Questions For "Dubai Dubya"

I just had some thoughts as I read about the continued fallout from the D.P. World story:

- What can we do if freight that we receive at one of our ports doesn't match the vessel’s shipping records (including undocumented cargo or items inconsistent with paper records – i.e., containers that are supposed to contain panty hose according to the records but, upon inspection, contain fertilizer for a dirty bomb)?

- Since apparently no records from Dubai Port World will be kept in this country, as well as the fact that no company representative would be available in the event of any accident at a D.P. World port (terms of the agreement, unbelievably enough, no doubt meant to shield D.P. World in the event of litigation in this country), does that mean that D.P. World is, in effect, automatically absolved from any liability in the event of an accident?

- In the event an accident occurs at a D.P. World port, how would EMT personnel or first responders on the scene know how to treat anyone who is injured or killed (who would they contact to find out what was contained in any damaged cargo according to the ship’s records)? This is important because emergency personnel would need to find out what chemicals caused an explosion, fire, or any kind of gaseous emission from the cargo (e.g., does white smoke emitted from the damaged cargo mean baking soda or anthrax?).

I have a feeling that some of these questions pertain to issues that are addressed as part of “standard operating procedure” at the port (I would hope so, anyway). I would also hope the other considerations I mentioned (and many others) were addressed as part of the review prior to approval of the D.P. World takeover, though considering the fact that Bush didn’t know about the agreement until after it was signed off by the White House somehow – and what does THAT tell you? – and Rumsfeld was apparently in the dark also, I definitely don’t feel “warm and fuzzy” about this deal.

In the Inquirer today, reporter Ken Dilanian filed this report which makes a case for letting the deal go through, though I was troubled by this excerpt (registration required):

"The government of the (United Arab Emirates) is about as pro-American as you can get" in the Middle East, noted the U.S.-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. "If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world."

Predictably, this aspect of Dubai has not often been reported in news accounts about the ports controversy. Instead, the stories tend to mention that two of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, were citizens of the UAE and that some of the money to fund the attacks was believed to have come through Dubai and its banking system.

All true. It's also true that three American citizens in Ohio were just accused of plotting terror, that several Britons blew up the London subway, and that terrorism money flows through Western banks.

Though the London subway attacks last year were horrific, I’m sorry, but somehow that pales in comparison to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the plane crash in Pennsylvania. I think this is just an attempt to whitewash this story with arguments that don’t stand up considering the free hand D.P. World was given in this sale.

I thought Monica Yant Kinney made some excellent points along the lines of “why should Bush be surprised by the reaction?” in her column today (registration also required):

However, to get the “wealth” perspective on this, I need to present what Andrew Cassel wrote in the business section yesterday (and I love the pomposity in the title, by the way):

Clearheaded look at Dubai uproar

By Andrew Cassel
Inquirer Columnist

The sudden uproar over Dubai and American ports makes me want to drag out that old poster from the '70s - the one with the little hand-drawn flowers and the caption scrawled as if by a kindergartner's crayon.

You may remember a slightly different version. On mine, the message reads:
"War is not good for economies and other living things."

Are we at war? President Bush insists we are; that's why we're not supposed to object when legal rules or civil liberties are brushed aside.

Good point, though I have no idea why Cassel chose to introduce Bush’s illegal wire tapping scandal into this. Somehow I think Cassel really doesn’t either. And we’re fighting an enemy with financial ties to the entities in this deal.

Some in Congress evidently believe it, too. That's why Republicans and Democrats are climbing over each other this week to denounce a business deal involving contracts for some port services and a Persian Gulf-based multinational firm.

“Some port services,” huh? Try “control of six major ports in this country, including Newark,” which terrorism experts have dubbed the most dangerous two-mile stretch in this country.

The Persian Gulf? Isn't that where all those terrorists come from?

Yes, that's about the level of sophistication we're dealing with here. And on the basis of such in-depth talk-show analysis, legislators such as Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton say they'll go to the mattresses to block the deal.

That “level of sophistication” also enraged Ellen Saracini, Fiona Havlish, Grace Godshalk, and others who lost loved ones on 9/11, smart guy. Are you going to tell them that they’re stupid to be concerned about this?

Just as with the civil-liberties issue, however, some clearheaded discussion would be nice before we go tearing up the rule book.

Here's the situation: All U.S. maritime ports contract out for a variety of management services, from stevedoring to accounting.

A famous old outfit

At some of those ports, including Philadelphia's, some services are currently contracted to units of a British-based firm called the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

P&O, as it's called, is a famous old outfit dating back to Queen Victoria. But this year, its shareholders voted to sell out. There were two main bidders, one from Singapore and one from the Persian Gulf emirate Dubai. Dubai won, for $6.8 billion.

Because it involved foreign firms, the deal was reviewed by a government panel drawn from the federal Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security.

Oh right…that “government panel” whose members seem to either know nothing about this or, if they do, are choosing to remain silent.

The panel gave the deal the thumbs up. But Congress and several governors are outraged, contending it will leave the ports dangerously vulnerable to terrorism.

Perhaps they are right. Maybe the federal agencies that looked the deal over are corrupt or incompetent - although if that's true, our problems go way beyond the Dubai deal.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not dismissing concerns about port safety. It's obviously worth spending a huge amount of energy and money on, given the state of the world.

But critics have to explain why the port services that Britain-based P&O has been performing - apparently satisfactorily - will suddenly be put in jeopardy because of a corporate ownership change.

Which part is the issue?

Is it because the Dubai firm is partly owned by the United Arab Emirates' government? If so, which part of that is the issue? Ownership by a government, or ownership by Arabs?

Ownership by oligarchical entities that have a track record of intentionally or unintentionally bankrolling terrorists and laundering their money beyond the reach of our government. So the answer is both.

We need to be clear about this because the global economy is filled with national and multinational corporations, financed by public and private investors from all over.

None of whom have the link to 9/11 that the Saudis have.

Moreover, the United States has historically made a point of encouraging open investment across national borders. With relatively few exceptions, we let foreigners buy domestic securities, businesses and real estate - and we encourage other countries to do the same.

And they’d better keep doing it too to finance our debt, but that is a whole other rant.

If we're going to have a new policy, what will it be? No foreign money in our ports? No investment by governments? No Arabs allowed?

Without full disclosure, I would say “no Arabs allowed” works for me.

Whatever we do will have consequences, of course. We can't slam our doors in foreigners' faces and expect them to open their own markets to U.S. firms in return.

Here it comes…

And as the great engine of globalization shuts down, we'll have to learn to cope with slower growth, lower incomes, and a no-longer-expanding economic pie.

I have news for you, genius boy; we’re ALREADY EXPERIENCING ALL OF THAT! I don’t know ANYONE in IT who is seeing an increase in income because of offshoring of jobs, which has flattened wages and severely decreased job prospects for professionals across the board. Of course, the class of privilege that is the true audience you’re writing for only cares about the almighty “return on investment,” even at the expense of an accident at one of our ports that may end up killing a hundred or so people…it’s all about “pearls for swine,” isn’t it?

In other words, we can let the politicians use our national-security worries to erect new walls of fear and nationalism. But we shouldn't be surprised when those walls also start to hem in our own prosperity.

YOUR “prosperity,” not mine…

No accountability, no hearings, no oversight, more "trust us" BS...what a farcical production from the same bunch that brought us the Katrina aftermath and the Iraq War (which is going so well, isn't it, by the way?).

Frozen Out

With the U.S. Men’s hockey team now eliminated from the medal round in the 2006 Olympics, maybe it’s a good time to look back to past glory days from 26 years ago (or maybe not…just a thought).

Didn't Take Long, Did It?

I would just like to point out some things related to the Supreme Court’s decision (with newly-joined “Strip Search Sammy” Alito onboard) to hear a case involving late-term abortions and the legality of the so-called “partial birth” abortion law, which was struck down a few days ago in courts in both New York and San Francisco (and, as Barbara Boxer pointed out, “partial birth abortion” is a political term and not a medical one…it’s an unfortunate testimony to the right-wing noise machine that that needs to be pointed out).

The first thing to point out as a reminder is that one of Alito’s “enablers,” Joe Lieberman, sold out his constituency on Alito the same way he is selling them out again by supporting Dubya on the D.P. World ports controversy. Click here for more "good news" for Joe related to this post.

