Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
It is only a matter of time before terrorists get ahold of a nuclear weapon. Good thing we are making progress in stabilizing the middle east by bringing democracy to Iraq. But we need to start making progress on an effective missle defense system, too.

[confidential to Hello]See all the good work all those petro dollars you send Iran's way are doing?[/confidential to Hello]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0617/p08s02-comv.html

FWIW - I'm expecting a really large and generous donation from you to the lawtalkers site - by the end of the month - in appreciation for all the bandwith you use.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Not to pick on any particular poster, but holy shit, does this article remind anyone of anyone? I mean, we all have our specialties in religion, public safety, Gilligan's reruns, useless sports trivia, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. But who knew there was a name for you people?

From today's New York Times (from a fairly interesting article):

---Asperger's syndrome. The disorder is also called "the little professor syndrome." ---

(1) This was already discussed on the FB. When you're thinking of insulting someone on the PB, chances are it's been done before and better on the FB. (NB: I am not a service partner.)

(2) "Little professor syndrome" seems more a propos to the genital warts that the English faculty at my college seemed magically to give each other via undergraduate hippy chicks. And this was before Viagra --- it must be at epidemic levels now.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When you're thinking of insulting someone on the PB, chances are it's been done before and better on the FB.

Thank you. I'll be sure to use your clever Assberger line the first time I think someone might think its funn, er, better.

On another note, I couldn't help but notice that the DirectTV insults were still being tossed around near the time of your quote. That's funny. I love the part where NFH wrote "blah blah blah". Its, what's that word I'm looking for? I-r-o-n-i-c! Anyway, I'm still looking for the cite to the jury trial where someone is found guilty after using my defense of "what, they can put stuff in my house and I can't use it?"

OTOH, no need to cite me the case where someone gets burned for the particular act of copying, possessing the copies, or using the copies, of the access codes.

In other news, 34 peasants in Columbia were executed by communist guerillas trying to exercise control of the narcotics trade.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tomorrow's NYT editorial today!

The Plain Truth

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Tomorrow's NYT editorial today!

Cannot wait for the WSJ counterpoint.

[Sugar Walls]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tomorrow's NYT editorial today!

The Plain Truth

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

Did you forget about me?

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tomorrow's NYT editorial today!

The Plain Truth

It's hard to imagine

And the award for best use of an alternative font goes to ...

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
Texas is not part of The South. The continental US has several distinct regions, and Texas is in a category of its own. There is the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, the South (does not include TX), the Mid-West, Texas, the Southwest (which arguably could include TX), the West, California, and the Pacific Northwest.

Point to me one map, study or other breakdown of the US that breaks down the states this way.

Now, from a philosophical perspective, there are many who would agree that the entire State of Texas is not the South. The rule of thumb dividing line is I-35, dividing the "South" Texas from the "West" Texas.

But Texas did fight on the side of the South in the Civil War. Texas was the last state to free its slaves (word of the Emancipation Proclamation did not reach Texas until June 17, 1865, celebrated in Texas and beyond as Juneteenth). And the people of the great stae of Texas will most assurredly tell you that they are in fact from the South. Especially those assholes in Sugarland (no offense intended to any of our Texas board members who may live in Sugarland, but to them, I must ask: "Why?").

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So anyone picking dates for a Rummy resignation?

I assume he is simply looking for the most opportune time. Dibs on August 2 - I think they'd like to keep him around past the Democratic convention, minimizing the opportunity for the Dems to rub in his resignation in disgrace. That also lets the Bushies blame everything between now and then on Rummy and then be rid of him, which can help deflect the shit from Cheney and his boy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc

But Texas did fight on the side of the South in the Civil War.

I think that's pretty much all that matters. If you were confederate, you're the south and forever will be. Unless you're southern Florida, which has become so overrun by northern snowbirds. That hasn't really happened to Texas yet, even if it is to a large degree sui generis. And I'll throw in at least Kentucky into the mix as well (east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio (and a slave state).

[Gattigap]

Jim Hoagland in today's WaPo does a good job of shining the light on Iran's new bellicose attitude regarding its nucular ambitions, and predicts that the issue will require the attention of Bush and Kerry, probably around debate time.

The combined efforts by the EU negotiators and by U.N. inspectors did accomplish this much: They slowed the Iranian effort by about a year. Western and Israeli estimates, which originally foresaw 2005 as the earliest probable completion date for the assembly of a nuclear weapon, have been revised to 2006.

With no obvious workable military option, the next American president will be confronted with a growing feeling among Europeans that the best available strategy may be to try to keep an Iranian finger off the trigger of fully developed and deployed nuclear weapons.

Iran would then come to resemble Pakistan, which froze its development at the screwdriver stage in 1989 and then exploded its first device nine years later to respond to India's nuclear testing. The thrust of international diplomacy since the 1998 tests has been to prevent deployment of nuclear weapons by India or Pakistan.

Iran is a living, moving foreign policy quandary that is just over the horizon in voters' concerns. Kerry and Bush should move now to spell out the actions that would prevent this crisis from worsening as the campaign proceeds. That forces each candidate to think about the future and gives voters a chance to see each's judgment at work in real time.

The shortcoming of that Iran/Pakistan analogy, though, is that Iran has been more actively involved in challenging the American infidels than has been Pakistan, and the threat is a bit more direct.

The interesting tactical point is that Bush will have to articulate a new policy for Iran, at a time when his credibility on foreign policy is low enough that, as Hoaland notes, Kerry can "gain points simply by uttering the name of the country." Kerry also has challenges, because here he can't just slipstream in Bush's wake as he has on Iraq by pointing out the Administration's serial fuckups.

Any thoughts among the great minds here about how the US should react?

As my personal foreign policy outlook is shaped largely be Aaron Sorkin, I'll have to consult TiVo and browse back episodes to see WBartletWD, but doubt that this particular scenario has come up. Likely, in the absence of meaningful leverage points (and I don't see any obvious ones, as Iran doesn't seem worried about international isolation), I think we're probably screwed. Welcome, my friends, to the increasingly proliferated world.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So anyone picking dates for a Rummy resignation?

I assume he is simply looking for the most opportune time. Dibs on August 2 - I think they'd like to keep him around past the Democratic convention, minimizing the opportunity for the Dems to rub in his resignation in disgrace.

Interesting. What prompts the question--his order to hid the prisoner?

I'll take July 30, after 5pm. Friday night after the convention. Alternatively, during the convention. Because I'm not sure the costs of letting the dems play on it are higher than the benefits of hiding it in the convention/distracting from the convention altogether.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And I'll throw in at least Kentucky into the mix as well (east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio (and a slave state).

OK, I suppose we'll take it, although there's some grumblings amongst the committee about taking this one on, too. After all, the plate is already pretty full, and last thing we need is another set of headaches.

Hey, can we make an exchange? Maybe we can trade you for, say, Mississippi?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A piece in FOX News says Fahrenheit 9/11 "turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail. As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, 'F9/11' — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."

Um, right. What's the catch?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap


Hey, can we make an exchange? Maybe we can trade you for, say, Mississippi?

Kentucky comes with Ashley Judd. Don't think I can give much more than that.