The sequel:



Inspired by Digby's post (one of many on that theme), a Media Matters report, and the perpetual fawning over at Powerline.

UPDATE 30 Dec: How could we have forgotten? In our rush to get the image out, we forgot about Jeff Gannon when making the credit list (had been Matt Drudge). Now updated.


posted by Quiddity at 12/28/2005 12:59:00 PM

The Hon. Senator John McCain on teaching science:



Via Dadahead post.


posted by Quiddity at 12/27/2005 02:48:00 PM

Worst webpage ever:

Somehow, while Googling for laptop computers, we ended up visiting this page: http://www.dollarcomputer.com/all_prodmanf.php

How bad is it? It appears that in some circumstances, a total database dump of all products for sale goes into the html, resulting in a file 5,745,766 bytes large. That's five meg for you dialup folks. Yum! Over 15 minutes to load.


posted by Quiddity at 12/27/2005 08:43:00 AM

Has the Fox News Channel jumped the shark?

In all the recent talk about the "War on Christmas", Fox has definitely been the lead player. From Frank Rich's I Saw Jackie Mason Kissing Santa Claus: (excerpts, emp add)

In Salon, Ms. Goldberg noted that fulmination about supposed Jewish opposition to Christmas dates to Henry Ford's infamous "The International Jew" of 1921. That chord is sounded in the very first anecdote in the book by the Fox News anchor John Gibson, "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought": a devastated father discovers that his 4-year-old son has brought home preschool artwork showing a Hanukkah menorah and Kwanzaa candles, rather than a Christmas tree. But Mr. Gibson goes on to add ecumenically that "not just Jewish people" are out to kill Christmas. As he elucidated on Christian radio, all non-Christians are "following the wrong religion," though he reassures us that they will be tolerated "as long as they're civil and behave."<

It would seem that Fox was making more of a fuss with Christmas than the Christian Broadcasting Network. Could it be that Fox went too far and is now seen as something of a "Christian news" channel? That would, in the long run, be good in that it will be self-marginalizing. Nobody cares what Pat Robertson has to say, or what's on his network. Maybe Fox will have foolishly discarded whatever "news" identity it still has as they pursue a more religious angle/audience.


posted by Quiddity at 12/27/2005 08:20:00 AM

Economics question?

When Monday Night Football moves from ABC to pay-cable ESPN next year, does that cause a rise in the CPI?

If so, is a change like that part of any formula used by the Labor Department?

They're always eager to reduce the CPI via the legerdemain of the hedonic adjustment. How would the MNF switch be viewed in such a light?

UPDATE: Yeah, and Howard Stern too.


posted by Quiddity at 12/26/2005 07:53:00 PM

Meanwhile, over at Al-Qaeda headquarters:




posted by Quiddity at 12/24/2005 03:48:00 PM

Feds slug state's poor

That was the surprising, large-type headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Daily News this morning. And it goes on to report:

Budget cut aimed at poor, young, old, sick

California's needy families will lose more than $550 million a year under a deficit-reduction bill approved Wednesday by the U.S. Senate, marking the first cuts to welfare, Medicare and other entitlement programs in nearly a decade.

The Daily News is more conservative than the Los Angeles Times and for the most part serves a suburban readership (San Fernando Valley) which in earlier days could be considered "moderate Republican" - a now meaningless term or extinct constituency. That's why the headline was a surprise.

Could it be that the Republicans in Congress will suffer politically for their cuts to programs that serve the "poor, young, old, and sick"? That's not something we expect, but it just might happen.


posted by Quiddity at 12/22/2005 08:18:00 AM

Bill O'Reilly, here's another outfit you might want to tangle with:

Screenshot (partial) showing the Screen Tip.




posted by Quiddity at 12/21/2005 07:50:00 AM

Not a strict constructionist or textualist any more?

Does this mean we really do have a "living constitution" after all?



[First quote in black is genuine.]

Thanks to the folks at Busy,Busy,Busy for the inspiration.


posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 07:37:00 PM

Both interpretations are correct:




posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 02:11:00 PM

It's not the MSM anymore:

It's the LJM (Liberal Jew Media)

At least it is over at Townhall.com - "When it comes to pushing the ... anti-Christian agenda, you find ... Jewish journalists"     (via Seeing the Forest's blogpost)


posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 11:05:00 AM

Why not ask your Saudi friends?

In Bush's press conference today, he made the following remark in support of renewing the Patriot Act:

I mentioned in my radio address -- my live TV radio address -- that there was two killers in San Diego making phone calls prior to the September the 11th attacks. Had this program been in place then, it is more likely we would have been able to catch them. But they're making phone calls from the United States, overseas, talking about -- who knows what they're talking about, but they ended up killing -- being a part of the team that killed 3,000 Americans.

Back in November of 2002 we looked into stories about these guys and diagrammed the connections that allowed them to operate. Turns out that they were funded (by proxy) by the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US.



Who knows what they're talking about? Ask your friends on Embassy Row.


posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 09:55:00 AM

Juan Cole summarizes our view:

[Al-Qaeda's] monstrous "theatrical" terrorism on a large scale has paralyzed the US political and judicial elite in the face of Cheney's and Bush's New American Empire, an Empire in which the US Constitution has been turned into a dead letter.

posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 09:30:00 AM

Post Bush Sunday speech headlines:

• USA Today: Don't Give Up
• Daily News (Los Angeles): Don't Give In
• Los Angeles Times: Bush Urges Patience for Iraq Mission
• New York Times(NY & Nat'l editions): Asking Patience, Bush Cites Progress in Iraq

Hardly an enthusiastic response.


posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2005 08:39:00 AM

How many people knew about the spying and told the New York Times?

Here are some interesting lines from the initial New York Times story about NSA spying on US citizens without court approval.

• Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say
• Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
• According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters.
• While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time.
• Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search.
• One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the legality of the program.
• A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation.
• Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A.
• A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said.
• One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court.
• Several national security officials say the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act, which is up for renewal.

Now many of these officials were probably contacted after the initial disclosure to the newspaper, but there is a sense when reading the article that a lot of mid-level professionals were troubled by the program. And may have talked.


posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2005 06:24:00 PM

The Sunbaked King:




posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2005 05:34:00 PM

Weren't you paying attention at the time?




posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2005 11:20:00 AM

Brazen it out:

That's the White House policy in reaction to the exposure of NSA spying on US citizens. They have no other choice.


posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2005 08:41:00 AM

Huh?



UPDATE/CORRECTION: Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the head of the NSA. Uggabugga regrets the error.


posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2005 02:20:00 PM

Bush: Democrats get the same amount of money from crooks

10 Jan 2002

"I got to know Ken Lay when he was head of the — what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994."

