C.I. hollered "Save! Save now!" and only Mike immediately figured out what was going on. I'm posting briefly. I had a longer entry that I lost. It was "cute" the way C.I.'s computer goes down, then Rebecca's, then Betty and mine at the same time and there's a weird "click" on this computer. (I'm using a neighbor's of C.I.'s computer. I'm not sure if my laptop will reboot, we've split up to get things posted.)
"Bush Accused Of OKing Leak of Classified Info" (Democracy Now!):
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to leak a highly classified intelligence document on Iraq to the press in an effort to defend the administration's decision to go to war. This marks the first time Bush has been linked to the leaking of classified information and raises new questions if Bush was directly tied to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's grand jury testimony was cited in court papers filed by prosecutors late Wednesday. Libby was indicted in October on charges that he lied to investigators about his role in the outing of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who was a vocal critic of the war. On Sept. 30, 2003, President Bush warned against anyone in his administration leaking classified information. "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," Bush said. "There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." On Capitol Hill, Bush was widely criticized by Democrats on Thursday. This is Senator Charles Schumer of New York. "It is increasingly clear that this case goes far beyond Scooter Libby. At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role they played in allowing classified information to be leaked," said Schumer. "Did they believe they have the right to do this and if so, in what circumstances? Or is this just something that may have been done to accommodate the president's momentary political needs? According to court documents today, Scooter Libby said that the president authorized the vice president to direct him to disclose classified information to reporters in order to bolster support for the war in Iraq."
Bully Boy seems to be connected to the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. I will nutshell what I'd earlier written and note that there's nothing wrong, my opinion, with the press outing. The CIA has a long history of torture, preventing democracy in other nations and spying on American citizens. I don't weep for the CIA. Whether Valerie Plame is a "good" agent or an example of the worst of the CIA, I don't know.
The problem is that what the press has a right to do in the name of watchdog duties, the administration doesn't. If Bully Boy wants to dismantle the CIA (an idea that I would support), he should do so. (He seems more eager to rearrange it and other agencies which he hands control of to Negroponte.) He didn't do that. The outing of Plame should not have come from the administration. The executive branch should not out employees. (The CIA reports to the president.) This was an attack and, since he's not attempting to end the CIA, it was such a breach of ethics that the nation should be appalled. It was a betrayal and it was done to attack Joe Wilson. There is nothing honorable in the administration's aims or their means.
I don't know Ms. Plame and she may be a wonderful person. But I've not invested myself in what should happen to Robert Novak. He did the administration's bidding but if other reporters outed CIA agents (and I think they should), it wouldn't bother me. I was bothered that he remained silent while others were attacked as surrogates.
I do not mean Matt Cooper. Matt Cooper knew Karl Rove was naming Plame because Rove named her to him. That was a little secret that Cooper only revealed when he was afraid he'd be sitting in jail. When he realized Karl couldn't save him in jail, he suddenly spills the beans. If he'd named Karl (as he did Scooter) in 2004, the public could have known about it before the election. How do you think that could have effected the election?
Matt Cooper did write about the outing before he named Karl. He never got honest with his readers. The heads up that Rove received from a co-worker of Cooper's is also very curious and the questions should go to Matt Cooper. Rove got tipped off and that's very strange for a supposed secret that Cooper, at that point, was still maintaining he couldn't reveal.
If the press comes across the names of CIA agents, I firmly believe they should print them. I do not believe that the administration should be leaking the names. What the administration did should be punishable (and depending upon your reading of the law it is punishable). Bully Boy's publicly attacked leakers but the leaks have come from the administration.
Until those who aided in the cover up come forward with the truth, Matt Cooper among them, he may get away with it. Nixon had a set of "plumbers" but he wasn't fortunate enough to have so many in the press willing to look the other way. That's one of many areas where Bully Boy's ahead of Nixon.
"Sen. Harkin Urges Democrats To Back Censure of Bush" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa has admitted in a radio interview that he is embarrassed that more Democrats have not supported Russell Feingold's motion to censure the President for illegally ordering the NSA to conduct domestic spying.
Harkin's correct, it is shameful. As Robert Parry noted on KPFA's Living Room Friday, the Democrats need to realize that the game plan that failed them in 2002 and 2004 doesn't appear to be a winning strategy. They need to be offering bold statements, not sitting around thinking that they have a sure win due to Bully Boy's polling.
That's it for today. I did have a much longer version of this but when C.I.'s computer went down, I didn't grasp what "Save! Save now!" meant. By the time I did, my laptop was also down. I'll say that was very curious and note that, after September in DC, we did have backup plans in case similar things happened.
Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts which he thinks he had saved before the laptop he was on went down.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
This isn't finished but Blogger's about to go down
The way things are being done tonight by the "blog twins" (Mike and myself) is that we're both noting the same two items but we're each writing about only one. That's due to the fact that Mike has really strong feelings and thoughts on one and I have that on the other. We agreed on the two items to select but we both felt that one was in our area of strength so we'd blog on that one. If that's confusing, so is life.
22 Killed in Iraq Violence (Democracy Now!):
At least 22 people were killed in violence around Iraq on Tuesday. The deadliest incident came in Baghdad, when ten people were killed in a car bombing.
John Kerry had an op-ed in the New York Times today and Gary Hart was interviewed by Andrea Lewis on KPFA's The Morning Show. Both men expressed a basic premise that I do support which is we have to leave Iraq. Other than that, I had to wonder, "Are they out of touch or 'framing'?" Both have a "get tough" strategy. It works, as these things usually do, in one direction. For Kerry, we need to 'get tough' with the Iraqi government. Why haven't they formed a successful government after all this time? That's his question.
