Tristero
Saturday, January 10, 2004
From The Department Of Yeah, Right
It's the same old song. Who knows, maybe it'll pan out, but frankly, given their track record of doing this...Remember those mobile weapons labs that turned out to be hydrogen baloon filler uppers?Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq that officials believe contain blister agents, the United States and Denmark announced Saturday.And if this actually pans out, it looks like they were lost or abandoned weapons.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said Saturday that the 120 mm mortars were filled with liquid.
The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons.
But I Thought It Was Just Under Consideration
Who knew they were planning it all along?Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.Seriously, though, grab the book now.
O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president...
``From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,'' O'Neill said in the ``60 Minutes'' interview scheduled to air on Sunday. ``For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.''
CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.
The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.
``There are memos,'' Suskind told CBS. ``One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'''
Another Pentagon document entitled ``Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts'' talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.
BENT ON WAR
O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.
``It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,'' said O'Neill. ``The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'''
Slime Spreads
Kos found a new example of the latest GOP slime tactic. I won't link to it but you can follow the link from Kos if you like.You can also report it to the adl here.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Torture Wolf Now
Go.Blogging Light For Next Few Days
Sorry, but have to get a bunch of stuff done around here.Seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bloggers Should Help People Evaluate Metholdologies And Research
MacDiva makes a good point:Too often bloggers post any old thing to the Internet. I believe the solution to that problem is to advise people of how they can recognize the difference between reliable information and, well, bullshit. So, I am suggesting that capable bloggers post entries about how responsible research is done. For example, one might explain why a methodology that relies on making conclusions from newspaper obituaries is not reliable in regard to non-apparent characteristics such as sexual preference. Or, one could note that 'because people at Free Republic believe this' does not make it true. Most useful of all would be explanations of research methodology.She's right, of course. In my own case, I assume that you, the reader are intelligent enough to distinguish opinion and assertion from fact and logical deduction. I assume that you expect backup from reliable sources for any fact I assert and that you are familiar enough with the basics of "quantitative reasoning", i.e. simple charts and statistics so that I don't have to explain what the mean, the median, margin of error, or standard deviation is.
(On a related note, I've always wished that there was a weekly column in the newspapers, and on tv, that showed people how stats work, with specific examples. We are woefully undereducated and easily bamboozled by the most elementary mistakes of probability, proportion, and measurement. A statistician critiquing the news every week would do more good than an obudsman, imho. Which brings up another point: journalism school should provide, in addition to training in computer/net based research, at least one full year of statistics to every wanna-be reporter. A lot of disinformation would disappear immediately if reporters, as a group, could reason quantitatively; for the most part, they can't. Anyway...)
When it comes to music posts, I assume a much higher level of knowledge. With all due respect to you, dear reader, I don't care whether or not I lose you in technical detail, because I am more interested in exploring these ideas about music for myself and other well-trained musicians than I am in enlightening you.
But in general, MacDiva is absolutely right. The more all of us, not just bloggers, insist upon and explain honest methodologies and the importance of debating from facts, the better off we'll all be.
As for bloggers being losers, which she quotes someone as saying, I have a contrarian opinion. I don't think blogging is very important. We're not losers because there's simply not a bloody thing to win! We are talking amongst ourselves and that is the full extent of our importance and influence.
However, if you were to argue that the very inutility and triviality of blogging is proof positive that it is vitally important, even revolutionary, I would be hard pressed to disagree... (grin, cheshire-kat style)
A Plea For Secularism, Thank God
Long overdue, but still welcome:...the notion that elected officials should employ a religious rationale for policy decisions is rooted in the misconception, promulgated by the Christian right, that the American government was founded on divine authority rather than human reason. When I lecture on college campuses, students frequently express surprise at being told that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any mention of God in order to assign supreme governmental power to "We the People."
Dismissing this inconvenient fact, some on the religious right have suggested that divine omnipotence was considered a given in the 1780's � that the framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution because his dominion was as self-evident as the rising and setting of the sun. Yet isn't it absurd to suppose that men as precise in their use of language as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would absentmindedly have failed to insert God into the nation's founding document? In fact, they represented a majority of citizens who wished not only to free religion from government interference but government from religious interference.
