Where we're headed:



posted by Quiddity at 3/23/2004 11:46:42 PM

As long as we're doing timelines:

Reader T.A. directed us to a page at the Center for American Progress. It reviews the priorities and budget decisions for Clinton-Reno and for Bush-Ashcroft regarding counterterrorism.

Article: 9/11: Internal Government Documents Show How the Bush Administration Reduced Counterterrorism

Our diagram of how the policies relate in time and priorities:



posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2004 09:43:32 PM

Timeline:

Here are the key events prior to 9/11 as related by Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes:



UPDATE: Giving credit where credit is due. We were in a rush this morning and failed to credit Sadly No for the transcript of the 60 Minuts program which we used when creating the chart above. Also, thanks to Sisyphus Shrugged for first making us aware of said transcript.

posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2004 08:06:15 AM

This is no excuse:

In the 60 Minutes program on former counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, we hear the administration's view from Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice’s right-hand man in National Security Council. He says this about Clarke's accusation that the administration failed to act responsibly to the threat posed by al-Qaeda: (emphasis added)

I don't know what he's said about the prior administration, which, again, was in office and dealing with this problem for eight years. We were in office dealing with this problem for 230 days.

Low quality .wav file of that quote can be heard here.

posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2004 08:08:16 PM

John McCain isn't stark raving mad:

Althought you might think so judging from this image on the web page for Fox News Sunday:



John looks like he's staring down a cobra.

Our congratulations to the team at Fox News for providing us with a fair-minded picture of the senator.

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 07:43:00 PM

Nice:

A friend sent us this graphic. We like it.

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 01:27:14 AM

A change in mood?

On the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, we were surprised to note the following:

On the local 11:00 news, a lead story that devoted several minutes to a young 21-year old widow of a soldire that died as a result of wounds received. She said on camera that she didn't think we should be in Iraq (but not stridently).

Also on the local news, a statement that 570 soldiers have died; of that total, 430 since the "mission accomplished" event.

An ABC Nightline program devoted to soldiers recovering from battlefield injuries. Injuries that caused them to lose one or more limbs. (Always a difficult thing to watch.)

These items are a contrast from the triumphalist rhetoric we had expected. (For example, while our television viewing was not extensive today, we didn't see any footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down.)

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 12:02:32 AM

What about all the rest of them guys?

This Friday, Charles Krauthammer writes: (excerpts, emphasis added)

When confronting an existential enemy ... there are only two choices: appeasement or war.

In the 1930s Europe chose appeasement. Today Spain has done so again. Europe may follow.

Today there is no doubting the intentions of Arab-Islamic radicalism. It is not this grievance or that (U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). It is not this territory or that (Palestine, Andalusia). The intention, endlessly repeated, is the establishment of a primitive, messianic caliphate -- redeeming Islam and dominating the world.

Spain will now withdraw from Iraq, sever its alliance with America

First of all, there was never an alliance in the generally understood definition that applies to states:

A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship.

Second, why all the attention to Spain? Krauthammer asserts that radical Islam is out to dominate the world. So why isn't he spending more of his time critiquing most of Latin America, most of Asia, and virtually all of sub-Sahara Africa? At least Spain showed up for a while in Iraq, and it was involved in Afghanistan. Spain makes up 0.6% of the world population. They've done their share.

Krauthammer should direct his outrage elsewhere.


posted by Quiddity at 3/19/2004 03:49:27 PM

Dick Cheney speaks truthfully!

In a speech today at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Vice President Dick Cheney said this about Saddam Hussein:

... President Bush gave an ultimatum to the dictator -- to leave Iraq or be forcibly removed from power.

That's pretty much what it was all about, removing Hussein from power:

• Bush getting personal revenge.
  
  
• Fufilling the dreams of the Project for the New American Century
  
  

  ---

• Not about WMD
  
  
• Not about connections with al-Qaeda

posted by Quiddity at 3/17/2004 05:57:00 PM

If he were alive today:

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 09:40:09 PM

Mr. President, who are these individuals you're referring to?

