Saturday, February 07, 2004
Out of Here
Am Now at http://bottleofblog.typepad.com/bottleofblog/
Please come say hello.
Please come say hello.
Clarett Eligible To Not Be Drafted
I could be wrong, but why does anyone even think Clarett is an NFL quality tailback? As a freshman, he put up some huge numbers against teams like Northwestern--what was it, thirty something carries for 150 yards? And that started the buzz about this freshman.
Didn't anyone notice that Northwestern sucked that year? I think Larry Johnson, currently crapping out in the pros, put up about 250 yards against Northwestern with about half as many carries and in only a single half.
And the few times Clarett played an entire game against a decent defense, like Miami, he averaged about two and half yards a carry.
Then, there was the little fact that Clarett barely played a half a season, getting hurt almost every time some college kid hit him.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but maybe Mo should think about playing a whole, decent year of college football before he thinks about the pros.
Didn't anyone notice that Northwestern sucked that year? I think Larry Johnson, currently crapping out in the pros, put up about 250 yards against Northwestern with about half as many carries and in only a single half.
And the few times Clarett played an entire game against a decent defense, like Miami, he averaged about two and half yards a carry.
Then, there was the little fact that Clarett barely played a half a season, getting hurt almost every time some college kid hit him.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but maybe Mo should think about playing a whole, decent year of college football before he thinks about the pros.
Do We Really Need A Whitewash Commission On This?
From Atrios :
Two days later, Pincus, together with Dana Milbank, the Post's White House correspondent, was back with an even more critical story. "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week," it began, "it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged?and in some cases disproved ?by the United Nations, European governments and even US intelligence reports." That story appeared on page A13.[4]
The placement of these stories was no accident, Pincus says. "The front pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are very important in shaping what other people think," he told me. "They're like writing a memo to the White House." But the Post's editors, he said, "went through a whole phase in which they didn't put things on the front page that would make a difference."
7.
The Post was not alone. The nearer the war drew, and the more determined the administration seemed to wage it, the less editors were willing to ask tough questions. The occasional critical stories that did appear were, like Pincus's, tucked well out of sight.
The performance of the Times was especially deficient. While occasionally running articles that questioned administration claims, it more often deferred to them. (The Times's editorial page was consistently much more skeptical.) Compared to other major papers, the Times placed more credence in defectors, expressed less confidence in inspectors, and paid less attention to dissenters. The September 8 story on the aluminum tubes was especially significant. Not only did it put the Times's imprimatur on one of the administration's chief claims, but it also established a position at the paper that apparently discouraged further investigation into this and related topics.
The reporters working on the story strongly disagree. That the tubes were intended for centrifuges "was the dominant view of the US intelligence community," Michael Gordon told me. "It looks like it's the wrong view. But the story captured what was and still is the majority view of the intelligence community?whether right or wrong." Not only the director of central intelligence but also the secretary of state decided to support it, Gordon said, adding,
Most of the intelligence agencies in the US government thought that Iraq had something. Both Clinton and Bush officials thought this. So did Richard Butler, who had been head of UNSCOM and who wrote a book about Iraq called "The Greatest Threat." So it was a widely shared assumption in and out of government. I don't recall a whole lot of people challenging that.
Yet there were many people challenging the administration's assertions. It's revealing that Gordon encountered so few of them. On the aluminum tubes, David Albright, as noted above, made a special effort to alert Judith Miller to the dissent surrounding them, to no avail.
Asked about this, Miller said that as an investigative reporter in the intelligence area, "my job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal." Many journalists would disagree with this; instead, they would consider offering an independent evaluation of official claims one of their chief responsibilities.
There you go. Our investigative reporters think that the job of the investigative reporter is to report whatever the government tells them.
The whole article is pretty incredible. Whores be damned.
Ah, 3:46. Perhaps it's not too early for a drink. Jeebus.
Two days later, Pincus, together with Dana Milbank, the Post's White House correspondent, was back with an even more critical story. "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week," it began, "it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged?and in some cases disproved ?by the United Nations, European governments and even US intelligence reports." That story appeared on page A13.[4]
The placement of these stories was no accident, Pincus says. "The front pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are very important in shaping what other people think," he told me. "They're like writing a memo to the White House." But the Post's editors, he said, "went through a whole phase in which they didn't put things on the front page that would make a difference."
7.
The Post was not alone. The nearer the war drew, and the more determined the administration seemed to wage it, the less editors were willing to ask tough questions. The occasional critical stories that did appear were, like Pincus's, tucked well out of sight.
The performance of the Times was especially deficient. While occasionally running articles that questioned administration claims, it more often deferred to them. (The Times's editorial page was consistently much more skeptical.) Compared to other major papers, the Times placed more credence in defectors, expressed less confidence in inspectors, and paid less attention to dissenters. The September 8 story on the aluminum tubes was especially significant. Not only did it put the Times's imprimatur on one of the administration's chief claims, but it also established a position at the paper that apparently discouraged further investigation into this and related topics.
The reporters working on the story strongly disagree. That the tubes were intended for centrifuges "was the dominant view of the US intelligence community," Michael Gordon told me. "It looks like it's the wrong view. But the story captured what was and still is the majority view of the intelligence community?whether right or wrong." Not only the director of central intelligence but also the secretary of state decided to support it, Gordon said, adding,
Most of the intelligence agencies in the US government thought that Iraq had something. Both Clinton and Bush officials thought this. So did Richard Butler, who had been head of UNSCOM and who wrote a book about Iraq called "The Greatest Threat." So it was a widely shared assumption in and out of government. I don't recall a whole lot of people challenging that.
Yet there were many people challenging the administration's assertions. It's revealing that Gordon encountered so few of them. On the aluminum tubes, David Albright, as noted above, made a special effort to alert Judith Miller to the dissent surrounding them, to no avail.
Asked about this, Miller said that as an investigative reporter in the intelligence area, "my job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal." Many journalists would disagree with this; instead, they would consider offering an independent evaluation of official claims one of their chief responsibilities.
There you go. Our investigative reporters think that the job of the investigative reporter is to report whatever the government tells them.
The whole article is pretty incredible. Whores be damned.
Ah, 3:46. Perhaps it's not too early for a drink. Jeebus.
First Lady Calls President a Liar
Mrs. Bush also contradicted her husband on his statement that he does not read newspapers and leaves it to his staff to provide him with what he calls unbiased news.
"He does read the papers, of course," Mrs. Bush said, adding that she and her husband make their way through five national newspapers over coffee in bed and then at the breakfast table each day. "I mean we've read the newspapers for years. It's our morning ritual, since the day we married."
What the president meant, she said, was that he does not read the opinion columnists with whom he disagrees or every part of every newspaper.
"But he reads a lot of them," she said. "And I read the parts he doesn't read — except the columnists."
If Bush is, as they say, "nothing if not a straight shooter", how come everytime he makes a rare public pronouncement, whether it be on the economy, foreign affairs, or about reading the newspapers, someone always has to clarify his statement and explain what he really meant?
Doesn't anyone else find it somewhat embarrassing that our president talks like a sleepy child?
"He does read the papers, of course," Mrs. Bush said, adding that she and her husband make their way through five national newspapers over coffee in bed and then at the breakfast table each day. "I mean we've read the newspapers for years. It's our morning ritual, since the day we married."
What the president meant, she said, was that he does not read the opinion columnists with whom he disagrees or every part of every newspaper.
