March 30, 2006
Advice For Political Wagering
Whenever a public figure insists he is
not going to resign,
take the over.
Posted by: annika at
11:34 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh that's just California!
Posted by: Scof at March 30, 2006 02:34 PM (SZtZg)
2
It's kind of like the G.M. giving the baseball manager a "vote of confidence." The manager, invariably, is fired within the week.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 30, 2006 09:15 PM (wg3L2)
3
It was a deal between friends; Rob is trying to put a good face on his mistakes, but they are going to investigate and audit him nevertheless.
He really is a meathead.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Posted by: shelly at March 31, 2006 06:43 AM (BJYNn)
4
Notice who Rob's spokesman was? Mark Fabiani, the self congratulatory "Master of Disaster".(Check him out)
When Mark is around, you can be sure that someone is deep double doo-doo.
Posted by: shelly at April 01, 2006 02:35 AM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2006
Go Fish
BUSH FAILS TO NAME LIBERAL TO REPLACE CARD
In yet another striking display of tone-deafness, President Bush ignored critics of his administration by *gasp* failing to name a liberal as his new chief of staff.
Developing . . .
Update: A despondent David Gergen was seen crying in his beer at a Georgetown pub, muttering something about "number six."
Developing . . .
Posted by: annika at
10:20 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think I speak for many liberals when I say we hope and will be as pleased as we have any right to be, if he will simply not continue choosing criminals and unqualified cronies for high office and advisory positions.
Posted by: Strawman at March 28, 2006 02:21 PM (0ZdtC)
2
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have criminal records?
Wow! I would have thought for sure that would have came out in those over the top and excessive confirmation hearings.
Or are you contending that they are unqualified (despite their ridiculously extensive legal resumes and accolades)?
Posted by: Robbie at March 28, 2006 02:33 PM (53jDZ)
3
Josh Bolton is a stand up guy with great experience and will do excellent job. He's been waiting for it for a while.
He was Deputy to Card for several years, after he came to Washington with the Governor.
The Ambassador is his brother, by the way.
Interestingly enough, they are both Jewish, a fact that is low keyed by the press, but not lost on the Muslims.
I have never met him, but my niece lived with him in D.C. for a couple of years while he was Deputy COS and says he is totally dedicated, so much so that she returned to LA to seek her fortune without him. But she still respects him and thinks he is really a competant person.
Typical of Bush, he goes home with the guy what brought him.
Works for me.
Posted by: shelly at March 28, 2006 08:03 PM (BJYNn)
4
Straw,
To whom are you referring? The charged but not convicted Scooter Libby? That would be in contrast to the previous occupant of the White House. We can start with Cisneros, and end with the impeached but not convicted ex-Pres himself. Yes, that's a winner...
Ted Kennedy's killed more people than Bush's entire cabinet.
Posted by: MarkD at March 29, 2006 06:18 PM (X9njN)
5
Hey MArkD,
I don't think so or is one MJK worth 100,000 Iraqi's?
But for the erecord there is the procurement fellow who I think has pled guilty to some sort of fraud, the shop lifter, Scooter, and of course W who is just an unimpeached (rep. congress and all that) lying sack of shit who as opposed to Clinton really has committed really high crimes nd war crimes and never gets blown.
Posted by: strawman at March 30, 2006 08:07 AM (0ZdtC)
6
Straw,
You still throwing out that inaccurate "100,000" figure? You might remember that the number was easily discredited due to incredibly bad methodology.(I know you don't like to get too bogged down in that academic/intellectual stuff.) Here's the bottom line: IT'S NOT TRUE. YOU CAN KEEP SAYING IT, BUT IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A LIE. C'mon, don't be the commonplace Lefty and just make stuff up. Reminds me of listening to the average drugged out, jobless liberal/Democrat in the local coffee shop spewing one conspiracy after another. There is nothing more amusing or pathetic than an ill informed moral relativist.
Posted by: Blu at March 30, 2006 08:51 AM (j8oa6)
7
bLU,
The reaason i know it to be in the neighborhood of 100000 is that the chimp has admitted to 30,000 and since he lies about 60% of the time about everything, by simple extrapolation we can arrive at a statistically reliable figure for the true carnage.
Posted by: strawman at March 30, 2006 02:13 PM (0ZdtC)
8
can't lie, straw. that made me laugh. gotta give your opponent his due....
Posted by: Blu at March 30, 2006 02:49 PM (j8oa6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2006
Guillermo Fariñas
Please find out about Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas and why he's on a hunger strike for what you and I take for granted. Start at
The Cotillion and
Fausta's Blog.
