Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Dick Comes Clean. . .If Not Out
On the eve of the RNC in NYC Dick Cheney made a public split with TeamBush party line by saying that he felt gay marriage was an issue best left to states and personally disavowing W's Gay Marriage Amendment (which was this summer's red meat thrown to the True Believers). Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing article gives a nice recap of the story as well as takes on it from various perspectives. Too early to tell what the plan was by this admission, but a few nice theories are bandied about by the punditry.
More Cheney fun follows in Froomkin's recap, talking about the controversy swirling around 'Scooter' Libby's role in the fast-coming-to-a-conclusion Valerie Plame affair. The 'Scoot-man' is Cheney's Chief of Staff and longtime general right-hand man. It's hard to believe he engaged in any kind of coordinated effort to out CIA Operative Plame without Cheney's knowledge, let alone approval.
On the eve of the RNC in NYC Dick Cheney made a public split with TeamBush party line by saying that he felt gay marriage was an issue best left to states and personally disavowing W's Gay Marriage Amendment (which was this summer's red meat thrown to the True Believers). Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing article gives a nice recap of the story as well as takes on it from various perspectives. Too early to tell what the plan was by this admission, but a few nice theories are bandied about by the punditry.
More Cheney fun follows in Froomkin's recap, talking about the controversy swirling around 'Scooter' Libby's role in the fast-coming-to-a-conclusion Valerie Plame affair. The 'Scoot-man' is Cheney's Chief of Staff and longtime general right-hand man. It's hard to believe he engaged in any kind of coordinated effort to out CIA Operative Plame without Cheney's knowledge, let alone approval.
It's All in the Details. . . Or Not
Word from TeamBush is that the GOP Convention will feature the rollout of a whole host of policies for George's next four years. Which would be good, since his Swift Boat attack is losing a bit of steam and starting to boomerang on his campaign, if even so slightly.
This kind of announcement is rare for TeamBush, and one could say that they're clutching for straws. TeamBush is in fact famous for downplaying expectations and then crowing like W hit a Grand Slam when he manages to surpass the low bar that was set for him. The last time they tried to pin so much on one event was his speech at the Army War College over the summer, touted as 'the first of seven major policy statements on foreign policy'. See AHU May 26 for details.
The problem was it was a speech consisting of cobbled together soundbites and campaign rhetoric that went down like the proverbial Lead Balloon. Needless to say the public and media, let alone military tacticians in the selected audience, were less than impressed. We're still waiting for the remaining six speeches.
The Washington Post looks at his economic proposals to date and finds them lacking, or rather, nonexistent. What is interesting are 'the critics' referred to in the article's title--they are investment bankers and right-leaning economists who should be part of Bush's natural constituency. When those folks start having a skittish feeling it's a clear sign his campaign has some heavy lifting to do.
Word from TeamBush is that the GOP Convention will feature the rollout of a whole host of policies for George's next four years. Which would be good, since his Swift Boat attack is losing a bit of steam and starting to boomerang on his campaign, if even so slightly.
This kind of announcement is rare for TeamBush, and one could say that they're clutching for straws. TeamBush is in fact famous for downplaying expectations and then crowing like W hit a Grand Slam when he manages to surpass the low bar that was set for him. The last time they tried to pin so much on one event was his speech at the Army War College over the summer, touted as 'the first of seven major policy statements on foreign policy'. See AHU May 26 for details.
The problem was it was a speech consisting of cobbled together soundbites and campaign rhetoric that went down like the proverbial Lead Balloon. Needless to say the public and media, let alone military tacticians in the selected audience, were less than impressed. We're still waiting for the remaining six speeches.
The Washington Post looks at his economic proposals to date and finds them lacking, or rather, nonexistent. What is interesting are 'the critics' referred to in the article's title--they are investment bankers and right-leaning economists who should be part of Bush's natural constituency. When those folks start having a skittish feeling it's a clear sign his campaign has some heavy lifting to do.
