Donate to the DNC!
Single Donations: 626 $65094.84
Sustainer Donations: 87 $2285.03
Recurring Donations: 565 $14240.13
Total Donations: 1278 $81620
Final Tally: $289,332!!!!
"We had something like 200 or 300 or 400 people killed in many of the major cities of America last year. Is it perfectly peaceful? No. What's the difference? We just didn't see each homicide in every major city in the United States on television every night. It happens here in this city, in every major city in the world. Across Europe, across the Middle East, people are being killed. People do bad things to each other.
Get the hell out. What's the difference. After all, we know that the weapons of mass destruction are "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Rumsfeld says Iraq will "never be peaceful." But I though we were bringing peance and freeance. Err, I mean, peace and freedom.
The United States does not have to wait until Iraq (news - web sites) "is peaceful and perfect" before it begins to withdraw military troops from that troubled country, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Friday.
But "any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and U.S. forces, I think, would obviously be unwise," he told a press conference after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
"Because it's never been peaceful and perfect and it isn't likely to be. It's a tough part of the world. Our goal is to invest the time and the money and the effort to help them train up Iraqis to take over those (security) responsibilities."
Shorter Rumsfeld: We're going to fail, but who cares?
Following up his speech at Temple, Kerry (along with Biden and others) spoke at a rally at Penn. Was quite well attended, with a lot of enthusiasm. Biden was in "boisterous Biden" mode, blasting away, which is always nice to see. Kerry's speech was good and well-received. I did not have to sign a loyalty oath to attend.
Kevin Drum has the Iraq timeline pretty much covered. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is Bush hasn't "stayed the course." Bush hasn't been too concerned with democracy. He hasn't even been too concerned with fighting terrorism.
He has been concerned with winning re-election. If nothing else, the fact that military decisions have been made based on political considerations should demonstrate that this man is unfit to be CiC.
Strangely, now Schneider's claiming that what he meant was in 1980 terrorists won by helping to get Ronald Reagan elected. It's a shame Carter wasn't sick and twisted enough to pull the "Vote for me or the terrorists have won!" stuff.
The fifth and most important step in our plan is to help Iraq conduct free, national elections no later than next January. An Iraqi electoral commission is now up and running and has already hired personnel and is making key decisions about election procedures.
...
And do you believe, given the situation on the ground and Fallujah and other northern cities in the Sunni triangle, that elections are possible in four months?
BUSH: I do, because the prime minister told me they are. He's interested in moving this country forward. And you heard his statement. And I believe him.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday raised the possibility that Iraq (news - web sites) could conduct only limited elections in January, excluding places where violence was considered too severe for people to go to polls.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) hearing.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
So, we're going to make a big show about having elections, but, hey, we're going to let the insurgents win and prevent some people from voting. No big deal. That sure is resolute.
Let's consider Bush's recent rhetoric. His latest ad says "Kerry voted for the Iraq war."
When he asked Congress for the resolution, when Andy Card rolled it out after Labor Day, Bush claimed it was a vote for peace:
you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace.
Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Of course, I was hoping it could be done diplomatically. But diplomacy failed. And so the last resort of a president is to use force. And we did.
He claimed then it was a vote for peace. He told Congress it was a vote for peace. He then says that the vote for peace that he asked John Kerry to make was actually a vote for war. The previous March he'd said, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." So, he told people it was a vote for peace even though he'd decided it was a vote for war. Maybe war is peace. Who the hell knows anymore.
Sure, we all knew in October what this vote was really for, and Kerry should have too. But, it wasn't what Bush said.
Ever since flightsuitboy landed on the carrier, we've heard three things. First, that "we're making progress." Second, "the increased attacks prove they're getting desperate." And, third, "we shouldn't be surprised if the violence increases because of [insert reason here]."
It's understandable that Bush wants to put a pretty face on the reality of Iraq. His re-election depends on it. The truth is, throughout his entire time in office (and before), the image he's tried to present has been at odds with reality. "Clear Skies." "Healthy Forests." "Compassionate Conservatism." All attempts to mask reality by this two-faced president. Says one thing, does another. Every time.
Kerry's remarks come one day after he told The Associated Press that President Bush's statement that a "handful" of people were willing to kill to stop progress in Iraq was a blunder that showed he was avoiding reality.
"George Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora," Kerry said in the brief interview Wednesday. "George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops. And George Bush said on the record we can't win the war on terror.
"And even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," Kerry said. "I think he's living in a make believe world."
The first part of the question was how come we haven't found Zarqawi? We're looking for him. He hides.
I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It was pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future.
Talk to the leader. I agree, I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America where it's nice and safe and secure.
