Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Stephen Hayes on Jon Stewart

Stephen Hayes on Jon Stewart

I saw Jon Stewart tear Stephen Hayes' credibility to shreds during his interview with Hayes on the Daily Show the other night. I wish I'd recorded it so I could give you the details. I found this at Protestant Polyglot (I hope he won't mind me posting it in its entirety):

Jon Stewart has Stephen Hayes on the Daily Show right now, interviewing him about his apology for the war on Iraq, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. Hayes was going on about how reasonable the Bush doctrine is, because Iraq was a serious threat to America. Jon Stewart came out with one of the most cutting remarks I’ve ever heard him make:


That’s not the point. Here’s the point. I’ll name you four things. Developing weapons of mass destruction, inflamatory rhetoric against the United States, harboring terrorists, and uh…uh…oppressing their own people. You can’t name that country. You have no idea what country I just described.


Who needs network news when there’s the Daily Show?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See my past comments about Stephen Hayes and Douglas Feith HERE.

See the discussion of the show at Daily Kos.

Kos Quote on Beheading

Kos Quote on Beheading


"Bush's failures on terrorism make me physically sick, literally. Now, when I think of "Bush's War on Terror", I associate it with "beheading". And I really, really wish it hadn't come down to that."

Read the entire thread:
[LINK]

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Headlines at Iddybud June 22

Headlines at Iddybud June 22

David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics

Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned

Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution

Kim Sun-il

The New Republic: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War
..because the old ones didn't pan out.

Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar

"Fahrenheit 9/11" MPAA Rating Appeal- Mario Cuomo A No-Go

My Condolences go out to Jimmy Breslin for the loss of his daughter Rosemary


Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned

Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned

President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to grabbing, yelling and 'stress positions':

- Use of 20-hour interrogations.

- Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.

- Removal of clothing.

- Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."

In a Jan. 15, 2003, note, Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of some of these recommendations and said a review would be conducted to consider legal, policy and operational issues relating to interrogations of detainees held by the U.S. military in the war on terrorism. Rumsfeld's decision was prompted at least in part by objections raised by some military lawyers who felt that the techniques might go too far, officials said earlier this year.

In Bush's case, Justice Department senior officials said that the 50-page "torture" memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002,(the one that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror and argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties) would be repudiated and replaced.

See my headline from Saturday regarding Bush's highly questionable power-grab in regard to the torture memo.

The memo, signed by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.

Thanks to Yahoo News/AP for use of parts of this article to relay this information to you.

"Fahrenheit 9/11"Appeal-Mario Cuomo A No-Go

"Fahrenheit 9/11" Appeal-Mario Cuomo A No-Go

Lions Gate Films president Tom Ortenberg (whose company is distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11" with IFC Films and Miramax co-chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group) will appeal for a PG-13 rating instead of the R that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has awarded "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "violent and disturbing images and for language"......but he'll have to appear without Mario Cuomo. The MPAA has made a decision to prevent Mr. Cuomo from arguing the appeal in person.

Why are they getting an "R' rating? Because an American soldier says the word motherf*****(more than once) and several graphic images of victims of war and abusive behavior by some of our troops appear in the film.

If you think about it, with Bush's raging war in Iraq and its images that cross our paths on cable news and the internet (human cold-blood slaughter and people begging for their lives), real life these days should be rated "XXXX", anyhow. (Even without Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations).

~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: Moore lost the appeal. Moore urged younger teenagers to go see the film anyway. "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know," he said.

My condolences to Jimmy Breslin

My condolences to Jimmy Breslin

My condolences go out to Jimmy Breslin. He lost his daughter Rosemary Breslin, 47, last Friday to a rare blood disease.

Mr. Breslin has written a heartful and moving column about how his loving memories colored Rosemary's last day...Rosemary's last breath.

My prayers are with you, Jimmy.

Jude

David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics

David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics

[LINK]


David Brooks makes the same point I made a couple days ago in THIS POST.

Brooks says:


It's mind-boggling. Can't the Democratic strategists read the data? Religious involvement is a much, much more powerful predictor of how someone will vote than income, education, gender or any other social and demographic category save race.

