Please join us for our first-ever AmCop reading/party/event-type thing, in celebration (mourning?) of the 6-month anniversary of our humble blog. Our plan is to read some of our favorite selections from our first half-year on the Web (yes, speakingcorpse fans won't be disappointed!) and spend the rest of the time drinking sociably.

Friday, May 14
6:30 - 8:30 pm
Barbes
376 9th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues) in Brooklyn.

Barbes is a very cool, dim little pub with a Francophile absinthe-and-jazz theme and a performance-room behind the main bar area. (Barbes has good beers on tap and $5 Ricard and Pernod, which if you've never had those you should try them, those not-so-distant relatives of absinthe, who have a peculiar and salutary effect on the personal constitution.)

Directions:

From Manhattan, Take the last car of the F train to 7th Avenue, Brooklyn.
Exit at the southwest corner exit
Make a u-turn and walk downhill on 9th street towards 6th Avenue.
Barbes is on your left at 376 9th Street, a couple of stores in from the corner of 6th Avenue.

The R train also stops nearby at 9th Street and 4th Ave.

See you there!

Blicero, Dawkins, speakingcorpse

From the New Democracy Project:

WHAT WE STAND FOR:
Ideas and Values to Take Back America

May 14-15, 2004
NYU Skirball Center for Performing Arts

Seating is limited! Buy tickets now!

Tickets are $33/person and grant you admission to both days of the conference, as well as copies of two new spring books: What We Stand For: A Program for Progessive Patriotism (Newmarket Press) and Taking Back America - And Taking Down the Radical Right (Nation Books) -- and lunch on Saturday too.

SCHEDULE

FRIDAY, MAY 14

4:00 – 4:30 pm
Welcome : MARK GREEN
Keynote : PAUL KRUGMAN

4:30 – 5:45 pm
Terrorism and War
Presenter: GARY HART
Commentators: JULIETTE KAYYEM and JIM FALLOWS

See the rest of the two-day schedule at the New Democracy Project site.

Redneck camera-whore Fred Thompson admonishes us:

The global war on terrorism is not a game from which we can simply walk away when it seems it isn't going our way.

and

What is weakness? Weakness is when America's leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through.

Thanks, WaPo, for printing this death-garbage!

Miss Missouri, Shandi Finnessey, a 25-year-old graduate student who has published a children's book, was crowned Miss USA at the 52nd annual pageant on Monday.

A Republican, she told Reuters she would use her position to help explain America's involvement in Iraq. "What needed to be done had to be done," she said.

During the final question category, she was asked what serves her better in life -- experience or education. She immediately chose the former, saying "You can have all the book knowledge in the world, but to have the knowledge from experience. ... I think that teaches you more knowledge than anything you could possibly read in a book."

The winner's prize package includes a $200,000 crown, free accommodation in New York City, as well as free dental work and dermatological services.

Does having your head removed count as "dental work"?

speakingcorpse writes:

Dear Fellow Jews,

Some leftists have tried to deny that there is a new anti-Semitism in the world today, one that threatens the Jews as never before. No, these leftists say, this is rage against Israel, and it is not related to traditional anti-Semitism.

These leftists are wrong. The massive hatred of Israel worldwide is anti-Semitic; it is the new form that the old anti-Semitism has taken. It is out of all proportion to reality, it is fixated ferociously on Israel, and it is associated with exterminationist rhetoric. We as Jews are right to call the hatred of Israel anti-Semitic--even if Israel has done many, many bad things that have never been acknowledged.

But we Jews have failed fully to understand this anti-Semitism. For it is perpetrated not just by many Muslims worldwide, but also by the U.S. government and its Christian-Zionist supporters, and by the self-hating Jews in the American Jewish establishment.

