As reported here, law geeks and Supreme Court fans will no longer have to play guessing games. Starting next week, transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments will give the actual name of the Justice asking the questions from the bench, rather than simply using the word “Question”.
Undercutting Allies?
JANESVILLE, Wis. – Democrat John Kerry wrongly questioned the credibility of the interim Iraqi leader [Ayad Allawi], and "you can’t lead this country" while undercutting an ally, President Bush said Friday.
From here.
President Bush then ate some "freedom fries", dissed "old Europe", and talked about how ineffective the U.N. is.
Seriously, this is the scariest thing about Bush, in my opinion. Every serious assessment of the situation on the ground — including statements made by Allawi himself — show that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Kerry is speaking the truth about this, which is the FIRST STEP in turning the situation around (if it CAN be turned around at this point). Bush, on the other hand, is telling people everything is getting better in Iraq, and insinuating that Kerry’s truthful comments (rather than, I suppose, the insurgents) are undercutting peaceful progress in Iraq.
More and more, I hear the label "The Excuses President" being applied to Bush. I’m not much of one for perjorative monikers, but — boy — that one really sticks to him.
Has Rumsfeld Gone Insane?
"Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life, so you have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, quoted by Reuters, on holding Iraqi elections in January.
First of all, let’s take a gander at how much of Iraq won’t be voting. Below, I have provided a map of the current situation of Iraq (courtesy of Juan Cole, who you should all be reading). The areas marked in red are areas which we have apparently given up on, and the purple areas represent areas which have seen heavy fighting recently, and which may be unsecurable come January (when Iraq hopes to have elections).
That said, does Rumsfeld really believe that an election that disenfranchizes so much of one country is better than no election at all? Isn’t that like saying that doing open heart surgery using spoons is better than no open-heart surgery at all? I mean, does anyone think that such an election could claim to produce a legitimate leader?
Or, to put it in another perspective, suppose the year is 1996 and Saddam Hussein is having an election where almost half of the country will not vote (for fear of getting shot or blown up if they go to the polls). In that scenario, would Rumsfeld be making the argument that the victor of that election (Saddam, presumably) is the legitimate President of Iraq? Would Rumsfeld be saying that the election was "better than not having an election"?
Knowingly electing an illegitimate leader is NOT better than have no election at all. It only fuels the fires of discontent. Rumsfeld is a total idiot.
Nice Find
Hard to know who to give credit to for this one (perhaps the Village Voice), but someone gets kudos for finding this State Department document entitled The Network of Terrorism. It was posted on the U.S. State Department website in November 2001.
Anyway, on page 12 of that document, we find a list of countries — and a map — of "Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated"
Anyone notice what country isn’t on the list and map? Here’s the complete list: COUNTRIES WHERE AL QAEDA HAS OPERATED (according to the U.S. State Department – November 2001):
- Albania
- Algeria
- Afghanistan
- Azerbaijan
- Australia
- Austria
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Belgium
- Bosnia
- Egypt
- Eritrea
- France
- Germany
- India
- Iran
- Ireland
- Italy
- Jordan
- Kenya
- Kosovo
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Malaysia
- Mauritania
- Netherlands
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Qatar
- Russia
- Saudi Arabia
- Somalia
- South Africa
- Sudan
- Switzerland
- Tajikistan
- Tanzania
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- Uganda
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
Richard Perle Is Very Surprised Today
“A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” – Richard Perle, September 22, 2003 (one year ago today)
Bush Campaign In Disarray Over Kerry Speech
In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush said: "Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now suddenly settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it’s exactly what we’re currently doing." (Source)
In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush-Cheney campaign spokesmen Steve Schmidt said: "John Kerry’s latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror" (Same Source)
So . . . does this mean that Bush’s plan is to retreat and defeat? I guess so. That’s what Novak says, too.
Selfish Pessimist Ruins Laura Bush Rally By Asking Questions
HAMILTON — The Pennington mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was arrested and charged with trespassing after she interrupted first lady Laura Bush’s speech yesterday.
Sue Niederer was arrested after she was escorted from the Colonial Fire Co. hall on Kuser Road where the Republican rally was being held yesterday morning, according to Hamilton police Lt. James Kostopolis.
Niederer was wearing a shirt that read, "You killed my son," at the time.
Niederer was one of 1,217 to receive a ticket for the rally and stood near the back of the hall as local Republican politicians thanked Bush for visiting Hamilton before introducing the first lady.
Bush was well-received by the crowd, many of whom waved pompoms and Bush-Cheney signs after giving the first lady a lengthy ovation when she arrived.
Bush was about 10 minutes into her speech on campaign issues, however, when she began speaking about U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was at this point that Niederer began yelling loudly toward Bush, but supporters at the rally realized Niederer was a detractor and began drowning out Niederer’s shouts with chants of "Four more years!"
The ruckus briefly rattled Bush, who halted her speech and turned toward local dignitaries, but she quickly resumed her comments on the war.
***
Niederer’s son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed by a roadside bomb near Baghdad Feb. 3, while commanding an 18-man convoy. Dvorin was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and was credited with saving more than a dozen soldiers from being killed or injured.
"I said, ‘How come your daughters and children of congressmen and senators aren’t fighting in the war if it’s so positive?’" Niederer said last night of what she yelled to Bush.
Niederer is charged with defiant trespassing and was released on her own recognizance. She is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 12.
(Source)
Typical liberal pessimist. And notice how she didn’t even mention Dan Rather.
Welcome To America, Terrorists!
