You've probably seen the photo the the polar bear nibbling at a U.S. submarine.
There is more in a story at strategypage.com, but what caught our eye was this:
American submarines have been operating under the Arctic ice for over half a century. ... They have also used their sonar to measure the ice thickness and report that the ice has lost 40 percent of its thickness in the last 20 years. This has caused problems for the polar bears, who feed on seals that surface near offshore ice flows or through breathing holes in pack ice. Some bears are forced to come ashore earlier because of the longer warm season. This is caused by a combination of global warming and the normal fluctuation of Arctic ice thickness.
So, does this mean that the U.S. Navy has solid evidence that we are at risk of losing the north polar ice-cap? And has the skeptical-of-global-warming Bush administration got the data, but not released it? The world wonders.
An essay entitled "The New Rules of Politics" by E. J. Dionne Jr accurately summarizes the current dynamic in Washington D.C. Essentially, it's winner take all - even if the winner has a razor-thin margin.
Excerpt:
With a slim congressional majority, Bush would have been expected to seek genuine compromise -- under the old rules. But Washington has become so partisan and Bush is so determined to push through a domestic program based almost entirely on tax cuts for the wealthy that a remarkably radical program is winning despite the odds against it and lukewarm public support.
and
Bush promised to change the ways of Washington. He has succeeded brilliantly, but not by creating the "new tone of respect and bipartisanship" he promised in 2000. The new tone in Washington is not bipartisan but hyperpartisan. "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," said White House ally Norquist, according to the Denver Post this week, as he promised to bring Washington's new ferocity to the state capitals.
We thought Friday's editorial, "Bush WIns Again", a remarkable piece of work. Here is an excerpt: (emphasis added)
ECONOMICS is a science of single instances, hence it is hardly a science. So how much the president's most recent tax cuts will stimulate the economy is conjectural, a conjecture being a guess by a Ph.D. The Los Angeles Times, using Commerce Department figures, says the economy may be expanded "by somewhere between the annual output of North Dakota, the smallest of the states in economic terms, and Nevada, which ranks 31st," or by the equivalent of "adding another Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Dell Computer Corp."
But as a stimulus to the president's political stock and conservatives' aspirations, the latest tax cuts, signed Wednesday, will be doubly successful. They will make it more difficult for a Democrat to win the presidency. And should one win, the cuts will make it more difficult to use the presidency for Democratic purposes.
The cuts were the third set Bush has signed in 24 months. Were he to keep up that pace through a second term, by 2009 the government's revenue base would be significantly smaller, and quite differently composed. Both House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is a firebrand, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is not, say there soon will be more tax-cut proposals.
Some will seek to make permanent the new cuts, almost all of which are, in theory, "sunsetted" - set to expire - beginning next year. Others will continue the incremental but brisk march toward truly radical tax reform. It is a march away from taxing investment income - the new rates on capital gains and dividends are the lowest since the Depression - and perhaps away from taxing all sorts of income, and instead taxing consumption.
The sunset provisions serve the transparent fiction that the new cuts will deprive the government of no more than $350 billion over 10 years, the number that several deficit-phobic Republican senators insisted on. But given the success of Republican rhetoric - a success deriving from the public's common sense - in arguing that allowing a tax cut to lapse is equivalent to increasing taxes, the sun will set on few, if any, of these cuts.
So the 10-year cost to the government may exceed even the president's original goal of $726 billion, which he supposedly "compromised" in half. Democrats, noting that Bush has achieved all this with almost no help from congressional Democrats and with little enthusiasm from the public, are probably muttering to themselves, as they have been muttering since election night 2000: It is a good thing George W. Bush is dumb as a stump or we'd really be in trouble.
and
Even when tax cuts are not stimulative, they are justified as the most effective restraint on government spending. Today's Democratic presidential candidates are proposing universal health care and increased spending on school construction, teachers' pay, national service programs, medical research, energy research, infrastructure and on and on and on.
Let's get this straight. The New York Post is happy that Bush's tax cut will make it difficult for a future Democratic president to make policy - even if that's what the country wants. Face it, nowadays conservatives simply don't like democracy.
A justification big enough to drive an Abrams fighting vehicle through:
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton says:
Iraqi “intellectual capacity” for producing unconventional weapons was sufficient justification for the successful U.S.-led war against the country ...
Since the first Gulf War, he said, “The most fundamental, most important thing that was not destroyed was the intellectual capacity in Iraq to recreate systems of weapons of mass destruction.”
Bolton said U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors “could have inspected for years and years and years and probably never would have found weapons-grade plutonium or weapons-grade uranium.”
“But right in front of them was the continued existence of what Saddam Hussein called the ‘nuclear mujahadeen,’ the thousand or so scientists, technicians, people who have in their own heads and in their files the intellectual property necessary at an appropriate time … to recreate a nuclear weapons program.”
Bolton said the United States was justified in attacking Iraq because of that alleged capacity.
Apparently, a nation could be bereft of any material objects related to WMD's, and the United States would justify an invation because of a "capacity." Which means that virtually any country - excepting the extremely poor ones - could be attacked on the grounds that it represents a threat.
WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
The extraordinary admission, which is bound to stir the controversy in Washington and London about the murky motivations for war, comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.
Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom.
"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz argued. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.
So Bush did exactly what Osama wanted. Congratulations, George!
AFTERTHOUGHT: Not that it really matters much, but did Bush know WMD's were an excuse, or was he fooled by his advisors?
In a discussion about the intelligence used to support claims that Iraq had WMD's, this was said on the News Hour:
RICHARD PERLE: [The charge is that] There were a lot of mistakes made including among intelligence analysts who ignored whole bodies of material because they were pursuing a theory, and the material was inconsistent with the theory. And this charge of politicization which is aimed at the Department of Defense is totally without merit.
