Pat Robertson Bears False Witness

Ken AshfordForeign Affairs, GodstuffLeave a Comment

UPDATE:  Later today, Pat admitted he called for Chavez’ assassination and apologized.  It took 48 hours to get from A to Z, while taking a few lying diversions in between.  Now watch as the Christian Coalition falls all over itself to praise Pat as a stand-up guy.  And by the way, I find his excuse rather lame.

Let’s look at what Pat Robertson said Monday, verbatim:

"You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Here’s Pat’s excuse lie:

"I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’

Pat, you did say "assassination" AND "assassinate", and you said (immediately right after) that we "oughta go ahead and do it".   (Then, moments later, you mentioned "taking him out".  But you clearly talked about assassination.)  See, there’s this new invention called videotape…

But then Pat make matters even worse:

"And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him.  I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

Pat doesn’t explain what he actually meant by "take him out", only what he could have meant.  He’s being cagy with us, or he thinks he is.   And of course, even though he admits he was using ambiguous language in part, it’s the AP’s fault for misinterpreting him!

What a wanker.

Upcoming:  While stealing his neighbor’s garden shears, Pat see his neighbor’s wife, and secretly desires her.  So he steals her mail.  On the sabbath.

UPDATE:  I hope Pat isn’t planning on visiting England soon:

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has set out a list of "unacceptable behaviour" which could see extremists deported from Britain.

Fundamentalists who engage in the activities on the list could also be prevented from entering the country.

The types of conduct to be outlawed include inflammatory preaching and publishing views fostering hatred or fomenting terrorism.

The banned list applies to any non-UK citizen, either living in the country or abroad.

Fundamentalist?  Check.  Inflammatory preaching?  Check.  Publishing views fostering hatred?  Check.  Non-UK citizen living abroad?  Check.

I Knew There Was A Reason I Liked Him

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

In today’s Washington Post, Gary Hart talks about the timidity of the left:

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we’ve blown up, and weakening America’s national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?… In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration’s misfortune is the Democrats’ fortune, is cowardly….

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we’re way off course.

Via Americablog.

Vietnam Comparisons Obsolete?

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Neo-cons get upset when progressives like me liken the Iraq War to Vietnam.  "They’re not the same," the neo-cons cry.  "The Vietnam War was in Southeast Asia, and was in the 1960’s mostly.  This is totally different!"  And then they compare the Iraq War to WWII.

But seriously, maybe they’re right.  Vietnam was also a more popular war for most of the 1960’s.  So says this Gallup poll analysis:

The latest quarterly average for Iraq shows that 50% say it was a mistake to send troops (the most recent single measure on this indicator, from an Aug. 5-7 Gallup Poll, shows 54% saying the war was a mistake).

In the comparable quarter for the Vietnam War (the third quarter of the war’s third year — that is, the third quarter of 1967), Gallup found 41% saying the conflict was a mistake. It was not until the third quarter of the fourth year of the Vietnam War (August-September 1968) that a majority of Americans said the war was a mistake. In short, it took longer for a majority of Americans to view the Vietnam War as a mistake than has been the case for Iraq.

Circle Of Death

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

Commenting on Bush’s speech, in which he says that "we owe something" to our fallen soldiers — which is why we need to keep fighting in Iraq — I wrote (yesterday):

You gotta love that logic:  we should continue to allow our soldiers to die, so that those who have already died will not have died in vain.

Mr. President, does the phrase "throwing good money after bad" mean anything to you?

In today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd, who clearly reads my blog,  says the same thing:

"We owe them something," [Bush] told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."

What twisted logic: with no W.M.D., no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: the killing keeps justifying itself.

It’s okay, Maureen.  I won’t sue.

Nice Going, Pat!

Ken AshfordForeign Affairs, GodstuffLeave a Comment

It must be nice to have your own ministry, and own your own television channel.  You get to say whatever batshit thing pops into your head.

But it porably sucks to advocate a position from the pulpit, with the result being that your mere words create the opposite result of what you seek.

Death Threat May Bolster Chavez’s Popularity Before Election:

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may see an increase in popularity because of the death threat leveled by a U.S. television evangelist, according to Datanalisis, the country’s No. 1 polling company.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson’s calls for the U.S. to "assassinate” Chavez will lead more Venezuelans to believe his claims that the Bush administration is trying to kill him, said Luis Vicente Leon, director of Caracas-based Datanalisis. The additional support may help Chavez’s ruling coalition extend its majority in congress in December elections.

"The evangelist’s declarations are terrible for the U.S. in that they totally back up Chavez,” Leon said in a telephone interview from Caracas.  "It is absolutely going to have the opposite effect on Chavez than the U.S. wants. It’s something that resonates with the country’s poor.”

