Finally:

After much puzzlement and cursing at the computer screen, we appear to have enabled the comments feature. (Actually, we partially enabled it a month or so ago but didn't complete the process until today. There are some - rare - comments for earlier posts.)

Remember, when commenting here at uggabugga to follow the rules:

• The best posts are those which are highly complimentary of this blog. Don't be shy, tell us how much you love it.
• We appreciate short summaries and links to other sources that are on topic.
• If you want to be a troll, go to Political Animal (and post under the name of Charlie).
• Foul language is strongly discouraged.
• No flame wars. Tit-for-tat comments are a waste of everybody's time.
• We will look at the comments, but it's not a guarantee. If you have something important to report, it's best to send it by email at the address at the top of the page.

posted by Quiddity at 8/29/2004 06:10:15 PM

Complicated:

Juan Cole has a new post that goes into more detail about the Pentagon spy story. We put the information into a diagram (an extension of the one below).



Too see the full size image, click here.

KEYWORDS: Lawrence Franklin, Harold Rhode, Wolfowitz, Feith, Luti, AIPAC, SISMI, Ghorbanifar, Mojahedin-e Khalq, MEK, Pollari

NOTE: In order to put all this information into a single diagram, it has to be large and the fonts small.

UPTATE/NOTICE: Since this post is getting a lot of links, we shall use it as the 'home post' for the diagram and it will change as new information comes out and is incorporated.

posted by Quiddity at 8/29/2004 01:46:03 PM

That Pentagon spy story:

Nothing special here, but a diagram that shows the various links described in the New York Times and Washington Post.



Full size image here. Large image here.

posted by Quiddity at 8/28/2004 01:54:45 PM

Blast from the past:

The spy story is still in the early phases and we'll have to see how it pans out. But in the meantime, take a look at a cartoon we did a little over a year ago:




posted by Quiddity at 8/28/2004 05:03:05 AM

We stand corrected?

Reader TR says that it's not too hard to keep track of the Swift Boat story and directs our attention to this website: http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

It's a good resource on the topic and has a well organized page for all the different charges, so maybe it's not as difficult to keep track of things as we thought. When somebody like eriposte follows the charges and countercharges, it makes it much easier to stay informed - especially conpared to the print and other media.

posted by Quiddity at 8/28/2004 04:47:37 AM

Not the right place:

A quick thought. We avidly read the Daily Howler, and recently Bob Somerby has been taking the cable channels to task for failing to be informed on the Swift Boat controversy. He says that Deborah Norville and Pat Buchanan didn't know enough to challenge pro-Swift guests. Same with Chris Matthews.

As much as we'd like to agree with the Howler, we admit to having trouble keeping all the names and dates and events straight. (Maybe we should make a diagram!) The point is that television, especially the interview format, is not a good place to sort out disagreements when there are multiple charges made. Maybe Matthews should have an assistent typing furiously into a database in order to bring up the relevant facts - in realtime. Or maybe Matthews should spend some time memorizing everything. The solution is that charges by the Swift Boat Veterans is best handled in a print media (or in a highly structured, lawerly, television format). Then one can read (or hear) the charge, look up to see what the facts are, make a response, and so on.

We've said on occasion that the proper way to deal with the Swifties on television is to s l o w     d o w n. Take one item at a time. But we've been told that that's a ratings killer.

That's why television is not a good medium for finding out the truth. It is, however, a good medium for making charges - especially new ones that nobody has any idea how to counter.

posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2004 11:41:46 AM

Democrats score one:

We were surprised to read the following post by Harley over at the conservative blog t a c i t u s:

Okay. I'm trying to kick the habit, and it's taking up way too much of everybody's time, but sometimes the political and the theatrical come together in a way that's hella fun for everybody.

Max Cleland and Jim Rassman are goin' on a road trip!

I have to admit, again, as theater, I love this. I also think it's whip smart. I also know, quite possibly, that it will lead the news, if only because it offers up a fairly astounding picture. The Viet Nam war vets, one in a wheelchair, arriving at the President's phoney ranch to give him a very real smackdown.

Couple questions. I'm assuming you can't just walk up and ring the doorbell, tho' I love that idea. Do Secret Service agents stop them at the front gate? Will Laura appear to tell them that George is napping, but she'll deliver the letter for them? Does Mother Bush emerge from whatever brush her son hasn't photo-op'd into oblivian and give Max's wheelchair and good kick in the spokes?

The letter they are hand-delivering -- take that, US Postal Service! -- is signed by at least seven Dem senators, demands that Shrub publicly condemn the Swifties using more than the words 'that ad.'

For some reason, I keep seeing Chevy Chase as the Land Shark on SNL, looming outside some innocent's door, he knocks, they wonder who's there, and we hear his muffled reply: "Candygram."

First time this mess has made me smile in weeks.

And these comments for that post: (remember, anybody can comment, so this is not a reflection of t a c i t u s' position)

My GOD, what a screebling pathetic git of a man. Sends troopers in flak jackets to bar a triple-amputee from his door?! Bush the First would've let Cleland in. Reagan would've let him in, and invited the press to watch him charm the fellow. Hell, even NIXON would've at least taken the frickin letter. Any of 'em would've shown some class, and maybe even turned the encounter to their advantage. It's just a letter fer chrissake. Signed by Senators and delivered by a decorated vet. And Bush hides out like he's gonna catch cooties or something.

Boy that Max Cleland tactic is brilliant. GWB should have tried that. He could have sent his Mom over to Michalel Moore's house(million dollar apt) and asked him to stop picking on her son. Ahh, leave it to the Dems to be creative.