This deep sentiment was expressed in letters to newspapers during the debate over ratification of the Constitution. One Massachusetts correspondent, signing himself "Elihu," summed up the secular case by praising the authors of the Constitution as men who "come to us in the plain language of common sense, and propose to our understanding a system of government, as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, nor even a God in a dream to propose any part of it."
The 18th-century public's understanding of the Constitution as a secular document can perhaps best be gauged by the reaction of religious conservatives at the time. For example, the Rev. John M. Mason, a fire-breathing New York City minister, denounced the absence of God in the preamble as "an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate." He warned that "we will have every reason to tremble, lest the governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck." But unlike many conservatives today, Mason acknowledged � even as he deplored � the Constitution's uncompromising secularism.
Tom Friedman Pop Quiz
Today, what joy! Tom Friedman begins the first of five columns on what to do to stop Islamist terrorism. So here's a little quiz, boys and girls:In this first column, Tom outlines his advice as to what the US can do. What blatantly obvious and crucial area of advice is missing from his list that dooms his entire plan to all but certain failure? Here is that outline:
There are only three things we can do: (1) Improve our intelligence to deter and capture terrorists before they act. (2) Learn to live with more risk, while maintaining our open society. (3) Most important, find ways to get the societies where these Islamists come from to deter them first. Only they really know their own, and only they can really restrain their extremists.Stumped? Here's a hint.
A wise guy once said, "Physician, Heal Thyself!"
Still at a loss? Give up? Okay. Here it is:
(4) Re-examine the premises and priorities of American foreign policy so that we no longer contribute - no matter how inadvertently - to the incubation of Islamist terrorism by aiding oppressive, authoritarian regimes that encourage a fundamentalist reaction.
Of all four prescriptions, in fact, this is by far the one with the most chance of making much of a difference. After all, intelligence will never be 100% perfect, living with more risk will necessarily entail descending the slippery slope of gradual erosion of civil liberties, and our influence over other societies is vastly overrated, especially when it is in their interest to seek independence from American dominance (which surely must be a worldwide goal post Bush/Iraq).
Lord, Lord: I know you have a great sense of humor, but couldn't you get your chuckles some other way than by permitting Tom Friedman to dispense his terrible advice in the American newspaper of record? It's really not that funny, y'know, to we poor humans, who have to live with it.
U.S. Helicopter Forced Down in Iraq, Killing 8
Bad news.Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Big Attack
35 GIs injured in Iraq mortar attack[UPDATE] One of the soldiers died.
Re-Enlistment Bonus No Inducement For US Troops In Iraq
Can't say I blame them. Must be hard to be there when your commander-in-chief tells the enemy to bring 'em on:At a checkpoint on the barren plain east of Baqouba, word of a new U.S. Army plan to pay soldiers up to $10,000 to re-enlist evoked laughter from a few bored-looking troopers.
"Man, they can't pay me enough to stay here," said a 23-year-old specialist from the Army's 4th Infantry Division as he manned the checkpoint with Iraqi police outside this city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.
His comments reflect a sentiment not uncommon among the nearly two dozen soldiers in Iraq who have spoken with The Associated Press since the Army announced the increased re-enlistment bonuses for soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait on Monday. Other soldiers at home were divided about the offer.
The soldiers in Iraq who spoke about the bonuses were serving in a range of assignments, from training the new Iraqi army at a base east of Baqouba to patrolling some of the most dangerous roads in the country, like those leading north from Baghdad.
Some cited the monotonous routine of a lonely life spent thousands of miles from loved ones. Others offered simpler reasons -- such as the fear of an early death.
And While We're On The Subject Of Suppressing Free Expression
Kuroshin asks the question all America is asking: How Free is Free Republic? Fans of the site will not be surprised.Who Cares? It's Just A Bunch Of Stupid Lizards, Anyway
Besides, they don't vote:Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.
The authors say in the journal Nature a study of six world regions suggested a quarter of animals and plants living on the land could be forced into oblivion.
They say cutting greenhouse gases and storing the main one, carbon dioxide, could save many species from vanishing.
Why Bush Invaded Iraq
Here it is, folks, the fruits of months upon months of searching for those elusive wmd's in Iraq. Oh, excuuuuuuse me, wmd programs. Well, here's the program:
Think I'm kidding? Go here. Oh, and notice: these secret drawings were among the most advanced plans found to date.
Again, I have no idea whether there are wmd's in Iraq. Neither does, or did Bush. The difference is Bush never cared.