From the White House website:

Q Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think he should -- that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it's -- if you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.

STATEMENTS BY BUSH: (all we did was search for "talk" in his speeches and addresses in 2004 - you don't expect us to read them all, do you?)

• March 3, 2004     --    I talked to some people who I think would say, my life is changed because of a miracle.
  
  
• February 16, 2004     --    I just want to remind everybody that tax -- the child credit is going down next year. And if you listen to some of them talking out of Washington these days, that's fine with them.
  
  
• February 19, 2004     --    I've talked to a lot of small manufacturers who explained what it means to have their power disrupted as a result of an antiquated electricity grid.

TO BE CLEAR: The first item is cited because some people, like the "foreign leaders" Kerry referred to, may not want their identies known. As to the last item, we don't deny that manufacturers are concerned about reliable power, but we are skeptical that president Bush himself has "talked to a lot of small manufacturers" about the electric grid.

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 08:00:24 PM

Good fun:

Check out this parody page:

Bush Wants Kerry to Identify Supporters So He Can Invade Them

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 05:57:21 PM

CNN links to uggabugga's Bushisms Analyzed page:

BusinessWeek has a story on Bush's mangled syntax:

"Analyzating" Bush's Grey Matter
The President's tendency to mangle words and syntax may be due to an undiagnosed language and hearing disability, say some experts

The BusinessWeek article is linked to from a CNN page on "bushspeak" - which includes a link to our own analysis of Bush's use of language.

In the BusinessWeek story, we read:

To some learning-disability experts, the signs are clear: Bush might want to pay them a visit. These experts haven't tested the President, so they caution that they can't be certain of the diagnosis. Yet, ample signs indicate that something unusual is going on in the left side of his brain, where language and hearing are processed.

and

[One] reason [Bush has trouble speaking might be] something called central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). ...

According to an article on the Internet by Judith W. Paton, a San Mateo (Calif.) audiologist, CAPD is a physical hearing impairment that doesn't show up as hearing loss but rather affects hearing beyond the ear. In effect, the auditory nerves don't handle the raw data from the ear properly. It's usually found with a cluster of other symptoms. Among the tell-tale signs she cites: Confusion of similar sounding words, terse communications, better hearing when watching the speaker, and trouble hearing when it's noisy.

Well, maybe. All we can say is that when we analysed the Bushisms, we didn't find any clear pattern. Sure, there were sound-alike problems, but there were instances where the noun or verb was the opposite of what was called for (e.g. "at home" instead of "abroad"). There were even subject-object switches. And many other errors that don't fit into a pattern of auditory failure. The overall impression we got from the analysis was that Bush was a lazy speaker (and thinker).

But we're certainly interested in learning more about what ever it is that makes Bush speak the way he does. There are known special-function areas of the brain for visual processiong (e.g. edge filters), so perhaps there are similar special-function areas for language processing (hearing, thinking, and speaking). And maybe some of those are unusual in Bush (either congenital or from long-term alcohol consumption).

What we need to do to settle the matter, is have Bush's head in an NMR scanning device while he is being interviewed by Tim Russert. Wouldn't that be something? (While we're at it, let's scan Russert's head as well.)

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 01:22:04 PM

This man is a disgrace:

William Safire writes today in the New York Times: (excerpts, emphasis added)

... Senator John Kerry, campaigning last week in Chicago, let loose with his opinion of Republicans opposing him as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."

Was it wise for a candidate for president to characterize Republicans - tens of millions of American voters, including even veterans - as thieves and liars?

[Safire writes of the] blunderbuss slander of Republicans as "the most crooked, you know, lying group"

... Kerry now revels in reviling millions of those crooked, lying Republicans.

That was not what Kerry was talking about. Kerry was not characterizing "tens of millions of American voters." Kerry was not engaged in "slander of Republicans." Kerry was not "reviling millions of ... Republicans."

Kerry is a smart politician and he would love to get Republican votes. He would not offend millions of potential voters.

