Monday, November 28, 2005
Well, here's the service for you. After the rapture, your drug using, blood drinking, non-Christian friends will get a convenient (and just in time!) message telling them to repent while you sit comfortably in heaven.
Spam from the great beyond!
Sheesh. Make sure that you read the sample letter. It's hilarious.
These people are either bat-shit crazy or incurably stupid. The problem is that they're also running the country and picking our Supreme Court justices.
Monday, November 21, 2005
It seems like the Dems have been reading this article by David Mamet, about political strategy:
A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."
Mamet says that to win in politics (or poker), you've got to raise the stakes when someone comes after you. Coincidently, this advice is similar some offered in Mamet's script for the The Untouchables:
Seems like an apt comparison--Capone and Bush--they both killed a lot of people and headed up criminal organizations, so we probably should treat them the same way. Come to think of it, Pat Fitzgerald does have a bit of an Elliot Ness vibe. All the more reason for the Dems to heed Mamet's advice an strike back hard at the chickenhawk White House.
He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get Capone.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Not sure what the best strategy is here . . . personally, I hope that they all support an immediate withdrawl of the troops (because that's what I want), but if even if they do, the resolution won't pass and it'll generate campaign ads for 2006 that say, "Rep. So and So didn't support the mission of our troops, and voted to cut and run from Iraq before the mission was finished." The opposite vote generates the "Rep. So an So voted to keep the troops in Iraq, but now he's saying that the war was a mistake."
In retrospect it was probably a mistake for Murtha to introduce it, but either way, a united front will look better that a split decision. The only really good outcome politically would be for the Resolution to pass with bi-partisan support--that would REALLY make Bush look bad--but Blount wouldn't let it come to a vote if he expected any Republican defectors.
How do you think Dems should vote?
Update: I misread the article. Murtha didn't propose the resolution. Still, the choices for the Dems remain the same.
Their reasons are, I suppose, political. I don't know if they think that calling someone a suicide bomber evokes some sort of sympathy for them or dimishes the deaths and injuries of the victims. Whatever. The problem that I have is that "homicide bomber" is not a good description of what happened.
Anyone with a bomb can be a "homicide bomber," even if they detonate the bomb remotely from a few blocks away or halfway around the world. "Homicide bomber" just tells me that said bomber killed people with the bomb. The term "suicide bomber" tells me that the bomber intentionally blew him/herself up in the process of killing others.
Fox would have been better off to simply say "bomber." Actually, given their "fair and balanced" editorial policy, they could have just gone with "evil doer," "terrorist," "Islamofacist," or combine them all as"evil terrorist Islamofacist." Somehow, though, they need to capture the idea that the bomber is also dead. Here are some suggestions:
- A bomber who killed some people, and, oh yeah, is kinda dead too.
- An exploding bomber
- A "self-centered" bomber
- A now-facing-the-terrible-wrath-of-the-Christian-God-and-burning-in-a-lake-of-fire bomber
Any other suggestions?
Thursday, November 17, 2005
The Washington Post and most other media outlets are regurgitating Libby's talking point that Bob Woodward's admission that he heard about Plame's CIA affilliation from a different source a month before Libby's leaked it to Judith Miller.
The Libby legal team seized on Woodward's testimony, calling it a "bombshell" with the potential to upend Fitzgerald's case. After spending yesterday at the courthouse reviewing documents for the case, Libby emerged with one of this lawyers, Theodore V. Wells Jr., by his side. Wells said Libby is "very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forward and telling the truth.
First, Libby isn't charged with leaking the name (yet) or with being the first to do so. He is charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements. These are crimes that have less to do with the actual leak, and more to do with the cover-up. Libby lied and Fitzgerald caught him. That's what he's being prosecuted for.
Second, this revelation seems to fuel speculation about a conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame. It's starting to get a bit suspicious when Libby, Rove, and another "high ranking official" leaked the same information to at least five seperate reporters (Russert, Novak, Miller, Cooper, and Woodward) in a two-month period. Especially, if the current speculation is correct, and the mystery official is Stephen Hadley, the current National Security Advisor (maybe he should advise himself not to leak anymore classified info--that would improve national security).
I think that the Woodward revelation is a disaster for Libby and the White House. Yay.
Update: This USA Today article offers a theory about ways that Woodward's admission could help Libby. I still think that they're pretty thin, but in the interest of full disclosure, here they are:
- He could say that Fitzgerald is incompetent. After a two-year investigation, he didn't uncover the Woodward leak. For me, this actually lends credence to the obstruction charge--Fitzgerald didn't know, because Libby wouldn't cooperate.
- The fact that Woodward knew about Plame a month before Libby talked to Judy Miller shows that her identity could have been common knowledge and Libby could have been telling the truth about hearing it from a reporter. Unless there are hundreds more reporters out there waiting to come forward who also knew (again--this beefs up the conspiracy argument) the fact that Woodward knew and didn't tell anyone except fellow reporter Walter Pincus has no bearing on the Libby case.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
"Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."
November 15th, 2005
This is Bush's current counter-attack to allegations that he lied to the country and rushed us to war. The "we didn't lie, we were incompetent--and so was everyone else" defense is pretty weak, and, surprise surprise, it's also a LIE. To characterize all of the Senators who voted "to authorize the use of force" as pro-war is absurd. The resolution that the Senate passed authorized the President to use force (a power he already had under the War Powers Act) if no diplomatic solution could be reached, and urged the President to work with the UN to find a peaceful solution. While some democrats certainly were unequivocally for the war (Leiberman, I'm looking at you), most emphasized that:
- The use of force should be on the table, so as to not limit the President's options, but the war should be a last resort.
- All diplomatic channels should be exhausted before the war started.
- Going to war would be costly, and the rebuilding of Iraq would be expensive and would require a huge effort akin to the Marshall Plan.
- We'd need a tremendous number of allies to make the war legitimate and successful.
- UN support is vital to the success of any plan.
- This is NOT an authorization for a "go it alone" pre-emptive strike.
None of these conditions were ever met.
Here's what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry said about the resolution (both voted for it).
"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
October 10, 2002
"The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. "
October 10, 2002
In Bush's speech, he said "They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now." I disagree completely. The reality of the situation is that this vote took place when Bush's approval ratings were sky-high and democrats were hedging their bets on whether the war would be successful. The country was supportive of military action, and democrats were afraid of having their patriotism challenged. They were "speaking politics" then to save their political asses. I was mad at them at the time for wimping out--and I'm still mad. But I think they're speaking the truth now (which, finally can help them politically). Still, if you read the Clinton and Kerry speeches, it's clear that even at the time, both only wanted war as a last resort.
It is well within the rights of anyone who authorized the use of force to say that:
- They were lied to or intelligence was withheld.
- The war has been managed incompetently and with insufficient resources.
- They made a mistake (a la John Edwards).
Friday, November 11, 2005
It seems that I've been getting amplified versions of the government signal--maybe that's why Bush makes me so mad.