Saturday, July 31, 2004

The man who is in perpetual denial about the fact that he is a tool for the Republican propaganda machine,Spin O'Reilly admits that Bush was wrong and that the Iraq debacle was not worth sacrificing our young men and women for.
O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious…

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake.

MOORE: Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.

MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you?

MOORE: Uh huh.

O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

Spin O'Reilly seems to have gotten his political science education through some anti-american neo-facists books he bought on line at Newsmax or the Weekly Standard.
While one can't expect Moore to know everything he might want to look at some people like retired general Anthony Zinni. What is true is that there were better ways to get rid of Saddam, ways that probably would not have cost 800 and counting american lives or killed over 11,000 innocent non-combatant Iraqis.
Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'
Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Anthony Zinni Former Commander in chief of U.S. Central command
What should we have done, then, in your view?

Continue to contain them. Containment worked. The president has said containment didn't work. I disagree. First of all, containment worked with the Soviet Union, the Cubans, the North Koreans, thus far. Containment was done at very low cost. In Centcom, in my time there when we had the dual containment policy, there were less troops on a day-to-day basis in the entire theater than than report to work at the Pentagon every day in the entire theater.

But if Saddam was preserving a capability –

It would present a risk if you weren't able to monitor it. Let's say the program moved beyond the framework and he decided to weaponize it. I can't think of any place on earth we had a more concentrated look, intelligence focus. Whether it's satellite, whether it's communication intercept and everything else. If he suddenly decided to take those missiles and weaponize them, if suddenly that L29 program would have flown unmanned at greater ranges, we would have seen it. And actually we had a bank of options short of war that we could have taken.

Strange world, ultra patriot and ultra liberal Moore on the side of Zinni and anti-american critten, O'Reilly lost in space. Bush has proved he has no real concept of leadership. Leadership requires insight and thoughtfulness. Carefully weighing the options. Bush didn't do that.

Friday, July 30, 2004

Trivialization & bias by the media? This completely untrue unless he realize that you've heard more about Teresa Heinz Kerry and the "shove it" episode then you have John Kerry's health insurance plans. Do you know more about Bush's snacking habits then his environmental policies or the deficits that he's burdening the country with? Then thank the big media. Triumph of the Trivial By PAUL KRUGMAN
Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.

As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.

Let's analyze Lara Bush's new dress, not the effects of underfunding No Child Left Behind, after all its just america's future at stake.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

The mighty Billmon on the Republican's guiding economic principles,

I, Republican
1. A Republican may not injure a corporation, or, through inaction, allow a corporation to come to harm.

2. A Republican must obey the orders given it by corporations except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A Republican must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Seems like we had a revolutionary a couple hundred years ago that was supposed to free americans from indentured servitude. I guess Repugs didn't get that memo, don't understand it, or yearn for the days we were ruled by kings and princes.

I wonder if Dick "The Bunker" Cheney is feeling faint, because Professor Cole just ripped his jello-like spine out.
Dick Cheney was doing some counter-programming to the Democratic National Convention by speaking on the West Coast at Camp Pendleton.

He said, “Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness.”

....The question is whether the quagmire in Iraq makes the US look weak. The answer is yes. Therefore, by Cheney's own reasoning, it is a mistake that opens us to further attacks.

Reuters reports, "Cheney said Americans were safer and he stood by prewar characterizations of Iraq as a threat despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and new warnings by Cheney and other administration officials that another major terrorist attack may be coming."

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Period. Let me repeat the statistics as of the late 1990s:

US population: 295 million
Iraq population: 24 million

US per capita annual income: $37,600
Iraq per capita annual income: $700

US nuclear warheads: 10,455
Iraq nuclear warheads: 0

US tons of lethal chemical weapons (1997): 31,496
Iraq tons of lethal chemical weapons (1997): 0

While a small terrorist organization could hit the US because it has no return address, a major state could not hope to avoid retribution and therefore would be deterred. Cheney knows that Baathist Iraq posed no threat to the US. He is simply lying. I was always careful not to accuse him of lying before the war because who knows what is in someone else's mind? Maybe he believed his own bullshit. But there is no longer any doubt that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no active nuclear weapons program, no ability to deliver anything lethal to the US homeland, and no operational cooperation with al-Qaeda. These things are not matters of opinion. They are indisputable. Ipso facto, if an intelligent person continues to allege them, he is prevaricating.

Cheney reminds me of the bullies I knew in elementary school all talk and no walk.Did Cheney Dodge
The Draft Five Times?

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Here we have the "R" effect: Shelby classified leak probe referred to ethics panel
The Justice Department has referred to the Senate Ethics Committee an investigation into whether Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama or his staff leaked classified information, indicating that criminal charges are highly unlikely, a federal law enforcement official said Saturday.

