Back in the USSR, part whatever

Another gem from Age of Delirium:

"My name is Alexander Spirkin," he said, extending his hand. "You probably read my textbook on Marxist-Leninist philosophy."

"Who doesn't know your textbook?" said Blok, taken completely aback. "But doesn't Marxist-Leninist philosophy prevent you from taking an interest in mysticism?"

"Not at all," said Spirkin good-naturedly. "Dialectical philosophy has the advantage that you can include in it today everything that you denied yesterday, including mysticism."

-- page 237

We've never been "stay the course."

-- George W. Bush, October 22

You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

-- Dick Cheney to Paul O'Neill, 2002

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

-- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 2003

Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

-- George W. Bush, press conference, October 25, 2006

Lesson for the day

Naming a ship after a stupid PhD music major who happens to be friends with an even stupider son of an oil-patch crime family can end up saving you millions of dollars.

Of course, you have to pick the right stupid PhD music major and the right dim son, so it's not like Chevron didn't earn the millions of dollars they've underpaid in natural gas royalties owed to the federal government.

The Interior Department has dropped claims that the Chevron Corporation systematically underpaid the government for natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, a decision that could allow energy companies to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.

The agency had ordered Chevron to pay $6 million in additional royalties but could have sought tens of millions more had it prevailed. The decision also sets a precedent that could make it easier for oil and gas companies to lower the value of what they pump each year from federal property and thus their payments to the government.

Interior officials said on Friday that they had no choice but to drop their order to Chevron because a department appeals board had ruled against auditors in a separate case.
...
In a written statement, the department's Minerals Management Service said it would have been useless to fight Chevron.

"It is not in the public interest to spend federal dollars pursuing claims that have little or no chance of success," the agency said. "M.M.S. lost a contested and controversial issue" before the appeals board. "Had we simply wanted to capitulate to 'big oil,' the agency would not have issued the order in the first place."

Sounds like the party of "cut and run" to me. Of course, these terrorists (the oil companies) already have their caliphate running from Indonesia in the east to Indonesia in the west, with Brushboy and Tankergirl as their superheroes.

Back in the USSR, two more times

I've been reading David Satter's Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union very slowly over the last several weeks, having finished several other books while getting about halfway through it. Here are two more choice excerpts:

The Soviet border was no ordinary barrier but a line of demarcation between two different states of conciousness, generated, in the West, by a world in which reality is given and, in the Soviet Union, by a universe in which reality is made. In this situation, Soviet citizens became interlopers in normal life.

-- pp. 195-196.

Compare:

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.

-- A senior Bush adviser, quoted by Ron Suskind in 2002.

Here's the second quote from Age of Delirium:

The KGB created a public relations department headed by General Alexander Karbayinov, who told a Western journalist that his department existed to explain to the world that "The purpose of the KGB is to serve society and not the other way around."

In this way, the KGB tried to alter its image in the eyes of the Soviet population, doing so not by undertaking real change but rather by creating a mirage.

-- page 214.

Compare:

Former White House counselor Karen P. Hughes will take over the Bush administration's troubled public diplomacy effort intended to burnish the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism has fueled extremist groups and terrorism, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Hughes, 48, who has been one of President Bush's closest advisers since his tenure as Texas governor, plans to return to Washington soon to rejoin the president's team after a three-year absence and set up shop at the State Department, where she will work with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reinvigorate the campaign for hearts and minds overseas.

-- Washington Post, March 12, 2005

And this, from today:

The Pentagon is buttressing its public relations staff and starting an operation akin to a political campaign war room as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld faces intensifying criticism over the Iraq war.

In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and "correct the record."

The memo describes an operation modeled after a political campaign -- such as that made famous by Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential race -- calling for a "Rapid Response" section for quickly answering opponents' assertions.

Another branch would coordinate "surrogates." In political campaigns, surrogates are usually high-level politicians or key interest groups who speak or travel on behalf of a candidate or an issue.

I'm starting to believe Henry Ford was right when he said "History is bunk." Common wisdom would have it that the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam, but, as Chris Floyd points out, Vietnam has become a low-wage sweatshop for American corporations--that is, "we" won. Meanwhile, the fans of Ronald Reagan will never cease bragging about how he won the Cold War, but as the U.S. daily becomes more and more like the USSR, can we really say that's true either?

Lying the groundwork

Four years ago, I blogged about a William Safire op-ed in the NY Times concerning lie detectors. Safire pointed out that polygraphs are worse than useless. They are used by prosecutors to intimidate prisoners into false confessions or plea bargains, and they are especially dangerous when used to screen potential employees in sensitive jobs:

Because professional spies are trained to defeat the device; because pathological liars do not cause its needles to spike; and because our counterspies relax when a potential suspect "passes"--the system breeds the opposite of security.

