Hitler used in Bush election campaign ad
I think the Democrats should let this one stand -- it hurts the Republicans themselves more than it hurts Kerry. Its on the Bush-Cheney 2004 site.
As an ad, its very strange -- the controversial shots of Hitler are interspersed with the quotes from Gore and Dean and Moore, and its not very clear whether the ad is trying to imply that Hitler is against Bush too, or that Gore and Dean and Moore are also opposed to Hitler. And the quotes they use are strong statements against the war and against the Bush administration's use of fear as a tactic -- they don't actually come across as irrational rants, though maybe the RNC thinks they are. But the wierdest thing is at the end, with the cheery little burst of music and the smiling Bush -- I guess the conclusion is supposed to feel like "don't worry, be happy" and it comes across like Bush comforting the faithful by playing Bobo the clown-- well, considering the hundreds dying daily now in Iraq, its pretty disconcerting and strange.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Sensible discussion
What Next? Rolling Stone convenes a panel of experts to discuss what went wrong in Iraq
Finally, some sensible talk about Iraq from smart people who have actually worked in the region. Some selected quotes:
Chas Freeman U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992; assistant secretary of defense, 1993-1994: Increasing sophistication in the ambush tactics and improvised explosive devices used to kill American troops indicate growing cooperation between secular Iraqi factions and religious extremists like Al Qaeda. Sunni insurgents in Iraq are being helped by Hamas from the Palestinian occupied territories, and the Shiites are being assisted by Hezbollah from Lebanon. All these forces are cooperating, even though many have historically been mortal enemies. Clearly, the U.S. is a big enough enemy for everyone in the region to put aside their differences.
Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of Centcom, 1997-2000; special envoy to the Middle East, 2002-2003; author of Battle Ready: Any time we look at an "enemy," we look at it at three levels. At the tactical level, the enemy is the terrorist organizations and the financing they get. The operational level is the enemy's center of gravity -- it's the rationale, which is radical Islam. At the strategic level, it's the continuous flow of young people so desperate and angry that they're willing to believe it.
At the tactical level, we could be winning - we could be hurting Al Qaeda and capturing its leadership. But as an ideology, it's strengthening. It is probably stronger now than before September 11th, in terms of recruiting manpower willing to kill themselves.
Sen. Joseph Biden Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I was in the Oval Office the other day, and the president asked me what I would do about resignations. I said, "Look, Mr. President, would I keep Rumsfeld? Absolutely not." And I turned to Vice President Cheney, who was there, and I said, "Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." I turned back to the president and said, "Mr. President, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are bright guys, really patriotic, but they've been dead wrong on every major piece of advice they've given you. That's why I'd get rid of them, Mr. President -- not just Abu Ghraib." They said nothing. Just sat like big old bullfrogs on a log and looked at me.
Youssef Ibrahim Managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group; former Middle Eastern correspondent for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal: The sixty-year relationship we've had with Saudi Arabia is on the verge of collapse. How many times have we asked them to please, please open the spigots so we can bring prices down? There's a new 900-pound gorilla coming called China. In ten years, it's going to be the largest consumer of oil in the world, which means that the people who produce oil are no longer kissing America's ass -- they're beginning to kiss China's ass. [In response to a question about whether the war has produced a new respect for American military power] Hardly. We are no longer loved because of Iraq, and we are also no longer feared because of Iraq. The neoconservative dream of regime change throughout the region -- in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia -- is dead. Do you really think any of those countries are afraid of us after watching us bleed in the streets of Iraq?
Finally, some sensible talk about Iraq from smart people who have actually worked in the region. Some selected quotes:
Chas Freeman U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992; assistant secretary of defense, 1993-1994: Increasing sophistication in the ambush tactics and improvised explosive devices used to kill American troops indicate growing cooperation between secular Iraqi factions and religious extremists like Al Qaeda. Sunni insurgents in Iraq are being helped by Hamas from the Palestinian occupied territories, and the Shiites are being assisted by Hezbollah from Lebanon. All these forces are cooperating, even though many have historically been mortal enemies. Clearly, the U.S. is a big enough enemy for everyone in the region to put aside their differences.
Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of Centcom, 1997-2000; special envoy to the Middle East, 2002-2003; author of Battle Ready: Any time we look at an "enemy," we look at it at three levels. At the tactical level, the enemy is the terrorist organizations and the financing they get. The operational level is the enemy's center of gravity -- it's the rationale, which is radical Islam. At the strategic level, it's the continuous flow of young people so desperate and angry that they're willing to believe it.
At the tactical level, we could be winning - we could be hurting Al Qaeda and capturing its leadership. But as an ideology, it's strengthening. It is probably stronger now than before September 11th, in terms of recruiting manpower willing to kill themselves.
Sen. Joseph Biden Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I was in the Oval Office the other day, and the president asked me what I would do about resignations. I said, "Look, Mr. President, would I keep Rumsfeld? Absolutely not." And I turned to Vice President Cheney, who was there, and I said, "Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." I turned back to the president and said, "Mr. President, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are bright guys, really patriotic, but they've been dead wrong on every major piece of advice they've given you. That's why I'd get rid of them, Mr. President -- not just Abu Ghraib." They said nothing. Just sat like big old bullfrogs on a log and looked at me.
Youssef Ibrahim Managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group; former Middle Eastern correspondent for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal: The sixty-year relationship we've had with Saudi Arabia is on the verge of collapse. How many times have we asked them to please, please open the spigots so we can bring prices down? There's a new 900-pound gorilla coming called China. In ten years, it's going to be the largest consumer of oil in the world, which means that the people who produce oil are no longer kissing America's ass -- they're beginning to kiss China's ass. [In response to a question about whether the war has produced a new respect for American military power] Hardly. We are no longer loved because of Iraq, and we are also no longer feared because of Iraq. The neoconservative dream of regime change throughout the region -- in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia -- is dead. Do you really think any of those countries are afraid of us after watching us bleed in the streets of Iraq?
Martin the listener
Rick Salutin's column Ideas on election ideas sums up a lot of my own thoughts. He quotes Jack Layton saying "Elections should be about ideas" and then continues "Uh, I think that's a bad idea. Undergraduate education should be about ideas. You get great reading lists, inspiring profs, you yak in the dorm late at night. But elections? They should be about what happens to ideas put into practice. . . . Elections are also about judging leaders' capacity for judgment, since mostly what they deal with in power is unexpected crises, such as SARS or 9/11, that you can't have ready-made ideas for."
So on the basis of judgment, whose should I trust, Martin's or Harper's? Clearly, as far as I am concerned, its Martin by a landslide.
Over the course of this campaign, Harper has shown himself to be not-ready-for-prime-time -- he cannot even manage the continuing gay-bashing, abortion-bashing blather from his own caucus. And clearly, he has an agenda about which he does not want to talk. Salutin writes "For a real ideologue, you have to turn to Stephen Harper. He doesn't spew ideas, he takes a few and muses on how he got them, honed them, stuck to them . . . These ideas are clearly a deep part of his sense of self. Or should I say, this idea. The sign of ideology is the conviction that one idea, or a tight, related set, can be successfully applied to any topic or situation. Everything follows reasonably, except the monomaniacal premise it starts from."
Martin's mistakes, on the other hand, have been more personal -- he doesn't have Chretien's ready wit or ability to lunge for the quick ripose; he comes across looking clumsy, stuttering. But his heart is in the right place -- in the CBC interview on Wednesday night, the audience warmed to him when he demonstrated how responsive he is toward this country and the people who live in it. He wants to do, not what he thinks is best for us, but what we think is best for ourselves. As Salutin says, this makes Martin appear to be waffling:
"I know people who say Paul Martin's real agenda is to serve the rich and the corporate elite. But after watching a lot of TV for the past six weeks, I've come to the conclusion that his real problem is that he has no agenda. (He may not realize this, but what difference does that make?) And maybe it's not a problem. Maybe for the next 10 years, he could get as excited about building a vibrant health-care system as he was about erasing the deficit -- come hell, high water or sick people -- during the past decade."
