Thursday, October 28, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Swing Hosana?
Billy Sunday: baseball player, tent evangelist, and role model for today's Red Sox?
Johnny Damon may look like Jesus, but I think that I'm on fairly safe theological ground when I say that God is not a Red Sox fan. Nor, it must be noted, is he rooting for the Cardinals. Aside from the fact that he has forsaken the Bronx Bombers (as detailed in the musical Damn Yankees)its a safe bet to assume that Jehovah wears the hats of the 30 MLB teams. He also has the best interests of the remaining 6 billion people on earth who don't play big time professional baseball in the United States. This point has been hashed over time and time again by fans, athletes, and sports media so I think its safe to assume that 99.9% of us in non-pro athlete land think it a touch over the top for these multi-millionaire ball players to point to heaven or thank God or Jesus for a hit, a run, a strike out, or a victory.
What is particularly galling however in this part of the world, New England, is that there is a long tradition of not wearing ones beliefs on ones sleeve. Religion is an intensely personal subject in the Northeast United States, save the odd Pentecostal church in a trailer with the "Jesus Says Bomb Iraq" marquee outside. If you think I'm overstating the case, try watching John Kerry discuss his Catholicism in the same manner Bush raves about his hotline to God and you'll see a small-y yankee squirm harder than George Steinbrenner trying to find the words to congratulate the Red Sox. I for one think that this is how things should be, given that this is a region that first drew European settlers seeking both freedom of conscience and freedom from the conscience of others.
So what is to be made of the hired hands on the Red Sox bringing their gauche and cloying "God made me pitch/hit/catch that way" statements to the ecumenical cathedral of Fenway Park? What can we do, as New England residents, to gently convince them to stow that Bible belt born again blathering until they are traded to one of those teams in the flyover states that play on astroturf?
Yelling at them will do no good, so we should perhaps kill this nascent embarrassment fest by joining in over-emphatically. I suggest that the next time Curt Shilling's foot bleeds for example, fans rush the mound and proclaim that they can see the Virgin Mary in the stain on his sock. Maybe when Pedro Martinez points to Heaven, folks could clip a lock of his hair and wear it in a reliquary. When 'Cubby' Cabrera rests the bat across both shoulders the next up after thanking the lord, someone could nail him to it as a reminder of Jesus's suffering for our sins. Perhaps the next time Bill Mueller opens his mouth, he can be traded somewhere far away.
Anyway, tonight could be the night; the Sox are 27 outs away from a World Series. The Cards aren't out of it yet, but maybe for the uber-superstitious out there, this long but interesting account of the origins of the alleged curse might help allay some fears and offer up some uncomfortable truths about Boston's troubled past:
A Curse Born of Hate
OK, back to politics, elections, and the middle east after tomorrow...
A Partisan Quiz
You are sitting in an ancient barber shop in a small town in Maine. All around you are photos and quotes of Ronald Reagan. There are two bumper stickers on the front door that you can read the reversed writing on: America, Love it or Leave It and Keep America Beautiful: Give A Hippie A Haircut. The shaky old barber with parkinson's and one arm has the scissors by the tip of your ear and asks:
"So how are you voting this year?"
Do you:
a) Proudly proclaim your steadfast liberalism and share with the barber your respect for the Vice President for accepting and loving his lesbian daughter;
b) Look at a picture of Reagan, sigh sadly, and say 'I did know but I've forgotten. Damn this Alzheimers!";
c) Mumble something about what a good sense of humor Bob Dole exhibits now that he is out of electoral politics;
d) Act like a total spaz and suggest Red Sox manager Terry Francona would make a great write in candidate as he really is 'a uniter, not a divider.'
Answers, please.
"So how are you voting this year?"
Do you:
a) Proudly proclaim your steadfast liberalism and share with the barber your respect for the Vice President for accepting and loving his lesbian daughter;
b) Look at a picture of Reagan, sigh sadly, and say 'I did know but I've forgotten. Damn this Alzheimers!";
c) Mumble something about what a good sense of humor Bob Dole exhibits now that he is out of electoral politics;
d) Act like a total spaz and suggest Red Sox manager Terry Francona would make a great write in candidate as he really is 'a uniter, not a divider.'
Answers, please.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
SOX WIN THE PENNANT! SOX WIN THE PENNANT!