Safire's article is now behind the Times' pay-per-view wall, so I can't quote it exactly (except for what I quoted four years ago). But one of his points, I believe, was that the general belief among the public that polygraphs do work was critical for how they were used. The phrase "refused to take a lie-detector test" is often deemed to be incriminating, even though polygraph evidence isn't admissible in court. Anyway, sooner or later it is remotely possible that people will become more generally aware of the defects of polygraphs, thereby rendering them completely useless. Never fear--a new generation of high-tech "lie detectors" is being developed, and the Washington Post's Joel Garreau is right there to spread the propaganda so that the new machines can have the same (negative) effect on justice that the old ones did (emphasis added):

The Siemens Magnetom Trio at the University of Pennsylvania is a 10-foot-tall, 14-ton "functional magnetic resonance imaging" machine -- fMRI, for short. It promises to be the most formidable lie detector ever built. By peering directly into our brains, its keepers aim to set a new gold standard for the recognition of honesty in everyone from politicians to criminals to lovers.
...
In the pipeline are several cheaper, faster, easier-to-use brain-examining technologies, all intended as major improvements on the unreliable chicken-scratching polygraph we use now. Some seem to identify mental preparations for telling a lie even before the liar opens his mouth -- verging on mind-reading. Another is meant to work from across the room, even if you do not wish to cooperate. Think of it as the "mental detector" at your airport screening, and not without good reason. Much of this research is being funded by the military as part of the anti-terror juggernaut.

The Magnetom Trio knows your thoughts better than you do. Surrender to the power of the Magnetom Trio--confess your sins.

Heck--the intimidation factor is working already. From the Post article:

The firm planned to scan for lies the brain of its first customer yesterday. But at the last minute, with NBC and CBS camera crews standing by to record the event, she decided she didn't want to put to the test her assertion that she had not cheated on her husband while he was in alcohol rehab, according to Joel T. Huizenga, the company's founder.

The article does show that using lies to "detect lies" is an old, old trick:

According to an ancient tale from India, a village turns out to have a thief. To determine who it is, a wise man puts into a dark tent a donkey he says has magical powers: if a guilty man pulls his tail, the donkey will sing. When every man in the village, one after the other, has entered the tent to pull the donkey's tail, the wise man then lines them all up, and sure enough, the identity of the thief is obvious. Turns out the wise man had covered the donkey's tail with lamp black, and only one man had clean hands.

More likely, the man with clean hands pulled on the wrong part of the donkey, while the real liar (and maybe criminal as well), the "wise man," got off scott free.

Towards the end of the article, Garreau points out the many flaws of polygraphs, and even hints at reasons why the expensive new behemoths may not work, either. But you wouldn't know it from the article's subtitle ("Tell a Whopper and Watch the Screen Light Up: Thanks (or No Thanks) to Sophisticated Scanning, The Lie May Be on Its Last Legs"), nor from the first paragraph ("gold standard for the recognition of honesty"). Safire was wrong about a lot of things, but he was very right on this. And newer, fancier, more expensive "lie detectors" only make the problem worse. What are you going to do when you're hauled in to the Ministry of Truth and told that the Magnetom Trio has already convicted you?

If we didn't arm our enemies, then where would we be?

NY Times:

The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded.
...
[T]he inspector general's office ... found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.

Exactly where untracked weapons could end up--and whether some have been used against American soldiers--were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.

In a written response to the inspector general's findings, the American military largely conceded the shortcomings. The military said it would assist the Iraqis in determining the spare parts and maintenance requirements for the weapons. The military also said it has now instituted a "process to accurately issue weapons by quantity and serial number listing."
...
Mr. Bowen found that the American military was not able to say how many Iraqi logistics personnel it had trained--in this case because, the military told the inspector general, a computer network crash erased records. Those problems have occurred even though the United States has spent $133 million on the weapons program and $666 million on Iraqi logistics capabilities.

Remember how one of W's excuses for invading Iraq was that Saddam hadn't documented the destruction of his alleged weapons of mass destruction? Like this, from the State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003:

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Saddam, at least, had a plausible reason. If Saddam did, indeed have 30,000 whatevers at some point in time (Bush is obviously being intentionally vague on these points) after the Gulf War, then he was violating one of those UN resolutions, which might give some idiot US president a reason to start a war. With weapons inspectors crawling around the country, Saddam decided (if indeed he still had them at this point) to destroy every such weapon he could locate (since confirmed by UN and US weapons inspectors). Documenting this destruction would have provided evidence that he had in fact violated those resolutions. Was Ken Lay standing by the shredders at Enron, keeping careful records of every incriminating document destroyed? From the Downing Street Memos and many other sources, we know that W was going to war with Iraq in any case. Saddam didn't record his destruction of his WMD's, and W used that against him. If Saddam had recorded the destruction, W would have used THAT against him. (The "mobile biological weapons labs" were bogus from the very beginning; Bush might just as well have demanded that Saddam document that he had destroyed Darth Vader's death star.)