The Afghan national army is a part of the army.
By the way, it's the Afghan national army that went into Najaf and did the work there.
Last night I watched Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry, by filmmaker George Butler. It really is quite an astounding movie for a lot of reasons, and if it hits a city near you (beginning October 1), I'd say drag your friends to it.
The sheer amount of film footage they have of Kerry, from his childhood, in Vietnam, and in his days in the anti-war movement, is one thing which makes the film well worth seeing. Nothing in the film is a recreation (though, of course, not all of the footage of Vietnam was taken during the actual events being described). It also includes interviews with his fellow soldiers, and people like Max Cleland and E.J. Dionne.
It's a fascinating portrait of a young man, and provides important historical context of the times which is missing from all of the discussion.
Anyway, make sure to go see it when it comes to town.
caption: US President George W. Bush, right, plants a kiss on the cheek of Finnish President Tarja Halonen at a luncheon of world leaders on the sidelines of the 59th session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.
As I said on the radio tonight, what really is there to say about the situation in Iraq other than "it's horrible." It is horrible. It's hell.
The war, illegal and founded on a vast lie, has produced two tragedies of equal magnitude: an embryonic civil war in the world's oldest country, and a triumph for those in the Bush administration who, without a trace of shame, act as if the truth does not matter. Lying until the lie became true, the administration pursued a course of action that guaranteed large sections of Iraq would become havens for jihadis and radical Islamists. That is the logic promoted by people who take for themselves divine infallibility -- a righteousness that blinds and destroys. Like credulous Weimar Germans who were so delighted by rigged wrestling matches, millions of Americans have accepted Bush's assertions that the war in Iraq has made the United States and the rest of the world a safer place to live. Of course, this is false.
But it is a useful fiction because it is a happy one. All we need to know, according to the administration, is that America is a good country, full of good people and therefore cannot make bloody mistakes when it comes to its own security. The bitter consequence of succumbing to such happy talk is that the government of the most powerful nation in the world now operates unchecked and unmoored from reality; leaving us teetering on the brink of another presidential term where abuse of authority has been recast as virtue.
The logic the administration uses to promote its actions -- preemptive war, indefinite detention, torture of prisoners, the abandonment of the Geneva Convention abroad and the Bill of Rights at home -- is simple, faith-based and therefore empty of reason. The worsening war is the creation of the Bush administration, which is simultaneously holding Americans and Iraqis hostage to a bloody conflict that cannot be won, only stalemated.
Over the last three years, practicing a philosophy of deliberate deception, fear-mongering and abuse of authority, the Bush administration has done more to undermine the republic of Lincoln and Jefferson than the cells of al-Qaida. It has willfully ignored our fundamental laws and squandered the nation's wealth in bloody, open-ended pursuits. Corporations like Halliburton, with close ties to government officials, are profiting greatly from the war while thousands of American soldiers undertake the dangerous work of patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities. We have arrived at a moment of national crisis.
At home, the United States, under the Bush administration, is rapidly drifting toward a security state whose principal currency is fear. Abroad, it has used fear to justify the invasion of Iraq -- fear of weapons of mass destruction, of terrorist attacks, of Iraq itself. The administration, under false premises, invaded a country that it barely understood. We entered a country in shambles, a population divided against itself. The U.S. invasion was a catalyst of violence and religious hatred, and the continuing presence of American troops has only made matters worse. Iraq today bears no resemblance to the president's vision of a fledgling democracy. On its way to national elections in January, Iraq has already slipped into chaos.
At issue is the phone call where the Hubbells are discussing whether Mrs. Clinton would be “vulnerable” to a probe of over-billing. Here is the transcript of one part of the call, with one statement set out in bold:
MRS. HUBBELL: You didn’t actually do that, did you, mark up time for the client?
HUBBELL: Yes, I did. So does every lawyer in the country.
MRS. HUBBELL: That would be one thing that you would look into the firm for [in a countersuit].
HUBBELL: Suzy, you are getting ahead.
MRS. HUBBELL: No, I am just thinking out loud. That’s an area where Hillary would be vulnerable. Not unless she overbilled by time, right?
HUBBELL: No, you are talking and not listening. We are on a recorded phone. So I am trying to explain...
It’s not clear what Hubbell objects to in his wife’s characterization, or why she still doesn’t know even basic facts about why her husband is sitting in prison. But it is quite clear, in the segment printed in bold, that Mrs. Hubbell is not accusing Mrs. Clinton of over-billing. She states first that she is “just thinking out loud;” and it is clear to any listener, when she closes out with her question, that she doesn’t know whether or not Hillary has engaged in this conduct. (Hubbell tells her at length, later in the call, that Hillary has not over-billed.)
