Almost 6 years ago now I went to NYC on a business trip, with a scheduled flight back home on Tuesday September 11, 2001. I never even left for the airport and ended up being stranded in NYC until Saturday the 15th, when I finally boarded a flight home.
During those 4 first full days in a post-9/11 world, Rudolph Giuliani was a constant, strong, comforting presence.
I had left New York before he was voted in, and probably wouldn't have voted for him had I still lived there. My friends who did live there always said wryly that he had indeed cleaned the city up...by being a total fascist.
But in those days when I spent hour after hour watching CNN and NY One, Giuliani was among only two politicians that seemed to hit the right note for me. Oddly enough, the second one was Hillary Clinton...the newly elected Junior Senator from New York.
In those days Rudy was the Mayor of all New Yorkers, and there was never a sense of partisanship or prejudice in his many public appearances.
In the years since I have had a soft spot in my heart for Rudy. Partly because of 9/11, and partly because I actually thought he'd make the most beatable Republican candidate...you know, that whole pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stuff.
That soft spot has been completely hardened after hearing about his most recent comments about why he in particular, but really any Republican, should be president. You can watch Keith Olbermann's rant on the subject to get a full range of quotes:
Once upon a time Giuliani was the mayor of all New Yorkers, voted Mayor in a heavily Democratic city, and now he wants to be the President for only those who will voted for him.
And now he betrays the many many of the firefighters and NYPD and Port Authority and first responders who went to the scene, and died on the scene...and who were surely Democrats.
I feel really sad. And appalled. Olbermann captures the disgust and outrage. But he doesn't capture my sad sense of betrayal by one of the few Republicans who actually could elicit positive feedback from me.
This is one of the best things I have ever seen, words don't do it justice, watch, laugh, cry and pass it on.
With an inflammatory headline, Democrats brought on Sept. 11 attacks.
Why point you to a loathsome right-wing editorial? Because it's always good to know the tactics of the opposition. In this particular case the author says outright that 9/11 is the fault of the Democrats, and that the current Democrats in power are basically bound to get us into the same mess.
Key excerpts:
The United States made two gigantic foreign-policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of Sept. 11. What the liberals haven't recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter's actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don't get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way. The second lesson, derived from Clinton's inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the United States is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, Sept. 11 will be only the beginning.
One of the Daily Kos stalwarts has at D'Souza amusingly here (don't skip the comments.) But better yet is Stephen Colbert with Dinesh himself. The guys is really weird in how he tried to associate reality TV, a la Fear Factor, with Blue America. Forgive me, but I'm going to bet the ratings are higher in red America for such shows. Aren't all we liberal effetes watching West Wing and such? Check it out for yourself:
Why we MUST fight like hell to get control of congress back:
This is one of the best ads our party has ever put on the air, and if you think it is good, go here to donate a few dollars so we can air it everywhere.
Bravo to Keith Olbermann, another KO for his belt:
If you have not yet heard of the new movie "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," here is some information, as well as a clip and a link to local screenings in October.
Here is a preview of the movie:
Below the fold is more information on where you can go to see a local screening.
Here is the link to local screenings, and here is a link to more information on the film.
The webiste for the film also has a link to research and facts that this movie is based on (unlike "The Path to 9/11," this movie actually uses facts instead of fiction).
Help get the word out about this movie, and if you don't see a screening near you, sign up to host one in your house. This movie is yet one more reason why Americans need to turn congress over to the Democrats, and by hosting a screening or going to one and bringing friends, neighbors and family memembers, you will be helping us take back congress in just a few short weeks.
Bush plans a prime-time speech on September 11th.
Per press secretary Tony Snow:
Snow said Bush's address would not be a political speech or a charge to Congress for action. Rather, he said, it would be reflective of what Sept. 11 has meant and "how we move ahead as a country in making use of the lessons of Sept. 11.""It will have a note of optimism as well as sobriety about what we've been through," Snow said.
This goes for ALL politicians, I might add.
I just don't want to hear anyone's pithy thoughts, OK?
5 years ago today I was in New York City, wrapping up a fun weekend and getting ready for a speaking engagement on Monday the 10th. I was literally thinking "this is the best time I've had in NYC in years." That lasted another 24 hours.
As posted here yesterday, ABC (which is owned by Disney) is airing "The Path to 9/11" on Sept. 10th and 11th. This mini-series by ABC is filled with factual errors, and though ABC "claims" it is a drama, they continue to state that the "drama" is based on the 9/11 Commission hearings. The problem is that most of this movie is made up, written by a man who is a known conservative and obviously has no regard for truth or history.
What can you do to send a message to ABC and Disney? You can make calls and send emails, and since we have only Friday to put on the pressure you need to make sure to do as much as you can on Friday.
President Clinton's office has sent a letter to ABC, for a link to read the letter as well as information on who to call and email go below the fold......
First, here is the link to the text of Clinton's letter, and here is a short sample of the letter:
Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama's writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, "I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn't want them to stymie my efforts." Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors:-- The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."
Please take some time to email or phone some of the contacts on this list, and make sure to send this information to everyone you know.
ABC email
Disney: 1-818-560-1000 or 1-818-460-7477.
ABC: 1-212-456-7777 or 1-818-560-1000.
Click here for a link to a list of emails for Disney and ABC executives. The list is in the very first comment not the main post.
Here is a list of companies that advertise on ABC. Also here is a post from DailyKos that has a list of advertisers you can call:
Not everyone will contact every advertiser here, so if you have to pick and choose, I suggest you use the following criteria:1. Call the ones you do business with first.
2. Call companies that you have considered doing business with.
3. If you find a hometown company, call them.Some pointers on the calls:
1. Be polite.
2. No need to threaten them. Just politely but strongly register your objection and your demand that they pull their support of ABC.Ok, that's it. Now here is the list. Have at it.