I love the smell of Yankee Stadium in the morning; it smells like victory.
I am exhausted.
I am happy.
I am surrounded by Mainers who are trying on a new state of mind.
The first beer I opened last night was one of those Molsons with the goofy second label: mine read "Destiny would be an understatement." Bless those Canadian hopmeisters- they knew, they knew.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Candidates' ads push factual envelope
MSNBC (a sometimes sensible, often annoying TV channel) and the Washington Post have weighed in with this interesting and in some ways distressing analysis of the advertising from both the Democrats and Republicans that has been flying around this election:
MSNBC - Candidates' ads push factual envelope
Not really a surprise; either in that the candidates are being vile or TV stations are more interested in making money than fact checking.
Despite all the lies and rancour polluting the public airwaves it is important to vote in this and all elections. There is a reason those of us to the left of the Kerry Democratic party have in the past called the two major parties "Republocrats"- in many way ways both are as bad as each other and differences often amount to nothing more than the two sides of the same coin. Still, there is an important distinction to be made between being an unrealistic absolutist and not agreeing with elements of policy and still voting for a candidate as he or she most closely approaches your beliefs. Ifthe litmus test of a politician worthiness was that they were perfectly in-sync with your views, you'd only have yourself to vote for. And this time around there is a lot at stake. I've been recalling when French progressives and lefties had to hold their noses and vote for Chriac in order to keep the fascist Jean Marie Le Pen from taking office. We should take note here in the States, with the added bonus that Kerry is not anywhere as odious as Chirac (despite Republican efforts to emphasise Kerry's 'Frenchness', because as we all know, long lunch breaks, a rejection of anglo-saxon hegemony, good wine, and an aversion to getting involved in meaningless war is a bad thing).
For those still wavering towards a Nader/Camejo vote (or even Cobb/LaMarche) take a look at this site: Greens for Kerry. By the way, I still proudly call myself a greenie-progressive-independent and maintain that Ralph didn't lose Florida for Gore; it was the 25,000 registered Democrats who voted for the GOP who managed that one. This year though, its all about tactical voting and making a start in the right direction.
And finally for today, back to the original vaguely alluded to point that the American news media is falling down worse than Michael Douglas in the film of that name. Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show and satarist extrordinaire, went to CNN's Crossfire and politely reminded the so-called journalists there that they might want to start doing their job:
Jon Stewart on Crossfire
MSNBC - Candidates' ads push factual envelope
Not really a surprise; either in that the candidates are being vile or TV stations are more interested in making money than fact checking.
Despite all the lies and rancour polluting the public airwaves it is important to vote in this and all elections. There is a reason those of us to the left of the Kerry Democratic party have in the past called the two major parties "Republocrats"- in many way ways both are as bad as each other and differences often amount to nothing more than the two sides of the same coin. Still, there is an important distinction to be made between being an unrealistic absolutist and not agreeing with elements of policy and still voting for a candidate as he or she most closely approaches your beliefs. Ifthe litmus test of a politician worthiness was that they were perfectly in-sync with your views, you'd only have yourself to vote for. And this time around there is a lot at stake. I've been recalling when French progressives and lefties had to hold their noses and vote for Chriac in order to keep the fascist Jean Marie Le Pen from taking office. We should take note here in the States, with the added bonus that Kerry is not anywhere as odious as Chirac (despite Republican efforts to emphasise Kerry's 'Frenchness', because as we all know, long lunch breaks, a rejection of anglo-saxon hegemony, good wine, and an aversion to getting involved in meaningless war is a bad thing).
For those still wavering towards a Nader/Camejo vote (or even Cobb/LaMarche) take a look at this site: Greens for Kerry. By the way, I still proudly call myself a greenie-progressive-independent and maintain that Ralph didn't lose Florida for Gore; it was the 25,000 registered Democrats who voted for the GOP who managed that one. This year though, its all about tactical voting and making a start in the right direction.
And finally for today, back to the original vaguely alluded to point that the American news media is falling down worse than Michael Douglas in the film of that name. Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show and satarist extrordinaire, went to CNN's Crossfire and politely reminded the so-called journalists there that they might want to start doing their job:
Jon Stewart on Crossfire
Monday, October 18, 2004
Here Comes Blair's Mission Creep
Here it comes. After 18 months of chaos in the American sector and near-calm in the British contolled south, the Pentagon has asked the Ministry of Defence to deploy British troops (most likely the cutback-threatened Black Watch) to the troubled Sunni triangle to free up American troops to go on offensive operations.
