Ashcroft denounces judges who question Bush
Not to repeat myself, but is he kidding? There is no need for independent judicial oversight of the executive branch. Not while George W is President. Like he said, if you are not supporting the President's policies with regard to terrorism, you are supporting terrorism.
Ashcroft had to possibly be the worst choice for Attorney General since, hmmm, John Mitchell. The parallels between the Nixon and Bush White Houses are frightening. Will the spate of resignations here at the beginning of the 2nd W term turn into some great summer tell-all reading? One can only hope.
In the meantime let's rejoice in the fact that John Ashcroft is leaving, because clearly he was never qualified to be Attorney General.
Friday, November 12, 2004
John Ashcroft
Is he kidding?
First over the summer he said that the Patriot Act "saves lives" and is Al Qaeda's worst nightmare. Well, Johnny, you have not successfully prosecuted any terrorists under the Patriot Act or stopped any terrorist attacks. You have put an extraordinary burden on ordinary businesses in trying to comply with the Act.
Second he states in his resignation letter "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." Then why is the terror alert level still at yellow (only downgraded from orange in NY yesterday)? He lives in his own world if he thinks that the US is any safer from terrorists today then on September 10, 2001. That is the date that Ashcroft denied the FBI's request for tens of millions of dollars in funds to combat terrorism. The Bush administration traded one terrorist safe haven (Afghanistan) for another (Iraq) and ensured the continued financing of terrorists by failing to secure Saddam Hussein's money before toppling his regime. That money is now able to fund terrorists both inside and outside of Iraq.
Goodbye and good riddance to John Ashcroft.
First over the summer he said that the Patriot Act "saves lives" and is Al Qaeda's worst nightmare. Well, Johnny, you have not successfully prosecuted any terrorists under the Patriot Act or stopped any terrorist attacks. You have put an extraordinary burden on ordinary businesses in trying to comply with the Act.
Second he states in his resignation letter "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." Then why is the terror alert level still at yellow (only downgraded from orange in NY yesterday)? He lives in his own world if he thinks that the US is any safer from terrorists today then on September 10, 2001. That is the date that Ashcroft denied the FBI's request for tens of millions of dollars in funds to combat terrorism. The Bush administration traded one terrorist safe haven (Afghanistan) for another (Iraq) and ensured the continued financing of terrorists by failing to secure Saddam Hussein's money before toppling his regime. That money is now able to fund terrorists both inside and outside of Iraq.
Goodbye and good riddance to John Ashcroft.
Arafat the monster
This column by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe states the position pretty well:
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Arafat the monster
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Arafat the monster
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
2004 Presidential Election
Now that George W. Bush has won the election here is what we can expect for the next four years:
| More | Less (or Fewer) |
| Terror | Freedom |
| Government (1) | Income (2) |
| Americans killed in Iraq | Gay Marriages |
| Abortions (3) | Healthcare |
| Taxes |
|
| Deficits |
|
| Fear |
|
(1) Under GWB the size of the Federal government has increased substantially after decreasing under Bill Clinton
(2) Real income for the average American has declined under GWB after rising steadily under Bill Clinton
(3) The number of abortions has increased under GWB after declining steadily under Bill Clinton.
Are you sensing a theme?
Monday, November 01, 2004
Osama bin Laden
Osama bin Laden has revealed his strategy for defeating the US. He will bankrupt us, bleeding us slowly like the mujahideen did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Talk about believing your own hype.
Osama, the Afghan war did hasten the fall of the Soviet empire. However, it wasn't you and your bands of mujahideen. It may have been the fact that the CIA was funneling billions of dollars through Pakistan to you guys to fight the Soviets. It wasn't you and your puny fortune that defeated the Soviets. It was Stinger missiles and a never-ending supply of munitions courtesy of Congressman Charlie Wilson.
So Osama, no matter what you think and no matter how the election on Nov. 2 turns out, Americans aren't stupid and won't let your rantings influence the election. Moreover, your strategy won't work because the US defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, not you, and you won't defeat anyone now either.
Osama, the Afghan war did hasten the fall of the Soviet empire. However, it wasn't you and your bands of mujahideen. It may have been the fact that the CIA was funneling billions of dollars through Pakistan to you guys to fight the Soviets. It wasn't you and your puny fortune that defeated the Soviets. It was Stinger missiles and a never-ending supply of munitions courtesy of Congressman Charlie Wilson.
So Osama, no matter what you think and no matter how the election on Nov. 2 turns out, Americans aren't stupid and won't let your rantings influence the election. Moreover, your strategy won't work because the US defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, not you, and you won't defeat anyone now either.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Rudy Giuliani, Bill Kristol
Support our troops.
What part of supporting our troops doesn't the former mayor understand? And I quote:
From the October 28 edition of NBC's Today Show
GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?
www.mediamatters.org
Are you kidding me? The troops should take responsibility. Responsibility for what? Responsibility for the administration's failure to make securing weapon's depots a priority? The IAEA had sealed the site at Al Qa Qaa holding more than 300 tons of high explosives and kept it intact for years prior to the invasion.
Conservative Pundit Bill Kristol chimed in also:
From the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's FOX News Live:
KRISTOL: The Bush campaign was actually slow to respond, I think, but finally yesterday pointed out that Kerry was launching very serious charges against the president of the United States, based on a thinly sourced New York Times article, charges that really impugn the competence of the U.S. military. [President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground. Even if there were some weapons there, this is what happens in war. You know you have to make tough decisions, leave some stuff to take care of later.
uhhhh, yes Bush decided "skip that dump." In fact he said skip all the dumps. He said guard the Oil Ministry, guard the pipelines!
But when someone criticizes the fearless leader, there is only one thing the loyal minions can do: lay blame elsewhere. It worked in Abu Ghraib. Send the NCO's to jail. Go after the privates. Yeah, widespread abuse is usually the work of the grunts, not the officers overseeing everything or the commanders who set policy.
So, if we can deflect from Rumsfeld by going after the grunts on the prisons, we can do the same for the President. President Bush didn't tell the 101st Airborne to not secure the dump. No, he just told him to secure the Oil Ministry, knock down the statue of Saddam, and get that guy who tried to kill my daddy!
What part of supporting our troops doesn't the former mayor understand? And I quote:
From the October 28 edition of NBC's Today Show
GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?
www.mediamatters.org
Are you kidding me? The troops should take responsibility. Responsibility for what? Responsibility for the administration's failure to make securing weapon's depots a priority? The IAEA had sealed the site at Al Qa Qaa holding more than 300 tons of high explosives and kept it intact for years prior to the invasion.
Conservative Pundit Bill Kristol chimed in also:
From the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's FOX News Live:
KRISTOL: The Bush campaign was actually slow to respond, I think, but finally yesterday pointed out that Kerry was launching very serious charges against the president of the United States, based on a thinly sourced New York Times article, charges that really impugn the competence of the U.S. military. [President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground. Even if there were some weapons there, this is what happens in war. You know you have to make tough decisions, leave some stuff to take care of later.
uhhhh, yes Bush decided "skip that dump." In fact he said skip all the dumps. He said guard the Oil Ministry, guard the pipelines!
But when someone criticizes the fearless leader, there is only one thing the loyal minions can do: lay blame elsewhere. It worked in Abu Ghraib. Send the NCO's to jail. Go after the privates. Yeah, widespread abuse is usually the work of the grunts, not the officers overseeing everything or the commanders who set policy.
So, if we can deflect from Rumsfeld by going after the grunts on the prisons, we can do the same for the President. President Bush didn't tell the 101st Airborne to not secure the dump. No, he just told him to secure the Oil Ministry, knock down the statue of Saddam, and get that guy who tried to kill my daddy!
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Everything Changed After September 11
No it didn't. Nothing changed unless you had your head in the sand.
Tonight on Lou Dobbs on CNN Dennis Miller touted this line. How could your worldview not change after September 11, he asked. He went from Bush basher to Bush supporter.
Dennis. Darling. You are an idiot.
After the hijackings of the 1970's people settled into a place where terrorism only happened over there. "There" being the Middle East and Europe. Germany had terrorists, Italy had terrorists. Greece had terrorists. The US had no real terrorist events.
Even the 1979 Iran hostage crisis wasn't really seen as "terrorism". The suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241, was not seen as "terrorism." Beirut was a war zone.
The wake-up call for the US should have been the December 1989 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Again, it wasn't. It happened overseas. It wasn't something that could happen here.
In 1993, Islamic extremists organized in cells throughout New York and New Jersey detonated a truck bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. Six killed, one thousand injured. But again, we really didn't think of it as terrorism. It was an isolated incident ineptly (?) executed by a bunch of radicals following a crazy one-eyed sheik from Egypt. Anyway, the superiority of American design overcame the wretched attempt by these Arabs to hurt us. And we caught them anyway. Yes, but only after a multi-year worldwide chase that gave us a glimpse of a growing enemy: Al Qaeda.
The shadowy network of Islamic extremists that supported the first group of World Trade Center bombers--a network that stretched for New York to the Philippines to Pakistan--was what we now know as Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, only a few within the government realized the danger. Very few within the FBI (of course with the exception of John O'Neill, the head of the underfunded anti-terrorism task force). More within the CIA. A few within the White House. Not a whole lot of others though. Not Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or anyone at Fox News.
As the obsession with domestic terrorism form right-wing skinhead extremist blossomed following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the government became more interested in Al Qaeda. There was the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The bombing of US embassies in Africa. And finally the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
Domestic terror events were avoided. An attempt to bomb LAX was stopped by an alert border guard in Washington state prior the turn of the Millennium. A plot to blow up 11 US airliners over the pacific was also foiled. These early victories on the war in terror led to complacency among the American public and the American media. Luckily the government was taking more notice.
