|
|
Public Nuisance Now with added Fair and Balanced! |
|
|
Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement. Blog critics Gryffindor House Slytherin House Ravenclaw House House Elves Beth Jacob Prisoners of Azkaban Muggles
Party Animals:
Jewish Bloggers Join >>  
|
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Hey, I love the Daily Howler. But lately, Somerby has at times been spinning just as hard as the elite journalists he mocks. Here's an excerpt from today's column: But then, Okrent seems prepared to credit almost any red-state-sounding complaint. “[A] creationist will find no comfort in the Science Times,” he even complains at one point. But should a creationist “find comfort” in science reporting? Okrent doesn’t address this obvious question. Here's the relevant passage in the article he was criticizing: The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side." And a creationist will find no comfort in Science Times. Not that creationists should expect to find comfort in Science Times. Although Somerby does raise some better points, Okrent's article is essentially right: on social issues, the Times is very much a liberal paper. If you're working against legalized abortion or legal recognition of gay unions, you're likely to believe, with good cause, that the Times, and in fact most of the mainstream media, is unfriendly. At least with regard to the Times, as Okrent notes, this is perfectly appropriate: it reflects the views of New Yorkers who write the paper and are the main target audience. How this ties into the paper's right wing bias in electoral coverage is another question, which Okrent completely ducks. Sunday, July 25, 2004
Matt Drudge recently complained that the upcoming Manchurian Candidate remake was being descirbed as "more partisan than 'FAHRENHEIT 911'" by a NYT reviewer who has seen it. Although Drudge's money quote isn't in the actual review, it turns out the rest of the item was uncharacteristically accurate. I just saw the original last night, and I'm a bit surprised that this would surprise anyone. The earlier film isn't partisan, but only in the narrow sense that it comes from a period when both parties had liberal and conservative wings. The story is unabashed liberal propaganda. The American villain is very obviously Joe McCarthy; his even nastier wife, Angela Lansbury in the original and Meryl Streep in the remake, is explicitly a Republican. The evil Senator also has an exuberantly patrician lifestyle, visibly contrasted with the rival good guy Senator, whose home is a few steps above a log cabin. But his apparent near poverty doesn't prevent him from donating a windfall entirely to the ACLU. If anything, the new film, judging from this report and others, seems to back away from the liberal message of the classic by making the Lansbury/Streep character resemble Hillary Clinton. Friday, July 23, 2004
Watching the Berger story unfold has been amusing - sort of like a bit of 90's retro. Almost makes you want to go out and rent a few Pauly Shore movies. But that would be over-reacting - much better to watch a few extra re-runs of "Friends" which, like the job market, was actually good back in the Clinton years. The Republicans are using the tried and true tactics of spreading wild rumors and discussing every rumor that they spread as a known fact. Get that misinformation out and widely repeated. The retractions will come eventually, but they'll be quiet, as usual. The idea that Berger would shove documents in his socks when he could have just slipped them into his briefcase is preposterous, but the very absurdity makes for a memorable story, much better propaganda than reporting what really happened. The story is one that investigators don't seem to take seriously - Breuer, Berger's attorney, never heard about it before it was leaked. But these guys have never cared if they were telling the truth. In all the grave reporting and stern faces on the news, everyone has known not to say, not to even hint at the one obvious point: "This is approximately the 358th time that we have reported to you that a member of the Clinton administration is being investigated for misconduct, as well as the 358th time we have declared that, although the facts were not yet fully known, we were pretty certain that something awful had been done. In a few of these previous cases, we turned out to have been wrong. OK, technically in all of them. But we're blowing this up into a huge deal because we're confident that this time is different. Just as confident as we were the last 357 times." Yes, it is possible that there is really something here. Every time that Lucy swears she's really going to keep the ball in place, there is a chance that she means it this time. But don't count on it. Sunday, July 18, 2004
Fox Hunt You can pick your own favorite from this impressive collection of Fox internal memos by news director John Moody. My personal favorite is this: We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. ...Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." In other words, don't lose sight of the all important distinction between actual terrorists and those nice folks who merely provide refuge and assistance to terrorists. They've done nothing wrong, at least when they are Christians and assist the good terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and fag bars. Also evident in the memos, mentioned over and over, is Moody's obsession with hyping the 'scandal' over the UN oil for food program. It's still possible that a real scandal may emerge here, but it's looking increasingly like another fabrication from Chalabi and his crew. Don't forget to see the new documentary, "Outfoxed". Find a viewing party where you live. Thursday, July 15, 2004