[UPDATE]U.S. Withdraws a Team of Weapons Hunters From Iraq
David Meets The Howler, Amongst Many Others
As many of you know, My Smart Spouse demanded quite a while ago that I stop reading David Brooks' op-eds. Such a small deprivation, but such a profound gain in my mental health.Well, apparently, the fellow really stepped in it this time, infuriating folks all over the blogosphere. Apparently, David is under the impression that there is no neocon influence in the US government and that critics of the neocons are anti-semitic. Sure.
Anyway, this Bob Somerby post is one of my favorites, but you can also pick and choose from all these first class responses as well:
Another Howler masterpiece.
Tbogg believes Brooks has a future in the sequel to a hip film.
Josh Marshall takes Brooks seriously.
Tom Tomorrow is convinced that David Brooks is proof positive of the Times' liberal bias.
A second rant from Tom Tomorrow.
Here is what Brooks was using, apparently, to prove his point that critics of the neocons are crazy. I would say that disliking the neocons is the least of this person's problems.
Kevin Drum apologizes to his many readers for ever confusing David Brooks for a sentient being.
Matthew Yglesias notices that many critics of the neocons are from the same ethnic group as the neocons.
Well! It sounds like a good time to invest in a drug company manufacturing blood pressure medicine. But really, Brooks, whatever his other fine qualities, is not the brightest bulb, even within the rather dim recesses of the conservative firmament. He just doesn't belong on the Times. Unless Tom Tomorrow is right, of course.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
NY Post Op-Ed Calls Dean Followers "Brownshirts"
Here is how an op-ed in the New York Post describes Dean's request to the DNC for candidates to moderate their intra-party criticism:These are the techniques employed by Hitler's Brownshirts. Had Goebbels enjoyed access to the internet, he would have used the same swarm tactics as Dean's Flannelshirts.We all know about the objections that have been aimed at the propagation of the Bush = Hitler meme. Where's the outrage when they're directed at Democrats? The adl has rightly condemned the ad posted at the MoveOn site. Let them know they need to speak out against the New York Post as well here. Dean's wife, of course, is Jewish. This makes the Post's canard even worse.
via Counterspin Central
[UPDATE] Of course, the right wing loves the Democrats = Hitler meme. But it isn't some sleazy no-account ad man wannabe doing the comparison, but sometimes it's the big cheeses such as Grover Norquist, as Richard Cohen reminds us:
In October the extremely influential GOP activist and White House insider Grover Norquist was interviewed by Terry Gross on her National Public Radio program, "Fresh Air." By December a portion of that interview was reprinted in Harper's magazine, where, over the holidays, I happened to see it. I am writing about it today because, among other things, Norquist compared the estate tax to the Holocaust.Grover Norquist is, according to Cohen, "an intimate of Karl Rove."
Hat tip to Buzzflash
[UPDATE] The ADL has released a letter condemning the New York Post op-ed here. Looks like our letters worked.
Apple Porn
Movie about the Virginia Tech Supercluster. 1100 G5's networked to great the third fastest supercomputer in the world. The second fastest cost 6 times as much.Bush Knew
But the fact Bush knew has been conveniently forgetten:��Another story on the topic came from the New York Times on May 15, 2002, and was titled 'Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes...'via Cursor.
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack. 'It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. 'The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile.'"
��Yes, we were warned, said the Bush administration, but who could have conceived of terrorists using airplanes for suicide bombings?
��A lot of people, actually.
��According to a Time Magazine story that appeared on Friday, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is balking at requests to testify before Thomas Kean's September 11 commission under oath. She also wants her testimony to be taken behind closed doors, and not in public. The crux of her hesitation would appear on the surface to be her comments of May 16 2002, in which she used the above-referenced excuse that no one "could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile." If that excuse is reflective of reality, why does she fear to testify under oath?
...Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against American targets, including commercial aircraft, by al Qaeda and other groups. A July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS had a top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke, state that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, who is a three-star general, was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration. He stayed on into the Bush administration. When the Bush administration came in, he wrote a memo about terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The memo said, "We will be struck again." As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.
In a late November truthout interview , former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, "Richard Clarke was Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council. He has since left. Clark urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of al Qaeda. Right at the present, the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible."
"The public has a right to know what happened on August 6," continued Blumenthal, "what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke's memos and statements were. Then the public will be able to judge exactly what this presidency has done."
