We are living in a materialist world, and this is a materialist url!
Atrios and Hesiod remind us that Senator Frist is not one to talk about exploiting one's "insider status." In fact, Frist has a number of conflicts of interest that merit watching as pointed out by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
I just watched Tim Russert interview Richard Clarke. Russert, in his trademark serious demeanor and in a series of questions, asked Clarke to respond to every accusation the Bushies have leveled against him. In essence, Russert lets the White House make Clarke the issue as opposed to the White House's own actions. Clarke did a fine job of defending himself. The Bush administration's attacks hardly deserve the respect given them by Russert. I prefer Jon Stewart's take on the Bush administration's attack on Clarke. It says a lot about political discourse in our country when American voters need to turn to comedy, not news programs, to put politics in proper perspective.
Haaretz is reporting that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faces probable indictment on suspicion that he took bribes on real estate deals. Could it be that Israel's legal system will do for the world what George W. Bush has refused to do; create a dynamic in Israel that will push peace over violence?
Someone "wrote a speech for Senator Bill Frist". He did not write it himself. In the speech, Frist attacks Richard Clarke and his testimony under oath before the committee investigating September 11. Frist speaks with indignation and paints Clarke as a man who not only lies about the events surrounding September 11 but has traded on his insider status in "an appalling act of profiteering." By way of contrast, keep in mind that Frist does not see "an appalling act of profiteering" in the actions of Halliburton.
Near the end of the rant, Frist tells the world what really has the Bushies worried: "it is understandable why some of the families who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks find Mr. Clarke's performance appealing . . .Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation."
Clarke did what George W. Bush has refused to do: tell the truth and apologize. Clarke's statement was both powerful and persuasive. No, Mr. Frist, it is not Richard Clarke who is the arrogant manipulator. That would be George W. Bush.
The Bush administration is running scared. Congressional Republican's, no doubt backed by the White House, are now pushing to declassify testimony by Richard Clarke from 2002 in hopes of discrediting Clarke's criticisms of the Bush administration. The White House has already released Clarke's resignation letter, outed Clarke as the off-the-record spokesman of positive remarks about Bush's response to terrorism, and released the attack dogs on the former counterterrorism official. None of the above has effectively rebutted Clarke's testimony given under oath last week. Anyone who works for a living knows that resignation letters are always positive and that staff often write and say what the bosses want, as opposed to their own positions. The steady stream of current White House officials spewing the administration line is evidence of that fact. To date, the pathetic nature and volume of the White House attacks on Clarke have served only to magnify his statements.
Spain's President Aznar and his party were turned out of office by an electorate that would "not forgive incompetence, ideological spin and mendacity" in dealing with the threat of terror. Azner was a bit player. Bush is the world leader responsible for the bait-and-switch from a promised war on terror to a war in Iraq based on lies. Throwing Azner out of office was not a victory for al-Qaeda, nor will voting Bush out. It will be a victory for truth.
The annual Saint Patrick's Day breakfast in South Boston is hardly an event for those expecting political sophistication. Instead, it's a platform for corny humor and corned beef. But the jokes that politicians can reveal a lot about them, even if you're not a Freudian.
As Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix noted this week, Romney tossed a throwaway line that reminded careful observers of some painful Boston history:
About a minute after stepping up to the podium inside Local 7 Ironworkers Hall, Romney delivered this gem: "There?s nothing wrong with our supreme court in Massachusetts that having Wacko Hurley as chief justice wouldn?t cure!" Quick history lesson for those whose knowledge of Boston doesn't extend back a decade (a group that, judging from the aforementioned one-liner, may include the governor): in March 1992, South Boston's Allied War Veterans Council, the long-time sponsor of Southie's St. Patrick's Day Parade, denied the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) permission to enter the event. GLIB, an organization largely made up of Irish émigrés, went to court, won the right to participate, and marched in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld GLIB's right to march, organizers cancelled the parade. In 1995, the US Supreme Court reversed the SJC's decision, ruling that—as a private group —the Allied War Veterans Council had a First Amendment right to determine the parade's composition. (Public sponsorship of the event had been scaled back as the controversy dragged on.)
As the parade's chief organizer, John J. "Wacko" Hurley embodied the veterans' determination to keep gays out—which, of course, helped pave the way for the ugliness that ensued. In 1992, smoke bombs and beer cans were thrown at some of the gay marchers as bystanders shouted, "You bunch of fags, get out of Southie" and "I hope you all die of AIDS, homos." In 1993, when Hurley promised to continue the legal fight ("We?ll go on until we have a parade of a family nature," he vowed), gay marchers were spat upon and pelted with snowballs as sharpshooters watched from rooftops. In 1994, Hurley explained the parade's cancellation by saying, "They're not going to shove something down our face that's not our traditional values."
