Parody:



Inspired by today's Howler.

posted by Quiddity at 4/29/2004 02:50:00 PM

This is all you need to know: (Okay, maybe that's hyperbole)

Liberal Oasis comments on the recent CBS/NYTimes poll (pdf here). The one thing that caught our attention was this:

q82 Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Rep
Yes -- 52%
No -- 39%

Dem
Yes -- 28%
No -- 62%

Ind
Yes -- 38%
No -- 51%

Note that the question was: Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?



posted by Quiddity at 4/29/2004 10:07:00 AM

"Virtually any"

In a Los Angeles Times story about outsourcing, they profile an Indian who is a big part of that process, Atul Vashistha of neoIT. He has some provocative things to say. For instance:

"If you're a Web programmer, I'm sorry, you have no right to think you can keep your job in the U.S. if you're using the same technology that existed four years ago," Vashistha says. "You've got to keep moving up. You've got to keep going back to schoolÂ…. If you're not going to do that, you're going to lose your job."

But then later in the story we read: (emphasis added)

Like it or not, Vashistha says, Americans are now part of a global competition for labor. With the advent of the Internet and high-speed telecommunications, virtually any job that can be done at a computer or over the phone can be moved to countries where wages are much lower. And U.S. companies that resist the trend, he says, will be swept away by rivals.

Ponder that. Virtually any. So why bother going back to school? Why keep up with things? Why even try to make a living with a job "that can be done at a computer"?

Another point. If, as seems likely, virtually any white-collar job can be moved overseas, then you're left with jobs that require the physical presence of the worker. Like delivering things. Cutting hair. Sales. Construction.

Kind of makes a college education unnecessary.


posted by Quiddity at 4/27/2004 08:18:00 AM

Slumming:

We're still in minimal blogging mode. That said, we recommend reading Liberal Oasis' post on why Kerry's recent attack on Bush's National Guard service is good politics.

posted by Quiddity at 4/27/2004 07:15:00 AM

A public event:

Heard on Fox News Sunday's roundtable during a discussion about showing pictures of coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq:

JUAN WILLIAMS: But let me say this. I noticed you won't show pictures - don't want to show pictures of troops, people coming back dead from Iraq. But there doesn't seem to be any hesitency about using images of 9/11 and the World Trade Center. And we're going to see more of those images shortly in the course of the Republican convention. Why not use some restraint there, as opposed to where you have people ...

CHRIS WALLACE: Alright Fred, you get the last word.

FRED BARNES: Juan, 9/11 was a public event. And if anybody thinks ...

JUAN WILLIAMS: And what is war? What is war, Fred?

FRED BARNES: And if anybody thinks ... Well, the war is also a public event. But the coffins are not.

Low res (mono, 8-bit, 8KHz, 220k size) .wav file here. Provided as an assurance the transcript above is accurate. File will probably be removed after one month due to storage limitations.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, it was Barnes' characterization of 9/11 as "a public event" - like it was a festival or something - that sounded peculiar.

posted by Quiddity at 4/25/2004 09:20:00 AM

Elitist?

Rush Limbaugh writes an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that is critical of Woodward, and Woodward's latest book. It's mostly hogwash, as you might expect. But this line caught our attention:

As for some of Mr. Woodward's observations about the president's intelligence, his supposed misapplication of funds for military preparations against Iraq, his personal relationship with God, etc. -- how elitist!

It's now "elitist" to simply make "observations" about Bush. It used to be elitist to look down on somebody for a particular trait. But now the standard - according to Limbaugh - has changed. Simply observing is problematical. Of course, the logical extension of that is to say that observing anything about the world is "elitist". So why bother with the news at all? Don't think at all. Just do what you're told (by the right-wing radio folks).

posted by Quiddity at 4/21/2004 12:39:00 PM

Random post:

We were struck by the picture of Bush in this Yahoo new/photo. He seemed somewhat menacing. So we decided to take the base image and jazz it up a bit.



posted by Quiddity at 4/21/2004 08:47:00 AM

This is absurd:

Why is CNN reporting this? On first glace it's about somebody who served with Kerry, but that's not so.

