September 2004 Archives

Dan Kennedy catches conservative columnist Mark Steyn making up a Dan Rather quote in the middle of a column condemning Rather for fraud.

Josh Marshall wonders if the Onion's editors have taken over the Bush-Cheney 2004 communications office after seeing the president and Charles Krauthammer criticize John Kerry for not being respectful of our traditional allies.

Right. Okay. That shameless attack, however, is not really enough to make me forget that President Bush has proven an expert at showing our allies no respect.

Speaking of Krauthammer, in his column today he once again recites the canard that Spanish voters earlier this year tossed out a pro-Bush government because of a terrorist attack. He writes:

Everyone knows about the train bombings in Madrid that succeeded in bringing down a pro-American government and led to Spain's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

It was not the terrorist attack that brought down the Spanish government. It was the government's lies about the terror attack -- including its lame attempt to blame it on domestic terrorists -- that lead to the voter's decision to go a different direction.

I think the neoconservatives have revised history quite enough. We should stop them from trying to change the perceptions of what happened in Spain just six months ago.

Perhaps John Kerry was just holding this punch for the right time. Regardless, it is important for this case to be made. The Washington Post's Lois Romano reports on Kerry's speech in Philadelphia on Friday:

"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda," Kerry said. "The president's misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement . . . all make the war on terror harder to win. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority."

The Democratic nominee promised to destroy terrorist networks by going after their arms and financing; to revamp and enhance the intelligence apparatus to ferret them out; to build up an overstretched military by 40,000 troops; to support Middle Eastern democracies; and to increase funding for homeland security and for more intense cargo inspections at ports and other points of entry.

This image is a map prepared by the U.S. State Department of the countries in which Al Qaeda had operated as of November 10, 2001.

Check out Iraq. Funny how it isn't colored in -- meaning that Al Qaeda had not operated there.

Perhaps someone would like to ask the President about this inconsistency between the record and his rhetoric.

Oops. Sorry. That might lead to charges that the reporter is biased. So, perhaps the Kerry campaign could make an issue of it?

(Hat tip: Political Animal.)

Update: I edited the second paragraph to fix a typo that was poitned out by JJ in the comments.

Perhaps this issue should be a big one during this election season? The New York Times' Thom Shanker reports:

A Pentagon-appointed panel of outside experts has concluded in a new study that the American military does not have sufficient forces to sustain current and anticipated stability operations, like the festering conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other missions that might arise.

Some may say this airline security report shows improvement. But it still looks like an unacceptable situation to me:

Covert government tests last November showed that screeners were still missing some knives, guns and explosives carried through airport checkpoints, and the reasons involve equipment, training, procedures and management, according to a report by the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department.

President Bush yesterday once again invoked Abu Musab Zarqawi's terrorist activities as a justification for removing Saddam Hussein from office.

Then, Mr. President, can you explain why your administration reportedly refused to attack Zarqawi when it had opportunities to do so before the War with Iraq?

Perhaps someone could ask this question? Or perhaps Senator Kerry could raise the issue during one of the upcoming presidential debates?

So, we have record deficits, and a national debt over $7.35 trillion.

The best action under these circumstances? Why, of course! Another tax cut that isn't offset with other tax increases, tax loophole closures, or spending cuts. Brilliant! The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reports:

The House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted last night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class, along with an array of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that would be his fourth in four years.

But the tax cut would exacerbate a budget deficit that will probably have to be addressed in the next presidential term, no matter who is in the Oval Office. Some Democrats and moderate Republicans argued this summer that the extensions should be financed with spending cuts or tax-loophole closures, but that stand withered with the approaching election. The tax cut passed the House 339 to 65 last night. It then passed the Senate 92 to 3, with only retiring Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) and budget hawks Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) opposed. (emphasis added)

Pathetic. Just freaking pathetic.

Matt Miller opens his latest excellent column:

My biggest fear about John Kerry's prospects - that is, apart from the general dread most Democrats have been feeling until this week - has come from imagining a particular moment in the debates. It is the moment when George Bush or Jim Lehrer turns to Kerry and says: "I still don't get where you are on this, Senator - do you think it was a good idea to take out Saddam Hussein?"