Posted by: annika at
10:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
March 24, 2006
Bad Move
I loved the book
Reagan's War, by Peter Schweizer. It tells the story of Reagan's lifelong commitment to anti-communism. The most striking thing about Reagan's foreign policy was the breadth of his offensive against the Eastern Bloc. It wasn't just the overt moves: the arms race, SDI, the summits. He put a lot of resources into more subtle efforts to encourage democracy, most notably support for Poland's Solidarity movement. He also revitalized the Voice of America, which had lost sight of its original purpose as a propaganda tool.
No serious person doubts that Reagan's multi-pronged offensive worked. We should be using the same combination of threats, negotiation and propaganda against Iran. But Congress doesn't see it that way, as reported by ThreatsWatch:
From the House Committee on Appropriations comes word of the failure to fully fund the $75M requested by the administration to assist in broadcast/ telecast/ satellite communication efforts into the people of Iran."Promotion of Democracy in Iran - The committee did not fund the $75 million requested by the Administration for the promotion of democracy in Iran because it was poorly justified. Instead, $56 million was provided through proven, existing programs that will have an immediate, positive impact on the fostering of democratic ideals in Iran."
. . .
The $75M was not enough and, as it was, decades late in the game. To see Congress slash the belated efforts by nearly one-third out of the gate, in light of the current urgency, borders on disconcerting.Sometimes I suspect that there are folks in Congress who are not just clueless, but actively working to harm the people who elected them.
The Iranian problem is a very tough one, and we're in a situation which requires a creative solution. Of all the options available to us, encouraging regime change from within Iran is the least unattractive, in my opinion. Thus, I don't think now is the time to be skimping on resources devoted to that end.
Posted by: annika at
09:17 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Congress is a whorehouse, and each gal is trying to have a big night. Real programs are secondary to the self-interest of 90% of the people on the hill.
The analogous relationship between the cold war, and the war on terror is remarkable. Dubyah is consciously being Reagan.
Posted by: Casca at March 24, 2006 09:33 AM (y9m6I)
2
I think that Bush has tried to use Reagan as a model but has not been as effective in many areas. He simply doesn't bring the same set of political tools to the game. Annika's post illustrates an example: the propoganda war. It should be noted, however, that the admin's attempts to utilize propoganda in Iraq have been met with very harsh criticism from the MSM and the political Left (in one of the most disgusting and pathetically obvious displays of hypocrisy.) I am not old enough to remember whether the MSM attacked Voice of America. Even if they did, I doubt it was done with the same gusto. We are dealing now with a MSM that actively works against US interests and in many ways lends aid and comfort to terroists and world terroism by purposely reporting half-truths and refusing to acknowledge that there are good guys and bad guys in the War on Terror.
Posted by: Blu at March 24, 2006 10:13 AM (j8oa6)
3
When you are approving propaganda type activity, you don't want to be too specific about the details. It's ironic that
this is where the House draws the line on spending. And depressing.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 24, 2006 11:00 AM (3Sbj7)
4
Annie -
I'm a believer Congress fails to live up to its Section I, Article 8 responsibilities frequently; however, did you read what the Administration is actually proposing to do with the 75M?
The State Department would use $50 million of the supplemental funds, if they are approved by Congress, to establish around-the-clock satellite television and radio broadcasts into Iran. An additional $15 million would go to support the development of civic organizations within Iran. Iranian students and professionals who wish to visit the United States would benefit from an additional $5 million in funding for exchange programs. Finally, the department would devote an additional $5 million to public diplomacy efforts aimed at Iran, including its Persian language Web site.
The State Department official indicated that the United States is not planning to work with existing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Iran because, as she said, they all have been infiltrated by government agents.
Yes, I'm sure they'll point to how effective other programs have been in latin america..or how easy to jam those broadcasts are. The same statement/briefing on Sec Rice's proposal included the following, "the United States already has programs in place supporting Iranian labor unions, dissidents and human rights activists. The official said civil society organization is the key to effecting positive change in Iran."
It's an election year so Congress is pretty fast and loose with taxpayer money, especially in the area of "national security"; however, you have to at least make an *effort* to show some coherency in linking ends and ways before asking for resources...
And, are the ways and means to win a war against a secular, state-centric political ideology analogous to defeating a tribal/ethnic/non-state-centric religious one?