"But he reads a lot of them," she said. "And I read the parts he doesn't read — except the columnists."
If Bush is, as they say, "nothing if not a straight shooter", how come everytime he makes a rare public pronouncement, whether it be on the economy, foreign affairs, or about reading the newspapers, someone always has to clarify his statement and explain what he really meant?
Doesn't anyone else find it somewhat embarrassing that our president talks like a sleepy child?
Humans Look to Gay Penguins For Answers
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.
At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.
...
This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."
There is, of course, a third possibility: All Penguins look the same. Even to other penguins.
At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.
...
This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."
There is, of course, a third possibility: All Penguins look the same. Even to other penguins.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Not October, No Surprise
So much for the "bi-partisan" commission to investigate the intelligence failures of this administration.
This description beggars the reality about Silberman. He's not merely a conservative. He's a jurist who has a proven track record of making decisions, and enforcing policy, based not on the law, reason or basic principles of fair play, but purely on how they will benefit or harm the Republican party. "Rabidly partisan" is an understated description.
This description beggars the reality about Silberman. He's not merely a conservative. He's a jurist who has a proven track record of making decisions, and enforcing policy, based not on the law, reason or basic principles of fair play, but purely on how they will benefit or harm the Republican party. "Rabidly partisan" is an understated description.
Strong On Homeland Security
WASHINGTON - President Bush asked Congress to eliminate an $8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins — the same day a poison-laced letter shuttered Senate offices.
Well, at least he's not trying to quietly pull the Air Marshalls off of flights again to save on hotel room costs.
Well, at least he's not trying to quietly pull the Air Marshalls off of flights again to save on hotel room costs.
Joe Continues to Smoke
1. Given the controversy about your attendance record during your National Guard service, Mr. President, perhaps the best way to resolve matters would be to authorize the release of all of your military records, including pay stubs, Social Security records and so-called retirement-points records. Will you do that? If not, why not, and how can the American people believe that you actually fulfilled your service obligations as everyone else in the Guard was required to do?
2. Mr. President, on page 54 of your autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," you wrote: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But the truth is that you quit flying after less than two years, despite fighter training that cost the taxpayers almost a million dollars. Did your superiors approve your decision to quit flying, or did you just quit on your own? Weren't you suspended from flying in August 1972 after you failed to take a required physical exam? Why didn't you take that physical?
3. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the now-famous "mission accomplished" speech you gave on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln outside San Diego last May. You landed on the carrier in a flight suit -- a piece of videotape shown around the world. [Roll tape.] A lot of your critics were appalled by that image. Here's a man who never fought in a war, never saw the danger and horrors of real combat, dressing up like a soldier and proclaiming a victory that, as it turned out, we were far from accomplishing. As you look back on it, has it ever occurred to you, that Eisenhower, who won D-day, never dressed in uniform when he was president; John F. Kennedy, who was a genuine war hero, never dressed in uniform either. Was there something disrespectful to the military in a costume stunt like that? Your thoughts, sir.
4. You have blamed the rapidly rising, unsustainable federal deficits on "out-of-control" domestic spending. But Mr. President, the plain fact, according to every nonpartisan analyst, is that your tax cuts are responsible for a far greater percentage of present and future deficits than spending. Your current budget proposal cuts billions in programs for children and veterans. Wouldn't it be more compassionate -- and more responsible -- to rescind some of the tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans?
5. Sir, with respect, most economists say that the tax cuts are responsible for no more than 20 percent of the recent economic growth, and that the recession could have been addressed with a short-term stimulus primarily aimed at middle- and working-class tax payers, rather than long-term tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. These long-term tax cuts for the wealthy are the major cause for these massive structural deficits that we now have and the complete inability to fund some of these programs for children, the elderly and veterans. How does that reflect responsible Republicanism or compassionate conservatism?
2. Mr. President, on page 54 of your autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," you wrote: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But the truth is that you quit flying after less than two years, despite fighter training that cost the taxpayers almost a million dollars. Did your superiors approve your decision to quit flying, or did you just quit on your own? Weren't you suspended from flying in August 1972 after you failed to take a required physical exam? Why didn't you take that physical?
3. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the now-famous "mission accomplished" speech you gave on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln outside San Diego last May. You landed on the carrier in a flight suit -- a piece of videotape shown around the world. [Roll tape.] A lot of your critics were appalled by that image. Here's a man who never fought in a war, never saw the danger and horrors of real combat, dressing up like a soldier and proclaiming a victory that, as it turned out, we were far from accomplishing. As you look back on it, has it ever occurred to you, that Eisenhower, who won D-day, never dressed in uniform when he was president; John F. Kennedy, who was a genuine war hero, never dressed in uniform either. Was there something disrespectful to the military in a costume stunt like that? Your thoughts, sir.
4. You have blamed the rapidly rising, unsustainable federal deficits on "out-of-control" domestic spending. But Mr. President, the plain fact, according to every nonpartisan analyst, is that your tax cuts are responsible for a far greater percentage of present and future deficits than spending. Your current budget proposal cuts billions in programs for children and veterans. Wouldn't it be more compassionate -- and more responsible -- to rescind some of the tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans?
5. Sir, with respect, most economists say that the tax cuts are responsible for no more than 20 percent of the recent economic growth, and that the recession could have been addressed with a short-term stimulus primarily aimed at middle- and working-class tax payers, rather than long-term tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. These long-term tax cuts for the wealthy are the major cause for these massive structural deficits that we now have and the complete inability to fund some of these programs for children, the elderly and veterans. How does that reflect responsible Republicanism or compassionate conservatism?
They Might Need to Call That Thing Something Else Then
But experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions. "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very political, even more so than other military institutions, and is subject to political influence."
For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and refusing to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have been moved to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or had his flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a leading Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot, he was assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available records indicate he never performed that job."
...
If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972 and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private cannot be released without Bush's permission.)
Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.
Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the president's full military records will be released were not returned.
If he served honorably, Bush would have released the entire record years ago. There is one and only one reason for not releasing the record. There is something in it that he doesn't want the American people to see.
For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and refusing to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have been moved to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or had his flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a leading Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot, he was assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available records indicate he never performed that job."
...
If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972 and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private cannot be released without Bush's permission.)
Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.
Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the president's full military records will be released were not returned.
If he served honorably, Bush would have released the entire record years ago. There is one and only one reason for not releasing the record. There is something in it that he doesn't want the American people to see.
Firefighters Starting to Get It
"Once we got into the terrorism thing, it was acutely recognized that if a guy can't put out a fire without the proper radios or protection equipment, we needed to enhance (resources) for these local departments," said one federal fire official in Washington who declined to be quoted by name. "The grant program was designed to do that."
In his first two budget proposals, Bush put no money into the program, though Congress included $750 million for the 2004 fiscal year. Last year, 8,000 fire agencies nationwide received $650.8 million.
Bush's 2005 budget, however, cuts the grant money from $750 million to $500 million.
9/11 is over, guys. Now we're posing with soldiers. Back to the end of the line.
In his first two budget proposals, Bush put no money into the program, though Congress included $750 million for the 2004 fiscal year. Last year, 8,000 fire agencies nationwide received $650.8 million.
Bush's 2005 budget, however, cuts the grant money from $750 million to $500 million.
9/11 is over, guys. Now we're posing with soldiers. Back to the end of the line.
Worthless College Republicans Converted Into Useful Visual Aids
Here:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards used a couple of Bush-Cheney sign-waving college students to his advantage Friday.
