Saturday, October 02, 2004

Iraq's Nuclear Capability: Cheney and Rice Deliberately Misled



Iraq's Nuclear Capability: Cheney and Rice Deliberately Misled

From a NYT article by DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

"...In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Hussein could have an atomic bomb "fairly soon."

The United States intelligence community had not yet concluded that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. But as the vice president told a group of Wyoming Republicans that September, the United States had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges.

..."We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."....before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found.

...Ms. Rice's alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the Bush administration's overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.


I'm not certain why the New York Times has waited so long to say all of this out loud, but it's clear that most of the mainstream media is well behind the observations which have been made by the blogging community all along. I'm glad they are talking about it now, however. I certainly hope Senator Edwards will confront Mr. Cheney about this and all other of Cheney's lies and scare tactics on Tuesday evening.


A Game: Pick Out the David Brooks Line



A Game: Pick Out the David Brooks Line

In David Brooks' NYT column today, he translates what he believes Bush was trying to say in the debate Thursday night. I thought to myself as I read it, "Is this the way it will be for another four years if Bush is re-elected? Bush mumbles incoherently and the pundits and war-planners give their translation spin so this delusional president, along with the neocons, can more strongly affirm the hold they already have over our White House?"

I really like David Brooks. I think he's a very intelligent American. Yet, I believe he is deliberately reforming the reality we clearly observed in Thursday's debate. Brooks' spin decidedly casts Kerry as a man with no conviction. I find this to be much like an attempt to call a dog a cat after the dog has left the room and had proved, hands-down, that he was, indeed, a dog.

Perpetuating the lies? Is that really the best David Brooks can do for America?

Here's a little game. It's called "Pick out the David Brooks line."



Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. The corners of Bush's mind must be incredibly dark places.
B. The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Kerry defined the enemy in narrow, concrete terms. He emphasized that it was Osama bin Laden who attacked us. He emphasized the need to defeat Al Qaeda's network. He called Iraq a diversion from defeating that network.
B. Kerry pointed out a brutal reality that Bush and the media have blurred for too long.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Bush's mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality.
B. When it comes to reality, Bush is delusional, and he gets really pissed off each time Kerry reveals him for who he is.


Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Bush sometimes acts as if it's enough for a president to profess his faith.
B. Bush acts as though God sanctions his mission and his fundamentalist leanings tinge his warped, stubborn, and disastrous policy.


Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Bush, by contrast, is steadfast and resolute.
B. Bush, by contrast, is steadfast and resolute about taking his nation down the path of political disaster.


Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Kerry gets twisted into pretzels.
B. Bush chokes on pretzels.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A.Bush launched a pre-emptive war even though his intelligence community was incompetent.
B. Bush is totally incompetent and should never have used known-to-be shaky intelligence to perpetrate his fraud on the American people.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Bush occupied a country even though he didn't really believe in, or work with, the institutions of government he would need to complete the task
B. Bush fucked up royally because of his dependence upon neocons and Chalabi-style crooks; and especially because of a lack of good character, wise leadership, horse-sense, and good faith.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. Bush's language has a resonance with people who know that he is not always competent, and who know that he doesn't always dominate every argument, but who can sense a shared cast of mind.
B. Bush appeals to the frightened, the willingly propagandized, the fundamentalists, the Loyalty-Oathers, the radical right, and the ones who refuse to choose American freedom and democracy over their preferred Armegeddon and Left Behind.

Pick out the David Brooks line:

A. When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that's Bush.
B. When you don't see any leader present at any of the dead soldiers' funerals, you know that's Bush.
C. When you aren't allowed to see their flag-draped coffins returning to Dover, you know that's Bush.
D. When you see statistical numbers of dead soldiers rising by the day in a war without a plan for the peace, you know that's Bush.
E. When you are called an enemy-emboldener because you think the soldiers are being abused and endangered by an incurious mind, you know that's Bush.
F. When you get a letter telling you you're being tapped for back-door draft reserve service after having served honorably, and when you have to kiss your wife, kids, career and very possibly your life goodbye to head off to a wicked hornet's nest "brought on" by a daft misleader, you know that's Bush.




