Researchers at University College London spent three years compiling a searchable listing of thousands of people who received compensation for loss of their "possessions" when slave ownership was outlawed by Britain in 1833.About 46,000 people were paid a total of 20 million pounds - the equivalent of 40 percent of all annual government spending at the time - after the freeing of slaves in British colonies in the Caribbean, Mauritius and southern Africa.

"This is a huge bailout," said Keith McClelland, a research associate on the project. "Relatively speaking, it is bigger than the bailout of the bankers in recent years."

Compensation for slave-owners was opposed by some abolitionists, who argued it was immoral, but it was approved as the political price of getting the 1833 abolition bill passed.

The database includes details on the 3,000 compensated slave owners who lived in Britain - rather than its colonies - and includes the ancestors of several present-day politicians and the writers Graham Greene and George Orwell. Orwell's real name was Eric Blair, and the trustees of his great-grandfather, Charles Blair, were paid 4,442 pounds for 218 slaves on a plantation in Jamaica...

THE DOG IS STILL REFUSING TO BE WAGGED 10-31-02

I'm having an awfully busy day today. It's time for the second"blue book festival" of the year, my parents are coming to visit this weekend, my kids are going trick-or-treating tonight, you name it. Regardless, I feel compelled to comment on some recent events. Bear with me. This may take a bit of time.

I'm happy to report that, despite W's best efforts, the dog is refusing to be wagged regarding Iraq. This poll shows what many other public polls are showing, which is rapidly dropping public support for military action against Iraq. It's now barely a majority and if you ask Americans if they support action against Iraq without the support of allies (which is how we're going to have to do it folks), the support drops to a tad over one in four, only 27%.

While the" conventional wisdom" in Washington is that the Iraq war issue has saved the Republicans from defeat in the midterms,"running out the clock" on the election so to speak, I'm not really sure that's the case. In fact, what many in the press are just beginning to realize is that Iraq is not on most people's radar screens at the moment, the economy is. In fact, many reporters are suddenly reporting that Iraq has completely disappeared as a campaign issue over the last couple of weeks.

I suspect Karl Rove and the Republican political"braintrust" must be pretty dumbfounded right now -- and a little desperate. I suspect that's why we're hearing about Republican intimidation of voters in some states (such as South Dakota, Michigan, Arkansas, and my own state of Missouri) right now -- that's a sure sign of desperation. The histrionics (see below) of the Republican right-wing grief police also are a sign of desperation as well. They're seeking traction on anything -- and they're not getting it. In fact, I would suggest you read this story from the Daily Howler if you want to learn more about the machinations of the Republican grief police and how the media in Washington is just eating it up. I suspect the Republicans have realized the war isn't doing it for them and that it's too late to pretend they've done anything about the economy over the last few months. This is what desperation looks like my friends. Enjoy it.

I would also caution you to pay little or no attention to the beltway punditry with regard to the midterms. They have so badly botched the last two of them in 1998 and 1994 that you can't believe their predictions anymore. If the beltway pundits were right, Tom Foley never would've lost the speaker's seat in 1994 and Democrats would've just lost a few seats, but not their house majority, to Newt Gingrich and his"Contract on America." In 1998, these pundits also told us that Republicans were going to gain bigtime from American outrage over Clinton's sexual pecaddiloes. They didn't. In fact, the Republicans lost seats. Newtie, who was carrying on with his own 20ish girlfriend at the time, resigned just a few weeks later.

The beltway press doesn't really cover the news much anymore folks, they just repeat what the pundits tell them. It is best if you pay little attention to them. That's one of the reasons that the internet is so useful. You can hear about things outside the beltway and actually learn something rather than hear the same tired -- and often inaccurate -- beltway wisdom from the punditry repeated ad nauseum as"political analysis."

Most Americans, I'm happy to say, have apparently seen through the Iraq charade for what it is: merely an attempt to wag the dog. And the dog is refusing to be wagged. Most Americans know that the administration is really stretching the truth with regard to Iraq. Most Americans would love it if Saddam, a monster of our own creation, would disappear tomorrow. Who wouldn't? However, Americans know when they're being misled. They know that Iraq is not a" clear and present danger" that must be dealt with right now. They know that, if Saddam really were that big of a threat, W wouldn't be off campaigning for three weeks straight, he'd stay in Washington.

Americans also know that this war is an unnecessary one. Containment of Saddam has worked for the last ten years and will certainly work for a bit longer. Because of this, they know that action against Iraq will needlessly cost the lives of Americans. They also know that if Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction (and the administration still hasn't made a very good case for this yet), he'll certainly use them against us if we invade. Americans also know a war against Iraq will actually make all of us less safe from terrorism not more. It will actually increase the chances of terrorism against Americans here and worldwide. They also are aware that a war against Iraq will destabilize the region and might not lead to a more peaceful Iraq or Middle East for that matter.

In short, Americans know they're being sold a bill of goods and they're simply not buying it.

So, what this means is that the midterms may not play out the way the pundits are telling you. Of course, the biggest problem with all of this is that" conventional wisdom" often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's all people hear. And at this point it is all that we're hearing on the news. However, I think the people may surprise the punditry this time, just as they did in the midterms in 1994 and 1998. With the beltway punditry's recent track record, I've actually come to expect it. Hang in there folks. It could be interesting. Now don't get me wrong. I don't expect earth-shattering stuff but, at the very least, I do expect some upsets in gubernatorial races and I expect the Democrats to hold the senate.

Of course, we'll see in just a few days. Then we can all get back to political life as normal. Don't be surprised if the war rhetoric virtually disappears after next Tuesday -- and then you'll know this was really all about the midterms and little else.

I do want to remind you that I'm not a pundit and my opinion carries no more weight than the next guy. These are just my observations. We'll see if I'm right.

Update:Daily Kos has a good post on Get-Out-the-Vote efforts and their impact on election day which is another element that is often forgotten by the Washington media. This also provides me with more hope for election day as well.

Posted by Tom at 12:03 p.m. CST

ELEANOR CLIFT ON W'S LIES AND MACHINATIONS 10-30-02

Eleanor Clift has a good column today on how W gets away with lying so often -- more so than Clinton actually. But you and I knew that. Here's a bit of it:

Compared with taking the country to war based on a body of lies, Bush’s duplicity on domestic issues doesn’t seem as egregious, but the pattern is disturbing. On the budget, he has managed (or mismanaged) the biggest fiscal reversal in the country’s history. Part of the loss of revenue is the result of 9-11 and the recession, but Bush has totally abdicated his responsibility in steering the country out of the financial mess. His response is to gloss over the $300 billion loss from the balance sheet, pick a fight with Congress over a symbolic $13 billion appropriations bill and then claim he’s fiscally responsible. “They see the rhetoric obscuring the reality, and it angers them,” says Mann.

There is hardly an issue where Bush hasn’t pulled a fast one. The rules he announced with great fanfare this week to make it easier to move generic drugs onto the market were passed by the Senate in July. Bush opposed them then; now with polls showing voters think he hasn’t done enough on domestic issues, he’s flipped.

How does he get away with such crass duplicity? The media doesn’t want to disturb the story line. Gore was the prevaricator; Bush was intellectually challenged. So when Bush fiddles with the facts, the media doesn’t see malevolence. They see a man who’s not articulate, who doesn’t speak with lawyerly precision. And they can’t believe how believable he is.

What I love is the fact that when W lies, W's protectors in the media make excuses for him. We hear how he just misspoke or that he's too ignorant to know the truth or that he's not"detail-oriented" or that he's given to"flights of fancy." Folks, he's lying and he knows he's lying. He may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but he knows when he's telling a whopper, believe me.

Posted by Tom at 3:38 p.m. CST

MORE HUCK NEWS 10-30-02

Huck's job approval numbers are plummeting according to the Arkansas Poll. They've dropped 20 points since last year to just under 50%. Sounds like an incumbent that's about to go down to me.

The television media is picking the Dumond story up. Here are stories by Kark-TV and KATV in Little Rock. (These links via the Daily Kos)

The Arkansas press is also slowly picking this story up. Here's a news story about it from the Donrey News Bureau in Little Rock about it.

Since the jerks at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette won't allow you access to their stories (sounds like a bunch of Republican editors to me), I haven't been able to find much else. I'm still hoping to find some quotations from Joe Quinn, Huckabee's spokesman, who has, according to my sources, been making a fool of himself the last couple of days. You know, I don't think Quinn has much of a future at this point. He was a TV journalist but now that he's proven himself to be little better than a shill, I'm expecting him to put his skills to work running for office soon.

I'm told that Quinn is calling this story simply partisan politics and uses that to deflect all questions about the story. In fact, Quinn even goes so far as to say that"The Governor is very comfortable that he did not unduly influence the board." Go read the story again. At the very least he"unduly influenced" the board. Also, the idea that this story isn't credible is a real load of mularkey, since it only cites four of the five parole board members, three of them on the record.

Also, I wanted to mention that Jeralyn at Talkleft has begun to look into the Wayne Dumond case as well.

I do want to make something clear though. By talking about this, in no way am I endorsing the castration of Wayne Dumond in Forrest City in 1985. That was awful and barbaric. My parents later lived there and heard all sorts of local legends on this.

This story is important because, like the Noelle Bush story, it exposes the hypocrisy of"law and order" Republicans like Jeb and Huck. These guys talk a big game but, when in power, make notable exceptions for their own family members and those whom they're sure have been framed by their political opponents -- despite, in this case, the fact that juries have already rendered their verdict in the matter.

Also, see this Atrios post for much more on the Dumond case as yet another of the ubiquitous and groundless"Clinton Scandals."

Posted by Tom at 1:10 p.m. CST

GET THIS 10-30-02

I'm with Atrios, I don't know what to make of this either:

As far as the nation knows, President Bush does not keep a Richard Nixon-style"enemies list." If he did, though, Gabe Hudson might well be on it.

Hudson's new collection of short stories,"Dear Mr. President" (Knopf, $19), has made him a favorite of book critics, fellow writers and lots of readers. But the book, it seems, has had the opposite effect on the commander in chief.

If Hudson is telling the truth - and there's no reason to think he isn't - Bush recently sent the young author a two-paragraph note, complete with his own review of"Dear Mr. President."

"I was in shock. Very surprised," Hudson said Tuesday."I didn't think it was real at first. I mean, who would? But once you hold the thing and read it, there's no doubt in your mind. I mean, nobody could fake the authority of that letter."

Bush's missive, however, was not fan mail.

"The letter began by thanking me for sending the book," Hudson said."Also, I'm from Austin, Texas, and the president touched on the fact that I was a fellow Texan, congratulating me on my book. But he was setting me up for the one-two punch. Because he called the book unpatriotic and ridiculous and just plain bad writing. Beyond that, I've been instructed not to talk about the contents of the letter for the time being."

Shouldn't W have better things to do with his time? I mean, we all know unca Dick is running the country but sending hate mail to people is awfully juvenile and thin-skinned, isn't it?

Posted by Tom at 10:20 a.m. CST

BUSH WARNED BY HARKEN LAWYERS THAT 1990 STOCK SALE COULD BE CONSIDERED INSIDER TRADING 10-30-02

A story in the Boston Globe this morning raises serious questions about the seriousness of the SEC investigation into Bush's Harken stock sale. In fact, the company's own lawyers warned him that it could be considered insider trading. Here's a bit of the story:

One week before George W. Bush's now-famous sale of stock in Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Harken was warned by its lawyers that Bush and other members of the troubled oil company's board faced possible insider trading risks if they unloaded their shares.

The warning from Harken's lawyers came in a legal memorandum whose existence has been little noted until now, despite the many years of scrutiny of the Bush transaction. The memo was not received by the Securities and Exchange Commission until the day after the agency decided not to bring insider-trading charges against Bush, documents show.

The memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, does not say directly whether Bush would face legal problems if he sold his stock. But it does lay out the potential for insider-trading violations by Bush and other members of the Harken board, and its existence raises questions about how thoroughly the SEC investigated Bush's unloading of $848,000 of his Harken stake to a buyer whose name has not been made public.

The SEC cleared Bush after looking into whether he had insider knowledge of an upcoming quarterly loss at Harken. But the SEC investigation apparently never examined a key issue raised in the memo: whether Bush's insider knowledge of a plan to rescue the company from financial collapse by spinning off two troubled units was a factor in his decision to sell.

Let's see. Tens of millions spent investigating Whitewater but this doesn't deserve any attention or investigation? Nah. Of course not.

Update:Hesiod has a good post on this as well. BTW, Hesiod fingered the mystery buyer of Harken's stock a few months ago as well.

Posted by Tom at 9:22 a.m. CST

THE RIGHT WING GRIEF POLICE 10-30-02

Boy, isn't it interesting how the right wingers are just apoplectic over the fact that Wellstone's funeral became a joyous, campaign-like event? I know it's sour grapes because they know their boy Coleman is done now but isn't it amazing that folks whose party cynically uses terrorism, war, and fear to build support get a little bent out of shape when someone laughs at a memorial service?

In fact, one of the more embarassing performances in the blogosphere has been Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit. Of course, I'll admit that the more I blog the less I read Glenn and the more amateurish and biased toward the right he seems. Glenn certainly wins the race for being prolific but that's about it. If you want quantity, go there. Quality...well, go somewhere else I've discovered.

Anyway, several bloggers have already taken off on this, most notably Leanleft, Atrios, and Hesiod at Counterspin. I won't add much more except to say that what you're seeing is Republicans beginning to see their hopes in the midterms for the Senate melt away -- and they're venting about it. All the rest is just a facade. They're beaten, they know it, and they're pissed about it.

Posted by Tom at 8:42 a.m. CST

ANNOUNCING THE DAILY KOS 10-29-02

I wanted to draw attention to the addition of the Daily Kos to the blogroll.

I also want to take this opportunity to welcome visitors today from The Daily Kos and Atrios as well. I hope you like what you see and come back for more.

Posted by Tom at 3:43 p.m. CST

THE HUCK IS IN TROUBLE 10-29-02

For those of you that follow Arkansas politics (okay, I know that just made 99% of you yawn), this story is a political blockbuster. The Arkansas Times has now uncovered just how Mike Huckabee got convicted rapist Wayne Dumond paroled from prison in 1997. Dumond later allegedly committed a murder in Missouri in 2000. Huck has been trying to shift blame for the release ever since Dumond was arrested for the murder in 2001. Huck can shift blame no longer. Many folks in Arkansas had their suspicions but now the Times has confirmed that Huck was behind it.

This is big news in Arkansas folks -- and it may cost Huck his re-election. It was already VERY close. I can't help but think this will also affect Senator Tim Hutchinson's chances of re-election as well. Many Arkansans may desire to vote against both of these Republican hypocrites at the same time now.

Posted by Tom at 11:29 a.m. CST

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AT A NINE-YEAR LOW 10-29-02

Consumer confidence is not looking good -- sounds like a recession to me. Thanks W. Expect more"trifective" (and deflective) war talk soon. Eventually, though, the economy is going to catch up to W and the Republicans. It may on November 5th. We'll see.

Posted by Tom at 11:10 a.m. CST

NEWTIE"CAPTAIN HYPOCRISY" GINGRICH LEADS THE CHARGE AGAINST MONDALE 10-29-02

One of the leading political hypocrites of our time, Newt Gingrich is leading the charge against Walter Mondale and -- surprise, surprise -- he is lying his ass off to do it.

Anyone else find it odious that Gingrich, the fellow who put the"h" in hypocrisy is smearing Mondale? I mean, for God's sake, he assaulted Clinton for his dalliances while at the same time this married"family values" conservative was carrying on with a 20ish staffer for years that was about the same age as Monica Lewinsky. I mean, Newtie, I'm sorry you've been disgraced and you're out of politics but don't get all righteous about anything. We all know you are a liar and a hypocrite. Most Americans are done with you -- for very good reason.

Newtie, you represent what is the worst about our entire political system, the spinning, bought-and-paid-for, money-grubbing, immoral, lying politician that wouldn't know the truth if it struck him upside the head. You shouldn't sully the reputation of Walter Mondale, a guy who's got more honor and integrity in his pinkie finger than you've got in your entire body.

Okay. I'm done.

Update:Josh Marshall has a good post on this as well.

Posted by Tom at 9:34 a.m. CST

KRUGMAN'S WELLSTONE COLUMN 10-29-02

Paul Krugman has a good column about Paul Wellstone this morning. Here's a bit of it:

Paul Wellstone took risks. He was, everyone acknowledges, a politician who truly voted his convictions, who supported what he thought was right, not what he thought would help him get re-elected. He took risky stands on many issues: agree or disagree, you have to admit that his vote against authorization for an Iraq war was a singularly brave act. Yet the most consistent theme in his record was economic — his courageous support for the interests of ordinary Americans against the growing power of our emerging plutocracy.

In our money-dominated politics, that's a dangerous position to take. When Mr. Wellstone first ran for the Senate, his opponent outspent him seven to one. According to one of his advisers, the success of that ramshackle campaign, run from a rickety green school bus,"made politics safe for populists again."

If only. Almost every politician in modern America pretends to be a populist; indeed, it's a general rule that the more slavishly a politician supports the interests of wealthy individuals and big corporations, the folksier his manner. But being a genuine populist, someone who really tries to stand up against what Mr. Wellstone called"Robin Hood in reverse" policies, isn't easy: you must face the power not just of money, but of sustained and shameless hypocrisy.

I wonder who he's talking about in the last paragraph? I can't tell. Have you got a guess? It's a good column. Go read it.

Posted by Tom at 9:22 a.m. CST

BOROWITZ DOES IT AGAIN 10-29-02

Andy Borowitz does it again:

DEMOCRATS FIGHT TO RETAIN CONTROL OF SENATE'S RUBBER STAMP

Election May Determine Which Party Will Give Carte Blanche to President

As the days until the midterm elections dwindle, Democratic leaders fanned out across the country to remind the party faithful what is at stake: the right to rubber-stamp anything the President wants to do.

"Your votes have never been more important," Majority Leader Tom Daschle exhorted a Democratic rally in Springfield, Illinois today."Only you can decide whether Democrats continue to rubber-stamp the President's policies, or whether the Republicans get to do it."

With national polls showing Democrats and Republicans in a dead heat, control of the Senate's coveted rubber stamp is hanging in the balance, political observers say.

"The key question is, with so many grave threats facing the country right now, whom do the voters trust more with the Senate's rubber stamp?" says Dr. Irvin Koontz of the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Koontz points to a recent survey that asked likely voters the question,"Which party do you think is better equipped to approve all of the President's proposals, Democrats or Republicans?"

Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed favored the Democrats, while another thirty-nine percent chose the Republicans as the party better qualified to let the President do whatever he wants to do.

But a wildcard may have emerged in this high-stakes political battle, as third-party standard-bearer Ralph Nader urged his supporters today to support the"spoiler or crackpot" candidate in every local race come Election Day.

"Voting for crackpot losers is the only way we can ensure that control of the Senate's rubber stamp falls into the wrong hands," Mr. Nader said.

As I've said before, good satire is often pretty close to the truth, eh? Although I would argue that the Democratic Senate is an important check on W, even if it isn't as vigilant as many of us would like it to be.

Posted by Tom at 7:52 a.m. CST

WHAT IS THE VEILED PROFIT, ER, PROPHET? 10-28-02

I've gotten a couple of e-mails asking about my Veiled Prophet book. I don't know that I can easily summarize the book in a couple of sentences, but here's a link to an interview with me by the St. Louis Riverfront Times a couple of years ago that gives you a fair sense of what the book is about.

If, after reading this story, you have any further questions, feel free to e-mail me.

Posted by Tom at 3:21 p.m. CST

"TRIFECTIVE" 10-28-02

Hesiod has a new phrase to add to the American lexicon:

PHRASEOLOGICAL UPDATE:"Trifective." A tragic confluence, or series of occurrences, that positively [a]ffect one's flagging political standing.

Unfortunately, the trifective, while it has been great for W, has been terrible for the rest of us, huh?

Posted by Tom at 1:16 p.m. CST

JOE CONASON: WELLSTONE AND POLITICAL ANACHRONISM 10-28-02

Joe Conason's blog entry is good today. He believes he may have mispoken on Friday when he called Wellstone's politics"anachronistic." Here's a quote:

Whatever his flaws, Wellstone was considerably more progressive and forward-looking than the truly anachronistic elements in American politics – meaning those who prefer Fifties sex roles, closeted gays, creationism and prayer in the schoolhouse, an underclass with no social safety net, industries unfettered by environmental regulation, blacks and other minorities unprotected by civil rights laws, and a gunboat foreign policy that exalts weapons over human rights and diplomacy. It is the hard right that wants to return to the bad old days, though its backwardness is often dressed up as the latest Washington fad. Always standing in their way for the past decade was Wellstone, modern American and son of the Sixties, with a defiant smile on his face.

It's a good entry. Conason also talks about the smear campaign already under way against Fritz Mondale. Take a look.

Posted by Tom at 12:54 p.m. CST

MOLLY IVINS IS ON TARGET 10-28-02

Here's a good Molly Ivins column from Friday. I'll give you a quote from it:

Now that you are in practice on the Red Queen program, join us for the latest fiasco in corporate reform. In those dear, dead days of last summer, Bush appeared on Wall Street standing before a blue and white backdrop on which"Corporate Responsibility" and"A New Ethic" were printed over and over — in case we should miss the point of his speech. President W. was there in his incarnation as the Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior to read the riot act to corporate executives who do terrible things — like get insider loans, dump their stock when the company is tanking and do phony transactions to take heavy losses off the books.

For those us who had followed Bush's career at Harken Energy — Enron writ small — this was merely an average Red Queen morning. Hey, times change, the guy was the executive of an energy company bleeding money way back when, why shouldn't he get out while the getting was good? Now we have"a new ethic."

In that same speech, to show his zeal for going after corporate evil-doers, Bush asked for a nice round $100 million in additional funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except the New Ethic didn't last very long. Didn't even survive the election, and I think Bush deserves credit on this point. Any posturing politician could have stuck with corporate reform until after the election was over; it takes cojones to drop the whole thing two weeks before the election. That, or someone who thinks the American people are deeply stupid.

W certainly has shown he no longer cares at all about corporate reform -- not that I think he ever really did in the first place. He was just posturing because he thought it would have a political payoff for him. Now that W thinks everyone is distracted by the war, he's decided to essentially scuttle these rather minor initiatives so he won't have to upset big-money donors to Republican campaign coffers after all.

Posted by Tom at 10:27 a.m. CST

TODAY'S LINKS AND SARCASM 10-28-02

Hesiod adequately expresses my thoughts on how the righty bloggers that are defending the Russian government's disastrous effort to end the hostage crisis in Moscow have lost their moral authority to lecture opponents of the war in Iraq. I can't believe how Glenn Reynolds tries to put a positive spin on what was clearly a disaster. It's interesting to watch the right cozy up to yet another authoritarian leader, huh? Now that the Russian leader isn't a communist, everything he does is okay because he's our guy. Frightening (and rather amoral) approach to foreign policy, eh? Welcome to Republican foreign policy folks. Get used to it.

Josh Marshall has an excellent post about the race for the Senate -- he's predicting the Democrats will hold it. I hope he's right. I've seen tape of Jean's tongue-lashing of Jim Talent for questioning her patriotism in a very nasty commercial he's running right now. This one moment may very well have turned this race around. We'll see. As I said earlier, it will all likely depend on turnout in KC and St. Louis.

In other news related to this campaign, Jim Talent's father died over the weekend. That's very sad news. My condolences to Jim Talent and his family.

Chuck Kuffner has an interesting analysis about hispanic voter turnout and its impact on the senate and gubernatorial races in Texas. He's wondering if the"experts" will be wrong about this one. We can only hope.

Oh this is tacky -- but it's worth every minute just to hear Ashcroft's rendition of"The Mighty Eagle Soars." I also enjoy the commentary that runs along with the song as well.

Oh heck, while I'm at it, watch this (also tacky) video about Republican chickenhawks too. It's awfully entertaining.

I will warn you though. These videos are just a tad partisan.

Posted by Tom at 9:24 a.m. CST

LYING ABOUT SEX OR LYING ABOUT WAR -- WHICH IS WORSE? 10-28-02

Paul Begala's letter to the editor in the Washington Post this morning is quite good. I'll quote it for you:

I know something about defending a president who's been caught lying. Let me tell my friend Ari Fleischer that he's only making things worse for President Bush. After The Post reported on Mr. Bush's many fabrications regarding Iraq and homeland security, Mr. Fleischer sent a letter to the editor in which he refers to President Clinton's false denial of an affair as a" crime that shook the nation" [Oct. 24].

The lawyer in me is compelled to point out that President Clinton has never been charged with nor convicted of a crime. The same cannot be said of President George W. Bush who, of course, was convicted of drunken driving many years ago. To his shame, in the 2000 campaign Mr. Bush falsely denied ever having been convicted of a crime.

The political veteran in me knows that lying about a long-past drunken driving conviction -- or an affair -- is understandable, if not excusable. What is not excusable is misleading the country -- repeatedly, as The Post and others have noted -- about going to war. There is something odd about a White House that thinks misleading people about sex is a crime, but misleading us about war is good public policy.

PAUL E. BEGALA

McLean

(Link via Atrios)

I believe Mr. Begala hits the nail on the head. I'll add nothing.

Posted by Tom at 8:58 a.m. CST

CONSPIRACY THEORIES 10-27-02

I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around today about Senator Paul Wellstone's plane crash. Atrios (Eschaton) has an excellent post today about this sort of thing. I'll quote part of it:

Conspiracy theories are always directed against those in power (or those imagined to be in power occasionally). During the Clinton years, conspiracy theories ranging from Bill Clinton tied up LAX for two hours to get a hair cut to Hillary"The Lesbian" Clinton had her ex-lover Vince Foster killed to Bill Clinton ran a cocaine smuggling operation through Mena airport didn't just occupy the excitable partisans of the internet. In fact, they were a regular staple of mainstream newspapers media outlets - print, television, and radio. From the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to the New York Times front page to Inside Politics on CNN to, of course, the Rusty Limbaugh show, with an audience probably larger than the rest combined.

It wasn't just the media, either. I forget - how many separate congressional investigations of Vince Foster's death were there, complete with amateur ballistics tests by Congressman Dan dan the Watermelon Man?

So, when a few inhabitants of internet message boards get a bit suspicious about the death of a Democratic Senator, I don't want to hear generalizations about the paranoid left. I've been listening to the paranoid right and its conspiracy theories in mainstream media for years. Part of the reason those on the left are a bit paranoid now, aside from the fact The Other Side is in power now, is that the mainstream media has by and large failed to aggressively follow up on the many potential 'conspiracies' of this administration, as well as the very real conspiracies against the last one.

Besides, it was about one year ago that two prominent Democratic senators survived assasination attempts by someone who likely had access to the bioweapons program of our military. Still unsolved. Political assasinations - whether done by disgruntled 'lone gunmen' unconnected to the political power structure or done at the behest of those in power, directly or indirectly, are not of course impossible.

Am I saying I think Dick Cheney used his mind control powers to down Paul Wellstone's plane? Of course not. Probably the plane hit bad weather and crashed. Do I respect people who jump to conclude that the Bush administration is repsonsible for this? No. Do I condemn people who harbor a few cynical suspcions? Of course not. Nor should you.

Amen.

Does anyone remember all the loony things the righties used to say about Clinton and how the press took off on these wild goose chases with abandon? Whitewater? Vince Foster? The Mena Conspiracy? It all seems so ridiculous now but there were Republicans who believed this stuff and reporters that chased after it. And after the tens of millions of dollars spent by Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife and the millions of gallons of ink spilled, all they found was that Clinton lied about sex -- not about something job-related like W does several times per day right now. In my childhood home of Arkansas, it was obvious that you could tell those New York Times reporters anything, no matter how wild, and they'd believe it. Heck, just to provide one example, the Paula Jones thing was an obvious fabrication to those who know much about the facts of that day and were with Bill Clinton. Her story simply doesn't check out with the known facts at all.

What a change a few years makes. Heck, nowadays we can't get the media to fact-check the president's speeches, which are often filled with exaggerations, half-truths and, occasionally, outright lies. Strangely enough, the same Republicans that fed those conspiracy theories in the 1990s are conspicuously quiet about even the most obvious stuff regarding their guy right now. These Republicans told us back in the 1990s they were only interested in the truth, right?

Right.

Posted by Tom at 2:08 p.m. CST

SOME LINKS (WITH OCCASIONAL SARCASM) 10-27-02

The A.L. has posted a response to me. I have nothing to add. I didn't realize I was an elitist though. I don't think he and I communicate well I guess.

Here's a USA Today editorial about W's cooking the intelligence books.

It's looking like Mondale will replace Wellstone.

There was a protest against the war in Washington and San Francisco yesterday -- not that you probably knew anything about it.

Hey, if you can't help out your brother with your family's lucrative brand of crony capitalism, what kind of brother are you?

Mary McGrory writes a good column on W's part-time presidency this morning. There's supposed to be a war on soon but W isn't in Washington enough to play a role in it, is he? Come to think of it, I'm not sure that isn't a good thing.

Posted by Tom at 12:33 p.m. CST

SOME LINKS OF NOTE TODAY 10-26-02

It's my wife's birthday today. We're old. For the next week, we're both 34. Next week I'll turn the big 3-5. Anyway, I'll be busy with the festivities today.

However, there are a few things I should mention this morning.

I have yet to see anything that contradicts that W said the words in last night's post. If you look at the source news story from the Austin American-Statesman, it unambiguously attributes the quote to W. I'm quite happy to retract it if someone can show me a reliable source (not the frequently-heavily-doctored White House transcripts either) that attributes the quote to Jemin or that what W said was somehow different. I have yet to see one -- and I've looked quite a bit.

Update: I retract the quotation. I have just removed the offending post. Counterspin has been right on top of this today I discovered. I was one of scores of folks in the blogosphere that jumped on this quotation and the Austin-American Statesman was simply wrong. You can go here and watch the video of the statement to confirm the White House's account if you want. This administration so frequently doctors transcripts that you can't really trust them unless there's tape to back it up. There is in this case.

Update 2: For you skeptics out there (I've gotten a couple of e-mails already), the specific link you want from the C-Span website is here. I should've been more specific in my earlier update. Hey, I'm glad you want to check this out! I had to watch it myself too. Unlike many conservative Republicans who willfully misquote and distort the words of their opponents on a daily basis, I am interested in being entirely accurate in my quotations. There were so many examples of this during the 2000 presidential campaign I lost count. I mean, I'm not playing by Ann Coulter's rules for goodness sakes! I just don't play that way.

You ought to read this touching piece about Paul Wellstone by Peggy Noonan. Like Jeff Cooper, I'm generally no fan of hers, but this is a good column. (Link via Jeff Cooper)

As several departmental colleagues and I surmised yesterday, Minnesota Democrats will be choosing either Walter Mondale or Hubert H. Humphrey III. We'll see.

Here's a St. Paul newspaper story on Wellstone's career.

This is a good story about the decision to replace Wellstone, both in the short term and on the ballot. It is unclear whether Ventura will name a replacement for the remainder of Wellstone's term.

FYI, because of Wellstone's death, Republicans do not take over the Senate now. With his death, there are now 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats. Therefore, Democrats still control the Senate. Actually, if Jim Talent wins and Ventura names no replacement for Wellstone, Talent could be sworn in on November 6 and the Republicans would then control the Senate immediately. Missourians, remember to get out and vote! This one is important!

Frank Rich has another thought-provoking column this morning. This one deals with what scary lessons our terrorist enemies can take from the last three weeks in the D.C. area. He wonders if we're paying any attention to the lessons of the experience ourselves.

Posted by Tom at 11:18 a.m. CDT

A TRIBUTE 10-25-02

Here's a nice tribute to Paul Wellstone by Josh Marshall.

Here is local reaction to the tragedy in Minnesota.

Counterspin has updates about the story and is a good location to go for updates and reaction.

The comment board at Atrios' Eschaton is already filling with responses in memoriam. Feel free to go there of course.

I don't have anything else to add. It's awfully sad. I feel terrible about it.

Posted by Tom at 3:35 p.m. CDT

BELLESILES RESIGNS 10-25-02

Michael Bellesiles has resigned from the faculty at Emory. I don't have anything to add. I'm just glad it's over. As I said earlier, it appears the wheels of justice in the historical profession worked properly.

On a day like today this seems like an incredibly minor story. The system apparently works. It's time to move on -- and has been for months now.

Now, what do three-quarters of the folks on the discussion boards here at HNN have to talk about? I'm sure their lives will be utterly meaningless now. I've got a couple of folks in particular in mind.

Posted by Tom at 3:30 p.m. CDT

POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS 10-25-02

It seems profane to talk about this in the wake of the death of one of the greats of American liberalism, Paul Wellstone. However, I will go ahead and do it. It appears that Minnesota state law allows the governor (yes, Jesse Ventura) to appoint someone to fill out the remainder of Wellstone's term and the party can appoint a replacement candidate for the election. I have no idea who they would appoint but they apparently have that right. The wildcard at the moment is who would be appointed to fill the remainder of Wellstone's term. We'll see.

I feel awful to even talk about this but I felt compelled to do so. I've gotten some e-mail from readers who are wondering so I thought I'd say something.

Posted by Tom at 3:10 p.m. CDT

AWFUL 10-25-02

This is terrible.

Update: The shock hasn't warn off yet but I know that our thoughts are with Senator Wellstone's family and the families of all the others who were killed. His wife, one of his daughters, three staff members and two pilots were killed in the plane crash as well. I really don't want to think about the political ramifications of this yet. American liberalism has just lost one of its giants.

Posted by Tom at 12:55 p.m. CDT

GET A LOAD OF THIS 10-25-02

You've got to watch this. It's hysterical -- not to mention terribly misleading. Of course, it is a GOP ad after all. BTW, a rather important question: do you think the GOP paid the rights to use the Superman theme for the ad? Do you? (This link via Counterspin.)

Update: While we're posting links to video, check out this ad for Bill McBride in Florida using Jeb's positive comments about McBride a couple of years ago against him. It's pretty effective.

Posted by Tom at 10:59 a.m. CDT

ARCHPUNDIT WEIGHS IN 10-25-02

The Archpundit responds to my post on Missouri politics and posts his own take on the Talent-Carnahan race and voter turnout today. Here's a clip from it:

A great primer on Missouri Politics at Tom Spencer's blog. A couple things I'll add are Talent's strength is outstate, but he is softer there than Ashcroft or Bond. The only rationale I can figure out is he seems like a city boy. In many of the recent commercials it seems to me that he fits the stereotype of a city guy who doesn't relate to rural voters. Kinda geeky and wonky, he seems like suburban dad who reads to much. This doesn't mean he isn't the favorite in such places, but that the gut reaction to him is a bit weaker. I think the fishing story was a good example where he said he didn't like hunting, but he was a big fishing guy. Turns out he hasn't had a fishing license in a long time. No big deal there, except it fits the perception of him.

The other exception I'll point out is the St. Louis politician hatred outstate. While generally true at least two candidates overcame this: Danforth and Eagleton both pulled well from around the state. As party reallignment continues, I think we will continue to see those two as a part of the good old days.

Tom points out that urban turnout is key and he is right.

ArchPundit is a great blog for information on St. Louis and Missouri politics. Be sure to give it a look.

Posted by Tom at 10:36 a.m. CDT

THIS MORNING'S LINKS & SARCASM 10-25-02

Al Gore talked about media and society at Middle Tennessee State University Wednesday night. He has interesting things to say about how the 24-hour news cycle and never-ending search for ratings has led to something he calls"news plus." He still refuses to say whether he'll run in 2004.

Surprise. Surprise. W and the boys have known about North Korea's nuclear weapons program for a long time -- a lot longer than three weeks. How about for a year? Boy, these guys sure do keep things from us, don't they?

Lautenberg has surged ahead by 10 or so in New Jersey. Stick a fork in Forrester. He's done.

Surprisingly high early voter turn out in the town of my alma mater, San Antonio. This certainly appears to bode well.

It appears that Katherine Harris has been taking public speaking tips from W.

Don't forget the Halliburton lawsuit that is still active.

Here's an article about Ron Kirk, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Texas. He's an interesting guy.

Here's more evidence that the Republican"voter fraud" complaints are a load of mularkey. Of course, we knew that, didn't we?

Posted by Tom at 9:22 a.m. CDT

DEAD PARROT SOCIETY 10-25-02

There's another good Paul Krugman article this morning about the Bush administration's frequent habit of telling whoppers. Here's a bit of it:

A few days ago The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote an article explaining that for George W. Bush,"facts are malleable." Documenting"dubious, if not wrong" statements on a variety of subjects, from Iraq's military capability to the federal budget, the White House correspondent declared that Mr. Bush's"rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy."

Also in the last few days, The Wall Street Journal reported that"senior officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence . . . that remains largely unverified." The C.I.A.'s former head of counterterrorism was blunter:"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronounc]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/952 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/952 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entries

W IN DEEP DOO-DOO 11-07-03

Boy, now W really may be in trouble. Take a look at Public Opinion Watch (PDF version) this week.

W is now losing on his signature issue, taxes. Things are not good. Here's the most interesting part:

On the economy, the findings are equally daunting for the Rove team. For example, when asked whether most Americans are better off financially than they were in 2001 when Bush became president, just 9 percent (!) say that Americans are better off, compared to 49 percent who say that they are not as well off and 41 percent who say that they are about the same. The comparable figures for Poppa Bush in October of 1991: 7 percent better off, 48 percent not as well off, 41 percent the same. Eerily similar, no?

And when asked how they themselves are doing financially during the Bush presidency, 22 percent say that they are better off, 27 percent say that they are not as well off, and 50 percent say that they are about the same. Again the analogous figures for Bush pere are almost identical: 20 percent better off, 27 percent not as well off, and 53 percent the same.

Finally, Public Opinion Watch's favorite finding from the entire poll: only 40 percent now say that Bush"understands the problems of people like you," compared to 58 percent who think he does not. Sounds like folks think he's out of touch. Say, didn't they think that about some other president not so long ago? However, in order to have history repeat itself, the economy has to stay about where it is now. I think public opinion has certainly turned against W at this point. If the economy remains more or less flaccid, he's in deep trouble.

However, you know what I think will happen if the economy rebounds so I won't repeat it again.

Posted by Tom at 4:39 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11070303');

LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, THE PRO-U.S. PROPAGANDA VERSION 11-07-03

This article from the Christian Science Monitor is astonishing. Here's a bit of it:

For 15 years, high school history teacher Abtsam Jassom has dutifully taught 20th-century history according to the Baath Party. In it, America was the greedy invader, every Iraqi war was justified and victorious, and Zionists were the cause of world suffering. Now, however, with the ouster of former President Saddam Hussein, US officials say teachers will finally be free to teach a more factual account of historical events. But the question is: Whose account will that be?

The first indicator of what a Saddam-free education will look like is arriving this month, as millions of newly revised textbooks roll off the printing presses to be distributed to Iraq's 5.5 million schoolchildren in 16,000 schools. All 563 texts were heavily edited and revised over the summer by a team of US-appointed Iraqi educators. Every image of Saddam and the Baath Party has been removed.

But so has much more - including most of modern history. Pressured for time, and hoping to avoid political controversy, the Ministry of Education under the US-led coalition government removed any content considered" controversial," including the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq war; and all references to Israelis, Americans, or Kurds.

"Entire swaths of 20th-century history have been deleted," says Bill Evers, a US Defense Department employee, and one of three American advisers to the Ministry of Education.

The new downsized versions of textbooks underscore the political challenge facing the primarily US-backed government, and the private, and nonprofit groups charged with everything from rebuilding schools to retraining teachers to rewriting text. While US advisers don't want to be seen as heavy-handed in influencing the way Iraqis interpret history, neither do they want to be in the position of endorsing texts that could be anti-American, anti-Israeli, or radically religious.

As a result, some charge, in a matter of months Iraqi education has gone from one-sided to 'no-sided.'

"We considered anything anti-American to be propaganda and we took it out," says Fuad Hussein, the Iraqi in charge of curriculum for the Ministry of Education."In some cases, we had to remove entire chapters." I suspect these new history texts will say absolutely nothing about W's spurious charges last year that Saddam had WMDs, right? Or about Ronny Reagan and George Bush essentially creating Saddam and his army and looking the other way while he developed chemical and biological weapons programs in the 1980s, right?

Iraq, even if it is a frigging disastrous money pit for the United States, has also largely become an exercise in wish fulfillment for W and his corporate conservative supporters. In Iraq they've gotten a flat tax system and an enormous feeding trough where corporations that supported the Bush campaign financially can gorge themselves.

Now, as if all of that wasn't enough, the right wing ideologues have the ultimate opportunity -- to write the history of Iraq according to their particular point of view.

Can you imagine what these Iraqi students must think of the history they're being told? Contrary to the reality right in front of the students' eyes, their history texts will tell Iraqi students that the U.S. never did them any harm and that nothing controversial involving the United States ever happened. This within just a few months of a war that, according to very reliable sources probably resulted in the killing of more than 10,000 innocent civilians.

Calling this Orwellian doesn't quite cut it, huh?

This sort of thing makes you wonder what W and his minions would do if they could control the school curriculum in this country, doesn't it?

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 4:07 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11070302');

DAMN -- AGAIN 11-07-03

Another helicopter has apparently been shot down in Iraq. This time it has cost the lives of six soldiers.

BTW, has anyone noticed, paradoxically, that the soldiers keep on dying (33 in November alone) but we didn't hear as much about it this week?

For example, why didn't I hear about this helicopter shootdown on CNN during the half hour I had it on this morning?

Posted by Tom at 8:42 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11070301');

MORE LIES FROM THE LYING LIARS 11-06-03

It is astonishing that some Republican mouthpieces are trying to deny reality and claim the administration didn't really say Saddam was an imminent threat. You and I know this is a lie -- the only thing that amazes me is that Americans aren't outraged by this transparent attempt to airbrush their public statements from a year ago.

Josh Marshall has them dead to rights on this. Here's just a bit of his article:

Here’s how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: “What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.”

A month later, Bush called Iraq an “urgent threat to America.”

The next month, he described the threat like this: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. … Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Or Fleischer two days after that: “Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?”

Or the president justifying war as it got under way: “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.”

For more than six months, Bush and his top deputies told Americans that Iraq posed a grave, immediate and imminent threat. Delay risked horrors like WMD terrorist handoffs or mushroom clouds billowing over American cities. Of course, my argument would be that the fact the administration's sycophants are trying this ludicrous line of spin tells you the administration is quite worried. As Iraq becomes a bigger headache for them, this administration runs the risk of morphing into the contemporary equivalent of the Lyndon Johnson administration. By 1968, with Vietnam spinning out of control, Americans knew LBJ lied to get us into the Vietnam War -- and he paid a major political price for it.

I'm sure the folks in this administration are seeing that historical parallel as uncomfortably obvious so they're trying to spin the whole thing this way. LBJ did a lot of bad things but I don't remember him trying to wriggle off from starting the Vietnam War. I don't remember reading about him ever trying to do that. Perhaps he did. I wasn't old enough then (I was born in 1967) to tell you unfortunately. But I don't recall anything like that. Do you?

