Take a look at this excerpt from the remarks President Bush delivered earlier this week in Istanbul. "In some parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, there is a wariness toward democracy, often based on misunderstanding. Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture, and want no part of it. And I assure them, when I speak about the blessings of liberty, coarse videos and crash -- crass commercialism are not what I have in mind. There is nothing incompatible between democratic values and high standards of decency. For the sake of their families and their culture, citizens of a free society have every right to strive peacefully for a moral society." Let's ignore for a moment how irritating it is when rich guys (who are in the process of spending a couple hundred million on crass commercials) complain about crash crass commercialism. And let's pretend that Middle Easterners are not at all irked by Western oil interests that help to line the pockets of their oppressors while, until 9-11, making no demands regarding the treatment of the citizens who happened to reside on the land above that oil. It is in fact Bush's own misunderstanding that is driving his argument here. The wariness towards the evils of democracy (sexuality, commercialism, coarse videos, low carb beers, etc.) is a creation of those in power in the Middle East. It's not that these things are really evil. I thought everyone sort of understood the way this worked. Just in case, let's take a quick refresher course on how to dominate a people without having to give up any of your own snorting, shooting, drinking, humping, bumping, cash flow excesses, travel, and really comfortable robes. First, you start making a hell of a lot of money from a resource that is in higher demand than a bowl of linguini at an Atkins clinic. Then you figure out a way to keep the general population from rising up against you. Hey, here's an idea. Let's try a repressive religion whose tenets we'd never dream of following ourselves (at least not until we're done impressing the ladies with a Playstation2 game on our 64 inch plasma screen stretched out in front of the hot tub in the back of our Hummer limo). Now, everytime there are stirrings among those who complain about a lack of freedom, we will remind them of the evil decadence of the west, the wanton sexuality, the dirty movies (and the other stuff we love so much) and tell them that they will not be rewarded in the afterlife unless they avoid these terrible elements that come along with democracy. We'll convince them they are better off being oppressed than they would be if they were free. Great trick, eh? Can you believe that our President doesn't get this? Just because Osama bin Laden tries to convince his followers that elements of democracy are bad doesn't mean that we have to agree with him on any of his points. He's wrong. The Saudi ruling family is lying about this stuff. That's the point. No, Mr. President. Citizens of the Middle East cannot have democracy without crass commercialism or coarse videos. And there's absolutely no reason they should. They cannot have democracy and freedom while half of all citizens are forced to cover up and stay home unless they have an escort. The problem is not our freedoms, Mr. President. The problem is that those in power in the Middle East seek to distort the perception of our freedoms just as they've distorted the value systems associated with their own religion. The wariness about any of the elements of democracy you cited have been created by endless brainwashing efforts by a tiny minority looking to keep a thumb on a massive and increasingly frustrated majority. The goal is to retain tyrannical political power. And believe me, dictatorships are a whole lot harder to cope with than dirty movies.
One of the things that I love most about blogs is the fact that anyone can see just how much smarter Josh Marshall is than William Safire. It sounds like a subtle detail. But it's actually a major point.
The debate about Michael Moore continues unabated, rarely being slowed by either other major political stories or the buzz around Spiderman 2. Here at electablog* I have seen a spike in traffic from search engines because I titled my articles on the subject: Why I Love Michael Moore and Why I Hate Michael Moore. You'd be surprised how many people search for Michael Moore with the words "I hate" or "I love" attached. I'm not sure if people are searching for movie reviews or Michael Moore's Match.com profile. I haven't seen traffic like this at my political site since I nominated Beyonce for Vice President
Colin Powell visited Sudan and pressured government officials to put an end to the state-sanctioned militias responsible for genocide and the obliteration of thousands of villages.
For perhaps the first time in decades, someone in Iraq was informed of his rights under the law. Among those on the receiving end of the rights reading were a who's who of those most responsible for the withholding of such rights in the past including Tariq Aziz, Chemical Ali and Saddam. Even the worst of the worst and the most guilty of the guilty have rights in a free society. It is something we were reminded of by the Supreme Court earlier this week and it is something that we were reminded of even more dramatically as Saddam and his thugs were informed that even they will get their days in court.
Boston Globe: "Dick Cheney occupies an unprecedented position in American history. There has never been such a powerful vice president. There has never been anyone other than a president as powerful as Cheney."
Kevin Drum: "So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they're so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it." Fair enough. But on some level the argument that our side is merely using the same pathetic tactics as their side is not all that comforting. What should set us apart is our willingness to tell it like it is. More on this from Kristof.
The latest poll numbers are in and they don't paint a very pretty picture for the President who currently suffers from a 42% approval rating. As a rule of thumb, the incumbent's approval rating provides a decent barometer of the percentage of the vote that he'll get in the general election. In addition to the approval rating, 57% of respondents think the country is on the wrong track and 45% have a negative opinion of Bush himself. A few other trends to note: - Oedipal Update: 43's approval ratings are still nine points higher than 41's were at this period of his term in office. - Low Foreign Policy Esteem: The new American edict appears to be speak softly and keep your president out of international trouble. People think W is doing a rather poor job on foreign policy and that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary mistake. Yet, Americans still generally feel safer with Bush than they do with John Kerry when it comes to handling a foreign crisis and/or the terrorism threat. In other words, yes our reputation among allies is dirt. And yes, Iraq may have been a bad idea executed poorly and no we don't really trust this administration when it comes to the reasons behind the war or the crimes at Abu Ghraib, but still, they seem to be doing OK. On all these numbers, however, the trends look bad for Bush and it will take good news on the ground and a lot of dough in the airwaves to reverse those trends. - Who's That Dude at the Podium: A whopping 40% of voters say they do not have an opinion of John Kerry yet. Political insiders will explain that there is still a long time to go and the incumbent usually doesn't make a splash until after both the convention and the choosing of a running mate. But this is no ordinary campaign. John Kerry, knee deep in anti-W cash, has spent more than $60 million in television ads alone. Still, people don't have an opinion on him (and yes, those numbers look about the same in the swing states where the cash is being spent). It is unique to politics that a person can market themselves with tens of millions and not really make much of dent. When I was in high school, one time and only one time, I wore white jeans with a white sweater over a white T-shirt. That alone formed such a strong opinion in the mind of the girl I was trying to impress that I didn't actually get a first date until about nine years later (even with a steady dose of radio and billboard saturation). To bring the story full circle, we just celebrated our sixth anniversary and my approval ratings are holding steady in the 18-20 percent rage (husband numbers that translate into the political equivalent of a 50 state sweep) . - Hopeless in Hope: At this point in his own campaign, 44% of Americans had no opinion of Bill Clinton. A few short months later, pretty much all of us would've agreed to be bedded by him. (In a related poll, Fox News anchors and right wing radio talkshow hosts indicated that they spend about 44% of their time thinking about Bill Clinton. That leaves another 44% of their time to think about Hillary and a mere 12% to ponder Janeane Garafalo's recent makeover.) - Yucky Politicians: Both Bush and Kerry are disliked considerably more than they are liked. Some things about politics never change. - (Pinto) Bean Counters: Nader still makes a difference. I find that perplexing. This poll only included 1,053 people. I figured you'd have to go through at least ten to twenty thousand people before finding one who had a response other than a Pavlovian Pinto joke when confronted with Ralph's name. Are there really that many people on the left who would rather waste a vote on Nader than spend one against Bush? Impossible to understand, no? Can't Michael Moore give this guy a job as an extra? - Not Going Anywhere for Awhile: 54% of respondents said we should stay in Iraq as long as it takes while 40% said we should get out as soon as possible. Translation: Both candidates, most academics and nearly everyone with any connection to anything political sort of think that 40% of Americans probably aren't fit to respond to poll questions. - But Foreign Refers to Other Countries: 60% disapprove of Bush's Iraq policy while only 50% disapprove of his foreign policy. But wait? Aside from Iraq, this administration's foreign policy largely consists of defending the decision to go to Iraq and pissing off French people. - Testosterwrong: Here are some of the numbers that should be most troubling among those on the Bush campaign team: Only 52% approve of the way Bush is handling the war on terror. That was once his calling card. The decision to link the war on terror and the war in Iraq could be the decision on which this entire race rests. More than 60% believe Bush is not being truthful when it comes to Iraq and 85% don't believe the administration is being entirely truthful when it comes to the prison abuses. These numbers mark an incredible (and I think unpredictable) shift in the way Bush is perceived. It's also somewhat remarkable that a whole lot of people are willing to overlook being lied to even when it comes to war and peace. - The Waffle Truth: The flip flop smear campaign has been somewhat effective. But it has had a major side effect. People aren't so sure that they like the idea of someone taking a position and sticking to it no matter what the facts are. - In This Together: By an 18 point margin, people think that W has divided the nation. This is a key number. Again, look for Kerry to be downright Edwardsian in his effort to bring people together and offer a message of unity. Running mate angle: There is no one more Edwardsian than Edwards. - Pretty much everyone agrees that the numbers in this poll will be rendered obsolete in about 45 minutes.
All those discussions of cheeseburgers and cordial walks on the beach in Sea Island may have given a false impression. It seems that Chirac and Bush aren't quite good buddies again. From Chirac on Bush comments about Turkey joining the EU: "If President Bush really said that in the way that I read, then not only did he go too far, but he went into territory that isn't his," Chirac said of a remark Bush made over the weekend. "It is is not his purpose and his goal to give any advice to the EU, and in this area it was a bit as if I were to tell Americans how they should handle their relationship with Mexico."
More than a month ago I heard from a friend in Baghdad that pretty much everyone involved in the CPA knew Paul Bremer couldn't wait to get the hell out of Iraq. And such news certainly didn't come as much of a surprise considering the frustrations, violence and setbacks that Bremer faced during a difficult tenure in a tough and too-often thankless job. So today had to be bittersweet for Bremer. There was no great fanfare when the U.S. handed over power. President Bush proclaimed that "We kept our word." True. But Bremer and those working for him are well aware that, at least in relation to the handover, that word was reduced to something of whisper. Just a few hours after the handover, Paul Bremer did what he's probably been wanting to do for months. He boarded a plane and left Iraq. I'm sure there are plenty of others who would've loved to be on that plane.
Joe Klein: "Rumsfeld's blustery testosteronics are at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Bush foreign policy - and last week the assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency."
Slate: MyLife, The PowerPoint Version.
With the rejection by the Green Party, Ralph Nader continues his campaign to ruin his own reputation and end his career in a state of extreme not mattering.
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether or not seriously ill people who smoke pot for medical reasons and on a doctor's orders are violating a federal ban on marijuana. The stem cell debate is pathetic, but it is complex enough and connected to enough hot button issues that one can at least sort of, kind of, understand the roots of the idiocy that seeks to limit the promise of this science. But the effort to ban the use of medical marijuana represents a level of idiocy (and hurtfulness) that goes beyond a simple debate. Is there anyone on the planet who really thinks that smoking a joint has an effect anywhere near as powerful as the prescription drugs backed by big pharmaceutical companies? And are there really people on the planet that don't think terminally ill patients and/or people who are experiencing severe pain should be able to take whatever they can to alleviate that pain? Are we really going to let something as insignificant as a ban on a natural plant prevent people from finding relief? And what, really, are the ramifications here? If you are a white guy in a decent neighborhood, you can already smoke all the pot you want. In your house, in your car, next to a dumpster, on a hike, at a party or just walking down the street (I'm guessing here of course). In practice, in most communities in America pot is not even illegal. You smell it at ballgames and at concerts. It's not an enforced law (again, for some people in some communities) because everyone knows that smoking pot is damn near harmless (especially when compared to, say, shotgunning a six-pack of low carb beer). And let's be totally realistic here. Extending the national ban on pot to medical marijuana will only actually limit the access to marijuana for a subsection of those patients who seek it. The rest of them will just buy it from a friend or grow it in a closet (and no, proceeds will not be diverted to terrorists during the process of getting the pot from your backyard into your pipe). And I think it's safe to say that there's not a cop in America that wants to spend part of his career raiding the backyards of cancer patients. Everyone knows this is nonsense. Extending the ban to patients will only limit access to marijuana among those who are not fortunate enough to either know someone with a connection or to have a longstanding subscription to High Times. To be "blunt" this is bad politics for Bush because it really has a more detrimental impact on those who live in a red state. In the blue states, we can almost always find a away to score a joint. So even though we know that pot really isn't that big of deal, there are still those who are steadfast in their demand that its positive effects not be enjoyed by dying people in pain. It's just flat out sick. There is no excuse for this. It is cruel and unusual legislating and I really hope the Supreme Court (who should never even have agreed to hear this slop in the first place) slaps the Bush administration down hard on this one.
