Friday, April 16, 2004

The sin was not in the planning but in the execution (and possibly the motives)

Several bloggers have been making a big deal out of this morning's report that Bush asked Rumsfeld to start planning the Iraq invasion even before major combat operations finished in Afghanistan. They are talking about this as if it were some kind of shocking revelation.

Actually, I would be shocked if Bush hadn't asked for Rumsfeld to start planning the invasion. After all, if you are establishing a policy which could eventually result in the invasion of another country it would be nice to take as many months as are available to plan it out ahead of time. If Bush had waited until January 2003 to initiate war planning procedures then that would be shocking negligence.

Bush is most certainly worthy of criticism, but it is important that we criticize him for the things for which he is deserving criticism. Starting the planning for the invasion is not one of them.

Fucking it up so badly is!

"History. We don't know. We'll all be dead" -- Dubya

Who knew that Bush was such a philosopher?

Kerry blasts Republican anti-patriotic smears

Speaking of going on the offensive...

PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry, lashing out at the White House's "twisted sense of ethics and morality," accused Republicans on Friday of distorting his record and attacking his patriotism.

Kerry, at an outdoor rally on the University of Pittsburgh campus, used an American flag and the national anthem to fire back at Republicans who charge he is weak on defense for voting against some weapons systems and an $87 billion bill to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, pointed out Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove did not serve in the military.

"I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance," Kerry said. "I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism."

"I've seen how these people in the White House today, in their twisted sense of ethics and morality, don't think twice about challenging John McCain and what happened to him as a prisoner of war," he said in reference to attacks by President Bush in 2000 on his Republican primary rival McCain, an Arizona senator. ...

... The latest ad launched on Thursday calls the Massachusetts senator "wrong on defense."

"They don't think twice about trying to pretend to America that I somehow don't care about the defense of our nation," he said, paraphrasing wording in the Star Spangled Banner including reference to "political bombs" bursting in the air.

"When I look up, that flag is still there and it belongs to all Americans," he said, pointing to a flag near the stage. "Not to them, not to a party. It belongs to us."

Kerry told the crowd of more than 5,000 that "asking questions about the direction of our country is patriotism."

The Bush campaign said on Thursday that it is cutting back its advertising by two-thirds, which Kerry said was designed to "distort" his record. Kerry told reporters he believed he had withstood the early Republican charge.

"They're out 50 million bucks and they got nothing for it," Kerry told reporters on his campaign plane on Thursday night. ...

One of the few times I cheered for Kerry during the nomination season was when he made similar comments about Tom DeLay questioning his patriotism. I have my problems with Kerry but at least he appears to be just the right person to respond to the kind of anti-patriotic bullshit that Republicans spread about Democrats. Kudos for Sen. Kerry! I'm going to hit the donation button just for this.

Kerry 5, Bush 2

Smackdown, week 7

No bullet list this week. I've been to busy at work to collect a sufficient number of links to give good coverage of the weeks events.

This week continues the pattern of the last few weeks where Kerry is pretty much missing from the national news coverage (comparatively) while Bush is getting hammered by uncomfortable reports from every direction. Iraq continues to hammer at the perception of Bush's (and Republican's) strength in foreign policy (April was the worst month on record for American deaths and its barely half over) while the 9/11 hearings continue to undermine the image that Bush knows what he is doing about terrorism (or at least that he was head and shoulders above everyone before him). On the economic front there hasn't been any really bad news but there hasn't been any really good news that Rove could use to distract attention away from problems outside the United States.

And then came news that Bush is ratcheting back his advertising push after spending nearly $40 million on ads that have barely nicked Kerry's overall standing. The "huge" financial advantage that Bush allegedly has over Kerry appears to be disappearing. If Kerry's team has adopted the rope-a-dope strategy of taking the worst Bush could dish out early and still be standing at the end then they are to be applauding for pulling it off. Now Kerry is planning his own ad push that appears to be the first attempt from his campaign to go on the offensive. Here's hoping it works.