Aloha Airlines
http://www.alohaairlines.com/
Mailing Address:
Aloha Airlines Customer Relations
P.O. Box 30028
Honolulu, Hawaii 96820
Telephone support: 888-771-2855 (or) 808-539-5994
Fax support: 808-539-5999
Sears
http://www.sears.com
Mailing:
Sears National Customer Relations
3333 Beverly Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179
Customer Service #: 1-800-349-4358
Charles Schwab
http://www.schwab.com/
866-855-9102
Charles Schwab Bank, N.A.
5190 Neil Road, Suite 100
Reno, NV 89502-8532
Kellogg's
Consumer Affairs Number: 800-962-1413
Chase Rewards Card
Phone: 1-800-432-3117
AAA
Go to http://www.aaa.com and enter your zipcode to find your state/local numbers
Symantec
World HQ (Cupertino, CA) #: 1-408-517-8000
Subway
http://www.subway.com
Subway Franchise Headquarters
325 Bic Drive
Milford, CT 06460 USA
Tel.(203) 877-4281 / (800) 888-4848
Mitshubishi
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/...
1-888-MITSU2005
1-866-876-3018
T-Mobile
http://www.t-mobile.com/
1-800-937-8997
Mazda
http://www.mazdausa.com/
1-800-222-5500
CitiGroup
http://www.citigroup.com/
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10043
U.S.A.
800-285-3000
Claritin
http://www.claritin.com
1-800-CLARITIN
Home Depot
http://www.homedepot.com
1-800-553-3199
Red Lobster
http://www.redlobster.com
Corporate HQ:
5900 Lake Ellenor Drive
Orlando, FL 32809
(407) 245-4000
Hyundai Motor America
http://www.hyundaiusa.com
800-633-5151
HQ: 714-965-3000
CashCall
A Division of First Bank & Trust
1-877-289-0685
Customer Service: 1-877-525-2274
Comcast
http://www.comcast.com
1-800-COMCAST
Email form
Aflac
http://www.aflac.com/...
Media Relations: 1-706-243-8004
Customer Service: 1-800-992-3522
Admin Service: 1-877-353-9487
Nissan
http://www.nissanusa.com
(800) NISSAN-1 (or 800-647-7261)
Email form - http://www.nissanusa.com/... (start with the topic "general question")
Carl's Junior
(877) 799-7827
In addition you can continue to check DailyKos for updates on this issue, as of this moment there is a misleading movie review in the NYT which Kos has frontpaged, and of course you can write the editors of the NYT's and let them know what you think of their factual errors.
Other websites with information on this issue:
Media Matters
Crooks and Liars
Think Progress
And well the list goes on.....
Make sure you do all you can to stop this rewrite of history.
ABC has produced what they are calling a docudrama on the events leading up to 9/11. This mini-series will be shown on September 10th and 11th, and is called Path to 9/11. ABC is claiming that their production is:
a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
The truth of the matter is that this mini-series is filled with distortions, lies and blames President Clinton for the events of 9/11. Here is what ABC has done with the truth:
The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden - even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as 'a friend of mine,' reviews the action:So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they're on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed... Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. 'Are you kidding?' He asked Berger over and over, 'Is this really what you guys want?'
Berger then doesn't answer after giving his first admonition, 'You guys go in on your own. If you go in we're not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,' and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
Here is the truth:
ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene - which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden - never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, 'Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.'
ABC needs to hear from us, and they need to hear from us NOW. Tell ABC that they must correct the distortions and lies in their mini-series or ABC needs to pull this show. What can you do? Read below the fold for some quick and easy action.
To start with you can fire off an email to ABC, and then you can send the link to everyone on your email list. Secondly you can make some calls to ABC, Disney and other corporations associated with this production.
In case you don't think airing this show on TV is bad enough, ABC is:
planning a massive free distribution of its planned docudrama The Path to 9/11, including sending letters to 100,000 high school teachers encouraging them to have their students watch the series
Here are but a few links to the actual 9/11 hearings which debunks some of the lies in ABC's propaganda program:
Ashcroft 'didn’t want to hear of al Qaeda' in high threat summer of 2001
Condoleezza Rice facing Ben-Veniste 9-11 Commission
Oh, and in case you are wondering who wrote this distortion:
The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, 'Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.”'He has described Michael Moore as 'an out of control socialist weasel,' and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag.
ThinkProgress.org has numerous other posts regarding the lies in this mini-series, visit their website for more tidbits like this:
Last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey — a top counterterrorism official to Bush II and Clinton — blasted ABC’s docudrama 'The Path to 9/11.' Cressy said 'it’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong' and 'then they got the big stuff wrong.' He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is 'something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.'
ABC needs to be held accountable for airing and distributing this highly distorted and misleading program. Please take the time today to fire off an email, make a call and spread the word that ABC has gone over to the dark side.
UPDATE: ABC distributed an advanced copy of this program to a number of right-wing bloggers, but has REFUSED to provide any copies to President Bill Clinton's office:
ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.”
Oh, man!
On Tuesday Donald Rumsfeld tried to compare those who question the Bush administration and its Iraq War to Neville Chamberlain and his infamous appeasement of Hitler's Nazi government.
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC responds with a blistering, scathing, passionate denunciation of Rumsfeld, and in fact the administration...saying yes, something here can be compared to Neville Chamberlain' government, but it's the Bush administration.
Crooks and Liars provides both the video and the text transcript. Don't miss it.
I know I harp on the spying thing. But remember when the president and his lackeys told us the Patriot Act was intended to be used to prevent terrorism, and that if we weren't terrorists we had nothing to worry about?
Yeah. So do I. Where did that go?
Of course if one follows the progression of totalitarian governments one shouldn't be surprised that one of the first groups to be targeted is the press. And the FBI has acknowledged that they're keeping track of who journalists call.
Two quotes from the BAC.com piece to make us all feel like looking over our shoulder:
"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.
Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.
Read Erin Kotecki Vest over at BlogHer for a great run-down on what the blogosphere had to say about the recent revelation that...and I know this will shock you...the government was lying when they claimed that only calls that were generated outside the U.S. were spied upon. Turns out when they assured us but a couple of short months ago that if we weren't receiving calls from Afghanistan or Iraq, then we had nothing to worry about...that was another crock.
