Joseph Wilson is the man who exposed the Bush administration’s Niger-yellowcake lie. In return, a “senior administration official” has outed Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative, according to right-wing columnist Robert Novak. This has sparked a lot of discussion.
And now a British weapons advisor, apparently the man behind the whole yellowcake story, has turned up dead.
I had never heard “brights” used to describe anything other than high-beam headlights until Sunday, when I ran across a friend I hadn’t seen in a while, and the topic came up. Apparently brights has been co-opted as a catch-all term to describe agnostics, atheists, etc. It sounds a little too airy-fairy for my tastes–and indeed, following the model of “gay” for homosexual, it was coined to put a cheery word to a ghettoized social group.
In June, Richard Dawkins, who has never been shy about describing himself as an atheist, used the term. More recently, Daniel Dennet came out. Interestingly, the term has stirred up some ire among those it might describe.
“I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.”
Ari Fleischer
You’ve got to love this stuff. It’s like a verbal Möbius strip.
Bill Frist is proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I figured we’d see plenty of “defense of marriage” bills. But a constitutional amendment? That’s cutting to the chase, alright.
Frist’s logic is comically confused. “And I’m thinking of, whether it’s prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern.” What he’s putatively concerned about is the removal of legal oversight, not the creation of it (but that’s really just a straw man). At least he doesn’t embarrass himself quite as much as Scalia, who fretted in his dissent that removing sodomy laws would pave the way for legalized bestiality, pederasty, and (whisper it) masturbation.
Frist continues that sodomy laws should be handled at the state level: “That’s where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected.” But not marriage: that’s a matter for the whole country, uniformly.
MoveOn.org has published the results of a virtual primary. It is, of course, not binding, and arguably doesn’t really mean anything: although MoveOn did go to some trouble to avoid ballot-box stuffing, there’s always that risk. MoveOn had already made nice noises about Howard Dean, and the voters would probably be sympathetic to MoveOn. MoveOn only gave three of the candidates an opportunity to address the voters in advance–it defined those three as the “front runners,” but those three are Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Dennis Kucinich (??), which is unrealistic. And sure enough, those three easily outpolled the others. Dean got over 40% of the vote. Kucinich, inexplicably, got over 20%.
The others got the dregs, and there wasn’t much for them to fight over. Carol Moseley-Braun outpolled Joe Lieberman, which strikes me as unrepresentative. Wesley Clark–who wasn’t even on the ballot–outpolled Al Sharpton. This is interesting: Sharpton doesn’t even have much cred among the dedicated left, and a recently retired general, who has made only vague noises about running, does. But I’m not sure what it signifies: has the left moved to the right? Does Clark appeal to a certain subset? Is he perceived as more viable today because of his military background?
When I’m president, we’ll have executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day
Representative and Dem presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Makes G.W. sound like a frigging constitutional scholar and defender of democracy.
While I’ve felt that Howard Dean has been the only really interesting Dem running for the White House, I’m pleased to see John Edwards taking a stand.
Only time will tell, but I have a feeling we should be paying more attention to the protests in Iran.
John Dean, who should know a thing or two about such matters, has written that if it turns out there are no WMDs in Iraq, then G.W. is guilty of “the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison.” Interestingly, he follows the format, sort of, laid down in the noted blog-post by billmon.
Coincidentally, a Pentagon report from September 2002 has made its way into public view, and it uses much more equivocal language about the existence of WMDs in Iraq than the administration. Never mind reports that the intelligence on WMDs was cooked.
Given the current makeup of Congress, it isn’t likely that anything G.W. does would result in impeachment proceedings. But it’s still interesting to hear his perspective.
Nick Denton nails it
Even Western liberals, under a veneer of multicultural modesty, are cultural imperialists at heart. We believe, even if it remains tactfully unspoken, in the global conquest of sexual freedom, rock music, and science fiction. The more sensible liberal pacifism goes along these lines: no point in sending in the Marines, because Hollywood and the internet will do the job so much more effectively
I’ve never been so tactful as to leave it unspoken. Barrage them with Baywatch, bombard them with Sara Lee products, and they’ll come around.
The multi-culti, politically correct crowd might wonder “Isn’t this bad? If people around the world gobbled up Western liberal democracy, wouldn’t that endanger cultural diversity?” I suppose if religious zealotry, communist militancy, etc, are considered valid parts of “cultural diversity,” then yes. But I don’t accept that liberal democracy is somehow inherently “western,” that it forces cultures into some sort of straitjacket, or that the alternatives on offer are preferable.
“FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration”
In modern doublespeak, “sets” means “rescinds”
Paul Wolfowitz, traitor to his cause, has admitted that the whole WMD pretext for war was just that.
This is all-but the final capitulation in a series of dodges and weaves that the administration has been taking in the past few weeks on this subject. Some right-wing think-tank types have, hilariously, suggested that no, Iraq didn’t have any WMDs, but his people were unwilling to tell that to Saddam, who wanted to believe he had some, so they tricked him, and the rest of the world, into thinking there were some. Or, even richer, Saddam knew he didn’t have WMDs, but wanted us to think he did. Eh?