Let me explain. It is wrong of many Muslims to call Israelis (and the Jews in general) a people determined to steal Arab land, to destroy Palestinian social life, to deny the humanity of the Palestinians. It is wrong because, though many of Israel's policies have indeed been undertaken to advance these nefarious purposes, Israel and the Jewish community are not comprised entirely of such people. There are many distinct human voices among Jews in and out of Israel, many who oppose the racism of the settlers and the militant Zionists. It is wrong, and anti-Semitic, to reduce Israel (and the Jews is supposed to represent) to this one policy (and to kill Jews indiscriminately, as if they all support it). But if it is wrong for Muslims to reduce the reality of Israel and the Jews to this caricature, it is equally wrong for American Christian Zionists and self-hating Jews to do the same thing, to reduce Israel and its Jewish supporters to mere caricature--to see them all as single-mindedly bent on the annexation of lands that belong to other people. But, sadly, this IS how Bush, and the American enemies of the Jews, see Israel and the Jews. Just read this article, in which we learn that Bush will try to appeal to Jewish voters by sanctioning the racist agenda of Ariel Sharon. Bush, an anti-Semite, obviously thinks that all Jews are narrow-minded haters of Palestinians. Bush is an anti-Semite, just as are the many Muslims around the world who refuse to understand the origins of the state of Israel in the Holocaust, and who refuse to recognize the internal diversity of the state and of the worldwide Jewish population.

Bush (and the alliance of Christian Zionists and self-hating American Jews) hates the Jews in the same way that some of the international anti-Israel forces hate the Jews. On both sides, the Jews are reduced to mere caricature: we become bearers of the flag of freedom among the savages, or, and this is the SAME THING, close-minded colonialist land-grabbers impervious to the sufferings of other ethnic groups. What we must recognize is that there is a SINGLE caricature, with a double aspect. Bush et al. praise the Jews (with the most vicious condescension) for conforming to caricature, while the international anti-Semites hate the Jews for conforming to caricature.

Now, it should be said that Jews themselves (especially the self-hating allies of Bush and the evangelical prophets of Armageddon) deserve some of the blame for making the caricature stick. But this is always true when caricatures stick--they stick because of a basis in reality. This does not mean that the caricature is any less unjust, any less anti-Semitic.

So we have reached a new phase in the long, sad history of anti-Semitism. We have a worldwide conflict, or the possibility of one, and the Jews are being asked to take this conflict upon themselves--as the heroic frontline fighters, as the vicious instigators. The caricature of the Jews is the linch-pin of the whole conflict. It is, or would be, an apocalyptic conflict. Depending on which side of the conflict you are on, the Jews fighting the Palestinians in the West Bank are either good or bad, moral or infidel. But the very terms of the world conflict are inherently anti-Semitic. As in older forms of anti-Semitism, the Jews' "chosenness" is reified and taken for granted, and then we are asked to bless it or curse it.

Well, if God has not chosen the Jews, then someone or something has. Call it history. It's too late to deny the choice. Jews of America and the world, we must accept the fact that we have been chosen, that history and its invisible masters have placed us, again, at the center. But let us reject the choices given to us by the anti-Semites. And let us reject the world conflict that the anti-Semites are USING US to perpetrate. There need not BE a world conflict about whether or not the Jews have the right to rule in the West Bank. This conflict depends, structurally, upon the reduction of Jews either to racist colonialists or to proxies of the Christian soldiers of heavenly freedom. We, as Jews, must stand up and fight back against anti-Semitic stereotypes: we are not, as some Muslims say, the root of all evil in the Middle East; and we are not, as Christians and self-hating American Jews say, carrying the flag of civilization into the barren Middle East. We will not play the role foisted upon us by anti-Semites the world over. We will defend ourselves and try to make peace, even if a secure peace does not fit into the agenda of the world's holy warriors. The world's holy warriors, on both sides, will use us to bring about more death and destruction.

Their use of us is anti-Semitic.

speakingcorpse

Bring on the End Times...