In a series of major decisions that will help to determine the power of the presidency in times of war, the Supreme Court ruled that so-called enemy combatents (whether American or foreign) who are held on American soil (and yes, Guatanamo is controlled by the U.S. so it counts to) must be able to challenge their detention in American courts. "Due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker."
There are two sides of sovereignty handover that took place in Baghdad. It is of course an historic day (one that most Iraqis surely couldn't even have imagined a few years ago). On the other hand, the handover took place two days earlier than scheduled and in a small office with few present because of continuing security concerns.
Last week, I offered reasons why I hate Michael Moore and why I love Michael Moore. After reflecting more on Moore over the weekend, I'm pretty sure that I hate him a lot more than I love him. What I really find interesting here are the political ramifications. Does the release of this movie (which is selling out in the blue states) ultimately help or hurt the Kerry cause? In some ways, pre-Convention, John Kerry is like an extra in his own movie. Al Gore is making headlines with attacks on the Bush administration. MoveOn.org is producing commercials that really push the limits of appropriateness. And Moore and others are making documentaries that blast Bush and the right wing. With the race unfolding like it is, the Republicans will make every attempt (as I've been predicting here) to connect Moore (especially his unfounded arguments) to Kerry and they will try to do the same with others who they think pull Kerry away from a presidential demeanor. Currently, on their campaign website, the Bush/Cheney team is featuring a video that is introduced with the line: "This is not a time for pessimism and rage..." The video, a montage of clips from Kerry "supporters" who are described as the Coalition of the Wild Eyed, includes images such as: Clips comparing Adolph Hitler and George W Bush (which briefly appeared on the MoveOn.org site until they were quickly removed when the higher-ups were made aware of the contents - cheap trick by the Republicans, but the opening was created by MoveOn), and clips from a Michael Moore speech. The video also includes speech outtakes from Gore, Gephardt (are they assuming he'll be the veep pick?), Dean and Kerry. The attempt is made the link the hysteria found in the Hitler ad with the justified anger felt by many of those who oppose President Bush. In fact, if you took out the Moore quote and the Hitler video, this would have looked a whole lot more like a Kerry ad than a Bush one. In the next few weeks it will be interesting to see if the Republicans can achieve any success in trying to tie the Kerry campaign with those who are much more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry. More interesting perhaps is the level to which the Republicans have stooped in the use of these Hitler images. Discrediting Kerry has largely failed. Now they are going after others who want them out of office. More than anything, the Bush/Cheney website (like their entire campaign) is becoming more and more about Kerry. Deperation has set in. This strategy could be a good way for them to do to themselves what Cheney suggested Pat Leahy do to himself. And what should Dems do during the interim? Well, I suppose it makes sense to let those who are attacking the President continue with their efforts. But, it probably doesn't make sense for members of Congress to show up to the much-covered DC premiere of Moore's movie. And it probably doesn't look too impressive that a key member of the 9-11 panel was there. But we need to remember the goal here. This is not a battle over who can do the dozens more effectively. And it's not about selling movie tickets to a film that is primarily thrilling the already converted. It's about attracting undecideds. Common sense, facts and optimism (and there's plenty of ammo) will attract them a whole lot more than hysteria. In the same sense, Fox News and the Washington Times will not win over any new voters to the Bush side. And Kerry? I have no doubt that when he comes out swinging it will be with a very optimistic message that seeks to bring people back together. Rage will not win this election. There is already too much of it in the marketplace.
A few days ago, I wrote a post explaining why I hate Michael Moore. In it, I mostly focused on the fact that I sometimes think his backing of cause can do more harm than good. Today, I'd like to try to answer a slightly different question: Why do I love Michael Moore? Because we live in the age of silence. We actually hear supposedly reputable people talking on major networks who say that Michael Moore's film should not be shown or that he shouldn't be allowed to advertise it because such marketing efforts would interfere with campaign finance laws. Before this movie even came out, you had people complaining about what folks in the Middle East would think of it (the common theme that disagreement with policies equals unpatriotism and aiding the enemy is never far from these debates). Let them think what they should think. That we are nation where a person can make a movie that criticizes the president and his policies. Aren't these the freedoms we're looking to spread? Why do I love Michael Moore? Because we live in an age when the folks at Fox News (of all places) spend much of their broadcast time complaining about media bias. Because even people who believe in Moore's general cause have been brainwashed into believing that the release of ideas or points of contention could somehow be bad for America. We are afraid of debate. We are afraid of dissent. We are afraid of seeing a breast at halftime. Here's a bulletin. The press cannot be too hard on an administration that leads us to a war. That's their job in our society. Because, as Bruce Springsteen wrote in his epic song Jungleland, "The poets down here don't write nothing at all, they just stand back and let it all be." Any war should be accompanied by busloads of dissent and cynicism. That doesn't soil the troops, it is vital to respecting them. There are two key ways to support the troops that have been ignored in this age of tough talk. First, they should only be sent somewhere when it is absolutely necessary. And second, every effort should be made to give them the full support of troops provided by our allies. Believe me, more people watching your back and a return home a few months earlier is a lot more supportive to troops than any cowboy rhetoric. So where are all the poets? And it's not just the war. We have seen a ridiculous Congressional focus on raising indecency fines and we've seen Howard Stern come dangerously close to being silenced for saying the exact same things he's been saying for more than a decade (except the part about being anti-Bush). I wonder if it's a coincidence that he is now off the air in several swing states? You may hate Howard Stern. Congressional leaders may see Howard as the wrong person for whom to make a stand. But where the hell is rock and roll? Where are the young people marching in the street with placards and bullhorns? Maybe it's because it would be almost impossible for a musician to take a stand against Clear Channel and still have a career. OK, so where is the outrage about media ownership laws? Is the debate over the digestion of carbphydrates the only thing that can get a rise out of people these days? Because without Michael Moore, we may not be focusing on some of the issues he raises in his film. How scary is that? A little dissent and a political perspective can make one an international superstar. That's how rare criticism has become. Because the media has largely been horrible on the Iraq question. Because we're seeing some of the footage in Moore's film for the first time. Because we see fifty hours a week on Laci Peterson and about two minutes on the Saudi relationship with the U.S. Because Michael Moore is, in general, on my side in the upcoming election, yet sometimes he really pisses me off. That is rare indeed in an era where we're usually only allowed to be pissed off at people on the other side of the aisle. In a time when absolutely everyone is positive of the righteousness of their views on absolutely everything, this guy even has me disagreeing with myself.
. . . June 24, 2004
F***ing Big Time
According to several accounts, Veep Cheney dropped a big time F bomb on Pat Leahy during a Senate photo day. Too bad it wasn't caught on the radio or else the Veep could've been fined to the tune of about $3 million. It's not quite clear whether Cheney said "Fuck off!" or "Go fuck yourself." The exact words are of interest because I believe that following the former advice would still be legal in a post Bush amendment world, while the latter would clearly be frowned upon (which is one of the main reasons why Hannity so desperately needs Colmes). Shockingly, none of the other Senators greeted Cheney as a liberator. I don't mind that the swear words were used or that some false Senatorial decorum was soiled. It just amuses me that even at the highest echelons of power and wealth, some people will do just about anything to get mentioned on Wonkette...
Watching Al Gore give a lively speech is like watching Yoda in a lightsaber fight. Gore continues to prove that he is much more capable of rocking the house now than when he was a candidate. In his latest speech Gore accused the administration of lying about an Al Qaeda-Iraq Link. "Beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind... "The Bush administration's objective of establishing U.S. domination over any potential adversary led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war, a painful adventure marked by one disaster after another based on one mistaken assumption after another... "But the people who paid the price have been the U.S. soldiers trapped over there and the Iraqis in prison. "They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever ... If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick." RNC spokesman Jim Dyke fired back with a statement that criticized Gore. "Al Gore's history of denial of the threat of terrorism is no less dangerous today in his role as John Kerry's surrogate than it was in the 1990s in his role as vice president, a time when Osama bin Laden was declaring war on the United States five different times." Dyke's response strikes me as quite ineffective. First, Al Gore was ripping the administration for shifting the focus from Al Qaeda to Iraq. Dyke's statement does a pretty good job of distinguishing between Saddam's less imminent threat as compared to bin Laden's repeated declarations of war. Also, any idictment of the Clinton team is by extension a critique of Bush's pre-9-11 tenure. But we can see some predictable signals of the future tone of the campaign from the Bush side. First, every negative comment about this administration will be attributed to a John Kerry "surrogate." Second, those who criticize Bush and/or Cheney will be described as dangerous or worse. And third and always, there will be an effort (still) to merge any discussion of Iraq with a discussion of 9-11 and Al Qaeda. (Except when it comes to prisoners in which case we will hear of a strong distinction between those captured in the war on terror and those captured in Iraq - even though the war in Iraq is described as the war on terror.)
The choices are really quite simple. Either you wholeheartedly back the President's foreign policy or you are unpatriotic. Either you say positive things about the war on terror and in Iraq or you are a traitor. And either you cover the war in Iraq the way the administration (made up of, as we all know, some of the toughest, battle-worn, heroic, courageous, tough guys in U.S. history) wants it covered or you are a wimp. Paul Wolfowitz explains: "Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors." (I wonder if "they publish rumors" refers to the pre-war coverage of the WMD question?) Forget for a second the most obvious offenses of such a statement. And let's pretend that the media is not giving us enough of the good news stories out of Iraq and is focusing too heavily on the relentless violence and increasing anti-Americanism (which is an argument that can be made). Could there be any less effective way to get the media to cover the story your way than to question the integrity and bravery of a group of journalists who have been the victims of killings, kidnappings and drive-by shootings? On MSNBC, Wolfowitz followed up on his comments by accusing NBC and others of not being "balanced" in a clear plug for the nonsense oozing out of Fox News headquarters. I understand the desire to in essence run against the media. But this is just public relations 101. Why would anyone want to completely piss off the press at the very moment when he wants more positive coverage of an unfolding strategy? And while it's one thing the stand by and watch the crud being spewed by biased morons like Hannity et al, it's an altogether different matter when administration officials are plugging the network and in effect leaning on it for support. It is nothing at all new for the Bush team to distance itself from the press. But a full-on personal attack? These are desperate signs.
In a subtle messaging shift, John Kerry has called on members of NATO to deliver more support to Iraq during the transition. "In light of the failed diplomacy of the Bush administration, that reluctance is not surprising. But now is the time that our allies must join the effort to support Iraq's transition. The NATO summit is the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate their commitment to the new U.N. resolution." Does Kerry believe that a new deal will be struck at the upcoming NATO summit in Turkey? Or does Kerry think that such a deal will not be reached? Or is he just trying to get out in front of the news either way?
A few quick takes on the release of the memos and other documents related to the White House deliberations over the use of force against detainees and prisoners of war.