However, as much as W and the boys try, Americans know they lied to us about Saddam being an imminent threat. You'd have to be a damn fool to think otherwise. I told you last year numerous times -- before the war took place.

As Josh so succinctly puts it:

Just as they can’t undo what they did, the White House and its supporters can’t undo what they said.

There’s no use denying it. It was only a year ago. We were there. We remember. Indeed.

Posted by Tom at 9:52 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11060303');

RUNNING SCARED FROM THE RNC 11-06-03

Eric Alterman has an excellent article about the Reagans mini-series flap right here.

I'm snowed again folks. More later today -- maybe.

Posted by Tom at 3:56 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11060302');

A BROKERED CONVENTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS? 11-06-03

Kevin Drum links to the post of Gene's article below and asks a rather important question: Is the rule change regarding the proportional awarding of delegates to the Democratic National Convention going to lead to a brokered convention? Are Democrats going to shoot themselves in the foot and be feuding next August about who their candidate should be?

Maybe the most important question to ask is actually this: What idiot thought this rule change was a good idea?

Posted by Tom at 9:35 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11060301');

NOW THIS IS IMPRESSIVE 11-05-03

TORONTO, Nov. 4 -- A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.

Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S. guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from"multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups.

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA"extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

Arar's case has brought repeated apologies from the Canadian government, which says it is investigating what information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave to U.S. authorities. Canada's foreign minister, Bill Graham, also said he would question the Syrian ambassador about Arar's statements about torture. In an interview on CBC Radio, Imad Moustafa, the Syrian chargé d'affaires in Washington, denied that Arar had been tortured.

Arar said U.S. officials apparently based the terrorism accusation on his connection to Abdullah Almalki, another Syrian-born Canadian. Almalki is being detained by Syrian authorities, although no charges against him have been reported. Arar said he knew Almalki only casually before his detention but encountered him at the Syrian prison where both were tortured.

Arar, whose case has become a cause celebre in Canada, demanded a public inquiry."I am not a terrorist," he said."I am not a member of al Qaeda. I have never been to Afghanistan." I'm so disgusted I don't even know where to begin. We might as well be a police state these days, huh?

Read the rest of the article -- if you've got the stomach for it.

Posted by Tom at 3:51 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11050303');

LYONS:"TOUT SHEET FOR 2004 DEMOCRATIC RACE" 11-05-03

Here's Gene's column for today!

Gene Lyons November 5, 2003

Tout Sheet for 2004 Democratic Race

Serious people dislike horse-race political coverage. Apart from cable-TV spectacles like the Kobe Bryant trial, nothing's more mindless than handicapping presidential campaigns. Alas, high-mindedness tends to be self-defeating in American politics. Besides titillation at hearing words like"panties" on TV, people follow celebrity trials for the same reason they watch ballgames: to see who wins.

George W. Bush can certainly be beaten. A recent ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll shows him leading a generic Democrat just 48-47, within the margin of error. Only 47 percent approve of his handling of Iraq; 51 percent disapprove. Even larger majorities disapprove of Bush's record on the Federal budget, taxes, health care, Social Security, etc. Most Democrats would see his election (I almost wrote"re-election") as a national catastrophe. A Marist poll shows 44 percent of registered voters definitely planning to vote against Bush; only 38 percent definitely supporting him.

But you can't beat somebody with nobody, and right now only party activists are paying attention to the contest for the Democratic nomination. Polls also reveal that many have no idea who's running nor what they stand for. True, this is partly due to the congenital sloth and ignorance of American voters, a taboo subject pundits avoid, both because it insults the customers and diminishes our own self-importance.

But public indifference also results from the perception that the Democratic contest makes for lousy TV. A recent debate on CNN drew a 1.8 share, right down there with"World's Strongest Man" contests and infomercials on The Shaving Channel. With nine candidates, there's no possibility of real debate, and the entire exercise is contaminated by fakery. Every minute spent gravely attending to Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosely-Braun is a minute better spent channel surfing for a beer ad with cute babes.

Nationally, only four among the Democrats poll in double figures: Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. Dean leads with a paltry 17 percent. But the most striking figure in the ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll is that 76 percent of Democratic voters say they might change their minds; 53 percent say they probably will.

Of course the race isn't being held nationally, or even state by state in the ordinary sense. What hasn't yet sunk in among journalists covering the race is the likely impact of the amazingly complicated rule changes the party has imposed on itself for 2004 in the interest of"fairness." Massive confusion appears likelier. There are no winner-take-all primaries. Instead, delegates will be awarded proportionally to all candidates receiving more than 15 percent of the vote in each congressional district, from sea to shining sea.

To be nominated, a candidate must win a majority (2160) of delegates to the June convention. Given that there are 796 party-appointed"superdelegates," to lock up the nomination before the Boston convention, somebody has to win 61 percent of the elected delegates in a nine candidate field over two short months between February and early April 2004. Given strong regional differences and favorite son candidates, the odds of a deadlocked and/or brokered convention appear extremely high.

Would that make for good TV? Maybe. Or it could degenerate into farce, perpetuating the notion that Democrats are too ineffectual to govern. Anyhow, in the interest of generating a little buzz, I asked e-mail pals across the country whose opinions I respect to give me simulated pari-mutuel odds on the Democratic race as if it were being held at Churchill Downs. Then I ran them through a kitchen blender and came up with a tout sheet:

Here's how it looks:

*Howard Dean: 4-1. Early speed in Iowa, neighboring New Hampshire. Fades in South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri on Feb. 3, Virginia & Tennessee on Feb 9. Anybody-but-Dean sentiment rises in backstretch.

*Dick Gephardt: 6-1. Strong in Iowa, wins native Missouri, union-dominated Michigan on Feb. 7, but could be out of the money before Super Tuesday, March 2.

*Wesley Clark: 5-1. Must finish third behind New Englanders in N.H., win in S.C., Virginia, Tennessee. Needs to act more like general, less like henpecked sitcom Dad.

*John Kerry: 12-1. Must do better than expected in Iowa and N.H., or pressure will build for him to pull up by mid-March.

*John Edwards: 30-1. Dynamite in the paddock, weak on the track. Must defeat Clark in early Southern contests to remain viable.

*Joe Lieberman: 50-1. Unpopular with Dem bettors due to no show in 2004 Cheney debate, softness during Florida debacle.

*Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun, Dennis Kucinich: 1000-1. Clear the track for the real horses, you fools.

*Hillary Clinton: 100-1. A sucker bet. Dream on, Karl Rove. She ain't running.

*Al Gore: 10-1. The Washington press would hate it, but Honest Al could plod home a winner in the event of a nine horse pileup on the clubhouse turn. Update: Holy cow! Gene's column from last week just appeared in my local rag, the Maryville Daily Forum.

I can't believe it!

Posted by Tom at 12:21 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11050302');

LINKS AND SARCASM 11-05-03

Boy, W sure is doing well these days, eh? Now more Americans want to vote against him as vote for him. That can't be good.

I know that if the economy rebounds, all of this won't matter. W could grow horns and a sharp pointy tail (hasn't he already?) and we'll still get four more years of him. However, the unemployment numbers is still looking quite bad. Unemployment is up 125% for October. That's not good for W -- or the rest of us.

BTW, The Daily Show is crushing Faux and other cable networks in its timeslot -- at least in the all important 18-49 demographic. Of course, Daily Show viewers get a much more realistic picture of the present from Jon Stewart than from Fox anyway.

After much soul-searching, I have added a PayPal donation button (below the blogroll). If you enjoy what you read here and can afford to send a buck or two my way, I'd greatly appreciate it. If not, don't sweat it, just enjoy the commentary!

Oh yeah, and Donald Luskin, predictably, has backed down on suing Atrios. He's also deeply damaged his reputation in the blogosphere.

Another busy day today folks. I have an exam to give, an entire set of papers to finish, I'm still working on my tenure and promotion portfolio, etc.

I'll stop boring you with the details -- and get to work.

Posted by Tom at 8:55 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11050301');

LAZY REPORTING AND LINDA TRIPP 11-04-03

Eric Alterman gives us the lowdown about Linda Tripp's latest lawsuit. She essentially bullied the Pentagon into handing her $600,000 when she's the one who lied about her arrest record.

I guess it pays to have W in the White House and to have some of the best right-wing lawyers in the business. W and the boys just wanted her to go away apparently.

Don't we all?

Posted by Tom at 3:47 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11040302');

BUSY 11-04-03

I'm snowed folks and, as my wife pointed out to me this morning, I'm spending way too much time blogging with as much as I've got on my plate. I can't believe I posted six times yesterday considering all that I had to do. That was pretty insane of me.

How much do I have to do? Well, let's see, I have some course prep to do for tonight's class, a set of papers to grade, a tenure and promotion application to finish, and tons of other smaller jobs. As my wife tells me, I really do have a life outside the blogosphere and that life is calling me at the moment.

I'll continue to blog folks -- I'm not hanging it up or anything -- but posting may be lighter for a while.

Posted by Tom at 8:06 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11040301');

IT'S NOW OFFICIAL 11-03-03

Not only does this administration lie -- they now doctor transcripts and lie about just what it is the president has said in major addresses.

Folks, it's now official. This administration has now gone beyond Richard Nixon -- they're now charting virgin territory in dishonesty.

Holy cow.

When are the American people going to wake up, folks?

Posted by Tom at 10:38 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030306');

DONE FOR THE DAY 11-03-03

Believe it or not, I'm just now done grading for the day. I went to the pool for my swim and then home for dinner and my birthday cake -- and then I came back to the office for two and half more hours.

Sigh (again).

Posted by Tom at 9:31 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030305');

MORE ON INSTY 11-03-03

Jesse at Pandagon (added to the blogroll a couple of days ago) has more on Insty's unwillingness to confront the problems in Iraq:

It's a"tough week" in Iraq. And that's about it. You see, he likes to focus much more on longer-term issues, such as Maureen Dowd columns, 57-year-old pieces on pre-Marshall Plan Europe, and heartwarming stories of supporting the troops. Because Lord knows an ongoing terrorist insurgency in a country against American troops won't have any long-term importance until, you know, it goes on for a long time. As I've said already, I think Insty's having a major league case of denial.

I suspect he's just like most of the enthusiastic warmongers in the blogosphere who supported this war. You remember them, don't you? I'm sure Insty's just like all of those righty readers I used to have back in March and April who used to post to the comment boards and send me e-mail.

You remember them, don't you? They were so confident and sure of themselves back then.

Strangely enough, these are the same guys who quietly ran away with their tail between their legs back in April and May as it became obvious I was exactly right about this horrific mess in Iraq.

Surely you remember them, don't you?

For some reason, I never hear from them anymore. I wonder why?

It was so long ago, wasn't it?

I'm sure it seems like it to them.

Posted by Tom at 9:24 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030304');

IS W FLUNKING THE DOVER TEST? 11-03-03

Atrios points us to this excellent Mark Shields column.

At Harvard on January 19, 2000, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton provided a valuable standard, both to determine whether the United States ought to send the nation's warriors into combat and to enlist"the support of the American people as well as the Congress" needed to sustain that involvement. In Shelton's judgment, such a grave decision:

"(M)ust be subjected to what I call the 'Dover test.' Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware -- which is a point entry for our Armed Forces?

This is an issue, I think, that should be raised early on. It should be discussed, and it should be decided by our political leadership before any operation begins."

In the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration chose instead to duck Shelton's"Dover test." The scene so familiar to older Americans -- of the military honor guard in white gloves, respectfully accompanying from the aircraft to the waiting loved ones the remains of the fallen warrior in the coffin covered by Old Glory, often with a military band offering an appropriately solemn piece -- was simply banned. George W. Bush's war against Iraq could not flunk the Dover test because there would be no Dover test.

...

Where is the outrage on the part of the press? Are we lapdogs? The administration in full spin control insists that the reality on the ground in Iraq is much more positive than the press reports. Yet the administration denies reality at home -- the reality of the recent heroism of this nation's fallen sons and daughters.

By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.

The time is long past in 2003 to take the Dover test. Indeed.

Posted by Tom at 3:38 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030303');

CONGRATS KOS! 11-03-03

Congrats on the birth of Aristotle Alberto, Kos!

I'm still plugging away at the grading folks.

Posted by Tom at 1:15 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030302');

"I DON'T BLOG MUCH ON DAY-TO-DAY EVENTS THERE" 11-03-03

You know, the more I think about it, Glenn's rather lame response to the Chinook shootdown is pretty annoying. Of course he blogs day-to-day events there when those events suit his purposes. He just ignores them when they don't. The Chinook shootdown is just the latest in a long line of examples I'm sure.

I mean, heck folks, on October 19th he blogged about how Iraq's Burger King is already in the top 10 in sales worldwide! That sounds pretty"day-to-day" to me. (Thanks to Anonymous Blogger in comments to the original post for the tip.)

It's just yet another example of how Glenn's blogging is awfully selective. You can run a search of his blog and find numerous other examples of"day-to-day" events in Iraq that he has blogged about.

It's a busy (birth)day for me folks. I won't be enjoying it much. I have plenty of papers to grade.

Sigh.

Posted by Tom at 8:31 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11030301');

THE LOCHNER BATTLE CONTINUES IN THE BLOGOSPHERE 11-02-03

The Lochner battle continues in the blogosphere. Here is a sampling of excellent lefty commentary on the lunacy of the Lochner decision:

Nathan Newman has an excellent post about the appalling inconsistency of the Lochner court here.

Allen Brill responds to Bernstein's defense of Janice Brown (the aforementionedrightwing loon) here.

Ralph Luker responds here (scroll down to"Law and Gospel").

While that's not a direct response to you David, it's the closest I can come at the present.

Posted by Tom at 9:42 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020306');

I CAN'T HELP IT 11-02-03

It's time for a change of pace. How 'bout those Cowboys?

It's wonderful for my Cowboys to beat Steve Spurrier's Redskins to go to 6-2. I'm still trying to figure out how the Cowboys lost to Atlanta the first week.

I think Bill Parcells was a good hire.

Posted by Tom at 7:33 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020305');

AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON, MR. WOLFOWITZ 11-02-03

Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They're responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties. [Applause]

We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]

Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause]

***snip***

Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.

What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]

Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.

It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies. [Applause]

And it seems to me a time to have supported the United States and to push the United States harder was in 1991 when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering those innocents so viciously. Astonishing. Nothing impresses me more than impugning the patriotism of people who have just raised a legitimate criticism of your policy, eh? How creepy!

BTW, you'll note that the administration of Bush I stood idly by in 1991 while Saddam was slaughtering those innocents in southern Iraq. Therefore, supporting the U.S. policy in 1991 wouldn't have changed anything.

Not that I think we should've invaded Iraq in 1991. I'm just pointing it out.

[Link via Skeptical Notion]

Posted by Tom at 2:45 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020304');

INSTY'S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE 11-02-03

Hesiod notes that Glenn still hasn't posted anything about the Chinook shootdown. You'd think Glenn would want to keep us updated on our -- to use W's words -- marvelous"progress" in Iraq.

He still hasn't as of 1:43 CST.

However, this morning Glenn has already linked to a lame critique of Maureen Dowd's column.

That's certainly of equal importance with the unraveling mess in Iraq, right?

How long will it take him to mention it? Anyone want to start a pool? Use the comment board if you want.

Sometimes I'm downright offended that his blog is viewed by many as representative of the blogosphere.

Update: Nothing about it yet as of 3:08 p.m. CST

Update 2: Nothing about it as of 3:32 p.m. CST. In other Insty-related news, you should read this post by Atrios.

Glenn tries to pretend the press got it wrong in the 1940s regarding the occupation of Germany. As usual, Glenn is misleading his readers. The major difference between then and now is that Truman's folks back then weren't committed ideologues who would NEVER admit they were wrong.

Unlike Wolfowitz who, when faced with criticism just impugns the patriotism of administration critics, Truman's policymakers took their critics seriously and actually changed the policy in response.

Would that we could expect such an approach from W and the boys, huh?

Update 3: Nothing as of 5:02 p.m. CST. How long will it take for Glenn to face up to the horrific reality of the mess W and the boys have made of Iraq? Or how long will it take for Glenn, at least, to acknowledge this rather major potentially turning point event?

But Glenn's just MIA today, isn't he?

Update 4: As of 7:12 p.m. CST, nothing. Glenn keeps adding updates to the lame post about Maureen Dowd's column though.

Why nothing about the Chinook shootdown from the"New York Times of bloggers," huh Glenn?

What's your excuse, Glenn?

Update 5:This is probably as close as we'll get to a response from Glenn.

Yeah, I know. It's lame. What did you expect?

Technically he didn't address the shootdown so I guess it doesn't really count. Since I suspect Glenn is living in the warmonger, er, warblogger dream world (meaning he's in denial about this fool's errand of a war), I suspect he never will mention it.

Impressive, eh?

Posted by Tom at 1:43 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020303');

RIGHT WING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 11-02-03

“The Reagans” was always meant to be a warts-and-all portrait of an American icon, with ample attention to the president’s hands-off approach to governing, his wife’s behind-the-scenes power plays and their estrangement from their children. Still, CBS thought the movie was, so to speak, fair and balanced. It credits Reagan with defeating the Soviet Union, and its central theme is the First Couple’s love affair. The script was vetted by two teams of lawyers, and producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, who would not be interviewed by NEWSWEEK, have insisted that every fact (though not every line of dialogue) is supported by at least two sources. Before a New York Times story last month detailed conservatives’ complaints, network executives reportedly loved the movie. “They all thought it was brilliant,” says someone who worked on the film.

But the day the Times’s story broke—”The Reagans” crew calls it “Black Tuesday”—the movie instantly became trouble. CBS chairman Leslie Moonves, who approved both the script and a juicy eight-minute trailer, ordered the lawyers to look at the movie again, and asked for assurances that the facts were all in order. When he was told everything was fine, Moonves started editing anyway. “There are things we think go too far,” he told CNBC’s Tina Brown last week. (Moonves also declined to be interviewed by NEWSWEEK.) At that point, Ackerman removed himself from the editing in protest and the actors stopped talking. “Nobody seems to know what’s going on,” Ackerman told NEWSWEEK. “Whatever is going on is going on very secretly.” I don't know what's worse -- the fact that conservatives don't realize they're being astonishingly hypocritical about political correctness or that CBS apparently has no problem editing out scenes from a historical drama that actually took place.

It's like conservatives don't even believe in the right to freedom of expression these days, isn't it?

Yet another nail in the coffin of the long dead myth of the"liberal media," eh?

Posted by Tom at 1:11 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020302');

DAMN 11-02-03

The horrific reality that is Iraq once again rears its ugly head.

No matter how much ridiculous spinning the administration does (The schools! The schools!), reality has a nasty habit of biting you in the butt, doesn't it?

It's all quite tragic -- and exactly why I was opposed to this war in the first place.

Posted by Tom at 12:10 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11020301');

ART SILBER HAS JOINED... 11-01-03

HNN's Liberty & Power group blog.

Cool.

Welcome on board here at HNN, Art.

I wonder if Art got them to start using permalinks? I wanted to link to something a few days ago but didn't because they weren't using permalinks. I was going to respond to Beito's berating of me for calling Janice Brown a loon.

I was just going to say that, in my opinion, anyone who still defends the indefensible Lochner decision is a loon. That decision was a prime example of laissez faire judicial hypocrisy. It's hard to take seriously such a hypocritical use of the big, bad federal government by supposed small government advocates.

Anyway, I just gave up responding when I saw they didn't have permalinks. However, they do now.

Posted by Tom at 5:10 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11010303');

CONSERVATIVES MAKING IT UP, PART II 11-01-03

If you ever wondered about the journalistic integrity of conservative columnists these days, here's your answer. Ann Coulter wannabe (isn't that pathetic?) Kathleen Parker just changed a"quote" in her column for today because it was a bit over the top.

Parker changed it from this:

Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches:"These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot. to this:

Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches:"These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and slapped." Wait. Wait. Hold on a minute. As a"journalist" you're not supposed to change a"quote," are you?

Well I guess you can change a quote if you just made it up. My guess is she felt free to change it because, as several of the commenters to Atrios's post on this have noted, she probably made the whole thing up in the first place. The"former Delta Force member" thing does make the whole quote pretty suspicious.

And these are the folks who have the gall to insist that the mainstream media is corrupt. Isn't it funny when the folks who live in glass houses throw stones?

This whole episode demonstrates just how corrupt the conservative media is these days. These folks apparently consider doctoring quotes and lowering the level of discourse to appalling levels in order to attack the president's critics just a part of their job description.

It's all about carrying water for the administration these days, isn't it Ms. Parker?

If the hacks in the conservative punditocracy had any shame, this would be profoundly embarrassing to them.

Posted by Tom at 11:42 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11010302');

WHEN IN DOUBT, MAKE IT UP 11-01-03

Though the Bush administration has for months claimed that foreign fighters were entering Iraq to kill Americans, U.S. military commanders who are responsible for monitoring the borders here say that they have not witnessed a large infiltration of foreign terrorists.

As recently as Tuesday, President Bush said that"the foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat because they fear a free and peaceful state in the midst of a part of the world where terror has found recruits."

But officers whose areas of operations include Iraq's borders with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran -- the primary Arab entry points into Iraq -- all said there is no evidence that a significant number of foreign terrorists have entered the country.

"We cover the border, so we would know if they came in or not," said Lt. Col. Antonio Aguto, executive officer of the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which monitors Iraq's border with Syria and Saudi Arabia."Most of them are locals."

The officers said that very few foreigners have been captured while crossing into Iraq illegally, arrested later inside Iraq or detained when trying to enter the country at existing border checkpoints.

One intelligence officer said emphatically that there was simply no evidence to support the claim.

"We keep hearing that, but we haven't seen anything to back it up," the officer said. My goodness. It's gotten so bad that this administration is now making claims for CYA purposes without any evidence to support them.

Well, come to think of it, that's what this administration has done regarding Iraq for two years now. I guess it's not that much of a change after all.

On a related note, if you're wanting a comprehensive analysis of the mistakes by this administration that resulted in the horrific mess that is Iraq today, go here. This piece is by David Rieff and is in the New York Times Magazine.

It's a long and comprehensive analysis and well worth your time.

Posted by Tom at 9:25 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('11010301');

]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1808 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1808 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entries

ONLY THE RNC... 10-31-03

could think that Republicans are owed a"right of review" for historical accuracy of a miniseries on the life of the Reagans.

No matter how fictionalized parts of it are, I suspect it's much more accurate on the whole than that 9/11 fantasy docudrama that was on Showtime a while back.

Oh yeah, new GYWO as well.

[Both links via Atrios]

Update:Here's my last blog post about the Showtime docudrama."DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" aired in September.

Here's just a bit of the review of it from the WaPo (click through for the link):

Simultaneously dull and disgraceful,"DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," a new Showtime movie, uses the tragic attack on America in 2001 as the basis for a reelection campaign movie on behalf of George W. Bush.

The film is an insult to those who perished in the attacks and, really, an insult to America generally, but it's so insanely boring that people aren't likely to become very outraged over it. Written by conservative Republican Lionel Chetwynd, who admits to a bias in Bush's favor, the film -- premiering on Showtime tomorrow night at 8 -- is primitive propaganda that portrays Bush as the noblest hero since Mighty Mouse. Strangely enough, the RNC didn't say a thing about"historical accuracy" when this propagandistic love letter to W was released. I wonder why?

Posted by Tom at 9:08 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10310304');

BUSH'S FEMA HELD DAVIS'S APPLICATION FOR AID FOR MONTHS (WHILE IT WORKED TO DEFEAT DAVIS) AND THEN REJECTED CALIFORNIA'S REQUEST ONLY HOURS BEFORE THE FOREST FIRES STARTED 10-31-03

Holy cow.

The Bush administration took six months to evaluate Gov. Gray Davis' emergency request last spring for $430 million to clear dead trees from fire-prone areas of Southern California.

The request was finally denied Oct. 24, only hours before wildfires roared out of control in what has become the largest fire disaster in California history.

Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs), a leader in the effort to get federal assistance for fire prevention, questioned Thursday why the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not rule sooner.

"FEMA's decision was wrong," Bono said."The timing couldn't have been worse.... We knew this disaster was going to happen with certainty. It was only a matter of when, and we were trying to beat the clock with removing the dead trees." Can you imagine what we'd be hearing if Clinton's administration had done this? I know we certainly wouldn't be hearing anything like this:

"It's almost classic government," Lewis said in an interview outside the House chamber."When you get below the third level in a bureaucracy, they don't believe it's going to happen until they see a fire rolling.... It's not a Democratic or Republican problem. It's a government problem." Right. Sure. You bet.

I hope Bush isn't thinking he's got a shot in California next year.

He just lost it.

Posted by Tom at 2:57 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10310303');

GETTING WARMER 10-31-03

I think Josh is getting warmer on who forged the Niger documents. Sounds like it was the Italian intelligence service to me -- working at the behest of Bush's erstwhile ally Silvio Berlusconi:

The US and UK start a major roll-out on the nuclear claims. But the response is generally disappointing. There’s major push-back from the IAEA and, secretly in the US, from the CIA.

It was precisely at this moment (in the last days of September and the first of October) that the advocates of the Niger story were most in need of some new evidence. And it was precisely at this moment when the new evidence --- at first seemingly incontrovertible --- popped up in Rome.

And the day after the reporter gets the docs the Editor-in-Chief of her magazine instructs her to take them to the American Embassy.

And remember too that it wasn’t publicly known at the time that Niger was the country in question. BTW, the magazine in question is owned by Berlusconi. The White House needed evidence and -- voila! -- Berlusconi provided it for them.

Is it possible that the White House knew it was fraudulent? Did they request some cooked evidence from Berlusconi?

I don't know of course. I'm just asking what I think are reasonable questions.

You know, the kind of stuff the press stopped doing a couple of years ago.

Posted by Tom at 1:18 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10310302');

QUITE A TRICK 10-31-03

Paul Krugman tells us that yesterday's GDP growth could be a turning point for the economy -- or not. However, he notes, the growth comes almost entirely from consumer debt. I'm not sure that's so good.

If the growth continues, does it vindicate Bush's policies? Here's Krugman's answer:

To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started. And despite yesterday's good news, that's a trick President Bush still seems likely to pull off. Indeed.

Posted by Tom at 8:23 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10310301');

CORRUPT CRONY CAPITALISM... 10-30-03

is apparently alive and well in the Bush administration.

This story is quite eye-opening. Admittedly, we all knew the fix was in regarding the no bid Iraq contracts but this just confirms that it may be even worse than we thought it was, doesn't it?

The untold billions of our tax dollars flowing to Cheney's Halliburton 24-7 is getting increasingly creepy, isn't it?

You'd think that such an obvious example of corruption on the part of the president and vice president would elicit widespread outrage among Americans, wouldn't you?

I guess not. I'm trying to decide if it's simply because we're so cynical these days we expect it or if Americans just don't care that their government is bought and paid for by millions of dollars in campaign donations.

Personally, I think it's one helluva sorry comment on our political system, our media, and the morals of the electorate that this sort of thing is even tolerated.

Posted by Tom at 10:17 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10300304');

YALE LAW PROFESSOR JACK BALKIN ON... 10-30-03

l'affaire Atrios:

Of course, Luskin could sue Atrios for Atrios's own comments, for example, that Atrios suggested that Luskin was a stalker. But read in context, Atrios' post is (a) not an allegation of actual criminal behavior, and (b) is a protected statement of satire and opinion. He is making fun of Luskin's own comparison of himself as someone who stalks Paul Krugman. Luskin's argument that Atrios has libeled him shouldn't survive a motion for summary judgment. Of course, the real problem is that getting to that point will cost Atrios money to defend himself.

Luskin should be ashamed of himself for having any part in sending this letter. It's a disservice to the blogging community, and inconsistent with respect for freedom of expression.

What's most upsetting is that he is employing a frivolous lawsuit in order to punish someone for exercising their First Amendment rights and that he is piggybacking an abusive subpoena to expose Atrios' identity. So he's not only engaged in frivolous litigation (aren't conservatives against frivolous lawsuits?), but also an abuse of the discovery process (aren't conservatives opposed to the dirty tricks of trial lawyers?). I guess Luskin is only opposed to frivolous lawsuits by other people, and dirty tricks by lawyers who are not representing him.

That's a protected statement of opinion too, by the way. I wonder if Luskin's going to have any shred of a reputation left when he's done making a fool of himself. It's apparent that he's certainly lost the respect of about every blogger on the planet now.

I just added Balkin's blog to the blogroll too by the way.

Posted by Tom at 12:57 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10300303');

GONNA PARTY LIKE IT'S 1984 10-30-03

If this continues, George W. Bush will be re-elected.

As I've said before, this administration is following Reagan's 1984 strategy. They've been waiting for the economy to cyclically rebound (independently of their economic policies) and plan to use that as the launchpad for re-election.

That strategy, if this recovery holds up, has apparently paid off.

Posted by Tom at 8:50 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10300302');

THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES 10-30-03

Apparently, the career folks at the FBI are quite serious about the investigation of the Wilson-Plame scandal. The fact the career folks have apparently asked Ashcroft to appoint a special prosecutor or recuse himself sounds like they've found something to me.

The White House wants this to end soon. However, it doesn't sound like it's going to be wrapped up any time soon. As Mark Kleiman puts it:

But I'm not so sure that keeping it in-house will turn out to be any better. The FBI and the Criminal Division have a great deal of face to lose by coming up dry. And if they don't come up dry -- if they identify the sources of the information -- then a failure to prosecute is almost unthinkable. I'm betting that this does"go on into the election year," and that it will be in the news"forever," if"forever" is defined as"through Election Day."

The story quotes Charles Schumer as saying that several of his Republican colleagues told him privately that he was right to be pushing for a special counsel. If true, that's not good news for Bush. Stay tuned folks. This could still get pretty interesting.

Posted by Tom at 8:40 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10300301');

WHO IS LUSKIN'S LAWYER? 10-29-03

Well, Luskin's law firm is apparently Hanify & King in Boston. And the guy who signed the threatening letter is on their staff, Jeffery J. Upton. His picture and bio make it clear that he's on the low end of the totem pole there. I suspect none of the folks higher up in the firm wanted anything to do with this.

Isn't it astonishing that Republicans who so frequently decry frivolous lawsuits are usually the first to threaten such lawsuits?

With the sort of beating Luskin is taking on the internet today from folks on both sides of the political spectrum, I'd expect him to back off soon on this.

And, if he doesn't, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if NRO drops him -- and soon.

After all, this is pretty embarrassing for them as well.

Update: When I put this post up, I thought I'd found something new. I didn't realize at the time that Kos had put this information up a few hours earlier. Oh well.

BTW, if you want to learn more about Don Luskin, go read his resume here. Despite all my years of higher education, in no way do I think someone has to go to college to be accomplished and be somebody (Luskin went to Yale for one year and that's it for his higher education). Of course, there is something amusing about someone calling their resume a curriculum vitae when all it's got on it involving any sort of curriculum is a vague reference to making it through a freshman year at Yale.

However, I can't help but mention that his resume certainly indicates that Luskin sure does change jobs a lot -- every couple of years as a matter of fact. I can't help but wonder if he's one of those folks f that lucky class who doesn't really need to work. I mean, heck, he got into George W's alma mater of Yale and about half of the folks who get into Ivy League schools these days get in because of their familial connections. I've met quite a few folks like this in my life.

Furthermore, as someone who often studies folks of this social class in his historical work, I can't help but wonder if Luskin's a member of the same privileged social class as W. He's started a couple of businesses just in the last five years. After the failure of a business, most of us wouldn't have the resources to just start one up right away. That's something folks with independent wealth -- or wealthy backers -- can do. That's the sort of thing W did in the 1980s while Poppy was vice president.

Honestly, it's really none of my business but, since this information is readily available, I couldn't help but say a little about it. I've seen this sort of work history many times in my own research after all.

But this is just idle speculation. I'll stop it now.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290307');

KRUGMAN'S INTERNET STALKER GOES OFF THE LEGAL DEEP END 10-29-03

To learn more about this go here, here, and here.

Holy cow. What a nimrod!

Surely he's embarrassed about this by now, right?

Posted by Tom at 7:00 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290306');

IS W GOING TO CUT AND RUN IN IRAQ? 10-29-03

Atrios and Kevin ask this interesting question today.

Surely not, right?

After all, we claimed we were going to improve life for the average Iraqi.

We certainly haven't done that yet.

Also, if we really cut and run, what's to stop Saddam from returning to power?

Posted by Tom at 12:36 p.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290305');

WHY DOES W LIE ABOUT SUCH INNOCUOUS THINGS... 10-29-03

as who was responsible for the"Mission Accomplished" banner displayed during his embarrassing publicity stunt on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln?

CalPundit wonders aloud about this and so does Josh Marshall.

Folks I think the answer is simple. This president's ego is so large that he won't even admit that it was an obvious mistake back in April to claim that"all of the hard stuff in Iraq is over."

I mean, heck folks, that's the same reason these guys went through the White House website and changed" combat operations" to"major combat operations" a couple of months ago.

These guys can never want to admit they've been wrong -- and, astonishingly enough, they've been wrong about damn-near everything the last three years: the economy, the deficit, the war in Iraq, the threat posed by terrorists hijacking airplanes in 2001, etc.

We're now seeing nearly daily occurrences of the arrogant folks who make up the White House's"alternate reality political spin machine" bumping into the rather rude realities of the universe the rest of us live in.

It's getting a bit surreal, isn't it?

Posted by Tom at 11:59 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290304');

LYONS:"THE DOCTOR IS IN" 10-29-03

Here's Gene's column for the week!

Gene Lyons October 29, 2003

The Doctor is In; Pundits Psychoanalyze Clark

Last month, this column predicted that the GOP response to Gen. Wesley Clark's presidential candidacy would be to turn him into the Democratic equivalent of Gen. Jack D. Ripper, the megalomaniacal crackpot in the classic film"Dr. Strangelove." Portraying Clark as mad with ambition appeared to be the only way to deal with his otherwise perfect political resume--first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, a Purple Heart and Silver Star for valor in Vietnam, NATO Supreme Commander, all that.

Besides, the outlines of the strategy were already visible. It clearly behooves Republicans to take him out now. Clark as the Democratic nominee would make Bush's re-election unlikely. Early profiles by members of what ABCNews.com's The Note calls"The Gang of 500" bristled with anonymous quotes from Pentagon detractors depicting Clark as, in Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen's words,"too weird for prime time." Note the TV metaphor. Cohen wondered if"the personal qualities that bothered his [nameless] critics would be intolerable in a president. We like our presidents as we like our morning TV hosts--comfy."

"In an institution filled with ambitious men," wrote Post reporter Lois Romano more recently,"some viewed Clark as over the top, someone who would do or say anything to get ahead-and get his way." Now to a rational mind, accusing a West Point valedictorian, four-star general and presidential candidate of ambition is about as newsworthy as charging a golden retriever with an unseemly zeal for chasing tennis balls.

If the phrase"would do or say anything" sounds familiar, that's because it comes directly out of the GOP playbook. The last Democrat depicted as crazed with ambition was Al Gore, who never figured out how to counter a barrage of false accusations, such as the absurd canard that he claimed he'd"invented the internet," ceaselessly reiterated by Washington pundits taking dictation from the Republican National Committee.

Although unconscious, there's a subtly royalist overtone to such comments. George W. Bush, see, doesn't have to be a striver. No valedictorian he, Bush knows how to play the role of relaxed TV host/president precisely because as a humble, everyday American aristocrat he was born to it. Hence his accomplishments in life needn't make you, the humble voter or journalism major, feel inferior.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, albeit a fine reporter not beloved by the Bush White House, once gave a revealing explanation of the press's visceral antipathy to Gore on CNN's"Reliable Sources." Gore, Milbank said,"has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he's better than us as reporters. Whereas President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us--he's probably right, but he does not convey that sense. He does not seem to be dripping with contempt when he looks at us, and I think that has something to do with the coverage."

With Bush currently scolding the press for reporting the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq, Milbank may wish to revise his comments. Nevertheless, the importance of sheer, unadulterated envy in the media's eager acceptance of the whisper campaign against Clark almost can't be overstated. Romano's Washington Post profile depicted his response to anonymous detractors as downright pathological.

"In interviews," she wrote, Clark"displayed the outward calm of a man who cannot bear to convey doubt or failure." [my italics] Actually, he sounded more exasperated to me."How do you think I could have succeeded in the military if every-body didn't like me? It's impossible," he said."Do you realize I was the first person promoted to full colonel in my entire year group of 2,000 officers? I was the only one selected. Do you realize that?...Do you realize I was the only one of my West Point class picked to command a brigade when I was picked?...I was the first person picked for brigadier general. You have to balance this out...A lot of people love me."

Now I doubt that Clark volunteered that some people love him without first being told others hate him. (The ellipses are Romano's.) Nevertheless, the doctor was definitely IN at the Washington Post, not to mention at The New Republic, the allegedly"liberal" magazine where one Adam Kushner opined that Clark's response to anonymous slurs made him appear"self-assured to the point of delusion."

Delusion, mind you, a psychiatric term denoting dogged belief in false ideas. Unless Clark made up the facts, it's a callow, ugly smear. The problem is that nobody but Clark himself can deal with it, and preferably on national TV. During a recent Democratic debate, he referred to a rival general's unspecified slurs on his" character and integrity" as sheer"McCarthyism." But he may need to confront symbolism with symbolism and go all Ollie North on them, treating the whispers as an insult to his patriotism, and standing in front of a flag. Here we go again folks. The all-knowing cool kid Heathers of the Washington press corps are going to attempt to give Wesley Clark the Al Gore treatment.

Isn't it infuriating that there really are idiots out there who really believe all that claptrap about the"liberal media?"

Posted by Tom at 11:18 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290303');

WILSON-PLAME SCANDAL LOSING STEAM 10-29-03

Here's the latest from David Corn on the Wilson-Plame scandal.

Isn't it amazing that what is easily the worst scandal since Watergate is apparently going to run out of steam because the media won't pursue it?

Liberal media my, er, hind foot.

The most interesting part of this scandal is that several members of the media know exactly who the leakers are because they were called by them.

This scandal is one of those interesting moments when you wonder just what a source would have to do for a member of the media to divulge them. These guys have come awfully close to committing treason. They have also imperiled national security and endangered the lives of scores of people.

Yet the media is still protecting them.

That's interesting, isn't it?

Posted by Tom at 10:29 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290302');

GREAT 10-29-03

“If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.” Ladies and Gentleman, the unending wisdom of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Posted by Tom at 8:55 a.m. CSTCommentmyCount('10290301');

EVERYONE PLEASE WELCOME... 10-28-03

]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1738 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1738 0 Click Here for Tom's latest blog entries

THE GUARDIAN REPORTS... 09-30-03

that I'm right about Karl Rove.

Several of the journalists are saying privately, yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to. Now, the thing is that the journalists are not going to name Karl Rove publicly because you don't name your sources, and to do so would discredit them as journalists. So the White House is safe for the time being, but Karl Rove's name is very much out there. And the"we're too professional to have done anything this stupid" defense doesn't sound very convincing from the gang who has screwed up more things than they've gotten right and hasn't done a damn thing right in several months, eh?

That Rove is our guy is the only thing that makes sense. I mean, honestly, they really wouldn't be doing all of this for Scooter Libby.

We'll see I guess.

At this point I think the press is just amazed that they keep lying about it.

Posted by Tom at 6:46 p.m. CDTCommentmyCount('09300304');

MCCLELLAN DIGS THE WHITE HOUSE IN DEEPER 09-30-03

The guy who started all of this, David Corn, gives us an effective update on where things stand. His concluding paragraph is particularly good:

The facts are closing in on Bush and his crowd. And perhaps the law--that is, if Bush's comrades at the Justice Department are on the level. As Iraq continues to be a $170 billion headache, they have tied themselves to the mast of their prewar misrepresentations. As the Wilson leak threatens to become a primetime scandal, they are yielding no ground and hoping this inconvenience blows past. All in all, a precarious position for Bush. These are messes too severe to be straightened out by McClellan's heavy-handed, ludicrous spin. I think that is becoming obvious to the press corps as well.

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 12:44 p.m. CDTCommentmyCount('09300303');

KEVIN HAS A GOOD ROUNDUP... 09-30-03

of the latest" circle the wagons" excuses being provided by this administration's sycophants.

But, he boils it down quite well for all of us:

The bottom line remains pretty much the same: A couple of top Bush administration officials blabbed about a clandestine CIA operative to the press in order to try to discredit her husband, and now they're covering it up. Either you think that's OK or you don't. I don't. Kevin also agrees with me that the names are going to come out sooner or later:

And there are too many people who know the names of the leakers for that to stay secret very much longer.

It might be a couple of days or a couple of weeks, but both of these questions are going to be answered. When they are, the Bush loyalists peddling the excuses above are going to have to put up or shut up. Indeed.

Posted by Tom at 10:24 a.m. CDTCommentmyCount('09300302');

I STILL THINK ROVE WAS INVOLVED 09-30-03

I was preparing to write a post about how Bob Novak had changed his story but then I discovered Josh Marshall had already done so.

Honestly, folks, why is Bob Novak changing his story? My guess is that Rove has called him and really let him have it. Novak's being told if he ever wants to talk to ANYONE in this administration ever again, he'd better help them get out of this jam.

Furthermore, this issue about CIA"operative" versus"analyst" is a red herring folks. We wouldn't be having this scandal of she were just an analyst. Do you really think we'd be hearing all of this and that the CIA would call for a DOJ investigation of the leak of the identity of an analyst?

Come on folks, get real. Sometimes I wonder if the media thinks through the logic of what they're being told sometimes.

Oh yeah. Here's the latest WaPo story this morning as well. W still believes he can get out of this one unscathed apparently. I also love how the usual media lapdogs are telling us nothing will ever come of this because it's a leak investigation and those seldom go anywhere.

Folks, the difference here is that these idiots called six journalists with this -- not one or two. And, from what I can tell, these guys have been talking to their colleagues. This is the best known secret in Washington these days I suspect. It's only a matter of time before their names become known folks. W and the boys are hoping it'll blow over.

I think they're wrong. I agree with Torie"fashion plate" Clarke who said on CNN last night that the quickest way to end all of this would be to have those involved resign and face charges. She said that's the quickest way for this administration to put it behind them now.

Why won't W and the boys do this? Well, one possibility is, if Rove didn't make the calls himself, whomever did the calling knows that Rove was certainly"involved" and that McClellan lied about that very thing yesterday. They've now got Rove by the you-know-whats and want to be spared the humiliation and jail time. As I've said numerous times, I believe if one of the culprits (whom I think was either directly or indirectly involved) here wasn't Rove, we wouldn't be going through all of this. They'd have quickly jettisoned whomever it was and moved on.

I wonder how long it will be before someone in the media, tired of waiting for W and the boys to come clean, talks about just who it was that was shopping this information around.

