Remember last Friday that El Presidente was interviewed on Irish TV by Carole Coleman who pressed him with follow-up questions that he didn't like, and he got all testy?
Turns out that Bush had insisted on having the questions IN ADVANCE, which Carole Coleman dutifully supplied, so El Presidente knew exactly what she was going to ask. Kevin Drum comments on what then happened:
"It's unbelievable. We have a president who apparently feels uncomfortable doing an interview with a foreign journalist unless he knows beforehand what she's going to ask, and then behaves childishly when she actually follows up and insists on genuine answers to the prescripted questions instead of the usual talking point pabulum that the American press laps up. How dare she interrupt the president of the United States and demand real answers!"
Bush got so mad about the interview that an offer to make Laura Bush available for a separate session was withdrawn.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Farmers Can SO tell S*** from Shinola
The heart of Bush's red states is rural, and without the rural vote in 2000, El Presidente would not be El Presidente but rather a fake rancher in Crawford, Texas. So it was with some surprise that we awoke Monday morning to the story on National Public Radio of a poll taken in 17 "battleground" states of strictly rural voters which shows Bush's support there softening significantly. Oh, he would still win among rural voters, but by a dwindling margin, and if he doesn't win by a huge margin in rural areas, as he did in 2000, it's another sign that this particular ship of state is indeed taking on water.
The poll and its results are available on the website of the Center for Rural Strategies, our friends over in Whitesburg, Ky., who successfully opposed CBS's plans to air a reality show called "The Real Beverly Hillbillies." The Center for Rural Strategies is completely non-partisan and in fact hired a Republican to conduct the poll, Bill Greener, who sounded a note of alarm for Republicans in analyzing the poll results.
The poll and its results are available on the website of the Center for Rural Strategies, our friends over in Whitesburg, Ky., who successfully opposed CBS's plans to air a reality show called "The Real Beverly Hillbillies." The Center for Rural Strategies is completely non-partisan and in fact hired a Republican to conduct the poll, Bill Greener, who sounded a note of alarm for Republicans in analyzing the poll results.
When Is a Draft Not a Draft?
When it's an "involuntary mobilization" of guys who've fulfilled their military obligation through the reserve program, but in whom the U.S. Army still has its hooks.
Reuters is reporting that the Pentagon will announce tomorrow that it intends to rope back into active service some 5,600 reservists who THOUGHT their obligations had been fulfilled. A defense department official told Reuters that while soldiers in the "Individual Ready Reserve" have served their voluntary obligation in the Army, they still can be mobilized involuntarily for several years after returning to civilian life.
In a notable understatement, Reuters said "The move ... represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in [Afghanistan and Iraq]." They might have said "mismanagement" rather than "strain," but that would have been too obvious.
Reuters is reporting that the Pentagon will announce tomorrow that it intends to rope back into active service some 5,600 reservists who THOUGHT their obligations had been fulfilled. A defense department official told Reuters that while soldiers in the "Individual Ready Reserve" have served their voluntary obligation in the Army, they still can be mobilized involuntarily for several years after returning to civilian life.
In a notable understatement, Reuters said "The move ... represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in [Afghanistan and Iraq]." They might have said "mismanagement" rather than "strain," but that would have been too obvious.
Monday, June 28, 2004
There's Absolutely No Excuse for Shopping at Wal-Mart
If I hadn't already taken a solemn vow never again to pass through the portals into a Wal-Mart store, I'd swear off shopping there all over again just on the strength of a judge's decision to allow a record-large class-action lawsuit to proceed on behalf of Wal-Mart's unequally paid female workers.
Start adding it up: Wal-Mart found to be exploiting illegal immigrant workers, even to the point of locking them in their stores overnight to prevent theft; Wal-Mart attempts to circumvent local government in Englewood, Calif., through a ballot initiative which would have freed it from city development rules; Wal-Mart routinely buys politicians, drives its competition out of business, and bullies town governments; Wal-Mart dangles jobs jobs jobs as a lure and pays poverty-level wages to people held on the part-time leash and pays women less as a store policy.
Yeah, right, I need to be giving them my money!
It 'pears that a lot of people weren't giving them any business in June, as the corporation has lowered its own forecast for sales growth.
Start adding it up: Wal-Mart found to be exploiting illegal immigrant workers, even to the point of locking them in their stores overnight to prevent theft; Wal-Mart attempts to circumvent local government in Englewood, Calif., through a ballot initiative which would have freed it from city development rules; Wal-Mart routinely buys politicians, drives its competition out of business, and bullies town governments; Wal-Mart dangles jobs jobs jobs as a lure and pays poverty-level wages to people held on the part-time leash and pays women less as a store policy.
Yeah, right, I need to be giving them my money!
