For those of you who want a sneak-peak of the man who will be elected President in 2016, you can read about him here, or just watch the Democratic convention keynote speech on July 27.
I’m not kidding. I already got $100 bucks riding on this guy in a bet with my Mom. (In 1974, she bet me $20 that Howard Baker would be President by the end of the 20th century — I just collected on it last year when I remembered).
Libertarian magazine Reason gives its list of ten reasons why Bush has got to go. The article endorses Kerry. Sort of. I mean, it clearly states that Kerry sucks, too, but it places him as the far lesser of two evils.
Regarding the recent conservative push to resurrect the same-sex marriage issue, Paul Waldman has the best tagline:
I can’t say for sure, but it does seem that some Republican senators spend more time thinking about homosexuality than any gay person I know. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I don’t know how often Republican senators think about homosexuality and gay marriage, but what they think about it is . . . well, pretty bizarre sometimes. In trying to explain how traditional marriage is being "assualted", some of these morons offer the most nutball arguments to come down the pike. Cue Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) with this analogy from outer space:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right….Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
Mmmmm. Gay person = box turtle. Marriage to someone of the same gender = marriage to an animal. (The joke going around is that Mrs. Cornyn apparently isn’t upset that she married an ass, so why should anyone else be?)
Tell, you what, Sen. Cornyn. If the day comes when people are marrying turtles, I’m right there beside you. Whatever amendment or law you want to pass to stop the scourge of man-amphibian weddings, count me in. Or EVEN man-reptile weddings. But until then, shut up. And just when you thought it couldn’t get sillier, along comes Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa), always good for a laugh on this topic. Today, he was assuaging the fears of us heterosexuals. What will happen if gays are allowed to marry?
"Will heterosexuals continue to – you know – copulate, to have sex?" the Senator asked. "Sure! But will they build families?"
Thanks for the reassurance, Rick, but what moron thought that heterosexuals were going to stop copulating because gays (elsewhere) are getting married?
And the answer to your second question – "But will they build families?" — is also "Sure!" What does Santorum think is going to happen? "You know, honey, I WANT to have children with you and raise a family, but — well — gays are allowed to marry, so . . . let’s just stay childless."
The nice thing about the same-sex amendment being discussed in the Senate is that it forces these goons to put their bigoted ignorance into the public record, and perma-sealed into history. Someday, future generations will look back and wonder how people could be that ignorant — kind of like the way most of us look at the 27 morons who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I’m only half-following the story about the balloon being floated regarding the suspension of elections (if there is an AQ attack or something). And my thoughts on it are in the formative stages. Still, my initial reaction is that the Constitution does not permit the President to suspend presidential elections.
Why not? Quite simple.
Article II, Section 4 says that "Congress may determine the Time of chusing [choosing] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." That’s it. End of story.
Would it be NICE if the Framers gave the President the power to override Congress’ ability to select election day, in the case of a national emergency? Maybe, but they didn’t.
Here’s the nightmare scenario, as I see it. Bush gets on television around noon of election day, and says they have credible evidence of an attack, and suspends the election. So some people don’t vote. But some people don’t know that Bush lacks the authority to suspend the election. The days ends in confusion. So are the votes counted or not? Big ugly fight. It ends up in the Supreme Court again. *Shiver* What a mess.
So I’m telling you now, without any bias as to whether it helps or hurts any particular candidate. The President cannot suspend the elections. So if election day turns into another 9/11, you vote! Got it? We all clear?
I saw this story two days ago, and figured it would be a U.S. news story in a day or so (instead of just in Germany, and Norway, and elsewhere in Europe). But maybe I was wrong. Anyway, depressing as it is . . . .
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.
Maybe it’s not getting played because it is nothing new:
New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh indicated as much earlier this week, saying that the videotapes depict sexual abuse of minors. Several reports also cited the existence of videotaped rape involving female prisoners. “There was a special women’s section. There were young boys in there. There were things done to young boys that were videotaped. It’s much worse,” Hersh said during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday.
(from 5/7/04 Intelwire report). Or, maybe it doesn’t register with Americans until we see pictures . . . .
I normally don’t like to cut & paste wholesale from other blogs/sites, but this comment from Atrios makes too much sense to ignore:
The entire debate over the past three months about how Al Qaeda really wants to influence the election is collectively the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, and that’s after a year of mainlining campaign coverage from the Internet.
First of all, everybody predicting what Al Qaeda wants, could they concentrate real hard on their Ouija board and find out something else for me, like where the hell is Osama, and where is Al Qaeda going to attack next so we can warn some people? Could they get some useful information from whatever magic toaster oven is sending them messages these days?
Second of all, Republicans, figuring out the motivations of terrorists and then trying to thwart those motivations is one of those fuzzy things you accuse liberals of doing. You’re supposed to be the ones that just want to blow them up. We’re the ones who want to understand what the hell their problem is before we blow them up. Keep your gamepieces straight, guys, it’s the only way to win at Chutes & Ladders.
Drudge is concerned that Kerry and Edwards touch each other too much. He’s displayed a montage of nine photos, 5 of which look like there were taken within a span of two to three seconds. The message — apparently — is that Kerry and Edwards are . . . what . . . gay???