I think it'll happen within the next couple of weeks. What do you think?

That's when the next firestorm will consume this White House.

Update: Josh notes that, since Alberto Gonzales's letter to the White House staff refers to Plame as an"undercover CIA employee," this"analyst" versus"operative" line is"no longer operative."

As I said earlier, it was obviously a deflective red herring that was meant to provide Republicans with an excuse to stop paying attention now -- sort of like May's"everybody knew it" excuse yesterday.

Posted by Tom at 8:54 a.m. CDT]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1679 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1679 0 Click here for Tom's latest blog entry

KEVIN SAYS 08-31-03

I know this is beating a dead horse, but what on earth are the Bushies thinking? They started a war no one else wanted, they treated anyone opposed to the war as virtual traitors to humanity, and they are still insisting that America needs to be 100% in charge of everything that goes on in Iraq.

But despite all that they're"puzzled" about how to get the rest of the world to pony up to help us out of our mess? Even though the rest of the world warned us repeatedly about the likely result of our adventure? What planet are they living on?

For chrissake, we told the rest of the world to go to hell before the war, and they haven't forgotten. They aren't going to bail us out unless we give them considerable authority over the reconstruction effort, and they might not help us even if we do. We're on our own.

The Bush administration has been incompetent and arrogant throughout this entire effort. Their prewar conduct was seemingly designed to make sure the rest of the world was against us, they were criminally negligent in their postwar planning, and George Bush personally has shown immense cowardice by consistently refusing to prepare Congress and the American public for the real cost and length of the war. He's paying the price for that cowardice now, as he watches support for the reconstruction dwindle because its expense, length, and cost in lives is taking most people by surprise.

It's pretty obvious why liberals should oppose George Bush's reelection, but the fact is that conservatives ought to oppose him too. His incompetence and cowardice has betrayed the very things they claim to stand for. In-damn-deed.

Posted by Tom at 5:41 p.m. CDTCommentmyCount('08310302');

WHAT'S IT LIKE TO DRIVE ACROSS WAR-TORN BAGHDAD? 08-31-03

Riverbend tells us.

Haven't we improved the life of the average Iraqi?

Posted by Tom at 9:18 a.m. CDTCommentmyCount('08310301');

DOWD:"LESS HOBBES, MORE LOCKE" 08-30-03

Maureen Dowd hits the nail on the head in tomorrow's column:

It has also now become radiantly clear that we have to drag Dick Cheney out of the dark and smog. Less Hobbes, more Locke.

So far, American foreign policy has been guided by the vice president's gloomy theories that fear and force are the best motivators in the world, that war is man's natural state and that the last great superpower has sovereign authority to do as it pleases without much consultation with subjects or other nations.

We can now see the disturbing results of all the decisions Mr. Cheney m]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1631 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1631 0 Jeff Cooper has raised an interesting question in his blog today. He argues that warblogs are no longer a good place to go for reasoned analysis for those of us who have questions about Bush's case for war with Iraq. Jeff writes:

As the fall elections draw near, though, and as we move closer to action against Iraq, I find myself reading the warblogs less and less. It's not simply because they support the president's posture toward Iraq, a subject about which I have serious misgivings. It's that so many of them deny any legitimacy whatsoever to those who hold positions different from their own. Consider the following, posted by Bill Quick over the weekend:

The left is clueless, suicidal, morally bankrupt, and ethically a contradiction, concerned only with power for the sake of power and, yes, in their lust for a phony"internationalism," deeply and profoundly unpatriotic. They hate the spirit of the Constitution, wish to pick and choose among those few parts of it they like, loathe America, are ashamed to be American (despite all their lies about"loving America, they don't really love this country - they love only their desperate, ugly wish for an America structured to the socialist, statist horror they truly desire), and would destroy the America of the Founders and the Constitution in a moment if they could wave a magic red wand and do so. My goodness. But surely he's talking only about the radical leftist fringe, the tiny fragment of the American polity that occupies a relationship to mainstream Democrats similar to that between Buchananites and mainstream Republicans? Well, no: Yes, I can hear the gasps. I'm accusing men like Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt of being unpatriotic, am I? Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I am. Their only concern at the moment is not that Saddam Hussein might be a deadly danger to the people they claim to represent, it is that they somehow find a way to take power in the House and Senate in the upcoming national elections, so they can more effectively assault a President who is charged with defending American citizens against one of the greatest threats we've faced in the modern era. That's not patriotism, it's only partisanship, and no matter how they try to gussy them up, the two are not the same thing. I'm sorry, but this is intolerable. It's pernicious nonsense like this that justifies Samuel Johnson's description of patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is entirely possible to love one's country, to recognize that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done evil things and will do more in the future if unchecked, to believe that terrorism must be opposed forcibly, and still to harbor grave doubts about the course on which we are now set. This is especially so when the administration's public argument for action against Iraq is so deeply based on demonstrable lies—lies recognized as such even by the Washington Times, for goodness sake. Given the dishonesty with which the case against Iraq is presented, it is, I would think, a demonstration of devotion to one's country to question the wisdom of pursuing unilateral action in the face of our allies' opposition, and indeed to question the motives of those who repeatedly rely on falsehoods to press their case.

As someone who is relatively new to this blogging thing, it was surprising to hear that war blogs ever were a good source for reasoned debate and analysis. I have found that most of them eschew any sort of analysis in favor of good old-fashioned chest-thumping and cheerleading. And Jeff points out that most of them impugn the patriotism of the administration's opponents instead of answering their criticisms. I find this to be almost universally the case with most of the more popular war blogs.

I find a similar sort of reasoning (if I can dignify it by calling it"reasoning") being employed by folks in the blogosphere who are raising a stink over the comments of Jim McDermott and David Bonior from Baghdad in which they criticize the administration's case for war against Iraq. Now, I think it is a bad idea to criticize Bush's Iraq policy from Baghdad. It makes you look like propaganda tools for Saddam. It looks very bad and clearly these guys were not exercising the best judgement in saying such things from Iraq. However, I don't find anything they're saying to be that outrageous -- they just should be saying those things over here rather than in Baghdad. The administration has misled the American people on numerous occasions recently with regard to Iraq. If you recall, it was just this weekend that the administration was caught essentially falsifying evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

However, the rhetoric and condemnation by Republicans in Washington has seemed awfully forced -- and it is. The same Republicans who are now blowing-and-going about Bonior and McDermott undercut Bill Clinton's foreign policies at every opportunity. Look at the comments below by Trent Lott and Tom DeLay regarding the Iraq situation in 1998. Lott and DeLay essentially abandoned Bill Clinton in 1998 regarding Iraq. Lott insisted that we should"go slow" and downplayed Iraq as a serious threat. Who were the appeasers back then? Lott, Delay, et. al essentially forced Clinton to follow the policy they desired -- which was essentially to do nothing. The lame congressional resolution produced by the Republican congress in 1998 was little more than a warm bucket of spit. Republicans insisted that Clinton not use force to compel Saddam to allow arms inspectors into Iraq. How dare these sunshine patriots condemn Bonior and DeLay when their own behavior was so cowardly with regard to Iraq not so long ago. How amazing it is for these same Republicans to blame the Iraq situation on Clinton, conveniently forgetting their own complicity in the developments in 1998 and 1999.

However, the same folks in the blogosphere who are blasting the administration's critics are only following the lead of their heroes in the White House. The administration long ago gave up making any sort of reasoned case with evidence for war with Iraq. Like their supporters in the blogosphere, they're content to make assertions without evidence and to question the patriotism of their critics rather than attempt to answer their questions. I'm just surprised anyone would expect reasoned discussion and debate from these folks, whether we're talking about Republicans in Washington or war bloggers. Maybe at one time they were capable of it but clearly they no longer are.

BLUE BOOKS DONE FOR TODAY -- MORE AWAIT ME TOMORROW -- A COUPLE OF MORE LINKS BEFORE HEADING HOME 9-30-02

Robert Torricelli has officially pulled out of the New Jersey Senate race. The Democrats are going to try to replace him on the ticket just 36 days before the election. As usual, expect the Republicans to take this one to court. If the Democrats replace Torricelli on the ticket, the Republicans will probably lose. The funniest part of all this is when a Republican official talks about how New Jersey Democrats are"manipulating democracy." Isn't that rich? In 2000, the Republicans"manipulated democracy" through their cronies in the courts all the way to the White House. Just a wee bit hypocritical, eh?

Sorry warmongers, the Turkish police didn't seize 33 pounds of Uranium, just five ounces. I know many bloggers have been writing breathlessly all weekend about how this was a"smoking gun" in the case against Saddam. Sorry guys, no cigar. I know it disappoints you so. One of the more prominent of these folks is now claiming that he really didn't believe these early reports but his actual words betray him.

I'll probably write more later today from home.

BLUE BOOKS CALLING MY NAME -- BUT I'LL PROVIDE A FEW LINKS BEFORE I DIVE INTO THE STACK 9-30-02

William Raspberry of the Washington Postasks several important unasked questions about the impending war with Iraq.

Does anyone else think this sounds like a hair-brained idea to stop Iraqi commanders from using chemical or biological weapons?

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is certainly onto something in this article. He argues that the administration's desire for war isn't about Iraq, it isn't about the war on terrorism, it's about establishing a Pax Americana. We need to conquer Iraq to prove our power and begin our drive toward a world empire. And while we spend billions on arms to keep the peace the rest of the world will surpass us in every major quality of life measure that we know of but, hey, we'll be the big boy on the block. This article is definitely worth the time.

Larry Sabato's current prediction for the November 5th elections is that it's going down to the wire. He doesn't even venture a guess about the Senate and he gives the Republicans a small edge in the House races. Therefore, I expect a great deal more wagging the dog from Republicans in the coming weeks.

In his article about the midterm elections, Howard Fineman at Newsweek certainly agrees with me that W is trying to wag the dog. In fact, his article is titled"Wag the War." His analysis is quite good. He argues that the economy is likely to be the deciding factor. In a shopping mall in W's home state he discovers that even wealthy Houstonians aren't sold on this war's necessity and that the economy is more important to them.

Isn't it about time to replace the top people at the FBI and CIA? Here's a story about how the upper echelons in both agencies are upset that the congressional investigation is making them look so bad. Try not to cry too much into your beer guys. I just want to know how these folks are holding on to their jobs! If W's administration was worth anything, they would have fired most of these folks already.

Now I'll dive into the pile! However, I'll probably update the blog a few more times today for a diversion from the tedium.

LINKS TO MY ARTICLES ON HNN 9-30-02

I know that a few folks have asked where to find my past articles for HNN before I started writing the blog. You simply need to use HNN's search feature. However, I'll make it much easier for you and just post links to them here.

February 11:"Did President Bush Pass Up an Attempt to Get Bin Laden Before 9-11?"

March 11:"Bush in the Bunker"

April 29:"Does the NRA Mistrust Democracy?"

May 16:"Caught in a Lie?"

June 24:"Is the 'War on Terrorism' just another 'Quasi War'?"

July 23:"10 Days that Shook the Bush Presidency"

I do miss writing the articles. However, I think I'll be sticking to blog-writing for the foreseeable future. It's taking up enough of my time at the moment.

A COUPLE OF LINKS ON A LAZY SUNDAY 9-29-02

Here's a good op-ed by Cragg Hines of the Houston Chronicle about Bush's shameful performance this week. I'll give you a quote of the first four paragraphs:

While President Bush is playing fast and loose with the politics of the war on terror, he should consider that were it not for Sept. 11 his administration and its Republican friends on Capitol Hill likely would be deep in the tank and about to go down for the third time. Or, more likely, Bush (or Karl Rove) has thought of that. And the realization led the president into his sorry enterprise of declaring that the Democratically controlled Senate is"not interested in the security of the American people."

Without the veneer of national solidarity produced by the attacks, most Americans rightly would be focused on the flaccid economy and thinking that Bush was a fiscal doofus and corporate crony who should be hitting the road and taking Trent Lott and Tom DeLay with him.

The war has saved their skins, and Bush's implicit suggestion that he and other Republicans are morally superior to Democrats in the fight against Osama bin Laden and even Saddam Hussein is egregious and sickening -- not to mention baseless.

Bush's success in the fight against bin Laden is modest enough and his mooted battle with Saddam, although well founded, is tricky enough that there is no room for his chest-thumping commentary that grows more urgent as mid-term elections approach.

The rest of the op-ed is worth reading as well. This administration would be teetering on the edge of irrelevancy if it weren't for September 11th -- and it's still possible that the midterms will make that so as well. That's why the administration is fighting"bear knuckles" style right now.

Nicholas Confessore's piece in the Washington Monthly is quite interesting. He makes the argument that a Republican victory in the midterms would essentially bring political armaggedon for those of us who value a government whose raison d'etre isn't to enrich the already rich. Here's a short quote from the much larger piece:

The GOP already controls the White House, the Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives. The Democrats control the Senate, but by only one vote. Polls of the handful of competitive Senate races indicate that control of the chamber is a toss-up. And while Democrats are optimistic about retaking the House, Republicans are increasingly sure that their larger war chests and a late-campaign public focus on national security threats will keep them in power. So if Johnson loses, and the Democrats don't win elsewhere, then, for the first time since 1953, the GOP would control both Congress and the White House for at least two years. Throw in the Supreme Court, and Republicans will have won control of the entire federal government for the first time since 1929. With that kind of power, it would take only a few years for the Republican Party to fundamentally reshape American government in ways that can't be undone no matter which party wins in 2004--from more tax cuts that would bankrupt Washington for decades, to a continued unilateralist foreign policy that would wreak further havoc on international institutions, to judicial precedents that would permanently cripple the ability of the federal government to grapple with social and economic problems. By any reasonable measure, the most pivotal issue facing voters in this congressional election is control of Congress itself.

This piece is worth your time. Give it a read.

A COUPLE OF TIDBITS 9-28-02

In addition to W being caught lying through his teeth, there are a couple of other interesting tidbits today.

Despite the administration's best efforts, The dog continues to refuse to be wagged. Public support for action against Iraq without the support of allies is dropping fast according to a recent poll. It drops to a mere 33% if the U.S. must act unilaterally. As I've said before, if W wants public support, he's going to have to work through the U.N. He'd better get used to the idea.

Now who does Dick Cheney work for? The American people or energy companies? Boy, the arguments the administration is advancing to ward off the GAO's lawsuit certainly look bad to anyone who cares about congressional oversight. Using their logic, an administration never has to turn over documents to congress. Just a wee bit secretive aren't they? Reminds me a lot of Nixon's administration.

Boy, what a difference an administration makes for Republicans on Iraq. You ought to take a look at the arguments Republicans like Trent Lott made when Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq in 1998. They argued it wasn't that big of a deal and that we should"go slow" in Iraq. I guess the devil wasn't quite so evil back then. I've seen absolutely no evidence to convince me much has changed in Iraq since then, so why the change Trent? Oh yeah, I forgot. Midterm elections are coming up -- never mind.

W IS MAKING STUFF UP 9-28-02

You knew they'd get caught making stuff up eventually. W and the boys want a war with Iraq and will say anything to get it. Here's the story: the folks at the International Atomic Energy Agency says that the 1998 report W has been citing about Saddam's nuclear capability"doesn't exist." The best part is when the administration spin machine (so it doesn't seem like they're lying outright) claims that they were really talking about the 1991 report. The agency says that report doesn't exist either. Oops. How embarrassing.

This is pretty astonishing. W has now been caught essentially falsifying evidence in trying to make the case against Iraq. However, the most amazing thing here has got to be that the story accusing W of making stuff up is written by the Republican Party's often-reliable lapdogs at the moonie-owned Washington Times! Here's a quote:

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was"six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.

In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said:"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.

The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report.

"He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan."In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away." Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991.

Amazing stuff, eh? Of course, you knew it was only a matter of time before somebody in our rather subservient press corps began to fact-check some of W's most outrageous and evidence-free statements in his case for war with Iraq.

HOT LINKS FOR THE DAY 9-28-02

Frank Rich has yet another great column out today. You should read it. Here's a bit of it:

The"fuzzy math" of this White House's tax cut and budget projections, chronicled by my colleague Paul Krugman from the start, is compounded daily rather than corrected. When we poor shareholders worry too loudly about our growing economic pain, the administration's antidote to our woes is not more honesty in bookkeeping but Ken Lay-style cheerleading. This month Mr. Bush's S.E.C. chief, Harvey Pitt, went so far as to tell Americans it is"more than safe" to get back in the market — as the Dow plummeted for its sixth consecutive month. It's the same pitch Mr. Lay offered his employees in an e-mail —"I want to assure you that I have never felt better about the prospects for the company" — on the day Jeffrey Skilling resigned as chief executive in anticipation of Enron's collapse.

But this administration no longer cooks the books merely on fiscal matters. Disinformation has become ubiquitous, even in the government's allegedly empirical scientific data on public health. The annual federal report on air pollution trends published this month simply eliminated its usual (and no doubt troubling) section on global warming, much as accountants at Andersen might have cleaned up a balance sheet by hiding an unprofitable division. At the Department of Health and Human Services, The Washington Post reported last week, expert committees are being"retired" before they can present data that might contradict the president's views on medical matters — much as naysaying Wall Street analysts were sidelined in favor of boosters who could be counted on to flog dogs like WorldCom or Pets.com right until they imploded.

It's when such dishonesty extends to the war on terrorism, though, that you appreciate just how much a killer arrogance can be. Even with little White House cooperation in its inquiry, this month's Congressional intelligence hearings presented a chilling portrait of the administration's efforts to cover up its pre-9/11 lassitude about terrorist threats. Exhibit A was Condoleezza Rice's pronouncement from last May:"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." In fact, the committee reported, U.S. intelligence had picked up a dozen plots of a similar sort, over a period from 1994 to pre-9/11 2001, with some of them specifically mentioning the World Trade Center and the White House as potential targets. In the weeks before the attack the C.I.A. learned that in Afghanistan"everyone is talking about an impending attack."

I don't know if I have anything to add. Just read it. As usual, it's quite good.

My understanding is the liberal, communist and anti-war New York Times refused to run this op-ad by the folks at TomPaine.com. Boy, what's the controversy here? Yeah, sure the picture of Osama is a bit shocking but the text of the op-ad isn't that outrageous. It's amazing to me when our so-called"liberal" press practices a little censorship of anti-war views, isn't it?

I'm happy to report that the dog is still refusing to be wagged before the midterm elections.

There was a large explosion in Kabul today. I'm so glad we're succeeding in keeping the peace in Afghanistan. Does anyone else think that Afghanistan is eventually going to disintegrate into a civil war again because of the administration's inattention? I know the international community believes it's just a matter of time. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on it -- but I'm not.

OPEN-MINDEDNESS, GUN"ENTHUSIASTS" AND THE BELLESILES CASE 9-27-02

I haven't said much about the Bellesiles case because I wanted to wait until the process is finished. As it becomes increasingly obvious that Bellesiles is going to be punished for his historical sins, I now feel I can say a little something. The blogosphere has been filled with discussion of this case. I'll quote a couple of folks that actually make a little sense and aren't gun"enthusiasts" who are celebrating like they actually had some hand in it themselves.

First, a quotation from Jeff Pasley's blog here on HNN:

---If you want an explanation for many historians' unwillingness to join the chorus of condemnation against Michael Bellesiles despite the evidence, check out the mob ripping apart his scholarly carcass on another part of this site. Ecch. The"pig roast" guy obviously heard that bit in church about"there but for the grace of God go I." Did I miss the part in Arming America where Bellesiles impugned gun-rights enthusiasts' mothers? You would think that Bellesiles was Stalin's right-hand man from the tone these people take.

It looks like Michael is going to be punished in some way by Emory, and he may well deserve it, but come on. Cooking history books may be a scholarly crime, but it surely does not measure up to say, defrauding thousands out of their livelihoods. (Have to disagree with the person who made the Enron comparison.) His book cost none of his critics more than the price of the book -- their millions of man-hours online being voluntary -- the controversy has done far more damage to the cause of progressive history (if that's the term) and gun control than even its full acceptance could have to the NRA and their fellow travellers. Kudos to the people who are trying to react reasonably, on HNN and elsewhere. The others can call off the public victory toga party anytime they like. Of course, what Charlton Heston does behind closed doors is nobody's business but his.

Now, a quotation from blogger Kevin Drum, better known as Calpundit:

But why is this so interesting? A historian wrote a book on an obscure subject not accessible to fact checking by laymen (or lay book critics). Professional historians have investigated and decided that the book is bogus. And now his support is melting away.

What else would you expect? Isn't this just evidence that professional historians are doing their job? And that Bellesiles' original supporters really aren't doctrinaire liberals stubbornly determined to support their cause at all costs? Shouldn't Glenn [Instapundit] and all the pro-gun folks be congratulating them for keeping an open mind?

I guess that's not a very realistic hope, is it?

Well said. This episode has actually shown that the system works. Maybe it doesn't work as quickly as the"enthusiasts" would like it to but aren't the wheels of justice supposed to be deliberate? Aren't we not supposed to rush to judgement? I know because what Bellesiles said disagreed with what many of the"enthusiasts" believed, he was supposed to be tarred and feathered on the spot and ridden out of town on a rail but that's not how the system works -- fortunately for all of us.

And now, as I said in an earlier blog entry, it's time to find something else to talk about guys. I know that your lives will lose a great deal of meaning but that's just part of life.

SOME HOT LINKS TODAY 9-27-02

Timothy Noah of Slate has a nice column arguing that the real reason for the blow-up in Washington this week was the president's demagogy about government rather than any serious issues about the war with Iraq.

Here's a nice editorial about how W is trying to have it both ways on the federal judiciary. If W disagrees with an opinion, he blasts the judge for making a politically-motivated decision. However, in the confirmation process he argues that judges should be confirmed without considering their politics. So, if being a judge is apolitical, why does he so often criticize a judge's politics?

Nicholas Kristof's article suggests that Iraqis may fight more passionately once the war is brought to them. That's an obvious point but one that, for some reason, the administration doesn't grasp.

Finally, here's an interesting analysis by W's favorite reporter for the New York Times about the way the house races are shaping up. You'll notice there's ample evidence here that the administration is wagging the dog for political gain which I believe is, as you can probably tell from my earlier comments, about as shameful a use of war as is possible.

KRUGMAN'S COLUMN IS, ONCE AGAIN, QUITE GOOD TODAY 9-27-02

Another good Paul Krugman column is out today. In this one, he talks about how the fake power crisis in California is sure to repeat itself with this bought-and-paid-for administration in power. Here's a snippet:

But why did energy companies think they could get away with it?

One answer might be that the apparent malefactors are very big contributors to the Republican Party. Some analysts have suggested that energy companies felt free to manipulate markets because they believed they had bought protection from federal regulation — the conspiracy-minded point out that severe power shortages began just after the 2000 election, and ended when Democrats gained control of the Senate.

Federal regulators certainly seemed determined to see and hear no evil, and above all not to reveal evidence of evil to state officials. A previous FERC ruling on El Paso was, in the view of many observers, a whitewash. In another case, AES/Williams was accused of shutting down generating units, forcing the power system to buy power at vastly higher prices from other units of the same company. In April 2001, FERC and Williams reached a settlement in which the company repaid the extra profits, but paid no penalty — and FERC sealed the evidence. Last week CBS News reported that"federal regulators have power control room audiotapes that prove traders from Williams Energy called plant operators and told them to turn off the juice. The government sealed the tapes in a secret settlement" — the same settlement? —"and still refuses to release them."

If that's true, FERC caught at least one power company red-handed, in the middle of the crisis, at a time when state officials were begging the agency to take action — and then suppressed the evidence. Yet this story has received little national play.

Why has this story"received little national play" Krugman asks? Because we're talking about war instead, that's why. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

A COUPLE OF INTERESTING THINGS 9-26-02

Holy Moly! You've gotta read this. Ashcroft has personal connections to an Iraqi group the administration is now declaring a terrorist organization. The administration is now trying to use Saddam's ties to this organization to declare he supports terrorism. Using this administration's often specious logic, doesn't that now mean that Ashcroft supports terrorism? Doesn't that mean W should declare him an enemy combatant?

In other wacky Ashcroft news, his Justice Department gave Zacarias Moussaoui 48 classified documents by mistake. The best part of the article is when the Justice Department spokesman tries to reassure us that Moussaoui never read the documents. Why is Ashcroft still in charge of the Justice Department? This is certainly major league incompetence, wouldn't you say?

Further proving that this administration of millionaires, for millionaires, and by millionaires is out of touch with the average Joe, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill declared today that the economy is doing just fine. For filthy rich folks like him, I'm sure it is. Now, for the rest of us, many of whom are suffering mightily because of the state of the economy, well, our opinions just don't count with this administration.

ODDS AND ENDS ON A BUSY DAY 9-26-02

I've got a giant stack of blue books that will keep me pretty busy for the next few days. I will, of course, continue to blog but it may be a bit more sporadic than it has been. I will keep it going. With that in mind, I'll give you some links to some interesting news tidbits.

You know the ghoul, er, Don Rumsfeld is in trouble when Bob Novak, noted Republican lapdog, calls him a liar. Novak points out that Rumsfeld's testimony before congress the other day about his role in building up Saddam in the 1980s stretches the truth just a wee bit.

W sounds awfully desperate when he asserts, with absolutely no evidence, that Saddam has ties to Al-Qaeda. Obviously, W thinks this assertion will help to shake his pro-war resolution loose in congress. However, just repeating something over and over doesn't make it true -- even if most conservatives seem to think it does.

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post apparently agrees with me that it's time for the administration to provide answers to critics' questions instead of trying to shout them down or impugn their patriotism.

It also appears that the Washington Post editorial staff agrees with me as well.

Okay, so I'm not that original. The New York Timesagrees with me too.

POISONING THE WATERS OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE 9-26-02

Instead of relying on hawkish"war bloggers" or even quotations from media websites for accounts of Daschle's speech, I would suggest that folks should actually read Daschle's remarks before the Senate. After watching Republicans mischaracterize this speech for the last 24 hours, I think it's time for folks to actually read the speech. What you see there may surprise you.

Republicans keep claiming Daschle is confusing the Iraq war and the war on terrorism in his remarks. However, if you actually read the speech, you can see that Daschle clearly is referring to the"war on terrorism" not the impending war with Iraq. It is the war on terrorism, of which the new Homeland Security Agency created by the bill in question would be a part, that Daschle is referring to. Any Republican who suggests different is clearly trying to mislead the public. After watching Newt Gingrich's performance last night on Nightline, I think it's time for everyone to actually read the speech rather than relying on the Republican spin of it that is dominating our subservient Washington media's discussion of the speech.

Of course, Senator Charles Schumer made another excellent point last night on Nightline when he argued that what we're seeing is an administration that questions the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them on some aspect of the war on terror. I love listening to Republicans like Trent Lott call Daschle's remarks"unhelpful" and"partisan." Hey Trent, how helpful is it to question the patriotism of everyone that disagrees with you? You guys on that side of the aisle have been doing it for months now. I suspect he's just upset because someone finally called him on it.

This administration has gone a long way toward poisoning the discourse in this country over the last few months and it's about time that Republicans begin to realize that and take responsibility for it. This from an administration that swore it was going to" change the tone" in Washington. They changed the tone all right. In fact, they turned the treble knob all the way up.

It's also about time for someone, anyone, in the White House to actually take responsibility for something. Whether we're talking about the economy, the deficit, or security mistakes, this administration weasels off, passes the buck, and avoids responsibility. Daschle is only voicing the concerns and anger of a growing number of Americans today who see an administration that avoids taking responsibility for anything and uses the worst possible tactics to get its way.

I think Daschle is right. It is time for an apology to Democrats and the American people for the shameful and outrageous way that the administration is impugning the patriotism of its critics rather than trying to respond to the actual content of their criticisms. It shows you the moral and political bankruptcy of this administration that it is using this old and disingenuous tactic instead of engaging in genuine debate and discussion about its domestic security policies and the impending war on Iraq.

I think it's time for it to stop.

Today.

Right now.

Do you think this will happen?

Of course not.

A FEW GOOD LINKS BEFORE I RETIRE FOR THE EVENING 9-25-02

W plans to cut several domestic federal programs -- including several in education -- in order to pay for his tax cut and the war in Iraq. Whatever happened to"the education president?" I guess, like most things that don't involve tax cuts or war, this was just lip service rather than any sort of meaningful commitment.

James Pinkerton has a powerful op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about Bush's"strategy" of wagging the dog. Here's a bit of it:

The Bush administration dominates the news every time it says anything about its prospective war with Iraq. As an example, the"strategy" document released Friday, calling for preemptive action against terror, was mostly a rehash of the president's speech of June 1. And yet discussion of its particulars dominated the weekend, as other news was mostly buried.

And maybe that's the real brilliance of the Bushies--changing the subject away from the economy, stupid.

Consider: The Dow Jones industrial average fell below 8,000 last week and closed Monday at 7,872. Just Sunday, Peregrine Systems, a San Diego-based software company, filed for bankruptcy. As an example of the cratering in high tech, Peregrine sold off a subsidiary unit for $350 million after having paid $1 billion for that same unit in August 2001. Speaking of lost billions, WorldCom revealed last week that it probably misreported $9 billion in revenue, not $7 billion. Meanwhile, leading economic indicators and housing starts have fallen for three months in a row. Finally, oil prices went above $30 a barrel Monday, up 40% since the start of the year.

If this news seems secondary, maybe there's a reason for that. But not a good reason, according to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). The octogenarian legislator offered his own explanation on the Senate floor Friday:"The president was dropping in the polls and the domestic situation was such that the administration was appearing to be much like the emperor who had no clothes." Speaking in his usual flowery prose, Byrd described the coming of"the war fervor, the drums of war, the bugles of war, the clouds of war."

I think some folks in the media are beginning to pay attention. It's about time.

Layoffs soared in August, up 46% from July. I think it's time to talk some more about Iraq, don't you?

However, judging from these poll numbers, the dog is still refusing to be wagged.

MORE TRAVEL MONEY FOR CHENEY -- ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 9-25-02

This USA Todaystory recounts how Dick Cheney has come begging to the congress for more travel money. Here's a snip: Vice President Cheney, whose travel this year has been mainly trips to"secure undisclosed locations" and GOP fundraisers, has exceeded his travel budget and is asking Congress to approve shifting $100,000 from other White House accounts to cover the tab.

Congress approved $386,000 for travel by the vice president this year and authorized the White House to spend an additional $50,000 if necessary — a total of $436,000. So far, Cheney's travel costs for the year total $432,000, but the figure is expected to go higher because of lag time in processing bills.

Isn't it amazing that the fiscal conservatives are always the ones who personally waste the most of the taxpayers' money on themselves while in office? Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical when your tax cut has depleted federal coffers and you're threatening to veto important spending bills to be asking for additional money so you can fly around the country from fundraiser to fundraiser attacking the patriotism of Democrats? I say it's time to tell Dick to either stay home or go to his undisclosed location -- and live within his means. The rest of us manage to do so somehow. Besides, Dick made $50M or so running Halliburton into the ground in the 1990s. Why doesn't he cover the shortfall? Why should we have to cover it?

DASCHLE FIRES BACK 9-25-02

It appears that Tom Daschle has had enough. He's exasperated about Bush's rather careless remarks regarding the Democratic-controlled Senate yesterday. I think W may have finally overstepped his bounds. I wondered what sort of shameless act by W was required to make Democrats finally say something. I guess now we know. Here's a bit of the story:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday demanded an apology from President Bush for comments the South Dakota Democrat said were"outrageous" and politicized a possible war with Iraq.

His voice thick with emotion, the normally soft-spoken Daschle said Bush had insulted Democrats, many of them veterans of war, in saying the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate was"not interested in the security of the American people."

"That is outrageous, outrageous," Daschle said on the Senate floor.

He demanded the president apologize to Democrats and the American people.

"We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death," Daschle said.

As I said earlier, it does appear the dog is beginning to refuse to be wagged. It's almost as if Bush doesn't know when to stop. He's already getting nearly everything he wants but, like the spoiled child that he is, it's never enough to please him.

However, the most amazing part of this story is at the end when the reporter, apparently with no sense of irony, includes a Trent Lott quote in which Lott accuses Daschle of being too partisan in his comments. Now, after what the president said yesterday, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Of course, with the lilly white nature of Lott's supporters in Mississippi and his frequent appearances before militant racist groups there, I guess I should've chosen a different turn of phrase to describe Lott's hypocrisy.

ODDS AND ENDS 9-25-02

Here's an analytical article about how the administration lost the battle over worker's rights in the Senate's version of the Homeland Security Bill. Isn't it a good idea for employees in this agency to be covered by the worker protections given to other federal employees? Isn't it a bad idea to create a security agency that has the potential of becoming a patronage machine for the current administration? Wouldn't that actually endanger domestic security?

This analysis of Bush's flub in being unable to say"shame on me" is quite good. W apparently is unable to even ponder himself doing anything wrong. Take a look.

What does Molly Ivins think about W's new National Security strategy? Not much as you might imagine. She also points out that this is the same misguided document that the same folks during Bush I put out to deal with the Soviet Threat before it, er, disappeared. They've now gussied it up and re-introduced it as a"new" plan for the world. Here's a snippet:

All the experts tell us anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we are arrogant, that we care nothing for what the rest of the world thinks. Even our innocent mistakes are often blamed on obnoxious triumphalism. The announced plan of this administration for world domination reinforces every paranoid, anti-American prejudice on this earth. This plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane, 21st century version of Sparta -- armed to teeth, guards on every foot of our borders -- we would still not be safe. Have the Israelis been able to stop terrorism with their tactics?

Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or parks or zoos or gardens or universities or mass transit or senior centers or the arts or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts.

This creepy, un-American document has a pedigree going back to Bush I, when -- surprise! -- Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were at the Department of Defense and both such geniuses that they not only didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, they didn't believe it after they saw it.

In those days, this plan for permanent imperial adventurism was called"Defense Strategy for the 1990s" and was supposed to be a definitive response to the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet threat disappeared, and the same plan re-emerged as a response to the post-Soviet world.

It was roundly criticized at the time, its manifest weaknesses attacked by both right and left. Now it is back yet again as the answer to post-Sept. 11. Sort of like the selling of the Bush tax cut -- needed in surplus, needed in deficit, needed for rain and shine -- the plan exists apart from rationale. ` As Frances Fitzgerald points out in the Sept. 26 New York Review of Books, its most curious feature is the combination of triumphalism and almost unmitigated pessimism. Until last Friday, when the thing was re-released in its new incarnation, it contained no positive goals for American foreign policy, not one. Now the plan is tricked out with rhetoric like earrings on a pig about extending freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world. But as The New York Times said,"It sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced."

Tell us how you feel Molly! Don't hold back now!

THE DOG IS REFUSING TO BE WAGGED 9-25-02

A new CBS News poll does not have good news for the administration on Iraq. Most Americans believe we should wait on the U.N. and should only act on Iraq in concert with our allies. Despite all the bluster of the past few weeks, most Americans still aren't buying the administration's spin on Iraq as a" clear and present danger." However, in an interesting twist, more Americans now believe that Saddam is a threat that Osama bin Laden. That is pretty astonishing. That part of the administration's campaign, ridiculous as it is, certainly appears to be working on the minds of Americans.

However, does this really make any sense? Honestly, if left alone, which of these two guys would you bet on striking us first in the next couple of years? It's not Saddam, is it? Past experience suggests Osama, no matter what the Al-Qaeda network's condition, is the much bigger threat.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON SAYS"SEND IN THE POPULISTS" 9-25-02

Arianna Huffington has a good column out today on her website. In it she describes how so many candidates running for the Senate are hypocritically trying to make themselves out to be populists. Here's a quotation about my state's Senate contest:

Corporate connections have also played a central role in the Missouri Senate race, where Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan is locked in a tight contest with Republican former congressman Jim Talent.

Carnahan and her supporters have drawn blood by playing up Talent's most recent gig as a moderately talented $230,000-a-year corporate lobbyist, and by attacking his pro-fat cat voting record while serving in the House -- including his support of a federal loophole that allows super-rich Americans to renounce their citizenship as a way to avoid paying taxes. It doesn't help Talent's cause that during his time in Congress he was part of a group of young congressmen who dubbed themselves the"Lobster Tails" -- renowned for dining out at fancy restaurants on lobbyist's expense accounts.

In the finest tradition of American politics and schoolyards everywhere, Talent has responded to the attacks on his career as a lobbyist by finding a lobbyist of his own to smear -- making mud pies out of the fact that Roy Temple, Carnahan's chief of staff, worked as a lobbyist for MCI during the time it was acquired by the sleazoids at WorldCom.

Talent's buddies in the Missouri GOP have also joined the fray, running TV ads attacking Carnahan as a hypocrite in populist’s clothing for having accepted campaign cash from executives at Global Crossing -- including the ubiquitous Hindery --"who bankrupted the company and cost the employees their jobs and life savings." The commercials fail to mention, however, that the Republican Senatorial Committee, which helped pay for the ad, also took money from Global Crossing. Maybe irony didn't score well in the committee’s focus group tests.

It's definitely the last days of Rome as far as the candidates and soft money are concerned. When I watch television on my low-budget small-town station from St. Joseph, it's nonstop commercials for this race, all paid for by soft money. Sometimes, three of the four commercials are for the Senate race! BTW, Jean Carnahan is apparently ahead of Jim Talent by eight to ten points in most polls in the state. So I'm not quite sure if it still qualifies as a"tight contest."

MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS 9-25-02

There's a great Gene Lyons column out this morning. I'll provide you with a quotation for now and, as soon as it is available, I'll provide you with a free link for access. The folks who run my old hometown paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Republicans that they are, try to keep Gene's columns off their website unless you're a subscriber. If you want your Gene Lyons almost as soon as it hits screen doors in Little Rock, send an e-mail to this address.

And now, the promised quotation from Gene's latest column:

Now let me get this straight: Saddam Hussein is a deadly threat to American security, the worst since Hitler or Stalin. Why, it may take as long as two weeks to conquer Iraq. So now that President Junior's returned from a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, which he apparently spent rounding up and branding golf carts, the sky is falling and there's not a moment to spare.

A Democrat-Gazette headline last week actually quoted Bush stating"If you want peace, it's necessary to use force."

War is Peace. Where have I heard that before?

"Regime change," the man calls it. Translation: assuming Junior doesn't get diplomatically outmaneuvered by the Iraqi strongman (and especially if he DOES), the administration is determined to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked or threatened us, kill thousands of its citizens and install a dictator more to our liking. Preferably one who sells cheap oil and buys mass quantities of American-made weapons to replace the ones we're fixing to blow to smithereens.

Meanwhile, it's everybody's patriotic duty to keep a straight face. That's why the serious news broadcasts and the heavyweight pundits ignored Junior's unintentionally hilarious performance in Nashville last week. Speaking to one of his preferred audiences of schoolchildren, Bush told them Saddam can't be trusted.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee," he began."I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--it says 'fool me once..." A long pause ensued. A befuddled, then somewhat panicky expression appeared on Bush's face."Shame on...shame on...you." Second pause."Fool me...can't get fooled again," he finally blurted out.

The irony of Bush's channeling The Who's caustic anthem was almost paralyzing. Written to satirize Sixties-style hippie utopianism,"Won't Get Fooled Again" all but took the roof off Madison Square Garden when they performed it with a backdrop of British and American flags before cheering cops and firemen at the 2001"Concert for New York." Thirty years on, the song's acid pessimism, fierce anger and anarchic joy somehow made it the perfect 9/11 elegy.

I have to credit my wife, Melissa, though. She recognized that W was channeling the Who immediately. Well, that's all I can really get away with posting of this column for now. As soon as the free link is up, I'll post it.

Update: The column is now up on the"unofficial website." Go read it!!!

A COUPLE OF LINKS BEFORE BED 9-24-02

Here's an interesting editorial from a Yale law professor about who the most dangerous person on Earth is right now -- and it's not who W wants you to think it is.

The Dow reached a four-year low today. The NASDAQ reached a six-year low. Is it any wonder that W and Republicans only want to talk about war with Iraq?

ODDS AND ENDS 9-24-02

Why did Bush flip-flop on the independent commission to investigate 9/11? Michael Isikoff of Newsweek explains why and, once again, it involves domestic political concerns rather than any higher goods such as a desire to get to the truth or trying to prevent such a thing from happening again.

In congressional testimony yesterday, one of the FBI agents in Minneapolis testified he was"trying to get people at FBI headquarters 'spun up' because he was trying to make sure that [Zacarias] Moussaoui 'did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." Now that's embarrassing. Of course, the worst part is when the agent's supervisor claims that he doesn't recall the conversation. Do you think he's really telling the truth? Why do I doubt it?

Here's an interesting op-ed piece from a trained propaganda analyst about the administration's propaganda campaign on Iraq from the Ann Arbor News that's worth reading.

Here's a story on how we sent 72 shipments of dangerous biological materials to Iraq during the Reagan and Bush I administrations in the 1980s. If Saddam has a biological weapons program now, it appears we gave it to him.

GOT EVIDENCE? 9-24-02

Since our own press is useless for this, I have to go to the foreign press, more specifically the Guardian, for any real listing of evidence against Iraq that isn't a 1980s rehash of well-known crimes. Tony Blair released a dossier yesterday with a list of allegations against Iraq.

The response in Britain by members of Blair's own party has been, essentially,"Big deal. Tell me something new will you?" I don't know what else to say about it. Take a look. I do assume W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al can do better than this for evidence, right?

Update: It took a while but now American media sources have starting reporting on Blair's dossier. Here's MSNBC's story and an entire copy of the dossier.

THE GERMAN QUESTION 9-24-02

W is supposed to know what he's doing, right? Biting the hand of an ally isn't very helpful and surely isn't very damn"diplomatic." The administration's spoiled child-like ]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1045 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1045 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

OFF TO PLANET HOUSTON 11-26-02

As my parting gift to you, I'll give you two links. The first one is a link to the results of a CBS News poll that shows W's re-elect numbers currently stand at only 32%. So, there is still hope my friends.

The second thing is this interesting piece about what was apparently a deal between Janet Rehnquist and Jeb to put off a potentially embarrassing audit of one of Florida's state pension funds until after the election. Conveniently timed, eh? I'm really beginning to suspect that Rehnquist's days in the administration are numbered and, if the stories about what she's doing in that office are true, they should be.

As many of you probably remember, I'm leaving for Houston in the morning at 4:30. It promises to be a long 900 miles each way with four of us. Thank goodness one of our friends loaned us a TV/VCR for the kids. I suspect that will make the day pass much faster.

I'll be staying with my grandmother who doesn't own a computer. My aunts and uncles own computers but I probably won't worry about it. Therefore, my good readers, this is more than likely the last thing I'll be able to post until Sunday or Monday. This is the first time I've taken such a long hiatus since I started this blog in August. I do promise you that I'll be back for sure on Monday morning.

Happy Thanksgiving and please, everyone, drive safely!