What I think we're talking about here is the fact that four people -- four people in the Defense Department -- were asked to review material that had been collected by other intelligence organizations with a view to seeing whether there were connections in there that had been missed in previous examinations. That is not politicization. That is not pressure. And the fact is that they established beyond any doubt that there were connections that had gone unnoticed in previous intelligence analysis. And the analysts who had failed to notice those connections went to the press and started complaining about politicization, and there was none.
JUDITH YAPHE (CIA analyst who specialized in the Middle East): Politicization is when a policy maker, a policy prescriptive office does its own intelligence analysis. To me that is politicization.
RICHARD PERLE: That's complete nonsense. I mean you're saying that senior officials can't, if they're not satisfied with the product they're getting, go out and look for other intelligence.
JUDITH YAPHE: Why aren't they satisfied with the product?
RICHARD PERLE:Because it was deficient. That's why.
We spent the requisite 30 minutes paging through Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy to look for his statement that "intelligence conforms to what the policy leaders want," but were unable to find it. But it's in there somewhere. Honest.
Parody or sincere? At first, we couldn't make up our minds about the Fast for George W. website, but upon further examination it appears to be a sincere effort by the faithful. From the 1st page:
Answer a call to personally fast once a month for President Bush.
God is raising up multitudes of Christians (regardless of political affiliation) to fast and pray for the holiness of President George W. Bush and our nation.
Now that the $350+ billion tax cuts are going forward, to be followed by cutbacks in social services, some people will be fasting for George W. - whether they want to or not.
Roger Ailes once again directs our attention to the Pickering affair, this time sparked by a not-too thorough New York Times story. As a service to our readers, we repost our entry from 11 January 2003:
Show me a picture!
This diagram shows key elements in the Pickering / Swan affair. Inspired by Roger Ailes excellent coverage of this matter.
What it's all about: Conservatives assert that Pickering reduced Swan's sentence because it was disproportionate to the punishment for the other two - plain and simple. As if he was a judge, new to the scene, making an impartial review. They also point out that the Clinton Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights was involved in the case, and bears some responsibility for the various deals/sentences.
Opponents of Pickering note that he was involved with the other two deals, approved them, and it's inconsistent for Pickering to attack Swan's sentence for being disproportionate. Also, in Senate hearings Pickering testified that (at some point in the process) he had no knowledge of a specific issue - the juvenile's use of a gun. But from the beginning, that fact was firmly established and recorded in the trial transcript.
One thing that hasn't gotten much play is that of the three culprits, Swan was the most mature (the others being a juvenile or low-IQ), was instrumental in carrying out the cross-burning (they used his truck and materials), and therefore deserved a tougher plea-bargain offering. When conservatives tell the tale, the juvenile is the ring-leader and Swan a mere tag-along - unworthy of harsh punishment.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of longstanding International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who masterminded the September 11 attacks, to Saddam Hussein, who did not. The run-up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his Cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ-laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post-traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
Beginning Friday, 23 May 2003, John Stossel will co-anchor ABC's 20/20 program. This is not an encouraging development. We invite our readers to take a journey back in time and see what Stossel did almost two years ago:
On Friday, June 29, 2001 ABC aired a John Stossel special entitled "Tampering With Nature".
The program's message was that environmentalists' dire warnings are overblown - even false. The special was divided (roughly) into three segments: on pollution, global warming, and genetic engineering. Clips were shown of non-mainstream environmental activists making emotional appeals to get involved. They looked, and sounded, silly. Stossel contrasted this with low-key, sober interviews with people skeptical of alarmist claims.
As part of the program, Stossel promoted the skeptical-of-warming view through the use of misleading and irrelevant material.
One of the scientists interviewed, Richard Lindzen of MIT, said people should not be concerned with a mere degree increase in global temperature because that's the kind of fluctuation we all experience within minutes. An absurd comment. One could just as easily dismiss a ten-degree increase in overall global temperature. Because after all, that's the kind of fluctuation we experience over the span of a day. Lindzen knows better. Why does he make such a poor argument? And why does Stossel allow it to be part of the discourse?
But here's the kicker: Stossel said, "You may have heard that sixteen hundred scientists signed a letter warning of 'devastating consequences', but I bet you hadn't heard that seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying that 'there's no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth's climate.'"
While Stossel was narrating, images of the two petitions (with highlighted excerpts) briefly flashed by on the screen. But nowhere in the program - in the narrative or closing credits - were the petitions identified. Stossel simply gives the viewer a 'body count', with global-warming-skeptics having a petition-signer advantage: 17,000 vs 1,600. It's important to know more about the petitions in order to make a judgment as to their worth. On abcnews.com, there is only a capsule description of the program*. No other links or resources are provided.
Replaying a tape of the show, and slowing down the petition images, one can determine that the first one - concerned about global warming - was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
What about the other petition, the one Stossel said was signed by 17,000 and which dismissed concerns about global warming? Again, going to the tape, we find no letterhead, just text. However, a little searching on the web brings forth a listing for a site devoted to an 'Anti Global Warming Petition'. It's the one Stossel was referring to. The petition's website is hosted by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM) a tiny outfit with a faculty of 6, and with headquarters in the hamlet of Cave Junction, Oregon. The petition itself is spearheaded by Frederick Seitz (of La Jolla, CA), and requests that individuals be part of the petition by sending in a card listing:
one's name, degree (BS, MS, PhD), field of study, and address.
That's how the 17,000 signatures were gathered. Go to the web site, pick out some names, and see (via web searching) what their field of study is. These were called "scientists" by Stossel - presumably ones working in the fields of climate and related fields. Take a look at who some of them are. They include:
Alejandro Dopico, PhD Asst. Professor Department of Pharmacology University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Dion R Ehrlich, MD Ophthalmology Abingon Memorial Hospital
Michael Marchese, DDS
Jerome Bromkowski, MD
Paul C Broun, MD
Thomas D Brower, MD
Allan Briney, MD
Gilbert Douglas Jr, MD
W Campbell Douglass III, MD
William K Elwood, DDS
John Joseph Ennever, DDS
So, the next time somebody is fretting about global warming, you can reassure them that John Stossel has checked with gynecologists, veterinarians, mechanical engineers, and dentists, and can confidently assert that there is no cause for alarm.