"Guys, hold those signs up in the back if you don't mind," Edwards said after snaking his way through the packed ballroom at Virginia Tech University. The crowd booed as the students obliged, but then broke out in cheers when Edwards claimed: "That's who's leaving the White House come November!"
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards used a couple of Bush-Cheney sign-waving college students to his advantage Friday.
"Guys, hold those signs up in the back if you don't mind," Edwards said after snaking his way through the packed ballroom at Virginia Tech University. The crowd booed as the students obliged, but then broke out in cheers when Edwards claimed: "That's who's leaving the White House come November!"
Head Cage Full of Rats for Paul
Right now America is going through an Orwellian moment. On both the foreign policy and the fiscal fronts, the Bush administration is trying to rewrite history, to explain away its current embarrassments.
Let's start with the case of the missing W.M.D. Do you remember when the C.I.A. was reviled by hawks because its analysts were reluctant to present a sufficiently alarming picture of the Iraqi threat? Your memories are no longer operative. On or about last Saturday, history was revised: see, it's the C.I.A.'s fault that the threat was overstated. Given its warnings, the administration had no choice but to invade.
A tip from Joshua Marshall, of www.talkingpointsmemo.com, led me to a stark reminder of how different the story line used to be. Last year Laurie Mylroie published a book titled "Bush vs. the Beltway: How the C.I.A. and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror." Ms. Mylroie's book came with an encomium from Richard Perle; she's known to be close to Paul Wolfowitz and to Dick Cheney's chief of staff. According to the jacket copy, "Mylroie describes how the C.I.A. and the State Department have systematically discredited critical intelligence about Saddam's regime, including indisputable evidence of its possession of weapons of mass destruction."
...
And if top political figures have their way, there will be further rewriting to come. You may remember that Saddam gave in to U.N. demands that he allow inspectors to roam Iraq, looking for banned weapons. But your memories may soon be invalid. Recently Mr. Bush said that war had been justified because Saddam "did not let us in." And this claim was repeated by Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Why on earth didn't [Saddam] let the inspectors in and avoid the war?"
Let's start with the case of the missing W.M.D. Do you remember when the C.I.A. was reviled by hawks because its analysts were reluctant to present a sufficiently alarming picture of the Iraqi threat? Your memories are no longer operative. On or about last Saturday, history was revised: see, it's the C.I.A.'s fault that the threat was overstated. Given its warnings, the administration had no choice but to invade.
A tip from Joshua Marshall, of www.talkingpointsmemo.com, led me to a stark reminder of how different the story line used to be. Last year Laurie Mylroie published a book titled "Bush vs. the Beltway: How the C.I.A. and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror." Ms. Mylroie's book came with an encomium from Richard Perle; she's known to be close to Paul Wolfowitz and to Dick Cheney's chief of staff. According to the jacket copy, "Mylroie describes how the C.I.A. and the State Department have systematically discredited critical intelligence about Saddam's regime, including indisputable evidence of its possession of weapons of mass destruction."
...
And if top political figures have their way, there will be further rewriting to come. You may remember that Saddam gave in to U.N. demands that he allow inspectors to roam Iraq, looking for banned weapons. But your memories may soon be invalid. Recently Mr. Bush said that war had been justified because Saddam "did not let us in." And this claim was repeated by Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Why on earth didn't [Saddam] let the inspectors in and avoid the war?"
Too Old To Have A Job
MUNICH, Germany - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday he does not regret having referred to France and Germany as “old Europe,” a comment in 2002 that many Europeans took as an insult.
“I’m too old to have regrets,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with several European journalists shortly before the start of a NATO defense ministers meeting. “No, I don’t regret it.”
Anybody else find it scary that our Secretary of Defense says that he's incapable of regretting anything?
Rummy, you are a natural born killa!
Now, off to bed, grandpappy.
“I’m too old to have regrets,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with several European journalists shortly before the start of a NATO defense ministers meeting. “No, I don’t regret it.”
Anybody else find it scary that our Secretary of Defense says that he's incapable of regretting anything?
Rummy, you are a natural born killa!
Now, off to bed, grandpappy.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
A Guy Named "Scooter" In Prison?
What do you think? Wheeling the library cart or fetching for the trustees?
Is It Still Too Early To Start Talking About College Football?
Penn Hills High School’s 6-4, 210 pound star Anthony Morelli, originally a Pittsburgh verbal commitment, reversed field Wednesday morning and will sign with the Nittany Lions football program. A Penn Hills athletic spokesperson confirmed Morelli’s decision to The Patriot-News.
Morelli, considered among the top 10 quarterbacks in the country by every recruiting service, is one of the headliners of Joe Paterno’s class, joining Strath Haven standout linebacker Dan Conner. And the addition of Morelli may vault the Lions’ recruiting class into top-10 status.
Okay, so we stole him. We'll give him back when Chad Henne shows up in Happy Valley.
Morelli, considered among the top 10 quarterbacks in the country by every recruiting service, is one of the headliners of Joe Paterno’s class, joining Strath Haven standout linebacker Dan Conner. And the addition of Morelli may vault the Lions’ recruiting class into top-10 status.
Okay, so we stole him. We'll give him back when Chad Henne shows up in Happy Valley.
Bush Feels Policy in His Gut
Condi interprets intestinal rumblings:
WASHINGTON – Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, described her job the other day as translating the president's instincts into policy. She added that he influences her as much as she influences him.
...
Still, it is worth asking what has happened to the role of the vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense. It is odd that a president would need somebody to interpret his own instincts. Most presidents begin with fairly well- defined views of the US role in the world. One can usually judge a president's approach to policymaking by what he has said about it in the past. George W. Bush said remarkably little on this subject before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
It did not take him long to produce a novel, imaginative, and frightening framework for protecting the US in an insecure world. Banished were the institutions so carefully constructed during the cold war, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They still existed, but they lacked the importance that their founders gave them. Multilateralism was out; unilateralism was in.
Gone was the doctrine of "no first use" of nuclear weapons; instead Mr. Bush endorsed preemptive war. If he thought this would scare people, both in the US and abroad, he was right; but it was an instinct that should have been reexamined before it was translated into policy. It gives deeper meaning to Rice's statement that the president influences her as much as she influences him. At the least, preemptive war should have been the subject of a great deal more debate than it got in Congress or from the public.
...
So, allowing for the fact that each president is going to make foreign policy in the way that suits him best, what should be the broad parameters of the relationship between the president and the national security adviser? Instead of the adviser translating presidential instincts into policy, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the adviser's job were defined as assessing how the bureaucracy is implementing the policy previously made.
It is worth emphasizing that policy changes of the magnitude of those adopted by the Bush administration should be the subject of thorough debate in Congress and in the public. Presidents generally resist this process; but if the policies involved are sound, the president can only benefit by public discussion, which will lead to public understanding, which will lead to public support.
If the policies are not sound, this process is likely to lead to public opposition which will make the policies unsustainable. This process is not foolproof; the modest theory of the Constitution is that it is less likely to lead to error.
This is a very eloquent way of saying the President has "feelings" about "stuff" and his advisors and staff have to try to figure out if they can turn his "hunches" and "instincts" into a coherent policy that can be realistically implemented by the executive branch.
(Answer: no, they can't)
He's more or less our executive mood ring.
WASHINGTON – Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, described her job the other day as translating the president's instincts into policy. She added that he influences her as much as she influences him.
...