One excuse tossed out by Rumsfeld is that Saddam did have WMDs, but destroyed them at the last minute. By comparison, this at least passes the laugh test, but how long would it take to dismantle a chemical arsenal of the size we had accused him of having? I really don’t know, but I’m guessing it would take more than a couple weeks, and would probably be accompanied by equipment movements that would be obvious to spy satellites.
I don’t expect this will derail G.W.’s popularity–nothing else seems to–but at least I can add smugness to my bitterness and despair now.
If your name happens to be David Nelson, you’re on the government’s “hassle me” list. There are a lot of guys named David Nelson.
This article contains a mistake: “Somewhere in the world there’s an actual terrorist suspect named David Nelson who started all this mess.” Not true. It seems that anybody the government feels like hassling can get on the list, including peace activists. I leave the irony as an exercise for the reader.
One thing about this concerns me: the government could use this problem as an excuse to introduce a national ID card system.
In the Sunday NY Times, Maureen Dowd pointed out the tension between the Secretaries of State and Defense. Yesterday, Peter Jennings made an interesting flub, where he referred to “Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld.” And that night on the Daily Show, John Stewart did the same–though I suspect he was doing so intentionally.
The Daily Show also had a wickedly funny “debate,” juxtaposing clips of Governor GW Bush with those of President GW Bush speaking on foreign policy, etc. Especially funny the way they showed one smirking at whatever the other was saying. Governor Bush sounded…rational by comparison, although President Bush did a better job of reigning in his beavis-and-butthead speaking style where he laughs at his own inanities.
The Daily Show covered this last night, but it bears repeating. Evidently Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, though they are Republicans, aren’t Republican enough for members of their party on the weird right. An organization called the Club for Growth has taken out ads attacking them for resisting Bush’s tax-cut plan.
That fact is weird enough, but the ads themselves are surreal. Playing on francophobic hysteria, the ads equate Snowe and Voinovich with France, with the dread tricoleur photoshopped in behind them. I’m guessing that anyone dimwitted enough to be swayed by these ads would be too ignorant to recognize France’s flag anyhow. The rest of us are left feeling either smug or appalled by just how weird the right wing really is.
Every word of it. Every skeptical, accusatory thing I said about the war in Iraq. Because it turns out that, yes, Iraq was harboring terrorists. Well, one terrorist. Abu Abbas. Remember him? I thought not. He hijacked the Achille Lauro and killed one of its passengers. In 1985.
This is not to trivialize the crime, but we didn’t invade a country, kill and maim thousands of civilians, allow over 100 of our own troops to die, and spend $75 billion and counting to round up this guy. Oh yeah…I remember hearing something about weapons of mass destruction a few weeks ago. Did they find any of those? Nope.
One of many, many disturbing aspects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is what the broader ramifications could turn out to be. Howard Dean has suggested that China may feel emboldened to “liberate” Taiwan. For that matter, India might decide to “liberate” Sri Lanka (but perhaps not Kashmir, because Pakistan’s got nukes). Yeehaw! I got yer New World Order right here, pappy.
A few articles in the paper today struck me as interesting as repercussions of the war. North Korea is sounding more conciliatory. So is Iran.
I suspect Bush apologists will look at these two data points and smugly declare that it was the strategy all along with Gulf War II to make an example of Iraq and get these other Axis of Evil honorees to play nice. And I’ll even allow as how, just maybe, such really was the intent all along. But I would argue that any similarity between that goal and these glimmers of possible outcomes is completely coincidental. These outcomes are completely unpredictable, as Cuba’s current crackdown on dissent suggests. No word on any actions, provocative or conciliatory, taken by unindicted co-conspirator in the Axis of Evil, Syria.
Plenty of celebrities have taken anti-war stances, and in some cases, it turns out that corporate entities that they’re somehow entangled with take umbrage. Somewhat more perplexing is the pro-war agitators who claim that celebrities (and anyone else against the war, but especially celebrities because of their high profile) gives (I should say “gave”) “comfort” to Saddam Hussein.
What does that mean, you ask? Here’s a surprising translated transcript of a recent meeting held by Saddam Hussein and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, his Information Minister. You might think that in the midst of a shooting war with a vastly superior force that these guys would have more urgent things to discuss. You would be wrong.
SH: So what celebrities have recently spoken out against the war?
MSS: Let’s see, Viggo Mortensen, Eric Roberts, Jane Fonda, and Oliver Stone
SH: Viggo Mortensen? Who’s he?
MSS: You know, he’s Aragorn from Lord of the Rings.
SH: Really? What a coup! He was great in that movie, don’t you think? Having him on our side is truly a great comfort. Put that out in the next communication to the troops. What did he say about the war?
MSS: Well, he didn’t actually say anything, he just wore an anti-war T-shirt.
SH: Well, anyhow. Even that should be enough to demoralize those invading brigands and make them easy pickings for our fearless warriors.
MSS: What about these others?
SH: Well, it doesn’t hurt to mention Jane Fonda–she’s always reliable for speaking out against America’s imperialist aggression. And you know, she’s really hot considering her age. But forget Eric Roberts–nobody knows who he is. And if we put in Oliver Stone, well, our own troops will start wondering if there’s some kind of conspiracy.
MSS: Knowing we have the sympathy of these Hollywood celebrities will inflame the fighting spirit of our brave soldiers to even greater heights! America’s mercenary thugs will soon be crushed!
Yep, that’s exactly how it went.