The media imply that scientists agree with all the dire predictions, but do they? A group of 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of "devastating consequences" if we don't quit our lowdown, polluting ways and curb global warming. But I bet you hadn't heard that a group of 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's "no convincing evidence" that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate. Despite what we hear from the media, there is no consensus that global warming is harming the planet. Some climatologists point to the often-overlooked fact that huge piles of funding are at stake.
And we'll end with this item from the Miami Herald story about Stossel:
... neither his wildly enthusiastic fans nor his implacable enemies should be misled: If anything, Stossel will be reporting even more stories on 20/20 -- including a coming segment that asks, why shouldn't poor people be able to sell their kidneys to the rich?
''I knew you'd like that one,'' Stossel says in a telephone interview as a reporter laughed and an ABC publicist buried her face in her hands.
REFERENCES:
It should come as no surprise that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has a section devoted solely to Stossel. In includes a critique of the program we discussed above. Of note is this excerpt:
Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
On Wednesday, the News Hour had a segment about Whitman's resignation from the EPA, and it was followed by a discussion about environmental policies under the Bush administration. We were struck by the language used by one speaker, Lynn Scarlett, the assistant secretary for policy, management, and budget in the U.S. Interior Department. From the transcript:
LYNN SCARLETT: I think we're doing a tremendous job. The president set forth when he calls a vision of a new environmentalism. And by that he meant let us build a vision based on innovation.
And so he's put the largest ever amount of resources towards climate change research, for example. We have his new car investment to try and bring new technologies for cleaner cars. It's a vision based on what Secretary Norton at Interior calls cooperative conservation. We're working with some 27,000 landowners to extend a caring hand across the landscape in partnership. I think the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We're achieving some tremendous wetlands restoration. We are bringing those forests back to health; they need it. They are overcrowded with thin and spindly trees. We have in southern California where I'm from a terrible insect devastation. We need to get and bring those forests back to health. And that's what we're trying to do. Later on in the segment:
GWEN IFILL: And, Lynn Scarlett, the criticism of course that's applied to the administration that you took rollbacks and you dress them up with names like the clear skies initiative which when it's actually according to the environmentalists a rollback in pollution standards. What's your response to that sort of criticism?
Scarlett did not address that question in her response.
"He's on track this election cycle to raise a half billion dollars for the national parties, the state parties and his own re-election campaign," said Republican consultant Scott Reed.
In this ABC News report on the tax cut, we read: (excerpts)
House and Senate tax writers struck agreement Wednesday on a $350 billion tax cut that Republicans leaders plan to pass by Memorial Day.
Voinovich, who had worked with other moderates to limit the Senate's tax cut, spent the afternoon with Vice President Dick Cheney in the private hideaway office of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., to shrink the cost of the package.
The negotiators agreed to move up the expiration date of one of the bill's most expensive provision, which cuts taxes on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent. The policy had been set to expire after 2009. It would now expire in 2007, 2008 or 2009, depending on analysis still under construction by congressional tax experts.
Why not have the policy set to expire after 7:23 AM March 18 2008? Whatever it takes to get the numbers down, right boys?
Note also that when it comes to anything of substance, Cheney is the guy calling the shots.
House Republicans are pressing for legislation that would strip federal anti-drug money from local police in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.
The overall legislation, which would keep the White House drug policy office in business for another five years, would also allow the office to run ads opposing medical marijuana initiatives.
Tom Riley, spokesman for White House drug policy director John Walters, said: ``One of the duties of the drug czar is to oppose efforts to legalize drugs. ...''
The House Government Reform Committee was expected to approve the legislation Thursday, with an amendment prohibiting ads expressly advocating support or defeat of a candidate or ballot question.
Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project said his group was especially concerned about the possibility of huge advertising expenditures by the White House in an attempt to influence elections.
``This leaves them free to run ads saying medicinal marijuana is a lie and a ploy to legalize marijuana for all purposes,'' he said.
The states with medical marijuana laws are Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.
One duty of the drug czar is to oppose efforts to legalize drugs? No matter what? Even if the drug in question is deemed harmless (or even useful)? And anyway, what's the government doing influencing elections?
Surfing the web, we encountered a site promoting the Baby Name Survey Book (1998). There, we read:
A total of over 100,000 parents were surveyed to determine the most common images people hold about the most popular names for babies. For this new edition, over 300 new names were added to the original 1,400 names, and many of the names were updated to reflect the most up-to-date information about the names you're considering for your baby, including:
The new image of names associated with celebrities, such as Newt, Colin, Denzel, Selena, Winona, and Mariah;
Just to keep the record straight, there had been accusations that the Texas Democrats who denied a quorum (by hiding out in Ardmore, Oklahoma) were somehow running up a big bill - to be paid by Texans.
This letter in the Houston Chronicle from Garnet Coleman (District 147, Houston) sets the record straight. Excerpt:
Our days away from Austin did not cost one dime of taxpayer money. We paid from our own pockets. We refused to accept any legislative pay for the days we were not at the Capitol.
Do you know what happened 200 years ago this (recently past) April?
Note: Napoleon Bonaparte is First Consul of France.
Treaty between the United States of America and the French Republic.