"(S)keptics, many of them supporters, are beginning to doubt the president
will get much beyond general themes such as "ownership" or "tax simplification."
"When you're on the campaign trail with all these politicos who know nothing
about the economy and are saying, 'We've got to do something,' there's got to be
pressure to come up with something at least rhetorically beyond 'Four More
Years,' " said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and commentator. "But as
far as I can see, there's nothing.""
Monday, August 23, 2004
Going in for the Kill, part 1
I was telling my father a few weeks ago that this election will come down to campaign politics, pure and simple. And I was lamenting that, really. Lamenting that we have such a disengaged populace that crap like whether somebody looked silly on a tank or had to defend the false charge that they claimed to 'invent the internet' could actually be a viable issue to people who didn't follow politics enough in general to have a reasonably formed opinion but who nevertheless voted.
The first real salvo of the campaign has been this Swift Boat Vets crap. All of their charges are utterly, even admittedly, unsubstantiated, yet these guys get airplay on two of the big talking head Sunday morning shows and coverage on the front page of most important dailies, even as their story is falling apart.
Two questions remain today as word comes that the Bush camp is 'denouncing' the ads, a step which they had been unwilling to take for the last two weeks. First, who's getting hit more here, Kerry or TeamBush? Newsweek's conventional wisdom had Karl Rove a bit bloodied, but that's his job.
Second, how will the real attack play? This whole Swift Boat thing was just an attempt to soften Kerry up. The first real hardball was thrown yesterday by Bob Dole, former Senator, presidential candidate, Viagra hawker and lifelong GOP hack. Not only did he suggest that Kerry (who he back-handedly called a friend and a good man) hadn't even bled when he was wounded, so slight were this injuries, but he then challenged Kerry to apologize for his anti-War activities after returning home from Vietnam. That's the real body blow. You can't call a decorated Veteran for being unpatriotic, so the whole Swift Boat thing was just an attempt to make some folks, likely those with a predilection for the military and against street dissent, be more open to the idea that Kerry was a traitor because he supported the Vietnam Veteran's Against the War. In doing so Kerry made a reference to war crimes committed by troops. Any reading of the original would make it clear that that was just a small bit of background about what the VVAW had been doing prior to their March on Washington in 1971, and not an accusation or direct quote of his own experiences.
Nevertheless, Kerry better have a straight up response for this one, because it's the biggie to the jaw coming from TeamBush, and if he can't deflect or avoid it he might be down for the count.
I was telling my father a few weeks ago that this election will come down to campaign politics, pure and simple. And I was lamenting that, really. Lamenting that we have such a disengaged populace that crap like whether somebody looked silly on a tank or had to defend the false charge that they claimed to 'invent the internet' could actually be a viable issue to people who didn't follow politics enough in general to have a reasonably formed opinion but who nevertheless voted.
The first real salvo of the campaign has been this Swift Boat Vets crap. All of their charges are utterly, even admittedly, unsubstantiated, yet these guys get airplay on two of the big talking head Sunday morning shows and coverage on the front page of most important dailies, even as their story is falling apart.
Two questions remain today as word comes that the Bush camp is 'denouncing' the ads, a step which they had been unwilling to take for the last two weeks. First, who's getting hit more here, Kerry or TeamBush? Newsweek's conventional wisdom had Karl Rove a bit bloodied, but that's his job.
Second, how will the real attack play? This whole Swift Boat thing was just an attempt to soften Kerry up. The first real hardball was thrown yesterday by Bob Dole, former Senator, presidential candidate, Viagra hawker and lifelong GOP hack. Not only did he suggest that Kerry (who he back-handedly called a friend and a good man) hadn't even bled when he was wounded, so slight were this injuries, but he then challenged Kerry to apologize for his anti-War activities after returning home from Vietnam. That's the real body blow. You can't call a decorated Veteran for being unpatriotic, so the whole Swift Boat thing was just an attempt to make some folks, likely those with a predilection for the military and against street dissent, be more open to the idea that Kerry was a traitor because he supported the Vietnam Veteran's Against the War. In doing so Kerry made a reference to war crimes committed by troops. Any reading of the original would make it clear that that was just a small bit of background about what the VVAW had been doing prior to their March on Washington in 1971, and not an accusation or direct quote of his own experiences.