Oh, and a couple of days later the government acknowledged they were indeed mining journalist phone records to try to expose leakers. Because they wouldn't want to fix the bad situations that those reporters are leaking about, oh no...they're just sorry we got caught!
Sure, I know I'm automatically a traitor for suggesting that perhaps:
a. the government shouldn't be spying on millions of domestic calls without cause and without warrants
and
b. they shouldn't repeatedly lie about it.
I wonder why I keep thinking that I love this country and the values it used to stand for?
Here's an opening paragraph to chill you to the marrow:
"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."
I know you'll be surprised to learn that "Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed." Because usually they're so open and accommodating to those who dare to question their actions.
The article is very long, and you'll have to register to view the entire article, but if you want to be fully apprised of exactly how incidental the President considers our Constitution to be, read it.
Rick Sanotrum is a nut case, m'kay?
But up until now I've always thught he was kinda scary, because he's an articulate nut case.
He says things that are outright lies (his favorite being that Democrats want all abortion all the time on demand policies) with such confidence that I've heard supposedly worthy interviewers let the lies slide right by.
But he may have jumped the shark with this one:
If you look at the rest of the world and the struggles they are having, particularly in Western Europe, who just completely abandoned faith, completely have gone to a secular society...Its cultures are dying. People are dying, they're being overrun from overseas, and they have no response. They have nothing to fight for. They have nothing to live for.
Of course one of the commenters on Daily Kos actually pegs exactly why he's making this particular statement right now:
He is clearly saying that our immigration problems are a symptom of a lack of faith but that, unlike Old Europe, God fearing Americans have the religious faith and so will prevent our culture from being "overrun" by foreigners. The idea is to make this next election a referendum on whether we want out society to be overrun by immigrants.
JD Lasica highlights a letter to the editor of our own San Jose Mercury that highlights one of my own biggest frustrations: the way the right wing wants to shut down questions and disagreements, because it's "war time."
Yeah, well, in other war times the rich didn't keep getting tax cuts.
And in other war times we didn't hear stories about the highest levels of government advocating for torture.
Just to name two examples.
I cannot emphasize enough that the reason I so loathe the current administration is because I think they have seriously lowered the standards for competence and reponsibility from our government. I am anti-Bush because I think America should and can be more than he is allowing us to be. This is the very opposite of hating America. This is the very epitome of putting America first.
I know it can be frustrating to be the one that peple expect more from. I know everybody wants to slack off sometimes. But I'm sorry I just can't accept my country being a slacker.
I was not alive during the WW II era. General Franco of Spain is a Saturday Night Live punchline to me. Pinochet was the target of a Sting song. If you're like me, and think fascism is like pornography (or irony)...you know it when you see it...then you can't miss this new series of posts at The Daily Briefing.
A much talked about article by political scientist Lawrence Britt finds fourteen shared characteristics between famous fascist regimes, like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc.
The Daily Briefing is going through each characteristics, and drawing some pretty scary parallels. It's worth a read, not only so you're working off a real definition of fascism, but so you can understand why little things like trying to re-classify long un-classified documents, or wiretapping our citizens, or deciding that the VP shooting someone isn't breaking news, or challenging the patriotism of those who ask questions, and on and on and on, are important.
Check out the Daily Briefing:
Fascism Characteristic #1: Nationalism
Fascism Characteristic #2: Disdain for Human Rights
Fascism Characteristic #3: Enemies and Scapegoats
Fascism Characteristic #4: Militarism
Fascism Characteristic #5: Rampant Sexism
Fascism Characteristic #6: Controlled Mass Media
I'm sure they'll be hitting the remaining 8 characteristics in the coming days. I'm finding it fascinating reading.
Oh. My. God.
How idiotic do they really think we are?
Check out this video of Alberto Gonzales testifying about the illegal spying program. [Straight to quicktime link.]
Did you know Presidents Washington and Lincoln authorized "electronic surveillance, and on a far broader scale..." ????
Let's see Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in the 1870s, and this history of eavesdropping doesn't seem to travel back any further.
I mean for God's sake, let's review the timeline of the history of electricity.
Honestly, the Bush Administration really does think they can say anything they want, with no regard for truth, and get away with it.
Oh, yeah, I'm a nitpicker right? Wrong.
No matter how many times people deplore and decry the GOP's penchant for smearing all who dissent and disagree as unpatriotic and in bed with the terrorists, they still trot it out.
So it must be working on someone somewhere.
Well, maybe not. Maybe the power of that is finally starting to wane.
Seeing as a majority of Americans think it's worth impeachment if Dubya warrantless wiretapping is found to be illegal.
And over 70% think Dubya oughta cough up records of his meetings with Abramoff.
Dare we hope people are sick of this partisan rancor and demonizing of dissent?
Oh. My. God. Although I can believe that broadcasters like Bill O'Reilly have nothing better to worry about, given that if they actually covered the real issues going on in the country and the world it wouldn't look too good for their man Dubya, I can't believe that our lawmakers don't have something more critical to our nation's security and prosperity to worry about than saving the word "Christmas."
Jon Stewart skewers this whole thing beautifully, pointing out O'Reilly's reliance on old, irrelevant clips from the Daily Show. But also just mocking the whole false uproar over the mere politeness of recognizing that the people of this country come from different backgrounds and faiths, and it does no harm to have government institutions sticking to a nice separation between state and any religion. Jon's closing salvo? "Sure, Make me your enemy. You're right. I hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, Morality! I will not rest until every year families gather every on December 25th at Osama's home-abortion, pot & commie jizporium."
I mean, really, WTF. Who exactly is harmed by people saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas?" There's Thanksgiving, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Chanukah and New Year's all in a very short time. Is it so wrong to have a blanket well-wishing message that encompasses all and risks offending none? Doesn't that sound kind of, oh I don't know, American? If your Christian faith is shattered by hearing Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, your faith needs shoring up, m'kay?
So, this little dust-up happened while I was in DC, and I forgot to blog about it before.
Don't you just love how Republicans can call fine Americans who have served our country and are merely espousing a dissenting viewpoint "cowards" and "traitors." And the biggest insult they can think to hurl is that people who want a timetable on exiting Iraq are aligning themselves with evil liberals, like Michael Moore.