Salutin continues " He's like Groucho Marx, who barked, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." Principles can be overrated when dealing with reality. Even V. I. Lenin, whom you'd normally consider a total Marxist ideologue, after seizing power in a devastated Russia, decided: What this country needs is a little capitalism. That showed genius."
Basically, what I like about Martin is that he takes his cue from us -- if we say that defeating the deficit is what we want, then he does it. If we say health care is our top priority -- as poll after poll has shown -- then it becomes Martin's top priority too. He listens to us. That's the kind of man I want as Prime Minister.
So on the basis of judgment, whose should I trust, Martin's or Harper's? Clearly, as far as I am concerned, its Martin by a landslide.
Over the course of this campaign, Harper has shown himself to be not-ready-for-prime-time -- he cannot even manage the continuing gay-bashing, abortion-bashing blather from his own caucus. And clearly, he has an agenda about which he does not want to talk. Salutin writes "For a real ideologue, you have to turn to Stephen Harper. He doesn't spew ideas, he takes a few and muses on how he got them, honed them, stuck to them . . . These ideas are clearly a deep part of his sense of self. Or should I say, this idea. The sign of ideology is the conviction that one idea, or a tight, related set, can be successfully applied to any topic or situation. Everything follows reasonably, except the monomaniacal premise it starts from."
Martin's mistakes, on the other hand, have been more personal -- he doesn't have Chretien's ready wit or ability to lunge for the quick ripose; he comes across looking clumsy, stuttering. But his heart is in the right place -- in the CBC interview on Wednesday night, the audience warmed to him when he demonstrated how responsive he is toward this country and the people who live in it. He wants to do, not what he thinks is best for us, but what we think is best for ourselves. As Salutin says, this makes Martin appear to be waffling:
"I know people who say Paul Martin's real agenda is to serve the rich and the corporate elite. But after watching a lot of TV for the past six weeks, I've come to the conclusion that his real problem is that he has no agenda. (He may not realize this, but what difference does that make?) And maybe it's not a problem. Maybe for the next 10 years, he could get as excited about building a vibrant health-care system as he was about erasing the deficit -- come hell, high water or sick people -- during the past decade."
Salutin continues " He's like Groucho Marx, who barked, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." Principles can be overrated when dealing with reality. Even V. I. Lenin, whom you'd normally consider a total Marxist ideologue, after seizing power in a devastated Russia, decided: What this country needs is a little capitalism. That showed genius."
Basically, what I like about Martin is that he takes his cue from us -- if we say that defeating the deficit is what we want, then he does it. If we say health care is our top priority -- as poll after poll has shown -- then it becomes Martin's top priority too. He listens to us. That's the kind of man I want as Prime Minister.
The new GOP Campaign Slogan
Cheney Defends Use Of Four-Letter Word
So I guess "Go Fuck Yourself" is now going to be the new Republican slogan. It is very apt, since that is essentially what the Bush administration has been telling just about everyone about just about everything for the last three years -- Concerned about the impact of the Patriot Act on cherished civil liberties? Go fuck yourself! Questioning the stated reasons for the Iraq war? Go fuck yourself! Wondering what can be done about the federal deficit? Go fuck yourself! Worried about global warming? Go fuck yourself!
Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it? And better yet, it saves Bush and everyone else from any boring policy work, working out any response that actually addresses the issues.
I'm looking forward to seeing it plastered all over the campaign bus and the posters. The campaign can use it as a tag line, too "Yes, America Can - go fuck itself!"
