That damn liberal media!


Didn't they get their indoctrination briefing before the press conference?

They should have asked:

Mr. President, numerous countries and individuals around the world disagree with your stance on Iraq. Considering the fact that we might need assistance in a full-scale war, why won't the administration give the weapons inspectors just one site where they can actually find something? If our intelligence is as infallable as you suggest it is, this should be easy and any weapons movements made after the fact would be outweighed by the increased support from other countries, right?

Or...

Mr. President, you have said that you will do what is necessary to protect Americans, no matter what the rest of the world does. Right now, North Korea is saying that they will deal only with the U.S. While you continue to state that this is a regional issue, shouldn't your administration agree to speak with Kim Jong Il? You have said before that North Korea is a threat to the U.S. Why would you expect China or Japan to do "what is necessary to protect Americans" when they only want to speak with you?

Follow-up: Sir, some in Japan have suggested that they need to develop nuclear weapons to defend against North Korea. Do you feel that your unwillingness to speak with North Korea ought to be considered, in part, to blame for the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region?

Or...

Sir, many members of your administration served in your father's and were party to several lies about Saddam Hussein at that time, including one about how his soldiers had dumped premature babies out of incubators. You, yourself, have misled the people repeatedly on issues of domestic policy and Colin Powell's address to the U.N. has been proven to be filled with falsehoods. Considering this track record of deception, why should anyone believe that you have the evidence to which you refer?

Come on, people, if you're not going to show up at the meetings, we're going to take away your Liberal Media Decoder Rings.

Also: Mighty Joe Conason has another question for Bush. He want's to know why Bush says that Iraq's a sponsor of "terruh" when the State Department says otherwise.

Why we (don't) write


As you'll notice, I haven't written in a couple of days. I apologize to my faithful reader. I'm sorry, Mom. However, I just wonder whether it's worth it at all anymore. Honestly, people, we are currently living in a country where people are recommending pre-emptive nuclear strikes on North Korea, where it is now argued that we may have to go to war with Iraq just because it would make us look bad if we didn't go ahead and kill a bunch of their people and guys who probably vote Democrat are saying that we should be allowed to torture people for information.

Good God.

Doesn't the whole idea of who we are as a nation have to change now? I don't mean once these things are done, either, but just because there are people in power who aren't disgusted by these arguments?

All we'll accept is total disarmament...


Oh, and regime change.

And get me a turkey pot pie, bitch!

More Republican lies


Go check out The Daily Kos today to find out the truth about the Republican argument that the filibuster of the Estrada nomination is the first of its kind. (Not only is it not true, but Republicans did the same thing only three years ago!)

Also Atrios uses Google to make George Will argue with himself. You must read it.

Bush bashes buddies


Why is it those who try to deal with this administration find -- too late -- that the knife in their back has their fingerprints on the handle right beside Bush's?

In his speech to the governors, Bush said he was "disappointed" that Congress did not provide the $3.5 billion he requested a year ago for counterterrorism programs.

A top GOP House official said the Bush administration was intimately involved in negotiating the details of the $397 billion omnibus spending bill the president signed into law earlier this month. White House officials and many budget experts said the measure provides $1.3 billion specifically to local governments to combat terrorism -- considerably less than the $3.5 billion that Bush said he wanted.

"If the president wanted the money, he should have asked for it. He never did," said a senior House GOP leadership aide. "Bush will say what he needs to say, and we understand that."

Democrats took advantage of the dust-up yesterday to slam Republicans for spending too little on homeland defense.

"Incredibly, the president is now blaming others for the budget he himself insisted on," said Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).

I suppose I feel less sorry for Hill Republicans, though, than I do for all those people who believed that Bush wouldn't "leave their child behind."

The Administration's budget falls $7 billion short of the resources promised in the Act, and it cuts funding for No Child Left Behind initiatives by $90 million. In addition, it funds less than half of the federal commitment to special education, an $11 billion shortfall that affects over 6 million American children with disabilities.

"Our nation's public schools cannot overcome the enormous obstacles they face on the cheap," said (Sen. Jim) Jeffords at a Capitol Hill press conference today.

Jeffords continued, "Mr. President, you can't have it all three ways. You can't pass a program such as No Child Left Behind, creating a huge federal need for funds, while refusing to provide those funds, and refusing to fully fund Special Education as promised, and now slashing federal revenues with massive tax cuts to handcuff federal appropriators. Your approach will only leave every child further behind."

This is just getting sad.