Thursday, April 15, 2004

Streams Of Consciousness

I've been keeping a journal (otherwise known as a paper blog). I tend to write in a stream of consciousness fashion in my journal and I've toyed with the idea of posting some of my thoughts here. 

Lord knows it be nice to talk about something other than politics. Honest, it's not the only thing I care about! The following should be proof of that:

Does God Believe In You?

There are worse things in this life then dying young, among which might be included living a life without meaning.

Life is brutal, so we might as well be brutal.

Life is beautiful, so we might as well be beautiful.

Some believe one or the other of these propositions and not the other.

The irony of life is that both may be right.

"Hell is other people," said a character in Sartre's No Exit.

Well, we might respond that such is also the case with heaven.

Again, the truth of one proposition does not make the other false.

We live in a brutal world whose brutality is committed daily, by man against man, by society against society, by every creature against each other.

Man is not the only animal that plays with its food.

Yet Life IS Beautiful!

The sheer enormity of creation stuns us with its beauty. From the scale and grandeur of the cosmos to the sublime complexity of a snowflake. It is hard not to live in awe of these things.

And, just as man can be brutal to man, he is also capable of the greatest examples of love and devotion.

The depths of man's soul has no limits! We can be both unnecessarily cruel and excessively kind to each other.

History shows us this.

If life were simply a race of brute against brute and to the winner goes the spoils then what would be the point of living?

If life were only despair than why not just kill yourself?

Because we are capable of more than mere cruelty. As described above, our capacity for love is equal to our capacity for hate. (Love and hate are not emotional opposites. Indifference is the greatest cruelty of all).

We were created with both capacities.

Why?

Why were we created with the ability, nay the inclination to cause such suffering?

So that we might overcome it and prove ourselves to be more than just brutes.

God is a right bloody bastard.

God is the fount of Love.

Again, one proposition does not contradict the other. God could save us from ourselves, but what would be the point?

God understands better than us that we have the capacity to save ourselves.

Does God believe in you?

The answer can be nothing but YES!

More to follow...

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

More on the Air America injunction

I've done a quick run-through of the AAR injunction request and MBRI it looks like this is what happened:

  1. AAR and MBRI reached agreements on leasing air time on the LA and Chicago stations.
  2. Some dispute has arisen with respect to the LA station (the allegation previously mentioned is that MBRI was double-billing the time on the LA station, meaning they were selling the time to both AAR and some other entity. I do not know anything about the truth or falsity of that allegation.)
  3. As a result of that dispute, AAR apparently put a stop payment to MBRI with respect to the LA station.
  4. MBRI, apparently in response, took AAR off the air in both the LA and Chicago stations.
  5. The essence of the injunction request is that MBRI did not have the right to suspend service in Chicago in response to a dispute about the LA station.

(caveat: I'm not a lawyer of course)

Cohen on AA

Cohen is being interviewed on AA as I write. He is calling Liu "a crook" who tried to steal money from them. Cohen sounds like a smart cookie who would know that making that kind of allegation would amount to defamation if he can't back it up. He put a hold on the check until the matter was cleared up (what "the matter" is I haven't heard yet).

That was fast

The Smoking Gun has the restraining order AA has filed against Liu.

America America Speaks

Air America responds to both Liu and Drudge:

This Liu-ser was ripping off our boss Evan Cohen big time (he can’t do that, that’s our job). Evan found out about it and he stopped payment on a check to keep Liu-cifer from ripping him off even more. You can touch Evan for the occasional meal or drinks but a million bucks is crossing the line. And if we ever get low on cash, we can always call Barbra Streisand. Or any of the
Baldwins. Except Stephen.

So we got screwed, Liu’d, and tattooed. How Liu can you get? In Liu of payment. Liu’d and lascivious behavior. These write themselves. What we’re getting at is that we hate him.

So now everyone’s saying we’re going down the dumper in Chicago and Los Angeles, but what they don’t tell you is that we’re still on in Portland. And we OWN Portland. And let’s not forget Riverside and Plattsburgh. And New
York.  And streaming on the internet. And XM. And Sirius. Actually we’re fine.