On the other hand, what possible excuse does the Pentagon have for handing out half a million weapons with no documentation whatsoever? As usual, they'll hide behind incompetence and the fog of war. But I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the ruling class in this country is making a fortune from the war. If it started to look like the war was over, the gravy train might cease. They can't count on the miniscule alleged flow of arms from Iran and Syria to keep the blood flowing--they have to make sure that Iraqis are armed sufficiently to keep killing each other and Americans for years to come. They made sure that Iraqi conventional weapons dumps like al Qaqaa were open to all comers during and after the invasion, and they've been handing out weapons by the hundreds of thousands to Iraqis of (understandably) questionable loyalties--and not bothering to keep track of any of it.

From Ingrid Rice.

BTW, Bob Harris, author of the fine book Prisoner of Trebekistan, had this post the other day on his blog:

Other liberals who were faking their conditions

Because, well, you heard what Rush said about Michael J. Fox, so obviously:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (he had Lucy Mercer!). Max Cleland. Michael Moore (the fat's just to make him seem lovable!). Steve Biko (the police said those head wounds were the result of a hunger strike!). Helen Keller.

How dare these people get involved in politics.

Reading that, I remembered an old maxim from marching band: "There's a limit to good taste, but no limit to bad taste!" So I sent an e-mail off to Harris with a few more examples:

• Dennis Kucinich is faking his shortness, as am I.
• John Kerry is really a better speaker than Martin Luther King, he's just inarticulate to lose votes.
• And, of course, Bill Clinton really HATES sex of any kind.
• Oh, and Jesus? Those weren't real nails. They were Steve Martin-style arrow-through-the-head fake nails.

From Jim Day.

Oaxaca

The Mexican government has been violently surpressing an ongoing protest in Oaxaca, a poor state in southern Mexico. Several people have been killed in the past few days, including an American independent journalist. I can't even begin to get a handle on everything happening down there, but it is bad, and it's an insight into the true nature of the Mexican government. ANSWER and NarcoNews have plenty of details.

My general, but possibly mistaken, impression is that the government of Mexico is every bit as corrupt as the government of the U.S. The big difference is that almost all Mexicans know it. This may not mean that the repression in Oaxaca will cause the Mexican masses to rise up and overthrow the government, but I doubt if Mexican politicians will be able to use applause lines in speeches congratulating themselves on their repressive techniques.

Quote du jour

There is scarcely an acknowledgement anywhere in the Media Establishment that the Iraq War was an evil and misbegotten enterprise from the very beginning: conceived in greed and arrogance, sold by deceit, a criminal action by every legal and moral reckoning. As Hamlet said: "It cannot and it will not come to good." And it has not. Wars of aggression are evil things -- the "supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal recognized -- and they will breed nothing but evil. When Bush sat before the television cameras to announce the invasion of Iraq that night in March 2003, he might as well have pulled out the shredded corpse of a child and began gnawing on the red, corrupted flesh, for he was at that moment consigning thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death.

-- Chris Floyd

That's a great line

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, denying that Dick Cheney had obviously confirmed that th US uses waterboarding to torture prisoners:

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way. You got Dick Cheney, who had been head of an intelligence committee. He's been the Secretary of Defense. He's been the Vice President. He's not a guy who slips up, and he's also not a guy who does winks and nods about things that involve matters that you don't talk about for political reasons.

A couple of minutes later:

Q To say that Vice President Cheney doesn't make mistakes like this, he did go up and curse a senator to his face on the Senate floor, and accidentally shot his friend, so he's not perfect. (Laughter.)

Q He never slips up?

MR. SNOW: No, I mean, it's just -- that's -- that's a great line, but it's not germane.

Actually, I think germane is exactly what it is. Snow is defending something stupid Cheney said by saying he couldn't have said something that stupid because he doesn't "slip up." The reporter just points out that if it weren't for "slipping up" Cheney would be a much less busy man. But between slipping up and lying, he barely has time to snarl anymore!

From Tom Toles.

It's true--the ads are ALMOST as bad as the candidates.

Escalation needs no rationale, and the old mantra that never was

You want more troops, you've got more troops. You want less troops, we'll have less troops, but please give me the rationale why.

-- Idiot-in-Chief, babbling to conservative columnists on Wednesday. Obviously they don't need a rationale if they want more troops.

There are 18 pages of his nonsense, and I certainly haven't read it all; Billmon has some choice selections. But here's one scary part I spotted (emphasis added):

Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid--I don't know if you've ever had a chance to talk to him, he's a smart guy--he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they're coming after us. As a matter of fact, they'll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.

Abizaid clearly sees this struggle--he sees the effects of victory in Iraq as having a major impact on other parts of the Middle East. He also sees the reciprocal of that, a defeat--just leaving--the only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven. And he sees it as a--he sees that as an accelerating effect to creating incredible hostility toward people that are moderate in their view. They may not necessarily be as democrat as they want, but they're moderate in their view about the future.

When I started this post, I was planning on highlighting just one phrase: "The only defeat is leaving." Yikes. By that standard, Custer didn't lose at Little Big Horn. If W can't think there's any way to lose in Iraq except by leaving, that's very bad news for Iraq, for the troops, and for us.

But then there's this little section which demonstrates Bush's encyclopedic ignorance:

If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra.

