June 09, 2004

Down Is Up. Literally.

U.S. Will Revise Data on Terror

When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.

"Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report.

But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

"It will change the numbers," said one State Department official who declined to comment further or be identified by name. "The incidents will go up, but I don't know by how many."

FLASHBACK: "HEY, MAYBE IT'S WORKING!"

[link] posted @ 12:42 PM est [Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)]

Sadr Watch

I keep hearing that we "won" in Najaf, though I don't understand how pulling out and negotitating with a guy we said was a wanted criminal equates to winning. Now here comes a story that says Sadr is more popular than ever.

Any doubts about al-Sadr's success were erased Saturday, when he was invited to meet with al Sistani, who in the past had sought to distance himself from the young cleric. Many saw the meeting as a stamp of legitimacy for al-Sadr, who's long been on the fringes of the political process.

But that's impossible. We gave the country back to the Iraqis, I saw it on tv.

MORE: Despite Agreement, Insurgents Rule Fallujah

[link] posted @ 11:20 AM est [Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)]

The Show @ The UN

It amazes me that some people actually buy this Iraqi handover and "transition". After the handover, we still run Iraq from our embassy there. The new government has no real power. The UN resolution doesn't provide for any extra troops in the field.

Not to mention:

06/09/2004: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
06/08/2004: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
06/07/2004: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
06/07/2004: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
06/07/2004: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
06/07/2004: DoD Identifies Army Casualty

[link] posted @ 07:45 AM est [Comments (9) | TrackBack (1)]

June 08, 2004

Classic Drudge

He floats a rumor (quite likely, as false as much of his "scoops" are) and the usual parties just eat it up (1, 2, 3 entries??!).

I put as much stock in these suspicious Drudge stories as I do NewsMax, The National Enquirer and The Washington Times (who can't even get stories about the Redskins right!).

Sometimes they're all one and the same.

[link] posted @ 10:58 PM est [Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)]

Bubble of Supremacy

Echoes of Nixon, as the Bush folks try to assert that their branch of the government doesn't have to deal with the others.

Ashcroft Refuses to Release Torture Memo

Angry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Ashcroft to provide the document, saying leaked portions that have appeared in news reports suggest the Bush administration is reinterpreting U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the memo on interrogation techniques permissible for the CIA to use "appears to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." The draft document was prepared by the Justice Department's office of legal policy for White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales.

Of course, the last time this White House refused to turn over a piece of paper it only said "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." That's all.
(via talkleft)

UPDATE: Is That Legal has the memo Not the memo in question, just a whole other memo saying America should torture people. Yay!

[link] posted @ 06:15 PM est [Comments (38) | TrackBack (1)]

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush John W. Dean Price: $16.06 More Like This A Sea of Words, Third Edition: A Lexicon and Companion to the Complete Seafaring Tales of Patrick O'Brian Dean King, John B. Hattendorf, J. Worth Estes Price: $11.20 More Like This Northern Exposure - The Complete First Season Price: $41.99 More Like This

Baghdad Joking

Juan Cole has a wry one

[link] posted @ 05:50 PM est [Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)]

Right Is Wrong, News At 11

John Cole says that I intentionally didn't read Sr. Rummy's comments (read the full transcript) when I posted this story. John's quibble is that the "we" in question doesn't mean America, but rather the coalition.

Excuse me?

Are we not the "coalition"?
Are we not the leaders of the "coalition"?
And shouldn't a failure to plan fall on the leaders of said coalition?

Like, er, Donald Rumsfeld?

More from Jesse Ezra here

[link] posted @ 04:42 PM est [Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)]

The CACI Connection

Looks like we're prepping more Abu Ghraibs.

[link] posted @ 01:40 PM est [Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)]

Shorter Jonah Goldberg

Sayeth he: "The numbers show Clinton was more popular than Reagan, so let me add some pseudo psychological interpretation to the numbers, while avoiding the actual facts of the issue. Mommy, can I listen to the tapes again?"

[link] posted @ 11:34 AM est [Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)]

America & The World

Foreign Policy looked at some recent polls, then constructed an interview with John Q Public to explain how Americans view foreign policy. Unsurprisingly, Americans are... nuanced.

Voice of a Superpower

FP: So you think war was the wrong decision?

JP: No. I think Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction, and I do think he was probably working with al Qaeda. And though he is not the only threat to the United States, it is better for U.S. security to have him out of there. Overall, he was a really bad guy. So, no, it was not a wrong decision.