Can't the Democratic strategists feel it in their bones how important this is? After all, when you go out among the Democratic rank and file, you find millions of Democrats who are just as religious as Republicans.


Brooks careens off the track when he says:


..the members of the secular left are interested primarily in social issues. What unites them more than anything else is a strong antipathy to pro-lifers and fundamentalists.


I consider myself to be a religious moderate as are many of my friends and family. What turns off many religious Democrats (note I didn't say "secular lefties") is the political dogmatic hypocrisy right-wing pro-lifers reveal. They will press on one issue (ie: abortion) while completely ignoring the pro-life aspect involved in the deaths of untold innocents who die as a direct result of merciless, violent and unjust wars in which their nation fully participates. If all life is truly sacred, it would only follow logic that no self-respecting Christian should back a candidate who seeks out unjust wars he knows will result in killing thousands of innocent people...especially when he lies in order to wage the unjust war.

Brooks forgets the fact that animosity runs much stronger from right-wing fundamentalists to the moderately religious (and even stronger to the secular left). They are positively intolerant. This fundie-group can be downright hateful in their outlook toward anyone who refuses to share their views. Brooks should know better. Culture wars were not started and are not being egged on today by either religious moderates or the secular left who hold steadfast to the principles of freedom as framed in our nation's Founding documents (many of the "secular left" are Libertarians). The Christian conservative group that Bush panders to on their favorite (politically divisive) issues is nearly always at the expense of the most important national concerns and are often issues adversely affecting true freedoms we enjoy in America.

Other than this misinterpretation (in its typical David Brooks-style overgeneralization), I agree when he says that John Kerry must build a bridge to religious moderates.

As I said on June 19th, John Kerry "needs to be unafraid and unashamed to talk about the importance of religion in his own life. Americans want to hear about it. They relate to it."

Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution

Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution

Hearts and minds ain't gonna work in Iraq. Bomb the livin' daylights outta them. Level Fallujah.

They're just people who are primitive. We know what the final solution should be. If we don't know, just listen to Bill. He'll tell ya. If you don't agree, just “shut up” or you will be declared an “enemy of the state.” [LINK]

Kim Sun-il

Kim Sun-il

Hearing Kim Sun-il crying "I don't want to die! My life is important-like your life in important!" has been heartbreaking.

As I watched the nightmare-video of the frightened young man begging for his life, I wondered where the Catholic pro-lifers are? Why are they not screaming out against this war? (especially the Catholic hierarchy.) Where are all the Christians who preach about the sanctity of life? If they fail to see the value in all these innocent lives lost to unnecessary violence, why should we believe in anything else they say about any other issues?

Kim Sun-il is now dead...his self-important and innocent life taken away. He was more complex than a stem-cell or an embryo. He wasn't a soldier. He was a civilian. We sit back and watch perfectly innocent civilians die because it's a cost of the war we're fighting. In doing so--in remaining silent-- we are totally immoral.

Our leaders tell our citizen-civilians in these dangerous nations not to leave those nations "or the terrorists win". This is totally irresponsible. Let's see those leaders sign up to work and walk the daily streets in those treacherous lands.

To all who believe that each life is sacred:
Isn't it time to open your mouths and scream for the insanity and violence of this war to end?

TNR: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War

The New Republic: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War
..because the old ones didn't pan out.

[LINK]

The editors of The New Republic believed that assuming a nuclear-tipped Iraq could be deterred (given Saddam's history of reckless miscalculation and mass murder) was a naïve idea. They worried that, had President Bush's threats of war against Iraq passed without action, so would the world's (the U.N.'s) vigilance. The editors say they believed France, Russia, and China would likely always have feared a U.S. beachhead in the Arab world more than those countries feared Saddam Hussein.

Now comes the "but"....

The TNR editors now say that waiting to confront Iraq would have allowed the United States to confront more immediate dangers. They admit that, in retrospect, we should have paid more attention to myriad warning signs about the truth behind the dismal intelligence. They say they feel regret, but no shame.