And that rhetoric is perfectly OK I suppose.
But seriously, didn't Bill O'Reilly hit a new low when he uttered this repugnant diatribe:
"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
O'Reilly wasn't too happy that SF voters voted to ban military recruiters on public high school campuses. Note: they didn't ban military recruiting in the city itself.
Isn't this just a teeny tiny massive bit over the line?
[PS-Nice touch, Bill, going after Coit Tower, a tribute to a segment of SF's first responders, the firefighters. Stupid, much?]
Hat tip: Speak Out California
I find it so disturbing that they could remove the judge from the Tom DeLay case because he's a Democrat. And he's made some donations.
I mean, judges, like journalists, will always have various opinions in their personal life and be expected to rise above them to be objective in their professional life.
Are we going to start checking everyone's political affiliations before every trial. And how about their religious affiliations? And where will the line be drawn. How much is too much? Will their voting records become part of the discussion?
It seems crazy to me.
From the left and the right not much time passed before the terrorist attacks in London became fodder for "See, Muslims are barbarians" and "See, that's what you get for collaborating with Bush, the war criminal."
There. Both extreme views sound equally sick, don't they?
So just shut up.
I'm watching BBC News online myself. I cannot imagine subjecting myself to American 24-hour news stations right now.
Many people are writing about this past Sunday and the nation-wide religious hate-fest masquerading as "Justice Sunday." That's the one where churches and Republican officials are trying to convince people that their Democratic neighbors are anti-faith, anti-God, anti-religion, and therefore, it should follow...anti-them!
Well, I'm one of those Godless Democrats, but I'm a minority. The truth is, and the numbers show that the majority of Democrats, just like the majority of Americans believe in God, go to church, all that good stuff.
The thing is...it used to be perfectly reasonable for even religious people to believe in the separation of Church and State. Remember when Kennedy ran for President? He had to pledge to be able to separate his governing from his religion.
I guess people don't respect that anymore. Hell, Kennedy likely wouldn't win if he ran for President today.
Well, lots of people are writing about it, and as usual Frank Rich certainly says it well.
And just in case you want a little primer on equal-opportunity judicial activism, here's a bonus NY Times editorial.
This may seem a little off topic, but I posted a story yesterday that got me thinking.
A lot of new items around the country right now seem to play right into Lakoff's description of the Republican Party as playing the stern father role...a role which seems to work well in times of great uncertainty and fear.
Only the stern father is beginning to completely ignore some of the principles on which this country was built: like presumption of innocence, like the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government interference.
The stories range from being about reproductive rights, to criminal rights, to watching TV...but they share this stern father theme.
Read more about it in the extended entry:
The story I posted yesterday was about the Kansas prosecutor who wanted the medical files of all women who had had late-term abortions...whether there was cause to suspect criminal activity or not.
Seems like a big invasion of privacy to me, and a big step down the wrong path on respecting individuals' right to privacy, civil liberties etc. It's sort of the same way I felt about California Proposition 69 from last November that allows the police to take your DNA samples if you're detained...even if you're never charged with a crime.
Both of these examples illustrate a government that wants to clamp down tighter and tighter on its citizenry, getting more and more of our personal data...without due cause...and it makes me nervous.
The latest government shenanigan that plays into this interpretation is the FCC's push to insert broadcast flags on TV content to prevent redistribution of that content. And more to the point, to make it illegal for any consumer electronics company to produce any TV tuner product that doesn't recognize the flag. I attended a technogeek event where this topic came up, and the recap is here.
So, on its surface this FCC effort is about protecting copyrighted content right? OK, fine, but the methodology being proposed is precedent-setting and repressive. Why?
It has always been illegal to pirate copyrighted content...but currently someone who feels their copyright has been violated must seek their redress in the courts. There has never been some kind of preemptive banning of technological innovation that restricts the uses and rights of the innocent in hopes of preventing the actions of the guilty. (Particularly useless in this case, since most people feel the broadcast flag could be hacked around in about an hour by any dedicated hacker.)
So we're willing to make a rather sweeping change to the approach that has been in in place on copyright protection. In so doing we are first of all restricting an innocent individual's right to use their own paid-for content: you would not be able to transfer a movie you TiVo'ed to your laptop and take it with you on a long trip to watch on the plane. That would become a crime. A crime.
Second we are telling technology companies how to innovate...or rather how not to...worse we are making it a crime to innovate in certain ways. So, now we have the government dictating R&D in private and public companies. And we bemoan the fact that we're losing our global technology edge?
Worse...it preemptively treats all TV watchers as criminals without cause. We are all bad little children who must be disciplined, despite the fact that the vast majority of us will never do anything wrong with any of our content.
So, like I said...might seem a little off-topic, but I think it's a disturbing trend.
Here's another view on the topic from former Merc Technology writer, Dan Gillmor.
Read this disturbing post by Digby. In it he quotes extensively from noted right-wing blogger, Powerline.
It's more of that "liberals hate America" crap...but escalates it significantly to say that it's pretty much the "entire Democratic Party" and that we don't just hate America we're "betraying" America.
I know, I know, this is the stuff that Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh have been dishing out for years...but Powerline Was Time Magazine's Blog of the Year. Powerline is considered a "Mainstream" right-wing blog and is afforded nearly a journalistic reputation. Yet his language, both in posts and responding to commenters on his site that disagree with him is virulent, profane (nice family values on display) and kinda scary in its violence.
And Digby's point is: he, you guys should be feeling pretty powerful right now...why are you behaving like cornered animals?
It's definitely weird. Power does not make this crew feel magnanimous...it makes them feel invincible and above typical societal mores.
Again, kinda scary.
First I read this post on the Daily Kos. Seems that a couple of environmental groups that had the audacity to oppose Bush's Dirty Skies Initiative. So the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, your favorite and mine, James Inhofe, asked for their financial, tax and membership records. Huh?
So Kos has the audacity to wonder, isn't that a little bit fascist?
As if on cue I received an email providing a link to the following sermon, yes a sermon, on fascism.