Nevertheless, Kerry better have a straight up response for this one, because it's the biggie to the jaw coming from TeamBush, and if he can't deflect or avoid it he might be down for the count.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Blowback from the Free-Market War
Using mercenaries to fight your battles is not a new concept. Ancient Chinese rulers as well as the Roman Empire in its waning centuries made full use of non-citizen armies to defend their borders, garrison their outposts, and conquer new territory. This history extends even to our own shores--those hungover Hessians Washington surprised on Christmas Day after famously crossing the Delaware were in it for the Sterling more than any devotion to King George. Even the famous Swiss Guards at the Vatican (Look out, he's got a pike and a frou-frou hat!) are an imported army.
Mercenaries got a bad reputation in the last century as wars were fought for country and ideology more than cold hard cash. Still, in recent years they've been reprieved and their image somewhat rehabilitated, especially during the GOP-led privatization craze of the last two decades. Hey, if you can outsource local trash collection why not activities that had generally fallen under auspices of the military?
The book Private Warriors, written in 2000 about the arms trade, the rise in private security companies (read private standing armies), and the former military and defense contractors who organize this immoral if-not-illicit trade is perhaps the most famous recent study of this phenomenon. Even these authors, however, didn't envision the scope to which so much of the support and logistics of the United States Army would now involve groups outside of direct Pentagon command and control during the Iraq War. Does anyone really think Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root are in it for God, Mom, and apple pie?
Outside of an ideological preference for privatization, of course, the big benefit of using mercenaries has always been the lack of accountability they provide. But this is a double-edged sword, as their overseers have often found in the past and as the Bush administration may soon be learning.
In a remote docket in Afghanistan right now is American Jonathan Idema, on trial for running an unauthorized bounty-hunter and prison operation in that country. As this linked BBC article indicates, Mr. Idema, dressed always in desert khakis adorned with American flags, is an outspoken, flamboyant person who could easily be dismissed as some Rambo-type wingnut on a personal mission to rid the Middle East of some 'bad guys' and pocket some cash at the same time.
From the beginning of his confinement Idema has strenuously maintained that he was working with the approval of some of America's highest authorities including the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon--links which the US government and military have adamantly denied.
Word now comes that files which Idema claimed were confiscated from him at the time of his arrest and which would prove his innocence (or at least connection to US agencies) would be released by the FBI. This case has proven embarrassing to both TeamBush and the Afghan government although to date it has largely flown under the radar screen in the States. This may change if these files show even a tenuous link between US agencies and Idema's group that he maintains always existed.
Using mercenaries to fight your battles is not a new concept. Ancient Chinese rulers as well as the Roman Empire in its waning centuries made full use of non-citizen armies to defend their borders, garrison their outposts, and conquer new territory. This history extends even to our own shores--those hungover Hessians Washington surprised on Christmas Day after famously crossing the Delaware were in it for the Sterling more than any devotion to King George. Even the famous Swiss Guards at the Vatican (Look out, he's got a pike and a frou-frou hat!) are an imported army.
Mercenaries got a bad reputation in the last century as wars were fought for country and ideology more than cold hard cash. Still, in recent years they've been reprieved and their image somewhat rehabilitated, especially during the GOP-led privatization craze of the last two decades. Hey, if you can outsource local trash collection why not activities that had generally fallen under auspices of the military?
The book Private Warriors, written in 2000 about the arms trade, the rise in private security companies (read private standing armies), and the former military and defense contractors who organize this immoral if-not-illicit trade is perhaps the most famous recent study of this phenomenon. Even these authors, however, didn't envision the scope to which so much of the support and logistics of the United States Army would now involve groups outside of direct Pentagon command and control during the Iraq War. Does anyone really think Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root are in it for God, Mom, and apple pie?