US involvement isn't noted despite the fact that the US government was very involved in every government set up since the invasion. To ignore that fact is to miss the picture. Is John Kerry not aware of that? Is he not aware that in the most recent elections, we would have been even more involved had Nancy Pelosi not objected? There is much in the column he wrote that I can support but I can't get behind the premise of the Iraqis' have 'failed' when, in fact, the Iraqis have never been in charge.
So is he 'framing'? Is this his concept of a way to sell withdrawal to the people?
I have no idea. But I can't believe he's unaware of the US government's involvement in the elections and the selection process. Is he unaware that we're pressuring the current prime minister to step down? If so, he must have missed the news coverage for the last week and a half because it's been reported and reported and reported -- even by the mainstream press.
(By the way, I enjoyed how Wally inverted the story today.)
If he is aware and this is framing, that's one reason so many of us don't care for framing. It's used as a way to sneak something over. The Nation did a cover story on young 'activists.' They weren't activists. They were liars. Not very smart liars, but liars does describe them. They bragged about how they'd sold a wage increase by not focusing on real issues but instead cloaking it in the Bible. Now, if I remember right, the vote on that comes up this month. They bragged about putting one over on their fellow students (at a religious college) two or so months ago.
That article bothered me for several reasons. First of all, there are activists on campus, real ones. They don't get a cover story. But the White, junior DLC division does. That story was so insulting to me as a regular reader of the magazine because I don't buy that publication for marketing. I buy it for ideas. I buy it for discussions of large issues. That story could have come out of a newsletter for the DLC and all they would have done was clip out the ending where Tom Hayden was briefly quoted (and noted that these 'activists' weren't activists).
So is that where we are now? We'll say anything to get the troops home?
I understand the desperation, I realize that people are dying (on all sides) every day. But Hart and Kerry struck me the wrong way today.
Hart spoke of security and how Dems needed to up their profile. He made clear that he was making observations and not endorsements in those comments. But when you're dealing with critiques, you're usually dealing with your own opinion. Anyone, for instance, expecting Ava and C.I. to sit through a T&A show and then write in praise of it at The Third Estate Sunday Review is going to be disappointed because they're writing from a feminist perspective.
He spoke of a new kind of warfare that we'd be facing in the future. I believe he noted the need to combine special ops. If he did do that, then that is advocating. I say if because it was a crazy morning. I thought I was going to miss the interview live but I had a cancellation so Sunny and I both listened to it. While we were listening, I was catching up on two journals. If I'm remembering wrong and he didn't advocate combing Delta Force, et al, my apologies and my bad.
But since he did speak of door-to-door warfare and went on to note Falluja, I don't think I'm remembering incorrectly. A caller pointed out that door-to-door involved civilians. Hart stated he wasn't endorsing it, he was just making observations. If that's true then what is the suggestion that we combine special forces? To me that's not just an observation.
The caller was very upset and I didn't blame her. I think he tossed around Falluja a little too casually. What went on there in November of 2004 and earlier in April of 2004 qualifies for war crimes. I'd grabbed coffee from the break room and when I was walking back, a caller, male, was on the phone and he didn't get to finish his comment because Gary Hart exploded at him. The caller was making the point, from what little I heard (and Sunny said I heard basically all of it) that America's motives have been imperialistic.
Gary Hart said of the caller that he was the reason for the problems Democrats had in winning races. I don't think a critique of US history and it's imperialistic aims are the reason anyone loses an election.
I also was highly offended when another caller, again male, spoke in defense of the previous caller. This caller spoke with a Latino accent and Hart asked him, "If you feel that way, why did you come to this country?" (That's a paraphrase. "Really" may have been the question as well.)
I found it offensive at the time and I still find it offensive. A female caller spoke on similar topics as the other two I've noted and she also brought up the fact that the US government has historically propped up tyrannical governments that abuse their citizens. She brought up Saudia Arabia and possibly that was the reason Hart could get behind that question.
Was Hart 'framing' in the interview? With his observations (I say opinions) of how the Democratic Party needs to be a tough party in order to win, was he framing?
To be fair to him, he included children (American) in national security and the environment. His security talk was not just war, war, war.
I'm actually interested in reading his book. (But I have a long reading list currently so I probably won't buy it until May.) He had many interesting ideas. But both he and Kerry seem to be 'framing' to me.
I don't think we get away from aggressive wars (which he is opposed to) by not addressing the roots of those wars and other wars that came before. He appeared, to me, to want to take it on a case-by-case basis. I don't see how that helps. It allows us to condemn one war of aggression; however, it allows them to continue.
It was an hour interview on a wide range of subjects and I don't want to give the impression that I disagreed with everything he said. I will be reading his book at some point. He was on the show to promote the book and he did peak my interest in it. (In the new book. Not the one on religion.)
But with both him and Kerry, two people opposed to the illegal war and speaking out against it, I felt less common ground than I would've expected. Amy Goodman interviewed him on Democracy Now! and he had stated that he learned by listening. I don't think he listened to the caller he snapped at. With Andrea Lewis, he made the point (which I agree with) that Democrats who voted for the invasion need to admit that they are wrong. He said admitting that you are wrong is one of the hardest things to do for a politician. I think he needs to admit that he handled that call poorly.