So cool your jets. Air America Radio isn’t dead, we’re in court and we’re going to slam Liu’s head in a car door. Another metaphor. We hope to be back on the air tomorrow or the next day in those markets.

So there was a "bounced check", after a fashion, but it was because Cohen put a stop-payment on it, not that Cohen couldn't cover the cost.

Sounds like there's a back-story here that we have yet to hear. Most likely this is a problem that has been building for a while but only went public today when Liu slammed the door on AA in Chicago and LA. It will be interesting to see the results of the legal action AA is taking against Liu. But at least Cohen doesn't sound like he is going to sit back and take it.

And the publicity over this could be pure gold for AA. The on air reporting on this on AA indicates that they are going to take full advantage of this. Nothing like the suggestion that they are being repressed to add fuel to the fire.

Charity Case

Bush couldn't answer the question about what his biggest mistake has been.

Help him out.

Sadly, I find that I can't decide between the list of available choices.

Air America Update

Blogging of the President does some investigation into the owner of MRBI:

There may be a very simple explanation for the squabble, however. Try searching on the political donations of the President of Multicultural radio (the company that shut down the LA and Chicago stations) , Arthur Liu. In addition to donations to the NAB, the broadcasters lobbying organizations, Arthur Liu has been generous with Alfonse D'Amato and Rick Lazio. Is it possible--as Randi Rhodes is apparently now claiming--that Liu was paid off to make things difficult for the budding radio network?

This may be developing--but I'm guessing Drudge will continue to ignore this side of the story. If it does turn out that Liu was paid to shut down the network, it's a testament to the real success of Air America.

I don't know. I think this is pretty flimsy evidence on which to hang a conspiracy theory. Many successful businessman has been known to donate to both sides of the political aisle (it's called covering your bets). Has Liu made comparable contributions to Democrats?

I suspect this is more the case of ordinary business-screwing-business then a partisan political conspiracy. But I'm open to the alternative possibility.

Update: Hoffmania has a good summary of this story and Blah3 has the financials on Liu

Air America off the air?

Air America has been pulled off the air in Chicago and Los Angeles. The owner of both stations (WNTD in Chicago and KBLA in LA) is claiming that AA bounced a check. AA is saying that that is an "outright lie":.

Here's a press release from AA:

Statement of Evan Cohen, Chairman of Air America Radio:

"Air America Radio is temporarily unable to be heard on WNTD in Chicago and KBLA in Los Angeles, but Chicago and Los Angeles listeners can still hear our broadcast on the web at airamericaradio.com and on XM Satellite Radio (channel 167).

"MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting's conduct in this matter has been disgraceful. To shut off a broadcast that listeners rely on without warning and in the middle of discussions is the height of irresponsibility and a slap in the face of the media industry. In addition, it is a clear violation of their contractual obligations, and we are seeking legal remedies against them in court."

Apparently the lawyer for AA was on the Randi Rhodes show earlier to explain what is going on but I didn't hear it. Over on Table Talk I've heard reports that MRBI may be playing hardball with AA in an attempt to force re-negotiation of their contract because AA is actually doing better than expected. I don't know anything about MRBI but with a name like that you wouldn't think they are members of the VRWC.

Here's a report from the Chicago Tribune

Update: The following is a post in the comments section of The Majority Report blog:

Just to repeat this one last time... I'll use small words and keep it to less than a page for all the friends of Mad King George:

The Chicago/LA Situation was just explained on Randi's show. Basically, the owner of Multinational was doing a radio doubledip (selling air time in LA to two separate stations, one being AAR), and AAR has called them on it. In retaliation, Multi closed feeds in LA and Chicago (the latter being illegal, since it's a separate contract).

Multi's owner got his hand caught in the cookie jar, and AAR's gonna nail him. Rock on! Internet feed is just fine, TYVM.

Posted by: Woody at April 14, 2004 04:12 PM

Here's the web page for MRBI.