My fear has been that in the 30 to 60 seconds that follow this question Kerry would blow the election. He'd offer some convoluted reprise of his many utterances on the issue that would baffle anyone watching. He'd leave the field clear for Bush to say that whether or not you agree with him or not, these times demand steady leadership that knows its own mind and can chart a course despite difficulties.

I've had this fear because until this week I haven't had a clue how Kerry would actually answer this question. And I've feared that Kerry would prove too undisciplined to make any answer short and compelling.

But now I'm suddenly feeling optimistic.

If Kerry can make this stick, then optimism is appropriate.

William Safire is very, very angry about the discredited Texas Air National Guard documents at the center of the CBS news controversy. He's even quoting from U.S. criminal code!

Dan Kennedy, however, makes a reasonable observation: given Safire's outrage over this "dirty trick," he must have written about the outing of Valerie Plame or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Lies.

Right?

Um, not so much. Writes Kennedy:

Now let's see ... any mention of the fact that identifying Plame, an undercover CIA employee, may have been a federal crime, and that the "senior administration officials" who leaked her name to Novak might be eligible for shackles and leg irons? Or that some of Safire's fellow journalists have been threatened with prison if they don't tell a special prosecutor who those "senior administration officials" are? In a word: no.

Even more hilarious is that the only time Safire has used the words "Kerry" and "swift" together during the past year was this past Sunday, in his "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine. Never mind that, for weeks, Kerry was hammered by smears put forth by the lying Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, funded and supported by some of the same Texas Republicans who support George W. Bush. What was interesting to Safire was where the term "Swift boat" came from..."

The closer to the election we get, the less subtle the conservative message machine becomes.

E.J. Dionne wonders what President Bush is hiding about his National Guard service:

But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.

Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of 2004. It would require only that the president take an hour or so with reporters to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard. He may have had good reasons for ducking that physical exam. Surely he can explain the gaps in his service and tell us honestly whether any pull was used to get him into the Guard.

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

Somehow the obsession with the background of the president ended on January 20, 2001. It is hard to imagine why Republicans, who had become experts in forensic biography over the previous eight years, would suddenly give up the use of their skills on that date.

Oh yeah. Mr. Era of Personal Responsibility became president. Not that we can expect Mr. Bush to live up to that convenient campaign slogan anytime soon.

CNN's Bill Schneider highlighted his membership in the so-called liberal media on Saturday when he guaranteed that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden want to see President George W. Bush defeated in this election.

The liberal media, helping George W. Bush win elections since 2000.

The Modulator points out that Dave Silfry has started compiling a list showing "...where blogging had a significant effect on political events...".

The House Ethics Committee's leadership has placed the allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) on the agenda for a future full committee hearing.

So, really, what are the chances that this won't come out a 5-5 vote and that the Republicans will successfully run out the clock on this year's legislative session? Yeah...pretty tiny.

I remember when the Republicans found any excuse to investigate our leaders. Funny how that changed on January 20, 2001.

The Rocky Mountain News' Dick Foster provides another example of the Bush Administration's odd way of supporting our troops:

Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Actually, I don't have to give the Bushies credit. This is just another example of how their failures impact people -- and why they need to lose this election this November.

As Eric Alterman reminds us, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski has reported that "the Bush administration repeatedly rejected Pentagon plans to neutralize Zarqawi in 2002 and 2003 before the war."

Given the problems Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terrorists are causing today in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if someone asked the Bushies about this once in a while? Or if a certain Democratic nominee for President of the United States made this failure in fight against terrorists a daily issue?

The Bush Administration's war on dissent continues, as the Associated Press reports:

A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by first lady Laura Bush.

Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.

As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Local police escorted her from the event, handcuffed her and put her in the back of a police van.

Actually, this description does not do the actual arrest justice. As those of you who watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann saw, the police officers arrested her as she was being interviewed by reporters. Despite requests by Ms. Niederer and several reporters, the arresting officers would not say what the charge was against her.

Such is the United States of America in September 2004.

Is arresting the mother of a dead serviceman for having the gall to question this administration about why her son is dead really the kind of event we want in this land of the free and home of the brave?

