparing plans to cancel or postpone elections if a terror strike occurs proximate to the November elections. Can anyone explain to me why the terrorists don't achieve the ultimate victory if we permit them to disrupt our democratic process?

It is very disturbing that so many people are taking the administration's proposals seriously. There simply are no circumstances that would justify canceling or postponing the elections. The correct response to any terror attack, no matter how large or how widespread, is to extend the polling period and keep the election going.

Even more disturbing, however, is that the administration would invite a terror attack by suggesting in any way to the terrorists our intention to capitulate by canceling or postponing the elections.

Why do the Deserter and his flying monkeys want the terrorists to win?

Move Over, Wall Street Journal

2004-07-11T16:56:00.000-04:00

Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior officials sometimes exaggerated the flawed intelligence they were given, even if they were correct in identifying Iraq as a threat. The Washington Post, July 11, 2004

The Washington Post is disintegrating right before our very eyes. Apparently unable to accept that they were duped, unable to admit that their decision to support the Deserter's folly was a tragic error, they obdurately continue to insist that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Even though there were no WMD. Even though there was no cooperation with Al Qaeda.

The Washington Post is perilously close to joining the Wall Street Journal's editorial page as a miasma of unrepentant warmongering. This is very sad news. The Washington Post used to mean something. Now it's just a toadying rag.

Refuting the Stupid Arguments of Your Wingnut Friends, Part VI

2004-07-08T10:36:00.000-04:00

The primary justification for the Iraq war offered by the Deserter was the claim that Saddam was stockpiling WMD and concealing them from U.N. weapons inspectors. The failure to find any such stockpiles has not deterred the wingnuts, though. Post-war statements from U.S. and British weapons inspectors to the effect that such stockpiles likely do not exist also have not deterred our intrepid wingnut friends. One of my favorite wingnuts, Mike from Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, writes: "To date there have been at least 12 warheads found mixed in with the regular ammo dumps that have contained Sarin. The fall is going to be hard when that limb gets sawed off beneath you."

I would generally relish the opportunity to refute the astonishingly stupid wingnut argument that the Deserter's claims of Iraqi caches of concealed WMD are somehow vindicated by the existence of aged sarin shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war, shells invariably found laying about in Iraq in distinctly unstockpiled fashion. However, the definitive refutation of this argument has already been done by Newzmaniac at DemocraticUnderground.com.

Thanks, Newzmaniac. I found the following paragraph from Newzmaniac's trenchant analysis particularly piquant:

Apparently lost to the Bush fans is the fact that Iraq and Iran were at war for most of the 1980's, raining down chemical weapons on each other. Considering the proficiency of both armies, it's fairly safe to say that many of these shells didn't hit their intended targets and instead landed somewhere out there among the camels and the shepherds. If we put 150,000 U.S. troops all over Iran, as we've done in Iraq, these "deadly chemical shells" would be turning up in equally frequent incidents there, too. Two neighboring countries who spend nearly a decade lobbing these things at each other usually do leave quite a pile of relics in their wake.

I would greatly appreciate hearing from readers of EOTP who have encountered particularly stupid or amusing wingnut arguments. Just leave a comment by clicking on the hyperlink at the end of this message and together we will bring the light of reason to our wingnut friends.

Keepin' Tabs

2004-07-07T23:58:00.000-04:00

Recent developments with respect to various items and issues previously addressed at Enemy Of The People:

At Counterpunch, Robert Fisk reports that U.S. military officers are attempting to manipulate and censor coverage of the Hussein trial. Given the potential for embarrassment of various Bush administration officials, as described here at EOTP on July 1st in "Man, This Could Get Ugly", this kind of nonsense was inevitable, although the thuggish and amateurish methods are a surprise.

The October surprise has been a recurring theme here at EOTP, most recently on June 22nd in "Latest Washington Post Poll: Bush A Failure In Fighting Terror." Washington Times and UPI editor Arnaud de Borchgrave reports in the Washington Times that Israel, with the ever present tacit consent of its favorite Oval Office lapdog, is making preliminary plans to strike at Iran's nuclear installations. As implied in his column, an Israeli strike could provide the Deserter with the ideal October surprise - a ratcheting-up of tensions in the middle east designed to produce the "rally 'round the Prez" effect, with built-in deniability on the part of the Bush administration of any involvement in this transparent "wag the dog" scenario. Also in the category of October Surprises is a potential July surprise detailed in The New Republic by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari.

On June 24th in "Leap Of Feith" I noted with some disapproval the exceedingly credulous nature of 9/11 Commission member John Lehman. Lehman is now rumored to be the Bush administration's pick to succeed John Tenet as Director of the CIA. Gee, a dupe and moron as CIA Director. How convenient for the Bush administration, and how catastrophic for the nation.

On June 3rd in "Tenet Tea Leaves" I commented on the wild spin attempt by Bush administration neocons to lay blame for the alleged Iraqi WMD "intelligence failures" at the feet of the hapless CIA, thereby absolving the true neocon culprits at the Pentagon's Office of Special Prevarications. The New York Times reports today that republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are playing along and are prepared to issue a report that focuses on alleged CIA failures while ignoring the Bush administration's widely-reported tendency to swoon at any piece of bullshit intelligence served up by Chalabi stooges and stovepiped into Cheney's office courtesy of Feith's flunkies at OSP.

Finally, I mentioned the death of a 42 year old Abu Ghraib detainnee in"Death At Abu Ghraib." I had no reason to believe that the circumstances of his death were at all untoward, but expressed disappointment that handling of the matter by the Bush administration and the U.S. military seemed designed to maximize suspicion and mistrust of the U.S. A June 20th CentCom press release indicated that the prisoner died "of what appears to be natural causes" on Monday, June 14th, and stated an autopsy would be conducted by the U.S. before the body was turned over to the International Committee of the Red Cross. It has now been more than three weeks since the detainnee died and still no sign of an autopsy report from CentCom. The autopsy report with respect to the recent death by heart attack of a 52 year-old detainnee was available in less than two weeks. I still have no reason to believe that the death was not natural, and it truly would be extraordinary if an Abu Ghraib detainnee were permitted to be murdered weeks after disclosure of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. But where is that autopsy report?

Hussein, Cheney And Rumsfeld On Trial

2004-07-07T16:10:00.000-04:00

Robert Scheer notes (as I noted last week) that a "fair trial" of Saddam Hussein carries with it some risk for current Bush administration officials.

A show trial under Allawi would be designed to get Hussein out of the way as quickly and quietly as possible, which might save the U.S. some embarrassment. After all, in an open, unbiased trial the old dictator, if he still has his wits about him, could talk about his cooperation with the Reagan and Bush administrations during the 1980s, when he committed many of the alleged crimes - including the use of poison gas - for which he will be brought to trial. He might even discuss his two visits back then with Donald H. Rumsfeld. But even though a fair public trial might prove uncomfortable for our government, Hussein is a prisoner of war captured by the United States, and Washington is responsible for his treatment under international standards. We have no right to turn him over to the tender mercies of a former CIA-financed archrival. That is simply an abdication of responsibility that violates international law.

There is no good argument for not trying Hussein under international law, as has been done with former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. A fair public trial would reveal the crimes of Hussein as well as the machinations of those U.S. officials and agencies that aided him.

I find it difficult to believe that this aspect of the upcoming Hussein trial is not getting more attention in the U.S. media. The potential for embarrassment of Bush the First, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others is great, and is itself good reason to be skeptical of U.S. claims that Saddam will receive a fair trial.

"Librul Trahl Lo-yer"

2004-07-07T15:15:00.000-04:00

I caught a part of an interview yesterday morning with Mitt Romney, republican governor of Massachusetts, regarding John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running-mate. It went something like this:

Interviewer: "What is your reaction to John Edwards' selection as Kerry's running mate?"

Romney: "Trial lawyer, liberal. Liberal, trial lawyer. Liberal trial lawyer. Trial liberal lawyer. Lawyer trial liberal..."

Interviewer: "Will republicans seek to make experience an issue?"

Romney: "Trial lawyer. Liberal. I am concerned that neither John Kerry nor John Edwards has any government experience at the state or local level. Trial lawyer. Liberal."

Interviewer: "Actually, Sen. Kerry was lieutenant governor of your state, Massachusetts."

Romney: "Oh. Trial lawyer. Liberal. Liberal trial lawyer. Trial liberal lawyer. Liberal trial..."

This is going to be one long, tedious siege. I would suggest that democrats counter the republican fondness for mindless buzz-phrases with the following:

"Bush and Cheney? War criminals. Liars. Lying war criminals. War criminal liars. Criminal war liars. War liars..."

Have A Happy July Fourth!

2004-07-02T10:41:00.000-04:00

This is an especially important July fourth. It is the last July fourth that we'll celebrate under the black cloud of the Bush Gang. Next July fourth our nation will once again walk in the brilliant sunlight of truth and honor.

God bless America.

God damn the Deserter and his flying monkeys for having dishonored America.

Man, This Could Get Ugly

2004-07-01T10:11:00.000-04:00

Saddam's in the dock. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He deserves Saddam justice, but we're promising real justice - a fair hearing, evidentiary rules and a chance to defend himself.

Man, this could get ugly. What if Saddam and his lawyers insist on detailing the complicity of Reagan and Rumsfeld in Iraq's procurement of chemical and biological weapons in the '80's? What if Saddam insists on going into gruesome detail on the decision by Daddy Bush and Dick Cheney to facilitate Saddam's brutal suppression of the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq in the aftermath of Gulf War I by permitting Saddam to violate for more than a year cease-fire terms that prohibited military use of Iraqi helicopters in southern Iraq?

Man, this could get real ugly.

What if Saddam insists on testifying to the whole sordid series of events that took place after the U.S. chased him out of Kuwait?

What if he testifies that Bush 41 knew that he, Saddam, was using choppers to massacre shiites, and cites as evidence the fact that Bush 41 specifically denounced the use of the choppers against the Shiites as a violation of the cease-fire terms at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada on March 13, 1991?