Just because a word is a loaded word doesn't mean you cannot use it. If the word applies it should be used.
Davidson Loehr, the preacher, uses this quote defining the American fascist from Vice President Henry Wallace in 1944. It is chilling in its familiarity:
The really dangerous American fascist, Wallace wrote, is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
So remember, if a word fits we are obliged to use it...even a loaded word.
Are we there yet?
This lame news story about Bush meeting with aides to stave off new Al Qaeda attacks, in light of OBL's tape, makes me sick.
Oh, he's such a man of action.
WTF has he been doing the last 3 years? And what was the point of his politics of fear announcements that we might be attacked on Election Day, if they weren't going to take action on that?
I really cannot wait until Wednesday morning when I wake up with a new President.
Although it will take some time to wipe the memory of this incompetent poser from my mind.
Blogger Matt Yglesias tries to make the case that OBL's new tape proves he wants Bush back in office, that having Bush in office has been the best thing for his organization that could have happened.
I actually agree with him. Bush has made us less safe & secure, and has made recruitment for OBL about as easy as it can get. he's distanced us from our allies and destroyed our credibility with those few Arab nations that were friendly to our interests.
Do I think the majority of Americans will appreciate this angle?
Nope. I think they're more likely to take the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.
But it's not enough to help Bush now.
Remember how the terrorists were going to try to disrupt our election, like they "disrupted" Spain's? (And yes, I find it really ironic that this crew is al in favor of democracy until it means that someone on their side might lose.)
Turns out...there was never any specific intelligence leading to that conclusion. It was just one more way for this Administration of Fear to try to keep us so freaked out that either a) we don't vote, or b) ensure that if we do vote, it's a vote for "staying the course."
Nice one, guys.
Wonder why you're feeling nervous?
Well, if the Bush Administration were honest, this would be their only campaign ad:
Check it out here.
I've been waiting for someone in the mainstream media to tell it like it is and call the Bush Administration on their truly despicable tactics.
Sure, online advocacy groups like MediaMatters.org have been doing so, but mostly the mainstream media has fallen down on the job.
It's that same old problem: let's present both sides equally...that's objectivity.
Well, not if it's clear that one side is telling the truth and one side is not. It would be called reporting to tell us so!!
Anyway, the NY Times has published a strongly worded editorial taking BushCo to task for their politics of fear, for their polarizing statements, and in fact, for being anti-Democratic and anti-American for suggesting that dissent or opposition is anti-American. Here's my favorite excerpt:
"It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad."
And the entire text is in the extended entry:
An Un-American Way to Campaign
NY Times
Published: September 25, 2004
President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.
When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."
This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.
Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.
It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.
The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.
We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.
Don't you think it's kind of anti-Democratic and unpatriotic, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy, to publicly state that violence could limit how the Democratic elections in Iraq are carried out?
I mean, aren't you giving the terrorists every motivation in the world to keep up and in fact step up their kidnappings and other violent acts?
So much for standing strong and unaffected in the face of terrorists. So much for not letting them win.
Bush and Allawi have basically admitted that their terror tactics are winning.
Feh.
So, you gotta love that liberal, mainstream media, huh?
There has been increasingly outrageous language coming out of the Republicans, accusing Democrats or anyone who opposes Bush of being anti-American, pro-terrorist etc. etc.
Most people I meet, just regular people of all political stripes, finds that language disturbing.
If it's a person who wants Bush out of there, they are outraged and truly sick of being equated with a traitor or a terrorist for exercising their right to support an opposition party in a Democratic election.
If it's a person who is planning to support Bush, they are nonetheless uncomfortable with the tenor of these remarks. They try to shrug it off and say "that's just politics as usual", but they know as we all do, that this has gone beyond the usual.
But still the mainstream media can't bring themselves to tell things like they are; they are so polite, so delicate, so "balanced."
The Washington Post, after listing numerous examples of Republican party leaders attacking the very character and patriotism of Democrats, can only bring themselves to entitle the column: "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits".
"Tests Rhetorical Limits"? Could they be any more milquetoast about it?
No, they could not.
So, who would you say is the most well-known female pundit on the right?There's only one choice, right? Ann Coulter.
This woman never ceases to amaze me. The vitriol and venom she spews surpasses even my imagination!
And her latest rant is no exception.
Did you know that women just aren't that bright? Yes, indeed. Ann Coulter is surprised that any women at all support Bush because typically women just aren't that bright.
No, Ann. Perhaps it's just YOU.
Source: MediaMatters.org
The daughter of a friend of mine was one of the NYC protesters, and her experience will make you wonder what country it happened in.
She has written out her story, one of many over those two days. And I have posted it at my personal blog site.
It is very lengthy, but very worthwhile reading.
Let me reiterate my commentary from my personal blog here:
There are things from her story that strike me as hallmarks of this current Administration. [And it is my opinion that unless we make changes, and soon, we are going to keep sliding down this slippery slope...perhaps eventually to the dictatorship that George Bush has laughingly admitted would be easier for him.]
1. Shutting down dissension at any cost. Free Speech? What an archaic notion?
2. Dissembling and using the mainstream media as their willing tool in such deception.
3. Ignoring the rule of law if it is inconvenient or incompatible with their agenda.
4. Poor execution. These guys can ONLY master the message When it comes down to handling the physical results of their philosophical obsessions, they're no better equipped than they are in Iraq!
Please read Caroline's story at my blog here.
I got this email from a blog reader, and I wanted to throw it out there.