So I guess "Go Fuck Yourself" is now going to be the new Republican slogan. It is very apt, since that is essentially what the Bush administration has been telling just about everyone about just about everything for the last three years -- Concerned about the impact of the Patriot Act on cherished civil liberties? Go fuck yourself! Questioning the stated reasons for the Iraq war? Go fuck yourself! Wondering what can be done about the federal deficit? Go fuck yourself! Worried about global warming? Go fuck yourself!
Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it? And better yet, it saves Bush and everyone else from any boring policy work, working out any response that actually addresses the issues.
I'm looking forward to seeing it plastered all over the campaign bus and the posters. The campaign can use it as a tag line, too "Yes, America Can - go fuck itself!"
Friday, June 25, 2004
Bravery
This news story Canadians honoured for bravery reminded me that today 35 Canadians (two from Saskatoon) were recognized for bravery. Here are their stories. Scroll down to the Citations, starting about half way down the site.
Clarkson said "You remind us of the best that lies within the human heart ... I wish that every Canadian could be in this room today." I wish so, too. You know, I think each of us wonders whether, in such a moment, we would meet the test. Its inspiring to read about those who do.
I also checked the GG's website -- people who receive the Star of Courage can put S.C. after their names, while those receiving the Medal of Bravery can put M.B. after their names.
Clarkson said "You remind us of the best that lies within the human heart ... I wish that every Canadian could be in this room today." I wish so, too. You know, I think each of us wonders whether, in such a moment, we would meet the test. Its inspiring to read about those who do.
I also checked the GG's website -- people who receive the Star of Courage can put S.C. after their names, while those receiving the Medal of Bravery can put M.B. after their names.
No, no, not any more! For the love of humanity, please, no. . .
Oh, God, she's back! So poor little Monica is boo-hooing now about how she has been rejected again -- Lewinsky rebuffs Clinton's claims And all along, while she was blabbing everything to her wired girlfriend, she thought it was "true love" that brought them together, not just her thongs?
I have an announcement to make, on behalf of the entire free world and all the ships at sea -- now that you all, Bill, Hillary and Monica, have written your books, will you all please shut up!
I have an announcement to make, on behalf of the entire free world and all the ships at sea -- now that you all, Bill, Hillary and Monica, have written your books, will you all please shut up!
Thursday, June 24, 2004
This is the war that never ends
Reading the most recent reports from Iraq -- Attacks in 5 Iraqi Cities Leave More Than 100 Dead -- reminded me of what must be the world's most annoying song:
. . . This is the song that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started singing it not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .
There's a CNN poll now on their website that asks whether the media is protraying Iraq as better or worse than it is -- a surprising number have voted for the "worse" side. I suppose these dreamers didn't read the latest NYT story, particularly this cheery little sentence "Across the country, Western security consultants are warning foreign workers not to set foot outside their compounds and to brace themselves for a major offensive."
And it goes on and on, my friends.
. . . This is the song that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started singing it not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .
There's a CNN poll now on their website that asks whether the media is protraying Iraq as better or worse than it is -- a surprising number have voted for the "worse" side. I suppose these dreamers didn't read the latest NYT story, particularly this cheery little sentence "Across the country, Western security consultants are warning foreign workers not to set foot outside their compounds and to brace themselves for a major offensive."
And it goes on and on, my friends.
Use the word, Al -- the "F" word
Gore's powerful speech -- "Democracy itself is in grave danger" -- pulls it all together. Read it. He concludes:
"In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between al-Qaida and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing constitutional power grab by the president. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public's mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties -- again on his personal discretion -- and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election. "
The word which Al could have used, the F word, is FASCISM.
And the next step is impeachment.
"In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between al-Qaida and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing constitutional power grab by the president. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public's mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties -- again on his personal discretion -- and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election. "
The word which Al could have used, the F word, is FASCISM.
And the next step is impeachment.