The President of the United States of America and the First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the French People, desiring to remove all source of misunderstanding relative to objects of discussion mentioned in the Second and fifth articles of the convention of the 8th Vendémiaire an. 9, (30 September 1800) relative to the rights claimed by the United States, in virtue of the treaty concluded at Madrid the 27 of October, 1795, between His Catholic Majesty and the said United States, and willing to strengthen the union and friendship which at the time of the said convention was happily reestablished between the two nations, have respectively named their plenipotentiaries, to wit, the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the said States, Robert R. Livingston, minister plenipotentiary of the United States, and James Monroe, minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the said States, near the Government of the French republic; and the First Consul, in the name of the French people, Citizen François Barbé Marbois, minister of the public treasury, who, after having respectively exchanged their full powers, have agreed to the following articles:
WHEREAS, by the article the third of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendémiaire an. 9 (1st October, 1800) between the First Consul of the French republic and his Catholic Majesty it was agreed as follows:
"His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part to cede to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and Stipulations herein relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana with the same extent that it now has in the hand of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the Treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states." And whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French republic has an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory. The First Consul of the French republic desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of the French Republic, for ever and in full sovereignty, the said territory with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French Republic in virtue of the above mentioned treaty, concluded with his Catholic Majesty.
In the cession made by the preceeding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana, all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private property. The archives, papers and documents relative to the domain and sovereignty of Louisiana and its dependencies, will be left in the possession of the commissaries of the United States, and copies will be afterwards given in due form to the magistrates and municipal officers, of such of the said papers and documents as may be necessary to them.
The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.
There shall be sent by the government of France, a Commissary to Louisiana, to the end that he do every act necessary, as well to receive from the Officers of his Catholic Majesty the said country and its dependancies in the name of the French Republic, if it has not been already done, as to transmit it in the name of the French Republic to the commissary or agent of the United States.
Immediately after the ratification of the present treaty by the President of the United States, and in case that of the First Consul's shall have been previously obtained, the commissary of the French Republic shall remit all military posts of New Orleans, and other parts of the ceded territory, to the commissary or commissaries named by the President to take possession; the troops, whether of France or Spain, who may be there, shall cease to occupy any military post from the time of taking possession, and shall be embarked as soon as possible in the course of three months after the ratification of this treaty.
The United States promise to execute Such treaties and articles as may have been agreed between Spain and the tribes and nations of Indians until, by mutual consent of the United States and the said tribes or nations, other suitable articles shall have been agreed upon.
As it is reciprocally advantageous to the commerce of France and the United States to encourage the communication of both nations for a limited time in the country ceded by the present treaty, until general arrangements relative to commerce of both nations may be agreed on: it has been agreed between the contracting parties, that the French ships coming directly from France or any of her colonies, loaded only with the produce and manufactures of France or her said colonies; and the ships of Spain coming directly from Spain or any of her colonies loaded only with the produce or manufactures of Spain or her colonies, shall be admitted during the space of twelve years in the port of New Orleans, and in all other legal ports of entry within the ceded territory, in the same manner as the Ships of the United States coming directly from France or Spain, or any of their colonies, without being subject to any other or greater duty on merchandise, or other or greater tonnage than that paid by the citizens of the United States.
During that space of time above mentioned, no other nation shall have a right to the same privileges in the ports of the ceded territory: the twelve years shall commence three months after the exchange of ratifications, if it shall take place in France, or three months after it shall have been notified at Paris to the French government, if it shall take place in the United States; it is however well understood that the object of the above article is to favor the manufactures, commerce, freight, and navigation of France and of Spain so far as relates to the importations that the French and Spanish shall make into the said ports of the United States, without in any sort affecting the regulations that the United States may make concerning the exportation of t he produce and merchandize of the United States, or any right they may have to make such regulations.
In future and for ever after the expiration of the twelve years, the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports above mentioned.
The particular convention signed this day by the respective ministers, having for its object to provide for the payment of debts due to the citizens of the United States by the French Republic prior to the 30th September, 1800, (8th Vendémiaire an. 9,) is approved, and to have its execution in the same manner as if it had been inserted in this present treaty, and it shall be ratified in the same form and in the same time, so that the one shall not be ratified distinct from the other.
Another particular convention signed at the same date as the present treaty, relative to a definitive rule between the contracting parties, is in the like manner approved, and will be ratified in the same form, and in the same time, and jointly.
The present treaty shall be ratified in good and due form, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the space of six months after the date of the signature by the ministers plenipotentiary, or sooner if possible.
In faith whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed these articles in the French and English languages; declaring nevertheless that the present treaty was originally agreed to in the French language; and have thereunto affixed their seals.
Done at Paris the tenth day of Floreal, in the eleventh year of the French Republic, and the 30th April 1803.
Barbé Marbois Rob. R. Livingston Jas. Monroe
and
Convention between the United States of America and the French Republic.
The President of the United States of America and the First Consul of the French Republic in the name of the French people, in consequence of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, which has been Signed this day; wishing to regulate definitively every thing which has relation to the said cession, have authorized to this effect the Plenipotentiaries, that is to say, the President of the United States has, by, and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the said States, nominated for their Plenipotentiaries, Robert R. Livingston, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, and James Monroe, Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy-Extraordinary of the said United States, near the Government of the French Republic; and the First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the French people, has named as Plenipotentiary of the said Republic, the citizen François Barbé Marbois; who, in virtue of their full powers, which have been exchanged this day, have agreed to the followings articles:
The Government of the United States engages to pay to the French government in the manner Specified in the following article, the sum of Sixty millions of francs, independent of the Sum which Shall be fixed by another Convention for the payment of the debts due by France to citizens of the United States.