Do you think this is the right path or suggestion? I know everyone's got advice for Kerry these days. How's this advice:
"It's time for the Kerry Campaign to focus on Bush's response to 9/11. The threat of terrorism is all Bush has to offer in his campaign. His record on other issues is abysmal. If we are to expose an incompetent President, it IS TIME TO SHOW THE VIDEO OF BUSH IN THE CLASSROOM AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY! VIDEO SHOWING 7 MINUTES OF INACTION while listening to "My Pet Goat" during the worst attack in our nation's history-even after seeing the first hit on the World Trade Center on TV before he entered the classroom. This could come from the movie, 9/11 or news media footage. I believe Kerry should be at the showing of this clip which is on a large screen at a large rally to gain maximum media coverage. Let the Republicans cry "foul". So what? IT IS THE TRUTH AND SHOULD NOT BE H ELD BACK FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNTIL TOO LATE! If Kerry-Edwards fails to do this, the public will never get to understand this fatal flaw in Bush's charactor in the simplest of terms. The majority of American voters will never get it unless they are "hit over the head" with a simple but powerful message. It is time to take off the gloves as the Republicans have done since the Democratic Convention. If people are listening to Zell Miller as Bush roams the country, isn't it time to give the Republicans a taste of their own kind of venom? The Kerry-Edwards team must hammer away at this theme. How can we reelect a President who was not even prepared to handle a crisis like an attack on our financial center costing 3000 lives? Is not this worth pointing out? If it is not, we may as well coronate "King Bush" again!!!"
On a side note: I have heard that Michael Moore is purposely NOT submitting his film for the Best Documentary Oscar award, because that would preclude him from showing it on TV before the election. He's trying to land a deal to show it on broadcast TV before the election.
I think everyone should bombard the networks with emails telling them you'd watch it if it was shown and that you want to see it on network TV.
The millions more WOULD get to see the footage referred to above.
...who claims that no Arab or Muslim expressed any horror at the events of 9/11 or other terrorist acts.
Read these links.
School Siege Sparks Self-Criticism in Arab World
Okay, it's written by someone else, but it's a must-read nonetheless.
Today a lot of people are memorializing the events of 9/11.
So does Halley Suitt in this post.
But she also issues a call to action.
Not in a foul, fearful Dick Cheney fashion.
But in an honest, patriotic fashion.
Read it. It's short, but it says it all.
The NY Times merely joined the chorus of voices condemning Cheney's threat that if people dared to vote for Kerry, we would have another terrorist attack.
(And don't bother to tell me the spin he put on that statement two days later, when it was clearly backfiring on him.)
But the Times does pull out one great paragraph that just gives an extra little dig into the ribs of the Bush Administration:
There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.
Ouch.
Ouch! I mean ouch!
And so, so painfully true.
Read it here.
Full text in extended entry:
Cheney Spits Toads
By MAUREEN DOWD
New York Times
Published: September 9, 2004
WASHINGTON George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have always used the president's father as a reverse lodestar. In 1992, the senior Mr. Bush wooed the voters with "Message: I care.'' So this week, Mr. Cheney wooed the voters with, Message: You die.
The terrible beauty of its simplicity grows on you. It is a sign of the dark, macho, paranoid vice president's restraint that he didn't really take it to its emotionally satisfying conclusion: Message: Vote for us or we'll kill you.
Without Zell Miller around to out-crazy him, and unplugged after a convention that tried to "humanize'' him with grandchildren, horses and wifely anecdotes about his inability to dance the twist, Mr. Cheney is back as Terrifier in Chief.
He finally simply spit out what the Bush team has been more subtly trying to convey for months: A vote for John Kerry is a vote for the terrorists.
"Because if we make the wrong choice,'' Mr. Cheney said in Des Moines in that calm baritone, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.''
These guys figure, hey, these scare tactics worked in building support for the Iraq war, maybe they can work in tearing down support for John Kerry. They linked Saddam with terrorism and cowed the Democrats (including Mr. Kerry, who has never been able to make the case against the Bush administration's trompe l'oeil casus belli) and fooled the country into going along with their trumped-up war. So why not link Mr. Kerry with terrorism and cow the voters into sticking with the White House they've got?
It's like that fairy tale where vipers and toads jump out of the mouth of the accursed mean little girl when she tries to speak. Every time Mr. Cheney opens his mouth, vermin leap out.
The vice president and president did not even mention Osama at the convention because of the inconvenient fact that the fiend is still out there, plotting. Yet they denigrate Mr. Kerry as too weak to battle Osama, and treat him as a greater threat.
Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11. Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.
Mr. Cheney warns against falling back "into the pre-9/11 mind-set,'' when, in fact, the Bush team's pre-9/11 mind-set was all about being stuck in the cold war and reviving "Star Wars" - which doesn't work and is useless against terrorist tactics. The Bush crowd played down terrorism because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger had told their successors that Osama was a priority, and the Bushies scorned all things Clinton. The president shrugged off intelligence briefings with such headlines as "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'' because there was brush to be cleared and unaffordable tax-cutting to be done.
After the blue-ribbon graybeards declared the Bush administration's pumped-up W.M.D. claims and Saddam-9/11 links bogus, the White House went into a defensive crouch - especially the man in the undisclosed bunker, who had veered wildly between overly pessimistic predictions of Saddam's nukes and overly optimistic predictions of grateful Iraqis with flowers and chocolates.
For a time, it seemed that Americans were realizing they'd been flimflammed by the Bushies. But at the convention, the swaggering Bush juggernaut brazenly went back to boasting about its pre-emption doctrine, tracing imaginary connections between 9/11 and Saddam, and calling all our foes terrorists.
Why should the same group that managed to paint a flextime guardsman as a heroic commander - and a war hero as a war criminal - bother rebutting or engaging with critics?
As the deaths of American men and women fighting in Iraq topped 1,000, and with insurgents controlling parts of central Iraq, the White House trotted out the same old discredited line, assuming it can wear - and scare - everyone down by November.
One of our volunteers sent me a copy of the following Letter to the Editor that he sent to numerous publications around he country:
Vice President Dick Cheney has taken presidential campaigning to a new low. Saying that the election of John Kerry would lead to another terrorist
attack is at best an unconscionable act of desperation. At worst its a
cynical and insulting ploy to exploit the nations fears.
To date, the war on terrorism has been a dismal failure. Osama bin Laden
remains at large. Al-Qaeda remains a potent force. The Taliban is regrouping
in Afghanistan. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased. And
we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq a war that has sapped our resources,
damaged the good will of our allies and strengthened the resolved of our
enemies.