Title: Fellow vet blasts Kerry's antiwar comments

Excerpts: (emphasis added)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A man who served in the same Navy unit as Sen. John Kerry denounced on Tuesday charges the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee made as an antiwar protester that he and other U.S. troops committed atrocities in Vietnam.

"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero," said John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer who joined the Navy's Coastal Division 11 two months after the future senator left Vietnam. "He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11."

[...]

But O'Neill said Tuesday that he and the others who served with Kerry -- who "would much rather have nothing to do with this" -- feel they have "no choice" but to come forward, which he said would dispel the notion that Vietnam veterans as a group are supportive of Kerry's candidacy.

"We were there, we know the truth, and we know that this guy's unfit to be commander-in-chief," said O'Neill, who took over command of Kerry's boat after he left.

Can CNN now find people who served in Bush's Texas Air National Guard after Bush left it. People who will blast Bush as being "unfit to be commander-in-chief"?

posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2004 09:04:00 PM

Pooped:

Expect light blogging this week. Basically, after all we've heard in the last several weeks (poor SotU, O'Neill book, go/no-go Mars mission, absurd WMD commission, Clarke book, 9/11 commission, Iraq, unimpressive press conference, endorsement of Sharon plan, Woodward book, Bush acting as a proxy for The Almighty, his casual acceptance of Saudi election meddling, Negroponte, miscellaneous scandals) the fact that Bush has approval numbers anywhere north of 35% is hard to accept.

What's the point in examining the record if the public is so out of touch with reality?

We'll probably catch our breath and post with renewed vigor, but for this week at least, we're taking it easy.

NOTE: After posting, we read TPM which commented on a similar theme.

If I could capture the mood in a sentence, it is, "If this doesn't sink the guy, nothing will."

Josh Marshall then goes on to suggest that Bush's ad campaign is helping him out. Could be. If so, that doesn't bode well for democracy in America.

posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2004 01:07:00 PM

Don't ask, don't tell:

In the New York Times story about Powell involvement with Woodward's latest book, Airing of Powell's Misgivings Tests Ties in the Cabinet, we read the following:

Mr. Bush told Mr. Woodward that he did not ask the secretary's opinion on whether to go to war because he thought he knew what that opinion would be: "no."

So much for consulting the highest-ranking cabinet member. Even if the expected answer is "no", one would expect (as Paul O'Neill did) the president to at least hear different perspectives on policy. And especially on a policy choice as serious as war.

But this is nothing new with Bush. A man proud of the fact he doesn't read newspapers. He gets all is objective information from Card and Rice. Why bother with the Secretary of State?



posted by Quiddity at 4/19/2004 05:37:00 AM

A Monty Python perspective:

Terry Jones of Monty Python has an essay in the Guardian, Invade Iraq? It's a no brainer. Fairly amusing.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2004 09:56:00 PM

Penis envy:

POST PULLED.

We had a picture of Cheney holding a big rifle while a couple of officials from the NRA look on. But this was a copyrighted AP image, and we felt it was improper to reproduce it here. While the link still works, you can see the image by clicking on the post's title.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2004 01:01:00 PM

Right wing anti-Bush rant?

If not anti-Bush, then it is pretty close. Check out what Larry Miller (columnist for The Daily Standard;writer, actor, and comedian living in Los Angeles) has to say about the Iraq War and Bush's press conference. Teaser excerpt:

But at that press conference, I watched with my mouth open, till I had to stand up, walk around, and shake my head. Who's coaching this guy, Warren Christopher? And please don't tell me his job is not to communicate potently, because, yes, it is.

Even though the thrust of the essay is mostly on the order of "Let's win this good cause," it also reveals frustration with Bush's incompetence.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2004 11:23:00 AM

Sightings:

Seen at an intersection in Los Angeles:


Close-up:


We don't know much about this, but it is kinda interesting.

UPDATE: Reader M passes along this link to a website with a cool Flash presentation that sounds great (and then leads to an informational page for the CD/DVD).