FACT: Mr. Lay and his wife gave Mr. Bush three times more money than Ms. Richards in their gubernatorial contest.

14 December 2005

"Abramoff — I'm frankly, not all that familiar with a lot that's going on up there on Capitol Hill. But it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

FACT: According to campaign finance reports, Abramoff and his clients contributed money to Democrats but substantially more to Republicans.

Bush is trying to sell the notion that both parties are equally at fault. And he might succeed. A recent NBC poll had 72% of Americans holding that position. Which isn't that surprising when you have "reporters" like Jeffrey Birnbaum saying things like:

"... now Abramoff was a very big Republican lobbyist but he also headed a whole lobbying shop in a law firm that included Democratic lobbyists as well and it looks like the public, so far at least, is not branding one party or the other as most responsible for this decline in the proper way of dealing with money and politics on Capitol Hill."

posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2005 09:14:00 AM

Der Sturmer 2.0



Essay here.


posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2005 11:24:00 AM

Washington Post to change "identification" of Froomkin's column:

Before:

After:

For more see firedoglake and TPM (1,2,3,4)


posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2005 09:34:00 AM

WIBA sells name of its newsroom to a business:

Story: (excerpts, emp add)

Beginning Jan. 1, the WIBA newsroom will be called the Amcore Bank News Center.

"This simply means they get 'name branding' with the description of the news center on air," confirmed Jeff Tyler, vice president of Clear Channel Radio-Madison, which owns WIBA-AM 1310 and FM 101.5. "What listeners will hear on air is something like, 'Now from the Amcore Bank News Center, here's WIBA's Jennifer Miller.'"

Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics trainer for the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., opposed the plan. "The idea is that a newsroom is an advocate for the public," McBride said. "It's Madison's news, not Amcore's news. If you have corporate branding, that is going to taint the whole product as a marketing product."

But James Baughman, professor and director of UW- Madison's School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said he's not disturbed by the sale. He said it's a return to broadcast practices of the 1950s, a topic he's exploring for his next book.

"From 1948 to 1956 the NBC nightly news was the Camel News Caravan," said Baughman. The name was tied to a cigarette manufacturer. "They even had a rule that they would not show a cigar or a 'no smoking' sign on air, although they made an exception for Winston Churchill."

Baughman said naming rights are part of a broader media trend. "Clear Channel is trying to maximize its profits. Advertisers are trying to find new ways of getting their brand out there. We're going to be seeing more of this."

And Tyler said the high cost of producing quality news necessitates such an arrangement.

Baughman's citation of Camel cigarettes makes exactly the point: That explicit corporate ties to the news will affect what is broadcast. And a professor of journalism isn't disturbed by that?

And as to having to do it in order to produce "quality news" - they've got a property (radio frequency) from the government in exchange for serving the public interest. That (broadcasting quality news) is a cost of having the monopoly, and should not be treated like any other entertainment programming.


posted by Quiddity at 12/13/2005 01:05:00 PM

Real estate madness:

Via the excellent economics blog, Calculated Risk, we learned of a story* (in the comments for CR's thoughtful GDP Growth: With and Without Mortgage Extraction). Here is a summary: (excerpts, emp add)

Buy, Borrow, Buy
Couple uses leverage to build an empire of eight vacation properties

Sacco estimates that along with McCook's mother, who has been a silent partner, they've made $1.3 million since they began their buying spree, but all of this is still in equity on their properties. Their monthly reality is more sobering. They have $2.3 million in mortgage debt and negative cash flow that ranges from $5,000 to $15,000 monthly depending on the season.

So how do they pay the bills?

"We sort of count our equity loans as our income," she says, with the slightest wince. "If we had real jobs, we'd be fine, but we just need to get some money in. Some people call it a pyramid, but I don't like to think about it that way."

Surreal financing? Bubble economics? Perhaps. But it's also the way people are increasingly approaching real estate: as a bet that in the long run can't be beat.

Yeah!

In any event, be sure to read CR's GDP Growth: With and Without Mortgage Extraction - and study the chart. Are the good times ending soon?

[* - story link is to 'current' for the author and will change over time]


posted by Quiddity at 12/10/2005 03:28:00 PM

Krauthammer isn't making sense:

Krauthammer pens an article in the Weekly Standard defending torture. Andrew Sullivan disagrees and writes in the New Republic. All very interesting. But let's examine Krauthammer a little bit. He says: (excerpts)

... there is the ordinary soldier caught on the field of battle. There is no question that he is entitled to humane treatment. Indeed, we have no right to disturb a hair on his head.

... there is the captured terrorist. A terrorist is by profession, indeed by definition, an unlawful combatant: He lives outside the laws of war because he does not wear a uniform, he hides among civilians, and he deliberately targets innocents. He is entitled to no protections whatsoever.

[In one hypothetical situation] the issue of torture gets complicated and the easy pieties don't so easily apply. Let's take the textbook case. Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking.

... in this case ... torture is permissible

QUESTION FOR KRAUTHAMMER: What do you do if an ordinary uniformed soldier from a hostile country is captured and you believe he knows where his country has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City?

Torture or no?


posted by Quiddity at 12/08/2005 08:46:00 AM

Joe Lieberman - helping Bush on Iraq:

From Bush's first Iraq speech (of the series leading up to the Dec 15 elections) - Nov 30 (emp add)

As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."

Senator Lieberman is right.

From Bush's second Iraq speech - Dec 7 (emp add)

One of those who has seen that progress is Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has traveled to Iraq four times in the past 17 months, and the article he wrote when he returned from his most recent trip provides a clear description of the situation on the ground. Here's what Senator Lieberman wrote -- Senator Lieberman wrote about the Iraq he saw: "Progress is visible and practical. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraq hands than before." He describes an Iraqi poll showing that, "two-thirds [of Iraqis] say they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein."

Senator Lieberman goes on, "Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years." The Senator says that mistakes have been made. But he goes on to say that he is worried about a bigger mistake. He writes, "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory." Senator Lieberman is right.

posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2005 11:13:00 AM

Wow!

Check out the Oliphant cartoon for this Tuesday.


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2005 06:37:00 AM

Translation:

In yesterday's Danziger cartoon, we see: (our highlighting in red)

In the lower right corner are the words: "y tengo intenciones de usarlo" which translates (via AltaVista) to:

"and I have intentions to use it"


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2005 06:27:00 AM

Logic for fools:

In the Cheney speech (post below), he says:

"Some have suggested by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq in September 2001 and the terrorists hit us anyway."