Justice department takes a kid-gloved approach to Shelby(R), though there is still the possiblility of criminal charges.
Here we have the "D" effect: House panel opens own Berger probe
The House Government Reform Committee launched an investigation Wednesday into reports that former Clinton administration aide Samuel "Sandy" Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives while reviewing materials for the 9/11 commission.

Upon Berger's mighty shoulders rested the entirety of our nation's security:
"These allegations are deeply troubling, and it's our constitutional responsibility to find out what happened and why," said Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the committee's chairman, in a statement.

Good ol' Tom had no comments on Shelby.
President Bush declined comment on the investigation Wednesday, telling reporters it was "a serious matter and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department."

President Codepiece has had nothing to say about Shelby.

Berger's bungling/It still makes no sense at all
Even after a week of sorting out, it's difficult to make heads or tails of the flap over Sandy Berger's handling of classified documents. Berger's behavior was inexcusably sloppy, but no plausible motive of malice has been suggested. About all that can be said is that this will likely prove a tempest in a teapot, though one with lasting consequences for Berger.

Berger served as President Bill Clinton's national security adviser and was designated that administration's point man with the 9/11 commission. In that role, Berger spent 30 hours at the National Archives perusing documents related to the struggle against terrorism.

Following his third visit, the archives staff found that several copies of an after-action report on the millennium terrorism scares were missing. Moreover, archive staff members said Berger had taken pages of notes he jotted down during his time at the archives. Taking his own notes was a violation of archives policy but not illegal, and Berger acknowledged he deliberately took them, on grounds that preparing for an appearance before the 9/11 commission was more important than an archives policy.

Taking classified documents, even if only copies of a document written at his behest, is another matter entirely. When Berger was contacted by the archives staff, he found and returned all the missing copies of the millennium report save one, which apparently had been destroyed. Berger said he mistakenly mixed the classified documents with private papers when leaving the archives. But archives staff members said he quite deliberately stuffed the documents in his suit coat and pants pockets. A final determination of precisely what happened awaits a report from investigators, if there is one. CBS News has reported that charges in the case were unlikely.

Sandy Berger's public service days are over, and maybe they should be in a post 9-11 world, but shouldn't we all be thinking long and hard about the double standard. Even with his scandal, Shelby is likely to be re-elected in November, while Sandy will be just another strawman for the wing-nuts.

Monday, July 26, 2004

Sen. Shelby the subject of probe on 9/11 intelligence leak
WASHINGTON - Information about a criminal investigation of possible intelligence leaks by Sen. Richard Shelby was referred to the Senate Ethics Committee on Thursday, senior law enforcement and intelligence officials have told NBC News.

The information is related to a leak of intercepted al-Qaida communications just prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Ann Coulter had advised Shelby to put them down his pantyhose, but he decided to fold them into paper hats and wear them to the annual Freeper Convention where his bizarre behavior went unnoticed in the room of pretend Patrick Henrys'.

'Operational Relationship' With Al Qaeda Discounted
One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no "compelling case" existed for Iraq's involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government were weak.

General Anthony Zinni
It would present a risk if you weren't able to monitor it. Let's say the program moved beyond the framework and he decided to weaponize it. I can't think of any place on earth we had a more concentrated look, intelligence focus. Whether it's satellite, whether it's communication intercept and everything else. If he suddenly decided to take those missiles and weaponize them, if suddenly that L29 program would have flown unmanned at greater ranges, we would have seen it. And actually we had a bank of options short of war that we could have taken.

AWOL Bush and Dick the Bunker Cheney are pawning themsleves off as leaders. Maybe that's way they're so gungho on tort reform, so America can't sue them for false advertising and collect damages for their negligence.

The Bush administration should not allow states to permit road-building in protected national forests
1. It would pollute drinking water. Roadless areas in national forests are responsible for producing clean drinking water for millions of Americans. Protected areas of national forests serve as source areas for drinking water in 39 states. Erosion and landslides from roads can send "tons of silt and unwanted nutrients into forest streams." (Republicans for Environmental Protection)

Sunday, July 25, 2004

Why the recent increase in volume in the attacks on Joesph Wilson? Why the Sandy Berger documents dust-up now, when he's been under investigation for 10 months and still no formal charges filed? Because someone in the Plame affair is about to be indicted. Via Needlenose: Are the Bushites expecting indictments in the Valerie Plame case?

War and Piece points out some of the tortured logic of the Moonie rag the Washington Times.

Sandy Berger may have violated some law. Prosecute or get off the pot, but let's remember that a little over 3 years ago he was one of Clinton's National Security advisors. He has seen and even created the documents he's accused of mishandling. To use Berger or Wilson as a way to blunt the fact the Bushies betrayed an undercover agent shows not just that these guys are slime, but are quite happy to wallow in it.