The second thing to point out is that, while this analysis of Bush’s FY 2006 budget shows an increase in block grant funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (up $508 million, and I’m automatically leery of the fact that that money will be doled out by the states – hopefully – instead of the feds), the budget shows a cut in the Social Service Block Grant for services for disabled people, and Section 8 housing assistance for people with disabilities is cut in half (if you happen to meet someone from Northeast Philadelphia, by the way, don’t get them started on Section 8 housing…to say that that is a hot-button issue is about as much of a truism as saying that the Pope is German).

I’m pointing this second thing out because of the logical consequence of making it harder to perform the “late-term abortion” procedure, which isn’t likely to happen unless something has gone horribly wrong with either the fetus or the mother. That logical consequence is a large increase in the special needs population of this country. So what sense does it make to make it illegal to get this procedure and criminalize those responsible (and make no mistake…THAT is where all of this is going) and then fail to provide for what will likely be a huge increase in the special needs population of this country? If you’re going to “talk the talk,” then “walk the walk,” OK?

And here’s another thing: doesn’t it make sense to allow any couple who has the means and the proven, committed desire to raise a child to do so, particularly kids with special needs (as explained here)? What difference does sexual orientation make concerning this, especially because so many kids from traditional “hetero” marriages have problems that are at least comparable to kids raised in same-sex marriages?

All I’m asking is that the people who scream about “partial birth” abortion do a little “outside-the-box” thinking and consider what is best for the kids, particularly those with special needs, who arrive and require care and family support into adulthood. I realize that’s not something that can be captured in an easily digestible sound bite or headline, but isn’t that what we’re talking about when all is said and done? If not, then isn’t all of the screaming hypocritical and self-serving and nothing more?

The Inky Gets A T-Shirt

Boy, what great balance in the Inquirer’s “Blog Cabin” feature today, by the way. John Hinderaker of Power Line, warblogger Captain Ed, and someone called John C. Wohlstetter who proclaims that, in the Iraq war, “casualties are low by historical standards” (right, ultra-right, and F-you liberal scum…that surely puts a smile on the face of Knight Ridder’s shareholders).

At least I can’t find a column today on how screwed up the Dems are, for a change (from Dick Polman, who is better than that as far as I’m concerned, or anyone else). Of course, the only way that could happen is if Dubya lets an Arab country run our ports or Dick Cheney shoots a 78-year-old lawyer in the face (hey, I didn’t see either of those coming either!).

At least Faye Flam, the paper's "carnal knowledge" correspondent, is on top of (so to speak) the issues that really matter (I hope you can register for this). I mean, I sometimes wondered about my "chances" in the afterlife also, but I didn't have the guts to write about it (if one of the cartoons that inflamed the Muslims has to do with running out of virgins, then suddenly I realize why they’re so POed:-).

"Real Time" Highlights

(I use a bad word a couple of times later on, just to let you know.)

The show started with a really funny commercial parody of Dick Cheney as some kind of gangsta rap star (“First Tupac, Then Biggie, And Now…Cheney!”) with lots of ‘bling and supermodels on each arm, with Cheney decked out appropriately.

Bill Maher led right into the shooting, of course, and noted that Harry Whittington “was in good condition…a little gamey, but still moist.” Cheney, Maher noted, had said that he felt terrible about shooting the 78-year-old attorney, “but at least now, he had some new ideas about fixing Social Security.” Also, with Whittington’s apology, Maher said, “That’s one loyal Republican. He even referred to the buckshot in his face as ‘a thousand points of light’.”

Maher also commented on a particularly unctuous, scripted pseudo-campaign event that Dubya attended where everyone in attendance fawned over him, and said “At least when Clinton got blown, it was behind closed doors.” Also, “Britney Spears is going to Mardi Gras. She can’t wait to strap her baby on the front of a float.”

The first guest to appear via remote was Russ Feingold, and when Maher asked him why he decided not to sign The Patriot Act and filibuster it instead, Feingold said, “because I read it,” though he noted that “a lot of provisions were reasonable, but library records can still be checked, but we couldn’t do anything about it” (my note: as always, thank you red state voters!). Regarding the NSA wiretaps, Feingold said he thought “it was one of the biggest scams that has ever occurred. I don’t think there’s proof at all (that they’ve worked). Bush should be accountable and apologize.”

Regarding the issue of selling control of six of our ports to Dubai Port World (including Philadelphia), Feingold said,

“Literally, this is the gang that can’t shoot straight, as we saw this week (snark). Here’s a group in this White House that couldn’t catch bin Laden, that can’t get al Zarqawi, for the second time the people that blew up the U.S.S. Cole have escaped in Yemen…they’re focusing on Iraq to the exclusion of 59 other countries where al Qaeda is attacking, and now they want to have countries with questionable contacts in charge of port security. We (the Democrats) are the party to fight this terrorism fight correctly. It’s Bush that has messed it up.”

When asked if the McCain-Feingold legislation did any good, Feingold said yes, stating that a single individual could make huge a campaign donation the next day to someone running for office, and you can’t do that now. Feingold said that they’re working on trying to close the tax loopholes with the 527s (good luck there), but ideally he’d like to see all political campaigns publicly financed. Feingold also said (in response to a Maher question about the environment) that the Democrats “have to be good on all of the issues” and that we have to find a way to undercut the ability of the Republicans to intimidate them (I admire Feingold’s honesty, but it was still pathetic to hear that).

The panelists were Dan Senor (conservative apologist), Helen Thomas (legendary White House correspondent) and Eddie Griffin (comedian/actor). Thomas said that Cheney “should show some remorse…and more feeling about sending people to war,” and though I agree with that sentiment (which we will never see from him, of course), it was a shot right out of the gate, so to speak. Senor said that Cheney “should have come out earlier on this issue also,” and then quickly blamed the White House press corps for asking 140 (?) questions on this but only one on Iran and one on Darfur the day the Cheney story broke (Thomas quickly replied that the Cheney shooting “was news,” which is correct…see, the “theme” topics for the White House that day were Iran and Darfur, and Senor was peeved because the press didn’t play along, much like the way they didn't play along when Clinton sat with heads of state and the press kept asking him about Ken Starr and Monica Whatsername). Maher said that this probably was a good week for something like this to happen with Cheney and dominate the news coverage, since the Congressional inquiry looking into the fallout from Katrina released its report, which definitely put the Bush Administration in a bad light, to say the least. Eddie Griffin made the comment that he wanted to see more “follow up” on stories, which, though a good point, wasn’t really relevant at that moment.

Maher mentioned the “money grabs” going on regarding the Katrina and Iraq reconstruction, mentioning that Halliburton “has lost $9 billion…stacks of $100 bills in wheelbarrows – how does this go on?,” and Senor pointed out that he had been over in Iraq for 15 months (weeks? Have to check), and he said something to the effect that the goal was to get the money into the hands of the Iraqis as quickly as possible, blaming Saddam Hussein’s “third-world accounting methods.”

As I listened to this crap, I thought to myself, “I don’t care what type of accounting methods were used! All of this is MY MONEY AS A TAXPAYER, AND I WANT ALL OF IT ACCOUNTED FOR!! I’M SICK OF HEARING THESE LAME ASS EXCUSES FOR ALL OF THE FRAUD GOING ON!!” And of course, Senor (who was actually decent for a Repug in this show…he was a lot more obnoxious when I saw him on a satellite feed last year on one show, with Helen Thomas jumping down his throat more often than he did with her) immediately backpedaled and said, “I’m not making excuses for the fraud, but just trying to explain the situation” (riiiiight).

Eddie Griffin then said, “Can I make a simple suggestion? Let’s let the Iraqis fix their own country, and we can just go get bin Laden.” (amen…and by the way, isn’t it interesting that we don’t hear from this guy for months, but suddenly he’s all over the place in an election year? Just wondering…). The crowd definitely responded to that, and Senor got a look on his face like he’d just eaten a bug (Senor was trying to joke with Griffin most of the night, which is progress of a sort I guess). Senor responded to Griffin saying, “If we leave before the Iraqis are ready, we’ll feel the pain in this country,” to which I thought, “Bullshit! We’re feeling pain ALREADY, and HAVE BEEN FOR AWHILE!”