George W. Bush is going to run in 2004 on the idea that his administration is the only one capable of protecting us from another attack like the ones which took place on September 11. Yet the record to date is clear. Not only did they fail in spectacular fashion to deal with those first threats, not only has their reaction caused us to be less safe, not only have they failed to sufficiently bolster our defenses, but they used the aftermath of the attacks to ram through policies they couldn't have dreamed of achieving on September 10. It is one of the most remarkable turnabouts in American political history: Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect.
Never mind the final insult: They received all these warnings and went on vacation for a month down in Texas. The August 6 briefing might as well have happened in a vacuum. September 11 could have and should have been prevented. Why? Because Bush knew.
��This administration must not be allowed to ride their criminal negligence into a second term. Someone needs to say those two words. Loudly. After all, Bush has proven with Social Security, and with September 11, that third rails can be danced across. All it takes is a little boldness.
What the article left out is how Bush replied to these revelations about his incompetence. It is a very revealing non-denial denial:
Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power protect the American people.As I wrote back in June, Bush is saying that if he had had specific information that on September 11, 2001 "the enemy" would attack with airplanes, he would have done everything he could to stop them.
Well, sure, if he knew exactly what was about to happen and when, he would have tried to stop it. At least he admits that he didn't have to have the precise times the planes would take off. But that's about all.
But that level of knowledge was never the issue.
The issue was then, as it remains: why didn't the Bush administration take al Qaeda that seriously in the first 9 months of 2001? Indeed, we now have strong evidence they backed off surveillance of al Qaeda .
This is the question Bush has never answered, although he appeared to, above. That is why one needs to read Bush very, very closely, especially when he's cornered.
Seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup
1
2
3
Marshall On Neoconservative Disinformation
There is now a concerted attempt to minimize the influence and importance of the neoconservatives. It is a sign of their desperation that they are resorting to accusing critics of anti-semitism. Josh Marshall summarizes the issues and begins to deconstruct their shabby arguments.How To Discredit MoveOn In 30 Seconds
Back in June, I discussed the historical and tactical mistakes of the "Bush = Hitler" meme that a tiny minority of people held. Well, guess what? Some morons submitted some B=H commercials to MoveOn and like flies to shit, the Republicans pounced on them. I am deeply ashamed to admit they are right.Folks, politics in the real world is not about "expressing yourself." If you want to do that, make some art. Likewise, politics in the real world is not about making yourself feel good. If that's what you're after, go get laid.
Politics in the real world is about gaining power to achieve your goals. Implicit in the very nature of politics are the principles of integrity, pragmatic action and compromise. "Bush = Hitler" is either a lie, an expression of ignorance, or both. To propagate such nonsense serves no purpose whatsoever except to discredit the people who do so.
MoveOn has done an extraordinary job of building a genuine grassroots movement, uniting a wide group of liberals, progressives, and even moderates like Al Gore. Let's respect their work and not give some seriously nasty people any reasons at all to marginalize their achievement, ok?
[UPDATE] Liberal Oasis has some smart, more temperate words on this subject.
[UPDATE] Here is the complete statement that MoveOn has released to the press on this issue:
ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS
MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through
Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:
The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.
During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.
None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.
We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.
Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.
MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn't seem to embrace the same goals.
[UPDATE] Salon's editor has a good take on this flap.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Quick Question For Chuck Spingola
First, read Mr. Spingola's take on "Christian terrorists" published in Salon:Most of the time when I leave the killing place [i.e., family planning clinics that terminate pregnancies] my self-esteem diminishes, as I have failed where others have succeeded. Pleading, politics and pandering have done precious little to stop the holocaust against the innocent. But the Christian terrorist is not so inadequate. Dead abortionists don't kill babies, and a fire-bombed death camp can no longer facilitate the holocaust against them.Here's my question:
As cream rises to the top, so the Christian terrorist rises above the huddled masses of churchgoers and the many voices that denounce their violent attempts to defend the innocent from their murderous assailants.
Will you be voting for Bush in the next election, Mr. Spingola? If so, please say so loudly and often. For you'll make the Democrats' job ever so much easier if you do.