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2004 10:47:00 AM

27%

In today's Los Angeles Times story commenting on the recent Bush-Sharon agreement, Bush Move on Mideast May Sway Jewish Vote, we read the following: (emphasis added)

[A] survey — conducted among 1,000 people who identified themselves as Jews — also found that 40% described themselves as at least somewhat liberal, 33% as moderate and 27% as at least somewhat conservative. That compares with roughly 27% of adults nationwide who described themselves as liberal and 41% as conservative in a Los Angeles Times poll last month.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans are liberal. And (presumably) 32% are moderate (100 - 27 - 41). So how come the word 'liberal' is still shunned by most politicians? There are a lot of people who agree with the label, and we suspect that self-described moderates aren't horrified by the term. For some reason, the vocabulary of the right-wing predominates in our discourse. That's a shame.

posted by Quiddity at 4/17/2004 07:45:00 AM

Woodward's new book:

We have heard the early news about Woodward's latest book on the inner workings of the White House, and while some of the stories are interesting, we are wary. It seems suspiciously pro-Bush. For instance, there is the story about the CIA/Tenet briefing of Bush about Iraqi WMD. We are supposed to believe that after the presentation that Bush was skeptical and therefore said "nice try". Allegedly, Tenet then says the case is a "slam dunk" and somehow this wins over Bush (or begins the process of winning over Bush).

That's incredible. Bush has - in public - displayed an extremely limited ability to process details (most visibly in his failure to recall details). If Bush was so on the ball with Tenet, how come we never see that skeptical, mature judgement outside the hidden confines of the Oval Office? And if Bush was unpersuaded then, how does one explain his acceptance of the mobile weather-balloon facility as a bio-lab? And how does it explain his claim that one reason for going to war in 2003 was because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? (when in fact he did let them in, and they were all over the place)

That said, the other theme - besides 'Bush is an okay guy' - is that of Cheney exerting significant control over the policy apparatus. That sounds both accurate and the sorf of thing that Colin Powell and his supporters would eagerly tell Woodward.

So the book is probably a mixed bag, containing both insights and puffery. It may not be a fair assessment of what took place, but it may - as with the last book - be the basis for follow-up inquiries. That will be useful in extablishing the historical record.

posted by Quiddity at 4/17/2004 12:50:00 AM

The 1949 gambit:

Bush says this about the Israli Palestinian issue:

... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

And John Podoretz - very happy with Bush's endorsement of Sharon's position - says this in the New York Post:

The Jewish state will not pull back to the borders of the 1949 armistice, borders that were untenable and dangerous.

[...]

When Palestinians say they accept Israel's existence, what they mean is that it should return to these 1949 borders. That's delusional.

That's something of a misdirect. Aren't we really talking about a return to the 1967 borders? Sure, they were set in 1949, but the borders were effectively in use until the Six Day War.

The reason for citing 1949 borders is to make them seem so far back in time that they are, in effect, not relevant today. But consider the following. Mexico grabs a bit of territory from Texas this year and holds on to it. Would anybody believe the argument that Mexico should not pull back to the 1850 borders? That it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the borders of 1850?

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 07:21:00 AM

Match this?

Let's see. Bush endorses Sharon's plan to:

• Annex West Bank territory
  
• Deny Palestinian refugees any right of return to Israel.

Then Bush says:

I call on the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors to match that boldness and that courage.

Huh?

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 03:20:00 AM

A day late:

We weren't particularly up for examining Bush's remarks from the press conference because it was so uninteresting. But we finally found some time (and energy) for the task. Here is a quick overview of Bush's opening remarks and answers to the sixteen questions:

we will find out from X resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions terror, terrorists, war on terror freedom free Iraq making progress I ignore polls gathering threat Saddam a threat Saddam used WMD mass graves no empty words Iraqis happy Iraqis not happy still looking for WMD I grieve, was sick, comfort families bin Laden responsible C.Rice expression   ü üü ü üü                     ü           ü ü ü ü                       ü                                                 ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü                     ü               ü   at war; 100% right                 ü           ü     at war                                   historical PDB ü                                   ü                                                                 ü ü     ü   üü ü                           ü                                     ü ü                             at war, comprehensive strategy     ü                         ü     ü               ü           ü       üü ü ü üü   ü                             ü ü               ü

And here is the table with the questions listed.