Move Could Help Bush Among Jewish Voters

In declaring that Israel should be able to keep some of the occupied territories and block Palestinian refugees from settling in Israel, Bush followed a familiar pattern of finding common cause with Jews and increasingly pro-Israel Christian conservatives. That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."
-----
There is a possibility that the action by Bush could further aggravate the situation in Iraq, just as Israel's killing of a prominent Palestinian militant set off rioting in Iraq several weeks ago. Independent pollster John Zogby, who has surveyed extensively in the Arab world, said: "This is pretty much the final nail in the coffin of the peace process as far as Arabs are concerned." He said his polling indicates the Palestinian cause is among the top three issues for 90 percent of Arabs in all Arab countries he has surveyed. "It's not even a political issue, it's a bloodstream issue," Zogby said.

Domestically, though, the move could enable Bush to chip away a few more of the Jewish voters who have traditionally been loyal to Democrats. And in a tight election, the small minority of Jewish voters -- who tend to have strong turnout levels -- could give Bush an edge in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Given that Jews turn out at an 80 percent turnout rate, if you swing the Jewish vote 10 percent in Ohio, that could give you Ohio," said Nathan Diament, a lobbyist for the Orthodox Jewish movement. Though he believes Bush's motive is principle rather than politics, Diament also notes that the courting of Jewish donors -- hugely important to Democrats -- could aid the Republican Party.

During his appearance with Sharon, Bush compared Israel's struggle with Palestinian suicide bombers to the American fight against al Qaeda.

House Chief Deputy Majority Whip Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the House's only Jewish Republican, echoed that point. "American Jews see that President Bush gets the fact that Israel is fighting the same fight against terrorism that we are," he said. "The very liberal Jews are not going to be able to put aside their environmental or abortion politics. But for the mainstream Jewish community, Israel is of paramount importance."
-----
Republican officials in Washington said that while they are confident Bush made his decision for sincere policy reasons, they believe the potential impact on the politics of 2004 could be substantial. "This will make it that much harder for John Kerry to win Florida," said a Republican aide on Capitol Hill who refused to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. Associates said Bush's strategists believe that even small inroads into the Jewish vote could mean the difference between winning and losing Florida, and several Republicans believe the announcement could further inhibit Kerry's fundraising in the Jewish community.

West Coast Crisis! Air America Radio has been off the air since yesterday in L.A. and Chicago. Here's what the Majority Report blog says about what's going on:

As you know if you live in LA or Chicago AAR is down in those locales. There's not a lot of info about what's going on right now but I'll let you know what I know.

AAR has leased air time on WNTD (CHI) and KBLA (LA) from a radio holding company that owns both stations. I'm not privy to the details as I'm not management and our legal counsel is not in house so I can't eavesdrop on them. With that said, there is some type of contractual dispute regarding the LA station. The holding company seems to be using the Chicago station as leverage regarding the LA station. I know that AAR is seeking an injunction against the holding company's taking AAR off the air. There seems to be a lot of optimism that we will get that injunction. From the little I know of legal matters, that is an indication that, at the very least, our legal counsel feels that we are in the right in this dispute and that a judge will feel that way too. I suspect that the holding company hopes that our desire to be on air will overpower any sense that we are getting screwed contractually.

On line there are some rumors about right wing elements pressuring the holding company to pull us off the air. As much as I'd like to, I don't buy it. I think this is probably a typical hardball business scenario that is indicative of AAR's unexpected success and somebody who was betting against that success trying to renegotiate.

In the meantime, streams are available at the AAR site. Also here.

Josh Marshall has a nice reflection on words; it begins thus:

In a column out today, entitled "We Will Win", Steve Forbes writes ...

We must prepare ourselves for a bloody year. Terrorists will make every effort to pull off Madrid-like atrocities in the U.S. as our elections near. The forces of good, however, when combined with consistency and determination have always triumphed. This war will be no exception.

This is precisely the sort of inane mumbojumbo that will -- perhaps literally -- get us all killed.

The Price of Incuriosity

Americans knew George W. Bush was an incurious man when they elected him, but the hearings of the 9/11 investigating commission, which turned yesterday from the F.B.I.'s fecklessness to the C.I.A.'s blurred vision, have brought that fact home in a startling way. The president is trying hard to present himself as a hands-on manager who talked terrorism incessantly with the director of central intelligence, George Tenet. ("I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time.") But Mr. Tenet had to concede yesterday that he was not in Crawford, Tex., for the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Mr. Tenet told the panel he didn't meet with Bush all that month, but the C.I.A. later said there had been two meetings. No one has been able to say whether Mr. Bush followed up in any way after he asked his intelligence agencies whether there was a domestic threat from Al Qaeda, and got a loud "yes" in response.