Standing Up-Proud and Blue



Standing Up-Proud and Blue

The Daily Kos diarist known as kid oakland has provided us with some food for thought. The health of our democracy is suffering and it's been weakened by a groupthink that is steamrolling by intimidation. It reaches every one of us who live in the places that are labeled as "red".



Friday, October 01, 2004

Josh Catches FOX News Red-Handed




Josh Catches FOX News Red-Handed

Editor's Note from FOX News:

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter’s partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.


LINK

Yeah, right. Kudos to Josh Marshall, who caught FOX News misrepresenting John Kerry in one of their news features.

A history from Talking Points Memo:

Pt One-----Pt Two----- Pt Three-----Pt Four....Pt Five.....Pt Six.....Part Seven.....Part Eight....Part Nine


Comments about "Cuticle" Carl Cameron at Buzzflash

Oxblog comments
Matthew Yglesias comments
USA TODAY STORY

Thursday, September 30, 2004

It was a Good Debate. Kerry won.



It was a Good Debate.
Kerry won.


America got to see John Kerry stand next to George W. Bush last night. The tall, lanky senator came to the stage and shook hands with the shorter, solid-framed incumbent. Jim Lehrer had laid out the debate rules to the audience just before the debate began, warning that he would publically ridicule them and penalize their respective candidate by chopping time off their responses if the audience members got rowdy or loud.

From start to finish, John Kerry did a good job, in my opinion, of delineating the war on terror from the war in Iraq...and Osama bin Laden from Saddam Hussein. For any American viewer with a healthy appreciation for common sense, I would think Kerry certainly ruled the night.

John Kerry offered clarity on his Iraq position, and after the third or fourth time Bush leaned on old talking point-criticisms about Kerry's tendency to change positions, I began to feel slightly uncomfortable for Bush. Kerry would be issue-focused in his criticisms of Bush. Bush seemed to rely on repetitive talking points in his criticisms of Kerry, even when they had no sensible relation to the issues Kerry was raising.

I'm not sure how many times I heard the words "It's hard work" come from Bush's lips (I think the pundits said it was 11 times), but I'll tell you that after the third time, I thought to myself, "Hard work will get us nowhere if the course is wrong."

I saw no "killer" moment last night. I got more of a sense that John Kerry had a "killer" 90 minutes. He appeared calm, collected, sometimes gracefully amused by his opponent's replies. He often used a pen to jot down notes to prepare himself for his next opportunity to speak. He responded with an appearance of assuredness in his own convictions regarding strategy and diplomacy.

Bush was sometimes shaken and he went blank for a very uncomfortable 5 or 6 seconds several times. Bush's anxieties were obviously piqued many times as John Kerry would speak. Bush often looked agitated and often, his face showed a desperate search for what he wanted to say next. He was apparently intimidated by facing Kerry's issue-focus when he realized that talking points weren't adequate responses and there was just too much darned time left on the clock and too little to say.

When Bush said, "The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people...", I think it betrayed error, fantasy, and weakness in the face of all Bush's Manichaean certainty. Iran was far more connected to terror than Iraq. Bush has failed to convincingly connect Saddam Hussein's government to 9/11 and last night's debate revealed nothing new.

The elephant in the middle of the room:
What are we going to do about Iran if push comes to shove? Neither Bush nor Kerry discussed their thoughts or plans.

Most totally-unconvincing line:
"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops."
--George W. Bush
I don't believe him. Period.

Lamest defense of Iraq war:
"...to think that another round of resolutions
would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose is ludicrous in my
judgment, it just shows a significant difference of opinion
."
--George W. Bush
The U.N.'s renewed inspections were working. The level of the threat from Iraq was not sufficient for Bush to commit troops to a unilateral pre-emptive war. He rushed to war with no plan for the peace. If anything is going to lose this election for Bush, it his his stubborn refusal to admit to commanding the wrong course to which he steered our nation.

