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

Drawing the line:

We'll watch all sorts politics on television, even Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday. There are problems with those shows, but there is at least a bit of discourse and presentation of a liberal perspective. But we're drawing the line at this:

The Charlie Rose Show
AHMED CHALABI
Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq

For the hour!

How bad will it be? Consider this observation from Slate's Jack Shafer:

Notables who ordinarily shun television talk shows make an exception when the Charlie Rose invitation arrives because he offers them such a big, safe, dark room in which to chat. The show's blackened set, the late hour in which it airs, and Rose's protective style suggest a father lulling a child back to sleep after an early night fright.

Rose conducts the show's business as if the interviews belong to the subjects—not to the host—and that they're free to confide as little as they wish without risking his reprimand as long as they allow him to ask his tortured, show-off, preening questions.

That's bad enough when Rose is interviewing the chairman of Mobil-Exxon. But Chalibi! Scoundrel, crook, manipulator, thief. And with Rose tossing the softest of softball questions.

Forget it.


posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2005 02:12:00 PM

Bush is speaking about Iraq to friendly audiences:

Here is a list of major events over the last six months where Bush was in front of a sizeable crowd. Those where the audience was military or security services is highlighted in yellow.

date	what	where
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
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
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

In virtually every case where the war (in Iraq or "on terror") was discussed, it was with a military audience (and the October 28th event was with a Republican campaign crowd.)

Sure, some of that is to be expected, but the fact that virtually all "war" speeches are to military audiences, indicates a problem with general public support (and also that he's using the military as props).

Question: What was Bush doing prior to mid-May? Spending a lot of time discussing Social Security to selected Bush-friendly audiences.


posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2005 09:04:00 AM

Why are Bush's poll numbers bad?

Everybody is saying that the reason for Bush's bad poll numbers is: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq (Stephanopolous, Russert, et al). But is it?

By any objective standard, the last 12 months in Iraq have been bettern than the previous 12 months. In the previous 12, there was Abu Ghraib, two months where over 130 soldiers were killed, and the Madrid bombing. In the last 12, we've seen two elections and a constitution drafted. So far, the American public as a whole has not been called to sacrifice (with a tax surcharge like Johnson did, or with a draft). Yes, January '05 was deadly (107 killed) and London was hit in the summer, but overall, it's hard to see how anybody could consider the situation in Iraq over the last year to be worse than the previous period.

So what gives?

We think the reason Bush's approval has dropped is due to a number of factors (including Iraq), but that the most significant reason is that Bush doesn't "care about people like me."

Via Majikthise, we learn of a chart/analysis over at Political Arithmetic, which shows a steady decline starting from the beginning of 2005.



What was Bush doing back then? Going on the road to campaign for his proposal to eliminate Social Security.

That's what did him in.

[Katrina and Libby pulled him down further, but he was touching 40% before those events.]


posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2005 11:15:00 AM

Collective punishment:

Last week Pat Robertson said that the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, shouldn't expect the protection of God, now that they voted to replace the school board. Last week Bill O'Reilly said that the citizens of San Francisco, California, shouldn't expect the protection of the U.S. Army, now that they voted (or rather, the city council voted) to keep recruiters off of campuses.

Setting aside the arguments for or against either vote, the fact remains that there were people in both municipalities that actually agreed with Robertson or O'Reilly (about the candidates/issue, not the subsequent lack of protection). Yet both men are calling for punishment of all citizens. That's collective punishment, a subset of collective responsibility. It's a primitive moral code, but not unknown in recent history. From Wikipedia:

Joseph Stalin's mass deportations of several nations of the USSR to remote regions (including the Chechens, Crimean Tatars) or the Nazi atrocities at Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane are examples of collective punishment.

That's the company Robertson and O'Reilly are part of.