Over on TAPPED, Sam Rosenfeld wonders why we tolerate the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who avoided serving in Vietnam) making jokes about Sen. John McCain's time as a prisoner of war.

No shame. They have no shame.

Over at The Rant, Rick DeMent highlights an article about peak oil in the Wall Street Journal. As Rick quotes the article:

A respected oil-forecasting group predicted that the energy industry may be unable to produce enough oil to meet projected demand by the end of the next decade, in a study that lends support to a small chorus of analysts who warn that a peak in petroleum output is looming in the years ahead.

In a presentation yesterday, analysts from Washington-based PFC Energy warned that the world won't be able to produce more than 100 million barrels of oil a day, only some 20% more than current output of about 82 million barrels a day, and well below demand projections for the end of the next decade.

Preparing to shift away from fossil fuels would have great benefits for our economy, national security, and environment regardless of how much longer we can enjoy cheap oil.

So, you might think that this could be an issue in the presidential campaign now underway. Hah! As Rick notes, the chances of our dealing with this issue before a crisis hits are quite small.

Which is shameful. But, as with the national debt and long-term federal budget matters (for example), it is nothing new.

Josh Marshall points out an interesting coincidence:

Coincidences are the strangest things ...

AP: 'U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000 mark' ... 4:27 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

AP: 'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election' ... 4:40 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

Brad DeLong reposts some of the media stories about the Bush Administration's February 2004 employment promises and asks an important question (again):

And I am still amazed that none of these reporters has asked George W. Bush or his aides the following question: "What has gone wrong with the economy to leave us with an employment level 1.7 million below what you projected last February that it would be by now?"

Vice President Dick Cheney once again crossed a line today, when he basically equated a choice in a democratic election to support for terrorists. From ABC News:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

Vice President Dick Cheney has no sense of decency. He has shown repeated contempt for the democratic process.

It is time for him -- and his nominal boss -- to go.

Oh...by the way, Mr. Vice President. How goes that capturing of Osama bin Laden?

That's what I thought. You pathetic fraud.

Catching up on some of my blog reading, I saw this post by Digby highlighting statements by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

Digby links to this Boston Globe story by Sarah Schweitzer:

NEW YORK -- White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said yesterday that President Bush views America as a ''10-year-old child" in need of the sort of protection provided by a parent.

Card's remark, criticized later by Democrat John F. Kerry's campaign as ''condescending," came in a speech to Republican delegates from Maine and Massachusetts that was threaded with references to Bush's role as protector of the country. Republicans have sounded that theme repeatedly at the GOP convention as they discuss the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.

''It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," Card said. ''I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children."

Yes, as a parent would sacrifice much for my children. No doubt. But, Mr. Card, could you enlighten this nation of 10-year-olds with one example of what President George W. Bush has sacrificed? What he hasn't had handed to him -- including the GOP presidential nomination -- on a silver platter?

This is what they think of us, America. Do you really want to give them four more years?

The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and David M. Halbfinger write about the increasing influence in John Kerry's campaign of aides to former President Clinton. Clinton and Kerry had a long conversation about the campaign this past weekend, while Clinton prepares for heart bypass surgery.

Scrolling down the article, one sees why such intervention may be a good idea. Apparently, some in the Kerry camp believe they responded quickly to the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Lies:

"We talked about this last year, the fact that Republicans would come after his service and the idea that they would come after what he did when he got home," said one midlevel Kerry adviser who is not part of the Clinton camp. "The idea that we got caught flat-footed is just crazy."

Mr. Shrum, in an interview yesterday, called such second-guessing "ridiculous," saying, "We responded within six or seven days.

"I was strongly in favor of responding to the Swift boats when we did or around when we did, and so was Mary Beth," Mr. Shrum said, referring to Ms. Cahill and the advertisements by the Vietnam veterans critical of Mr. Kerry. (emphasis added)

Maybe in a time before cable news networks, the internet, and the conservative talk radio machine.

Now? That is horrifically slow. Worse, as Nagourney and Halbfinger note, Kerry did not respond personally to the claims for 15 days.

Waiting a couple days to see how the media would respond to the Swift Boat Veterans' ad buy would have been prudent. After all, why create a story with a response?