Still, it is worth asking what has happened to the role of the vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense. It is odd that a president would need somebody to interpret his own instincts. Most presidents begin with fairly well- defined views of the US role in the world. One can usually judge a president's approach to policymaking by what he has said about it in the past. George W. Bush said remarkably little on this subject before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
It did not take him long to produce a novel, imaginative, and frightening framework for protecting the US in an insecure world. Banished were the institutions so carefully constructed during the cold war, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They still existed, but they lacked the importance that their founders gave them. Multilateralism was out; unilateralism was in.
Gone was the doctrine of "no first use" of nuclear weapons; instead Mr. Bush endorsed preemptive war. If he thought this would scare people, both in the US and abroad, he was right; but it was an instinct that should have been reexamined before it was translated into policy. It gives deeper meaning to Rice's statement that the president influences her as much as she influences him. At the least, preemptive war should have been the subject of a great deal more debate than it got in Congress or from the public.
...
So, allowing for the fact that each president is going to make foreign policy in the way that suits him best, what should be the broad parameters of the relationship between the president and the national security adviser? Instead of the adviser translating presidential instincts into policy, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the adviser's job were defined as assessing how the bureaucracy is implementing the policy previously made.
It is worth emphasizing that policy changes of the magnitude of those adopted by the Bush administration should be the subject of thorough debate in Congress and in the public. Presidents generally resist this process; but if the policies involved are sound, the president can only benefit by public discussion, which will lead to public understanding, which will lead to public support.
If the policies are not sound, this process is likely to lead to public opposition which will make the policies unsustainable. This process is not foolproof; the modest theory of the Constitution is that it is less likely to lead to error.
This is a very eloquent way of saying the President has "feelings" about "stuff" and his advisors and staff have to try to figure out if they can turn his "hunches" and "instincts" into a coherent policy that can be realistically implemented by the executive branch.
(Answer: no, they can't)
He's more or less our executive mood ring.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
President Proposes Giant Piece of Crap
Though Mr. Bush has proposed big increases in spending on education for the No Child Left Behind initiative, the administration's list calls for eliminating or cutting back more than a dozen other education programs. Among other actions, it would eliminate $34 million spent to help pay for secondary school counselors; $30 million for a program in schools to combat alcohol abuse; $38 million for projects to provide employment services to people with disabilities; and $18 million for a national writing project.
The administration also called for reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's budget for modernization of the air traffic system by $393 million. The Internal Revenue Service, which is struggling to crack down on abusive tax shelters and outright cheating, would see its budget for modernization reduced from $388 million to $285 million.
Despite proposing a big increase in spending on domestic security, the administration is also proposing cuts in federal grants to local police, fire and emergency rescue departments. Money for so-called first responders would be cut from $4.4 billion this year to $3.5 billion next year.
An alcoholic cutting $30 million to help alcoholics. A president whose pre-emptive war policies have created several thousand Americans with disabilities is cutting $38 million to help people with disabilities. A man who can barely string two sentences together saving a measly $18 million by scrapping a national writing project.
Wow, those few cruel and unnecessary cuts right there amount to $86 million dollars, which will go a long way to offset the at least $50 BILLION in Iraqi supplements Bush will request AFTER the November election.
This is just horrible. What a disaster this guy is. He is, by far, The Worst President in the history of the United States.
The administration also called for reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's budget for modernization of the air traffic system by $393 million. The Internal Revenue Service, which is struggling to crack down on abusive tax shelters and outright cheating, would see its budget for modernization reduced from $388 million to $285 million.
Despite proposing a big increase in spending on domestic security, the administration is also proposing cuts in federal grants to local police, fire and emergency rescue departments. Money for so-called first responders would be cut from $4.4 billion this year to $3.5 billion next year.
An alcoholic cutting $30 million to help alcoholics. A president whose pre-emptive war policies have created several thousand Americans with disabilities is cutting $38 million to help people with disabilities. A man who can barely string two sentences together saving a measly $18 million by scrapping a national writing project.
Wow, those few cruel and unnecessary cuts right there amount to $86 million dollars, which will go a long way to offset the at least $50 BILLION in Iraqi supplements Bush will request AFTER the November election.
This is just horrible. What a disaster this guy is. He is, by far, The Worst President in the history of the United States.
Is Our Republicans Learning?
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — President Bush pressed Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, on Tuesday to have his aides mediate among quarreling factions in Iraq and forge a consensus behind a plan that would allow the transfer of sovereignty to a government in Baghdad by June 30, administration officials said.
Are these "grownups" in the White House starting to get the value of the United Nations now? Good. Next, we'll learn about the Constitution, and why its a good thing.
The really shocking thing about Bush is that he was a history major in college. You'd think he'd have some understanding of why we have things like United Nations, the Constitution, regulatory agencies, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Geneva Convention, Social Security, the SEC...
But he doesn't.
Bush acts like these safeguards of peace and human decency and dignity were just arbitrarily thrown up for no reason and now they're in his way. And time after time, he attempts to get rid of them, only to have the disaster these institutions were created to avoid bite him, the United States, and the world in the ass.
Remember how Bush tossed the Geneva Conventions out the window in Afghansistan? Remember how fast he learned the importance of the Geneva Conventions when the Iraqis started parading American soldiers in front of TV cameras?
Remember how Bush shrugged off Clinton's suggestion that Osama bin-Laden would be the biggest concern of his presidency? Remember how concerned Bush got with bin-Laden when the Trade Towers were destroyed?
George Bush is taking our government apart, piece by piece, without any idea of why people a lot smarter and more competent than him put it together in the first place.
Are these "grownups" in the White House starting to get the value of the United Nations now? Good. Next, we'll learn about the Constitution, and why its a good thing.
The really shocking thing about Bush is that he was a history major in college. You'd think he'd have some understanding of why we have things like United Nations, the Constitution, regulatory agencies, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Geneva Convention, Social Security, the SEC...
But he doesn't.
Bush acts like these safeguards of peace and human decency and dignity were just arbitrarily thrown up for no reason and now they're in his way. And time after time, he attempts to get rid of them, only to have the disaster these institutions were created to avoid bite him, the United States, and the world in the ass.
Remember how Bush tossed the Geneva Conventions out the window in Afghansistan? Remember how fast he learned the importance of the Geneva Conventions when the Iraqis started parading American soldiers in front of TV cameras?
Remember how Bush shrugged off Clinton's suggestion that Osama bin-Laden would be the biggest concern of his presidency? Remember how concerned Bush got with bin-Laden when the Trade Towers were destroyed?
George Bush is taking our government apart, piece by piece, without any idea of why people a lot smarter and more competent than him put it together in the first place.
Nick Writes a Sleazy Column
From Nick Kristof, who lectured "angry" liberals about lowering the level of national discourse by stooping to the level of calling a lie a "lie":
Mr. Clinton lied about sex, and he was sleazy in other respects as well, but he was willing to tell America the unpleasant truth about trade and about budgets. I wish Mr. Bush and his Democratic challengers would be half as honest with the American public as Mr. Clinton was.
Sleazy. Nice. I particularly like that Clinton was sleazy in "other" unnamed respects that Nick is too dignified to print. As all good journalists should do, he'll provide the innuendo and leave the facts up to your imagination.
Mr. Clinton lied about sex, and he was sleazy in other respects as well, but he was willing to tell America the unpleasant truth about trade and about budgets. I wish Mr. Bush and his Democratic challengers would be half as honest with the American public as Mr. Clinton was.