We the people deserve a serious debate on those issues. We deserve a serious
discussion of the best strategies to keep the nation safe. Instead, we get
scorched-earth-style rhetoric. After all weve been through since September
11, 2001, we simply deserve better.
Ken S.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Lots of folks have pointed out the correlation between the release of news that could be interpreted as bad for Bush and some press conference or public statement about a terror alert.
This is just one more example.
This doesn't seem cynical to me anymore, but credible, but rather sad and predictable.
The speechifying of Zell Miller was bad enough, implying that it's treasonous just to TRY to unseat Bush.
Can I just say: Bush may be the military's Commander-in-Chief, but as far as I'm concerned, he WORKS for me. We, the People, hired him, and we, the People, can collectively fire him. If you don't like that; you don't like the Democracy you claim to be trying to spread.
I liked Jon Stewart's response to Miller's speech where he said, "Yes, how dare the Democrats even field a candidate!"
Now, even worse, Dick Cheney is coming out and saying that if the people elect John Kerry, we will be attacked by terrorists!
WTF. I mean REALLY!?
It was one thing when the Bush Campaign was disavowing those bumper stickers that said Osama Bin Laden was voting for Kerry, but now their own candidate is equating a vote for Kerry with a vote for being attacked.
Disgusting. Totally.
Here is the official campaign response. Could be even more outraged in my opinion.
So turns out Ah-nold's stirring recollections of leaving his homeland, complete with references to both communism (sub-text: let's remember Reagan and the Cold War one more time shall we, rather than really talk about our candidate) and Socialism (sub-text: let's pull out that old bug-a-boo that all Democrats are Socialists...ignoring the fact that the Republicans have turned into the biggest spenders...on corporate welfare, rather than social welfare) are wholly inaccurate, in fact impossible.
I mean, it's just politics, right? Not really a huge deal. Lying. Lying for political purposes. Just par for the course right?
OK.
But it does go to show that they really will say anything.
Okay, I can't pretend I watched 7 stultifying hours of the RNC Convention. I only listened to Rudy Guiliani while driving in my car this evening.
And it was making me feel nauseated, to be honest.
Don't get me wrong, Guiliani will always have my admiration for how he conducted himself post 9/11. I was in a Manhattan hotel room watching hours and hours of news coverage, and he and Hillary Clinton were the two people who spoke that really handled it just right.
But he was always a hard-line Republican. His strong leadership post 9/11 doesn't change that.
But I want to ask him some questions after hearing his speech:
1. Did you really think within minutes of the towers being hit, "Thank God George W. Bush is our President"? Really? That was topmost in your mind?
It would seem to me there would be a million and one things to think about and act on before reflecting on whether it mattered who was President at that moment.
2. Do you really think "having strong beliefs and sticking to them" is the number one attribute of a leadership?
How about having the right beliefs? Or doesn't that matter. I am NOT going to bring up historical figure that the Republicans like to bring up when times get rough...but you could say some of the craziest and most destructive leaders in history had "strong beliefs" and sure as hell stuck to them.
Didn't make them right. Didn't make them good for their country either.
This whole valuing of "resoluteness" (which is BS anyway, given what a flip-flopper Dubya is) over anything else, like maybe good decision making, blows my mind.
3. If it is so all important NOT to let terrorists walk...to chase them down and make them pay...then WHY DID WE GO AFTER IRAQ WHEN WE WEREN'T DONE WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN? How dare you accuse past nations and leaders of Chamberlain-like appeasement. how dare you say that other governments let terrorist go, only so they could attack again, while Bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere, directing the efforts of a newly revitalized Al Qaeda?
OMG, the hypocrisy.
This is Bush's entire argument...strength in the face of terror.
And he has been an abysmal failure.
Not only that, he now says you can't win the war on terror anyway.
And don't come explain to me what he meant and how he meant it.
That just sounds like "nuance" to me. And we all know THAT won't do.
I'm totally disturbed by the pre-convention spinning going on by the RNC. They know that there will be thousands of protesters. And it seems like they're trying like hell to create an ugly situation that can be blamed on the Democrats.
Read more on this topic in the extended entry:
I've already been writing about the intimidation techniques being used in link to a blogger going to the Convention who's a little concerned, given her first-hand experience in other countries.
The Republican Party's latest line: that any protests are the work of Democrat Party-sanctioned groups showing "disrespect for a sitting president."
But the blog Press Action rightfully lists the numerous questions that should be asked about this reasoning.
And as ever, I have to ask...where is the media?
How will they justify having portrayed the protests that WERE Republican-orchestrated events down in Florida 2000 as your average voter revolt, while letting stand such baseless Republican accusations about the protests that haven't even happened yet in NYC 2004?
I like, rather, the explanation for protests that Kerry's communications director, Stephanie Cutter, provides:
"This president has spent the last four years dividing people and never taking responsibility for his failed record and its impact on average Americans. Any protests that might take place will likely reflect that."
BushCo's typical tactic is to impugn the patriotism of those who disagree with them. But sometimes that just isn't enough, so then they have been known to move on to the whisper, whisper "they're getting unhinged" or "they're 'wild-eyed'" tactic.
Well, I guess if something has worked once, why not try it again?
They did it to John McCain; they did it to Al Gore, and they're already diving in to doing it to John Kerry.
How dare these people disagree with Bush and his tactics/ How dare they exhibit some strength and passion about it?
They must be crazy!
It's a sick, sick country we live in when this tactic is effective.
Source: Talking Points Memo w/link to Washington Post article
By now it's a joke that we expect this Administration to roll out another terror warning whenever they feel the Democrats are gaining momentum. By now it's a joke that we expect this Administration to roll out the capture of Osama Bin Laden to coincide with either their convention or if they're really desperate, with the election itself.
I don't find these jokes particularly amusing. I actually feel it is counterproductive to turn the idea that they would perpetrate such a fraud on us as amusing, not totally outrageous.
By joking about it, we are softening the blow. We are doing their work for them. We are making it so people won't be surprised, and therefore won't raise a stink.