For the payment of the Sum of Sixty millions of francs mentioned in the preceeding article the United States, shall create a Stock of eleven millions, two hundred and fifty thousand Dollars, bearing an interest of Six per cent, per annum, payable half yearly in London, Amsterdam or Paris, amounting by the half year to three hundred and thirty Seven thousand five hundred Dollars, according to the proportions which Shall be determined by the French Government, to be paid at either place. The principal of the said Stock to be reimbursed at the treasury of the United States, in annual payments of not less than three millions of Dollars each; of which the first payment Shall commence fifteen years after the date of the exchange of ratifications: - this Stock Shall be transferred to the government of France, or to Such person or persons as Shall be authorized to receive it, in three months at most after the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, and after Louisiana Shall be taken possession of the name of the Government of the United States.
It is further agreed that if the French Government Should be desirous of disposing of the said Stock to receive the capital in Europe at Shorter terms that its measures for that purpose Shall be taken So as to favor in the greatest degree possible the credit of the United States, and to raise to the highest price the said Stock.
It is agreed that the Dollar of the United States Specified in the present Convention shall be fixed at five francs 3333/100000 or five livres, eight sous tournois.
The present Convention Shall be ratified in good and due form, and the ratifications Shall be exchanged the Space of Six months to date from this day, or Sooner it possible.
In faith of which the respective Plenipotentiaries have Signed the above articles, both in the French and English languages, declaring, nevertheless, that the present treaty has been originally agreed on, and written in the French language; to which they have hereunto affixed their Seals.
Done at Paris, the tenth of Floreal, eleventh year of the French Republic.
30th April 1803.
Robt. R. Livingston (seal) Jas. Monroe (seal) Barbé Marbois (seal)
Did this get little attention because of the anti-French environment that developed over the Iraq war?
Via Atrios, we learn of an interview of The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash over at JournalismJobs.com. Two key excerpts: (emphasis added)
We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.
There are very few people who have expertise across the board in anything, so you have to find amateurs who can express themselves well [on television]. But I think it's unfairly derided. Tucker Carlson used to work at The Weekly Standard and now he's on CNN. He's a natural - one of the best. He can go on the air and know nothing about a subject and pull off a beautiful piece of performance art.
Nobody should be surprised to learn that Ari Fleischer is leaving the White House. It's important to note that "Fleischer, 42, got married six months ago." We're pretty sure that Ari violated Bush's abstinence-before-marriage policy, and that once the president found out, it was only a matter of time before Fleischer had to pack his bags and skedaddle.
In center-left blogland, there has been much angst over what is seen as very poor reporting of important stories. One of the best places to go (technically, not a blog) for press criticism is The Daily Howler which has done yeoman work chronicling the errors and lack of seriousness that persists in the media. So, the public is being duped, right?
Not necessarily. Consider this story in the Los Angeles Times:
Subjects Seem Unfazed by a Reporter's Misdeeds Many people quoted by a New York Times writer accepted his fiction as a fact of life.
Here is the interesting detail:
In a telling sign of how little Americans seem to trust the press, many of the people Blair wrote falsely about in the last seven months shrugged off his mistakes as more examples of sloppy, melodramatic reporting.
and
"There's a general undercurrent out there that we have an uncaring press, not particularly interested in getting everything right and not particularly interested in hearing from people who want to complain," said Bob Haiman, a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit foundation that advocates for 1st Amendment rights.
"sloppy, melodramatic reporting" is what most of the Iraq war was full of - expecially with the Jessica Lynch story.
Has the nation finally got a case of "Tabloid Fatigue"?
Via Ampersand, we learn that the burning of the Iraqi National Library didn't mean it was a total loss. Apparently, some people who were concerned about possible destruction took many volumes out of the building for safekeeping, the Boston Globe reports.
The website for Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. (Professor of English, DePauw University) has a Critical Information Site with links to many mainstream media accounts critical of the Bush administration. Categorized by date and topic.
The recent disclosure - all in one day - of three fraudulent stories* involving Iraq have caused us to conclude the U.S. and British governments are completely untrustworthy in matters of foreign policy. They have been peddling outright falsehoods, often supported by documents that just "happen to show up". This has the look and feel of a Special Operation conducted by intelligence agencies. We consider this to be a very serious development.
* - bogus accusations against France; Labor MP George Galloway framed; the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch that wasn't.
Here is a table of the more notable instances. UPDATE: The status of a few of these is provisional. In particular, the Galloway case is fluid at the moment and a final resolution is pending. Even so, we feel the weight of the evidence favors a judgement that the administration cannot be trusted at all in matters of war and peace.
Outright frauds
when
where
source
story
reference
Sep 2002
New York Times
France and Germany had supplied Iraq with high-precision switches used in detonating nuclear weapons.
France had permitted the delivery of sensitive equipment to Iraq. A French intermediary had facilitated Iraq's acquisition, through Syria, of chemical components for long-range surface-to-surface missiles. Safire "had been told" that the Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs had signed a contract in April 2002 to provide Iraq with 5 tons of dimethyl hydrazine, a chemical that can be used for missile propulsion.
Jessica Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. Army Rangers and Navy Seals stormed the Nassiriya hospital. They were said to have come under fire, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter.
France was selling Iraq "planes, missiles, armored vehicles, radar equipment and spare parts for Iraqi fighter planes," and offering to sell nuclear reactors.
"possible" discovery of French Roland 2 missiles by coalition forces in Iraq and implied that they had been manufactured in 2002. A charred Roland 3 missile launcher was also allegedly found.
not cited, gave example of what UAV would look like
drones / Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: "Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs for more than a decade." "... we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot ..." "should be of concern to everybody"
U.S. Mobile Exploitation Team (MET) Alpha, "an Iraqi scientist", later revealed to be Chalabi/INC
"... those stockpiles [of chemical and biological agents] that we've heard about ... have either been destroyed by Saddam Hussein ... or they have been shipped to Syria for safekeeping.."