The most recent polling of swing states, done by Zogby, looks extremely positive. He shows Bush leading in 3 states, but in 2 of those, NV and AR, there are substantial Nader and undecided votes that may well erase Bush's small margin. In fact, when looking at state by state counts such as this, remember they all tend currently to understate Kerry's chances, because the undecided vote is almost certain to break for him, and by historical trends it's also likely that a significant percentage of Nader supporters will. Overall, the current count of swing states looks roughly like this:
The only bad news in the latest polling had been that NC, even with Edwards, had appeared uncompetitive. But a new poll changes even that and shows Kerry/Edwards within striking distance in Tarheel territory. Another Gallup poll shows Bush up by 15 among LV in NC, but only by 7 among RV. Given the motivation of the Democratic base in this election, that large LV adjustment is very likely to be wrong. There's an interesting argument that NC is not only winnable in this election but likely to remain a swing state here. Wandering Back An interruption in my web connection last month temporarily silenced this page; the silence stretched on somewhat due to a shaky enthusiasm on my own part for resuming. I've found this blog increasingly harder to write over the Still, I'm going back on the chain gang, returning once Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Kevin Drum gives us another striking look at the lunatic Republican platform in Texas. If anything, he has been rather kind to the extremism implicit in this document. That's especially true of the anti-abortion plank,"The Party affirms its support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children." Kevin glosses this as, "All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment." That's true, but it's really much stronger than that. By stating that a fetus is a human life entitled to equal protection, this proposal not only labels abortion as a crime, but specifies what type of crime it is: first degree murder. What this proposal really amounts to is: "Women who obtain abortions should be executed." Friday, June 04, 2004
The 'resignation' for 'family reasons' of George Tenet sounds more than suspicious. If only because resigning at this moment looks so much like getting fired, I have to think Tenet would have stayed on for the rest of the year unless he either was fired or perhaps wanted to be out of office with a freer hand to respond to the upcoming reports on WMD intelligence and 9/11. Even if Tenet does have personal reasons for wanting to quit, which is probably true, he knows that there will be a housecleaning in December/January regardless of what happens in November. To quit alone and ahead of that looks very much like being the fall guy for all the screwups on Iraq and maybe 9/11 too. On the plus side, the Onion reports that at least one failed appointee from this administration is finally going to be held accountable. The O'Franken Factor blog (no permalinks, see 06.02) now links to Franken's demolition of Neal Boortz in a recent interview. Check out also Boortz's clever desciption of the incident - it's an instructive case of how to completely misrepresent everything without actually telling any lies. Actually, Boortz did slip in one lie at the beginning, an odd one since it doesn't seem to have a point. Franken did greet him at the beginning of the interview, then launched directly into catching him in his lie about inviting Franken to guest host. Of the AAR shows I've heard so far, Franken's is the best, Rhodes a close second. Majority Report I usually miss to see TV, but what's not to like in a show that has Atrios and several other bloggers as regular guests? Morning Sedition really isn't working out. Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Ryan Lizza noted a while back that being counter-terrorism director under Bush has been a bit like being the drummer for Spinal Tap: he loses one after another. In reading Clarke's Against All Enemies, I noticed that what's been true at the NSC has been equally true at the FBI: Dale Watson came in late in the Clinton Administration to replace John O'Neill, probably the most effective counter-terror officer in recent years. O'Neill went to New York, but continued working on numerous national and international briefs while Watson was the Bureau's counter-terror man in Washington. O'Neill left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and was killed on 9/11. Meanwhile: In 2002, Dale Watson, the FBI's leading couterterrorism official, retired. Months later, Watson's replacement asked to be reassigned and a third person became the Executive Assistant Director for counterterrorism. Within two months, the next incumbent retired and the post was vacant again. Monday, May 24, 2004
