WaxWorks
|
Friday, August 20, 2004
Hold on one second...
I was reading the article in this morning's New York Times absolutely destroying whatever remaining credibility these Swift Boat Veterans had, when I came across this interesting tidbit:
When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms.
Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth
Starr gave her a personal tour.
Uhh, excuse me? What the hell is Ken Starr doing giving "personal tours" of the White House? After doing the Far-Right's dirty work against Clinton, does he have free reign at the place? Allowed to come and go as he pleases? Pretty unbelievable...
BTW, I strongly recommend reading the Times piece. It really shows the Swift Boaters for what they are: liars.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Keynote
One of the keynote speakers at a major party's political convention this year has had a lot of really nice things to say about John Kerry. Let's read.
My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic
heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good
friend. He was once a lieutenant governor - but he didn't stay in that office 16
years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of
Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.
Wow. Pretty strong praise. Let's read on.
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste
and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate
career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction
Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically
correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military,
reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.
So, who is this man speaking Kerry's praises? Barack Obama?
Nope. It's the keynote speaker for the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).
Zell made these comments about John Kerry at the 2001 Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner. Just keep these comments in mind when you hear Zell's speech on September 1...
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Please America, Let's Stop the Lies on November 2
By now you've probably read about Dick Cheney's sarcastic criticism of John Kerry's statement that, among other things, he would run a "more sensitive" war on terror. I've already noted how Bush himself used the word "sensitive" when referring to the war on terror to the same audience Kerry spoke with. Now, thanks to Bob Somerby, I've been altered to the fact that CHENEY has too, in a recent interview with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt.
Cheney started the interview, which was held on August 12, by repeating his argument against Kerry's use of the word "sensitive":
HH: "Today you brought attention to John Kerry's plan to wage a more
'sensitive' war on terror. What do you think John Kerry meant when he said
'sensitive,' Mr. Vice President?"
VP: "Well, I'm not sure what he meant (laughing). Ah, it strikes me the two words don't really go together, sensitive and
war. If you look at our history, I don't think any of the wars we've
won, were won by us being quote sensitive. I think of Abraham Lincoln and
General Grant, they didn't wage sensitive war. Neither did Roosevelt,
neither did Eisenhower or MacArthur in World War II. A sensitive war will
not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans, and who seek chemical,
nuclear, and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more."
So far, so good. Sticking to his attack talking points. But look at what Cheney says later, when Hewitt asks him about the standoff in Najaf:
HH: "Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if
that means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?"
VP: "Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of people who
worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the shrine, if
you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S.
commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the
extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the
shrine itself."
What the ....? I thought sensitivity had no role in the war against terror? (Of course, you could justify Cheney's statement by stating that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war against terror, but that's not a statement that this Administration is prepared to make.)
They just lie, and lie and lie. To quote David St. Hubbins again, "This is unbelieveable. Will you check me on this? Am I losing my fucking mind? Could you check me on this, am I losing my mind?"
Should This Be A Credibility Issue?
The other night I saw, OutFoxed, the excellent new documentary concerning the methods used by Fox News to deliver the Republican party-line night after night, and one point in particular that was raised stuck with me.
The documentary does a good job of showing that one of the strongest contributions that wholly-owned Republican news subsidiaries like Fox News make for the right is that they serve to take what should be a devasting fact against their side, and try to make it into into a credibility contest, a he-said, she-said. Thus, when facts are really bad for them, like with Richard Clarke, they know they can't defeat the facts, but instead will settle for a tie -- a "no one really knows what the real truth is" result, which is actually a victory for them, because the real truth IS objectively bad for them. So, when Richard Clarke testified, the spin on Fox News was, well, Richard Clarke says this, but "some other people say" (another one of their favorite techniques -- hiding their bias behind "some other people") that Clarke can't be trusted. So, boy, we don't know what to say about this, but it looks like a draw.
I see the same thing happening with the Swift Boat veterans against Kerry. Since, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, having a Democratic presidential candidate who is a decorated war-hero is pretty devasting to the Republican party, they've decided to cut their losses and try to create a "tie." So you have scurrulous, unfounded attacks against Kerry's war record -- and, presto! "Boy, we don't know what is the truth, but it's real muddy now." Robert Novak makes this strategy almost transparent in his latest column. "Mission Accomplished?"
Monday, August 16, 2004
Molding Intelligence?