In 1999, expecting some sort of terrorist action to coincide with the Millennium celebrations the White House went to "battle stations." The head of the CIA and FBI had to report to the president every morning. They were forced to shake the tree to make sure they could say something was being done. It worked. The "Millennium Bomb Plot" was thwarted.
In 2000 the CIA was using unmanned Predator drones to track Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden in 1998 but was hampered by his political trouble at home and the prevalent state of mind that killing civilians along with Bin Laden would only make the situation worse in the eyes of the Islamic street.
To those studying political science at the end of the Cold War the lingering question is what would be the next great threat? What would replace the stalemate between superpowers that kept the world at the brink of war but at relative peace for nearly 50 years?
The answer: localized hot conflicts in the third world. Instead of being the proxy wars of the superpowers, these conflagrations in foreign lands would be organic conflicts: ethnic conflicts, power struggles, fights for self-determination or just plain old fights between warlords.
Ah yes, Somalia. Afghanistan. Rwanda.
But why would the United States incur the wrath of these backwards places where we sure no longer had a national interest. Well, the US tried to help in Somalia, thus interfering with the warlord's reign. We forgot to help in Afghanistan where we just left, so that the warlords could go fight among themselves.
So, the answer to insulate America from the wrath of the great unwashed around the world, was simply to withdraw from the world. Abandon the Clintonian form of nation-building that led us to suffer the greatest combat losses since Vietnam--the deaths of 18 Army Rangers in Somalia. A more humble foreign policy, Candidate Bush said.
So, Mr. Bush withdrew from the world and stuck his head in the sand and most Americans followed suit.
John O'Neill the head of the anti-terrorism task force, the person responsible for the capture of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, got fed-up with the FBI's de-emphasis of terrorism and quit. He went to work as the head of security at the WTC in August 2001. On September 10, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft vetoed additional anti-terrorism funding.
So, Mr. Miller the world didn't change on 9/11, you just woke up. You woke up too late and in the fog of sleep latched on to the loudest voice that played to your uninformed emotional response. Rally around the President. Send in the Marines! The "War" on terrorism is the new Cold War, our united fight against a common enemy. Rally the allies! What a mistake attacking the US homeland. The Government of the United States of America will not rest until the terrorists are brought to justice. But first we must go get that guy that tried to kill George W. Bush's daddy.
Mr. Miller, your head went from being in the sand to being up your ass. Pretty stupid.
Tonight on Lou Dobbs on CNN Dennis Miller touted this line. How could your worldview not change after September 11, he asked. He went from Bush basher to Bush supporter.
Dennis. Darling. You are an idiot.
After the hijackings of the 1970's people settled into a place where terrorism only happened over there. "There" being the Middle East and Europe. Germany had terrorists, Italy had terrorists. Greece had terrorists. The US had no real terrorist events.
Even the 1979 Iran hostage crisis wasn't really seen as "terrorism". The suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241, was not seen as "terrorism." Beirut was a war zone.
The wake-up call for the US should have been the December 1989 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Again, it wasn't. It happened overseas. It wasn't something that could happen here.
In 1993, Islamic extremists organized in cells throughout New York and New Jersey detonated a truck bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. Six killed, one thousand injured. But again, we really didn't think of it as terrorism. It was an isolated incident ineptly (?) executed by a bunch of radicals following a crazy one-eyed sheik from Egypt. Anyway, the superiority of American design overcame the wretched attempt by these Arabs to hurt us. And we caught them anyway. Yes, but only after a multi-year worldwide chase that gave us a glimpse of a growing enemy: Al Qaeda.
The shadowy network of Islamic extremists that supported the first group of World Trade Center bombers--a network that stretched for New York to the Philippines to Pakistan--was what we now know as Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, only a few within the government realized the danger. Very few within the FBI (of course with the exception of John O'Neill, the head of the underfunded anti-terrorism task force). More within the CIA. A few within the White House. Not a whole lot of others though. Not Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or anyone at Fox News.
As the obsession with domestic terrorism form right-wing skinhead extremist blossomed following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the government became more interested in Al Qaeda. There was the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The bombing of US embassies in Africa. And finally the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
Domestic terror events were avoided. An attempt to bomb LAX was stopped by an alert border guard in Washington state prior the turn of the Millennium. A plot to blow up 11 US airliners over the pacific was also foiled. These early victories on the war in terror led to complacency among the American public and the American media. Luckily the government was taking more notice.
In 1999, expecting some sort of terrorist action to coincide with the Millennium celebrations the White House went to "battle stations." The head of the CIA and FBI had to report to the president every morning. They were forced to shake the tree to make sure they could say something was being done. It worked. The "Millennium Bomb Plot" was thwarted.
In 2000 the CIA was using unmanned Predator drones to track Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden in 1998 but was hampered by his political trouble at home and the prevalent state of mind that killing civilians along with Bin Laden would only make the situation worse in the eyes of the Islamic street.
To those studying political science at the end of the Cold War the lingering question is what would be the next great threat? What would replace the stalemate between superpowers that kept the world at the brink of war but at relative peace for nearly 50 years?
The answer: localized hot conflicts in the third world. Instead of being the proxy wars of the superpowers, these conflagrations in foreign lands would be organic conflicts: ethnic conflicts, power struggles, fights for self-determination or just plain old fights between warlords.
Ah yes, Somalia. Afghanistan. Rwanda.
But why would the United States incur the wrath of these backwards places where we sure no longer had a national interest. Well, the US tried to help in Somalia, thus interfering with the warlord's reign. We forgot to help in Afghanistan where we just left, so that the warlords could go fight among themselves.
So, the answer to insulate America from the wrath of the great unwashed around the world, was simply to withdraw from the world. Abandon the Clintonian form of nation-building that led us to suffer the greatest combat losses since Vietnam--the deaths of 18 Army Rangers in Somalia. A more humble foreign policy, Candidate Bush said.
So, Mr. Bush withdrew from the world and stuck his head in the sand and most Americans followed suit.
John O'Neill the head of the anti-terrorism task force, the person responsible for the capture of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, got fed-up with the FBI's de-emphasis of terrorism and quit. He went to work as the head of security at the WTC in August 2001. On September 10, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft vetoed additional anti-terrorism funding.
So, Mr. Miller the world didn't change on 9/11, you just woke up. You woke up too late and in the fog of sleep latched on to the loudest voice that played to your uninformed emotional response. Rally around the President. Send in the Marines! The "War" on terrorism is the new Cold War, our united fight against a common enemy. Rally the allies! What a mistake attacking the US homeland. The Government of the United States of America will not rest until the terrorists are brought to justice. But first we must go get that guy that tried to kill George W. Bush's daddy.
Mr. Miller, your head went from being in the sand to being up your ass. Pretty stupid.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Polls
The other day splashed across the fron of USA Today was a headline proclaiming in giant type that George W. Bush was leading in the polls. This is of no relevance to anyone. As any Gore supporter knows winning the popular vote doesn't get you elected president. Unfortunately, they bury the important information -- the state by state breakdowns-- inside. Because of the electoral college the state breakdowns are the only thing that counts. However, when polls have margins of error of plus or minus 4% what use are they anyway?
They are of no use. So all you media outlets, let's stop with the polls and concentrate on the issues. Polls are stupid.
They are of no use. So all you media outlets, let's stop with the polls and concentrate on the issues. Polls are stupid.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
People Who Honk
Driving through an unnamed city, I began to notice there was a lot of honking. Not because I am a bad driver, thank you very much. People were honking at me, at cars around me, and at things I couldn't figure out. It was out of control. People who were driving badly were honking when they did boneheaded maneuvers. If you don't peel out from a light you get honked at for driving to slowly. If you don't speed up at a yellow light and blow through the intersection you get honked at by the people behind you, and when you do you get honked at by people trying to make left turns when the light changes to red.
Its a no win situation.
And honking just pisses me off--whether I am the honker or the honkee. I feel it just increases the frustration. Ooh big deal you honked. That's real effective. You get pissed off, they get pissed off, a chase ensues, you give the finger, they give the evil eye, maybe there's gun fire. None of its good.
The only solution is to turn up the radio instead of turning up your finger (or reaching for your concealed weapon). But as you continue on your blissful way be sure to stay aware of the nut cases driving around you, because if you don't react to their horn they may start looking for their concealed weapon (especially in this unnamed city).
Its a no win situation.
And honking just pisses me off--whether I am the honker or the honkee. I feel it just increases the frustration. Ooh big deal you honked. That's real effective. You get pissed off, they get pissed off, a chase ensues, you give the finger, they give the evil eye, maybe there's gun fire. None of its good.
The only solution is to turn up the radio instead of turning up your finger (or reaching for your concealed weapon). But as you continue on your blissful way be sure to stay aware of the nut cases driving around you, because if you don't react to their horn they may start looking for their concealed weapon (especially in this unnamed city).
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Just Guessing
On September 27, 2004 we found out why we keep getting vague warnings about terror alerts; haven't found Osama Bin Laden; and why Iraq is not a democratic paradise. It seems that the CIA was guessing. Its true. President Bush said so.
