Law Enforcement & Intelligence vs. Terrorism

Ken AshfordElection 2004, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Kerry’s still singing that same tune about how law enforcement activities and intelligence activities are going to win the war on terrorism. He said it again yesterday, even though it makes him look "soft" (to some):

This is the time to redouble our efforts in every way – law enforcement activities, intelligence activities — and deal with this threat to the civilized world.

Except . . . . that’s not a Kerry quote. It was Colin Powell, yesterday, in Baghdad. Source is here (click on "NPR Hourly News" — the quote is about 1:15 into the audiostream — I’ll try to get a better link or transcript if I can find one)

Good Gramma!

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

I’m an English snob. I admit it. When someone says they want to "axe" me a question, I want to plant my foot in their behind.

So let’s take a moment out of our busy days to make sure we’re not butchering the English language, shall we? This is a good place for us to brush up: The 100 Most Often Mispronounced Words and Phrases in English. How broken is your English? (I must admit, I thought "spitting image" was the correct phrase — it’s not — it’s "spit and image").

Hat tip to Eugene.

Yes, Foreign Leaders Want Kerry To Win

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

Why? Because those allying with Bush lose in their elections. Germany in ’02, South Korea in ’03, and Spain in ’04. Bush is the kiss of death.

And now, the President of Poland (part of the ever-dwindling "coalition of the willing disenchanted") is distancing himself from Bush in a big way, saying that Poland too was "misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction."

Freedom Sausage, anyone? How about Freedom Springs Bottled Water?

UPDATE: Even Blair? The Observer apparently thinks so.

Downing Street knows that pictures of a grinning Bush clasping Blair by the shoulder are not what might be described as ‘politically helpful’.

‘We need a US that constructively engages with the European Union and the wider world,’ Giddens wrote in last week’s Prospect magazine. ‘I hope a Democratic President will be elected who pursues such an aim.’

(Anthony Giddens is Blair’s "Dick Morris").

Who’s the Dupe?

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Please read this story . It is a story saying that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group issued a statement saying that it wants Bush to be elected.

I assumed it to be a joke, like the recent fake "NY Times" article that got the NYT all worked up. Part of the tip-off for me was the reporter’s name, "Opheera McDoom".

Daily Kos, however, seems to think it is accurate. Am I wrong? Or is he?

Assuming the story itself is authentic, I don’t know how much stock to put in it. Do they REALLY want Bush to win, or are they just SAYING they want Bush to win, so that we will vote for Kerry?

Cue The Princess Bride:

Vizzini: Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

…You only think I guessed wrong – that’s what’s so funny. I switched glasses when your back was turned. Ha-ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah.
[Vizzini falls over dead]

Hat tip to Corrente for the analogy.

Bush Embarrassment Watch CLXIII

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Iraq, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

With all the "One Year Later" retrospectives going around, a reader at Atrios’ site posted Bush’s speech of March 13, 2003 — the start of the war. Many of us thought it was a crock then — and now — with benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it clearly was one.

This passage particularly struck me:

The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

What can one make of this statement, now that we know that Saddam had already been disarmed? If we are to take Bush at his word, then "the terrorist threat to America" was not as big as we thought it was — even one year ago!

That’s the problem with speculating about the present and the future when you don’t know the facts (or don’t care about them) — you have to eat your words. Bon appetit, Mr. President!

Gotta Love This Ad

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Even if you disagree with the message, I hope you can agree that Moveon.org’s new ad is unique and captivating. It’s powerful in its simplicity. It doesn’t manipulate with music. It doesn’t have commentary and voice-overs. It doesn’t pay actors to pretend to be something they’re not, with scripted words. It doesn’t twist words, or selectively edit. Just 30 seconds of Rumsfeld speaking on "Meet the Press". Well done.

Pew Research – A Year After Iraq War

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Even though the headline is "Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists", there’s tons of other interesting "meat" in this survey — some good and some not-so-good. Personally, I am particularly pleased that Europeans draw a distinction between the American people (who they generally like) and American policies (which they generally dislike and distrust). But in any event, there’s some good fodder for discussion and reflection, and I present it without further comment (for now).

Why They Voted Socialist

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Afraid of al Qaeda? It doesn’t look that way . . .

But interviews with scores of Spaniards of both parties indicated that a number of things happened after the attacks that shifted the balance to the Socialists. Voters flooded the polls on Sunday in record numbers, especially young people who had not planned to vote. In interviews, they said they did so not so much out of fear of terror as out of anger against a government they saw as increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and stubborn. The government, they said, mishandled the crisis in the emotional days after the attacks.

Voters said they were enraged not only by the government’s insistence that the Basque separatist group ETA was responsible, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, but they also resented its clumsy attempts to quell antigovernment sentiment.

For example, the main television channel TVE, which is state-owned, showed scant and selective scenes of antigovernment demonstrations on Saturday night, just as it ran very little coverage of the large demonstrations against the war in Iraq last year. It also suddenly changed its regular programming to air a documentary on the horrors of ETA.

That was the last straw for some Spaniards, who said it evoked the nightmare of censorship during the Franco dictatorship little more than a quarter of a century ago.

Meanwhile, within 24 hours of the terrorist attacks, the Socialists, through their own intelligence and diplomatic contacts in the Muslim world, were already leaning toward the theory that Al Qaeda and not ETA was responsible, two senior Socialist Party officials said.