Posted by: Col Steve at March 24, 2006 02:57 PM (pj2h7)
5
I had a post along the same lines today, wondering why so many congresscritters are so worried that we are going to be in Iraq forever and not wanting to spend money to see that it's a success.
Jackasses.
I think we should start a campaign to have every incumbent defeated this year, be it in the primary or in the general. Time for some grown ups in Congress.
Posted by: KG at March 24, 2006 07:22 PM (SZsz5)
6
As someone who is old enough to remember the start of the Solidarity movement in Poland I always found it funny that the position of this country was unqualified support. (Actually not funny since I knew that we would have supported genocide if it would have cause the Soviets harm) The US would have the world believe that it was a champion of progressive perhaps revolutionary movements when in fact should similar freedom loving, injustice hating, movements ( think labor unions, civil rights, anti-fascist, pro-choice, gay and lesbian rights) have fomented and gained support within our borders they would be, and in fact have been covertly and overtly crushed. True, many of these movements have prevailed, but only over time because they had the courage and grass roots support to fight the government and the other great entrenched power: Corporate Interest. But much blood was shed along the way.
A labor historian, D. Walkowitz, who was in Poland during that time, when I asked him what was going on over there, likened the Solidarity movement to SDS in conjunction with the Autoworkers, taking over Ford Rouge and maybe some other GM and Chrysler plants and making demands on the White house to increase wages and other work rules.
I wonder how many hours it would have taken for Ronnie to have called out the guard in the name of protecting "National interests" to storm the plant. Hundreds dead, hundreds injured but democracy and the rule of law prevailing.
Now consider RonnieÂ’s outrage had the Polish government done the same?
Now to quote my comrade Blu.....
"In one of the most disgusting and pathetically obvious displays of hypocrisy"
Unfortunately, pathetic, obvious displays of hypocrisy are and have always been the stock and trade of America, and our current president and his criminal cronies have raised the bar to an astounding height. This hypocrisy, which is transparent to the rest of the world, is the reason wherever Americans travel they are met with snickers and pity for the current plague in the Whitehouse. It is the reason also that a propaganda war against the Middle East is futile. In the 50's when access to media and free flowing news was so constricted it was possible that a needed service was provided by Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America. It was also a more innocent time and America had a much less tarnished image. Everybody in the world today, except of course in China, has generally free access to many sources of news so I doubt there is really much value in spending 50 or 75 million to try and convince the secularist of Iran that America is their friend and will lend support should they need it. They know what happened to the Iraqi's who listened to Bush 1.
Casca, as Gore Vidal said, congressmen are just out of work lawyers, fattening their resumes waiting for a better job offer.
Posted by: strawman at March 25, 2006 07:23 AM (0ZdtC)
7
Still crazy after all these years.
Posted by: Casca at March 25, 2006 10:22 PM (2gORp)
8
"He also revitalized the Voice of America, which had lost sight of its original purpose as a propaganda tool."
Once an organizatiog is exposed as a propaganda tool, it loses the trust of the greater portion of the population it intends to influence.
Telling the truth should not be looked upon as a weak, girlie-mon approach, but as a justifiable means to inform. Propaganda is merely a means to distort. That's why the "Office of Strategic [Dis]Information" was destined for the dustbin from the outset.
Posted by: Will at March 27, 2006 11:10 AM (GzvlQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 16, 2006
Airborne Assault
Woke up to
this news today:
U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest airborne assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said.
The military said the operation was aimed at clearing 'a suspected insurgent operating area' northeast of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, and was expected to continue over several days.
'More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation,' the military statement said of the attack designed to 'clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra,' 60 miles north of Baghdad.
The province is a major part of the so-called Sunni triangle where insurgents have been active since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion three years ago.
Saddam Hussein was captured in the province, not far from its capital and his hometown, Tikrit.
Waqas al-Juwanya, a spokesman for
Iraq's joint coordination center in nearby Dowr, said 'unknown gunmen exist in this area, killing and kidnapping policemen, soldiers and civilians.'
Near the end of the first day of the operation, the military said, 'a number of enemy weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, IED-making materials, and military uniforms.'
Noticeably absent from the story was any mention of "civilian deaths" or any quotes from the "insurgents" point of view. That may come later, but for now I'm proud of the AP writer.