They cling to some of their initial moral reasoning to absolve them from shame as they believe Saddam's Iraq was "a moral cancer at the center of a region whose pathologies were threatening the world". Yet they underestimated the effect on the Iraqi people, now considering the forces of "fanatical Islam, America-hatred, and a penchant for conspiracy theories." They claim our (U.S.) inability to provide security has caused us to undermine ourselves and that as a result, this war's moral costs have been higher than they'd foreseen.

TNR searches for a moral reson to stay in Iraq, and they find it in the simple fact that they are, in a decidedly perverse sense, "free" and that we can assist them to remain "free".

They make what I consider to be a freshly-created naive statement: that people from the Arab and Muslim world are watching..that they "may not hate America any less than they did before the war" (bullshite)....that, "for the time being, they may even hate it more" (Oh, come on, TNR--let's keep things real. We've inflamed the Arab street). TNR's pie-in-the-sky musing is that, with the fall of Iraq's dictator, the people of the Muslim world can finally envision the fall of their own dictators.
(*I have to add this:..."...and America's leaders can lie to their people again so the U.S. can help them to overthrow their dictators."*)

TNR's editors, in their hand-wringing over being oh-so-wrong over the attack on Iraq, bring this all down to the United States triggering a debate about democracy in the Middle East as their one true morally-justified reason for our loss of almost 850 troops after two straight years of proven misleadings from our government.


I'm sorry, but there is such thing as healthy optimism in a realistic light. On the other end of the spectrum, there is pure delusion. If TNR still believes this war--the invasion of Iraq--still carries a glint of moral justice, I don't think they're naive--I think they're reaching..reaching.. in the hope of intuitive redemption and moral absolution.

Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar

Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar

"...speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European...it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans.

They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American...someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."


- Christopher Hitchens attacking Michael Moore


________________________

I read Christopher Hitchens' review of Michael Moore.
(Oh--and I read his comments about Moore's movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11', too).

It seems that Mr. Hitchens is reaching as far as he can to turn Michael Moore's artistic film presentation into a bag of deliberate anti-American political lies.

After seeing Hitchens on CSPAN -June 1st- making a blantantly uncivil public ad hominem attack on Michael Moore and after reading Mr. Hitchens' recent rant on Ronald Reagan, I'm losing my faith in his credibility as an intellectual. I've not seen a stronger post-9/11 change in any intellectual journalist to date...I suspect Mr. Hitchens was philisophically shaken and perhaps ruined by the attack on America.

Here is one example of Mr. Hitchen's well-stretched exaggerations:

If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out....
..I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk...

[LINK]


Mr. Hitchens makes it sound like a pipeline is not a prime consideration for the U.S. economic interests. Ah! But let's look at reality:

The governments of Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan on December 9, 2003, signed a formal protocol agreement in Islamabad after two days of talks on a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline project linking the three countries

[LINK]


It didn't take Afghanistan long to sign new agreements for their pipeline once they got their new government started up, did it? Of course, a highway and security will be necessary to literally pave the way to the pipeline dream. Let's not kid ourselves. The proposed TAP gas pipeline would move up to 30-bil cu m/year of natural gas from the Daulatabad fields in southeast Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan. It's a wonderful economic opportunity for all invested international companies (and we know damned well the U.S. will be heavily invested).

When we see an intellectual reaching for cheap rationalization while lashing out ungentlemanly against a man he wishes desperately to call a liar, as Mr. Hitchens has clearly been doing, we see a confused soul who doesn't deserve much of our serious attention.

It's a shame. I really used to enjoy Mr. Hitchens. Post-9/11 politics have rolled him into a spinner of confused yarn. He is clearly not the "polished, sophisticated European" (as he tries to pass himself off). Let's use Hitchen's own words and turn them on him..I think he deserves it after the ad hominem attacks that have revealed his true nature: "To describe this film review as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film review as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental."

Monday, June 21, 2004

Headlines at Iddybud June 21

Headlines at Iddybud June 21


ISX Roll-Out Begins

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

WELCOME, SUMMER 2004!

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

Juan Cole mentions Al-Hayat news that Iyad Allawi recently dispatched Ahmad Chalabi to mediate between him and the Kurdish leadership in the north of Iraq. Also, a preparatory board has met to begin planning an Iraqi National Congress of 1000 notables. This includes an invitation to the Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who observers thought might well be elected to the advisory council. Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has allegedly called on Muqtada to come to the congress.

