Mick Jagger has a new song about Bush. It’s called "Sweet Neo Con." The lyrics include "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think your are full of shit."
That’s so co-co-cold.
Phelps Again
Fred Phelps and his minions are at it again. He intends to picket the funeral of Sgt. Christopher Taylor, a Marine who died in Iraq.
Why? Because the military isn’t homophobic enough for Phelps, or because Phelps’ god (allegedly) hates fags, or something…
Friday, about 15 members of the group — some of them children — picketed the funeral of a St. Joseph soldier who was killed in Iraq. Mahoney reported that the group stood across the road from the Grace Evangelical Church during the funeral of 21-year-old Spc. Edward Myers.
“The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military,” said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. “Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?” […]
Protesters said America has ignored the word of God, and those who defend the nation must pay a price.
“That’s the first piece of solid evidence that you have that the young man is currently in hell,” Phelps-Roper said.
“The soldier is in hell now, you believe?” Mahoney asked.
“Absolutely,” Phelps-Roper said. [TKCT.com]
Some military wives are organizing a Phelps-o-Thon to benefit Seargent Taylor’s family:
All these ladies are asking for is a nickel, dime or quarter pledge per minute that Phelps protests Taylor’s funeral.
Yoannon asked, “I thought if we could do this and get some money for Sgt. Taylor’s wife, to make up for this man putting such a stain on the last peaceful moment she has with him, why not?” [WTVM9]
Bush’s Loyalty
Bush’s loyalty raises doubts about his political judgment
"It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap – his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. "Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.
"The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country," Dallek said.
Several analysts said the Palmeiro situation illustrates that point. Bush took a strong stand against steroids in his 2004 State of the Union address, demanding that major league sports take tougher action to eliminate steroid use by athletes.
"The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football and other sports is dangerous and it sends the wrong message – that there are shortcuts to accomplishment and that performance is more important than character," Bush said.
But when news of Palmeiro’s positive drug test and 10-day suspension by Major League Baseball became public, Bush almost instantly backed the ballplayer, saying Palmeiro spoke truthfully on March 17 when he wagged his finger at the House Government Reform Committee and emphatically denied ever using steroids.
Bush’s fondness for Palmeiro – who recently became only the fourth major league player to slam more than 500 home runs and 3,000 base hits – dates back to when Palmeiro played for the Rangers under Bush’s ownership.
"Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him," Bush said Monday. "He’s the kind of person that’s going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn’t use steroids, and I believe him. Still do."
Bush’s quick defense seemed contradictory to some, in light of his previous tough talk on steroids.
"His defense in this case, so quickly, seemed like an about-face, from taking a stand to a ridiculous statement a fan might make to another fan in a bar," said Richard Lapchick, chairman of the DeVos Sports Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida. "It certainly didn’t seem like he thought that one through."
Bush was against steroids before he was for it his friends got caught using them.
Libby Was Miller’s Source
Murray Waas reports:
The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald’s grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby’s failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.
Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two reporters — Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC — have testified about their conversations with Libby.
But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else without a more specific, or personal, waiver. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller had not been granted "any kind of a waiver … that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given."
[…]
Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to comment for this story. At least two attorneys representing private clients who are embroiled in the Plame probe also privately questioned whether or not President Bush had encouraged Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller in an effort to obtain her cooperation.
In a memorandum distributed to White House staff members shortly after the investigation became known, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who at the time was White House counsel, wrote, "The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation." Bush himself said: "[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."
Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, while sidestepping the specifics as to whether Bush should order Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller, said in an interview Friday evening: "I would say the president has the power to help us get to the bottom of this matter. And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened but to prevent such a thing from happening again."
So why isn’t the White House (specifically, Cheney’s office) waiving their reporter confidentiality and allowing Miller to testify? There really is no good reason why Libby hasn’t provided a specific waiver for Judy if he told Fitzgerald he talked to her.
Unless he lied to the prosecutor about what was said, that is.
Update: The Downing Street Memos
The reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo (DSM) in the London Times, Michael Smith, has filed this important piece in Raw Story (bold text is my emphasis):
Britain and America’s reasons for stepping up bombing of Iraq in the ten months leading up to the war in Iraq was a sham, official figures released by the British Ministry of Defense show.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Geoff Hoon, his UK counterpart, said the stepped-up attacks by U.S. and Royal Air Force aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were a response to increased attacks by Iraqi air defences.
The minutes of a meeting of Tony Blair’s Iraq war cabinet on July 23, 2003, leaked to the London Sunday Times, record Hoon as saying “the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.”
