speakingcorpse writes:

I wonder if our erstwhile investigators of pre-war WMD claims will investigate this noteworthy historical document? No, of course not.

I am officially against the "investigation" as it is currently proposed. Why? Because absolutely no investigation is necessary. Dozens and dozens of well-researched news articles (unfortunately usually buried on the back pages) made clear well BEFORE the war that the CIA was not certain about the presence of WMD's, and that many CIA analysts didn't believe there were any. As George Tenet said, the CIA never claimed there was an "imminent threat" from O'Saddama. (Even the notorious "National Intelligence Estimate" was qualified by important caveats.) No, the only "error" was made by the White House. And we all know what came out of its collective "mouth." Do we need to "investigate" whether Bush said we were in danger of being nuked? Do we need to hire the President of Yale University to determine whether or not Rumsfeld said "we know where they are"? Will Senator John McCain need to call upon his hard-boiled independent-mindedness to determine whether or not Bush said last fall that "we've found the weapons of mass destruction"?

If any of these commissioners were real "partisans for the truth," they would refuse to participate in this investigation. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. The very existence of an investigative commission lends credence to the lie that something about the White House's conduct is unclear. This is the new phase of the big lie. Shit on the public, then assemble a blue-ribbon commission to "investigate" whether or not the public is covered in shit.

Blicero adds: Perhaps David Brooks can head a blue-ribbon commission to look into the sort of statements Bush might have made, had he had the faculties to do so?

Calpundit is digging deeper than anyone into the Bush National Guard scandal--anyone who wants to follow this story should check out his blog. Yesterday's post:

"CLEANSING" THE FILES.... Back in late 2001 Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA Today wrote a series of articles about "ghost soldiers," soldiers who were kept on National Guard rolls even though they were no longer attending drills or getting paid. One of their sources for the article was Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett, who had investigated this problem in the Texas National Guard several years previously.

Which is just a bit of background to show that Moniz and Drinkard have worked with Burkett before and feel comfortable that he's a reliable source. At any rate, comfortable enough to publish his allegations that George Bush's National Guard records were "cleansed" back in 1997:

As Texas Gov. George W. Bush prepared to run for president in the late 1990s, top-ranking Texas National Guard officers and Bush advisers discussed ways to limit the release of potentially embarrassing details from Bush's military records, a former senior officer of the Texas Guard said Wednesday.

A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said.

Bill Burkett, then a top adviser to the state Guard commander, said he overheard conversations in which superiors discussed "cleansing" the file of damaging information.

There's more.

In case anyone missed this absolute zinger yesterday:

From Guardsman . . .

By Richard Cohen

During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a "deserter." Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't.

Full, utterly damning story.

And the Times doesn't do so bad, either. As speakingcorpse notes:

It appears that an Al Qaeda cell operating out of Brooklyn has broken into the New York Times offices, taken the editorial board hostage, and forced Gail Collins or one of her subordinates to write this seditious bit of "gutter politics" (to use the words of Scott McClellan).

If President Bush thought that his release of selected payroll and service records would quell the growing controversy over whether he ducked some of his required service in the Air National Guard three decades ago, he is clearly mistaken. The payroll records released yesterday document that he performed no guard duties at all for more than half a year in 1972 and raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.

What next?

Joe Trippi offers some interesting ideas about what went wrong:

How Web Support Failed Dean in Crunch: Ex-Manager

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Internet activism that thrust up the Howard Dean U.S. election campaign later hobbled the organization's ability to respond to criticism in the weeks before the primaries, Dean's former campaign manager said on Monday.

Joe Trippi, who resigned after defeats in Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, said the direct involvement of so many Internet supporters deprived the campaign of the traditional weapon of political surprise.

"We were having a real problem with how to say, 'We could be in real trouble here,"' Trippi told a technology conference of the tactical trouble the Dean campaign had in balancing the need to keep supporters informed.

Full story.

Giuseppe Abote writes:

What? Howard Fineman calling for the Vice-President's head?

There can be no stronger indication that the media have turned on Bush. And suddenly, too, just yesterday Fineman and Isikoff were assailing the "Massachusetts values" of John Kerry.

What's going on? Is this the media's reward to the voters for ousting Dean? Is it a cruel setup? Or am I hopelessly naive to think that our journalists have finally noticed that the electorate is fed up with the current president?

Blicero adds: I fear that calling for the Vice-President's head is a way of setting us up for what/who might be necessary to come fill in the vacuum created by the exit of said head: none other than 'America's Mayor' and crack GOP fundraiser Commandante Giuliani.