Maher pointed out that “our defense budget is bigger than 18 other countries. Should we be tapped out so early? When the president says invading Iran is ‘on the table,’ no one should be snickering,” and there was a lot of back-and-forth chatter that I couldn’t quite get. Maher also said, “Isn’t it racist to assume that India and Pakistan will automatically blow themselves up if they get the bomb, even though we lived with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction with the Russians for years?,” and Thomas agreed and said, “They’re going to get the bomb. India, Pakistan and Israel should all sign the non-proliferation treaty, and we should allow inspections also.” Maher then made comments about the military loosening recruitment standards that led into a comedy bit with new recruiting posters which was a little amusing, but actually had some stuff that made me wince a bit.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard appeared next via satellite, and I really don’t understand why Maher let him show up and hawk his new book, which apparently is some kind of wet dream gushing all over the place about how great Barnes thinks Dubya is. Aside from putting on some weight and acquiring some grayish/white hair, I could see quickly that Barnes remained the same odious, pugnacious sycophant that he was when I would stupidly subject myself to his act on “Dr. McLaughlin’s Gong Show” many years ago, when Barnes made a living out of trying to hoot down Jack Germond, Eleanor Clift, Morton Kondracke, Clarence Page, the late, great Bob Maynard, and other journalists who were better than Barnes would ever be, all under John McLaughlin’s approving, glazed-over and slightly deranged countenance.

Maher started by asking Barnes, “Who is Bush rebelling against” (see, the cover of the book shows Bush standing in his flight suit looking like a faux military leader, like the faux president that he generally is anyway, photographed to make Bush look like his towering over something…toe fungus, perhaps…and the title has something to do with Bush rebelling against something – common sense, I suppose). Barnes replied:

"Rebelling against Washington. Rebelling against the conventional wisdom in politics. Rebelling against the foreign policy community. Rebelling against the political community in Washington. And rebelling against traditional conservatism. All those things."

To which Maher replied with a decidedly unconvinced, “Uh huh.” Maher then lists all of the humongous budgets that Bush has approved and then asked Barnes if he though this was typical for a conservative, and Barnes replied, “He’s not a small-government conservative,” which made me remember how truly well Barnes can tap dance with the best of them, having spent, as I alluded to earlier, more Sundays than I care to remember listening to Barnes and Pat Buchanan screaming about Clinton and “big government.” Maher then asked Barnes “Bush’s claim that he can do anything…doesn’t that typically go against conservatism? (meaning the wiretapping in particular)” and Barnes replied, “He’s a president in wartime, and the Constitution says it’s OK for him to wiretap” (maybe it says that in the Iraqi constitution, I thought to myself). Maher then asked Barnes something about Bush’s supposed “spiritual life” (though again, Dubya practices no brand of “spirituality” I’m familiar with), and Barnes said “it’s influenced Bush’s crusade for Democracy around the world,” an extremely poor choice of words on Barnes’ part that made me cringe (and didn’t bring any hoots from the audience, amazingly enough – none that I heard anyway). Maher concluded by asking “Doesn’t it go against conservative philosophy to proclaim about God?” and by this time, I’m thinking “Bill, give it up. Barnes isn’t going to bite on any of this,” and Barnes said something to the effect that Clinton talked about God more than Bush, which I highly dispute as more Barnes bullshit, aside from the fact that it didn’t answer Maher’s question anyway.

Returning to the panel discussion, Dan Senor asked Helen Thomas (in response to some back-and-forth), “Aren’t the Iraqi elections a good thing” (the Repugs will be falling back to this talking point forever, even as the whole country descends into Muslim fundamentalism), and Thomas said, “Not at the price of our invasion,” with Maher noting that “the Shiite militias are winning…nobody’s waving any flags.” Turning to the story about the NASA scientist whose findings were censored by some zombie fundamentalist Bush quisling, Maher said, “We criticize Muslims for a cartoon, but aren’t we medieval also when we try to hush up NASA scientists on global warming?” Helen Thomas said, “I’m not for censorship,” trying to get Senor to respond on that, though Senor didn’t take the bait and replied, correctly I think, that “the Iranians and Syrians are stoking the fires.” At that point, Eddie Griffin – who, basically, had been going off on tangents the whole show and coming up with these little monologues of his which were a little amusing but also a little odd – actually came up with (I thought) the best comment of the night:

“There’s a difference in cultures (U.S. vs. the Middle East), a difference in process, a difference in beliefs…If we want peace in the Middle East, we have to go where they’re at, not where we’re at.”

There were also some remarks about the Olympics that I didn’t care about (I think Bryant Gumbel said something stupid again) before Maher led into “New Rules”.

(gee, I’m glad I only summarized everything…)

"Have Mores" vs. "Have Nones"

This column from Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation provides background on why we need a commission to investigate profiteering from the Iraq War.

This takes you to a link that allows you to add your information to Congressperson Louise Slaughter’s petition that would accomplish that goal.

And this takes you to a story in USA Today about those paying the price on the home front and the effort by Maj. General Mike Collings at Robins AFB in Georgia to help the people under his charge.

Crackpot History

(The subtitle is “And The Right To Lie”…anyone who guessed the title of this ‘80s Adam Ant song gets a free pair of ray-bans and some form-fitting Lycra workout pants.)

This is the only link I can find to this story that doesn’t require registration, either for Salon or The Philadelphia Inquirer. However, it links to Comcast, which is really funny about this sort of thing. You may have to click through a couple of windows to get to the story (it shows a photo of Bill Clinton in the left column).

The story comes from the AP and reporter Elizabeth Dunbar, and it appeared over the holiday weekend (timed for President’s Day, of course). It has to do with what are, supposedly, the worst blunders in presidential history according to a survey of presidential historians. As you may have guessed, I wouldn’t be saying anything about this unless I had some problems with this list, which I do (I don’t have any kind of advanced degree or anything, but I know what I know).

Just to make sure of my facts, I watched some episodes of the series “The American President” that ran a few years ago on PBS, which featured interviews with scholar Richard E. Neustadt and interviews and commentary by Hugh Sidey, who wrote extensively about the presidency for Time Magazine for years (when it was still a serious publication).

In case this link stops working, I’ll reprint the list here (not many keywords that news aggregators will find I know, but I think this stuff is important):

1. James Buchanan's failure to avert the Civil War.
2. Andrew Johnson's pro-white policies after the Civil War.
3. Lyndon B. Johnson's expansion of the Vietnam War.
4. Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.
5. Richard M. Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.
6. James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812.
7. Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a prohibition on trade with Europe.
8. John F. Kennedy's allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban missile crisis.
9. Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an insurgency in Nicaragua.
10. Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

1) I think listing James Buchanan as the worst presidential offender of all time is stupid, though it is not the worst item on this list. I say that because the run-up to The Civil War occurred not just during Buchanan’s term (the only bachelor president and the only one from PA), but also during the term of Buchanan’s White House predecessor, Franklin Pierce. Both are generally acknowledged to have been bad presidents, but as far as I’m concerned, Pierce was worse because he allowed the territories acquired during his term, Kansas and Nebraska, to decide the slavery question for themselves instead of trying to mandate the states as “free” (though it’s possible either decision would have created a bloody outcome), thus allowing the problem to fester (and make no mistake…the Civil War was a fight to hold onto slavery as a big part of the antebellum traditions of the South – to say it was over “states rights,” though true in part, is a gross oversimplification).

Pierce was actually a traitor, writing to his former Secretary of War Jefferson Davis after Davis became president of the Confederacy that “the sooner we are apart, the better,” meaning that the union should be dissolved. Buchanan, though a politician more than a statesman, attempted to leave the slavery question alone, which infuriated the Northern abolitionists. Despite the fact that both Pierce and Buchanan catered to the South, secession nevertheless began when South Carolina left the union under Buchanan in 1860.

If Buchanan can be “blamed” for anything, it can be his refusal to support Stephen Douglas, the nominee of the Democratic party (Buchanan being a Democrat also) for president in 1860. This led to the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, and that event had more to do with kick-starting The Civil War than anything. However, there is a large body of evidence to support the claim that the war would have started regardless of who was president, and Lincoln was one of the finest we’ve ever had.

