Event: 1/19, Politics and Prose, DC

CHARLES LEWIS, discusses and signs copies of The Buying of the President, 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and His Democratic Challengers--and What They Expect in Return. Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave. NW. Mon., 1/19, at 7 p.m. Free. (202) 364-1919.

UPDATE:
'Twas good stuff. 'Bout 100+ people there. Primary author, Charles Lewis, is the head of The Center for Public Integrity. The book looks like it's completely informative, and completely depressing.

MoveOn to Fund Liberal Radio Station?

No. It's just a thought. MoveOn is kinda like the Dean campaign - they just snap their fingers and people (like me) are throwing money at them. Now, if you told a bunch of liberal weenies that they could actually have a radio station committed to truth-telling to combat the Rush's of the world, how much money do you think the liberals would throw towards such a cause?

It's been said that Al Franken is going to be the host of the first liberal radio station, and I'm all for it, but I don't need some uber-cautious corporate weenies telling me how best to do a liberal talk radio show. I'd rather throw $50 in the pot and let MoveOn sort it out. With MoveOn, I know it'd be streamed over the Net, too.

Now I Get It - Here Is Why Pete Rose Needs to Stay Out of Baseball

I couldn't figure out how it could be 'bad for baseball' if Rose only ever bet for his team to win. From a Washington Post editorial:

As Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated notes, a manager betting on his own club in a particular game might be suspected of doing things to win that game -- using an overworked relief pitcher, for example -- that will hurt the team in the long run.

Makes sense to me. I was never in favor of putting him into the Hall, anyways.

Want to See Body Parts Flying?

Check out this video circulating the Net lately. It's apparently of a U.S. Army Apache Helicopter blasting into the land of virgins three Iraqis. Whether those Iraqis were rebels or posed a threat of any kind to the Apache or to any other U.S. interests - well, I leave that to the viewer to decide. I also leave it up to the viewer to decide which parts of the bodies are the ones being bandied about by those little 20 mm bomblets. Chunks of skull? A little elbow action? Maybe a foot?

Video.
Article.

A Drinking Club with a Running Problem

The Hash House Harriers are a great organization in that they are everywhere, they're a friendly lot, and they seem to be true to their principles, but dang, those people are just too crude for me. Maybe I just don't understand the culture of the Hashers, but I wish we had a similar club with slightly less debauchery. Hey, I'm all for gettin your swerve on, but as psycho-left liberal as I am, this Hashing scene is just not me.

One thing is for sure - Hashers are truely a unique kind of club. For an idea of what hashing is all about, check out one of the local DC clubs - The White House Hash House Harriers.

Growing Influence of Blogs

Most online versions of newspapers don't yet provide even the most rudimentary blog-like links in their articles. It doesn't seem like it'd be that difficult, right? And think how useful it'd be. It'd be, well, almost as useful as a blog. Well, I just noticed that an article from the New York Times, Washington Bureau, has started linking the words 'President Bush' to the Times' Bush Campaign 2004 page.

This blog-like linking behavior of the Times comes on the heals of a set of articles that continue to point to the growing popularity and influence of blogs. Daily KOS has been featured in the San Francisco Chronicle, and other articles continue to make their way into the mainstream press, often still having to introduce exactly what a blog is. It sure would be a lot easier to explain what a blog is if a reader was able to click on a link and go to one of the top blogs out there - like Atrios for liberals or Instapundit for Republicans.

May not be much, but it's a start.

UPDATE: Another article, this one from the 'Health - AP' (??) - on the influence of blogs. What's up with Mr. GOP's slam against bloggers? My guess is he doesn't realize there are Instapundits in the blogosphere. Ignat.

Amtrak Sucks

I mean, flying sucks, but Amtrak sucks too. I ordered a ticket and had it express delivered (don't ask), but I didn't get a nifty tracking number for Fedex or whomever. I called Amtrak (mistake) and the person I spoke with was stunned that I was requesting a tracking number before delivery was even attempted.