In light of the accusation that Dick Cheney pressured the CIA (and even went down to headquarters a few times to turn up the heat personally) to come up with intelligence supporting the Administration's WMD claims, I thought this tidbit was interesting:
Porter Goss, the administration's appointment last week as new head of the CIA —
whom we're told is eminently qualified, whom we're told is the best man for the
job, whom we're told has a long history with the Agency, whom we're told
President Bush is indeed honored to be able to announce for the post — was,
basically, Vice President Cheney's pick. The phrase actually attached to this
information is: Cheney felt "comfortable" with him. Felt he "could work with
him." What exactly that means, I don't know.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Sensitive
Cheney's been criticizing Kerry's use of the word "sensitive" before the Conference of Minority Journalists, one word among many Kerry used to describe how he would manage the war on terror differently than Bush. Cheney's point was that there was no place for sensitivity in war on terror. Then how does he explain these comments by his boss before the VERY SAME GROUP?
Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing
people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that.
That's right -- Bush said the EXACT SAME THING KERRY DID. Well, as we know from the recent Halliburton fine by the SEC for its "materially misleading" accounting when Cheney was CEO, fraud is something Mr. Cheney knows a lot about.
(BTW, kudos for Jon Stewart being alone among major journalists (to my knowledge) for pointing this fact out.)
It Turns Out The Seven Minutes Was Just the Beginning
By now, thanks to Michael Moore, nearly everyone knows about President Bush's deer-in-the-headlights, frozen-in-his-chair reaction to the news of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11. And everyone knows how Bush sat in that chair for seven (7) minutes, reading along with schoolchildren who were reciting "My Pet Goat," as he missed the opportunity to ground all aircraft immediately (an order, incidentally, that might have resulted in saving the lives of the passengers on Flight 93, since it had not yet been hijacked).
I've heard people defend Bush, saying that he didn't want to disturb the children, he wanted to collect himself, etc, etc. All very, very weak responses, in my opinion. But, even if you give Bush a pass during the lesson with the schoolchildren, it's really, really hard to defend what happened next, as relayed primarily from conservative author Bill Sammon's insider book about Bush:
Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom
after being told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York
Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or nine minutes" - sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02]
When Bush finally did leave, he didn't act like a man in a hurry. In fact, he was described as "openly stretching out the moment." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 89] When the lesson was over, Bush said to the children: "Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you all so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don't you? Reading more than they watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh that's great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed." [Transcribed from Booker video, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 89-90] Bush still continued to talk, advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)] One student asked Bush a question, and he gave a quick response on his education policy. [New York Post, 9/12/02]
The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill
Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon's book as an "inside account of the
Bush administration's reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary
portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision
of his inner circle." [Publisher's Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon's conservative perspective makes his account of Bush's behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world" and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press
conferences, and said, "Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came
in, please." A reporter then asked, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports
of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...", But Bush interrupted, and
no doubt recalling his order, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET," Bush responded, "I'll
talk about it later." But still the president did not leave. "He stepped forward
and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind
her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered
until the press was gone." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside
the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]
Think about that: rather than rush out of the room at the first chance,
Bush actually stayed until after all the dozens of reporters had left! Having
just been told of a Pearl Harbor-type attack on US soil, Bush was indeed "openly
stretching out the moment." But he still wasn't done. Bush then turned to
principal Tose-Rigell, who was waiting to take him to the library for his speech
on education. He explained to her about the terror attacks and why he had to
leave. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House,
by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90] Finally, he went to an empty classroom next door
where his staff was based. [ABC News, 9/11/02] Given that Bush's program was supposed to end at 9:20, he left the classroom only a couple of minutes earlier than planned, if even that. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01]
He actually fielded questions from the schoolchildren? OK, RNC and Fox News Channel, spin that away...
But, Remember Larry, The OTHER Guy is the Flip-Flopper
On Larry King the other night, Bush actually said this:
KING: You first were opposed to the 9/11 Commission and then changed.
Why?
G. BUSH: Not really.
KING: You weren't opposed?
G. BUSH: Well, I just wanted to make sure that it was done the right way. I
felt like that -- one of my concerns was that it would usurp the Congress' need
to fully investigate.Then I recognized this was a good avenue -- a good venue
and a good way to really get out the facts. And they did a really good
job.
KING: What did you think of the report?
G. BUSH: I thought it was a great report. I read it.
KING: Are you going to implement most?
G. BUSH: Well, we have already implemented a lot of their recommendations.
And the other day I announced that we would have a national intelligence
director.Hmm. Maybe this was somebody else, back on May 23, 2002:
President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.Oh. So this must have been somebody else, back on September 20, 2002:
President Bush told Congress he now supports creation of an independent commission to probe the September eleventh attacks.And on the issue of letting Congress investigate 9/11, I believe the President also opposed a Congressional investigation as well. And, of course, we know that the President HASN'T implemented many of their recommendations, at in the way that the 9/11 Commission has recommended them. (The other question, of course, is WHY the Bush Administration was so opposed to an investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 and the answer, as we all know now, is Richard Clarke and his devasting account of an Administration completely unconcerned with global terrorism -- at least that that didn't have anything to do with Iraq.)
Paging Moveon.org. Looks like this could be a pretty good ad...