I spoke to C.I. and opened with, "I know you are busy, I'm sorry to call, but I spoke to Ruth and I think I'm writing about Hart's interview." C.I. knows Hart, C.I. likes Hart personally (and has campaigned for him). C.I. said, "Elaine, when Cedric calls worried it's one thing. But you've known me forever. If you have a problem, write about it. I'm not going to be upset." I wish I could've spoken longer on the phone but I know C.I. (and Ava and Jess) were working on immigration activism.
I will note that Andrea Lewis is all that Ruth's said and more. I understood why she enjoys Lewis' interviews so much. Many of Hart's point I could either agree with or was interested in hearing more information about them (which is why I'll be reading the book) but the above were the moments I disagreed with. C.I. asked if I'd note Ralph Nader because a number of e-mails came in on "whatever was said about Nader."
Hart believes that Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and that Nader voters are responsible for Bully Boy being in the White House.
I don't agree with that and C.I. doesn't agree with that. So consider this a joint statment from us both. (We've spoken of this many times and if I offer something that's different from C.I.'s opinion by mistake, I'll note it tomorrow. I know C.I. probably won't have time to write tonight and I know the issue probably does need addressing within the community.)
rebecca note: i'm adding links for elaine and a comment near the bottom, but i did speak to c.i. and was told there was no disagreement with the 2000 comments and 'in fact, no disagreement with anything elaine's written. it's a great entry.'
During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore could've stolen voters from Nader. To do that, he would have had to have spoken to issues. (I voted for Al Gore. As did C.I. Up until a Rolling Stone interview we were willing to listen to Nader's campaign and weigh the issues addressed. In the interview, Nader dismissed the concerns of pro-choice voters and that's when he lost any interest we might have had in his campaign.)
I can go more into my/our thoughts on the campaign if someone needs me to but Mike just called to say he didn't think he was going to be finished in time. "In time? Are we in a race tonight?" Yes, we are. A race against Blogger which goes offline for fine tuning in less than ten minutes. I wasn't aware of that. So let me just say the above about the campaign for tonight.
Now in terms of winning or losing, Al Gore won the vote. He beat the Bully Boy. In the recount phase (and there was never a full recount despite James Baker's talking points of the votes being counted and recounted), Al Gore's campaign made huge mistakes. Joe Lieberman agreeing to count all military votes regardless of whether they were filled out properly or came in on time (or had a postmark) was a huge mistake. Joe Lieberman being on the ticket was a huge mistake.
Asking Jesse Jackson to leave was a mistake. They needed demonstrations, real ones, as opposed to the phoney ones staged by people flown into Florida to stop the recount. The disenfranchisment of African-American voters was not addressed by the campaign.
Al Gore won the vote. He lost the race. The Surpreme Court bears responsibility for that but so does his campaign. Six years later and the Democratic Party still fails to grasp that Republican want to win. They're not going to play nicely. They're going to pull out all stops. They smeared John Kerry with the Not So Swift Floaties (as C.I.'s dubbed them) and Kerry could have fought back. He could have made a real issue of Osama, not just in the debates but with commercials as well. He could have made an issue (or his campaign, I should say) of any number of topics but he played it like it was a race between gentleman. Obviously, his campaign never grasped how Karl Rove operates.
Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election. Even with Nader in the campaign, he won the vote. (Nader also wasn't the big beneficiary of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach -- that was Pat Buchanan.) He lost the election because his campaign played nice and worried about how they'd look to the press. He should have fought for the race he won. He didn't. That goes to his team and to him. That has little to do with Ralph Nader and everyone needs to get over the idea that in a democracy you can ask someone (or bully them) into stepping out of a race.
I'm posting this now because I have less than 2 minutes left before Blogger goes down.
Sinn Fein Member Who Spied for British Found Dead (Democracy Now!):
In Ireland, a former Sinn Fein member who spied for the British government has been murdered. The man, Denis Donaldson, admitted last year he spied on fellow Irish nationalists. Donaldson’s murder comes as the Irish and British governments are attempting to relaunch stalled peace negotiations. Both the Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army denied involvement in the killing.
okay, me again (rebecca). i'm adding this to elaine's post, adding on thursday. elaine's talk about the 'options' being tossed around are tied into the body count item because people will always die from wars and pretending that a war is bad but that another war might be okay, isn't a critique. it's fine tuning. it's accepting that the war with iraq would be okay if we had gotten a u.n. resolution. there needs to be a serious look at the war and at how it fits into other wars. that won't come from fine tuning or from pretending like bully boy just bungled the war. the was was illegal. illegal wars will continue until we can move beyond the fine tuning nonsense.
on the 2nd item from democracy now, elaine was going to explain that she and mike had chosen the 2 items, the way they usually do, but had decided each would write about 1. for comments on the second item, see mike's 'Ireland.'
22 Killed in Iraq Violence (Democracy Now!):
At least 22 people were killed in violence around Iraq on Tuesday. The deadliest incident came in Baghdad, when ten people were killed in a car bombing.
John Kerry had an op-ed in the New York Times today and Gary Hart was interviewed by Andrea Lewis on KPFA's The Morning Show. Both men expressed a basic premise that I do support which is we have to leave Iraq. Other than that, I had to wonder, "Are they out of touch or 'framing'?" Both have a "get tough" strategy. It works, as these things usually do, in one direction. For Kerry, we need to 'get tough' with the Iraqi government. Why haven't they formed a successful government after all this time? That's his question.
US involvement isn't noted despite the fact that the US government was very involved in every government set up since the invasion. To ignore that fact is to miss the picture. Is John Kerry not aware of that? Is he not aware that in the most recent elections, we would have been even more involved had Nancy Pelosi not objected? There is much in the column he wrote that I can support but I can't get behind the premise of the Iraqis' have 'failed' when, in fact, the Iraqis have never been in charge.