- While I'm sure that these memos will be helpful in determining the general mindset of the Bush team (something is often unclear given their penchant for secrecy), I do think it's important the we respect the need for government officials to be able to memo one another on a variety of subjects and to have the freedom to give wrongheaded advice.
- One of the most interesting running storylines here would have to be the constant backpedaling of an administration that refuses to share any information and then, backed into a political corner, releases piles of paper. There is a lesson in there somewhere, but I'm not going to reveal it to you until I am suitably pressured to do so.
- Here's a quote from the President that illustrates a lot of what is wrong about his leadership style and tone he has set, both domestically and internationally, with his administration:
"Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country: We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
First, let's make this very clear. It is our government. I use of first person singular to describe a government is one of this President's worst and most telling behavioristics. Second, while it's nice that Bush says he does not condone torture (although the religious imagry is less impressive), it's really not the point. Neither is our soul or our being. (Incidentally, first person singular is far more appropriate when discussing souls and/or beings).
What matters here are our laws. What the President should be saying is that we do not torture prisoners because we have signed treaties and adhere to a set of laws that render such behavior illegal. This is where the memos that have been released are the most interesting. What we see is an administration questioning to what extent the laws apply to them.
Should we torture prisoners? Should we torture Saddam himself or those who plan terrorist attacks? Is torture an effective means to gather accurate information?
These questions may be open to debate. The question of whether or not a Chief Executive of "his" nation is above the law is not.
Souls, beings and personal condoning are fine for places of worship or the family dinner table. But at the highest levels of government, it's simply got to be about the law.
Earlier this year, more than a dozen lawmakers attended a reception to honor the Rev Sun Myung Moon. Some of those lawmakers actually participated in the "service" while others say that they were duped into attending (and apparently also duped into not just getting up and leaving). During the ceremony, a crown was placed on the wasted head of one of America's most reknown pieces of garbage as he described himself as "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." As a side note, it should be mentioned that the lawmakers who attended (and remained at) this event honoring this cult leader who once described homosexuals as "dirty dung-eating dogs," are also among those who are now creating new, harsh and ridiculous indecency laws in an effort to silence Howard Stern and hide Janet Jackson's right knocker. (Oh, and you can find those new indecency rules in a defense bill...?) It should also be mentioned that there are a whole host of journalists and editors who look to the Rev for their weekly checks as part of their gig running the Washington Times. Think that sounds cool? Think it's OK that a group of lawmakers attended an event honoring this cult freak? Oh, and the leader of the Moonies also happens to be one of the world's greatest proponents of the merging of church and state. He once explained that: "The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most." If that sounds pretty stupid coming from someone whose religion you think is insane, then it sounds pretty stupid, period. Calling Lenny Bruce. Calling Lenny Bruce. Your services are required once again.
Here is a pretty good idea of how the far right will review the Clinton memoir. I have limited this sample piece to a review of only the first line of the book. But it pretty much says it all anyway. The Book"Early on the morning of August 19, 1946, I was born under a clear sky after a violent summer storm to a widowed mother in the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, a town of about six thousand in southwest Arkansas, thirty-three miles east of the Texas border at Texarkana." The Review- While in the past, Clinton has spoken of his birthdate and hinted to FOB's that he was born before midday, he had (before the release of this book) never suggested that he was born early. In fact, there have been those who suggest that while the initial labor contractions started just after midnight, the birth was not actually recorded until well into the lunch hour. Clinton, notorious for being late for everything (including the first stop on his book tour) is making an obvious attempt to rewrite his crib years. Even if it was "early on the morning" he was still undoubtedly late. - The word morning (appearing only 5 syllables into the tome) is the author's transparent attempt to associate himself with the popularity and adulation welcomed by the Gipper. And even though Clinton's approval ratings were higher than Reagan's at the time he left office, he was nowhere near as popular. - 1946. It's just tossed into this sentence like it's an ordinary year. Yet those not blinded by pro-Clinton partisanship will immediately recognize that August 19, 1946 was (nearly to the day) a mere eleven years before Osama bin Laden became one of 50 children born to Mohammad bin Laden in Riyadh. And therein lies the one major factor that Clinton doesn't want you to think about. The former President had 44 years (not to mention an 11 year head start) to do something about bin Laden. Perhaps the 11 year old William was just a little too preoccupied with his hobby of turning wholesome tobacco products into the obscene manifestations of an unbridled libido to perform the duties of a would-be Commander in Chief. - He makes it less than a phrase and a half into the book and then, with the word born, Clinton makes his first not so subtle reference to vaginas. - He says he was born under a clear sky, but that prior to his birth the skies were filled with a violent summer storm. This is just too Clintonian. A violent summer storm? To paraphrase the great Kenneth Starr, Mr. President, tell us this. If it was so stormy on the way to the hospital that night, then where was the fuckin' umbrella? - If you take the first letter of each word in the phrase town of about six thousand, it spells the word toast. And if you squint at the phrase: six thousand in southwest Arkansas, thirty-three, a close reader will see the word snort. Clinton is trying to distort his own past by subliminally introducing W's career before he found Jesus. - Not obvious enough for you? Then try this one out. Count the number of X's in this first sentence. Then spell it out. XXX. - Notice the fact that the President (in a stark departure from most non-fiction writing) avoids the use of the word is in the first sentence, and in fact it's nowhere in the first paragraph. This is apparently one last attempt to convince Americans that there is not a clear and accepted agreement regarding what the definition of is is. - The Julia Chester Hospital has been demolished. Isn't that just a little too convenient? God only knows how many innocent stem cells were demolished along with it. - If you'd call a town of no more than 5,993 the same thing as "a town of about six thousand" then you are nothing more than a Clinton apologist. - Hope. For anyone with even the loosest knowledge of the South (and this Harlem Huckster is counting on the fact that none of them will read this book, leaving the gargantuan deposition to be absorbed instead by Hollywood perverts and New York, well, Jews), the slight possibility of credibility still remaining at this point in the book's first line is totally erased by this geographical slight of hand. First, there is the desperate attempt to co-opt the Texas roots of the current president. Second, Hope is not east of Texarkana. It is northeast of Texarkana (making Clinton an outright Yankee). And finally, Hope (and here's where the placement of the supposed hospital would be so helpful) is not thirty-three miles from Texarkana. It's actually 35.4 miles away. Don't take my word for it. Check the map. And again, let's note what Clinton doesn't tell us about Hope, namely that it's only about 1,692.5 miles from Streisand's House.
Well, after what seems like years of infighting and fingerpointing, the U.S. Senate has apparently found a bill that everyone could agree on. So we should all mark this day when Senators reached across the aisle to join forces across party and ideological lines all in the name of keeping Americans from accidentally seeing a booby. I'd feel better about young children seeing Janet Jackson's tit than I would if they accidentally watched ten or fifteen minutes of C-Span during an election year.
From the Dallas Morning News: "The supporters find themselves like skunks at the garden party. They back the president but see a problem. And they decide to speak out. We find ourselves in that position with President Bush and the war in Iraq. We supported his presidential candidacy. We backed the war in Iraq. But we now wonder: What happened?"
As John Kerry continues his search for a running mate, Kevin at Washington Monthly looks at what happened to all of the previous VPs since WWII (he even seems to be including Quayle). Five of them went on to become president. That stat makes one realize that Kerry may be picking both a running mate and the next Dem candidate for the top spot.
Anyone who enjoys a good Christopher Hitchens rant does not want to miss this one on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 that includes (in one of its more forgiving paragraphs): "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery." While I don't agree with all of Hitchens' takes on the war in Iraq and other global issues, he is right when it comes to Michael Moore. And the fact that Moore leaves himself so open to attacks by those with a little knowledge on the subjects he "covers" is what makes the otherwise fairly entertaining filmmaker so deeply hateable. Why do I hate Michael Moore? Because he has set himself up as the harbinger of several things in which I believe. I want guns off of the street. Yet I don't blame Kmart for Columbine. I think that the NRA should be outed as one of this country's more short-sighted and ultimately dangerous political groups. But I don't think that interviewing a near-senile man helps to illustrate that point. And I want George W Bush to be booted back to Crawford. But I don't think Michael Moore will help in that cause. I think he will hurt. There are plenty of factual and rock solid reasons not to vote for George W Bush. See, the American people are already questioning the leadership of the Bush administration. And while Dems are almost universally skeptical and concerned (thankfully on both counts), the fact is that this election couldn't be going much better for John Kerry at this point in the campaign against an incumbent during a time of war and with the economy showing signs of a gentle upswing. The biggest danger facing John Kerry and his band of backers is that the Dems will overshoot this advantage and begin criticizing things that shouldn't be criticized. I don't need MoveOn.org to air commercials showing the Statue of Liberty with an Abu Ghraib hood over her head. I don't need Michael Moore to drive around Washington in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act or blasting the President for a seven minute delay when the unthinkable happened. It's petty. It's childish. And like much of Moore's film work, it can be poked and prodded until there is little intellectual value left. In the article referenced above, Hitch practically begs Moore to meet him on any stage to debate the points in his movie. Joe Scarborough has been doing the same during the daily hour when he relentlessly soils the reputation of NBC News. Let me be clear. If Joe Scarborough thinks he can take you in a debate, we've got a serious problem. This is not a matter of silencing someone. Of course this film should come out and of course anyone who wants to see it, should. I mean, is there anything more absurd than Fox News accusing someone of being biased? But I don't want to give the fellas from Fox two hours worth of material to shift their attention to (in between incessantly rubbing their Ken Starrs to Clinton's diary entries) when the focus should be on the job the Bush administration is doing. I don't want the national conversation to shift to the positives and negatives of Moore's work because I think my team loses that argument. I want this election to be about another person. John Kerry. If that happens, and he rises to the occasion, I think my team wins. Bottom line. I just don't think Michael Moore helps the cause at all. That's why those who oppose my team are, in their own nefarious ways, absolutely marketing the hell out of this movie.
An east coast concert promoter is trying to set up what could be the ultimate battle of the bands. On one side of the Hudson would be Bush and the Republicans ringing in the final night of their Convention. On the other side, at Giants Stadium, would be Bruce Springsteen and a host of rock and rollers. So far, Bruce hasn't said whether he's in or not, but you can visit a site at draftbruce.com if you want to encourage him to do so. I have a feeling that he'll pass. (upate: I was right.) The whole episode does remind one of 1984 when both candidates (yes, including Reagan) asked to use the Boss' megahit Born in the USA as their campaign diddy. Apparently neither campaign noticed the lyrics of the song that describe a nation that failed to welcome home Vietnam vets. You don't have to go all the far into the song to realize that it's not exactly Fleetwood Mac's Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. For example, the first verse of the song is: Born down in a dead man's town The first kick I took is when I hit the ground End up like a dog that's been beat too much Until you spend half your life just covering up. Doesn't really get those Morning in America vibes going, does it? I always thought that Bruce should have just let Reagan's team use the song. It would have been nice, tidy embarrassment at every campaign stop and maybe Mondale could've won Jersey.
The answer to that question has been the poll data to most consistently bring a smile to the faces of the Bush campaign team members. Now more than half of respondents answer that question by saying John Kerry.
I recently attended an event where Tim Russert was being interviewed. In defense of his interviewing style, he explained that if one looks back over a series of his MTP interviews with top officials such as Veep Cheney, one would see that he was able to pull out a series of statements that have proven to be incredibly controversial (and which might help to explain why Cheney and others haven't been doing the Sundays with Tim thing of late). So here's my take. Why not put together and hour or two of the most interesting interviews from the months leading up to the war (including the certain claims of WMDs, nukes and the ties between Atta and Iraq). I'm not suggesting that Russert turn his show into a sporting event like some of his cable competitors. Just play the interviews. Why should recent American history dissolve into nothingness (my loose definition of anything not on TV)? Here are a couple of the Cheney transcripts: March 16, 2003Sept 14, 2003
Apparently, the Pope is worried about the threat the Christianity posed by Maddona and other new age prophets. Maybe he should be more worried about the threats posed by this. The Vatican's decision to play accomplice to one of the most incidious and ongoing crime waves in recent history is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
Just in case you were wondering, the separation of church and state is a "myth" and the U.S. is a "Christian Nation." At least that's the word out of Texas.