NOTE: O'Reilly continues to bang the gong on the topic this morning on his radio show - mostly as an excuse to engage in making fun of gays (e.g. "Their uniform will be fabulous. More leather and less khaki.")


posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2005 10:16:00 AM

Bush's speech today - some observations:

• "Through the generations, [veterans] have humbled dictators and liberated continents and set a standard of courage and idealism for the entire world. This year, 3.5 million veterans celebrate the 60th anniversary of freedom's great victory in World War II."
  Nothing to get too excited about, and not to dismiss the serious issues at play in WII, but history books don't label that war as a fight for "freedom". It was a straightforward states vs. states conflict. Remember, Stalin's Soviet Union was on the side of the good guys, and victory did not result in freedom for millions of people - quite the opposite, in fact.
  
  
• "On this Veterans Day ... we remember the men and women in uniform whose fate is still undetermined -- our prisoners of war and those missing in action."
  There are prisoners of war? Where are they being held? News to us.
  
  
• "I've joined with the veterans groups to call on Congress to protect the flag of the United States in the Constitution of the United States. In June, the House of Representatives voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I urge the United States Senate to pass this important amendment."
  Going to the flag burning amendment at this particular time looks like a desperate move to pull out all the stops in order to gin up patriotic fervor.
  
  
• "At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of the 21st century."
  Oh, that's why we are in Iraq, to "defend our flag". Talk about totemism.
  
  
• "... extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision."
  What's this? Is Bush saying that jihad is okay in general, but that we're battling a mutant form? Odd that he'd frame it that way.
  
  
• "... these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions."
  Clash of Civilizations it is. This it totally in line with neocon thinking.
  
  
• "... the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country -- a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments."
  Okay then. Bush is effectively saying that the U.S. cannot leave. Let's see how the public reacts to that.
  
  
• "... these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."
  Wow, these guys have got to be stopped. Otherwise an empire will rise that spans over half the globe. Aieee!
  
  
• "Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme -- but they should not be dismissed."
  Message: Be scared.
  
  
• "The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They've been sheltered by authoritarian regimes -- allies of convenience like Iran and Syria ..."
  Are we going to see strikes against either of those countries in the next six months? Do we really want to expand the conflict? By Bush's reasoning, it almost has to take place.
  
  
• "Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions in Iraq -- claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001."
  That's Bush Logic for you. Claim that action X has strengthened activity Y is rebutted by the fact the Y already existed.
  
  
• "... in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century." Sounds like Condoleezza Rice's (and other old-guard) thinking here. Setting aside the terrorists, the overwhelming amount of hostile action we're seeing (in Iraq) is anti-occupation. Bush is trying, here and in quotes above, to frame this as a global struggle. It's not convincing.
  
  
• "These militants are not just the enemies of America or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and they are the enemies of humanity."
  If that's so, where is "Islam" on this? What major Islamic figure or state is gearing up to join the U.S. in the fight?
  
  
• "We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call ..."
  It may not be Millenarianism, but it's pretty close.
  
  
• "Our coalition against terror has killed or captured nearly all those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks."
  Where the fuck is Bin Laden???
  
  
• " When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."     "... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."     "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war."     "... more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."... the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges."     "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops ..."     "[The troops] deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them ..."     "Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough."
  Shorter Bush: "You Democrats voted to allow me to go to war and are not allowed to change your position, or you will be letting down the troops."    This was probably the most offensive part of the speech.

It was a very read-meat speech. Pugnacious. Let's see how it wears with the American people. And the Democrats in Congress.


posted by Quiddity at 11/11/2005 02:57:00 PM

Identify the villains by party affiliation:

In a standard-issue news report on the 2005 elections, we read:

Both governors' races were marked by record-breaking spending and vicious personal attacks.

In Virginia, Kilgore's campaign ran an ad claiming Kaine, a death penalty opponent, would have refused to execute Adolf Hitler, while Forrester quoted Corzine's ex-wife as saying he had let down his family and he would let down New Jersey.

What party is Kilgore? Republican.
What party is Forrester? Republican.

Let's be clear what party is behind the "vicious personal attacks". (And yes, if Democrats do it, hold them to account as well.)