So is he 'framing'? Is this his concept of a way to sell withdrawal to the people?
I have no idea. But I can't believe he's unaware of the US government's involvement in the elections and the selection process. Is he unaware that we're pressuring the current prime minister to step down? If so, he must have missed the news coverage for the last week and a half because it's been reported and reported and reported -- even by the mainstream press.
(By the way, I enjoyed how Wally inverted the story today.)
If he is aware and this is framing, that's one reason so many of us don't care for framing. It's used as a way to sneak something over. The Nation did a cover story on young 'activists.' They weren't activists. They were liars. Not very smart liars, but liars does describe them. They bragged about how they'd sold a wage increase by not focusing on real issues but instead cloaking it in the Bible. Now, if I remember right, the vote on that comes up this month. They bragged about putting one over on their fellow students (at a religious college) two or so months ago.
That article bothered me for several reasons. First of all, there are activists on campus, real ones. They don't get a cover story. But the White, junior DLC division does. That story was so insulting to me as a regular reader of the magazine because I don't buy that publication for marketing. I buy it for ideas. I buy it for discussions of large issues. That story could have come out of a newsletter for the DLC and all they would have done was clip out the ending where Tom Hayden was briefly quoted (and noted that these 'activists' weren't activists).
So is that where we are now? We'll say anything to get the troops home?
I understand the desperation, I realize that people are dying (on all sides) every day. But Hart and Kerry struck me the wrong way today.
Hart spoke of security and how Dems needed to up their profile. He made clear that he was making observations and not endorsements in those comments. But when you're dealing with critiques, you're usually dealing with your own opinion. Anyone, for instance, expecting Ava and C.I. to sit through a T&A show and then write in praise of it at The Third Estate Sunday Review is going to be disappointed because they're writing from a feminist perspective.
He spoke of a new kind of warfare that we'd be facing in the future. I believe he noted the need to combine special ops. If he did do that, then that is advocating. I say if because it was a crazy morning. I thought I was going to miss the interview live but I had a cancellation so Sunny and I both listened to it. While we were listening, I was catching up on two journals. If I'm remembering wrong and he didn't advocate combing Delta Force, et al, my apologies and my bad.
But since he did speak of door-to-door warfare and went on to note Falluja, I don't think I'm remembering incorrectly. A caller pointed out that door-to-door involved civilians. Hart stated he wasn't endorsing it, he was just making observations. If that's true then what is the suggestion that we combine special forces? To me that's not just an observation.
The caller was very upset and I didn't blame her. I think he tossed around Falluja a little too casually. What went on there in November of 2004 and earlier in April of 2004 qualifies for war crimes. I'd grabbed coffee from the break room and when I was walking back, a caller, male, was on the phone and he didn't get to finish his comment because Gary Hart exploded at him. The caller was making the point, from what little I heard (and Sunny said I heard basically all of it) that America's motives have been imperialistic.
Gary Hart said of the caller that he was the reason for the problems Democrats had in winning races. I don't think a critique of US history and it's imperialistic aims are the reason anyone loses an election.
I also was highly offended when another caller, again male, spoke in defense of the previous caller. This caller spoke with a Latino accent and Hart asked him, "If you feel that way, why did you come to this country?" (That's a paraphrase. "Really" may have been the question as well.)
I found it offensive at the time and I still find it offensive. A female caller spoke on similar topics as the other two I've noted and she also brought up the fact that the US government has historically propped up tyrannical governments that abuse their citizens. She brought up Saudia Arabia and possibly that was the reason Hart could get behind that question.
Was Hart 'framing' in the interview? With his observations (I say opinions) of how the Democratic Party needs to be a tough party in order to win, was he framing?
To be fair to him, he included children (American) in national security and the environment. His security talk was not just war, war, war.
I'm actually interested in reading his book. (But I have a long reading list currently so I probably won't buy it until May.) He had many interesting ideas. But both he and Kerry seem to be 'framing' to me.
I don't think we get away from aggressive wars (which he is opposed to) by not addressing the roots of those wars and other wars that came before. He appeared, to me, to want to take it on a case-by-case basis. I don't see how that helps. It allows us to condemn one war of aggression; however, it allows them to continue.
It was an hour interview on a wide range of subjects and I don't want to give the impression that I disagreed with everything he said. I will be reading his book at some point. He was on the show to promote the book and he did peak my interest in it. (In the new book. Not the one on religion.)
But with both him and Kerry, two people opposed to the illegal war and speaking out against it, I felt less common ground than I would've expected. Amy Goodman interviewed him on Democracy Now! and he had stated that he learned by listening. I don't think he listened to the caller he snapped at. With Andrea Lewis, he made the point (which I agree with) that Democrats who voted for the invasion need to admit that they are wrong. He said admitting that you are wrong is one of the hardest things to do for a politician. I think he needs to admit that he handled that call poorly.
I spoke to C.I. and opened with, "I know you are busy, I'm sorry to call, but I spoke to Ruth and I think I'm writing about Hart's interview." C.I. knows Hart, C.I. likes Hart personally (and has campaigned for him). C.I. said, "Elaine, when Cedric calls worried it's one thing. But you've known me forever. If you have a problem, write about it. I'm not going to be upset." I wish I could've spoken longer on the phone but I know C.I. (and Ava and Jess) were working on immigration activism.