Now, if we can only get Pat to call for the assassination of Democrats in the ’06 elections…

The Education of Raja (and Safia)

Ken AshfordIraq, Women's IssuesLeave a Comment

200403125_012t8724515h On March 12, 2004, George Bush said this in a celebration concering "global women’s human rights":

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to thank my friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, who’s with us today. This is the third time we have met. The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office — let’s see, was it the first time? It was the first time. The door opened up. She said, "My liberator," and burst out in tears — (laughter) — and so did I. (Applause.)

Dr. Khuzai also was there to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops. And it turned out to be me, as well. Of course, I didn’t tell her I was coming. (Laughter.) But I appreciate that, and now she’s here again. I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you’ve got liberty etched in your heart, and you’re not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we’re proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

Dr. Raja Kuzai yesterday:

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government – it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."
"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women’s leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.
And then there’s Safia Taleb al-Souhail.  Remember her?  She stood with Mrs. Bush while George gave the State of the Union in 2003.

Victory

Here’s what George said in the 2003 State of the Union:

"One of Iraq’s leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Souhail . . . Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country — and we are honored that she is with us tonight."

Here’s what the Voice of America reported the following day:

There was an emotional moment during Wednesday’s State of the Union address when the mother of a 25-year-old Marine killed in Iraq, Janet Norwood, embraced an Iraqi voter, Safia Taleb al-Souhail. They were among the guests invited to sit with the president’s wife Laura Bush for the annual address.

But here’s Safia Taleb al-Souhail today, in a Reuters interview:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened — we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It’s a big disappointment."

And, from a Reuters article, also today:

Souhail said the United States, a crucial backstage player keen for a deal that meets U.S.-backed deadlines, had let the Shi’ite Islamists and Kurds in government do as they wish. "We have received news that we were not backed by our friends including the Americans. They left the Islamists to come to an agreement with the Kurds," she said.

Yeah, they got rogered big time.

[Hat tip and credit: Billmon]

More “Blame The Media”

Ken AshfordIraq, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Shorter John Hindrocket: Soldiers are supposed to die, so stop telling me about it.

Powerline blogger John Hindrocket finally acknowledges that the majority of Americans are now against the war in Iraq.  But it’s the media’s fault, for only reporting the casualty count, he says, and nothing else:

Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective,…

There might be a good explanation of why nobody reports about progress being made in Iraq.  It’s de minimus to non-existent!  Hell, they still only have power 8-10 hours a day. 

And, by the way, I do read about the successful raids and other good news from Iraq.  The thing is, in context, they’re simply not that overwhelming.  It’s like the home team getting trounced, 17-0, but scoring a run in the final inning.  It’s hard to get all excited about it.

…they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration’s conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples’ energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism.

Right, John.  The media barely touched Bush’s speech the other day.

The Faithful

Ken AshfordGodstuff, IraqLeave a Comment

This is interesting, I thought:

A new poll finds that the more often Americans go to church, the more supportive they are of U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.

The poll by Public Agenda finds that people who frequently attend worship services are far more likely to support the war on terror and believe that the United States is achieving its objectives in Iraq.

Americans who never attend worship services are much more likely to believe that the war is damaging international relations and is costing too much in money and casualties.

Public Agenda’s Michael Remaley said the poll reflects evangelical Christians’ greater tendency to view the world in terms of good and evil, and their support for President George W. Bush.

I think Public Agenda’s Michael Remaley is right, but I think he ignores something about people of faith.  They don’t question things as much as non-believers (generally speaking).  An authority figure gets up there and tells them that X and Y are sins, and they all nod their head in agreement (he’s at the pulpit, he must know what he is talking about).  The same applies to President.  There’s a certain "sheep factor" here, which can’t be overlooked.

Fenway National Park

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

Fenway This seems like a good idea:

Red Sox officials said yesterday that they have applied for landmark status for Fenway Park, a move that could save them millions of dollars in renovation costs by making the team eligible for federal tax credits.

”We applied to the National Park Service to have Fenway placed on the National Historic Register" about a month ago, said Janet Marie Smith, the Red Sox vice president of planning and development, five months after the team said in March that it plans to stay put in Fenway, Major League Baseball’s oldest and smallest stadium, rather than build a stadium.

The Red Sox are in the midst of a nearly decade-long program of $200 million in renovations at Fenway, which was built in 1912, officials said. A building that has been granted landmark status by the National Park Service can be eligible for a rehabilitation tax credit that ”equals 20 percent of the amount spent in a certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structure," according to the Park Service’s website.

Getting landmark status from the National Park Service is a multistep process, said Smith, who could not say how long it would take to complete the process.

She also said she could not put a dollar value on what rehabilitation tax credits might be worth to the team.

Attempts to reach the Park Service last night were unsuccessful.

Getting landmark status also could give the Red Sox a greater say in how development unfolds outside of Fenway Park, said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northampton who studies sports.

In A World…

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

where movie trailer voiceover guys are heard, but rarely seen . . .

and just when you thought it was safe to avoid satire . . .

comes a hil-AR-ious comedy for the whole family…

If you must see only one funny short film made by the guys who do movie trailer voiceovers this summer, make it this one (mov format).