2) Andrew Johnson was essentially a white supremacist, but as a senator from Tennessee before the declaration of The Civil War, he took a stand against secession and supported emancipation (which earned him the spot of V.P. on the ticket with Lincoln in 1864, a move Lincoln and others would regret). Johnson did veto a bill granting full citizenship to former slaves after the war, though Congress overrode his veto as part of the escalating tensions between Johnson and Congress that led to Johnson’s impeachment; he was saved from removal from office by a single vote. Because of his struggles with Congress, Johnson was ineffectual to the point where I don’t believe he could be blamed for having an impact one way or the other, though he was a bad president to be sure. The pain reconstruction inflicted on the South, as far as I’m concerned, was more the fault of Congress at that time. Johnson also remains the only president elected to the U.S. Senate (from Tennessee) after his term in the White House ended.

(By the way, if you want a laugh, try reading this version of Johnson’s life from the White House web site…unbelievable.)

3) LBJ can be blamed for expanding the war in Vietnam, but I think Nixon should earn a dishonorable mention at the least for escalating the war into Cambodia in 1970…it got China’s attention, but at a terrible cost).

4) This is probably the worst item on this list as far as I’m concerned.

The punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, terms which were meant to humiliate Germany and subsequently gave birth to the nationalism exploited by Hitler to start World War II, were vehemently opposed by Wilson. The fault for those terms lies with the other three participants: Vittorio Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, and David Lloyd-George of Great Britain (particularly Clemenceau). One area where Wilson did refuse to compromise regarded Wilson’s proposed League of Nations, the precursor to the U.N. Wilson demanded that the Senate ratify the treaty with the League included, and this didn’t happen. Another important factor to consider, though, is that Wilson had suffered a debilitating stroke prior to the time that the treaty was being considered in the Senate, and his judgment had become seriously impaired as a result.

As far as I’m concerned, Wilson’s refusal to compromise was correct. He was in large part a visionary president; the only “mistake” he made was not to present his plan for the League 20 years later when this country was more prepared to accept it.

5) No argument here

6) I think this is the second worst item on this list. The run-up to the War of 1812 had been going on for at least five years, with Great Britain trying desperately to regain a foothold in North America below Canada and avert further U.S. expansion, even to the point where the British were siding with the Indians against us (particularly the warrior Tecumseh…and I know the question of genocide on the part of settlers against Native Americans remains heavily disputed and is a separate issue as far as I’m concerned). President James Madison inherited this situation which began under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson (7), but as a result of our eventual victory in this war (or, at least, a stalemate that forced England out for good, since they were basically spent after fighting both us and Napoleon at the same time), the U.S. was able to move forward with expansion free from British influence. Also, war fervor helped elect Madison to a second term, with war breaking out soon after his re-election. The bottom line is that I think this is another conflict besides the Civil War that no one person would have been able to prevent.

7) This is absolutely correct. Thomas Jefferson was probably one of the greatest intellects who ever lived, and he wanted to be seen as “the people’s president,” acting strictly within constitutional authority and doing away with ceremony and protocol (and also the Internal Revenue Service for a time). His first term was almost a storybook, with balancing our budget and eliminating our debt as probably his most noteworthy accomplishments. However, his second term went in the complete opposite direction. When British ships engaged in war with France attacked U.S. commercial ships at sea, Jefferson signed The Embargo Act which closed all U.S. ports and crippled the economy, nearly leading the New England’s secession from the Union (believe it or not). This was the beginning of the escalating conflict with Great Britain that led to the War of 1812 under Madison.

8) I know JFK signed off on the Bay of Pigs, but all I will say is that everything else related to the invasion was conceived during Eisenhower’s presidency, and probably the main reason this didn’t happen under Ike was because of the fallout from the U-2 spy plane incident with Francis Gary Powers (something else that should have made this list as far as I’m concerned).

9) The first domino to fall, so to speak, that led to this was the bombing of our military base in Beirut in 1983, which led to our response of bombing in Lebanon, which led to the taking of our people as hostages, which led to this item. This definitely should be somewhere on this list, though.

10) Yeah, I guess you have to keep the freepers happy with this one.

I would argue that other items that should be included on this list would be the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under John Adams’ presidency (though he wisely didn’t enforce them), the “Gilded Age,” Tammany Hall corruption under Ulysses S. Grant, our bloody incursion into the Philippines under William McKinley, and the Iranian hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter (who should have at least had some idea that that could happen if we decided to aid the deposed Shah of Iran…fair is fair, after all).

And by the way, for anyone who thinks I’m taking it easy on Clinton, here are four things that he can be blamed for, as far as I’m concerned: 1) The “Blackhawk Down” incident in Mogadishu, 2) NAFTA (we continue to live with the effects), 3) Granting Most Favored Nation trade status to China in 1994 (ditto), and 4) The Microsoft trial in the 90s (if someone can explain the importance, I’m “all ears”).

I don’t know if the intent here was to create some kind of easily digestible list that could be regurgitated one day in a game of trivial pursuit or something, but I would have expected something far better from a group of people who profess to know what they’re talking about.

And none of this considers the biggest presidential blunders of all, as far as I’m concerned, and that would be Dubya’s failure to ignore the report on August 6th, 2001 notifying him that al Qaeda was determined to strike in this country, as well as the second Iraq War which we are currently fighting and likely will be for some time.

Achtung, Baby!

I guess this is what the well-dressed right-wing hammerhead will be wearing on the beach this summer (saw this ad at The Huffington Post when reading David Sirota’s column about some of the unfortunate nastiness going on from the people in Paul Hackett’s disbanded campaign towards Sherrod Brown…bad stuff all around, people; please knock it the hell off because I get tired of reading the daily column from someone in the Inquirer about how screwed up the Democrats are, and this doesn’t do anything to help).

Anyway, I thought I’d alert you to what, apparently, is a cutting-edge fashion trend for all of the “march in lockstep or die” types out there (as I noted somewhere else, J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County Courier Times saves his “hippie” insults, which are almost nostalgic really, for the people in his columns whom he genuinely despises).

It’s a shame the shirts come in blue instead of brown, because the latter is a much more appropriate color.

Good Holiday Reading

From Chris Satullo of the Inquirer (this appeared yesterday) and Leonard Pitts, Jr. (today), both about "Deadeye Dick"...

...and also John Grogan (about Lynn Swann).

Registration is required for everything - sorry.

(Speaking of Cheney, you MUST watch "Real Time" this week if you have HBO just to see the hilarious opening about "the Notorious V.I.P"...I'll get to the highlights as soon as I can.)

The Acts Of A True Patriot

I had a big disagreement with Russ Feingold a little while ago over his vote to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice for the Supreme Court, but he quickly recovered by standing tall during the Alito confirmation circus by supporting the filibuster AND voting against confirmation. Also, he is the only senator to vote against confirming the Patriot Act.

I’ll repeat that because it’s so unbelievable when you really think about it; he is the only senator to vote against confirming the Patriot Act.

I believe that it is important to highlight this because, apparently, Arlen Specter (the bill’s sponsor and a guy who has made a career out of pretending to be a moderate while siding with his right-wing Repug party membership on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION – remember how “inviolable” Roe v. Wade was supposed to be to him before he helped confirm Alito?) now has the 60 votes required to overcome Feingold’s courageous filibuster (my God, someone in Congress actually trying to protect civil liberties...what a “pre-9/11” mindset, huh?). As this story notes, though, Feingold is doing everything in his power to gut this ruinous piece of legislation.

You may wonder why Feingold has maintained such a principled opposition. I think this speech shortly after the infamous terrorist attacks in 2001 explains a lot, particularly this highlighted passage (the fact that we’re considering this as the holiday for George Washington and, especially, Abraham Lincoln nears is particularly ironic to me):

During those first few hours after the attacks, I kept remembering a sentence from a case I had studied in law school. Not surprisingly, I didn’t remember which case it was, who wrote the opinion, or what it was about, but I did remember these words: “While the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” I took these words as a challenge to my concerns about civil liberties at such a momentous time in our history; that we must be careful to not take civil liberties so literally that we allow ourselves to be destroyed.

But upon reviewing the case itself, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, I found that Justice Arthur Goldberg had made this statement but then ruled in favor of the civil liberties position in the case, which was about draft evasion. He elaborated:

“It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action. “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.... In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.”

And…

Protecting the safety of the American people is a solemn duty of the Congress; we must work tirelessly to prevent more tragedies like the devastating attacks of September 11th. We must prevent more children from losing their mothers, more wives from losing their husbands, and more firefighters from losing their brave and heroic colleagues. But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America.