Case in point: I'm sure you heard about the latest "specific" terror threats against financial institutions in NY, NJ and DC? You know the ones they announced the day after the Democratic Convention closed? You know the press conference where Ridge spent about half the time genuflecting before his God of Leadership (and boss) Dubya?
Guess how old that "specific" information is?
Find out in the extended entry:
Well, they found this info during a raid, and as it happens, most of the intelligence they gathered from the raid was dated before 9/11/01:
"Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday"
I'm not saying that the info is worthless. I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm not saying it's not scary how much detailed info Al Qaeda was collecting on specific buildings, and that they might not have been considering attacks on those buildings.
But I am saying that there was no evidence found that post-9/11 they were continuing their surveillance of those buildings. I'm saying there's a possibility that they were considering lots of targets for 9/11, and they picked different ones.
And I'm saying that before they alarm the country and the world, perhaps they should have something more recent that 3-year-old data to cite. Perhaps if they're going to start talking about "new" information, they might want to mention that it's new to us, not actually recent.
I would say that if they wanted to be taken seriously they would do more of this kind of homework before their press conferences and their alerts. But I don't actually think they want to be taken seriously. They just want to take focus.
Sources:
8/3/04 Washington Post article
Japan's ruling party suffered a setback in recent elections, losing some of their majority. Much of the discontent with the party is attributed to their support of Bush and his War on Iraq. Only Japan didn't suffer any terrorist attacks right before their election.
So how ever shall Bush explain away this election result?
Could it be perhaps the will of the people, and the people have lost all faith in Bush's war? Oh, no. it must be Al Qaeda. Well, at least that is what I'm fully expecting BushCo's response to turn out to be.
You heard it here first.
Source: Washington Post article
The BBC has dug up an interesting and relevant quote in their article on revelations that Tom Ridge is looking into how to delay the November election.
Apparently some folks urged Lincoln to postpone the 1864 presidential election, given we were in a civil war. He didn't do it. Here's why:
"The election is a necessity. We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."
Here's the BBC article.
The shoe has dropped.
All those "conspiracy theorists" dismissed for being nutty for actually wondering whether Bush would try to suspend the November election are looking not so nutty now.
Reuters reports that Tom Ridge is looking into what steps would have to be taken to allow Bush to suspend the November elections in the case of a terrorist attack the "day before or day of" the election. Hell, why not the month before, if Kerry's poll numbers are looking too good?
Turns out the federal government has no such authority, so Ridge is further considering asking Congress to pass legislation that would give it the authority.
This is worth fighting for. This is worth contacting your Congressperson over. This is freakin' scary.
Source: Reuters story
Well, this should surprise no one.
BushCo are issuing vague warnings about "massive" terrorist attacks meant to disrupt our Democratic process.
See Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911' for information on the psychology of fear.
It's amazing how this crowd is all for the Democratic process...unless it means counting all the votes in Florida or voting out a Bush buddy in Spain.
Of course, the BBC story is among the few that dare to question...if you're so worried about a massive attack, WHY haven't you raised the "terror level."
Could it be because those levels are meaningless?
Today I called in to The O'Franken factor and actually got on air...after a 45 minute wait!
I got in a quick plug for this blog and for working voter registration tables, but my purpose in calling was to tell the story of Mr. "compassionate conservative Republican" that I met while working that table last week.
The point I was making is that everyone should ask their Republican friends if they're comfortable with attitude, set at the top of the Republican food chain, that it's okay to question the patriotism/humanity of those who disagree on politics.
Read about Al's response in the extended entry:
At first Al almost seemed to be an apologist, saying that he didn't think that attitude was representative of most Republicans, and this guy was just probably trying to get my goat.
But that was partly my point...that if that attitude is NOT representative of you, and you're a Republican, how can you stand by and let them turn your party into this party of division?
Bu Al warmed up a bit and made an excellent point: that this is a standard line on right-wing talk radio: liberals hate America; liberals are rooting for the terrorists etc.
And that Bush or Cheney or Rove or any of that bunch could call Limbaugh or Hannity or Savage at any time and tell them to stop, but they don't.
They don't, because they WANT that message being spread.
Anyway, Al bolstered my point that this is being encouraged at the highest levels, and that it's very divisive and plain wrong!
Nice, subtle, but evil quote from Ashcroft the other day:
"The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to have advanced their cause. Al Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences."
So, in case you don't have your subtle, but evil hat on today, Ashcroft is trying to say that a vote for John kerry (the opposition party candidate) is a vote to advance Al Qaeda's cause.
Yeah, but we want to propagate our beautiful brand of democracy throughout the world. It sets such a nice example when you compare opposition parties to terrorists.
As I've said before, I'm sick and tired of the implication that liberals, Democrats, progressives etc. are Anti-American...actually I think we demonstrate our love for our country by expecting MORE from her. And by wanting fairness for all of our citizens, not just a privileged few.
I belong to a variety of online groups that discuss politics. And while I primarily belong to groups that have belief systems similar to mine, there are also those from the other side of the political spectrum that participate.
I've noticed a common charge from that side of the aisle is to accuse those of us who question or disagree with current policies or politicians of being "Anti-American." They think those of us pushing for change think "everything America does is wrong" and sometimes they go as far as to say it's anti-troops and nearly "treasonous" (Thank you Ann Coulter.)
My personal response to such charges (because I take that charge VERY personally) are in the extended entry:
I submit that those of us questioning and disagreeing are actually far more in love with America than the cynical right willing to settle for a lesser nation.
I submit that we challenge American policies, because we expect more from America.
I submit that those of us who voice our concerns, our questions, our disagreements are striving to make America behave as the great nation we believe in our hearts it is.
We know about pragmatism; we know about harsh realities, but we also know that America has managed to figure out how to do well and do right simultaneously before, and we think it should figure that out again.
I want to believe that America and Americans are respected, admired and loved by people around the world. I want to believe it, but I think we should behave in a way that earns such high regard.
I think the vast majority of Americans also hold their country to this higher standard. And we, the People, have to make sure our leaders hold themselves to that higher standard to. In business, in families and for this nation setting the bar high has to start at the very top.
I see those T-Shirts that say "Not MY President" and think: Fine make it so.