If his lips are moving, he's lying


What one has to believe is a plucky staffer on the Democratic side of the House Appropriations Committee has put up a very good list of Bush's lies about the budget called Caught On Film. I highly recommend it.

Today, perhaps, he could add the following:

I think the country needs to provide opportunities for people to serve, expanding AmeriCorps, expanding Senior Corps -- it's a good way for Americans to fight evil. And there's all kinds of opportunities: Senior Corps is one opportunity, AmeriCorps is one, church, synagogue or mosque programs are another.

As I said in my speech, if you don't know where to serve your two years of public service, or 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, here's a really good opportunity. - George W. Bush, February 5, 2002

And from Bush's proposal to reform Americorps:

Authorize Appropriations. The Administration calls on the Congress to authorize a $230 million increase from last year's budget - the full funding of AmeriCorps requested in the President's FY 2003 budget - which would permit AmeriCorps participation to increase from 50,000 Americans per year to 75,000. These 25,000 new AmeriCorps participants, in turn, will leverage at least 75, 000 additional volunteers for community service organizations. - USA Freedom Corps, Principles and Reforms for a Citizen Service Act .

Compare these with today's article in The Washington Post (via Atrios):

A Bush administration bookkeeping decision has left a funding shortfall for the AmeriCorps national service program that could force enrollment cuts of as much as 50 percent -- instead of the 50 percent increase President Bush had promised.

The president embraced AmeriCorps, a Clinton-era program, after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and has made it a central part of his "compassionate conservative" agenda. During his State of the Union address last year, he called for AmeriCorps enrollment to grow to 75,000 from 50,000.

Instead, it is possible that enrollment will be held to 26,000 this year unless changes are made, AmeriCorps officials said.

How does these guys get away with this crap?

Showdown Iraq: The Debate


From our British friends:

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair (moderator): The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Ha ha ha.

Gentle Ben


I usually don't pay much attention to Ben Shapiro. Why would I? Why would anyone? But, as I was reading TBogg's account of how confused Ben was by the Sam Goldwyn's excellent 1946 film The Best Years of Their Lives, something occurred to me. Isn't Shapiro, who's goes to great lengths to talk about what a "patriot" he is, only 19? Isn't that, like, the perfect fucking age to enlist in the goddamn military and put his ass on the line? He seems to thinks it's an excellent idea for others to die for a cause.

Sure, you can argue that there are plenty of conservatives who haven't served in the military who are supporting the war, but it's a little late for Rush "Anal Cysts" Limbaugh and George "Divinity School" Will to put their money where their mouth is, but Ben, if he were half the man his mouth makes him out to be, would march his ass down to a recruiter's office posthaste. If he doesn't, he's completely full of shit.

You love him, you hate him...


But Neal Pollack continues to crack my ass up:

Do Keller, or any of the members of his "club," really believe that anything they write registers with the Bush administration? Is Donald Rumsfeld feeling more secure now that Slate is on board? Was Dick Cheney sitting around waiting for Lance Morrow's reluctant approval? In what world are these writers living? This is not a second-year honors seminar at the Kennedy School of Government. This is war, motherfucker!

Great Bylined Thinkers of America, I bid you: Shut up!

He also gives quite a rogering to some anti-war writers, but ends with this point (with which I completely agree):

On both sides of the Iraq war "debate," writers are straining. They want to be seers, prophets, and tellers of eternal truths. They think they're dropping wisdom for the ages. But they're not. They just sound foolish. From any important historical circumstance, only a few pieces of genuine literary art emerge. In this current situation, I would argue for two: the Onion's special issue immediately following September 11, and William Langewiesche's book about reclaiming Ground Zero. One was the product of seemingly divine humor inspiration, the other of months of 16-hour reporting days.

Go read the whole thing if you haven't already.

A question


Speaking in Georgia today, Bush said this:

I also want to make this tax code more fair. It's important that the tax code be fair. It's fair to tax corporate profits; that's fair. What's not fair, it seems to me, is that when a corporation distributes those profits to the shareholders in a form of what they call a dividend, that you tax it again. It doesn't make economic sense to keep taxing the same dollar over time. If part of a healthy economic society is one in which money is circulating in the private sector -- this causes fewer dollars to circulate -- it means less investment when you stand in between the owner of the company, the shareholder, and the distribution of once-taxed profits of that company. (Italics Nitpicker's)

My question, then, is would he support an amendment to his tax code that would exclude any company that has been avoiding taxes by using a post office box in Bermuda? He says right in his speech that it's fair to tax corporate profits and, by avoiding these taxes, their dividend payments can't be "double-taxed." Even more important, doesn't he think that these AWOL taxpayers ought to be forced to pay their "fair" share in the first place?