Lack of Body Armour Cause of More Death

From CNN International:

Sergeant Steve Roberts, 33, was shot in the chest and killed in an attack in Iraq last March. His widow Samantha revealed Thursday that he left an audio diary in which he called supplies to soldiers a "joke."

If at least one story of a UK soldier getting killed due to lack of proper body armour made the headlines, I'm sure that there are many (hundreds, thousands?) of cases of U.S. soldiers going into battle unprepared and paying the consequences for it - sometimes the ultimate consequence.



UPDATE:
Another equipment shortage article for the Brits to worry about. This one is only about an amputation due to lack of equipment - not as exciting as a 'death-by-lacking' story, but still, it will continue to add pressure on Hoon to resign.

Approaching 500...

The media loves big, round numbers. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq is approaching the big five zero zero. What has Rove got up his sleeve? He definitely needs to drown out that day, and the day after. We'll need a pretty big story. What's it going to be?



I figure they can play out the Mars thing for at least a couple more weeks, but that's not big news anymore. And how many more headlines can you pull from this Mars ridiculousness anyway? I mean, let's take a look at recent headlines starting from January 14 and going backwards one day and one headline at a time:

• Bush Outlines Plan for 2015 Moon Landing


• Bush Plans Science Base on the Moon


• Bush to Seek Unmanned Mission to Moon This Decade


• Bush unveils deeper US-India space, nuclear cooperation


• Officials: Bush Space Plan Not Too Costly


• Bush Space Plan Envisions New Spacecraft


• Bush Plans Science Base on the Moon


• Bush Plans Major Space Announcement

Keep in mind that these are just single selections of the multiple stories that flew across the news wires on each day. 500 is right around the corner. What is Rove going to do?



UPDATE: I wanted to point out a couple of other details surrounding the logistics of any announcement about the 500th soldier killed in Iraq. First, Rove would have been smart enough to figure out that he needed all military casualties piped through a single exit point to be sprayed into the media outlets. Having this single point of outlet is crucial to being able to control exactly what information gets out, and often just as importantly, when that information gets out. I do not know what/where that outlet is - I suppose it goes through command headquarters out in Kuwait. The White House would have a very high level contact there who would be responsible for getting all initial field reports to the White House press people (McClellan, Rove) right away, accurate or not, and then would also be responsible for getting those folks any confirmed reports as soon as available.



Early access to this field information is crucial for Rove and McClellan to figure out a strategy of how to disseminate the information - when?, where?, what are the punchlines we're going to use?, what questions will be answer and how?, which questions will we not answer?, which questions will we shake off as 'absurb' and/or terrorist-sympathizing because they get too close to the truth. They'll anticipate all the questions they're going to receive from the press corps and they'll know the answers ahead of time. Once they are prepared they will disseminate only the bare essential information to Republican leaders - Frist and Delay - what happened? 500 dead. what do I say? Brave soldiers, freedom freedom freedom, terrorist terrorist, Iraqi people, progress progress progress, whatever.



Next stop on this pony express is underlings of Rove and McClellan phoning Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and other press lackies to get them a good story for the next day's paper that will deflect attention from the 500th dead, and will paint a rosy picture for the future of the occupation, call into question the patriotism of any who pause to reflect on the sacrifice of our soldiers, etc.



Somewhere along the lines - and this is where I lose it - the editors of the major newspapers will be contacted - leaned on either implicitly or explicitly - to frame the story in a certain way - to not pay too much attention to the upcoming negative headline - to pay more attention and make the lead story of the next day's paper the positive story because that is the patriotic decision, etc. I need to find out who are the editors of the five majors and what their affiliation is. Who pays their salaries? Corporate contacts? Stock holdings? Other business interests?