Can we shut up now about the silly idea of McCain being Kerry's running mate? This dying horse was still being flogged on Sunday by Chris Matthews; fortunately it seems to be less popular now than it was last month. The Democratic Party should nominate candidates who are Democrats and who endorse the party's candidates. Besides, McCain's status as a decorated veteran can be matched by Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland, among others. Wes Clark has the combat decorations, executive leadership in wartime, and the track record of not being a partisan activist until driven to it by Bush's incompetence. The only thing McCain really brings that Clark doesn't is the adoration of the Washington media. And that's a very mixed blessing - it's handy to have a candidate whom the media loves, but we really shouldn't trust anyone who has a big fan club among the liars who stuck us with Dubya in the first place. This article in the Washington Post is a strange duck. It does show just how incompetent and politicized the CPA is, but goes to some pains to spin away what it shows. The article discusses a team of 6 conservative activists who worked on budget issues for the CPA. It lets slip a few hints about who they are, stating that, "Many had strong Republican credentials... and had no foreign service experience." But that's rather an understatement, as is the later description of those profiled. It does focus on Simone Ledeen, daughter of neo-con activist Michael Ledeen, and also describes Todd Baldwin as an aide to Rick "man on dog" Santorum. But it also describes team member John Hanley as a webmaster; in fact, he is the webmaster of the Heritage Foundation and also worked as a columnist for townhall.com. While in Iraq, he wrote a dispatch including a photo of himself with Andrew Burns, another Heritage and CPA minion. Anita Greco, described as a "teacher", was an intern at Heritage. The other member of the team, Casey Wasson, was a recent graduate of Patrick Henry College (where she won the Beverly LeHaye Leadership Award), an institution specifically designed to train home-schooled children as far right activists. Although not an accredited school, PHC currently has 7 students working in White House internships. Among the 6 CPA employees that Cha profiles, the number with close Republican/conservative ties is 6. The number with expertise in Arabic, Islam, or economics is 0. Ledeen's journey to Baghdad began two weeks earlier when she received an e-mail out of the blue from the Pentagon's White House liaison office. The Sept. 16 message informed her that the occupation government in Iraq needed employees... Without hesitation, she responded "Sure" to the e-mail and waited -- for an interview, a background check or some other follow-up. Apparently none was necessary. A week later, she got a second e-mail telling her to look for a packet in the mail regarding her move to Baghdad. Cha quotes a CPA spokesman as saying of the hiring "Nowhere did we ask party affiliation", apparently meaning that jobs were as open to Democrats who worked for the Heritage Foundation and the Bush campaign as to Republicans. The article could have, but didn't, mention who wasn't working for the CPA - the people who have actual experience from the efforts to rebuild Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo after US or NATO interventions, and those who actually do know something about Arabic culture and the Middle East. They stayed home so that unqualified ideologues could have a free hand. We are steadily told that Iraq is essential, that we can't afford to fail there. It's important enough to be worth the lives of the soldiers who die there almost evey day. But not, it seems, important enough for civilian jobs to be staffed by professionals instead of being a public works program for Republican campaigners in an off year. Friday, May 14, 2004
So I take a little break from blogging for a month or so, and when I come back Blogger has a whole new interface. I guess I'll figure out how to publish this post and then see how it looks. Some things don't change, and one of them is hate radio shock jock Michael Savage. As David Brock's new site points out, Savage has decided who to blame for the murder of Nick Berg and it isn't the murderers: Nick Berg, an American, not military, over there building transmission towers, was captured by the Untermenschen the sub-humans, who wrap themselves in a religion....you can thank the Democrats, you can thank the Senate Arms Services Committee for their hysterical hearings. You can thank John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Biden, The New York Times, the alphabet channels and The Washington Post for this atrocity because they caused it.... Thank you New Yorker. Thank you Carl Levin. Thank you Ted Kennedy. Thank you Hillary Clinton. I'm sure that Mr. Berg's parents appreciate what you've done for them. Funny how eager the folks who always complain about the 'blame America first' crowd are to do just that, as long as they can blame the right Americans. Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Next Question One really startling moment from Bush's press conference was when he was asked why he needed Cheney's support to speak to the 9/11 commission. It was an obvious question, one he should have been prepared for, and he had nothing at all except an obvious duck. It was the worst answer I can recall hearing from any president in a long time. It's perfectly clear his own people have nothing but contempt for him. Speaking toi the comission isn't that hard, as others have shown. There's a 10 minute limit for each questioner, and it's always easy to pad out an answer to about 3 minutes. So each questioner gets only about 4 questions, they have no real way to force answers to those, and most are friendly. As easy as it is, his own people don't think he's capable to handle it. If the man's own aides don't respect him, why should we? Monday, April 12, 2004