I will note that Andrea Lewis is all that Ruth's said and more. I understood why she enjoys Lewis' interviews so much. Many of Hart's point I could either agree with or was interested in hearing more information about them (which is why I'll be reading the book) but the above were the moments I disagreed with. C.I. asked if I'd note Ralph Nader because a number of e-mails came in on "whatever was said about Nader."
Hart believes that Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and that Nader voters are responsible for Bully Boy being in the White House.
I don't agree with that and C.I. doesn't agree with that. So consider this a joint statment from us both. (We've spoken of this many times and if I offer something that's different from C.I.'s opinion by mistake, I'll note it tomorrow. I know C.I. probably won't have time to write tonight and I know the issue probably does need addressing within the community.)
rebecca note: i'm adding links for elaine and a comment near the bottom, but i did speak to c.i. and was told there was no disagreement with the 2000 comments and 'in fact, no disagreement with anything elaine's written. it's a great entry.'
During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore could've stolen voters from Nader. To do that, he would have had to have spoken to issues. (I voted for Al Gore. As did C.I. Up until a Rolling Stone interview we were willing to listen to Nader's campaign and weigh the issues addressed. In the interview, Nader dismissed the concerns of pro-choice voters and that's when he lost any interest we might have had in his campaign.)
I can go more into my/our thoughts on the campaign if someone needs me to but Mike just called to say he didn't think he was going to be finished in time. "In time? Are we in a race tonight?" Yes, we are. A race against Blogger which goes offline for fine tuning in less than ten minutes. I wasn't aware of that. So let me just say the above about the campaign for tonight.
Now in terms of winning or losing, Al Gore won the vote. He beat the Bully Boy. In the recount phase (and there was never a full recount despite James Baker's talking points of the votes being counted and recounted), Al Gore's campaign made huge mistakes. Joe Lieberman agreeing to count all military votes regardless of whether they were filled out properly or came in on time (or had a postmark) was a huge mistake. Joe Lieberman being on the ticket was a huge mistake.
Asking Jesse Jackson to leave was a mistake. They needed demonstrations, real ones, as opposed to the phoney ones staged by people flown into Florida to stop the recount. The disenfranchisment of African-American voters was not addressed by the campaign.
Al Gore won the vote. He lost the race. The Surpreme Court bears responsibility for that but so does his campaign. Six years later and the Democratic Party still fails to grasp that Republican want to win. They're not going to play nicely. They're going to pull out all stops. They smeared John Kerry with the Not So Swift Floaties (as C.I.'s dubbed them) and Kerry could have fought back. He could have made a real issue of Osama, not just in the debates but with commercials as well. He could have made an issue (or his campaign, I should say) of any number of topics but he played it like it was a race between gentleman. Obviously, his campaign never grasped how Karl Rove operates.
Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election. Even with Nader in the campaign, he won the vote. (Nader also wasn't the big beneficiary of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach -- that was Pat Buchanan.) He lost the election because his campaign played nice and worried about how they'd look to the press. He should have fought for the race he won. He didn't. That goes to his team and to him. That has little to do with Ralph Nader and everyone needs to get over the idea that in a democracy you can ask someone (or bully them) into stepping out of a race.
I'm posting this now because I have less than 2 minutes left before Blogger goes down.
Sinn Fein Member Who Spied for British Found Dead (Democracy Now!):
In Ireland, a former Sinn Fein member who spied for the British government has been murdered. The man, Denis Donaldson, admitted last year he spied on fellow Irish nationalists. Donaldson’s murder comes as the Irish and British governments are attempting to relaunch stalled peace negotiations. Both the Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army denied involvement in the killing.
okay, me again (rebecca). i'm adding this to elaine's post, adding on thursday. elaine's talk about the 'options' being tossed around are tied into the body count item because people will always die from wars and pretending that a war is bad but that another war might be okay, isn't a critique. it's fine tuning. it's accepting that the war with iraq would be okay if we had gotten a u.n. resolution. there needs to be a serious look at the war and at how it fits into other wars. that won't come from fine tuning or from pretending like bully boy just bungled the war. the was was illegal. illegal wars will continue until we can move beyond the fine tuning nonsense.
on the 2nd item from democracy now, elaine was going to explain that she and mike had chosen the 2 items, the way they usually do, but had decided each would write about 1. for comments on the second item, see mike's 'Ireland.'
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Tom DeLay and more
Thank you for kind e-mails wishing me well. I do feel better this evening. I'm sure the kind thoughts helped. Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's view on this evening's news.
"Former GOP Majority Leader Tom Delay to Resign" (Democracy Now!):
Republican Congressman Tom Delay has announced he is resigning and will give up his House seat within the next few months. The former House Majority Leader has been one of the most powerful -- and controversial -- Republicans on Capitol Hill. DeLay announced his resignation just days after a former top aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection to a lobbying scandal involving Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last November, Delay's former press secretary Michael Scanlon also plead guilty to related charges. Delay was up for his re-election but polls showed he would likely lose. Last year Delay was forced to give up his position as House Majority Leader after he was indicted on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. Federal investigators have also probed Delay's personal dealings with Abramoff. DeLay's wife worked for the lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group which had close ties to the Republican lobbyist.
Tom DeLay. What can you say? That he turned self-interest into a major cash cow? That he helped further the distrust in the government by his close relationship with lobbyists? (His heavy petting?)
C.I. phoned last night to check on me (saying, "If you hadn't answered on the first ring, I would've hung up"). We spoke of my cold and of Tom DeLay which had just started making the news. This was our consensus so equal credit to both. (I would note which was C.I.'s and which was mine, but it all blurred because I was feeling so sick.)
Tom DeLay gave the Democrats a gift. They won't take it. They don't have the strength, guts, fortitude, whatever to run with the gift.