The old mantra. FDR was all the time talking about cutting and running during World War II, leaving the rest of world to suffer under German and Japanese totalitarianism, as you can readily see in this fireside chat of July 28, 1943:

The world has never seen greater devotion, determination, and self-sacrifice than have been displayed by the Russian people and their armies, under the leadership of Marshal Joseph Stalin.

With a Nation which in saving itself is thereby helping to save all the world from the Nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbor and a sincere friend in the world of the future.
...
In every country conquered by the Nazis and the Fascists, or the Japanese militarists, the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels.

It is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We have started to make good on that promise.

I am sorry if I step on the toes of those Americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy "crazy altruism" and "starry-eyed dreaming."

Of course, a few years later we felt a little differently about Uncle Joe and the commies, but our leaders still kept repeating that "old mantra" about cutting and running, leaving the people of the world to their fate. You know, commie-lovers like Joseph McCarthy, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Or Richard Nixon, who spares me the trouble of finding Kennedy and Johnson quotes:

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
...
For the United States this first defeat in our nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.

Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.

In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said we want to see a stable Government there, carrying on the struggle to maintain its national independence.

We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we're going to stay there.

President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.

For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace -- in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.

President Richard Nixon, November 3, 1969

And then there's the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, repeating that old mantra about how it's okay to leave Central America, let them suffer, so what, no threat to us:

If Central America were to fall, what would the consequences be for our position in Asia, Europe, and for alliances such as NATO? If the United States cannot respond to a threat near our own borders, why should Europeans or Asians believe that we're seriously concerned about threats to them? If the Soviets can assume that nothing short of an actual attack on the United States will provoke an American response, which ally, which friend will trust us then?
...
The national security of all the Americas is at stake in Central America. If we cannot defend ourselves there, we cannot expect to prevail elsewhere. Our credibility would collapse, our alliances would crumble, and the safety of our homeland would be put in jeopardy.

-- President Ronald Reagan, Speech to Congress, April 27, 1983

What a genius that Abizaid is, coming up with a "construct" which uses the same scare-mongering rhetoric used by every war-mongering world leader in history. And what an idiot Bush is, to believe there is anything original or brilliant about it.

Rumsfeld tells war critics to 'back off'

Funny--my response to Rummy differs from his statement by only two letters!

From Lloyd Dangle.

From Mr. Fish.

From Steve Greenberg.

From Andy Singer.

From Rex Babin.

From Brian Adcock.

Mr. Peabody:

From Jeff Stahler.

Mr. Peabrain:

From J.D. Crowe.

From Dan Wasserman.

From Pat Oliphant.

Setback

Some lowlights from dimbulb's press conference.

From the opening statement:

Over the past three years, I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of the brutal terrorist Zarqawi.

Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

Hmmm. Not finding WMD's was "not encouraging." I think that item makes clear that when he talks about these encouraging and not encouraging things, the only people really encouraged or not are him and his Repug cronies. I can see that having the main reason for his criminal war be demonstrated as a blatant lie would be discouraging to Bush and Cheney, but who else could possibly be discouraged to find out that there were fewer deadly weapons in the world than some suspected?

This month we've lost 93 servicemembers in Iraq; the most since October of 2005.

During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals.

In which groups does he include Iraqi "security personnel" and US troops?

Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

If this were remotely true, it's another convincing argument that the war should never have been fought. Iraq under Saddam was nothing like Afghanistan under the Taliban--Saddam probably would have killed Zarqawi himself in 2002 if we hadn't been enforcing the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq, effectively protecting, harboring if you will, Zarqawi there. In many ways, Saddam was an ally in the war on terror, more than the current puppet regime could possibly hope to be.

You gotta love this blame-the-victim excuse:

We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people.

Why, they couldn't open the broken valves connected to the bombed out reservoirs under heavy fire; they couldn't repair the transformers bombed by F-15's without the parts kept from them for a decade and a half. Slackers.

And can anybody say that Bush supports the troops after reading these next two sentences, which I'll remind you came from his prepared remarks?

We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing coalition forces.

Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made in the midst of an incredibly violent period.

The enemy army "melted away" in the face of coalition forces in the criminal war of choice Bush started--and he considers that to have been a "setback."

If I hadn't already seen a thousand obvious "gotcha" moments, like "bring 'em on," go a-withering, I'd be saying "game, set, and match." Reagan was the teflon pResident; this joker has titanium force shields.

Incredibly, there's much, much more--pretty much everything he says is, at best, nonsense. WIIIAI has, as usual, picked out some choice quotes, or you can just read the whole thing yourself and weep.

You choose, and I support you

(Emphasis added in all cases)

While the White House web site offers an e-mail address for comments, you can now be sure that the Decider-in-Chief doesn't read the e-mails sent there:

CNBC: Speaking of wealth, there's so much change in terms of technology on society, on business; I'm curious, have you ever Googled anybody? Do you use Google?