Your vote is an endorsement, nothing more, nothing less
I keep seeing these TV interviews with voters whining "I don't support seperatism but I'm voting for Duceppe because I want to send the liberals a message" or "I don't support what the conservatives want to do but I'm voting for Harper because of the sponsorship scandal" or "I like Paul Martin but I'm not voting for him because the Liberals are too arrogant."
It's just dumb. If you want to send Martin a message, write a letter, or phone a talk show, or start a blog. Your vote is not a message, it's an endorsement.
Everyone who votes for the Bloc is voting for separatism. Period.
Everyone who votes for Harper is voting to support the Conservative agenda, open and hidden. Period.
That's how the parties will read your vote -- it's how they should read it. No winning politician, even someone who wins by one vote, ever says "Yes, I know I won, but the voters didn't really support my platform, so I'm not going to enact it after all." Nope -- quite rightfully, they view their win as an endorsement of their party's beliefs.
So if Duceppe wins in Quebec, and if Harper wins in the rest of Canada, I don't want to hear any whining on June 29 about how the result doesn't really mean increased support for separatism, or increased support for conservatism. That's only what it means. That's exactly what it means. Period.
It's just dumb. If you want to send Martin a message, write a letter, or phone a talk show, or start a blog. Your vote is not a message, it's an endorsement.
Everyone who votes for the Bloc is voting for separatism. Period.
Everyone who votes for Harper is voting to support the Conservative agenda, open and hidden. Period.
That's how the parties will read your vote -- it's how they should read it. No winning politician, even someone who wins by one vote, ever says "Yes, I know I won, but the voters didn't really support my platform, so I'm not going to enact it after all." Nope -- quite rightfully, they view their win as an endorsement of their party's beliefs.
So if Duceppe wins in Quebec, and if Harper wins in the rest of Canada, I don't want to hear any whining on June 29 about how the result doesn't really mean increased support for separatism, or increased support for conservatism. That's only what it means. That's exactly what it means. Period.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Liberals by a nose?
I haven't posted much about our election lately -- I guess I don't have much to complain about now that the Star Phoenix is covering some local stories (not a lot, but some) and the national media is holding leaders' toes to the fire over their platforms instead of publishing just cutesy gonzo stories -- and I say this despite the "Harper-the-brave" story in today's Mop & Pail, just for pitching a high, short one -- did Harper take Monday off just to practice?
Anyway, it looks like it will come right down to the wire, now that the polls show the Liberals ahead again in Ontario. But it will still be a Perils of Pauline finish:
Will Martin's latest "hardball" tactic --"if you want me then you have to vote for me" -- beat Harper's softball?
Will Ontario believe that Ralph Klein really doesn't intend to do anything that would challenge the Canada Health Act? Or can we expect that Ralph will remember after the election that he had a few more ideas?
Will Landry's musings about another referendum frighten any Quebec voters back to the liberals?
Did Harper actually get any secret briefings from the RCMP about the Arar case or was he just trying to make himself look important in front of the TV cameras?
Will anyone come up with any more "confidential" Harper policy memos?
Will the NDP disappear?
Stay tuned.
Anyway, it looks like it will come right down to the wire, now that the polls show the Liberals ahead again in Ontario. But it will still be a Perils of Pauline finish:
Will Martin's latest "hardball" tactic --"if you want me then you have to vote for me" -- beat Harper's softball?
Will Ontario believe that Ralph Klein really doesn't intend to do anything that would challenge the Canada Health Act? Or can we expect that Ralph will remember after the election that he had a few more ideas?
Will Landry's musings about another referendum frighten any Quebec voters back to the liberals?
Did Harper actually get any secret briefings from the RCMP about the Arar case or was he just trying to make himself look important in front of the TV cameras?
Will anyone come up with any more "confidential" Harper policy memos?
Will the NDP disappear?
Stay tuned.