The "logic":

A = U.S. in Iraq
B = Terrorists hit (9/11)

Given that not-A && B is True   =>   A && not-B is True

In other words, having the U.S. in Iraq means no terrorist attacks

That's a joke. It's like saying:

You (dear reader) were not doing X (e.g. combing your hair) and Something Bad Happened. Therefore, if you do X, you shall avoid Something Bad.

This administration uses these silly arguments, and variants thereof, all of the time.


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2005 03:52:00 AM

Still at the military bases & making nice with Lieberman:

From the AP: (excerpts, emp add)

FORT DRUM, N.Y. - Vice President Dick Cheney told military troops Tuesday that terrorists can win in Iraq only "if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission." He rejected calls for a speedy drawdown of troops.

With snow falling outside, Cheney spoke in a cavernous aviation hangar on this base in northern New York, addressing an audience that base officials put at around 3,000.

Cheney addressed a rally attended by the Army's 10th Mountain Division and the Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division, drawing frequent cheers and shouts.

Cheney praised recent comments by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who was his vice presidential opponent in the 2000 election, suggesting that too hasty a U.S. withdrawal would erase nearly all the progress made by the United States in Iraq and the Middle East.

Lieberman, at a news conference in Washington, urged support for Bush. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander in chief for three more years," Lieberman said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Got that? Lieberman says support Bush, no matter what, because he's the prez. And don't you dare undermine the liar's credibility or you will be putting the nation at peril (i.e. be a traitor).

Prediction: Lieberman will be defeated when he runs for re-elect.


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2005 03:42:00 AM

Good for the party:




posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2005 04:05:00 AM

Strictly for hygienic reasons:

DEFENSELINK: (excerpts, emp add)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29, 2005 – The decision by U.S. soldiers to burn the bodies of two enemy Afghan fighters was an act of poor judgment, but not a violation of the laws of war, U.S. officials have determined.

Officials also determined that using the act to incite Taliban fighters by announcing it over psychological operations loudspeakers was a separate act. In all, four soldiers have received administrative punishment in the two incidents.

Coalition forces know the location as an area of enemy activity, officials said. A Sept. 30 engagement killed two enemy fighters, and local citizens had not retrieved the bodies 24 hours later. An officer on the ground decided it best to burn the bodies for hygienic reasons.

That's why they did it, for hygienic reasons, including the fact that they were deliberately burned while "facing west" and not Mecca. Killed those west-facing microbes, don't you know.


posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2005 02:29:00 AM

Jeffrey Birnbaum of the Washington Post is not a reporter:

From Friday's (2 Dec) Washington Week in Review: (emp add)

TOPIC: Congressional scandals

Ms. CONNOLLY: You know, Jeff, we've certainly seen any number of politicians go down under similar scandals--financial scandals--Speakers Wright and Gingrich. Can you sense, at this point, if there is one political party or one particular category of politician on Capitol Hill that's going to pay a price for this or is it all of them?

Mr. BIRNBAUM: Well, it's--we need to point out, I think, that there are a number--there are a whole host of lawmakers who are under scrutiny by the Justice Department and others related to another name we haven't mentioned, Jack Abramoff, who is a lobbyist--a former lobbyist now--but who is being looked at for bilking Indian tribes of upwards of $80 million and using a lot of that money improperly. He was a former partner of Michael Scanlon, the fellow who I mentioned before.

But now Abramoff was a very big Republican lobbyist but he also headed a whole lobbying shop in a law firm that included Democratic lobbyists as well and it looks like the public, so far at least, is not branding one party or the other as most responsible for this decline in the proper way of dealing with money and politics on Capitol Hill. There have been a variety of polls that show that.

Birnbaum did not do what a reporter should do, report the facts. Instead of saying that Republicans are the overwhelming number of figures convicted of, or under investigation for, corruption, he tells the viewers what the public perception is.

A total disgrace.


posted by Quiddity at 12/05/2005 10:32:00 AM

Sherlock Holmes: "The curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident."

Today:

"The curious incident of the candidates in the lead up to the December elections in Iraq."

"The candidates have done nothing leading up to the elections," you say.

"That is the curious incident."

Okay, enough fancy talk. Have you read anything at all about the campaigns for the December 15 election? Any speeches? Any political ads? Anything at all?

Extremely odd.


posted by Quiddity at 12/04/2005 08:32:00 AM

What a mess!

On Friday, ABC's Nightline was billed as a Big Event. A discussion in Iraq with Iraqis about the state of affairs. I certainly sounded promising, but hope quickly shifted to dismay.

Host Terry Moran started out by saying that they could only have the discussion in the Green Zone, and then showed video of the zone from two years earlier - while saying that the situation had deteriorated since then. Also, the television set-up was in a bunker, reinforced with blast walls. Several invited guests were unable to get into the Green Zone. U.S. civilian and military were invited, but declined to participate.

In any event, the discussion was with 12 Iraqi participants. Here is the list:

• Wafa Kareem (f) - student
• Maha Ahmed (f) - student
• Arouba Said (f) - student
• Dr. Jama Taha - Yarmouk Hospital
• Dr. Haider Abed - Yarmouk Hospital
• Bassen al-Fadli - TV anchor, al-Iraqiya
• Zainab Hussein (f) - Los Angeles Times
• Mowaffak al-Rubaie - Iraq Nat'l. Security Advisor
• Laith Kubba - Iraqi Gov't. Spokesman
• Col. Ali Abu al-Hassan - Deputy Commander Wolf Brigade
• Adnan Pachachi - Former President Iraqi Governing Council
• Nesreem Sadiq Barwari (f) - Iraqi Public Works Minister

So, 3 students, 2 doctors, 2 media, and 5 Iraqi government (current & former).

But wait! What's that guy, Bassen al-Fadli - TV anchor for al-Iraqiya - all about? From CNN: 28 November 2003

U.S.-funded Iraqi network challenges Arab stations

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- One of the chief U.S. weapons in the battle to win Iraqi hearts and minds is Al-Iraqiya -- a Pentagon-funded TV station with an optimistic, pro-American slant.

Announcers on Al-Iraqiya, which reaches 85 percent of Iraqis, decry the guerrillas attacking U.S. military and Iraqi civilian targets as "terrorists."

ABC did not make the viewer aware of the nature of al-Iraqia.

In any event, how about that mix of guests? Half are Iraqi government, or aligned with it. Who knows about the person identified as "Los Angeles Times". Leaving 5 civilians.