President Bush said that a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the CIA was only a guess. The NIE said that at best there would be tenuous stability in Iraq and at worst a civil war. President Bush didn't like this so he tried to downplay the significance of the NIE. However, he talked up the NIE that said that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush said that a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the CIA was only a guess. The NIE said that at best there would be tenuous stability in Iraq and at worst a civil war. President Bush didn't like this so he tried to downplay the significance of the NIE. However, he talked up the NIE that said that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Elaine Lee
Elaine Lee . . .hmm . . . I know you are racking your brain, googling the name, and trying to place it. Stop trying; you can't. Elaine Lee gave me my morning chuckle (at least I hope I was supposed to laugh, otherwise we should cry). She wrote a letter to the editor criticizing another letter writer. As part of her critique she stated that Clinton didn't act after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
Uh, wrong. In fact the investigation of the first WTC bombing actually went pretty well and should be a framework for terror investigations. It was lead by the head of the FBI's counterterrorism task force out of New York. His name was John O'Neill. He died in the second attack on the WTC. He had left the FBI the week before to head the security for the WTC complex. His an interesting story about how the FBI became dysfunctional. However, I would like instead to concentrate on his investigation on the first bombing.
After the first bombing the FBI got a break. They located the axle of the truck used as the bomb, traced it back to the rental place and nabbed the guy who rented it when he went back to get his deposit (he claimed the truck was stolen).
Well, at the end of the day the FBI was able to arrest the people involved in the plot and put them in jail. People were tracked to the Philipines (Ramsi Yousef who was trying to blow up US airliners simultaneously over the Pacific), Pakistan and beyond.
So everyone involved in the first WTC bombing was indicted, captured, and put in jail. The investigation also gave the FBI insight into how the terror cells were organized and financed.
So, Ms. Lee, President Clinton hunted down and captured the terrorists responsible, prosecuted them and put them in jail where they remain today. Has President Bush found any of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
After the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Africa, President Clinton ordered attacks on Osama Bin Laden and a chemical factory associated with Al Qaeda. He was criticized at the time for trying to get attention away from his personal and political problems. Seems that
wasn't the case.
In 2000 the Cole investigation started immediately after the attack in October. In fact the head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, came up with a comprehensive strategy to take on Al Qaeda that was ready just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office. Newly elected
President Bush decided to ignore Clarke and Al Qaeda, until about 9:15 am on September 11, 2001--after planes had crashed into both towers at the World Trade Center and he finished reading "My Pet Goat" to the 2nd graders in Tampa.
Ms. Lee, get the facts, don't be stupid.
--I also have some concern about editorial page editors who don't check the accuracy of the facts asserted in letters to the editor. Strong opinions are one thing, but when the facts are wrong that is a problem and doesn't add to the diversity of views the letters to the editor are supposed to provide.
Uh, wrong. In fact the investigation of the first WTC bombing actually went pretty well and should be a framework for terror investigations. It was lead by the head of the FBI's counterterrorism task force out of New York. His name was John O'Neill. He died in the second attack on the WTC. He had left the FBI the week before to head the security for the WTC complex. His an interesting story about how the FBI became dysfunctional. However, I would like instead to concentrate on his investigation on the first bombing.
After the first bombing the FBI got a break. They located the axle of the truck used as the bomb, traced it back to the rental place and nabbed the guy who rented it when he went back to get his deposit (he claimed the truck was stolen).
Well, at the end of the day the FBI was able to arrest the people involved in the plot and put them in jail. People were tracked to the Philipines (Ramsi Yousef who was trying to blow up US airliners simultaneously over the Pacific), Pakistan and beyond.
So everyone involved in the first WTC bombing was indicted, captured, and put in jail. The investigation also gave the FBI insight into how the terror cells were organized and financed.
So, Ms. Lee, President Clinton hunted down and captured the terrorists responsible, prosecuted them and put them in jail where they remain today. Has President Bush found any of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
After the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Africa, President Clinton ordered attacks on Osama Bin Laden and a chemical factory associated with Al Qaeda. He was criticized at the time for trying to get attention away from his personal and political problems. Seems that
wasn't the case.
In 2000 the Cole investigation started immediately after the attack in October. In fact the head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, came up with a comprehensive strategy to take on Al Qaeda that was ready just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office. Newly elected
President Bush decided to ignore Clarke and Al Qaeda, until about 9:15 am on September 11, 2001--after planes had crashed into both towers at the World Trade Center and he finished reading "My Pet Goat" to the 2nd graders in Tampa.
Ms. Lee, get the facts, don't be stupid.
--I also have some concern about editorial page editors who don't check the accuracy of the facts asserted in letters to the editor. Strong opinions are one thing, but when the facts are wrong that is a problem and doesn't add to the diversity of views the letters to the editor are supposed to provide.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
No Go
The buzz word of the week is "No Go Zone". A No Go Zone is a place in Iraq where regular Iraqi's and US troops don't go to because these areas are in the control of the "dead enders" and "Saddamists" or in actuality, Iraqi insurgents. There are actually whole cities that are "No Go Zones".
But, you know, 130,000 troops is sufficient to conquer Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. As President Bush said today elections in Iraq are "scheduled" for January. Not "will be held" in January, but they are scheduled. Meanwhile, we don't have enough troops to even control the whole country. Because of the emphasis on a small force and complete disregard for the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force), we are caught short in Iraq. We conquered Saddam fast enough, but couldn't provide any security in the aftermath. So now we have "No Go Zones." But as the Republicans have told us, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan are living in freedom. Freedom to fear for their lives in a whole new way.
But, you know, 130,000 troops is sufficient to conquer Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. As President Bush said today elections in Iraq are "scheduled" for January. Not "will be held" in January, but they are scheduled. Meanwhile, we don't have enough troops to even control the whole country. Because of the emphasis on a small force and complete disregard for the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force), we are caught short in Iraq. We conquered Saddam fast enough, but couldn't provide any security in the aftermath. So now we have "No Go Zones." But as the Republicans have told us, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan are living in freedom. Freedom to fear for their lives in a whole new way.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Conservatives and the War on Terror
As it is September 11, it is time to look back and evaluate where we are in the war on terror and see what can be done to make America and its allies safer (yes the US still has allies though they are not in a very friendly mood at the moment).
It is undeniable that when Bush 43 came into office in January 2001, terrorism was not a high priority. The economy loomed large and Bush was intent on using tax cuts to stimulate the economy. There was a threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons (especially North Korea and Pakistan) and Bush resurrected the Strategic Defense initiative to build an anti-missile defense system to protect the US from these rogue nations.
This seemed very reasonable. He was implementing the plan that he ran on. Bush said that the US should have a more humble foreign policy, avoid getting too involved in world matters not directly affecting us, and not engage in nation building. These things, for the most part, reflected the public mood of the nation.
However, among those in the know, there was an urgency that was being ignored. In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed. It was suspected that this was the work of Al Qaeda, the group also responsible for the bombing of two US embassies in Africa in 1998. The loss of American life was small, though the loss of local life was significant.
The Clinton administration's response to the 1998 bombings was to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan. This response was criticized by the Republicans on two fronts: First, why use a $1 million missile to hit a $10 tent? Second, the Clinton administration used dubious intelligence to hit the chemical factory and only served to further alienate the rest of the world. The factory, Republicans claimed, only made aspirin. Clinton countered it was funded by Al Qaeda and sold product to Iraq. There was also rumbling that this was a "Wag the Dog" move--Clinton was creating a military threat to turn attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
There had been no response to the Cole bombing as of the time Clinton left office. Clinton was being very careful to make sure they knew who did it, though it was obvious to most of the national security staff that it was Al Qaeda. Without evidence Clinton was not prepared to move and commit the incoming president to a course of action. Likewise at the same time, he had his Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, devise a plan to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That plan was delivered to Clinton on December 20, 2000. Again implementation was withheld as Clinton did not want to commit Bush to a course of action, and the plans were far reaching.
So, as Bush took office his concerns were the economy, rogue nations with nuclear weapons, entangling treaties (Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, the International Criminal Court), and of course his first official act: cutting off US funding to non-governmental organizations that gave abortion counseling.
At this time only two groups were concerned about what was going on in Afghanistan: career national security staff (Richard Clark, Rand Beers, George Tenet), and women's magazines. Whoa, women's magazines? Yes, women's magazines. They were focusing on Afghanistan because the Taliban were severely limiting women's rights. Fundamentalist Islam took over. Women could not go out alone, could not go to school, could not have jobs, and were being subject to "female circumcision." You heard more about the Taliban on Oprah and in Glamour than on CNN or from the White House (except some praise for the Taliban for reducing the production of poppies--can't forget the "war on drugs").
During the summer of 2001, the CIA and FBI were going nuts looking for two suspected Al Qaeda members who had gotten into the country. The "chatter" being picked up among known terrorists was becoming intense. While Clarke and Tenant were at "battle stations" there still hadn't been a principals meeting on the issue of terrorism; that is a meeting between cabinet level officials. In fact, Clark as terrorism Czar had been "demoted" to a deputies position. Under Clinton the terrorism Czar had access to the principals and the President.
On September 11, 2001 Richard Clarke was not supposed to be anywhere further than 5 minutes from the White House. President Bush was in Tampa meeting with elementary school children. When the Clarke got the call that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, he rushed back to the White House knowing that the US had been attacked by Al Qaeda. When Andy Card told President Bush the same thing, he continued to read the intriguing story of My Pet Goat. Various reasons have been given: it could have been an accident, no one imagined that terrorists would use airplanes in this manner, it wasn't clear it was a crisis until the second plane hit. President Bush would have known right away it was Al Qaeda if he had bothered to read his Presidential Daily Briefs (including the one in August titled "Al Qaeda determined to Strike US" which included the belief that they would try to hijack aircraft).