UPDATE:It's been a day or two since we've had reports of more GI's killed in Iraq. The deaths don't always occur on a linear basis - you could go almost a week with no deaths, and then lose 16 in a helicopter crash. That is the tricky part about Rove's job - how to play the waiting game. You can only stretch a would-be headline out for so long. If you wait too long, the press will not want to play ball. You've got to have something that the press can at least pretend to believe is a story that is not more than a week old. You have to give the press an excuse. That is the point of U.S. propaganda coming out of Iraq, for instance. Bush believers need something to believe in - anything. So, you give it to them. No, our soldiers didn't fire on innocent, unarmed protesters who were trying to exercise their supposedly-newly acquired right to free speech - someone in the crowd fired first, and only then did U.S. soldiers open up on the crowd. Whatever. It doesn't matter if it's believable or not - the sheepy proles who want desperately to believe will believe whatever you put in front of them. Other gullible persons in the middle will have second thoughts. And, in a sense, we haven't been taught that we need to look twice at everything we see and read. Our teachers never told us that in grade school. They never told us the real story of Christopher Columbus - explorer/mass murdered. So, in a sense, it's no wonder that people don't question - they haven't been taught to do so.



So, back to the original point, timing. It's killing me to know what Rove is going to come up with. Maybe he feels a bit protected with a big football weekend coming up, but next weekend will be tough if we don't get 500 out of the way this weekend. No football next weekend - there's always an off week before the superbowl. Drama....



UPDATE:Report of five GI's killed. Does that put us over 500? Where's Rove's story?



UPDATE:It seems I couldn't have been more wrong about this 500 thing. Really. The press gave it next to zippo - and it really came in with a bang, too - three GI's killed by another roadside bomb. Nice. And then a little bomb outside the American base in Baghdad killed a few people. Conflicting reports on whether any Americans bit it. Odd. It was none, then three, then two, then none. Maybe it's just not good news before The State of the Union address. Check out some video here to get a feel for how outrageously massive this bombing was...



UPDATE:Were any US soldiers killed in the half-ton bomb attack or not? This article says two.

America, Please Don't Hurt Us

Does an article like this even matter?

More South Koreans perceive the United States to be the greatest threat to their security than assign that role to North Korea. A recent survey by Seoul-based polling firm Research and Research indicates that 39 percent of Koreans view the United States as the greatest threat to Korea's security, with 58 percent of those in their 20s feeling this way. Of the total, 33 percent saw North Korea as the greatest threat.

Now, the article isn't talking about American invading South Korea, but it is talking about America invading North Korea, with North Korea subsequently retaliating against South Korea - specifically, Seoul. Scary.

Classic! SPAM me, please!

Apparently, Margaret Cho got slammed with a bunch of hate mail after Drudge posted an excerpt of her skit the other night from the Bush in 30 Seconds gala. As a response to the hatemail, Margaret's manager posted some of the most vitriolic emails on a political website - email addresses, names, everything! Dumbass bigots crack me up! :D

It's Wor-king....America gets a taste of her own medicine

From the BBC News:

An American Airlines pilot has been detained in Brazil after making an obscene gesture when photographed on arrival, Brazilian police have said.

I love this. More - more!

UPDATE: Ouch! Check out this article. $12,750!!! That's one heck of a fine!

Someone other than Dean or Clark for President?

C'mon. Seriously. Do you really think that Deaniacs or Clark's GI's would actually vote, much less rally behind, a softie like Gephardt? Who, by the way, is advising Kerry? Kerry for President? Are you serious? It really is unthinkable. Who, outside of Gephardt's campaign team, for instance, actually thinks that liberals like me would vote for him? Seriously. We would have a third party running, I guarantee it. It would be disastrous, of course, and Dubya would win, but at least we could lose with dignity.



This Democratic campaign is not just about winning the presidency - in a way, it's far more than that. Democrats need to find a voice - any voice. Clinton said it best - and nobody denies its truthfulness - and yet Democrats still don't care to recognize it. Better to be strong and wrong, than weak and right.



Carville's book captures the mood of the politically-oppressed in the U.S. today - Had Enough? : A Handbook for Fighting Back. Who cares if we win or not - it's not about that anymore - it's about saving face. Shoot - I'd compare the plight of liberal Americans to that of the Palestinians. We've lost, we are under control - that big, nazi-like Republican boot is forcefully planted in the center of our backs, pushing our faces into the dirt. We've lost nearly all of our self-respect, but we haven't given up hope yet. That is what this 2004 Democratic campaign is all about. Self-respect.