Nightline viewers were not given a realistic snapshot of Iraqi attitudes. (Probably doesn't matter since the interview clips were short.)   We should point out that Nightline did manage to catch a few words from "outsider", and presumably spokesman for the insurgents in some way, Saleh al-Mutlaq of the Iraqi Nat'l. Dialogue Council.

The overall impression we got from this Nightline special was that things are really falling apart in Iraq.


posted by Quiddity at 12/03/2005 05:21:00 AM

Very sad: (From Grand Rapids television station WOOD, channel 8)

Two Marines from West Michigan killed in Iraq

(Update, Fallujah, Iraq, December 2, 2005, 6:40 p.m.) Ten U.S. Marines were killed Thursday in Fallujah, Iraq by what the military calls an improvised explosive device, or IED, a roadside bomb made from several large artillery shells. Two of the casualties were from West Michigan.

A family member tells 24 Hour News 8 that U.S. Marine Lance Corporal David Huhn of Portland was one of those killed. The 24-year-old enlisted in the military in February 2004 and arrived in Iraq this summer. He was to return home in January and planned to make the military a career.

A spokesperson for Huhn's family says the Portland High School graduate liked to fish and play video games, and enjoyed watching movies starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro.

A second of those Marines was from Branch County. Twenty-year-old Craig Watson was a graduate of Union City High School. Watson played on the football and wrestling teams at the school.

Students at Union City High had planned to send a Christmas care package to Watson, and the sixth-grade class had "adopted" him and was preparing to send letters.

Teachers in each of the school's classes read a statement Friday morning announcing Watson's death.

David "liked to fish and play video games".

What else can you say?


posted by Quiddity at 12/02/2005 09:48:00 PM

Divider, not a uniter:

From the Washington Post: (excerpts, emp add)

An Offering of Detail But No New Substance

By Peter Baker

... yesterday the president tried to reassure the nation that he has a comprehensive vision for beating the insurgency and eventually bringing U.S. troops home.

The latest speech won Bush few converts in Washington, with opposition leaders rushing out critiques, in some cases even before he had finished speaking in Annapolis.

[Bush] summoned a leading Democrat to his own defense, citing an op-ed article opposing timetables for withdrawal that was written by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), who ran for vice president on the ticket opposing Bush in 2000 and lost his bid for the party's presidential nomination to challenge Bush in 2004. In doing so, the White House hoped to turn the tables on the Democrats. "What it does is highlight a split within the Democratic Party," said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2005 10:49:00 AM

MTV.com is making a list ...

and checking it twice.

Seriously though, they have a list of Bush stumbles for the last twelve months. Good as a reference.


posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2005 10:26:00 AM

Shorter David Broder:

The Democrats in Congress had a rough couple of years (in 1993-4). During the eleven years since then, the Republicans controlling Congress haven't done well either.

A Pox on Both Parties!

posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2005 03:04:00 AM

Examining Bush's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

Did you read the 35-page paper (PDF) that the White House released on Wednesday? We did, and thought we'd pass along some thoughts.

First of all, it felt light in content and repetitive. And that's because it was! The table below shows the structure of the National Strategy. Note how much is spent summarizing, presenting an overview, and talking about objectives, status, assumptions and logic. That's a lot of padding!

major section	section	sub-section	words
executive summary			1051
strategic overview			4224
strategy in detail	intro		64
	political track	assumptions	237
		strategic logic	308
		progress	897
		continued challenges	149
	security track	assumptions	198
		strategic logic	395
		progress	787
		continued challenges	213
	economic track	assumptions	195
		strategic logic	290
		progress	447
		continued challenges	320
organization for victory	8 pillars	overview	604
appendix: 8 pillars	defeat terrorists	strategic objective	70
		status	106
		lines of action	97
	transition to self-reliance	strategic objective	25
		status	94
		lines of action	114
	forge national compact	strategic objective	27
		status	100
		lines of action	156
	build government capacity	strategic objective	25
		status	134
		lines of action	117
	strengthen economy	strategic objective	22
		status	128
		lines of action	119
	strengthen rule of law	strategic objective	44
		status	143
		lines of action	158
	increase int'l support	strategic objective	25
		status	171
		lines of action	109
	strengthen public understanding	strategic objective	51
		status	122
		lines of action	136
TOTAL			12672

More generally, the breakdown is like this:

what	words
executive summary	1051
strategic overview	4224
assumptions	630
strategic logic	993
progress	2131
continued challenges	682
strategic objective(s)	289
status(es)	998
lines of action	1006
misc	668
TOTAL	12672

The substantive part that everybody is interested in, is a plan for action. Which is found in the "lines of action" sections, which are all in the apendix (!), and is 8% of the overall document.

Graphically, the proportion is shown in red:

Now, what's in that red section? It's worthwhile to take a look at everything they put out - even if it is 1000 words. Here is the "hard" plans for action. Note how vague they are in many cases. (E.g. "Helping to build national institutions that transcend regional and sectarian interests" - sounds great, but what's actually taking place to do it? They don't say.)

• Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
  • Staying on the offensive by aiding the Iraqi government to eliminate enemy safe havens and hunt down members of terrorist cells and key enemy leaders
  • Facilitating the establishment of effective local governance and security elements to ensure postconflict stability and security
  • Assisting Iraqi authorities to suppress foreign fighter infiltration and denying terrorists freedom of movement
  • Working with the Iraqi government to disrupt enemy financial networks
  • Helping the Iraqis to harden, build redundancy, and protect critical infrastructure
• Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
  • Helping to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, military, and police, so they can combat terrorist and other enemy activity and maintain a secure environment in Iraq
  • Assisting in the development of Iraq's security ministries to control, manage, and sustain the Iraqi security forces and assume greater responsibility for the security of the state
  • Increasing the Iraqi government's capability to protect its key economic infrastructure, control its borders, and deny entry to foreign fighters and violent extremists
  • Improving the Iraqi government's intelligence capability to augment security force efforts and to protect national interests
• Help Iraqis Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government
  • Supporting Iraqi leaders in their quest to bring all Iraqis into the political process, through dialogue and the creation of inclusive institutions
  • Offering advice and technical support on elections and effective governance
  • Helping to build national institutions that transcend regional and sectarian interests
  • Helping the Iraqis replace the corrupt and centralized system of Saddam's regime with effective government bodies at the local, provincial, and national levels
  • Assisting with the design and implementation of civic outreach and education programs to help Iraqi citizens understand their rights and responsibilities in a democratic system
  • Promoting transparency in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government
  • Supporting efforts by the Iraqi Transitional Government and successor governments to develop effective and legitimate institutions for legislation, law enforcement, the administration of justice, and the equitable administration of all public services
• Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
  • Rehabilitating critical infrastructure in the production and distribution of fuels and electric power as well as training engineers to maintain and operate this infrastructure
  • Supporting and strengthening the nascent institutions of public utilities and regulatory agencies
  • Rehabilitating water and sanitation infrastructure to provide safe drinking water and reducing the transmission of water-borne disease
  • Building and rehabilitating health care facilities, with a focus on impoverished neighborhoods and communities
  • Rehabilitating schools, providing new textbooks, computers and materials, and training teachers and school administrative staff
  • Encouraging international donors to expand infrastructure and capacity-building efforts through prompt disbursement of pledges
• Help Iraq Strengthen Its Economy
  • Helping Iraq to improve its fiscal management and transparency
  • Encouraging pro-market oriented reform and the achievement of a stable macroeconomic environment
  • Supporting the development and implementation of laws and institutions that encourage sustained economic growth
  • Encouraging the removal of regulations and termination of practices that obstruct private sector growth in Iraq
  • Providing technical assistance to aid the rapid improvement of Iraq's business climate and Iraq's accession to the World Trade Organization
  • Assisting the Iraqi government in strengthening its banking and financial system
  • Supporting the revitalization of agriculture and other productive sectors to diversify a single-resource-based economy
• Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
  • Promoting an independent, unbiased, and ethical court system through technical assistance and training of prosecutors, attorneys, and judges
  • Assisting in the enhancement of security for judges trying insurgent and terrorist cases
  • Providing support to the Iraqi Special Tribunal as it investigates and prosecutes crimes committed by the former regime
  • Advising the Ministry of Justice in the development of a centralized organization for the management and oversight of a fair and efficient national correctional system
  • Assisting in the establishment of safe and secure correctional facilities for the care, custody, and treatment of persons incarcerated in the Iraqi correctional system
  • Establishing an anti-major crimes task force, with FBI agents and other U.S. officials aiding their Iraqi counterparts during investigations of terrorist attacks and assassinations
  • Promoting a climate for national reconciliation through fair, effective, and independent judicial institutions
• Increase International Support for Iraq
  • Encouraging NATO's continued participation in Iraq
  • Maximizing international donor reconstruction assistance and the numbers of partners committed to the rebuilding of Iraq, particularly by helping Iraq seek prompt disbursement of previous pledges and forgiveness of debt
  • Encouraging further UN involvement in Iraq
  • Emphasizing the importance of Syrian cooperation with the Iraqi government, including the interdiction of foreign fighters trying to cross the border
  • Fostering lasting relationships between Iraq, regional partners, and neighboring countries to promote greater levels of cooperation and security within Iraq and within the Middle East
• Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents
  • Communicating with the Iraqi public through information programs and civic education campaigns
  • Providing technical assistance and training to support a free, independent, and responsible Iraqi media (including television, radio, and print) that delivers high-quality content and responsible reporting throughout Iraq
  • With our international partners, working to help the Iraqi Government develop the ability and capacity to communicate with its citizens in a professional, effective, and open manner
  • Encouraging Iraqis to participate in the political process, including the referendum on the constitution and national elections in December 2005, through a wide variety of civic education and public communications tools
  • Informing Iraqis about the progress of reconstruction, security, and infrastructure on the national, regional, and local level

There's nothing specific. Shouldn't that have been part of the report?


posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2005 02:20:00 AM

What Max Boot doesn't tell you:

In a LATimes OpEd, White flag Democrats, Max Boot takes the Democrats to task over their position(s) on the Iraq War. As part of his argument, he writes:

... it wasn't George W. Bush who said, "I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again." It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998.

And then he moves on to other things to say.

But what was going on, on December 16, 1998? From CNN: (emp add)

President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

[...]

The international community had little doubt then [first Gulf War], and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Max Boot doesn't tell you what Clinton was doing, and why, back in December 1998. Hussein was being "checked" with the limited air strikes. Also, and more importantly, Hussein was not cooperating with UNSCOM. But in 2003 he was cooperating, and the logic Clinton presented no longer applied.

It gets tiresome having to deal with the dishonest behavior of right-wing pundits, but that's the environment we live in today.

UPDATE: Busy, Busy, Busy has more.


posted by Quiddity at 11/30/2005 02:18:00 PM

Still hiding behind the military:

We were curious about Bush's speech today about immigration policy. So we went to the White House website, and there it was. But where was Bush speaking? At an Air Force base.

Bush has tended to give speeches about the Iraq War (and terrorism) at military facilities. But immigration?

And Bush will continue in this pattern. His next speech is set to be at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Here is an update of a table we created earlier, showing significant public events, highlighting those that have taken place in front of a military audience (incl. veterans) - where you can be damn sure they won't bother their Commander in Chief.

date	what	where
November 30, 2005	(planned) Major speech about the Iraq War	U.S. Naval Academy
November 28, 2005	President Discusses Border Security and Immigration Reform in Arizona	Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
November 19, 2005	President Addresses Troops at Osan Air Base in Osan, Korea	Osan Air Base
November 14, 2005	President Delivers Remarks at Elmendorf AFB on War on Terror	Elmendorf AFB
November 11, 2005	President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror	Tobyhanna Army Depot
October 28, 2005	President Discusses War on Terror	Chrysler Hall, Norfolk, Virginia (invitation-only)
October 25, 2005	President Addresses Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' Luncheon	Bolling Air Force Base
October 25, 2005	President Addresses Republican National Committee Dinner	Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium (Republican political)
October 13, 2005	President Addresses U.S. Troops in Iraq in Video Teleconference	To troops in Iraq
October 6, 2005	President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy	Ronald Reagan Building
October 4, 2005	President Holds Press Conference	The Rose Garden
September 22, 2005	President Discusses War on Terror and Hurricane Preparation	The Pentagon
September 21, 2005	President's Remarks at Republican Jewish Coalition 20th Anniversary	Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium
September 16, 2005	President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance Service	Washington National Cathedral
September 9, 2005	President Remembers 9/11 Heroes at Medal of Valor Award Ceremony	The South Lawn
August 28, 2005	President Discusses Hurricane Katrina, Congratulates Iraqis on Draft Constitution	Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford, Texas
August 24, 2005	President Addresses Military Families, Discusses War on Terror	Idaho Center, Nampa, Idaho
August 22, 2005	President Honors Veterans of Foreign Wars at National Convention	Salt Palace Convention Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
August 3, 2005	President Discusses Second Term Accomplishments and Priorities	Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center
July 11, 2005	President Discusses War on Terror at FBI Academy	FBI Academy
June 28, 2005	President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror	Fort Bragg, North Carolina
June 9, 2005	President Discusses Patriot Act	Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy
May 31, 2005	President's Press Conference	The Rose Garden
May 27, 2005	President Discusses War on Terror at Naval Academy Commencement	Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium

What a man!