No kidding. These guys really are terrorists in every sense of the word — attempted assassination of a world leader, murder and conpiracy to murder consulates and other dignataries (including an American citizen), firing a bazooka at a U.N. building, . . . the list goes on and on.
They flew into Miami last month, and KNOWING WHO THEY WERE, we let them go. Bush didn’t want to offend a certain group, you see.
What’s the catch? Sadly, not much of one. You can read about it here (L.A. Times – registration required, but y’all should be using this place).
Is Bush serious about terrorism? Because terrorism is terrorism, right?
Right?
I’m Going To Start Reading It Again . . .
From Mad Magazine (click to enlarge). . .
Nicely done, boys.
A Little Law
§ 432.135. ASSAULTING OR WILFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up a weapon or offers any violence against him while in the execution of his office; or
(2) wilfully disobeys a lawful command of his commissioned officer.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 432.137.
FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION. A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:
(1) violates or fails to obey a lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the state military forces that it is the person’s duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of the person’s duties.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
These are from the laws governing the Texas National Guard. They may have been different in 1972, but I doubt it.
Unbelievable Liars
How many times has the Bush White House said that all the documents pertaining to Bush’s military record have been released?
Seriously, how many times?
"The White House says, `We’ve released all of [the documents]. You should take our word for it and this is the evidence.’"
– CNN
Really? So . . . how come THIS happened following last night’s "60 Minutes" expose?
After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status.
(Source)
You don’t even have to ultimately believe the AWOL accusations to see that the White House is playing games with the truth and the American people. And more importantly, what else are they hiding?
Updated: The copies relased by the White House are apparently the same as those released by CBS. In other words, CBS sent them to the White House, and the White House then released them.
But read on anyway . . .
Two Veterans Support Bush
In the latest meme polluting a site I often contribute to, we read this:
Veterans Like Bush
Or, well, at least he got two endorsements from major veterans groups, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Except, well, that’s not true.
Instead, if you actually come across the news story (tellingly, the prior post has no link), it says this:
George W. Bush picked up the endorsement of two veterans’ group leaders Wednesday as questions about his service in the Texas Air National Guard resurfaced.
During a conference call sponsored by the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, former American Legion National Commander John Brieden and the former national leader of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ed Banas, gave Bush high marks for his commitment to veterans and to increasing U.S. national security.
(emphases mine)
So . . . here’s the story: the FORMER leader of the American Legion and the FORMER leader of the VFW — two guys total — endorsed Bush.
Not only did the VFW not endorse Bush, but the VFW can’t endorse Bush. Read this from the VFW’s own website:
VFW Doesn’t Endorse Presidential Candidates Washington, D.C., Aug. 27, 2004—Recent appearances in the news media by a number of members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States have given an impression that the organization endorses one presidential candidate over another.
"This is a false impression," said John Furgess, a Nashville native who was elected August 20 as the new commander-in-chief of the nation’s largest organization of combat veterans. "We are a 501(c)(19) nonprofit veterans’ service organization that is prohibited from endorsing political candidates," he said. "We do, however, encourage all 2.4 million members of the VFW and our Ladies Auxiliary to get involved in their communities and to vote for the candidates of choice. That involvement permits the wearing of VFW caps to remind America and all politicians that the freedoms we enjoy today were won by the blood, sweat and sacrifice of military veterans."
I don’t know if the American Legion is the same way, but I think the point is made, and the lie exposed. The VFW and the American Legion did not endorse Bush.
The RNC Damage Control Machine Loses a Gear
Despite the high and — in retrospect — undeserved praise here, the 60 Minutes bombshell wasn’t Ben Barnes (who repeated his allegation that he got Bush the cushy National Guard post).
This was the part of the story that hurts Bush (Click "New Bush Service Questions" for the video). It’s about how Bush’s commander was getting pressure to give Bush positive evaluations when he didn’t deserve them.
And this isn’t he said/she said stuff, 30 years after the fact. This is from documents WRITTEN AT THE TIME.
And the RNC’s "damage control" rapid response team? They . . . um . . . had no response, except to say that the new authentic documents from the early 1970’s are "partisan politics".
Pretty lame.
Bush Spat on Vietnam Vets
Not literally. He just suggested that they did a shitty job.
This is reportedly what George Bush said to Connie Chung in 1988 when he was interviewed at the RNC in New Orleans:
CONNIE CHUNG: The problem, though, would be is if, indeed, [Dan Quayle] made several phone calls or some people made phone calls on his behalf to get him into the National Guard. I mean, did that happen to you? Were you…
BUSH (interrupting): No. I don’t think so. But in those days, people were going into the service all different branches. And if you want to go into the National Guard, I guess sometimes people make calls. I don’t see anything wrong with, a matter of fact I’m glad he served his country. And serving in the National Guard is serving in the military. They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we’d have done better in Vietnam.
Nice.
I haven’t seen the clip (yet), but ten bucks and my left testicle says that he smirked at the end of that quote.
And another thing . . .
IF they did call up the Guard, Bush probably wouldn’t have gone. Heck, as the newly-released Bush service records (released today) show, Bush’s Texas unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United State beginning on Oct. 6, 1972. That didn’t include Bush though — he had not reported for duty.
So, Dubya. You couldn’t even defend the Southern United States back then. Duly noted.
Hat tip: Duncan
Zogby Battleground Poll
This can’t be good news for Bush supporters.
Bush’s bounce notwithstanding, the electoral college map still favors Kerry 307-231. Now, granted — that Kerry lead is ever so slight and the usual caveats about polls and margins of error (expressed in the WSJ link, so I won’t repeat them here) apply.