Brother Bush's Traveling Destruction Show


"Ladies and gentlemen, I know that there are some of you out there tonight who still aren't convinced about the truth of what I'm telling you, so I thought maybe I might be able to explain my point of view better... in a song..."



"It's All My Decision"

(to the tune of "That Old-time Religion")



We're gonna get that Saddam Hussein.
Karl Rove says that he's insane.
Showed me big trucks from a spy plane.
That's good enough for me.

Chorus:
It's all my decision.
It's all my decision.
It's all my decision.
And that's good enough for me.

We'll try not to hurt their people,
though their "uprising" was darn feeble
(and I ain't seen one damn steeple)
And that's good enough for me.

Chorus

Al-Qaida is connected
and I hope that proof's collected,
'cause bombs get Dick "erected,"
That's good enough for me.

Chorus

If they're weapons, Saddam's sought 'em.
Colin Powell says that he's got 'em.
Says Rumsfeld: "Hell, I brought 'em!"
That's good enough for me.

Chorus

Chirac, I think he hates me,
misunderestimates me,
but Tony Blair fellates me,
and that's good enough for me.

Chorus

Yes, Britain's "report" was a copy
and our intel has been sloppy,
but he tried to kill my Poppy.
That's good enough for me.

Chorus

So, if you need more explanation,
Ashcroft's got you a new location,
Cause you're an enemy of the nation,
Now sing along with me.

Chorus (All):
It's all your decision,
It's all your decision,
There'll be no more divison,
If you force... us... we'll... a-...greeeeeee!


Here endeth the sermon.

(From the Nitpicker: This is what insomnia does to me. Pardon.)

You must read this


An excellent article by Nicholas von Hoffman, who's really got Bush's number and writes about it very well. Check it:

To justify the indefensible, the administration and its defenders are prone to talk about "appeasement" and compare Saddam Hussein with Hitler. But one of the reasons Hitler was appeased was that he commanded a frightening, nearly invincible war machine. It took almost the entire world to defeat him, and it was a close thing at that. The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945. Will it take six years to defeat Saddam, or six days, or six hours? Whatever his intentions, he has no tanks, no airplanes, no submarines, no nothing. Anyone comparing this guy with Hitler has no understanding of how terrible Hitler was. That Saddam is a despicable gangster politician does not make his country a military power. It is all but defenseless against the United States, which has been bombing the place for years without losing a single aircraft or pilot. It even lacks the military capabilities of North Korea, a country which does have a set of sharp little teeth, and you can see the difference in George W. Bush’s approach to Kim Jung Il. Instead of the nailed boot, he gets the pussied foot.

Beautiful.

By the way, it seems like Americans are generally getting wise to Bush, as his latest poll numbers suggest.

Also, Digby, belatedly added to the blogroll at left, has an wonderful essay today, which spanks Tom Friedman so hard I almost pity the stupid little bastard. An excerpt:

You’re complaining that "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy.” No shit Sherlock. Perhaps you should decline the next time a Bushie offers you a Viagra and Jim Beam cocktail before you write such simpleminded and immature drivel. You and your half-witted friends have enabled this group of Neanderthals since 9/11 with silly screeds... I hope it made you feel all manly and powerful at the time because it sure is causing a lot of trouble now.

Applause.

The more things change…

In spite of the proliferation of democracies over the past century, many people across the globe are held captive by their governments. More than a decade after the Berlin Wall fell, more than 2 billion people still live under authoritarian regimes. America must remain vigilant in our support of those living under authoritarianism. There remain people in Asia, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia who do not enjoy the right to choose their own governments and to hold those governments accountable.

Americans and the 3 billion others across the globe living in democracies desire the same freedoms for the remaining 42 percent of the world's population who live without them. But as long as governments like those in Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Iraq, and Sudan exist, freedom is not accessible to all… -George W. Bush, July 13, 2001

The US is determined to establish a unified Iraq under a pluralist democracy in which the human rights of all ethnic groups will be respected. We are not about to overthrow one dictator just to replace him with another. – Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

(C)ertainly the mission, the direction of a post-Iraq government should be in the direction of most liberty and freedom for its people, which democracy represents. – Ari Fleischer, October 2, 2002

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. – George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

The more they stay the same…

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region. - The Independent, February 17, 2003

Also, Jeanne has a must-read essay on the Iraq issue today.