NOTE: Almost all events prior to mid-May were on Social Security (with filtered audiences). But then that's what you do when you are a con man.


posted by Quiddity at 11/28/2005 10:39:00 PM

The Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute:

What is this? Never heard of it before. Sure, heard about Claire Boothe Luce, spouse of Henry Robinson Luce, publisher of Time magazine, and generally regarded as conservative.

Conservative, but not extreme.

But the CBL Policy Institute is another matter. They're nuts. From their website's front page:

Bring a Conservative Woman Speaker to Your School!

Campus by campus, the word is getting out. One of the best ways to bring a balance to issue debates on your campus is to sponsor a Luce speaker like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bay Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly or any of our other outstanding conservative women leaders.

"balance"?

Here is an example of what they do. From the the Hartford Advocate: (10 Nov '05) (emp add)

[The UConn College Republicans have] announced who their next sponsored speaker will be Ann Coulter. She'll be at UConn on Dec. 8.

The funding to bring Coulter to UConn was procured by the College Republicans through the school's Undergraduate Student Government, the USG. Typically, the USG will only approve $10,000 in expenditures to bring a speaker to campus, but last month the Daily Campus reported that USG senators voted 14 to 11 (with three abstentions) to approve the just over $16,000 needed for Coulter's appearance. USG money comes from students, who pay into an account controlled by the USG, which uses the money to fund student organizations.

"It is a lot [of money] but USG has funded $10,000 before, for much lesser-known speakers," says Emily Salisbury, the executive director of the UConn College Republicans. "Since she is such a huge name, $16,000 is such a steal."

Coulter's standard appearance cost is around $30,000. Coulter's price was discounted thanks to the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute, a program that helps student groups bring conservative women speakers to campuses.

So, all students, not just the College Republicans, are paying for Coulter, with help from the CBLPI. Nice!

And what has Coulter on her mind these days? From her most recent column: (emp add)

New idea for Abortion Party: Aid the enemy

• In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
• It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents ...
• The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
• There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.
• They fill the airwaves with treason ...
• [T]hey are gutless traitors.

This is pure crap, and we don't normally bother with it, but were surprised to see that Coulter was being paid good money to smear Democrats, with a "policy institute" helping along.

[NOTE: Editor & Publisher took note of Coulter's remarks.]


posted by Quiddity at 11/26/2005 08:35:00 PM

Light holiday shopping?

Yes, there are the news stories about the crowds in the early hours, but when we checked around the Los Angeles area during the morning (9:30 a.m.) and evening (7:00 p.m.) the parking lots were hardly full, and in a couple of stores, there was less foot traffic than on a typical Sunday. But that's only a limited sample set.

It will be very interesting too see exactly what the shopping volume will be for this Thanksgiving weekend.


posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2005 08:22:00 PM

The Church of Stop Shopping:

GO!


posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2005 03:22:00 AM

What's wrong with the term "revisionism"? (or revisionist)

From the dictionary:

revisionism -

1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.
2. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position.

Forget the second definition. It's no longer operative, in the same way that Whig and Tory have shed their origins:

Originally “Whig” and “Tory” were terms of abuse introduced in 1679 during the heated struggle over the bill to exclude James, duke of York (afterward James II), from the succession. Whig—whatever its origin in Scottish Gaelic—was a term applied to horse thieves and, later, to Scottish Presbyterians; it connoted nonconformity and rebellion and was applied to those who claimed the power of excluding the heir from the throne. Tory was an Irish term suggesting a papist outlaw and was applied to those who supported the hereditary right of James despite his Roman Catholic faith. [Encyclopædia Britannica]

Cheney and others are beating the drum "accusing" some folks of revisionism. But there has been a whole lot more learned about the politics and intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. Revisionism is therefore appropriate and, in fact, mandatory.


posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2005 10:22:00 AM

Having it both ways:

Inside the United States:

Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq, but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the global war on terror are held. [USA Today 2004]

Outside the United States:

... the administration also claims a technical loophole: Since the Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners outside the United States, the administration argues that by the Senate's standard, the CIA can use cruel and inhuman methods on foreign detainees held abroad. [WaPo Editorial 2005]

NOTE: The assertion that Guantanamo is part of the U.S. and therefore exempt from foreign treaties (e.g. Geneva) was made again about a week ago. That, in conjunction with today's WaPo editorial, was what motivated this post. Alas, we can't find that particular report, and have used the older USA Today story as a substitute.


posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2005 09:53:00 AM

What are Ohioans saying about Jean Schmidt?

Here are excerpts from recent editorials:

Cincinnati Enquirer:

Schmidt's remarks over the top

Schmidt was way out of line. Not only was she factually wrong about Murtha, her remark was a clear breach of decorum in the House, where members are not supposed to stoop to personal insult.

While we agree with Schmidt that it would be wrong to simply withdraw all our troops from Iraq, we cannot support her tone or insinuation that those opposed to this controversial policy are cowards or unpatriotic.

When we endorsed Schmidt for Congress, we knew she was conservative, strong-willed and direct. Those remain admirable qualities, but they must be tempered by fairness and a respect for the views and experiences of others.

Cincinnati Post:

In [her] inaugural speech in the House floor, Schmidt declared, "It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime.''

It took Schmidt less than three months to expose herself as a hypocrite.

For the sake of efficiency, perhaps Schmidt and another of the region's freshmen in Congress, Geoff Davis from Northern Kentucky, ought to call a joint press conference. Davis has been indulging in much the same line of attack against critics of the administration's Iraq policy, though it hasn't been quite as personal.

Davis told reporters that he views calls for an immediate pullout as "shameful'' and implied that Murtha and those who support him are working on behalf of al-Qaida.

Good grief.

We've arrived at a point in our politics where a 31-year veteran of Congress - a former Marine colonel who served in Korea and Vietnam, who holds a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry - cannot stand up and say what many Americans believe without being called a coward by someone who hasn't served a day in uniform and not even three months in Congress. Where anyone who tries to bring up a principled debate on a withdrawal strategy risks being branded by the likes of Geoff Davis as a feckless traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

By the way, Democrats would be wise to make the charge that Republicans are calling decorated veterans cowards. Don't limit the scope by saying Schmidt is doing the name calling. You can be damn sure that if a single Democrat said something out of line, the Republican talking point would be that Democrats are at fault.


posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2005 08:26:00 PM

O.T. - Writer's Block website:

There is a cool (Canadian) website that has a section devoted to writing tips for Punctuation, Word Usage, Writing Style, and more. Nothing heavy.