Safire treats his readers as fools.



posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2004 05:30:14 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your National Security Advisor:

From the Meet the Press transcript of the interview with Condoleezza Rice: (emphasis added)

• ... after 9/11, the president was looking at a situation in which he was presented with an intelligence picture of a Saddam Hussein who had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons ...
  
  
• The international community had a serious credibility problem where it came to weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to enforce tough resolutions, and what the president and the coalition did was to rescue, really, that credibility ...
  
  
• [Iraq had] the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region ...
  MR. RUSSERT: More dangerous than North Korea?
  I think more dangerous than North Korea ...
  
  
• The president wants to know, as much as anybody, and probably more than anyone else, what became of the weapons of mass destruction. We were all somewhat surprised that we have not yet found them.
  
  
• Did we know on September 10 that September 11 was imminent? No, we did not.
  
  
• The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep ...
  
  
• MR. RUSSERT: Will you testify under oath in public about September 11?
  Tim, this is not a matter of preference; this is a matter of principle. It has long been a legal and constitutional principle that assistants to the president, the presidential staff, do not testify before legislative bodies. But this is not a matter of preference. ... as a matter of principle, we cannot breach this wall between the legislature and the executive.

posted by Quiddity at 3/14/2004 05:17:33 PM

Funny:

Post on the Yahoo message board for this story:

Bush praises man in speech on women's rights - 03-12-2004
U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man.

If Barbara Bush was your mother, you would not know the difference between a man or a woman either. People need to back off and recognize.... bush is a darn good president. I will vote for him again and I will vote for jeb too when he runs against tipper gore in 2008. I think jeb has a son that I would vote for too. I know jeb's brother marvin has presidential aspirations, so I will vote for him in 2016 when jeb's term runs out. By this time in election 2024, I will vote for jeb's kid. Not noelle, the crackhead first daughter of florida, but jeb's son, the rightful air to the family throne. By this time one of saddamm hussein's illegitimate sons will have taken over iraq and we can go ahead and fight gulf war III, Saddam's illigit grandson vs. Bush's great nephew. After this, the world will enjoy global peace .

posted by Quiddity at 3/14/2004 11:41:56 AM

Who is that guy?


There is a lot of talk about Bush's new negative ad that targets Senator John Kerry on the issue of fighting terrorists.

In particular, some are wondering who that suspicious fellow is supposed to be in the lowest rectangle (as shoen in this screenshot). Arab-Americans think the ad plays on ethnic stereotypes and want it pulled. Who might that shifty-eyed fellow be?

To find out, move your mouse over the image (Javascript enabled browsers).

posted by Quiddity at 3/11/2004 11:01:27 PM

Action - reaction:

Group Calls for Kerry to Apologize

By STAN PELSON Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON March 10 - The president of a national fraternal organization says Senator John Kerry should apologize for his remarks about Republican critics. On Wednesday, after an appearance with supporters at Chicago's Union Station, Kerry described his political opposition as "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen."

Henry Belston, president of the Fraternal Association of Crooks and Liars (FAOCAL) said that the statement by the senator was "totally uncalled for and an insult to thousands of Americans." The organization, FAOCAL, has in recent years tried to separate themselves from being associated with what they consider far worse examples of human behavior. "Look," said Mr. Belston, "We're crooks and liars and make no apologies for it. Since 1996 we've been running a campaign to define ourselves in the public's mind."

"But now Senator Kerry says his political opponents are just like us. That's outrageous. We may be crooks and liars, but we have a certain amount of respect for our craft. For instance, we think a lie has to be deployed carefully and with restraint in order to maintain its potency. Yet Bush and his political allies lie again and again and again - and that's just in five minutes time. Also, who the hell lies about WMD in order to start a war that doesn't even bring political benefits the aggressor? It doesn't make any sense. Please, don't associate crooks and liars with the White House. We may not be honorable, but at least we're competent."