Whatever one thinks of the US Supreme Court's 1995 decision, the nastiness directed at GLIB on the streets of South Boston was an overt display of homophobia. And there was a clear subtext of intolerance lingering behind Hurley's—and the veterans'—determination to keep gay and lesbian people from participating in the parade.
Romney had better stop making such wrong-headed remarks, even as jokes, lest he not get to be god of his own planet in the afterlife.
The past few days have seen the Bush administration's minions explain that they had no idea that any terrorist attacks were forthcoming in September 2001. It is propably safe to assume that whatever evidence they had was ambiguous at best. (Far more damning are not only the administration's overall obliviousness to the threat of terrorism, but also its manifold lies and deceptions that stemmed from the actual attacks.)
But one fact from July 2001 gnaws at me.
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.
Perhaps the threat against Ashcroft was wholly unrelated to the 11 September hijackings. But now would be a good time to find out for sure.
George Bush came to Boston today on a whirlwind trip to give a fundraising speech at a hotel in downtown Boston. The concomitant security detail closed a number of streets and made Boston's ordinarily gruesome traffic positive chthonic for many commuters.
But the most surreal bit of news came when the Boston Globe revealed one consequence of the speech by the president who promised to leave "no child behind":
The president's visit unexpectedly canceled classes for 1,425 children at the Boston Renaissance Charter School, a K-8 institution on Stuart Street a block away from the hotel. The Boston Public Schools system, which provides about 30 buses to transport Renaissance students, said it could not guarantee timely pick-up of students at dismissal time, said Dudley Blodget, chief operating officer of the Renaissance School's foundation. The school also feared that the 300 parents who pick up their children would not be able to reach the school.
"It's a sad situation that you have to close off school because of a fund-raising event," said Roger F. Harris, Renaissance headmaster.
Jonathan Palumbo, spokesman for the Boston Public Schools, said his transportation director only found out about the visit yesterday. The school department has few schools in the area, and they will not be directly affected, Palumbo said, although school officials anticipate delays at dismissal time.
So over a thousand students will literally be left behind so the president can take $2,000 apiece from 500 of his nearest and dearest friends, all of whom presumably have access to something called the postal system.
"The White House Had al-Qaeda Warning Before 9/11." That simple fact is on the front page of today's Financial Times.
Richard Clarke, the former White House head of counter-terrorism, told the truth and shamed the White House. His frank commentary was made all the more powerful by his public apology to the victims of that act of terror. Compare Clarke's willingness to testify publicly with Condoleezza Rice's refusal and only a Bush stooge would give the White House's past and present denials any credibility.
The Financial Times tells it straight. "The commission's preliminary report, expanding on criticisms Mr. Clarke leveled against the Bush administration in a book published this week, largely corroborates his claim that he had pushed for a stronger response in the face of 'alarming evidence that al-Qaeda was planning a big attack.' "
The White House's refusal to allow Rice to offer a rebuttal under oath, citing executive privilege, was Nixonian. A Party that attacked Clinton for parsing speech while denying adultery has shamed itself by selling a lie about September 11 and the war in Iraq. Bush's reelection strategy as an activist in the war on terrorism has run into a problem, the truth.
After assassinating the founder of Hamas, the Israeli government is refusing to rule out more killing.
"Everyone is in our sights," Israeli Internal Security Minister Tsahi Hanegbi told reporters on Tuesday. "There is no immunity to anyone."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, commenting on the Israeli threat, urged all parties to "exercise maximum restraint".
Hamas has pledged to avenge Yassin, who was killed in an Israeli missile strike outside a Gaza mosque on Monday. Israel said the wheelchair-bound cleric and Hamas spiritual leader masterminded suicide bombings.
"We will fight them everywhere. We will hit them everywhere. We will chase them everywhere," Rantissi told thousands of mourners in Gaza's main soccer stadium.
Previous assassinations triggered waves of suicide bombings on buses and cafes that killed scores of people in Israel, which put its security forces on high alert after Yassin's death.
It is hard to imagine any party in this sordid mess emerging better off. Israel has tried this sort of stunt before, with deadly consequences. Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups have been unwilling to stop the cycle of violence. And the United States government seems wholly unable to do more than request "maximum restraint."