Dawkins writes:

Here's a theory that for some reason hasn't gained traction in the national discussion on George W. Bush's mental illness.

What follows is a clinical description of so-called "dry drunk syndrome" that comes from the website of a New York addiction treatment center.

Below is further reading on the subject, vis a vis its application to the case of the president.

"Dry drunk" is a term describing the state of the alcoholic who is uncomfortable when he is not drinking. The "dry drunk syndrome" is a group of symptoms that occur together and constitute an abnormality. Since the abnormality of the alcoholic's attitudes and behavior during his drinking career is generally recognized, the persistence of these traits after the alcoholic stops drinking might seem equally abnormal. Therefore, the term "dry-drunk" alludes to the absence of favorable change in the attitudes and behavior of the alcoholic who is not drinking.

"Dry Drunk" Traits:
* Grandiose behavior
* Pomposity
* Exaggerated self-importance
* A rigidly judgmental outlook
* Impatience
* Childish behavior
* Irresponsible behavior
* Irrational rationalization
* Projection
* Overreaction

For more reading on Bush as "dry drunk":

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0127-11.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/10_drunk.html

http://www.counterpunch.com/mccarthy1019.html

Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.

A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Oh — I've got some must calls, I'm sorry.

Your question, do I feel?

Dirty lie-words from mean, ugly man-baby:

A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a — the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger.

I mean one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.

This is a guy who's a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves. I mean he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into kind of a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy — they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.

Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had asked me if I was, something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was. And I said compared to how I felt at the time after the attack I didn't have that — and I also went on to say my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said.

Your question, do I feel?

I mean, hindsight is easy. It's easy for a president to stand up and say now that I know what happened would have been nice if there were certain things in place.

We were kind of stovepiped, I guess is a way to describe it.

And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on a war ever since.

I'm afraid they want to hurt us again. They're still there.

Well, I think, as I mentioned, you know, it's the country wasn't on war footing. And yet we're at war. And that's just a reality. I mean that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11.

But there was nobody in our government at least — and I don't think the prior government — could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand.

And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet.

And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is: an important vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And part of it had to do with the Genoa G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home as well. And that's what triggered the report.

The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about a '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication as you mentioned that that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serving as a blackmail. And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me.

As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me.

Now in the, what's called the P.D.B. there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America. Frankly, I didn't think that was anything new. I mean major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the F.B.I. was conducting field investigations. And that was good news that they were doing their job.

Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded and responded in a forceful way.

I mean one of the things about Elizabeth's question was I stepped back and I've asked myself a lot, Is there anything we could have done to stop the attacks?

As the ultimate decision maker for this country I expect information that comes to my desk to be real and valid.

And as I mentioned, I met with a lot of family members and I do the best to console them about the loss of their loved one.

Here's what I feel about that: the person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.

This is — these are people that have — the leaders have made the decision to put peoples in harm way — people in harm's way for the good of the world.

And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It'll change the world.

Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat. And here are two friends now discussing how — what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.

Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free, that if you're Muslim or perhaps brown skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that because I believe freedom is the deepest need of every human soul.

After 9/11, the world changed for me, and I think changed for the country. It changed for me because, like many, we assumed oceans would protect us from harm, and that's not the case, that's not the reality of the 21st century. Oceans don't protect us. They don't protect us from killers.

We've had some success as a result of the decision I took. Take Libya, for example. Libya was a nation that had — we viewed as a terrorist — a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons. And Colonel Qadaffi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm for the good of the world. By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, I believe it was, in a turkey farm only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer.

You've often heard me talk about my worry about weapons of mass destruction ending up in the hands of the wrong people. Well, you can understand why I feel that way having seen the works of A. Q. Khan. It's a dangerous — it was a dangerous network that we unraveled. And the world is better for it.

