Monday, October 11, 2004

No weapons of mass destruction

The conclusion of the Duelfer report is devastating:

There were no stockpiles of WMD, or programmes to produce WMD. Despite public statements made before the war by Bush, Blair and officials and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to the contrary, the ISG report concludes that all of Iraq's WMD stockpiles had been destroyed in 1991, and WMD programmes and facilities dismantled by 1996.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=570477

Nevertheless, a substantial minority of the general public continues to support the President's decision to invade Iraq. Tragically, it may be enough to get him elected.

How could so many continue to support the war, when the reasons for it have been revealed to be utterly false? The answer is chilling -- there are those who like war. At least as a spectator sport. I believe that there are a large number of people who believe that might is right, and who get some kind of vicarious satisfaction over the defeat of an official "enemy." I put enemy in quotes, because Saddam was an enemy only because the powers that be in this country declared him as such. Before he was an enemy, he was an ally. Never mind such niceties.

The implications of these two observations are hard to ignore. A large part of the population will support a war for any reason, or no reason at all, against any official enemy. And any country can be turned into an enemy at will.

Iraq in this sense was just an experiment. How ready are the American people to support unbridled wars of aggression? We find out in early November.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Yesterday's Most Stupid Criticism of Kerry

Yesterday’s absolute stupidest criticism of John Kerry.

Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) concludes that John Kerry is unfit to be President because, when asked by a reporter what was the largest deer he ever bagged, Kerry mentioned the one that got away – “once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck - I don't know, 16 points or something. It was just huge.” Kerry said that he was hunting in Cape Cod at the time.

It may not be immediately obvious to you why this disqualifies Kerry from holding office. But then you might not be a totally rabid, incoherent wingnut, as the author of this piece, an attorney who likes to call himself “Hindrocket” (what is that name about?), appears to be.

Here’s Mr. Hindrocket’s logic. Everybody knows that there is only sand on Cape Cod. Therefore Kerry is lying about hunting there, or at least lying about the size of the deer that he didn’t shoot. So if Kerry has to exaggerate the size of the deer he didn’t shoot, who knows what else he’s capable of.

Now I could challenge Mr. Hindrocket’s logic, I suppose. I could point out that exaggeration in reverse is just as bad, especially when one is talking about budget deficits, costs of invading other countries or costs of Medicare programs.

But why bother. Mr. Hindrocket is just plain ignorant, and that, combined with an unshakeable confidence in matters in which he is ignorant, results in the stupidest criticism of Kerry that I read about yesterday.

From Hunting Cape Cod (http://www.capecodoutdoors.com/hunting.html), we learn that there are so many deer on Cape Cod that Doe tags are granted at 100 percent. I don’t hunt and I don’t know what that means, but I think it means that it is possible that John Kerry was not lying about hunting deer on Cape Cod.

Ok, but surely he was exaggerating about the size of the deer he did not shoot? The aforementioned site goes on to say that “these aren't little Florida Deer either. Yearly, 200lb. bucks and 175 pt. racks appear at the weighing stations.” Well, I take it on faith that those are big deer. 200 lbs seems big to me.

And oh, about there being only sand on Cape Cod, Mr. Hindrocket might be interested to know that the same web site adds that almost every town in Cape Cod has a town forest. Sounds like a place deer might be found.

I will confess that I did not investigate Hunting Cape Cod, so I can’t say for sure that this is not just some bogus web site set up by Kerry operatives to cover his tracks (no pun intended). I’ll leave it to others to dig deeper into this important issue.

Pathetic Right Wing Commentary Runner Up

Here is the second most pathetic criticism of Kerry that I read in
yesterday's right wing blogs. You may remember that Charles Johnson, the right leaning
leader of that right leaning West Coast Cult, Little Green Footballs,
was trying to get a "jacketgate" scandal started, based on Kerry
taking something out of his jacket and putting it on the podium before
last week's debate. This would-be scandal fell flat on its face, as
the object turned out to be a pen. Kerry's campaign pled guilty to
the candidate using a pen to take notes, and the rest of the world
moved on.