Table updated and expanded 17 May 2003. Revised 26 May 2003 (Judith Miller/NYT)
UPDATE: Refference has penned some thoughts about the Bush administration's veracity - or lack thereof. Excerpts: (link via Yglesias)
... the one place these sort of under-the-carpet revelations seem to have a degree of success is foreign policy (it's less open to scrutiny for one thing, and less accessible to democratic oversight). And it seems there has been a lot of misinformation regarding our foreign policy lately disseminated by those in power.
... the preponderance of forgeries (especially relating to WMD), the willing disregard for the actualities of the post-war situation in Iraq, the inattention to the material record - stems not from this administration's misapplication of emphasis in the face of legitimate belief in a mistaken reading of the world (as in Bush's faith in his absurd economics), but from some other less ingenuous place.
... I'm confused as to why this administration doesn't seem content to stand on the available evidence ...
... I don't want to ascribe malevolent motives to Bush and his advisors - I don't really believe in cabals. But I am getting frightened at the level of misinformation from the White House ...
President of the red states. President of the non self-reliant states?
Via Atrios, we took a look at a table of federal taxation vs. expenditures for the states in the year 2001. We thought we'd map that, and compare it with how each state voted in the Electoral College in 2000. It's not a perfect correlation, but generally speaking Bush's support comes from "smaller Federal government" states that, ironically, get more from Uncle Sam than they give.
PERSONAL NOTE: We have argued the merits of the Electoral College with the proprietors at Busy, Busy, Busy and now admit that, indeed, low-population states do wield disproportionate influence over budgetary policy. (Previously, we thought it wasn't a significant problem.)
In that story, she quotes Republican Debbie Riddle as saying, "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
Key person responsible for the impasse is House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland - and let's not forget where George Bush hails from: Midland.
In a story about California Democrats hailing the Texas Democrats, we read that: This year Republicans gained control of the [Texas] state House in November for the first time since Reconstruction.
Austin American Statesman update & over 15 links to other stories.
[In AAS above]: Rural Democrats, nicknamed WD40s, got an encouraging word from one of their own: Willie Nelson sent them red bandanas and a card that said, "Way to go — stand your ground." WD40 stands for white Democrats above the age of 40.
Young Conservatives of Texas are mentioned in various stories. We read that their "agenda includes ... abolishing the Texas Department of Housing, more frequent verification of Medicaid eligibility, and discontinuing non-emergency health care for illegal immigrants."
It's been over 6 months since our last examination of Bushisms. All along, we've been trying to see if some sort of pattern would emerge. Was it subject-object confusion? Improper tenses? Sloppy use of singular and plural? Mixing up words that sound-alike?
Well, here is the table for over 250 Bushisms (almost all from Slate's collection, but we found a few on our own). While there are a large number of instances where Bush uses a word that sounds like the one he intended to speak (e.g. "consumption" vs. "conservation"), we no longer think that there is a narrow category of errors that explains why Bush talks the way he does.
Put simply, the errors appear throughout the thinking process. He makes mistakes in concept handling, sentence construction, word retrieval, and pronunciation. As much as we were hoping to find a pattern (or patterns), we now conclude that the reason for all the Bushisms is that the man is not intelligent. His dimness is not a creation of late-night comedians. It's a serious problem.
NOTE: We are aware that all people make mistakes from time to time and that looking for Bushisms brings to light errors that would normally be forgotten, but he's spoken peculiarly over 250 times in four years* - or about once every 5 days. That's and unusually high rate - especially for a guy who (in times of war!) should be careful with his speech.
... put on a screening of "Dr. Strangelove" – in your living room, at the local theater, on campus, on your laptop, anywhere you can - and say no to unilateral invasions, to endangering our troops for the sake of oil, to flouting international law and the world community in the name of empire. Follow the film with discussions, forums, debates. Keep talking. Keep acting. Let's give new meaning to the old Strategic Air Command motto, "Peace Is Our Profession."
Operation Strangelove: a National Movement of Solidarity and Satire May 14, 2003
On Wednesday, May 14, activists in New York and around the country will unleash screenings of Stanley Kubrick's biting 1964 Cold War satire, "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" to protest cowboy diplomacy, unilateral preemptive strikes and wars fought for precious fluids. Er, oil.
Janeane Garafolo (recent target of blacklist threats), Art Spiegelman ("Maus", The New Yorker), David Rees ("Get Your War On"), Jeremy Pikser ("Bullworth", "Reds"), and a representative from the Guerrilla Girls (who make their anonymous appearances in gorilla masks) will discuss "The Art of Dissent: Satire and Protest" on a panel moderated by critic John Leonard (CBS Sunday Morning, New York Magazine, Harper's, The Nation) immediately following the main New York screening of "Dr. Strangelove."
The event takes place in New York on Wednesday, May 14, 7:00 PM at United Artists Battery Park overlooking Ground Zero.
For most of us, it will mean getting out the videotape and enjoying the movie at home in our personal War Room. (In our opinion, the best scene in the film is when Capt. Lionel Mandrake and Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper discuss precious bodily fluids - especially Mandrake's initial "Huh?" when told about Ripper's discovery about the weakness that follows the act of love.)
NOTE: A comprehensive review of the film can be found here.
Attackers shot their way into three gated compounds housing Westerners and Saudis, and were followed by homicide bombers in cars who set off the monstrous blasts, officials said.
"homicide bombers" - 33 results (including news outlets that quoted White House National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack who used the expression).
Check out the Danziger cartoon for 13 May 2003. New York Times page. ComicsPage.com site (not available as of 13 May 2003, should become available later).
You've probably read all about the 53 Democratic Texas legislators who bugged out of the state making a quorum impossible. The main reason was the re-redistricting plan which would have created a 10-seat reversal (from 17D - 15R to 20R - 12D) in the United States House of Representatives. While the story is interesting in itself (and what it says about Tom DeLay), we found this tiny item in a Los Angeles Times story about the fiasco:
Texas, though it spends less per capita than almost any other state, is in dire financial trouble, facing a $10-billion budget shortfall over the next two years. Many Texans, however, expect little more from their government than properly operating traffic lights, and raising taxes is tantamount to political suicide for Republicans.