Pres. BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see that. I forgot the name of the program, but you get the satellite and you can--like, I kind of like to look at the ranch on Google, reminds me of where I want to be sometimes. Yeah, I do it some. I'm not a--I tend not to e-mail or--not only tend not to e-mail, I don't e-mail, because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don't want to receive e-mails because, you know, there's no telling what somebody's e-mail may--it would show up as, you know, a part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn't be able to say, `Well, I didn't read the e-mail.' 'But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn't?' So, in other words, I'm very cautious about e-mailing.

So...he doesn't use e-mail solely for CYA reasons (not as dumb as I thought, I guess), but he apparently doesn't care enough about what he says to check his "facts" using "the Google." And would he use a powerful tool like Google Earth to understand the terrain in Iraq, or the isolation of North Korea, or maybe why Katrina was such a disaster (well, he only needs a mirror for that)? Of course not! He uses it to plan his next vacation! Look out brush, here I come!

Believe me, George, we all want you to be on the ranch not just sometimes, but all of the time. Although Gitmo would be better.

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo gets right to the heart of the supposed crises in Iran and North Korea--how they affect the stock market:

CNBC: Let me turn to North Korea and Iran. It seems like the markets have discounted a threat from these countries, certainly the way that the markets are trading.

Is Maria really so stupid as to believe that war is bad for the stock market?

Later:

CNBC: Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the competitiveness of this country. A lot of people worry--Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson among them--that a lot of business is going to international economies. You're seeing an enormous amount of, relatively speaking, IPOs going to Hong Kong and London relative to the New York Stock Exchange.

Pres. BUSH: Yeah.

CNBC: Are you concerned about that, and how successful has Sarbanes-Oxley really been?

Pres. BUSH: Mm. Secretary Paulson and I have spent a lot of time talking about this issue. And on the one hand, we want to make it clear that our country will not tolerate any malfeasance through corporate executives. On the other hand, we understand that if you over-regulate, it'll drive capital elsewhere. And so Secretary Paulson and--has convened a group of leaders here in Washington--Chris Cox and others--to talk about how to achieve--you know, live within the spirit of Sarbanes-Oxley, but make sure that we don't over-regulate here in America. And--so one way you become less competitive is through over-regulation. Another way is through high taxation. Another way is through lousy education. And we've got plans to address all these issues to make sure that America's still the most competitive nation in the world.

Basically, Bush here is blaming the outsourcing of much of our economy on a bill he signed with great fanfare four years ago--one which he now apparently plans on ignoring large parts of (everything but the "spirit").

Then there's this:

CNBC: And while we haven't seen something as enormous as Enron recently, we have this new issue of fast-dating of options and companies going over the line there. How would you characterize the corporate sector with regard to fraud or the possibility of malfeasance?

Pres. BUSH: I think the word's out that this administration will come and get you if you break the law. The culture is now one of enforcement, that says, you know, we're not going to put up with it. The Justice Department is active, the FCC is active, and it's important to hold people to account, and we have been and will continue to do so.

CNBC: What about Wal-Mart? You just met with small business owners. Is Wal-Mart good for this country, or does it put small business out of business?

Pres. BUSH: I think Wal-Mart is--you know, made a significant contribution to this country in terms of affordable goods as well as employing people. I think that people are going to--you know, obviously competition is a vital part of the American society, and people shouldn't fear competition. They ought to learn how to adjust and compete.

Where's the followup, Maria? Wal-Mart has clearly and in multiple ways violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and other federal antitrust legislation, dominating and controlling both goods and labor markets on local, national and global levels. They regularly violate labor law as well. One thing they certainly don't have to fear is that "this administration will come and get you if you break the law." And expecting local shops to "compete" with Wal-Mart is like expecting the middle-school football team to have to play the Pittsburgh Steelers every week--with the referees refusing to call any penalties on the Steelers. But of course this isn't just the Bushies speaking--it's the head Bushie. And of course his answer is to blame the victims--it's not his job to enforce the law and enable small business to compete with Wal-Mart on a level playing field. It's THEIR job to "adjust and compete."

And how decisive is the decider?

Pres. BUSH: I know there's a lot of speculation about the tactics, but the--what you got to know is the meeting I had with the generals on Saturday was--the meeting went like this: "We want to win." "Yes, sir." "What are we doing to adjust to the enemy?" "And here are some options, Mr. President." And my answer is, "You choose, and I support you."

Finally, the scariest part:

CNBC: My final question, sir: What is the biggest risk to losing one of the houses of Congress in the midterm elections? Is it the role--the reversal of the tax cut plan, or weakening the war in Iraq?

Pres. BUSH: Mm. I refuse to answer that question. It's a very tricky question that you asked me. I'll answer it, but I'm going to refuse to answer it the way you expect me to. I--we're not going to lose either body. And thereason why is the economy's strong and we got a plan for victory in Iraq. The other folks will raise the taxes if the end up with power, and the other folks don't have a plan for victory in Iraq. As a matter of fact, a lot of them want to leave before the job is done. So there's a clear difference of opinion between the two political parties. And I believe that once the people get in the ballot boxes and take a hard look at the stakes, they'll decide to stay with our party.

CNBC: Mr. President, with all due respect, that doesn't have--that hasn't done anything for the polls.