UK ministers have since insisted that the stepped up attacks, which began in May 2002, were a direct result of Iraqi attempts to shoot down allied aircraft and were not, as Hoon suggested, an attempt to provoke a response that would give the allies an excuse for war.
But figures released last month by the British Ministry of Defense show that in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, with American officials predicting moves to oust Saddam Hussein, Iraq dramatically scaled back its attacks on allied aircraft.
During the first seven months of 2001 the allies recorded 370 “provocations” by the Iraqi military against allied aircraft. But in the seven months between October 2001 and May 2002 when the allies stepped up their attacks, there were just 32. The complete figures are available here, on the parliament’s website.
The number of recorded threats dropped markedly in October 2001, the first full month after the Sept. 11 attacks, from 24 in September to just eight in October.
With U.S. officials openly predicting that an attack on Afghanistan would be followed by an invasion of Iraq, the number of recorded threats kept dropping.
By February 2002, there were just two, in March none and in April again two. Such was the reduction in the number of Iraqi threats that in the six months leading up to the “spikes of activity” British aircraft did not at any point need to respond in self-defence.
We Let Bin Laden Slip Away
Newsweek has the exclusive story:
Aug. 15, 2005 issue – During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn’t choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent’s allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK.
Carry The Card!
Libertarian Radley Balko (via The Poor Man):
For quite awhile now, I’ve flirted with the idea of joining the ACLU, mostly for the organization’s work on drug laws, upholding criminal protections, and its opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
Problem is, each time I come close to joining, the ACLU takes some public, statist position on the ADA, affirmative action, speech codes, or tries to defend a positive right — a right to education, for example, or a right to access to the welfare state.
Last night I was flipping through the channels, and happened on the beginning of Bill O’Reilly’s show just as we was ticking off his “Talking Points” segment. O’Reilly jumped off on the ACLU’s oppposition to New York City subway searches, then ran off a list of anti-terror measures the ACLU has opposed since 9/11. This was supposed to make me hate the ACLU. As it turns out, I oppose just about every anti-terror proposal on O’Reilly’s list of outrages.
Then, O’Reilly went off the deep end. Excerpt:
“Talking Points” could go on and on, but you get the picture. If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the Al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about it. No way to stop it. The ACLU operates within the law and uses the legal system to oppose the war on terror. And there are enough loony judges around to give that organization power, especially here in New York City and in San Francisco.
The only thing we can do is hold people who raise and give money to the ACLU accountable. In the weeks to come, “The Factor” will tell you who these people and organizations are, so you can decide whether or not you want to do business with them.
That was more than enough for me. This morning, I became one of those people Bill O’Reilly wants you to stop doing business with.
I am now a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And it’s thanks to Bill O’Reilly.
There’s only one way to respond to the likes of Bill O’Reilly. Become a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Wall? What Wall?
I’ve always thought that mixing politics and religion creates and cheapens both. Worse than that, it is downright dangerous. USA Today carries an excellent story about how the far right is spreading its divisive values (and, yes, un-Christian values) from the pulpit:
CANTON, Ohio — Pastor Russell Johnson paces across the broad stage as he decries the "secular jihadists" who have "hijacked" America, accuses the public schools of neglecting to teach that Hitler was "an avid evolutionist" and links abortion to children who murder their parents."It’s time for the church to get a spinal column" and push the "seculars and the jihadists … into the dust bin of history," the guest preacher tells a congregation that fills the sanctuary at First Christian Church of Canton.That is his mission. Johnson leads the Ohio Restoration Project, an emergent network of nearly 1,000 "Patriot Pastors" from conservative churches across the state. Each has pledged to register 300 "values voters," adding hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens to the electorate who "would be salt and light for America."
And, perhaps, help elect a fellow Christian conservative, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, as governor next year. That has alarmed some establishment Republicans who back rival contenders and warn that an assertive Christian right campaign could repel moderate voters the party needs.
Evangelical Christian leaders nationwide have been emboldened by their role in re-electing President Bush and galvanized by their success in campaigning for constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, passed in 18 states so far.
Now some are organizing to build on last year’s successes. They want to solidify their role in setting the political agenda and electing sympathetic public officials.
The Ohio effort isn’t unique. Johnson’s project — which he says has signed up more than 900 pastors in Ohio during its first 10 weeks in operation — has helped spawn the Texas Restoration Project in Bush’s home state. The fledging Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network has signed up 81 conservative clergy so far. Similar efforts are beginning to percolate elsewhere.