Had the Bush administration really included the foreign policy "grown-ups" that it promised the American public, it might be making a bit more than a token effort to get Israel to act like its palestinian neighbors were worth taking seriously. Even the American business community, not known for its profound insight into human nature, knows that actions have consequences.
Paul's post below, while sadly indicative of what passes for conservative thought nowadays, has one amusing aspect. It seems to me that Jim Robinson uses an awful lot of Latin for someone so opposed to France, Germany, and Spain—the so-called "old Europe."
As Terence said so long ago, veritas odium parit.
We are not kidding you. Jim Robinson really did post the following to the homepage of Free Republic.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson."
What is it about the Bush Administration that keeps giving me deja vous? Widely published reports quote Vice President Dick Cheney as saying on Rush Limbaugh's radio show that Richard Clarke "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.” Was it not the senior Bush that contradicted his personal diaries by saying he was "out of the loop" on Iran-Contra? Would someone please tell the Bushies that mouthing "in" or "out" of "the loop" is no longer a phrase that creates plausible deniability, especially when there are other facts in evidence.
Lost in the coverage of Richard Clarke's interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes is the play the story received throughout two days of CBS Sports' coverage of second-round action of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Continual promos for 60 Minutes were run during the weekend. Basketball viewers were repeatedly told that an expert in antiterrorism in the Bush White House would reveal in an interview that President Bush "dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11." The metaphor was one that would not be lost on most basketball fans. Millions of young male voters heard Clarke's message in simple terms with which they could relate.
On Tuesday, 16 March, David Brooks wrote in his column that the Spanish voters who booted the conservative government out of office last weekend, were just a bunch of weak-willed appeasers. Included in his simplistic screed was this little gem:
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Besides the specious argument that a government that had failed in its duty to pretect the populace would necessarily be rewarded in the polls, this paragraph had a major problem. Prodi didn't exactly say that.
To his credit, Brooks tried to make amends. On Saturday, 20 March, David Brooks appended a correction to his column:
In Tuesday's column I quoted the European Commission's president, Romano Prodi, telling the Italian newspaper La Stampa that force was not the answer to terrorism. I was relying on an Agence France-Presse translation, which was incorrect. Prodi actually said force should not be the only answer to terrorism. He said terrorism would not abate until the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was resolved.
And, today Cathy Young penned a column for the Boston Globe in which she heads toward the fanciful notion that a plurality of Spaniards preferred the social democrats to the conservatives that lied not only about the 11 March bombings but also about links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. She even cites a libertarian, writing in the same libertarian magazine that employs her, who dispels the ntion that the spanish voters were just appeasers.
But she finds that the oft-trod path of sliming Europeans was just too compelling. then she drops the ball—and cites, you guessed it, the original quote that Brooks did.
Poor David Brooks! Even the columnists in the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times, can't be bothered to read his columns!
What a week for the Sesame Street fan! First, Spalding Gray, feared dead, turns up dead. Now the wonderful "Monsterpiece Theatre" parody of "Monster in a Box" isn't nearly as funny anymore. (Alastair Cookie introduces the play as "written by Spalding Monster, directed by Spalding Monster, starring Spalding Monster—no ego problem there!")
And now Martha Stewart is likely to face jail time unless an eppeal succeeds. So, the episode in which Martha Sewer advices Oscar and Grungetta on planning a grouch wedding loses a bit of its sly humor. (Faced with the dilemma of whether to drip mustard or slime on the invitations, Martha suggests "Both! It's a grouch thing!" Fortunately, Maria convinces the lovebirds that they don't have to get married if all they want is a trashy party.)
As the hoary adage goes, one does not want to know how sausages are made. (And not just because the casing is traditionally made from intestines.) I never thought of this adage as useful, because I actually care about what I eat.
The adage certainly fails when it applies to politics. Knowing how political decisions are made tells us reams about our government and our politicians.
Ron Suskind has generously provided anyone—even anyone who did not buy the book—free access to some of the documents that underpin the recent book written by him and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.
Go and check out the site: there's something for everybody, with more to come, all in the public domain.
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
Our Atom Site Feed is available to all those who like that sort of thing.
KMarx.com is our permanent address. Feel free to link, bookmark, bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate it.
You can e-mail Paul or Tim if you like.
This table-free weblog works in any browser, even Netscape 4.76. It looks best in any recent version of a Mozilla browser, or in Safari—those browsers take HTML seriously.
© 2003-2004 by Paul Corrigan and Tim Francis-Wright. The Creative Commons license applies to all original material on this weblog.
||
||
||
||
We regularly post longer articles at bear-left.com.