Pres. BUSH: I know, but I think--my advice--you didn't ask for my advice, but I'll be glad to give you my advice--is let's watch what happens on the poll that actually matters, and that's what happens on--two weeks from tomorrow.

Think about that when you're getting in the ballot boxes. (He apparently knows as much about voting as he does about "the Google.")

The Republican Base

From Tom Toles.

This isn't Sportscenter anymore...

About twice as long as it should be, but Keith Olbermann does it again. His point about the Repug ad which features the words of bin Laden and Zawahiri being terrorism is spot on. The stuff about the bones found at Ground Zero dilutes it for me--some people care a lot more about remains than I do, I guess.

Just stick to the points--the Repugs are using Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri as their campaign spokespersons. The goal of terrorism is to spread terror, and that is exactly what the Repugs are doing. It's not just in Iraq and Afghanistan: George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in this country as well. (In that sense, I guess that anti-DeVos ad I linked to earlier compares to those 2002 ads in Georgia showing Max Cleland and Osama side by side--implying that the opposing candidate is in league with terrorists.)

Wombats know not to throw to third on a double-play ball

And other wise things.

Dems fight dirty!

Dick DeVos is a slimeball outsourcing Repug CEO of a cultish pyramid-scheme corporation. But morphing him into the latest Butcher of Baghdad seems a little unfair! I can live with that. Here's the Democrats new ad in the governor's race here in Michigan.

Did you know that Simpsons' episodes have their own Wikipedia entries?

Mr. Plow does.

Quote du jour

I find it humiliating to live in a country where Henry Kissinger can go outside without being spit on by hundreds of concerned citizens.

-- Jonathan Schwarz

From Matt Bors.

From John Deering.

From Mike Keefe.

Down the memory hole: "Stay the course"

Yesterday, Big Brother told George Snuphalopogus "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George." Today, White House spokesmodel(TM) Dan Bartlett confirmed that we've always been at war with East Asia: "Well, Hannah, it's never been a 'stay the course' strategy." Billmon and friends, like Winston Smith, think they recall dozens of times when Big Brother used that particular oldspeak phrase, but that's because Billmon and friends don't sufficiently love Big Brother.

We're at war in Iraq. We've always been at war in Iraq. It is the central front in the never-ending war on terror. It has always been the central front in the never-ending war on terror. We are not staying the course. Got it?

From Tom Toles.

Only ONE war? Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Terror, Immigrants, Sanity, the Constitution...
Only ONE corrupt government? The U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Mexico, Colombia...

I'm not sure if the usually-brilliant Toles is being forgetful, or just adding another level to the cartoon which shows Rove's deceitfulness.

From Ted Rall.

From Mr. Fish.

From Mark Streeter.

From John Darkow.

Why abandon proven failure?

Retreating from Iraq would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. Retreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain. And retreating from Iraq would embolden the terrorists, and make our country, our friends, and our allies more vulnerable to new attacks.

-- George W. Bush, radio address today

This BS is so despicable it makes Keith Olbermann want to scream. For several reasons--I'll start with the picky one first: the first and third sentences say basically the same thing. And, as with most of what he says, it is seriously deceptive if not an outright lie. For one, it is shear conjecture--staying the course was tried in 2004, and the violence and threat from terrorism (Madrid) got worse. Tried it again in 2005, more violence, more terrorism (London). Staying the course has a terrible track record, and many in the sane community believe that Iraq is already a breeding ground for terrorists (even ignoring the obvious evidence of terrorism in Iraq). Cutting and running hasn't been given a chance, and Bush is just making up crap about it to give it a bad reputation. Staying the course is a proven failure.

Of course, the second sentence above is the most despicable. Sending troops to fight an unnecessary war based on lies is the most dishonorable thing you could do to them--except perhaps for continuing to do so.

Spreading freedom abroad; destroying it at home

NY Times:

In a symbolic decision that no doubt will be scrutinized by the Kremlin leadership, Ms. Rice invited senior editors of Novaya Gazeta, a leading independent journal, to a meeting at her hotel, a session that included the son of the assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya, before she headed into official government meetings.

Earlier, Ms. Rice said that the future of a free Russian press and electronic media "is a major concern" of the United States government.

"There is still an independent print press," she said. "Unfortunately, there is not much left of independent television in Russia."

I assume this means that Condi will be meeting with Keith Olbermann before her next meeting with Bush.

To Condi and all Bushies who insist on freedom and democracy everywhere but here, hear the word of the Lord:

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

-- Luke 6:41

Of course, the problem of press freedom in Russia is more than just a "speck," but Condi just met with the son of an assassinated newspaper reporter, and still claimed that Russia has an independent print press.

Oh, and Condi? Where are OUR independent television stations?

Passing of the meme

September 30: Billmon summarizes Bush's weekly (weakly?) radio address, comparing it to FDR's famous line:

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Inaugural Address
March 4, 1933


"The only thing we have is fear."