Is this a joke?
"I've got a good relation with Vladimir, and it's important that we do have a good relation because that enables me to better comment to him and to better to discuss with him some of the decisions he makes."
--George W.Bush
Bush's repeated use of Putin's first name seemed incredibly inappropriate and was meant, I assumed, to convince the public that Bush had Putin under some form of diplomatic control. The problem is, we witnessed Russia's slide back toward Soviet rule after the Beslan attack. If that's "convincing Vladimir", then Bush is clearly no Ronald Reagan.

Americans are hated more than ever since 9/11. It's now a more dangerous world for us, our children, and our grandchildren. After last night's debate, I heard a foreign pundit, Christine Ockrent,a journalist from France 3, interviewed by Charlie Rose and she said she loved America and did not like to see an increase in already-existing world distrust. She intimated her opinion that Bush has been a failure in public diplomacy and to the eyes of many in the world, Bush has personified the paranoid set of beliefs that some foreigners have about America. Ockrent said she believed the world would breathe a sigh of relief if/when Kerry is elected president, because only then can a healing and a new course begin. I can understand that sentiment. Bush has promised there would be no change in his course. What options or hope has he left to the nations of the world who do not agree with that course?

I recalled Bush's statement during the debate:
"He says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call
upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be? Please join us in
Iraq for a grand diversion? Join us for a war that is a wrong war at the
wrong place at the wrong time
?"
I don't believe Bush can envision a President Kerry going to the U.N. as a humble, heartful, and respectful leader and making a convincing case for internationalizing the effort to make Iraq secure as she becomes free. Why can't Bush imagine that? My conclusion is that Bush cannot envision that sort of success because either he's never consciously tried or he's never been able to do it himself.

Bush followed his statement with:
"I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently -- they're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."
I thought to myself that Bush lumped world leaders into a less than respectful lump with his "these people" comment. This was not a question of whether or not Bush deals with these leaders,which, as president, he is required to do. This was a question of the result of the negotations with these world leaders. Most of the world thinks Bush was wrong to attack Iraq unilaterally, so we already know the world's trust in the U.S. has been lost directly because of George W. Bush. Bush seem sto be speaking from the standpoint of someone in an alternative universe by insinuating that Kerry would be the one with problems convincing world leaders.

America got to see John Kerry stand next to George W. Bush last night. After the debate was over, I firmly believe Americans got to see John Kerry as their next president.


Remarks by President Bush And Senator Kerry in First 2004 Presidential Debate


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

JUAN COLE on the debate:
"I don't know if it is possible to get Arab League troops for Iraq. They'd have to be convinced to walk with their eyes open into a guerrilla war. But they are now offering training and other help, and should be taken up on it. It is not clear that despite the attempts of Colin Powell, the Bush administration still has the credibility in the Arab world to get the cooperation of the League in Iraq. Unlike Kerry, Bush did not even mention wanting to try. Kerry's strategy, of announcing that the US will leave Iraq and does not want bases, would certainly go a long way toward mollfying the regional Arab powers."

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

Digby warns us that the media spin has only just begun:
Tomorrow is where the action is folks. Tonight, the consensus is that Kerry won the debate and he did. Tomorrow, the push back begins. Get your phone numbers in hand. Get ready to write e-mails. They will not go down without a fight. We will have to fight them back with their own words.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: This story made Top Story on Google this morning.
Top Stories

My thoughts: I Believe Kerry Won the First Debate
Daily Kos, United States - 1 hour ago
... new. What are we going to do about Iran if push comes to shove? Neither Bush nor Kerry discussed their thoughts or plans. "I understand ...

-Acadiana weighs in on debate The Advertiser
-Bush, Kerry showdown keeps race close San Jose Mercury News (subscription)
-Our bloggers analyze debate minute-by-minute Seattle Times
-CNN - AlterNet - all 2,840 related »


James Wolcott offers his own unique take on the night's outcome.


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

Written just after debate on 9/30:

John Kerry Ruled in Tonight's Debate

I believe John Kerry did a great job in the debate with Bush tonight. I will be writing more about it tomorrow. If you have any comments, leave them here and we'll talk.