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

Bush's opening statement

ü

üü

ü

üü

ü

1

Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it. What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

ü

3

Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency. Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

ü

ü

at war; 100% right

5

One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

ü

ü

at war

6

You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

historical PDB

7

You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?.

ü

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

8

Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

ü

9

Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?

ü

ü

10

You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?

ü

üü

ü

11

a) Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? b) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

ü

12

You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

ü

ü

at war, comprehensive strategy

13

Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

ü

ü

14

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

ü

ü

ü

15

Looking forward about keeping United States safe, a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism ... : ... because they say it ties their hands, it gives them blinders, that they're partners. Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House.

üü

ü

ü

üü

ü

16

Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic. Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber. But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

ü

ü

ü

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 02:12:00 AM

The neocons won big:

At least that's the impression one gets from reading Billmon's post (over at Whiskey Bar) about the Sharon-Bush agreement on settlements and territory.

From last night's press conference, it appeared that Bush had firmly retreated back to the comfort of the neocon worldview. And now we learn that Bush has given Sharon pretty much everything he wanted, at virtually no cost. For example, we read:

The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity ...

"Progress toward a freeze"? That's an extremely low standard - and one anybody can meet. Even you the reader of this blog can make progress toward a freeze. Just make your own personal pledge to not plan on settling in the West Bank. There, see how easy that was? You've just made progress toward a freeze on settlement activity!

As a reward for such exemplary behaviour, treat yourself to a refreshing beverage or an extra helping of dessert.

posted by Quiddity at 4/14/2004 05:47:00 PM

Losing them one at a time:

Here is a list of pundits that are distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq venture and anti-terrorism efforts (as revealed by the 9/11 commission):

(approx.) when	who	where
7 April 2004	George Will	WaPo column, ABC's This Week
9 April 2004	Howard Feinman	Air America interview w/ Franken, Newsweek, Chris Matthews Show
12 April 2004	Joe Klein	The Charlie Rose Show
14 April 2004	Dick Morris	The Hill column
17 April 2004	David Brooks	New York Times column

Thanks to M.Z. for suggesting adding David Brooks to the list.

posted by Quiddity at 4/14/2004 03:31:00 PM

Bush's press conference:

Manichean, platitudinous, recycled, detached, slow, and virtually fact-free.

posted by Quiddity at 4/13/2004 06:16:00 PM

January 2001:



posted by Quiddity at 4/12/2004 10:36:00 AM

Vox populi:

In the message threads for two Yahoo stories, Bush: Nothing Warned of 9/11 Attacks and Bush Says Aug. 6, 2001, Memo Did Not Foretell 9/11, there were a number of posts critical of Bush. For your reading pleasure, we reproduce a few of them:

• POST: CAN THIS GUY GET ANY MORE PATHETIC?
  
  Bush: "No one came to my ranch while I was vacationing to wake me up and say that on 9/11/01 on flights from Boston there will be 19 hijackers taking four flights and running them into the towers and the Pentagon between 9:00 and 11:00 am. How on earth do you expect me to do my job when I have no information?"
  
  A previous quote from Bush:
  "I am the master of low expectations."
  
  
• POST: Bush voters dumber than Bush?
  
  I'm beginning to think so!
  
  
• POST: Why Bush REALLY Ignored the 8/06 PDB...
  
  10. Arena Football games on the Tee-vee were too exciting.
  9. It’s too hot in Crawford, TX in the summer to think.
  8. Uncle Dick was supposed to take of this.
  7. The title of the memo was: “bin Laden Determined to Attack America.” I thought they meant South America.
  6. Could you repeat the question?
  5. Tony Scalia and I were still celebratin’ the November election that day.
  4. The memo mentioned Al Qaeda cells living in the US and planning terrorist attacks using explosives and/or hijackings in the US, possibly in New York City. It DIDN’T give me names, addresses, dates, and whether the terrorist attacks were going to be black tie or semi-formal.
  3. I forgot about them PDBs after I realized they weren’t PB and Js.
  2. A page and a half of stuff to read?!? Without ANY pictures?!?
  1. I forgot to PULL MY HEAD OUT OF MY ASS.
  