Outside of an ideological preference for privatization, of course, the big benefit of using mercenaries has always been the lack of accountability they provide. But this is a double-edged sword, as their overseers have often found in the past and as the Bush administration may soon be learning.
In a remote docket in Afghanistan right now is American Jonathan Idema, on trial for running an unauthorized bounty-hunter and prison operation in that country. As this linked BBC article indicates, Mr. Idema, dressed always in desert khakis adorned with American flags, is an outspoken, flamboyant person who could easily be dismissed as some Rambo-type wingnut on a personal mission to rid the Middle East of some 'bad guys' and pocket some cash at the same time.
From the beginning of his confinement Idema has strenuously maintained that he was working with the approval of some of America's highest authorities including the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon--links which the US government and military have adamantly denied.
Word now comes that files which Idema claimed were confiscated from him at the time of his arrest and which would prove his innocence (or at least connection to US agencies) would be released by the FBI. This case has proven embarrassing to both TeamBush and the Afghan government although to date it has largely flown under the radar screen in the States. This may change if these files show even a tenuous link between US agencies and Idema's group that he maintains always existed.
If Only Kerry Could Say the Same
OK, folks, let's just get it off our chests one more time: The War in Iraq was a mistake. There are lots of reasons why this is the case, such as timing, commitment of world and regional support (or lack thereof), a huge military deficit, no plan for getting out or really no plan for anything. TeamBush drank the Koolaid that was proffered up by very vested Iraqi exile groups like Chalabi's INC--a yummy concoction of misinformation that played well into the hands of PNAC stalwarts like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etal. whose philosophy since the mid-90s was that the US had to take out Saddam for a variety of reasons, specific cause be damned. We don't even need to go into the trumped up WMD stuff here.
Retiring GOP Rep. Doug Bereuter (Neb.), a 13-term member who is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House intelligence committee, has written a letter to his constituents which states that: "I felt I should send you a forthright update of my views and conclusions on the subject before I leave office." Even noting what he called "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence," he still felt that TeamBush made other errors about the rush to war without thinking through the likely consequences. Bereuter concluded that:
""From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force," he said. "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Bereuter said that as a result of the war, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower, and our alliances are weakened.""
Two points: It's sad that only retiring members on either side of the aisle feel free to speak their minds and be honest when it goes against the 'prevailing narrative' being spun by their party. And secondly, most importantly, what the hell is Kerry doing saying that he'd authorize and support the War in Iraq now, even knowing what we now know?! Just insane.
I mean, of course Bush has to say that--he's staked his presidency on this military flub, so he has to act like his decision was the best thing for the US since the Moon landing or face up to having a lot more free time to chop wood in Crawford come next January.
But for Kerry it's a major gaffe, I think. Helen Thomas agrees with me--and that's always good company to be in. If Kerry loses this election it will be because of campaign errors, not actual policy. Right now it is his to lose. . . and that's what scares me.
OK, folks, let's just get it off our chests one more time: The War in Iraq was a mistake. There are lots of reasons why this is the case, such as timing, commitment of world and regional support (or lack thereof), a huge military deficit, no plan for getting out or really no plan for anything. TeamBush drank the Koolaid that was proffered up by very vested Iraqi exile groups like Chalabi's INC--a yummy concoction of misinformation that played well into the hands of PNAC stalwarts like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etal. whose philosophy since the mid-90s was that the US had to take out Saddam for a variety of reasons, specific cause be damned. We don't even need to go into the trumped up WMD stuff here.
Retiring GOP Rep. Doug Bereuter (Neb.), a 13-term member who is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House intelligence committee, has written a letter to his constituents which states that: "I felt I should send you a forthright update of my views and conclusions on the subject before I leave office." Even noting what he called "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence," he still felt that TeamBush made other errors about the rush to war without thinking through the likely consequences. Bereuter concluded that:
""From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force," he said. "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Bereuter said that as a result of the war, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower, and our alliances are weakened.""