Posted by Tom at 8:35 p.m. CST

MEET ALBERTO GONZALES 11-26-02

Here's an interesting story from the Wall Street Journal about W's choice for the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, his current White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. BTW, if you think this administration has gone to far in limiting civil liberties, you can blame Mr. Gonzales for many of those decisions. Ashcroft enforces them but Gonzales appears to actually be behind them.

Wouldn't it be great to appoint the guy who clearly believes the constitution is just another piece of paper to the Supreme Court?

Sigh.

Posted by Tom at 3:58 p.m. CST

ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ASSAULT 11-26-02

Many recent events in academia are bothering me lately. Here are a few of them:

• The recent assaults by Lynne Cheney and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni on the patriotism of professors at American universities
• The story on this website about Richard Berthold, professor of history at the University of New Mexico, who said something unwise in class on the day of 9/11 attacks
• The denial of tenure and promotion to KC Johnson at Brooklyn College because he wasn't" collegial"

The story of Berthold raises other more disturbing questions. Berthold made an admittedly senseless remark in class on 9/11. The worst part of it all is that Berthold's faculty colleagues apparently left him out to twist in the wind. His story is a genuine cautionary tale to those of us who often say things in class to provoke a response from our students. It certainly appears that academic freedom isn't alive and well at the University of New Mexico at present. Many of Berthold's faculty colleagues who disagreed with him about other issues used the occasion to presumably settle old scores with him. It is sad but understandable to hear that Berthold resigned rather than fight the good fight.

Both of these direct assaults on academic freedom are outrageous and should merit some sort of response. Unfortunately in the America of John Ashcroft and Poindexter's Orwellian spy machine, I'm pretty sure people would prefer to remain quiet about them and I understand that.

The case of KC Johnson raises the most troubling questions for me. Of course, the most obvious reason this case bothers me is that I'm up for tenure and promotion next year. I'm told by my colleagues that I have nothing to worry about but you can't ever help but worry about it. It appears that Johnson's denial of promotion and tenure had nothing to do with his research, teaching or service. He was a victim of department politics it appears. He frequently disagreed with his colleagues over campus issues, even opposing the hiring of a historian he believed to be unqualified. In denying his promotion and tenure, his colleagues pronounced him as being guilty of"uncollegiality."

Ron Radosh's column in defense of Johnson, also here on HNN, raises other interesting questions. The ultimate irony is Radosh speaking in defense of academic freedom. In his columns here at HNN, Radosh routinely denounces academics who disagreewithhim on anything as dangerous anti-American leftists who shouldn't be teaching in universities. It is therefore not hard to imagine Radosh would be quite comfortable at the head of the lynch mob that brought down Berthold if Radosh pronounced him a"dangerous leftist." To have him defend academic freedom is bizarre indeed.

Of course, Radosh's column is awfully illuminating but perhaps not in a way that he meant it to be. Radosh apparently found himself in a similar situation to Johnson's in the CUNY system many years ago. Radosh was denied promotion because an administrator didn't like his (at that time leftist) activism and outspokenness. Radosh was rightfully angry and pursued every option open to him, eventually winning promotion to full professor when the administration backed down in the face of his legal challenges. I had often wondered where Radosh's paranoid mindset about academia came from and this piece certainly explained that quite well. I understand it now at least.

However, all these years later Radosh has now become what he once despised, perhaps worse. Instead of quietly stabbing his enemies in the back like his old nemesis in the administration at Queensborough, Radosh now publicly smears anyone who disagrees with him as"anti-American" and obviously believes, as Cheney and the folks at the University of New Mexico, that academics should tow the ideological line regarding the war on terror.

While I frequently disagree with Radosh, I do believe strongly he has a right to say what he believes. Judging from his columns here at HNN, I have little doubt he would question my patriotism for some of the things I say on this blog. I do wish he would think a bit more about the things he says in his columns. Much of what Radosh says about academics today is uncomfortably similar to the smears perpetrated by McCarthyites against academics in the 1950s and 1960s. While Radosh may espouse academic freedom in his latest column, his words I suspect often have the opposite effect, even flying in the face of that noble goal.

It appears that the academy is under assault from those who want us to confirm the wisdom of W's warmongering foreign policy and blindly celebrate American achievements. In Ashcroft's America I'm not surprised by these developments but I can't help but be very alarmed.

Posted by Tom at 1:10 p.m. CST

SOUNDS LIKE THE FIX IS IN 11-26-02

Here's an interesting story about the judge in the Cheney case. It sounds like the fix is in to me. I mean, heck, he was on the ultimate conservative hypocrite Ken Starr's staff for goodness sakes. Here's a bit of it:

While the Bush administration decides how much privacy Americans should have, John Bates is about to decide how much privacy the Bush White House should have.

U.S. District Judge Bates is putting the final touches on his opinion regarding the White House request to shield the activities of Vice President Cheney's energy task force from the prying eyes of Congress. The ruling is expected to be released within days.

The 56-year-old Bates, after less than a year on the job, is surrounded by powerful crosscurrents as he prepares to rule in Walker v. Cheney, the first-of-a-kind lawsuit brought by Congress's General Accounting Office against the vice president.

Bates is an appointee of President Bush and has many friends in the administration, leading critics of the White House to assume that the fix is in for the Cheney lawsuit. Yet part of Bates's background also gives the GAO reason to hope. Five years ago, he led a fight to force the disclosure of information from a stubborn White House.

As a deputy to Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr in 1997, Bates was a key figure in a case called Office of the President v. Office of Independent Counsel. Bates tried fervently to get the release of White House documents, winning the case when the Supreme Court refused to reconsider an appellate court ruling in Starr's favor.

We'll see of course. If he rules in favor of Cheney, it will be quite obvious that he is yet another conservative hypocrite but that's true about most of the folks in the Federalist Society nowadays, isn't it? They were against big government when it was in the hands of the other party but now it's okay.

Posted by Tom at 9:19 a.m. CST

W'S CYNICAL FLIP-FLOP 11-26-02

Josh Marshall has a good post about how Democrats ought to set aside a little"quiet time":

Elected Democrats and Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill really need to set aside a little time this evening to share some quiet, reflective moments with their own idiocy. Today, to great fanfare, President Bush signed the new law which creates the Department of Homeland Security. He got all sorts of great photos and TV coverage preening for the cameras and so forth. And, yet, this was the Dems' idea. They thought there should be a Department of Homeland Security. They pushed for it. He resisted it. Then he changed his tune and clobbered them with it in the election. How did they let this happen? Time for some quiet time ...

There are few things quite as cynical as stealing an opponents' idea, having to flip-flop to do it to boot, and then cynically lying about your opponent being against his own idea for six weeks in order to win an election. I'm about to decide W and the boys have very few scruples at all. This last election certainly demonstrated as much.

Posted by Tom at 7:53 a.m. CST

IN THE POCKET OF THE SAUDIS 11-25-02

Boy, read this story regarding the bootlicking response of the administration to stories about the Saudis and terror this weekend. Scary stuff, eh? I mean, I know that W's Dad is essentially on the Saudis' payroll but come on!

Of course, my favorite part of the story is when John McCain talks about the Saudi government being"engaged in a Faustian bargain." I like someone who can make literary references like that. Do you think W would even know what McCain meant?

Posted by Tom at 7:55 p.m. CST

WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A HACK 11-25-02

Eric Alterman launches a broadside against George Will today. Here's part of Eric's post today:

Where there’s a Will, there’s a Stalinist. “Gore rewriting history but can’t change truth” is the headline on a George Will column, in which he writes: “When the election ended with George Bush 537 votes ahead, Gore initiated litigation that placed the U.S. Supreme Court in this dilemma.”

It’s hard to read the above without concluding that the man is anything but a deliberately dishonest hack. The Bush campaign initiated legal action in Florida, and it initiated the Supreme Court case that overturned Florida’s laws and a democratic election in a decision so transparently political the court had to insist that it not serve as precedent, lest it destroy the nation’s election laws and leave chaos in its wake. Rewriting history, while accusing others of rewriting history, is time-honored Stalinist tactic, and Will is obviously doing so with full knowledge. Of course, he is merely regurgitating the same tactic that infected so much of the coverage of the Florida fight at the time.

For instance, a day after James Banker complained of his opponents “endless challenges” and “unending legal wrangling” the Bush campaign filed the very first law suit over the election-designed to block any manual recounts, the opening salvo in the very “legal wrangling ” to which Baker alluded. The Washington Post’s headline on the story read, “Both Sides Increase Legal Wrangling As Florida Begins Slow Hand Recount.” But even with 1636 words at their disposal, David S. Broder and Peter Slevin never were able to pinpoint any legal action instigated by the Gore campaign.

Will's column is filled with all of the misleading and intellectually dishonest verbiage that was spewed by Republicans during the election recount battle. I'd forgotten what all of that ridiculous stuff sounded like. Will has kindly reminded me of it once again.

My favorite part is at the end when Will is trying to put lipstick on the pig once again in defending the infamous, indefensible, and anti-democratic Supreme Court ruling. Will sounds pretty ridiculous when he tries to defend it.

Republicans I suspect won't like what historians have to say about this one. I'm confident historians will place Bush v. Gore in its proper category if you know what I mean.

Of course, at least the column in question by Will actually has a discernible, if inherently dishonest, argument. Will's columns are frequently so poorly organized and ponderously written that they don't contain any sort of thesis or identifiable argument at all. Sometimes I wonder how this guy has kept his job over the years.

Admittedly, Will does take good dictation from Republican spinmeisters, so, er, oh, come to think of it, I guess I've just answered my own question. Never mind.

Posted by Tom at 4:18 p.m. CST

SOME MORE READ & DISCUSS 11-25-02

I'm trying madly to finish grading papers before the holiday so I'm a bit busy today. For the time being, I'll give you another reading list.

Read these stories:

• A good piece by Bob Herbert about the shameful corporate protection provided for Eli Lilly in the Homeland Security Bill

• This William Raspberry column about W's creation of a Big Brother government

• This story from the KC Star about Poindexter's Orwellian Spy machine

• This Joe Conason piece about Poindexter

• This article about the legally questionable detainments of many by the Bush administration as"material witnesses"

• This column about the frightening recent Federalist Society meeting -- scary stuff indeed.

I hope to post more later today.

Posted by Tom at 11:25 a.m. CST

JUST ANOTHER SHEET OF PAPER 11-24-02

A couple of stories today that demonstrate that W and the boys regard the constitution as just another piece of paper:

The administration is arguing that citizens no longer have the right to remain silent after all.

Yet another editorial about Poindexter's Orwellian Spy Machine -- this one from the Boston Globe.

Where were stories like this the last several months? Before the election I mean? It's a bit late now guys. The horse is out of the barn now.

Posted by Tom at 12:24 p.m. CST

ARGUMENT BY MISREPRESENTATION 11-23-02

Today, Atrios points out how folks who criticize Paul Krugman usually misrepresent his point in order to criticize him. Krugman's latest column is a perfect example:

I should be used to this by now, but why is it that every time Paul Krugman writes a column people misrepresent his point and then proceed to criticize him based on that? Even TAPPED gets into the act.

Look - Krugman isn't attacking Republican nepotism because it is *necessarily* any worse than Democratic nepotism, he's attacking it because it's rather, um,"ironic" that the party of the meritocracy seems so interested in pursuing policies and appointments that amount to affirmative action for their families.

Bingo.

Posted by Tom at 5:51 p.m. CST

OUTRAGEOUS 11-23-02

This is outrageous. It appears the wife of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States was giving financial assistance to the 9/11 hijackers. Read the story. What I love is that the administration tried to keep this hush-hush because it might threaten Saudi Arabia's support for our upcoming war with Iraq.

Now, just a damn minute folks. It appears this administration -- using its usual moral compass -- is willing to let people off who it appears were DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11 in exchange for support for the war in Iraq. How bizarre and amoral can you get folks?

If all of this is true, this reveals a great deal about this administration. The war on terror is just a convenient election ploy folks. When it comes to going after the real culprits, it appears they'll look the other way if it suits their purposes.

I wish I could say I was surprised but, sadly, I'm not.

Posted by Tom at 10:41 a.m. CST

NO BLACK HELICOPTERS -- YET 11-23-02

Ah, isn't life in W's America great?

The congress Scrooged 1,000,000 unemployed Americans yesterday.

I'm happy to report that some folks are beginning to wake up to Ashcroft's Orwellian Department of Justice. Some are beginning to speak out against it.

Nat Hentoff does so here.

Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue does so in an entertaining rant here.

Speaking of police states and civil rights violations, get this story about the Transportation Security Administration's"No-Fly List."

At the same time, W and the boys are using the Census undercount to continue to concentrate power in the hands of Republicans through inaccurate congressional reapportionment.

But one should remember, W still hasn't fulfilled his most famous promise yet.

But, also remember, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans!

You didn't need to vote in that midterm election, right?

Posted by Tom at 9:34 a.m. CST

THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL IN THE AIR 11-22-02

W, Dick Cheney and the oil companies, er, energy task force have got a great idea: let's make sure the air quality in every city in the nation is just like Houston!

Great.

Just great.

Posted by Tom at 8:08 p.m. CST

RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE'S, ER, LINDA TRIPP'S CHRISTMAS STORE 11-22-02

Our favorite person, Linda Tripp, will shortly be opening a Christmas store. I wonder who financed this little thing? I think I detect yet another Richard Mellon Scaife operation. How about you?

I mean, come on, we know she didn't get the funding because of her personal charm, don't we?

I'm off to help set up the birthday party.

Posted by Tom at 3:58 p.m. CST

THE ARMPIT OF THE WORLD AWAITS 11-22-02

I'm preparing myself mentally for what promises to be a very busy Thanksgiving week. I'll be leaving next Wednesday to drive to Houston (Pasadena to be more precise) to see my grandmother. I'll be driving back on Saturday. That's about 1800 miles folks. It promises to be a long one -- mainly because I'm going to a place that I often refer to as"the armpit of the world."

Now, don't get me wrong. I am looking forward to seeing my grandmother and relatives down there -- even if most of my relatives down there have completed the fascinating and baffling transition from Great Society liberals to G.O.P. conservatives over the last twenty years. I haven't seen them in two years. My grandmother hasn't seen my daughter since she was a baby. It will be great to see them.

However, I must say, that I absolutely detest Houston. I have since I was eight years old and old enough to have an opinion. I have no use for the place. It's dirty and awful. You spend hours in the car just to go to the grocery store. You can see the air. You can smell the air. You can smell the water. The water is often orange-colored. I always feel like a couple of days down there takes about six months off my life. It's like smoking three packs of Marlboros. Every time I go down there I can't help but start counting the hours until I leave because I don't like the place. I hate that but I can't help it. Heck, I even refuse to change planes in Houston!

So, unless Houston has changed, I'm expecting to have those feelings again. Chuck, my old college buddy and current Houstonian, has it changed any in the last two years? Is there anything you'd suggest that I do about my"Houston State of Mind?"

Please, buddy, tell me why I shouldn't be filled with foreboding. Please!

Posted by Tom at 3:47 p.m. CST

WHY DOES KRUGMAN DO IT? 11-22-02

I'm back for a short bit. I have to go help my wife get ready for the birthday party here in about half an hour so I'll do a bit of blogging before I leave.

Here's a good Washington Monthly piece by Nicholas Confessore about Paul Krugman. It turns out that, like the rest of us, Paul Krugman is scared to death by W as well.

Here's a short snippet from the much larger piece:

Krugman's primacy is based largely on his dominance of a particular intellectual niche. As major columnists go, he is almost alone in analyzing the most important story in politics in recent years--the seamless melding of corporate, class, and political party interests at which the Bush administration excels. Like most people, the Washington press, and especially pundits, were slow to grasp the magnitude of the shift. Krugman, whether puncturing the fuzzy math of Bush's tax cut or eviscerating the deceptive accounting behind Bush's Social Security plans or highlighting the corruption behind Dick Cheney's energy task force, has nearly always been the first mainstream writer to describe--and condemn--Bushonomics in plain English.

As an economist, of course, Krugman surely has an edge over most liberal pundits; his sterling academic reputation gives his critiques a punch that few Democratic politicians or liberal editorialists could hope for. But in truth, little that Krugman writes about has relied on his academic expertise. His columns aren't about trade theory or stochastic calculus, but about flagrant deceptions and fourth-grade arithmetic. What makes Krugman interesting, in short, is not just why he writes what he writes. It's why nobody else does.

Did that get you interested? Go read it!

(Link via Atrios)

Posted by Tom at 3:31 p.m. CST

READ AND DISCUSS 11-22-02

It's a busy day -- and my daughter's fourth birthday -- so I'll just give you a few links of interest for now.

Your assignment is to go read these stories:

• Paul Krugman's column about the return of the American aristocracy

• This Washington Post piece on potential changes in W's cabinet

• This E.J. Dionne column about Bush's shortsighted politicization of domestic security -- I like the last sentence, it reminds me of W's hysterical"Fool me once" thing in Tennessee a few weeks back.

• Another story about the special Christmas gift W and the boys are providing for the jobless

• This rather pointed editorial about said Christmas gift

Posted by Tom at 9:49 a.m. CST

GEORGE'S SONG 11-22-02

A friend of mine sent this to me. You may have seen it but I think it's pretty amusing.

This is to be sung to the tune"If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands."

Here goes:

"George's Song"

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq. If the terrorists are Saudi And the bank takes back your Audi And the TV shows are bawdy, Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq. And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq. If the smoking gun ain't smokin' We don't care, and we're not jokin'. That Saddam will soon be croakin', Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq. From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq. So to hell with the inspections; Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq. Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq. If the ozone hole is growing, Some things we prefer not knowing. (Though our ignorance is showing), Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq, From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq. Saying no would look like treason. It's the Hussein hunting season. Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq.

Posted by Tom at 8:39 a.m. CST

GREENSPAN: FROM GOO-GOO TO PARTISAN HACK 11-22-02

In this excellent piece at Slate by Daniel Gross, he traces Greenspan's transformation from deficit hawk to G.O.P. hack. This article is eerily reminiscent of an earlier post of mine on the subject. Is Gross reading this blog? I'm sure not but the parallels between the two are interesting.

Isn't it interesting how quickly the Republicans jettisoned their fiscal conservatism to become spendthrifts? It certainly tells you how truly committed they are to their economic principles, doesn't it?

Of course, the G.O.P.'s hypocritical actions remind us on a daily basis that there are very few things they are truly committed to -- beyond tax cut payoffs to their rich contributors of course.

There are many on Wall Street that are already saying openly that this administration has one of the weakest economic and fiscal policy teams of the last hundred years. It isn't just the Democrats who are drawing parallels between W and Herbert Hoover on economic policy.

Posted by Tom at 8:21 a.m. CST

MERRY CHRISTMAS! 11-21-02

To all of you unemployed out there: Here's an extra special Christmas present from W, Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Tom Delay and the other caring and kind men and women in the G.O.P.

Posted by Tom at 7:21 p.m. CST

MISTAKEN IDENTITY 11-21-02

P.L.A. has a great (but long) post today. He discusses Gore's recent return to the public eye. He determines that, judging from the last couple of ]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1106 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1106 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

HAPPY NEW YEAR FOLKS! 12-31-02

I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy New Year. That's it for me today. I've been on a reduced blogging schedule while I'm down here in Arkansas visiting with family. Since I'll be driving back home tomorrow, I won't be blogging again until January 2nd.

I really do hope, for all of our sakes, that next year will be a better year than this one. Unfortunately, it probably won't be -- an unnecessary war is on the horizon, the economy is really bad, and, with Republicans in charge, no help of any kind will be coming for those of us who don't donate millions of dollars toward the Republicans' political warchests.

You know, I had always wondered what it would look like if wealthy corporate interests controlled the government and got everything they wanted.

Well, I guess I know what it looks like now.

It's not pretty, is it?

Everyone take care and I'll see you again in a couple of days.

Posted by Tom at 4:54 p.m. CST

WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT? 12-31-02

Atrios points us to this article about the ties between the leadership of Sons of Confederate Veterans and overtly racist groups.

Apparently, most of the leadership in this neo-Confederate group are also members of many racist and segregationist groups as well.

Astonishing.

I just can't believe it.

Isn't it good that the Republicans got that one bad apple, Trent Lott, out of a leadership position?

Posted by Tom at 10:37 a.m. CST

W'S NOSE IS GROWING 12-30-02

On Saturday, in his last weekly radio address, W lied about when the recession started in a feeble attempt, yet again, to shuck responsibility for the recession.

On Sunday, Colin Powell claims that, contrary to Iraq, North Korea is "not a crisis."

Two days.

Two great big lies.

Honor and Dignity.

Right.

[Last link via Counterspin]

Posted by Tom at 8:10 p.m. CST

ARIANNA: 2002 IN HER REARVIEW MIRROR 12-30-02

Arianna Huffington has an excellent breakdown of the year's memorable -- but hopefully soon forgotten -- events.

Posted by Tom at 9:17 a.m. CST

NOW THAT GLENN ACKNOWLEDGES IT, I CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THE POLL EXISTS! 12-29-02

Holy cow! Liberal Oasis points us to this very belated post by Instapundit acknowledging the existence of the aforementioned poll showing Bush's public approval ratings have dropped. So, since Glenn now believes in its existence, we can all now rest assured that said poll does truly exist. I guess Glenn will respond after two days worth of brow-beating after all. I'm told that he largely delayed responding because he considered my e-mail to him rude and not properly deferential to his status as grand poo-bah of the blogosphere. I guess I should've offered to kiss his"best blogger in the universe" ring.

In the last few hours, several bloggers have contacted me to decry the dishonest and self-serving way in which Glenn refuses to acknowledge the two major players in this one, Liberal Oasis and myself. I do want to thank them here for their messages. However, it's not really that big of a deal.

My goodness! Glenn being dishonest and self-serving! Say it isn't so!

As someone who's been reading him for a while now, I'm afraid to say this sort of thing is just par for the course. He can be a pretty petty guy at times. (As human beings, we all can be but he seems to be setting new lows every few days now.) This is not the first time and it sure as hell won't be the last.

I am happy to say that many lefty bloggers are becoming aware of this rather disheartening side of Glenn's and many of them have decided that he is becoming the Bill O'Reilly of the blogosphere -- dishonestly presenting people's arguments and shouting down those he doesn't agree with -- or, when he's truly desperate, he'll even stoop to questioning their patriotism.

Of course Insty will continue to be surrounded by thousands of sycophants who continue to stroke his ego on a regular basis. He's built his readership to incredible levels. However, I'm told his analysis isn't what it once was and I'm happy to say more and more liberal bloggers are wising up and are not among the remaining sycophants -- and this is a good thing.

That's it for today folks. Remember, I'm down in Arkansas seeing family after all.

Update: Liberal Oasis, the true instigator of all of this despite Glenn's best efforts to ignore them, has an update on this -- noting that CNN is now playing fast and loose with its own poll data now -- referring to a a second poll now that shows better approval numbers. Confusingly, when discussing public approval for the president, they now mix the results of these two polls, using the data that looks best for W of course. Why did CNN take a new poll -- only two days after the first one? It certainly looks a bit suspicious. Were they trying to get better results to buck up our wartime president?

Skippy has also unearthed another interesting development regarding the"invisible cnn/time poll." It appears the folks at Time and CNN are still withholding the embarrassing poll numbers regarding W's approval rating from public circulation.

Interesting -- do you still think it's an innocent mistake now, Kos and MyDD?

Posted by Tom at 4:24 p.m. CST

THAT'S THE NEWS AND I AM... 12-27-02

Out of here! I've always wanted to say that. Can you tell I'm a Dennis Miller fan? Anyway, I'd better go make final preparations for the trip.

There will be no blogging tomorrow for sure. I might blog intermittently the next few days after that but we'll see.

Thanks again for reading!

Posted by Tom at 10:08 p.m. CST

TORTURE IS NEVER OKAY 12-27-02

Randy Paul of Beautiful Horizons sent me an e-mail asking for further comments on our current policy which is apparently to sanction torture of Al-Quaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Randy has blogged about this here, Meralynn at Talkleft has blogged about it here, Lisa English has here and Kevin Drum has here.

The Washington Post had an excellent editorial on this today. I'll quote you the last paragraph:

But there are certain things democracies don't do, even under duress, and torture is high on the list. Some of the alleged tactics, while aggressive, may be legitimate: deceptions, for example, or psychological pressure. Others -- bright lights and lengthy interrogations that interfere with sleep -- straddle the line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Without knowing more about what exactly is happening, it's hard to judge. But beating prisoners is entirely out of bounds. The critical first step is for the administration to clarify what tactics it is using and which are still off limits. If administration officials have decided that moderate physical pressure -- once an abuse -- is now to be the norm in terrorism cases, the American people ought to know and ought to be able to respond through their representatives and through individual and organizational voices. It shouldn't be the administration's unilateral call.

I see this pretty simply. It's just wrong. Certainly we're violating the Convention Against Torture that we've ratified. I don't understand the argument that we have to do these sorts of things. I don't understand how we can do these sorts of things and, as far as I'm concerned, an administration that sanctions these things is, I hate to say this, morally questionable if not inherently evil. This reminds me of Reagan's creepy backing of murderous regimes in Latin America during the 1980s -- except that we're now apparently doing the murdering (two folks at Guantanamo have died under suspicious circumstances) and torturing.

It was wrong to support regimes that did this in the 1980s and it's wrong now. If we're going to be providing an example for the rest of the world we simply don't do these things. We can't. If we do, we have no moral ground to stand on -- and we sure as hell can't be lecturing other countries about their human rights record. We become a nation that believes in"might makes right" rather than actual moral principles.

It's mighty curious that an administration that said it was going to bring"honor and dignity" to the White House is pursuing a policy like this. There's not a lot of honor in sanctioning this sort of behavior. In fact, I'd argue it's a sign that the folks in our government lack honor and any sort of respect for basic human dignity. We've become what we (rightly) despised.

Now I'm sure the righty warmongers, er, warbloggers will argue that I'm"pro-Osama" for saying such things but I really don't give a damn. This is moral principle and we shouldn't be engaging in this sort of behavior. To oppose a government policy that sanctions such behavior is actually the highest form of patriotism I'm aware of -- and sure as hell isn't wrong in any way.

If everything I'm reading about is true, it's a sad day for the country indeed.

Posted by Tom at 9:49 p.m. CST

THANKS! 12-27-02

I want to thank my readers. A little after 4:00 today, I had my 20,000th visitor via a link from Buzzflash.

I've also had more than 36,000 hits since I installed my hit counter on September 18th. It was only 23 days ago that I had my 10,000th visitor, so reader interest in this blog has definitely increased incredibly in just the last couple of weeks.

Today is a record day for both visitors and hits as well.

This isn't major league for the internet (certainly not Instapundit numbers) but I'm very happy with it just the same. I'm very glad so many of you read me every day.

I hope I give you reason to come back for more.

I do greatly appreciate it!

Posted by Tom at 5:11 p.m. CST

QUALIFICATIONS SMALIFICATIONS 12-27-02

You know, there apparently is no shortage of unqualified loons this administration can appoint to important government jobs. Get a load of thisguy!

[the last link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 3:16 p.m. CST

THE NEW MCCARTHYISM 12-27-02

Eric Foner and Glenda Gilmore, two big-wig historians, have an excellent column in the Los Angeles Times about Daniel Pipes, Lynne Cheney, and what I would call the New McCarthyism.

I won't quote any of it because you really must go read it.

I mean it.

Go read it.

Posted by Tom at 2:29 p.m. CST

KINSLEY ON RACE AND REPUBLICANS 12-27-02

Michael Kinsley has an excellent column in the Washington Post about politicians and race. Here are his two paragraphs on Bill Frist:

Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, who will be majority leader instead of Lott, is a Southern politician who avoided Lott's tragedy by having the cou]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1153 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1153 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

SO MUCH FOR THE SOTU ADDRESS -- W'S NUMBERS KEEP ON FALLING 01-31-03

Get this, according to an, ugh, Fox News poll (via Polling Report), W's approval numbers have dropped since the State of the Union address on Tuesday. So, yes folks, it appears this is one of those rare times that the State of the Union address has absolutely and utterly failed.

Nice try, though, W.

Boy, things sure do turn around quickly in politics, don't they?

[Link via Interesting Times]

And now that Hans Blix is accusing W of lying about the contents of his report, the best part of W's speech is being taken apart bit by bit (or is that"lie by lie?") and exposed for the charade it was. Nightline really"opened it up like a peanut" just the other night.

The folks in this administration are supposed to be good at this stuff, right?

I guess not.

Boy, Glenn's going to get real grumpy now.

Posted by Tom at 8:23 p.m. CST

MEANWHILE, IN AFGHANISTAN... 01-31-03

As we gear up for war we ignore rather major problems that exist in Afghanistan. Apparently Taliban and Al-Qaeda members (you remember Al-Qaeda, don't you?) used a car bomb to blow up a bridge, killing fifteen people.

It's at times like these I remember greasy Donald Rumsfeld telling us that"we're going to do for Iraq what we did for Afghanistan" back in August. Just exactly what have we done for Afghanistan really? Women are treated marginally better but the country is still on the precipice of chaos.

Speaking of Afghanistan, according to Ted Rall, American soldiers may have indeed participated in war crimes in Afghanistan during November of 2001.

Unfortunately I suspect that war crimes by Americans may become distressingly common in the next few months if we're going to follow the "Shock and Awe" battle plan described below.

Posted by Tom at 2:21 p.m. CST

LETTING THE WARBLOGGERS HAVE IT 01-31-03

Sean-Paul Kelley, who is pro-War, says some things about warbloggers and the coming IraqWar Part II that are quite appropriate in my opinion.

Here's just a bit of it to get you started:

I believe that the proposed invasion of Iraq is a necessary evil. I feel very reluctant about it in just about every aspect. The president and his cabinet have pushed for this war with a host of lies that reek like the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. Their constantly shifting rationale and secrecy have brought me to the edge of opposing the war just on the basis of their methods. However, I am a serious student of International Relations and I try to be objective and look at the facts. I am not going to do that now. I have done it before. I do not want this war. No one should ever want war. Sometimes it is very sadly necessary.

What I do want to say is that all of you warbloggers out there are...

Click here for more.

Thank you Sean-Paul. It needed to be said.

[Link via Counterspin]

Posted by Tom at 12:31 p.m. CST

DUBYA, THE WAR CRIMINAL? 01-31-03

I just got finished reading this column by Geov Parrish about the SOTU address and the coming war with Iraq.

This part of it struck me right between the eyes:

But more important is the post-invasion example Washington can then hold up to the rest of the world, of what happens when a recalcitrant government, for any reason, displeases the Americans. What will happen? If only the attention lavished on Bush's speech had also accompanied, last week, the Pentagon's bloodless announcement of how it intended to begin the conquest of Iraq. The plan includes simultaneous ground invasions from north and south; Turkey reversed course and agreed this week -- amidst billions of dollars in American inducements -- to allow U.S. troops to use its military bases. It also includes a sudden decimation of Baghdad by raining down on its people, in two days, some 800 cruise missiles -- more than were used in the entire Gulf War. Harlan Ullman, the military strategist who apparently developed the plan, last week characterized the Baghdad assault thusly:"You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons of Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes." It would be a firestorm, a Dresden with 60 years of new technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering proportions.

Such a plan, of course, makes a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld's ritual insistence that the Pentagon takes enormous care to avoid civilian casualties; the plan apparently is to kill a staggering percentage of Baghdad's civilian population in the first day alone.

And the name of the plan is"Shock and Awe." Ostensibly, the name refers to the demoralizing effect such an attack would have on Iraqis, an effect, presumably, similar to the instant (although already planned) surrender of Japan after the gratuitous bombing of Hiroshima and even more gratuitous bombing of Nagasaki. But those were, both military and diplomatically, demonstration attacks -- suggesting what could be done to the imperial rulers themselves and to Tokyo, a city far more valuable and populous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

In Iraq, Baghdad is the capitol.

I'll admit to being shocked and skeptical of this. How did I miss this? (And that really is a good question, how did I?) I did a google search and quickly found this CBS News story from a week ago that said exactly the same thing.

Here's what the story had to say about the administration's response to being asked about"Shock and Awe":

Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.

Oh, so maybe we'll just send 400 cruise missiles in two days instead of 800? If W and the boys target civilians like this, this will be the most immoral thing done by an administration since similar strategic decisions by Nixon regarding the bombing of civilians during the Vietnam conflict. I guess, once again, I shouldn't be surprised. The same people are in charge this time. This is an administration of Nixon/Ford administration retreads after all.

Folks, this will be the type of behavior that would honestly call for war crimes charges. I've been upset because I expect this war will lead to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed. I had no idea hundreds of thousands could be killed in just two days.

If W's administration does this, I'm afraid Helen Thomas will certainly be right -- and I'll have to change my assessment of W from a few days ago.

Any president who takes us into an unnecessary war and kills hundreds of thousands of civilians in a Hiroshima-style attack on a city would have to win by default the title of the"worst president in all of American history."

I just hope, for the world's sake, this truly isn't the battle plan.

Sigh.

Posted by Tom at 9:51 a.m. CST

DUBYA DIP HEADED OUR WAY 01-30-03

With this story telling us about the anemic 0.7 percent growth rate in the economy during the fourth quarter, evidence is mounting that we're headed toward the dubya dip folks.

Given today's economic news, following the lead of Atrios and Kos, I'm going to post a link to this wonderful and prescient story from the January 18, 2001 edition the Onion.

I remember reading it at the time and laughing my ass off. I didn't realize then quite how true it would turn out to be, did I?

And, guys, I agree, this supposedly satiric story becomes more and more accurate every day.

Posted by Tom at 9:03 p.m. CST

8 EUROPEAN NATIONS SUPPORT US, SURE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 39? 01-30-03

Kos points us to this story that apparently demonstrates how W and the boys are already trying to dampen expectations for the"evidence" that Powell is going to unveil next week at the U.N.

They're warning us"that no one photo or piece of evidence will conclusively prove the administration's case" and that they'll be showing us a"pattern of behavior" rather than"pictures of warheads."

So, if you're expecting this administration to suddenly to make a good case for war, it's not going to happen.

Kos also points us to this blog entry that exposes the dishonest spin the administration is employing by saying they have the support of"eight European nations" for war with Iraq and thus are not acting unilaterally.

You see, there are still 39 nations that don't support the war currently:

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Yugoslavia

Nice try guys. Fortunately, some of us are smart enough to realize when you're shamelessly spinning.

If you'll get a majority of these other 39 nations on board, then we can talk about"having European support" for our war with Iraq.

Posted by Tom at 4:02 p.m. CST

MAX WEIGHS IN ON INSTY 01-30-03

Boy, now Max Sawicky really lets Insty have it in this post about Glenn's"Icky shuffle" regarding anti-war protesters.

I'll give you just a taste so you'll go read the rest of it:

Meanwhile, the Prof and his followers indulge deficiencies, not to mention horrendous crimes, on the part of those they support. We could start and finish with the U.S. government itself, which strikes up alliances of convenience with awful regimes and individuals. Wot the hell, FDR was allied with Stalin.

The purism of IP and many others in re: ANSWER is wholly selective. In the case of Reynolds himself, it could not be more obvious that the basis for this selectivity is a determination to delegitimize anti-war sentiment. (On glennreynolds.com, he pretends to perform a neutral public service by providing a list of web sites pertaining to the war. Nearly all of them support the coming war.) Glenn Reynolds and others practice politics by the use of libel. Evidently they do not feel their arguments are good enough to carry the day. I don't blame them.

Today Mike Kinsley notes the same deficiency in no less than our President. Bush's moral condemnation of Saddam is 15 years too late and illogically narrow in focus. In other words, it is pure, hypocritical opportunism. Iraq is bad because it no longer deploys its badness in service to U.S. interests, as it did in the 1980s.

Newsflash: like all powerful nations from the beginning of time, the U.S. kills innocent people in pursuit of its national interest. Sometimes these interests are defensible, other times not. The 'Saddam-bad' discourse is just foreign policy baby-talk for the dull-witted. The same goes for the associate-with-ANSWER and you're"icky" nonsense.

Go read the rest of it. It really is quite good.

Glenn really is digging himself a deep hole, isn't he?

I think my comments a while back about how many liberal bloggers have decided Glenn's the blogosphere's equivalent of Bill O'Reilly which I know probably rankled some are looking more and more true by the minute.

Posted by Tom at 1:55 p.m. CST

ARI FLEISCHER: MANAGER AT SEARS 01-30-03

Kevin Drum, in a post about Ari Fleischer, makes the following entertaining observation:

Now, I could have picked pretty much any day's briefing to make this point, but is Ari Fleischer the sorriest son of a bitch in this general vicinity of the Milky Way, or what? As near as I can tell, his job is to get up in front of the press corps every day and stay robotically calm while they rain down abuse on him. His boss never holds press conferences, everyone knows Ari's not going to tell them anything, and it's gotten to the point where reporters just sort of vent on him because there's nothing much more they can do. It's sort of like being manager of the complaint desk at Sears.

Now that, my friends, is what we call a great quip, eh?

Kevin's full of them, be sure to give his blog a frequent read!

Posted by Tom at 12:52 p.m. CST

KINSLEY: MORALLY UNSERIOUS 01-30-03

Michael Kinsley has written a wonderful and withering column on Slate today about the SOTU speech. He argues that good words aren't enough, one needs logical consistency and intellectual honesty to make a solid moral argument.

Here's a bit of it:

And tell us again why we're about to invade Iraq but we're"working with the countries of the region" to pinion North Korea, which is further along the nuclear trail and can't even be bothered to lie about it. Bush's"axis of evil" coinage last year and recent flagrant North Korean nose-thumbing made it almost impossible for Bush to avoid addressing this logical conundrum. His solution was artful but mysterious:"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula, and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq." He seems to be saying here that the United States should have invaded and conquered North Korea years ago. But as Bush sets it out, the"lesson" of Korea seems to be that if you don't go to war soon enough, you might have a problem years later that can be solved through regional discussions. That doesn't sound so terrible, frankly. Regional discussions can be grim, no doubt, but they're more fun than a war. So, what exactly is this lesson the Korean experience is supposed to offer?

There are actually plenty of differences between the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the one in the Middle East, and good reasons why you might decide to bring Iraq to a crisis and steer North Korea away from one. But all these reasons cut against the Manichean notion of an absolute war against an absolute evil called terrorism. Bush is getting terrific credit for the purity and determination of his views on this subject. But either his own views are dangerously simplistic or he is purposely, though eloquently, misleading the citizenry.

Proclaiming the case for war as the second half of a speech that devoted its first 30 minutes to tax cuts and tort reform also makes the call to arms seem morally unserious. Why are we talking about cars that run on hydrogen at all if the survival of civilization is at stake over the next few months? Bush declared that the best thing to do with government money is to give it back to the taxpayers, and then put on his" compassionate conservative" hat and proposed billions in government spending on the environment and on AIDS in Africa and on a program to train mentors for children of prisoners and on and on. The dollars don't exist to either give back or spend, of course, let alone both, so we'll be borrowing them if Bush has his way, a point he didn't dwell upon.

This orgiastic display of democracy's great weakness—a refusal to acknowledge that more of something means less of something else—undermined the moral seriousness of the call to arms and sacrifice that followed. Sneering at the folly of tax cuts spread over several years instead of right away, Bush failed to note that those gradual tax cuts were part of his own previous tax bill. Bragging that he would hold the increase in domestic discretionary spending to 4 percent a year, Bush probably didn't stop to wonder what that figure was under his tax-and-spend Democrat predecessor. Short answer: lower. These are venial sins in everyday politics, but Bush was striving for something higher. He had the right words for it. But words alone aren't enough.

Indeed.

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 12:40 p.m. CST

LIKE INSTY, THE ADMINISTRATION NOW STARTS SMEARING ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS 01-30-03

It's not just Insty that's running the Joe McCarthy playbook by smearing anti-war protesters. The administration has joined in today. They leaked an intelligence document claiming that Iraqi spies are helping to organize anti-war demonstrations in this country.

Americans couldn't be against this war! They must be brainwashed by Iraqi spies!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

I think the administration has now, officially, gone off the deep end.

Posted by Tom at 12:20 p.m. CST

SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH 01-30-03

Get this:

The White House postponed a poetry symposium out of concerns it would be politicized after some poets said they wanted to protest military action against Iraq.

The symposium on the poetry of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman had been scheduled for Feb. 12. No future date has been announced for the event, to be held by first lady Laura Bush.

"While Mrs. Bush respects the right of all Americans to express their opinions, she, too, has opinions and believes it would be inappropriate to turn a literary event into a political forum," Noelia Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the first lady, said Wednesday.

Just one more piece of evidence that freedom of speech doesn't really exist at this White House.

Numerous other examples come to mind immediately, don't they?

I'm off to class number two!

[Link via Counterspin]

Posted by Tom at 9:28 a.m. CST

INSTY CONTINUES RUNNING THE MCCARTHY PLAYBOOK 01-30-03

I don't have time to do much more than post a couple of links. Insty still doesn't understand what the big deal is to smear people who oppose the war by trying the old Joe McCarthy"guilt by association" tactic. If you recall I blogged about this a couple of days ago.

Here's Glenn rather ugly response to Hesiod. (You know Glenn's getting defensive when he calls someone"stupid," right?) Hesiod's response is here. I think Hesiod's right about the psychology here.

If you ever wanted to know just how grumpy Glenn would get when the public turned on his boy W and IraqWar II, here it is.

I'd better run to my 8:00 a.m. class.

Posted by Tom at 7:57 a.m. CST

SO MUCH FOR THE SADDAM-AL QUAEDA LINK 01-29-03

Here's an interesting story that quotes intelligence sources who say there is no demonstrable Saddam-Al Qaeda link and that there's a"low" possibility that Iraq would attack us with chemical or nuclear weapons -- unless provoked by an invasion of course.

President Bush invoked a grim and powerful image in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, asking Americans to imagine what would have happened if the Sept. 11 hijackers had been armed with poison gas or germs.

However, U.S. officials and private analysts said Bush's suggestion that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might give such weapons to terrorists - and the implication that the risk of American retaliation can no longer deter him - stretches the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies to, and perhaps beyond, the limit.

W asserted in the SOTU address last night that Saddam's regime

"aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

According to these intelligence analysts he was lying, wasn't he?

Impressive, huh?

As I suggested yesterday, W's nose would probably grow numerous times during the address.

Look for more whoppers to come as this administration tries desperately to make a case for a war that Americans don't want.

Posted by Tom at 9:05 p.m. CST

SO WE'D AGREE TO EXILE FOR SADDAM? 01-29-03

This is an interesting story. It appears, according to Colin Powell, that we'd actually help to find Saddam"Satan" Hussein a safe haven if he'd step down.

Now this really is interesting because, of course, we keep hearing from W and the boys that Saddam is so awful that we should just kill him right now -- but if push comes to shove we'd actually help him find some cozy quarters somewhere else.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with this too. However, isn't it just a little hypocritical to essentially condemn someone as the devil incarnate while at the same time signalling that we'd help him find asylum if he'd just step down?