Plain speaking
In Grand Delusion, Cohen states it plainly -- "The fact remains that Hussein's fingerprints are not on the attacks of Sept. 11 and that the United States went to war for stated reasons that have simply evaporated -- weapons of mass destruction and that vaporous link between two very bad men. "
"If I go crazy, I'm taking you with me!" *
What connects most of the US news lately -- Justice department memos justifying torture, pretentions to presidential imperial power, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, CIA secret prisons and ghost prisoners, airline no-fly lists, the Plame leak, colour-coded threat levels, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, roundups and deportations of Muslims by Homeland Security, the preemptive war doctrine, the hysterical attempt to connect Saddam with Al Qaida -- is its overall craziness.
The Bush administration went crazy after a terrorist attack within US national borders -- an attack which, but for the bravery of a few airline passengers, could have killed them all. And their craziness is getting worse, not better.
Now, over the last 30 years or so, dozens of other countries have suffered hundreds of other terrorist attacks, including Canada with the FLQ. Britain with the IRA, India, Pakistan, France with the communists, Spain with the Basque separatists, Italy and Germany with the Red Brigades, Russia with the Chechnians, Indonesia, Malasia, Mexico, most of south and central america, Japan, not to mention Israel - the list goes on and on. And I suppose every one of these countries went crazy for a while -- Canada did too -- remember the October Crisis and the War Measures Act?
But it ended. Most of the time, nations came to their senses and figured out a combination of police and policy to deal with it. They healed, and their national life went on.
But in the United States, supposedly the greatest, strongest, democracy in the world, the craziness has now lasted three years and counting.
Maybe its because neither the police nor the policy responses have been very effective or competent. Judging by the cases reported by the Justice department, the "police" response has been pretty minimal. And America's two wars have both failed to make America feel any more safe or secure, less so in fact. And the "policy" response hasn't gone anywhere -- the Bush administration has not taken the lead on any national dialogue because they refuse to discuss any of their policies, responses, tactics, strategies, or philosophies.
So American national life now seems to consist of a lot of crazy people screaming all the time.
My hope for Kerry is that he will help America heal, in a way the Bush Administration has been incapable of doing.
*This was, by the way, Catherine O'Hara's best line from Beetlejuice.
The Bush administration went crazy after a terrorist attack within US national borders -- an attack which, but for the bravery of a few airline passengers, could have killed them all. And their craziness is getting worse, not better.
Now, over the last 30 years or so, dozens of other countries have suffered hundreds of other terrorist attacks, including Canada with the FLQ. Britain with the IRA, India, Pakistan, France with the communists, Spain with the Basque separatists, Italy and Germany with the Red Brigades, Russia with the Chechnians, Indonesia, Malasia, Mexico, most of south and central america, Japan, not to mention Israel - the list goes on and on. And I suppose every one of these countries went crazy for a while -- Canada did too -- remember the October Crisis and the War Measures Act?
But it ended. Most of the time, nations came to their senses and figured out a combination of police and policy to deal with it. They healed, and their national life went on.
But in the United States, supposedly the greatest, strongest, democracy in the world, the craziness has now lasted three years and counting.
Maybe its because neither the police nor the policy responses have been very effective or competent. Judging by the cases reported by the Justice department, the "police" response has been pretty minimal. And America's two wars have both failed to make America feel any more safe or secure, less so in fact. And the "policy" response hasn't gone anywhere -- the Bush administration has not taken the lead on any national dialogue because they refuse to discuss any of their policies, responses, tactics, strategies, or philosophies.
So American national life now seems to consist of a lot of crazy people screaming all the time.
My hope for Kerry is that he will help America heal, in a way the Bush Administration has been incapable of doing.
*This was, by the way, Catherine O'Hara's best line from Beetlejuice.