Two points: It's sad that only retiring members on either side of the aisle feel free to speak their minds and be honest when it goes against the 'prevailing narrative' being spun by their party. And secondly, most importantly, what the hell is Kerry doing saying that he'd authorize and support the War in Iraq now, even knowing what we now know?! Just insane.
I mean, of course Bush has to say that--he's staked his presidency on this military flub, so he has to act like his decision was the best thing for the US since the Moon landing or face up to having a lot more free time to chop wood in Crawford come next January.
But for Kerry it's a major gaffe, I think. Helen Thomas agrees with me--and that's always good company to be in. If Kerry loses this election it will be because of campaign errors, not actual policy. Right now it is his to lose. . . and that's what scares me.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Commie Wins, Markets Rejoice!
It just keeps getting weirder. It's now clear that Hugo Chavez, Dictator or Savior of Venezuela (depending on your social class) has survived a recall election, garnering 58% of the vote. Initial reports seemed that the opposition was preparing to dispute the election, but observers from the OAS and Carter Center have urged them to go with the results, since they could not find any irregularities.
Of course TeamBush and its ideological compadres had a pretty big stake in seeing Chavez ousted, and a not small amount of money has flowed south from the USA to fund the opposition movement, made up mainly by Venezuela's wealthy and professional classes.
So how did markets react to this stunning loss? The Dow is up 125 points. Turns out nobody really cared that Fidel Castro's number one ally is sitting on top of one of the world's biggest oil reserves (now nationalized), as long as those taps keep flowin'.
It just keeps getting weirder. It's now clear that Hugo Chavez, Dictator or Savior of Venezuela (depending on your social class) has survived a recall election, garnering 58% of the vote. Initial reports seemed that the opposition was preparing to dispute the election, but observers from the OAS and Carter Center have urged them to go with the results, since they could not find any irregularities.
Of course TeamBush and its ideological compadres had a pretty big stake in seeing Chavez ousted, and a not small amount of money has flowed south from the USA to fund the opposition movement, made up mainly by Venezuela's wealthy and professional classes.
So how did markets react to this stunning loss? The Dow is up 125 points. Turns out nobody really cared that Fidel Castro's number one ally is sitting on top of one of the world's biggest oil reserves (now nationalized), as long as those taps keep flowin'.
Toward a more Sensitive War
Dick Cheney spent his weekend excoriating John Kerry for calling to a more sensitive approach to our war in Iraq. With a chuckle and a sneer Cheney said:
Note that clever linking of Iraq to 9-11 yet again (Dick, it still ain't there no matter what you say). Anyway, that sounds fine if you are from the John Wayne school of American Military Power.
Thing is, Cheney goes on to contradict himself not two minutes later when asked about the precarious standoff in Najaf by commentator Hugh Hewitt:
Not too likely.
As we now know, the whole Iraqi Electoral Convention broke down amid fighting over the standoff in Najaf amid reports that an entire battalion of new Iraqi troops literally threw their rifles to the ground rather than fire against fellow Iraqis.
So while Cheney rails against war sensitivity our commanders and their Iraqi Lackeys are desperately trying to be as sensitive as possible to the needs of al Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Shrine of Ali Mosque(3rd holiest site in Islam) which they now occupy. The Sunni authority just this weekend issued a fatwa decreeing that Sunnis should not take up arms against fellow Muslims who are defying the Occupation (as most Iraqis regard the US forces).
And now we learn that several Arabic news channels are now broadcasting 24/7 live from inside the Mosque, no doubt just waiting for the first missile or RPG round to pierce its famous gold dome. When that happens, the lid goes blowing off of that kettle throughout Iraq.
Looks like Dick is calling the kettle black. . . again. He didn't mean that kind of sensitive, he must've had some other definition in mind.