Just an observation.

And speaking of hypocrisy, I also love that, if Saddam were to step down, we couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't be tried for war crimes.

Oh, you mean the war crimes he committed with our weapons and our tacit approval?

If we're going to try him for what he did to his people and Iranian soldiers in the 1980s, we might as well go ahead and put most of the foreign policy team of the Reagan and Bush I administrations on trial as well for aiding him and essentially making all of these horrible things possible.

They knew about all these things and didn't do a damn thing.

Posted by Tom at 4:30 p.m. CST

RNC A BIT SNIPPY ABOUT W'S FALLING APPROVAL NUMBERS 01-29-03

As W's approval numbers continue their freefall of 30 points or more in the last 15 months, it appears the folks at the Republican National Committee are getting a bit irritated about it. Take a look at this memo from RNC senior adviser Matthew Dowd.

Of course, Dowd's right that approval numbers don't necessarily indicate anything at this point for re-election prospects but there are also a large number of polls that show his boss's numbers at about 53%, not the 60% figure he uses. Dowd, not surprisingly, picks the poll with the highest poll numbers of all of them for W in his memo. That's called spin of course.

And I seriously doubt last night's address is going to bump them up much. I've heard from some folks that it appears it is only going to give him a couple of points of bump and that's it.

Posted by Tom at 4:23 p.m. CST

HERE'S THE FIRST POLL ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS 01-29-03

According to this ABC News poll, W's speech last night changed very few minds about his foreign or domestic policies. Those who supported his policies, approved of what he had to say. Those who didn't agree with his policies, didn't. If this speech was aimed at those on the fence with regard to war with Iraq as some journalists have said, it doesn't appear to have worked at all.

BTW, is it my imagination or is the headline for this article astonishing misleading?

Posted by Tom at 12:19 p.m. CST

W SET TO BREAK POPPY'S DEFICIT RECORD NEXT YEAR 01-29-03

Hmmm. Either somebody in the administration didn't get the"strategery" memo or the administration was trying to bury this story. Yesterday, the administration quietly announced that they're projecting a $300B deficit for the fiscal year 2003-2004. This will break the deficit record of $290B set by Poppy in 1992. Since W and the boys are quite adept at media manipulation, I suspect they released this little tidbit on the same day as the SOTU address so that it would go largely unnoticed.

I noticed it -- and so did MSNBC which put it on the front page of their website.

Many believe the administration's $300B deficit estimate is actually too low. Salomon Smith Barney thinks the deficit will reach $400B next year. Since the administration has generally lied about things like this all along, I'm willing to bet Salomon Smith Barney is right.

Republicans really are the party of fiscal irresponsibility, aren't they? Of course, the obvious point is that Gore and the Democrats were absolutely right in 2000 when they insisted W and the boys were lying about the impact of their tax cut. Now we're stuck with this idiotic tax plan from 2001 until the deficit reaches some horrible point that makes the folks in congress uncomfortable.

And given the dishonesty of this administration on everything, I don't expect anyone to admit the idiocy of this tax plan any time soon. I can't believe the audacity of trying to pass more tax cuts at the same time it becomes apparent that the last round of tax cuts have done nothing to stimulate the economy and have blasted an enormous deficit hole in the budget.

Posted by Tom at 10:08 a.m. CST

GENE LYONS:"MOONBEAMS AND MAGNOLIAS AT THE NEW YORK TIMES" 01-29-03

Wonderful column by Gene Lyons this morning about this moron who reviewed Susan McDougal's book for the New York Times. He also suggests it raises numerous questions about the Times itself. Here is the column in its entirety:

Moonbeams and Magnolias at the New York Times

Toward the end of her astonishing review of Susan McDougal's book"The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk" in the New York Times Book Review, Beverly Lowry condescends to give the author some advice. A novelist and professor of creative writing at George Mason University, Lowry thinks McDougal ought to have sought professional help writing her memoirs,"an editor or writer...who would have persuaded her all she had to do was tell the story straight."

This is big talk from a reviewer who couldn't even summarize the book's basic facts competently. According to Lowry, Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation" came up with pretty much of nothing, beyond a felony conviction for McDougal on charges of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt."

In reality, Starr's failure to convict Susan on precisely those charges provides the book's triumphant climactic scene. As Judge George Howard read the jury's"not guilty" verdict on the obstruction charge, McDougal writes,"a cheer went up in the courtroom...We had taken on the most powerful prosecutor in the country, an organization with an unlimited budget and incredible resources, and we had beaten them soundly. But as much as I enjoyed being a part of the victory, I was not naïve enough to believe that the verdict was about Susan McDougal. The entire trial was a referendum on Kenneth Starr, and we had succeeded in showing just how corrupt his investigation was."

A waspish reviewer might sneer that Susan's triumph over her tormentors has a cornball"Erin Brockovich" meets"The Pelican Brief" quality. It would be mean and stupid, but a defensible opinion. Lowry, however, seems completely oblivious that in the end, Susan McDougal did finally talk. She testified for several days in open court during the aforementioned trial. So did three of Starr's prosecutors. The jury believed Susan.

Here at Unsolicited Opinions, Inc., we too have reviewed a bunch of books over the years and have also taught writing to college students. At the expense of pedantry, we'd like to offer our esteemed colleague at George Mason this advice:"Yo, Beverly. Next time, read the damn book."

Assuming minimal competence, Lowry simply cannot have done so. She appears to have skimmed the opening chapters for information confirming her own loopy notions about"girl children from the Deep South"--she's the kind of Professional Southerner who peddles moonbeams to Yankees--then winged it. Her summary of what Whitewater was supposed to have been all about is filled with preposterous errors. Joe Conason exposes a half dozen howlers in Salon.com.

Part of Lowry's problem is simply bad writing. Check this out:"The future president was governor and the McDougals owned a bank and a savings and loan and were buying and selling land and, like a lot of other people they knew, making money hand over fist. Unquestionably, the Clintons took part in Whitewater and irrefutably they and the McDougals trampled on some rights and bent some rules along the way. But they were on a roll, life was good, Arkansas sheltered them, and nobody thought life would ever go any other way."

The syntax is murky, but if that's supposed to mean the Clintons made money on Whitewater, the fact is they irrefutably lost $43,000. As for trampling rights and bending rules, if Lowry's review were a sophomore's paper, I'd write"BE SPECIFIC" in the margin in big red letters. Which rules? What rights? Even the independent counsel's final report stipulates that the Clintons had no knowledge of Jim McDougal's monkey business, which didn't involve Whitewater anyway. The phrase"Arkansas sheltered them" would rate a big"EXPLAIN," because insofar as it means anything, it implies improprieties not in evidence.

True to the moonbeams and magnolias school of bad Southern writing, Lowry speculates that Susan must have been in love with Bill Clinton, a notion her book lampoons, portraying the former Chief Executive as a glib horn-dog who looks awful in jogging shorts. Lowry also questions if"we" can trust McDougal, given what she calls bizarre charges of"embezzlement of $150,000 brought by the orchestra conductor Zubin Mehta, and his wife, Nancy."

Unfortunately, Lowry neglects to mention that the California jury that acquitted Susan of embezzlement in the Mehta case held a press conference denouncing the prosecutor for accusing her without a shred of credible evidence. Several jurors then came to Little Rock to support her in her final showdown with Kenneth Starr. Once again, it's all in the book. To raise such issues without saying so isn't quite as reckless as falsely accusing somebody of two felonies, but it definitely comes under the heading of not"telling the story straight."

As for the New York Times, what is there left to say? The cover-up continues. Mention the Clintons or Whitewater, and the nation's single most influential book review metamorphoses into The Drudge Report. Have its editors no standards of professionalism and intellectual honesty whatsoever?

Great as always, eh?

I think the way the Times botched the Whitewater story was damn near criminal conduct on their part. Unfortunately, the Times and the Washington Post are about the best we've got these days -- and that's a pretty sad statement. There are times that I thank my lucky stars for Krugman, Milbank, Kessler, McGrory, Dionne, and Raspberry. At times they're the only things saving those two papers from being as mediocre as all the rest of them.

Posted by Tom at 9:04 a.m. CST

LET'S REVIEW IRAQWAR PART I ONCE AGAIN 01-28-03

I didn't get to see the SOTU address tonight, I was teaching a night class -- tonight we talked about Reconstruction. Anyway, I've read some things about it already but I'm not sure I can give you much analysis or reaction until I learn more about it and actually read it.

The one thing that does appear clear is that I'm right that we're going to war as soon as the invasion force is in position (late February or early March). Nothing in the speech tonight changes that at all. All this stuff about"giving the inspectors more time" is just a stalling tactic while we get our forces in position.

Since we're about to go to war against Iraq again, I want you, once again, to review what happened in IraqWar Part I by going here, here, and here.

(For more about this last story, go here.)

Since I have gained such a large number of readers in the last few weeks, many of you may not have had the chance to read these important articles yet.

Go read them now.

You might as well know what's coming folks -- and what you're supporting if you support this war.

Despite what we're going to be told, it's not going to be a" clean war" folks. Thousands of civilians are going to die.

If that's okay with you, go on supporting the war. But at least now you've been educated about it and I've done my job.

Posted by Tom at 10:23 p.m. CST

HOW BAD IS IT? 01-28-03

Here's a breakdown from Missouri's Coordinating Board of Higher Education of how much the cuts in March would be for each Higher Education institution in the state if the state doesn't doesn't bond proceeds from the tobacco settlement.

I'll just state the obvious: these cuts would be absolutely devastating for my institution and all the others across the state. My institution doesn't have much in the way of reserves after last year.

I know securitization may not be a wonderful idea but it's better than no solution at all -- isn't it? Since, for some reason, a tax increase is out of the question, this seems like the only viable alternative.

Posted by Tom at 2:49 p.m. CST

THE LOTT SCANDAL CONTINUES 01-28-03

Tim Lambert's update site is quite good today. He argues that this all won't go away (even if Insty, Jane Galt, Cramer, et. al want it to) because even if Lott did the survey his presentation of the data from it was at the very least questionable if not dishonest or downright fraudulent. As one of Tim's readers put it:

I think"question 3" from your last update -- significantly, the one he dodges -- is the key, because many of Lott's defenders seem to think you've shifted to a"different issue" now, when in fact it's very much the same issue. Glenn et. al. seem to believe that the only question about Lott's honesty is whether he told the truth about conducting a survey, when for a trained statistician, doing a slipshod survey with a meaningless sample size, then reporting the result without mentioning that any expert would consider the number sheer garbage, is dishonest. I mean, if he were citing some other survey, at least people could have checked the primary source and raised questions about how well it supported his claim. Here he was using the fact that his survey (which we'll assume for now really happened) was lost to hide the fact that it didn't back his statements -- something that would have been obvious to everyone with stats training if the data had been preserved.

Reynolds wants to claim that this is now merely about the accuracy of Lott's claims, and no longer about his honesty. But the kind of deceptive use of numbers we're talking about is clearly fraudulent for someone who knows better -- which an economist would. This, I think is a point you may want to stress, because it's clear from the non-controversial data we already have. Force 'em to explain why this kind of behavior doesn't count as academic fraud.

This scandal has always been about Lott's honesty in both conducting the alleged survey and, if he did, whether this alleged survey actually provided the results he said it did. Like I said earlier, somehow he's gotten a small sample size of 25 people and claiming that his results showed only 2% of them actually had to discharge the gun.

Again, 2% of 25 people is half a person. How is that possible? Don't come at me with the weighting issue either -- that sounds pretty suspicious as well -- and even makes me wonder if all this survey-driven scholarship isn't a load of you-know-what. That's one of the things I'm most happy about as a historian is that I don't have to conduct surveys for my research. I don't trust most surveys as far as I can throw them -- but that's a different issue for now.

I am also happy to see Mark Kleiman back me up about the absurd behavior of the Bellesiles bloodhounds:

So here's my plea to my gun-rights friends in academia. If you admit that John Lott lacks the basic honesty required for citizenship in the Republic of Science, that doesn't mean you have to give up your guns and join the Brady Campaign. You're perfectly free to believe in an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment and oppose gun registration. So you ought to be willing to call this one on its merits.

The inclination to circle the wagons against a co-partisan under attack is a strong one. But Lott is now beyond reasonable defense. Those who were most vigorous in pursuing Bellesiles, and most contemptuous of those who kept defending Bellesiles as the evidence of his duplicity mounted, ought to be the first to say"Enough is enough, already."

Cut your losses, fellas.

Absolutely. But there's much more going on here I think. As I've said many times, these folks only went after Bellesiles tooth and nail because they disagreed with his thesis and now they believe Lott's flimsy alibi because they agree with his thesis. To admit that's what's going on would essentially destroy the"dishonest libruls supported Bellesiles" morality play that is so important for their particular worldview to work.

They won't dare admit that they're doing the same thing Bellesiles's supporters did because it threatens more than Lott. It calls into question their entire cartoonish view of academia itself.

And they wouldn't dare do that, would they?

Posted by Tom at 1:34 p.m. CST

REMEMBER THE PROMISES IN LAST YEAR'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS? 01-28-03

Paul Krugman has an excellent column this morning about how W has already broken the promises he made in last year's address.

Here's some of it:

A lot depends on whether Mr. Bush is held accountable for the promises he made in his last State of the Union address.

For there was more to that speech than the axis of evil (a phrase, by the way, that has vanished from Mr. Bush's vocabulary, along with the name of that guy he promised to bring in dead or alive). He assured those who worried about red ink that"our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-lived." He offered comfort for those who remembered his father's"jobless recovery," which felt like a continuing recession:"When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs."

Fast-forward a year. We now know that the"small" budget deficit will rise above $300 billion, and stay there. Even the administration's own, ever-optimistic budget officials now concede that we face deficits as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile, payrolls continue to decline; since the working-age population keeps rising, it's becoming ever harder for ordinary Americans to get jobs, or keep them.

And there's a good chance things will get a lot worse: with markets sliding, consumers wilting, businesses fearful about the effects of war and oil prices rising, the pieces are in place for a full-blown double-dip recession. And the second dip would take us much further down than the first. So can Mr. Bush convince us that his latest tax cut is just the tonic the economy needs?

...

The administration's credibility problem is made worse by the high casualty rate among top economic officials, and the uninspiring quality of their replacements. Today is the first day of hearings for John Snow, the administration's choice for Treasury secretary. One official I spoke to was rueful:"I thought Paul O'Neill wasn't suited to being Treasury secretary; he'd have been better off running a railroad. Now they've picked a man who ran a railroad."

But that's not why he was chosen, according to CBS Market Watch:"He was picked because he's a lobbyist, a schmoozer, a master salesman" — and a member of no fewer than nine country clubs.

Still, nobody razzle-dazzles 'em like Mr. Bush. Tonight we'll see if he's good enough to make us forget last year's promises.

Actually, I suspect W will take a simpler strategy. He won't really even talk about the economy much at all. He'll dazzle us all by obfuscation. He'll try scare us all to death about what a threat Saddam is to us.

We'll see.

Posted by Tom at 12:15 p.m. CST

W PLAYS CHICKEN WITH THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL 01-28-03

This story from MSNBC/Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler is quite frightening. It appears that W is about to start dribbling out intelligence to try and whip up support for the war because the U.N. report supplied the world with a mixed verdict. To have not shared this information with inspectors already is astonishingly dishonest, isn't it?

This article also reveals that the administration is essentially daring the U.N. Security Council to veto the resolution authorizing force against Iraq:

In a speech Sunday before an international gathering of business and foreign leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell tried to address the growing doubts about the United States. “Trust is a crucial commodity,” he said, and he acknowledged that many at the session had questioned “whether America can be trusted to use its enormous political, economic and, above all, military power wisely and fairly.”

“I believe — no, I know with all of my heart — that the United States can,” Powell said. He cited numerous examples in history, in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and Europe after World War II, when he said the United States liberated a nation and then sought no special favors or domination in return.

Turning the tables around, Powell noted, “Today, not a single nation, not one, trusts Saddam and his regime.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, speaking last week before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was also peppered with questions about trust, with one audience member noting that the United States had said “trust us” during the Vietnam War, and “it turned out to be untrustworthy.”

Wolfowitz replied: “I must say I sort of find it astonishing that the issue is whether you can trust the U.S. government. The real issue is, can you trust Saddam Hussein?”

Administration officials said that in the coming weeks they will begin to declassify certain intelligence about Iraqi behavior to build support for military action. James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the Bush administration can also exploit fears by some Security Council members that unilateral action would make the United Nations irrelevant.

“All permanent members know that if Washington carries through with its threat, it will be a deathblow to the Security Council,” Lindsay said. “Washington will give them a difficult choice: Do you want to save Saddam or save the Security Council?”

This is outrageous. So much for cooperation, eh? We're essentially threatening to destroy the U.N. if they don't support us. My goodness. These are the pros, right? This is about as amateurish and irresponsible a foreign policy as I've ever seen.

It is pretty ironic that Colin Powell mentions Afghanistan as a success, considering what's going on there today, isn't it? It's amazing how the war that's supposed to be over raises its ugly head once again at the wrong time for W, isn't it?

BTW, where's Osama?

Posted by Tom at 11:43 a.m. CST

HOW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HELPED W 01-28-03

I don't know how I missed this great piece by Michael Kinsley on how W was helped by Yale's Affirmative Action program for children of Yale alumni.

Here's a bit of it:

Opponents and supporters of affirmative action actually tend to agree that there is something bad, generally called quotas, and something good, generally called something like diversity. Their argument is about where you draw the line. Bush calls the Michigan 20-point bonus a quota, and his critics insist that it is not. But both sides are wrong. If your sole measure of the success of any arrangement is whether it increases the representation of certain minorities, then it doesn't really matter what procedure you use to achieve that result: some people are getting something desirable because of their race, and an equal number of people are not getting it for the same reason.

Of course a series of somebodies didn't get into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School because their blood wasn't as blue as Bush's, and other somebodies didn't get a chance to own the Texas Rangers or to use the capital Bush borrowed to buy his share of the team because these somebodies were nobodies. Life is unfair. A legitimate criticism of affirmative action is that it politicizes life chances and focuses blame on race. If you get turned down by Yale to make room for a George W., you're not even aware of it. But if you get turned down by the University of Michigan, you're likely to blame affirmative action (if you're white), even though the numbers say you probably would have been turned down anyway.

So ask yourself: Would you rather have a gift of 20 points out of 150 to use at the college of your choice? Or would you rather have the more amorphous advantages President Bush has enjoyed at every stage of his life? If the answer to that isn't obvious to you, even 20 extra points are probably not enough to get you into the University of Michigan.

Indeed.

Posted by Tom at 11:09 a.m. CST

STORMIN' NORMAN NOT STORMIN' FOR THIS ONE 01-28-03

Atrios points us to this interesting story on Norman Schwarzkopf's views about IraqWar Part II. He's pretty skeptical about this one folks.

BTW, is it my imagination or does the last half of this story read as more or less an administration attack on Schwartzkopf? I can't help but suspect the administration led the reporter to these sources in the story.

Posted by Tom at 9:29 a.m. CST

STILL PERPLEXED 01-27-03

After reading this story it appears that war with Iraq is now all but inevitable. For some reason, opposition be damned, this administration is going to get its war with Iraq and that's all there is to it.

This is one of those times when I can't help but wonder if there was any way that Saddam could have avoided this war. At this point I'm afraid to say the answer to that question is no. I didn't matter what he did this administration was going to war against him. I mean if we can jump on the report Hans Blix delivered today as a reason to go to war nearly anything will qualify."They're not being totally cooperative but we've found no evidence of WMD" is a reason for war? My goodness. I'm guessing nothing would forestall W's warmongering machine now. They've played fast and loose with the truth over the last few months. Look for W's nose to grow tomorrow night on several occasions.

I can't help but remember my very first (rather longish) post in August which was, of course, about the war. I don't think I was very far off at all -- maybe a bit off on the timing but that's about it. Very little has changed in my mind since then.

Here's what I had to say:

As a historian, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Bush Administration's dogged pursuit of a war with Iraq. I'm trying to think of a time in our country's past when we have pursued what is, in the words of Maureen Dowd, a"war without provocation." Despite the fact that nearly every potential ally -- with the notable exception of the British, who are beginning to waver as well -- is against a war with Iraq, despite the fact that it appears this is a potential quagmire, we're going ahead anyway. The whole thing is baffling and out of character for the United States. The closest analogous historical situations are the Spanish-American War and the threatened 1993 invasion of Haiti which ultimately was not necessary (interestingly enough, the Republicans were the ones who were being"unpatriotic" back then, opposing it all the way, even threatening to withhold the money from the Federal budget for the invasion).

However, both of these analogies don't quite fit right. While there is ample precedent of the United States intervening militarily in other nation's affairs throughout the nation's history, there is no precedent for a large-scale attack on another nation without a clear provocation. I'm searching madly for a historical comparison I can draw and I'm coming up with blanks. Sure, I know we sent the Marines into several nations in Central and South America several times in the first two decades of the twentieth century for short periods but it's just not the same sort of thing. Any assistance from those in the historical community in identifying similar events in our nation's past would be greatly appreciated. This is a pretty practical concern for me: I'd like to be able to explain this developing situation to my students this fall.

Several things perplex me about this looming war. Amazingly, the Pentagon is clearly against this proposed invasion of Iraq. Over the past several weeks, they have leaked invasion plans several times to the press in an effort, it appears, to forestall the invasion. They also appear to be supportive of congressional hearings into the planning for the potential invasion. This is pretty bizarre. I can't think of a time when an administration actually had to browbeat the Pentagon into making war. They believe the invasion to be ill-conceived and, like currently in Afghanistan, there is no apparent exit strategy. However furious Rumsfeld and other administration hawks may be, they appear to be paying little attention to what these military leaders are saying. The folks in the Pentagon think this looks too much like a potential Vietnam-like situation. Therefore, frustrated that their concerns are being ignored by the administration, military leaders have begun to go directly to the press.

Also, many in the press have already begun to talk about the war as if it is unavoidable. A story by Andrea Mitchell that appeared on MSNBC's website over the weekend is typical. The upshot of her article is that we're just going to war with Iraq in the next few months and that's that.

However, there]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1213 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1213 0

Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

IRAQWAR PART II COULD NOW BLOW UP IN W'S FACE 02-28-03

Boy, you ought to read ]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1265 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1265 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

LIKE POPPY, W IS TRYING TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS"KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP" 03-31-03

I've got a couple of things you should go read that are quite troubling.

First of all, Seymour Hersh's devastating expose of the incompetence of Rumsfeld and the hawks in the New Yorker is here. It's quite a sordid tale folks -- once again the Pentagon is going after Rumsfeld.

You also should go read this post by Josh Marshall about this article citing three senior administration officials claiming that the"bad scenarios" were essentially kept from W by those around him. The big news is that this story is apparently a leak from the White House inner circle.

According to Josh, the White House is trying desperately to blame others for the flawed warplan:

It's a narrow enough designation that I think you can say clearly that there simply aren't"three senior administration officials" at the State Department. Indeed, this has all the looks of a story leaked right out of the White House. Presumably, we can scratch Dick Cheney's name off the list since they finger him as the person most responsible for selling the president a bill of goods. Of course, we said months ago that Cheney was the living, breathing disaster at the heart of this administration. But we'll get back to that later.

In any case, the attribution is what makes this such a big story. The White House is in such a state of pandemonium and implosion that they are discarding the policy -- indeed, they are positively undermining it -- in the hopes of insulating the president from the immense fall-out that they can see barreling down the track. Consider also that, saying the president was"out of the loop" -- seemingly a family failing -- on the central policy of his administration is a devastating admission of incompetence on its own. So that tells you what they think of the consequences of remaining attached to the policy.

If you need some evidence that our country is in some trouble, there it is. In short, W is trying to shift blame for this warplan.

For W, the buck always stops somewhere else, doesn't it?

Is W ever going to accept responsibility for ANYTHING?

Well at least W and the boys haven't tried to blame Clinton's penis for this one -- yet.

Posted by Tom at 5:28 p.m. CST

THE BUSH FEDAYEEN IN ACTION 03-31-03

Hesiod points us (blogspot permalinks are not working) to these coonass geniuses who are saying all anti-war protesters should be shot for treason.

Get this:

"This has been going on since World War I, and it's the reason they have the right to feel the way they do," [radio talkshow host Richard] Condon said, pointing at the peace protesters marching down Stanford toward LSU.

Despite that right, he concluded,"I think these son-of-a-buggers deserve a bullet in the head."

This followed his proclamation to the crowd at the beach about American military aims that ended with:"And it's about time we nuked Canada's ass!" These are some really bright folks, these members of the Bush Fedayeen, aren't they?

Atrios comments (again, permalinks on blogspot are not working):

Now, if I were the liberal equivalent of the New York Post, I would seize on this opportunity to point out that the entire pro-war movement is made up of fascist thugs who believe that execution is the proper sentence for disagreeing with an administration's foreign policy. Or, better yet, Atrios might have just said"Now, if I were the liberal equivalent of Glenn Reynolds..." However, fortunately for all of us, Atrios has got much more class and tolerance than Glenn does. Glenn frequently tries to lump all of the anti-war folks together into one boat by making these types of outrageous claims. In fact, Glenn's claims are often even more outrageous in fact.

I just thought I'd point that out.

Posted by Tom at 1:23 p.m. CST

BLUE BOOK FESTIVAL CONTINUES 03-31-03

I'll be busily grading blue books again today. I graded an entire class of them on Friday and I'll try to do another one today. Therefore, blogging may not be as prolific as it is on the usual Monday.

I do, however, have something for you to do in the interim. Go check out Adam Felber's blog, Fanatical Apathy. Atrios blogged about it this morning and I went and read it. It's quite good. I'm particularly fond of his most recent (at the moment) post here.

I've also just added Adam to the blogroll.

Off to grade.

Sigh.

Posted by Tom at 8:27 a.m. CST

MORE TPM: THREE PESSIMISTIC SCENARIOS 03-30-03

Josh does it again. He reprints an e-mail he has received from an unnamed career diplomat who clearly has an excellent sense of history.

Here are this unnamed diplomat's three scenarios for the end of the war:

1. We will hesitate to enter the city for fear of losing large numbers of US casualties in urban warfare. We therefore will have to engage in major bombing in Baghdad, including in civilian areas. To use the Vietnam era phrase,"we had to destroy the village in order to save it." International outrage will be overwhelming, and we will pay the price in the Arab and Muslim worlds for years to come. Operation Iraqi Freedom becomes Operation Iraqi Conquest.

2. Like the Russians against Napoleon and later the Nazis, there is"defense in depth." Let them get deep inside your country, and then start nibbling at them and making their life miserable. It's already happened -- we were rolling to Baghdad with little opposition against our main and heavily-armed forces, and then all hell broke loose against our lighter armed but critical logistics chain that is in the rear. Following this pattern, Saddam eventually will make it"easy" (that's in quotes, because it won't be that easy) for us to enter Baghdad as a ruse, and once we are there, with only 20 to 30K troops inside an unfamiliar and large city of 5 million, his forces will engage in hit and run, guerrilla, terrorist tactics against us. We will have to retreat from the city, bloodied and demoralized -- to borrow your phrase, this is the chickenhawk down scenario. There will be calls from within the US (and certainly from Britain) to pull out of Iraq all together, because the mission has failed. How do you spell"Dunkirk?" We will have to get us forces safely out of the country across 300 miles. (Is that the distance from Baghdad back to Kuwait?) Remember April 1775? The British lost more troops marching back to Boston than they did at Lexington and Concord.

3. This is what I think is the most likely scenario. Cooler heads such as Colin Powell and our senior military leaders will be able to convince Bush that Option 1 and 2 are not"viable," to use a USG phrase. (It will be a tough sell, because Bush personally will prefer Option 1, the stay the course, show the world (and Daddy) how tough and determined and"focused" I am). Our military leaders, already mad at Rummy and company for not giving them the forces they needed to do the job, will simply not want to engage in such butchery or subject their forces to heavy casulaties. Tony Blair will make the same point. But what to do? We will need to surround the city, secure the rest of the country, and then play the game of"political standoff." Somebody will have to blink. Of course I hope this guy's wrong. However, I'd be irresponsible not to share this with you. Go read the rest of Josh's post, there's a great deal more to it.

Posted by Tom at 2:31 p.m. CST

A COUPLE OF THINGS TO READ 03-30-03

I've got a couple of things you should go read this morning:

This column from the Independent is quite good.

Here's the"money" quote but you should read the whole thing:

From before 11 September Iraq was"on the agenda" of the divided Bush administration for reasons that would require the assistance of a psychiatrist, as well as political and military analysts. They decided on war long ago and then went about searching for the precise reasons. Even less thought has been given as to how the war will end and what will happen in the immediate aftermath. In Britain, Clare Short was quite open about this in a Commons debate held last month. She said then that the UN did not want to contemplate the aftermath of a war that many of its members strongly opposed. Of the many statements from the Bush administration about the war none conveys a clear sense of what will happen afterwards. It has been a constant theme in US newspapers, most of whom support the war, while despairing over the lack of planning. That is what is so worrying about the shifting arguments and statements from the political leaders. They do not know what they are doing or why they are doing it. They are fighting an unnecessary war and are still trying to find the reasons to justify it, even though the conflict has started and lives are being lost. The MoDo is also quite good today. She has a column today that sarcastically rips Rummy to shreds. Go give it a read.

Apparently the U.S. media has apparently decided to begin doing their jobs and examine the warplan. So that's what it takes to wake the media up, huh? After the conflict starts and it isn't working out at all as advertised, as in it's not the" cakewalk" the Cheney-Perle-Wolfowitz cabal promised, that's when folks in the media suddenly decides to start asking questions.

As I've said numerous times, I hold our incompetent and flag-waving media as responsible for this damn war as the administration. If they'd been doing their jobs the last six months, all of the lies in the case for war would've been exposed and we wouldn't be here in the first place. Americans would've rose up in demonstrations by the millions and public opinion would've reflected it, thus being evenly split on the war between those who couldn't believe the folks in the administration were lying to them about the war and those who knew they was lying to them.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, come to think of it, those last few things did happen even without a competent media (which then chose to ignore the enormous protests of course). W and the boys also chose to ignore the protests and dismiss them as just representing the opinions of a few rabble-rousers. Now we're in this war and there's no telling how long it's going to last or how many lives it's going to claim.

Sigh.

That's all for now.

It's an awfully busy day for me folks. I'm sure I'll blog some more today but it may be a while.

Update: I hope Hesiod's right about this too.

Posted by Tom at 7:16 a.m. CST

PENTAGON'S LONG KNIVES KEEP COMING OUT FOR RUMSFELD 03-29-03

Boy, I think it's safe to say the folks in the Pentagon want it known that Rumsfeld is at fault for the mistaken assumptions that were part of the warplan:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying."This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying. Goodness. Hersh took Perle down a couple of weeks ago (sort of, Perle's still on the Defense Policy Board) and now he's moved on to Rumsfeld.

BTW, our supply lines are so stretched at the moment that some marines are only getting one meal per day and some are being fed by Iraqi civilians.

I would assume that both of these things aren't"part of the plan," are they?

Update:Agonist readers, earlier posts of mine on this are here, here, here, here, and here.

I also blogged a bit about it this morning (3/30) as well.

Posted by Tom at 5:27 p.m. CST

NOW WHO WAS IT THAT RAISED EXPECTATIONS? 03-29-03

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help. Just a reminder.

I originally posted this passage six days ago, long before it began appearing everywhere, quoted by both the media and by bloggers.

Update: For an excellent Dana Milbank article on this, go here.

Posted by Tom at 12:06 p.m. CST

THIS WAR WAS A GREAT IDEA, WASN'T IT? 03-29-03

The terrorism against U.S. soldiers in Iraq has started.

You should expect more of this in the coming days.

Sigh.

Damn.

Posted by Tom at 9:08 a.m. CST

THANKS -- ONCE AGAIN! 03-28-03

I had my 130,000th visitor a short while ago via a link from Rhetorica. It wasn't that long ago that I had my 120,000th visitor.

I've had over 193,000 hits as well since I installed my hit counter on September 18th of last year.

As always, I thank you profusely for dropping by and hope to give you a good reason to come back.

Posted by Tom at 1:19 p.m. CST

GO READ KRUGMAN 03-28-03

Now.

Posted by Tom at 10:37 a.m. CST

BUSY DAY 03-28-03

I'll blog today but I'm awfully busy at the moment.

I'm knee deep in blue books that I'm grading. Further complicating things is that we're also having major network internet connection problems at the moment as well. They're upgrading servers and so forth on campus today.

I'll be back when I've got a break and the system actually stabilizes. I've had to try several times just to get this post up to the HNN website.

Posted by Tom at 9:46 a.m. CST

NICE TRY, RICHARD PERLE 03-27-03

In an absolutely meaningless gesture because he remains on the board and therefore remains influential, Richard Perle has resigned his position as chair of the Defense Policy Board.

This looks like a significant development but it really isn't. It looks like W is trying to rid himself of the guy who was so wrong about Iraq and who apparently is profiting from his unpaid (except for the six figure lobbying fees) position.

But W and Rummy are actually doing nothing of the kind. Now Perle can happily continue to profit from his connections and, since he remains on the board, he can still shape policy. I've blogged about Perle a lot lately (tons of blog entries about him in the last two or three weeks) because he's one of the leading neocon empire-hungry IraqWar hawks who thought this war would be a cakewalk.

I assume this means his libel lawsuit against Sy Hersh is off, right? I mean now that he's resigned because apparently Hersh was right he wouldn't be crazy enough to still sue, would he?

Posted by Tom at 7:45 p.m. CST

THINGS ARE NOT AS PEACHY KEEN AS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE 03-27-03

According to the Agonist, the army is hurriedly deploying 100,000 more soldiers to Iraq in the next few weeks.

Hmmm. I'm guessing the warplan isn't working out like it was supposed to.

Furthermore, Sean-Paul is also hearing that intelligence officials are peeved that they had warned about strenuous resistance from the Iraqis. However, they were ignored and this information was not passed on to coalition commanders.

Yep it is as we suspected. Even though W, Rumsfeld, et. al, are trying to pretend things are going exactly according to plan, they clearly aren't.

Posted by Tom at 3:24 p.m. CST

W SCREWS 9/11 VICTIMS ONCE AGAIN 03-27-03

Using the war as cover, the administration has decided it won't adequately fund the 9/11 commission.

If you recall, W and the boys fought tooth and nail against the creation of this commission and then, when public pressure was intense, grudgingly gave in. Now they're stripping the commission of funding and otherwise quietly obstructing it.

I'll ask this once again: What are they hiding?

Posted by Tom at 12:10 p.m. CST

]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1327 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1327 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entry.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME... 04-30-03

what are W and the boys hiding?

It's obviously bad enough they think it will jeopardize their chances at re-election, right?

To review, I wrote about this almost a year ago.

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 8:37 p.m. CDT

LYONS:"CHANTING THE PARTY LINE" 04-30-03

Here's this week's Gene Lyons column!

Chanting the Party Line

Hey kids, want to be first on your block to chant the GOP party line? Don't sit waiting for the local newspaper to arrive, read the Republican National Committee's"Weekly Team Leader," peruse GOPUSA.com, or check out the Weekly Standard. It doesn't matter which options you choose, because they all say the same things. Over and over and over.

From the standpoint of Democrats, the most impressive aspect of the Republican spin and smear machine, perfected during the Clinton years, is its unanimity. Liberal pundits simply aren't as gifted at groupthink. They're too busy bickering and riding their individual hobbyhorses for the kind of coordinated effort favored by the GOP.

Conservative culture warriors conduct political debate like a corporate ad campaign. They're always on-message: same targets, same smarmy techniques. It's political journalism, Enron style. (They're also better paid. Democrats, alas, have no wacky tycoons to match Rev. Moon, Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon-Scaife.)

Especially during wartime, political propaganda descends to the pro-wrestling level. They didn't think so under Bill Clinton, but because our glorious leader symbolizes the nation, questioning President Junior's sublime wisdom has become ipso facto anti-American. Like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm, true believers make up the majority of every strongman's chanting mob--from Julius Caesar to Saddam Hussein.

That doesn't make Bush a dictator. But right-wing pundits like Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and Fox News's Bill O'Reilly aren't stupid. They know exactly what they're doing when they argue that Iraq war opponents hate Bush, and therefore hate America."[T]he real agenda of conservative media's overbearing pundits," editorializes Salon"is to drive everyone who disagrees with them out of the public arena. They're not interested in open debate; their goal is to intimidate and silence."

Mostly, they don't want anybody paying attention to stories like last week's admission to ABC News by Bush administration"senior officials" that they exaggerated the threat from Saddam's"weapons of mass destruction" to sell the public on a war whose real purpose was to"flex muscle" in the Middle East."We were not lying," said one official."But it was just a matter of emphasis."

I've always assumed that Saddam had chemical weapons left over from his days as a U.S. client, when the Pentagon helped him target Iranian troops. Having researched the subject when the Reagan administration proposed manufacturing nerve gas at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, I figured Saddam wouldn't risk annihilation by using it against a nuclear-armed foe. It's also too bulky and too easily detected to export for terrorism; a deadly anachronism useful only for genocide.

Both Bush and Colin Powell, however, presented detailed lists of forbidden Iraqi arms. They claimed that Saddam was hiding tons of VX, and thousands of artillery shells and missiles. They said he had 18 mobile bio-war labs, and huge stores of anthrax. They hinted that U.N. weapons inspectors were incompetent or worse. Bush told the American people that not to strike Iraq first would be"suicide." But U.S. officials still haven't found Iraqi weapons either. Now they hint they were mainly blowing smoke.

So who do Democrat-Gazette editors, following upon a wildly inaccurate report on the GOPUSA website, think we should be angry with? Why Bill Clinton, of course, who, we're told, delivered an"anti-war rant" and made"Saddam Hussein out to be just your ordinary reasonable dictator" in New York on April 15. Through the dark art of selective quotation, the editorial ignored Clinton's explicit praise for Bush's handling of the war."Saddam's gone," Clinton said"and good riddance."

The outcome of the war, Clinton added, was never in doubt."I would like to say something nice," he said."I think the President and Secretary Rumsfeld and our military really did the right thing in taking another week to ten days to conclude this because they were able to save thousands and thousands of civilian lives and if we're going to, in effect, occupy Iraq we want to do [it] with the least cost of lives on both sides."

Even if no weapons of mass destruction are found, Clinton added"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they had a substantial amount of chemical and biological stocks, because that's what the British military intelligence said....That's what I was always told, and I can just tell you that if you're sitting there in the Oval Office, it is just irresponsible to say, 'I've just got a feeling you're all wrong.'"

So what drew conservative ire? Clinton still thinks the U.N. Security Council could have been brought around, and expressed hope Bush would be magnanimous toward reluctant allies, whose help we're going to need down the road. In the Manichean world of conservative punditry, that all but makes him a traitor. Posted by Tom at 3:38 p.m. CDT

MISINFORMATION 04-30-03

Paul Krugman's column from yesterday notes the pattern of misinformation by the administration to sell the war and later to claim we'd found WMDs:

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons."I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline"White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we? This pattern has been repeated so many times that it can't be accidental. The pack of lies that Colin Powell presented at the U.N. that was almost entirely debunked within a week of the presentation is but one example, there are numerous others.

This is more than" crying wolf" folks -- it's a conscious effort by the administration to mislead us, time and time again. It also demonstrates a major failure by our pathetic flag-waving corporate media as well. Like a large number of Americans, the folks in the media have an astonishingly short attention span.

Less polished people (righties would call them unpatriotic I'm sure) might call this what it truly is -- lying.

Posted by Tom at 2:50 p.m. CDT

JIM'S DONE WITH TNR 04-30-03

Jim Capozzolla is done with The New Republic[an]. I'll pile on as well. I think most folks who have any sort of fair bone in their body these days can recognize a bunch of right-wing hacks when they see them. The TNR is no longer worth the paper it's printed on I'm afraid.

Oh yeah, Jim would also like to know if you've heard about Ashleigh Moore?

Posted by Tom at 1:33 p.m. CDT

TAXES ARE A REFLECTION OF WHAT WE VALUE AS A SOCIETY 04-30-03

Kevin has a post today that is a perfect example of why there is great value in reading blogs. Here's a bit of it:

My view is that a progressive tax system is best, for reasons of basic equity and fairness. Why? I'll leave that for another post, but for now I just wanted to make a point that often gets hijacked by lengthy discussions of economic minutiae: in reality, tax rates are a reflection of what we value in a civil, democratic society. That's what the argument should be about, and we shouldn't allow partisans — either conservative or liberal — to avoid the subject by pretending that their proposals are nothing more than neutral arguments about economic growth. It's just smoke and mirrors to take our minds off what's really important, and we shouldn't let them get away with it. This is a point that is always missed by our media. We should be talking about WHAT we're getting for our tax money and what we're spending it on. Both parties have been playing the"economic growth" card for too long.

This is a discussion that is long overdue in Washington.

Posted by Tom at 10:53 a.m. CDT

FINALS DAY 04-30-03

I've got finals for three of my four classes today. I gave one to my night class last week. I'll still blog but I certainly won't put up twelve posts like I did yesterday!

It'll take me a couple of days to grade the papers but I'll still blog of course. It breaks the monotony after all.

Posted by Tom at 9:17 a.m. CDT

THE BUSH LEGACY: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD DEFAULT ON DEBT IN MAY 04-30-03

Ah, the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and the Republican congress -- the government could default on its debt in May. And they're proposing new tax cuts, right?

Impressive, eh?

Posted by Tom at 8:43 a.m. CDT

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER SHOOTING 04-30-03

This time, fortunately, only two protesters were killed.

This occupation thing sure is going well, isn't it?

I hope we don't average a Kent State per day but it's looking likely at this point.

Posted by Tom at 8:28 a.m. CDT

CONGRATS TO KOS! 04-29-03

Kos and his wife are incubating a new Democrat!

That's wonderful news Kos!

Posted by Tom at 10:01 p.m. CDT

HOW DO THEY PLAN TO TAX THAT? 04-29-03

You know sometimes you hear these crazy things they say and do in Washington and you think"what a bunch of morons. How stupid can they be?" But you really do need to remember these folks in Washington are the first stringers, the third and fourth string intellects are sitting in the state legislatures -- especially now that term limits have removed all the people who had any idea how the state lawmaking and budgeting process is supposed to work.

My father was telling me the story this weekend about a female representative of a state workers' union in Arkansas that was trying patiently to explain to a relatively new legislator that with these budget cuts"they" were going to start shutting down offices and laying off people soon." The legislator's response? Something along the lines of"surely, they won't do that." This genius apparently had no idea the"they" she was talking about was the legislature -- the"they" was actually him.

Well things are no better here in Missouri. Keep in mind the budget situation in Missouri is so grave that the folks in the House decided to show great courage and delegate their power to the Senate try to solve it -- and they still haven't solved it even though they did that weeks ago. Buried in the middle of this article about the bleak reality that is the budget situation here in Missouri is this plan to generate revenue for the state:

Republicans legislators want to

Generat[e} $5 million by imposing a 5 percent tax on adult entertainment. The tax would apply to sales of sexually explicit material and services, such as live nude performances and actual or simulated sex acts.