Sleazy. Nice. I particularly like that Clinton was sleazy in "other" unnamed respects that Nick is too dignified to print. As all good journalists should do, he'll provide the innuendo and leave the facts up to your imagination.
Casualties rise in 2004 despite Saddam capture
WASHINGTON - Nearly two months have passed since Saddam Hussein’s capture, yet American soldiers still are dying at a rate of more than one a day.
Forty-five soldiers died in January and three more in the first three days of February. The January toll was five more than in December, despite hopes that Saddam’s Dec. 13 capture would weaken the Iraqi insurgency and slow the killings from roadside bombs and other attacks.
After "major" combat operations ended in May, we were told the resistance was a bunch of desperate "dead-enders". In August, we were told the insurgents were showing signs of their desperation. In November, the desperation of the increasing attacks and rising American casualties showed our progress. In December, the capture of Saddam had brought the former regime elements to it's knees, from where it is apparently now firing from a prone position.
How long until this administration admits that the situation requires people with more experience in dealing with complex diplomatic problems? How long until the reconstruction of Iraq falls under the civilian leadership of the State Department, where it should have been in the first place?
I'm guessing until at least November, and depending on how that goes, maybe longer.
Forty-five soldiers died in January and three more in the first three days of February. The January toll was five more than in December, despite hopes that Saddam’s Dec. 13 capture would weaken the Iraqi insurgency and slow the killings from roadside bombs and other attacks.
After "major" combat operations ended in May, we were told the resistance was a bunch of desperate "dead-enders". In August, we were told the insurgents were showing signs of their desperation. In November, the desperation of the increasing attacks and rising American casualties showed our progress. In December, the capture of Saddam had brought the former regime elements to it's knees, from where it is apparently now firing from a prone position.
How long until this administration admits that the situation requires people with more experience in dealing with complex diplomatic problems? How long until the reconstruction of Iraq falls under the civilian leadership of the State Department, where it should have been in the first place?
I'm guessing until at least November, and depending on how that goes, maybe longer.
Outlaw Radio Stars Avenge Typewriter Repair Man's Murder
Zook said his attorneys are trying to have him executed as part of a conspiracy concocted by former District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher, now a county judge, and retired Lancaster Bureau of Police Chief Michael Landis, now a county detective.
Zook claims the two men plotted with the "radio community" and had transmitters implanted in his head and abdomen.
The transmitters, Zook said, have been used to monitor his every move and record his thoughts and his speech. He said the recordings are listened to by a bevy of "outlaw radio stars" that populate the county.
Hey, it happens.
Zook claims the two men plotted with the "radio community" and had transmitters implanted in his head and abdomen.
The transmitters, Zook said, have been used to monitor his every move and record his thoughts and his speech. He said the recordings are listened to by a bevy of "outlaw radio stars" that populate the county.
Hey, it happens.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Army Study: Plan Sucked
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — The first official Army history of the Iraq war reveals that American forces were plagued by a "morass" of supply shortages, radios that could not reach far-flung troops, disappointing psychological operations and virtually no reliable intelligence on how Saddam Hussein would defend Baghdad...
...Tank engines sat on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north. Broken-down trucks were scavenged for usable parts. Artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their howitzers operating. Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.
In most cases, soldiers improvised solutions to keep the offensive rolling. But the study found that the Third Infantry Division, the Army's lead combat force, was within two weeks of being halted by a lack of spare parts, and Army logisticians had no effective distribution system.
"The morass of problems that confounded delivering parts and supplies — running the gamut of paper clips to tank engines — stems from the lack of a means to assign responsibility clearly," the study said.
It also found that the Pentagon's decision to send mostly combat units in the weeks before the invasion had the "unintended consequence" of holding back support troops until much later, contributing greatly to the logistics problems.
When asked to comment on the study, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Why don't you ask Tommy Franks? It was his plan."
...Tank engines sat on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north. Broken-down trucks were scavenged for usable parts. Artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their howitzers operating. Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.
In most cases, soldiers improvised solutions to keep the offensive rolling. But the study found that the Third Infantry Division, the Army's lead combat force, was within two weeks of being halted by a lack of spare parts, and Army logisticians had no effective distribution system.
"The morass of problems that confounded delivering parts and supplies — running the gamut of paper clips to tank engines — stems from the lack of a means to assign responsibility clearly," the study said.
It also found that the Pentagon's decision to send mostly combat units in the weeks before the invasion had the "unintended consequence" of holding back support troops until much later, contributing greatly to the logistics problems.
When asked to comment on the study, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Why don't you ask Tommy Franks? It was his plan."
Whereabouts Unknown, Health Uncertain
Welcome back, Washington Post. Nice to see you doing some reporting again:
In August 1972, Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to complete an annual medical exam. A month later, Bush requested to be assigned to a different unit in Alabama and was approved. Although he was required to attend periodic drills in Alabama, there is no official record in his file that he did.
According to the records, Bush had been instructed to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall and I do not," Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Globe in 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
A nice balanced article, which points out that while, on the one hand, Bush's military records and his commanding officers in Alabama and Texas reflect that Bush was AWOL for about a year and a half, on the other hand, Bush and his friends say he definately showed up...a couple of times...or every now and then...and, even if he didn't, he made up a bunch of days at the end before his early discharge.
So there's a lot of evidence to support either contention.
What gets a surpisingly blase treatment is Bush's suspension from flying in 1972 due to his failure to get a routine physical. Presumably, the reason young George Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard was because of his crackerjack 25th percentile pilot aptitude. The government proceeded to spend a ton money and 18 months teaching Bush to fly. The government then, kindly, all but guaranteed young Bush would not see combat in Viet Nam as long as he did one little thing...
Fly airplanes.
And this one thing, the sole reason for his being in the guard and not in Viet Nam, he failed to do. He stopped flying airplanes in 1972. And why? Because he didn't get a physical. It wasn't like he was grounded because his eyes went bad, or he couldn't do twenty pushups, or he developed a heart condition. He simply never bothered--or refused--to get his annual physical, which was a requirement of his service.
Well, it was a different military back then. Back then, evidently, young lieutenants could pick and choose which regulations and requirements they would or would not comply with. And the military was pretty much okay with that.
When confronted with this fact in 2000, Bush campaign staffers replied that Bush failed to get his physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. And the press pretty much let that intelligence insulting lie slide, mistakingly believing, I guess, that in 1972, there was no possible way to get to Houston from Alabama. The technology had not been invented.
Course, there's also the little problem that personal physicians do not conduct yearly physicals for Air National Guardsmen. Military physicians do.
So that was pretty much an intentional, giant, fat whopping big lie. And why do we lie? Because we do not want other people to know the truth. What is the truth? Who knows? But it's something Bush and his staff would rather not want the American people to know.
Bush, himself, and his ghostwriter, laid another whopper on the public in his autobiography, "A Charge To Keep", when he and his ghostwriter wrote that, following his father's campaign in 1972, Bush continued to fly with his unit for several more years until his discharge.
As we now know, Bush never flew for the Guard again after being grounded. So that's a pretty big lie, too.
So we've been lied to about the physical and about the flying. And the only evidence we have that Bush appeared for Guard duty in 1972 and the first half of 1973 is the word of George Bush and his friends. Who have already pretty much demonstrated that they are not above totally lying about Bush's Guard service.
In August 1972, Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to complete an annual medical exam. A month later, Bush requested to be assigned to a different unit in Alabama and was approved. Although he was required to attend periodic drills in Alabama, there is no official record in his file that he did.