What if Saddam cites accounts by Brent Scowcroft and Bush 41 confirming that use of the attack helicopters to slaughter Shiites was discussed at the highest levels of the White House and that the Bush 41 administration feared that the Shiite uprising could lead to a partitioning of Iraq and therefore a stronger Iran, an outcome inimical to U.S. interests in their opinion, and cites Brent Scowcroft's account of this given to Lowell Bergman:

LOWELL BERGMAN: Wasn't there an uprising in the north? Wasn't there an uprising in the south?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Didn't we see their military killing people?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yes.

LOWELL BERGMAN: And we didn't intervene.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Not from the air.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: We didn't cut off their gasoline supplies.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Because- OK, because- first of all, one of our objectives was not to have Iraq split up into constituent parts. It's our- it's- it's a fundamental interest of the United States to keep a balance in that area, in Iraq and- in Iraq.

What if he insists on testifying that Bush 41 knew the massacre was taking place, knew the choppers were being used in the massacres, knew that chopper flights violated the case-fire terms, and that Bush 41 could have stopped the flights by enforcing the cease-fire terms?

What if Saddam insists on testifying that Bush 41 authorized the White House to issue a statement on March 26, 1991 declaring that the U.S. would not enforce the cease-fire terms, thereby greenlighting Saddam's massacre of the Shiites?

What if Saddam presents as evidence the statements of Bush 41 and Brent Scowcroft admitting that the U.S. permitted Saddam's use of the chopper flights to brutally suppress the Shhiite uprising because Bush, Cheney, Scowcroft et al feared a possible partition of Iraq, and further feared that the Shiite uprising would divert the Iraqi military from a hoped-for coup against Saddam?

What if Saddam can establish based upon the foregoing that the U.S.'s decision to permit Saddam to brazenly violate the cease-fire terms for more than a year renders the U.S. complicit in Saddam's massacres of tens of thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq?

Man, this could get real, real ugly.

Kristof Is Just A Dupe, But Richard Cohen...

2004-07-01T08:32:00.000-04:00

Richard Cohen goes Nick Kristof one better today in the Washington Post.

The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.

Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore's assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.

Poor Richard, so afflicted with morality and evenhandedness, always willing to give equal weight to both sides of the argument even when one side is manifestly bullshit. I'll bet he even agonized over whether he should sexually harass that girl at the New York bureau of the Washington Post, before ultimately deciding that the pro-sexual harassment side of the argument had merit, too.

Where was Richard Cohen's aversion to guilt by association when he supported the rape of Iraq? He condemned the administration for its flimsy "guilt by association" insinuations of a link between Saddam and Osama, but supported the war anyway.

Where was Cohen's skepticism about half-baked theories when he noted the inability of the U.N. weapons inspectors to find WMD in Iraq, but justified the rape of Iraq anyway on the basis that Saddam threatened us all, and concluded that under the circumstances peace was no better than war?

Richard's self-absolution, his onanistic praise of himself for "questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden," is emetic in the extreme. Richard Cohen joined the execrable Richard Perle in trashing Dennis Kucinich when Dennis had the temerity to question the Deserter's avowed reasons for war, insisting that anyone who believed oil played a part in our lust for war was a "liar."

It is little wonder the Deserter is able to maintain his Shame and Dishonor offensive against America, what with self-proclaimed left-leaning columnists like Kristof and Cohen defending his lies as mere "hype" and "exaggeration" while helping Perle slander as liars people like Kucinich who courageously stated their opinion - their opinion - that the Deserter's motives for war were less than wholesome.

Kristof is a dupe, a weak-minded, credulous dupe who shamelessly finds mendacity in Michael Moore's defense of the republic and veracity in the Deserter's brazen lies. But Richard Cohen - Richard Cohen is a disgrace, a genuine war-whore who repeatedly professed skepticism over the lies that propelled us into war against Iraq and then shrugged his shoulders and said "fuck it - bombs away!"

Nick, How Could You? Part II

2004-06-30T23:27:00.000-04:00

I find myself in very good company today. Nick Kristof's weaselly defense of the Deserter has elicited comment from many quarters of the blogosphere, and virtually all are asking the same question: what is wrong with calling a liar a liar?

Ben Tripp at Counterpunch: "O Nicholas, what a supplicant, mewling, lickspittle Polonius thou art, spineless and vile."

The Poor Man catalogues the Deserter's many prevarications and puts them in perspective:

These are all lies, told by the President himself. This doesn't include any distortions, half-truths, or exaggerations, or any lies told by senior figures in the administration. These lies are big and small. Together, these lies involve trillions of dollars and at least tens of thousands of deaths, and Nicholas Kristof is terribly concerned about sharp words and Michael Moore movies. It is indeed too bad that the "political cesspool" is becoming polarized, but I don't think that the solution to this is to shoot the messenger and agonize over ever-finer definitions of falsehood. It shouldn't be this difficult to get your priorities in order.

Roger Ailes weighs in: "Sure, Bush does stretch the truth and exaggerate, but those aren't lies when Bush says them. And besides, the lies were only about a war with Iraq."

And finally, Tristero, with sublime concision: "I'd be happy to stop calling Bush a liar when he stops lying."

Really, Nick, can't one preserve one's precious gentility and at the same time condemn the lies of a prolific liar?

Nick, How Could You?

2004-06-30T10:28:00.000-04:00

When my daughter was seven her kitten ran away. A few weeks after the kitten's disappearance one of the other girls in the neighborhood told her that Len, a twelve year old boy down the street of less than sterling reputation, had stolen her kitten, and that she'd just seen the kitten tied to the back porch of Len's house. According to the informant, Len was feeding the kitten rat heads, and little rat head skulls could be seen strewn all about the back porch. My daughter insisted upon seeing the kitten immediately, and though the informant claimed prior commitments and declined to accompany her, my daughter ventured down the street to the alleged kitten-napper's house and stealthily proceeded to the back yard. There, she found a small back porch, but no kitten, no little kitty leash, and no rat skulls. My daughter, disappointed but unbowed, marched home and informed me that Len had stolen her kitten. My initial shock soon yielded to bemusement (a somewhat bittersweet bemusement, given my daughter's anguish) when I heard the story of the informant and her tale of the kidnapped kitten. When I rejected my daughter's demand that I confront Len's parents about his crime, my daughter insisted that she was going to inform Len's parents that Len had stolen her kitten. The following conversation ensued:

"But, sweetie, that wouldn't be true."

"It's true, my friend told me."

"But your friend said the kitty was tied to the porch, and it wasn't. That wasn't true."

"Len could have hidden the kitty in his house."

"That's true but what about the, ahem, rat heads?"

"Len could have cleaned those up."

"That's true, too, but didn't your friend say that she'd just come from Len's house and the rat heads were still there?"

At this point my daughter's defiant indignation melted to doubt, and her eyes began to well with tears. I sat her on my knee and she learned some of life's difficult lessons that day: that kitten's sometimes run away, that people sometimes lie, and that we all have to decide, every day, what to believe and what not to believe. But the task of deciding what was true, and what was not, was made easier by the fact that we learn who we can trust and who we cannot trust; who we can be certain is telling the truth, and who we should be careful to doubt, if not disbelieve.

I explained to my daughter that if she wanted to go to Len's house to tell Len's parents the story she'd been told by her friend, the tale of the kidnapped kitty, that I would go with her and we could ask Len's parents if they'd seen the kitty. But I told her that it would be a lie if she were to go to Len's parents and tell them that Len had kidnapped her kitten; that even though she couldn't be certain Len hadn't kidnapped the kitten, that she really didn't have a very good reason to believe he had.

I wonder if Nick Kristof has children?

Nick is a good guy, and his efforts to focus on suffering in this world even if it takes place in a country without large oil deposits is laudable. But Kristof takes an egregiously cheap shot at Michael Moore this morning when he faults Moore for calling the Deserter a liar, thereby positioning Moore as the "Sister Souljah" of the Iraq debate so that Nick can appear the model of probity and discretion. Here are the quotes:

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?"

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies.

No, Nick, the central problem is that Bush lied. No, Nick, the conversation with Tenet doesn't demonstrate that Bush believed the WMD claim, but rather is evidence that Bush knew that the intelligence couldn't support his claims of certainty regarding Iraqi WMDs. No, Nick, the run-up to war was based on flat-out lies, the worst lies a President could tell the American people, perhaps the worst lie any human being can tell another. That's right - the Deserter made statements to the American people that he knew were not true, that he knew at the time he made them were not true, and he knew the American people would rely upon these lies in justifying the invasion of a country that had not attacked us, had not participated in any attack against us, nor threatened to attack us.

Here are but two of the Deserter's many lies:

Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied. March 6, 2003, evening press conference

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. March 19, 2003, address to the nation announcing commencement of military operations against Iraq

The Deserter said "Hussein is not disarming." But in fact Hans Blix would report to the U.N. and the world the next day that Iraq was cooperating with the U.N. weapons inspectors in the disarmament process, that Al Samoud missiles were being destroyed - a step characterized by Blix in his report as a "substantial measure of disarmament" - and that Iraq was not impeding U.N. inspections; in sum, that though it could not yet be confirmed that Iraq was disarmed, Iraq was disarming. The Bush administration had been informed that these findings would be included in Blix's report. Condoleeza Rice had previously been informed by Hans Blix, and was again so informed by telephone on March 5, 2003, the day before the Deserter's press conference, that none of the intelligence provided by the U.S. or other intelligence agencies had led the inspectors to sites that contained WMDs. Rice was further aware that the CIA had "shared the best and most likely information" with Blix regarding 100 likely WMD sites in Iraq, including more than 33 sites that the CIA deemed "high priority," and that none of these sites had in fact produced WMDs or evidence of WMDs. In that same telephone conversation Rice conceded to Blix that the U.S. did not know where WMDs could be found. It is simply not credible that the Deserter was not aware of Blix's impending report, or the fact that the CIA had provided U.N. weapons inspectors with more than 100 likely WMD hiding places and none had panned out.