"It’s maturing as a movement within the evangelical Christian community," says Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring, a Pennsylvania-based group that teaches pastors how to be involved in politics.
***
Conservative Christians have become the most reliable bloc of voters in the Republican coalition, the sort of grass-roots army that organized labor once provided for Democrats. Many have become active in politics because they feel battered by a Hollywood culture that offends their values. They decry federal and state court decisions that have recognized abortion rights, opened the door to same-sex marriage and barred organized prayer from public schools.
"We as Christians need to take a stand as to what our beliefs are," Linda Stoffer, 50, a bank loan officer, says after the service in Canton. Her top concerns are gay marriage and abortion. "And life issues," adds her husband, Dave, 54, who works in a cabinet shop. "Like, what was her name? Terri Schiavo."
"We sit back and let it happen," Jean Wuske, 77, says. "We need to be more vocal — let God back into places he should be, like in the schools."
America Thinks Bush Is A Liar And Loser
Looks like the country might be getting bluer…
Americans’ approval of President Bush’s handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he’s honest.
A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president’s confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.
Approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.
***
Bush’s overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That’s about where Bush’s approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.
The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue – with 48 percent saying he’s honest and 50 percent saying he’s not.
Heh, heh! He Said “”Bullshit”!
UPDATE: Bob Novak’s potty mouth is, according to Bob Novak, "poisoning America". (But then again, so is mine).
Novak Blows A Gasket
Mmmmmm. He must be under some pressure. The video is here, but this is the official transcript:
HENRY: And the "Strategy Session" continues on INSIDE POLITICS. Still here: James Carville and Robert Novak.
Katherine Harris made a name for her self during the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race. She was then Florida’s secretary of state. She went on to the House of Representatives.
Now she wants to move over to the United States Senate. Today she got the news that the speaker of the Florida House won’t challenge her for the Republican nomination. In the meantime, Harris is blaming unnamed newspapers for tarnishing her image by doctoring her makeup with Photoshop. — that computer program. Bob Novak, have you been investigating this make-up story?
NOVAK: No, but I’ve had the same experience that she did. A lot of my trouble in the world is that they’ve doctored my make-up and colorized me in a lot of newspapers on my picture. So, I sympathize with her.
HENRY: This is breaking news. I’ve haven’t heard this.
CARVILLE: Breaking news. Who did it? What paper?
NOVAK: Well, I don’t. I can’t tell you.
CARVILLE: Yes. You know the two happiest people in America today about this decision, is Bill Nelson and Jay Leno. I mean —
HENRY: Bill Nelson the Democratic Senator.
CARVILLE: The Democratic Senator and Jay Leno. That — I mean, they’re going to go nuts over this. They’re messing with my make-up, but you really don’t know who it is. I mean, let’s say this: She’s going to be good for the humor circuit. She’s going to be good for the speech circuit and she’s good for a lot. And I think that Nelson — I think, it’s probably no secret that the White House wanted the speaker to run and I suspect that the Nelson people are, you know, feeling pretty good here today.
NOVAK: A couple of points here: The first place, don’t be too sure she’s going to lose. All the establishment’s against her and I’ve seen these Republican — anti-establishment candidates who do pretty well. Ronald Reagan, I guarantee you that the establishment wasn’t for him. We just elected a senator from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, everybody in the establishment was against him. She might get elected — So, wait. Just let me finish what I’m going to say, James. Please, I know you hate to hear me, but you have…
CARVILLE: He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got backbone. Show them you’re tough.
NOVAK: Well, I think that’s bullshit. And I hate that. Just let it go.
…
[at the end of thje segment]HENRY: Thanks, James Carville. And I’m sorry as well that Bob Novak obviously left the set a little early. I had told him in advance that we were going to ask him about the CIA leak case. He was not here for me to be able to ask him about that. Hopefully we’ll be able to ask him about that in the future.
The last bit is important. It doesn’t look like Carville’s comment scared Novak off — it was that Novak was going to be asked about the CIA leak. And on the table (if you watch the video) is a copy of Who’s Who In America, the book that Noval claimed indicated that Plame was Wilson’s wife.
CNN has asked Novak "to take some time off". You think?!?
Conservative Blog Taxonomy
Fables of the Reconstruction, where have you been hiding? My first foray to that fine site yielded this gem — a primer on the prominent wingers of the right-wing blogosphere:
1. Instapundit – Calling Glenn Reynolds intellectually lazy would be to praise him. He doesn’t write, he grunts. Has gained prominence by posting a lot and never making his audience think; has done those things by never thinking too much himself. Never met a Democrat he couldn’t casually accuse of treason.