According to the records, Bush had been instructed to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall and I do not," Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Globe in 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
A nice balanced article, which points out that while, on the one hand, Bush's military records and his commanding officers in Alabama and Texas reflect that Bush was AWOL for about a year and a half, on the other hand, Bush and his friends say he definately showed up...a couple of times...or every now and then...and, even if he didn't, he made up a bunch of days at the end before his early discharge.
So there's a lot of evidence to support either contention.
What gets a surpisingly blase treatment is Bush's suspension from flying in 1972 due to his failure to get a routine physical. Presumably, the reason young George Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard was because of his crackerjack 25th percentile pilot aptitude. The government proceeded to spend a ton money and 18 months teaching Bush to fly. The government then, kindly, all but guaranteed young Bush would not see combat in Viet Nam as long as he did one little thing...
Fly airplanes.
And this one thing, the sole reason for his being in the guard and not in Viet Nam, he failed to do. He stopped flying airplanes in 1972. And why? Because he didn't get a physical. It wasn't like he was grounded because his eyes went bad, or he couldn't do twenty pushups, or he developed a heart condition. He simply never bothered--or refused--to get his annual physical, which was a requirement of his service.
Well, it was a different military back then. Back then, evidently, young lieutenants could pick and choose which regulations and requirements they would or would not comply with. And the military was pretty much okay with that.
When confronted with this fact in 2000, Bush campaign staffers replied that Bush failed to get his physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. And the press pretty much let that intelligence insulting lie slide, mistakingly believing, I guess, that in 1972, there was no possible way to get to Houston from Alabama. The technology had not been invented.
Course, there's also the little problem that personal physicians do not conduct yearly physicals for Air National Guardsmen. Military physicians do.
So that was pretty much an intentional, giant, fat whopping big lie. And why do we lie? Because we do not want other people to know the truth. What is the truth? Who knows? But it's something Bush and his staff would rather not want the American people to know.
Bush, himself, and his ghostwriter, laid another whopper on the public in his autobiography, "A Charge To Keep", when he and his ghostwriter wrote that, following his father's campaign in 1972, Bush continued to fly with his unit for several more years until his discharge.
As we now know, Bush never flew for the Guard again after being grounded. So that's a pretty big lie, too.
So we've been lied to about the physical and about the flying. And the only evidence we have that Bush appeared for Guard duty in 1972 and the first half of 1973 is the word of George Bush and his friends. Who have already pretty much demonstrated that they are not above totally lying about Bush's Guard service.
If Only Bush Read the Newspaper
He wouldn't need an independent commission handpicked by him to find out just what the heck happened with the Iraq intelligence. Because, frankly, I don't think Cheney or Condi are going to tell him about this:
But when Powell's staff and intelligence analysts gathered at CIA headquarters review the material, controversy immediately erupted over some of the charges, officials said. Because the White House had changed so much from the CIA draft, they had to go over it "page by page," one official said...
...Within one day, officials said, Powell's task force had largely abandoned the 45-page document produced by Cheney's office and the NSC, using instead a classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by the CIA in October. The NIE, according to declassified portions made public last year, firmly stated that "Baghdad's UAV could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and, if brought close to or into the United States, the US homeland."
But the NIE included a dissent to this conclusion that, after the war, would be considered correct: The Air Force intelligence arm, the specialist on UAVs in the US government, strongly argued that the primary role of these aircraft was reconnaissance, "although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."
Air Force officials have said the last phrase was added during negotiations in crafting the NIE, though they viewed the possibility as highly unlikely.
You have to love Walter Pincus. He just keeps on writing these great stories, as if he believes anyone really cares.
But when Powell's staff and intelligence analysts gathered at CIA headquarters review the material, controversy immediately erupted over some of the charges, officials said. Because the White House had changed so much from the CIA draft, they had to go over it "page by page," one official said...
...Within one day, officials said, Powell's task force had largely abandoned the 45-page document produced by Cheney's office and the NSC, using instead a classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by the CIA in October. The NIE, according to declassified portions made public last year, firmly stated that "Baghdad's UAV could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and, if brought close to or into the United States, the US homeland."
But the NIE included a dissent to this conclusion that, after the war, would be considered correct: The Air Force intelligence arm, the specialist on UAVs in the US government, strongly argued that the primary role of these aircraft was reconnaissance, "although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."
Air Force officials have said the last phrase was added during negotiations in crafting the NIE, though they viewed the possibility as highly unlikely.
You have to love Walter Pincus. He just keeps on writing these great stories, as if he believes anyone really cares.
As Nasty As She Wants to Be
Diana West points out that George Bush was just as wrong about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction as Bill Clinton was, but, as opposed to Clinton, Bush had the courage and conviction to compound his error by going to war over something he was wrong about.
And that is why we should re-elect George Bush: America needs a leader willing to take his mistakes to their logical extremes.
Also, she says, it's really mean to point that out.
And that is why we should re-elect George Bush: America needs a leader willing to take his mistakes to their logical extremes.
Also, she says, it's really mean to point that out.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Powell Mortified By Sight of Black Woman's Breast
"Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. "Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better.
"I have instructed the commission to open an immediate investigation into last night's broadcast. Our investigation will be thorough and swift."
Powell and his Republican commission will waste no time looking into some woman's breast. That's what Republicans do best. Ed Meese, Kenneth Starr, Michael Powell. If there's some dirty sex stuff going on out there, they'll get to thoroughly involved with it.
Meanwhile, we still don't know who was on Cheney's energy task force, who sent all that anthrax in the mail, who outed Plame...
But Republicans will be thorough and swift in dealing with exposed parts of female bodies. And maybe, next year, at the Super Bowl, we can all enjoy the halftime burka extravaganza. And that righteous suppression of the horror of female body parts will, once and for all, prove our moral superiority over the forces opposed to American freedom.
Though, two things:
One, it's the halftime show. It sucks. It's always sucked. You're not supposed to watch it. Anybody who lets their kids watch that hokey schmaltzfest is an irresponsible parent who hates children; and
Two, while we're all completely horrified that a breast got loose and totally destroyed civilization, did anyone happen to notice the completely naked guy running around the fifty yard line?
"I have instructed the commission to open an immediate investigation into last night's broadcast. Our investigation will be thorough and swift."
Powell and his Republican commission will waste no time looking into some woman's breast. That's what Republicans do best. Ed Meese, Kenneth Starr, Michael Powell. If there's some dirty sex stuff going on out there, they'll get to thoroughly involved with it.
Meanwhile, we still don't know who was on Cheney's energy task force, who sent all that anthrax in the mail, who outed Plame...
But Republicans will be thorough and swift in dealing with exposed parts of female bodies. And maybe, next year, at the Super Bowl, we can all enjoy the halftime burka extravaganza. And that righteous suppression of the horror of female body parts will, once and for all, prove our moral superiority over the forces opposed to American freedom.
Though, two things:
One, it's the halftime show. It sucks. It's always sucked. You're not supposed to watch it. Anybody who lets their kids watch that hokey schmaltzfest is an irresponsible parent who hates children; and
Two, while we're all completely horrified that a breast got loose and totally destroyed civilization, did anyone happen to notice the completely naked guy running around the fifty yard line?