As we approach the first debate



As we approach the first debate

In the American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias says that "..the president wants us to re-elect him because he's a flawless leader whose mistake-free policies have created a lovely situation in Iraq, where freedom is blossoming and the war has made Americans safer."

I realize that concerned Americans each hope the best for their country, each in their own way, but as mentally healthy people, we all come to a point where we understand the difference between hope and reality. Some clearly see reality sooner than others, but we all eventually reach a common conclusion when facts outweigh fantasy. Time passes and events cause us to understand that what we may have once believed may not necessarily be true, if we begin to trust our own eyes and our own intuition. The trouble is, our President may be the last to reach that realization, and we cannot let our nation fall into disgrace while our leader languishes in delusion. There may be many very decent and trusting Americans out there who really did buy into the president’s Iraq storyline. [Perhaps I should say storylines, because there have been so many varying rationales offered to the public]. My question is, as reality sets in, where will those Americans draw the line in their support for Bush’s policy, which is being revealed as sheer fantasy?

Mr. Yglesias states that an opportunity to admit to the American people that Bush had made mistakes and learned from them "..was present in late July, when the president received a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reflecting the consensus view of the intelligence community that the range of possible outcomes in Iraq was bleak to very bleak. Instead, the White House sat on the report for months until it was leaked to The New York Times in September. When simply hiding the NIE from the public was no longer possible, Bush explained that the CIA was "just guessing" and mischaracterized the content of the report, saying that under one scenario for Iraq, "life could be better." In fact, the report stated that, at best, things would stay the same."

Abraham Lincoln's performance in the Civil War, where he realized mistakes, fired generals often, and changed the course of the war quite a few times before getting it right, is a stark contrast to Bush, who has fired no one and has stubbornly stuck to one catastrophic course while painting a fantasy of success for the American public. To sharpen the contrast, Bush forced out the one military man, General Eric Shinseki, who had correctly foreseen that Bush's plans for Iraq involved too few troops.

I personally think that Bush should be embarrassed and ashamed to face the American public tonight in his debate with John Kerry. I am amazed that the media has allowed Bush's fantasy to fly with gossamer wings in the face of harsh reality; practically unchallenged by the media throughout the war's progression.

If one believes in the concept of sin or moral law, the mainstream media's sin of omission would be the greatest moral offense to American democracy. Their failure to fearlessly question the Bush administration has caused the Bush administration to use them as a political tool to suppress American dissent and lead us to a journey of war and death upon which we never needed to embark.

I shudder to think about the post-debate spin in the mainstream media after each of these upcoming debates. If I sound pessimistic to you, it's only because of realistic past experience. In all their King-making glory, I ask myself why the media would further tangle the truth and deliberately betray the public by counterfactual and persistent aggrandizemant of the catastrophic ideas of a delusional man.

If the mainstream media wants to continue to find reasons to defend a madman whose big trick is to talk tough and stay on one wrong message, you and I do not have to continue to offer our trust or our time to them.

I am ashamed of what Bush has done to my reputation as an American.

I am embarrassed for my fellow Americans who support the leader who has diminished every one of us.

In the face of all the contrary evidence presented by the media-monstrosity, I am still aware of the difference between hope and reality. I can only hope the majority of Americans still possess the same faculty, especially through all the irrational fears the Bush administration has laid at their doorstep over the past three years.

I will admit that I do have my own fantasies. In my fondest fantasy, John Kerry will kick George W.Bush's delusional ass in the first debate tonight.

Let the message "GET REAL" replace the tired "FLIP-FLOP".

Go Senator Kerry.




Juan Cole's advice to Bush: Stop Mocking, Start Changing



Juan Cole's advice to Bush: Stop Mocking, Start Changing
"It is depressing for me to see George W. Bush on the stump doing a stand-up comedy routine about John Kerry, parroting the predictable line that Kerry has had more than one opinion about Iraq. Serious news reporters who have gone back over the record find that Bush's charge is without merit, and that Kerry has been consistent on his Iraq position.