Gephardt and other career politicians like Kerry couldn't possibly hope to redeem the Party - the Party cannot be saved from within. Of this, I am sure.

The Real State of the Union

Joshua (why do I always want to say 'John' - is that supposed to be short for Joshua?) Marshall told us about The Real State of the Union event in DC. I stopped in at the only session I thought would be interesting:

11:00am SESSION II: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AFTER IRAQ: HAS AMERICA OVER-REACHED?

James Fallows, Francis Fukuyama,Kenneth Pollack, Paul Glastris, and Martin Walker; Moderator: Kathryn Kross

Surprising to me was that all of the speakers were rather good. Well, at least they spoke clearly, and quickly - or at least not too slowly, which I think is the norm in these types of watch me, see me, hear me, I'm special events.

James Fallows, now the National Correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, opened up - actually he was already speaking when I got there - couldn't have been more than five minutes past 11 am. On time - pretty cool. Unique, that's for sure. Anyhoo, he was good, and set the pace.

Francis Fukuyama, the next speaker, was good too. He's the Dean of Faculty at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University. I figure any school with enough gumption to name themselves 'School of Advanced [fill-in-the-blank]' must be pretty good. I thought Fukuyama was interesting for a few reasons. One, he's not white/causasion/whatever - therefore, he doesn't fit the mold of old, stodgy, cracker-jack-white, egotistical, American professor of something-or-other-ology who has mostly contempt or pity for other cultures. Second, he's not female. I saw 'Francis' on the agenda handout and thought 'wow, a woman.' Should I have been surprised to see a female name on the agenda? [email] Third, he's associated with JHU - the old home of one Paul Wolfowitz. Actually, it looks like Fukuyama took over for Wolfy when 'the wolfman' decided to run off and start conquering galaxies. Curious if there's a personal relationship there. Fukuyama seemed pretty level-headed, so maybe not. Hmmmm.

Next was the infamous Kenneth Pollack. He, I suppose, was the headliner. He's the main reason I was curious to show up. He seemed relatively smart, and somehow seemed apologetic for the Administration, as usual, for the Iraq war, but was also more harsh than I expected him to be - calling for investigations and all sorts of liberal nonsense. I guess I really haven't figured out how otherwise reasonable, supposedly-intelligent people could have supported the Iraq War - the way the U.S. did it. I just don't get it - at all - so I just can't let go of this deep contempt I hold for everyone who supported the war. It is thus that I hold a special reserve of contempt for those who really pushed the Iraqi Oil agenda forward - Pollack did so with his book that so many pols then used as an excuse. Well, I couldn't help it, I mean, the book, the book...it, it has this POWER over you... You'd think they were talking about the ring, man! So, in that way, it's not on Pollack that so many of our politicians either had no spine, no brains, were only interested in being re-relected (Hillary?), or some combo of these.

Martin Walker, the final speaker (I think! - what happened to Paul Glastris - was he that unremarkable?!), was a UK-type guy with neocon-type apologetic qualities for the Administration. I don't understand that. I think he was saying something along the lines of this was was all wrong, wrong, wrong, but it was the the right thing to do (to invade). Whatever.

So, Paul Glastris is apparently the editor in chief of the Washington Monthly. Sorry, Paul - I don't remember thee. You might want to spice it up a bit next time. Maybe slip a couple of jokes in there somewhere.

I hardly remember what each of them was talking about. The room/building we were in, listed on the website as Senate Caucus Room Russell Senate Office Building; Constitution & Delaware Ave.; Washington, DC was marvelous...borderline spectacular. It was noisy, and I was celebrity searching. [Do all journalists look like Joe Conason?] Didn't see anyone I recognized, but it seemed like there was a row at the front for important people. I wouldn't recognize but a handful of congressfolks anyways.