The alternative to raising taxes, though, is a series of dramatic cuts in social services that have shocked even many moderates here.
The Republican leaders say they are trying to be good fiscal wards in difficult economic times. But they have proposed, among other things, reclassifying 56,000 elderly and disabled people so they are no longer "frail" -- making them ineligible for Medicaid.
An estimated 250,000 children from low-income families would be removed from the rolls of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Money set aside to replace antiquated textbooks in public schools has been cut, and teachers' health insurance benefits are expected to drop considerably.
[...]
Democrats also disagree with a host of other Republican legislation that is expected to pass, including one bill that limits damages in medical malpractice cases, restricts class-action lawsuits and shields some corporations from defective product claims.
This sort of thing should be red meat for the Democrats. Reclassifying disabled people so they can't get Medicaid? That ain't compassion.
What's amazing is that the Texas Republican party has been extremely conservative (by national standards), and yet Bush never got associated with them. Perhaps it's because the press wasn't paying attention.
The U.S. Treasury has announced yet another change in the look of paper currency. The first bill redesigned is the $20. Most of the changes have to do with the background and use of subtle colors. For example, the reverse is virtually identical to the current one - except that an oval framing the White House is gone. The front also drops the oval which framed Jackson. And that's about it - except for a small addition. There is a small dark eagle sitting on a crest which looks like a strange amalgam of the 1930's National Recovery Act eagle, and the Department of Homeland Security shield. Did Tom Ridge have input on the design?
Last week there a minor tempest over a segregated prom in Butler, Georgia. ABC's Nightline even had a program about it. Mentioned on-air in the Nightline report (but not in their website story-summary) was this:
[Footage of black and white kids playing baseball.]
"This is definitely their grandfather's Georgia. In fact, three generations ago, just after World War Two, the first black man to vote here in Taylor County was murdered. His name was Maceo Snipes. He was a combat veteran just back from Europe, and he came here to the courthouse in Butler to register [to vote]. He was murdered - well, he was murdered because he was the first black person to vote here in Taylor County."
... Maceo Snipes, an African American WWII veteran who was lynched after courageously being the first African American to vote in Georgia in post- Reconstruction times.
This line in a story about Bush's push for another round of tax cuts caught our eye:
[Bush's] philosophy is that lowering taxes is the best policy whether the economy is strong or weak, whether the budget is showing a surplus or a deficit.
Which is another way of saying that reality doesn't matter.
Out with good prescription drug coverage, in with the free market:
Heard on the radio:
Are you a prescription plan member who uses Clarinex®, Zyrtec®, or Allegra® for allergy relief? Then you should know that many plans are changing the coverage level on your nasal allergy medicine, which might cost you more money. Don't let nasal allergy relief cost you more this year. Just ask your doctor about Flonase® - fluticasone propionate nasal spray 50 micrograms. Flonase® is approved to relieve the nasal symptoms from pollen, dust mites, pet dander, pollution, smoke, and strong odors - more triggers than any leading allergy medicine. Comprable efficacy and safety among Flonase® and these products has not been established. For best results use Flonase® daily. Maximum relief may take several days and results may vary. Side effects are generally mild and may include headache, nosebleed, or sore throat. To learn more about Flonase® see our ad in Fitness magazine, visit www.flonase.com, or call 1-800-FLONASE. If the co-payment for your allergy medicine is costing you more money, ask your doctor if Flonase® is right for you. All it takes is Flonase®.
To hear the commercial, get it here (460k .wav file, 8khz sample, 8-bit, mono).
We took a look at ABC's Nightline yesterday. The topic? Democrats complaining about Bush's aircraft carrier landing & speech. We watched the whole thing (and taped it and watched it again). There was no mention of Bush's Texas Air National Guard "service". [Sorry, but no transcripts or summaries available.]
Regarding the Air National Guard we are delighted to note that Orcinus shares our view. Over there, we read:
... what we know about his record now should be considered a scandal ...
Why did Mr. Bush abandon his commitment to his country during wartime?
That last quote is the most succinct expression of the charge against Bush (and we wish we had thought of it.) Give it some exposure, everybody.
The day that Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was also the National Day of Prayer. In the morning, Bush made a short appearance in the East Room and spoke to the guests.
This combination of faith and flying has enthralled many Christians (just listen to Christian radio - it's one of their hot topics lately).
We got pretty excited over the looting of the Baghdad Museum last month, and still think that the administration didn't give a rat's ass about it, but there are now stories coming out indicating that the damage wasn't as great as initially reported. From the Chicago Tribune:
The vast majority of antiquities feared stolen or broken have been found inside the National Museum in Baghdad, according to American investigators who compiled an inventory over the weekend of the ransacked galleries.
A total of 38 pieces, not tens of thousands, are now believed to be missing. Among them is a display of Babylonian cuneiform tablets that accounts for nine missing items.
[...]
The inventory, compiled by a military and civilian team headed by Marine Col. Matthew Bogdanos, rejects reports that Iraq's renowned treasures of civilization--up to 170,000 artifacts--had been lost during the U.S.-led war against Iraq. It also raises questions about why any of the artifacts were reported missing. ...
Unfortunately however, both the National Library and a repository of ancient Korans did burn to the ground, so those losses remain. And regarding the Baghdad Museum, there was damage to the inside as photos attest, so we'll have to wait to see if the "good news" about limited theft and vandalism is correct.
In the wake of Bush's fighter pilot-like stunt on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, there has been renewed interest in charges that he was AWOL from the Air National Guard during his 6 year term of service. We think that Bush did bug-out, but proving that is difficult. There don't appear to be any records that would indicate when he (or anybody else) showed up for duty. If there are, that would clear up the matter, but until that happens we are left with personal recollections. Those recollections are of the "I don't remember seeing Bush at the base" variety, which makes it likely - but not definitive - that Bush was AWOL.