DeLay has proclaimed he was under attack and blamed Ronnie Earl for his problems, as opposed to his own actions. His decision to step down smells of guilt. It will smell of guilt to voters.If the Dems want to take back the House, Tom DeLay is the what needs to be cited. But already Sheila Jackson Lee and Howard Dean have made noises about being non-partisan and taking the high road.
DeLay didn't get drunk at a party and embarrass himself. His problems are a direct result of what he did in his elected role. For Dems to act as thought DeLay's problem is some sort of personal issue is a mistake. His actions made him the poster boy for bad government.
I live on the east coast, far from Texas. People today were talking about Tom DeLay more than anything since a sport's scandal. Regardless of where you live or how little you pay attention to the news, you know Tom DeLay. I had no idea he was that well known, but he is. Democrats make a huge mistake by not making an issue out of DeLay's official conduct in elected office.
"Nine U.S. Troops Die in Deadliest Day of Year" (Democracy Now!):
In Iraq, the deaths of nine U.S. troops were announced on Monday making it the deadliest day of the year for the United States. 13 U.S. troops have already died this month, nearly half the number who died in all of March.
When will the press learn that Operation Happy Talk is a momentary wave that always is followed with a larger, harsher wave of reality?
The chaos and violence never stopped. But there was an attempt over the weekend to speak of fatalities being down -- with little effort to note that today's wounded suffer serious problems or to note how high the figures were for the wounded.
To me, the latest wave of happy talk read as though the message was: "Less Americans being killed, so quit worrying." That was a false reading on the status for American troops; however, it was also offensive since violence and chaos is always reality for Iraqis living in the "liberated" Iraq.
Rebecca called this evening. She and I were both mentioned by C.I. today. I hadn't read the piece that bothered C.I. so Rebecca read it to me. I have no idea what that woman was attempting. It appeared she was channeling Democrats in Congress who have lost the spine to fight. As the woman listed "sensible ideas" regarding abortion, I seriously questioned her committment to abortion rights. I found her column offensive and destructive. Did she express her feelings or those of the Democratic Party?
If she was being a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, let me be clear that I avoid reading cheerleading magazines for Democrats. There are a number of those. Some of them were behind Joe Lieberman in 2004 (for the Dem nomination for president). If you're giving up your independence, you really aren't much of a reporter.
Maybe the woman wasn't? If so, she needs to set out of her hermatically sealed world because the rights she's willing to give away, the 'protectionist' measures she's supporting, are not items I can agree with.
I think it's really sad that a woman who says she's pro-choice would write something like that. It's pro-choice in the same way that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat -- in name only.
"Former GOP Majority Leader Tom Delay to Resign" (Democracy Now!):
Republican Congressman Tom Delay has announced he is resigning and will give up his House seat within the next few months. The former House Majority Leader has been one of the most powerful -- and controversial -- Republicans on Capitol Hill. DeLay announced his resignation just days after a former top aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection to a lobbying scandal involving Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last November, Delay's former press secretary Michael Scanlon also plead guilty to related charges. Delay was up for his re-election but polls showed he would likely lose. Last year Delay was forced to give up his position as House Majority Leader after he was indicted on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. Federal investigators have also probed Delay's personal dealings with Abramoff. DeLay's wife worked for the lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group which had close ties to the Republican lobbyist.
Tom DeLay. What can you say? That he turned self-interest into a major cash cow? That he helped further the distrust in the government by his close relationship with lobbyists? (His heavy petting?)
C.I. phoned last night to check on me (saying, "If you hadn't answered on the first ring, I would've hung up"). We spoke of my cold and of Tom DeLay which had just started making the news. This was our consensus so equal credit to both. (I would note which was C.I.'s and which was mine, but it all blurred because I was feeling so sick.)
Tom DeLay gave the Democrats a gift. They won't take it. They don't have the strength, guts, fortitude, whatever to run with the gift.
DeLay has proclaimed he was under attack and blamed Ronnie Earl for his problems, as opposed to his own actions. His decision to step down smells of guilt. It will smell of guilt to voters.If the Dems want to take back the House, Tom DeLay is the what needs to be cited. But already Sheila Jackson Lee and Howard Dean have made noises about being non-partisan and taking the high road.
DeLay didn't get drunk at a party and embarrass himself. His problems are a direct result of what he did in his elected role. For Dems to act as thought DeLay's problem is some sort of personal issue is a mistake. His actions made him the poster boy for bad government.
I live on the east coast, far from Texas. People today were talking about Tom DeLay more than anything since a sport's scandal. Regardless of where you live or how little you pay attention to the news, you know Tom DeLay. I had no idea he was that well known, but he is. Democrats make a huge mistake by not making an issue out of DeLay's official conduct in elected office.
"Nine U.S. Troops Die in Deadliest Day of Year" (Democracy Now!):
In Iraq, the deaths of nine U.S. troops were announced on Monday making it the deadliest day of the year for the United States. 13 U.S. troops have already died this month, nearly half the number who died in all of March.
When will the press learn that Operation Happy Talk is a momentary wave that always is followed with a larger, harsher wave of reality?
The chaos and violence never stopped. But there was an attempt over the weekend to speak of fatalities being down -- with little effort to note that today's wounded suffer serious problems or to note how high the figures were for the wounded.
To me, the latest wave of happy talk read as though the message was: "Less Americans being killed, so quit worrying." That was a false reading on the status for American troops; however, it was also offensive since violence and chaos is always reality for Iraqis living in the "liberated" Iraq.