Ginsberg resignation, Swifties credibilty shot, the lame attempt to deflect attention from the first two simply won't wash. But boy I bet Rove was workin' overtime the last 24 hours. I wonder how many careers he threated to destroy?

... the Texas Standoff. This is great theater. Following a resignation -- which always has more impact than it should, but that's the way to goes. We've got Bush campaign officials heading for the exits, and two vets, one in a wheelchair, delivering a letter from seven senators asking Shrub to stop the smear that...wait for it....led to the resignation in the first place. So. We highlight that if you wanna find the President, you're gonna find him at home, not at the WH where he belongs. We put Shrub on the spot, and he really really hates that. And we pick up the third or fourth news cycle in a row.

Bush is in a no-win situation. If he does not allow them in, the media will be showing Senator Cleland in his wheelchair, an obvious security threat to the President, outside the gates in the sweltering heat. If he allows them in, you get the visual of Bush receiving the letter and him being forced to directly respond. Either way, sheer brilliance and part of the counter-attack we spoke about a few days ago and as promised by Oliphant.

posted by Quiddity at 8/26/2004 12:35:47 AM

Enough already!

There has been way too much talk about whether or not John O'Neill was in Cambodia. Confronted with the tape of him telling Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill now says that he was near the border and not actually in that country. But he's already on the hook. Consider: (emp add)

In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.

"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia."

But then there is this:

In an interview earlier this week on ABC's "This Week," O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.

Liar.

posted by Quiddity at 8/25/2004 11:48:36 PM

A sad state of affairs:

Josh Marshall writes: (excerpts)

It really seems like O'Neill has been going on all these shows lying right through his teeth. Not misremembering some date, not having a conflicting recollection of some battle action, but telling everyone that none of the Swift Boats crossed into Cambodia when, in fact, he himself appears to have done so routinely.

And all of this raises the question, though it's not precisely the right analogy, what exactly is the statute of limitations on these guys? How many times do they have to get caught making false claims, unsubstantiated assertions or putting forward witnesses who weren't there, before they cease to have any credibility and get treated as such in the media?

At the moment the standard seems to be, "Okay, on your first nineteen claims, it seems like you were lying to us, but send along number twenty and we'll run that one up the flag pole too."

And Liberal Oasis sums it up nicely:

If there's one lesson the Kerry campaign and the rest of us should take from this sorry Swift Boat Liar episode is how lame the media will be this election season.

The inability to cut off media oxygen to people who are clearly discredited shows how the media hasn't learned any lessons following its vapid 2000 coverage and its embarrassing Iraq war coverage.

posted by Quiddity at 8/25/2004 12:09:11 PM

Connections:

We took the information from two New York Times stories, Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad (20 August) and President Urges Outside Groups to Halt All Ads (24 August) and created a diagram showing the various connections. We don't see anything particularly interesting, beyond the fact that many Bush supporters know each other and freelance.



To see a full sized version, click here (and a larger version here).

UPDATE: We added information from this story: Attorney Works for Bush, Anti-Kerry Group, and also Cordier from Bush's veterans' steering committee. Now it looks more sinister.

KEYWORDS: Swift Boat

posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2004 06:36:48 PM

Relax:

Some people are concerned that some news outlets are mischaracterizing Bush's statements on Monday. Bush didn't condemn the Swift Boat ad, but headlines and some stories say that he did. (Bush would only go so far as to condemn all 527 ads.)

People who think Bush's bad character is exposed by his failure to specifically condemn the Swifties, don't like the inaccurate reporting (e.g. Josh Marshall). But the more important idea to get out there is that the Swifties are making false and libelous charges.

Get that out, and we can deal with Bush's character later.

posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2004 02:20:53 PM

Brain damaged:

We've been saying privately for months that Bush is probably brain damaged. That's a conclusion based on his Bushisms, his failure to engage during interviews, his extremely weak performances in (the rare) press conferences, his many years of cocaine and alcohol consumption, and other factors. By brain damaged, we mean that critical sub-systems in the brain have been destroyed or disabled. A person can still appear to function normally (walk, talk, see) but there is still something lacking. Of course, proof of such a situation requires testing and examination, something we're never going to be able to do. So we'll have to leave it as informed speculation.

With that in mind, we were pleased to see Juan Cole write along similar lines in a recent post: (excerpt, emp add)

What was Bush doing with his youth? He was drinking. He was drinking like a fish, every night, into the wee hours. For decades. He gave no service to anyone, risked nothing, and did not even slack off efficiently.

The history of alcoholism and possibly other drug use is a key issue because it not only speaks to Bush's character as an addictive personality, but may tell us something about his erratic and alarming actions as president. His explosive temper probably provoked the disastrous siege of Fallujah last spring, killing 600 Iraqis, most of them women and children, in revenge for the deaths of 4 civilian mercenaries, one of them a South African. (Newsweek reported that Bush commanded his cabinet, "Let heads roll!") That temper is only one problem. Bush has a sadistic streak. He clearly enjoyed, as governor, watching executions. His delight in killing people became a campaign issue in 2000 when he seemed, in one debate, to enjoy the prospect of executing wrong-doers a little too much. He has clearly gone on enjoying killing people on a large scale in Iraq. Drug abuse can affect the ability of the person to feel deep emotions like empathy. Two decades of pickling his nervous system in various highly toxic substances have left Bush damaged goods. Even for those who later abstain, "visual-spatial abilities, abstraction, problem solving, and short-term memory, are the slowest to recover." That he managed to get on the wagon (though with that pretzel incident, you wonder how firmly) is laudable. But he suffers the severe effects of the aftermath, and we are all suffering along with him now, since he is the most powerful man in the world.

posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2004 11:50:07 AM

An old adage:



posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2004 05:38:54 AM