So now, barring the success of any more of Feingold's heroic efforts, Frist and his fellow Repugs can railroad this awful act through Congress and claim victory.

Well, if I had the opportunity to contact any of those clowns who support this, I would ask them to read the highlighted text of this post aloud and see what happens.

I’m sure Specter’s eyes would glaze over, because his actions communicate to me that he doesn’t understand what all of this means any more. Frist would probably choke, since the words of free, peace-loving people who cherish their liberties, aspire to equality for all and seek no quarrel with others unless provoked would no doubt turn into poison in his mouth.

Now I'm Confused

Not a banner day for our side today, citizens (local PA politics)...

So let me try to get this straight…

Ginny Schrader is dropping out of the PA State Senate race against a Repug other than Joe Conti for “personal reasons,” but instead is going to be “a co-chairwoman” of the Andy Warren campaign, he being one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination to run against Repug Mike Fitzpatrick for the incumbent’s U.S. House seat?

This is bad on so many levels that I’m not sure I can describe them all (J.D. Mullane has probably been assaulting his keyboard in a fit of orgiastic ecstasy for hours now writing his new upcoming “attack” column over it).

So Schrader is going to bail out of a PA state senate campaign for what is, in effect, a vacant seat against an unnamed Repug challenger (possibly Chuck McIlhenny) to be a co-head of a primary campaign for a man who was a Republican until last year and who, barring something akin to a nuclear holocaust, will be defeated by Patrick Murphy in the primary? For “personal reasons”?

Ginny, I would say that, for “personal reasons,” any kind of a career you may have been planning in public life, as a result of this turn of events, has now been effectively flushed down the toilet. Considering that this has come on the heels of two failed U.S. House campaigns and your committal to a third before bowing out, I can’t see how you or anyone else can expect to overcome this.

I don’t know if you can recover, and frankly, I’m not sure if you should be allowed to.

A "Libtard" Request

Out of the same sick sense of curiosity one feels when viewing gnarled steel and broken glass on a highway after a traffic accident (and hopefully everyone involved in it up and moving around reasonably well), I opted to read a very small bit of a screed by right-wing icon Michael Reagan that appeared in (where else) The Bucks County Courier Times this morning. The part I focused on was the very end where Reagan said, in effect, that liberals calling the vice president’s recent hunting accident “Cheney’s Chappaquiddick” should stop it, seeing as how Mary Jo Kopechne actually died all those years ago, and Harry Whittington, fortunately, was released from the hospital today.

Reagan HAS TO BE making that up, I thought to myself. There’s no way that a comparison between those two events could be drawn by anyone but a Repug sympathizer looking for pity and a reason to blame the opposition both at once.

Well, just to make sure, I did a Google search to confirm my brilliant theory before I wrote this.

Oops (I stopped counting the number of hits I got with that phrase at 40…I’m sure it was substantially more, with the most prominent offender being R.J. Eskow of The Huffington Post).

To anyone out there who may be reading this who is or would be a guilty party to this, I have a simple favor to ask:

KNOCK IT OFF!!! (It totally sickens me to have to actually agree with Reagan.)

(I mean, I give Eskow credit for digging into the angles of the story regarding alcohol and some of the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” stuff surrounding Cheney and Whittington’s female companions, but to compare this to Chappy is ridiculous for the simple reason that CHENEY, WHITTINGTON, AND EVERYONE ELSE SURVIVED.)

Aside from the reason I mentioned above (Ted K./Dead Person vs. Cheney/Living But Dangerously Injured One), this shouldn’t happen because, when we make these stupid comparisons, all we do is give ammunition (so to speak) to the other side. And believe me when I tell you that it would make me VERY HAPPY to NEVER HAVE TO BE REMINDED OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK AGAIN BY A REPUG OR ONE OF THEIR SYMPATHIZERS.

(I swear, I once worked with a man in his 50s in the Chester County, PA area who had a pacemaker and just about went into convulsions when you mentioned that particular “C” word to him since he despised Ted Kennedy so thoroughly…yes, it was terrible, but the unfortunate fact is that people in power do these things and cover them up; we don’t have to like it, but merely act like adults and acknowledge the reality – protest as much as we reasonably can and then LET IT REST, FOR GOD’s SAKE!). And for a liberal/progressive/Democrat/whatever to bring this kind of heaping abuse on oneself by casually inviting this comparison is something that I would consider an act of narcissistic lunacy.

Hey, I’m laughing at the Cheney jokes as loudly as anyone, especially now that Harry Whittington is going home, as I mentioned. But is it asking too much to know where to draw the line?

We'd Be In Deep Ship

You know something is up when a group of senators that includes both Frank Lautenberg and Tom Coburn are on the same page about a particular issue, and that is the case with this story.

Oh, but the Saudis are such nice guys, aren’t they? They're our buddies. Why, we can trust them to make sure container traffic from Dubai Port World doesn’t contain nuclear material or massive amounts of chemical toxins that can be unleashed as part of a terrorist plot, right?

Just keep something else in mind, if you would; as noted in this story about British national William Robb (have to scroll down a bit), we don’t have an extradition treaty with Dubai, so if these terrorist cowards ever attack us again and then go to that country for refuge, we can’t get them (not “officially” anyway).

I would also ask that you remember this (according to AFSCME, concerning Bush’s 2006 budget):

Homeland Security: The President does not spare the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from inflation-adjusted budget cuts. The overall DHS budget is increased only one percent. On the positive side, the President's budget improves spending to protect public and private infrastructure, such as transit, ports and chemical plants, by about $300 million. However, these improvements are made at the expense of cuts of about $500 million or 38 percent in first responder grants to state and local governments.

Feel better about our global economy now? Sure you do.

Update 2/17: georgia10 at The Daily Kos has more.

Update 2/21: Tick, tick, tick...

Dems Closing Ranks

Don’t like to write some of this, but…

I almost replied to a post at Brandoland having to do with Paul Hackett’s exit from the Ohio Democratic primary in the election against Repug incumbent Mike DeWine, but I thought it would become really long (we’ll see), so I’m doing so (sort of) here instead.

As noted by Kos from this link, I think the problem was that Hackett waiting too long to announce his candidacy last fall, and that was the first domino, if you will, that fell the wrong way, and Hackett’s pullout this week was the culmination of a bunch of things that didn’t go the way he wanted. As Kos also noted, calling Hackett’s donors and telling them not to contribute is truly ridiculous.

I’m not going to justify that, but I am going to tie in a bit to the Swann/Scranton post below and note that all of these elections are, in large part, a battle to allocate resources as efficiently as possible. It shouldn’t be that way – as many people as possible who meet the candidacy requirements should be allowed into the primaries – but that’s the way it is. That’s why the Repugs here in PA fell in love with Swann so quickly and told Scranton to hit the road.

I do hope, though, that Hackett reconsiders somehow, because I think he’s still an outstanding candidate. I also don’t like to point out anything that can be looked at as negative against him, in part because of his service and also because he’s fundamentally new to this game anyway.

If everyone were to put this episode in the past in as amenable way as possible, that can only help the Democrats. Besides, it sounds like Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, et al were trying to set up Hackett for another go-round against that cowardly stick Jean Schmidt for her U.S. House seat, and a scenario with Sherrod Brown in the Senate and Paul Hackett in the House one day would be a terrific outcome. If all parties can get past the wounded pride and bitter words, that goal can be achieved.

Besides, I believe that in PA, we’re going to be looking at something like a Brown/Hackett scenario, if you will, in the U.S. Senate race against Santorum. As nearly as I can see, Chuck Pennacchio is the better Democratic candidate, and he deserves our support. However, it’s becoming more and more clear that the entire party apparatus will be put to work on behalf of “Sideshow Bob” Casey. I don’t know if that can be overcome, but I’ll be realistic enough to do what little I can for Chuck but prepare myself for the distinct possibility that Casey will be the party standard bearer when all is said and done. There are also three Democratic candidates running against Mike Fitzpatrick for the U.S. House seat, though Patrick Murphy stands as the best one, so I can’t see how we will have any kind of an internal revolt if he eventually gets the nod. However, the goal (and my point) should be that the party emerge from the primary in the best possible shape for the general election in terms of organization, financing, and support of the nominee.