Whether or not vigilance by the President would have prevented the 9/11 attacks is unknown. However, what is known is his response. As we sit here 3 years after the attacks the question is "Are we safer today then we were on September 10, 2001?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably not". Turns out we knew who the 9/11 hijackers were, were able to trace their movements in this country, had prevented others from entering this country, and came within a search warrant of blowing open he plot. Problem was, the structure of the intelligence community, its disjointed and political nature, prevented the people in the know from "connecting the dots." So, how do we respond to this attack on the US and how do we prevent it in the future?
Now, I have some food for thought: Conservative Values:
1. Fiscal Responsibility (no deficits)
2. A "humble" foreign policy
3. Less Government More Freedom
George Bush's record
1. Largest deficit ever
2. Reckless, arrogant foreign policy
3. More government, less freedom
The point of this exercise is not to bash Republicans but to show that today's Republicans are not conservatives. They have abandoned conservative values. The largest problem is their focus on larger government, more overbearing government that restricts American liberties. This is completely unacceptable. And this has made us less safe.
I will not dwell on the deficits, but there is one important fact: The US didn't survive the September 11th attacks because it has the best armed forces in the world (though we do). It survived because we have the strongest economy in the world. This is the same reason we won World War II. We are able to keep producing under the worst of circumstances. Did 9/11 hurt the economy? Yes. But it didn't devastate it; it didn't stop Americans from doing what they do. In fact, President Bush realized this when he said Americans should go out and spend because a vital economy is vital to national security. So why then has Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism, strangely enough as espoused by President Clinton? He let budgets get out of control. It isn't just the Iraq war and the "Clinton Recession" that did it. It was ill advised tax cuts and poor fiscal policy. So, Bush is not a fiscal conservative.
A more humble foreign policy. Well, Republicans argue, we can't be humble in the face of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they misinterpret humble. Humble doesn't mean meek. It means respectful. We must respect our allies. There wasn't a single ally that objected to our going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign was bungled. Instead of freeing the whole country from the Taliban and imposing the rule of law we secured Taliban strongholds of Kabul and Kandahar. Instead of having thousands of US troops eliminating the last remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, we relied on Afghans who really didn't "have a dog in this fight." Thus, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden escaped into a lawless region of Pakistan to be protected by their sympathetic tribesman.
To further the war on terror, Bush decided to go against Iraq. Again, his fundamental misunderstanding of the perpetrators of terrorism hindered his ability to act. On the day of the attacks he asked Clarke what part Iraq had in this. "No part" Clarke responded. The president wanted it looked into anyway. Thus began the Iraqi misadventure. Again, we could have world support for the Iraq war if it had been handled properly politically and militarily. Prior to the war Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case for war. This was his chance to blind side the world with the evidence just as Adlai Stevenson had done during the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians denied there were missiles and we showed the pictures. Unfortunately, this time we had no pictures and it turns our they had no missiles. I was a supporter of the war until that point. However, the Bush administration pushed forward with the war without any support (except Britain). Not humble. Not even bold. Just arrogant.
Less Government. More Freedom. So how do we fight the terrorists here at home. I have an idea. Let's give up liberty for security. But how do we square that with our Conservative tenet of less government, more freedom. We don't have to. We are not conservatives, we are new Republicans. We change the Constitution for our own short term political gain, so what's the big deal to give up some rights? Well, there's no point.
9/11 didn't happen because of the imaginary wall between terrorist and criminal investigations at the Department of Justice. Or because the FBI couldn't look at what books people were buying or checking out of the library. In fact, we knew who the terrorists were as soon as we looked at the passenger manifests. We had pictures of them entering the airports; records of them entering the country and reports of them attending Al Qaeda meetings. So what went wrong.
1. The FBI didn't process a report by a special agent in Phoenix that wanted to look into Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons.
2. The FBI wouldn't ask for a search warrant for a Middle Eastern man arrested after he wanted to take flying lessons, but not learn how to land or takeoff (Zacharious Moussaoui).
3. The CIA, the FBI and Customs couldn't seem to coordinate their terror watch lists.
4. Information about those attending the Al Qaeda meeting in Indonesia wasn't passed on to the FBI and Customs.
5. An FBI informant in San Diego didn't realize he had two of the terrorists living in his house.
So, which of the above would the USA Patriot Act have helped. None. It has helped nail some strip club owners in Las Vegas.
So where are we on September 11, 2004. We are short 1,005 soldiers killed in Iraq and have created a new group of terrorist leaders. New York is on Orange Alert. Dick Cheney has come out of his undisclosed location to let us know a vote for John Kerry is a signal to terrorists to attack with impugnity. Osama and Mullah Omar are still around. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The Arab Street is against us. Terrorism is rampant in Iraq and Russia. North Korea has nuclear weapons (yet we are moving 12,000 out of 34,000 troops off of the Korean peninsula). Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons. Iran is funding terrorists in Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza, as well as letting Al Qaeda traverse its frontier without question.
The good news: Libya has given up its weapons of mass destruction program after two years of negotiations with the British and has paid billions for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland; though there is a question about whether the bombing was actually the work of Iran.
Have you noticed a theme? (hint: IRAN).
President Bush is not a conservative nor has done anything to fight the war against Al Qaeda. On this September 11, that seems pretty stupid.
It is undeniable that when Bush 43 came into office in January 2001, terrorism was not a high priority. The economy loomed large and Bush was intent on using tax cuts to stimulate the economy. There was a threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons (especially North Korea and Pakistan) and Bush resurrected the Strategic Defense initiative to build an anti-missile defense system to protect the US from these rogue nations.
This seemed very reasonable. He was implementing the plan that he ran on. Bush said that the US should have a more humble foreign policy, avoid getting too involved in world matters not directly affecting us, and not engage in nation building. These things, for the most part, reflected the public mood of the nation.
However, among those in the know, there was an urgency that was being ignored. In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed. It was suspected that this was the work of Al Qaeda, the group also responsible for the bombing of two US embassies in Africa in 1998. The loss of American life was small, though the loss of local life was significant.
The Clinton administration's response to the 1998 bombings was to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan. This response was criticized by the Republicans on two fronts: First, why use a $1 million missile to hit a $10 tent? Second, the Clinton administration used dubious intelligence to hit the chemical factory and only served to further alienate the rest of the world. The factory, Republicans claimed, only made aspirin. Clinton countered it was funded by Al Qaeda and sold product to Iraq. There was also rumbling that this was a "Wag the Dog" move--Clinton was creating a military threat to turn attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
There had been no response to the Cole bombing as of the time Clinton left office. Clinton was being very careful to make sure they knew who did it, though it was obvious to most of the national security staff that it was Al Qaeda. Without evidence Clinton was not prepared to move and commit the incoming president to a course of action. Likewise at the same time, he had his Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, devise a plan to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That plan was delivered to Clinton on December 20, 2000. Again implementation was withheld as Clinton did not want to commit Bush to a course of action, and the plans were far reaching.
So, as Bush took office his concerns were the economy, rogue nations with nuclear weapons, entangling treaties (Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, the International Criminal Court), and of course his first official act: cutting off US funding to non-governmental organizations that gave abortion counseling.
At this time only two groups were concerned about what was going on in Afghanistan: career national security staff (Richard Clark, Rand Beers, George Tenet), and women's magazines. Whoa, women's magazines? Yes, women's magazines. They were focusing on Afghanistan because the Taliban were severely limiting women's rights. Fundamentalist Islam took over. Women could not go out alone, could not go to school, could not have jobs, and were being subject to "female circumcision." You heard more about the Taliban on Oprah and in Glamour than on CNN or from the White House (except some praise for the Taliban for reducing the production of poppies--can't forget the "war on drugs").
During the summer of 2001, the CIA and FBI were going nuts looking for two suspected Al Qaeda members who had gotten into the country. The "chatter" being picked up among known terrorists was becoming intense. While Clarke and Tenant were at "battle stations" there still hadn't been a principals meeting on the issue of terrorism; that is a meeting between cabinet level officials. In fact, Clark as terrorism Czar had been "demoted" to a deputies position. Under Clinton the terrorism Czar had access to the principals and the President.
On September 11, 2001 Richard Clarke was not supposed to be anywhere further than 5 minutes from the White House. President Bush was in Tampa meeting with elementary school children. When the Clarke got the call that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, he rushed back to the White House knowing that the US had been attacked by Al Qaeda. When Andy Card told President Bush the same thing, he continued to read the intriguing story of My Pet Goat. Various reasons have been given: it could have been an accident, no one imagined that terrorists would use airplanes in this manner, it wasn't clear it was a crisis until the second plane hit. President Bush would have known right away it was Al Qaeda if he had bothered to read his Presidential Daily Briefs (including the one in August titled "Al Qaeda determined to Strike US" which included the belief that they would try to hijack aircraft).
Whether or not vigilance by the President would have prevented the 9/11 attacks is unknown. However, what is known is his response. As we sit here 3 years after the attacks the question is "Are we safer today then we were on September 10, 2001?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably not". Turns out we knew who the 9/11 hijackers were, were able to trace their movements in this country, had prevented others from entering this country, and came within a search warrant of blowing open he plot. Problem was, the structure of the intelligence community, its disjointed and political nature, prevented the people in the know from "connecting the dots." So, how do we respond to this attack on the US and how do we prevent it in the future?
Now, I have some food for thought: Conservative Values:
1. Fiscal Responsibility (no deficits)
2. A "humble" foreign policy
3. Less Government More Freedom
George Bush's record
1. Largest deficit ever
2. Reckless, arrogant foreign policy
3. More government, less freedom
The point of this exercise is not to bash Republicans but to show that today's Republicans are not conservatives. They have abandoned conservative values. The largest problem is their focus on larger government, more overbearing government that restricts American liberties. This is completely unacceptable. And this has made us less safe.