Rebecca called this evening. She and I were both mentioned by C.I. today. I hadn't read the piece that bothered C.I. so Rebecca read it to me. I have no idea what that woman was attempting. It appeared she was channeling Democrats in Congress who have lost the spine to fight. As the woman listed "sensible ideas" regarding abortion, I seriously questioned her committment to abortion rights. I found her column offensive and destructive. Did she express her feelings or those of the Democratic Party?
If she was being a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, let me be clear that I avoid reading cheerleading magazines for Democrats. There are a number of those. Some of them were behind Joe Lieberman in 2004 (for the Dem nomination for president). If you're giving up your independence, you really aren't much of a reporter.
Maybe the woman wasn't? If so, she needs to set out of her hermatically sealed world because the rights she's willing to give away, the 'protectionist' measures she's supporting, are not items I can agree with.
I think it's really sad that a woman who says she's pro-choice would write something like that. It's pro-choice in the same way that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat -- in name only.
Monday, April 03, 2006
The Bionic Cold
Warning: yawns ahead. If you yawn, don't feel bad. I'm yawning on my end. I can't believe now that winter's almost over, I've caught a winter cold.
I know a number of people consider it spring the minute daylight savings kicks in. The official first day of spring is either March 20th or 21st. But where I live, you learn not to get excited until after Easter. There can still be a rough cold spell before Easter so I don't get excited about the arrival of spring until after Easter.
I read what Rebecca wrote tonight and I'll comment on that because I'm not sure how much of a "news brain" I have tonight. On movies, I don't just watch foreign films and documentaries. The last movie I wanted to see was Monster-In-Law (which I enjoyed). But most of the things don't seem to interest me. Kill Bill wasn't my type of movie. V is something I might see because of the look the film has. But Kill Bill struck me as a film that had a washed out look to it (except in the snow scene) and really played like a bad TV movie from the 70s. I saw that because it was an "empowerment" movie. I didn't see that in it. I saw a lot of women playing shoot-em-up and other nonsense. It was like a slasher film.
It just wasn't my type of movie. I'd hoped there would be more to it and was very disappointed. After that I wasn't keen on seeing a movie again until it was time for Jane Fonda's return to acting. I saw movies between then because I will go see things with friends and on dates, but that gives you an idea of how often I really want to see a movie.
I do see documentaries. Usually on some subject that interests me. But I'm always up for a documentary.
Miss Congeniality was not my DVD. I laughed at the film but felt like I was watching a 2 part episode of The Bionic Woman. In fact, I think I was. Only when Lindsey Wagner was competing in the beauty contest, she sang a song.
Well it's good to feel alive in the moring
To feel the sunshine warming up your face now
And I can hear the cannonball
Coming down the tracks now
And I'm so glad that I'm living in the country.
I think that's how the song went.
If I see a TV show or a movie, the song usually sticks in my head for years.
I'll talk about The Bionic Woman and then go over the news. (Yes, I'm padding this out with TV talk.) I really did enjoy that show. First of all, Jamie Sommers wasn't your standard TV hero of that time. She wasn't killing people the way Steve Austin often did on The Six Million Dollar Man. Second, she lived in a converted barn that made you think, "Converted barn? Might be the way to go." (Like most things on TV, it was stylish.) Third, Jamie had a sense of humor. Fourth, there were moments of reality.
For younger readers, Jamie was a tennis player who had an accident (parachute accident). She was thought dead because she was supposed to be dead. The character was brought on The Six Million Dollar Man just for the story of Steve loves Jamie, Jamie dies. But viewers really liked Jamie so they later brought her back and said that instead of dying, she'd gotten bionic parts. She had bionic legs (like Steve), a bionic arm (ditto) and a bionic ear. She also had no memory of key events when she came back.
If I remember right, there was a story where Jamie's body was rejecting the bionic parts. I know I remember an episode, last year of the show, I believe, where Jamie was called a "freak" by a kid. This was during some upheaval and Jamie ended up thinking the kid was right and hitting the road.
I am probably doing a poor job conveying the show to anyone who hasn't ever seen it. That can only partly be pinned on the fact that I'm sick. It's also due to the fact that it's not a show, I think anyway, that you can describe easily. It had a number of levels to it.
"Gen. Zinni: Rumsfeld Should Resign" (Democracy Now!):
Here in this country, calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign are increasing. On Sunday, Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, accused Rumsfeld of committing a "series of disastrous mistakes" in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld looks like the sort of man who'd play a villain on The Bionic Woman. He'd have access to classified plans and be attempting to pass them on to the Fem-Bots or something.
He just has that evil look about him. So Andrew Card was sent packing last week (and replaced with Josh Bolton). Is Rumsfeld next on the clean sweep? I don't think so. I don't think the Bully Boy would fire him. Not just because he was carrying out Bully Boy's orders but also because the Bully Boy responds to pressure by digging his feet in.
With all of the screw ups that have gone on, Ronald Reagan would have already found ten fall guys. Bully Boy appears to have so much disdain for the public that he doesn't even feel the need to go through the motions to find a fall guy.
"Condoleezza Rice: U.S. Made Thousands of Mistakes in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq. She made the admission on Friday during a meeting in Britain. "I know that we made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure,"Rice said. "This could have gone that way or that could have gone that way, but when you look back in history what will be judged is did you make the right strategic decisions and if you spend all your time trying to judge this tactical issue or that tactical issue I think you miss the larger sweep."