As I pointed out, Hackett is new to all of this, and I sincerely hope he gains an understanding and level of trust with the Democrats once more to the point where he can run again. He offers a lot and could hold a prominent role in a U.S. House with Democrats in charge as the majority party, working on behalf of a progressive agenda apart from DLC conciliation and totally alien to the corporate playpen that it has become under Republican neglect.

Repugs Closing Ranks

PA politics again (yes - couldn't put it off any more)...

I think we can pretty much say for certain at this point that former Pittsburgh Steeler great Lynn Swann will be the Republican candidate for PA governor in the upcoming election, having won the endorsement of prominent local party bosses and, in the process, freezing out Bill Scranton, the former PA lieutenant governor who was also running for the nomination.

I know it’s always better to have as wide a field of candidates as you can in these primaries, so it’s kind of funny to a point to see each party condemning the other for deciding on an “anointed one” early on at the expense of everyone else in the field. This is because of the simple fact that, as in most things, money (consolidating resources as early as you can to mount as strong of an opposition as possible) will trump any notion of fair play.

So, in the process of accepting the nomination, what does Swann do? Well, for starters (taking a page right from the Repug playbook), he criticizes Rendell for, among other things, failing to provide property tax relief. Swann also criticizes Rendell for “raising every fee you can think of”.

(I know it is completely expected for Swann to totally ignore the fact that Bushco, the corporate Repug office in Washington D.C. to which Swann now reports as a member of the PA subsidiary, has done nothing except generate oceans of red ink while expecting the states to balance their own budgets, and that minor fact may have something to do with Rendell’s alleged across-the-board fee raising as governor of a “blue” state. However, the fact that Swann did that anyway is still amusing.)

Well, maybe Number 88 should give this a read (from the Bucks County Courier Times yesterday):

The state House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected a property-tax cutting bill similar to a version it rejected two months ago, even though Gov. Ed Rendell had urged members to send the bill to his desk. The House’s 197-0 vote to “non-concur” with legislation passed by the Senate set the stage for the creation of a House-Senate conference committee to resolve a lingering stalemate over how, and how much, to reduce a tax that helps finance the cost of public schools. Both Republican and Democratic House leaders expressed hope that the conference committee’s negotiations would produce a final bill that lawmakers can consider next month.

Sounds to me like those jugheads in our state legislature should pull a stick out of somewhere and actually start ACTING ON WHAT RENDELL PROPOSED YEARS AGO!

This, though, points out that Swann’s popularity has leveled off for now against Rendell, and the incumbent governor still leads in the polls, so it may be that the factor of Swann’s name recognition may be wearing off. However, I’m sure this will turn out to be a close race, assuming that Swann emerges as his own man and something more than an East Coast version of “govanah Ahh-nold.”

Oh, and by the way, according to this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer (and also noted at the Keystone Politics site above), Swann failed to vote in 20 of 36 elections for the senate, the president, and the governor. I would say that this lapse in his civic duty will do absolutely nothing to help him at the polls in November.

A Wingnut Fever Dream

I went back and forth about whether I should say something about this Guest Opinion from a man named Dennis Miller (no relation to the once-funny comedian and failed football commentator who is now a right-wing mouthpiece for HBO, presumably to offset Bill Maher I guess), but though I dismissed it at first as utter frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing propaganda, the problem is that he introduces quotes in this screed out of context which necessitates a response. Otherwise, it is one of the most hateful pieces of bile that I have read in the Bucks County Courier Times in a long time.

(On the one hand, I wonder why the hell the paper would print this without at least giving it a thorough copy edit, but on the other hand, maybe printing it warts and all is appropriate given the overall juvenile quality of the work itself.)

(By the way, speaking of Bill Maher, “Real Time” returns for some new shows this Friday on HBO. For anyone who may remember, I used to basically provide a play-by-play of the entire show in the form of a weekly post, but I can’t keep doing that. I’ll try to mention highlights of the episodes this time around instead – sorry, but that’s the best I can do.)

I’ll try to respond in as factual a way as I can to Miller’s fantastic, delusional scenario, but it will be difficult. At any rate, here it is.

Liberal media, politicians hold key to conquering America

In the worlds of business and sports, executives and coaches will attempt to place themselves in their competitors’ position in order to gain a better perspective. Extending this thought to the Iraq war, let’s place ourselves in the position of an al Qaeda commander and see how he views his archenemy – America.

Here’s the first wrong assumption; with that remark, Miller assumes that al Qaeda is some kind of conventional army with conventional soldiers and officers fighting some kind of conventional war the way nation-states used to do quite frequently. Miller also assumes that al Qaeda’s main enemy is this country, which is wrong. Its main enemy is anyone who isn’t them, who thus becomes an infidel to them (including Israel, of course).

Perhaps his comments would sound like this:

“We are fighting a war that we did not plan to fight. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden told us America is a ‘paper tiger’ and does not have the stomach to fight back. After eight successful attacks that killed hundreds of Americans, we did not feel America would retaliate with a serious counter attack. I guess killing 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 took the paper out of the tiger and hardened the stomach.

In true wingnut form, Miller links Hussein and al Qaeda even though no substantive link between the two has ever been established (and of course, implies that Dubya is a “strong leader” for fighting back). Also, his remark about “eight successful attacks that killed hundreds of Americans” needs to be explained, assuming Miller can do that of course (and how much do you want to bet that the implicit assumption is that the overwhelming majority of these attacks occurred during the Clinton administration, even though arrests were made and convictions obtained for every terrorist attack on the U.S. during his presidency except the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole?.)

“Our mission is clear; our mission is our destiny. We will conquer America, its men, women, and children, and bring them to their knees. Their military may continue to win on the battlefield, but we will make this another Vietnam.

Yes, our fine service people have managed to weed out insurgent strongholds, but the problem is that the terrorists simply move to another location in Iraq when that happens, mainly in the Sunni “golden triangle.” It is a hopeless situation for our people. They were set up to fail by crass, incompetent civilian political leadership that didn’t provide enough of a force to do the job, didn’t secure the borders, and didn’t even bother to provide proper armor for our troops (oh, but the oil ministry was secured PDQ!).

Just as in the 1960s, we will get strength and success from the words and condemnations of liberal politicians and a liberal news media.

You knew it was coming, and here it is.

America fled in shame from Vietnam and their shame will be felt again if they give into liberal pressure to prematurely withdraw from Iraq. America, by itself, will defeat America at home.

Listen, freeper, the person providing the most pressure to get our people the hell out of there is John Murtha, a Democratic U.S. House representative from our own state. To get the first clue about Murtha and his accomplished record of military service, read here. If he’s a “liberal” as defined by you (gutless, cut-and-run, non-committal), then I would suggest that you tell him that, and then expect a visit from him in which he would “dress you down” in the appropriate manner.

“Our spirit will soar and America’s military resolve will crushed (sic) when we replay the scathing words of the prominent men and women who feel that war is not an American alternative. We will trumpet the words of Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, who likens Iraq to Vietnam, when he says he’s ‘seen this before’ and concludes, “The idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea that is just plain wrong.’ Ted Kennedy called Vietnam a ‘quagmire’ and uses the same name for Iraq.

That is substantively correct. I should add, though, that it might be a good idea to read this and get some more context about what Kennedy said in particular.

“John Kerry accuses America’s military of ‘terrorizing kids and children’ in Iraq. Thirty-four years ago, he claimed American soldiers had ‘cut off ears, cut off heads’ in Vietnam. Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to the armed forces of Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.

This is a link to the "Face The Nation" transcript where Kerry made this difficult observation (given the fact that he actually served, I think he can be excused for what some sensitive souls would consider to be a poor choice of words).

This is a link to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971 (which Kerry was told to give, by the way).

This is a link to Dick Durbin's apology for his remarks, which, as far as I'm concerned, he should not have had to give (the fact that he was utterly browbeaten for what he said is sickening given the fact that Ann Coulter, for example, can advocate violence against people she doesn't like with impunity.)