It 'pears that a lot of people weren't giving them any business in June, as the corporation has lowered its own forecast for sales growth.
Supreme Court to Bush: "You're NOT Emporer of the Universe"
The Supreme Court today put a serious crimp in El Presidente's argument that he should get to do whatever he wants because God is guiding his every action.
"The Bush administration contends that as 'enemy combatants,' the men being held at Guantanamo Bay since the Afghanistan war are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed. The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision."
But today the Supremes refused to endorse that central claim of the White House: That the government has authority to seize and detain suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them. Foreign-born men held at Guantanamo can have their day in U.S. courts, the justices said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."
The court did back the administration in one important respect, ruling that President Bush has the authority to seize and hold a U.S. citizen, in this case Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, as an alleged enemy combatant, BUT that Hamdi can use American courts to argue that he is being held illegally.
The court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years. Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court. But from the looks of this ruling today, it looks likely that the lower court is going to rule that Padilla has every right in the word to be heard by a judge.
All of these guys may be just the worst human beings alive. That's never been the issue. The issue has been the White House's contention that it can do whatever it wanted to do without any judge or any court interferring. The Supremes put an end to that particular arrogance today.
At least we can hope this is an end of that strain of mind virus.
"The Bush administration contends that as 'enemy combatants,' the men being held at Guantanamo Bay since the Afghanistan war are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed. The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision."
But today the Supremes refused to endorse that central claim of the White House: That the government has authority to seize and detain suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them. Foreign-born men held at Guantanamo can have their day in U.S. courts, the justices said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."
The court did back the administration in one important respect, ruling that President Bush has the authority to seize and hold a U.S. citizen, in this case Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, as an alleged enemy combatant, BUT that Hamdi can use American courts to argue that he is being held illegally.
The court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years. Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court. But from the looks of this ruling today, it looks likely that the lower court is going to rule that Padilla has every right in the word to be heard by a judge.
All of these guys may be just the worst human beings alive. That's never been the issue. The issue has been the White House's contention that it can do whatever it wanted to do without any judge or any court interferring. The Supremes put an end to that particular arrogance today.
At least we can hope this is an end of that strain of mind virus.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Zell Went to Hell
Sen. Zell "I'm Not a Republican But I Play One on TV" Miller of Georgia has taken a high-profile speaker's slot at the Republican National Convention to continue bashing Democrats and slavering praise on El Presidente. Will we watch? No. Some car wrecks are just too painful to gaze upon.
But maybe the Dems need to line up Lee Iacocca to speak at the Democratic National Convention, since big-time businessman Iacocca, who supported George W. in 2000, has come out for Kerry. "Iacocca said he is changing sides because he was attracted to Kerry's economic plan, including his job creation proposals. He also said the presumptive Democratic nominee both understands change and will 'level' with the American people about how to adapt to that change."
We think Iacocca more than trumps the addled Miller.
But maybe the Dems need to line up Lee Iacocca to speak at the Democratic National Convention, since big-time businessman Iacocca, who supported George W. in 2000, has come out for Kerry. "Iacocca said he is changing sides because he was attracted to Kerry's economic plan, including his job creation proposals. He also said the presumptive Democratic nominee both understands change and will 'level' with the American people about how to adapt to that change."
We think Iacocca more than trumps the addled Miller.
Father, Forgive Me, For I Have Voted
Our favorite Catholic prelate, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, he who decided unilaterally that HE wouldn't give John Kerry communion should John Kerry ever by chance wind up in one of his pews, is still at it. "We always have to remember that it's objectively wrong to vote for a pro-choice politician," Burke told KMOX Radio. "People could be in ignorance of how serious this is. But once they understand and know this and then willingly do it, vote for a pro-choice candidate, then they need to confess that."
There won't be enough hours in the day to hear all those confessions.
There won't be enough hours in the day to hear all those confessions.
Friday, June 25, 2004
The Great State of Paranoia
Did North Carolina suddenly transform into Albania while we were dozing? You'd think these six Republicans vying for the privilege of running against Mike Easley this fall were running to be governor of Tirana, so xenophobic have their public utterances become. They compete with one another to bash immigrants as the greatest present threat to the well-being of The Tarheel State.
Now Fern Shubert, the only woman in this group of gnomes, has put up a TV commercial that the Raleigh News & Observer says comes within a hair's breadth of blaming the 9/11 attacks on Gov. Easley for his lax treatment of illegal immigrants. We didn't know this, but evidently those 19 terrorists were nesting in North Carolina all along, coddled by our Governor, who showered them with valid North Carolina driver's licenses just so they could move undetected among us. The radio ad version of the TV spot makes the logic simple -- your run-of-the-mill North Carolina voter can't tell one dark-skin from another: "...help stop Mike Easley from helping illegal aliens and the terrorists who hide among them."