The organization's leadership is expected to meet later this week and vote for a resolution calling on Kerry to apologize. However, there is some division within FAOCAL, and the vote will probably not be unanimous. Almost every member thinks that Bush is a sorry example of a liar, but hard-core crooks may abstain from the vote. That's because, in the words of one of them, "When it comes to crooked behavior, Dick Cheney has retired the trophy. You've got to be impressed by the man. He's got his fingers in every pie: Haliburton, the Iraqi War, outing CIA agents, cozying up to Supreme Court justices, threatening Hans Blix - the list goes on. And then, in a stroke of brilliance, when he comes under scrutiny, he claims he’s acting in the nation’s best interest by hiding out in a 'secret undisclosed location'. I admire that inventiveness. He's a crook par excellence. You can't deny it."

Despite the fact that some members consider Cheney the ‘quintessential crook,’ the organization’s top priority is to refute Kerry’s charge that the president and his supporters are a ‘lying group’. "One thing at a time," a FAOCAL official said. "Right now it's lies. A year from now when Bush is out of office, we'll deal with the administration’s crooked behavior. It’ll be a huge task."

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 11:08:07 PM

White House way off-message:

We were surprised to read that, as part of his presidential campaign, Bush is touting the benefits of free trade. Now, while that may be a good policy in general, there may be times when trade regulation is appropriate. Perhaps there are instances where trade is unfair. Or perhaps regulation of trade (i.e. protectionism) may be needed to help transition workers (or the economy) to a different mix. And of course, there is always the virtue of appearing to care about people affected by free trade. So it was surprising to read this story: Bush Touts Free Trade, Warns of 'Isolationists' And of course, the jobs picture isn't pretty, so the administration is pretty quiet on that front. But why has Bush ignored one genuinely bright spot in the economy, that "overall home ownership levels have hit record levels -- nearly 70 percent of heads of household own their homes"

Let us be clear. We don't want Bush to win this year, but strictly as an exercise in political judgement, why hasn't the administration touted the home ownership angle? Why wade into the free-trade/outsourcing swamp?

Is the White House political apparatus broken?

NOTE: Yes, we know that ownership is largely the result of low interest rates (courtesy of Greenspan), but that shouldn't prevent the White House from trying to get credit for the situation.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 10:01:45 AM

White Knight-Ridder:

Two bloggers have some interesting things to say about Knight-Ridder's coverage of the news:

Matthew Yglesias in TAPPED

For my money, the most interesting part of Michael Massing's review of media coverage of Iraq intelligence before the war was the revelation that while most of the press fell down on the job, Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau was far better. Unfortunately, since the chain doesn't own any papers in the nation's major news markets, no one noticed. Now I check for their coverage of the issue all the time and it's still the best.

Kevin Drum of Calpundit

... read the last seven paragraphs of the Knight-Ridder piece. Those are unusually bald assertions for a straight news piece, especially since they don't include the usual "according to sources" or "some critics say" pretense.

We plan on making Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau webpage a regular part of our reading. You might want to also.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 09:44:44 AM

Suggestions:

As part of a campaign to encourage Americans to exercise and lose weight, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has a new website: smallstep.gov, where one can find a list of 100 "small steps" to get you started. If you have seen one of the public service announcements, you might have seen the list scrolling (very quickly) down the screen. Most of the suggestions are reasonable, but these caught our eye:

40. Pace the sidelines at kids' athletic games.
41. Take wheels off luggage.
47. Bike to the barbershop or beauty salon instead of driving.
52. Avoid laborsaving devices.
80. Stop eating when you are full.
98. Walk to a co-worker's desk instead of emailing or calling them.
100. Use a snow shovel instead of a snow blower.

24. Skip seconds.
88. Don't take seconds.

Sure, most of the 100 suggestions are reasonable, but "Take wheels off luggage"? That would probably lead to more physical problems than less. And using a snow shovel is a quick way to get to Heart Attack City. And how many women are going to bike to and from the beauty salon? Not many, we bet.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 08:11:12 AM