Thank You, Ed Gillespie
Elanor Clift writes:
Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson did an exhaustive study of Bush's military service, which was published in May 2000. Robinson concluded that during Bush's final 18 months in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973, he did not fly at all and was "all but unaccounted for," with no records to indicate that he attended any of the required drills. Bush was working for a Senate campaign in Alabama for part of the time, and was supposed to appear for duty there, but never did. After the November '72 election, Bush returned to Houston, but he was a no-show there, as well.
Under the rules at the time, guardsmen who miss duty were supposed to be reported and could then be drafted. Seven months after Bush returned to Houston, two of his commanding officers filed a report noting that Bush had not been "observed" at his unit during the previous 12 months. That evidently shocked Bush into performing. Over the next three months, from May to July 1973, he spent 36 days on Guard duty, for which he was rewarded with an early discharge to attend Harvard Business School.
It's about four years overdue for journalists to take a good look at Bush's missing Guard duty. But better late than after November.
It seems to be getting more ink now, and at least some accurate reporting. And I can't help think that if not for Ed Gillespie's feigned indignity at Michael Moore's "deserter" charge, and if not for Ed Gillespie trying to smear Wes Clark for not repudiating that statement, Peter Jennings would never have asked that question in New Hampshire.
And, so, when you think about it, we have Ed Gillespie to thank for forcing the Bush friendly media to finally ask the question, "Just where the heck was George Bush in 1972?"
(Answer: in a bar, in Alabama)
Next, maybe Ed can get them to ask what happened to the endowment of the University of Texas after Governor Bush turned it over to his good friend and supporter, Tom Hicks. You know the one, Tom Hicks, the guy who paid top dollar to buy the Texas Rangers from...oh, you know the rest.
Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson did an exhaustive study of Bush's military service, which was published in May 2000. Robinson concluded that during Bush's final 18 months in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973, he did not fly at all and was "all but unaccounted for," with no records to indicate that he attended any of the required drills. Bush was working for a Senate campaign in Alabama for part of the time, and was supposed to appear for duty there, but never did. After the November '72 election, Bush returned to Houston, but he was a no-show there, as well.
Under the rules at the time, guardsmen who miss duty were supposed to be reported and could then be drafted. Seven months after Bush returned to Houston, two of his commanding officers filed a report noting that Bush had not been "observed" at his unit during the previous 12 months. That evidently shocked Bush into performing. Over the next three months, from May to July 1973, he spent 36 days on Guard duty, for which he was rewarded with an early discharge to attend Harvard Business School.
It's about four years overdue for journalists to take a good look at Bush's missing Guard duty. But better late than after November.
It seems to be getting more ink now, and at least some accurate reporting. And I can't help think that if not for Ed Gillespie's feigned indignity at Michael Moore's "deserter" charge, and if not for Ed Gillespie trying to smear Wes Clark for not repudiating that statement, Peter Jennings would never have asked that question in New Hampshire.
And, so, when you think about it, we have Ed Gillespie to thank for forcing the Bush friendly media to finally ask the question, "Just where the heck was George Bush in 1972?"
(Answer: in a bar, in Alabama)
Next, maybe Ed can get them to ask what happened to the endowment of the University of Texas after Governor Bush turned it over to his good friend and supporter, Tom Hicks. You know the one, Tom Hicks, the guy who paid top dollar to buy the Texas Rangers from...oh, you know the rest.
White House Continues to Stonewall 9/11 Investigation
The White House, already embroiled in a public fight over the deadline for an independent commission's investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is refusing to give the panel notes on presidential briefing papers taken by some of its own members, officials said this week.
I don't think the White House is refusing to co-operate with the 9/11 commission for any ulterior motive. You know, like, for instance, that Bush was briefed on the possibility of terrorists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings just days before Bush left for the longest vacation in presidential history.
The White House is probably just too busy with other stuff, like getting to the heart of that Cheney energy task force, and the Valery Plame thing, and what the heck happened with the Iraqi intelligence, and why is there a fat man gobbling handfuls of oxycontin in the Lincoln Bedroom, and who remembers where we put the shovels and the bags of lime, and...
I don't think the White House is refusing to co-operate with the 9/11 commission for any ulterior motive. You know, like, for instance, that Bush was briefed on the possibility of terrorists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings just days before Bush left for the longest vacation in presidential history.
The White House is probably just too busy with other stuff, like getting to the heart of that Cheney energy task force, and the Valery Plame thing, and what the heck happened with the Iraqi intelligence, and why is there a fat man gobbling handfuls of oxycontin in the Lincoln Bedroom, and who remembers where we put the shovels and the bags of lime, and...
New Budget Features Faith Based Projections
The president’s plan for the 2005 budget year, which begins next Oct. 1, proposes spending $2.4 trillion for all government activities, up 3.5 percent from the current year. Revenues will total $2.04 trillion, a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts powered by a stronger economy.
The president projects the 2005 deficit will be $364 billion, down from a projected record high deficit in dollar terms of $521 billion this year. He pledged to cut that in half over the next five years.
The budget does not include the 2005 supplement to Iraq, which Bush said would "probably" be no more than 50 billion dollars. "Probably" reminds me a lot of "major combat operations"...of course, Bush will not make the Iraq supplement request until after the election, when voters will have no recourse but to accept whatever staggering, "improbable" bill he hands us.
To battle the soaring deficits, Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions.
In total, Bolten said Bush’s budget would eliminate 65 government programs for a saving of $4.9 billion while proposing to cut spending in 63 other programs.
What has been the total cost for the Iraq War and reconstruction so far? $180 billion or so? Is everybody starting to understand this cost to America not only in lives, but in dollars, and in the quality of our lives? I have no idea which 65 programs have been chosen to be cut, but presumably these programs are designed to help Americans in one way or another. Bush now proposes that they be eliminated for a smashing savings of $5 billion dollars!
Whatever these programs are, the price of Bush's Iraqi adventure could fund an additional 2340 programs of equivalent cost to help Americans and improve the quality of American life.
2340.
Instead, at least 128 government programs will be eliminated or underfunded, and for what? To ease the tax burden on the richest one percent of the people on the planet and to buy gasoline for the people of oil producing Iraq?
And even if this train wreck of a budget passes, we'll still be stuck with massive, record decifits. Bush is still running up our national credit card and leaving the interest payments and the balance for someone else to deal with after he's long gone from office.
This guy is a fullblown disaster. He has been from the first day he stepped into office and started breaking campaign promises and he's gotten worse with every year. If he is not defeated in November, he will destroy this country.
The president projects the 2005 deficit will be $364 billion, down from a projected record high deficit in dollar terms of $521 billion this year. He pledged to cut that in half over the next five years.
The budget does not include the 2005 supplement to Iraq, which Bush said would "probably" be no more than 50 billion dollars. "Probably" reminds me a lot of "major combat operations"...of course, Bush will not make the Iraq supplement request until after the election, when voters will have no recourse but to accept whatever staggering, "improbable" bill he hands us.
To battle the soaring deficits, Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions.
In total, Bolten said Bush’s budget would eliminate 65 government programs for a saving of $4.9 billion while proposing to cut spending in 63 other programs.
What has been the total cost for the Iraq War and reconstruction so far? $180 billion or so? Is everybody starting to understand this cost to America not only in lives, but in dollars, and in the quality of our lives? I have no idea which 65 programs have been chosen to be cut, but presumably these programs are designed to help Americans in one way or another. Bush now proposes that they be eliminated for a smashing savings of $5 billion dollars!
Whatever these programs are, the price of Bush's Iraqi adventure could fund an additional 2340 programs of equivalent cost to help Americans and improve the quality of American life.