Military readiness, Bush-style


I saw a quote from G-Dub that said, “It’s one of the saddest things about the Presidency.” Curious, because I would think that choosing the saddest thing about this presidency is trying to pick the cutest of a litter of black lab puppies, I went to Runner’s World. There I found out that Bush wasn’t talking about this crazy war he’s got coming or his environmental policies or the pitiful state of the economy or the virtual police state his buddy Ashcroft is whipping up or – well, you get the picture. No, George was saying that the saddest thing about the Presidency was that he just doesn’t get to jog as much as he used to. Honest.

What interested me, as a member of the National Guard*, was this little bit of info:

When did you begin running?
1972.

You were 25 then. Did you start running because of health concerns?
Yes. I was still very young, but I was so out of shape, a friend of mine played to my vanity to get me to start running. Back then, I was a man who was known to drink a beer or two. And over time, I’m convinced that running helped me quit drinking and smoking. [Bush quit drinking in 1986.] It’s well-documented that Billy Graham provided the spiritual contrast of the body temple which allowed me to convince myself to stop drinking. (Italics Nitpicker’s)

If you’ll refer to this excellent chart at uggabugga, then you’ll realize that the time when Bush was “so out of shape,” the man was supposed to be an officer in the Texas Air National Guard. What does this say of the man’s leadership that he let himself get “so out of shape” when he was a member (an officer!), ostensibly, of the military? What about the fact that it took playing to his “vanity” to get him to start running and not the fact that it was his responsibility as a member of the US Armed Forces to keep himself in a physical state of readiness?

Sad.

It may, however, explain this.


*These opinions, as always, are mine alone and in no way reflect the opinions of the DOD, the U.S. Army or the Kansas Army National Guard.

Which protesters, Ari?


So, in response to peace protests over the weekend, Ari Fleischer has gone to great lengths to embarrass himself:

The global anti-war protests have put the White House on the defensive. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer began his daily briefing by reading newspaper clips about demonstrations against the staging of missiles in Germany in the early 1980s, and said, ``This is not the first time there have been mass protests and in a previous instance America stood on principle ... and as a result the Berlin Wall came down.''

He also told reporters that former President Franklin Roosevelt overcame protests from isolationists to lead American into World War II.

``Often the message of protesters is contradicted by history,'' he said.

First, Ari's an idiot. For every anti-missile protest in Germany there was an anti-Communist protest. Are those protesters "contradicted by history"? For God's sake, Moldova just had protests against their Communist government last month.

Second, Ari would probably find that, in sheer numbers, American protesters have usually been on the side of the angels. Groups that seem to be able to draw large crowds in the U.S. are ones that we usually think of as having a just cause in hindsight. Think "The March on Washington," Ari. Think suffrage. Think Vietnam, Ari, which even Bob McNamara admitted (30 years too late) was a big friggin' boondoggle. As for "isolationists" trying to keep us out of WWII, those people were 1) on your side, Ari; and 2) were quite small in number.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ari Fleischer, professional idiot.

(Note: Julia had trouble believing that Georgie Boy said that paying attention to the size of a protest is like deciding policy "based on a focus group," but he said it.)

Wow


David Neiwert (the Orcinus listed at left) gives us an excellent essay on the ubiquitousness of anti-Asian racism.

(Thanks to Atrios.)

Suckers


Last week, The Wall Street Journal's online bullhorn, OpinionJournal, put up a list of pro-war poems on their website, in response to the Poets Against the War movement. While many of the poems (on both sides, frankly) are a load of bunk, a friend (and former poetry professor) of mine pointed out that they may have missed the point when they put up a poem by Colin Dodds called "The War Takes Shape":

I was never much of a smoker,
but it was all so thick in the air.

The gods were aroused, desirous.
Their pheromones of fire and screaming
overtook our plans.

The stink below Canal Street
makes us mad for retribution.
The race of airplanes
unleashes its warrior caste.

Bloodlust is no weaker,
nor more complicated to arouse
than any other lust.

In the bars, the restaurants,
we talk war until we love each other.

Our conversations begin in diplomatic morass
and end in nuclear consummation,
tasting every permutation of horror in between.

And we hurry to the final explosion
just to be over with it, just to stop
wanting such things for a moment.

History and the old animal gods
squeeze us close.

We do all we can
to escape their embrace
and end up doing all that they ask.

It seems Colin slipped a fast one past Mr. Taranto, who apparently can't understand that this is far from a pro-war poem.