...

The adult entertainment tax would apply to fees for bestiality, masturbation and sadistic or masochistic abuse. Sen. Sarah Steelman, a Rolla Republican, distributed a proposed amendment to add lap dances to the services that would be taxed. My friends and I have been talking about this one all day. Isn't bestiality and sadistic or masochistic abuse already against the law? How can these folks tax people for doing something that's against the law anyway? If you're going to tax it, it should be legal, right?

But here's the big thing, it appears, according to this, that I'm going to be taxed if I masturbate! Holy moly! How's that for invasive government? I mean, heck, how are they going to find out?

This certainly gives a new meaning to"self-reporting," doesn't it?

"Sorry kids. No Christmas presents this year. Mommy and Daddy sort of blew too much money, um, frivolously."

Okay, okay, I know that I'm being a smart aleck here and this tax is only meant to apply to folks at adult entertainment establishments who perform such services but, wait, aren't such services illegal too? I thought charging for sex or masturbation was illegal?

So somebody's going to have to explain to me why Republicans think they can gain revenue from taxing acts that are supposed to be illegal activities in the first place. Are they suggesting that perhaps these acts should be legal and then we should tax them?

I'm just not following the logic here.

Someone's clearly going to have to explain this one to me.

Any takers?

This blog entry also posted on the Political State Report.

Posted by Tom at 9:17 p.m. CDT

STEINBACK:"HAVE WE BECOME A COUNTRY THAT WEARS ITS HYPOCRISY OPENLY AND PROUDLY?" 04-29-03

This column asks all the right questions about the just-completed IraqWar Part II. Here's a bit of it:

We Americans have always had a penchant for creative self-delusion. We chafe, for example, at corruption in government, yet routinely reelect the scoundrels who perpetrate it. We demand both services and cuts in the taxes that pay for them.

But it seems the agony of Sept. 11 has pushed us into an altogether new realm, where we don't even care if our rhetoric makes sense, as long as we're led to a feel-good conclusion. The joy of kicking butt obliterates the need to make an honest case for war.

Wasn't it just four years ago -- I reminded my acquaintance -- that a roiling posse of critics piously preached how utterly unacceptable it was for a president to be excused even for a piddling lie that had absolutely no impact on the lives of any non-Beltway American? Bill Clinton was impeached -- impeached! -- for not admitting an intern had performed a sex act on him in the Oval Office.

Now there is plausible doubt that George Bush and Colin Powell were telling us the whole truth when they pronounced, not as a possibility but a fact, that Hussein had these terrible weapons and could at any moment instigate a terrible strike on America.

Bush dismissed the efforts of chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, whose teams searched for evidence of the chemical and biological weapons that Hussein allegedly possessed, and found nothing. We must go to war anyway, Bush told us, because Hussein refuses to disarm.

Well, where is it all?

Our troops swept across Iraq in three weeks and secured oil wells within hours. Didn't we have a priority list of potential weapons depots to seize and secure? Did we even know where to start looking?

Now the administration is all but giving up the search, saying it hopes Iraqi informants will eventually lead us to the stuff. If we didn't know where it was, how did we know it was so grave a threat that war was essential?

Did Bush mislead us? Was the American public duped into supporting a war that killed 128 Americans, 31 Britons and thousands of Iraqis, damaged U.S. prestige around the world and may have worsened, rather than improved, U.S. security?

Oh, who cares -- we won the war!

At least Bush wasn't lying about sex in the Oval Office! We'd have impeached him for that.

And, hey, Bush wasn't under oath, as was Clinton -- although it would be nice to believe swearing honesty wouldn't be necessary when a president addresses the nation.

I don't regard my hawkish acquaintance as a hypocrite; for sure, his brutal honesty makes him a rare breed.

But we're heading for big trouble as a nation if we aren't even concerned that our heads of state may be manipulating us by manipulating the truth.

In a nation where hypocrisy is rewarded, expect more lies. And from an administration that lies about everything, expect the lies to become more numerous and more outrageous as the next election approaches -- especially if the economy shows no signs of rebounding.

Posted by Tom at 7:36 p.m. CDT

THANKS! 04-29-03

Thanks folks -- I just had my 180,000th visitor via a link from Daily Kos. It's only been 8 days since I had my 170,000th visitor. I've also had a little over 265,000 hits since I installed my hit counter as well.

Considering that, like last week, I've been gone for a few days, I'm still quite happy with the site traffic. I should be here for a while now. No more traveling until the end of May probably -- and I may be able to blog on that trip.

As always, I do thank you for reading. I appreciate it greatly. I hope to give you a reason to come back.

Posted by Tom at 4:14 p.m. CDT

THE INFORMATION MINISTER... 04-29-03

has been offered a job by Arab television network Al-Arabiya.

That truly is priceless, isn't it?

Since this war was such a joke on numerous levels it makes perfect sense that the thing people may remember from it is this guy. I know one of my colleagues was very excited when he heard the news. He couldn't get enough of this guy.

Posted by Tom at 2:48 p.m. CDT

A LOTT OF POSTS 04-29-03

As I was hunting for a Lott post to link to from January, it occurred to me that I should go ahead and provide you with a list of posts in order as well. It's quite a walk down memory lane!

Anyway, here goes:

January posts: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

February posts: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

March posts: here and here. (The John Lott scandal was annoyingly interrupted by that immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq after all.)

April posts: here, here, herehere, here, here, here, and here.

Goodness. I blogged a bit about this, didn't I?

Update: There also is an excellent article in Reason magazine by blogger Julian Sanchez about the Lott scandal as well. This won't be available online until next month. As soon as it is available, I will link to it.

Update 2:Here's the link to Julian's article.

Posted by Tom at 1:48 p.m. CDT

TODAY'S LOTT UPDATE 04-29-03

As usual, Tim Lambert's got the goods. Isn't it astounding that it takes an article by a couple of Glenn's friends to convince him that Lott might be full of it?

I also love the fact that, even after all this, Glenn is still carrying water for Lott. He published on his blog an e-mail from Lott that is clearly meant to serve as a distraction from the bigger problems exposed by Ayres's and Donohue's devastating article.

John Quiggin also has an excellent post on the subject too. Like me, Quiggin believes one of the not-so-innocent bystanders to be harmed by this scandal is Glenn himself:

But the biggest not-so-innocent bystander to be hit by friendly fire is surely the king of the blogworld, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. Having cut his blogging teeth on the Bellesiles scandal (the discrediting of a widely-acclaimed piece of research seen as favorable to gun control), and having ferociously attacked those on the anti-gun side who failed to dissociate themselves from Bellesiles, Reynolds has consistently given Lott the benefit of the doubt, and has even, in a dispute between Lott and respected economist Steve Levitt, been implicated in Lott's slimy manoeuvres (again, see Tim Lambert for the complex and gory details). Clearly all that rhetoric about 'fact-checking your ass' only applies to those who come up with the wrong conclusions. Indeed.

Boy, doesn't Quiggin's post sound a bit like ]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1384 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1384 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entries.

EVEN MORE"FAUX NEWS": THE POTENTIAL TRIUMPH OF RUPERT MURDOCH 05-31-03

Jimm Donnelly's right about this. I haven't said much if anything about it. I've been very busy doing ten different things, traveling, and doing major home projects over the last few weeks but that's still not really a very good excuse. I know Atrios blogged on it a while back but not much else has been said in the lefty blogosphere. While bloggers always blog about what interests them, I agree with Jimm that this is an important issue that should be discussed more in the blogosphere.

The concentration of media power into fewer and fewer hands really does threaten media freedom and democracy itself. I'm pretty sure, knowing the respect Republicans have for democracy that, no matter how many tens of thousands of e-mails, faxes, and phonecalls they're getting, Colin Powell's son and his Republican cronies on the FCC will willfully ignore them and pass these rule changes over the objections of (apparently most) Americans.

The current pathetic media coverage of the lies told by the adminsistration regarding, to use Hesiod's excellent phrase, the"War of Bush Aggression" is a perfect case in point. We already have a media that is controlled by corporate types who'd just as soon softpedal the administration's recent astonishing depredations because it serves their own economic and political interests. If we have further concentration of media ownership, we might get even less coverage of important things like the fact that our government lied to us to build public support for an immoral and unnecessary war.

The further concentration of media power is an important issue that deserves, at the very least, further public debate. Personally, I'd prefer these proposed changes be defeated entirely and, furthermore, I'd like more stringent restrictions on media ownership put in place that would weaken the control of right-wing ideologues like Rupert Murdoch over our media.

While I'm relatively sure that Michael Powell and his fellow Republican footsoldiers on the FCC won't do a damn thing about the public outcry about this, that's still not a good excuse for ignoring the issue entirely as I have been.

I'm not sure this post properly corrects that oversight but it's a start at least.

Posted by Tom at 9:18 p.m. CDT

POWELL:"I'M NOT READING THIS. THIS IS BULLSHIT." 05-31-03

The finger-pointing about the cooking of the intelligence books in order to justify war with Iraq continues. I don't know folks, which is worse and more worthy of impeachment, lying about a consensual blowjob or lying about intelligence to justify a war?

I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Oh yeah, and go read this.

Update: Read this too.

Posted by Tom at 4:25 p.m. CDT

LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND W 05-31-03

I couldn't resist blogging on this. As it becomes increasingly clear that the administration out-and-out lied to us about WMDs, now W has taken to lying about it himself apparently.

This is pretty damned embarrassing, isn't it?

BTW, just for the record, it's really hot here. I wasn't ready for 101 degrees on my first day down here.

Welcome to summer in Texas.

Posted by Tom at 1:58 p.m. CDT

G.T.T. AGAIN 05-30-03

I'm headed out to Texas this morning on my aforementioned travels.

As is obvious, I'll be at the mercy of internet availability for the next several days. If it's available (as it has been before when I was down in S.A. for A.P. grading), I'll blog some from Texas -- at least a couple of posts per day. However, this potential posting probably won't start until Sunday at the earliest.

If I don't have easy internet availability, well, my friends in Texas do have computers I'm told but I don't know if I'll feel like doing that.

We'll see.

Posted by Tom at 7:17 a.m. CDT

ABOUT KOS 05-30-03

Here's more about just who that Kos guy is.

Posted by Tom at 7:07 a.m. CDT

KRUGMAN:"WAGGY DOG STORIES" 05-30-03

Great Krugman column today -- go read it. Once again, Krugman's done a great job of pulling everything together to make an argument that this war was based on lies and now strongly resembles the 1997 movie"Wag the Dog."

BTW, Jessica Lynch's parents have said they have been instructed not to talk about the rescue of their daughter. That looks just a wee bit suspicious, doesn't it?

Posted by Tom at 6:31 a.m. CDT

LATEST ON TEXAS SHENANIGANS 05-29-03

As usual, Josh Marshall has it.

It appears that DPS has decided to shift blame to Governor Goodhair and claim they were being"manipulated" a couple of weeks ago by the governor and his minions for partisan purposes. This is getting interesting now, isn't it?

Currently it also appears the Attorney General is spending more time trying to find the potential whistleblower in DPS than getting to the bottom of the document destruction. That's not unexpected from Republicans, is it?

I'll be in Austin tomorrow -- maybe something more will break by then.

We'll see.

Update: Chuck Kuffner also has a great update today as well.

Posted by Tom at 4:53 p.m. CDT

W APPEASES BIN LADEN -- TWICE! 05-29-03

Morat has all the details.

Do you think our warmongering blogger brethren will jump on W with both feet now?

I wonder if they'd have been so gung-ho for it if they'd have known that?

How about it, Glenn?

The administration has made its allies and supporters look like absolute fools.

You'd think these folks would be a little upset about it, wouldn't you?

Posted by Tom at 12:13 p.m. CDT

IRAQ UPDATE: TWENTY AMERICANS HAVE DIED SINCE W DECLARED"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" IN IRAQ 05-29-03

Sean-Paul over at the Agonist points us to this story about the 20th American killed since W declared the war over in Iraq.

As Atrios said in a post this morning:

It's really quite sad how little coverage the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq get. After all the patriotic fervor the networks exuded in the run-up to the war, their families must wonder why they barely merit a mention. I'm just happy this is all going so well and the press is covering all of this so closely.

Sean-Paul also has an informative post up about the issue in of ginned up WMD evidence in Iraq as well.

And, by the way, there was absolutely nothing at the location we struck with multiple cruise missiles the first night of IraqWar Part II. Great intelligence once again, huh?

So, when Rumsfeld said back in March they were certain they hit something, he lied.

And we all know the Jessica Lynch rescue was apparently fiction as well.

I think it's time for a rather important question:

Is there anything we were told to justify this war and about the major events of the war itself that has actually turned out to be true?

Ponder that one for a while.

Posted by Tom at 10:20 a.m. CDT

ENORMOUS DEFICITS COMING UP 05-29-03

Joe Moran points us (permalinks bloggered) to this Financial Times article that quotes a suppressed treasury department report that we're going to rack up $44 trillion worth of deficits -- and that was before the current $800B taxcut was signed by W.

How's that for fiscal mismanagement?

$44 trillion is equal to the worth of all household assets in the U.S. and the report says it will require a 66% tax increase to close the hole -- yet W and the boys keep pursuing ruinous tax cuts. When are people going to care about this?

Posted by Tom at 8:19 a.m. CDT

JOSH MARSHALL RECAPS... 05-29-03

the mess in Texas quite adequately here.

Posted by Tom at 8:06 a.m. CDT

BLAIR'S IN TROUBLE 05-29-03

It appears that Tony Blair may get his comeuppance for supporting the immoral and unnecessary war after all.

Americans may not give a damn that their leaders lied to them -- but the Brits apparently do.

Posted by Tom at 7:55 a.m. CDT

GET THIS 05-28-03

Here's a quote supposedly by W that's in this new movie:

"I won't be seeking a declaration of war. With a shadowy enemy, specificity makes that problematic." Oh yeah. Our president who can't pronounce"nuclear" properly said that out loud.

Sure. You bet.

Posted by Tom at 10:33 p.m. CDT

THE POLL NEWS... 05-28-03

is not good for W either. Read Ruy Teixeira's latest Public Opinion Watch for the latest.

Ruy's been right about darn near everything for several months now -- even predicting the (very short) timing of W's war spike in popularity. It's all gone now folks -- he's back to his pre-war level of popularity.

Nowhere else to go but down from here.

Posted by Tom at 8:53 p.m. CDT

DURABLE GOODS ORDERS DROP RATHER DRASTICALLY 05-28-03

Boy, now this isn't good.

How about a genuine dubya-dip recession folks?

Perhaps that's the missing ingredient to the perfect political storm for W?

Only time will tell.

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 2:01 p.m. CDT

NICE SHOT, WAPO 05-28-03

The WaPo gets a good shot in on John Lott today. Tim Lambert, as usual, has all the updates on the Lott scandal today.

BTW, why doesn't anyone in the print media ever credit the person who actually uncovered Mary Rosh, Julian Sanchez? Would it hurt any of these folks to, dare I say, be accurate in their reporting?

It's like the blogosphere doesn't count to these journalistic snobs, eh?

Posted by Tom at 1:27 p.m. CDT

THE PERFECT POLITICAL STORM SET FOR 2004? 05-28-03

Every time Rumsfeld opens his mouth he digs the hole deeper for the administration, doesn't he?

Now Rumsfeld suggests that Iraq may have destroyed their WMDs before the war after all. (Rummy blithefully ignores that, if this is the case, it therefore makes the war unwarranted, W, Cheney, Powell and Rummy liars, and the rest of the world right and us wrong, but I digress.)

Oh yeah, and on a related note, who gives a damn about police-state-style secret deportations? The Supreme Court sure as hell doesn't. So much for civil liberties for aliens, huh? I mean, heck, you and I don't have them anymore, so why should anyone else?

History will not be kind to these guys folks. And, hopefully, the pitiful economy -- unhelped by W's rich-get-richer tax schemes -- and the federal deficit that is spiraling out of control very well may lead to the end of this national nightmare in a little over a year and a half.

I can always hope, can't I?

If the"perfect political storm" is gathering to take down W, you can rest assured these guys won't go down without a fearful fight. With no other card to play than fear in the campaign next year, I expect W and the boys to plumb the depths for their campaign rhetoric.

Using their disgraceful campaign for the midterms as a guide, I expect them to question the patriotism of every Democrat in America by November of 2004, all the while wrapping themselves obscenely in the flag of 9/11. I also don't put it past W and the boys to start a war with Syria or Iran just before the election in order to save themselves politically.

Regardless, it will be quite a fearsome spectacle folks. In the presidential campaign in 2000 and in the midterms, these folks proved they will say or do anything to win an election.

The political end for W, if it comes in 2004, will be nothing short of spectacular.

Posted by Tom at 10:43 a.m. CDT

VIDEOTAPE SNARES GOVERNOR GOODHAIR -- AND HIS HOMELAND DEFENSE COORDINATOR 05-28-03

Well the videotape didn't produce Jim Ellis but it did produce the Governor and his homeland defense coordinator heavily involved in the search for absconded Democrats.

Why didn't Perry and Kimbrough fess up before now? Why did they have to be fingered on the tape?

This certainly makes that earlier six-hour gap in the tape a little more suspicious, doesn't it?

Posted by Tom at 8:52 a.m. CDT

TIME TRAVEL FANTASY GAME 05-27-03

Kevin Drum points us to this excellent post by Invisible Adjunct (just added to the blogroll by the way). The post talks about a subject that is near and dear to my heart -- the large gap between what historians want to write about and what normal folks want to read about. As someone who wrote a book that had a final chapter that touched on this subject (and was roundly bitched out in a couple of historical journals for what I said there), I think this is an important subject.

However, the fun part of the post is actually the last part:

All of this by way of a lengthy apology for my Time Travel Fantasy Game:

If you could travel back to any time and place of your choosing, where would you go and with whom would you like to have dinner? If I were a professional historian, I suppose I would blush with shame to acknowledge any interest in such a trifle. Not at all. I love such scenarios!

Here's my answer -- and it is probably shaped by current events quite a bit:

Place: Washington, D.C. Time: January 1848 Person to meet for dinner: the newly-elected freshman congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln

Why?: Lincoln spent the entire Mexican War excoriating President Polk for his immoral war with Mexico that Polk, Lincoln believed, had gotten support from the public for by swearing to all manner of lies and half-truths.

I'd like to talk to Lincoln about what was wrong with the ongoing war and about the proper place of dissent in America. I'd especially love to hear him tell me more about his recently-introduced"Spot Resolutions" that challenged the president to locate the precise"spot" in the nation where"American blood had been shed on American soil."

After that I probably have a list of fifty other places I'd love to go and people I'd love to meet if I could. However, that's number one for me right now.

As I said, I suspect my answer is probably shaped by current events.

Posted by Tom at 10:32 p.m. CDT

COALITION OF THE BOILING 05-27-03

Hesiod pointed out in a post this morning that we support Uzbekistan with millions of taxpayer dollars because they are an ally in the"war on terrah" (they were even part of the coalition of the bribed if you recall) and their leader is an absolute monster. In fact, he has this, ugh, nasty habit of boiling his political opponents alive.

Hey, Glenn, other righty warbloggers, where's the outrage? Once it became clear that W and the boys were lying to us about WMDs you guys started telling us we were really in this war to remove Saddam's brutal regime. Therefore, I assume you guys will want us to send our forces into Uzbekistan immediately, right?

You certainly wouldn't want to be, in Atrios's words,"objectively pro-boiling" right?

Posted by Tom at 6:08 p.m. CDT

MARY ROSH, ER, JOHN LOTT HAS STARTED A BLOG 05-27-03

And, as Tim Lambert makes clear, in his very first blog entry Lott makes several basic factual errors about a single newspaper story and that quite a few of these same errors are contained in his latest book as well. Suspiciously, said factual errors make this story more easily fit Lott's"rabidly" pro-gun agenda.

Pathetic, eh?

Posted by Tom at 1:48 p.m. CDT

MORAT GETS IT... 05-27-03

just right:

All in all, it's the worst of the anti-war crowd's fears. Most of us didn't oppose the war out of pure pacifism, or out of any thought we might be defeated (although without the bribing of key officials, our victory would have cost more lives), but because we fully expected the Bush administration to screw up the aftermath.

And they have. Last I checked, there was no electricity and no water in Baghdad. Mosul is still almost a war zone. We had no plan for delivering aid, didn't bother to prevent the looting of key industries, had no plan for policing the region, for restoring services, for anything. Ethnic tensions are putting huge strains on the region, and we have no plan to deal with that either.

It was a delicate act to pull off, 'liberating' a country when most of the world -- and many of your own citizens -- suspected your motives. We failed. We worse than failed, we never even tried. Bush can make all the speeches he wants, but it boils down (especially to the Iraqis) to actions. And by our actions so far, we're doomed to fail.

Welcome to the Occupation. That certainly sums up the way I feel about it all. I've been warning about the administration having no post-war plan since my very first post last August if you recall.

Posted by Tom at 1:07 p.m. CDT

JOSH MARSHALL IDENTIFIES... 05-27-03

the potential"information conduit" for DeLay to pass on information to Tom Craddick -- a fellow named Jim Ellis, a longtime DeLay aide who is now in charge of DeLay's PAC. Ellis is now admitting to the San Antonio Excess-News er, Express-News that he" could very likely have been" close to the DPS's" command center" that was set up next door to Craddick's office. DeLay has admitted he passed on information about the aircraft's whereabouts through Craddick.

Furthermore, the grand jury that had been investigating the destruction of DPS records is now investigating all of this as well.

This really is getting interesting, isn't it?

Posted by Tom at 12:50 p.m. CDT

TAX CHEATS GET $1B IN CONTRACTS FROM W 05-27-03

Don't you think tax cheat firmsshouldn't be getting government contracts? Call me crazy but companies that are so low on the ethical scale that they won't even pay taxes to the country to whom they owe their success shouldn't get one dollar from the government -- in my opinion of course.

And you'll notice in the article, by the way, that Republican leaders keep removing such prohibitions from various bills -- so they actually support these cheats!

Posted by Tom at 11:32 a.m. CDT

DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS 05-27-03

This is hilarious:

Texas state police officials on Monday blamed a faulty duplication machine for a five-hour gap in a Capitol security tape that was given to a House committee investigating how authorities handled the Democratic walkout.

"I don't know if people are trying to run out the clock so we're not in town any more or if it's just incompetence. Either one is bothersome," said Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, chairman of the House General Investigating Committee.

Bailey's committee is looking into how the Texas Department of Public Safety coordinated its search for 55 missing legislators on May 12, whether anyone associated with U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay helped direct the search and why DPS officials ordered some records on the issue destroyed on May 14.

As part of the probe, Bailey had asked DPS to turn over Capitol security tapes for the hallway outside of House Speaker Tom Craddick's office. A DPS command post was set up May 12 in Craddick's reception room, and Bailey said he wants to know who went in and out of that room.

Bailey said the DPS provided his staff with copies of the security tapes late Friday. As the staff watched them over the weekend, the entire week was available except for the afternoon of May 12. He said the tape stopped at 12:47 p.m. and did not begin again until 6 p.m.

"It's odd that it was the day and time that we wanted," Bailey said."It's fine all week, except for that one period."

DPS officials scrambled to make a new copy of the May 12 afternoon tape, which was given to the lawmaker Monday evening.

"It's a simple malfunction," said DPS spokesman Tom Vinger."They're copying hours and hours of tape. They just didn't notice some was missing." Right. I'm sure that's it.

[Link via Atrios and Off the Kuff]

Posted by Tom at 10:37 a.m. CDT

GO READ 05-27-03

Phil Carpenter too.

Posted by Tom at 10:01 a.m. CDT

GREAT KRUGMAN 05-27-03

Go read it.

Posted by Tom at 8:59 a.m. CDT

PLANS FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS 05-26-03

Here are my plans for the next few days:

This week I'll be blogging as usual through Thursday night. However, on Friday I'm headed to the home of Tom Craddick and Governor Rick"Goodhair" Perry, Austin, Texas. Maybe something interesting will be going on there by then. I'll be in Austin until Sunday, June 1st. I'll be staying with a couple of friends and may or may not be able to blog from there. We shall see.

On Sunday, a friend will be driving me to my alma mater, Trinity University, in San Antonio, Texas to be a reader of Advanced Placement U.S. history exams. I'm likely to be able to blog from good old T.U. and will probably blog a fair amount from there -- at least two or three times per day. We'll see of course.

Other than the seven hours per day I'll be grading exams, I plan on swimming a lot in the university pool and having a good time visiting friends, so don't look for any ten post days or anything from there. I plan on visiting with Sean-Paul of the Agonist (who lives in S.A.) and perhaps even Chuck Kuffner of Off the Kuff (who lives in Houston) while I'm there. Any other Texas bloggers who would like to come to S.A. and visit, let me know.

I'll be in S.A. until June 9, when I'll be flying home and blogging will return absolutely to normal on about June 10th.

Anyway, this seemed like as good as good a time as any to update you on the blogging schedule for the next couple of weeks.

I am sorry there was another technical screw-up today (apparently by me) that resulted in, among other things, the deletion of the comment boards yet again -- just as it was getting interesting of course.

BTW, I've now added Quaker in a Basement to the blogroll. It's an oversight on my part that I haven't done so yet.

Posted by Tom at 7:37 p.m. CDT

WHAT JOSH MARSHALL 05-26-03

says. He's dead-on IMHO.

The story here isn't about an intelligence failure, it's about an administration that willfully ignored what they were being told and even trotted out evidence that the intelligence agencies knew was false to back up the arguments for the war they wanted.

In short, it's not the intelligence folks who lied to the administration, the intelligence community has been proven absolutely correct -- there wasn't much, if anything, in the way of WMDs in Iraq. It's the administration that lied, especially the handpicked evidence-creators in the Office of Special Plans (for war with Iraq).

Posted by Tom at 4:45 p.m. CDT

A PETTY WOMANIZING CREEP 05-26-03

Steve Gilliard gives you some sense of the true"moral character" of Rudy Giuliani. But, since he's a Republican, the SCLM gives him a pass on these rather major character flaws.

In fact, folks Rudy is much more of a"sexual predator" than Bill Clinton could ever hope to be.

My understanding is that Rudy's such a womanizer that he knows he never can run for office again. Not that Rudy needs to now that he's made his fortune off the victims of 9/11 anyway.

However, I'm sure some morally upright Republican will give him some cushy job with a six figure income any day now.

[Link via Atrios]

Posted by Tom at 1:31 p.m. CDT

ALL IS OKAY NOW 05-26-03

Everything is okay now. You can resume your normal blog-reading now folks. I don't know what happened but it's been more or less repaired.

Posted by Tom at 12:48 p.m. CDT

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S UP 05-26-03

but the file for my blog has vanished. I have just moved over to this new location for now. I really can't tell you what happened. I didn't screw it up this time. It's normally a mistake that I've made but it isn't this time.

Weird.

Posted by Tom at 12:22 p.m. CDT

SOMETHING'S FISHY IN TEXAS 05-26-03

My Daily Billboard post here is about the mess in Texas.

Posted by Tom at 12:09 p.m. CDT

ASU BACKS OFF 05-25-03

A short while ago, I received this e-mail from David Truncellito, the philosophy prof at Arkansas State who was getting, uh, messed over by his administration (I posted about it here):

The attached editorial appeared in today's issue of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, our statewide newspaper. (Since the D-G's online edition is only available to subscribers, Laura and I typed up the text of the article.) Although it ran as an unsigned editorial, I'm told that it was written by Paul Greenberg, their editorial page editor and a Pulitzer Prize winner. It's the best piece I've seen yet about this whole mess; and, as the lead ediorial in the Sunday paper, it meansl ots more bad publicity for ASU's administration. (The D-G has the second-biggest Sunday circulation, relative to population, in the country. I also know that it's read beyond Arkansas' borders, since a history professor in St. Louis mentioned me in his blog (!) not long ago.) [Okay, I don't live in St. Louis! I live in the little town of Maryville in Northwest Missouri!]

(FYI: Winfred Thompson tried to make significant negative changes to the tenure system at UCA. Mark Pryor is now a US Senator. Fulbright, of course, is the namesake of the Fulbright Scholarships.) [I'm not sure you could put a negative enough spin on Win Thompson's time at UCA, an excellent school that severely suffered from the experience of having him as president.] Here's the aforementioned Paul Greenberg editorial:

ASU succeeds UCA As State Embarrassment No. 1

Now that Winfred Thompson has left the presidency of the University of Central Arkansas and is no longer in a position to make the lives of its faculty a Living Hell, the most embarrassing administration in the state’s duplicative, disorganized, and sprawling system of higher education is… (the envelope, please)… by popular and surely unanimous agreement… the one headed by … LES WYATT! His administration of Arkansas State University takes this booby prize hands, feet and legs down. Nobody even comes close.

President Wyatt’s games with the athletic budget were only the beginning. At one point, his plan to shift funds from the university’s reserves to cover the shortfall in its athletic budgets was deemed illegal by the state’s attorney general – Mark Pryor at the time.

In its latest caper, ASU's administration found a way to fire an untenured professor of philosophy. It seems this member of the faculty has been pointing out problems with the university's spending practices – and quite a few others. Worse, he was doing it in the best Socratic fashion. The professor's name is David Truncellito, and he is one of those uppity types with a Yale degree. And he's been performing the gadfly function at ASU with predictable results. Not long ago, he was handed the modern university's equivalent of a cup of hemlock: he was fired.

On what grounds? That's the bureaucratic beauty of it. The official reason had nothing to do with his criticism of the administration. Instead, he's being let go because he put a notice on an ASU-based Web site advertising his availability should anybody need some ancient Chinese manuscripts translated. For this cardinal crime – using university property to further his own commercial interests! – he's been let go. Socrates would understand what's going on; it's an old, old game.

Never mind that, according to the professor, other and presumably more pliant members of the faculty do much the same. The professor notes that one art teacher sells his work over the Internet, economics professors offer their consulting services on-line, and one staffer used to sell bras via an Internet link with an ASU-connected Web site. ("People who desire to enhance their beauty have reason to contact me.") That little promo has since been removed on the advice of an attorney, though we ourselves rather admire the understated, almost Victorian formality of the language – certainly compared with other lingerie ads we've seen (and enjoyed). In comparison, this modest proposal sounds like something out of Jane Austen.

What's going on here isn't hard to understand. ASU's grievance committee did. It concluded earlier this month the professor's dismissal was unwarranted, and that he'd violated no university policy, particularly because that policy is stated so ambiguously in the faculty handbook.

The grievance committee also noted that the professor was given no warning before being fired."Instead, he received the most severe form of punishment when his employment was terminated without due process." The committee's conclusion:"Truncellito's punishment could appear to be selective." You don't say. We rather admire the grievance committee's talent for understatement, too.

After the committee was heard from, and ASU's administration drew the usual bad publicity, the administration decided to back off from its decision – but no reverse it. It rehired the professor for the next school year, but is planning to drop him the year after that, when it can hope things will have cooled down and folks won't be paying as much attention. But an injustice delayed is still an injustice. This one also looks like a way to stifle criticism and intimidate others on campus.

Our conclusion: it's not David Truncellito's record that deserves scrutiny at this point but the leadership of President Les Wyatt and his vice-president for academic affairs, Rick McDaniel. Because it looks as if ASU is headed for the same kind of embarrassing mess that Winfred Thompson's too long reign left behind at UCA.

With the inauguration of gold ol' Lu Hardin as UCA's new president and cleaner-upper, and after a lot of effort on the part of some good people on campus, that state university may finally get out from under the censure of the American Association of University Professors – even while another Arkansas school could be inviting it.

P.S. Whatever happened to Winfred Thompson, anyway? We hear he's gone from UCA to become president of a university in the United Arab Emirates – J. William Fulbright's old stomping grounds. How appropriate. At last Win Thompson has found the kind o society into which his administrative ways should fit perfectly: a feudal monarchy. In short, ASU has decided to fire this guy next year, hoping the political heat has disappeared by then. We'll see, won't we?

I, for one, promise to be writing about this about a year from now. I won't forget.

Posted by Tom at 9:44 p.m. CDT

DID BRIBES WIN IRAQWAR PART II FOR US? 05-25-03

I'm not sure that I'm opposed to this since we were already engaged in fighting this immoral and unnecessary (and apparently chaos-inducing) war but this story certainly pokes one helluva hole into the myth of W's supposedly wonderful wartime"leadership," doesn't it?

Is this story true?

If bribery really won this war, it raises all sorts of questions about whether the war was really necessary in the first place, doesn't it?

I mean, heck, why not just bribe these people in the first place -- and skip the war part?

Posted by Tom at 3:04 p.m. CDT

HERE'S YOUR... 05-25-03

Indy 500 preview from the Indy Star. I'm probably going to miss the first hour of the race. Bummer.

That's probably it for me today. We'll see.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 a.m. CDT

BREMER'S APPOINTMENT A RUSH-JOB BECAUSE GARNER'S RECONSTRUCTION EFFORT WAS A DISASTER 05-24-03

I had always thought so, but here's my confirmation.

BTW, isn't it entertaining when you catch Wolfowitz lying? Get this little gem:

In response to senators citing media reports describing the slow pace of reconstruction and ongoing chaotic violence, Wolfowitz appeared to both agree and disagree. “As press accounts continue to report what is wrong, I would say, we don’t want less of these reports, we want more — because we are eager to see revelations in the press about what needs our attention,” he said.

But later, he said that “much of what I read on this subject suggests a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the security problem in Iraq, and in particular, a failure to appreciate that a regime which had tens of thousands of thugs and war criminals on its payroll does not disappear overnight.”

The administration’s effort to acknowledge the ongoing violence, but blame it on Hussein holdouts, has sometimes appeared at odds with military assessments. Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, who commands the 20,000 troops of the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, said last week that “about 90 percent” of the security problem “is common criminals — the looters, the car thefts, attempted bank robberies, et cetera — and only about 10 percent . . . is a holdover from the previous regime.” Posted by Tom at 1:26 p.m. CDT

DRIP, DRIP, DRIP PART II 05-24-03

You should read Paul Krugman's excellent primer in today's NYT on the"liquidity trap" our economy may be facing through W's foolish fiscal and economic policy.

This is a must-read. Krugman's been right about darn near everything for the last several years.

If he's worried, I'm worried.

Posted by Tom at 11:22 a.m. CDT

DRIP, DRIP, DRIP 05-24-03

Tom DeLay's nose is growing. Josh Marshall, as usual, has all the details.

DeLay has begun to tell lies to try to cover himself. And his buddy in the legislature, Speaker Tom Craddick, is saying he"doesn't remember any details at all about" the important day in question. Ah, isn't that a bit suspicious?

This is looking quite interesting now, isn't it?

I'm also with Atrios on this, can you imagine the feeding frenzy we'd be witnessing if the party affiliations were reversed?

Oh, press corps, press corps, where art thou press corps?

Posted by Tom at 11:05 a.m. CDT

A COUPLE OF LINKS 05-24-03

Here's a good column by Andrew Greeley in the Chicago Sun-Times. Greeley wonders aloud, as I have, what the president is hiding in obstructing an investigation into 9/11 and the release of a completed congressional report on the matter.

Molly Ivins's column about the mess that is W's Iraq is quite good as well.

Posted by Tom at 10:44 a.m. CDT

SO MUCH FOR THE ACCURACY OF OUR WEAPONS... 05-23-03

as 5-10,000 noncombatants (innocent civilians) were killed in IraqWar Part II.

Yet another lie exposed -- the claim by many in the administration that our weapons were"surgical" in their precision.

Of course, we all knew that line was b.s. when we first heard it from Rummy, didn't we?

Posted by Tom at 8:48 p.m. CDT

IS THERE ANYTHING MORE HILARIOUS... 05-23-03

than John Lott writing an op-ed piece criticizing the New York Times for a"pattern of deceit?"

Tim Lambert has further details on the Lott scandal today, including revelations that Lott is peddling stories he knows to be false in his new book.

I think I'm detecting a"pattern of deceit," how about you?

Posted by Tom at 12:59 p.m. CDT

THANKS AGAIN! 05-23-03

A short while ago, I had my 220,000th visitor via a link from Buzzflash. It's been about a week since I had my 210,000th visitor. I've also had almost 320,000 hits as well since I installed my hit counter last September.

I always can't help but remember that, when I started this blog, it took me three months to get 10,000 visitors. Now I'm averaging about that many per week!

As always folks, I really appreciate your visiting this blog. I hope I continue to give you a reason to come back.

Posted by Tom at 11:53 a.m. CDT

TEXAS MESS UPDATE 05-23-03

Josh Marshall has got an excellent update post on the Texas mess today.

Josh suggests that the"potentially criminal investigation" is apparently focusing on a certain Houston ex-exterminator.

Posted by Tom at 11:05 a.m. CDT

DICK LUGAR HAS HAD ENOUGH 05-23-03

Boy, I think it's safe to say that Lugar thinks we've screwed up in Iraq:

THE most senior Republican authority on foreign relations in Congress has warned President Bush that the United States is on the brink of catastrophe in Iraq. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Washington was in danger of creating “an incubator for terrorist cells and activity” unless it increased the scope and cost of its reconstruction efforts. He said that more troops, billions more dollars and a longer commitment were needed if the US were not to throw away the peace.

Mr Lugar’s warning came as it emerged that the CIA has launched a review of its pre-war intelligence on Iraq to check if the US exaggerated the threats posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The review is intended to determine if the Pentagon manipulated the assessment of intelligence material for political ends.

Democrats have begun to say that the US is in danger of jeopardising the success of the military action in Iraq, but Mr Lugar is by far the most senior Republican to break ranks with the White House over the issue. Mr Lugar, a moderate who expressed initial reservations about the war, said that the Govevrnment’s planning for post-war Iraq had clearly been inadequate.

“I am concerned that the Bush Administration and Congress have not yet faced up to the true size of the task that lies ahead, or prepared the American people for it,” he said, writing in The Washington Post. Mr Bush should state clearly “that we are engaged in ‘nation-building’,” he said, a statement that would require the President to swallow one of his tenets of the 2000 election campaign.

Speaking derisively of President Clinton’s foreign policy, Mr Bush said it was not the role of US troops to nation-build.

Mr Lugar also took a swipe at Mr Bush’s victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln earlier this month, delivered under a banner that read: “Mission Accomplished”. He said: “President Bush should make clear to one and all that he will declare ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq not on the basis of our military victory or the date of our withdrawal, but on what kind of country we leave behind.” I've always had a great deal of respect for Lugar. He knows what he's talking about. It took a great deal of courage to do this.

Do you think the know-it-alls in the White House will listen?

Update:Here's the editorial in the WaPo.

Posted by Tom at 10:33 a.m. CDT

I'M HOLDING STEADY... 05-23-03

in the lower 80s of the Blogosphere ecosystem which now consists of 2,349 blogs. I guess I shouldn't complain since this blog has only existed for a little more than nine months.

I don't put much stock in these sorts of things but what the hell I'm doing in front of my superiors like Mark Kleiman, WampumBlog, and Road to Surfdom (and even MSGOP-suported blogger Mickey Kaus) in the ecosystem I don't know.

It must be a glitch in the system.

Posted by Tom at 1:55 a.m. CDT

AH, THE REASONING PROCESSES OF THE AVERAGE W SUPPORTER 05-22-03

Get this!

According to this fellow, what I told my son was"beyond rational behavior!"

Ah, who is living in a parallel universe? Me or the guy who supports an immoral and unnecessary war that was sold to the public with lies?

Let's see, what's worse, a blowjob or two or the unnecessary deaths of thousands of civilians?

I'll freely let my readers decide the answer to that question!

Posted by Tom at 10:03 p.m. CDT

YOU REALLY SHOULD READ... 05-22-03

this interview with Sidney Blumenthal by Buzzflash.

Here's just a bit of it:

BUZZFLASH: In chapter 11 --"In Starr's Chamber" -- of your book The Clinton Wars, you mention that when you were subpoenaed by Ken Starr, he, in essence, was invoking a legal doctrine that was similar to the infamous Sedition Act. What did you mean by that?

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: Ken Starr subpoenaed me not because he believed or knew that I had any knowledge whatsoever relevant to the matter he was investigating about Monica Lewinsky. I'd never met Monica Lewinsky. As far as I know, I've never been in the same physical space as her. He subpoenaed me because he was trying to make an example of me, to intimidate others to stop criticizing him.

I had many friends in the press corps, and I was talking to them about the punitive, unconstitutional and abusive partisan investigation that he was running. And I also knew that he had colluded with the right-wing lawyers -- the so-called elves -- around the Paula Jones case, and that there was, in fact, if not vast, a right-wing conspiracy. And that he had misled Attorney General Reno in getting an expansion of the probe. How did I know this? I knew it from David Brock, who was a former right-wing hit man who had turned against the right and still had contacts, and was telling me, in the White House, as an assistant to the President and senior adviser, all of his information.

By the end, really, of the first day that the scandal broke in the Washington Post, January 21, 1998, I knew from my conversations with Brock -- and then with another source that I developed named Bud Lemley, who was the financial manager for the American Spectator and had all their internal records on the Arkansas Project -- pretty much everything that they were doing and that was later revealed. And I was doing my best to make sure that that was reported by the press, and they were beginning to do it. Joe Conason, for example, in The New York Observer, broke the story on the Arkansas Project soon. And The New York Times ran a story.

BUZZFLASH: Let me get back to the Sedition Act. You say that Starr was trying to intimidate you.

BLUMENTHAL: Starr decided to indict me. Control over the press was essential to his investigation because it was a political operation he was illegally leaking to the press. It's illegal under the Code of Federal Prosecutors to give to the press information that has been or might be presented to the grand jury. He was using that sort of information, or what he purported to be that information, to mesmerize the press into publishing articles that were driving the Clinton White House to the wall and really trying to force the President to resign.

BUZZFLASH: And this was illegal?

BLUMENTHAL: This was absolutely illegal, and there was a case against it, of which I was one of three plaintiffs with Bruce Lindsey, who was deputy legal counsel, and the President. We filed a case and it went through many convoluted iterations in the courts about Starr's leaks. And in the end, the federal judge's ruling that Starr had leaked, and was in contempt of court, stands today. And that is the resolution of the whole matter, although no charges were ever brought against him. But it is a fact that that's what stands in history. You really should read this. I think it's safe to say Starr isn't going to like the way that historians dispose, er, portray him.

Posted by Tom at 9:48 p.m. CDT

MORAT IS ON THE CASE 05-22-03

Like Josh Marshall, Morat over at Skeptical Notion is also on the trail of the cover-up down in Texas. He's got several good posts up. Go read them.

