Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, it said the Washington Times.

As usual, WaPo and the NYT felt compelled to look the other way.

CBS is planning an expose on how Karl Rove gave the kid the shirt to set him up.

Wonkette made a big deal out of it. And I think that the Note noted it. (Too lazy to look for the links.)

And I have a feeling that the Redbirds will win it all this year. Bravo to a great baseball town.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Setting yourself on fire is probably the single stupidest protest I've ever heard of. Its like people hanging themselves. "Hmmmm, what would be the most painful and scary way to commit suicide? I want that..."

Point of clarification. This wasn't a premeditated protest AFAIK. When two marines came to his door and informed him of his son's death, he was so immediately overcome that he grabbed a gas can, ran to a car, emptied the contents of the gas can, locked himself inside the car, and lit a match. Literally, 2 seconds of thought.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

• Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: "There is no Kerry Doctrine."

Citing the Declaration has a much nicer ring. Maybe you should audition for Holbrooke's gig.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

As someone else posted this morning, Paul Bremer told a crowd at an insurance conference in West Virginia that there were too few troops committed to Iraq, and that he had asked for more troops but had been rebuffed. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Someone later, Bremer said that he hadn't realized his comments would be reported, and that he meant only that there weren't enough troops there when Baghdad fell to stop looting. Nice try, except that his previous comments at DePauw University were similarly expansive:

• Earlier, at a student forum this afternoon in Meharry Hall, the ambassador admitted, "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout... Although I raised this issue a number of times with our government, I should have been even more insistent."

For their part, DoD officials are denying that Bremer ever asked for more troops:

• A senior Defense Department official said that Bremer never asked for more troops and expressed annoyance the ambassador appeared to be second-guessing the advice of military officials.

CNN. According to Atrios, CNN TV just ran the following:

• Officials here again say that during the time frame Paul Bremer served in Iraq he was in constant contact with the Penatgon, with the White House, he visited here several times and spokesman for Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld says the Secretary doesn't recall any point that Paul Bremer brought up with him at least the need for more troops. If it had come up, the Secretary would have paid a great deal of attention to that.

The problem with lying, though, is that it's so much work to try to keep all the stories straight. Fifteen months ago:

• The top American administrator in Iraq, confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops and dozens of U.S. officials to help speed up the restoration of order and public services.
  
  Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from L. Paul Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
  
  Bremer's request underscores how difficult it has been for his small civilian staff and some 158,000 U.S.-led troops to meet the demands of Iraqis for security and other basic needs. It also conflicts with upbeat public statements from President Bush, Rumsfeld and Bremer himself on the progress made on Iraq's political and economic reconstruction.

God forbid Kerry should fuck up Bush's steady leadership in Iraq with some flip-floppery!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

• Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: "There is no Kerry Doctrine."

Citing the Declaration has a much nicer ring. Maybe you should audition for Holbrooke's gig.

Holbrooke is, of course, right, and I failed to properly signify irony by using "scare quotes."

"Sorry."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Holbrooke is, of course, right.

William Saletan's piece in Slate on this was very good:

The Global Test
It's called reality.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 2004, at 3:49 AM PT

We've just reached the crux of the presidential campaign—the moment in which one candidate, purporting to expose the other's fatal flaw, has instead exposed his own.

Saturday morning, President Bush attacked John Kerry for a comment Kerry made in Thursday night's debate. Here's how Bush described Kerry's remark:

• He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals.

This description, which Bush continues to repeat at campaign stops and in television ads, is plainly false. In his first answer of the debate, Kerry said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." But if that isn't what Kerry meant by a "global test," what did he mean? Let's go back and look at Kerry's words.

• No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
  
  Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.

What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.

Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.

This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.

Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation.

Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts."

Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

Bush wouldn't be running on this bullshit at this point if he had better stuff to run on.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Bush wouldn't be running on this bullshit at this point if he had better stuff to run on.

But since this Global Test "bullshit" betrays Kerry's totally inept and dangerous vision for leading our country, Bush doesn't really need anything better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

A great quote from McClellan according to AP:

Bush consulted military commanders - not his hand-picked Iraq administrator - for guidance on troop levels, McClellan said, adding, "The lessons from the past, including Vietnam, are that we shouldn't try to micromanage military decisions from Washington."

Of course, the Rumsfeld doctrine of sending in a few light troops to do heavy work normally assigned to many troops was developed over the objections of the military commanders in the field, most of whom are Powell doctrine stallwarts.

But, hell, one thing that won't get in the way of this administration are the facts. I love the way they "handle" things.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But since this Global Test "bullshit" betrays Kerry's totally inept and dangerous vision for leading our country, Bush doesn't really need anything better.

There was a general bipartisan consensus about how to fight the Cold War that involved working with allies, but not giving them a veto power. This continued under Bush I and Clinton, although Clinton's wingnuts opponents increasingly subordinated what was good for the country to their hatred for him. Republicans didn't think Kerry's sort of internationalism was inept and dangerous under Republicans Presidents like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I, so I don't buy the pretense that failing to go along with Bush's new "you're with me or fuck you" unilateralism is somehow risky and untested.

Bonus points to you for calling Kerry "inept" in light of the continuing clusterfuck that the administration has made of Iraq. The story about Bremer wanting more troops really goes to the heart of it, and yet you call Kerry "inept." Nicely done.

...

did this work? Not Bob

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Bonus points to you for calling Kerry "inept" in light of the continuing clusterfuck that the administration has made of Iraq. The story about Bremer wanting more troops really goes to the heart of it, and yet you call Kerry "inept." Nicely done.

You want me to admit that Bremer was completely inept? Fine, so stimpulated.

[SlaveNoMore]

catrin_darcy
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/200...mo/index1.html

Although I cannot read the entire cartoon, I'm fairly certain - that like the rest of Salon.com - it sucks.

ETA now that Ty fixed it - yep, it sucks.

Hey, where did it go? -- t.s.

Beats me. I think SS deleted it - Slave

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You want me to admit that Bremer was completely inept? Fine, so stimpulated.

A fish rots from its head.

Or, as Niccolo Machiavelli wrote about 500 years ago:

• Those who think that every Prince who has a name for prudence owes it to the wise counsellors he has around him, and not to any merit of his own, are certainly mistaken; since it is an unerring rule and of universal application that a Prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others, unless by chance he surrender himself to be wholly governed by some one adviser who happens to be supremely prudent; in which case he may, indeed, be well advised; but not for long, since such an adviser will soon deprive him of his Government. If he listen to a multitude of advisers, the Prince who is not wise will never have consistent counsels, nor will he know of himself how to reconcile them. Each of his counsellors will study his own advantage, and the Prince will be unable to detect or correct them. Nor could it well be otherwise, for men will always grow rogues on your hands unless they find themselves under a necessity to be honest. Hence it follows that good counsels, whencesoever they come, have their origin in the prudence of the Prince, and not the prudence of the Prince in wise counsels.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Although I cannot read the entire cartoon, I'm fairly certain - that like the rest of Salon.com - it sucks.

Remember, the camera is still on your face when you're not speaking. Watch the fidgeting and the eye-rolling.

And if you request more time, have something to say.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Although I cannot read the entire cartoon, I'm fairly certain - that like the rest of Salon.com - it sucks.

ETA now that Ty fixed it - yep, it sucks.

Hey, where did it go? -- t.s.

Beats me. I think SS deleted it - Slave

I tried to fix it, and it now shows up for me. Maybe you have to watch their commercial to see it, though.