The Liberal Igloo

Moving Out Of The Minor Leagues

2005-04-29T20:08:00.000-05:00

Hey, there. I've moved my site somewhere else.

Come here to view my new site. It is the Office of the Independent Blogger @ www.OfficeOfTheIndependentBlogger.com. I've gone pro!

It'll be the same quality, just on my own site now.

Confusion Over Chalabi

2005-04-29T12:05:00.000-05:00

Just what in the hell is Ahmad Chalabi doing out of jail? Shouldn't he be in prison for giving Iran secrets? Or, at the least, shouldn't he be out of favor with the White House for giving us such false information in the run-up to the invasion? You would think so, but, like everyone else on the Bush Administration's payroll, he's been promoted - to Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq. Typical Bushit.

Read that link. The man is a criminal in so many senses of the word. This is outrageous. This is the most outrageous appointment I have seen any Government make since Ronald Reagan tried to put Robert "I executed the Saturday Night Massacre" Bork on the Supreme Court.

Blowing Smoke

2005-04-29T11:59:00.000-05:00

BusinessWeek has a piece up about the Bush Energy Plan, and it is worth a good, thorough read.

Excerpt: Want to take a real step to prevent gasoline shortages and keep a lid on energy prices? Easing regulations on refineries may sound good. But the Administration could make things truly easier for refineries by requiring that the nation use just one blend of fuel, instead of the current dozens that various states require. Of course, that wouldn't be a hit in many of the red states, which currently don't use the cleanest-burning fuels. It would be a bold step that would make a real difference, however.

Want to increase supplies of oil and gas? Instead of drilling in the ANWR or adding a few LNG ports, Bush could open up areas like the Gulf coast of Florida or the Rocky Mountains, which has a 60-year supply of natural gas, to exploration and drilling. But that wouldn't be popular in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor, or in some of the Western states that are strong Bush country.

The President's failure to propose any meaningful solutions, while claiming to "do the right thing for America" makes it hard not to conclude that the Administration's main goal is not energy independence, but rather improving its standing the polls.

Thoughts On Bush Press Conference

2005-04-29T11:29:00.000-05:00

The President spoke yesterday about energy and social security (transcript here).

I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent priority.

In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush presented an energy bill to the Congress which failed for one reason: It included the opening-up of ANWR in it, and thus the Democrats rejected it. If W. tries to do the same his plan won't pass. Come on, Mr. President. You want to tear up the arctic wildlife refuge? Fine. Just present it to Congress on its own, not with something else to give it cover.

These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy. When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social Security will be bankrupt.

No, Mr. President, don't attempt to say that Social Security will be Pearl Harbored by its own shortfalls in 2041. By then, it will only be able to make around 3/4s of its payments. A problem? Sure. But that, Mr. Bush, does not equate to bankruptcy.

Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off.

I honestly applaud the sentiment behind this idea, but, and I'm just curious here: Where are the Republicans to call this class warfare? I mean, you know. That's what they do when anyone shows more sympathy to the poor than the rich, and what's more class warfare!-ey than "the poor get more out of my system?"

In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

You know, if it weren't for the fact that I fear George W. Bush's fiscal policies (seems to me he's just trying to bankrupt the Treasury) I'd love this idea. As it stands, I like it. One of my top reservations with the President's Social Security plan was that you'd be gambling it away in the Stock Market, and, frankly, as great as it is to control your own money, the Government shouldn't allow people the oppurtunity to throw away their Social Security cash. But, with these Treasury Bonds as an option, I think his idea (or his advisors' idea) is sound.

Finally, because the question-and-answer session with the press didn't excite me toomuch, allow me to present to you my favorite Bushisms of the night.

Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work that way.

See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, it's not -- it's not worth a darn; I don't think I need to go.

Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership.

Let's see here. Richard. There is somebody with a bad throat back there.

Diverse Entry

2005-04-28T14:21:00.000-05:00

There are so many things to talk about today, so let's hop straight to it. Former Governor of California, and multiple-time Presidential candidate Jerry Brown has started his own blog, with open comments. And, unlike Howard Dean, he actually does his own blogging. Very impressive, Jerry.

Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition who once bragged about how he fights with "stealth politics and you don't know it's over until it's election night and you're in a body bag," is now working as a consultant to Microsoft, where Microsoft and Reed have come under fire. Note to all my readers who just love their porn: Reed, given his penchant for "stealth politics," may be trying to get Microsoft to install software which makes it impossible to get any porn on your computer. Hey, you never know. You won't know it's over until your porn is gone, and, when Reed succeeds, don't say I didn't tell you so. On another note (I was going to say "Seriously, though" but I am totally serious about what I believe Reed is up to!) what in God's name does Ralph Reed know about computers?