Agent Provocateurs
The incomparable Daily Howler has been focusing on a most amusing phenomenon, the right wing conservative posing as a liberal. Bob has had numerous articles on self-described lesbian feminist Democrat Tammy Bruce whose positions just happen to agree, at least some of the time, with far right wing Republicans (see here, here, and here. )As longtime readers of this blog know, I believe part of the reason the right is doing this is to drive genuine liberals into total marginalization. Now, if someone brings up an equal rights amendment or the war in Iraq, they can say, Hey Look! That position is so extreme that even a Democratic lesbian disagrees with her party's stance!
Another faux Democrat/liberal was Michael Totten, who once wrote that "McCarthy knew Stalin well", without a trace of sarcasm or irony (he has since publicly disowned his approving statements about McCarthy, demonstrating a disconcertingly rare ability to engage his critical faculties when facts contradict his more preposterous assertions). As a result of being just a bit too obvious about what his views really are, Michael's cover's been so badly blown that he's had to switch pretenses. He now masquerades as an "independent," who just happens to buy the neoconservative worldview hook, line, and stinker. Well, few folks who take the trouble to read Michael's writing on foreign affairs carefully would buy that one either. Michael's an ideologue when it comes to foreign policy (about his views on domestic issues, I know little and care less).
He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but he is not entitled to confuse an already muddled debate by trying to disguise his neoconservative boilerplate as independent thought.
The Next Administration
Or vice versa is fine, too.
via Daily Kos
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Realism, Idealism, And Simple Common Sense
In response to this post by Matt Yglesias about liberal hawks, I posted these comments (excerpted and edited):If idealism means proactively spreading American cooties through the world because we think we have the moral responsibility to do good even to the extent of using military force, I'm against it. Why? Because the world doesn't work that way. There are simply too many variables to be assured that you are not making things worse but for all the right reasons. Besides, there are much better democracies these days than the US model.
Likewise, if you isolate or, just as bad, adopt a "black box" attitude towards a country, ie that internal affairs are no one's business but the country's, I'm against that, too. Why? Because like it or not, the world is interconnected and any knowledge of the other players provides considerable insight into appropriate American behavior.
In short, both idealism and realism are poor frames via which to approach international relations. They always were a poor fit to the real world and they certainly are now.
A good starting framework upon which to base international relations strikes me as this:
1. Avoid ideological purity and ignore grand unified theories of history and international relations. They really have very little utility in understanding the "unscientific" nature of foreign affairs. (see Raymond Aron on this one, who really should be wider read right now.)
2. Do no harm. (The Hippocratic Oath)
3. In the short term, act in your country's self-interest (but see 2, above).
Both 2 and 3 combined imply the acquisition of a thorough knowledge of both one's own country and the foreign country. For example, one cannot have a viable foreign policy for the Middle East if the State Department (still!) has too few Arabic speakers (according to the Times today, only 54 in all of State*).
To these three principles, then, add the following:
4. In the long term, demonstrate the efficacy of your country's view of governance by example, not by coercion.
5. Be vigilant, and swift to counter military/economic threats, but never resort to military force except in the face of imminent threat.
6. Carefully consider widely supported intervention in the event of an imminent human catastrophe.
It is worth remarking that the Bush administration, in a mere three years, has managed to violate all six of these common-sensical principles.
*From The New York Times Magazine:
The State Department asked a nonpartisan group to study American public diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world; the report, issued in October, concluded that ''a process of unilateral disarmament in the weapons of advocacy over the last decade has contributed to widespread hostility toward Americans and left us vulnerable to lethal threats to our interests and our safety.'' These were weapons we wielded boldly during the cold war; we allowed them to lapse in the 90's, when the only instrument that seemed to matter was the marketplace. The study found that the State Department has all of 54 genuine Arabic speakers, that outreach efforts rarely reach beyond capitals, that the American-studies centers that were once ubiquitous around the globe scarcely exist in the Arab and Muslim world.
Spirit On Mars
More here.
Saddam Captured Singlehandedly By Jessica Lynch
TalkLeft has a round up of recent news reports that directly contradict the Bush administration's version of the capture of Saddam, which has been questioned nearly since it was announced.I have no idea which one is true but see no reason under the sun to privilege the Bush administration's stories without proof. They have lied far too often to be trusted.
Quote of the Day
"Everything beautiful in the world is the trace of the persuasion of wisdom which has conquered necessity. All the blind destruction which comes about bears witness to the fact that this conquered necessity still rules..."Simone Weil
Seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup
This one's real good, too.