I wish I was kidding. I hope I'm kidding.

From MSNBC's Scarborough Country last night. Congressman John Shadegg suggests that Justin Timberlake has just aided the terrorists:

RADAKOVICH: Oh, we are making such a big deal out of this. I mean, she flashed her booby for about two seconds and you‘re making the leap to pornography, which is completely ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

SHADEGG: No, I‘m making the leap to violence against women.

RADAKOVICH: Oh, a flashing of a boob is violence against women? Most of the women who saw it thought it was funny.

(CROSSTALK)

SHADEGG: Wait. Wait. Wait. Don‘t mislead people. She did not flash her boob. She didn‘t open up the cover on her breast. He ripped it off.

And I want to make the point that this comes post-9/11, when the entire Muslim world is looking at us and saying, we degrade women, we‘re a baseless society with no morals. And we flash this not just to millions of American families who are watching and expect not to see this kind of conduct, but we flash it around the world. What kind of message do we send?

Um, I don't know--that we deserve to be blown up?

This has all got to be a set-up for something quite bad.

Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, usually an outspoken Bush loyalist, said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

speakingcorpse opines:

Watching the Grammy Awards show on CBS a couple of days ago, I felt a terrible sense of deja vu. It's almost as if Michael Powell's account of his own shocked and horrified response to the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast could be used to describe exactly my own response to the recent Grammy Awards. As Powell said, "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt." Exactly. I thought I would see tits and asses pressed against translucent fabric shields, frequently interrupted by exhortations that I buy poisonous psychopharmacological agents or processed food products. Instead, I had to be subjected to the "exposure" of a foreigner's self-righteous views about the future of my nation's politics. What's worse, seeing Janet Janet's nipple guard or hearing that Chris Martin of Coldplay is against George Bush and for terrorism? And wasn't Johnny Cash a socialist, a drug-addict, and an advocate of Palestinian rights?

An Antiwar Forum in Iowa Brings Federal Subpoenas

Still, the protesters, their lawyers and some national civil liberties advocates described the investigation into the attendance rolls and leadership lists of the lawyers' group as highly unusual in recent years. Some said it could send a chilling message far beyond Iowa, leaving those who consider voicing disapproval of the administration's policy in Iraq, or anywhere else, wondering whether they too might receive added scrutiny.

"I've heard of such a thing, but not since the 1950's, the McCarthy era," said David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor. "It sends a very troubling message about government officials' attitudes toward basic liberties."

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he feared news of the subpoenas — which was spreading rapidly via e-mail on Monday among activist organizations — might discourage people from showing up to protests, attending meetings at universities or even checking out library books.

Full story.

"I'm David Brooks. And I have at last gone totally and completely out of my fucking mind."

From: Blicero
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:13:20 AM US/Eastern
To: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Subject: question

Dear Mr. Brooks,

In your latest column ("Bush on Bush, Take 2") you demonstrate an uncanny, extraordinary, almost supernatural sympathy with President Bush. I wonder if this is because you are both made of human shit? (I am simply reminded of the old proverb, 'It takes one to know one'--or, as we used to say back in Maryland, 'Only shit for shit will speak.') In that case, you might want to think about re-titling your piece "Shit on Shit, Take 2." (Do you get the double entendre?)

Just a friendly suggestion!

Yours,

A reader.

This from Dawkins:

This poll is something less than scientific (it pops up when you log onto AOL), but it provides a good, large sampling size (granted, of self-selecting voters).

AOL users logged in with the following views:

How credible is Bush?

Not at all 48%
Very 42%
Somewhat 10%

Is Bush vulnerable on the Iraq issue?

Yes, it will cost him votes in November 50%
No, he's still as electable as ever 32%
Maybe, depending on the next few months 17%

From Greg Palast:

KHAN JOB: BUSH SPIKED PROBE OF PAKISTAN’S DR. STRANGELOVE, BBC REPORTED IN 2001

On November 7, 2001, BBC TV and the Guardian of London reported that the Bush administration thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Khan who this week confessed selling atomic secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.

The Bush Administration has expressed shock at the disclosures that Pakistan, our ally in the war on terror, has been running a nuclear secrets bazaar. In fact, according to the British News Team’s sources’, Bush did not know of these facts because, shortly after his inauguration, his National Security Agency (NSA) defectively stymied the probe of Khan Research Laboratories. CIA and other agents could not investigate the spread of “Islamic Bombs” through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia.