Just a reminder about why John Kerry should be elected president
Blogger Tristero quotes author Scott Turow on why John Kerry will make a good president:
Scott Turow’s remarks on John Kerry and why he is the right person to be President:
(John Kerry) is running against a man who was not fit for duty in 1968 and is not fit for duty today, a man who lacked the qualifications for the office when he was elected and has demonstrated it. We have been through a skein of national disasters, for which he accepts no blame, because he literally doesn’t understand enough about the job to realize how a better President would have responded. John Kerry has been in public life for 35 years. He was a prosecutor when GWB was running an oil company into the ground. And he was already a seasoned United States Senator when GWB decided it was time to give up abusing substances. JK has a sharper grasp of foreign policy, and more experience with it, than any candidate for President in the last 50 years, with the possible exception of GHWB (see today’s NYT). His dedication to the cause of our military and veterans is long established. And his commitment to economic and social justice for all Americans cannot be doubted. A man can’t be the committed liberal Bush sometimes maintains Kerry is, and also the unprincipled waffler. Life and public service are complicated, as GWB doesn’t understand. JK does. He has a sense of nuance, and the experience and values to improve the life of the country.
Scott Turow’s remarks on John Kerry and why he is the right person to be President:
(John Kerry) is running against a man who was not fit for duty in 1968 and is not fit for duty today, a man who lacked the qualifications for the office when he was elected and has demonstrated it. We have been through a skein of national disasters, for which he accepts no blame, because he literally doesn’t understand enough about the job to realize how a better President would have responded. John Kerry has been in public life for 35 years. He was a prosecutor when GWB was running an oil company into the ground. And he was already a seasoned United States Senator when GWB decided it was time to give up abusing substances. JK has a sharper grasp of foreign policy, and more experience with it, than any candidate for President in the last 50 years, with the possible exception of GHWB (see today’s NYT). His dedication to the cause of our military and veterans is long established. And his commitment to economic and social justice for all Americans cannot be doubted. A man can’t be the committed liberal Bush sometimes maintains Kerry is, and also the unprincipled waffler. Life and public service are complicated, as GWB doesn’t understand. JK does. He has a sense of nuance, and the experience and values to improve the life of the country.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Whiskey Bar: What's In a Name?
Whiskey Bar: What's In a Name?
Billmon summarizes the issues very well. When Jon Stewart interviewed Stephen Hayes on The Daily Show last night, Hayes approached it as the usual book puffery interview, chuckling along with Stewart's jokes, and defending his book as just another piece of journalism. Then Stewart got serious on him, told him that preemptive war, if it was to be justified as a US doctrine, simply had to achieve a higher standard of truth than the mighta-coulda-shoulda chain of circumstantial rumours and mythical stories of which the assertions of an Iraq connection to 9/11 presently consist. It was a terrific interview.
Billmon summarizes the issues very well. When Jon Stewart interviewed Stephen Hayes on The Daily Show last night, Hayes approached it as the usual book puffery interview, chuckling along with Stewart's jokes, and defending his book as just another piece of journalism. Then Stewart got serious on him, told him that preemptive war, if it was to be justified as a US doctrine, simply had to achieve a higher standard of truth than the mighta-coulda-shoulda chain of circumstantial rumours and mythical stories of which the assertions of an Iraq connection to 9/11 presently consist. It was a terrific interview.
"White House Disavows Interrogation Memo" but does it anyway?
This is an odd story -- the Associated Press story is titled White House Disavows Interrogation Memo but then the story lead sentence states "President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday." So what, exactly, did the White House disavow? Just the memo? But the torture itself is still OK?
Maybe the AP headline writers were scared of more Dick Cheney nitpicking criticism after he raked the New York Times headline writers over the coals on the weekend..
UPDATE -- so, when I clicked back to the story, the headline had changed. It now reads, accurately, "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws". Quick work, AP.
Maybe the AP headline writers were scared of more Dick Cheney nitpicking criticism after he raked the New York Times headline writers over the coals on the weekend..
UPDATE -- so, when I clicked back to the story, the headline had changed. It now reads, accurately, "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws". Quick work, AP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)