I will not dwell on the deficits, but there is one important fact: The US didn't survive the September 11th attacks because it has the best armed forces in the world (though we do). It survived because we have the strongest economy in the world. This is the same reason we won World War II. We are able to keep producing under the worst of circumstances. Did 9/11 hurt the economy? Yes. But it didn't devastate it; it didn't stop Americans from doing what they do. In fact, President Bush realized this when he said Americans should go out and spend because a vital economy is vital to national security. So why then has Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism, strangely enough as espoused by President Clinton? He let budgets get out of control. It isn't just the Iraq war and the "Clinton Recession" that did it. It was ill advised tax cuts and poor fiscal policy. So, Bush is not a fiscal conservative.
A more humble foreign policy. Well, Republicans argue, we can't be humble in the face of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they misinterpret humble. Humble doesn't mean meek. It means respectful. We must respect our allies. There wasn't a single ally that objected to our going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign was bungled. Instead of freeing the whole country from the Taliban and imposing the rule of law we secured Taliban strongholds of Kabul and Kandahar. Instead of having thousands of US troops eliminating the last remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, we relied on Afghans who really didn't "have a dog in this fight." Thus, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden escaped into a lawless region of Pakistan to be protected by their sympathetic tribesman.
To further the war on terror, Bush decided to go against Iraq. Again, his fundamental misunderstanding of the perpetrators of terrorism hindered his ability to act. On the day of the attacks he asked Clarke what part Iraq had in this. "No part" Clarke responded. The president wanted it looked into anyway. Thus began the Iraqi misadventure. Again, we could have world support for the Iraq war if it had been handled properly politically and militarily. Prior to the war Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case for war. This was his chance to blind side the world with the evidence just as Adlai Stevenson had done during the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians denied there were missiles and we showed the pictures. Unfortunately, this time we had no pictures and it turns our they had no missiles. I was a supporter of the war until that point. However, the Bush administration pushed forward with the war without any support (except Britain). Not humble. Not even bold. Just arrogant.
Less Government. More Freedom. So how do we fight the terrorists here at home. I have an idea. Let's give up liberty for security. But how do we square that with our Conservative tenet of less government, more freedom. We don't have to. We are not conservatives, we are new Republicans. We change the Constitution for our own short term political gain, so what's the big deal to give up some rights? Well, there's no point.
9/11 didn't happen because of the imaginary wall between terrorist and criminal investigations at the Department of Justice. Or because the FBI couldn't look at what books people were buying or checking out of the library. In fact, we knew who the terrorists were as soon as we looked at the passenger manifests. We had pictures of them entering the airports; records of them entering the country and reports of them attending Al Qaeda meetings. So what went wrong.
1. The FBI didn't process a report by a special agent in Phoenix that wanted to look into Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons.
2. The FBI wouldn't ask for a search warrant for a Middle Eastern man arrested after he wanted to take flying lessons, but not learn how to land or takeoff (Zacharious Moussaoui).
3. The CIA, the FBI and Customs couldn't seem to coordinate their terror watch lists.
4. Information about those attending the Al Qaeda meeting in Indonesia wasn't passed on to the FBI and Customs.
5. An FBI informant in San Diego didn't realize he had two of the terrorists living in his house.
So, which of the above would the USA Patriot Act have helped. None. It has helped nail some strip club owners in Las Vegas.
So where are we on September 11, 2004. We are short 1,005 soldiers killed in Iraq and have created a new group of terrorist leaders. New York is on Orange Alert. Dick Cheney has come out of his undisclosed location to let us know a vote for John Kerry is a signal to terrorists to attack with impugnity. Osama and Mullah Omar are still around. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The Arab Street is against us. Terrorism is rampant in Iraq and Russia. North Korea has nuclear weapons (yet we are moving 12,000 out of 34,000 troops off of the Korean peninsula). Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons. Iran is funding terrorists in Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza, as well as letting Al Qaeda traverse its frontier without question.
The good news: Libya has given up its weapons of mass destruction program after two years of negotiations with the British and has paid billions for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland; though there is a question about whether the bombing was actually the work of Iran.
Have you noticed a theme? (hint: IRAN).
President Bush is not a conservative nor has done anything to fight the war against Al Qaeda. On this September 11, that seems pretty stupid.
Log Cabin Republicans--Not so stupid
In a previous post I said that Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans) may be stupid. Turns out that they are not that stupid. They have decided not to endorse George W. Bush for president. In fact they are not endorsing anyone. They came to their senses and realized the current administration did not represent them in the most fundamental way.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Zell Miller
After his wonderful speech at the Republican National Convention in NY one wouldn't think there would be much to say and really there isn't. Desperation is self evident. Instead of going into all the stupid things Miller said I will provide two links that express things quite well:
Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date
Carter Calls Miller's GOP Speech DisloyalJC (not Watts) would not vote for Obama
In a stunning announcement Alan Keyes, Republican candidate for the US Senate from Illinois announced that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama.
I was right. Keyes is really stupid.
I was right. Keyes is really stupid.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Alan Keyes/Illinois Republicans
This is a tough one. Not that both don't belong. The question is which is worse? Who is the stupidest? Alan Keyes for running for the Senate from Illinois and making some of the stupidest comments ever? Or Illinois Republicans for accepting Alan Keyes as a candidate?
Let's start with the most stupid move first: Alan Keyes called gays and lesbians "selfish hedonists." He then went on to call VP Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner (she is a lesbian). Even Cheney himself has a small modicum of compassion in that he doesn't support a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between gays. Keyes obviously is more conservative than thou.
The second most stupid is also by Keyes. When Hillary Clinton decided to run the Senate from NY he criticized her for running from a state in which she did not live. He in fact said that he wouldn't do such a thing. Keyes though is doing the same thing. Keyes is from Maryland. But he has a good reason: Barack Obama is such a threat to freedom and democracy he must be challenged, and of course Keyes is the only one to do it because Illinois ran out of qualified Republican candidates (former Republican candidate Jack Ryan (great name) had to drop out because of allegations in his years old divorce proceedings that he pressured his TV star wife, Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) to engage in public sex at sex clubs--a great story in itself).
This leads us to our third stupid move: Illinois Republicans accepting Keyes as their candidate. Do they think they will draw black votes away from Obama (who is also black--his father is from Kenya, but then again his mother is white and from Kansas)? If they draw black votes away from Obama would Republicans vote for Keyes? Would anyone vote for Keyes (see above)? I know they floated Mike Ditka--good name recognition--but he's not someone with actual political chops. JC Watts would have been better. He's not from Illinois either so he is probably qualified.
OK, a quick review: Democrats are running a well educated African American whose father was an immigrant, who has been a state senator, and who is extremely popular. Republicans were running a well educated millionaire from a prominent family who left a high paying career to teach in a bad area, but was taken down by allegations of acting inconsistent with the public family values espoused by the party faithful. So, Republicans bring in a sideshow from Maryland that decides to call VP Cheney's daughter (who is working on her father's re-election) a sinner, slurs gays and recycles arguments used by white bigots to try and prevent inter-racial marriages.
I think it is close, but I think the stupidest is probably Keyes. He is just making a fool of himself. However, as I go through this I am reminded that the Republicans are trying to get out the vote by pressing their opposition to gay marriage. So, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Republicans) are really the stupid ones. So much stupidity so little time.
Let's start with the most stupid move first: Alan Keyes called gays and lesbians "selfish hedonists." He then went on to call VP Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner (she is a lesbian). Even Cheney himself has a small modicum of compassion in that he doesn't support a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between gays. Keyes obviously is more conservative than thou.
The second most stupid is also by Keyes. When Hillary Clinton decided to run the Senate from NY he criticized her for running from a state in which she did not live. He in fact said that he wouldn't do such a thing. Keyes though is doing the same thing. Keyes is from Maryland. But he has a good reason: Barack Obama is such a threat to freedom and democracy he must be challenged, and of course Keyes is the only one to do it because Illinois ran out of qualified Republican candidates (former Republican candidate Jack Ryan (great name) had to drop out because of allegations in his years old divorce proceedings that he pressured his TV star wife, Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) to engage in public sex at sex clubs--a great story in itself).
This leads us to our third stupid move: Illinois Republicans accepting Keyes as their candidate. Do they think they will draw black votes away from Obama (who is also black--his father is from Kenya, but then again his mother is white and from Kansas)? If they draw black votes away from Obama would Republicans vote for Keyes? Would anyone vote for Keyes (see above)? I know they floated Mike Ditka--good name recognition--but he's not someone with actual political chops. JC Watts would have been better. He's not from Illinois either so he is probably qualified.
OK, a quick review: Democrats are running a well educated African American whose father was an immigrant, who has been a state senator, and who is extremely popular. Republicans were running a well educated millionaire from a prominent family who left a high paying career to teach in a bad area, but was taken down by allegations of acting inconsistent with the public family values espoused by the party faithful. So, Republicans bring in a sideshow from Maryland that decides to call VP Cheney's daughter (who is working on her father's re-election) a sinner, slurs gays and recycles arguments used by white bigots to try and prevent inter-racial marriages.
I think it is close, but I think the stupidest is probably Keyes. He is just making a fool of himself. However, as I go through this I am reminded that the Republicans are trying to get out the vote by pressing their opposition to gay marriage. So, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Republicans) are really the stupid ones. So much stupidity so little time.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Bob Dole - Not Quite Rising to the Occasion
Why did Bob Dole feel it was necessary to criticize John Kerry's war wounds? Is someone not considered wounded in battle unless they are left disabled? This is what Dole implied and that is just plain stupid. No way around it. Dole reverted to type, acting as the bitter old pol instead of using the wit and wisdom he is capable of, but which only comes out when he is on Saturday Night Live.