Nader picks a running mate. Yawn.
"It looks like no one in the world wants to be in the city that week." It's comments like the one above that have me more excited than ever to be covering the convention in Boston next month. I'll make this promise: I will post nothing about traffic backups or overcrowded restaurants. Of course, this is politics, so that promise means nothing.
In coming weeks, there will be a great deal of public discourse about the actions or inactions of President Bush during the seven minutes after he first received word that the nation had been attacked. Supporters will argue that the President sought to maintain a look of calm and was determined not to appear overly shocked or upset during a moment of crisis. Critics will suggest the President wasted precious moments and should have immediately excused himself from the room. I personally think both goals could have been easily met ("Kids, can you excuse me for a moment, I need to take care of some presidential duties, why don't you all keep reading."), but we need to remember the unprecedented nature of the moment. I think it is in some ways a bit petty to rip the President on this issue. What is more interesting is the nature of the office in this age of 24-hour media coverage. As the coverage has increased, so too has the importance of the president as symbolic leader and communicator - at the expense of roles such as Commander in Chief. The way a moment looks has become, in many ways, more important than action taken. The office of the presidency has become a photo-op. Is that a good thing? Should we necessarily have live televised access to our leaders' every gesture and facial twitch during times of crisis? The job after all is about a lot more than projecting a certain image at a certain moment. Or is it?
Did VP Cheney have the authority to order the military to shoot down the last commercial airliner still in flight (or so those in Washington thought) on 9-11? According to Cheney, he discussed the decision with the President earlier in the morning via phone. But of all the people on both sides of that conversation, only one even hinted at remembering a discussion that would ultimately lead to a unprecedented military order (and one would assume, a pretty memorable one). Many on the 9-11 commission were highly skeptical that the call ever took place. In fact, the White House demanded that they "clean up" a draft of their report that indicated this skepticism. We need to pay close attention here. On one hand, you've got reports of an order which, as terrible as it seems, was clearly the right move (albeit, several minutes too late as the plane had already crashed in Pennsylvania). On the other hand, you've got a story that doesn't quite seem to add up, a concern about who exactly was in charge, and equally important, an obviously antagonistic relationship between the Bush administration and the panel charged by the people of this country to get to the bottom of all things 9-11. What we are left with is more doubts. More doubts that Bush and Cheney believe the American people deserve the truth. More questions as to why the two of them had to testify together (still perhaps the weirdest political moment of their terms in office). And more of sense that the hubris of an inner circle trumps all else in this White House.
Answer from Cheney: "We don't know." Do you know information that the 9-11 commission doesn't? "Probably." And surprise, surprise: It's the media's fault. The funny thing here is that Cheney criticizes members of the media for not doing their homework while admitting that he doesn't even give the whole truth in private meetings with commission members.
Maybe Karl Rove is not such a wunderkind after all? Almost every angle attempted by the Bush team during this campaign cycle has flopped. The negative ads, the attacks on Kerry's military record, and the list goes on. Kerry remains in good shape at this point in the campaign. One of the next major political moves that will backfire is the push to have the Senate vote on the gay marriage amendment in July, ahead of the Democratic Convention. First, the amendment is a downright silly reason to even consider altering the Constitution. Second, it will not get the votes needed in the Senate (if it does, I'll be blogging from outside U.S. borders by the time the last vote is cast). Third, and (since this is largely a political move) most important, it will not move the voters that Bush and Kerry need to move. Does Bush really need to pull out all of the stops to rev up the religious right and evangelicals? Something tells me he had them at hello. This move, coming during the peak of the election season will in fact have an effect opposite of the one desired. Conservatives will become increasingly irritated with the big spending, big government, interventionist Bush who now even wants to mess with America's secular good book. Swing voters will roll their eyes and wonder why anyone thinks that abortion or gay marriage or other cultural divides are the way to get them over the hump (pun somewhat intended). Ultimately the vote in the Senate will make Bush look petty and divisive. Interestingly, it will also come at just about the same time as John Kerry throws his campaign into another gear. And that stage of the Kerry campaign will be all about unity and optimism.
. . . June 17, 2004
Or Maybe Not
In what now seems like at least a hundred different columns, Thomas Friedman has been arguing that if we can just make it clear to the Arab world that their way isn't proving to be as effective as compared to say, everywhere else on planet earth, then their populations and leadership will finally rise to the occasion of real reform. Here's an excerpt from the Friedman's latest column (which also seems to contradict his support for the war in that he argues that these reforms will not come from America and that it is imperative that we lower our profile in the region): "The other way for us to promote reform is to get out of the way so people in the Middle East can see clearly that many of their maids' children - from India, China, Sri Lanka and the Philippines - are excelling at math, science and engineering, leaving Arab children, not to mention many American children, in the dust. "Only when the Arabs focus on how their maids' children are doing in the world, not what the Americans are doing in their region, will they revisit one of the most famous sayings of the Prophet Muhammad: "Seek knowledge, even unto China. That is the duty for every Muslim." ... "Now we need to lower our profile so people in that Arab-Muslim world can see clearly something we've been obstructing and they've been deliberately ignoring: that the world today wants to invest more in their maids' children than in their own children. Once that reality sinks in, so, too, will reform." I never knew that tyrannical leaders who are propped up by a gusher of oil money and who use the pens and swords of an oppressive and overwhelming set of religious laws to keep their citizens under a fist of poverty, despair and hopelessness could be so altered by the common sense argument that countries that are more free are doing better. These leaders travel the world. They've got plasma TV's, Dell laptops and satellite phones. We don't need to get out of the way for them to see how poorly they are performing. But the powerful stay in power and the rich are getting richer. And tyrants like it that way.
It wasn't exactly Plato or Freud, but it's tough to argue with the reasoning President Bush gave for his continued assertions of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" Let's take the reasoned argument one step further. Let's pretend for a moment that there was in fact some kind of distant connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists. Wouldn't the next logical question have to be how that relationship compares in terms of scale and danger with the relationship between Al Qaeda and other countries in the region? For example, could Bush and Cheney safely make the same assertions about some of our allies in the Gulf? Doesn't pretty much every country in that part of the world have some "connections" to terrorist groups? Bush also challenged the notion that the recent 9-11 panel report contradicts the administration's own assertions: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two." Now, I'm sure you all remember the many speeches in which, knowing there was some confusion brewing in the minds of the American public, Bush explained in very clear terms that there was absolutely no link between Saddam and 9-11. Oh wait a second. I guess those clear explanations on that topic didn't actually start until, well, today.
Remember a few weeks ago when I hinted that a story about a second and secretive prison camp near the Baghdad airport would be the beginning of larger scandal that would touch Rumseld? Well, my timing was way off and as was my prediction for a quick Rummy exit. But the story is finally working its way up to the top. Tenet and Rumsfeld were both involved in the detaining of so-called ghost detainees out of the view of the Red Cross. I said it before. I'll say it again. Pay close attention to this story.
Andrew Sullivan nails the torture debate and echoes much of what I've been writing about here, here, and here. "If people see nothing wrong with doing what was done at Abu Ghraib, then we need to have that debate. And that debate should be public, in front of the world. If the Bush administration wants to defend torture in an election campaign, it can go right ahead. But it has no right to change the rules of U.S. military conduct in secret, through a series of memos and improvisation, and then, when the evidence emerges, pretend it was all concocted by a handful of thugs."
During a rather choppy press conference on Tuesday, President Bush forshadowed his own strategy when it comes to debating the Iraq war as the November election approaches: "I look forward to the debates where people are saying, 'Oh gosh, the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power." This is known as trying to frame the issue. Simplify things. Reduce complex policies and controversial actions down to a single phrase that you believe cannot be disputed. So far, during this election cycle, the Bush team has utterly (and surprisingly) failed to frame the debate. They spent tens of millions trying to make the campaign about flip flops. It didn't take. They tried to reduce Kerry's military record to a granular debate of the definitions of ribbons vs medals. It didn't take. They tried to hit Kerry hard with negative advertising in the hope that Kerry (like Dukakis) would take the bait, thereby turning this election into several month long defense of Kerry's career in the Senate. But it didn't take. The campaign remains a referendum on the Bush tenure in the Oval Office. They tried to turn Catholics against Kerry and to use religion as a wedge issue. It didn't take. Instead, voters are beginning to realize that there is too little breathing room between Bush and Church and State. The Saddam angle will not take either. There are other questions that will remain at the center of this debate. Were the American people misled about the reasons for war? Did the Bush administration give a thumbs ups to torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay? Why do Bush and Cheney continue (as recently as yesterday) to maintain that there was a strong link between Al Qaeda and Saddam even though there is no evidence of such a connection? (This question is actually easy to answer so far. The lie has worked. Many Americans continue to believe Saddam played a role in 9/11. But ultimately the truth will catch up to this administration). Why did we choose to alienate much of the world at the very moment when we needed international assistance in the war on terror? Why has this administration failed so completely to get international troop assistance to relieve the military it supposedly so strongly supports? And are we safer or less safe after the Iraq war? Ultimately the election will be framed by voters who, if Rove and Co fail to come up with a better strategy, might be asking themselves: "Oh gosh, would the world would be better off if Bush were not still in power?"
A new documentary called Control Room illustrates the very different ways that the war in Iraq was covered by Al Jazeera as opposed to U.S news sources. Around here, many of those differences have been chalked up to a near-obsessive anti-Americanism. Maybe there is some truth to that, but it's probably over-simplifying things quite a bit. In addition to Control Room there are several other documentaries (such as Michael Moore's) that will show an entirely different set of video clips than the ones we saw, in which Jessica Lynch and Saddam's oral exam took center stage. Certainly these documentaries and certain news sources select their offerings to make a political point. But it does bring up questions about why we didn't see more of the story. If we support war, shouldn't we also have to witness (at least on videotape) its unpleasantries on occassion. I'd actually like to see a documentary comparing the U.S. media coverage before, during and after the war.
I'm really beginning to think that Kerry is reading my blog. At least he definitely read this entry.
Oh, sure. Our great allies in Saudi Arabia. Our war on terror in which the royal family is our great supporter and totally onboard. The hand-holding, good friend hogwash and the smooth stylings of Prince Bandar and the band of thugs and liars whose false messages he delivers to the highest reaches of American government. What do these pigs tell their own people about the rise of the extreme militants who they helped to create? The killers who they nurtured with their backwards policies and oppressive hierarchy? Take a look at what Crown Prince Abdullah tells his own people about the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia (and by extension, every other thing that has ever gone wrong anywhere, anytime): "Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean ... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened." You think this royal clown is our ally in the war on terror? These lies, the separation between the fattened, rich, royals living their Studio 54 lives while encouraging the psychological crushing of their citizens in the name of an extreme and insane set of distorted religious beliefs that they themselves don't even begin to take seriously or abide by, the rampant and ridiculous anti-semitism, the duplicity, the wanton self-interest, the terrible leadership, the pathetic and illogical and sociopathic scapegoating; make no mistake about it: This is the stuff of terror. These lies are the weapons that pose the threat and we don't need to search for them. They've been pumping them out by the barrelfull for decades. These are the distortions and the failures that keep an entire culture on its knees and a key reason why the U.S. has had to be on its toes at borders and airports and public gatherings. Of course our policies and communal thirst for oil led us to look the other way for so long. But didn't 9-11 change everything? Aren't we all about liberty, freedom and democracy in the region? I thought we were supposed to believe it was all so simple now. A matter a black and white with no room for doubt in this righteous effort. No room for nuance or weakness. Maybe it's time for a little pre-emptive reality check. If we sit by and pretend that these guys are not at the heart of the problem in this region (and since 9-11, in our region), then the rest of the so called war on terror is a lie on the magnitude only Crown Prince Abdullah could truly appreciate.