Dick Cheney spent his weekend excoriating John Kerry for calling to a more sensitive approach to our war in Iraq. With a chuckle and a sneer Cheney said:
"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'tthink any of the wars we've won, were won by us being quote sensitive. I
thinkof Abraham Lincoln and General Grant, they didn't wage sensitive war.
Neitherdid Roosevelt, neither did Eisenhower or MacArthur in World War II. A
sensitivewar will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans, and who
seekchemical, nuclear, and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands
more...."
Note that clever linking of Iraq to 9-11 yet again (Dick, it still ain't there no matter what you say). Anyway, that sounds fine if you are from the John Wayne school of American Military Power.
Thing is, Cheney goes on to contradict himself not two minutes later when asked about the precarious standoff in Najaf by commentator Hugh Hewitt:
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 ofpeople 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. (emphasis mine)
Not too likely.
As we now know, the whole Iraqi Electoral Convention broke down amid fighting over the standoff in Najaf amid reports that an entire battalion of new Iraqi troops literally threw their rifles to the ground rather than fire against fellow Iraqis.
So while Cheney rails against war sensitivity our commanders and their Iraqi Lackeys are desperately trying to be as sensitive as possible to the needs of al Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Shrine of Ali Mosque(3rd holiest site in Islam) which they now occupy. The Sunni authority just this weekend issued a fatwa decreeing that Sunnis should not take up arms against fellow Muslims who are defying the Occupation (as most Iraqis regard the US forces).
And now we learn that several Arabic news channels are now broadcasting 24/7 live from inside the Mosque, no doubt just waiting for the first missile or RPG round to pierce its famous gold dome. When that happens, the lid goes blowing off of that kettle throughout Iraq.
Looks like Dick is calling the kettle black. . . again. He didn't mean that kind of sensitive, he must've had some other definition in mind.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Vietnam Era Comparison-- Kerry vs. Bush
The last few weeks have seen the emergence of a group of angry Vets calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth which maintains that Kerry's war record, and the honors he received, were bogus. A TV ad to this effect was put out this week, the content of which was roundly criticized by Senator John McCain. Turns out the company that produced the ad was the same one that had created the now-infamous slanderous ad against McCain that cost him the South Carolina primary in 2000, leaving W free to claim the GOP nomination.
A book is due out next week penned by two of the organization's top folks which puts their claims into print. Beacuse of heavy coverage given this tome by such non-biased sources as Drudge and Limbaugh it has moved to No. 1 on the Amazon pre-press list. Major weight in the book is given to an affidavit signed by Kerry's former swift boat commander, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott. Elliott is quoted in the book as affirming that Kerry lied about his actions, the danger his crew and comrades were in, and the nature of his injuries. However, just today Elliott admitted making "a terrible mistake" by signing the affidavit that is such an important part of this smear campaign. He went on to say:
"(H)e regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.""
So where did this group come from? Its main backer appears to be Bob Perry, a wealthy (surprise) Texan (double surprise) big time GOP funder (surprise trifecta). Perry refused comment. When asked by Senator McCain among others to strongly refute the ad, which was funded by a private 527 organization and not directly by the Bush campaign or RNC, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to do so.
Man, these people will literally stop at nothing. Luckily, the denouncing of the ad seems to be getting more press than the highly dubious claims in it.
Several analysts have noted that Bush is dangerously close to going too negative and alienating potential swing voters, typically considered a sign of desperation in a campaign.
The last few weeks have seen the emergence of a group of angry Vets calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth which maintains that Kerry's war record, and the honors he received, were bogus. A TV ad to this effect was put out this week, the content of which was roundly criticized by Senator John McCain. Turns out the company that produced the ad was the same one that had created the now-infamous slanderous ad against McCain that cost him the South Carolina primary in 2000, leaving W free to claim the GOP nomination.