Posted by Tom at 7:02 p.m. CDT

THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS IN TEXAS... 05-22-03

for why the DPS destroyed those records are becoming quite hilarious -- and awfully weak. Josh Marshall, as usual, has the story. Here's a bit of it but you should read the whole thing:

Now, clearly, the ridiculousness is flying pretty fast and furious here. So let's take a moment to review. The DPS appears to have violated Texas state law by destroying the records. To justify this, they point to a federal regulation which a legal expert says is plainly inapplicable. And the very regulation they're trying to hang their hat on seems to bar the original conduct itself.

So how does the DPS argue it's way out of this? Well, you can't say they aren't creative. According to DPS spokesman Tom Vinger, it was a criminal investigation. So they were entitled to conduct it. But only for a while! When they discovered that the legislators were out of state and couldn't be arrested, then it stopped being a criminal investigation. As Vinger told the Austin American-Statesman,"That's when this (federal code) kicked in, because clearly we had records now that were of a noncriminal variety."

This stuff pretty much defies editorial humor since it's difficult to find an analogy more ridiculous and bamboozliferous than the actual argument they're making. Texas Governor Rick Perry disagrees. His spokesperson says he accepts the DPS's explanation. Ah, Governor Goodhair buys it. That's a shock, isn't it?

Update: Events are moving quickly on this story folks. According to this Houston Chronicle story [via Off the Kuff], Tom Ridge has now said that there is now a"potentially criminal investigation" into the Texas search for Democratic legislators.

Hmmm. Interesting, huh?

I'm with Chuck. What the Republicans in Texas did was"Stupid, stupid, stupid."

Posted by Tom at 3:42 p.m. CDT

TEXAS GOP CHAIRWOMAN:"GOD WILL PROTECT THE WORK WE'RE DOING" 05-22-03

You know, I honestly didn't know God cared one way or the other about unprecedented midterm gerrymandering, did you?

Posted by Tom at 10:01 a.m. CDT

GREAT HORSE 05-22-03

Go read it.

Among other things today, they pick apart Isikoff's review of The Clinton Wars.

Posted by Tom at 9:48 a.m. CDT

W'S APPROVAL RATING DROPS SIGNIFICANTLY 05-22-03

W's in trouble folks.

What else can you say about a 9 point drop in a month?

And there's no economic relief in sight.

I really don't know any other way to say this: I told you so.

Posted by Tom at 1:27 a.m. CDT

A FURTHER COMMENT ON THE"CLINTON SCANDALS" 05-21-03

Every time I'm forced to deal with this bizarre period in our history I can't help but remember all of the folks at the time who said"What will we tell the children?" (BTW, of the folks who said this on the television back in 1998 and 1999, how many of them are now divorced -- including some of the major players in the Republican Party? Quite a large number I'd wager.)

I don't know about you but I can tell you that it was a hell of a lot easier to explain Clinton's moral lapse (he didn't leave his wife I'll remind you) to my children than the reasons behind the war in Iraq. I was astonished at how many parents in my eight-year-old son's class copped out and told their kids we were invading Iraq for some sort of good reason.

In a few years when they're old enough to read history books, I can't help but wonder what these kids are going to think about this astonishing lie told to them by their parents.

My son was four years old when the Clinton scandals broke. One afternoon, he wanted to know what his parents and other people were talking about involving the president. I told him that the president wasn't faithful to his wife and that it was a terrible, awful thing. However, it had nothing to do with the president's ability to be president, just like it has nothing to do with anyone else holding their job.

My son and I have since had many discussions about it. He is capable of understanding the truth and I suspect most children are capable of understanding it as well. In this world, sadly enough, children see this sort of thing around them all the time.

Would that the same were true about unnecessary and immoral wars.

Well, come to think of it, I guess that sort of thing is commonplace nowadays.

Posted by Tom at 11:39 p.m. CDT

CONASON:"DOWN MEMORY LANE WITH MIKEY" 05-21-03

Atrios points us to Joe Conason's response to Isikoff's outrageous review of Blumenthal's book (blogged about briefly by me here).

I know, I know that the AmEx ad is irritating but just wait for it to get finished.

This is worth your time.

Don't you get the sense that Isikoff already understands that Whitewater will only be a minor anecdote vastly overshadowed by W's unparalleled blundering on all fronts?

Isikoff is worried about how this book will tarnish his"legacy." Historians will identify him as one of the key perpetrators in the media of this ridiculous pseudo-scandal.

All I can say is Mikey, it ain't gonna be pretty budd]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1444 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1444 0 Click here for Mr. Spencer's latest blog entries.

DID DON RUMSFELD TAKE ANY U.S. HISTORY IN SCHOOL? 06-30-03

Oh you've got to read this to believe it. Here's what Rumsfeld said in his prepared statement today:

As we celebrate our liberty, it's worth taking a moment to reflect on the challenges that our country faced in its early years. It was a period of chaos and confusion. Our revolution was followed by a serious commercial depression. Britain's colonial ports were -- in the West Indies were closed to ships flying the American flag. There was rampant inflation and no stable currency.

Discontent led to uprisings, such as the Shays Rebellion, with mobs attacking courthouses and government buildings. In 1783 demobilized soldiers from the Continental Army surrounded the statehouse in Philadelphia, demanding back pay. Congress fled for more than six months, meeting in Princeton, Trenton and finally Annapolis, to avoid angry mobs.

Our first attempt at governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed, in a sense. It took eight years before the Founders finally adopted our Constitution and inaugurated our first president. You've got to be kidding me, Don. This is about as inappropriate an historical comparison as one could draw. Whatever you think of what the Iraqis are doing to our soldiers, this comparison simply doesn't work. If the British had defeated us in the Revolutionary War and then imposed a government upon us and we had perpetrated irregular warfare against their soldiers, then it might work.

Instead, as we all know, Americans defeated the colonial power and created the government on our own. This comparison of Rumsfeld's is particularly inapt considering we just cancelled local elections in Iraq just last week.

I could be wrong (the period 1783-1787 isn't exactly my precise area of historical expertise) but I really don't recall Shays's Rebellion involving guerilla warfare against the Massachusetts militia that went so far as to involve the killing of militiamen. That's the sort of thing that's going on in Iraq now, Don. At its height, Shays' Rebellion's did involve mobs shutting down court proceedings to stop foreclosures and there was the famous (very brief and fairly bloodless) showdown between Shays' men and the Massachusetts militia but that's about it.

I am very open to correction by historians who know more about this. I'll happily post your responses right here on the old blog if you want to send them in to me.

Now, admittedly, one could draw certain valid comparisons to our conduct during the Revolutionary War. We certainly committed acts against British soldiers during the Revolutionary War that were an awful lot like those that are being perpetrated against our soldiers right now in Iraq but that's not the comparison Rumsfeld was trying to make because it completely invalidates his point.

Is everyone else as appalled as I am that Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, is so ignorant of his own country's history as to think this comparison is accurate?

Can he get away with it because most Americans -- and most journalists -- are equally as ignorant of their nation's history?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:01 p.m. CDT

MARSHALL:"A BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST" 06-30-03

Josh Marshall has the goods on Republicans, intelligence failures, and Republican spy Katrina Leung. The short answer is they've put politics before good intelligence measures at the FBI and are therefore responsible for a great deal of the mess of the last decade. You should read the long version however.

As Josh puts it in the conclusion to this article:

Now we have an actual Chinese spy--charged, though not convicted--who by all indications was funneling money into U.S. campaigns. Her treachery is an intelligence failure that comes on the heels of others tied to similar shortcomings at the FBI, and one in which vital secrets were given to a power, China, which these same Republicans were saying two years ago posed the greatest threat to the United States. And yet we've not had one hearing. Not one commission. There's been very little coverage in the press, nor is anyone yakking about it on talk radio.

The Republicans didn't create the problems at the FBI. But they've sat on their hands and put politics ahead of the national interest as the scope of the problem and the cost to national security have become increasingly apparent. Not only have they ignored the problem, they have actively sought to shield the FBI from the one reform that almost everyone agrees would make such breaches of national security secrets far less likely. That's not just politics as usual. It's not even garden-variety political hypocrisy. It's a betrayal of the public trust. It is astonishing to remember all the hyperventilating about the evidence-free Clinton pseudo-scandals with China by Fred Thompson and other folks who, despite their partisan designs, should've known better. Today we have a genuine spy who is a major Republican fundraiser and nothing, not a thing in the press. No hearings. No investigation.

Again, to quote a well-known recently-exposed Republican hypocrite,"where's the outrage?"

Ah, that"liberal media!" If the last five years or so haven't proven the"liberal media" accusation to be an absolute and utter lie, nothing will. You have dishonest idiots like Ann Coulter who will peddle this"liberal media" b.s. to willfully ignorant mouthbreathers with gun racks and"Charlton Heston is my president" bumper stickers who will, predictably, buy it lock, stock and barrel. Strangely enough, many actually educated Americans buy it too.

Go read the story. And ask yourself why the hell Republicans care so little about intelligence failures and double-agents that they won't have any sort of hearings into the Leung matter. Once again, Republicans have put politics above national security. I'm about to decide that's their modus operandi these days -- not that you could tell it from the press coverage of course.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 6:49 p.m. CDT

MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE...NOT! 06-30-03

Kevin has a fascinating post about how the tech geeks of the 90s naively used to think they were the ones making the economy move:

Far from thinking of their wealth as a lucky windfall, the tech geeks I knew were all convinced that they were the heralds of a new world order: they made lots of money because they"got it" and the neanderthals didn't. It was inevitable — and perfectly just — that in this brave new world brainy people would eventually take over everything. How else could it be, after all, in a world so dependent on technology?

Even the stock traders I knew felt much the same way. They weren't just riding a wave, they were causing the wave. Their gains weren't due to luck, they were due to savvy investing and an ability to see the future that others lacked.

It's a fact of human nature that when people do well they invariably attribute it to their own skill, and when they do poorly they attribute it to outside factors. The tech geeks of the 90s were no different. The hubris here is quite astonishing but, as Kevin explains at the end of the clip, perfectly understandable. After all, this is how the wealthy tycoons of more than a century ago during the Gilded Age felt.

Interestingly enough, working class folks back then believed the robber barons were parasites who were living off the sweat of their workers' labor and were thus contemptible. Working class folks railed against an economy that would reward, well, um, no real work or skill at all. I guess we just don't think of it that way much anymore, do we? Why not?

I guess the same is certainly and obviously true of the internet boom. The internet folks were essentially making no profits whatsoever -- and never did. It was only a matter of time before it all came crashing down when investors figured that out.

Unfortunately, it wasn't their ability at all that made them rich for a short while. Rather it was all just a rather complicated investment pyramid scheme that was destined to fail from the moment of its inception.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 3:02 p.m. CDT

HEY, PHIL CARPENTER IS AN... 06-30-03

artist!

Cool.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 11:44 a.m. CDT

THE TURNING POINT 06-30-03

Here's a column by Diane Carman by the Denver Post advocating an investigation into how intelligence was manipulated by the administration. What caught my eye was this passage:

Before the war, DeGette said,"both (Secretary of State) Colin Powell and the president unequivocally said there were biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons that were poised to strike and that created an imminent threat."

In fact, when Powell made his dramatic presentation of the purported evidence against Iraq to the United Nations in February, DeGette admitted that she found it disturbing.

The congresswoman, who had voted against the resolution to go to war with Iraq, said Powell raised"very serious questions" about the danger Iraq posed.

She had company. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., called it"shocking."

The public responded similarly.

In the days following Powell's U.N. appearance, polls showed opposition to the pre-emptive war evaporating in the U.S.

Seventy percent of Americans believed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Sixty percent thought the country was developing nuclear weapons.

"On that basis, we went out and attacked another country," DeGette said.

It was the rationale we presented to the world for going to war.

"Now, it's becoming more and more clear that evidence of those weapons never existed," DeGette said.

Powell's presentation really was the turning point. Americans believed Powell.

This passage also caused me to review my blog entries on the presentation. (Particularly here, herehere, and here.)

Ahem. Let's just say I was properly skeptical -- and not without evidence. I just actually read the newspapers -- unlike most Americans apparently.

If you recall, at one point I made this comparison:

Of course, to me all this means is that the average American hasn't paid any attention until Powell appeared before the U.N. Powell presented an interesting collection of suggestive evidence (nothing conclusive of course) that Saddam is seeking to evade the U.N. inspectors. What's amazing is that many Americans support this war even if we find no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

The American people in this instance remind me of the O.J. jury. They're looking for a reason to believe in this war and they'll take anything, no matter how flimsy it is, and run with it. Americans, like all human beings, want to believe what their government and the folks in authority tell them. And then later I said this:

The scariest thing of course is that more and more Americans are clearly on board with this lunacy. I think my wife is absolutely right about this. Americans don't want to think their government is feeding them a line of bullshit. It makes them uncomfortable -- and understandably so. It made them feel icky. Interestingly enough, Americans didn't buy what W had to say in the SOTU address. However, they apparently watched the two minute digest of Powell's speech on ABC Worldnews Tonight.

"Aha!," they said."There it is. There's my reason! Now I can support the war. I feel so much better now!"

Now they can happily turn off their brains again. They can pretend this is a good cause and move on.

They won't read the stories in the media raising significant questions about Powell's presentation or anything. They'll head back to their state of blissful ignorance. And the media, happily cheerleading for higher ratings, will go right along parroting the administration line for the next several weeks. Boy, that last part certainly damn-near tells the future, doesn't it?

So, what's the point of this post? (Other than, obviously, for me to present yet another wearying case of"I told you so?")

Well it's to point out that, even in the astonishingly pro-war media culture of February and March, if one wanted to read closely, you could see that Powell's presentation didn't check out.

However, most Americans, I'm afraid to say, were nowhere close to that critical of what their government was telling them. Like the O.J. jury, they were looking for an excuse to believe the administration and Powell provided them with that excuse.

Now, like most people who know they've been duped, they're too sheepish to admit it -- and will continue to be unless it gets a lot worse in Iraq. My guess is, unfortunately, that day is coming.

This IraqWar could backfire quickly on W and the boys and, if public opinion turns on this administration, it's going to be fast and breathtaking.

I'm not saying I see signs of this (although W's poll numbers are back into the upper 50s again folks) but it very well may be coming. The economy is still going nowhere as well, which makes this war look more and more like the penultimate example of this administration's troubling relationship with truth in any form.

If the war is going to become this administration's albatross, I suspect the much-blogged about (by other bloggers)"tipping point" -- the point at which we've lost more soldiers in the aftermath of the war than during the war itself -- very well may be the point at which Americans begin to have severe doubts about the wisdom of the war.

That's the point at which it becomes obvious that W and the boys did a ridiculously sloppy job planning for post-war Iraq.

It's also the point at which the post-war chaos of Iraq looks more like a quagmire such as the Philippine Insurrection or, dare I say it, Vietnam.

As always, we'll see.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:08 a.m. CDT

A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RAND BEERS... 06-29-03

interview on Nightline is right here.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 2:41 p.m. CDT

YET ANOTHER PARTISAN REPUBLICAN RECALL EFFORT IN CALIFORNIA 06-29-03

Here's an interesting column about how the Davis recall effort is the triumph of"single-pocket" politics. There is no grass-roots effort to recall Davis in California, just one, uh, interesting guy with a wad of cash who doesn't give a damn about democracy. O'Rourke even goes so far as to call this only the latest in a series of partisan recall efforts beginning with the impeachment of Clinton in 1998-1999:

Never before has a tax cut been so aimed at a donor base. And what the top 5 percent have to return to the president and his party is less than what he has already given them.

What Bush doesn't give them is much of his time. He spends about 20 minutes at these profligate fund-raisers, be they hot-dog fare, or canapes, raking in record-setting grosses.

Bill Clinton, no slouch at fund-raising, would squander lots of face time, scouting the crowds for new friends.

But Bush is different. It is not that he has more important things to do. Even Clinton had important things to do. It is that Bush is used to being as rich as the company he keeps, and there's no need for him to rub shoulders with his supporters, because he's been rubbing shoulders with them all his life.

Bush's donors are getting what they paid for. Democrats are at a decided disadvantage. They have to not only raise hard-earned money to win, but, like Gray Davis, they have to raise more money to fight partisan recall movements after they do. And, I might add, the guy behind all of this has even been charged three times with felony car theft. He says all three times were bogus and it appears the last one was genuinely his brother's doing -- but what about the other two a decade earlier?

Now I can easily see once or twice being falsely charged with something, but three times?

I guess it's possible.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 2:34 p.m. CDT

MORE ON DENNIS THE SELL-OUT 06-29-03

Boy, it takes some skill to get boos from a crowd that buys Ann Coulter books.

Impressive.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:31 a.m. CDT

DENNIS IS DONE 06-28-03

Yep, as I suspected, Dennis Miller's career is about done. As TBogg puts it:

So what do you do when your career goes down faster than Ann Coulter at a Heritage Foundation smoker? Why, you sell out completely:

The lunch at the San Francisco Airport Marriott was the first Bush fundraiser to include entertainment. The crowd was placid, listening politely to comedian Dennis Miller as he referred to the Democratic field as “an empty-headed scrum” with debates that look “like Pez dispensers having a séance.”

His performance earned him a ride on Air Force One down to Los Angeles, where he delivered a similar routine but noted the freeway’s “smooth flow of traffic in the illegal-alien lanes.”

That's just the kind of crowd a comedian wants: placid and polite.

"empty-headed scrum","Pez dispensers","illegal-alien lanes". Jesus. I can smell the flop sweat 150 miles away. I'd feel sorry for Dennis except for the fact that he deserves it.

Dennis, I'm afraid to tell you this but you've become a loser sell-out. Why don't you just hang it up now? If you're pathetic enough to start doing the GOP rubber-chicken circuit, a bullet in the brain might be more merciful than the agonizing spiral that awaits you in the next few months.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 10:07 p.m. CDT

MODO ON SCALIA 06-28-03

As I know that Maureen Dowd's columns on the Supremes are big favorites of Republican bloggers at HNN, I couldn't help but link to Dowd's latest on Scalia.

Here's my favorite part -- and I think the part where MoDo gets closest to the truth:

Most Americans, even Republicans, have a more tolerant and happy vision of the country than Mr. Scalia and other nattering nabobs of negativism. Their jeremiads yearn for an airbrushed 50's America that never really existed. (The pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church, which condemns homosexuality, proves that.) And the America they feared — everyone having orgies, getting stoned and burning the flag — never came to pass.

Nino is too blinded by his own bloviation to notice that Americans are not as censorious as he is. They like the complicated national mosaic — that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, that Jeb Bush has a Latina wife, that Clarence Thomas has a white wife. Newt Gingrich can leave two wives for younger women and Bill (Virtues) Bennett can blow $8 million on slot machines. Even those who did not like Bill Clinton cringed at Ken Starr's giddy voyeurism.

Justice Scalia may play patriotic songs on the piano, but Justice Anthony Kennedy gave patriotism true meaning in time for the Fourth of July. His ruling eloquently reminded the country,"Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct."

In the immortal words of John Riggins, loosen up, Nino, baby. In short, Americans have been more tolerant than Scalia and other tight-laced conservatives would like for quite a few decades now. Americans are certainly more than willing to let what people do in their own bedrooms remain their own private business.

I will admit to being mildly shocked that it would be this Supreme Court that would ratify it so resoundingly but, hey, it was long overdue, don't you think?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 6:34 p.m. CDT

I'M SORRY TED 06-28-03

Ted, I'm so sorry you have joined the 400,000 Americans who have lost their job every week for four or five months straight now. We've now got an army of millions of unemployed folks in this country laid off just in the last four months, don't we?

And how long have we heard from W and the boys that"prosperity is just around the corner" -- a year? More?

Regardless, that's not much solace for you, Ted.

Again, I'm sorry. I truly hope it isn't for long.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 3:18 p.m. CDT

AH, THE HYPOCRISY: OCCUPATION FORCES CANCEL ELECTIONS ACROSS IRAQ 06-28-03

We've been down this road a few times before in our history.

From what I recall, it never led anywhere good.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 2:50 p.m. CDT

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS... 06-27-03

but Colin Powell is trying to convince us that the administration really didn't think that Saddam had any weapons but could have reconstituted them later on -- and that's what the, er, uh-oh. That means the war was unnecessary!

As always, Josh Marshall is right on top of it:

So now the argument is that Iraq hadn't reconstituted anything, but rather that they were holding on to the plans and waiting for the day when they were out of the sanctions box and could go back into the WMD business.

Frankly, I believe that's true. I also thought they must have had some chemical and possibly biological weapons left over from the glory days before the inspectors came in. I still think they may have. And this is one of the reasons I strongly backed the need to threaten force to get inspectors back into the country and quite possibly war to remove Saddam's regime once and for all. As I discussed a year ago, I think that circa 2001 the sanctions were hurting us more than they were hurting Saddam and that time was on his side, not ours.

But this isn't the argument the administration made -- not even close.

If this is what the White House thought, then there was no reason whatsoever to turn the world upside down in order to pull the trigger this spring.

Dick Cheney knew that, of course. Thus the recourse to bogus Niger uranium documents. Do they really think we're stupid enough to fall for this? We all heard the histrionics and the dire pronouncements!

What a load of, well, you-know-what.

Well, go read Josh's post. I've got to get to bed.

Posted by Tom at 11:06 p.m. CDT

THE GOP CONTINUES TO SCREW THE TROOPS -- AND THEY'RE BEGINNING TO NOTICE 06-27-03

You should read this post by Kos. He talks about how soldiers are beginning to realize that the GOP couldn't give a damn less about them -- because this administration so blithely puts them in harm's way, doesn't want to pay them fairly, and doesn't support programs that help them in any way. The GOP and the folks in this administration would much rather find money for tax cuts for their richest benefactors.

So you think I'm being too tough on W, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and the boys? Well, try this one on for size:

They [the administration] cut the Pentagon's building budget (which pays for things such as barracks improvements, bowling alleys and other quality-of-life improvements at military bases, something that was really important to us soldiers), in order to make room for Bush's tax cuts.

In fact, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee tried to restore $1 billion of the construction money, and proposed paying for it by trimming some of the recent tax cuts for those making more than $1 million. Get this: under Obey's proposal, instead of an $88,300 break, they would've gotten an $83,500 cut.

The Republicans killed the proposal. To Republicans in Congress, $4,800 for their richest benefactors was more important than improving the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. After reading Kos's post, Morat had the proper response:

Over the last year I've been called a lot of things. Unpatriotic, a traitor (thanks Ann!), and un-American to name a few. I've been accused of even more things, most often a failure to support our troops.

To those people, I have one thing to say: Screw you.

If your idea of supporting the troops is to send them off to fight an unnecessary war (and any war you have to lie to start is unnecessary), and after they performed brilliantly in spite of political interference, leaving them in a hostile country without rest and under constant guerilla attack, and then as a reward for all that work slashing their benefits.....then I certainly don't support the troops.

And I'm willing to bet they wish you'd stop supporting them too. Indeed.

A NOTE: Well, we've got to get up at 5:00 a.m. tomorrow to drive 100 miles for a swim meet in Nebraska City, Nebraska that has warm-ups at 7:30.

So don't panic if I don't blog at all tomorrow morning and perhaps most of tomorrow afternoon.

As always, we'll see.

Posted by Tom at 9:01 p.m. CDT

KRUGMAN:"TOWARD ONE-PARTY RULE" 06-27-03

Krugman's column today is quite interesting. As my regular readers know, I have worried here many times that we are heading towards another Gilded Age in which the government more or less works at the behest of business. Therefore, I can agree with the main point Krugman is making that we are moving towards a period when corporate interests will essentially control the government.

However, I honestly can't quite tell whether Krugman is trying to make a direct historical parallel between Gilded Age politics (his reference to the"McKinley era" is the closest he comes to doing so) and the present political situation. Therefore, I must make the point that the Gilded Age (1865-1900) was not a period of"one-party rule" nationwide. In fact, the two political parties were as closely matched as they have ever been in our history. Republicans won the majority of the presidential elections but it was awfully close. As the Republicans found out in 1884, one ill-timed wisecrack ("Rum, Romanism, Rebellion") could cost you an election during the Gilded Age.

Interestingly enough, I might actually argue that the parallel does work quite well. Like in the Gilded Age, the political contest between the two parties is awfully close right now. As in the Gilded Age, Republicans have the monetary edge due to their parroting of the business line but, if you examine the last several elections, despite this advantage, the raw votes split pretty closely between Democrats and Republicans nationwide as they did in the Gilded Age. Like today, Republicans did ride this astonishing imbalance in campaign funds to a few presidential victories that made the system seem one-sided. However, particularly after Reconstruction, this was not an era of one-party rule nationwide but one that was quite competitive.

I also have to point out that by the turn of the century, Americans became so disillusioned and angry with this unresponsive government of business, by business, and for business that they began to support Progressives in both parties, thus reflecting an entirely different view of the role of government. The public reaction to the business-friendly politics of the Gilded Age is what ultimately led to the rise of liberal politics in the late 1890s and early 1900s during the Progressive Era. Essentially, Americans became outraged at the corruption in the political system and voted to make a change during the first two decades of the twentieth century.

Now, let me make myself entirely clear here. I am not saying that I see any sort of liberal tidal wave just over the horizon that is going to ultimately lead to a new Golden Era of Progressive policies and politics in the next few years. However, I suspect most Americans would've said the same thing in the late 1890s as well.

Are Americans going to watch helplessly as their political system completely goes to seed and becomes captured by corporate interests as it was a century earlier in the Gilded Age? Will they decide to get off their duffs and do something about it this time?

Those, my friends, are the essential questions going into this next presidential election year. If you know the answer to those questions, you can predict the future.

I don't, so I won't.

After all, I'm a historian, not a fortune teller.

Posted by Tom at 3:43 p.m. CDT

OFFENSIVE MISSILES FOUND IN IRAQ! 06-27-03

And the U.S. sold them to Saddam during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Oooops.

How embarrassing, eh?

Have you heard much about this in our subservient media?

(Here's the story referred to in the column -- from June 9th!.)

Posted by Tom at 1:24 p.m. CDT

THIS IS... 06-27-03

beyond hilarious.

[Link via TBogg]

Posted by Tom at 11:33 a.m. CDT

THE THREESOME 06-27-03

If you recall, yesterday Clarence Thomas said that he dissented in the sodomy law case because he didn't believe that there was such a thing as a right to privacy.

Atrios points us to this portion of Thomas's confirmation hearings:

Now, Judge, in your view, does the Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protect the right of women to decide for themselves in certain instances whether or not to terminate pregnancy?

JUDGE THOMAS: Senator, first of all, let me look at that in the context other than with natural law principles.

SENATOR BIDEN: Let's forget about natural law for a minute.

JUDGE THOMAS: My view is that there is a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course this was back in 1991 when Thomas pretended to have his own beliefs and principles.

Apparently, Thomas now just signs on to whatever position Rehnquist and Scalia have taken on a case.

And he never asks any questions.

Posted by Tom at 9:31 a.m. CDT

FOR AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS... 06-26-03

of the mess that is Iraq, go here. It's a very fair and careful analysis.

I don't expect it to be heeded by W and the boys of course but you should read it nonetheless.

Posted by Tom at 10:48 p.m. CDT

FOR MOST OF US, THE BUSH TAX CUT IS BOGUS 06-26-03

This piece by Anna Quindlen gets to the truth of the matter on W's tax cuts. Here's a bit of it:

The much-vaunted Bush tax cut is totally bogus, a shell game in which money is moved from one place to another with political sleight of hand. The bottom line is that for most ordinary people the benefits amount to less than zero. What the Feds give, the state and local governments will be taking away, and then some. Part of that is because of the states’ own foolish budgetary decisions in recent boom times. (Remember the boom times?) But a large part is because the federal government has required the states to provide expensive programs, from Medicaid to Homeland Security, but not provided anywhere near enough cash to help pay the bills.

The linchpin of the president’s education agenda, for instance, which he developed before terrorists made it possible for his administration to dispense with domestic policy—and civil liberties—was something with the catchy slogan “Leave No Child Behind.” It is a program heavy on performance standards that may as well be called “Leave No Child Untested.” But the states have been picking up most of the added costs for the new mandates. Thus your state and local taxes are soaring, and your alleged tax cut merely moved from beneath one government walnut to another. You’ll get a peek, and then it will disappear.

...

No outrage, just anomie. Of course, the real point of the tax bill was to cement the support of the wealthy, who have been the lucky ducks of every Republican administration in recent history (and who donate big to campaigns). Of course, the point of the invasion of Iraq was to make the administration look as though it were doing something in the war on terrorism after it was unable to close the deal on Osama bin Laden. Just as the point of increasing money to libraries is to appear interested in reading, knowing that any increase will merely partially fill the sinkhole made by demands on the locals for services mandated by or cut by the Feds. Bogus, every bit of it. And, sadly, the audience no longer cares. Give her a gold star! I think Quindlen's been paying attention. Unfortunately, she's right that no one else has been.

Posted by Tom at 6:27 p.m. CDT

LOTS OF GOOD STUFF... 06-26-03

by my fellow Missourian Terry over at the Nitpicker. Go give his blog a perusal.

I especially like this post about Tony Scalia and proper judicial restraint.

So far so good. HNN is still up and functioning.

Posted by Tom at 2:31 p.m. CDT

A BIT OF TECHNICAL INSTABILITY 06-26-03

HNN's having a few technical problems at the moment. Hopefully the site won't go down again.

Let me see if this post uploads first.

Posted by Tom at 1:48 p.m. CDT

SCALIA IS ANNOYED AT TODAY'S SC RULING 06-26-03

I'm glad to hear it. This creates a rather large problem for W with his religious zealot supporters. Morat, in this excellent post today, puts it best:

On a political level, this is going to catapult one of the GOP's biggest problems into the limelight. Anti-gay bigotry doesn't play well with moderates and independents, and in the light of this decision, Bush's base is going to be clamoring for Bush and the GOP to do something to fix it.

Bush managed to avoid choosing between his base and the moderates during the Santorum flap, but now his base is going to be clamoring for action and results. I really did wonder how the supremes could argue that in a modern society the government could monitor and regulate your private sexual behavior. Most halfway tolerant people believe this is none of the government's business.

What's hilarious is that it's normally the same zealots who think the government shouldn't be able to monitor who is buying a handgun that think the government should be in the business of policing sexual behavior.

How's that for consistency, eh?

Posted by Tom at 1:24 p.m. CDT

THANKS -- AGAIN! 06-26-03

Just a short while ago, I had my 270,000th visitor via a link from Buzzflash. It was only three days back that I had my 260,000th visitor. I've also had nearly 388,000 hits since I installed my hitcounter last September as well.

Furthermore, I've shattered my daily record for visitors today -- a bit over 4,700 and it's only a bit after 1:00!

Thanks folks! As always, I do appreciate your dropping by. I hope you to give you reason to return -- and often!

Posted by Tom at 1:09 p.m. CDT

PULITZER OR NO PULITZER... 06-26-03

it's time for the Times to fire Judith Miller.

Posted by Tom at 11:23 a.m. CDT

DID YOU SEE NIGHTLINE LAST NIGHT? 06-26-03

Rand Beers was on Nightline last night. If there's one person by himself who's going to take George W down, it's Beers. He was in a position to know that this administration was cutting corners on security, screwing up in Afghanistan, and was blowing smoke on Iraq. He also was in the perfect position to know that the war with Iraq was making us less safe, not more.

This is quite a story. NSC people don't work to defeat their bosses. You can tell Beers thinks that W is a menace to the nation and the world, even if he chooses his words much more carefully than that. He felt the nation's security came before his own job.

The fact that Beers is on a Democratic presidential campaign staff tells you that many of the people who really know what the hell they're doing regarding terrorism and foreign policy in Washington consider this an administration of amateurs who are taking great risks with regard to terrorism and doing great damage to this nation's reputation in the world.

Posted by Tom at 11:19 a.m. CDT

I HAVEN'T USED THE WORD... 06-26-03

"quagmire" yet to describe Iraq -- but we're getting prettyclose to that now, don't you think?

And I see no signs that anything's going to get better in Iraq any time soon.

I remind you once again that we didn't HAVE to fight this war.

Posted by Tom at 10:26 a.m. CDT

AND THE DEATH GOES ON 06-26-03

2 U.S. soldiers were killed today. This just gets more and more sickening, doesn't it?

I'd really prefer to be wrong about this war being a fool's errand but it sure looks like it so far.

Just in case you're becoming numb to the suffering like many conservatives, be sure to visit this page and imagine if that were your son, husband, or father.

Surely Americans are starting to get just a wee bit angry that we fought this war and then apparently had no plan for the"peace" at all?

And I'm getting tired of hearing these are Saddam loyalists who are behind all this activity. We're deluding ourselves if we think that you have to be a Saddam-loving Iraqi to want the U.S. out of Iraq.

I mean, heck, we haven't even gotten the electricity back on yet in Baghdad, have we?

I'm sure your average Iraqi thinks"what use are these guys, they can't even get the electricity back on! I want them out of here now."

Folks, we're in this Iraq mess for the long haul and, despite the rosy scenarios the Bushies have been painting, it's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to do it right -- and we should be trying to do this right.

Do I expect this administration to do that? Well, uh, no. W and the boys have been trying to do everything on the cheap, including homeland security. This administration always seems to take the"penny wise and pound foolish" approach to everything.

However, it will ultimately cost us more money to do it badly than to do it the right way. It's about time for the administration to level with the American people as to what this will cost, how many soldiers will be needed to keep order, and, honestly, raise taxes to cover the bill. I'd be willing to pay more to do it right. Wouldn't you?

And, if you supported this damn war, you'd BETTER be willing to pay up for the reconstruction. You're partially responsible for this mess after all.

Posted by Tom at 8:44 a.m. CDT

SHAMELESS INDEED 06-25-03

Go read this post by Digby (permalinks bloggered, scroll down to"Shameless").

Here's just a small portion of this post just to entice you:

You want to run on the war, Maverick? Then maybe you would like to explain to the American people how they're supposed to feel so safe in your big, manly embrace when you obviously let a bunch of terrorists run off with the makings of dirty bombs and huge amounts of fully weaponized bio-chem WMD, right under your nose.

At least we knew where they were when Saddam was in power, didn't we Colin?

C'mon Condi, you assured us quaking Muricans that if we took out Saddam that we'd be keeping the weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Are you going to try to convince us that it was worse to have them in the hands of Saddam than to NOT KNOW WHO HAS THEM OR WHERE THEY ARE? Go read it now. You'll be glad you did.

Posted by Tom at 10:34 p.m. CDT

OUT OF THE LOOP? 06-25-03

Boy, the noose is tightening around the administration regarding the lie about the Niger uranium. It's becoming quite obvious that the administration knew it was bogus but included the false accusation in a nationally-televised presidential address anyway. In short, the president out-and-out lied to the American people in as bold a way possible.

In his column in The Hill this morning, Josh Marshall quips:

Actually, it’s all fairly hard for me to keep up with. All I know is that under George W. Bush the pundits who had no trouble calling Bill Clinton a liar have suddenly decided lying is a very subtle, hard-to-define, complex matter. Josh, as a trained historian, also draws excellent historical connections in the article:

Some administration defenders now say that no one involved in writing the speech knew that the documents were forgeries. But it’s pretty hard — scratch that, impossible — to believe Cheney didn’t see the speech before it was delivered. And even though the veep is supposedly trying to build a shadow NSC in his office, it’s still not that big an operation. Could CIA have sent the report to Cheney’s office without Cheney himself getting wind of it?

On June 19th, NPR’s Tom Gjelten added yet another piece to the puzzle. Apparently the intelligence folks even made their concerns known during the writing of the speech. “Earlier versions of the president’s speech did not cite British sources,” a senior intelligence official told Gjelten. “They were more definitive and we objected.”

At that point, according to Gjelten’s source, “White House officials” said “‘Why don’t we say the British say this?’”

The White House disputes Gjelten’s source’s account. But the upshot of the source’s accusation is pretty damning. If true, the White House really wanted to put the Niger uranium story in the speech. But faced with their own intelligence experts telling them the story was probably bogus, they decided to hang their allegation on the dossier the British had released last September.

I’m willing to believe the president didn’t know. Presidents, after all, rely on their top advisors. But it seems clear that many of his chief advisors must have known.

The only other explanation is extreme incompetence at the vice president’s office or a desire to believe that was so great that it overrode all the evidence.

Fifteen years ago, the president’s father was widely ridiculed for claiming he was “out of the loop” on key points about the Iran-contra affair. Now his son and all his top advisers are claiming they were similarly “out of the loop” on a key point about the centerpiece of their entire foreign policy agenda."Out of the loop?"

Right.

Let me just state for the record that I didn't believe it fifteen years ago and I certainly don't believe it now.

Posted by Tom at 10:05 p.m. CDT

BLAIR: IRAQ SITUATION"SERIOUS" -- NO KIDDING! 06-25-03

W's poodle tells us the situation in Iraq is"serious."

Tell me something I don't know Tony!

BTW, you do remember we didn't HAVE to fight this war, don't you?

Of course, now that we're stuck to the tarbaby that is Iraq, we'd better do it right.

However, I think we can count on this administration to be as successful in dealing with this problem as they have been with nearly everything else.

In other words, they'll screw it up and then pathetically try to blame someone else for it.

Posted by Tom at 2:56 p.m. CDT

NOW THAT'S SOME COPY-EDITING! 06-25-03

Okay, now I've been trying to decide whether I'll keep running Gene's column every week. I had about decided to stop doing it and then the Demozette goes and commits an editing travesty like this on the column I just posted.

Take a look at how they reworded the first paragraph to soften Gene's words and to take out the obvious recent example of W telling a fib and having to backtrack on it.

Here's the original:

According to what Gen. Wesley Clark told"Meet the Press" on June 15, President Junior may eventually have to resort to the ultimate GOP excuse to explain away Iraq's missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. No need to blame looters as Bush did recently, a preposterous alibi which raised more alarming questions than it pretended to answer. (Only days before, he'd claimed they HAD been found.) Instead, he can blame Bill Clinton, the man whose own extravagant folly helped make it possible for this epic liar to be appointed president. Here's the edited copy (isn't an html error in a professional online publication annoying?):

According to what retired Gen. Wesley Clark told"Meet the Press" on June 15, President Junior may eventually have to resort to the ultimate GOP excuse to explain away Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction. No need to blame looters as George W. Bush did recently, a preposterous alibi which raised more alarming questions than it pretended to answer. Instead, he can blame Bill Clinton, the man whose own extravagant folly helped make it possible for Bush to be appointed president. Gee, do you think there's a pro-Bush bias at the editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette?

I'll be running Gene's columns so you can get Gene's original words (before they go through the right-wing meatgrinder) right here every week folks.

Posted by Tom at 12:21 p.m. CDT

LYONS:"BACK TO BASICS" 06-25-03

Here is Gene Lyons's latest column!

Back to Basics

According to what Gen. Wesley Clark told"Meet the Press" on June 15, President Junior may eventually have to resort to the ultimate GOP excuse to explain away Iraq's missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. No need to blame looters as Bush did recently, a preposterous alibi which raised more alarming questions than it pretended to answer. (Only days before, he'd claimed they HAD been found.) Instead, he can blame Bill Clinton, the man whose own extravagant folly helped make it possible for this epic liar to be appointed president.

Host Tim Russert asked Clark about his April 9 column in The Times of London."This is the real intelligence battle and the stakes could not be higher," Clark wrote"for failure to find the weapons could prove to be a crushing blow to the proponents of the war [in Iraq], supercharge Arab anger and set back many efforts to end the remarkable diplomatic isolation of the United States and Britain."

How you can tell Clark's a Democrat, incidentally, is that he thinks alienating the known world is a bad idea. After acknowledging that banned weapons may yet materialize in Iraq, although nothing resembling the"imminent threat that many feared," Clark reminded Russert of something the pundit-fixated like everybody in Washington on Bill Clinton's zipper at the time-had probably forgotten.

"We struck [Iraq] very hard in December of '98," Clark said."Did everything we knew, all of his [Saddam's] facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem."

Back then, Republicans charged that Clinton bombed suspected Iraqi WMD sites to distract the public from his Oval Office sex antics, as if THAT were possible. But it's beginning to look as if economic sanctions, UNSCOM inspectors and cruise missiles may have done the job. (Actually, some defectors, including Saddam's son-in-law, whom he had murdered, claimed the Iraqi dictator had the forbidden weapons destroyed after the Gulf War, which admittedly begs the question of why he refused to prove it.)

Anyway, after Gen. Clark observed that there had been"a certain amount of hype in the intelligence," leading up to Junior's 2003 invasion of Iraq Russert pounced.

"Hyped by whom?"

"I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something," Clark began carefully."There was a concerted effort during the Fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11," he added"to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

"By who?" Russert insisted."Who did that?"

"Well, it came from the White House," Clark said."It came from people around the White House...I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But-I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence...It was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."

Now in a rational world, the media watchdogs at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, this would be newsworthy. The former NATO Supreme Com-mander says the Bush White House pressured him to blame 9/11 on Iraq even as the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking. Perhaps because Clark's own political ambitions remain unclear, however, little has been made of the allegation.

Outraged by 9/11, many Americans have been content to let Junior pick the targets. A fawning press corps has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect Bush from the consequences of his dishonesty. The New York Times led its"Week in Review" section with an astonishing piece of equivocation by David E. Rosenbaum arguing, among other absurdities, that if Bush did]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1502 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1502 0 Click here to return to Mr. Spencer's current blog.

ONE GOOD THING TO COME OUT OF... 07-31-03

this terrorist futures market fiasco is that Poindexter is gone.

Boy, you get the idea W and the boys were looking for any excuse to cut him loose, don't you?

I've been really busy today. Did I miss anything?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 10:55 p.m. CDT

LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND IRAQWAR PART II 07-31-03

It's just another day for the Bush administration's constantly changing story about the reasons we went to war with Iraq, huh?

First of all, you remember all the hub-bub about the fellow who hid the centrifuge parts under his rosebush?

Well, hilariously, even he says the administration is wrong about those aluminum tubes:

The White House, for instance, has cited the case of nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who recently dug up plans and components for a gas centrifuge that he said he buried in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf War. The White House has pointed to the discovery as a sign of Hussein's continuing nuclear ambitions, but Obeidi told his interrogators that Iraq's nuclear program was dormant in the years before war began in March.

The sources said Obeidi also disputed evidence cited by the administration -- namely Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes that various officials said were for a new centrifuge program to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs. Obeidi said the tubes were for rockets, as Iraq had said before the war.

CIA analysts do not believe he has told the whole truth, said one Bush administration official. Obeidi has left Iraq under CIA auspices after being arrested briefly by U.S. Army troops. No wonder we haven't heard anything from the W propaganda machine about this guy recently. His story doesn't fit the administration's agenda now. In fact, the administration has found damn-near nothing in its interrogations of Iraqi scientists who, quite honestly, have no reason to lie to us now. I do hope something hasn't happened to this fellow in"protective CIA custody" since April. We all know just how careful the military and CIA are in interrogations these days, right?

Josh Marshall has a great post on this here.