Posted by: annika at
08:44 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You've got a point. This is being carried out with mostly Iraqi troops in the lead. I halfway expect later reports to claim Iraqi troops unfairly killed Iraqi civilians, and to take the tone that it is unfair for Iraqi troops to fight the insurgents/terrorists. After all, what right have Iraqi troops to interfere in the local matters of Samarra? That is an issue for Samarrans to handle. Iraqi troops are interfering in the internal matters of Samarra, and killing innocent civilians in the process. Reprehensible.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 16, 2006 03:15 PM (3Sbj7)
2
I'm sure when planning this they also took into account that Iran was watching very closely.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 16, 2006 06:44 PM (DdRjH)
3
Happy St. Pat's! Interesting: with the Irish banner, you've got a rainbow and a new, fancy font. Thanks to those changes, I briefly thought I'd stumbled upon a very happy blog called Cannabis Journal.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 16, 2006 06:54 PM (TDwc6)
4
Haha, Kevin. I usually post that kind of banner on April 20th.
Posted by: annika at March 16, 2006 08:10 PM (fxTDF)
5
I had to look up the 420 reference. I now consider myself edumacated.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 18, 2006 12:20 AM (1PcL3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 14, 2006
"Civil War" Semantics
What exactly is "civil war" and is Iraq really
edging closer to it?Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses — men shot to death execution-style — as Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad.
. . .
Police began unearthing bodies early Monday, although the discoveries were not immediately reported. The gruesome finds continued throughout the day Tuesday, police said, marking the second wave of sectarian retribution killings since bombers destroyed an important Shiite shrine last month.
In the mayhem after the golden dome atop the Askariya shrine in Samarra was destroyed on Feb. 22, more than 500 people have been killed, many of them Sunni Muslims and their clerics. Dozens of mosques were damaged or destroyed.
Underlining the unease in the capital, Interior Ministry officials announced another driving ban, from 8 p.m. Wednesday to 4 p.m. Thursday to protect against car and suicide bombs while the Iraqi parliament meets for the first session since the Dec. 15 election.
Okay. Sounds like there's been some violence. Nothing new there. The government is taking steps to limit further violence. Also to be expected. But where is the support for the assertion that this recent violence is something new ― something different than the insurgency that has been going on since 2003?
People are throwing the term "civil war" around a lot lately, and I think it's interesting that nobody defines what that means. So I looked to that unassailable source, the Wikipedia, which has this to say:
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself. [links omitted]
More enlightenment can be found in the classic text,
The American Constitution, Its Origins And Development, which describes the semantic issue in the context of the American Civil War:
An insurrection is legally construed to be an organized and armed uprising for public political purposes; it may seek to overthrow the government, or it may seek merely to suppress certain laws or to alter administrative practice. A rebellion in general is considered to have a much more highly developed political and military organization than an insurrection; in international law it conveys belligerent status. Generally, such belligerent status implies that the belligerent government is attempting by war to free itself from the jurisdiction of the parent state, that it has an organized de facto government, that it is in control of at least some territory, and that it has sufficient proportions to render the issue of the conflict in doubt. An international war, on the other hand, is one between two or more independent states who are recognized members of the family of nations.
In international law the rights of parties to an armed conflict vary greatly with their status. Insurgents have a very limited status; they are not mere pirates or bandits, but their activities do not constitute 'war' in the de jure sense, and they cannot claim against neutrals the privileges of the laws of war. A full rebellion, on the other hand, is a 'war' so far as international law is concerned and the rebel government possesses all the belligerent rights of a fully recognized international state, toward both neutrals and the parent state. Needless to say, a parent state may attempt by force to suppress either an insurrection or a rebellion. In domestic law rebels may be criminals in the eyes of the parent state, and answerable to its courts if their movement fails. (Kelly, Harbison and Belz, The American Constitution, Its Origins And Development, 1955, 6th ed. at pp. 306-07.)
In the American Civil War, the Confederacy tried to define the conflict as an international war. Obviously, the Federals tried to define it as an insurrection. In truth, it was a rebellion. But the historic distinctions are interesting when applied to what's going on in Iraq.
I think it's clear that there is no civil war yet, by any accepted definition of the term. Can it happen? Perhaps, but there would need to be a lot more organization on the part of the al Qaeda and Baathists who are currently running the opposition. I think that's a long way off. Right now, it's just an ad hoc campaign of violence, much like a gang war, with no clearly articulated end other than to chase the US out.
Posted by: annika at
05:58 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 6 kb.
March 09, 2006
For Those Keeping Score . . .