Dole knows better than to get entangled with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(?). That group has so little credibility President Bush won't even defend them. Somehow he managed to get Bob Dole out their to puff for these guys though. Bizarre. Bottom line is that Kerry was in battle, under enemy fire and was wounded, however minor the wounds were. He still has shrapnel in his leg. Why criticize that? According to Dole and other Righties it is because "Kerry made it a centerpiece of his campaign." Yeah so? He was in Vietnam. He was under enemy fire. Let's just stop there. If he was never wounded would it make his service less valuable or honorable? Are those who got wounded seriously the only ones deserving of our respect?
Bush could have neutralized the whole Kerry as war hero theme had he deftly handled the question: Mr. President, is John Kerry more qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his combat experience?
He should answer: No. While I respect and admire Senator Kerry's actions during his service, it does not prepare you for making the decisions with respect to the fate of the nation. Going to war is just not a question of combat. It is a question of leadership and vision. While I do not know the horrors of war first hand, I have surrounded myself with those that do. I rely on them to make sure my expectations are realistic and obtainable and are for a purpose that is worthy of our armed forces. But ultimately, it is a decision that has to be made by a leader who has the right vision for the future of our country, and I have that vision.
Instead, Bob Dole, someone with actual combat credentials, goes out on TV and says "he's not worthy--he didn't even bleed!" What an imbecile. The guy bled. He won medals for valor. He turned his boat into enemy fire. He did his job and he led his men with courage and honor.
Now, Bob Dole is trying to back off the comments somewhat without losing face. He was playing political "hardball" and just trying to "tweak" Kerry a little. Oh yeah, it was good natured ribbin! Did I call him an imbecile yet. I think all that Viagra made his brain stiff (sorry, there had to be a Viagra shot).
Bob Dole - Stupid Old Guy who should know better.
Dole knows better than to get entangled with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(?). That group has so little credibility President Bush won't even defend them. Somehow he managed to get Bob Dole out their to puff for these guys though. Bizarre. Bottom line is that Kerry was in battle, under enemy fire and was wounded, however minor the wounds were. He still has shrapnel in his leg. Why criticize that? According to Dole and other Righties it is because "Kerry made it a centerpiece of his campaign." Yeah so? He was in Vietnam. He was under enemy fire. Let's just stop there. If he was never wounded would it make his service less valuable or honorable? Are those who got wounded seriously the only ones deserving of our respect?
Bush could have neutralized the whole Kerry as war hero theme had he deftly handled the question: Mr. President, is John Kerry more qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his combat experience?
He should answer: No. While I respect and admire Senator Kerry's actions during his service, it does not prepare you for making the decisions with respect to the fate of the nation. Going to war is just not a question of combat. It is a question of leadership and vision. While I do not know the horrors of war first hand, I have surrounded myself with those that do. I rely on them to make sure my expectations are realistic and obtainable and are for a purpose that is worthy of our armed forces. But ultimately, it is a decision that has to be made by a leader who has the right vision for the future of our country, and I have that vision.
Instead, Bob Dole, someone with actual combat credentials, goes out on TV and says "he's not worthy--he didn't even bleed!" What an imbecile. The guy bled. He won medals for valor. He turned his boat into enemy fire. He did his job and he led his men with courage and honor.
Now, Bob Dole is trying to back off the comments somewhat without losing face. He was playing political "hardball" and just trying to "tweak" Kerry a little. Oh yeah, it was good natured ribbin! Did I call him an imbecile yet. I think all that Viagra made his brain stiff (sorry, there had to be a Viagra shot).
Bob Dole - Stupid Old Guy who should know better.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Equal Time
Some have said that Stupidity Watch seems biased and little left leaning. Untrue, we say. It's just that at this point in time the GOP and its allies are really acting stupid. The left is acting stupid in more nuanced ways that just aren't funny (except Ralph Nader). We like obvious stupid here at the Watch. Anyway, to placate those among us that are thinking we are leaning to far left here is a little anecdote for you to gnaw on. It's a good one about the "liberal media."
Last week Venzuelans voted in a recall election, deciding whether or not to keep President Hugo Chavez in power. If you think the Watch is left leaning you haven't seen anything until you look at Chavez. He thinks Castro is the best thing since sliced bread (or finding lots of oil a la´Jed Clampett). Chavez loves all things Cuban. He also pretty much screwed up Venezuela's oil production (they are the world's 5th largest producer of oil and a member of OPEC).
Well, Chavez got to keep his job, and these two "stupid heads" on Air America's Unfiltered, Liz Winstead and Rachel Maddow, were GUSHING, about how wonderful Chavez is. Now, if you actually talked to people from Venezuela you would realize what a mess he made it. He hurt the economy and rules as an authoritarian. Why then did he win? Well, he threw a lot of money at some very poor people and convinced them it would get better. When the referendum idea was started (after he had protestors shot) it wasn't even close, but through delay he was able to rehabilitate himself with the populace in certain places.
Usually, Rachel and Liz are quite good, but some sort of weird leftist mania swept over them and I felt as if they were hoping that there would be a communist resurgence in South America to liberate the poor and disenfranchised. Maybe it was because Chuck D wasn't there?
Rachel, Liz--get back on message and don't be stupid.
Last week Venzuelans voted in a recall election, deciding whether or not to keep President Hugo Chavez in power. If you think the Watch is left leaning you haven't seen anything until you look at Chavez. He thinks Castro is the best thing since sliced bread (or finding lots of oil a la´Jed Clampett). Chavez loves all things Cuban. He also pretty much screwed up Venezuela's oil production (they are the world's 5th largest producer of oil and a member of OPEC).
Well, Chavez got to keep his job, and these two "stupid heads" on Air America's Unfiltered, Liz Winstead and Rachel Maddow, were GUSHING, about how wonderful Chavez is. Now, if you actually talked to people from Venezuela you would realize what a mess he made it. He hurt the economy and rules as an authoritarian. Why then did he win? Well, he threw a lot of money at some very poor people and convinced them it would get better. When the referendum idea was started (after he had protestors shot) it wasn't even close, but through delay he was able to rehabilitate himself with the populace in certain places.
Usually, Rachel and Liz are quite good, but some sort of weird leftist mania swept over them and I felt as if they were hoping that there would be a communist resurgence in South America to liberate the poor and disenfranchised. Maybe it was because Chuck D wasn't there?
Rachel, Liz--get back on message and don't be stupid.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Maybe its just me, but it seems that it isn't only Gov. McGreevey who is being blackmailed with incriminating photos. What else could motivate John McCain to campaign for George W (In 2000 W questioned McCain's patriotism) and what could motivate a Vietnam vet to repudiate his own history in order to make a fellow vet look bad?
If you have not heard the overplayed story of the day I will fill you in. Former Lt.jg Thurlow, a Swift Boat Commander in the same division as Sen. John Kerry, was on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Its seems Mr. Thurlow in his ad for SBVFT and on Hardball claimed that there was no enemy gunfire during the alleged battle when Kerry (and Thurlow) earned their Bronze Stars. However, according to the records obtained by the Washington Post it seems there was small arms and automatic weapons fire aimed at the group of swift boats. Mr. Thurlow never answered about whether or not he deserved his Bronze Star if there was no actual battle. Thurlow also argued that it seemed that Kerry had a "plan" during his service in Vietnam. He implied the plan was to make himself a war hero and then self inflict wounds on himself so as to get an "early out."
Michelle Malkin was then put in the uncomfortable position of having to try and explain and defend Thurlow (Malkin was on to promote her book on why internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was OK and why we should do it now to fight Al Qaeda--she is Asian-American, though I am not sure that is relevant).
Unfortunately, Malkin, also a Fox News contributor, decided to defend Thurlow and the book by the SBVFT instead of saying "There is a serious factual discrepancy that must be explored." She went on to have a debate with Matthews about whether Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted. Matthews said she was implying that Kerry intentionally wounded himself and she kept saying "self inflicted." She never got to talk about her book. I think they brainwash the people over at Fox so that they can only "parrot the talking points." Right Sean (see below)?
So a big slap upside the head to Mr. Thurlow, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?), Ms. Malkin, and Sean Hannity (just for fun). Boy are you guys stupid.
If you have not heard the overplayed story of the day I will fill you in. Former Lt.jg Thurlow, a Swift Boat Commander in the same division as Sen. John Kerry, was on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Its seems Mr. Thurlow in his ad for SBVFT and on Hardball claimed that there was no enemy gunfire during the alleged battle when Kerry (and Thurlow) earned their Bronze Stars. However, according to the records obtained by the Washington Post it seems there was small arms and automatic weapons fire aimed at the group of swift boats. Mr. Thurlow never answered about whether or not he deserved his Bronze Star if there was no actual battle. Thurlow also argued that it seemed that Kerry had a "plan" during his service in Vietnam. He implied the plan was to make himself a war hero and then self inflict wounds on himself so as to get an "early out."
Michelle Malkin was then put in the uncomfortable position of having to try and explain and defend Thurlow (Malkin was on to promote her book on why internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was OK and why we should do it now to fight Al Qaeda--she is Asian-American, though I am not sure that is relevant).
Unfortunately, Malkin, also a Fox News contributor, decided to defend Thurlow and the book by the SBVFT instead of saying "There is a serious factual discrepancy that must be explored." She went on to have a debate with Matthews about whether Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted. Matthews said she was implying that Kerry intentionally wounded himself and she kept saying "self inflicted." She never got to talk about her book. I think they brainwash the people over at Fox so that they can only "parrot the talking points." Right Sean (see below)?