The latest news from Iraq is relatively positive, with negotiations in the Shia south, a ceasefire generally holding in Fallujah, and hostages reported released. However, there are new reports that a group of Russians have been taken hostage. Beyond today's developments is the reality that Iraq appears to be spiraling out of control. It is certainly possible to defeat the Mahdi militia of al Sadr, it wouldn't even be very hard. But when the Army of a pro-Israel, primarily Christian occupier fights the forces of a local religious leader, it is almost impossible to prevent the great majority of Iraqis, even those who dislike al Sadr, from perceiving the conflict as a battle of Us vs Them. And as long as that is the case, we are fighting a hydra - every time we kill one fighter, two more spring up. There's almost no way short of genocide to solve this problem. And if there is a solution, it would take a leadership that was resolutely practical, creative, and flexible to find it. What we have is an administration that in its stubbornness, xenophobia, and religious extremism is nearly a mirror image of its enemies. Just as disastrous is the new tactic of kidnapping. The CPA has sought to gain popularity by national reconstruction that would improve the lives of ordinary citizens; but the willingness to target the international technicians and volunteers that make nation building projects possible means that they will come to a virtual halt, only functioning to the degree that they can be operated entirely by Iraqis - and even Iraqis will be nervous about being seen as collaborators. So forget about the vast majority of projects aimed at improving daily Iraqi life, and even moreso attempts to build civil society. If power plants or construction projects have to replace foreign workers with Iraqis, there are plenty who have the technical skills to do those jobs. It may in some ways be positive, given the very high unemployment rate. But after decades of Ba'athism, there are no Iraqis with experience conducting free elections or organizing civic groups. And the handover of sovereignty, now only weeks away, continues to be a mystery. There is no legitimate government to grant sovereignty to, no apparent way to create one in the next two months. Worse, there aren't adequate police or miltary forces ready to assume control, and the bureaucratic resources also probably aren't ready to take over. It seems likely that the new government July 1 will assume a very nominal 'sovereignty' with primarily American forces running the armed services and police. And if attacks are made, and they surely will be, against our forces, Bremer has pretty much said that we will determine the time, place, and extent of retaliation. So whoever takes over , being appointed by us rather than elected, and agrees to assume 'sovereignty' with no authority over the main military force in the country, is liable to be seen as a puppet. To overcome that, they will have to take strident anti-American positions, delay or rig any elections, or quite possibly both. And we'll be stuck supporting them under the usual concern that the opposition would be even worse. (Presumably, like the dictators we support in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, they will crack down harshly on any pro-democracy stirrings while being tolerant of radical anti-Western and Islamist movements, the better to remind us that we have no alternative.) Anybody out there want to bet that Iraq will become a true democracy any time in the next few years? I'm willing to give good odds. Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Kevin Drum says that Gephardt has the inside track to be Kerry's VP. Like Kevin, I deeply hope this is wrong. Kevin focuses on Gephardt's lack of national security expertise. That's a valid concern, but my primary worry is that, as a long-term Washington insider who is an uninspiring campaigner, last thing Kerry needs on the ticket is somebody with the same negatives. On the plus side, I'd love to have a VP debate on the topic "My daughter's queerer than your daughter". Monday, March 29, 2004
Contradictions The last week has been dominated by claims that Richard Clarke's current description of the Bush administration is contradicted by his earlier accounts, even to suggesting a charge of perjury. Most of the accounts have focussed on the briefing Clarke gave in August 2002, praising Bush as an off the record White House aide. I was unable to find a transcript of Clarke's commission testimony, but a good summary of Clarke's positions can be found in his 60 Minutes interview, this talk with Salon, and his interview on MTP. The spin on the briefing is certainly different from what Clarke is saying today, but a careful comparison shows that the factual picture given is not inconsistent. From 2002: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. This is the only point where I find any problem in reconciling Clarke's accounts factually. Clarke was questioned on this later and repeated that no plan was given to Rice when she took office. QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested? I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified, because there's been an issue about whether or not a strategy or a plan or something useful was given to Dr. Rice in early January. And she says it wasn't. So we now have the staff report of the 9-11 Commission, and it says, "On January 25th, Clarke forwarded his December strategy paper to the new national security adviser, and it proposed covert action to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, significantly increasing CIA funding, retaliating for the USS Cole, arming the Predator aircraft, going after terrorist fund raising." Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. All of this is emphasizing the continuity of policy on counter-terror activities between the Clinton and Bush administrations. But Clarke's criticism of Bush isn't that he adopted a new policy on terror, but that he and his aides failed to take it seriously, which the Clinton team did. Thus, although the official policy remained the same, less was actually done. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. This is the main basis for the suggestion that Bush was preparing a more aggressive response to al Qaeda before 9/11. However, it's unclear whether the plan to increase the CIA covert action resources was specifically aimed at al Qaeda. In either case, no attempt was made to increase current funding, putting off action against Bin Laden to October, when the funds would actually be available, at the earliest. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies - and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. This restates the point, agreed on in Clarke's recent testimony, that on Sept 4 the Bush national security principals finally did meet and approve the January plan in principle. Clarke puts the empahasis on the actions that were ultimately taken rather than on the delay, and gives an excuse for the delay, that key personnel weren't in place in some cases until early summer. This isn't an entirely unreasonable excuse, but the truth is that Bush was able to get things done in numerous areas between Jan 20 and Sep 11. The reality of missing personnel in some departments made counter-terror initiatives harder, but they still could have been undertaken had they been a priority. Some other moments in the questioning are quite interesting. QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy? Note the clever non-denial denial. Clarke cites his own retention (but not his de facto demotion) and says it "doesn't sound like animus". He never actually denies that animus against Clinton did warp the Bush policy, although on a careless reading he appears to. Clarke: One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. There was a decision in June 2001 to seek improved ties with Pakistan, while continuing to ask for Pakistani assistancce in getting the Taliban to expel or turn over Bin Laden. This may well have been a good choice, and perhaps contributed to Musharraf's decision after 9/11 to assist in the overthrow of the Taliban. But it also means that Pakistan was given somewhat improved relations withou actually delivering any results as far as acting against al Qaeda, which it was implicitly supporting as the main sponsor of the Taliban, while key Pakistani officials gave al Qaeda active support including warning Bin Laden in 1998 of the planned cruise missile attack against him. Clarke: And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. This is the other incident cited to back up the story that Bush was engaged on a tougher line against al Qaeda before 9/11, and often cited in the past week by White House spinners. But it is really a classic example of Bush fecklessness rather than foresight. Bush didn't have a detailed discussion of the problems involved in going after al Qaeda, he didn't approve or request any specific action, and he never followed up the many times that al Qaeda was discussed in his daily briefings. It's actually classic Dubya. Rather than take the serious steps needed to address a real problem, just assume that once you set your Texan genitalia swinging in the breeze, the display of bumptious machismo will overcome all obstacles. The main elements of Clarke's case against Bush are the obsession with Iraq before and after 9/11, the lack of a serious response to the threats of terror activity that were visible in the late spring and summer of 2001, the low emphasis placed on the problem of terrorism prior to 9/11, and the poor choice to invade Iraq after. None of this is contradicted by what Clarke said in August, 2002. In the one area where there is a potential contradiction, the document prepared for Condi Rice on Jan 24, the commission's own reports confirm that his more recent statements are the more reliable. Furthermore, only in a few details is it necessary to rely on Clarke as a witness. The Iraq fixation, for instance, was confirmed by Paul O'Neill as well as by the anonymous sources that General Clark often cited during his campaign - for which he was viciously attacked by GOP spinners. Bush himself admitted to Bob Woodward that terrorism had been a low priority before 9/11. Even the attacks on Clarke have often served to underline his essential points - they have suggested that he is bitter because his mandate was reduced and he was demoted, but the very fact that these things happened is an indication of how unserious the Dubya team was about terrorism prior to 9/11. Thursday, March 18, 2004