But that’s not the way NBC viewers heard the response on The Today Show on Friday, May 1, by the time Spin Doctor Lisa Myers got out her scissors and did a little surgical work on the tapes. Incredibly, this is the conversation that Myers’ viewers heard--a conversation in which Mrs. Hubbell makes a very different presentation altogether:
MYERS: At another point, Mrs. Hubbell talks about over-billing clients.
MRS. HUBBELL (on tape): That’s an area where Hillary would be vulnerable.
HUBBELL (on tape): No, you are talking and not listening. We are on a recorded phone.
And that is precisely the way the transcript was presented on the screen to NBC viewers as the tape rolls--with no ellipsis whatever to let viewers know that material has been left out. Not that this would have been an appropriate deletion even if an ellipsis had been used. Myers’ cut in the tape completely changes the meaning of the presentation by Mrs. Hubbell--changing it from a question about whether Mrs. Clinton would be vulnerable, to an assertion that she would be. The charade was even worse by that evening; in a tape played on MSNBC’s May 1 InterNight program (apparently taken from that evening’s NBC News), Myers doctors the conversation in a more egregious fashion:
MYERS: The Hubbells seem worried that Mrs. Clinton could be vulnerable on an issue that sent Hubbell to prison in the first place--overbilling clients.
MRS. HUBBELL: You didn’t actually do that, did you? Mark up time for the client? Did you?
HUBBELL: Yes, I did. So does every lawyer in the country.
MRS. HUBBELL: That’s an area that Hillary would be vulnerable.
HUBBELL: Suzy, you’re talking and you’re not listening. We are on a recorded phone, OK?
Again, there was absolutely no indication of any kind that the viewer was hearing an edited phone call. Viewer had every reason to think they were hearing the phone call just as it happened. And by the way, Myers’ opening statement is completely inaccurate, if you listen through to the end of this phone call. Hubbell makes it very clear, later on in this call, that Mrs. Clinton would not be vulnerable to charges of over-billing clients.
"I hug the mothers and the widows of those who may have lost their life in the name of peace and freedom." - February 10, 2003
"I'm the person in this country that hugs the mothers and the widows if their son or husband dies." - February 10, 2003
"I understand what it means to put somebody into combat. I know what it means to hug mothers and wives." - January 29, 2003
"There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids on the death of their loved ones...Having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug." - December 2002
From JOHN ROYAL: I find the hand wringing over the Dan Rather-George W. Bush interesting. I recall that sometime in the mid-90s, at the heart of Whitewater, that "Nightline" ran a story, with commentary by Jeff Greenfield, that used video of Hillary Clinton supposedly admitting to something that she'd been saying she hadn't done. Of course, it wasn't until much later that it was learned that ABC had doctored the video and that Ms. Clinton was actually saying something quite different.
So, I wonder. I notice that Ted Koppel and Jeff Greenfield still have jobs, but was anybody from ABC dismissed over that matter? And if not, then why should Rather or Mapes or anybody at CBS be out of work for what appears to be an honest mistake and not a deliberate act like ABC's video editing?
He's sure the truth will come out 9/22/2004 2:04:29 PM
From TOM NAWROCKI: Last night on "Hardball," Chris Matthews said, "You believe particularly that the role of the former lieutenant governor, Ben Barnes, who says now that he helped put together that sweet billet for the president back in the Guard back all those years ago, having said the opposite before." This is of course, untrue, since Barnes testified in 1999 that he had indeed pulled strings for Bush to get him into the Guard. Barnes didn't say "the opposite" before; he said the same things he subsequently told Dan Rather.
But I am not worried that the truth will come out in this case. I'm sure by the end of the day, there will be calls for Matthews to resign, stories about depression overtaking MSNBC's news operations, and Howard Kurtz wondering why "Hardball" is taking so long to correct such an obvious error.
Last week we had a conference call with a group of bloggers and I talked about how, I feel, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gets a bad rap. Of all the DC committees, it covers the most ground and moves the fastest. When a congressional campaign hits the panic button, the DCCC swings in to action, swoops down and spends a lot of money in a district - and we get closer to a Democratic Congress.
I remember working on Tim Holden's race last cycle in Pennsylvania. It was a tight, tough race - and when the going got rough, when it was really down to the wire, the DCCC managed to find some more money to help us pull through. We ended up winning - but it had everything to do with the DCCC's willingness to pull out all the stops at the last minute.