But not Johnson. Johnson, who relentlessly flogged Dan Rather for not
apologizing fast enough for the Killian documents, has proudly
announced that he will not apologize for anything. Why? Because
Johnson, blaming the mainstream media (LGF blames the "MSM" for
everything), insists that the questions were legitimate. UHF, yeh,
legitimate questions about what Kerry took out of his pocket before
the debate, but not legitimate questions about Bush's military
service.

Never mind all that. Johnson gets downright weird when he goes on to
lament the total moral depravity of the Kerry campaign:

"It's a bit depressing that this country is now willing to accept
blatant flouting of debate rules, because it was only a pen. Kerry
was specifically forbidden to do this, by rules to which he agreed
after much negotiation; but he did it anyway, apparently without even
thinking."

I guess I could say it's a lot more depressing that this country is
now willing to accept Bush's blatant flouting of his national guard
commitment, because Dan Rather ran a story using unverified
documents. But that's a different story.

Let's examine Johnson's statement that Kerry blatantly flouted rules
that specifically forbid him to take a pen out of his pocket and put
it on the podium.

I have found two rules that seem to be applicable.


Rule 5(c) states that "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other
writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by
any candidate."

Rule 5(d) states that "Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the
candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color, and
type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen or pencil that
each prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the
Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils
with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and
the staff of the Commission will place such paper, pens, and pencils
on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in
that debate."


So, Kerry was entitled to use the pen. That's the only thing that
mattered. How the pen gets to the podium is a triviality. There is a
maxim in the law "de minimis lex non curat." The law does not care
about small insignificant matters. The law recognizes that it is
impossible to draw up rules that cover every possible eventuality, and
it is impossible to follow every little insignificant rule that can be
written. We look to the substance of the rules. In this case, the
substance was that Kerry was entitled to use a pen of his choice. As
long as the pen was not objectionable (and it was not), then the
details about getting the pen to the podium would be considered "de
minimis."


Of course, we don't even know whether Kerry's pen was submitted to the
commission or not. Since we don't know that, we can't say that Kerry
violated the rule, even de minimis, much less "flagrantly" violated
it. For all we know, the commission approved Kerry's pen.

Johnson shows that he is totally out of touch with the world. The
reason that the country is willing to ignore Kerry's use of "just a
pen" is because it is just a pen. People understand what's important
and what's not. The country understands that a 32 page set of rules
for a debate is as ridiculous as the 26 paragraphs of "terms and
conditions" that free web sites make you agree to. All laws and all
rules are not created equally. Everybody is constantly triaging rules
and regulations all day long. There are those we have to follow,
those that nobody follows, and a few that we're not really certain
about. The country, unlike Johnson, instinctively understands how
silly that rule about putting the pens on the podium is. It's
kindergarten stuff.

The irony is that Johnson, like most of the wingnuts, crucifies Kerry
over the "global test" issue. They want a president who runs
roughshod over rules of the United Nations and is willing to invade countries
in violation of international law. Apparently, however, this same
president has to let somebody else tell him what pen he can use to take notes.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Honorable Discharge

Whenever somebody uses Bush's honorable discharge as proof that he "did his duty," remember that another mass murderer, albeit on a smaller scale, also received an honorable discharge.

John Allen Muhammad. More widely known as the D.C. Sniper. Here's a brief summary of his exemplary military service:

Convicted in a summary court-martial for failing to report to duty station on time, three counts of willfully disobeying an order, one count of striking a noncommissioned officer, one count of wrongfully taking property and one count of being absent without leave.

So if a nobody like JAM could get an honorable discharge with such a spotty record, imagine what the scion of one of America's most powerful families could get away with, and still be honorably discharged. No wonder Bush refuses to answer details about his service and continues to hide behind his honorable discharge.

Here's an idea. On the first Tuesday of this coming November, let's give Bush another "honorable discharge."

Monday, October 04, 2004

Suspect Sources

The wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.

Oh.

The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.

Ok.

Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.

Let's compare.

Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.

Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.

He should be elected for a second term?

Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?

Suspect Sources

The wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.

Oh.

The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.