Regardless of the difference in strategic and tactical philosophies between the two militaries, this likely redefinition of the British role in Iraq points to a couple of interesting things that could have an impact on domestic politics on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is unlikely that this extended role will meet with much applause in the UK, and to many British voters it will only underscore the image of Tony Blair as an electoral tool of George Bush. Blair of course feels that he is in a position to make yet another unpopular foreign policy move as even with an election looming he feels that no effective alternative to his government is presenting itself (to which I say, come on Socialist Workers' Party, nows your chance! Phwerp.) Given the situation on the ground in Iraq it can be argued that Britain has little to gain and much to lose by agreeing to this request, with most of the loss coming in the form of young British lives. Maybe, just maybe, the different British approach to occupation (in which the insults to Iraqi dignity come clothed in a velvet glove rather than a mailed fist) might result in a calmer Sunni triangle, but given the twin facts that this redeployment is coming to enable more aggresive action by the famously "vigorous" US Marines and that at this stage it is improbable that Sunni insurgents will give up their growing advantage because the occupiers wear berets and not helmets I doubt that the patented British "smile shoot smile" approach will pay dividends.
It will be interesting how, if at all, this redeployment request will be reported here in America as coming on the back of damming remarks by former Iraqi mission commander General Ricardo Sanchez, former Iraq administrator Paul Bremmer, former Bush Secretary of the Army Thomas White and the long held cassandra like complaint of former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki about inadequate troop levels in Iraq. Indeed, this request shows two things; namely that the adminstration is making a tacit concession to two of Senator Kerry's main campaign thrusts: that the Bush administration has given up on finding new allies to reduce the pressure on American and British troops; and that troop levels were and are woefully inadequate for the mission at hand.
With the mounting evidence of a mishandled mission, it is frankly incredible that anyone still feels that Bush is the best choice for national security. A war is a time for flexibility as well as steadfastness, and this latest move shows once again that sometimes a call to "stay the course" only leads to more mistakes, carnage and sorrow. In a race between two candidates to lead a nation that finds itself at war, America could do no better than to choose the guy with the ability to analyize, not just rest on assumption.
Here's the story that sparked it all: UK deployment raises tactical concerns
Regardless of the difference in strategic and tactical philosophies between the two militaries, this likely redefinition of the British role in Iraq points to a couple of interesting things that could have an impact on domestic politics on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is unlikely that this extended role will meet with much applause in the UK, and to many British voters it will only underscore the image of Tony Blair as an electoral tool of George Bush. Blair of course feels that he is in a position to make yet another unpopular foreign policy move as even with an election looming he feels that no effective alternative to his government is presenting itself (to which I say, come on Socialist Workers' Party, nows your chance! Phwerp.) Given the situation on the ground in Iraq it can be argued that Britain has little to gain and much to lose by agreeing to this request, with most of the loss coming in the form of young British lives. Maybe, just maybe, the different British approach to occupation (in which the insults to Iraqi dignity come clothed in a velvet glove rather than a mailed fist) might result in a calmer Sunni triangle, but given the twin facts that this redeployment is coming to enable more aggresive action by the famously "vigorous" US Marines and that at this stage it is improbable that Sunni insurgents will give up their growing advantage because the occupiers wear berets and not helmets I doubt that the patented British "smile shoot smile" approach will pay dividends.
It will be interesting how, if at all, this redeployment request will be reported here in America as coming on the back of damming remarks by former Iraqi mission commander General Ricardo Sanchez, former Iraq administrator Paul Bremmer, former Bush Secretary of the Army Thomas White and the long held cassandra like complaint of former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki about inadequate troop levels in Iraq. Indeed, this request shows two things; namely that the adminstration is making a tacit concession to two of Senator Kerry's main campaign thrusts: that the Bush administration has given up on finding new allies to reduce the pressure on American and British troops; and that troop levels were and are woefully inadequate for the mission at hand.