Hitchens on Abu Ghraib: "But get ready. It is going to get much worse. The graphic videos and photographs that have so far been shown only to Congress are, I have been persuaded by someone who has seen them, not likely to remain secret for very long. And, if you wonder why formerly gung-ho rightist congressmen like James Inhofe ('I'm outraged more by the outrage') have gone so quiet, it is because they have seen the stuff and you have not. There will probably be a slight difficulty about showing these scenes in prime time, but they will emerge, never fear. We may have to start using blunt words like murder and rape to describe what we see. And one linguistic reform is in any case already much overdue. The silly word abuse will have to be dropped. No law or treaty forbids abuse, but many conventions and statutes, including our own and the ones we have urged other nations to sign, do punish torture - which is what we are talking about here at a bare minimum." Hitch has been on the left and the right when it comes to international issues. But in this case, it really doesn't matter which side you're on. Sure, we can have a debate about the level of accountability that should be required of this administration. And we can have the laughable inquiry into whether or not these acts of torture were the works of a handful of people (who apparently happened to have studied the art of interrogation and torture and their own and decided to bring the tools of the trade to Iraq just in case) or whether or not it went straight to the top at the Pentagon (if not higher). But we cannot pretend this isn't a big deal. Why? There are a few reasons. First, we signed the treaties related to torturing prisoners not only out of a moral duty but because we wanted to protect our own people when they are taken prisoner. Ever hear John McCain downplay the significance of these acts? Second, there is no evidence that these forms of torture are effective. In fact, given the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq, it is actually (because of the leaked videos and pictures) quite likely that the torture was counter-productive. This is not some liberal, humanitarian argument. This is about protecting and defending U.S. troops on the ground. Third, for better or worse we live in a visual age where a symbolic picture goes a long way. We also live in an age during which the world opinions regarding America have been severely damaged. Abu Ghraib only makes that worse. Again, this isn't about winning a popularity contest. It's about being able to recruit other nations to help us in the battle to defend ourselves. The failure to get troop support from key allies is not only a political failing. It leaves our own troops less secure and away from home for a longer time. Talking tough might be welcome in certain circumstances. But negotiating for additional troop support actually helps our military. Our relationship with allies is even more critical when it comes to the war on terror. A couple of questions to examine going forward: One, if we believe that torture is not an acceptable behavior, then is it acceptable for us to export suspects to other countries who are less touchy about such subjects? Two, can we rightfully call this a war on terror and still refuse to refer to those captured in that war as prisoners of war?
Apparently there are some subtle differences when it comes to the timing of handover of Saddam to Iraqi control. President Bush explains: "I want to make sure that when sovereignty is transferred, Saddam Hussein stays in jail." This is the understatement of the decade. Yes, handing over power to Iraqis is important both symbolically and substantively. But let's not even pretend that there is a debate on the Saddam issue. Any lapse in security would be an unthinkable disaster.
While one is constantly bombarded by the divisions and contempt felt by each side towards the other in this country, within a particular neighborhood or city, those divisions can be largely absent. I live in such a place. While I read about the great divide, I don't feel it. My neighbors and I are in total agreement. There is of course the occasional naysayer, but they are so few in this sheltered world of mine that we just laugh them off. This, for better or for worse, is my America. I live in the safe confines of a world where pretty much everyone with whom I come into contact is rooting against the Lakers.
There is it seems no better way to exalt your faith in god than to focus your religious devotion on personal gain. Either that or President Bush is really hoping that he can figure out a way to get James Caviezel to play him when they make a movie about this administration. The centrality of religion in this President's political life was on display once again during his recent visit to the Vatican when he pushed for more support from U.S. bishops when it comes to same-sex marriage and other potentially divisive issues. Of course the desire to court Catholics and the willingness to use religion as a political tool (and unfortunately, a policy guide) is nothing new for President Bush. Don't forget that a few weeks ago we were hearing a debate about whether or not pro-choice candidates should be allowed to take communion. I wonder if the timing of that debate has anything to do with the fact that Kerry is Catholic? Because Bush has at times turned his candidacy into a "crusade" and because he has such a strong following among evangelicals, opponents have often avoided the strategy of bringing religion into the mix. Maybe the time has come. We have seen, one by one, Bush's supposed strong points become his weaknesses; the war in Iraq, the bluster, the honesty question, etc. Will religion be the final pillar to fall? Ron Reagan, in eulogizing his father, made reference Bush's use of faith: "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference." Forget wearing faith on his sleeve - from faith-based programs to scientific and medical roadblocks to biblical references during speeches about war - W is dressed in it from head to toe. Politically, he uses it both as a staff and a sword. But maybe that's a mistake. Look at some of these numbers from a Time Magazine poll: 59% of very religious people support Bush 35% of very religious people support Kerry (Less of a split than I would have imagined) How do Catholics plan to vote? 45% support Kerry 43% support Bush But only 33% even know that Kerry is Catholic (in contrast to many of us who insist he's still Jewish) 75% of Catholics disagree with Bishops who deny Eucharist to politicians who dissent with Church on abortion. 70% say Catholic Church should not try to influence Catholic politicians or Catholic voters. And remember, Kerry has a commanding lead of 69%-22% among those who don't consider themselves to be very religious. Is there a chance that the Bush-Rove team has pushed the envelope too far on religion? Could it be that the President's most core beliefs will ultimately lead to a separation of Bush and State? I am convinced that the time has come for the Dems to ask this question: How much of a role do you want religion to play in the White House? I'm not suggesting that Kerry take to the road and hit people over the head with this issue. I am suggesting that Kerry offer some statements along the lines of what Ron Reagan said and that the Democrats do a better job of painting a clear picture of religion's role in this White House. I think the issue trends towards Kerry if voters are given a good overview of what's on the President's sleeve and what's up it.
Bill and George make nice at the White House as the Clinton portraits were unveiled.
John Podesta voiced the concern of many in the Democratic Party when it comes to Kerry's campaign and the reactions (or lack thereof) of some voters: "There is a danger in that [ambivalence]. You can't just be against something. [Voters] want a positive vision of where the country is going, and he has to provide that." The general worry is that the anti-Bush feelings will not be enough to decide the election unless there is also a pro-Kerry push. This is all part of what I have called Kerry's Rope-a-Dope strategy. The idea is to let events and Bush himself continue to pile up the negatives. That part of the plan is working. One of the keys to the election will be the timing and effectiveness of Kerry and his then running mate when they flip the switch.
The masses came by the tens to Ward 8 in DC to help Marion Barry kick off his campaign for a council seat. Barry explained: "I thought I had retired from electoral politics. I really had. Then I observed the scene in Ward 8 in particular and the city in general. And I was horrified about what's happening." All the elements were in place. The borrowed Mercedes. The straw hat. The hour of introductory remarks. You may laugh if you live outside of the District. But you don't want to bet against Marion Barry. Although, with this steady decline in the level of office sought, Barry might close out his career as the treasurer for a local high school. This campaign is going to look like Rocky VI meets Trainspotting. But how many politicians can launch a campaign with a line like this: "These are people that love me and I love them."
After all of the column writing and the legal wrangling, the "Under God" Supreme Court case was dismissed on a technicality. The Court ruled (at least those on the court who weren't adamant that the phrase was constitutional) that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter because of a divorce and custody battle. Because of the narrow ruling, the issue could be brought before the court again - which if nothing else, is good news for blog writers. Proving that even those with the most power and lifetime tenures are afraid to get in the middle of a couple fighting, Justice Stevens wrote: "One of the principal areas in which this court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations." That's just one of the more obvious reasons that The OC does better ratings than The SC. Whether you're talking about massive church and state issues or historical decisions from the nation's highest court, the lesson here is that you probably don't want to mess with California divorce laws.
. . . June 12, 2004
Profoundly Different
Only the greatest cynic could have failed to be moved by Ronald Reagan's last presidential act - all apparently planned by Reagan, from the participants to the song selection. Television certainly played its role and then some and helped to bring hundreds of thousands to the streets of Washington and California.
Thatcher was the best during the morning service while the Bush speeches were surprisingly forgettable. As the sun set in perfect Hollywood fashion, the family took center stage. The remarks were largely personal and/or religious. But Ron Reagan did seem to slip in a very direct critique of the man who currently sits in the Oval Office:
"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."
A profound difference. A profound point.
. . . June 11, 2004
Kerry - Stern?
OK. Maybe it's time to accept it. John McCain has once again reportedly said no to the idea of being Kerry's veep. Well, since we're thinking outside the box anyway, why not consider Howard? How could you beat Robin as chief of staff, Artie as White House spokesperson, and Yucko the Clown in charge of making sure we abide by the Geneva Conventions? This is all assuming you haven't come around on the whole Beyonce Idea.
When I was in junior high, I sort of bought into the notion that girls really liked and gave attention to guys who were enigmas. So for awhile, I cut out the class-clown act, stopped being vocal at social events, perfected a subtle yet effective facial twitch, walked with a limp that I alternated between legs, answered even the most simple yes or no question with a quote from a Robert Plant interview on Rockline, and even began wearing pants that weren't corduroys (in my day at my school, this, I thought, would make me the equivalent of James Dean). I tried it for weeks. Nothing. Then one day after school while shooting baskets in my front yard I saw my friend Steve zoom past my house on his new minibike with the best looking girl in school who clutched her arms around his waist, lost in a state of overwhelming rapture. At that moment, I realized that being enigmatic was not the way to get the girl. The way was to own a minibike. (Long story short: Jewish mothers don't let their sons get minibikes. So I put my corduroys back on, dropped the twitch and the limp, and spent the remainder of junior high playing Intellivision football.) So being an enigma may not be best way to get the girl. Being enigmatic is, however, certainly the second best way to attract a political campaign (the best way is to have a large wad of cash and a working phone). These enigmatic targets of the Bush and Kerry affections may not even see themselves as mysterious or confounding. They simply view themselves as "undecided." As Adam Nagourney writes: "They are more likely to be white than black, female than male, married than single, and live in the suburbs rather than in large cities. They are not frequent churchgoers nor gun enthusiasts. They are clustered in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and here in Pennsylvania. And while they follow the news closely, they are largely indifferent to the back and forth of this year's race for president." Translation for political operatives and campaign officials: They are friggin' nuts. They are off the social grid. And in saying so, I risk offending no one. There is no way they are reading this. You won't tell them I wrote it because you don't know them. These people are the Keyser Sozes of American life. As is the case with all things enigmatic, the fewer of them there are, the more attention they'll get. This year, only about five percent of prospective voters describe themselves as undecided. And of those, the only ones who really matter are those who reside in one of the swing states (if you're undecided in a state like California, forget about it, you'll dance alone). While the post-first term presidential elections are often a lot less close than we think they'll be, this one remains amazingly tight so far. So the Kerry and Bush campaigns must spend an inordinate amount of time trying to connect with these confusing (or confused?) people with whom they probably have nothing in common. This is a voting block for whom massive differences of opinion on topics ranging from war to religion to science to taxes to healthcare to values to military affairs just don't seem to help clarify their decision. How do you get to this voter? Who knows? I'm not even sure we could find them to ask them. And how will we know who got to this voter? Come November, they'll only be on the back of one guy's minibike. And as was the case with my friend Steve in junior high; that guy wins.