Ok.

Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.

Let's compare.

Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.

Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.

He should be elected for a second term?

Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?

Monday, September 27, 2004

A Threat To Your Freedom

Please note: Yaser Esam Hamdi will be set free without being charged with a single crime.

Who is Yaser Esam Hamdi? He's an American citizen picked up in Afghanistan and held for three years as an "enemy combatant" without being charged with any crime and without being given access to an attorney. In essence, the man has been held in solitary confinement for three years.

All because somebody in the government said he's an enemy.

Now we have something called the constitution that is supposed to protect people from this type of arbitrary and abusive exercise of government authority. You see, the founding fathers knew well the dangers of arbitrary authority.

So eventually this case made its way through the court system, all the while the Bush administration arguing that this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was so bad and evil that it would undermine the very security of this country if he were allowed to talk to a lawyer or have any contact with the outside world. Moreover, the Bush administration said that the courts should just take their word for it, because it would undermine the very security of this country just to explain why this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was being held. You just had to trust George Bush.

So what happened when the supreme court disagreed and told Bush that he had to explain to a court the reasons Yaser Esam Hamdi was being held, and he had to give Yaser Esam Hamdi a chance to respond to the charges against him.

What happened is that the Bush administration decided to let Yaser Esam Hamdi go free.

I guess they had nothing. No crimes. No evidence. No security concerns.

All smoke and mirrors.

Please pay attention ladies and gentlemen, because what the Bush administration did to Yaser Esam Hamdi should tip you -- these are the acts of a tyrant. The Bush administration lied to the Courts for three years, there was no national security issue. None. Nada. Just lies.

Whatever your political affiliation, you should be very, very scared by these people. I am.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Hell Hath No Fury . . .

Like a right wing blogger scorned.

Charles Johnson, leader of the "right leaning" website LittleGreenFootballs, laments that an article in todays New York Times about bloggers doesn't mention his site, even though he gave the author of the article 43 minutes of his precious time. Yes, I'm not kidding, he notes his time right down to the minute. (Hey, the guy begs for tips on his website, so how much could his time be worth?)

Johnson lies when he complains that the only bloggers mentioned are "New York Times-approved left-wing drones." In fact the article mentions (and provides links) to several conservative blogs, including Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit. Johnson then uses this lie as "proof" that the "MSM" (MainStreamMedia) is just a tool of the American communist party.

I'm beginning to wonder if Johnson isn't really Rush Limbaugh. Whoever he is, he needs a wakeup call. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney, FOX. These are the owners of the MSM.

If Johnson wants to know the reason why his site was ignored by the author of the New York Times article, maybe he should take a good look at the content of his site instead of looking for imaginary demons in the press.

Here's crybaby Johnson's piece: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12824

Here's the New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/magazine/26BLOGS.html?pagewanted=1

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Hey Arnold

I thought the Republicans were the party of personal freedom. A couple weeks ago you sign a law outlawing sex with a corpse, and now you've signed a law making it illegal for 14 year-olds to visit tanning parlors. So much for personal freedom.

Not, of course, that anybody should have having sex with a corpse, and I don't think young teenagers need to go to tanning salons. But do we really need laws against such things? Isn't the goal is to pare back unnecessary government. I think it's a waste to pay legislators to pass laws against imaginary evils.

Obviously the California legislature has extra time on its hands. Maybe it could organize a bake sale to help reduce the state's deficit. Even better, maybe what California, and a lot of other states, needs, is a part time legislature, with part time salaries.



Thursday, September 23, 2004

Last Word on the CBS Killian Documents

Rather apologized. Not good enough, said the right wing.

And I agree.

Here's what I think ought to be done to make things even.

I think Rather should air a show revealing, based on newly discovered documents, that George Bush showed up for National Guard Duty each and every day that he was supposed to. And I think it should be discovered that those documents are in fact forgeries, possibly planted by the RNC, and eventually CBS will be required to recant its story and admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that George Bush actually fulfilled his National Guard Duty.

I think that would make things about even.

Right Wing Contradiction

Not that it's anything new...