With the mounting evidence of a mishandled mission, it is frankly incredible that anyone still feels that Bush is the best choice for national security. A war is a time for flexibility as well as steadfastness, and this latest move shows once again that sometimes a call to "stay the course" only leads to more mistakes, carnage and sorrow. In a race between two candidates to lead a nation that finds itself at war, America could do no better than to choose the guy with the ability to analyize, not just rest on assumption.
Here's the story that sparked it all: UK deployment raises tactical concerns
Friday, October 15, 2004
O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harassment Suit - October 13, 2004
Oh Lord. Ha! Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor? First moralist Bennett cops to a gambling problem, law and order fetishist Limbaugh gets raked over the coals for his drug abuse and now Clinton impeachment seeking 'journalist' Bill O'Reilly is getting his:
O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harassment Suit
What this again proves is that the ancient Greeks were a pretty smart bunch, coining as they did the words hypocrisy and hubris. When will sanctimonious social arbiters learn that the road to the moral high ground is littered with the corpses of their forebears, felled by the very vices they so decry?
Maybe as his prepares with his lawyers and publicity flacks O'Reilly might want to reflect on the idea that working to benefit society might not include shouting at those he dislikes but rather rolling up his sleeves, taking some of the millions he has made from discord, and actually doing something concrete.
However, for a little while, I'm going to risk lightning bolts and being exposed as a closet millionaire pro-war Yankee fan Ipswich supporting Bush ranger with arterial disease living in New Hampshire (because after all, have I not just posited that the fiercest critics become what they criticise?) and revel in this very public humiliation of a hateful man.
O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harassment Suit
What this again proves is that the ancient Greeks were a pretty smart bunch, coining as they did the words hypocrisy and hubris. When will sanctimonious social arbiters learn that the road to the moral high ground is littered with the corpses of their forebears, felled by the very vices they so decry?
Maybe as his prepares with his lawyers and publicity flacks O'Reilly might want to reflect on the idea that working to benefit society might not include shouting at those he dislikes but rather rolling up his sleeves, taking some of the millions he has made from discord, and actually doing something concrete.
However, for a little while, I'm going to risk lightning bolts and being exposed as a closet millionaire pro-war Yankee fan Ipswich supporting Bush ranger with arterial disease living in New Hampshire (because after all, have I not just posited that the fiercest critics become what they criticise?) and revel in this very public humiliation of a hateful man.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Weasel Admin
I know I only just had a vacation in August but I'm taking a week off from the Blog for three reasons:
1) The Red Sox need me on my couch to redouble my ritual efforts of giving (and maintaining) the finger to whichever Yankee is pitching anytime he comes on screen. The Sox may have lost last night (hustle Manny! Jesus!) but my finger ritual destroyed Mike Mussina's offensive and unsporting pursuit of a perfect game.
2) The blog is by my own admission looking a bit tatty and I need to do some updating, coding, and polishing.
3) I need to write offensive letters to all the advertisers on WGME 13, our local Sinclair owned CBS affiliate who will be broadcasting that anti-Kerry film without any balancing attack programming on Bush this week.
So, wish the Red Sox luck and hopefully when I'm back more frequently I'll be typing during the breaks in World Series games!
1) The Red Sox need me on my couch to redouble my ritual efforts of giving (and maintaining) the finger to whichever Yankee is pitching anytime he comes on screen. The Sox may have lost last night (hustle Manny! Jesus!) but my finger ritual destroyed Mike Mussina's offensive and unsporting pursuit of a perfect game.
2) The blog is by my own admission looking a bit tatty and I need to do some updating, coding, and polishing.
3) I need to write offensive letters to all the advertisers on WGME 13, our local Sinclair owned CBS affiliate who will be broadcasting that anti-Kerry film without any balancing attack programming on Bush this week.
So, wish the Red Sox luck and hopefully when I'm back more frequently I'll be typing during the breaks in World Series games!
Friday, October 08, 2004
History Friday: October 7, 2001: US launches air strikes against Taleban
Agggh! Where is the fun? Where is the joy? Where is the love? Instead, we get JDAM rain laying craters on the pre-existing craters of Afghanistan courtesy of that Boeing subcontractor, the US military:
US launches air strikes against Taleban
It seems so long ago.
The Afghan elections are tomorrow; but do we know how much of the country is calm and at peace? How much is not under the continued control of feudal warlordism, which directs a block vote for the candidate of least resistance? How many votes have not been bought with drug money?