So a big slap upside the head to Mr. Thurlow, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?), Ms. Malkin, and Sean Hannity (just for fun). Boy are you guys stupid.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Sean Hannity
Usually, just using his name would be enough for you to say "yeah he's pretty stupid," but today I must comment on the ongoing stupidity of Sean Hannity. He seems to be battling with Bill O'Reilly over who can make up the most stuff.
I happened to catch a few minutes of Hannity's radio show today as I was scanning the dial. He was running a clip of John Kerry railing against "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (tomorrow's big winners). As Kerry was talking about how SBVFT are paid for by a few rich Texas Republicans, Hannity kept interrupting and shouting "Talking points, he's parroting talking points."
Sean, they are not talking points when the candidate uses them. Talking points are what the rest of the people use to parrot the candidate's message of the day. Kerry makes speeches, you parrot talking points. See the story below about the Washington Times if you want to see someone who parrots talking points
Hannity was trying to ridicule Kerry in some way--like when he uses "liberal" to mean evil or communist or something. But the more I listen to Hannity, the more stupid he becomes (I hope I don't lose brain cells in the process).
Sean Hannity--just plain stupid.
I happened to catch a few minutes of Hannity's radio show today as I was scanning the dial. He was running a clip of John Kerry railing against "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (tomorrow's big winners). As Kerry was talking about how SBVFT are paid for by a few rich Texas Republicans, Hannity kept interrupting and shouting "Talking points, he's parroting talking points."
Sean, they are not talking points when the candidate uses them. Talking points are what the rest of the people use to parrot the candidate's message of the day. Kerry makes speeches, you parrot talking points. See the story below about the Washington Times if you want to see someone who parrots talking points
Hannity was trying to ridicule Kerry in some way--like when he uses "liberal" to mean evil or communist or something. But the more I listen to Hannity, the more stupid he becomes (I hope I don't lose brain cells in the process).
Sean Hannity--just plain stupid.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Washington Times-Unnamed sources provide propaganda
Bill Gertz in the Washington Times quoted an unnamed "intelligence official" who seemed to repeat Republican talking points when he said "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
Do editors read this stuff before it is printed?
Moreover, why wouldn't Al Qaeda want Bush? See this piece from the NY Times: The Arabian Candidate. He seems to have played the terrorists' game by alienating friend and enemy alike without making much headway in the war on terror. More strip club owners have been caught using the USA Patriot Act than actual terrorists (that is a subject for a later post).
Also according to this report at Media Matters for America the only actual terrorist group that has weighed in on the issue did express a preference for Bush being re-elected.
The real question though isn't what the terrorists want or don't want. The question is what is best for America. I guess those who think that Al Qaeda wants anyone but Bush and will vote accordingly are letting the terrorists dictate how they vote. There's a winning strategy.
As for the Washington Times, they are owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon of "Moonies" fame. He recently was coronated in a Senate office building, though many of the Senators in attendance thought it was some sort of awards ceremony when they agree to go. Rev. Moon also bought United Press International some years back. Legendary Washington correspondent Helen Thomas quit UPI at that point as it seems that "editorial direction" (or as we were taught in journalism school "agenda setting") was coming from certain ownership interests and not editors. Sounds like another one of America's favorite news organizations.
Do editors read this stuff before it is printed?
Moreover, why wouldn't Al Qaeda want Bush? See this piece from the NY Times: The Arabian Candidate. He seems to have played the terrorists' game by alienating friend and enemy alike without making much headway in the war on terror. More strip club owners have been caught using the USA Patriot Act than actual terrorists (that is a subject for a later post).
Also according to this report at Media Matters for America the only actual terrorist group that has weighed in on the issue did express a preference for Bush being re-elected.
The real question though isn't what the terrorists want or don't want. The question is what is best for America. I guess those who think that Al Qaeda wants anyone but Bush and will vote accordingly are letting the terrorists dictate how they vote. There's a winning strategy.
As for the Washington Times, they are owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon of "Moonies" fame. He recently was coronated in a Senate office building, though many of the Senators in attendance thought it was some sort of awards ceremony when they agree to go. Rev. Moon also bought United Press International some years back. Legendary Washington correspondent Helen Thomas quit UPI at that point as it seems that "editorial direction" (or as we were taught in journalism school "agenda setting") was coming from certain ownership interests and not editors. Sounds like another one of America's favorite news organizations.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Karl Rove: Political Genius/Political Hack (Updated 8/13)
"Bush's Brain" strikes again.
It seems that in order to justify last weeks newest terror alert, the Bush administration, in Karl Rove's infinite wisdom, leaked the name of the Al Qaida terrorist seized in Pakistan just after the Democratic National Convention. Once the world knew that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had been captured, all the promising leads and the "increased chatter" seemed to end.
Why did Rove and the Bush administration feel it was necessary to further enhance their credibility by leaking the captured terrorist's name? Probably because despite the polls showing people support Bush's handling of the war on terror, people don't trust Bush or his administration. Gee, why? Don't even start with the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and the way they are trying to spin that. Let's look at some more subtle things that are seeping into the minds of America.
Back in July, some lefties predicted that during the Dem Convention there would be a major break in the war on terror. Lo and behold, just after the convention there was a major arrest of an unnamed Al Qaida operative in Pakistan. But wait, why did they arrest him before the convention and then release it right after? Then they increase the terror alert based on information gleaned from this guy. But wait, the information was old. No, the administration protested, it had been updated. And, by-the-way, this guy we arrested, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, had a lot of useful information on his computer--we were told on background (reporter talk for a leak). So you see he is real and important.
oops.
Y'know, by leaking this guys name to prove our veracity, it seems we blew the cover off of several Pakistani intelligence stings that were leading to more Qaida operatives. So, in order to prove that the administration was not using the war on terror for political motives, they hurt the war on terror.
Karl Rove went to the well one too many times. His political tricks have gotten old on the national stage. We expect an October surprise from this group, because they have lost our trust. So real or not, any success against Al Qaida will be tainted by the thought that the administration probably could have nabbed these guys earlier, but waited for maximum political advantage. You know that there is a credibility problem when the Watergate guys come out of the shadows and start condemning your administration as more secretive and more corrupt than Nixon.
This fiasco comes on the heels of the leak about Sandy Berger. According to that leak he snuck Top Secret documents out of the National Archives in his socks. Turns out he didn't. Turns out everything the 9/11 commission wanted from the Clinton Administration and Berger was provided. Seems nothing is missing from the archives as he was only dealing with copies (he did take 3 copies out of the archives that he should not have and returned those, except one that is missing). Seems that the investigation started last October, and has been sitting with the US Attorney for many months as they mulled over whether or not anything actually criminal took place.
That was a much more successful leak--still a lie, but it did dominate the news cycle for quite a few days. I think it was still more exciting when Oliver North's secretary secreted away documents in her bra. I'll take that over Sandy Berger's socks any day. No matter what the documents.
So, Karl, it seems that you have fallen down on the job. Sandy's socks were amusing, but this Al Qaida thing was down right dangerous. Karl you have gone from Genius to Hack. Stop Being Stupid.
UPDATE: According to this USA Today story it seems that the attacks really weren't "imminent". Oops. Nothing like panicking the country's largest metropolitan area and center of business for political purposes.
It seems that in order to justify last weeks newest terror alert, the Bush administration, in Karl Rove's infinite wisdom, leaked the name of the Al Qaida terrorist seized in Pakistan just after the Democratic National Convention. Once the world knew that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had been captured, all the promising leads and the "increased chatter" seemed to end.
Why did Rove and the Bush administration feel it was necessary to further enhance their credibility by leaking the captured terrorist's name? Probably because despite the polls showing people support Bush's handling of the war on terror, people don't trust Bush or his administration. Gee, why? Don't even start with the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and the way they are trying to spin that. Let's look at some more subtle things that are seeping into the minds of America.
Back in July, some lefties predicted that during the Dem Convention there would be a major break in the war on terror. Lo and behold, just after the convention there was a major arrest of an unnamed Al Qaida operative in Pakistan. But wait, why did they arrest him before the convention and then release it right after? Then they increase the terror alert based on information gleaned from this guy. But wait, the information was old. No, the administration protested, it had been updated. And, by-the-way, this guy we arrested, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, had a lot of useful information on his computer--we were told on background (reporter talk for a leak). So you see he is real and important.
oops.
Y'know, by leaking this guys name to prove our veracity, it seems we blew the cover off of several Pakistani intelligence stings that were leading to more Qaida operatives. So, in order to prove that the administration was not using the war on terror for political motives, they hurt the war on terror.
Karl Rove went to the well one too many times. His political tricks have gotten old on the national stage. We expect an October surprise from this group, because they have lost our trust. So real or not, any success against Al Qaida will be tainted by the thought that the administration probably could have nabbed these guys earlier, but waited for maximum political advantage. You know that there is a credibility problem when the Watergate guys come out of the shadows and start condemning your administration as more secretive and more corrupt than Nixon.
This fiasco comes on the heels of the leak about Sandy Berger. According to that leak he snuck Top Secret documents out of the National Archives in his socks. Turns out he didn't. Turns out everything the 9/11 commission wanted from the Clinton Administration and Berger was provided. Seems nothing is missing from the archives as he was only dealing with copies (he did take 3 copies out of the archives that he should not have and returned those, except one that is missing). Seems that the investigation started last October, and has been sitting with the US Attorney for many months as they mulled over whether or not anything actually criminal took place.