Summary for the lazy

Sean Aday of The Gadflyer gives us the Reader's Digest version of last nights press conference:

Q: Sir, you like to say that the August 6, 2001 intelligence briefing didn’t say al Qaeda was planning to fly planes into the World Trade Center at 8:48 a.m. on a sunny morning on September 11th as Mabel Johnson sat down to have a bagel at her house in Des Moines and a butterfly flapped its wings in Singapore, and therefore there was nothing “threatening” about the memo and no need for you to take action. But it did mention the likelihood of hijackings. Did the memo trigger you to take any action whatsoever to prevent even this kind of attack?
A: No.

Conventional Wisdom Watch

Howie Kurtz on the conventional wisdom response to Bush's press conference:

Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times sees Bush gaining little yardage:

"For all the attention President Bush devoted to the war in Iraq at his news conference Tuesday night, his message boiled down to three words: Stay the course.

"Faced with rising turmoil across Iraq, Bush repeatedly stressed his resolve to drive that troubled nation toward stability and democracy -- but offered no new plans on how to achieve those aims. Long on goals and short on means, his performance left even some supporters wondering whether he had found a formula to reassure the growing number of Americans expressing doubt in polls about his course.

" 'I was depressed,' said conservative strategist William Kristol, one of the war's most vocal proponents. 'I am obviously a supporter of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there.'"

If he can't sell Kristol. . . .

As I suggested in my last post, the electorate appears to be dividing into two groups: those who at least suspect that Bush is in over his head and those who cling to the belief that Bush is doing great because to think otherwise is to frightening a prospect. The latter group will latch onto anything that even remotely affirms that belief and thus they will judge Bush's press conference as a success. But, as William Kristol points out, it probably won't do anything to persuade those who are beginning to consider that Bush is not the man for the job.

And the more Bush continues to make the sale the more people will eventually say it's time to try someone new.

I only hope that Kerry can persuade the fence-sitters that he is a viable alternative.

Rationalizations are a wonderful thing

William Saletan provides an excellent write-up of last nights press conference. In it he identifies what might be the key flaw in George W. Bush's personality: he believes that as long as he is consistent in what he says then what he says must be credible, regardless of whether what he says has any correspondence with reality.

Consider the question of WMD:

As to the WMD, Bush said the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq had confirmed that Iraq was "hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught." See the logic? A country that hides something must be afraid of getting caught, and a country afraid of getting caught must be hiding something. Each statement validates the other, sparing Bush the need to find the WMD.

Bush does occasionally cite other people's statements to support his credibility. Saddam Hussein "was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States," Bush told Moran. "That's … the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence." Actually, the Security Council didn't say Iraq was a threat to the United States, but never mind. The more fundamental problem with Bush's appeal to prewar assessments by Congress and the Security Council is that these assessments weren't reality. They were attempts—not even independent attempts, since the administration heavily lobbied both bodies—to approximate reality. When they turned out not to match reality, members of Congress (including Republicans) and the Security Council (including U.S. allies) repudiated them.

Not Bush. He's impervious to evidence. "I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where [the WMD] are," he told Time's John Dickerson at the press conference. A year after Saddam's ouster and four months after Saddam's capture, Bush continued to insist that "people who should know about weapons" are still "worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. … We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point." You can agree or disagree with this theory. But you can't falsify it.

In other words, Bush still insists that the evidence for WMD is as credible now as it was two years ago and that they will be found some day.

This is truly incredible, but it fits into a theory I have had for some time that some people become so invested in their belief of their own correctness that they will deny reality to the last minute if it threatens that belief. Whether this is because of an overwhelming hubris (in the case of Bush) or the simple fear of what it might mean if they are wrong I can't say.

On a related note, I was watching a few minutes of Larry King last night in which he was interviewing some relatives of soldiers in Iraq to get their reaction to Bush's press conference. Two of them were the father and wife of a man who was recently killed. They were absolutely steadfast in their support of Bush and their belief that going into Iraq was the right thing to do while the third, the brother of another killed soldier and soldier himself who was injured in Iraq, expressed skepticism about Bush and the reasons for going there.

What was interesting about this segment was that when King heard the brother saying that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, Larry asked him, "So you think your brother's death was meaningless?" The brother answered emphatically not. But it raises the point that some people seem to think that, unless the war in Iraq was justified, that must necessarily mean that all the soldiers who have died their "died in vain".