There were no signs for where the shindig was going on, so after the compulsory anal probe at the entrance to the building, I wandered down one of the halls to see the office waiting area for 'The Honorable blah blah Warner'. Man - these guys are LIVIN'! Now I can see why Daschle is so willing to do whatever to keep his plush Senate office. I mean, I think I tend to the side of good principles, moral righteousness, etc., but put me up in one of these offices for a couple of days....and HOOOO-WEEEE boy, I'll start talkin' Texas quicker than hell could scorch a feather!

So, I'm looking for a transcript if you know where I can get one...or a video...which is a nice segway into the less impressive details of the gathering. First, it seemed like the events of the day were rolling - nonstop - no pee breaks - nada - just keep on keepin' on - or else. That sense of urgency can be nice, as opposed to a sense of we-have-the-rest-of-our-natural-born-lives-ness, but the event, for me, seemed rushed. Like swallowing water from a firehose.

There were a bunch of impeccably-dressed intern-types running around in dark suit/skirt things, dropping friendly smiles, asking for names for registration (Ashcroft-itis?), pushing folks into seats upon entering the Barmitvah-like speaking room, chattering in the back of the room or just outside it - I guess to add to the already undulating pitch of white noise competing with the panelists for the ears of the 250 (?) or so guests. The cameras at the back of the room - crimeny - how many were there - 15? Real cameras too - not the little, dinky, handhelds that don't make a racket when you change their VHS tape internals. Tellin' ya, the speakers were very good to speak as clearly as they did.

Oh, and this. This is hilarious. The WHOLE F*CKING TIME, off to the right side of the room, there was a staff of about four to six waiter-types clinging and clanging and jangling and whatever else. What in the H*LL were they doing, exactly? I swear, it went on for the entire time I was there, and it culminated in a brief announcement, just before the last speaker, that everyone was going to be 'eating at their chairs', and 'please wait until about 11.20 am to soothe your voracious appetite by cracking open those incredibly-loud platic-y containers - and filling your piehole with nonother than a....roast beef sandwich?' Roast beef or turkey, apparently. Well, someone was feigning shock horror at the choice of roast beef. Me, free is free. Always willing to help the mad cattle lobby get back to business.

So, the last speaker is on - and the guy with really bad breath to my right is laughing at the ridiculousness of this eating-in-place exercise - which makes me laugh - but I almost gagged when I caught a wiff of the noxious fumes emanation from the mouth of Mr. GO BRUSH YOUR GO*-DAMNED TEETH ONCE IN A WHILE, AND FLOSS TOO! I was forced to not-so-discreetly cast my face down and towards my left armpit (down...and to the left, down...and to the left) sucking away for life at some not-overly-funkified air to breath into my now-poisoned lungs (I've found the chemical weapons!). Wow, it was a mess. So, stomachs are growling. Plastic-enveloped sandwiches are being handed out in a not-so-silent fashion - 'Turkey or Roast Beef? Turkey? Roast Beef? I only have Roast Beef left. Wait, I can go get another.' Of course, there are only three aisles in the whole damn place - one on either side of the room, and one down the middle. The rows were, oh, about....25 people per. Take one plastic-y container, drool, pass it down, take one, drool, pass it down. Oh, the speaker - that's right - there's someone up there speaking. Cameras getting kicked and bumped, cameramen changing tapes, the stewardesses chatter-ing up a storm that would make Al Qaeda jealous on New Year's Eve, the girl behind me who is compelled to give to her cohort a brief synopsis of the entire Iraq conflict - current status, runup details, and historical context, because said cohort was evidently holed-up in a cave in Afghanistan for the past couple of years - the smirks of the panelists as they being to recognize the Falluja-like riot atmosphere descending upon the room - it was waaaaay too much for me.

I quickly formulated an exit strategy. The weather was milder today than that of previous days. I would cordone-off whichever type of sandwich it was my good fortune to snare, and put on a brave and patient face until I saw an opening - and then make a run for the border. The elements vs. Fallujah/DC - I'll take the elements. I don't know what event triggered my reaction, but my instincts told me 'NOW! NOW!' and I broke for the door, sandwich in hand. I went back in to grab a can of Coke off the table - and then bolted. I felt like all the stewardesses were looking at me, like Dude, you didn't want to eat next to smelly? Like, didn't they announce that we were eating 'in our seats'?