Bush: "Look, I'm going to say it one more time ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you." And if it doesn't, maybe a few hours being barked at by an attack dog with do the trick? The use of torture, and who ordered what, continues to be an issue of debate in Washington. The responsibilty investigation regarding the behavior at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere has moved up the chain of command yet again as reporters learn that the use of dogs to scare prisoners was authorized by U.S. intelligence personnel. Meanwile, a memo from the State Department has surfaced that warns the White House and Pentagon against the use of torture: "A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the convention in the event they are captured."
We have been led to believe, through a relentless series of interviews, anecdotes and memories that Ronald Reagan never took the opportunity to personally attack an opponent or ridicule someone because of a political difference. Apparently, Charles Krauthammer (as per usual) didn't get the memo. Instead he uses this national day of tribute to blast Reagan's political opponents. He does so by criticizing the supposedly patronizing description of the Gipper as "optimistic." Chuck would have been better off sending this column to every person who worked on Reagan's team and who has spent the entire week repeating that word in newspapers and on the airwaves. The entire nation spends an entire week eulogizing Krauthammer's political hero and he responds by resorting to, well, politics.
. . . June 10, 2004
Quick Reality Check
As I've mentioned, I actually enjoy much of the formality and the sense of community that television provides us during a news cycle like the one were in; one totally fixated on the Reagan funeral. But to what end do we offer up all of this hero worship? Once it goes beyond a certain point, the tributes become satires. Reagan did some good things, had a personality we liked and was in some ways, fortunate that he had a guy like Gorby on the other side of the table. The lines of people waiting to be a part of the his tribute are indeed impressive and moving. At the same time, we should look at some of the greatest problems facing the world today. In terms of war, it's terrorism and we're told, the state sponsorship of terror. In terms of health, it's obviously the worldwide AIDS crisis. Reagan was terrible on these issues. He was shortsighted and closeminded on AIDS. He supported Saddam. And he sent a terrible message (certainly far worse than anything Spanish officials have done) when we pulled our troops out of a Middle East hotspot after a terror attack. He was obviously, among a large swath of citizens and politicians, a popular and well-regarded leader. But I still say to you Mr. Media Coverage, Tear Down this Facade.
Is the Boss getting political? If so, the highway may soon be jammed with Kerry backers on a last chance voter drive.
There is really little doubt that John Stewart and his Daily Show staff provide the best political humor on television. But sometimes, they also provide critical and smart coverage of political displays that are so pathetic, it's funny. In other words, it's time for The Daily Show on John Ashcroft's testimony. Here's a page with a link to the video.
When I went to Berkeley, while I was not an activist, I was enthusiastic about my fellow students' determination to divest from South Africa and to foster a spirit of equality and fairness. But deep in my gut, I often wondered how many of the chants and the messages scrawled on placards were based in fact and how many were based on a desire to be politically-correct or simply a need for the internal thrill of being active in one's community and to feel some connection to a global issue. See, with South Africa, it was so easy. Anyone with half a brain (and a hint of morality) was against Apartheid. But South Africa is not a cookie cutter issue. It cannot, for example, be perfectly mapped over the Israeli-Palestinian unpeace process. But at many at campuses like Berkeley and San Francisco State, all of these issues are part of the same mold. And therefore the contempt for an Apartheid era slavemaster is heaped onto Israelis (specifically) and Jews (generally). Places of tolerance are welcoming the sprouting seeds of hate. Places of education are being overwhelmed by simplistic falsehoods. An increasing number of young people at my school and in my town hate Jews. Michael Totten has written an interesting piece called The Berkeley Intifada? that tracks the rise in politically correct anti-semitism. The danger here, of course, is broader than a simple rise in anti-semitism (a historical trend you can set your watch by). This movement, away from common sense and towards misdirected contempt, also presents a threat to progressivism and liberalism.
The Bush administration has been consistently pushing religion into everything from our foreign policy to pressing for public funding of religious organizations. There is, in fact, a signicant number of Americans who believe we need more religion in schools, not less. Thanks to an organization called Narconon, kids have been getting an earful without anyone even being aware it was going on. Narconon is a wing of the Scientology movement that spreads its anti-drug messages to kids in several states. In doing so, they also happen to spread their totally unfounded, cultish theories as if they were facts. All drugs are actually poisonous. Drugs get stored in fat cells for years and small amounts are released back into the bloodstream, even a decade after they've been ingested, during exercise. Sounds like nonsense, right? Wrong if one of the cornerstones of your religion is a sauna-taking program. But it doesn't matter, right? I mean, if organizations are providing services that we generally believe are just and good (getting kids to avoid drugs, helping drunks and druggies clean up their acts, etc), then we shouldn't mind if a little cultish brainwashing gets thrown into the mix. If you support public funding of programs run by religious programs (and the general merging of religion and secularism), then you by extension support the idea that the Scientologists should be welcomed and publicly funded as they spout their nonsense to your kids. Because other people might think of your religious beliefs in the same way you think of Scientology.
There are, candidate John Edwards liked to often remind us, two Americas. It's looking more and more like Edwards is angling to be the vice president of both of them. Edwards' top campaign staffers have taken key roles in the Kerry campaign and Edwards has set up an office a few blocks from the White House. Even Senator Kennedy seems to be pushing for Edwards as the top pick. Reports out of Cheney's office that someone with a southern accent and a great attitude has been parking in the Naval Observatory driveway is another subtle sign. At this point, it will either be Edwards or someone totally unexpected. Otherwise we'd be hearing stirrings from some of the other top choices. On an issue of the moment basis, Edwards chances do seem to have been hurt a bit in recent weeks. It has become clear (contrary to what things may have looked like during the primaries) that Iraq will be the major issue of the campaign. Edwards strong suit in the primaries was the economy. But maybe the bottom line is what really matters. The guy is a great campaigner and he's had several quiet months to work on some of his weakpoints.
There is a growing amount of evidence that Libyan leader (and posterboy for the effectiveness of Bush's foreign policies) Muammar el-Qaddafi may have been part of a plot to kill the leader of Saudi Arabia.
Many members of Congress are calling attention to the fact that over the last several years, the Pentagon has blown more than $100 million on unused commercial airline tickets. The typical liberal press is clearly at work here. In this entire story, there is not one mention of all the frequent flier miles that the Pentagon earned.
It really has been a remarkable achievement by the folks at Fox. Somehow, in the last several years, more and more Americans (especially Republicans) have become convinced that the media is made up of a bunch of liberals who can't be trusted. This trend has taken place during an era when unabashedly conservative media has reached its modern peak (take a look at the Fox News numbers). Everyone is watching Fox as they spew the right wing critique of the so-called left wing media that no Republicans are watching anymore anyway. This is the equivalent of Coca Cola relentlessly criticizing the soft drink industry. If the numbers trends continue, we may someday hear Bill O'Reilly complain about the distorted coverage CNN would be serving up if only they were still in business, the unemployed liberal bastards. Meanwhile, how has the evil liberal press responded. Well, this week they are relentlessly celebrating the edited achievements of a conservative hero as they welcome a constant stream of Republicans to their airwaves.
It turns out the terror numbers for 2003 originally released by the State Dept were way off the mark and made a pretty bleak picture look pretty impressive.
If his opening comments during the Ashcroft testimony would have rhymed, Senator Pat Leahy could've easily been accused of channeling a gangsta rapper. He just flat out went all upside the head on the attorney general. Take a look at the transcript right here.
Maybe it's somehow fitting that the Reagan weeklong funeral miniseries is being broadcast at just about the same time we were supposed to be sitting back in our living rooms and enjoying a virtual ten year reunion of the key players from the O.J. trial.
On one hand, I must admit that I enjoy the sense of community that television can create during times of loss or celebration. If something major happens, my first instinct is always to turn the televsion on (in fairness, that's my first instinct in almost every social situation). It does provide a sense of community and focus in a culture that is largely absent of both (Fantasia's American Idol finale providing a rare exception). It makes us feel better and more together as a country as we all sit shiva with the Reagans.
But the coverage of Reagan is now bordering on the absurd. Iraq has a new government, the U.N passed a resolution, Ashcroft is taking heat on the Hill and Shaq continues to be a immature chump during postgame interviews. Does it seem strange to anyone else that the positioning of Reagan's casket in the plane enroute to D.C. is a top story or that CBS radio had an interview with an emergency services worker who explained his concerns that those standing in line to pay their respects were facing significant dangers because it's really, really hot in the nation's capital today?
This is where I think the O.J. anaology comes into play. Much like reality television, TV news herds find themselves attracted to two key elements in story. One element is that it be cheap and simple to cover that way the real work can go into graphics and theme music and the race to get the most appropriate experts to offer up some obvious analysis. The second element is that the story can be serialized. The Reagan story (like the Juice's trial, shark bitings, child kidnappings, nannygate and Laci Peterson) has both of these elements.
It also has a massive political angle. Don't take it from me. Take a look at the Bush campaign site that has been turned into a online Reagan shrine with tributes, pictures and of course, a donate-here button. It would've been a little more subtle to offer that kind of tribute on the White House page as opposed to a campaign page, no? Let's recall that during the Reagan years, while ideological differences were extreme, we still considered our president to be a representative for all of us, not just his own party.
So let's review. You've got a news story that is cheap and easy to cover (and involves no hard to pronounce names and places) that can be serialized and that is becoming more political by the day. I guess it could be worse. We could be watching a week's worth of Kato Kaelin on Larry King.
As we enter day three (it seems like week three) of the Reagan eulogy, I've been thinking a lot about his career and how it may have been positioned by Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush team if, say, the two had faced each other in a primary. Think about some of the ads and taglines. Reagan talks about faith and family values, but he is a divorced member of the Hollywood elite. Reagan says he is tough on evil, but when the terrorists killed our boys in Beirut and Bush would've said "bring it on," Ronald Reagan chose to cut and run. He was a major spender. And he abandoned ideology for silly facts when he rolled back tax cuts (which means he raised taxes). Reagan started out as a Democrat. Now he calls himself a Republican. Do you really want another flip flopper in the Oval Office?
The Reagan enthusiasts are set to make a major push to get Alexander Hamilton removed from the ten dollar bill and replaced by the Gipper.
One of the major inaccuracies often lobbed in the direction of John Kerry is that he and the Dems think of the war on terror as a law enforcement issue as opposed to a war. But I've been wondering aloud (which is one of the freedoms afforded by not running for any office) whether, beyond the rhetoric, the war on terror - beyond Afghanistan - isn't in large part a law enforcement challenge. Look at a couple of recent events. In the last several hours, Italian and Belgian "police" have arrested 17 people (including, they think, the mastermind) connected with the Madrid bombing. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, an unidentified gunman killed an American contractor. Is it terror? Sounds like it. Is it a job for law enforcement or the military? Isn't the war on terror, at this point, primarily an international law enforcement issue?
A Justice Dept memo from 2002 seems to give the greenlight to torturing prisoners in the war on terror (and this wasn't the first such memo). And President Bush has made it clear that, in his mind, the war on Iraq is the war on terror. The memo explained that torturing prisoners "may be justified" and that international laws and treaties related to the humane treatment of prisoners "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations." Bottom line, the working theory was that the effort to prevent further attacks (and remember now, the war on terror and the war on Iraq are part of the same effort according to W and Co.) would in essence override international laws and military doctrine related to the treatment of those in custody. A few things to keep in mind here: It is more than fair for us to have a national debate on how much is too much when it comes to torturing prisoners who (we are relatively sure) are connected with terror operations. Is torture an effective measure? Are we going down a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to more abuse of prisoners who are innocent or who have no connection to terror? Is it OK to torture a person long enough to answer these questions? If the answer is yes, torture is an acceptable means to an end, then we must ask ourselves another question. What constitutes being a suspect in the war on terror? If you are caught in round-up that leads you to an Iraqi prison, is that enough of a connection? What if you are a drug dealer in New York who sometimes deals in heroine that may or may not have originated in the fields of Afghanistan? And if you answer that, yes, torture is acceptable when it relates to the war on terror, but that no, torture is unacceptable as it relates to the war in Iraq, then you've got to reconsider how much you trust the words and by extension the deeds of this administration. And if they argue that the prisoners in Iraq are being treated differently than the prisoners in Cuba, then we've got, on several levels, what you'd call contradictory testimony.