This is bullshit. The reasons why the United States decides to send the military in does not have any relation to the honor of the soldiers who put their lives on the line to defend their nation. The simple fact that they have joined up and gone into combat automatically conveys honor on them regardless of the reason for them being there.

The father and wife, insisted, like Bush, that the WMD would eventually be found. Which tells me that they still buy into the "justified cause" = "honorable death" equation and that if the cause is shown to have been unjustified then that means their son/husband "died in vain". They would rather hang on to the increasingly laughable idea that Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat to the United States than have to face the idea that their loved died for nothing.

Frankly, the father and wife team looked terrified as they kept insisting that the WMD would be found and that Dubya was a good leader. They were terrified because, in their hearts, they are scared that either might not be true.

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Gun owners against Bush?

This is pretty amazing. Several months back I speculated about the possibility of the NRA endorsing a Dean candidacy but I figured that the best we could hope for would be the NRA declining to endorse anyone.

Now comes this LA Times story about how a lot of gun owners are pissed off at Bush but aren't quite ready to endorse Kerry:

Surprisingly, the issues that have most alienated many gun groups from the Bush administration have little to do with firearms, but rather with the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11. Opposition to such laws has aligned gun-rights activists with unlikely partners, such as liberal Democrats and the ACLU.

"It's not just gun rights for us, it's the Bill of Rights," said Angel Shamaya, executive director of KeepAndBearArms.com, which claims tens of thousands of supporters. "A lot of gun-rights advocates are from mildly upset to livid over President Bush and his administration."

The dilemma Bush faces is that although most gun-rights groups consider him far more friendly to their concerns than Kerry, he may have lost enough of their political support to keep them from becoming an energized and therefore influential voting bloc in a close election.

It's hard not to imagine what they would be thinking if Dean were the nominee.

Monday, April 12, 2004

Sometimes silence is golden

I've been critical in a sort-of-snarky fashion of John Kerry's low profile over the last few weeks and I agree, in part with Kos' confusion about why Kerry is running for President, but I think Susan Stranahan of CJR has a point about this rise in Kerry criticism in the blogosphere:

Apparently, it hasn't yet occurred to befuddled bloggers what is abundantly clear to seasoned campaign operatives and reporters: With the status quo in Iraq shifting abruptly week by week, any candidate coming forth now with a detailed plan for the Iraq of January 2005 is setting himself up for instant obsolescence.

This raising an interesting point about the dynamic of the blogosphere's feed cycle: we live off whatever the political hot shots are doing on a daily basis. It is our bread and butter to react to what a Bush, Kerry or whomever is doing on that day. So, when someone drops of the radar, we notice it much more than the average voter and, like pets who aren't fed regularly, we start to snarl and snap.

Kerry may be adopted the most politically viable strategy right now in response to a chaotic situation. First of all, Iraq and the 9/11 commission are hurting Bush, so just let it keep on hurting him and don't insert yourself into the dialog. Second, if you do insert yourself into the dialog then you will have to answer for whatever it is you put out there.

Kerry will eventually have to answer the question, "Why would you be any better?" But he can afford to wait until events present a better time to present a viable option.

Thank God!

Can I just say how glad I am that John McCain has put a stake in the idea of his being John Kerry's Veep? I've been steadily grinding my teeth away over the last week or so in response to all the the otherwise sensible bloggers who have seriously entertained this idea. I'm sorry, but it was NEVER going to happen and it was stupid to even talk about it in the first place.

To quote Karl Rove: "It's a sign of the Kerry campaign's tactical weakness and shortsightedness if they keep talking about McCain, because it raises expectations that they are serious about him -- and what happens when it turns out that it wasn't serious at all? He (McCain) would never accept it in a million years, anyway."

Rove is absolutely correct. Furthermore, rumors of Kerry considering McCain as his running mate only feeds into the idea that Democrats are weak. After all, if they are a strong, national party why would they need to look to an outsider as a viable option?

So all of you people out there still pining after a Kerry-McCain ticket...stiffle it! You aren't helping matters at all.