We're at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror. It is a theater in the war on terror. And it's essential we win this battle in the war on terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorists.

One of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members who've lost their lives. It's a chance to hug and weep and to console and to remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one is — was done in the name of security for America and freedom for the world.

As I mentioned, I pinned the Purple Heart on the — on some of the troops at the hospital there at Fort Hood, Texas. A guy looks at me and says, I can't wait to get back to my unit and fulfill the mission, Mr. President.

You know, I just — I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan.

See, I happen to believe we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as — exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like, the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

You know, I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.

One thing is for certain, though, about me, and the world has learned this, when I say something I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

Thank you all very much.

This short video piece reflects on the foot-stompin' hilarity of Bush's recent WMD gags.

(Thanks to Scats.)

Giuseppe Abote reports:

A truly horrifying moment occurred during last night's telecast of the Miss USA pageant on NBC. One of the five finalists, Missouri, was called to the stage to answer her final question. The contestants' real names were never mentioned -- they just went by "Missouri," "Vermont," etc. But prior to this, in a brief biographical video, we had learned the exact dimensions of Missouri's bust. And we were treated to this quote: "My favorite thing to do, if I had to choose one thing to do, would be anything tangible."

So Missouri stepped to the podium. The host, some feathery-haired entertainment reporter who had been struggling mightily to affect the demeanor of a highly aroused heterosexual man, announced that this question came from another finalist, North Carolina.

"Missouri," he read, "do you believe that celebrities should express their opinions about politics?"

Without hesitation, Missouri replied, "Absolutely not!" She then embarked on a confusing disquisition on the freedoms we ought to grant Hollywood stars -- basically nothing other than the bare-bones human rights to live, breathe and vote. Then she blurted out, apropos of nothing, that she was proud to be a Missourian, that Missouri was the moral heartland of America.

After a commercial break, Missouri was awarded the title of Miss USA 2004.

Shit-Bag's theme today? WWSD? (That is, "What Would (George) Shultz Do?") Apparently George Shultz--of all American leaders past and present--would have been able to get us out of this mess. Why?

Twenty years ago we had a leader who treated us like adults, mature enough to cope with harsh uncertainties.

I guess that "leader" refers to Reagan? Anyway, I suppose Reagan did "treat is like adults," feeding us a steady diet of death and shit, which mature adults should be able to swallow down and ask for more, not like puling children, who need cookie and sugar-tit.

Also this:

Step back and you see millions of people who will pick up any stick they can to beat the administration. They're perfectly aware of the cruel uncertainties that confront policy makers, but, opportunistically, they ignore them.

Brooks to "millions": "Step off." Stop getting all up in the administration's "grill." You should know better, "millions of people." Stop being a millions-strong bunch of craven "opportunists"!

Dawkins writes:

Hostage Was Working in Iraq to Aid His Struggling Family

So here's how it works:

Your economic livelihood has been destroyed by the Bush economy. You can't afford to keep your farm because the giant agribusiness companies have run you off your land. You can't afford to pay for your family's medical expenses because you're one of tens of millions without health insurance.

What do you do?

You sign up to take a job as a mercenary in Bush's army. (Of course, your salary is paid by Halliburton, which is paid to run the war by the U.S. government -- and that money comes from your taxes -- and the only reason Halliburton got the contract to hire you is because they gave all that money to get Bush elected.)

You go to Iraq, and you get kidnapped or you get killed, but because you're one of the tens of thousands of secret, private "contractors" over there, and not a regular GI, the Marines won't swoop in to save you when you're getting torn apart by the mob, and your death won't be counted as one of the 600-plus dead in combat, and your family won't get Army pension or death benefits, and your family is right back where it started, but worse, because you're not around anymore to support them.

And Bush cashes his campaign checks from Halliburton and goes fishing in Crawford, Texas.

William Raspberry, in attacking Al Franken for his "negativity":

No, I'm not humorless. I enjoy both Bill Maher and Dennis Miller.

Right.

