Bush is wrong. He's trying to spin what Cheney said. It's true that the vice president didn't come right out and say the Iraq-Sept. 11 link exists. But he certainly implied it in ever so many ways. He said he wasn't surprised that 70 percent of the American people believe the link exists. He said, "We don't know" if there is a link, when he could and should have said, "We have no evidence of such a link." That would have been so much more honest.
Cheney also said that success in Iraq would strike a blow at the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind Sept. 11, a statement that left people asking, "Huh?" He was clearly trying to have it both ways: avoid an explicit statement that could be proven wrong while still spinning the question with all he had -- which was very little.
Defenders of the administration want to label those who have doubts about the truthfulness of the White House as "liberals" or "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." Those labels are just so much name-calling. There's nothing liberal or conservative, unpatriotic or anti-American about being upset that those who hold the highest offices in the land somehow find it impossible to level with the American people on such serious matters as national security and foreign policy.
If lies about private, consensual, albeit adulterous, sex can bring the impeachment of a president, it's not remotely wrong to raise questions about misstatements on issues that go to the very survival of this nation
I heard an estimate that it would take $8 billion per year to inspect all shipping containers coming into U.S. ports. At $160 billion and climbing for Iraq, this means we could have inspected all those crates for 20 years. Feel safer yet?
Dave Appell raises the question, as have others, whether libraries are being contacted under Patriot Act powers or previously existing powers. It's a fair question, which is why I've been in "questioning" mode when I've posted on this. I'd like some answers. The immediate question is - was Ashcroft lying? The second question is - if these powers aren't being used, then why are they needed?
Viet "Clenis Envy" Dinh appears to have contradicted Ashcroft's claim in testimony to congress. Is Ashcroft lying? Come on reporters, do some reporting!
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, those are the central fronts in the war on terror.
This really highlights the problem of even calling it "the war and terror," combined with the conflation of an actual war - the invasion of Iraq - with the "war on terror." Like the "war on drugs" it's just a metaphor. However, unlike the "war on drugs," it's a hideously horribly bad one (As opposed to a just basically bad one). "War on terror" is a metaphor for a global police and intelligence operation, backed up with the usual diplomatic carrots and sticks that these things need. So, no one should think that Clark is suggesting we invade Egypt or Pakistan when we use that language, but of course they might now that we've pretended the Iraq invasion and the operation to minimize global terrorism are one and the same.
You know, if I were the Bushies I'd be figuring out how to get Chalabi's head on a pike. It's pretty cleary they bought his fantasies wholesale, and that's largely the reason why they screwed the pooch.
Representatives of the Iraqi National Congress, however, claimed to control a vast underground network that would rise in support of coalition forces to assist security and law enforcement. They insisted that the entire Iraqi Army be immediately disbanded. The Pentagon agreed, in the end leading many Iraqi soldiers who might otherwise have been willing to work with the coalition to take up arms against it. Mr. Chalabi's promised network didn't materialize, and the resulting power vacuum contributed to looting, sabotage and attacks against American forces.
I'm not sure I agree with everything in this Newsweek column, but it does provide an interesting perspective on some things (and, when Newsweek is willing to run an article entitled 'The French Were Right' you know something's up.) Particularly in its closing:
Because the bitterest contradiction of all may be that this war was waged—first and foremost—to save face after the humiliation and suffering of September 11. It was meant to inspire awe in the Arab and Muslim world, as former CIA operative Marc Reuel Gerecht and others insisted it should be. And in that it truly has failed. Every day we look weaker. And the worst news of all it that it’s not because of what was done to us by our enemies but because of what we’ve done to ourselves.
In the end, this was the reason why most of the warbloggers were so in love with this endeavor. Afghanistan just didn't satisfy their bloodlust, so they wanted to go punch someone else. Anyone else. The Neocons were on record all over the place (pre and post 9/11) discussing the need to project American might through a major military conquest so that nations would tremble before us. It isn't an agenda I'd sign up for, but aside from that the the obvious problem with is that if it fails - and regardless of what eventually unfolds in Iraq it already has failed - the consequences aren't desirable. I may not want projecting our military might to be the cornerstone of our foreign policy, but I sure as hell don't want projecting our weakness to be it either.
Charles Kuffner brings us a lovely tale of a Houston Congressman doing his best to obstruct the will of his constituents.
Reader rp fleshes the story out some more:
This is a story about a big city called Houston, my local Republican congressman by the name of John Culberson, & mass transit.
The Metropolitan Authority of Harris County has built a light rail line that is supposed to open on Jan 2004. This Nov.4, there will be a bond election on the next segment of rail to be built. However, Rep. John Culberson has announced he has gotten the Federal Transit Administration to agree to make Houston ineligible for federal transit funds because of the current ballot language, that is, the ballot doesn't list all the rail segments to be voted on. This would effectively kill the rail plan.