  Folks--isn’t it time we got serious about the fate of country and elected a REAL President again? Let’s put aside debates about Bush’s intentions before invading Iraq. This man has demonstrated a lack of good judgment about:
  
  Impending terrorist threats
  Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
  The Costs of Invading and Governing Iraq
  Involving our Allies in these Matters
  
  This man is flat-out incompetent. His heart may be in the right place when it comes to defending America, but he’s not up to the job. The Presidency is not a place for on-the-job training. It’s time for Bush to go.
  
  
• POST: It's not my fault, now vote for me!
  
  Bye bye Bush.
  
  
• POST: Bush, your credibility is ZERO
  
  and sinking into the negatives.
  
  
• POST: Republican News Cycle Stuck on "Spin"
  
  Hey Karl, you fat pig: sometimes things spin out of control!
  
  
• POST: 16 US dead last 3 days & Bush in Texas
  
  "The war president"
  
  
• POST: Did he clear that comment w/Cheney?
  
  Bush shouldn't be talkin' bout complicated stuff like this with Cheney out of the country.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2004 02:44:00 PM

Compare and contrast:

Rice's statement about pre-9/11 intelligence	6 August 2001 PDB
... they don't tell us when.	CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Lladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives. Bin Ladin['s] ... attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance.
They don't tell us where.	Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, ... FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity ... including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
They don't tell us who.	CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
And they don't tell us how.	... FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that ... [which says] Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2004 08:03:00 AM

Sunday talk shows:

Here is the lineup:

• NBC's Meet the Press: Sen. John McCain; David Broder, Lisa Myers & Ron Brownstein in a political roundtable
  
  
• ABC's This Week: Sen. Susan Collins, Richard Perle, Rand Beers, George Will, U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer
  
  
• FOX's Fox News Sunday: Slade Gorton, Richard Ben-Veniste, Sen. Richard Lugar, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington.
  
  And on the Fox News Sunday webpage, they had this image of Rice:
  
  
  
  Not flattering at all.

posted by Quiddity at 4/10/2004 02:16:00 PM

Rice testimony, some comments:

Here are some statements made by Condoleezza Rice along with our observations:

• "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer. Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event. There will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future. Troubling, yes, but they don't tell us when. They don't tell us where. They don't tell us who. And they don't tell us how."
  
  That is one hell of a whopper. Rice is citing the intercepts as if the words spoken were the only information present. But that's not true. Each intercept has a time and location (and transmission method) associated with it. That can aid in figuring out who might be involved and where the center of activity might be. And clever use of intelligence can get suspects to reveal more. As Dr. Rice surely knows, there is the famous case in World War II of the Japanese signaling that they were planning an assault on a target known only as "AF." But intelligence agents didn't say to themselves that the intercepts "don't tell us where" and therefore, let's do nothing. They were able to trick the Japanese into revealing where AF was (Midway Island) by making a fuss over an alleged failure of a water-distilling unit. This allowed the U.S. to be prepared and inflict a tremendous defeat on the Japanese navy. Something similar might have been possible in the case of the al Qaeda intercepts.
  
  
• Look who needs to be told what to do? The National Security Advisor. In her own words:

  • "I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about."
  • "We were not presented with a plan."
  • "I believe in the Aug. 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations underway of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this - the F.B.I. was pursuing it."

  Fred Kaplan writes: "Why did she need a recommendation to do something? Couldn't she make recommendations herself?
  