Did I mention how close together the seats were? Try, touching each other. I'm not kidding. And guess how much room there was from row to row - guess. Almost none. You could *not* pass someone in your row. We're not talking a tight squeeze like at the MCI Center, or any stadium/convention/arena-type complex - we're talking, NOT POSSIBLE. Fortunately I was only the second seat in, so only Smelly had to get up to allow me access to my seat. I'm curious how the eat-in-place thing went...I honestly can't imagine it. No trays, no place to put your drink, no rooms to move your arms to shuffle parts of dead animals into your piehole, halitosis-stricken people masticating all around you. Noooo, thanks.

The little lunchbox/plastic/sandwich-type thing they had was pretty dope, though, I have to admit. Good sandwich - a packet of mustard and mayo, an apple, a big chocolate-chip cookie, a napkin. Yep, no complaints on the food. I kinda wanted to go in and grab a few of those lunchbox-type meals to hand out to the homeless folks, but I didn't have the guts.

What else? Oh, questions from the audience. One lady from NOW or some similar organization gets up and asks one of the panel members about the situation for women in Iraq, and in particular, why or what or how, with respect to not enough women on the governing boards of Iraq. I can't keep track of all the congresses going on. What is there - the CPA, the INC, and IGC? Probably others, but one of them doesn't have enough women - like 3% or something she said. My first thought was, "let's try to fix America first, baby!" So, knowing that most Americans are ethnocentric even beyond their wildest dreams - even so-called liberals - I thought I'd check what the status of women in the U.S. Congress is. The Center for American Women and Politics says that in 2003, women held 13.6% of the 535 seats (the 108th U.S. Congress). That's 73 seats of the 435 in the House, and 14 of the 100 in the Senate. Now, my math turns out a little bit different [(73+14)/535 = 16.3%], but what's a couple of percentage points? That's interesting - I was guessing 5%, my co-worker guessed 30%. In any case, I don't even know what the Panel's answer was. I'm curious to know what they said. I'll tell ya what - being a woman in Iraqistan right now can't be much fun.

The best question came from...a CATO person?! I swear, the world has gone completely insane. Well, this is the Administration of upside-downism, so I guess it makes sense. I'm really worried that I agree with CATO on so many things these days. Seriously - this is scary. In any case, Charles Peña, said something to the effect I want to challenge the seemingly-forgone conclusion that staying to occupy Iraq is the best solution to our current predicament - hemorrhaging innocent lives, good will, money, etc. As one of the panelists just said, occupation is not something new for the U.S. - we've done it 17 or so times this century - and only three times did we achieve a clear success. So, what up? Something like that. Previously, one of the panelists had listed Japan, Germany, and I think South Korea as our only reconstruction successes. All 14 others (Guatemala, Haiti a couple of times, etc) were failures. The panelist argued that staying five-plus years doesn't guarantee success - in fact, it is almost a sure indication of a failed reconstruction. So, I thought Peña made a good point, and I don't remember who answered, but it was very dismissive in tone - something like 'well, blah blah blah, and how dare you even suggest, and blah blah blah, and we have to give it our best shot.' So much for debate.

And Pollack is part of Brookings. WTF?!

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Looks like the USA Today did a nice little favor for the administration today. Check the headline: Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture

I thought that sounded a bit odd when I read it, b/c wasn't everyone in agreement a couple of weeks ago that the capture of Saddam hadn't made our troops and the people of Iraq any safer? Wow, looky that, prominently placed, just below the fold of the cover - nishe.

Well, as Greg Palast always recommends, I decided to read the fine print. First, I check the percentage. Check. 22% is correct. Let's call it minus twenty-two percent, or -22%, for short, since it does indicate a dropoff in attacks. The dropoff is from 23 attacks per day to 18 per day. Good job USAT. Next, let's look at the important numbers.

During the same periods, U.S. combat injuries dropped only slightly, from 233 in the four weeks before Saddam's capture to 224 in the four weeks after.

Wow. If we do a percentage based on the number of injured troops, our percentage is not -22%, but -4%. Let's do some more lookin.