But while everybody is focusing on the AWOL charge, they've skipped over an issue that is proven, cannot be denied, and for which there is documentary evidence.
During Bush's 6 year Air National Guard service:
[05/1968 - 07/1970] Bush took two years of training to become a fighter pilot.
[07/1970 - 05/1972] Bush flew for 2 years.
[08/1972 - 08/1974] Grounded for "failing to accomplish annual medical examination" and never did anything during his final 2 years re-establish his ability to fly.
There's your indisputable issue: We've got the document where he was grounded. Nobody denies it. Nobody denies that Bush failed to become "flyable" after that. That's inexcusable, especially since it appears that "failing to accomplish" the medical examination meant "failing to take" a medical examination.
THE CHARGE: Because Bush ignored fighter pilot regulations he was grounded for the last two years of his duty.
He was trained by the United States for military service, but then made it impossible for him to fulfill his obligation to the country. Bush squandered the time and expense of his traing - somebody else should have gotten that coveted National Guard slot and served with distinction. Or will Bush-supporters argue that working for the political campaign of Winton Blount was more important than serving one's country?
The latest news is that Dick "Dick" Cheney has agreed to run with Bush in 2004. This is a moment to remember how conservative Cheney really is. For most people, Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in the 1st Bush administration - with no strong political profile. But when he was a congressman from Wyoming, he established a very conservative voting record. The site bush-cheney.net - a DNC operation from 2000 - has the information about him. In particular his voting record. Check it out.
So how does Mr. Chalabi get to have access to those papers? Must be something Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle wanted.
Also, as Matthew Yglesias points out, having the exiles control the selection of non-exiles means that the assembly will pretty much be an exile creation, which doesn't bode well for stability.
UPDATE: In April we posted a diagram showing Chalabi and his brothers' problems over financial matters. Problems that resulted in convictions and jail time.
We reprint the diagram of key elements of Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council on 05 February 2003. Looking at it again, and especially in light of what we now know about the competence and focus of Iraq's military, it doesn't appear to be much of a threat to the United States - even if everything Powell claimed was true. That's even more the case since nothing has been found yet - except for that miserable little drone and a few terrorist thugs hiding out in Baghdad.
[A caller] sneered at Bush taking a jet instead of a helicopter. The Lincoln was too far away for a chopper. They could've moved it, but no matter what Bush did, liberals would have criticized him.
The truth:
The Lincoln was not too far away for a chopper.
They did move it. (In various ways: slowed it down prior to landing; sailed to minimize cross-winds during speech)
The most recurring criticism I heard of the president was the uniform, that you recall during the 2000 campaign, questions he was missing from the meetings in Alabama when he went to work on a political campaign there, didn't show up for reserve meetings.
Jesus' General (aka patriotboy) has created some inspiring "holy cards". Only 4 so far, but all are quality. Check them out here. Our favorite: Sen. Santorum.
The Daily Howler posted an excellent commentary on Saturday about Chris Matthews’ Hardball of 01 May 2003. We didn’t watch the show, but did take a look at the transcript. It’s truly amazing how Matthews is in thrall to Bush. For those who don’t want to bother reading the lengthy transcript, we present the following quotes by Chris: (emphasis added)
What’s the importance of the president’s amazing display of leadership tonight?
And that’s the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a super sonic plane, and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin, like an actual jet pilot?
He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.
... Bob Dornan. Bob, your joining us. I can’t think of a better guy off the on the panel, a man who has flown those jet fighter. Tell me about what you feel when you see your commander-in-chief in the uniform and equipped to fly a plane like the F-18.
Here’s a president who’s really non-verbal. He’s like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes west. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was the best picture in the 2000 campaign.
Ann Coulter, you’re the first to speak tonight on the buzz. The president’s performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan-what do you think?
The president there-look at this guy! We’re watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he’s flown...
He looks for real. What is about it the commander-in-chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him-I mean, he seems like-he didn’t fight in a war, but he looks like he does.
Look at this guy!
And on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olberman, there was this by Matthews:
... it’s a statement. It’s saying to the Democratic Party or anyone else who wants to challenge this man for a full eight-year presidency, Try to do this. Look at me. Do you really think you’ve got a guy in your casting studio, your casting director can come up with, who can match what I did today?
Imagine Joe Lieberman in this costume, or even John Kerry. Nobody looks right in the role Bush has set for the presidency-commander-in-chief, medium height, medium build, looks good in a jet pilot’s costume-or uniform, rather-has a certain swagger, not too literary, certainly not too verbal, but a guy who speaks plainly and wins wars.
... he is who he is. He didn’t make himself. He didn’t design himself as a softspoken, simple-vocabulary kind of guy. That’s who he is. George W. Bush doesn’t speak in a complicated fashion. He’s a very basic, clear-thinking guy who goes to bed at 9:30 with his wife. He’s not complicated. He’s not a problem. He is George W. Bush. And I think the beauty of the guy’s presidency is it’s so custom-made for him.
This guy has designed the presidency as the commander-in-chief’s job. And I think, obviously, September 11 has made that possible.
[OLBERMANN: ... about his experience in the Air National Guard. It did ... bring back that “Boston Globe” report from 2000 that Mr. Bush did not exactly finish that tour with the Texas Air National Guard.] I mean, there’s a hopeless case! Give me a break! Those guys love to begrudge. ... They know what they’re doing, and they have a lot of fun going after this Republican from Texas.
We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.
Howler was too nice in our opinion. What Matthews said was pure crap.
You know, thinking it over, and considering the Michael Savage hire, we now conclude that MSNBC is an explicitly conservative political cable network - like Fox News.
as saying, "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