  And the Left Coaster opines: "Just who was supposed to tell you this, DOCTOR Rice? Was that PhD of yours from a diploma mill? You are supposed to be advising the pResident on national security issues ..."

posted by Quiddity at 4/09/2004 06:47:00 AM

Rice in 50 words:



posted by Quiddity at 4/09/2004 02:08:00 AM

We knew it all along:

Much talk has been generated over the "revelation" of the title of the 6 August 2001 PDB. But it wasn't new to readers of uggabugga. Here, is a repeat of our posting on 1 February of this year:

What we are likely to see - eventually:

We listened to Ian Master's Background Briefing radio program today, and one of the guests was Ray McGovern, a twenty-seven year career analyst for the CIA and a co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In a discussion on the WMD issue, the focus shifted to what George Tenet knows - and if that knowledge is what's keeping Bush from firing him. McGovern thought it might be the contents of the 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. From what McGovern said - plus some additional Google-related searching (Sunday Herald, Guardian, CNN, more), we think it looked something like this:

6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. An attack inside the United States is being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. The Saudi-born terrorist hopes to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998. British Intelligence says: That in 1998 al-Qaeda operatives discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993). The United States should expect multiple hijacking of aircraft. We know there has been flight training by Muslim students. We believe there are al-Qaeda cells currently in the United States.

You know how the game is played. Even though we have a pretty good idea of the situation, until the actual piece of paper is released, there won't be a scandal.

But it will be released.

NOTE: In the resourses listed above, it was the Guardian (in a May 2002 story) where we learned of the title, 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US'

posted by Quiddity at 4/09/2004 12:56:00 AM

Explosive:

In today's New York Times, William Safire presents the (neo) chemistry of the Middle East.



We think it's a highly unstable molecule, likely to break down - and emit plenty of energy in the process.

posted by Quiddity at 4/07/2004 10:51:00 AM

Another vicious assault?

From Liberal Oasis we learn of a speech by Kennedy, and the subsequent counter-attack by Sen. Mitch McConnell. McConnell says: (excerpts, emphasis added)

Today, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, delivered an incendiary speech here in Washington that deserves a strong rebuttal.

... today the Senator has mounted another vicious assault on the President by leveling the claims so outrageous that I won’t repeat them here on the Senate floor although they are being carried on TV across the world, presumably even in Baghdad where those who are fighting Americans in the streets can view them.

... we need to focus on rooting out global terrorism by fighting the terrorists and not each other.

... while the debate over the election proceeds, I’m hopeful that the tone set by the Senator From Massachusetts will not become the standard.

Although McConnell doesn't say so explicitly, he appears to be reacting to Kennedy's statements about Bush and the Iraq adventure. (The only things McConnell mentions, besides chastising Kennedy, are terrorists, al Qaeda, and the Iraq war.)

What was that wild speech by Kennedy? We went over to the Brookings Institute, read their summary of the speech, and then looked at the whole thing (pdf). Here is the breakdown of what Kennedy said:

Total words: 5044

WORDS
36	Opening remarks
96	Importance of honesty and trust in government
90	Bush administration has huge credibility gap
345	Bush mislead America about Iraq, war on terrorism now harder
395	Bush devious, right-wing policies dominate White House
105	Misguided war in Iraq distracts from the real issues
931	Economy, jobless, overtime regulations
1766	Medicare bill - hiding cost estimates, strong-arming legislators, fake ads
1202	Education - NCLB, funding
78	This is the pattern and record of the Bush Admin

Actually, the bulk of the speech was on domestic issues - and the Bush administration's failure to be honest with the Congress or the public. But back to the "vicious assault" on Bush regarding the Iraq War. Here, in its entirety, is what Kennedy said on that subject:

In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the Bush Administration misled the American people about the threat to the nation posed by the Iraqi regime. A year after the war began, Americans are questioning why the Administration went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, when it had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

Tragically, in making the decision to go to war, the Bush Administration allowed its own stubborn ideology to trump the cold hard evidence that Iraq posed no immediate threat. They misled Congress and the American people because the Administration knew that it could not obtain the consent of Congress for the war if all the facts were known.