But it was clear almost immediately that our media was going to irresponsibly focus on the accusations and fabrications against Kerry. Once that fact was clear, a forceful response was needed.

Not after six or seven (or 15) days. By the time, the damage in the polls was done.

President George W. Bush's efforts to shift taxes onto our children and grandchildren continued last month, as the national debt increased to $7,350,950,234,630.15 as of August 31.

The national debt increased by $34.383 billion in the month of August. The red ink being passed on to future generations has increased by $1.623 trillion since George W. Bush became president.

Is the New York Police Department trying to locate and arrest the young Republican delegate who was caught on television kicking a protestor in the head?

(Thanks to TalkLeft for the link.)

Over on Altercation, Charles Pierce wonders about a surprising omission from the Republican National Convention: a tribute to those who made the impeachment of President Clinton possible.

Where's the 15-minute package honoring these selfless solons, some of whom got the boot shortly thereafter? Where's the stirring music, the NFL Films narration? Where's the appreciation from the Republican Party for what these courageous men of honor did? They fearlessly dragged out what Thomas Jefferson -- a Democrat, and wouldn't you know it? -- famously called a "scarecrow," and they used it on behalf of the laws to which we all must be subject.

Where's the movie, y'all?

A couple of more conventions without one, and I might think the whole impeachment thing was a prolonged dirty-trick aimed at hamstringing a moderate Democratic president that you couldn't beat at the polls, and rammed through because of some aggravated nutbaggery from the extremists in the House of Representatives. This would be very disappointing to me, and to Thomas More, I'm sure. (emphasis added)

We could also wonder about what happened to the House Republicans' love for executive-branch investigations and demands for executive branch truthfulness after January 20, 2001.

But that would be cynical.

NBC News' Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem report:

As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.

Slate's William Saletan has written an excellent article about last night's Republican National Convention speeches by Sen. Zell Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney.

But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

Keith Olbermann does his usual excellent job of commenting and providing context of the events that led to Sen. Zell Miller's challenging MSNBC's Chris Matthews to a duel during their interview last night.

Seven hours later, Senator Zell Miller goes all Aaron Burr on him and fantasizes about challenging him to a duel.

Here’s a man who in a historical-blink-of-an-eye ago was calling John Kerry a hero and swearing the Republicans had ‘sold the country out,’ fresh off a fear-mongering speech that made his '92 keynote for Bill Clinton sound like a schoolmarm talking to a bankruptcy referee, and Miller gets mad at Matthews?

The gist of the message from the Democrat and/or Republican was: vote for John Kerry and America will be attacked. And when it’s attacked, it’ll be defended with “spitballs.”

So Chris asked him if he really meant that.

“It’s a metaphor,” Miller replied. “Do you know what a metaphor is?”

Umm, Senator? That’s why he asked. Did you really mean that metaphor? Wasn’t that metaphor over-the-top? Isn’t it predicated on a half-idea: that John Kerry tried to dismantle weapons programs (the ones Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had asked the Senate to dismantle)?

Of course, Senator Miller can’t answer those questions. He's a one-man political revolving door trying to lead the criticism of a flip-flopper. So all of a sudden he’s slapping a white glove, throwing down the gauntlet, and checking the newspaper for the exact hour of sunrise. Senator— you have the first choice of spitballs.

On last week's NOW program on PBS, analyst Kevin Phillips told David Brancaccio the following during a conversation about big money's influence on our political process:

Well, the reason why the two Americas thing is interesting is because you also have two Americas in terms of campaign contribution. You have the Democrats who take from the people with the money and the Republicans who take from the people with the money. And they're two Americas that are taking from the same slice of upper bracket America.

And the Democrats don't want to articulate a lot of these things. Okay, you can talk about them loosely but big contributors won't blame you too much. But here you've got a Pat Buchanan talking.

And I've written books about this. Ross Perot attacked on this issue. John McCain, we all come from Republican backgrounds. Where were the Democrats who were willing to buck the people the fund roll all these fat cat parties? Because I can name Republicans who are. Where are the big name Democrats who are going to tell the American people what's being done to them candidly. (emphasis added)

Why are Democrats not leading the charge for real campaign finance reforms -- like public campaign financing? Why are Democrats accepting the status quo?