And one other thing. In the section, Placement of Punctuation and Quotation Marks, we read: (emp add)

In the American style, periods and commas are always placed inside the quotation marks, for typographical reasons. In the British style, periods and commas are placed inside the quotation marks only when they are part of the quoted material, which is the more logical placement.

The Canadian style for quotation marks usually follows the American style for appearance and placement of periods and commas. Some Canadian publishers, however, use the British style. Others employ a combination of the two styles.

In a literary work, we recommend the American style of always placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks. In a technical or legal work, where accuracy is essential, we recommend the British practice of placing periods and commas within quotation marks only when they are part of the quoted material.

We've always tended to use the British style in our thinking, but when it came to writing, weren't consistent - mostly because we were aware of the American style "rules". It always seemed strange to put a comma inside a quote. The quote was, to our mind, a single component, not to be tampered with. The webpage says that the American style was adopted for typographical reasons. What's are they talking about?

Anyhow, from now on, this weblog will adhere to the British usage of punctuation when using quotes. (But will use the American style double-quotes, even though single quotes look cleaner, and don't require using the SHIFT key.)


posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2005 07:27:00 PM

Forget "Merry Christmas," there's a bigger outrage:

You've read (in Political Animal) all about the campaign by conservatives to "Save Merry Christmas". O'Reilly is the most pugnacious, but there are others, and an organization, the Committee to Save Merry Christmas is out there "to preserve the culture and tradition."

Sorry folks, but saying Merry Christmas is punk. Merry Christmas isn't the traditional greeting that should be defended. We should band together, fight "Happy Holidays" and "Merry Christmas," and demand the exclusive use of a sadly discarded greeting:

Joyous Noël

With the umlaut!

[ADDENDUM: There is a weird webpage (Google cached) that takes a humorous look at the common winter holidays.]


posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2005 11:02:00 AM

The White House does not have its act together:

On the network morning shows this Monday, they opened with news about Bush returning from his Asia trip. The news reader for NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America both said that Bush hadn't accomplished anything on the trip. Another flub for Bush, you might say. But it didn't have to be that way. In Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, he writes that when leaders meet, it's not to do much actual negotiation, but to have a ceremony to ratify an agreed-upon statement or treaty. Did Bush have anything like that during his trip? Here is a list of Asia-trip-related events from the White House website. See if you can spot the "accomplishments":

President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Joint Statement Between Mongolia and the United States of America
President Meets with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
President Meets with President Hu of the People's Republic of China
President's Remarks to the Travel Pool in China
President Attends Church Service at Gangwashi Church in Beijing, China
President Addresses Troops at Osan Air Base in Osan, Korea
President Bush Meets with President Putin of Russia
Fact sheet APEC Summit 2005
President and President Roh Discuss Strong U.S.-Korean Alliance
Joint Declaration on the ROK-U.S. Alliance and Peace on the Korean Peninsula
Joint Vision Statement on the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership
President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Kyoto, Japan
President and Prime Minister of Japan Discuss Strong Relationship

Besides talk, there are three items that could possibly be meaningful: Joint Statement between Mongolia and the United States, whatever is buried in the Fact Sheet for the APEC SUMMIT 2005, and the ASEAN-US Joint Vision Statement.

Aside from numerous pledges to "work together" and "cooperate", the Joint Statement contains this earth-shaking announcement:

President Bush welcomed Mongolia's support for the Proliferation Security Initiative to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and for its commitment to sign and ratify the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Wow!

What about the APEC SUMMIT, you ask? Take a look at these boffo accomplishments:

• President Bush reiterated his commitment to enhancing both security and prosperity in the APEC region.
• President Bush urged other leaders to join the United States in taking bold action to ensure an ambitious, market-opening outcome for the Doha Development Agenda
• [Intellectual Property Rights] Leaders agreed to build further on this important work in coming years in close consultation with the private sector.
• Leaders agreed with President Bush to take action to facilitate trade and investment, improve transparency and regulatory practices, and simplify administrative procedures. The plan of action, known as the Busan Business Agenda, contains concrete steps to achieve free and open regional trade by establishing a pro-business environment in the Asia-Pacific region.
• [Flu] They agreed to collaborate and cooperate in a transparent and open manner, provide timely and complete reporting of avian influenza cases, undertake early implementation of the revised International Health Regulations, [etc]
• APEC Leaders endorsed U.S. initiatives to lower the threat from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) and ensure the safe handling and trade of radioactive sources that could be used to make "dirty" bombs. Each APEC member committed to undertake a MANPADS Vulnerability Assessment at an international airport by the end of 2006 to identify areas for aviation security improvements ...
• Leaders agreed to respond to the impact of high oil prices by taking action on important supply- and demand-side measures, including: increasing oil production and refining capabilities, maintaining oil stocks to respond to oil supply disruptions, promoting investment in the energy sector, improving the functioning of the global oil market, and promoting energy efficiency and diversification.
• Following on their bold commitments to fight corruption made last year in Santiago, Chile, APEC Leaders agreed to intensify regional cooperation to deny safe haven to officials and individuals guilty of corruption, make the implementation of principles of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) a top priority ...

Aside from the Busan Business Agenda, everything else is vague. And how about the response to high oil prices: "taking action on important supply- and demand-side measures". It's all about oil. No mention of alternative energy sources whatsoever.

The ASEAN-US Joint Vision Statement? Essentially, it's a pledge that the ASEAN countries will be nice to each other, trade fairly, and cooperate on a bunch of stuff. There is nothing specific that has been agreed upon. Instead, we get "Call on the ASEAN Foreign Ministers" to do X, and "Call on the ASEAN Economic Ministers" to do Y. This is mostly concerned with the Asian countries themselves. There is no solid bilateral agreement to be found here.

Whatever. The point is that the White House, and especially the State Department headed by Rice, couldn't come up with even a cosmetic agreement for Bush to sign. And so, when Bush returned from his trip, it was judged a flop.