Beware The Red Shirt!

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Wikipedia reminds us about the significance of red shirts in science fiction television:

A redshirt is a stock character in science fiction whose sole purpose is to die violently soon after being introduced. Redshirts are a plot device used to indicate the dangerous circumstances faced by the main characters at the start of a narrative.

***

The term comes from the popular American science fiction television series Star Trek. In this series, characters wear shirt colors defining their station and/or area of expertise. In the original 1966 series, a person wearing a red shirt was a member of the Engineering or Security department. Security officers had a habit of meeting tragic ends in nearly every episode.

Typically, an away team would consist of Kirk, Spock, McCoy (all main characters who stood zero chance of dying) and one never-before-seen red-shirted ensign, who would invariably be dead by the end of the mission.

RedshirtPictured here is the original “red shirt” death from Star Trek.  The episode was “Obsession”.  (No, I do not know that off the top of my head!  I read it in Wikipedia!)

Church And State, The Wall, Etc.

Ken AshfordBlogging, Godstuff, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Christian conservative blogger LaShawn Barber has issues with Iraq’s draft constitution.  In particular, she is troubled by the contradictions within.  One clause reads "No law may contradict Islamic standards"; the very next one says "No law may contradict democratic standards". 

LaShawn asks:

Aren’t Islam and democracy inherently contradictory? What kind of shell game are these people playing?

She’s 100% right, of course.  Democracy cannot be a theocracy (and vice versa).

But her comments present a problem with the religious right, of which LaShawn claims to be  a part of.  The same contradictions plague those who want to make America a "Christian nation", by having forced school prayer, etc.

For example, LaShawn seems to recognize that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a Muslim in Iraq’s new "free society".  But, she asks, what about those who choose not to be?  Should they be second-class citizens in the eyes of their Iraqi government?

No, LaShawn, they shouldn’t.  The role and duty of freedom-loving government is to ensure that all religious thought and expression (or even non-religious views) have a chance to thrive.   

But that applies to our free government as well as Iraq’s. 

So when you think that lawmakers in the United States should establish morals based on their wholly religious beliefs (as you do here), you forfeit the right to complain about the Iraq constitution’s glaring contradiction. 

Or, at the very least, you owe it to your readers to explain your apparent hypocrisy.

UPDATE:  On re-reading this post, I want to dispel the impression that I am LaShawn-bashing.  I just don’t understand the what-is-bad-for-the-gander (Iraq) reasoning doesn’t apply to "the goose" (the United States) as well.  And LaShawn isn’t as firebreathing as many on her religious right brethren about mixing religious beliefs with government laws.   But I wonder if she sees any parallels at all between the constitution that Iraq has, and the U.S. Constitution as some Christian conservatives would like to interpret it.

Meanwhile, Bill Riggio sticks his head in the sand.  He looks at the proposed Iraqi Constitution, and says the prominence of Islam does not necessarily threaten the notions of democracy:

The real test of Iraq’s commitment to democratic principles under the influence of Islam will come with the implementation of the constitution by the next elected assembly. But to state an Islamist regime has been created based on the text of the constitution is unfounded. A simple reading of the document will reveal this.

It’s not the document that worries people.  It’s the Islamic principle: ""Never will such a nation succeed as makes a woman their ruler."   It seems to me that this alone means (or could reasonably mean) that a woman shall never serve in a position of authority.  Some democracy, that.

And why is it unreasonable to think that Islamic purists (not to mention extremists), once they have their foot in the door, might take the language of the Constitution and at least try to extend Islam’s influence?  Is Riggio, I wonder, considering the rather bloody history of Islam in the Middle East, or is this more right-wing wishful-thinking foreign policy punditry?

Who To Believe?

Ken AshfordIraq, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

To hear right wingers talk (at least today), recruitment levels in the Army are just fine.

From New York Post columnist Ralph Peters (via Powerline), we get this today:

Every one of the Army’s 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Well, that’s re-enlistment.  (And, of course, doesn’t "exceeding" goals depend an awful lot on where the goalposts are set?)  Peters continues:

What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

Well, that’s not what I’ve heard.  I heard that enlistment goals are down.  Was I misinformed?  Glenn Reynolds thinks it’s the mainstream media’s fault:

It’s as if they’re biased or something.

Okay, Glenn.  We’ll play in your backyard.  Here’s the lead from Fox News, from today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will miss its recruiting goals this year but will be able to sustain troop levels in Iraq over the next four years, a high-ranking general told FOX News.

If you go on to read the Fox story, you will see that re-enlistment levels are up, and first-time enlistment levels are up as well.    But only in the past few months.  For the year, the Army will still be have deficits in manpower and recruiting.  At least, that’s what high-ranking generals in the Pentagon are telling Fox News.

If you can trust them.