. . . it's President Bush - 0,
the base - 2
Posted by: annika at
01:52 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Blu at March 09, 2006 01:54 PM (Zn3gd)
2
yeah I think so. And its not just Bush. I have posted on sites like Red State and RWN that I believe the right is undergoing a change right now to a more libertarian and somewhat populist version, and away from the hard line "Limbaugh" version.
That means Beltway Bozos Better Beware. In the words of Pete Townshend, "We're not gonna take it!"
Posted by: Kyle N at March 09, 2006 02:24 PM (1i69H)
3
I never really equated libertarianism and populism. How do you connect the two? I see them as two very distinct and, at times antithetical, political philosophies.
Also keep in mind that Rush was probably the most important (though clearly not the only) voice in killing the Miers' nomination. How does that fact fit into your paradigm? (His essay in the WSJ about a conservative "crack down" on Bush was brilliant political analysis.)
Regardless, the "base," however it is currently constituted, has in two different cases (Miers & ports) disagreed with the President and has been vocal in its disagreement. And in both cases it seems like the President's "political" folks have proven totally inept. It did not require a high political IQ to realize this port deal was a big loser regarless of whether it made sense from a strategic and policy perspective. Bush needs a shake-up in his administration because they have been off their game since his re-election.
Posted by: Blu at March 09, 2006 04:25 PM (Zn3gd)
4
two words: Karen Hughes
Anyways, it's interesting you mention Rush, Blu. He ended up on the wrong side of this one didn't he. And I certainly didn't like his condescending attitude towards the dissenters. Another interesting aspect was Professor Hugh. He's now 1-1, having been Miers' most vocal backer and also the earliest major critic of the Port deal.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that the Democrats have never figured out how to beat Bush, and the only time they could do it in the last five years was to side with the conservative base. There's a lesson there, if only they could learn it.
Posted by: annika at March 09, 2006 06:58 PM (fxTDF)
5
I agree that Karen Hughes is badly needed in the White House. I don't know if it's because Bush will listen to her when he will not listen to others; or maybe because she balances out Karl Rove, by bringing an extremely down-to-earth touch to political strategy and political messages; but they need her as badly as any organization has ever needed anybody. Why she isn't there is a great mystery to me.
I have to say, I believe forcing Dubai to cancel its ports contract is a bad call. The Bush Administration backed down to a misinformation campaign, imo. I believe the positives would've outweighed whatever teeny sliver of risk was involved. Will those who oppose the deal now call to eject every Islamic nation from every port or airport where they are conducting business? Will those who oppose the deal now call to shut down Dubai's air terminal at JFK - which has received direct flight after direct flight from Dubai for some years - with each flight flying RIGHT PAST MANHATTAN? I think our nation over-reacted. I think those who said Dubai would "own the ports", or who implied anything close to that, were misleading our nation.
I now owe this blog two cents.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 09, 2006 07:42 PM (3Sbj7)
6
My guess is that the various factions (for lack of a better word) that make up the base have each had their fill... you can only take the "trust us" stuff for so long. Miers was the tipping point and this one was just so badly botched that there was no way it was going to win.
I'm still surprised that W got the nomination in 2000 and that he was lucky enough to run into a couple of the worst candidates for president in the last 100 years.
Posted by: KG at March 09, 2006 09:57 PM (SZsz5)
7
He continued, imo, to support DP because;
1) He had already approved them indirectly, and he never admits he was wrong, and
2) He was playing good cop, because Dubai HAS been cooperative in many areas.
Any opinions on the Kemp/Edwards collaboration?
Posted by: will at March 10, 2006 04:41 AM (GzvlQ)
8
gcotharn is right, we lost to a disinformation campaign. In the long run it's a tempest in a teapot. A deuce, too high to mark.
Posted by: Casca at March 10, 2006 07:01 AM (y9m6I)
9
Annie,
Your dislike for Rush, in my opinion, blinds you to his very good political analysis. Now, is he as bright as HH or Medved or Praeger? Of course not. But he is a better political analyst than all of them. If you listened to him on the port deal his analysis was that it was a loser politically but that he felt it made sense strategically (long term) and from a policy perspective. BUT he also felt like it wouldn't happen---that the base and a media happy to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon would squash it.
For the record, my favorite guy is Medved; but, I believe that Rush is better at gauging issues from a perspective of pure politics more than anybody else on the radio. I don't think he gets enough credit for that or for single-handedly making any of the other right-of-center radio people even possible.
Posted by: Blu at March 10, 2006 12:38 PM (QExPp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
51kb generated in CPU 0.0248, elapsed 0.0933 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.081 seconds, 201 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.