Suggestions that the recent elections in Spain are a victory for "appeasement" insult both the character and the intelligence of the Spanish voters. Quite apart from the moral implications of trying to buy radical Islamists off, there is no evidence that any way exists to do so. One of the striking points of the war with al Qaeda is that it appears to be absolute. Al Qaeda has never proposed peace terms. It has made only one major demand, the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration is in the process of complying with this demand, although none of those who denounce Zapatero for appeasement seem troubled by this. And it probably isn't why Bush has now been endorsed bu the al Qaeda faction that, perhaps falsely, claims responsibility for the Madrid atrocities. Spain is particularly likely to remain a target for al Qaeda, since much of the nation was once Arab and it is is clear that the most extreme Muslims still regard it as occupied territory. It may well be significant that most of the current suspects are from Morocco - many of those who were driven from Spain after the fall of Granada settled in Morocco, where their descendants strill live. Even if Spain - or the US - were to declare Islam the state religion, abolish its legal structure in favor of sharia, and ban women from appearing in public unveiled, it might not be enough to satisfy al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia does all of these and more, and that doesn't prevent it from being a target. There have been past terror attacks timed to coincide with national elections, possibly including the USS Cole attack of October, 2000. But there's no real evidence that any of these, including the Madrid attack, was specifically intended to affect the elections. Certainly it's doubtful that the goal was to remove hardline governments; Ariel Sharon was voted in partially as a reaction to some of the first major suicide bombings in Israel while Barak was in office. (Those bombings were organized by Palestinian factions, not al Qaeda.) Wednesday, March 10, 2004
This interview from Intervention has a lot of good material on the occupation of Iraq, as well as confirming the story that I blogged about earlier, that soldiers considered insufficiently loyal to George Bush were denied a Thanksgiving dinner so Bush would be guaranteed a big cheer from the troops. Sleep Well, America From an excellent recent article on counter-terrorism in TNR: Assessing the nation's thousands of vulnerable industrial sites, railways, electric grids, and so on is supposed to be central to the DHS mission. But 30 months after September 11, almost nothing has been done. Last year, an impatient Congress asked DHS to produce a plan for its nationwide risk assessment--not the actual assessment, just a plan for devising it--by December 15, 2003. The deadline came and went. Two days later, the White House quietly issued a directive giving DHS an entire year to develop a "plan" explaining its "strategy" for how to examine infrastructure. An actual infrastructure analysis, one DHS official told Congress last fall, could take five years. Let's review that for a moment. The original target was not something wildly unreasonable, like 'actually correct security failings in the near future'. It was, more than two years after 9/11 to have a plan of how to assess infrastructure security. That has been pushed back - the administration now expects to take 40 months after 9/11 before they have a plan. The actual assessment will be another five years. That means that, if he wins, Bush doesn't expect to have assessed infrastructure vulnerability to terrorists by the end of his second term. Actually correcting vulnerabilities will presumably take even longer - not to mention there's no money for it. This is from an administration whose major claim is their effectiveness in fighting terrorists. It's the only area in which poll show Bush with a large advantage over Kerry. If people find out just how weak the Bush anti-terror effort is, he's going to be in deep trouble. Monday, March 01, 2004
With one day to go before the California primary, there's little effort by either presidential campaign here and very little noticable interest among voters. Edwards and kerry have small offices in Northern and Southern California, but don't seem to be running paid media. The only candidate running normal ads is Kucinich. I also caught one ad from LaRouche, a rather bizarre 30 minute speech broadcast in it's entirety. In the speech, LaRouche strongly condemned Albert Gallatin, Jeremy Bentham, and Martin van Buren, while never mentioning, that I noticed, George Bush or any contemporary issue. His knowledge of history was impressive, although the interpretations, invariably delivered ex cathedra, were probably 95% crackpot. The audience, apparently as stunned by this strange display as I was, never once interrupted, although he was given a standing ovation at the end. There is a race to challenge Barbara Boxer for the Senate, but if the candidates are advertising at all, they aren't doing so here in the Republican-poor districts of the Bay Area. The voter interest, as far as I can tell, is no higher than the advertising budgets. Sunday, February 29, 2004
More Gay Marriage There has been endless discussion recently of whether the 'full faith and credit' clause requires states to accept gay marriages performed elsewhere. What is odd about this is that nobody ever discusses precedents, but it is very hard to believe they don't exist. For 80 years, interracial marriage was illegal in much of the country, but legal, if rare, in most states. Surely some sort of of test cases are out there. |