Al Gore is back in the news, speaking out against the Rabid Right's attempt to dominate our Congress by eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees. It's a great speech. Much more tempered than his last few for MoveOn. Looks to me as though someone is trying to get on the green side of the grassroots. Al Gore is the strongest possible candidate that we have. And, just think. He'll be the first President since FDR to be elected three times!

Last night, I watched Hannity and Colmes, for reasons still unknown to me. Hannity continued to promote the show by mentioned Al Gore's insanity, and they played the segment off as "Al Gore Goes Gaga II." It was so inane, because Gore's whole speech was very calm and tempered and balanced, to say the least. But, you know, Sean Hannity doesn't need facts. He's better than that. I couldn't help but notice how little air-time Colmes got last night. Oh. And H&C opened up by teasing the segment on Gore, then saying, "even later, more on the Michael Jackson saga." I love the sophistication in our political discourse.

Russian President Putin is taking a harder line on Iran's nuclear programs, but it doesn't hearten me to much. For one thing, he's still defending missile sales to Syria, and, for another, in the year 2000 he said into the cameras with Madeline Albright in Moscow, "The United States is trying to coerce mother Russia," or something like that, and putting unfair pressure on them, and not being a good country. When the cameras went off, he said to Albright, "that is so that your political opponents can believe you're being strong." That's probably what's going on with his criticism of Iran.

Why on Earth are they delaying the sentencing of this man? He clearly doesn't deserve to have his license anymore, at a bare minimum.

Finally, the British press is being dramatically unfair to Prime Minister Blair. They've got a controversy over there about a memo that warned Blair about starting the war, and urged him to hold back until the UN gave a specific authorization for force. Now, allow me to show you why politicians hate the press. Look here.

Excerpt: The memo confirmed speculation that Lord Goldsmith warned on March 7, 2003, that it would be safer to delay the war in Iraq until the United Nations Security Council passed a second resolution specifically authorizing military action.

The document also warned that British troops could be open to legal action. The memo was not shown to the cabinet. Ten days after writing the memo, Goldsmith provided a written statement to Parliament stating the war would be legal without a further resolution. That document was shown to the cabinet.

Blair's political opponents have questioned whether Goldsmith was pressured by the prime minister's office to change his mind in the days leading up to the March 20 invasion of Iraq.

Give that a careful read. The memo didn't tell Blair that invading Iraq would be illegal. It just urged him to be extra careful. Then it told him that British soldiers could be open to prosecution for their part in the war? Well, yeah. Everyone is potentially open to prosecution during a war. But the press is spinning it, through lazy journalism, as "Blair Told Iraq War Illegal; Leans On Teller To Force Him To Say It's Legal." That contention is divorced from reality.

Really Cheap Spin

2005-04-27T23:03:00.000-05:00

Senator Zell Miller has a new book out, and his publisher has written an open letter to Chris Matthews. In it, I have found the cheapest piece of spin I've ever encountered.

Excerpt: In chapter 6 (Hardball Huff) of A Deficit of Decency, Zell explains that the reason he challenged you is that before he came on the set you claimed he was an “old time seggy.”

Will you renounce your baseless claim that Senator Miller is a segregationist?

Now, re-read the boldened and underlined parts. Notice the publisher's little slip of the hand?

Notes on the Times

2005-04-27T12:11:00.000-05:00

Far-fetched ideas are often the best ones. Friedman of the New York Times has this Op-Ed up about either Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush being ambassador to the United Nations instead of John Bolton. Wouldn't that be something? Of course, Clinton and Bush the Elder both believe in the United Nations, contrary to W.'s antipathy for the organization, so it probably won't happen.

Great News

2005-04-26T11:45:00.000-05:00

The last Syrian troops have pulled out of Lebanon, ending an extra long occupation.

I loathe nearly everything about the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq (so dishonest and radical) and I loathe the way the war was handled after we got in (too squishy, too unrealistically) but I don't see how you can say it hasn't been worth it when things like this occur.

Our Fourth Estate Makes Its Billionth Mistake

2005-04-25T21:44:00.000-05:00

Our Media just doesn't get its stories straight. Ever. It allows criminals to go on its airwaves and lie, and it also lets pill popping pundits lie under the guise of infotainment. It allows and facilitates rude punditry, and spreads falsehooods on the top-rated news channels. It makes me sicker than a Republican at a gay-rights rally.