According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush Administration “Spike” of the investigation of Dr. Khan’s Lab followed from a wider policy of protecting key Saudi Arabians including the bin Laden Family.

Full story.

And this heartwarming item from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Report: Al-Qaida has suitcase-size nuclear bombs

Ukraine sold al-Qaida an unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons in 1998, the London-based al-Hayat newspaper reported, and the terror organization is storing them for possible use.

Full story.

Western Pennsylvania, here I come! Thanks, Bush!

This is nothing but good. I never, ever thought I would see the words "unified party" and "Democrats" in the same sentence--much less in a front page headline. And there is no doubt that Dr. Dean deserves a whole, whole lot of credit for this.

Democrats See Unified Party for November

NASHVILLE, Feb. 8— Democratic leaders, once fearful that their presidential nominee would inherit a demoralized and divided party, said Sunday that Democrats now seemed poised to nominate a candidate who had escaped damage from internal battling and enjoyed broad support from all factions of the party.

Art Torres, the California Democratic Party chairman, said in an interview on Sunday that in a career dating to working for Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, he had never seen "a party more unified proceeding through the primary season." Mr. Torres said that development made him increasingly hopeful about his party's prospects in November.

"That's what Democrats are being smart about now: coalescing around a candidate that has electability, that has gravitas," said Mr. Torres, who has not endorsed a candidate. "The issue is to defeat George Bush and put America back on track."

[E]ven many Democratic leaders who do not back Mr. Kerry said he was emerging quickly as a consensus candidate. In state after state, with Democrats turning out in consistently record numbers, Mr. Kerry is rolling up big margins...

More significantly, they said, the votes held this weekend demonstrated that Mr. Kerry was drawing the support of Democratic voters and elected officials spanning many geographic and ideological lines, and appeared to be triumphing with barely a scratch in what many warned would be a brutal nominating process. There is considerable evidence, Democratic campaign aides said, that people are voting for Mr. Kerry even if they do not agree with him on some positions, and even if they have not particularly warmed to this gawky Northeasterner. This also shows the extent to which fierce anti-Bush sentiment is shaping this presidential election for Democrats.

Full story.

From the Associated Press-Ipsos poll:

If the election were held today, would you ... (asked of registered voters)

_Definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, 37 (41)

_Consider voting for someone else, 18 (24)

_Definitely vote for someone else, 43 (33)

_Don't know-refused, 2 (2)

(January poll numbers are in parentheses.)

I just saw a C-Span replay of a Kerry event in Tennessee on Saturday, and I have to say he sounded great (and looked, well, not bad, as these things go). He had a great gag that went something like this:

KERRY: Now I know you all know that George Bush is going on Meet the Press tomorrow...

[Scattered boos]

KERRY: ...and I know that afterward everyone's going to say how smart he was...

[Stronger boos]

KERRY: ...and how well he knew his foreign policy...

[Vigorous booing.]

KERRY: (Beat.) I was talking about Tim Russert.

[Wild laughter/applause.]

Pretty good.

The only part of Meet the Press I saw was a clip they replayed on C-Span, Russert asking Bush about being AWOL in Alabama. There is no way he (Bush) could not have appeared to everyone watching as exactly what he was: a habitual liar currently engaged in lying. He didn't even attempt to explain his actions, and even went so far as to say that the reason his record couldn't be impugned was that no one had been able to find his record, parts of which have disappeared down the spider-hole.

I hope no one ever references Clinton's "it depends on was 'is' is" again, because the new line is: "I showed up." Not "I showed up every time it was my duty to show up"--just "I showed up." It's like the new motto of the Bush presidency. It represents the full extent of Bush's understanding of everything he's done in life, including the presidency: "I showed up."

I mean, what more could anyone ask of him?

This from Bisonhooves:

The following is an interesting article not from the lefty media (who have been on this tip for a long, long time now) but rather from Kevin Phillips in today's edition of the Los Angeles Times. We're talking documented facts... now finally making their way into the mainstream consciousness.

Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.

WASHINGTON -- Despite February polls showing President Bush losing his early reelection lead, he's still the favorite. No modern president running unopposed in his party's primaries and caucuses has ever lost in November.

But there may be a key to undoing that precedent. The two Bush presidencies are so closely linked, especially over Iraq, that the 43rd can't be understood apart from the 41st. Beyond that, for a full portrait of what the Bushes are about, we must return to the family's emergence on the national scene in the early 20th century.