What is interesting is that Culberson is also pushing the expansion of I-10 in West Houston. The Texas Dept. of Transportation's plan calls for building ten lanes in each direction [!]. Some people object to this. They are suing TXDoT to stop construction. They also want room left on the freeway for future rail. The current plan for expanding the freeway was speeded up when the Harris County Toll Road Authority announced it would build a toll road down the middle of the Katy Freeway. HCTRA is controlled by the Harris Co. Commissioner's Court, which is controlled by County Judge Robert Eckels and two other Republican Commissioners. Judge Eckels has stated he thinks that the transportation needsof the Houston area could be filled by the Toll Road Authority building more highways. He also has talked about building a toll road through Memorial Park, Houston's biggest, on railroad right-of-way. The Toll Road Authority has previously talked about building a bridge to replace the Bolivar ferry in Galveston County ,and seems to be interested in building part of the Grand Parkway in Brazoria County .
All of this raises questions about why Rep. Culberson is trying to keep Houston from having a rail system like Dallas . John Culberson could be defined as a cheap-labor conservative, who mistrusts public transportation or other public infastructure. He also may want to increase the power of Judge Robert Eckels by increasing the power of the Toll Road Authority. He may want to make developement in the Houston area keep heading outward towards the Grand Parkway instead of being refocused inside Loop 610. No matter, I just wish folks will tell him to stop.
The anti-rail fanaticism really confuses me. The highway fetish freaks out in LA and OC in California have fantasies about double decking all the highways, which is the only way to do much expansion without starting to knock down lots of properties, and I don't think mowing down entire neighborhoods like they once did to construct urban highways is gonna fly anymore.
I'm not very familiar with the Houston area, but from what I understand they have in spades that problem that many areas increasingly have. Since modern subdivisions are frequently built with only one access road to the "main" road (often gated, but either way), you can have huge traffic problems where there really need not be any. There's only one way to get from point A to B, so there's no way for excess traffic to spillover to smaller routes. Obviously it's understandable why people want to restrict traffic access to their cozy neighborhoods, but once everyone does it ...Houston, we have a problem.
I'm a big rail fan, though I recognize that it's only going to "work" if attitudes about land use radically change. Unless it's accompanied by a willingness to allow some transit-oriented development - higher residential and commercial density around the stations instead of giant parking lots and garages - even this fan has to grudgingly admit it's mostly a waste of money. Of course that high density development isn't putting little Manhattans everywhere, it's just putting a modern version of the center of the "small town" we're all supposed to be nostalgic about.
In Orange County, CA, my former home and home to blogger extraordinaire Calpundit, they've been trying to push a light rail system through forever. The people seem to roughly want it (barely), but they just don't want it running through their neighborhoods. I heard a story that years back the then (and now current again) mayor tried to establish a plan for a high density corridor for a proposed rail system, and printed up nice advertising pictures of a small urban center with people strolling and sidewalk dining and whatnot. Opponents took the pictures and added in numerous homeless people and circulated them. There's OC for ya.
So, for the past few days my ISP (comcast cable) has been having intermittent google DNS problems, and today I haven't been able to access it at all (well, I can because I went and looked up the IP address and I can get to it that way).
The sight of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver perched on Oprah Winfrey's sofa and demonstrating the perfection of their marriage made more than a few of the talk-mistress' fans more furious than women scorned, more angry than wet hens and so forth. The oprah.com message board is crowded with complaints about the appearance of the candidate and adoring wife -- see how he respects women -- on nationwide TV under Winfrey's auspices.
"America's woman role model has let us down," writes one woman. "First she has some rah-rah show on going to war with Iraq," writes another, "and now this. It makes me sick. I am no fan of hers anymore."
"As a Californian," writes a woman, "I am offended that Oprah is doing an interview with the one celebrity candidate and his famous wife. . . . We are already seeing our legitimate votes, rendered last November, hijacked by a media circus, with Arnold serving as ringleader. Oprah, don't pander to your famous friends, please."
I had heard a few reports about her pro-war show. Apparently it was a an hour (someone says 3?) of Tom Friedman waxing metaphoric about death and destruction as the jaws of the audience dropped closer and closer to the floor.
Hint, Oprah - some of their kids are in Iraq. No one you know is.
Oprah long ago lost any connection to her audience. I don't know why she still has one.
He's reaching Kausian heights of hackdom. In comments below, Technical Blandishmentiser provides this:
Yesterday, a Saletan co-authored a horrible hack job on Kucinich (one of a series on Democratic candidates) appeared on Slate.