And whether Osama bin Laden registered to vote in Tora Bora?
On a different subject, from my friend Shannon, practice casting your vote in Florida.
US launches air strikes against Taleban
It seems so long ago.
The Afghan elections are tomorrow; but do we know how much of the country is calm and at peace? How much is not under the continued control of feudal warlordism, which directs a block vote for the candidate of least resistance? How many votes have not been bought with drug money?
And whether Osama bin Laden registered to vote in Tora Bora?
On a different subject, from my friend Shannon, practice casting your vote in Florida.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The random doubts of Walter Mondale: Well worth a visit.
As I have mentioned before, my good friend Alex maintains a rather splendid blog that revolves around the life of a British teacher living in Brooklin. He is a bit like Mount St Helens, dormant for long periods and then spewing forth, but he is well worth reading:
The random doubts of Walter Mondale
He is also a fellow columnist at NYCanaries.com
Talking of my media endeavors, the Wisdom Weasel is taking to the airwaves in his assumed persona of Elvis Parsley, voice of the pathetic., on WRFR 93.3. If you happen to be driving through Rockland, Maine on a Thursday night from 8-10pm, be sure to have a listen to my take on socks, dregs, and sausage roll.
The random doubts of Walter Mondale
He is also a fellow columnist at NYCanaries.com
Talking of my media endeavors, the Wisdom Weasel is taking to the airwaves in his assumed persona of Elvis Parsley, voice of the pathetic., on WRFR 93.3. If you happen to be driving through Rockland, Maine on a Thursday night from 8-10pm, be sure to have a listen to my take on socks, dregs, and sausage roll.
Oh That Wacky Cheney! Jeez!
One of the great things (and one of the curses) of the modern political campaign is that true rapid response is more possible than ever. As has been the way for most of this presidential election, bloggers, emailers, hacks of all stripes, and even occasionally journalists have been able to stay on top of events as they unfold and buck the script laid down by traditional media outlets.
Last night at the conclusion of the vice-presidential debate I flicked over to Hardball to see what the professional talking (or rather yelling) heads had to say about the evening's gabfest. Now, I'll state up front that I'm a pretty partisan fellow and am a Kerry/Edwards supporter but in all fairness I scored the debate as a tie; Cheney didn't do anything to flay Edwards alive, whil L'il John had trouble staying on subject but did a decent courtroom job. So I was a mite surprised when the pundits sat and giggled that Cheney had crushed Edwards and that the Democratic ticket looked weak and babyish.
I suppose I shouldn't have been so shocked; after all, the script says that Bush will look like a loveable doofus in contrast to the professorial Kerry, while Edwards is supposed to cry for his mummy every time he encounters the Wyoming Verbal Wedgie Master. Still, it seems that the good folks in the heartland who took part in the instant polling that followed the debate didn't get their copy of the script; among partisans the debate was scored as a tie and among the non-aligned Edwards prevailed.
Of course, one of the highlights for us dedicated White House watchers with long memories was squirming in frustration as the Veep calmly spewed more of his usual lies, half-truths, and distortions with his traditional aplomb. However, and this brings me back to my original point, thanks to the internet and the democratization of publishing by folks such as my hosts here at Blogger this kind of hard-to-shift crapola is now instantly avaliable to dedicated debunkers of every stripe. Just as folks did with CBS and the forged Bush National Guard memos, a hard working few have compiled a list of Cheney's whoppers from last night's debate. Enjoy and share!
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"
THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on September 11th. And in its fact check column today, the Boston Globe says "Cheney has consistently asserted strong prewar links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even after the 9/11 Commission definitively concluded that there had not been a collaborative relationship between the two. In a radio interview in January 2004, Cheney said: 'I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.'"
On December 9, 2001, Cheney went on "Meet the Press" to perpetuate the now entirely debunked theory that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi official. He went back on a year ago to describe Iraq as part of ""the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Most recently, Cheney has claimed that Iraq harbored the terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and said Zarqawi "is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq." But yesterday, a report Cheney himself requested found that there is no conclusive evidence to support that claim. An administration official said, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "900,000 small businesses will be hit" by the Kerry-Edwards plan to roll back tax cuts for people in the top income bracket.
THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post writes this morning: "This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets."
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "We have added 1.7 million jobs to the economy."