George W. Bush
Radio Address
September 30, 2006

October 2: Detroit Free Press cartoonist Mike Thompson runs this cartoon:



October 15-21: Garry Trudeau runs a week-long Doonesbury series where "Fear Itself" is interviewed in the White House press room:



I don't know if Billmon was the inspiration for Thompson, or Thompson (or Billmon) the inspiration for Trudeau. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Back in the USSR, part whatsoever

Many bloggers have bemoaned W's signing this week of the torture bill. I figured what little chance we had to preserve the Constitution died when the bill was passed in Congress in late September; the chance that W was going to veto it was even less than the chance that he knows how many Constitutional provisions it obliterates.

The NY Times lead editorial yesterday referred to a "dangerous new order." The Times, however, claims that "The law does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents." That's not what I've heard--I've read that we're all basically rightless now. Today, Robert Parry makes it clear:

While it's true that some parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to U.S. citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with resident aliens and foreigners.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission ... may direct...
...
The law states that once a person is detained, "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever... relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

That court-stripping provision--barring "any claim or cause of action whatsoever"--would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can't file a motion with a court, he can't assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.

Simply stated, this bill repeals the entire history of constitutional and common criminal law. Every member of Congress who voted for it should be removed, Democrats included. They take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to destroy it.

Keith Olbermann gets it, although he focuses too much blame on Bush. Without his lackeys on both sides of the aisles in Congress, Bush is just a pathetic dry drunk, of little danger to anyone. With their support, he may be the most dangerous man the world has ever seen.

Worst Congress Ever

And not JUST because they haven't impeached the Worst President Ever. Matt Taibbi documents why this Congress ranks 109th out of 109. Just five easy steps:

1. RULE BY CABAL
2. WORK AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE -- AND SCREW UP WHAT LITTLE YOU DO
3. LET THE PRESIDENT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS
4. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND
5. LINE YOUR OWN POCKETS

Matt has the details.

From Mr. Fish.

The enemy within

My first job out of college was with Rocketdyne, located in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. Rocketdyne made most of the rocket engines used in America's space program, including the F-1 engines on the Saturn V rocket which launched to missions to the Moon. When I was there, the main project was the Space Shuttle Main Engine. At that time, Rocketdyne was a division of Rockwell; today it is owned by Boeing. I worked in the main factory (which included a lot of research and office facilities) in Canoga Park, near the western end of the valley. A few miles to the north, up in the hills, was Rocketdyne's rocket testing facility--the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. I only went there a few times--once to view a test of an Atlas rocket, one of the older engines Rocketdyne was still selling to NASA because the Space Shuttle was so far behind schedule. The place reminded me of the home of some James Bond villain--especially during the test!

Well, it turns out (I'm sure you'll be surprised) that Rocketdyne wasn't all that careful with the environment. In 1959, long before I got there, there was a nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana. Rocketdyne (hold on to your hat!) covered up the seriousness of the incident and its environmental effects for decades. Even now, developers continue to build homes near the site of the incident on ground which is probably contaminated. Hundreds of cases of cancer and birth defects have been reported in the area, and Rocketdyne is the main suspect.


From Steve Greenberg.

From Steve Breen.

If you want to support a charity or a cause, give them the money directly

Don't rely on "we'll share the profit" schemes. I just got an e-mail from Amnesty International, a very worthwhile organization, asking me to sign up for cellular service with "Amnesty Wireless." Amnesty Wireless turns out to be a front for Working Assets, which as I found out last year is a front for Sprint (although they've made that harder to figure out now). I've been happy with my Sprint service for years, and have tweaked my plan so I get the most of what I want for the least money. "Amnesty Wireless" offers only a limited subset of these choices (only seven phones to choose from, compared to 31 directly from Sprint, for example), meaning that I and most people would likely end up spending more than we need to.

Get your best deal on what you need, using your conscience to guide you away from the worst corporate criminals whenever possible. Send your savings to your favorite organizations. There is no reason these two activities should be directly connected, and some pretty good reasons they shouldn't. (Suppose Sprint decides to deny coverage to a "rebel" area in some country at the request of the Bush administration, something AI might oppose. Should they be burdened with the conflict of interest of having a stream of income coming from Sprint? I'd rather have AI tell me why I should switch to another company.)

I used to have an Amnesty International Visa as well, but that's probably even worse.

The Amnesty Wireless web site says that "10% of every dollar you bill is donated automatically to Amnesty International, at no extra cost to you." Sorry folks, there's ALWAYS an extra cost.

Why do you even have a table then?

Quote du jour: "We've taken nothing off the table and we've put nothing on the table." -- James Evil Baker III

So the man who played a major role in creating the mess in Iraq years ago, and who helped assure the appointment of our current pResident in 2000, has now been appointed to the "Iraq Study Group" by said pResident in order to do nothing for month after month.

"I will say one other thing -- there's no magic bullet for the situation in Iraq. It is very, very difficult," Baker said on Tuesday in a speech to the World Affairs Council of Houston.

"So anybody who thinks that somehow we're going to come up with something that is going to totally solve the problem is engaging in wishful thinking," he said.