Even the most charitable interpretation of the Deserter's claims regarding Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi refusals to disarm cannot avoid the conclusion that he lied. For instance, one might argue that even though the Deserter had been aware that Iraq was in the process of destroying the Al Samoud missiles, his claim that Iraq was not disarming could still be construed as true if he reasonably believed that Iraq still harbored and concealed WMDs and therefore the destruction of the Al Samouds by Iraq was a mere feint at disarmament. However, the only basis the Deserter would have had for believing that Iraq was concealing WMDs was U.S. intelligence, and by March 7, 2003 all of the U.S. intelligence on likely WMD sites had been revealed as inaccurate and unreliable; the intelligence had been provided to Blix and his inspectors and had turned up more dry holes than Arbusto Oil, the Deserter's failed '70's era oil company. And yet the Deserter assured the nation on March 19, 2003, as bombs were falling on Baghdad, that Iraq threatened the world with "weapons of mass murder."

But what if the Deserter's belief that Iraq possessed WMDs, notwithstanding the impeachment of U.S. intelligence, were genuine and sincere? What if he truly believed it even though U.N. weapons inspectors, conducting unannounced site inspections, armed with the best U.S. intelligence, and unimpeded by Iraq, had failed to discover any WMDs? What if he truly believed it, even though he knew that the only sources who claimed to have direct knowledge of the whereabouts of these WMDs were extremely dubious characters produced by the slimy Ahmed Chalabi, sources that the CIA had already deemed less than reliable?

Then he should have said he "believed" Saddam had weapons, or that we "suspected" Saddam had weapons, but instead he asserted as fact that Saddam had such weapons. He should have said that he doubted Saddam's intentions to disarm, rather than claim, contrary to the facts contained in Blix's March 7th report to the U.N., that Saddam was not in the process of disarming.

He lied, Nick. These were "flat-out lies," Nick, as you would put it. He stated as fact that Saddam had WMDs, when the only basis for such a belief - U.S. intelligence - had been thoroughly impeached by the failure to find any WMD at more than 100 sites provided to the U.N. weapons inspectors by U.S. intelligence. He stated as fact that Saddam was not disarming - "this is a fact," he claimed - even though he was aware that Blix would the next day report to the U.N. that Saddam was disarming.

My daughter understood at seven years old that if you assert as fact that which you really don't have good reason to believe, it is a lie. While it is true that my daughter, even at seven, was more intelligent and had more integrity than our Commander In Chief will ever have, that fact does not absolve the Deserter of his obligation to tell us the truth before taking us to war.

He did not tell us the truth, Nick. You're right when you say he hyped and exaggerated, but you're wrong - dead wrong - when you argue that he did not lie. On March 6, 2003 and March 19, 2003 he asserted as fact that which he no longer had a reasonable basis for believing.

That's a lie, Nick. Whether it's kittens or chemical weapons, it's a lie.

We're Not Pleased, George

2004-06-29T10:34:00.000-04:00

We don't approve of you, George. We think your war was not worth it. We think you're a liar. We don't think we're safer today as a result of your rape of Iraq. We think your war has created more terrorists, not fewer. We think you've got us going in the wrong direction.

We're pretty pissed-off, George. We're gonna send you back to Crawford. You can clear brush, pick up your crayon and start working on your memoirs. You can think about what went wrong, why the 89% of us that had a favorable opinion of you in the days after 9/11 have dwindled to 39%. We were pullin' for you, George, and you betrayed us. That's the way we feel.

Refuting The Stupid Arguments Of Your Wingnut Friends, Part V

2004-06-29T00:31:00.000-04:00

Yup, the wingnuts are still out there, and their arguments are stupider than ever.

This week we hear from Mike from Golden Valley, Minnesota. Mike took the time from his own wingnut blog to set ol' Goldstein straight, and by jingo, he deserves a response.

In my prior post, I lamented the loss of the America I remember, the country that didn't kick your ass unless you threw the first punch. Mike responded, "the first punch was thrown or are you just going to let them have that one." This is a common misconception among wingnuts, who tend to confuse Al Qaeda with Iraq. Mike, Iraq didn't throw any punches. If you have any evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, I suggest you contact the 9/11 commission. Their bipartisan report found no evidence of Iraqi collaboration in 9/11. Mike, you might spend a little less time pounding the brewskis while ice fishing up there in Minnesota and brush up on your current events.

I noted that the America I remember had the patience and persistence to keep the cold war cold, and kept its nukes holstered until those folks in Russia came to their senses. Mike asked "did the Soviets really come to their senses? Or was it because we made them?" If you'll recall Mike, we didn't knock down the wall, they did. We didn't "liberate" them, they liberated themselves, just like the Iraqis should have. If we made them dump communism, it was because of our patience and persistence, not because fools like you were duped into a war against the U.S.S.R. by an unscrupulous warmonger like the Deserter.

I made reference to the fact that there didn't seem to be many John Kennedy's or John Kerry's or similar men of privilege enlisting to fight in Iraq; that by contrast to World War II and the Vietnam war, the sons and daughters of our representatives in Congress are virtually absent from our fighting forces. The fact is, Mike, that blacks are fighting and dying in Iraq in numbers approximately twice their representation in the population as a whole. The fact is, Mike, that whereas privileged young men like George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States, fought in large numbers in World War II and Vietnam, they're as scarce in Iraq as the Deserter at a National Guard base. Wouldn't a draft more fairly allocate the burdens of the war to all classes, most importantly those affluent segments of society that tend to wield disproportionate influence in our politics?

I didn't argue that today's enlisted men and women are ignorant or uneducated; they're ambitious and intelligent or they wouldn't seek opportunity in the armed forces. As for your observation that the average soldier is "smarter and more able" than their civilian counterpart, I must agree. Certainly most of our soldiers know the difference between Iraq and Al Qaeda, something you still seem confused about.

Mike left me with this admonition: "My advice to you is to do your own discovering instead of repeating the idioms of the ignorant." Thank you, Mike, your concern is appreciated. I know that we on the left can get a little strident at times, and so in the interest of fostering better understanding between the left and the right in this country, I'll follow the example of our esteemed Vice President, he of the many varied deferments from service in Vietnam, and offer you a little advice of my own:

Go fuck yourself.

Good For Iraq. Now, About America...

2004-06-28T21:23:00.000-04:00

CNN and Dan Rather and the rest of Big Media are hailing the return to the Iraqis of their country. I'm very happy for the Iraqi people, attenuated though their sovereignty may be. It truly is a day of hope for those Iraqis that weren't killed during the invasion or the occupation.

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but when do we get our country back? You know, the country the whole world used to look up to.

The country that didn't kick your ass unless you threw the first punch.

The country whose patience and persistence kept the cold war cold, and kept its nukes holstered until those folks in Russia came to their senses.

The country that didn't treat the bill of rights like the tax code, looking for loopholes and exemptions.

The country that even under the shadow of nuclear threat kept its senses and refused to give in to fear and hatred.

The country that opposed totalitarianism and still found time to invent rock 'n roll, right the wrongs of a century of Jim Crow, plant the stars and stripes on the moon, keep the trust of its allies and dream of a Great Society.

The country that took pride in hosting the United Nations even though its members frequently confounded us.

The country that radiated such optimism, confidence and idealism that the citizens of our greatest enemy finally said "damn, they look like they're having a good time over there - screw The Wall, gimme a hit of that freedom stuff!"

The country whose faith in the justness of its cause bred a serene strength, not arrogance.

The country where torture was what the other guy did.

The country with an innate understanding that you don't install democracy like so much astroturf; you had to plant seeds, and that the seeds wouldn't grow in foreign soil until the weeds of hunger, fear and ignorance had been uprooted.

The country that wasn't ashamed to admit it had made a mistake in going to war, and that understood that being duly chastened was a good and healthy thing, not a sign of weakness or a "syndrome."

The country that wasn't content to avert its gaze from an Appalachia or racial discrimination, and understood that the measure of a society was its solicitude toward the poor and oppressed, not its low marginal tax rates.

The country where the media heroes were muckrakers, not blow-dried suckups to political whores.

The country that realized that being poor wasn't a character defect, because Grandma and Grandpa had been poor during the depression and, goddammit, there weren't any finer people.

The country that fought its wars with armies raised from every class, where the privileged enlisted or were drafted, and where the idea that wars should be fought primarily by Americans fleeing poverty or hopelessness or lack of opportunity at home would have been deemed, well, unamerican.

The country that didn't watch wars on television like voyeurs, but actually felt the clammy grip of war when Jimmy Smith down the street, the kid that used to cut our lawn, received his draft notice and the Smith's stayed at home and didn't come to the barbecue, their curtains drawn tight all week like shrouds.

Remember that country? When do we Americans get that country back? I don't want to be selfish, but couldn't we work on returning that country to ourselves before we unleash the Arsenal of Democracy on Syria or Iran?

The War Criminals

2004-06-28T14:23:00.000-04:00

Sorry George, This Is Still America

2004-06-28T11:51:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court, in two rulings issued this morning, in effect said to the Deserter "sorry, mein Deserter, but this is still America," holding that suspected terror detainees have recourse to U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The Bush administration's shocking assertion that terror detainees, including American citizens, have no recourse to the courts has been roundly rejected.

The Bush administration's brief filed in connection with the Rasul case echoed the now notorious memo authored by Jay S. Bybee, former assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, arguing that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President, as commander-in-chief, unfettered discretion with respect to the detention of suspected terrorists and their treatment while in detention. In many ways, this absurdly broad reading of the commander-in-chief powers granted to the President under the constitution was more shocking than the twisted ruminations in the Bybee memo on torture. It was shocking because the kind of bizarre reading of the commander-in-chief powers urged by Bybee and by the Bush administration in the Rasul brief would certainly form the basis of any attempt by a U.S. president to suspend our liberties during the pendency of an "emergency." The Bush administration attempted to take a constitutional provision plainly designed to establish civilian control over the military and use it as an instrument to permit the President to suspend the bill of rights.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Touche, Sandy. This is, after all, still the United States of America, despite the best efforts of the Deserter and his flying monkeys to destroy our republic.