THE TRUTH: On November 2nd, George Bush will be the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. There will be about a million fewer jobs than there were when Bush took office -- and about 7 million fewer than Bush's own post-9/11 estimate. Cheney's using fuzzy math: 1.7 million jobs have been added, but millions more have been lost.
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
THE TRUTH: This one-liner was one of Cheney's best zingers of the night, but even it isn't true: Cheney and Edwards have met in public at least twice. They met when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to be sworn in by Cheney as Senator and at the National Prayer Breakfast. At the Breakfast, he even called Edwards out by name, starting his remarks with the words, "Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning." You can actually watch video of the two of them shaking hands at democrats.org.
Last night at the conclusion of the vice-presidential debate I flicked over to Hardball to see what the professional talking (or rather yelling) heads had to say about the evening's gabfest. Now, I'll state up front that I'm a pretty partisan fellow and am a Kerry/Edwards supporter but in all fairness I scored the debate as a tie; Cheney didn't do anything to flay Edwards alive, whil L'il John had trouble staying on subject but did a decent courtroom job. So I was a mite surprised when the pundits sat and giggled that Cheney had crushed Edwards and that the Democratic ticket looked weak and babyish.
I suppose I shouldn't have been so shocked; after all, the script says that Bush will look like a loveable doofus in contrast to the professorial Kerry, while Edwards is supposed to cry for his mummy every time he encounters the Wyoming Verbal Wedgie Master. Still, it seems that the good folks in the heartland who took part in the instant polling that followed the debate didn't get their copy of the script; among partisans the debate was scored as a tie and among the non-aligned Edwards prevailed.
Of course, one of the highlights for us dedicated White House watchers with long memories was squirming in frustration as the Veep calmly spewed more of his usual lies, half-truths, and distortions with his traditional aplomb. However, and this brings me back to my original point, thanks to the internet and the democratization of publishing by folks such as my hosts here at Blogger this kind of hard-to-shift crapola is now instantly avaliable to dedicated debunkers of every stripe. Just as folks did with CBS and the forged Bush National Guard memos, a hard working few have compiled a list of Cheney's whoppers from last night's debate. Enjoy and share!
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"
THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on September 11th. And in its fact check column today, the Boston Globe says "Cheney has consistently asserted strong prewar links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even after the 9/11 Commission definitively concluded that there had not been a collaborative relationship between the two. In a radio interview in January 2004, Cheney said: 'I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.'"
On December 9, 2001, Cheney went on "Meet the Press" to perpetuate the now entirely debunked theory that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi official. He went back on a year ago to describe Iraq as part of ""the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Most recently, Cheney has claimed that Iraq harbored the terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and said Zarqawi "is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq." But yesterday, a report Cheney himself requested found that there is no conclusive evidence to support that claim. An administration official said, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "900,000 small businesses will be hit" by the Kerry-Edwards plan to roll back tax cuts for people in the top income bracket.
THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post writes this morning: "This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets."
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "We have added 1.7 million jobs to the economy."
THE TRUTH: On November 2nd, George Bush will be the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. There will be about a million fewer jobs than there were when Bush took office -- and about 7 million fewer than Bush's own post-9/11 estimate. Cheney's using fuzzy math: 1.7 million jobs have been added, but millions more have been lost.
CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
THE TRUTH: This one-liner was one of Cheney's best zingers of the night, but even it isn't true: Cheney and Edwards have met in public at least twice. They met when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to be sworn in by Cheney as Senator and at the National Prayer Breakfast. At the Breakfast, he even called Edwards out by name, starting his remarks with the words, "Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning." You can actually watch video of the two of them shaking hands at democrats.org.
BBC NEWS, Middle East: Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq
Like amateurs like me, just doing telemetry on the available pre-war public data and known regional trends; like both US and UN weapons inspectors such as US Marine Scott Ritter and his ilk; like the mustachioed Fascist Saddam himself maintained:
Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq
Hmmm. You know, in their heart of hearts, I believe the politicians and ideologues who drove us to war suspected this too. Otherwise, they might just be suggesting to us that they are too clueless and prone to bad decision making to hold office, and they wouldn't want us to think that would they?