The thing that most worries me is not when a politician's thinking evolves on a subject and he changes his mind. It is when a politician refuses even to consider changing his mind. Such inflexibility is almost always a sign of rigidity, which can be catastrophic in the most powerful man in the world.

Bush should stop slapping his thigh and guffawing about that flipflopper Kerry and being to think seriously about changing his mind on some key policies himself. Otherwise, an Iraq as failed state could pose a supreme danger to the United States.."


--Juan Cole/Informed Comment


LINK


Howard Altman: A Short Chat with Daniel Ellsberg



Howard Altman: A Short Chat with Daniel Ellsberg

On 29 September, Howard Altman briefly interviewed Daniel Ellsberg.

LINK

Excerpt:
HA: What are some examples of good leaks?

DE: We start with the Pentagon Papers.

HA: But of course.

DE: (Laughs) The latest ones. It is very important for the public to know the existence, in a general nature, of the recent national intelligence estimate which shows great pessimism about our prospects in Iraq. The public ought to know the entire document. Someone should leak it [Editor's note: If anyone has that document, please send it to me. I would be happy to report it, in the grand tradition of the Pentagon Papers. And, I will go to jail to protect your identity. We now return to our regularly scheduled interview].


ALSO--SEEN AT HOWARD'S BLOG, A LINK TO THE REAL HUSSEIN 2 AT ATOM FILMS. It's hilarious.

MSNBC fires Luntz Before Debates



MSNBC fires Luntz Before Debates

They should have done it long ago. Much credit goes to David Brock of Media Matters. Frank Luntz has been nothing but a partisan hack.

Buh-bye, Frank.


Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Raw Story: Salon acquires the 60 Minutes that never was



Raw Story: Salon acquires the 60 Minutes that never was

Did the Berlusconi government manufacture evidence to help Bush make the case for war?

Why has the Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently done little to fulfill a request by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for an investigation into the origins of the forged Niger documents?


"....the Bush administration had, either intentionally or with breathtaking credulity, relied on patently false intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq."

".....because of CBS's sloppy reporting on the Bush National Guard story, the network's news executives believed they could no longer report credibly on the heart of the Iraq nuclear issue, involving another set of completely forged documents: those purporting to show that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from the African country Niger."

_________________


The Salon story link is here. The story is titled The Cowardly Broadcasting System. If you don't subscribe, you'll need a free one-day pass.



See my blogpost from Tuesday.

Poem: The War Song of G. Dubya Bushrock by David K. Beckwith



From TheBloggingPoet.com:


Anonymoses Hyperlincoln

I'm proud to present a new poem by David K. Beckwith, also known as Anonymoses Hyperlincoln, who is my co-blogger here at Iddybud. It was premiered today at the Blogging Poet blog. If you sense a touch of T.S. Eliot, it is because Mr. Beckwith's poem is a modern and witty telling of events based upon Eliot's Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. I think he did a brilliant job.





The War Song of
G. Dubya Bushrock

by Anonymoses Hyperlincoln


LET us vote then, you and I,
When the evening news is spreading lies
to the patients etherised upon a fable;
Let us go, through a certain half-deserted mind,
The muttering unkind
A mindless knight in one-night crack-ho tails
And cornpone restaurants with taco-shells:
Sheep that follow like a tedious dittohead
Of insidious portent
To feed you all a dose of healthy koolaid...
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and drink this shit...

From the boom we men come aglow
Walking from Los Alamo.

The yellow blog that wipes its back upon our window pains,
The yellow news that rubs our nose in blue dress stains,
Licked its lips upon the money of the evening news,
Lingered upon the fools that stand to gain,
Let fall upon his face the pretzel that falls from skies,
Slipped by the congress, made of sullen lies,
And seeing that it was a soft September morn,
Turned around the plane, and fell to Sleep...

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow dust that billows down the street,
Wiping its ass upon the window-panes;
There will be Time, there will be War-
ner,
To prepare a place to meet the presses that you meet;
There will be time for Russ and Rush to bloviate,
And time for all the worthless ways of glands
That lift and drop a dollop on your fate;
Time for Dick and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred distortions and revisions,
Before making toast of Cheney.