All of these quotes are attributed properly, to be fair, but context is nowhere to be found. And of course Miller’s argument assumes that our Repug leadership is blameless in conducting the Iraq war, when nothing could be further from the truth. Where is his mention of Abu Ghraib? Where is his mention of the recently released U.N. report on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo (something WE decried as forcefully as we could when we heard about it taking place against our people held captive during Vietnam and other wars – so are we now as bad as enemies we once fought with no regard for international law…and yes, that is important if we’re supposedly fighting a global war)? And by the way, before anyone points out that the U.N. delegation turned down the offer last December to visit Guantanamo, I should point out that the reason they did was because we didn’t give them permission to interview prisoners, so they decided that there’d be no point to it.)

“We will use the words of these four liberal leaders to rally our fighters and embarrass and demoralize America’s military men and women. Their words and their faces will be televised to the world by Al-Jazeera. Once again, America will vanquish America.

Some of these “liberal leaders” actually once served in our armed forces (Kerry, Kennedy, and Murtha, of course), as opposed to the chickenhawk Repugs who have no qualms about sending our kids off to die for their war for blood and oil while their own lives remain comfortable and unthreatened (one day I won’t have to point that out any more, and that can’t come soon enough for me).

“The three major broadcast networks also have a damaging effect on American troops. The programs many Americans watch each night – the CBS Evening News, the NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World Report – are against the war. Only 13 percent of ABC’s stories regarding the war are positive; NBC has 11 percent, and CBS is last at 9 percent.

Please explain to be the basis upon which you decided that these news programs have an anti-war bias. Quantifying that sort of thing is much more difficult than you assume it to be, of course.

“The media claims it shows its support of their troops by daily highlighting the total casualty figure. And yet very, very seldom does it ever mention any heroic acts or the medals and commendations that brave American men and women have earned for exceptional courage, bravery, and valor.

If you or anyone else is willing to provide that information to me, I will publicize it here. I’ve said before MANY TIMES that I really would like to know about what our people are accomplishing over there besides trying to keep from getting killed (infrastructure projects completed, roads or power plants built…that sort of thing), but of course since our reporters are embedded (basically a logical move given the great danger of reporting there), their reporting is heavily filtered also and we either don’t hear about this for security reasons or maybe (likely) because the scenario isn’t as rosy as the “101st Fighting Keyboarders” would have us believe. I've noted in the past, upon occasional visits to the sites of Dr. Kaloogian and his fellow opportunists at Moving America Forward, that I haven't been able to find this information there either.

Oh, and by the way, that begs a good question: What is your record of military service, Mr. Miller? Do you have one? Or are you another one of these “warriors” supporting Dubya by having more “Support Our Troops” decals on your Hummer than any of your neighbors?

“During most of the 1990s, America (sic) policy, when attacked, was appeasement and concession. We would attack and American response was minimal.

More right-wing hammerhead BS without proof – Miller is trying to “speak” through the voice of his theoretical terrorist of course, but the words are his alone.

Now we have a fight on our hands. Let’s hope the American media can convince the American people to cut and run from Iraq.”

The above story is not farfetched.

No, of course not. It’s completely realistic. And I’m excreting solid gold ingots as I read it.

Unfortunately the question is not if (sic) will be attacked again, but when? Bin Laden’s (sic) military commander in Iraq, Musub al-Zarqwai (sic) prophesized, “We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to eternal life.’”

I’m not going to bother to research this quote, because it’s just crazy enough to be true coming from “Zarqwai.”

The philosopher, Edmund Burke once said, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

Oh, but “good” people are doing something, Dennis. They’re fighting those chicken pansy liberal Democrats who want all of our troops to get killed so they can crow about Bush failing (and by the way, if Dubya were managing this and other matters so well, somehow I think he would have better than a 39 percent approval rating, with Clinton’s rating at the height of the business with Monica Whatsername hovering around 72 percent).

And one more time now (everybody join in…)

- Iraq didn’t have WMD.
- There was no link to Saddam and 9/11.
- Condoleezza Rice (among others) was engaging in misinformation when she talked about “a mushroom cloud over New York City.”
- Colin Powell was doing the same thing when he talked about sarin being used by Iraq in an attack on the New York subway system.
- We fought the wrong war in the wrong country with no plan for our troops to succeed and no plan to fight the subsequent terrorist activity, which has a hell of a lot to do with the mess we face now, and NO ONE FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT!

Souce: Network news reports on Iraq were analyzed by the Media Research Center between Oct. 1 and Nov. 31, 2005.

A-HA! That explains it. Here’s more information on these characters.

As I pointed out above, the quotes from Miller are substantively correct. However, there is no consideration (nor would I expect there to be in this mess) given for the fact that most television news programs and media outlets generally have skewed conservative in their reporting and choice of panelists and commentators for at least the last five years (a fact borne out more thoroughly by other bloggers at other sites). To say that that filters the content that they provide is ridiculously obvious.

Paul Waldman of Media Matters for America commissioned a study with data to support that conclusion, and the data can be accessed from this link (the study was an analysis of liberal vs. conservative guests appearing on “Meet The Press” over the last ten years, with Waldman’s response to the response by Betty Fischer, a producer of “Meet The Press,” at the top of the post.)

As far as I’m concerned, this is part of a vast body of knowledge to support the fact that what we hear day in and day out is information filtered primarily from a conservative point of view (I can tell you quite plainly that if I didn’t believe that, this blog wouldn’t exist). So, Miller’s rants of the age-old chestnut “liberal bias” are just that – rants and nothing more.

Finally, even though the readership of the Bucks County Courier Times skews conservative anyway of course, I should point out that this morning’s editorial section contained the following feature columnists: Kathryn Jean Lopez of The National Review Online haranguing the late Betty Friedan (nice) and author Judith Warner; Dick Morris with yet another written assault on Hillary Clinton; and Beverly Lahaye, president of the conservative group Concerned Women of America (a lineup which, as far as I’m concerned, echoes Paul Waldman’s “Meet The Press” analysis mentioned earlier).

I guess even a token liberal presence in today’s Courier Times was too much to ask. Oh well.

Update: I realize a sophisticated, all-knowing conservative like Miller would NEVER believe a godless commie liberal like Trudy Rubin (registration required), but maybe Miller could actually try listening to Paul Pillar (story explains who he is) and find a clue.

"Double Plus Good, That!"

Somehow, I don't think George Orwell realized quite how prophetic he would be.

It turns out that our esteemed Congress is going to turn a blind eye to Dubya's domestic spying in their ongoing effort to invalidate the U.S. Constitution.

I have only one question in response to that. Would you like your Victory Gin for here or to go?

The blogger georgia10 over at The Daily Kos was quite rightly in a fit over this yesterday. Given that, I think the typos should be excused (along with some typical freeper taunts in the comments...as I've said, the right-wing sites and their slavish followers are basically a distraction, and if they ever provide something close to an informed opinion about something, it is nothing more than an accident.)

Update 1 2/15: Glenn Greenwald provides an outstanding analysis on this entire situation.

Update 2 2/15: And why stop at illegal spying, by the way? Why not try to totally squash dissent while you're at it?

Tuesday Stuff

- I added Glenn Greenwald’s great blog “Unclaimed Territory” under “What Doomsy Reads” in the right column. I’d been meaning to do that for a little while, but his post today (hat tip to Atrios) finally made me do it, because he calls out Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds for not condemning (at first) the latest barbaric remarks from Ann Coulter.

The response from Reynolds is hypocritical in the extreme, as per usual, with Greenwald making the excellent point that Ward Churchill, a bogeyman for the right-wing zanies cited by Reynolds, is a fringe type at best, though Churchill is commonly associated with liberals by Reynolds and his followers. Reynolds frequently calls on lefty bloggers to disavow him, but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that in a very tame way to Coulter, who is infinitely more important to her followers than Churchill is to any he may have on the left.

(By the way, apparently Churchill has written that many of the people killed on 9/11 were not innocent civilians, and I categorically repudiate that. However, though such a notion disgusts me, I respect the fact that Churchill has a right to his opinion, as well as his pungent “little Eichmanns” remark.)

Update 2/15: Sounds like Coulter has more of a problem than just her noxious words for a change (hat tip to Atrios).

- This is a great summary of the story of Paul Hackett dropping out of the running for the Democratic Party nomination in the Ohio Senate election by Kos, who I believe would know about it better than anyone. I read the CNN story, but aside from the spin that somehow Hackett got hosed by Charles Schumer, I would listen to Kos and ignore “our MSM cousin” on this one (I’m not happy with Schumer for making sure we in PA got stuck with Bob “Not Santorum” Casey, but I don't think he can be blamed this time around).