Fahrenheit 9/11

2004-06-25T22:44:00.000-04:00

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this afternoon. It was well attended, even though it was a matinee in the suburbs, and I noted before going into the movie that the 7:00 showing was already sold out. The crowd erupted in applause at the end of the movie. A cop was stationed in the back of the theatre (as they have been at many theatres, I am told).

I'm not going to review the movie. I urge everyone to see it and judge for themselves. I will restrict myself to relating the most powerful moment of the film: a series of scenes involving a Mrs. Lila Lipscomb of Flint, Michigan, whose son died in a helicopter crash in Iraq in early April 2003. Her daughter served in the military in the first Gulf war, and many family members (father, brothers, cousins) have served in the military. She was patriotic, hung a flag outside her home everyday, and encouraged her children to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the military, opportunities she and her husband were unable to provide in Flint.

Mrs. Lipscomb recounts for Michael Moore the morning she learned of her son's death. She is fairly composed, beginning to gently weep only as she approaches the end of her description of the worst phone call a parent can receive. This is a strong, proud woman, a fact that makes her description of her reaction to her son's death all the more compelling. This scene is perhaps the most disquieting and difficult scene to watch that I have ever seen in a movie. Her grief is palpable as she describes the phone ringing, a voice identifying the caller as a military representative, the inquiries intended to confirm that she is Lila Lipscomb, that she is the mother of...at this point Mrs. Lipscomb recalls that she dropped the phone, her legs gave way, and she was reduced to crawling across the floor to grab a leg of the kitchen table in an attempt to hoist herself back to a sitting position.

There is another scene involving Mrs. Lipscomb later in the movie that is in some ways even more difficult to watch. I'm not up to writing about it now, so I'll cut straight to the point. These scenes have been widely criticized, and Michael Moore criticized for exploiting the grief of this poor woman. I hate it when television dwells on the grief stricken. It strikes me as supremely exploitative when the Today Show virtually sucks the grief out of a guest for the voyeuristic pleasure of its viewers. I'm revolted when I think of all of the caffiene-buzzed housewives sitting at home clucking their tongues and saying "isn't that terrible." It's exploitative because there is no point to it, no redeeming value, no purpose other than voyeurism. But I think Michael Moore had a very important purpose in these scenes, and that is to remind us that there is only one casus belli that could possibly justify visiting this kind of emotional devastation on a mother, only one cause sufficient to permit a society to ask a parent to make a sacrifice so great that it leaves them lost in an endless desert of grief, a blasted husk of a human being. And that cause ain't evangelical democracy.

My wingnut friends play a variation of the old "bop the mole" game when the subject of Iraq war justifications comes up. No WMDs? "No problem, it was the Al Qaeda connection." No AQ connection? "Well, we were bringing freedom and democracy to the great unwashed." They don't want our force-fed freedom? "Well, we're there goddammit and we can't cut and run, and how do you know there are no WMD anyway?" And then you start over again, bopping a war rationale mole only to have another pop out of an adjacent mole hole. I dare my wingnut friends to see this movie and ever play this game again, because, you see, there is no substitute for the WMD threat; having proffered a WMD threat, you can't bait and switch. You just can't do it. Either there was a threat or there wasn't. No more bop the mole. The next time someone starts that shit with me I'm giving them a Dick Cheney salutation, if you know what I mean.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that any of my wingnut friends who are parents would risk their child's life to experiment with democracy in Iraq. I don't believe they'd do it because some Iraqi bureaucrat met with one of bin Laden's deputies ten years ago and shared a cup of chai in the Khyber Pass. I just don't believe it, and it pains me to believe that they are so cynical and hypocritical that they would back this travesty in Iraq as long as it is someone else's kid being burned to death in a tank or atomized by an RPG.

I watched that horrible Nick Berg video. I don't know why, but I did, and I thought it would haunt me for weeks. It didn't, and maybe this is a terrible thing to admit, but I was pretty much over it in a few days. But right now I can't shake this image of this Flint housewife on the linoleum floor of her kitchen, clinging to the leg of her kitchen table, the receiver hanging from a phone mounted on her kitchen wall. I don't think I'm getting over this one for a while.

NOTE: Mrs. Goldstein tells me that Mrs. Lipscomb received the phone call in her bedroom, and pulled herself up by her bedroom desk. She's probably right; as I said, I found the scene very difficult to watch.

God Bless Al Gore

2004-06-25T12:57:00.000-04:00

This is turning into Great Patriots day here at Enemy Of The People. First an encomium to that great patriot, The Rude Pundit. Then a paean to the rotund master of malice, Mr. Michael Moore.

And now, The Man Who Should Be President, Mr. Al Gore. Kerry's zombified, like the Manchurian Candidate, and Bubba's just starting to timidly nibble at the heels of the Deserter's criminal enterprise, ever so cautious lest he damage the political prospects of Lady MacBeth. Meanwhile, Al Gore is callin' out the evil bastards, speaking truth to power, and letting the political chips fall where they may. I know, Al's a political dead man, anyway (although I'd be the first to sign on to a draft Al Gore movement at this very moment), and so he can say what candidate Al would never say. So what. BFD. The truth is too goddamn precious today for supercilious dissections of the purity of a truthteller's motives. The republic is in grave danger, and Al Gore is manning the ramparts.

I'm attaching below the closing four paragraphs of Mr. Gore's speech yesterday at the American Constitution Society at Georgetown University. The whole text is here. Read it, and be reminded what's been lost and what's at stake.

In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between al-Qaida and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing constitutional power grab by the president. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public's mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties -- again on his personal discretion -- and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election.

War is lawful violence, but even in its midst we acknowledge the need for rules. We know that in our wars there have been descents from these standards, often the result of spontaneous anger arising out of the passion of battle. But we have never before, to my knowledge, had a situation in which the framework for this kind of violence has been created by the president, nor have we had a situation where these things were mandated by directives signed by the secretary of defense, as it is alleged, and supported by the national security advisor.

Always before, we could look to the chief executive as the point from which redress would come and law be upheld. That was one of the great prides of our country: humane leadership, faithful to the law. What we have now, however, is the result of decisions taken by a president and an administration for whom the best law is NO law, so long as law threatens to constrain their political will. And where the constraints of law cannot be prevented or eliminated, then they maneuver it to be weakened by evasion, by delay, by hair-splitting, by obstruction, and by failure to enforce on the part of those sworn to uphold the law.

In these circumstances, we need investigation of the facts under oath, and in the face of penalties for evasion and perjury. We need investigation by an aroused Congress whose bipartisan members know they stand before the judgment of history. We cannot depend upon a debased Department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots. "Congressional oversight" and "special prosecution" are words that should hang in the air. If our honor as a nation is to be restored, it is not by allowing the mighty to shield themselves by bringing the law to bear against their pawns: it is by bringing the law to bear against the mighty themselves. Our dignity and honor as a nation never came from our perfection as a society or as a people: it came from the belief that in the end, this was a country which would pursue justice as the compass pursues the pole: that although we might deviate, we would return and find our path. This is what we must now do.

Thanks, Al. I needed that.

Speaking of Rude...

2004-06-25T12:35:00.000-04:00

...I'm going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 this afternoon. I've read about it, seen the trailer, and witnessed numerous risible big media attempts trash the film for not being "objective", as if the New York Times and Washington Post didn't publish filth from Safire and Krauthammer every day. Isn't Michael Moore entitled to a cinematic editorial?

Again, I haven't seen the movie yet, but somehow I think I'll come out feeling much like David Edelstein did:

In one scene, his camera homes in on a Flint, Mich., woman weeping over a son killed in Iraq, and the effect is vampirish. After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. When I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons, my friend said, "When did you become a relativist?"

I'm troubled by that charge—and by the fact that we nearly came to blows by the end of the conversation. But when it comes to politics in a time of war, I think that relativism is, well, relative. Fahrenheit 9/11 must be viewed in the context of the Iraq occupation and the torrent of misleading claims that got us there. It must be viewed in the context of Rush Limbaugh repeating the charge that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park, or laughing off the exposure of Valerie Plame when, had this been a Democratic administration, he'd be calling every day for the traitor's head. It must be viewed in the context of Ann Coulter calling for the execution of people who disagree with her. It must be viewed in the context of another new documentary, the superb The Hunting of the President, that documents—irrefutably—the lengths to which the right went to destroy Bill Clinton. Moore might be a demagogue, but never—not even during Watergate—has a U.S. administration left itself so open to this kind of savaging.

Along with many other polite liberals, I cringed last year when Moore launched into his charmless, pugilistic acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. Oh, how vulgar, I thought—couldn't he at least have been funny? A year later, I think I might have been too hard on the fat prick. Six months before her death in 1965, the great novelist Dawn Powell wrestled in her diary with the unseemliness of political speech during an "artistic" event: "Lewis Mumford gave jolt to the occasion and I realized I had gotten as chicken as the rest of America because what he said—we had no more right in Vietnam than Russia had in Cuba—was true but I did not think he should use his position to declaim this. Later I saw the only way to accomplish anything is by 'abusing' your power." Exactly. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force. It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power.

His Rudeness, A Great American

2004-06-25T11:18:00.000-04:00

The air can get quite rarified in the blogosphere, and we all sometimes lapse into mediacentric navel-gazing, absurdly esoteric wonkishness and the minutae of partisan gamesmanship. It's easy to lose sight of the horror of what has been perpetrated in our names, to misplace the realization that our country bombed population centers in a nation that posed no threat to us, and knowingly killed more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians who were already suffering a Kafkaesque existence at the hands of the Marquis de Saddam.

It's even more difficult to confront daily the terrifying realization that men such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have ascended to the highest offices in the land, in the United States of America for god's sake, and wield unimaginable power, seized by febrile delusions of godlike dominion over other human beings and in pursuit of nothing more than the aggrandizement of their own perverted empire.