In the gloom the warmen come aglow
Talking of Guantanamo

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I care?”
Time to turn my back and nude-descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my chair—
[They will say: “How his chair is growing thin!”]
My morning coke, my dollar mounting firmly to boy Ken,
My bolo is immodest, but inserted by a marking pen—
[They will say: “But how his arms of war are sin!”]

Do I dare
Destroy the universe?

In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minuteman will reverse.

For I have blown them all already, blown them up:—
Have known the evening, mourning, darkest noons,
I have mangled up my life with cocaine spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying thup!
Beneath the building from a farther plume.
So what should I consume?

And I have known the ayes already, known them all—
The ayes that fix you in a formulaic phase,
And when I am formulaic, scrawling with a pen,
When I am penned and scribbling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit on all the butt-holes of my days and ways?
And who should I consume?

And I have known the arms already, known them all—
Arms that are daisy-cut and grossly unfair,
[Caught in the gunlight, downed without a care!]
Is it blue stains on a dress
That makes me so digress?
Arms that lie are sold at table, with talk of shock and awe.
And should I then consume?
And when should I begin?
. . . . .

Shall I say, I have gunned at dusk through narrow streets
And watched the smoke that rises from the ruins
Of lonely kids in tatters, pouring out of windows...

I am just a pair of ragged shoes
Scuttling across the floors of silent news.

. . . . .

And the afternoon, the evening, creeps so peacelessly!
Scorched by hot zingers,
Asleep ... wired ... or country singers,
Stretched on the floor, here beside you Cheney.
Should I, after koolade, coke and icees,
Have the strength to force the world to its crises?
But though I'm inept and blasted, inept and crazed,
Though I have seen many heads [grown slightly shorn] brought in upon a platter,
I am no prophet—and I'm no mad hatter;
I have seen the speeches of that city slicker,
And I have seen the eternal Bushman hold my coat, and Snicker,
And in shorts, I was DeLayed.

And would it have been worth it, after Oil,
After the kegs, the candy bar, the T,
Hugging the porcelain, a lonesome walk with you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have snapped at the batter with a towel,
To have squeezed the universe into a booger
To roll it toward some overstating question,
To say: “I am Nazareth, book of the dead,
Come back to sell you all, I shall smell you all”—
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: “That is not how I vote at all.
That is not it, at all.”

And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the fun set and the shipyards and the wrinkled sheets,
After the novel, after the hiccups, after the nose that trails along the floors—
And Kos, and Media Whores—
It is impossible to know just why I'm mean!
But as if a manic slattern slew the pervs on ladders in a screed:
Would it have been with child
If one, settling a pillow or throwing up on call,
And turning toward the window, should spew:
“That is not it at all,
That is not how I vote, at all.”
. . . . .
No! I am no ham omelette, nor was meant to be;
Petrol attendant, bored, one that will screw
To stifle progress, start a war or two,
Advise the Dick; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to disabuse,
Lunatic, caustic, and supercilious;
Full of false sentence, and a bit obtuse;
The times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
I am, for you, the Fool.

I grow old … I grow old …
I prefer my money rolled.

Shall I kiss your left behind? Do I dare to be impeached?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and strut upon the stage.
I have heard Travolta singing, to my age.

I do not think that he will sing of me.


I have seen them hiding leeward in the caves
Bombing the dark hair of the slaves blown back
With my thoughts forever white and black.

We have lingered in the chambers of the star
By star-whores wreathed with seafoam green and crown
Till human votes awake them, and we drown.





About The Author

David K. Beckwith, is a current and native North Carolinian who has also lived in Massachusetts, Virginia, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Asheville, Charleston, Cambridge, Manhattan and Charlotte.

An honors graduate of Harvard University, David has won a variety of awards and honors for writing and webwork including:

1996 - Who's Who Online (Top 300 Netizens)
1998 - Who's Who in Media & Communications
1996- Given 5-stars in NetGuide Live Magazine, and have also been reviewed in Charlotte's Best and The Browser Magazine.