. . . from the NY Times.

So, it seems, the Socialist Party won because its opponents weren’t open and honest. Not a bad lesson. Anyone here listening?

The “Iraq On The Record” Database

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

The Bush Administration’s deceptions regarding the War on Iraq are so numerous that Rep. Henry Waxman has put them on a searchable database.

This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made.

That sounds like a reasonable and fair criteria.

Of course, most of it is nothing we haven’t all seen before, but it’s packaged well. A good tool for both sides . . . i.e. search for the word "imminent" to see if anyone DID say that threat from Iraq was "imminent".

House Republican Embarrassment Watch

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

I try to have toleration for people with different viewpoints than me. There’s nothing I respect more than loyal opposition.

But it’s hard for me to respect conservative House Republicans. I truly feel that many of them have no concept of how our government works.

Here’s their latest foray into stupidity:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004′.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court–

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know how preposterously unconstitutional this is. All you need is a 7th grade civics education. And these guys (not ALL House Republicans are this way, mind you) don’t have it.

And I’m sure everyone catches the irony of an unconstitutional bill which permits Congress to decide the constitutionality of its own acts. The bill itself is the best argument for its own defeat — because obviously, those in Congress (at least, those sponsoring the bill) wouldn’t know the constitutionality of their legislation if it came up and bit them in their collective asses!

The War on Terror So Far . . .

Ken AshfordIraq, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Pluses:

  • Saddam Hussein out of power

  • Many dead/captured terrorists or Iraqi resistence

Minuses:

  • 550 dead American soldiers

  • 200 dead Spanish citizens

  • Lord knows how many dead innocent Iraqis

  • Lord knows how many wounded

  • No new democracies (just two police states, and a new socialist leader in Spain)

  • Bin Laden still alive

  • al Qaeda still active (obviously)

  • Taliban controls 1/3rd of Afghanistan

  • Coddling of Saudi Arabia (despite its ties to al Qaeda)

  • Coddling of Pakistan (despite admitted nuclear proliferation)

  • U.S. no longer world’s leader — it just has the most guns

You know what? I’m not impressed with Bush’s "toughness" on terrorism.

“What Can 30 Million Evangelicals Do For America? Anything We Want.”

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

That was the slogan on the back of the program at yesterday’s National Association of Evangelicals convention, according to the NY Times. (President Bush spoke at the convention via teleconference).

They’re wrong, in my view, but it’s scary that they think that.

Robert Schuller, who many of you probably know, sounded like the only voice of reason in the bunch. According to the NY Times, he "delivered an address gently criticizing some conservative evangelical Christians for acting as if they know the only possible route to salvation."

"What upsets me about religious leaders of all faiths is that they talk like they know it all, and anybody who doesn’t agree with them is a heretic," he said later in an interview.

"Politics is a force that pulls answers towards mediocrity," he said, "That is why when issues are politicized, I am gone."

Good man, that Schuller.

That’s A Fisk?

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

At the Bush-Cheney blog, they’re trying to make some inroads by pointing out Kerry flip-flops. Here‘s an example (NOTE: I’ve put Kerry quotes in italics, but otherwise, this is a cut-and-paste from the Bush-Cheney site):

Let’s go back to the Time piece for some historical reference:

TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.

Which directly contradicts what he told Rolling Stone in December:

If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today — we would not be at war.

Which is kind of hard to square with this, from the first Democratic debate in May 2003:

I would have preferred if we had have given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. When the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Why is it so hard to square these three quotes?

In the first quote (from Time), Kerry is saying that if he had been President, he might have gone to war but only if other remedies were exhausted.

In the second quote (from Rolling Stone in December 2003), Kerry said if he were President, we would not be at war. (And why not? Clearly BECAUSE OTHER REMEDIES HAD NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED!)

Are the first and second quotes "direct contradictions" as the Bush campaign claims? Hell, no. They’re consistent!

In the third quote, Kerry talks about his support of Bush’s decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. That’s a different subject altogether from the decision to go to war. It IS possible to support disarming Saddam Hussein, and still be opposed to the Iraq War.

Is this the best they can do???

Don’t These Guys Know How To VET?

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

You know, if I were to do Bush Embarrassment Watches, I’d do nothing else in my life but post here. But this one is too good to let go:

Last Labor Day, Bush announced that he was creating a new office — the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services. In doing so, he noted that that the U.S. had "lost thousands of jobs in manufacturing . . . some of it because production moved overseas." The position was intended to help with those issues. The announcement was followed by months of delay, and Democratic criticism for the delay.

So who did Bush (finally) plan to nominate? A guy named Raimondo, who is a longtime board member of the National Association of Manufacturers. Michael E. Baroody, the group’s executive vice president, called Raimondo "a class act who understands manufacturing and understands public policy."

But Kerry’s campaign, tipped off about the impending nomination several hours earlier, hastened to distribute news reports that Raimondo’s firm, Behlen Manufacturing Co. of Columbus, Neb., had laid off 75 U.S. workers in 2002, four months after announcing plans for a $3 million factory in northwest Beijing.

Result?

Seventy-five minutes after the administration announced a news conference with Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans to name the official, an advisory went out saying the event had been "postponed due to scheduling conflicts."

Yeah, right. Full story here.