It is simply impossible for us to indefinitely maintain condign outrage and indignation at the violation of our republic by scum like Bush and his flying monkeys, too exhausting and too psychically wearing, and so we retreat to the quotidian and in our most narcotized states expound on the upcoming presidential election as if it were a horse race rather than a battle for the very soul of our nation. And truly, it is a battle. Pick your poll - they all say essentially the same thing: this nation is on the cusp of retaining in power an administration that has traduced everything good and decent about our country. My god, how could this be?

But there is one among us who never loses sight of the danger, never flinches at the horror, never for a moment succumbs to bloggish solipsism. The one among us ever vigilant, ever possessed of a perspective on the events of our time that is unwavering and true: the Rude Pundit.

Here's to you, your Rudeness. You're keepin' it real. Don't let the bastards get you up.

Disgraceful Conduct, Indeed

2004-06-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

On May 24, 2004, the Deserter characterized the conduct alleged in the burgeoning Abu Ghraib scandal as "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops." He made this statement in the midst of ongoing military investigations into the extent of the misconduct. As commander in chief, his comments threatened to prejudice these investigations, and were therefore manifestly inappropriate. It is now painfully apparent that the Deserter's comments were not only inappropriate but wrong as well.

According to the Washington Post, Company Commander Donald Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company, is testifying that Col. Thomas Pappas, head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib, was present when the coverup of the murder of a detainee was arranged. Reese testified that he heard Pappas say "I'm not going down for this alone."

Indeed, Col. Pappas is not going down for this alone. The administration that devoted a substantial part of its legal resources to justifying, rationalizing and ultimately authorizing the illegal abuse of Iraqi detainees is going down with him.

The Deserter's rash and false attribution of the Abu Ghraib misconduct to a "few troops", even as military investigations were ongoing, was plainly intended to scapegoat seven MPs and thereby limit the political damage to his administration. It was a disgrace.

How many more times will we permit this man to shame our nation?

The Return Of Sanity, Part II

2004-06-24T10:52:00.000-04:00

The New York Times and Washington Post continue to show signs that they are recovering from Bushmania and are nearly ready to removed from credibility life support.

"Questions also remain about how the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere came about. The documents confirm that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a number of harsh interrogation techniques for use in Guantanamo in December 2002, including hooding, requiring nudity, placing prisoners in stress positions and using dogs. After military lawyers objected that these violated international law, Mr. Rumsfeld suspended their use a month later. But all these techniques, as well as the restricted practices now approved for Guantanamo, appeared in an interrogation policy issued for Iraq by command of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez in September 2003. Nearly word for word, the harsh methods detailed in memos signed by Mr. Rumsfeld -- which even administration lawyers considered violations of the Geneva Conventions -- were then distributed to interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The procedures in turn could be read to cover much of what is seen in the photographs that have scandalized the world. How did this spread of improper and illegal practices occur? The Bush administration has yet to offer a convincing answer -- or hold anyone accountable for it." Washington Post, "A Partial Disclosure", June 24th editorial

"This partial view of the thinking of the administration on the prisoner issue did provide, once again, confirmation of how this president and his team consider themselves above the rules that bind ordinary mortals. From the start of his presidency, Mr. Bush has resisted scrutiny and regulation, taking the position that the public should recognize that his people are good people with good intentions, and trust them to do the right thing.

"The nation, of course, has always held to a different tradition that relies on the restraint of the rule of law rather than individual goodness. The debacle at Abu Ghraib shows how badly things can go when average Americans are let loose from those restraints, or allowed to believe that such restraints do not apply to them. The political and moral disasters of this administration, from the current dreadful state of American prestige abroad to the injustices perpetrated on innocent Americans erroneously suspected of terrorist ties, show that the same thing applies to the people at the top." New York Times, "The White House Papers", June 24th editorial

Leap Of Feith

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

"And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed." 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, on Meet The Press, June 20th

"The administration official said the CIA and U.S. Army obtained the lists of members of the Fedayeen shortly after the invasion of Iraq last year. Some, he said, had names "similar to" Ahmad Hikmat Shakir. But, he said, the CIA had concluded "a long time ago" that none were the al-Qaida associate." Newsday, June 22nd

Didn't Lehman have anyone on the 9/11 Commission staff run this by the CIA? Is the source for Lehman's assertion on Meet The Press so unimpeachable that he could have deemed it unnecessary to check with the nation's intelligence agencies?

The source, according to the Weekly Standard, is one of Dougie Feith's analysts. And who authored the Weekly Standard piece that reported this startling discovery? None other than Stephen F. Hayes, the ever credulous, resident conspiracy nut at the Weakly Slander, who has never seen an allegation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda conspiracy that he didn't believe.

Let's get one thing straight upfront. The 9/11 Commission staff report released last week did indeed confirm contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's, but found that the contacts resulted in a rebuff of Al Qaeda by Iraq and that no "collaborative relationship" had been established. The wingnuts have ever since been engaged in an illiterate and dishonest attempt to argue that any contact is evidence of a "tie", as if my punching you in the face is evidence that we are allies. Mr. Hayes, alas, can find no refuge in such semantic silliness, because he has alleged far more than "ties." Mr. Hayes has unabashedly asserted on numerous occasions that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda, the very assertion definitively rejected by the 9/11 commission. If you don't believe me, read Mr. Hayes book "The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America." The title says it all, doesn't it?

Mr. Hayes recounts how one Christopher Carney, an analyst in neocon-man Doug Feith's infamous Office of Special Prevarications, was "poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam." Carney ran across a reference to Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Carney seemed to recall seeing a similar, though differently spelled name, in a report that suggested an Iraqi may have attended a Kuala Lumpur meeting of Al Qaeda operatives at which the 9/11 plans were discussed.

Mr. Hayes then embarks on a laughable exercise of inflating the hapless Shakir, a low-level factotum for Malaysian Airways, into a steely-eyed intelligence operative for Saddam Hussein. His evidence? When Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence while on his way from Qatar to Baghdad, the Iraqi "government" (embassy, perhaps?) sought to obtain Shakir's release. Hayes, before launching into his conspiracy reverie, makes this minor concession: "Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments." But Hayes won't be fooled by the CIA. No, Hayes cites the Iraqi government's "panicked reaction" as evidence that Shakir was a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent. Hayes' evidence of a "paniched reaction"? Some phone calls from Iraqi officials to Jordanian officials.

But Mr. Hayes is just getting rolling. "CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service." Wow, he was cleverly evasive - he must be an Iraqi James Bond! Can you imagine the much-maligned (and often justly) New York Times publishing such a lunatic leap by one of its reporters? O.K., Judith Miller aside.

Mr. Hayes leaves us with the admonition that the alleged "Shakir connection" is "far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs." In fact, the CIA had apparently concluded a long time ago that there are more than one Iraqi Fedayeen with the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir or a similar name, and that none of them are Mr. Hayes' globe-trotting, cloaked and daggered, deep-cover intelligence agent.

My wingnut friends and the neocon-men will no doubt chirp that the CIA is not infallible. Indeed, it is not. But what do we have here, when you really look hard at it? You have this guy Carney, a fellow working for the same Pentagon operation that peddled all of Chalabi's lies, noting that a list of Fedayeen officers contains a name similar to the name of an Iraqi alleged to have attended a critical Al Qaeda meeting. That's it. There's nothing more than that. All of Hayes' "mideast by north mideast" travelogue is irrelevant to the question of whether the Shakir who attended the Kuala Lumpur meeting is one of the many Shakirs listed on our Fedayeen rosters. It's merely Hayes' speculation that the Shakir in Kuala Lumpur was a member of Iraqi intelligence, and the Fedayeen had nothing to do with Iraqi intelligence!

At this point I could lament the stunning lack of journalistic rigor by the Weakly Slander (and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, as well, which was shaking this Shakir tree even before the Weakly Slander), but this kind of tendentious, "Keystone Cops" intelligence is fully in keeping with the intelligence produced by Feith's group that formed the basis for the entire Iraq misadventure. Again and again Feith's group, interpreting the same hard data interpreted by the CIA and DIA, found a brilliant, high-definition picture of Iraqi WMDs and Al Qaeda ties where the CIA and DIA found a fuzzy, shadowy picture with a distinct vertical hold problem. Again and again Feith's group filled in the gaps in U.S. intelligence with unqualified claims of Iraqi WMDs provided by Chalabi cronies, sources already deemed unreliable by the CIA and ultimately discredited on March 7, 2003 when Blix reported that none of the Chalabi intelligence had panned out.

Just think of it. A Feith functionary finds a name on a Fedayeen roster similar to the name of an alleged Al Qaeda operative, nothing more, and feeds it into the neocon echo chambers at the WSJ and the Weakly Slander. From there, this bit of non-intelligence finds its way to the ears of an exceedingly weakminded and credulous member of the 9/11 Commission, neocon dupe emeritus John Lehman, and he trumpets it on Meet The Press. And at that point some administration official, no doubt seeing the seeds of yet another humiliating retreat, another "yellowcake", another Kay Report, quietly informs Newsday that there's nothing to this Fedayeen-Al Qaeda claim, that the CIA checked it out a long time ago and there's nothing there.

These neocon-men are shameless. No collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? No problem. No Atta meeting in Prague? No problem. Just take one part bullshit, one part cretinous 9/11 Commission member, put it in a Shakir, and voila: a Pentagon Pina Colada, chilled and ready for consumption by any slack-jawed, war-mongering dumbass already drunk on the Deserter's lies.

The Whole Truth

2004-06-23T10:44:00.000-04:00

I wanted to comment on the Administration's selective disclosure of documents relating to consideration of permissible interrogation techniques in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo, but Billmon and Froomkin are all over it.

The released documents relate primarily to administration deliberarations in the winter of 2002 and spring of 2003. They do nothing to dispel allegations that administration dismay at the surging Iraqi insurgency last fall prompted a ratcheting-up of interrogation techniques in Iraq, that Gen. Miller was dispatched from Guantanamo to Iraq for the purpose of implementing harsher interrogation techniques, that Asst. Sec. of Defense Stephen Cambone dispatched Miller for such purpose, and that Rumsfeld knew all about it.