Has the "moderate" frontrunner Richard Vinroot passed up this immigrant-bashing? His campaign website offers no search engine, so can't be for sure, but a quick scan of press releases doesn't include one about installing machine-gun checkpoints on our borders (though he's happy to play the anti-gay-marriage trump card).
Do we recall talk earlier in the year that the N.C. GOP wanted to "reach out" to the Hispanic population of the state? Or was that just one of our frequent hallucinations (which our doctors tell us are untreatable, at least with legal drugs). But maybe they meant "reach out" to Hispanics after the primary, since we know a Republican needs the racist base to win the first leg.
Now Fern Shubert, the only woman in this group of gnomes, has put up a TV commercial that the Raleigh News & Observer says comes within a hair's breadth of blaming the 9/11 attacks on Gov. Easley for his lax treatment of illegal immigrants. We didn't know this, but evidently those 19 terrorists were nesting in North Carolina all along, coddled by our Governor, who showered them with valid North Carolina driver's licenses just so they could move undetected among us. The radio ad version of the TV spot makes the logic simple -- your run-of-the-mill North Carolina voter can't tell one dark-skin from another: "...help stop Mike Easley from helping illegal aliens and the terrorists who hide among them."
Has the "moderate" frontrunner Richard Vinroot passed up this immigrant-bashing? His campaign website offers no search engine, so can't be for sure, but a quick scan of press releases doesn't include one about installing machine-gun checkpoints on our borders (though he's happy to play the anti-gay-marriage trump card).
Do we recall talk earlier in the year that the N.C. GOP wanted to "reach out" to the Hispanic population of the state? Or was that just one of our frequent hallucinations (which our doctors tell us are untreatable, at least with legal drugs). But maybe they meant "reach out" to Hispanics after the primary, since we know a Republican needs the racist base to win the first leg.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
A Little Torture Will Get You a Federal Judgeship
We're learning more about Jay S. Bybee, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote the notorious Aug. 2002 memo addressed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales ... which asserted that El President is free under his authority as commander in chief to order torture, notwithstanding treaties and laws barring it.
The Mormon Bybee is a graduate of Brigham Young University and now presides in Las Vegas as a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to which lifetime job El Presidente appointed him, apparently in fine appreciation of his ability to tie tiny, legalistic knots on the president's cat o' nine tails.
For example, Bybee's memorandum defined torture only as pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function." Judge Bybee's memo went on to say torture is unlawful only if the infliction of pain is the offender's specific objective. "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent," he wrote.
In other words, dear saints, and since we KNOW that the objective of all interrogations is knowledge of the enemy, then ergo, no severe pain inflicted in the extraction of that knowledge can be torture, because torture was not the goal, only the means. Maybe it takes a Mormon to rack reason that severely (and a Methodist to run with it and then not only deny that he ran with it but fail to remember that he ever saw such a memorandum). Latter Day Saints? Latter Day Sophists!
Every time Bush now speaks on the torture issue, he's clearly following Bybee's legal advice, that is, saying blandly "this White House never ordered torture," when he knows very well that lawyer Bybee told him in the memo that what was being done was NOT torture as long as they called it something else, i.e., information extraction. "We didn't order torture; we ordered intelligence gathering. Therefore, I am still the Godliest president ever to occupy the Oval Office, and the Hand of God is guiding my every act."
Gag me with a hymnal!
The Mormon Bybee is a graduate of Brigham Young University and now presides in Las Vegas as a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to which lifetime job El Presidente appointed him, apparently in fine appreciation of his ability to tie tiny, legalistic knots on the president's cat o' nine tails.
For example, Bybee's memorandum defined torture only as pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function." Judge Bybee's memo went on to say torture is unlawful only if the infliction of pain is the offender's specific objective. "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent," he wrote.
In other words, dear saints, and since we KNOW that the objective of all interrogations is knowledge of the enemy, then ergo, no severe pain inflicted in the extraction of that knowledge can be torture, because torture was not the goal, only the means. Maybe it takes a Mormon to rack reason that severely (and a Methodist to run with it and then not only deny that he ran with it but fail to remember that he ever saw such a memorandum). Latter Day Saints? Latter Day Sophists!
Every time Bush now speaks on the torture issue, he's clearly following Bybee's legal advice, that is, saying blandly "this White House never ordered torture," when he knows very well that lawyer Bybee told him in the memo that what was being done was NOT torture as long as they called it something else, i.e., information extraction. "We didn't order torture; we ordered intelligence gathering. Therefore, I am still the Godliest president ever to occupy the Oval Office, and the Hand of God is guiding my every act."
Gag me with a hymnal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)