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2005 01:24:00 AM

Certain:

We haven't been reading everything on the subject of Avian Flu, but up until now, had the impression that the threat of a pandemic was substantial. Substantial enough to warrant preparations. But nothing was guaranteed to happen.

Not too long ago there was a report in the New York Times which listed reasons why there might not be a human pandemic. Differences between the 1918 Spanish Flu - mostly related to WWI or its aftermath. Technical issues about the virus proteins. Statements to the effect that if it was going to happen, it should have happened by now. So the situation seemed indeterminate.

But today, in an ABC News story about whether or not the flu can be eliminated from poultry (answer: they don't know), we read this line:

Experts agree a global flu epidemic is certain, but it is unknown when that will occur, whether the H5N1 strain will be the culprit or how deadly the pandemic will be.

So, now it's certain. But what does that mean, exactly?

It's virtually certain that from now to eternity there will be one global flu epidemic. They can't mean that. It's gotta be that there will be an epidemic centered around the existing Avian Flu in terms of time and biology. Time, meaning the next couple of years? Biology, meaning something of H5N1 was part of the evolution of the infectious agent.

If that's the case, we are about to witness a major historical event - like one of the top ten in a given century.

Hang on to your hats.

[NOTE: We've referred to it as Avian Flu, but from a quick scan of the news headlines, it looks like Bird Flu is the popular expression by a 3-to-1 margin.]
posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2005 06:29:00 PM

Timing:

Bush has recently declared that the U.S. does not torture. Leaving aside any consideration of what that's supposed to mean, isn't it about time for those long-suppressed images from Abu Ghraib (and elsewhere) to become public? You know, the ones the ACLU is suing to get released.

Recently, Bush has been hit with a spate of bad luck. It seems that Fate has it in for George. So maybe, now that Bush is on record saying "we do not torture", a vivid counter-example in the pictures will add to the president's misery.


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2005 01:34:00 PM

Here in California:

There is the odd spectacle of only one politician - Arnold Schwarzenegger - campaigning on the propositions. This is a special election, called for by Schwarzenegger, with most propositions on the ballot (at least 5 out of 8) those that he and the Republicans support. Sure, there is Warren Beatty out there following Arnold around, but when the televised "debates" on the propositions take place, it's pretty much Schwarzenegger as the only high-profile advocate (there are union representatives and the like, opposing said initiatives, but they are unpracticed).

It would appear, then, that Schwarzenegger deliberately pushed for this no-statewide-races election - dispite criticism about the cost and calls to have the propositions voted on next year in a general election - precisely in order that Arnold can be the sole voice. It probably won't work - if the polls are to be believed - but it is smart politics.


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2005 01:11:00 PM

"Historically, parties in charge of major wars suffered big electoral reversals after the conflict’s conclusion."

From an editorial in The Hill. Interesting reading.


posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2005 04:10:00 AM

Republicans pretending to represent Democrats:

There is an ad currently running in California in support of Proposition 75 - which would make it harder for public unions to use member dues for political purposes ("paycheck protection"). It's one of the four propositions Schwarzenegger is supporting - and the propositions are, for the most part, designed to strengthen Republicans within the state.

This morning, we saw this ad, which deserves scrutiny. It starts out with a frame declaring its intentions and who is paying for the ad:



Note the bottom lines:



PAID FOR BY TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR A PAYCHECK
PROTECTION, YES ON 75, A COALITION OF TAXPAYER ASSOCIATIONS WITH FUNDING
BY ROBIN P. ARKLEY, II AND THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Then there are several clips of supporters:



Including this one:



Hey, look! The ad says Proposition 75 is supported by Democrats. They're at the top of the list. But can Proposition 75 be accurately portrayed as supported by Democrats?

Go to the California Democratic Party webpage for the propositions, and you see this:



So there you have it, Republicans pretending to represent the interests of Democrats.


posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2005 02:24:00 PM