Quick! Change the channel! Who had more style at the debates? Who can be perceived as having more 'gravitas'? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq
Hmmm. You know, in their heart of hearts, I believe the politicians and ideologues who drove us to war suspected this too. Otherwise, they might just be suggesting to us that they are too clueless and prone to bad decision making to hold office, and they wouldn't want us to think that would they?
Quick! Change the channel! Who had more style at the debates? Who can be perceived as having more 'gravitas'? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld, just in time to hole his own ship again
Finally US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has joined the prevailing, clear-headed, view on links between Saddam and Al Qadea:
Donald Rumsfeld casts doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
No doubt Dick Cheney will now have to stubbornly lie harder than ever about this in his debate with John Edwards tonight. If they do reinstitute the draft, I reckon Rumsfeld's number will be one of the first drawn by the vinegar-pussed pathologically truth adverse Vice President.
Donald Rumsfeld casts doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
No doubt Dick Cheney will now have to stubbornly lie harder than ever about this in his debate with John Edwards tonight. If they do reinstitute the draft, I reckon Rumsfeld's number will be one of the first drawn by the vinegar-pussed pathologically truth adverse Vice President.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Code Names
What an outstanding idea: a book that lays bare all manner of secret and not-so-secret US government projects via their code names:
Code Names
In an age when out-in-the-open military operations sound more like brand names or bad Lou Gossett Jr movies ("Operation Liberate Thunder Nipples") rather than attempts to mislead the enemy and obsfucate your goals, its good to see that the Government is still using old fashioned cloak and dagger names for their more suspect or nefarious schemes.
Code Names
In an age when out-in-the-open military operations sound more like brand names or bad Lou Gossett Jr movies ("Operation Liberate Thunder Nipples") rather than attempts to mislead the enemy and obsfucate your goals, its good to see that the Government is still using old fashioned cloak and dagger names for their more suspect or nefarious schemes.
Friday, October 01, 2004
History Friday: 1918, Lawrence of Arabia Captures Damascus
Ahh yes, the joys of History Friday on a Monday. What can I say? I like to keep folks guessing.
This (last) week's entry in the log book of things marks the alleged capture of Damascus by Lawrence of Arabia and the leaders of the Arab Revolt. I say alleged as Lawrence was a consummate fertilizer merchant and self-publicist who was never adverse to taking credit for the hard work of others (and I write as one of his admirers.) The Australians, for one, feel that they have a legitimate beef with El'Orenz and his warrior bands:
Australians Dispute Lawrence's Damascus Claims
For a traditional defense of Lawrence and his wartime exploits visit these chaps: T.E. Lawrence biography.
Or for a more ambivalent look: The Importance of T.E. Lawrence
I personally feel that our modern view of Lawrence of Arabia comes mostly from the outstanding David Lean film of the same name. A brilliant piece of art, with all the expedient adjustment of truths that a good narrative requires. Besides, the film draws heavily on Lawrence's own Seven Pillars of Wisdom which as with any egomaniac's autobiography is florid with self-aggrandizement and potent myth.
Still, a ripping good yarn is always a ripping good yarn, whatever disturbing sado-masochistic, closeted and damaged homosexual, or unpleasant racist overtones follow in the wake of the original breathless accounts of derring-do.
This (last) week's entry in the log book of things marks the alleged capture of Damascus by Lawrence of Arabia and the leaders of the Arab Revolt. I say alleged as Lawrence was a consummate fertilizer merchant and self-publicist who was never adverse to taking credit for the hard work of others (and I write as one of his admirers.) The Australians, for one, feel that they have a legitimate beef with El'Orenz and his warrior bands:
Australians Dispute Lawrence's Damascus Claims
For a traditional defense of Lawrence and his wartime exploits visit these chaps: T.E. Lawrence biography.
Or for a more ambivalent look: The Importance of T.E. Lawrence
I personally feel that our modern view of Lawrence of Arabia comes mostly from the outstanding David Lean film of the same name. A brilliant piece of art, with all the expedient adjustment of truths that a good narrative requires. Besides, the film draws heavily on Lawrence's own Seven Pillars of Wisdom which as with any egomaniac's autobiography is florid with self-aggrandizement and potent myth.
Still, a ripping good yarn is always a ripping good yarn, whatever disturbing sado-masochistic, closeted and damaged homosexual, or unpleasant racist overtones follow in the wake of the original breathless accounts of derring-do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