Maybe It Wasn't An Accident

I got a lead on this from The New York Post, of all places, and I thought I should follow up. I’m glad I did.

Others have noted the fact that Dick Cheney’s recent gun mishap is a perfect metaphor for the entire Bush-Cheney presidency, but I haven’t found anyone yet who has noted that Cheney’s choice of a victim in this stupid, reckless accident turns out to be a man who stands in complete opposition to everything about this reckless, selfish, naïve and hopelessly corrupt administration.

Harry Whittington, quite simply, is everything Bushco will never be; chiefly, a tireless, dogged advocate for the basic rights of everyday people with a thorough understanding of right and wrong. Upon doing a bit of investigating, I found that he has spent a majority of his life fighting battles against bureaucracies of varying degrees and, as noted from this link, cleaning up at least one mess handed to him by none other than former Texas governor George W. Bush.

In the Austin Chronicle story about Travis County District Court Judge John Dietz’s decision that Bush would not have to testify in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Eliza May of the Texas Funeral Service Commission from September 1999, you see some familiar names and, I would argue, familiar patterns of behavior.

You have former Texas Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) John Cornyn pontificating in a fashion similar to that of the Alito hearings in Bush’s defense. You have Bush campaign manager (and former head of FEMA who hired Mike “Horsey Time” Brown, Joe Allbaugh) being named in May’s suit also. You also have Dubya himself claiming no knowledge of illegal activity and calling May’s lawsuit (in which $445,000 in fines against the funeral company regulated by May’s agency is in question) “frivolous” (I don’t know about you, but nearly half a mil is pretty substantial to me, though I guess that’s chump change for the Bush clan), and you have the head of the funeral company tied to the Bush family by way of sizeable campaign donations.

This excerpt of the story should sound familiar.

May's lawyers allege that Bush did not tell the truth when he filed an affidavit earlier this month saying that he has "had no conversations with SCI officials, agents, or representatives" about the state's investigation into the funeral home giant. Since that time, Bush's statement has been contradicted several times.

Something else that struck me about this was the reason why May’s request to have Bush testify was denied.

(Judge Dietz) cited Texas case law which requires that before plaintiffs are allowed to depose heads of corporations and other entities, they must show that person has information that is not available from other, lower-ranking people in the company. Cornyn argued that the same, or higher, standard should apply to the governor. Dietz agreed.

I’ll admit that I’m hardly a “legal eagle,” but what kind of stupid law is that? I’m sure the logic is that that sort of thing is supposed to be found out at the “discovery” phase, but suppose it isn’t somehow? Why is that the plaintiff’s fault? “Frontier justice” indeed.

Well, Harry Whittington was called in to make sure SCI complied with TFSC codes, and here is more from the story.

The appointment of Whittington appears to be a good move. A well-respected lawyer, Whittington has served on other controversial state positions in the past…

Whittington said his motivation for taking the job comes both from his age and his desire to serve the public. "I know it's a challenge," he said. "But we have 150,000 people dying every year in Texas. That's a lot of funerals, and my generation is getting closer to them every day. It's a big part of our lives that needs to be dealt with."

The story accessible here from the Texas American-Statesman has more on Whittington, who also served on the state’s prison board. An excerpt from the story follows:

In 1981, Whittington pushed a plan to reduce prison overcrowding by moving nonviolent inmates with mental retardation to separate state institutions. It was a bold new idea that clashed with the prevailing build-more-prisons mentality; Estelle likened it to mixing thugs with the general public.

Whittington was dismayed by prison officials' ignorance about mental retardation, perhaps because the subject is so close to his heart. One of his four daughters is mentally retarded. He felt that the condition contributed to inmates getting into jail and that those inmates, who are outmatched in prison, deserved a chance to fare better. He persuaded the board to open a separate unit.

At the time, the state was embroiled in a long-running prison-reform lawsuit filed by inmate David Ruiz in 1972. The suit, which stretched well into the 1990s, showed state prison officials as an unchecked, unregulated authority presiding over shockingly brutal conditions. The case led to unprecedented judicial control over the prisons and a revamping of the state's incarceration practices.

The lawsuit also targeted the practice of "tenders," a cruel, unofficial system of inmates disciplining other inmates. State officials held firm that no such system existed.

As the lawsuit unfolded, and Whittington kept digging, he and others realized top officials were lying. He arranged a key meeting to get state officials to fess up to State Attorney General Mark White, pestered lawmakers to help straighten out the mess and lined up allies until the truth slowly emerged.

Estelle lost his credibility and resigned in 1983. Few people question that Whittington was a prime catalyst in toppling that regime.

Whittington, according to the American-Statesman story, also “faced off against bond lawyers who had a stranglehold on Texas’s lucrative debt business” (as I noted at another time, everything we’re living with now has already been done in Texas, which Molly Ivins has called “the breeding ground for bad government”), and “won a court ruling that invalidated a 1959 bond election allowing Austin to use federal money to condemn and redevelop blighted homes. The judge found that ineligible voters had cast ballots, something Whittington had suspected.”

This tells you more about him.

His dignified presence belies a fierce competitive spirit and antipathy toward government power…”My nature is, if you have a cause and feel like you're right on the law, you'd be letting yourself down to just cave in."

In short, Harry Whittington sounds like my kind of guy. Sure he’s a Republican, but he’s one in the traditional centrist mode that we haven’t seen on the national stage since the days of Robert Michel, Barry Goldwater, and others of their type.

And this is the guy that Dick Cheney filled full of buckshot (and Whittington, by the way, was NEVER “just fine,” despite Bushco propaganda. He was in intensive care for a time, and some of the pellets are so tiny that they can never be removed from his skin).

Update: If “just fine” in Bush-ese means “almost died,” then yeah…Whittington is doing great (I don't know anyone who's had a "minor" heart attack).

Yeah, I made a joke out of Cheney’s stupid accident, and others including Jon Stewart have come up with some great lines. But I’m sure we can all agree that this is no way for a man like Harry Whittington to be brought into the national spotlight, and we all hope and pray for his speedy recovery.

Update 1 2/15: Molly Ivins is the perfect individual to provide more on this.

Update 2 2/15: This is actually funny and pathetic at the same time (hat tip to The Daily Kos).

Cause, Meet Effect

I don't think it's an accident that we've heard about this...

Because of this...

As Karl Rove said a few weeks ago, the '06 elections have already begun. And when was the last time you heard of any Repug talking about gay marriage?

The '04 elections, that's when (just about two years ago today).

That's the playbook, ladies and gentlemen. All terrorism, Iran, and gay marriage all the time, whether we like it or not (and particularly when the Repugs get bad approval numbers).

Given that, I would ask that you remember this.

Dick Needs Practice

As you can see, he didn't even hit the target (though, knowing him, I know it wasn't for a lack of trying...and here's more from Josh Marshall via Atrios).

Let Us Pray

Fortunately, you can chalk the latest from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi up to little more than comic relief coming from a country which, thankfully, poses no threat to Western civilization unless they plan to attack us with deep-fried calamari and anchovy pizza.

Berlusconi, with remarks such as this, is running what I would consider to be the most interesting election campaign I've ever seen. And I wonder if he's still celibate, by the way (if so, could that explain his behavior)?

A Look In The Mirror

I'm still trying to fathom why Laura Bush would tell Hillary Clinton to show some "empathy" in Clinton's recent remarks about Dubya. The latest I heard from Clinton about Dubya was criticism for renewing his "fear and smear" show on behalf of Repugs running for state and U.S. congressional office this fall, and as even Mrs. Bush admitted, that's just politics.

To this day, I have yet to see the slightest trace of empathy from this regime towards anyone who isn't just...like....them, so I would say that Mrs. Bush's remarks are disingenuous at the very least anyway.

Well, to me, empathy is more or less a gateway to humility, which is another concept Bushco doesn't understand. As proof, I would like to offer this speech from Al Gore in May 2004 (a really easy Google search for this one).

(By the way, SusanG at The Daily Kos had a great take on this.)

Also, for anyone out there who may be reading, I should point out that posting will again be sporadic over the next day or so. We got really whacked, so to speak, with snow, and there's other stuff I need to catch up on. As always, thanks for hanging in there.