And the attacks remain deadly: 22 troops killed from Nov. 16 through Dec. 13 and 31 in the comparable period Dec. 14- Jan. 10.

Wow, again. Number of deaths - that's probably a fairly important stat. Instead of -22%, that's....+41%!

Just a little friendly reminder to help you see the importance of owning your own one-of-the-most-widely-distributed-newspapers-in-the-world. Let's face it, USAT is no Yomiuri Shimbun (circulation 14 Million), but it's not too shabby (5.6 Million).

Cato finding a voice?

I'm shocked yet again by the folks over at Cato. Kos has helpfully pointed out a screed by the once-GOP-loyalist-Cato Institute that just torches the Bush Administration. Now, please tell me, how does a true Republican defend this little ditty?

But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

Niiiice.

Back to Covered Wagon!

Oh, that Drudge. He is a bit of a gangster, but he's entertaining, and he's right wing, and he actually publishes some headlines that are anti-right wing. That is unbelievable to me! Would you expect to see an anti-right wing headline on Rush's website? Anyway, I also like Drudge because he believes in civil liberties - you know, privacy and all that junk.

On that whole civil liberties thing, Drudge tonight is talking about the implementation of the CAPPS 2 system (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II). Referencing a Washington Post article, Drudge is not liking the idea of being colored a green, or a yellow, or a red. It's all scary stuff. So Drudge is thinking about his alternatives to flying and starts to exhort, 'Back to Covered Wagon!'. I love it! He was talking about setting out for the West coast (Go West young man!)in April and arriving sometime in August. Soooo great! Can you imagine? A right-winger and left-winger completely agree on a topic? It's almost too much to handle.

Man, I so wish Amtrak wasn't so incredibly inept! I think there may be a real business opportunity here. I'm talking about express bus service on some popular plane routes. You know - DC to Boston express - no anal probes! And no stopping at every East coast redneck town north of the Mason Dixon!

My favorite quote on the topic of airline security and the perfunctory pre-boarding festivities is from the ever-combative Jim Bovard. I don't have the exact quote but I can get pretty close. In response to an audience member's question about his rights when dealing with those dingleberry airport security personnel, Bovard had this to say:

Rights? You have the right not to fly.

And there you have it ladies and germs. I couldn't agree more.

Clark, the anti-war candidate?

I recently read a post on Joshua Marshall's blog, Talking Points Memo, that got my back up. I thought he made at least one statement that was inaccurate about both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Marshall sourced an AP article that talked about Dean's 'attack flyers' against Clark. Dean responded as follows:

If the fliers said that General Clark was originally for the war and now is against it, that's accurate...

To this, Marshall says:

I hesitate to call it a lie because I don't know if Dean knows it's false, though he should.

The falsity of the claim is well-known to anyone who closely followed the debate over Iraq in the lead-up to the war and particularly Clark's role in that debate.

Well, I thought I followed the pre-Iraq debate fairly closely, and there was a time when I would have said, yeah, Clark is anti-war - that is, he was against the Iraq War, but I wouldn't say that anymore (see details below).

Now, there's the debate about whether Clark is actually anti-Iraq War, and then there's the time-wasting task of analyzing whether or not Clark, or any of the candidates for that matter, is just plain 'ol 'anti-war' - as in the 60's sense of the term - meaning, someone who opposes every war all the time, without exception. So, I take Marshall to task on whether Clark was (or is) anti-Iraq War, but it seems like Marshall is somehow hung up the impropriety of Dean's folks calling-out Clark's folks' claim that Clark is anti-war, when in fact Clark is not actually anti-war, he is/was merely anti-Iraq War. At least, this is what I think Joshua is getting at because, honestly, I don't understand all of his post. If you can figure out the passage below, please drop me a line - I don't have my PhD yet, so you'll just have to bear with me until then - count on, oh, 2030 or so.