Politics is a fickle business, and it's nearly impossible right now to say where the trouble is going to be a week or two out from November 2. Some seats that seem completely safe right now are going to be in jeopardy, while other seats that seemed a real long shot will become slam dunks. The DCCC has to be quick enough to see the tide turning, jump on opportunities, and re-distribute resources. It's function is pretty unique compared to other political committees.
I think he's right. I'm always supportive of people donating to their favorite candidates directly, but it's also true that the DCCC does have a unique position at this point in the election season. House races can change very fast, in a way that other races generally don't (barring a candidate meltdown of some sort).
The role of the DCCC (and its Republican counterpart) is to be the bonus cards in this election. Your opponent knows you have them, but they don't know when and where you're going to play them. The DCCC can suddenly throw money into a race that the Republicans thought was safe, and they have to have some money in the pot to react if the Republicans try to throw a nuke onto another race.
They provide the election surprises, and the more money they have the more they can do. And, given campaign finance laws, they're really the only organization that can play this role.
You can donate to them here. People regularly ask where the "best" place to send money is right now. I don't think there's one answer to that -- but a case can definitely be made for the DCCC. I set up a pretty big fundraising goal. I don't know if we'll hit it, but I think it's important.
By the way, one footnote before I let you go, we're going to continue our coverage on this. Jeff, do you remember the name of the news organization that, before the last election in 2000, reported that George W. Bush was arrested for -- supposedly for drunk driving?
GREENFIELD: Well, one of them was FOX News.
BLITZER: That's correct, FOX News. Because you had suggested earlier, if you could imagine FOX News Channel reporting this -- well, they did, to their credit, report that before the last election.
Secondly, it wasn't reported by Fox News, it was reported by Fox News Affiliate, which is Not The Same Thing.
The truth is that it was a resourceful 27-year-old reporter at a local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, who uncovered the DUI story, not the Fox News Channel in New York or Washington, the partisan national network that's the focus of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." Nobody associated with "Outfoxed" or elsewhere participating in the media debate has suggested that local Fox news teams in places like Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; or Boise, Idaho operate under Republican marching orders as they cover arsons, car crashes and zoo openings. So it's not that unusual that an enterprising reporter, operating off the FNC reservation as it were, could play a starring role in the DUI story. Not surprisingly, Ailes and Cameron are now conveniently trying to pretend that it was Sean Hannity's "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, those bold seekers of the truth, who unearthed the damaging dirt on Bush that almost cost him the election.
And CNN wonders why its ratings are in the toilet...
A few of us center city residents are having a block party event for Hoeffel on Sunday, Sept. 26th 3-6 PM. Its a fund raiser, effort to attract volunteers & get the word out on Joe. Hoeffel will speak around 4 PM. We're inviting anyone around the Philly area to come. Its being held at Kahn Park, 11th & Pine.
I saw pundit Andrew Sullivan on CNN clucking over CBS’ mistakes. In 1994, when Sullivan edited The New Republic, it ran a cover story accusing Bill Clinton of corruptly enriching his wife’s law firm by changing Arkansas usury laws as governor. In fact, the deed was done by public referendum under Clinton’s Republican predecessor.
On Dec. 19, 1995, ABC News’ "Nightline" aired a deceptively edited video clip of a Hillary Clinton press conference about Whitewater. It accused her of lying about the very information electronically deleted from her remarks. No consequences followed.
On May 4, 1996, The New York Times published an article with a deceptive Associated Press byline stating that an FBI agent’s trial testimony described a $50,000 windfall to Whitewater from an illegal loan. As the actual AP article stipulated, the agent gave no such testimony. Many accusatory editorials and columns followed, helping Kenneth Starr to prolong his fruitless investigation of Bill Clinton’s finances for years. The Times has never acknowledged its blunder.
Even more damning was a "Nightline" report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about "the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be." He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: "Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said."
Up came a video clip from Hillary's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work," she said. "It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about." Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder "the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."
What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty's 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."
ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed. Within days, the doctored quotation popped up elsewhere. ABC used the identical clip on its evening news broadcast; so did CNN. The New York Times editorial page used it to scold Mrs. Clinton, as did columnist Maureen Dowd. Her colleague William Safire weighed in with an accusatory column of his own: "When you're a lawyer who needs a cover story to conceal close connections to a crooked client," he began, "you find some kid in your office willing to say he brought in the business and handled the client all by himself." Safire predicted the first lady's imminent indictment.
I don't know much about these things, but I did think that giving into terrorist demands was generally considered to be a "wrong" thing to do, especially when it's the resolute steadfast steely-eyed rocketman who's giving in.
Disclaimer:
This is a personal web site. It is not a production of Media Matters for America (MMFA). Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of MMFA. Preferences for electoral candidates posted on this site have not been expressed using any MMFA resources.