Screw ups? Condi admitted to some and then quickly minimized them with her ahistorical lens. The "larger sweep" is that an illegal invasion was sold on lies and then an illegal occupation followed. I have no idea what history book Condi Rice thinks is going to be written but she appears to be suffering from denial if she thinks the lies are just a "tactical issue." Between her involvement in that and her poor job as head of the NSC, she will not be remembered as someone who did her job even adequately.
For history to look fondly on what the administration has done will require a lot of revisionism. Far more likely is her being remembered as The Moronic Woman. (I'm tired and sneezing, call it a theme.)
Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts which, I'm sure, are more coherent than my own. Also please read C.I.'s "And the war drags on ...(Indymedia Roundup)."
I know a number of people consider it spring the minute daylight savings kicks in. The official first day of spring is either March 20th or 21st. But where I live, you learn not to get excited until after Easter. There can still be a rough cold spell before Easter so I don't get excited about the arrival of spring until after Easter.
I read what Rebecca wrote tonight and I'll comment on that because I'm not sure how much of a "news brain" I have tonight. On movies, I don't just watch foreign films and documentaries. The last movie I wanted to see was Monster-In-Law (which I enjoyed). But most of the things don't seem to interest me. Kill Bill wasn't my type of movie. V is something I might see because of the look the film has. But Kill Bill struck me as a film that had a washed out look to it (except in the snow scene) and really played like a bad TV movie from the 70s. I saw that because it was an "empowerment" movie. I didn't see that in it. I saw a lot of women playing shoot-em-up and other nonsense. It was like a slasher film.
It just wasn't my type of movie. I'd hoped there would be more to it and was very disappointed. After that I wasn't keen on seeing a movie again until it was time for Jane Fonda's return to acting. I saw movies between then because I will go see things with friends and on dates, but that gives you an idea of how often I really want to see a movie.
I do see documentaries. Usually on some subject that interests me. But I'm always up for a documentary.
Miss Congeniality was not my DVD. I laughed at the film but felt like I was watching a 2 part episode of The Bionic Woman. In fact, I think I was. Only when Lindsey Wagner was competing in the beauty contest, she sang a song.
Well it's good to feel alive in the moring
To feel the sunshine warming up your face now
And I can hear the cannonball
Coming down the tracks now
And I'm so glad that I'm living in the country.
I think that's how the song went.
If I see a TV show or a movie, the song usually sticks in my head for years.
I'll talk about The Bionic Woman and then go over the news. (Yes, I'm padding this out with TV talk.) I really did enjoy that show. First of all, Jamie Sommers wasn't your standard TV hero of that time. She wasn't killing people the way Steve Austin often did on The Six Million Dollar Man. Second, she lived in a converted barn that made you think, "Converted barn? Might be the way to go." (Like most things on TV, it was stylish.) Third, Jamie had a sense of humor. Fourth, there were moments of reality.
For younger readers, Jamie was a tennis player who had an accident (parachute accident). She was thought dead because she was supposed to be dead. The character was brought on The Six Million Dollar Man just for the story of Steve loves Jamie, Jamie dies. But viewers really liked Jamie so they later brought her back and said that instead of dying, she'd gotten bionic parts. She had bionic legs (like Steve), a bionic arm (ditto) and a bionic ear. She also had no memory of key events when she came back.
If I remember right, there was a story where Jamie's body was rejecting the bionic parts. I know I remember an episode, last year of the show, I believe, where Jamie was called a "freak" by a kid. This was during some upheaval and Jamie ended up thinking the kid was right and hitting the road.
I am probably doing a poor job conveying the show to anyone who hasn't ever seen it. That can only partly be pinned on the fact that I'm sick. It's also due to the fact that it's not a show, I think anyway, that you can describe easily. It had a number of levels to it.
"Gen. Zinni: Rumsfeld Should Resign" (Democracy Now!):
Here in this country, calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign are increasing. On Sunday, Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, accused Rumsfeld of committing a "series of disastrous mistakes" in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld looks like the sort of man who'd play a villain on The Bionic Woman. He'd have access to classified plans and be attempting to pass them on to the Fem-Bots or something.
He just has that evil look about him. So Andrew Card was sent packing last week (and replaced with Josh Bolton). Is Rumsfeld next on the clean sweep? I don't think so. I don't think the Bully Boy would fire him. Not just because he was carrying out Bully Boy's orders but also because the Bully Boy responds to pressure by digging his feet in.
With all of the screw ups that have gone on, Ronald Reagan would have already found ten fall guys. Bully Boy appears to have so much disdain for the public that he doesn't even feel the need to go through the motions to find a fall guy.
"Condoleezza Rice: U.S. Made Thousands of Mistakes in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq. She made the admission on Friday during a meeting in Britain. "I know that we made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure,"Rice said. "This could have gone that way or that could have gone that way, but when you look back in history what will be judged is did you make the right strategic decisions and if you spend all your time trying to judge this tactical issue or that tactical issue I think you miss the larger sweep."
Screw ups? Condi admitted to some and then quickly minimized them with her ahistorical lens. The "larger sweep" is that an illegal invasion was sold on lies and then an illegal occupation followed. I have no idea what history book Condi Rice thinks is going to be written but she appears to be suffering from denial if she thinks the lies are just a "tactical issue." Between her involvement in that and her poor job as head of the NSC, she will not be remembered as someone who did her job even adequately.
For history to look fondly on what the administration has done will require a lot of revisionism. Far more likely is her being remembered as The Moronic Woman. (I'm tired and sneezing, call it a theme.)
Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts which, I'm sure, are more coherent than my own. Also please read C.I.'s "And the war drags on ...(Indymedia Roundup)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)