The decision not to subpoena the complete administration file on interrogation techniques, a shameful decision by Orrin Hatch and his fellow republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now absolutely unjustifiable in light of the administration's selective disclosure. We need the whole story, not just the parts the Deserter would like to tell us.

The Perjurer General

2004-06-23T09:54:00.000-04:00

From NBC news:

The 9/11 commission is busy writing its final report, but is still investigating critical facts, including the conduct of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. NBC News has learned that the commission has interviewed two FBI officials who contradict sworn testimony by Ashcroft, about whether he brushed off terrorism warnings in the summer of 2001.

Ashcroft claimed that other Justice Dept.officials present at the meeting, including Dep. Atty. General Larry Thompson, would refute claims by former acting FBI Director Tom Pickard and other FBI officials that Aschroft had instructed FBI officials to stop raising the issue of terror threats inside the U.S. However, rather than refuting these claims, Thompson now says "I do not recall the conversation that interim director Pickard referred to." And that, of course, is precisely what one would say if one were worried about a perjury charge.

John Aschroft could have challenged Pickard's testimony before the 9/11 Commission by arguing that in the context of the particular conversation he only intended to defer the conversation of terror threats inside the U.S. He could have claimed, as Thompson now has, that he did not recall the conversation. Instead, our Attorney General demonstrated the same contempt for the 9/11 Commission that he has demonstrated for the Constitution, Congress and for the American people. He lied, and denied the conversation ever took place.

John Ashcroft is a contemptible little man who has resorted to trumpeting bogus terror threats in the belief that fearmongering will be politically advantageous to the administration of which he is a shameful member. His Justice Department has attempted to suppress domestic political opposition by subpoenaing people in violation of their first amendment rights, on the basis of nothing more than a desire to learn with whom they associate, and in the absence of any evidence that the targets of the subpoenas were engaged in illegal activities. For this reason alone John Aschroft should have been prosecuted. His perjury before the 9/11 Commission is just one more reason why this travesty of an Attorney General must be terminated and then prosecuted.

Newsflash For Fox News

2004-06-22T15:25:00.000-04:00

The State Dept. terrorist report, the one that inaccurately reported a decline in terrorist activity in 2003 and has since been revised, excludes from the definition of terrorist activity attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq.

Someone should tell this to Bush administration officials and their lapdogs at Fox News.

Latest Washington Post Poll: Bush A Failure In Fighting Terror

2004-06-22T07:32:00.000-04:00

The latest Washington Post poll contains some very bad news for the Deserter, which is very good news for America.

Even as support for Bush's handling of the Iraq war collapsed, support for his overall handling of the "war on terrorism" had remained steady. As recently as April poll respondents gave the Deserter a 21 point lead over Kerry on the issue of who would better handle the terror issue. That lead is gone. The Post now has it Kerry 48%, Bush 47% on the issue of handling terror. On the issue of honesty and trustworthiness, the Post poll has Kerry in front by 52% to 39%.

Many of you may be saying "so what - Bush's overall approval ratings remain steady at about 47% and Kerry's lead among registered voters is still a slim 4%." This is true, but the precipitous decline in support for the Deserter's handling of terror is significant for at least four reasons.

First, terror is the big wildcard in the upcoming election. The significance of the terror issue relative to other issues - the economy, crime, etc. - could rise dramatically between now and election day, driven by events outside anyone's control, such as another major terrorist attack here in the U.S. His big lead over Kerry on the terror issue had promised the potential to swing a huge number of undecided voters to the Deserter if there occurred another spike in the significance of the terror issue among voters. Terror is no longer a potential "big swing" issue for the Deserter.

Second, the huge drop in the Deserter's poll numbers on the terror issue indicates that he is no longer able to manipulate or "spin" the terror issue effectively. On other issues, such as the economy and Iraq, the Deserter's poll numbers appeared to generally comport with reality: gradual increases in poll numbers for the Deserter's handling of the economy as the economy gradually improved, and generally declining poll numbers for his handling of Iraq as the situation there continued to deteriorate. Meanwhile, the Deserter's poll numbers on terror held remarkably high even as terror proliferated and Al Qaeda has been resurgent, suggesting that the Deserter could "spin" the issue to his advantage even in the face of bad news. There is now reason to believe that the Deserter's poll numbers on the terror issue will rise and fall based on his ability to actually stem terror rather than his skill in fearmongering and exploiting hatred of muslims.

Third, the terror poll numbers have closely tracked the "strong leader" poll numbers, where the Deserter also held a big lead over Kerry. Those poll numbers have now diverged, however, suggesting that although poll respondents still find the Deserter to be a "strong leader" (I know, it's incredible), they now have doubts whether more "strength" - more bombs, more torture, more invasions - is the solution to the terror problem. That's very bad news for the Bushies, because the Deserter has burned our bridges on alternative approaches to the terror issue; it's too late for The Great Unilateralist to resort to diplomacy and multilateralism. If you believe we can more effectively fight terror by realigning ourselves with the rest of the world, John Kerry is your man.

Fourth, and most significantly for all of us, a continued decline in support for the Deserter's terror policy should cause the neocons and their Oval Office stooge to hesitate before unleashing an "October suprise." The great danger inherent in a collapse in the Deserter's poll numbers was that he would seek to capitalize on support for his handling of the terror issue by invading Syria or fomenting a major terror attack on the U.S., either of which would tend to rally support for a President seen as effective in fighting terror. But if the President is viewed as ineffective in fighting terror, either of these stratagems could create a huge backlash. Just ask Jimmy Carter. A foreign threat will produce the "rally 'round the President" phenomenon only if the President is trusted to respond effectively. Although voters will generally give the President the benefit of a doubt in responding to a new threat, a judgment of failure with respect to an existing threat is punished severely. The hostages in Iran had languished for fully a year by the time the 1980 elections were held, and the judgment was that Carter had failed. Similarly, the "war on terror" will be more than three years old by October. If the Washington Post is correct, the Deserter's terror policy has been adjudged a failure - more people are willing to entrust the "war on terror" to an alleged flip-flopping northeastern liberal than are willing to back the incumbent President.

I've stated before my belief that the neocons and their stooge President would not hesitate to engulf the middle east in flames if that promised an electoral benefit. But although they may be amoral, they can read the polls, and the message from the latest Washington Post poll is clear: resort to an October surprise at your own risk, Mr. President. The days of exploiting fear and death for votes are coming to an end.

George Bush Is A Lying Sack Of Shit

2004-06-18T00:10:00.000-04:00

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda." The Deserter, June 17, 2004

"I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now." The Deserter, September 17, 2001

He stated his belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11 just days after the attack, without any evidence to support such belief and in the face of advice from his top anti-terror advisors that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He then approved dissemination of this quote in Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War" in order to create the misimpression among the American people of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. And then, having introduced a poisonous lie into the public's consciousness, he steadfastly refused to correct this falsehood until long after the invasion and cynically exploited it to build support for his fraudulent war.

Of course Dick Cheney, abetted by neocon whore Bill Safire, has been flogging the "Atta in Prague" lie for years.

"[I]t's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." Dickless Cheney, Meet The Press, December 9, 2001.

On September 8, 2002 Cheney claimed on Meet The Press that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

As recently as last September, this extraordinary exchange between Tim Russert and our dickless Vice-President took place:

RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

DICKLESS: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

Later in the interview Dickless made this statement with regard to Iraqi involvement in 9/11:

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."

As my wingnut friends are certain to bleat, "he said he didn't know." The only problem is that the FBI and CIA had already concluded by the time of this interview that there was no credible evidence to support the "Atta in Prague" fantasy. The Washington Post's Dana Priest and Glen Kessler thoroughly exposed Dickless' disingenuity in a September 29, 2003 article.

Death At Abu Ghraib

2004-06-17T17:04:00.000-04:00

An 42 year old inmate at Abu Ghraib has died. The U.S. military is investigating. But, as usual, everything they are doing stinks like a three day old fish.

The U.S. military will conduct an autopsy, following which the body will be turned over the International Committee of the Red Cross and then to the Iraqi interim government. We are already under suspicion in connection with more than three dozen detainee deaths in Iraq - why aren't we letting the ICRC conduct the autopsy? Our autopsy will inevitably be greeted with skepticism, whereas an ICRC autospy would be viewed as presumptively reliable. Why aren't we availing ourselves of this opportunity?

The U.S. military claims that the deceased had been detained since May because he was believed to be "an imperative threat for attacks against coalition forces." In this context, the word imperative means that the detainee was suspected of being able to control or direct attacks against coalition forces. However, the U.S. military revealed that although this man had been held for three weeks or more, and was suspected of having information regarding attacks on coalition forces, he had yet to be interrogated! Isn't it incumbent upon the military to interrogate promptly a detainee suspected of possessing knowledge of future attacks on coalition troops? Did our military really believe this detainee had knowledge of attacks planned on coalition forces, or is this reason for detention merely a catchall used to justify the indefinite detention of people indiscriminately rounded up at Iraqi checkpoints?

The administration appears intent on fostering suspicion of our motives and methods in Iraq and undermining the credibility of our military. This is either gross incompetence or, more likely, an inescapable consequence of a dishonest policy. The administration claims cooperation with investigations of abuse in Iraqi prisons but conspicuously fails to avail themselves of the ICRC's cooperation in matters such as the autopsy of the deceased Abu Ghraib detainee. The administration claims that detention policies at Abu Ghraib are being reformed but continues to detain Iraqis for suspected insurgency activities without even bothering to interrogate them for weeks or months.

The game plan is obvious: wait for the media and the public to lose interest and then go back to business as usual in the festering Iraqi prison system. No reform, no accountability, no cooperation with investigations. No truth, no honor, no concern for the daily damage done to America's reputation in the world.

Donald Rumsfeld and his Pentagon poltroons are war criminals. Every day they continue to serve in the highest echelons of our government is another day of shame for our nation.

The Further Adventures Of The Incredible Shrinking President!