More than half of the members of Senate signed a letter encouraging President Bush to change his stem cell policy.
Even though it's probably not true, I often happily delude myself into believing that a majority of the viewing and reading public take idiots like Tony Blankley and Sean Hannity for what they are: Garbage.
But on occasion these imbeciles just go too far as was the case during a recent dialogue between Hannity and Blankmind wherein off-putting Tony made the following comment about George Soros: "[He is] a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."
I know those who have been trained in debate by years of listening to O'Reilly will want to stop me here to suggest that Blankley was actually being pro-semitic; after all, it is a good thing to survive, no? Others less forgiving might wonder why Tony, given the timing of his remarks, didn't take advantage of the opportunity to criticize WWII vets who survived Normandy.
Maybe I'm taking this too personally as it happens that my dad is also a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust. Interestingly, that "way" included a favorite among pseudo-macho, overstuffed, right wing pundits who have never been in so much as a fistfight: He shot bullets at Nazis.
I've always been haunted by the relative ease of my own life. The worst I've had to contend with is having to survive a media age that included the rise of Fox News.
I'm probably being too emotional here. The truth is that I often enjoy listening to know-nothing, tough talkers like Tony Blankley who has managed to be the only person in history to take a step downward from his days working for Newt Gingrich - I don't know how else to describe being a columnist for the Moonies. Blankley often has a Reagan-like effect on me. Reagan supposedly made America feel better about itself. Blankley and Hannity make me feel better every time I see them on TV. At least I'm not that much of a pig, I think to myself.
But once in awhile, I really feel like smashing their faces in.
(I hope that last line doesn't hurt my chances to get hired by a major publication...)
When I taught high school in Brooklyn, I assisted another teacher who ran the school's mock trial team. It was a great program. Students who felt disenfranchised from the legal system, from other more successful schools, and even from the island of Manhattan, threw on their borrowed suits and went head to head (often successfully) with students from some of the best schools in the city. Today, thousands of students from poor districts are witnessing another kind of legal battle. In more than half of the states in the nation, poor districts are suing their state legislatures for more funding. In part, this mass movement was brought about by the President's No Child Left Behind Act. Districts leaders argue that they are being held to a certain level of testing standards while not being given the resources to succeed in that effort. Money, it is often said, doesn't solve the problem. On the other hand, the problem can rarely be solved without money. I'd like to see states and cities adopt a philosophy similar to the one held by William Bratton and Mayor Rudy when they successfully brought down the crime numbers (with a little help from a demographic shift) in New York City. One of the ideas that guided Bratton and company was an incredibly simple notion. Officers looked at a map of the city that included red dots wherever a crime had been committed. The sections of the city with the most dots were isolated and targeted. The theory was that if you let a continual series of crimes happen in a neighborhood, then those crimes will only increase in number and severity. So they put the cops where the crimes were. Makes sense, no? Those who hold the educational purse-strings should employ the same strategy. Get a map. Find the districts and schools where students are performing poorly (this effort will likely have a double-benefit as the places where the schools are bad and the kids are "left behind" will almost always be the same place on the map where the crime dots will congregate). Once the map is completed, start directing funds (and human resources) towards the problem areas. And political leaders here should follow another lead offered by Giuiliani and Bratton. The Squeegee rule. In New York, one of the first groups that the Mayor targeted were the aggressive squeegee wielders who had been, for several years, intimidating drivers into having their windows washed (you sort of have to had lived in NY to relate to this oddity). The idea was that the police should target even minor, quality of life issues because those are the kinds of things that can lead to more serious crimes. Bratton began his career as L.A. Police Chief by trying to do something about broken windows on Hollywood Blvd. Educators must also find the broken windows and the places where the crime level makes concentration of any kind, let alone educational excellence, seem like a distant dream. A broken window here, an unsafe environment there, and before you know it, you have kids who have given up. If one needs incentive beyond altruism (and one usually does), look at this way. Kids who have given up are the leading cause of red dots in neighborhoods across this country. Food programs target the most hungry. Crime programs target the areas with the most crime. Educational policies and funds - not just number two pencils and multiple choice bubble sheets - should be directed towards the kids who need it the most. Feeling like they were worth as much as the children of doctors and lawyers was a rare and enlightening experience for the kids who participated on our mock trial team. They shouldn't have had to take two subway trains to get to that point. It should be available in every classroom.
At least in the very short term, Reagan's death has already had a positive impact on the Bush campaign. Several negative stories (from Abu Ghraib to the Vice President's office) have been interrupted. Bush also avoided a close look at his weekend performance in Europe which was less than successful and during a press conference with Chirac, was downright embarrassing. During that press conference, Bush made the following comment in response to a question (in fairness, a bad question) about Abu Ghraib and other issues related to Iraq with the line: "To paraphrase President Kennedy, there's America, and then there's Texas." Huh? One can also see more clearly now the level to which Bush has tried to pattern his presidency after Reagan's - from tax cutting to an even more overt focus on religion. The entire Bush campaign homepage has been turned into a tribute to Ronald Reagan. But the Reagan comparison could be both good and bad for W. As Willie Brown explains: "He will do his best to try and associate himself with Reagan -- but it won't fly. It would be as if you're comparing a squirrel to an elephant."
Gorby: "I think that the main lesson of those years is the need for dialogue, which must not be broken off whatever the challenges and complications we have to face. Meeting with Ronald Reagan in subsequent years I saw that this was how he understood our legacy to the new generation of political leaders."
Hitchens: The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
The Great Persuader: "You believed it because you wanted to believe it. There's nothing wrong with that. I do it all the time."
The way the press is describing Ronald Reagan is a lot different now than it was when he was in the Oval Office. But that only makes sense, no?
. . . June 6, 2004
Drinking Alone
During the early Reagan presidential years, I must admit that I was less interested in politics, cold war strategies and international philosophies than other more pressing issues such as football practice after school, Bruce Springsteen concerts and trying to impress a certain girl (for the record, it took me until well into Clinton's second term to close that deal).
As I entered college at Berkeley and began to assistant teach at a local primary school, my world view opened up a bit (ending up as the roommate of the president of the Berkeley Young Republicans probably had something to do with my newfound political leanings).
We each remember these years when we first became passionate about issues (and in my case, that I needed a new roommate). I remember those feelings fondly.
But I don't remember hating Ronald Reagan. While I was already a Democrat, I viewed presidential elections largely as personality and popularity contests. I still think that's one of the better ways to look at executive level politics. You really need a president during those moments of resolve or mourning that you couldn't necessarily have imagined when you went to the polls. It is at these moments when leadership and, yes, personality are paramount.
Today, I'm not sure I could imagine myself voting for a Republican for President. That's really sad. But our political dialogue has been so soiled by personal attacks and bitter rivalries that it is difficult for most people to consider reaching a hand out to those who, after all, are merely part of another segment of the same team.
When news of Reagan's death first broke, there were a few familiar pundits who chose to use the moment to remind viewers of the terrible liberals who never gave Reagan his due. But during the course of the weekend, that tone quickly gave way to a tone more, well, Reaganian.
On Meet the Press, John McCain reminded viewers of what that tone was all about and lamented that, but for this weekend, it is all but lost in modern political dialogue:
"I do think that Ronald Reagan had a kindness and a gentleness about him that not only worked in Europe, but here in the Congress, which brings up an important point. Ronald Reagan did some very controversial things. The partisanship that existed in the 1980s was as strong, and -- the Contras, the Persian cruise missiles, tax cuts, all of those things. But after 6:00, he and Tip O'Neill would get together and tell stories and enjoy each other's company, and that was true in other parts of Capitol Hill.
"Now, we have such bitter partisanship and such personalization of politics that I know Ronald Reagan is very disappointed, very disappointed that--look, it's fine to fight all day long, but we don't have to dislike each other personally, nor do we have to attack each other, nor do we have to polarize the nation. I think if there is a legacy of Ronald Reagan, let's stop this and let's start working together for the good of the country."
Man, I'd really like to have a beer with John McCain.
. . . June 4, 2004
Capitalistic Pig
Republicans are pushing a web-based game called Kerryopoly and trying to discredit the Senator for being really rich. From RNC spokesman Jim Dyke: "Most Americans can't afford yachts, private planes, thousand dollar haircuts or homes in Nantucket." This, it could be argued, is a clear sign of desperation. What, are they now going to compare Kerry's lifestyle to growing up on the mean streets of Kennebunkport and only being able to afford a very mediocre professional sports team? Or perhaps they will contrast the Kerry fortune with Dick Cheney's past salary numbers that are usually reserved for those who can hit at least forty homeruns a year (or guarantee some really lucrative government contracts). Even if key members of the administration weren't loaded, Kerryopoly would be a joke. This is a America. You're supposed to try to get rich, famous and powerful.
Californians will vote on an initiative that would provide $3 billion for stem cell research. (Balco said they could cure the associated diseases for half that.)
President Bush met with the Pope at the Vatican where he just got away with getting a ruler to the knuckles. From the Pope on the negative side: Bad relations with Europe, "grave unrest" in the Middle East, unilateral war was a big mistake, prison scandal, moral failings, world contempt, didn't listen the first time, etc. On the positive side: Hey, at least you're against abortion, so keep up the good work. No word on whether anyone suggested Bernard Law for the now vacant top spot at the CIA (Hey, the guy is discreet).
Rummy: It's Their Fault: "I have often wondered as we approach Normandy and D Day, how that might have been reported if we had had 24-hour news, seven days a week and the folks were being killed as they approached the beach. And the gliders were being spewed across the countryside -- many missing their landing targets -- and our forces were trapped below Point du Hoc and not able to get up. I suppose they would have called Gen. Eisenhower back for congressional hearings." When all else fails, the ideological nonsense always makes for a fun-filled speech. This childish hogwash being hurled by Rummy and others has gone from embarrassing, to childish, to just plain sad. I'm never sure if I'm watching the real administration or a parody of Hannity and Colmes produced by The Onion. Forget the hometown audience for a minute. How about this? Don't you think it sounds a little disingenuous to the world when Rumsfeld supposedly promotes (with the heaviest of fists) the power of democracy while at the same time whining, almost constantly, about its inconvenient details such as checks and balances, a free and aggressive press, and leaders who are expected to have the guts to take responsibility for their decisions? Note to the Secretary: The soldiers under your command are fighting, killing and dying for precisely the pillars of democracy that you seem to find so burdensome.
I've never worked in television. And I've never managed someone else's career. But let me state this for the record. I will take the job as Al Sharpton's agent and manager. He clearly needs both. After all the hype regarding where Al would land after playing the national comedy circuit (also referred to as the primaries) to rave reviews and standing-room only audiences, the Reverend has finally made the announcement. He's going to be a bit player, appearing on lousy shows served up by CNBC. Aaron Brown beats CNBC. During the conventions, Sharpton will do guest spots on the lowly Dennis Miller, among other shows. Painful. That's like Larry David announcing that he is created a new show for local public access television.
Chalabi: "[Tenet provided] erroneous information about weapons of mass destruction to President Bush, which caused the government much embarrassment at the United Nations and his own country." I'm not sure of all the particulars, but doesn't Tenet still have the power to have Chalabi iced?