But go to any right wing web site and you'll quickly learn that a common view of Arabs and Islam is that the only good Arab is a dead one.

"Islam, on the other hand, is hateful from top to bottom, and they have the example of Muhammad to emulate (He's often obeyed unfortunately). Since Muhammad was, as I wrote, a psychopath, inhumanity is part and parcel of Islam. Bin Laden and those headchoppers in Iraq are good Muslims going by the book. Not bigotry, just a fact."

"It's about Islam and the cruelty that Islamists are capable of. Is that nuanced enough?"

"the shoe does fit the cloven hoof..."

"We should have nuked mecca, 08:00 September 12 2001 . . . The saudimites still have sex with camels and defecate on the street, just like they did in mohammed's day 1400 years ago."

(All the above comes from LittleGreenFootballs on 9/18/04)

But this same crowd will talk about how wonderful it is that the Iraqi people are free and finally will have their own, cough, democracy in the near future, and that this whole messy war is worth it to free all these millions of people.

Excuse me.

If Arabs are no better than dogs and Islam is a religion of hate, violence and perversion . . .

Why do we care if they're free and why are American lives being wasted so that these people, who are beyond redemption, can have elections?

The answer of course is that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "freeing" the Iraqi people, but that rationale has been offered because the original reasons were false. It's humorous to see how passionate right wingers get over "freedom" for people they detest. It's all part of the wingnut dance, in which one must bend like a pretzel to fit within the changing rationales of the Bush Administration.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Bush Supporter Advocates Killing Gays and Lying to God

I guess that's an accurate headline. I heard a clip of Jimmy Swaggart talking to some group (yeh, apparently he's still preaching). Here's a paraphrasing of what he said:

Wull, I've never seen a man I wanted to marry (laughter). But if one of those guys ever gives me a look I'm gonna kill him and tell God that it was an accident. Thank God George Bush has stated that we need to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

For those of you have have been living in a cave for the last 20 years, or get all your news from Fox, here is some info on Swaggart:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jimmy-swaggart/

Getting back to the headline. See how easy it is to put a little twist to things. That's spin.

Like when the Chicago Tribune referred to Litlegreenfootballs as a "conservative-leaning blog." As I recently discovered for myself, LGF is not "conservative-leaning," it's a rabid right wing hornet's nest. Ironically, one of the major themes on LGF is how unfair the MSM (mainstream media) is to any and everything conservative. Yeh, right.

This in fact is one of the right's favorite techniques. Take a valid criticism of itself, repackage it and accuse the left of the same thing, and then complain how the MSM ignores the truth, while the MSM actually reports both sides of the story as if they had equal legitimacy. This happens over and over again. Swiftboat Veterans comes to mind.

But isn't there a difference? Ok, duh, but where do you find the difference reported?
What do I mean? The Bushies can't deny that Kerry served, so they have to fabricate "controversy" (i.e., lies) about his service. This is to offset the scrutiny given to whether Bush served at all, and in the mind of the public the two issues cancel each other out.

But these are not the same issues. There are two issues: (1) did candidate serve (2) what was his service like.

We don't even get to #2 with Bush, because he wasn't there. Plus, I think the left-leaners generally feel that if a person served, then he did his duty. What are we going to do, scrutinize whether Bush made his bunk up properly.

But this is exactly what the Swiftvote Liars have done, and it's so obvious that the Bush people are behind it. There's something really wrong with this, impugning the military service of a man who faced enemy fire and was wounded in battle.

But you wouldn't get this impression from the MSM. They have reported the whole nonsense as if there is some moral equivalency between the Swiftvote Liars and Bush's National Guard non-Service stories.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Kicked off LittleGreenFootballs

Apprently the management at LittleGreenFootballs does not like dissent, or maybe it's just that I called into question its theory that the Killian memos were created in MS Word.

We now know that they were not.

http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

When I posted these links to LGF and suggested that LGF might want to retract its story, my account was deleted.

Now the really funny thing is that LGF has closed down new registrations. I guess it's afraid that I'll re-register under a different name. Wow, a major right wing blog hiding from me!

The Beginning

.