There's a lot of foolishness being peddled to the effect that Clark is claiming he's an "anti-war" candidate when he's not. (This is the upshot of the flyers Dean campaign workers are distributing at Clark rallies.) This is a very loaded term. One can believe this whole enterprise was badly misconceived and handled even worse and not have that sentiment diminished by not singing folk songs.

So, is Clark anti-war? No. Is Dean anti-war? No. Is Kucinich anti-war? Maybe. Is anyone else anti-war? Probably not. Great. Glad we solved that. The point of this little exercise is that nobody is trying to push Clark as a purely anti-war guy, and nobody is claiming that Clark claims he himself is anti-war. Great, glad we solved that. Now, is/was Clark anti-Iraq War? A simple yes or no would be ideal, but I'll even accept caveats at this point.

A few weeks ago I read an interesting, and ultimately depressing, article on General Clark. I actually liked the guy, and still like him, I just like him a lot less now. The article details Clark's seemingly-wavering position on the War in Iraq. Of course, Clark is now known as one of the major 'anti-war' candidates - right behind Dean (both, actually, right behind Kucinich in terms of the strength of their anti-war stance).

The FAIR organization is one I'd heard about before, and I was honestly disappointed, in a way, that they did an exposé on one of my candidates. Well, as they say, though the heavens fall. It seems to me a 'fair' article. I actually went through the article, line by line, and pulled out every reference to every quote/clip and found them reproduced in many other publications around the Net - national and international sources - at least some of which could be called 'well-respected'. It's tight - I believe it.

Among the statements that Clark made that show he wavered on the issue of the War on Iraq, depending on how well things were going for the troops over there, follows. Neither quote says "Yes! Attack! Attack!", but they certainly say, "Yes. Attack."

• The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us....




• I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations.

Now, probably the scariest quote from Clark came from an article he wrote for The London Times. Here you can really see the pride that Clark takes in the U.S. military and its power to conquer. I don't have too much of a problem with this, in and of itself, but Clark wrote this article on 4/11/03 - just after the fall of baghdad - just after America took on a defenseless, sovereign nation and blasted it back into the stone age, killing thousands of innocents - collateral damage as it were:

The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact.

I'll go ahead and say it - this quote is Hitler-esque. This guy is scary. He must've been feeling 'the power' when he wrote this article, and that scares me. George W. Bush certainly felt 'the power'. Yes, the U.S. military is God-like in its power - we can decimate at will, and we have, and if Bush or Clark get to office I'm afraid we will again.

That's why I changed my mind about Clark. He seems like a fairly upstanding guy, but he's too militaristic - doesn't value human life enough for my likes.

(John) Buchanan for President!

It seems George W. Bush has a competitor for the nomination of the Republican Party - John Buchanan. Buchanan gained some notoriety when he published an expose on how the grandfather and great-grandfather of President George W. Bush helped finance the rise of the Nazi regimes. If you've heard about this - it's actually not a joke - it's actually true, and actually scary, but not too surprising if you've been tuned into the truth about the Bush family.



New Hampshire has their primary coming up soon and John Buchanan is running for the Republican nomination. I can't imagine how much better the world would be if we had John Buchanan, a real Republican, in office. Among his other campaign pledges, Buchanan has promised to get to the bottom of 9/11 - no more stonewalling by Bush and his cronies. I gave Buchanan $10 for his campaign. Why not? If I had a choice for my next President to be locked-into John Buchanan right now, or to have a chance to run against Dubya in the Fall, I'd take Buchanan right now - hands down. Check out his website.

Boondocks on Mad Cow Disease

I'm not overly surprised that more people don't know about Boondocks yet because I haven't read a comic strip in, oh, ever. Well, almost. But I saw the Boondocks book in a bookstore here in DC and cracked it open - it was really good! But with that, it's kind of right up my alley - it makes fun of Bush, and it's very 'hip-hop' - or maybe I just think that because the comic seems to consist of mainly black characters - two kids and their grandpa, who is their primary caregiver. The older kid is an intellectual along the lines of Malcolm X and his little brother, while also intelligent, is more concerned with being respected as a thug/original gangsta/etc. Check out this one I just ran across:





I'm gonna venture that this is the main site for Boondocks.