2004-06-17T10:10:00.000-04:00

No need to speculate any further. Among the Presidents of the last 35 years, the Deserter is at the bottom of the Oliphant Index. Yup, smaller than Jimmy. The winner, and new featherweight champion of the world, Geoooooorge Dubyaaaaaaaa Buuuuuuuuuushhhhhhhhhhh!

The Return Of Sanity

2004-06-17T09:03:00.000-04:00

Why did we invade Iraq? Why do we remain? Why does the Bush administration continue to lie about the reasons for the war? The long somnolent editorial boards of our major American newspapers have been roused by the 9/11 Commission. There is no place to hide for the Deserter and the neocon taliban.

"No liberation dances. No WMD. No supplying of WMD to terrorists, including al-Qaida. No link to 9/11. Why was it we went to war in Iraq?" Seattle Post-Intelligencer

"Question: If Iraq did not have atomic, biological or chemical weapons, and if it was not in cahoots with terror gangs such as al-Qaida, what is the nature of the threat it posed? Bush and other officials need to supply honest answers to that question." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different." New York Times

"On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." A day later, President Bush pointed to Islamic militant Abu Musab Zarqawi, who may be hiding in Fallouja. "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda" in Iraq, he declared. It's hard to imagine that either Bush or Cheney had an inkling of what an interim staff report of the independent 9/11 commission would say Wednesday. There is "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," the new report states. In fact, prewar Iraq spurned Al Qaeda's overtures. Though Zarqawi may be directing attacks against Americans in Iraq, and Baghdad may now be Terror Central, it is a consequence of the war itself." Los Angeles Times

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda -- a comment President Bush seconded the next day. The administration has conceded there's no "direct" link between Iraq and 9/11, but it has labored to create that impression. And, in addition to weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's connections to terrorism were part of the administration's case for war. By now that seems implausible. To the extent the administration persists in promoting either its claims of a terror connection or weapons of mass destruction, its integrity is called into question at a time when it's trying to restore its credibility with the American people and the world. Newark Star-Ledger

As long as the administration insists on the 9/11 connection, its solution to the Iraqi problem will be based on false assumptions. The 9/11 panel's report, based on the findings of U.S. intelligence and unencumbered by political considerations, should be the last word on the subject. Miami Herald

"The great virtue of the commission's reports, however, lies not with its depiction of particular intelligence failings but with its faith in transparency -- a refusal to fall for the authoritarian fallacy that certain unpleasant matters must be kept secret from the general populace." Boston Globe

"The Order To Shoot The Demonstrators..."

2004-06-17T08:28:00.000-04:00

"Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

A: Higher Command. We were told to be on the lookout for civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials including intelligence communities within the military and the US government."

Cluster bombs in urban areas. Depleted uranium in populated areas. Attacks on unarmed civilians with 50 caliber machine guns. Massive civilian casualties.

It became more than Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey could tolerate. Sgt. Massey, a great American patriot, bears witness to the war on the Iraqi people, the war our government doesn't want us to know about, the war that took place while the Deserter was holding his "mission accomplished" circle jerk in the Pacific, the war that took place far from the media billeted at luxury hotels in the green zone.

We Know, We Know! Someone Tell Cheney and Safire!

2004-06-16T18:51:00.000-04:00

The 9/11 Commission has concluded that there is "no credible evidence" that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda in any attack on the U.S., and further concluded that bin Laden was actually hostile to Saddam's exceedingly secular regime in Iraq, confirming the assessment of the CIA that was reported to the Deserter months before the invasion.

Reports of the 9/11 Commission's findings follow by just one day that latest fulminations of our homicidally delusional Vice-President. Coincidence, or could it be that Kean and Co. have finally tired of Cheney's brazen lies?

As for Bill Safire's fetish, the alleged Atta visit to Prague, the Commission stated that "[b]ased on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred." Sorry, Bill, you'll have to find another neocon fantasy to peddle.

Bleed 'Em Dry

2004-06-16T09:34:00.000-04:00

Juan Cole links to a report by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch that discloses that the U.S.-controlled Program Review Board is planning a $2 billion fire sale of Iraq reconstruction projects between now and the June 30th transition to Iraqi "sovereignty."

Wouldn't one expect that the awarding of reconstruction contracts would be delayed until the new Iraqi government can approve them? Isn't is rather unseemly that a reconstruction contract gold-rush should take place in the weeks preceding the transition to an interim Iraqi government?

This country is already red-lining on the shame meter thanks to the administration's affiliation with Torture International, Inc., and now we're dumping a huge "sweetheart contract" fait accompli into the laps of Allawi and his cabinet, a government that comes into office already suspected by the Iraqi people of being U.S. stooges.

Isn't there anyone in the Bush administration with a shred of dignity or decency?

Iraqis Reject U.S. Puppet

2004-06-15T18:06:00.000-04:00

Newsweek is reporting that a recent Iraqi public opinion poll indicates that only 23% of Iraqis support new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; 61% of Iraqis oppose Allawi.

The poll also indicates 55% of Iraqis would would feel "more safe" if coalition forces left Iraq immediately. As recently as January only 28% of Iraqis felt that way. The poll also indicates rising support for Al-Sadr, declining support for the CPA and plummeting confidence in the coalition forces.

Most depressingly, a majority of Iraqis believe that the actions of the Abu Ghraib MPs are representative of all Americans.

There is no good news for the U.S. in the poll whatsoever. The Iraqi people want us out now, and the longer we stay the more support radicals like Al-Sadr are gaining.

The Cover-Up Is Collapsing

2004-06-15T12:43:00.000-04:00

From the Telegraph in the U.K.:

The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.

The Telegraph article goes on to state that "According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident."

"You Haven't Begun To See Evil"

2004-06-15T12:29:00.000-04:00

"He said 'You haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' "

Rick Pearlstein, quoting from Seymour Hersh's remarks last week at the University of Chicago.

Mr. Pearlstein's notes of Seymour Hersh's remarks are reported by Brad DeLong. Mr. DeLong's blog is essential reading. There are still many who wish to avert their eyes from what has been done in Iraq in our names, to ignore the crimes committed by the Deserter and his neocon henchman. We are indeed face to face with evil, and we mustn't blink. A painful reckoning is nigh, and then our national shame will end.

Labour Party Humiliation

2004-06-15T11:52:00.000-04:00

It hasn't received much attention here in the U.S., but Tony Blair's Labour Party finished third in last week's U.K. local elections, finishing behind even the Liberal Party, the first time in memory that the ruling party in the U.K. has finished third in such elections. Ousted Labour party officeholders have blamed Labour's support of the Iraq war as the cause of their electoral misfortune.

The British people have spoken on the issue of Iraq. If polls here in the U.S. are any indication, we Americans will also repudiate the War criminals in our own country in November. Election day cannot come soon enough.

Refuting the Stupid Arguments of Your Wingnut Friends, Part IV

2004-06-11T14:06:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's time for another episode. Adam from Muncie, Indiana writes today:

"Goldstein, don't you think you're overplaying this whole Abu Ghraib thing? I mean really, so what if some Iraqis were made to stand or march around, or didn't get to bed on time? I'm sure it wasn't pleasant but come on, it's not torture!"

Thanks for writing Adam. I've received similar messages from many patriotic Americans, and I'd like to respond.

Adam, Sec. Rumsfeld approved a list of permissible interrogation tactics for use at the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba ("Camp X-Ray"). It has been determined that a similar list of interrogation tactics were posted in the wing at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad where many of the widely reported abuses of Iraqi detainees took place. These tactics included various forms of physical duress (standing or marching for long periods of time, sitting in uncomfortable or stressful positions, etc.), exposure to extreme heat or cold, and "dietary manipulation." It is difficult to know precisely what took place, because these clinical descriptions of approved tactics could cover a wide range of inhumane treatment. For example, the three tactics I've just cited - physical duress, extreme heat/cold and "dietary manipulation" - were sufficient to produce one of the most infamous and sadistic incidents of torture in history: the Bataan Death March.

Thousands of Americans and Phillipino soldiers died on a six-day march through the suffocating heat and searing sun of the Phillipines, denied food, generally denied water, and driven by their Japanese captors to march to the point of utter exhaustion. Many died from the hellish conditions alone; others that collapsed, still alive, were shot or bayoneted by Japanese soldiers. Accounts of many survivors describe such agony produced by the heat, hunger and exhaustion that they found themselves tempted to fall by the way and accept their fate at the end of a bayonet rather than continue.

Adam, we do not yet know all that took place at Abu Ghraib, but we must keep in mind that the tactics approved by the Pentagon, however harmless they may sound in the clinical tones of Pentagonese, could have been used to produce treatment so hellish and inhumane as to shock the conscience. The military has acknowledged that it is investigating more than three dozen deaths of Iraqi detainees under suspicious circumstances. Needless to say, if even one Abu Ghraib detainee (none of whom were terrorists according to the Pentagon) died from physical duress, extreme heat or cold, and/or "dietary manipulation", it is a stain upon everything that America stands for.

Neocon Incompetence Through The Decades

2004-06-11T12:27:00.000-04:00

John Patrick Diggins, in an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, supplies yet another reminder of how consistently wrong the neocons have been over the decades and across various foreign policy issues.

Mr. Diggins' recounts the dangerous policies espoused by the neocons during the Reagan administration, and offers reminders from George Schultz and Reagan himself of how the neocons could have screwed-up the ending of the cold war. One can go back even further, however, to the Ford administration to find the neocons already at work, preaching radical militarism as a solution to all of our problems.

Perle, Wolfowitz and other neocon artists were members of a "Team B" formed during the Ford administration to second-guess CIA assessments of the Soviet threat. "Team B" concluded that the CIA was vastly underestimating the size of the Soviet economy, the level of military spending and the Soviet capability to upgrade its missile systems. Information obtained following the end of the cold war conclusively established that the CIA in fact had overestimated Soviet capabilities in each instance. The CIA had been far off the mark, but Team B wasn't even in the right ballpark. Rather reminiscent of the neocon's assessment of the Iraqi threat, isn't it?