Don't worry, evil one, I don't think anyone expected you to solve the problem, especially when your sponsors are profiting so excessively from it.

Given the track record of the likes of Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger, Baker, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, can anyone explain why we even HAVE a Secretary of State? Just a more efficient way to piss off the world? And certainly, once they're out of office, can't we PLEASE forbid them from doing any further damage? In addition to Baker's continuing damage direction (control isn't the right word), Woodward's latest book says that genocider Kissinger is still giving advice to our current crop of war criminals.

While I was sleeping...

WIIIAI was doing the onerous task of reviewing the latest nonsense from the so-called leaders of the so-called free world, George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

O'REILLY: Sixty percent of Americans are now against the Iraq War. Why?

BUSH: Because they want us to win. They believe--they are wondering whether or not we have the plans in place to win. They want to know whether or not we have the flexibility on the ground to constantly meet the enemy.

Hey Bill! Why don't you ask some of us 60 percenters instead of that idiot? We know why we oppose the war; he obviously doesn't. And Bush's explanation? There may have been some truth to it among those who have changed their opinions on the war--a year or two ago. But plans and flexibility? Those questions have long since been answered: No plans, no flexibility. Just plenty of body bags and prostheses.

Got Ignorance?

Maybe you can work in the Bush administration! Ignorance seems to be a prerequisite: see Billmon and A Tiny Revolution. As I pointed out in the comments at ATR, working with the Middle East only requires ignorance of Sunnis and Shiites, while a president has to be ignorant about EVERYTHING. In case you were wondering how this guy got the job:

Paraguay base--the Jenna has landed

Moontrek--The next generation of Bushes. Jenna is in Paraguay, where apparently Rev. Moon and Bush 41 have purchased adjacent eco-plantations on top of a huge freshwater reservoir in a spot famous for drug and arms running. What else would you expect? From Rigorous Intuition, thanks to Michelle.

From Monte Wolverton.

Gag me with a spoon

The Veep from the Deep has some fans in Kansas:

Grace Mosier lives with her mom and dad, goes to birthday parties, takes ballet classes and is just like a lot of other 6-year-old girls. Except that she happens to be obsessed with Dick Cheney.

"I really, really like him," says Grace, who can tell you what state the vice president was born in (Nebraska), where he went to grade school (College View, in Lincoln) and the names of his dogs (Dave and Jackson). She gets her fix of Cheney fun-facts by visiting the White House Web site for children. It says there that his favorite teacher was Miss Duffield and that he used to run a company called Halliburton.

Surely someone needs to reprogram Grace immediately and give her a more appropriate hero, like Barry Bonds or Paris Hilton or Osama bin Laden. Otherwise, she may grow up to be another idiot like these:

"It's just such a big thrill to see and hear this man," says Marvin Smith, a farmer and former teacher.

Mr. Smith says most people he knows feel the same way, "except for a few of those peacemakers." [Cursed are the peacemakers here in Kansas.]
...
"We love him here," Susan Wagle, a state senator, says of Mr. Cheney.
...
"There was a peacefulness and a truthfulness to this man that really caught my heart," says the congressman's wife, Anne Ryun, who is clutching a Bush-Cheney placard from the 2000 campaign that the vice president has just autographed.

Ms. Ryun had spoken briefly to Mr. Cheney and says she had told him she was praying for him. She adds that his wife, Lynne, "is the most gracious, intelligent woman I've ever known of," and that she wants to model her life after her. Recounting this, Ms. Ryun's voice goes soft, and her eyes become a little glassy.

What the Cheney IS the matter with Kansas? Can you think of anyone else who less represents peacefulness and truthfulness than Useless Dick? (With an IQ over 75 that is--I know who you're thinking of!)

The article also mentions a childhood friend of Cheney's who didn't get to talk to Cheney because he didn't contribute the $1000 required for the photo op. I wonder where six-year-old Grace got the G-note?

From Doonesbury.

Nine Paradoxes of War

Michael Schwartz spells out nine paradoxes of war, none of which the Bushies have a clue about (or else they just don't care). My favorite: Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction. I have suggested several times that the most inspired response to 9/11 would have been to do NOTHING. Whatever thrill Osama or whoever was really to blame for 9/11 got out of seeing those buildings collapse, his/their real goal was to provoke a reaction which he/they could use for their nefarious purposes. And boy were our idiot/criminals ready to provide one--they already had plans! Three thousand American deaths and $350 billion later, the hole we're in is a lot bigger than the one at Ground Zero.

Clearly unacceptable

"Clear" and "unacceptable" are aWol's two favorite words.

Your morning laughs

WIIIAI reviews the candidate statements from the California voter pamphlet, for which the candidates had to pay $20 a word.

While that $20 per word cost scared off some of the poorer campaigns, like that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, it produced a commendable pithiness from the Peace and Freedom candidate for controller: "Raise taxes on the rich; lower taxes on workers."

To be fair to the Gropenator, maybe German words cost an extra fifty euros each.

From Ann Telnaes.