A book is due out next week penned by two of the organization's top folks which puts their claims into print. Beacuse of heavy coverage given this tome by such non-biased sources as Drudge and Limbaugh it has moved to No. 1 on the Amazon pre-press list. Major weight in the book is given to an affidavit signed by Kerry's former swift boat commander, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott. Elliott is quoted in the book as affirming that Kerry lied about his actions, the danger his crew and comrades were in, and the nature of his injuries. However, just today Elliott admitted making "a terrible mistake" by signing the affidavit that is such an important part of this smear campaign. He went on to say:
"(H)e regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.""
So where did this group come from? Its main backer appears to be Bob Perry, a wealthy (surprise) Texan (double surprise) big time GOP funder (surprise trifecta). Perry refused comment. When asked by Senator McCain among others to strongly refute the ad, which was funded by a private 527 organization and not directly by the Bush campaign or RNC, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to do so.
Man, these people will literally stop at nothing. Luckily, the denouncing of the ad seems to be getting more press than the highly dubious claims in it.
Several analysts have noted that Bush is dangerously close to going too negative and alienating potential swing voters, typically considered a sign of desperation in a campaign.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Up to the minute Nigerian Banking News
Here's one for everyone who thought the fax/internet fund transfer hoax was getting a bit too stale for words. Click on 'view the film' and enjoy!
Here's one for everyone who thought the fax/internet fund transfer hoax was getting a bit too stale for words. Click on 'view the film' and enjoy!
On the Campaign Trail--Goon Squad Style
There's been a disturbing trend out on the political road this election season. Wherever Kerry goes there have been cadres of local Bush supporters hauling their now-ubiquitous waffles and flip-flops, but of late they've started attempts to outright disrupt rallies. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that, "(t)he high-stakes intensity of the campaign could also be seen Monday in noisy confrontations between Kerry and Bush supporters and the use of bullhorns and air horns by a small group of Bush supporters to try to disrupt the speeches."
Of course, just try that at a GOP rally. As we've noted here before, it has been months since the President has spoken to a crowd that wasn't totally controlled and where any dissent was tolerated. Of course, this was back before he even had a presumptive opponent and his speeches were given in defense factories and selected military bases. Now that he's a regular joe candidate, however, the clampdown has gotten even tighter.
Members of the local peace activist community in Springfield, Mo found this out when they tried to enter a ticketed political rally featuring Bush. This after protesters we're moved substantially farther away from the event's entrance while GOP supporters were allowed a prominent position. Those anti-Bush folks with tickets lined up only to have them ripped up in their faces and told to leave or face arrest.
Turns out you now have to pass a loyalty test to be anywhere near the President of the United States.
George Orwell must be rolling in his grave. But then again, maybe not. He always knew that "some pigs were more equal than others."
There's been a disturbing trend out on the political road this election season. Wherever Kerry goes there have been cadres of local Bush supporters hauling their now-ubiquitous waffles and flip-flops, but of late they've started attempts to outright disrupt rallies. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that, "(t)he high-stakes intensity of the campaign could also be seen Monday in noisy confrontations between Kerry and Bush supporters and the use of bullhorns and air horns by a small group of Bush supporters to try to disrupt the speeches."
Of course, just try that at a GOP rally. As we've noted here before, it has been months since the President has spoken to a crowd that wasn't totally controlled and where any dissent was tolerated. Of course, this was back before he even had a presumptive opponent and his speeches were given in defense factories and selected military bases. Now that he's a regular joe candidate, however, the clampdown has gotten even tighter.
Members of the local peace activist community in Springfield, Mo found this out when they tried to enter a ticketed political rally featuring Bush. This after protesters we're moved substantially farther away from the event's entrance while GOP supporters were allowed a prominent position. Those anti-Bush folks with tickets lined up only to have them ripped up in their faces and told to leave or face arrest.
Turns out you now have to pass a loyalty test to be anywhere near the President of the United States.
George Orwell must be rolling in his grave. But then again, maybe not. He always knew that "some pigs were more equal than others."
National Polls=Meaningless. Why is this news?!