David wrote the feature length screenplay, “Prick In The Balloon” and has worked in public access TV, where he produced, worked camera, and composed scores. David spends his time blogging at Anonymoses, HyperLincoln, Daily Kos, and Iddybud. He is working on new books, consulting, and writing columns. He lists his current occupation as sage.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Don't Let Bush/Cheney Tell You They Didn't Know




Don't Let Bush/Cheney Tell You They
Didn't Know


They knew.

I wonder which part of this they failed to understand in January, 2003?



....assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.



This magnifies Cheney's lie about cheers and flowers.




LA Times Editorial Defends American Democracy



LA Times Editorial Defends American Democracy

And I thank them from the bottom of my American heart.

From the LA Times:



"..the point here is not subtle: The right to criticize the policies of those in power is not just one of democracy's fringe benefits; it is essential to making the democratic machinery work. And questions of war and peace — dead young Americans, dead Iraqis, a radicalized Middle East, billions of dollars: Was it worth all this? — are the ones that need democracy the most. Why would any president even wish to plunge this country into war and keep it there without a level of support from the citizenry that is strong enough to survive the obvious counterarguments?"



The LA Times has it right. Bush's convenience is certainly not what this election is about and to accuse Kerry of aiding the enemy while taking his advice is despicable.

HOW DARE KERRY SPEAK UP?




President Eisenhower's Son Endorses John Kerry

President Eisenhower's Son Endorses John Kerry


John Eisenhower/AP photo



From: THE UNION LEADER
Manchester, New Hampshire

Another View:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.




(sic): Eisenhouer, Eisenhauer, Eisenhaur, Isenhower, Eisenhour

Daniel Ellsberg Appeals to Patriots Who Would Reveal Truth



Daniel Ellsberg Appeals to Patriots Who Would Reveal Truth

From the NY Times:

"Don't wait until more troops are sent, and thousands more have died, before telling truths that could end a war and save lives. Do what I wish I had done in 1964: go to the press, to Congress, and document your claims.
Technology may make it easier to tell your story, but the decision to do so will be no less difficult. The personal risks of making disclosures embarrassing to your superiors are real. If you are identified as the source, your career will be over; friendships will be lost; you may even be prosecuted.

But some 140,000 Americans are risking their lives every day in Iraq. Our nation is in urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials
."



Monday, September 27, 2004

Howard Altman Enters the Blogosphere



Howard Altman Enters the Blogosphere

Howard Altman, former editor in chief of the Philadelphia City Paper, has begun to blog.
Welcome, Howard.



Raimondo: Blowhards Left and Right



Raimondo: Blowhards Left and Right

Justin Raimondo has written an article about all the blowhards, left and (especially) right in this season's heated presidential campaign. He lays out some cold hard facts We are not being talked to honestly about the war and the future battles we'll face in places with strange names of which many Americans have not yet learned. I warned you about this one a long time ago.

Conan O'Brien to Succeed Leno on NBC's `Tonight Show'


Will CBS Kill Important Iraq News Because of the November Elections?



Will CBS Kill Important Iraq News Because of the November Elections?

With the damage recently done to the credibility to CBS News, will we be getting more self-censorship from the network? Will we see less of the truth about what's happening with our troops in Iraq because of impulsive mistakes CBS has made and because of men like Buckhead McDougald who wait in the shadows to silence all who would embolden the people who'd love to see more of the truth killed off as if the truth, in itself, was our enemy?

Blogging Academics



Blogging Academics

An increasing number of academics are using blog technology. For example:

Charles Tryon(http://chutry.wordherders.net) gets students to blog for a first year composition course he teaches at the school of literature, communication and culture at Georgia Tech. Last year, they kept personal blogs. This year, they are working on group blogs while Tryon coordinates the class via a blog (http://democracymatters.blogspot.com), which points students to relevant material online. He suggests that blogging - reading and writing posts, following links and discussions - encourages students to think critically about technology and how it affects the way we write and think.