Don't appease the fire. Take the fight to the enemy. Pre-empt.

Forest Service Photos Raise Flap

RENO, Nev. -- The U.S. Forest Service has been accused of misrepresenting forest conditions by using misleading photographs in a brochure that urges more logging to prevent wildfires in the Sierra Nevada.

The pamphlet says fire risks have risen as the Sierra's forests have grown more dense over the past century. Six photos spanning 80 years appear beside descriptions of how the "forests of the past" had fewer trees and less underbrush, making them less susceptible to fire.
-----
"Today's forests, dense with green, may seem beautiful, but in fact are deadly," the pamphlet reads. "Our old-growth forests are choking with brush, tinder-dry debris and dead trees which make the risk of catastrophic fire high."

But the 1909 photo does not depict natural conditions -- it was taken just after the forest had been logged. And the pictured forest is nowhere near the Sierra Nevada. It is in Montana.

[Call it an "historic" document.]

The Forest Service spent $23,000 to produce and print 15,000 copies of the brochures, created by a public relations firm, as part of the "Forests for a Future" campaign that brought criticism from some lawmakers because the agency hired a PR shop.
-----
The Forest Service defended using outside help and said the photos from Montana were not intended to mislead.

"The idea here was to show increasing density over time, which visibly did occur," Mathes said. "Our goal here was to . . . increase the clarity and understandability of our message. We needed to be accurate but not necessarily precise to the 99th degree."

speakingcorpse writes:

Bush is going to shut down the NY Times, just as Bremer shut down Al Hawza (the paper published by Moqtada al-Sadr). Soon after that, there will be a massive insurrection in the streets of New York, in which tens of thousands of "thugs" and "terrorists" and "enemies of civilization" chant madly for the overthrow of the the junta occupying the White House.

August 2001: Terror Loomed as America Slept (14 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Says Brief on Qaeda Threat Was Not Specific"
(front page, April 12):

Millions of words are being written about the intelligence
briefing that President Bush received on Aug. 6, 2001, but
the most important part of that meeting will never be
known: what did Mr. Bush and those present say after
reading it?

RANDALL MILLER
Ocean View, Del., April 12, 2004

Dawkins writes:

Bush is a liar, and a devastatingly mentally handicapped person. Not in any metaphorical or hyperbolic sense, but in a very literal sense: he is mentally deranged.

This weekend, he said these words:

"I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America.”

He was talking about the Aug. 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that “cited evidence of active Qaeda cells in the United States, as well as reports that members of the terrorist organization had conducted recent surveillance of a federal building in Manhattan and could be preparing to stage hijackings.”

Commenting on this terrorist threat warning, the president said:

"The P.D.B. was no indication of a terrorist threat."

Dawkins writes:

Of course, the Senate's Hugest Asshole, Bill Frist*, found time from decrying book profiteering to write "When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor."

But can you believe this?

Last year, he wrote a book about himself and his family, that's actually called: "Good People Beget Good People."

It's a "Genealogy of the Frist Family" and it's amazing!

Read it today! Choke on your own vomit!

*Editorial Note: "Senate's Hugest Asshole" (SHA) should not be confused with the Senate's "Most Loathsome Member" (MLM), a laurel bequeathed to (and still possessed by) Norm Coleman (Shitbag- MN/NY).

Dawkins writes:

Tom Scocca, the New York Observer's media critic, points out what many of us have known for a while: Brooks is full of shit.

Enjoy!:

The demand for Mr. Brooks’ rim-shot sociology is as strong as ever. This past Sunday, The New York Times Magazine ran a meditation on sprawl excerpted from his upcoming On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. "[T]here are no people so conformist as those who fault the supposed conformity of the suburbs," Mr. Brooks mused. "They regurgitate the same critiques decade after decade."

Speaking of regurgitating critiques, here’s Mr. Brooks in The Weekly Standard, in 2002: "There is no group in America more conformist than the people who rail against suburbanites for being conformist—they always make the same critiques, decade after decade."

Ha!

Blicero adds: Brooks, deconstructioniste extraordinaire!