Our nation's leading media outlets have been spending considerable time this past week trying to analyze why Kerry didn't get a bigger post-convention bounce in the polls. In one poll, USAToday, Bush actually gained on Kerry after the convention, while in most others he registered modest gains. There are many reasons being tossed about, most focusing on the tightness of this historic race to the finish and the dearth of undecideds at this point.
The one thing few media outlets are saying is that national polls don't mean squat. As everyone should have learned in 2000 (when the loser actually tallied a half-million more votes nationally than his opponent), states elect presidents, not individuals.
That being said, John Zogby's state-by-state polling numbers show at this point a pretty solid Kerry lead, 291-215. Four states, yielding a total of 32 electoral votes, were excluded from the analysis because they were deemed to close to call. Even those of us who are mathematically challenged, however, can see that even if all of those states break TeamBush's way it doesn't look good for W.
David Gopoian wrote a few weeks ago in Salon that the GOP was maxed out. He's a political scientist, so the analysis gets a tad bit wonky, but it is short, largely straightforward and worth checking out. The heart of Gopoian's story is that Bush has gotten about as many potential voters to commit to him as he can at this point given his record and ideology. Kerry, given voter preferences and by virtue of being a somewhat unknown commodity, has more room to maneuver in the fall. Simply put, Kerry has to persuade a few people to move a little bit to get their votes, whereas TeamBush needs to move a significant number of people quite a distance away from their preferences to secure a victory.
Let's also recall that in almost every election late undecideds tend to track heavily toward the challenger and away from the incumbent.
Slate seems to be getting into the act as well now. Will Saletan's piece notes bad omens for the current occupant of the Oval Office. Of course, Saletan is also wise to note that given similar numbers four years ago he, and many others predicted doom for W. and were wrong.
Lastly, the pollster cited at the beginning of this post, John Zogby, ran a small to middling upstart polling organization until 2000, when he was the only one to call the presidential outcome correctly.
Our nation's leading media outlets have been spending considerable time this past week trying to analyze why Kerry didn't get a bigger post-convention bounce in the polls. In one poll, USAToday, Bush actually gained on Kerry after the convention, while in most others he registered modest gains. There are many reasons being tossed about, most focusing on the tightness of this historic race to the finish and the dearth of undecideds at this point.
The one thing few media outlets are saying is that national polls don't mean squat. As everyone should have learned in 2000 (when the loser actually tallied a half-million more votes nationally than his opponent), states elect presidents, not individuals.
That being said, John Zogby's state-by-state polling numbers show at this point a pretty solid Kerry lead, 291-215. Four states, yielding a total of 32 electoral votes, were excluded from the analysis because they were deemed to close to call. Even those of us who are mathematically challenged, however, can see that even if all of those states break TeamBush's way it doesn't look good for W.
David Gopoian wrote a few weeks ago in Salon that the GOP was maxed out. He's a political scientist, so the analysis gets a tad bit wonky, but it is short, largely straightforward and worth checking out. The heart of Gopoian's story is that Bush has gotten about as many potential voters to commit to him as he can at this point given his record and ideology. Kerry, given voter preferences and by virtue of being a somewhat unknown commodity, has more room to maneuver in the fall. Simply put, Kerry has to persuade a few people to move a little bit to get their votes, whereas TeamBush needs to move a significant number of people quite a distance away from their preferences to secure a victory.
Let's also recall that in almost every election late undecideds tend to track heavily toward the challenger and away from the incumbent.
Slate seems to be getting into the act as well now. Will Saletan's piece notes bad omens for the current occupant of the Oval Office. Of course, Saletan is also wise to note that given similar numbers four years ago he, and many others predicted doom for W. and were wrong.
Lastly, the pollster cited at the beginning of this post, John Zogby, ran a small to middling upstart polling organization until 2000, when he was the only one to call the presidential outcome correctly.
Checking to Blogger
Just checking to see how this posts, since my last offering had some serious formatting issues that has kept me away for a while.
Just checking to see how this posts, since my last offering had some serious formatting issues that has kept me away for a while.