From Informed Comment:


The American attempt to destroy Chalabi politically, and to destroy Muqtada al-Sadr physically, has so far failed miserably. Allawi is clearly eager to do business with both, and to pull them into his orbit. Both are now poised to gain seats in the proto-parliament, the national advisory council, and they have made an improbable and wholly cynical alliance with one another, according to an informed Iraqi observer. The two of them could well show up in the government to be formed in January, 2005.


Juan Cole also writes about the fact that Shiite Indians were being supported by Hindus in yesterday's protest in New Delhi against harsh U.S. policies in Iraq and to demand that the U.N. take the leading role in putting the country back on its feet. Indian Shiites have in recent decades been moderate and politically timid, but this issue has clearly galvanized them. Professor Cole believes there is only more trouble to come, seeing that the Shiite International has turned anti-U.S. I can only blame the Bush administration's sheer stupidity in their foreign policy for this unfortunate turn of events.

I'm beginning to believe that the Bushites will do anything...and I mean a desperate anything... to get the security failure known as Iraq under control so they can politically align themselves for re-election. I happen to think nearly everything they've done has had a political-advantage-strategy importance above our national interest. The Democrats are seen by the Bushites as more the enemy than the real enemy. For this reason, I think we will wind up leaving the people of Iraq with an anti-U.S. government in place. This is certainly not in our best national interest. It's a cob job. With some of these Iraqi notables, the anti-U.S. sentiment may be closeted away for their own political furtherance. I think, in the end, we will have failed the Iraqi people (and will have lost 846 men and women of our own armed forces) over the folly of "liberating" a nation while actually installing a new anti-U.S. government in Saddam Hussein's place.

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

The AP headlines that grace Nedra Pickler's journalistic ventures certainly seem like mini-op-eds...or perhaps slogan-suggestions for the Bush campaign.

One particular headline (and accompanying story) in question:

Campaigning for the poor paused to vacation with rich
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We have a fellow from one of the richest families as our sitting President and I have to say that I think he's been incredibly stupid in handling world affairs.

Somehow Americans have gotten the impression that it's fine and dandy to have a rich Republican run for President...but not a wealthy Democrat.

Why would a professional newsperson wish to push this idea?

This type of thinking leads us to the only rationalization that we could make: Republicans are well-known to have gotten rich by greedily stepping over the flattened bodies of the poor, I suppose. We expect rich Republicans to run and once in office, to continue their naturally-inherent greedy streak of sinking the poorest..and..well...that's supposed to be alright
with us(?!)

I guess Nedra Pickler thinks so. I know she's not even trying to hide her bias anymore. I find her way of thinking philosophically bankrupt and her writing unprofessional (if she's supposed to be relaying the news). Why are we being subjected to such trash by the AP? If a writer can't give us straight facts, she should be replaced by someone who can. Make Nedra an op-ed columnist, a job for which she has auditioned in the guise of a newswriter and has proven herself an excellent candidate.

ISX Roll-out begins

ISX Roll-Out Begins

The ISX (Iraq Stock Exchange) has been established with a nine-member Board of Governors.

Here is a bit of history if you are unfamiliar with Iraq's financial markets. The Baghdad Stock Exchange (BSE) opened in 1991. It was government-owned and tightly controlled by Iraq's Ministry of Finance. Baath Party members routinely engaged in illegal seizures of listed company shares. The BSE ceased trading on March 19, 2003 due to the invasion of Iraq. Since its closure, the BSE's 300,000+ investors’ brokerage accounts have been frozen. Private transactions have been occurring, some illegal.

Since the BSE was owned by the Iraqi government and capital raising did not conform to free market principles, a new Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) has been established with an SEC as the oversight regulator. Independent of the Ministry of Finance, the ISX is a self-regulatory organization chaired by a public member of the Board. There will be satellite communication for a remote branch office in the U.S.

They are opening up now...rolling-out over the next few weeks, with five new companies per week. Rigorous market regulation is promised in order to control fraud, manipulation and unreasonably volatile price fluctuations.