While you're there, you really ought to read this post as well. It's a great one about how W and the administration is now trying to pretend this war wasn't about existing WMDs at all, it was all about discovering evidence that Saddam EVER HAD ANY weapons programs:

You can see where this is going, can't you? This is really great-moments-in-goal-post-moving. Saddam had a weapons program.

And how can you believe he didn't have a weapons program, when he actually used the weapons from his weapons programs, albeit fifteen years ago.

This isn't just a slip of the tongue or a Bushism. This is where we're going. As the White House now wants to define it, the question is whether Iraq ever had a weapons program. Or, to put it more precisely, whereas some people are foolish enough to believe that the standard is whether Saddam actually still had the weapons programs we know he once had, the real standard is whether Saddam actually once had the weapons programs we know he once had.

This is too silly to even talk about. Everybody knows that's not what we're talking about. Indeed. Isn't it astonishing that these guys were telling us all only four short months ago that there were thousands of gallons of dangerous and deadly chemical and biological weapons in Iraq -- and now they're reduced to this level of silliness in order to justify the earlier story about the war?

I don't know. Maybe the average American will fall for this -- they've bought stories almost as ridiculous from this adminstration before -- but I seriously doubt it.

Nice try though.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:26 a.m. CDT

W TAKES US TO NEW DEPTHS 07-31-03

of immorality.

We've tortured a couple of folks to death in Afghanistan.

Better yet, the administration lied about it when they first told the story back in December:

American military officials acknowledged that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was"homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from"blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a"blunt force injury". Great. Just great.

(And, yes, if you're a longtime reader, it's the same folks I blogged about in December here. If you want to review my view of torture (written in response to the reports we were torturing people in December), go here.)

What is this administration going to do next, invade a sovereign nation on a flimsy pretext, kill thousands of civilians while costing hundreds of American lives, and then, after it's all over, lie to us yet again, this time about exactly WHY it is we went to war?

Oh yeah. They already did that.

Never mind.

[Link via Atrios]

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:58 a.m. CDT

FLIPPITY FLOPPITY 07-30-03

Boy, the wheels really are coming off this administration, aren't they?

In an apparent reversal of policy, the Transportation Security Administration will immediately begin scheduling air marshals back on cross-country and international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The move comes less than 24 hours after MSNBC.com reported that air marshals were being pulled from those flights because of budget problems associated with the costs of overnight lodging for the marshals.

THE DEPARTMENT of Homeland Security on Wednesday blamed the confusion on a mixup in communication and said the department had been working with air marshal officials on Monday to correct the situation. And if you believe what happened yesterday was the result of a"mixup," I've got some prime beachfront property with sugar white sand in St. Louie I'd love to show you.

The folks in the administration didn't think they were going to get caught pinching pennies in the air marshal program (in order to pay for the taxcut for the rich), so they thought they'd give it a try. Unfortunately for them, they got caught when the press got wind of it. Anyone could see what an idiotic idea that is -- except someone who thinks taxcuts for the rich are the first priority in all situations of course.

In other words, anyone except people who are at the upper echelons of this"tax cuts for the rich come first" administration.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 7:35 p.m. CDT

KILLER D'S UPDATE 07-30-03

Chuck Kuffner has a good update. So does Josh Marshall and Morat.

It is astonishing that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is having to warn Governor Goodhair not to hire bounty hunters to kidnap the Democrats, isn't it?

I'm really busy so I don't really have anything else to add right now.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 12:46 p.m. CDT

LYONS:"GETTING TO KNOW THE GENERAL" 07-30-03

I've been busy. What did I miss?

Anyway, here's Gene Lyons's latest!

Getting to Know the General

In a recent column urging Gen. Wesley Clark to run for president, I mentioned a friend who questioned his political skills. Because Clark failed to recognize her after a couple of meetings as David Pryor or Bill Clinton would have, she suspected he lacked the personal charm to which Arkansas voters respond. After it appeared, I got a call from a book publicist who'd helped Clark with his book Waging Modern War.

At every appearance, she said, many in the audience were veterans who'd served under Clark during his three decades as an Army officer. The general, she said, recognized every single one, greeting them by name. She'd never seen him hesitate.

Given that Clark's willpower and ambition have been recognized since he graduated first in his West Point class in 1966, this struck me as a telling anecdote. Not every military hero earns the affection and respect of his men. I had two uncles who served as infantry grunts under Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Phillipines and in Korea. They thought him a vainglorious megalomaniac who'd sacrificed soldier's lives to win medals for himself--not necessarily history's judgement, but theirs.

Interestingly, it's a theme Clark himself discussed with the authors of two recent magazine profiles, by Tom Junod in the current Esquire (esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801 mfe clark 1.html) and Duncan Murrell in the May/June Oxford American. Both are worth looking up for anybody intrigued with the idea of a Clark candidacy.

Clark told Murrell that Americans' current tendency to lionize the military is partly due to post-9/11 fear, partly to lack of experience with the real thing."We've been the beneficiaries of that lack of familiarity," he said, sentimentalizing soldiers as patriotic icons without feeling the necessity of serving. One result, as Murrell writes, is politicians who feel free"to use the military as a symbol, sending soldiers off to wars that don't affect most American families directly by putting their children in harm's way."

Hence the popularity of a manifest fraud like President Junior--who used his father's political connections to secure a cushy spot in the Texas Air National Guard, got himself grounded after finishing flight school, and appears never to have showed up in Alabama to complete his commitment--swaggering across an aircraft carrier deck in a flightsuit with"Commander in Chief" emblazoned on the front. An earlier generation would have laughed, but millions who resented Bill Clinton's artfully sidestepping Vietnam are thrilled by George W. Bush's"Top Gun" theatrics.

Now hear Clark, who despite being one of the first West Point cadets to ask"Why are we in Vietnam?" his instructors say, earned a Purple Heart and the Silver Star in combat there:"I think a time like this is an interesting point in American history. Many of the things that we've taken for granted, that have shaped our international strategy, our domestic environment--they're up for grabs right now. We got walloped on 9/11, and now Americans are asking themselves what's out there. They're saying 'Hey! Man, these people are supposed to like us! And what happened with Russia and the Soviet Union? Where is China?' Ordinary Americans are now much more interested in the world beyond. And in combination with the war on terror, you've got a sort of rollback to a sort of imperial presidency, a presidency that's much more private, and an investigatory service with greater authority to come after ordinary Americans. We thought we put that to rest after the excesses of the Nixon administration and Vietnam. I believed that when I fought in Vietnam I represented the right of all Americansto express their views. So I'm concerned."

As a CNN military analyst, Clark opposed the rush to substitute Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Laden as Public Enemy #1. Like many Army generals, he thought U.S. forces much too light on the ground--fearing precisely the chaos that's enveloped Iraq since Baghdad fell.The Bush administration, he warned in April, had"gloated much too soon."

The great theme of the post-Vietnam military reforms that transformed the U.S. Army, he explained to Esquire, was personal accountability."In the Navy, when a ship runs aground," he said"the commanding officer is relieved of duty, no matter what the reason. Now, I'm not saying we ought to hold politicians to that standard, but still..."

He didn't finish the thought, but he did say"the ultimate consideration for anyone running for president against George Bush [is] 'how much pain you can bear.'" My hope is that watching this administration of country club toughs stonewall a proper 9/11 investigation, deceive the American people about a non-existent Iraqi nuclear threat, then alibi that it's not Junior's fault because the president and his national security advisor failed to read the"National Intelligence Estimate," will convince Clark that his country needs him again. Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 12:20 p.m. CDT

HOW'S THIS FOR INCOMPETENCE? 07-29-03

And why the cutback? Why to pay for W's big taxcut for the rich of course!

It's official folks. W's big taxcut is now making us all less safe.

How's that for misplaced priorities?

Holy cow. Like I've said many times, you can safely blame W for the damage caused from next terrorist attack.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 11:03 p.m. CDT

AL-QAEDA, WAR ON TERROR TAKE BACKSEAT TO IRAQ IN 2002 AND 2003 -- AND IT HAS ENDANGERED US ALL 07-29-03

Boy, now we really know what's important to this administration, don't we? It's not the war on terror, is it?

In early 2002, the U.S. campaign against al-Qaida — “Operation Enduring Freedom” — was revving high. U.S. commandos readied themselves for lightning strikes in the dusty plains of Afghanistan or the deserts of Yemen; aerial drones buzzed the skies rigged with cameras and missiles, controlled by technicians on the ground; surveillance planes high overhead listened for electronic whispers of Taliban holdouts.

BUT, AS “Operation Enduring Freedom” kept al-Qaida on the run, the White House was already planning for war against Iraq. Sources say that in the spring of 2002, key weapons in the war against terror — such as the commandos, the drones and the high-tech surveillance planes — were rotated out of Afghanistan. Now experts tell NBC there was a clear tradeoff as the United States let up on al-Qaida to pursue regime change in Iraq.

A former national security official in the Bush administration tells NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers the White House was warned that the buildup against Saddam might provide a respite for Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. “There were decisions made,” says Flynt Leverett, a former director at the National Security Council in the Bush White House, “to take key assets, human assets, technical assets, out of theater in Afghanistan in order to position them for the campaign to unseat Saddam.”

Leverett, a former senior CIA analyst, talks with the professorial precision of an academic. “We see today,” he says, “that al-Qaida has been able to reconstitute leadership cells in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and it would seem in Eastern Iran.” So much for the War on Terror being the administration's top priority, huh? Now we're all in greater danger due to W's obsession with Saddam.

How many times do these guys have to demonstrate they're incompetent before Americans begin to hold them responsible for it?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 7:50 p.m. CDT

"NONE OF THAT IS VERY INTERESTING TO NETWORK NEWS" 07-29-03

In an excellent post today, Atrios writes about how the daily deaths of American soldiers is rapidly becoming just ho-hum stuff that doesn't even make the front page anymore.

Atrios also posts a comment from Christian Bauman, a novelist whose The Ice Beneath You I really must read soon, that is on the mark:

What's happening right now in Iraq, this constant-24/7-fear-of-being-shot-by-every-person-I-see was life as usual for American soldiers in Somalia, the beginning of Haiti, Bosnia... Half the time Americans didn't know we had troops there, and if they did, it was easily brushed off."Well, it's not a war, right?"

No. In some ways, psychologically, it's worse.

So now here we are,"major combat over," and I fear this is happening again. Army families were fun to film 6 months ago, when they were all teary goodbyes. Now, it's just unpaid bills and small kids developing behavior problems and ulcers forming -- and none of that is very interesting to network TV news. And this is exactly why I didn't want this war. I knew this would be what the aftermath was like. And I'm also damn tired of the"killed in combat" shell game the administration is playing and the media is going along with it. They talk about the number"killed in combat" and ignore the other 70 or so who were killed in other ways. Folks, these men were killed in Iraq, whether it was a car accident or a gunshot, they're no less dead and they wouldn't be there otherwise. I can assure you their families don't see it any differently.

But I've decided that Bush may be in bigger trouble over this war than he thought judging from a recent experience of mine. When we were discussing the early Cold War and the Marshall Plan in my survey class the other day, I had a student say to me in class"Why do we rebuild these countries? It sure is expensive!"

Now this student was asking this in a philosophical way, wanting to talk about the assumptions behind it. I like"teaching moments" like that so we spent a little while talking about it. We then had a discussion in which we talked about the reasons for reconstructing countries after a war. One student said we do it because"it's humane." I said"it's our responsibility to do it since we're responsible for the war and the destruction in the first place." We, of course, also eventually talked about the Treaty of Versailles and Afghanistan and how leaving a steaming pile of rubble can lead to some dangerous demagogic folks rising to power in a country and thus endangering us all. Eventually one of my students wanted to talk about how this administration hid the cost of the war until the war had essentially started so that Americans wouldn't object to the cost.

At this point, one student said,"Oh, it's all about oil. That's all it is." And, to my astonishment, the entire class agreed. I even talked with them a bit more seeing if I could change their minds and I couldn't. One student even said"Yeah. That's what all the death and destruction is all about. It's all for oil."

Now if my twenty-year-olds are already that cynical about the war (and college-age folks are often awfully disengaged and uninterested in current events), the president could indeed be in for, to use Krugman's words, a"terrible reckoning." My students are already talking about soldiers as if they are pawns in this big game for oil and power -- and they don't think there's really anything they can do about it.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:53 a.m. CDT

KRUGMAN ON BLAIR AND BUSH 07-29-03

Krugman's column is good today.

I think this passage is particularly on-target:

But while Mr. Bush's poll numbers have fallen back to prewar levels, he hasn't suffered a Blair-like collapse. Why?

One answer, surely, is the kid-gloves treatment Mr. Bush has always received from the news media, a treatment that became downright fawning after Sept. 11. There was a reason Mr. Blair's people made such a furious attack on the ever-skeptical BBC.

Another answer may be that in modern America, style trumps substance. Here's what Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in a speech last week:"To gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier." To say the obvious, that remark reveals a powerful contempt for the public: Mr. DeLay apparently believes that the nation will trust a man, independent of the facts, because he looks good dressed up as a pilot. But it's possible that he's right.

What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning. Indeed.

Now go read the rest of it.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:04 a.m. CDT

UH-OH 07-29-03

Judging from the comment boards, it appears I offended some with my wisecracks about engineers. For that I do apologize. I do have to say I have a great deal of experience with engineers and I'm just calling it like I see it. Honestly, folks, some of my better friends are engineers and we've talked about this. My wisecracks come from those conversations.

However, in light of this, I also can't help but enjoy this comment from the board about the brouhaha and, apparently, I need to add another symptom to this definition of"engineers disease": Can often lead one to become quite thin-skinned and therefore unable to take criticism.

Again, folks, in no way did I mean to offend. Please accept my apology. I just have noted this in my lifetime of experience. I'm guessing if what I said wasn't so close to the truth it wouldn't have made some folks so angry.

As I've noted many times in my life, some engineers have a rather high opinion of themselves after all.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:35 a.m. CDT

PARTY IN ALBUQUERQUE -- WHO BROUGHT THE BEER? 07-29-03

Ah, the fun has started in Texas. As usual, my college buddy Chuck Kuffner has this morning's Killer D's update. I'd write something but Chuck really has it covered.

You'll note that the Texas DPS and Homeland Security will NOT be involved this time.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:19 a.m. CDT

AH, THE INTELLECT... 07-28-03

of the average engineer. Isn't it a treat to behold?

Engineers are generally of significantly above-average intelligence, but they're generally a pretty incurious and conservative lot. Heck, most engineers will freely admit they majored in engineering because it paid well and only required four years in school. I've taught many of them in my time and have had many friends (past and present) who are engineers.

God bless them, they're usually very bright but often astonishingly ignorant folks. That means that often their arguments about non-engineering subjects consist of little more than the repeating of tired cliches. Den Beste is certainly exhibit A at the moment.

I guess it's all that coursework in which they're told there's only ONE right answer to every question -- or something.

I'm not really sure it's their fault ultimately (I honestly think they're a strange sort of"engineering culture" that is to blame) but I pass along these observations anyway.

If you want to read Joe Conason's devastating analysis of Den Beste's column, go here.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:28 p.m. CDT

TEXAS SENATE DEMS ON THE LAM 07-28-03

As predicted here a couple of days ago, Democrats in the Texas Senate have flown the coop.

They've headed to Albuquerque to wait out Governor Goodhair's second special session on redistricting.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:15 p.m. CDT

THANKS AGAIN! 07-28-03

A few hours ago, I had my 320,000th visitor. I don't know where the link came from because I was otherwise occupied (working on the kitchen staff at my church's Vacation Bible School) at the time. It's been about a week since I had my 310,000th visitor.

I've also had more than 457,000 hits since I installed my hit counter on September 18th of last year. You know, that's a lot of hits!

As always, folks, I do appreciate your coming by for a visit. I know you have a choice when you read blogs and I'm glad one of your choices is me. I hope to give you good reasons to come on back for a return visit.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:03 p.m. CDT

DR. KLEIMAN... 07-28-03

is this going to be on the test?

Are we doing anything important in class tomorrow?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 7:53 p.m. CDT

IT WAS ALL PART OF A CUNNING PLAN! 07-28-03

Terry at Nitpicker points us to the most ridiculous column ever by pater-plagiarist Bill Kristol. Bill is claiming W ordered his staff to look like morons the last few weeks. It was all part of his cunning plan after all.

Terry's right. This is pretty damned desperate.

I'm pretty sure that a good plan probably wouldn't involve your administration getting mired in a scandal that would result in your approval ratings dropping 10-15 points to nearly 50% and the majority of Americans deeming you untrustworthy, would it?

I don't know. I could be wrong I guess.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 3:15 p.m. CDT

CAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FILE FOR MORAL BANKRUPTCY? 07-28-03

Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note:"If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because,"It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later. My goodness. I'm speechless.

How far down in the mud do W and the boys plan to drag the name of this great nation, anyway?

[Link via Atrios]

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 1:11 p.m. CDT

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE? 07-28-03

No I'm not writing about our recently-outted-for-lying-former-moral-czar in this post but about the Wilson-Plame affair. Mark Kleiman had an excellent post over the weekend about the"eerie silence" that surrounds this story:

And the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy, and Kausfiles are all eerily silent. What are they waiting for? Anyone who still believes in the mythical liberal media is invited to imagine what the state of play of this story two weeks in would have been under the Clinton Administration or under a hypothetical Gore Administration. I mentioned Insty's silence on this story a few days ago. It is interesting to see just how selective the righties are in their moral outrage these days, isn't it? Can you imagine the thunderous denunciations we'd be hearing of Clinton's or a Gore administration? Why we'd be hearing a call for an immediate impeachment of the president and vice president! I think Republicans would be trying to schedule the trial for next week sometime.

I repeat, for emphasis, this is not some suggestion of a potential felony by someone at the White House, this clearly is one. If you read the law there's no wiggle room on this at all. Furthermore, this insidious act also damaged our national security and endangered the lives, potentially, of as many as a hundred people.

You'd think the press would find this worth their time to investigate wouldn't you? And, surely, Mark and others aren't right in their assertion that the press is going to overlook this because they're"sucking up to their sources." That would be amoral and it would, of course, demonstrate that Gene Lyons's"Clinton rules" really do exist.

Surely someone in Big Media is going to look into this, right?

Soon, right?

And let me add my voice to Kevin's, what about it Josh?

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 9:31 a.m. CDT

"MR. VIRTUE" ADMITS HE LIED TWO MONTHS AGO 07-27-03

Roger Ailes (no, not the bald repulsive McCarthyistic one) has the details.

It's hilarious that the moral scold who went on and on about Clinton's white lies regarding a blowjob now has to admit he lied in his public statements about his gambling habits a couple of months back.

Roger also points out how Bennett is a first class hypocrite -- using Bennett's own words to hang him.

Bennett's done, huh? I hope he saved some of the millions of dollars he made the last decade. I don't think anyone will be buying any more books about morals from"Mr. Virtue."

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 3:46 p.m. CDT

LONG KNIVES COMING OUT FOR ISSA AND SCHWARZENEGGER 07-27-03

Since the recall is on, you can see the long knives are coming out for Issa and Ahnuld Schwarzenegger judging from these two stories from an Orange County lefty publication.

I love the last article because it mentions Arnold's father's Nazi past but also mentions W's grandfather Prescott Bush's (treasonous) past with the Nazis as well. (If you want to know a bit more about this, go here.)

It's pretty pitiful that the Republicans have managed to get this recall and have no one worth a damn to run for the office, huh? I mean, heck, the three-time-indicted for car theft Issa and the action movie actor who often can't remember Davis's name don't exactly impress, do they? Of course, Republicans are always finding ways to short circuit democratic processes (impeachment, Florida 2000, Bush v. Gore and this recall effort to name the most recent examples) these days. It serves them right that now that they've actually got a shot at the California governor's race they don't really have anyone to run.

This is going to get awfully ugly folks. At least it will provide us a bit of entertainment for the next couple of months. And we can all thank our lucky stars that our state isn't so"lucky" as to have this sort of idiocy going on for the next couple of months.

Meanwhile, the California budget crisis isn't solving itself and Republicans are taking a genuine chance at a 1998-style impeachment backlash in the state in next year's elections for wasting time and state resources like this.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 3:13 p.m. CDT

CHECK BOX THINGY IS UP 07-27-03

You requested it -- and I delivered. If you check the box over to the right above the blogroll, the links will open in a new window. If you don't, it will be as before.

Special thanks to Kriselda Jarnsaxa of Different Strings for sending me the code and instructions on how to make the check box dohicus work.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 2:10 p.m. CDT

IS IT MY IMAGINATION... 07-27-03

or is W's"Bring 'em on" comment looking unfathomably stupid right now?

I do think, ultimately, that comment may go down as possibly the lowest moment in presidential discourse. It was so amazingly irresponsible of W to bait the Iraqi resistance like that.

And, by the way, what idiot in this administration really believed killing Uday and Qusay would lessen the violence against our soldiers?

If the violence is being perpetrated by Baathist loyalists, killing Hussein's sons just made them more angry and more determined, not less.

I figured that out and I'm not being paid six figures by someone to serve as some sort of expert.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:31 a.m. CDT

INTERVIEW WITH UDAY'S BODYGUARD 07-26-03

I agree with Hesiod, this interview with Uday's former bodyguard is fascinating.

Give it a look.

Wish to comment on this post? Click here

Posted by Tom at 8:16 p.m. CDT

TO"NEW WINDOW" OR NOT"NEW WINDOW"? 07-26-03

I'm pondering making a change in the way I code the links on this blog. I'm considering making the links in the blog entries open in new windows. It will make coding the links a little more difficult, but I'm willing to do it. If you didn't already know, I don't use blogging software. I write this blog directly into html. As Chuck Kuffner so elegantly put it, I"roll my own."

Now, I am told that the"new windows" thing annoys some readers. I'm not necessarily in the mood to annoy people. Therefore, since I'm not really committed one way or the other, dear readers, I thought I'd open the issue up to the floor.

What do you think?

Anyway, please leave your opinion on the matter on the comment board for this blog.

While we're at it, you should feel free to pass on any other suggestions or requests you might have about the blog. We aim to please here at HNN. It was, after all, in response to reader requests that you got the handy font select thingy at the top of the page.

(I'm sure"thingy" isn't the technical term for it but, come to think of it, the only things I know about html are from practice. I don't know what you call anything in html.)

Anyway, I await your opinions.

Wish to comment on this post? Click ]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1573 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1573 0 Frank Rich has done it again. He's written another good editorial piece in the New York Times about the lessons of the last year and how we apparently haven't learned them. He also warns us that the media orgy approaching is only helping to desensitize us and distract us from what's important. Rich, once again, makes some excellent observations -- and forces me to post something to the blog on a Saturday, on a holiday weekend no less!

I will give you one quotation from it:"But let's posit that the Iraq drumbeating is not a cynical effort to distract the country from the stalled war against Al Qaeda or the stalled economy. Let's posit that the administration rationale, set out by Mr. Cheney when he emerged from the Halliburton witness protection program this week, is solid. If indeed"there is no doubt" that Saddam Hussein already"has weapons of mass destruction" to use against us and"time is not on our side," then why these months of dithering that allow our enemy to lay his traps? Why doesn't a president with a high approval rating rally the country at once and count on it to follow? Is it that Mr. Bush doesn't trust the evidence against Saddam, or is it that he doesn't trust us — or is it that he still thinks terrorists can be fought on a schedule we dictate?" You really should read this.

BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD -- ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 8-30-02

I'm going to start with something that drives me crazy.

You know the healthcare system is a mess when you're happy that a 3-hour (from arrival to departure) outpatient surgical procedure for your daughter only cost $5,000. Is that crazy or what? But wait, it gets better. Once the bill gets sent to the insurance company they whack off another $1,000 that they claim are essentially overcharges. They then refuse to pay another $800 worth of stuff claiming it isn't covered by your benefit plan and tell you that you'll have to pay it. This, of course, sends you over the edge and you begin to gird for battle with the insurance company (I've done this many times in my young life already). You start out by calling the hospital to make sure that we're looking at the right paperwork and they inform us,"don't sweat it. We've adjusted all of those charges off your bill. Just pay what the insurance company says you owe us." Is all of that nuts or what?

Now who's wrong here? The hospital and doctor that clearly are overcharging or the insurance company that is whacking away at the bill in such a draconian manner? I don't really have a good answer. Can no hospital or doctor in this system actually charge a reasonable price in the first place? I have friends who have doctors in the family who go on and on about how unfair insurance companies are. I always tell them,"Well, why don't you guys start charging what you're willing to accept in the first place? If you would do that, we wouldn't have any of this stuff going on at all." The worst part of all this is that people without insurance have to pay the"sticker" price instead of the insurance company's bargained-down price.

Of course, the most amazing thing about the whole thing is the fact that the nurses, doctors, and healthcare workers keep themselves so blissfully ignorant of this ugly part of healthcare so they essentially have no idea what the charges are for things. When we were at the hospital for the pre-operative appointment, my wife asked the doctor's nurse,"Now, how much is this going to cost?" And she had no idea and then began to hem and haw about how it depends on your situation and what your insurance company will pay, etc., etc. This is a damn crazy way to run a healthcare system. The left hand has no damn idea what the right hand is doing -- and clearly likes it that way.

Admittedly, the fault is not entirely that of the doctors at all. Is there any group of people who are less helpful and potentially more malevolent than an insurance company? These folks have designed their company (and their phone menus) so that you never get to talk to anyone who actually makes a decision. My favorite was one insurance company that I called a couple of years ago when I was appealing a decision that told me"the folks in appeals do not take phonecalls" and"will not talk to you." I, of course, asked the obvious question:"And why the hell not?" Silence. This is the sort of lunacy that can drive you over the edge at times. And I really wonder how people who work in actual decision-making positions at insurance companies can sleep at night. Many of them apparently spend their days actively trying to screw people. I really don't know how they live with themselves. I know I couldn't.

That's one of the things that makes me the angriest about the Clinton years. Clinton had a chance to do something about all of this. Better yet, he had the public support to do something. Yes, I know the insurance companies demagogued it to death. Every time I see a flashback to the"Harry and Louise" propaganda commercials, I just want to scream. I also know he shouldn't have put Hillary"Lightning Rodham" Clinton in charge of it because that just allowed conservatives to deride it as her plan and be demagogic about it. But Clinton messed this up too. He said he was going to do it and he didn't. Of all the things that happened during the Clinton years, it's this one that actually makes me angry at Clinton, a man I've met several times in my life as a child and believe was a solid president. However, when he began to reinvent himself in 1994 as a more conservative president and therefore healthcare reform disappeared from the agenda it made me angry -- as I'm sure it did many others folks.

All these years later, the healthcare system is still a mess and I'm sure it's not going to improve any time soon. I'm sure, like most things, we'll wait until there's an absolute crisis to do anything about it. I do have one suggestion for a way to make our politicians a little more understanding about these issues. I think it's time to cancel their very nice health insurance (that they don't pay one penny for) and make them buy health insurance on their own. In fact, I think they should be forced to be insured on a bad plan, that is extremely expensive, with tons of loopholes, a bad prescription benefit, and denies claims based upon the barometer reading on a particular day. I've been on many like that. Don't you suspect the folks in Washington would become a great deal more sympathetic if they were in the same boat as the rest of us? Hey, I know it would be great to just cancel their insurance but don't you think it might actually be more effective to put them on a bad plan and let them deal with the headaches that come from it? It's just a thought.

A FEW FINAL NOTES FOR THE WEEK 8-30-02

There's an excellent Krugman article on the federal deficit in the New York Times today. It's definitely worth a look. The whole point of the article is to point out how the administration has lied to us about the federal budget for a year and a half and now wants us to trust them.

My wife made a very interesting observation today. When I told her about some of the plans for local observations of the September 11th tragedy anniversary she asked me a good question:"Do our lives have so little emotional meaning that we all have to try to insinuate ourselves into the pain and grief of the victims of that horrible attack? Do we have to work as hard as possible to wring as much emotion out of ourselves as possible so that we can show that we really care for our fellow human beings?" My answer:"Yes. And don't forget that the Republicans have tough mid-term elections to win."

Here's yet another article that exposes how hypocritical W is about family values and restoring honor and dignity to Washington. To review, it was only last week that"Mr. Corporate Reponsibility" campaigned for a corporate criminal who's running for governor in California. Yesterday, W came to Arkansas, the state of my birth and childhood, to raise money for Tim Hutchinson, a senator that James Carville recently described as a "toothpick" in"a forest of senatorial timber." Hutchinson recently divorced his wife of 28 years to, a la Newt Gingrich, marry a twenty-something staffer. Hutchinson, of course, spent months decrying Clinton's ethics although he became astonishingly quiet during the actual impeachment trial. The hot word on the streets of Little Rock at the time (and I heard this from several sources) was that his wife caught him with his young sweetie in his office. Therefore, he thought it best to hush about that for a while. Despite this obvious hypocrisy on his part, he did, like Newt, vote for Clinton's impeachment. Now he's down 10 points to David Pryor's son, Mark Pryor. I sure hope that lead for Pryor holds.

That's all folks. Have a good holiday weekend. I'll see you Tuesday.

AN ALTERNATE BUSHIAN UNIVERSE 8-29-02

I'm really busy, so it'll be a short blog today. I also haven't really seen that much that gets me going with the exception of what's below. If I do see something else, I might do more.

Anyway, on to my one subject of interest today -- and it's a doozy. I can't believe the story in the Washington Post this morning about the two-faced political game that the administration is playing on the latest tax cut bill. The shrubbers, who spent the entire campaign telling us how Bush would return honor and dignity to the White House, are, once again, lying through their teeth. The administration supports a bill entirely for Republican mid-term re-election purposes. They have told the few actually concerned fiscal conservatives in their party that they support this latest tax cut bill (which includes tax cuts on capital gains, larger stock loss deductions, etc.) but only so it will help Republican representatives win re-election. They have promised these conservatives that they won't actually sign the bill.

BTW, who are these fiscal conservatives? I haven't seen them. If they really were committed to fiscal conservatism they would have opposed Bush's tax cut bill last year. Of course, the interesting thing is that Bush's tax cut has turned out just as Gore said it would: it has created a deficit, did nothing for the economy, and has only enriched Bush's benefactors and no one else. Anyone enjoying their extra Diet Coke every day? Some folks are getting thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands of dollars this year in tax cuts, but the vast majority of us are getting an extra Diet Coke per day.

But I digress. The administration has acknowledged to these conservatives that the president would never sign such a bill because it would bust the federal budget wide open. However, the administration wants the bill passed in the House of Representatives so that it can die in the Democrat-controlled Senate and they can use it against senators and representatives who are up for re-election. Now this is an amazing example of an administration playing a weaselly, two-faced, political game for political advantage in mid-term elections. All this lying by the same folks who swore they'd never do such a thing and that they'd restore honor and dignity to the White House. I don't think lying about a major tax cut bill is very dignified or shows much honor at all. In fact, I would argue that Clinton's folks never tried something this brazen and, if they had, the press would've been all over them. To quote cultural conservative chickenhawk Bill Bennett,"where's the outrage?"

Amazing stuff, huh? I don't know how the shrubbers get the balls to lie so fervently through their teeth. And, by the way, this is an administration that, in my opinion, lies on a daily basis. And not about unimportant personal matters involving cigars and where one puts them but about matters of public policy. These folks exaggerate, equivocate, or tell outright falsehoods about important policy matters on a daily basis more than any administration I can remember. However, for some reason, this administration is allowed to get away with it. Remember how there was"no warning" of impending hijackings? Remember the exaggerated"dirty bomber" case? In fact, this trumped-up case the administration is trying to make against Iraq so we can go to war (while ignoring allies of ours who have even bigger problems in the area of democracy) is the perfect example of an administration that wouldn't know the truth if it struck it upside its proverbial head. This is an administration of spin much more than Clinton's ever was. This is an administration that appears to live only in a world of its own making, an alternate Bushian universe if you will, but clearly not the one that the rest of us live in. Having lived through the prior eight years during which Clinton couldn't get the slightest break from the press even when a particular story circulating in the press was demonstrably false, this is astonishing.

Sigh. That's all for now. I guess it might be enough though. I'm spent.

DESPERATION BECOMES PANIC 8-28-02

After a slow day yesterday, today I can't figure out what to talk about first! Let's start with the war news. With what W, Cheney and Rumsfeld are saying, it appears the war is coming for sure. If not, Cheney and Rumsfeld are in full panic mode. I loved what Rumsfeld said yesterday:"It's less important to have unanimity than it is making the right decision and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome." Rumsfeld went on to argue that"Leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters." Is this guy scary or what?

I know I'm going to date myself here but every time I see Rumsfeld he reminds me of Dr. Anrak in the 1981 animated movie Heavy Metal. In his one scene in the movie, Anrak began saying these enormous lies and, because of his calm and reasonable manner, people in the Pentagon believe him. I wish I could post a picture of Anrak so you could see the uncanny resemblance as well. Okay, okay, I know that Anrak was a cartoon character but, then again, at times Rumsfeld appears to be a cartoon character too. His world is a sort of cartoon universe where most traditional assumptions, maybe even physical laws, don't apply. Wile E. Coyote doesn't believe in gravity until he finds himself off the cliff and hanging in mid-air. I suspect Rumsfeld won't believe in the need for allies until we've gotten ourselves into such a mess we'll really need them.

Maureen Dowd's column this morning is hysterical. She suggests, in her sarcastic and biting fashion, that it's time to go to war -- with Saudi Arabia! Dowd's columns are usually devoid of much substance or anything but they can be fun. This one has a little more evidence to back up her assertions than most.

I always enjoy reading foreign press coverage of events in the United States because many times it can give you an entirely different perspective. This morning, the Guardian has an interesting article by Julian Borger entitled "Daggers drawn in the house of Bush." Borger says that the argument over the Iraq war is"a family row conducted by proxy." Again, the different spin on things is always interesting to read.

The New York Daily News today has a bit more detail on the rather surprisingly bitter remarks by Bush's special envoy to the Middle East, General Anthony Zinni. At one point in his speech on Friday, Zinni caustically remarked that"All the generals see this the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger are really hell-bent to go to war." How's that for calling the Chickenhawks out? Boy, this one smacked the administration right upside the head!

This morning there's a New York Times editorial that takes the position that the administration appears to be moving forward with war plans despite the fact that the administration has in way convinced Americans or allies of the case for war as of yet. Nothing profound here but it's a good solid opinion piece on the wisdom of the administration's policy toward Iraq.

WHICH ORWELL IS IT? ANIMAL FARM OR 1984? 8-28-02

I love debates like this. The big debate on left websites right now is whether the Bush/Ashcroft Department of Justice is leading us toward a state that is more like that depicted in Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984. There's a good piece on tompaine.com by Daniel Kurtzman that argues for 1984. Dwayne Eutsey on bartcop.com writes an essay contending the administration's actions are more like Animal Farm. I wisecracked about the administration's Orwellian vision of the state a couple of days ago but I didn't know quite how hip I was until I found writers on other websites doing the same thing. Both of the essays are quite interesting. I would suggest you take a look.

Speaking of the administration's trampling of the constitution as well as its secretive and authoritarian ways, there are a couple of good editorials today, in the New York Times and the Washington Post about recent federal court rulings that have stopped the administration from conducting secret deportation trials for those caught up in the enormous post-9/11 dragnet. This secret trial and military trial stuff really makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. It's just not something that is supposed to happen in America. The Post editorial quotes from the opinion of Judge Damon Keith:"The Executive Branch seeks to uproot people's lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door...Democracies die behind closed doors...When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation. The Framers of the First Amendment . . . protected the people against secret government." The Post goes on to say that"the Justice Department should stop litigating and accept" that it's not going to get secret trials. Amen to that. You know, the more I think about it, how many times during September and October of last year do you suppose that John Ashcroft violated the constitution? Thousands of times? Hundreds of thousands?

DEFICITS AS HIGH AS AN ELEPHANT'S EYE (AND AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE), MIDTERM ELECTIONS, WAGGING THE DOG, ETC. 8-28-02

The budget reality is finally coming home to roost. There were news stories yesterday in the New York Times and the Washington Post about the ballooning federal deficit. I love the careful attempt not to place blame on Bush's budget priorities and tax cuts in these stories. It's like an unwanted dinner guest at the table. These journalists are ignoring the obvious. However, both of the stories acknowledge that these budget predictions are actually too optimistic and don't include large spending proposals or the cost of the boondoggle war that we'll be paying the full cost of to the tune of at least $100B. The Post also ran a painfully-carefully-worded editorial that, while acknowledging that Bush was lying to us when he was pushing for tax cuts last year, still pretends that this turn of events isn't really Bush's fault.

Please, give me break. This is Bush's deficit and Bush's recession. Many people told us that all of this was going to happen during the campaign in 2000. This is not some unforseen turn of events. Bush's people knew they were being dishonest. As I've always told my students, a president always gets more credit than is due and more blame than is due. It's time for Bush to change his policies to become the moderate he claimed he was during the campaign or prepare to take his lumps. I can almost guarantee the Republicans in congress will pay for W's mistakes this November -- unless Bush wags the dog. And I fully expect him to try to do so if he believes he needs to. Unless the gut-wrenching and flag-waving Republican-patriot-fest that is to come around September 11th gives Republicans in congress a large enough bounce that Bush can put off wagging the dog until closer to the presidential election in 2004. We shall see. However, Rumsfeld's and Cheney's speeches make it sound like they're not planning on waiting that long.

THE WHIFF OF DESPERATION 8-27-02

It's a bit of a slow newsday today. I'm also pretty busy. So I guess I'll just post the good stuff I've found so far and call it a day.

I can't stop myself from commenting on the rather desperate speech yesterday by Dick Cheney. My goodness, there was more than just a whiff of desperation in that speech! Cheney, the first VP in our history who is less accessible to Americans than a CEO is to his workers, is wheeled out when the administration wants to chastise us. I have an important question: is Cheney really a public official? Since he's the guy making all the important decisions this is particularly troubling. We essentially have the major decision-maker in the government hidden from the voters. That's just not right.

Bush is just the PR guy in this administration. We all know that Cheney is the real power. Nonetheless, I am growing tired of this Texas two-step by the administration. If Bush can't convince people he's serious, out comes the guy the administration thinks Americans really have faith in. How much more evidence do you need that even his own administration thinks that W is a lightweight. By doing this, the administration is acknowledging that the public thinks he's a lighweight too.

Let's move on to the few links of interest today. There's a good Krugman piece this morning on Bush's ridiculous"Healthy Forests" policy initiative. As usual, it's a good article. Here's a tasty quote from it:"George W. Bush's new 'Healthy Forests' plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way. Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems."Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare." Good stuff. Krugman's articles always use evidence quite well. It's nice to read someone in our media who actually knows how to use evidence to make an argument. Many pundits and columnists simply omit that little important thing.

There's also an excellent piece by James Bamford entitled "Washington Bends the Rules" on Ashcroft's continued efforts to create a police state in the New York Times. A good quote:"'Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.' So begins 'The Trial,' Franz Kafka's story of an ordinary man caught in a legal web where the more he struggles to find out what he did wrong, the more trapped he becomes. 'After all,' says Kafka's narrator, 'K. lived in a state governed by law, there was universal peace, all statutes were in force.' With increasing speed, the Justice Department of Attorney General John Ashcroft is starting to resemble the 'always vengeful bureaucracy' that crushed Josef K." I still can't believe Ashcroft hasn't gotten himself fired yet. Even W should be able to see what an embarassment he is by now.

You will be happy to know that congressional leaders from both parties are finally speaking up on how the president needs to seek congressional approval before going to war with Iraq. I'm glad to finally hear them do this. I'm hoping the administration is about to start backing up but Cheney's comments have made me lose hope on this. He sounded just as committed to this foolhardy war yesterday as ever.

That's all I can find at the moment. If I find other cool stuff to chat about I'll post it.

IS THERE ANYONE IN WASHINGTON WHO STILL SUPPORTS THIS WAR? 8-26-02

Boy, is there anyone left who supports this war? James Baker, secretary of state during the Gulf War and Bush family fixer-upper, came out against the war as it is currently conceived this weekend. Baker argued"we should try our best not to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so."

While Bush and his allies try to act like this is all the press's fault, a good analysis by Doyle McManus in the Los Angeles Times puts the blame where it should be: on the administration itself. They have talked themselves into a dangerous position that could lead the administration to putting young Americans in harm's way. It is safe to say that the administration will look foolish in the international arena if they back away from this war. However, I think most Americans simply want support from allies and want more information before moving toward war. It is safe to say, as one unnamed Republican aide does in this article, that the"administration has allowed its rhetoric to get ahead of events." Even the Moonie-owned ravenous right-wing Washington Times argues that this is all "self-inflicted silliness" by the administration. Bush's special envoy to the Middle East, General Anthony Zinni, also came out against the current war plans over the weekend. Now we've got folks within Bush's administration who are publicly against this thing.

However, you'll be happy to know that the administration has decided it doesn't need to seek the permission of congress to start the war. Ah, you got to love the expansion of the presidency in the last 50 years. Even though the constitution specifically says congress must approve going to war, no president since Franklin Roosevelt has worried about that little inconvenience.

OKAY, I FOUND ONE. DICK CHENEY COMES OUT OF HIS PRESS-PROOF HIDEY HOLE TO LECTURE US ABOUT HOW THIS WAR IS A GREAT IDEA. 8-26-02

You know the political situation is grave when Dick Cheney appears on your TV screen. They've rolled him out of his undisclosed location this afternoon to try and save the administration's bacon on Iraq. Cheney's speech demonstrated that the Bush folks still just don't get it. He actually outwarmongered Rumsfeld! That's amazing. Here's a quote:"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve.... The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action." Nice try, Dick. I don't think anyone who actually knows anything about the situation is convinced. You might bring a few congressional conservatives on board but few other folks.

You heard it here first: the airstrikes are coming in mid-October. President Cheney just essentially said so. The invasion, I suspect, is set for February or March. That's just my opinion of course. I could be (and hope to be) wrong.

BUSH AND ASHCROFT'S ORWELLIAN VISION 8-26-02

One of my biggest concerns today is the way civil liberties are being whittled away by Ashcroft's Justice Department. The war on terrorism has provided a convenient excuse for Mr. Ashcroft to expand the power of the state at the expense of civil liberties. Many journalists are beginning to wake up about this. There was a good piece by Marie Cocco of Newsday this weekend about Ashcroft's attempt to institute a police state. As she puts it:"We say we are a nation of laws, not men. That used to mean that no man of power [Ashcroft] could ignore those laws he found inconvenient, or not to his liking." There's another good op-ed in the Washington Post about why we should oppose Ashcroft's policies.

One of the best op-ed pieces over the weekend about this was in the Sunday Washington Post entitled"Democracy as Afterthought" that points out the rather major hypocrisy on our part in ignoring the situation in Pakistan while decrying Saddam's anti-democratic depredations. A colleague of mine who's more in the know recently described Musharraf as more a"warlord" than president.

The federal budget deficit is soaring out of control. It looks like at least a $200B deficit next year. Thanks George for that tax cut for]]> Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:24:38 +0000 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1044 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1044 0