2. Michelle Malkin – Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she’d arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn’t have tits, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com.
3. Powerline – Bilious Minnesotans led by someone who nicknamed himself "Hindrocket." Talk about being manly in that protests-too-much way.
4. Little Green Footballs – If LGF didn’t exist, Dave Neiwert would have to invent it. Heady stuff for young rightwingers, like the Völkischer Beobachter was in the good old days. Site gives off a strong scent of roast pork.
5. Captain’s Quarters – Every so often on the subway, I find these screeds written in colored marker, in which the printing goes from edge to edge on the paper, often with words cut off in random spots at the end of the line and continued on the next. I am told that this style of writing is common among very delusional people. Ed Morrissey has the benefit of blogging software that paginates the words for him. He will deliver pages on any subject at all, always proving in his mind the perfidy of liberals and always making absolutely no sense. I bet Ed makes even other far-righters nervous.
6. Volokh Conspiracy – Doctrinaire right-wing lawyers who intellectualize and ward off reality, interspersed with flashes of viciousness. Fortunately, Volokh is so tone-deaf he has already excluded himself from the judgeship he obviously desires – he’s described himself as a "law and order conservative" (code for putting blacks in jail) and praised torturing prisoners before executing them.
7. Hugh Hewitt – Death to Muslims! Death to Muslims! Death to Muslims! It goes on like that.
8. Dean’s World – Dean Esmay is popular among right-wingers as one of those centrists who just happen to hate liberals and Democrats. A proud dry drunk, he works out his unresolved childhood issues of being raised in a union household by writing about his crackpot theories on HIV/AIDS, feminism, and capitalism.
9. Buzzmachine – A man with a face for radio, Jeff Jarvis has used his "credentials" as a television critic for TV Guide to get himself tapped by cable news as the "blog guy." Like TV news, Buzzmachine lurches from outrage to self-righteousness to the furious riding of several creaky hobbyhorses. Like TV pundits, Jarvis comes up with meaningless catchphrases that he repeats endlessly ("News is a conversation" being the most vapid) and poses as another neutral observer who just happens to hate liberals and Democrats. And like TV generally, Jarvis’ presentation of any given issue is shallow and knee-jerk, and only really exists to promote the product, in this case, Jarvis. Caution: name-dropping zone.
10. RedState – Formerly known pseudonymously as Tacitus, formerly considered by some liberals as a reasonable conservative, Josh Trevino found that neither was conducive to promotion in Republican circles, so he dumped the name and his former site and founded RedState. Democrats or liberals are both banned and regularly accused of treason; Muslims are presumed dangerous. Darfur is an especially favorite topic, because it both shows Islam in a bad light and has the advantage of not having to actually do anything.
One Rule For Bush, Another Rule For You
President Bush said Tuesday he was “troubled” by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New London eminent domain case and will give “serious review” to congressional efforts to ease its impact. “I’m concerned about the government overreaching,” Bush said.
– from The Hartford Courant, August 3, 2005.
Bush is “troubled” about the exercise of eminent domain? Oh, please:
Bush’s personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management—which included Bush as a managing general partner—conspired to use the government’s power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.
In essence, Bush successfully convinced Arlington (Texas) government officials to use their power of eminent domain to clear away private property so that the Texas Rangers could build a new ball park.
White man speak with forked tongue.
“Hard Work”
Coming up with acronyms for the Global War/Struggle for Radical Extreme Terrorism (or whatever) must be very draining:
President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of — nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.
The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening for a stretch of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.
The August getaway is Bush’s 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford — nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president’s travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents’ compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush’s time away from Washington even further.
As the Carpetbagger notes, the President with the record for most vacation time was Reagan, and he was an old man turning senile in his second-term. This month, Bush will beat his record. And he still has three-and-a-half years of presidency to go.
The Psychological Basis of Neo-Conservativism
A Cornell scientist discovered it:
Men whose masculinity is challenged become more inclined to support war or buy an SUV, a new study finds.
Their attitudes against gays change, too.
Cornell University researcher Robb Willer used a survey to sample undergraduates. Participants were randomly assigned feedback that indicated their responses were either masculine of feminine.
The women had no discernable reaction to either type of feedback in a follow-up survey.
But the guys’ reactions were "strongly affected," Willer said today.
"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Willer said. "There were no increases [in desire] for other types of cars."
Those who had their masculinity threatened also said they felt more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than those whose masculinity was confirmed, he said.