This four-generation evolution of the Bushes involves multiple links that could become Bush's election-year Achilles' heel -- if a clever and tough 2004 Democratic opponent can punch and slice at them. Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the clear Democratic front-runner, could be best positioned to do so. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he investigated the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandals, both of which touched George H.W. Bush's Saudi, Iraqi and Middle Eastern arms-deal entanglements.

To read the full story, you'll have to register and set a password.

Kevin Phillips' new book, just published, is "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."

From MoveOn.org:

Dear MoveOn member,

As you know, CBS refused to run MoveOn Voter Fund's "Child's Pay" ad -- perhaps the most tasteful and uncontroversial advocacy ad in history -- during the Super Bowl. CBS executives claimed they had a blanket policy against all so-called "issue" ads.

Yesterday, we learned that the network plans to broadcast an ad promoting the Bush Medicare prescription drug law. This is part of a $13 million taxpayer-financed TV campaign to take the heat off the White House for pushing through a drug plan that benefits drug companies and insurance companies more than Medicare recipients.

The White House ad features the tagline "Same Medicare. More Benefits." But a report by Consumers Union last month said that most people covered by Medicare will wind up spending more for prescription drugs, as a result of the provisions in the law which favor drug companies. According to the Washington Post, the campaign is intended "to counteract Democratic criticism that changes to the (Medicare) program will harm older Americans."

If that isn't a controversial issue ad, we don't know what is. But since CBS appears to be changing its policy, our Voter Fund has submitted our own Medicare ad which exposes the facts behind this spin campaign to run on CBS. So far, we haven't heard back. Please give CBS a call today to let them know that they need to either pull the White House ads or run ours.

You can reach CBS at:

Phone:
CBS Comment Line
(212) 975-3247

Email:
newmediasales@cbs.com

Web form:
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml

A friend of dawkins' writes to Gail Collins at the New York Times Op-Ed page:

Subj: David Brooks
Date: 2/8/04
To: editorial@nytimes.com

Dear New York Times Op-Ed Page:

There's a pattern now in David Brooks' "work." For every sneering, sarcastic, tendentious hack job written on behalf of his blast-faxing friends at the RNC (see the recent "Kerry's Special Friends") Brooks puts forth two or three phony "reasoned" and "moderate" pieces of "analysis" to cover his hide.

The charade is transparent, and it's insulting to readers of the Times. Brooks clearly has no interest in his writing but to help re-elect George Bush, and his use of Ed Gillespie's talking points shows us so. (Just notice how the smear of John Kerry as being a "phony" is common to the recent "work" of both Gillespie and Brooks.)

Of course, the Times will be accused of "liberal bias" when it fires Brooks. But better now than before the Op-Ed page's credibility is irrevocably tarnished.

Thank you for your time.

[a reader]
New York, NY

Another friend of dawkins' writes to David Brooks today:

Subj: on Kerry
Date: 2/8/04
To: dabrooks@nytimes.com

Mr. Brooks,

Excellent work on John Kerry the other day. It's finally time someone called him out on being the "phony" that he is.

It's good to see that you and Ed Gillespie have your messages meshed like gears in a beautiful truth-manufacturing machine.

Onward to victory!

[A reader]
Tarrytown, NY

And Brooks responds thoughtfully:

Subj:Note
Date:2/8/04 1:23:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:dabrooks@nytimes.com

Dear friend,

Thanks very much for sending a response to my column, positive or negative. I'm afraid I can't respond to each message. My editors would wonder why I have no time to write for the paper. But I do read every e-mail, and I frequently learn from them.

So, again, thanks,

David Brooks

Dawkins writes:

That was the biggest moment in today's "Meet the Press" interview. Bigger than Bush's weasling evasion of sympathy for the parents of the 530 dead US soldiers… Bigger than his pathetic stammerings about danger… terrists… wepins…

It was when Russert, toward the end of the show, after the litany of unconvincing justifications for war and tax cuts, asked -- practically told -- Bush:

"Are you prepared to lose?"

The blood is in the water. The press has found their new storyline:

Bush on his way out.

Dawkins writes:

Reading David Brooks' smear of John Kerry today made me happy. Why? Because it demonstrates cleary a couple important things:

1. How scared Brooks and his ilk are that our presumptive Democratic candidate is beating Bush in head to head polling and will beat Bush in November.

2. How nice it will be when Bush is thrown out of the White House in November and David Brooks falls into full retreat.

Just a few more months, friends.

A good article from The Black Commentator about the Sharpton campaign's takeover by GOP "dirty trickster" Roger Stone.