FP: So it was the right decision?

JP: Well, sort of - I just don't know if it was the best decision. Maybe if we had taken more time and gotten more countries involved through the United Nations, the brunt of this thing would not be falling on our shoulders. The war itself was simple, but this occupation is tough. I didn't like it when Bush said he wanted $87 billion dollars for Iraq. And all these casualties...

FP: So are you thinking you might want to pull out?

JP: Oh no, we can't do that. Whether or not it was a good idea to go in, we still need to stay the course.

FP: How did you feel about the capture of Hussein?

JP: That was great. It made me feel better about how Bush was handling the situation in Iraq. But personally, capturing Saddam didn't make me feel safer.

FP: What do you want to do at this point?

JP: I would like to see this whole thing put under the United Nations. Let's not have the United States out front and being shot at every day.

[link] posted @ 12:07 AM est [Comments (28) | TrackBack (1)]

June 07, 2004

Taste America, Vote Democratic

Next to Christian fundamentalists, Cuban-Americans are probably the biggest pillar of support for the GOP. In Miami, where many of them had the funds necessary to crossover to America, the militant anti-Castro sentiment finds a natural ally in the GOP (thirty-plus years, that policy must be working).

But when the second generation comes around, it appears the story may be different.

Bush's Hispanic Support May Be Weakening

"The war in Iraq is no good," says Emelio G. Faroy, sipping a high-octane cup of Cuban coffee. Each election finds this lifelong Republican more open to Democrats.

"Most Cubans have always been Republican by nature. I followed my mother's lead," said the 56-year-old bail bondsman. "But when you get older, and see how things are, you think differently."

[link] posted @ 11:49 PM est [Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)]

Presidency, Reagan Style

Preface: I find it amazing the rewriting of history, Soviet-style, currently ongoing with regards to Reagan's presidency. It's one thing to emphasize the positives (and completely expected when a president dies), a whole other to ignore the negatives (ie. deficits, South American wars, middle east policy, SDI boondoggles, etc.). A little balance would be nice.

Anyhow.

One of the things I find where Bush compares to Reagan is that for all of his considerable faults in the eyes of the left, Reagan continually had approval from Democrats - and received enough votes from Democrats for comfortable election wins. Yes, his fights with the Tip O'Neil-led congress were bitter - and nobody would ever consider Reagan a bipartisan president ("I hope you're all Republicans") - but he didn't run his presidency as if half the country didn't exist.

The presidents after Reagan - Bush & Clinton, all reached out to the other party in some way. Not Bush. Bush has presided over a single party presidency, never mindful that about half of the electorate may not share his ideology, but still depends on him to be a leader.

Reagan was also stage-managed like hell, but still had the abilit to speak off the top of his head from time to time, and granted the press corps the occasional press conference. George Bush lives in a politically-erected glass bubble, using the crutch of meeting foreign dignitaries to delect questioning or only engaging in rare pseudo-scripted news conferences (with escape clauses offered by friendly reporters like the idealogically driven Bill Sammon of Fox News).

In a lot of ways, Bush is too much Reagan. In others, he's nothing like him at all.

[link] posted @ 11:41 PM est [Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)]

The Failure Of Donald Rumsfeld

I can't believe he said this.

Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror

The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.

"It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.

[link] posted @ 11:49 AM est [Comments (36) | TrackBack (2)]

Classics Reviewed

Novelist Max Barry (Syrup, Jennifer Government) has a blog, and he has an entry up reviewing Mary-Kate & Ashley #20. It's a classic.

First, who, exactly, reads the 20th book in the Mary-Kate and Ashley series without realizing they’re sisters? I mean, setting aside the possibility that the previous 19 books have been keeping this a secret, and that the reader has thus far been unexposed to mainstream media, the book’s cover shot is of two remarkably similar-looking girls. Isn’t that a giveaway? If you’re worried about readers that stupid, you probably need to point out that they’re twins, too.

Second, I can’t help but wonder what percentage of Mary-Kate and Ashley books contain an exclamation point in the first sentence. I haven’t checked, but I get the feeling it’s a high number.

[link] posted @ 01:35 AM est [Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)]

Syrup Maxx Barry, Max Barry Price: $10.40 More Like This Jennifer Government MAX BARRY Price: $10.36 More Like This Saving Private Ryan (D-Day 60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) Price: $18.89 More Like This