My take: Homophobia is a sure sign of male insecurity. Paranoid homophobia (seeing "gay"ness where it doesn’t exist) is male insecurity to the Nth degree. And bombing the fuck out of weaker countries, too. So what’s next? Are Bush and Cheney going to start driving around in male menopause cars — like Mazda Miatas — to show that they are "real" men?
When Bush finally dumped a bunch of documents on us hoping to quiet all the "AWOL" accusations, he didn’t include the payroll records from the third quarter of 1972. That time period was controversial — it was when Bush never showed up for his physical, when Bush was grounded, and when Bush apparently went to Alabama to work on a campaign.
"Oh, well" people like me said. "We’ll wait for the records. I mean they have to be somewhere".
Well guess what? We learn today that "certain" microfilm records, including Bush’s payroll records for that crucial quarter, "had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm."
Too bad. The evidence that could have shut people like me up — that would have proven conclusively that Bush completed his National Guard training — it’s been "inadvertantly destroyed". Tsk tsk.
Somewhere Nixon is saying "I say . . . Good show, ol’ boy! Well done!" (I’m assuming Nixon acquired an uppercrust British accent in the afterlife).
UPDATE: Corrente, among others, notes that only two weeks ago, an AP lawyer sueing to get the microfilm was told that the microfilm "did indeed exist"!
Ah . . . 
Click to enlarge . . .
Bush Says Massacre at Halabja Shows Evil of Hussein’s Rule By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 15, 2003 – President Bush today held up the March 16, 1988, chemical attack on the civilians of Halabja, Iraq, as a prime example of the evil Saddam Hussein perpetrates.
Bush stressed the nature of the Iraqi dictator’s regime in his weekly radio address.
"The chemical attack on Halabja – just one of 40 targeted at Iraq’s own people – provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world," the president said. "He is among history’s cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world’s most terrible weapons."
(Pentagon press release) And today . . .
The Halabja massacre is now prominent among the charges read out against Saddam in the Baghdad court. When that charge was read out, Saddam replied that he had read about the massacre in a newspaper. Saddam has denied these allegations ever since they were made. . . .
A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.
(Source)
D’oh!
Not a new story, but a more detailed version of the old one. From The National Review:
A third source, an official who works under ISI’s director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the U.S.] election is [an] absolute must." What’s more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq’s] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I’m aware of no such comment."
But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"–the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
It’s kind of like PSYOPS, is it not?
Apparently not. Here’s Sen John McCain on the Early Show, from March of this year:
McCain: “Look, I don’t want to be Vice President of the United States, I do not want to leave the Republican party, I would not be Vice President of the United States on either ticket. I told President Bush when he asked me in 2000 if, when he asked me if I was interested, I said I was not interested. I love being in the United States Senate and I am of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. I can not categorically more state, answer no.”
Don’t have an official transcript yet, so I will rely on a conservative media research site until an official one is located.
Yeah, even I am getting tired of Moore 24/7, but I was amused at how Moore has been taking Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff to the shed for some sloppy reporting in his critiques of F9/11. Like . . . the head of the Carlyle Group (mentioned prominently in the movie). In his article, Isikoff gets the wrong guy. It’s not like it’s a typo — he actually names the wrong guy.
Also of interest (to some perhaps) on Moore’s website: reprints of articles showing the reaction of military spouses who have, you know, actually seen the film, and — uh oh — he’s started a blog.
courtesy of Henry Waxman, ranking minority member of the House Oversight Committee:
Compare the following: Republicans in the House took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database but less than five hours of testimony regarding how the Bush administration treated Iraqi detainees.
(Emphasis added) If that’s even close to being accurate, that really puts things into perspective. The article is a good read (click link above), but the thrust is summarized neatly here:
When President Clinton was in office, Congress exercised its oversight powers with no sense of proportionality. But oversight of the Bush administration has been even worse: With few exceptions, Congress has abdicated oversight responsibility altogether.
Gee, you think? Politics is always going to be partisan, but when the watchdogs themselves become so blatently partisan that they simply lay down and sleep, then who will be the watchdogs?
Some have recently ragged on Kerry for not following through on his convictions regarding when life begins (and why that hasn’t translated into an anti-abortion political stance). Maybe that’s why this little lack-of-conviction struck me as odd/humorous. Yesterday, WH Press Secretary Scott McLellan was asked:
Q Scott, one last thing, in all of your pronouncements about the campaign and the way it’s shaping up, implicit has been the suggestion that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will win the campaign. A, are you willing to make that explicit? Do you say that they will win?
Scott, or course, answered: “Yes. By all means. Bush and Cheney will win the campaign.” Right? Right?!? Wrong. He responded with the wimp-ass:
Well, that’s a decision that the American people will make. The President believes he has articulated a clear vision for the country going forward and has a solid record of accomplishment on the most important priorities that we face, from winning the war on terrorism to strengthening our economy. And the American people will make that decision in November. The President is proud of his record and believes he has a clear vision for the direction this country should head. And that stands in stark contrast to the ticket that we are running against.
Source I don’t know when the Bush campaign is going to kick into high gear, but for their sakes, it better be soon. Kerry-bashing ads, combined with (the somewhat contradictory) “I’m a positive guy” ads, aren’t really working.