2340.
Instead, at least 128 government programs will be eliminated or underfunded, and for what? To ease the tax burden on the richest one percent of the people on the planet and to buy gasoline for the people of oil producing Iraq?
And even if this train wreck of a budget passes, we'll still be stuck with massive, record decifits. Bush is still running up our national credit card and leaving the interest payments and the balance for someone else to deal with after he's long gone from office.
This guy is a fullblown disaster. He has been from the first day he stepped into office and started breaking campaign promises and he's gotten worse with every year. If he is not defeated in November, he will destroy this country.
I Feel Better Already
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he would appoint an "independent bipartisan commission" to review U.S. intelligence on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Let me guess, representing the Democrats will be Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
Let me guess, representing the Democrats will be Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
Lou Dobbs Was Right
Bush fatigue has overwhelmed Americans, who have deteriorated into a wretched state of apathy, wherein nobody gives a damn about anything anymore. Not even six more weeks of winter:
“We couldn’t care less if he sees his shadow,” said Bill Cooper, president of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club.
“We couldn’t care less if he sees his shadow,” said Bill Cooper, president of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Bottle of Blog Calls for Investigation
After the Patriots failure to win the Super Bowl by ten, Bottle of Blog is ordering a non-partisan commission of both Patriot fans and people who were smart enough to take Carolina and the points to investigate this stunning failure of intelligence.
Up front, and to save time, I would like to clarify that it was not a result of all those empty bottles of Rolling Rock.
Up front, and to save time, I would like to clarify that it was not a result of all those empty bottles of Rolling Rock.
Automatic For The People
Watching the best kicker in the NFL being unable to make a couple of thirty yarders is like being a Democrat. You know what should be happening, but, for some reason, it just doesn't.
No wisdom here, just astonishment.
No wisdom here, just astonishment.
Eugene Wilson Badly Beaten By Wide Receiver, Condition Stable
You ever notice how guys are so much more likely to get injured when they've just made a game losing mistake? We've seen it time and time again. It's pretty much an axiom of the game--blowing your coverage will get you hurt.
But just for one play.
But just for one play.
February 20, 2003
On CBS
In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.
* Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."
* Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."
* Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."
The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.
A month before the Rush to War, this information was widely available not only to the Bush administration, but, apparently, to the world reknowned super agents, CBS.
Good, bad, total disaster, can we please stop pretending the War was not the result of total bullshit?
I get this link from Atrios, who got it from Needlenose.
Okay, when a bunch of Bloggers can repeatedly prove that the Bush Administration discarded intelligence it didn't like, distorted intelligence to support it's conclusions, and pressured intelligence agents to provide intelligence it wanted...and when Bloggers can show that with nothing more than a freaking Google search--no grand juries, no subpoena power, no warrants...
It's true! it's ridiculously true! It's so obviously, undeniably, thoroughly true even a Republican can understand its truthfulness.
Do we really need to waste another ten million dollars on an independent investigation? Can't we just show the Congress and the mainstream media how to do a Google search? And skip right to the impeachment?
In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.
* Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."
* Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."
* Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."
The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.
A month before the Rush to War, this information was widely available not only to the Bush administration, but, apparently, to the world reknowned super agents, CBS.
Good, bad, total disaster, can we please stop pretending the War was not the result of total bullshit?
I get this link from Atrios, who got it from Needlenose.
Okay, when a bunch of Bloggers can repeatedly prove that the Bush Administration discarded intelligence it didn't like, distorted intelligence to support it's conclusions, and pressured intelligence agents to provide intelligence it wanted...and when Bloggers can show that with nothing more than a freaking Google search--no grand juries, no subpoena power, no warrants...
It's true! it's ridiculously true! It's so obviously, undeniably, thoroughly true even a Republican can understand its truthfulness.
Do we really need to waste another ten million dollars on an independent investigation? Can't we just show the Congress and the mainstream media how to do a Google search? And skip right to the impeachment?
Never Has the Flag Meant So Much to Someone
That they made a performance pocho out of it.
Rock on, Kid Rock, you kid rocking dick, you!
Oh, and also, on your way out of the stadium, pick up a rifle. The spring fighting is just about to begin in Afghanistan.
Rock on, Kid Rock, you kid rocking dick, you!
Oh, and also, on your way out of the stadium, pick up a rifle. The spring fighting is just about to begin in Afghanistan.
The Many Life Lessons Sports Teach Us
That, after a big play, coaches often shout "fuck".
If only we could get audio.
If only we could get audio.
Put your money on the Pats
I have very good intelligence that they will win by 10.
The 24 Hour News Garbage Disposal
Atrios, here and here, and Josh Marshall, here, do a nice job of illustrating that not only did the administration ignore intelligence that conflicted with their pre-conceived conclusions, cherry pick intelligence statements that agreed with their pre-conceived conclusions while discarding qualifying statements within that intelligence, and formed their own seperate intelligence analysis organization because the CIA was not telling them what they wanted to hear, but also, that all of this was known, reported, and widely commented on before the Rush to War.
Not only that, but it was known, reported, and commented on by conservatives, the very same conservatives who are now claiming that the CIA must have mislead that old credible Bush administration.
But, then, everyone already knows that. Everyone who paid any attention at all during the giant BS-fest that was the Rush to War knows that. And, if our national media had any integrity and was not completely disfunctional--in other words, if it was not thoroughly dominated by conservative voices--following Kay's statement, every newspaper in the country would have had a story on its front page beginning, "Despite warnings from the CIA and intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction..."
Instead, we'll just get a bunch of stories and reports on how intelligence is not an exact science, and how we need to change our methods of collecting intelligence.
And there will be no mention of the fact that the CIA was more right than wrong. And there will be no reporting about how the Bush administration was dismissive and contemptuous of the CIA. And there will be no reporting on how all of this was previously reported.
Not only that, but it was known, reported, and commented on by conservatives, the very same conservatives who are now claiming that the CIA must have mislead that old credible Bush administration.
But, then, everyone already knows that. Everyone who paid any attention at all during the giant BS-fest that was the Rush to War knows that. And, if our national media had any integrity and was not completely disfunctional--in other words, if it was not thoroughly dominated by conservative voices--following Kay's statement, every newspaper in the country would have had a story on its front page beginning, "Despite warnings from the CIA and intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction..."
Instead, we'll just get a bunch of stories and reports on how intelligence is not an exact science, and how we need to change our methods of collecting intelligence.
And there will be no mention of the fact that the CIA was more right than wrong. And there will be no reporting about how the Bush administration was dismissive and contemptuous of the CIA. And there will be no reporting on how all of this was previously reported.
Bush Agrees to Independent Whitewash
President Bush has agreed to support an independent inquiry into the prewar intelligence that he used to assert that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Republican and congressional sources said yesterday.
Considering how candid, co-operative and forthcoming the administration has been with the 9/11 investigation, I'm sure we'll get right to the heart of the intelligence breakdown.
Considering how candid, co-operative and forthcoming the administration has been with the 9/11 investigation, I'm sure we'll get right to the heart of the intelligence breakdown.
More Liberal Media
"Let me give you some statistics. I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 and …in anticipation of this very question, I looked this up on Nexis. There were 13,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft' …and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard," Paul Begala said.
And Paul doesn't even mention that 46 of those stories just dismissed the AWOL allegations out of hand.
And Paul doesn't even mention that 46 of those stories just dismissed the AWOL allegations out of hand.