A sample:
Flip: During a July 1998 Hardball appearance, Kucinich rejected efforts to impeach President Clinton. "To flat out call for an impeachment without the evidence takes us back to Alice in Wonderland," said Kucinich.
Flop: In October 1998, Kucinich voted to impeach Clinton and force a Senate trial.
I looked it up. Lewinsky's testimony was delivered in August, same as Bill Clinton. The Starr report came out in September. For the calendar-impaired, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER COME BETWEEN JULY AND OCTOBER. Regardless of what you think of the impeachment vote etc., application of the term "flip-flop" to a change of view in the light of evidence is gross misreprentation.
Ergo: Saletan (and his co-author) are vicious (as in, filled with vice) hacks.
The fact that Kucinich voted for impeachment is yet another reason I have little interest in his candidacy, but this is only a flipflop over at hack.slate.com.
UPDATE 2: Actually, Saletan is completely wrong. The impeachment vote was in December, and Kucinich voted no 4 times.
That's rather odd. Willis was always an uber-Republican - you know, that class of hollywood celebrities that are allowed to express their opinions without being mocked.
Fewer than half of Americans (43%) think the war was worth the loss of life and other costs, the lowest number yet in CBS News polls, while more (47%) think it was not worth the costs. Last month, the public was evenly split on this question.
It's these kinds of polls that give aid and comfort to the enemy, whoever they may be. CBS is irresponsible for running the information, and when more soldiers die they will be to blame.
The Horse suggests emailing Tom Friedman about this. Perhaps we could ask if it's time for America to invade America - given how disloyal it is.
A federal judge who is considering whether to order Attorney General John Ashcroft to come to Detroit to face contempt charges warned top officials about not violating a gag order nearly a year ago, a court document shows.
...
At a closed hearing held in October, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen told the No. 2 official in the Justice Department, Larry Thompson, to ensure that no federal official violate his order by leaking information to the public.
...
At Rosen's direction, Thompson wrote a two-page memorandum on Oct. 16 that was sent to Ashcroft's office reminding officials about the gag order.
Ashcroft is accused of twice violating the gag order.
...
Rosen should dismiss the request without holding a hearing, said the filing by the U.S. Justice Department on Ashcroft's behalf.
"Compelling the attorney general's appearance to address the defendants' allegations -- where he has not sought to influence the jury's deliberations or the outcome of the defendants' trial -- is inadvisable because it would likely serve only to chill legitimate public briefings in the future," said the 16-page statement.
The media know they have failed to do their jobs, and they're too embarrassed to try and correct that mistake.
On a related note Eric Alterman tells us that the press has never bothered to even try and figure out what the hell George Bush was doing on 9/11, and has instead been perfectly happy to digest and regurgitate several competiting versions of events.
Matt Taibbi has a really nice article about the Dean campaign up over at the Nation. At first glance it might look like a somewhat critical view of the campaign, but it's really a meta-riff on campaigns and campaign coverage which is quite interesting. It's quite long in this ADD age, but well worth the read.
''War on terror'' is a metaphor. It is not an actual war, like the World War or the Vietnamese or Korean wars. It is rather a struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists, exacerbated if not caused by the conflict in Palestine. When one turns a metaphor into a national policy, one not only misunderstands what is going on, one begins to slide toward the big lie. One invades Iraq because one needed a war.
It's hard to tell what's going on. This BBC report from earlier says at least 3 soldiers dead in an incident in Khaldiyah, though the military hasn't yet commented on this situation. They are however stating that 3 soldiers have died in what seems to be a separate incident in Tikrit. We also have another soldier falling victim to a "non-hostile gunshot incident," and another killed by a power line. There are also several reports of soldiers being wounded.
If I were in the media, and I knew that I had failed to correct the misperception by 70% of the Amurkan people that Saddam was behind 9/11, I would consider it my responsbility to put this story on page A1, rather than on pages A18 and A22.
We can't let Sullivan have all the fun with his silly awards. In comments, space does the honors:
I hereby grant Tom Friedman the 2003 Colin Powell Award.
This award is bestowed upon a noted person in the field of Foreign Affairs who has completely lost all credibility and dignity in a 12 month period. Recipients are selected based upon their ability to take a reputation for cross-ideological sensibility and totally tarnish it beyond what could have possibly been forseen.
2002 winner, British PM Tony Blair, will not be able to attend the award ceremony as he is busy "sexing up" the Kay Report.
Will add more as I think of them or as they're suggested.
We of course have to give the Marcus Tullius Tiro Lifetime Achievement Award for Stenography to Susan Schmidt of the Washington Po
.jpg)