That was a much more successful leak--still a lie, but it did dominate the news cycle for quite a few days. I think it was still more exciting when Oliver North's secretary secreted away documents in her bra. I'll take that over Sandy Berger's socks any day. No matter what the documents.
So, Karl, it seems that you have fallen down on the job. Sandy's socks were amusing, but this Al Qaida thing was down right dangerous. Karl you have gone from Genius to Hack. Stop Being Stupid.
UPDATE: According to this USA Today story it seems that the attacks really weren't "imminent". Oops. Nothing like panicking the country's largest metropolitan area and center of business for political purposes.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Ann Coulter - Evil Genius or Stupid Hack
Ann Coulter, self-styled right-wing pundit and "pretty girl", brought herself to the forefront again by getting herself fired from reporting on the Democratic convention for USA Today. Was this an attempt by the liberal media to silence the right? No, it was an op/ed page editor who recognized the difference between journalism and bad writing. Coulter's rejected column can be read here: http://www.humaneventsonline/article.php?id=4646
with her witty comments.
She is desperately trying to be funny by using stereotypes of what Democratic women are supposed to look like: hippies, granola earth-mothers. It is neither witty, nor insightful. It is not even entertaining satire. I mean, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every once in a while because he is funny. You don't have to agree with his politics to appreciate his entertainment value. But Coulter isn't funny.
She goes on to say it is easy to pick out her Republican cohorts as they are the "pretty girls" just like her. Ann, darling, you may have been the best looking girl in the federal prosecutors' office (her official name is Ann Coulter, former Federal Prosecutor--just look the next time you see her on Fox News), maybe in the top ten in your law school class, but really let's not get carried away.
My sources tell me that the article was delivered late, she couldn't deal with the critiques of the editor, and she wouldn't do a rewrite. So, she was replaced by Jonah Goldberg; not a great writer, though his article at least showed some potential. His was a valid attempt to make fun of the Democratic convention from the Republican point-of-view.
The problem with many of the pundits, on both sides, is that they have become a caricature of themselves. They have gone to such extremes to become outrageous they have become useless--even as entertainment. Thoughtful dialogue from the pundits has been lost. I see the problem more so on the right than the left. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush and Coulter are just so often wrong on the facts and so closed to hearing the other side, that it is useless to even listen. Al Franken's books (Rush Limbaugh is Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) provide ample evidence of the twisting of facts by this group to try and push their agenda or pump themselves.
Of the group though, Coulter seems to have the least talent and insight. She is not entertaining, she is shrill, and she doesn't write well. She has gotten so caught up in her role as basher of the left and shill for the right that her vitriol seeps from every pore. Moreover, I am told that the persona is really an act, that really she doesn't have the amount of hate for the other side that she projects. That is why I was tempted to call her an evil genius. But as a week passed and the Democratic convention has ended the story has died. So, she got a one day spike in the news cycle and has once again been relegated to guest pundit on Geraldo's Fox News show and to her column.
So Ann, sorry, but is seems you are just a stupid hack. Stop being stupid.
with her witty comments.
She is desperately trying to be funny by using stereotypes of what Democratic women are supposed to look like: hippies, granola earth-mothers. It is neither witty, nor insightful. It is not even entertaining satire. I mean, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every once in a while because he is funny. You don't have to agree with his politics to appreciate his entertainment value. But Coulter isn't funny.
She goes on to say it is easy to pick out her Republican cohorts as they are the "pretty girls" just like her. Ann, darling, you may have been the best looking girl in the federal prosecutors' office (her official name is Ann Coulter, former Federal Prosecutor--just look the next time you see her on Fox News), maybe in the top ten in your law school class, but really let's not get carried away.
My sources tell me that the article was delivered late, she couldn't deal with the critiques of the editor, and she wouldn't do a rewrite. So, she was replaced by Jonah Goldberg; not a great writer, though his article at least showed some potential. His was a valid attempt to make fun of the Democratic convention from the Republican point-of-view.
The problem with many of the pundits, on both sides, is that they have become a caricature of themselves. They have gone to such extremes to become outrageous they have become useless--even as entertainment. Thoughtful dialogue from the pundits has been lost. I see the problem more so on the right than the left. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush and Coulter are just so often wrong on the facts and so closed to hearing the other side, that it is useless to even listen. Al Franken's books (Rush Limbaugh is Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) provide ample evidence of the twisting of facts by this group to try and push their agenda or pump themselves.
Of the group though, Coulter seems to have the least talent and insight. She is not entertaining, she is shrill, and she doesn't write well. She has gotten so caught up in her role as basher of the left and shill for the right that her vitriol seeps from every pore. Moreover, I am told that the persona is really an act, that really she doesn't have the amount of hate for the other side that she projects. That is why I was tempted to call her an evil genius. But as a week passed and the Democratic convention has ended the story has died. So, she got a one day spike in the news cycle and has once again been relegated to guest pundit on Geraldo's Fox News show and to her column.
So Ann, sorry, but is seems you are just a stupid hack. Stop being stupid.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Ed Koch - Mayor Stupidity
A friend sent me this link to an op/ed piece by Ed Koch, the former Mayor of New York (in the late seventies)
In the article Koch, a Democrat, tells us why supporters of Israel should support President Bush over Senator John Kerry. He claims Bush is the best friend Israel ever had. I think all supporters of Israel will agree that Bush is a very good friend of Israel. But does that preclude Kerry from being a supporter. He rightly states that some on the far left see Israel as a villain and not the bastion of democracy that it is.
But while Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, his miscues in the war on terrorism have hurt Israel's and the US's position in the world and our ability to create a lasting peace in the middle east. By alienating the world the people on the street will have knee-jerk negative reaction to any US policy--including support for Israel.
The measure of one's support of Israel has evolved over the years from there being no talk of a Palestinian state to the realization that there will be a Palestinian state and that such a state is in the best interest of Israel.
So, it is stupid to think that unwavering support for the policies of Ariel Sharon equate to unwavering support of the best interests of Israel. Focus on a single issue is no way to pick a president. A strong and respected USA makes it easier for the US to guide the peace process. President Bush lost the moral authority gained after September 11, 2001 and lost the opportunity to impose peace on the region. Koch fails to give us a compelling reason why Bush's policies will be better for Israel than Kerry's policies. Koch does not articulate any of John Kerry's positions on foreign policy or Israel. Koch tries to leave the false impression that the Democratic party has been hijacked by lefties who only support the Palestinians to the detriment of Israel and its Jewish population. Yet he concedes that Bill Clinton was a great friend of Israel.
So, today we watch Ed Koch, a mediocre mayor, and someone trying to find relevance today, and say to him: Don't be stupid.
In the article Koch, a Democrat, tells us why supporters of Israel should support President Bush over Senator John Kerry. He claims Bush is the best friend Israel ever had. I think all supporters of Israel will agree that Bush is a very good friend of Israel. But does that preclude Kerry from being a supporter. He rightly states that some on the far left see Israel as a villain and not the bastion of democracy that it is.
But while Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, his miscues in the war on terrorism have hurt Israel's and the US's position in the world and our ability to create a lasting peace in the middle east. By alienating the world the people on the street will have knee-jerk negative reaction to any US policy--including support for Israel.
The measure of one's support of Israel has evolved over the years from there being no talk of a Palestinian state to the realization that there will be a Palestinian state and that such a state is in the best interest of Israel.
So, it is stupid to think that unwavering support for the policies of Ariel Sharon equate to unwavering support of the best interests of Israel. Focus on a single issue is no way to pick a president. A strong and respected USA makes it easier for the US to guide the peace process. President Bush lost the moral authority gained after September 11, 2001 and lost the opportunity to impose peace on the region. Koch fails to give us a compelling reason why Bush's policies will be better for Israel than Kerry's policies. Koch does not articulate any of John Kerry's positions on foreign policy or Israel. Koch tries to leave the false impression that the Democratic party has been hijacked by lefties who only support the Palestinians to the detriment of Israel and its Jewish population. Yet he concedes that Bill Clinton was a great friend of Israel.
So, today we watch Ed Koch, a mediocre mayor, and someone trying to find relevance today, and say to him: Don't be stupid.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Welcome
Welcome to Stupidity Watch. There were just so many times a day that I found myself saying "that is so stupid" or "how stupid is that" or just "stupid, stupid, stupid" that, well, I had to just start writing them down and letting other people agree with me. I hope you agree with me, because if you don't there can be only two reasons: I am the stupid one or you are. I prefer the latter. But we shall see.
Now, I would like to focus on the big picture things in the world that are stupid. I will create a section for local stupid things (Darwin Award type stuff), but like I said--let's focus on the big picture. Stupidty of national or international importance. Big issue stupidity.
While political views my be espoused on this blog, I am not here to promote any particular ideology, so feel free to let me know about stupid things from all sides of the aisle--though as I am writing this I do think that we can all agree that Ralph Nader is either stupid or delusional.
Ok, that wraps the welcome. The first few entries will probably be a retrospective on stupidity over the last few weeks. It may take me a little while to catch up to the present. So much stupidity, so little time.
Now, I would like to focus on the big picture things in the world that are stupid. I will create a section for local stupid things (Darwin Award type stuff), but like I said--let's focus on the big picture. Stupidty of national or international importance. Big issue stupidity.
While political views my be espoused on this blog, I am not here to promote any particular ideology, so feel free to let me know about stupid things from all sides of the aisle--though as I am writing this I do think that we can all agree that Ralph Nader is either stupid or delusional.
Ok, that wraps the welcome. The first few entries will probably be a retrospective on stupidity over the last few weeks. It may take me a little while to catch up to the present. So much stupidity, so little time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)