By going to war in Iraq on false pretenses and neglecting the real war on terrorism, President Bush gave al Qaeda two years— two whole years—to regroup and recover in the border regions of Afghanistan. As the terrorist bombings in Madrid and other reports now indicate, al Qaeda has used that time to plant terrorist cells in countries
throughout the world, and establish ties with terrorist groups in many different lands.

By going to war in Iraq, we have strained our ties with long-standing allies around the world—allies whose help we clearly and urgently need on intelligence, on law enforcement, and militarily. We have made America more hated in the world, and made the war on terrorism harder to win.

The result is a massive and very dangerous crisis in our foreign policy. We have lost the respect of other nations in the world. Where do we go to get our respect back? How do we re-establish the working relationships we need with other countries to win the war on terrorism and advance the ideals we share? How can we possibly expect President Bush to do that? He's the problem, not the solution. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam, and this country needs a new President.

---

Much of the debate in recent weeks has been about the President's deceptions on Iraq and the war on terror. Richard Clarke has revealed the truth about the Administration's inattention to the grave and gathering threat of terrorism before 9/11—and the President's preoccupation with Iraq. The misguided war in Iraq has distracted us from the real war we must win, and made that war harder to win, because, even as we combat terror, it has left America more and more isolated in the world. Iraq has also diverted attention from the Administration's deceptions here at home— especially on the economy, health care, and education.

And Kennedy-bashing isn't just for senators. Cartoonist Bill DeOre tries his hand:

UPDATE: Laura Ingraham and Sen. George Allen (R - Virginia) agree: Teddy's a menace.

Allen in the radio interview: Kennedy's remarks "were worse than those made by Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War."

Allen's website: Senator Kennedy's blustering, blatantly political remarks are irresponsible and harmful when he calls our noble mission to bring freedom to repressed people in Iraq 'Bush's Vietnam.'

posted by Quiddity at 4/07/2004 07:20:00 AM

New York Post vs Associated Press:

New York Post editorial: (excerpts, emphasis added)

WHAT THE THUGS WANT

April 1, 2004 -- The fact that a small crowd of thuggish Sunni tribesmen cheered while their blood-maddened brethren hacked up charred corpses for grateful Western cameramen doesn't mean that Americans are widely despised in Iraq. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all - except that freedom's enemies in Fallujah are both savage and clever. It's important to remember that Sunni thugs like these did the same thing and worse to their own countrymen for decades. They're the same "people" who joined the ranks of Uday Hussein's fedayeen and filled the mass graves. They seek a return to those days - with them in control.

Consider: Victims of other attacks in Iraq have not generally been burned and mutilated after their deaths.     So why the extra savagery this time?     Because the cameras were there.

Like their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, these fiends know when and how to perform for maximum propaganda effect. And don't think that Associated Press Television just happened to turn up at the right place at the right time for the burning and hacking of corpses. After all, last week the AP had dramatic on-the-spot, perfectly timed, close-up photographs of insurgents firing RPGs at Coalition troops. Clearly, someone at AP has a mutually beneficial relationship with the insurgents in Fallujah.

The Associated Press responds: (emphasis added)

The Associated Press takes great exception to your April 1 editorial disparaging AP news teams in areas of conflict in the Middle East. Your remarks indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the dangers and tremendous challenges for all journalists in all media covering war and conflict. Your editorial points out two instances in Iraq in which AP photographers have shot dramatic images of violence -- images that however gruesome help those outside Iraq understand the nature of this ongoing insurgency.

Apparently because AP made these pictures available to papers like the Post (pictures printed in your newspaper) you suggest AP has a "mutually beneficial relationship with the insurgents." This is an outrage, a damaging and gratuitous statement that is not only wrong, but does a grave disservice to the brave men and women who have risked their lives covering this story. AP staff and other journalists risk their lives daily to cover news in difficult parts of the world, including Iraq. We are dismayed that the New York Post seems to have forgotten the role of the free and independent press. You have done professional journalism a disservice.

Kelly Smith Tunney
The Associated Press
Vice President and Director of Corporate Communications

posted by Quiddity at 4/07/2004 01:33:00 AM