Does this mean anything? It could mean that the current political mess Bush is in has paralyzed his administration. And that's not altogether a bad thing.


posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2005 09:30:00 AM

Our Iraq solution:

Here's the plan -

• Withdraw troops from Iraq as soon as logistically possible. - That will meet with approval by most Americans.
• Install Ahmed Chalabi as head of the Iraqi government. - Something the PNAC / AEI / Weekly Standard crowd would love to see.
• Pay Haliburton $30 billion to facilitate the transition. - To get Cheney & Co. on board.
• Give Fox News Channel, Limbaugh, and Open Source Media* exclusive rights for covering the glorious withdrawal. - That way, the right-wing media will paint a positive picture (and get big ratings).
• Have top fashion designers create a fabulous new military outfit for the president to wear throughout this process. - In order to satisfy Bush's uniform fetish.
• Send Judy Miller and Bob Woodward to a secret CIA detention facility. - So that we can determine, once and for all, just how effective torture is in extracting information from determined secret-holders. This has nothing to do with an Iraq withdrawal; it's just a crowd-pleaser.
• $100 million to Jack Abramoff. - To organize a never-ending series of golfing trips to Scotland and the Marianas, keeping the Republicans away from the House and Senate (and media) until after the '06 elections.
• Presidential Medals of Freedom for everybody! - With the proviso that recipients take the Tenet Pledge (to remain silent about all Iraq-related decisions). That should eliminate any remaining opposition.
• Put Karen Hughes in charge of a new public awareness campaign. - Slogan: Retreating with Respectability.

* - or whatever they're calling themselves now.


posted by Quiddity at 11/21/2005 07:28:00 AM

$90K per Mongolian:

Obscure news watch: (emp add)

Bush Hailing Mongolia for Support on Iraq

ULAN BATOR, Mongolia - In the wake of congressional unrest over his war policies, President Bush thanked Mongolia on Monday for standing with him in Iraq ...

Bush said Mongolia has stood with the United States as "brothers in the cause of freedom."

... Mongolia ... has provided about 120 Mongolian soldiers in Iraq.

The number is small, but White House officials are quick to point out that, per capita, only two other countries — the United Kingdom and Denmark — have sent more of their soldiers to Iraq.

The Mongolians have been rewarded with $11 million in U.S. aid to improve military forces.

$11,000,000 / 120 = $91,666


posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2005 10:56:00 PM

Using language:

Here is a simple diagram showing how the Washington Post, in their editorial Irresponsible on Iraq, chose to characterize the actions of the Bush administration and its critics:




posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2005 02:39:00 PM

What he said:

In Bob Graham's OpEd in the Washington Post, What I Knew Before the Invasion, he writes: (emp add)

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

That's a key argument against Bush. That there was no information about Iraq's alleged WMD threat (or al Qaeda threat), which had been "independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States." As Larry O'Donnel said over a year ago:

Since when do we go to war based on another country's intelligence?

It was worse than even that. Bush was making claims based, in many cases, not on a country's intelligence, but on reports from a rag-tag bunch of exiles.

In September 2003, Max Cleland wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

Since there was no "operative responsible to the United States" that could affirm any of the claims Bush made, the intelligence was not in any way, "bulletproof."

That's a charge that should be made against Bush. Not lying about the evidence. Not misleading the people (though he did that). But not having any solid evidence.


posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2005 09:42:00 AM

The three who voted YES for immediate pullout:

In the New York Times, we read: (excerpts, emp add)

Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout

Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday as a debate over whether to withdraw American troops from Iraq descended into a fury over President Bush's handling of the war and a leading Democrat's call to bring the troops home.

The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.

"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to an abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.

"You guys are pathetic!" yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Pathetic."

The measure to withdraw the troops failed in a 403-to-3 vote late Friday night.

[...]

The uproar followed days of mounting tension between Republicans and Democrats in which the political debate over the war sharply intensified. With Mr. Bush's popularity dropping in the polls, Democrats have sought anew to portray him as having exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq before the American invasion in 2003. Republicans have countered that Democrats were equally at fault.

The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.

"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha's patriotism.

[...]

House Democrats greeted Mr. Murtha with a standing ovation on Friday as he entered the chamber.

Who voted YES?

Three Democrats:

• Cynthia McKinney - Georgia
• José E. Serrano - New York
• Robert Wexler - Florida

And how about Republicans countering that Democrats are "equally at fault." For what? From the news report, one might conclude that Republicans are saying Democrats are equally at fault for exaggerating the threat. That can't be right. Or have the Republicans now resorted to blaming the Democrats for misleading the public into war? Things are so crazy out there, it just might be the case.

[UPDATE] There is no hidden secret about the three votes. Sorry if anybody was looking for one. It's just that when a news report mentions a vote like this, it's nice to know who was in the extreme minority, and the story often doesn't say. So it's off to the house.gov website to find out, and post on it. Strictly FYI stuff.


posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2005 12:48:00 AM

Strange days:

From the White House's transcript for President Delivers Remarks at Elmendorf AFB on War on Terror:

And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, ... our nation is united.

Isn't that a contradiction? Bush is basically referring to the same issue, the war.

The webpage has this somewhat odd picture:

I, George Bush the Magnificent, command thee to do as I say. Or I shall smite thee with multiple bolts of lightning!

Or words to that effect.


posted by Quiddity at 11/17/2005 11:58:00 AM

Why is Bush in China?

To pose for a "year of the monkey" calendar.

NOTE: Alas, 2004 was the year of the monkey. But it's still a funny concept.


posted by Quiddity at 11/16/2005 07:36:00 PM

Alito will turn the clock back, given the chance:

In the New York Times yesterday, there was a report on Alito's earlier writings. It also mentioned this: (emp add)

Judge Alito wrote that he was "a life-long registered Republican" who had contributed to Republican candidates as well as to the National Conservative Political Action Committee, a pillar of the political movement that grew out of the Goldwater campaign.

He wrote that he was also a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Formed in 1972 to oppose the admission of women to the university, the group moved on to criticize the school's minority admissions, permissive social norms, and religious nondenominational while supporting the selective admission's policies of private student clubs affiliated with the school.

If you didn't know it, you might think that the Concerned Alumni of Princeton was formed to oppose the introduction of women to the university. But that's not the case. From Wikipedia:

In 1969, Princeton University first admitted women as undergraduates.

So the CAoP wanted to undo a policy that was already in place for three years.

Alito was born in 1950; graduated from Princeton in 1972. When did he joing CAoP? We can't find out at the moment, so we can't be sure if he was part of the "return to the time when no women are on campus" movement. But you can bet that he's inclined to reverse already-in-place policies - because of his membership in a group dedicated to excatly that.

Again, some speculation: If he did join CAoP because of its stand on women, it sheds light on his subsequent ruling that women must inform their husbands about a pending abortion. This guy may very well believe that women are second-class citizens.

UPDATE: This joke is making the rounds:

"Q:" How many Concerned Alumni of Princeton does it take to change a light bulb?
"A:" Six - One to change it, and five to sit around and talk about how good the old one was.

posted by Quiddity at 11/16/2005 12:15:00 PM