Strength has never been my weakness.-- Dan Hampton, Chicago Bears I used to have a football coach who regularly advised the players on our team to quickly figure out what our key weaknesses were. The goal of practice and off-season work he explained, was to turn those weaknesses into strengths. The advice, compared to most of his other coaching adages, seemed to make some sense - although I never quite managed to turn my primary on-the-field weaknesses (wanton fear, lack of speed, lack of strength, Jewishness, self-doubt, bad attitude, an unwillingness to take direction, the time conflict between afterschool practices and my childhood shrink appointments, a failure to work well with others and an unexplainable urge to tackle people even though I played offense) into strengths. I've never been quite sure who (other than the Almighty) is coaching the Bush administration, but it seems that they have been given advice almost exactly contrary to that I received. Somehow, the Bush team has managed to turn its core strengths into weaknesses. President Bush has now spoken to an attorney who might be called in to represent him in the case of the Valerie Plame leak. I'm not sure we should read all that much into the simple talking-to or hiring of a personal lawyer. What is important about this story is that it is still going on at all. The administration that supposedly never leaked let out a gusher. And the President who has been channeling John Wayne for several years and who promised to quickly out and oust the responsible party has done neither (on this issue, he looks like he may be channeling Inspector Clouseau). Then there is the more recent case of that other information spill. The one that reportedly has Ahmad Chalabi in hot water for tipping off the Iranians that we had broken their communication codes. Here again, a surprised public might have expected Bush or Rumsfeld to kick open the saloon doors, guns-a-blazing until they found the culprit. Instead, federal investigators are roaming around the Pentagon giving a series of polygraph tests to determine who shared the highly classified material. The administration that ran and had supposedly led on the cornerstones of professionalism, accountability and above all, honesty, seems to have lost its grip on all three.
John Kerry has criticized an order by the Pentagon that will require soldiers to stay in the military (past their obligations) if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan: "They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft." Kerry has also offered up some clear military policy distinctions between himself and the President. Examples: - The focus on state sponsorship: "From day one, this administration has been obsessed with threats from other states instead of opening their eyes to the perils of the new century -- terrorist organizations with or without ties to rogue nations and failed states." - Kerry is against the plans to build a missile defense system: "Not only is it not ready, but it's the wrong priority for a war on terror where the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck, or a vial of anthrax in a suitcase." - Kerry wants to double the number of Special Forces. - Modernize the National Guard and focus their efforts on homeland security.
CIA Director George Tenet has submitted his letter of resignation to the White House and he will step down in mid-July. From President Bush: "Today, George Tenet, the director of the C.I.A., submitted a letter of resignation. I met with George last night in the White House. I had a good visit with him. He told me he was resigning for personal reasons." Of course the phrase in the announcement that will get the most analysis is personal reasons. The missed slam dunk on WMDs in Iraq, a series of (past and more importantly upcoming) reports that are critical of the organization, a recent leak battle with the Pentagon over the prison scandals in Iraq ... who wouldn't take this stuff personally? But something tells me that the decision to step down didn't first come up last night during a meeting with the President. Former CIA chief Stansfield Turner on the move: "I think he's being pushed out. The president feels he has to have someone to blame. I don't think he would pull the plug on President Bush in the midst of an election cycle without being asked by President Bush to do that." It seems hard to believe that the timing of this move was unrelated to the Woodward book, the recent flap over Chalabi, interdepartmental debates, a growing frustration coming from Colin Powell's State Department due to the faulty intelligence their man shared with the globe, and other related events. On the other hand, it's difficult to see how the Bush team would get any political benefit from this resignation. After all, they are selling it as a personal personnel move. To scapegoat or play the responsibility card would essentially require the White House to demand the resignation. The Buck Stops at George Tenets Personal Life is hardly an effective campaign slogan.
. . . June 2, 2004
Quick Note to CNN
Stop leading with Scott Peterson. Stop getting crushed by Fox (and now in many cases, by MSNBC). Stop relying on Larry King (yes, that Larry King) to be your top ratings star. Stop promoting shows that are barely beating Dennis Miller. And stop Aaron Brown.
In his latest Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Iraq speech, the President attempted to make a strong connection between Iraq and World War II. Later, he described a guy playing computer solitaire as Vegas.
The Saudis say they've dissolved a charity group that has raised tens of millions of dollars for terror groups. These guys prove somewhat useful in the war on terror with a slight gesture every three to five years like clockwork.
If nothing else, the Bush administration has been marked by loyalty. Very few cabinet officials have even hinted at leaving and Bush himself has resisted calls to oust some of his top team members. But is all that about to change? Why, after 25 years of making pastries and pies, building gingerbread houses, and serving up cookies and ice cream is White House pastry chef Roland Mesnier stepping down this close to an election? Why has the master of the meringue refused to stick around through November? Is the timing related to a Veep office decision to give Halliburton a no-bid contract on the sales of all fuel used in Mesnier's famous Baked Alaska? Was it the relentless rumor that Colin Powell always gets stuck with the last spoonful of warm apple and mango winter pudding? Perhaps it was the talking-to that Mesnier received after daring to borrow a cup of sugar from the French. Or maybe it was that pretzel the President choked on awhile back. No one mentions it publicly, but the word is that it was store bought.
Josh Marshall in The Atlantic: "What would a John Kerry foreign policy look like? In some ways a lot like one the current President's father could endorse."
A few reflections on the recent mea culpa on WMDs offered up by the New York Times and its relationship to the widely perceived notion that we have a liberal press. First, the early reporting by Judith Miller (the major pieces in question) made a compelling case that there were WMDs in Iraq. In fairness to the NYT, almost everyone in the media bought into the notion of WMDs, which made sense on one level (many intelligence organizations were indicating that the programs existed) but needed a lot more proving out (Paul Wolfowitz and others had described the need to stop these programs as the best way to convince the American people that an invasion was necessary). I don't want to get into an analysis of the Times' coverage as it compares to other news outlets, nor am I knowledgeable enough about the inner workings of her newspaper to know what role Judith Miller's personal characteristics played in the decision to publicly denounce her work. I want to focus on the faulty notion of a liberal press and how it may have impacted this story at every stage. First, let's look at the original series of articles by Miller and others that left little doubt that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq. Sound like a liberal press to you? In fact, the supposed enemy of the Bush dynasty and red state conservatism bought the very story the administration was selling. In the biggest move of his presidency, the New York Times provided Bush with all the news that fit his own argument. Why did the Times prove to be so supportive? Perhaps because those who were selling the story either believed it or sold it convincingly enough. Perhaps reporters at the Times unconsciously succumbed to the constant pressure to be patriotic and fair and balanced. See we're not liberal. We believe! Or maybe Chalabi just duped them all (but I doubt it). Whatever the reasoning behind the coverage, one thing is clear. At the very time the O'Reilly Gang and the Limbaughtomites were being most aggressive in their descriptions of the liberal press, the very emblem of that liberal press was making the case for their man in White House (and remember, we're talking about news coverage, not opinion pieces, which in the case of those outside of the Murdoch and Moonie cults is still an important distinction). Now let's move forward in time to the Times' apology for their coverage. This was one of the few stories offered up by the newspaper that was not criticized for being a left-leaning political move. But it may have been the instance when the Times was being most political. If the New York Times feels the need to apologize for being duped about the WMD issues, then what does that say about the Bush team? There are only three possible answers: One, the Bush administration was - like the Times - duped by those who provided information. Two, the Bush team was unable to effectively manage the intelligence gathering process and to assimilate the various pieces of incoming information into a story that was on the mark. Or three, they lied. Essentially the NYT apology has backed the Bush administration into a corner. If the press were really all that liberal, they would see that this is the case an focus all of their attentions not on the NY Times apology but on getting to the bottom of how and why the administration came up with their story and proceeded to market it to the American public via an all too eager media.
President Bush is out pushing his faith-based initiatives which would make more public funds available for religious groups. From Bush: "I'm telling America, we need to not discriminate against faith-based programs. We need to welcome them so our society is more wholesome, more welcoming and more hopeful for every single citizen. I fully understand it's important to maintain the separation of church and state. We don't want the state to become the church nor do we want the church to become the state. We're in common agreement there." Bush's comments, delivered at a meeting of the White House National Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, were greeted with shouts of "Amen!" I'm not sure I even see the remaining points of debate on this issue. Hasn't Bush already succeeded in turning America's executive branch into a faith-based program?
The partial birth abortion debate is working its way to the Supreme Court as a federal judge rules that recently passed legislation is unconstitutional.
There is a largely accepted philosophy among political operatives which suggests that a candidate must defend him or herself and fight back hard when attacked. That philosophy is certainly being put to the test in the Kerry camp where his handlers must come up with a strategy to deal with the onslaught of anti-Kerry propaganda being pushed through the airwaves. We are still in the early stages of the campaign, but the Bush team has already served up nearly 50,000 negative and often misleading ads. According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson: "There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate. This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent." I always find it interesting that politicians focus their efforts on negative ads when the rest of world's top marketers stay positive. Can you imagine a Coke commercial that criticizes Pepsi for flip-flopping on the saccharine vs nutrasweet issue, or a series of Harry Potter ads that imply that Shrek was once in favor of a 50 cent gas tax hike? So far, Kerry (who certainly can claim tough-guy credentials) has been fairly careful in his responses when it comes to the negative ads. In fact, he has been fairly careful, even quiet, when it comes to his side of the campaign. Now according to the accepted political philosophy described above, Kerry is making a dire mistake. But maybe Kerry is employing another time-tested strategy perfected in the ring by Muhammad Ali: The Rope a Dope. Newsweek offers up the Sock Puppet Theory described by an interviewee who had just listened to another careful Kerry speech: "Kerry did not address Iraq as clearly as I would have liked. But my dislike of George Bush overrides everything at this point. You can put a sock puppet next to Bush and I would vote for it." Are things, in recent weeks, going so badly for the Bush team (reports of infighting, Iraq scandals, lack of discipline) that Kerry is better off just staying in a neutral corner for awhile? In the Rope a Dope strategy, you wait for your opponent to punch himself out. In this case, Kerry may actually be watching an opponent who is beating the hell out of himself. Think about it. The Bush ads are not having the desired impact. Kerry is holding his position and has even gained some ground in the swing states. Maybe the impatience among many in the Democratic Party is just that. The numbers clearly indicate that Kerry has proven his ability to float like a butterfly. We may have to wait a while to find out if he can sting like a bee.
Here's the rub (or one of them) when it comes to gambling in casinos: They can kick you out no matter what. They don't need a reason. You can, in fact, be booted from a casino for playing too well and winning too much. Card-counting is a perfect example. Players get too good at the game and they get banned from premises. And casinos don't need no stinkin' rules to back up the ban. You're out. Is the Justice Department employing a similar model when it comes to dealing with online casinos? So far, it is not at all clear, in legal terms, that the U.S. government has the right to regulate online, offshore casinos. So the Feds are going after anyone who exchanges cash or does business with these operations (not unlike the way they freeze terror or drug funds). If you're against online gambling, then maybe this all makes sense. The Discovery Channel agrees to take some ads from an online casino, but then the Feds move in and sieze the money. No cash for Discovery. No ads for the online casino. Sounds pretty effective. The strong-arming has convinced many media conglomerates to stop taking calls from offshore casinos. (Not unlike some other strong-arming convinced a media conglomerate to silence Howard Stern.) But is there a law to back this up?
Pervez Musharraf in the W Post:"My idea for untangling this knot is Enlightened Moderation, which I think is a win for all -- for both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is a two-pronged strategy. The first part is for the Muslim world to shun militancy and extremism and adopt the path of socioeconomic uplift. The second is for the West, and the United States in particular, to seek to resolve all political disputes with justice and to aid in the socioeconomic betterment of the deprived Muslim world." (It almost sounds like he's channeling Tom Friedman.)
| 