The neocons have only one policy: rampant U.S. militarism in service of a bullying foreign policy and an American empire. That was their policy in the Ford administration. That was their policy in the Reagan administration. That has been their policy in the Bush administration. The only difference now is that they finally have a president stupid enough to actually implement each of their maniacal proposals. Hence, the catastrophe in Iraq.

America's Gaza

2004-06-11T09:43:00.000-04:00

The Left Coaster today provides a link to a June 9th Financial Times article about U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor. It didn't have to be this way in Iraq, Col. Madgregor reminds us.

"We have people in special forces that know how to work with local populations. We could have adopted that particular model, opted for a very light presence, and focused our occupation largely on Baghdad, maintaining some mobile armoured reserves that could rapidly move in and crush any real resistance.

"But to conduct house-to-house searches, to conduct heavy-handed raids, to run checkpoints that were extremely humiliating, to arrest people in front of their families, put bags over their heads, handcuff them and treat them with extreme disregard for human dignity, was a serious mistake - and it was not necessary."

Isn't it obvious that we would have done things Col. Macgregor's way if our only intention had been to liberate Iraq? Isn't it equally obvious that we did things quite differently because the true intent of the White House and the Pentagon was to subjugate Iraq and maintain an indefinite occupation on the model of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

Pappas To Sanchez To Cambone To Rumsfeld To...

2004-06-11T07:11:00.000-04:00

This morning the Washington Post reports that the Military Intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib has told investigators that the use of unmuzzled dogs to terrorize detainees was approved by Col. Thomas Pappas, head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib. Pappas has informed investigators that the use of the dogs as approved by a two-star general. Two dog handlers have testified in sworn statements that military intelligence requested use the dogs in interrogations on multiple occasions. One of these statements is dated January 23, 2004, months before the Pentagon and White House claimed that the abuses were limited to "a few American troops."

The Washington Post report follows yesterday's report by the Wall Street Journal that a Pentagon memorandum corroborates that Rumsfeld personally authorized abusive interrogation tactics at Guantanamo in December 2002, tactics very similar to those subsequently employed at Abu Ghraib, and that after only one month certain of these tactics were banned following complaints from military officers regarding the severity of the tactics.

When did the Deserter become aware that the highest echelons of the military command at Abu Ghraib had been implicated? Was he aware of it prior to May 24, 2004 when he referred, in a speech to the nation, to "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops"? Didn't the President have an obligation to learn of the potential extent of the military's involvement in the Abu Ghraib abuses before falsely assuring the American people that no more than a "few American troops" were involved? Who advised the Deserter that he could make this claim in his speech? Was that person aware the investigations had already implicated the top military command at Abu Ghraib?

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Cambone must resign today. And then the entire nation will take care of Bush and Cheney on November 2, 2004.

Ray Charles

2004-06-10T16:02:00.000-04:00

Ray Charles died today. He was a giant of American popular music. His rendition of "America the Beautiful" made me cry each time I heard it for months following 9/11. More recently I get angry when I listen to his rendition thinking of how this country has been shamed by our leaders.

He made his mark in R&B. He played jazz. He rocked. He sang the blues. He even did country. He no sooner explored a new genre than he redefined it. He was a protean musical figure of almost unimaginable breadth.

Goodbye, Ray.

The Incredible Shrinking President

2004-06-10T13:36:00.000-04:00

Oliphant's latest cartoon shrinks the Deserter even further. Jimmy Carter was never so miniscule.

Meanwhile, Chip Bok also notes the puniness of our chief executive.

Further in the vein of the Diminishing Deserter is Ron Reagan's observation regarding the lack of heft in the Oval Office: "My father was a man - that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

Well put, Ron.

NATO To Deserter: "Iraq Is Your Problem"

2004-06-10T09:42:00.000-04:00

NATO's brushoff can't come as a surprise, even to one as dull-witted as the Deserter. After all, the Deserter has been telling our NATO allies to pound sand for two years. Remember "old Europe"? Remember "cheese-eaters" and "chocolate makers"?

The Deserter's desperate shift in Iraq policy in recent weeks, a virtual wholesale adoption of Kerry's Iraq policy, leaves voters with the question of which man is better able to implement that policy.

Which man is better able to enlist the support and aid of our allies in Iraq? One candidate has consistently emphasized the need for international support. The other candidate ridiculed our allies, bullied them, threatened U.S. reprisals for their ambivalence about our Iraq policy, and ultimately decided to go it alone.

Republicans, seemingly oblivious to the implications of their arguments, have been gleefully proclaiming the similarity of the Kerry and Bush Iraq policies. To the extent this policy is based on broadening international support, there is simply no rationale for voting for the man who is more mistrusted and despised by our allies than any president in our history.

For Whom The Polls Toll

2004-06-10T09:31:00.000-04:00

They toll for thee, Deserter.

The L.A. Times poll has Kerry in front, 51% to 44%. The poll was conducted Saturday through Tuesday, yet there is no apparent bounce for the Deserter from the Gipper's passing, despite the best graverobbing efforts of the Bush/Cheney campaign.

Fret not, my republican friends. If Reagan's death doesn't give the Deserter's campaign a jolt, there's still two more former republican Presidents extant who could suffer a timely demise.

Dr. Mengele Would Be Proud

2004-06-09T10:14:00.000-04:00

I have read the March 2003 "torture memo" requisitioned by Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II. Anyone familiar with Hannah Arendt's observations regarding the "banality of evil" will find this memo a most chilling document.

To begin with, the memo is a pernicious exercise insofar as it doesn't even attempt to argue that torture is permitted under applicable international law or U.S. law, but rather argues that the President can do whatever the hell he wants, international law be damned, and anyone else can violate international law and even U.S. anti-torture statutes as long as they are following the orders of their commander-in-chief. It's your basic "this is how you can violate the law and avoid prosecution" primer.

I'll dispense with any analysis of the "international law be damned" argument in the memo; it would be a mere cavil to invoke international law against torture in Iraq when the very invasion of Iraq flagrantly flouted international law.

The memo begins with an analysis of various international and U.S. anti-torture laws, including pertinent provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The typically sterile language of legal analysis is indeed unsettling in a discussion of torture, but it isn't until the third section of the memo, captioned "Legal doctrines under the Federal Criminal Law that could render specific conduct, otherwise unlawful, not unlawful," that the memo veers into a legal and moral twilight zone.

I'll spare you the analytical gymnastics, which even by legal standards are, forgive the pun, tortured. Briefly, the memo argues that the President is bound only by federal law, not by international law, and that even federal law does not proscribe the President's exercise of his powers as commander-in-chief. "Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield," the memo states. The memo then finds that federal criminal law that prohibits torture is thwarted if the torture is committed upon the orders of the commander-in-chief.

This is the most startling aspect of the memorandum, that it plainly fails a fundamental test of legal argument: its reasoning ineluctably leads to absurd results, or as one my law school professors would say, a "parade of horribles." The more complex legal arguments are, the more abstract the fundamental legal underpinnings of the argument, the more necessary it is to run an example through the reasoning and see what comes out the other end. This exercise frequently reveals that ostensibly reasonable and even elegant briefs "prove too much" and thereby prove nothing at all. For instance, a legal brief that argues for exculpation of a murder given a particular set of facts is defective if it similarly exculpates all murders and therefore nullifies murder statutes.

This particular memorandum fails what I'll refer to as the "Mengele test": would notorious Nazi torture doctor Josef Mengele be guilty under U.S. law if his sadistic medical "experiments" had been undertaken pursuant to orders? The unmistakable answer in the torture memo is "no, as long as the orders originated with the commander-in-chief." I think most Americans would be startled to realize that the Nazis' "I was only following orders" defense is an effective defense here in the Land of Liberty, and yet that is precisely the conclusion of the torture memo.

The memo, or more precisely the requisitioning of the memo by the Bush administration, fails a second Mengele test, as well: it cloaks perfidy in the perverted practice of an honorable profession. Mengele tortured, no matter the ridiculous claims of medical experimentation. Similarly, this memorandum, for all of its citations of law and invocation of legal principles, seeks only to justify torture. Dr. Mengele would be proud.

This memo can't be pinned on six or seven naive kids plucked out of their homes and families and unceremoniously dumped into the grotesque Iraqi funhouse of violence and sadism. This memo can't be dismissed as the musings of a mid-level bureaucrat. This memo was prepared by a committee appointed by the general counsel to the Defense Department, a man who worked closely with neocon criminal Doug Feith to subvert protections against the U.S. torture of detainees, and the conclusions in the memorandum neatly rationalize the very interrogation abuses that came to pass at Abu Ghraib.

This memorandum is the scandal. This memorandum is what should send a shiver down the spine of every American. It's time to stop feeling smug about ourselves and realize that there is no system, no form of government, no constitution that guarantees against the defiling of a nation by its own leaders. There is only the dedication of the people to constitutional and democratic principles that can defend against the criminality of its leaders. And this is what is so scary. Because it is already apparent that a substantial portion of the American people are willing to throw all of our principles and freedoms into the fucking toilet the moment an unprincipled administration shouts "terrorism."

Kerry Galluping Away With Race

2004-06-08T11:59:00.000-04:00

The latest Gallup Poll has Kerry in front 50% to 44% among likely voters, and 49% to 43% when Nader is included. This lead is, as they say, statistically significant.

What is really significant, however, is that the Deserter has not yet suffered the consequences of any of the pending investigations: the Plame outing, Abu Ghraib, and the Chalabi espionage scandal. He has spent tens of millions of ad dollars spreading brazen lies about John Kerry and has little or nothing to show for it. Iraq shows no sign of stabilizing, and continued chaos means that there will inevitably be a clash between the new, interim Iraqi government and the U.S. military, a confrontation that will reveal the June 30th handoff as a fraud.

Don't forget, a desperate Deserter, urged on by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon criminal gang, will not hesitate to fabricate "security threats," instigate war with Syria or send the entire middle-east up in flames if any of these options promise a political payoff. We must be vigilant.