If security issues are nipped in the bud, investors will come flocking, I'm sure. If security issues remain as they are today, I would consider investment extremely risky.

At least the groundwork has been set for a possible success.

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Headlines at Iddybud June 20

Headlines at Iddybud June 20

DUH! Those not paying attention support Bush on Iraq

Remembering Reagan (cartoon)

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers

John McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

--Frederick Douglass, 1857


There is a marvelous Independence Day flyer available here.(Note-it's a pdf file).

It has fantastic quotes from the intelligently patriotic George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass and others, giving us a wide, varied, and fearless view of what being patriotic means. (John Ashcoft would faint when the walls of his narrow vision were ripped away to expose the open-sky view of these truest patriots).

You can print them out and distribute them at your own Fourth of July celebrations. The thoughtful creators of the downloadable flyers say:
May these quotes serve to remind us all of the ideals and values upon which
the United States was founded.


Take a look...I promise you won't be disappointed.

McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

John McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

Why am I hearing the tune "Dueling Banjos" running through my head?

I've said "..blah!" in the past when the rumors were swirling about John Kerry courting John McCain for his running mate...especially since Senator McCain made it crystal-clear he was fully committed to supporting a Bush re-election.

Now rumors are swirling about Dick "I swear there's a terror connection"-Cheney getting bumped for none other than Senator McCain as VP on the GOP ticket in November.

In order to accept, Senator McCain would have to have healed from those push-polls in South Carolina in 2000 just before the Republican presidential primary. Do you remember those infamous McCain-defeating push-polls? The Bushites tried to eat McCain alive by insinuating his wife was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that he'd fathered a black child with a prostitute. Perhaps he hasn't healed from that experience, but would be ready to suck it all up and move ahead like the good soldier and patriot he's well-known to be if his President should ask him to join the ticket.

Don't you just LOVE politics?

Sidney Zion of the Daily News writes:


How about a Bush-McCain ticket?

This would turn John Kerry's dream of running with John McCain into the mother of all nightmares for the Democrats. But it's hardly the only good reason for Dubya and the GOP bosses to see that it's done......

....If the President's poll numbers continue to go south and still look dreary when the Republican convention comes to Bloombergsville in August, it's a good bet that somebody -perhaps even 41 - will tell Cheney that it's not his night....

.....A Kerry-McCain ticket would have been cynicism in living color. Bush-McCain is an ideological perfecto.



[LINK-N.Y. Daily News]


The wise Mr. Zion is absolutely right--and what a nightmare it would be for John Kerry. I think I was correct last April when I asked: "Why has the DLC been dancing with this fellow [McCain]? At the end of the ball, he's leaving with the village idiot."

When you consider the wonderful field of well-qualified Democrats from which Senator Kerry's had to choose all along, you just want to kick his political advisors in the shins....hard.....don't you?

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers
From the N.Y. Times

A handful of scribes publishing in a newer medium will join the thousands of newspaper, magazine and broadcast journalists at this summer's political conventions. They'll be blogging.

The Democrats are holding true to their ``party of inclusion'' billing vis-a-vis the online chroniclers, whose Web logs have leapt in popularity this year as political junkies increasingly get their fix with mouse clicks.

[LINK]

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

The Bush administration recently awarded a $10 billion Department of Homeland Security contract to Accenture, a company that based its headquarters in Bermuda to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

The move defied the President's promise to make sure everyone is "paying their fair share." If that isn't enough to get you steamed, last week the White House's Congressional allies defeated legislation that would have stopped the contract. Congress rejected legislation sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that would have prevented the contract from moving forward. The White House, through these Congressional allies, defeated the legislation on a sheer party line vote.

The General Accounting Office has cited Accenture for using offshore tax havens. Because of the GAO's report, at least one state has had the courage to do what Congress and the White House refuse to do. In May,
Illinois held up a $2 million state contract to the company because of its tax behavior. In its defense, the company denies getting serious benefits from moving offshore. But, according to a June 1 Bloomberg News report, Accenture's tax liability decreased while its U.S. earnings increased in 2002 and 2003.

*Thanks to Misleader.org for organizing this information to help us understand the big picture.