Because I don't want to make another post just for this link, I'd also like to direct you all to this piece on Tony Blair, who I admire very much. I apologize for the lack of posts today, but I've been swamped with schoolwork.

Ill Tempered Men

2005-04-24T11:37:00.000-05:00

John Bolton, the might-be Ambassador to the United Nations, has had his pants pulled down. A few email messages surrounding his mistreatment of co-workers have surfaced.

Excerpt: None of the dozens of messages reviewed by The New York Times were from Mr. Bolton. But the correspondence, spanning a period from February to September 2002, included e-mail sent to Mr. Bolton by his principal assistant, Frederick Fleitz, as well as extensive exchanges between Mr. Fleitz and Christian P. Westermann, the State Department's top expert on biological weapons who clashed sharply with Mr. Bolton over Cuba.

The messages included a Sept. 25, 2002 note in which Thomas Fingar, the No. 2 official in the State Department intelligence branch, deplored what he said had been the toll inflicted on Mr. Westermann by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz.

"I am dismayed and disgusted that unwarranted personal attacks are affecting you in this way," Mr. Fingar said in a message sent to Mr. Westermann. Two days earlier, in another message, Mr. Westermann wrote to Mr. Fingar to say that "personal attacks, harassment and impugning of my integrity" by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz were "now affecting my work, my health and dedication to public service."

In similar news, the White House has cancelled invitations to several people for being Kerry supporters to a trip to Guatemala on State business. Because, you know, in this country we're not supposed to get along well after an election is over. I'm glad that George W. Bush is setting the right tone in Washington. Yes he is.

Finally, I think this is something we should be getting angry about. What, exactly, is Russia doing selling weapons to third world terrorist states?

Al And Ailes

2005-04-23T14:49:00.000-05:00

Triple A.

Al Gore and Roger Ailes squared off the other day, and Gore had quite a few things to say. Serious as their exchanges were, I couldn't help but fall in love with this part.

Excerpt: Gore's animated demeanor prompted Greenfield to wonder aloud how Gore earned a reputation for being a stiff and dispassionate public speaker. Quipped Gore, in a news-anchor voice, "Al Gore distinguished himself tonight from the wooden podium behind him."

Very funny man. Brilliant, too. You can go right here, here, here and here to read about the new TV channel he's launching with Joel Hyatt. Finally, come here to read Rush Limbaugh's take on Al Gore's TV Channel.

Defeating Terrorism Through Iraq?

2005-04-22T16:58:00.000-05:00

The New York Post (which is often a piece of uber garbage) makes an interesting few points.

Living In America

2005-04-22T11:37:00.000-05:00

In Texas, the House has voted to ban gay foster parents, telling them to "halt in the name of the Religious Right." I don't see this bill passing the Texas Senate, but jeez. I know Republicans get elected by the Right side of Christianity, but do they really have to go this far to prove they're "true believers" in the cause?

Colin Powell, who has refused to come out and attack the Bush Administration since his resignation, is showing serious doubts about John Bolton. Not that it'll mean anything, at the end of the day. George W. Bush doesn't listen to losers. Rumsfeld ran Powell out of Washington. Thus making Powell a loser.

Not all is bad in America, however. Kindness still flows in our cities. When my girlfriend and I get married, and have our own place, we're going to adopt pets from places like these.

Finally, go watch the Reverse Revolution.

Thank God For David Brock

2005-04-21T08:50:00.000-05:00

David Brock has been one of my favorite human beings ever since Blinded From The Right was published, but as time goes on I admire him more and more for founding Media Matters.

Rupert Murdoch was on FOX defying anyone to show any hint of bias on FOX, and David Brock has obliged through an open letter. (It's almost as good as his open letter to Bill O'Reilly, and I'm pretty sure Murdoch will ignore the letter just like O'Reilly did when the time came for him to have a showdown.)

Now let's go back to the Coulter-TIME controversy. TIME's editor has come under fire and has "defended" himself dishonestly. No one's better fitted to watchdog the right-wing media than David Brock. No siree.

Disgraceful Diplomat

2005-04-21T08:04:00.000-05:00

Maybe I should take the title back? Bolton's not a diplomat. No one who'd crack the jokes that he's cracked about an organization he is to serve at is a diplomat. With that said, the title will stand because I said so. The LA Times published an op-ed today on Bolton.

Excerpt: On issue after issue, whether North Korea or Iraq, Bolton has wielded a wrecking ball. It might be possible to wave off one allegation of the misuse of intelligence — infighting always takes place in the government bureaucracy — but Bolton appears to have willfully and systematically suppressed and misused classified information, including bullying civil service officials who dared to challenge his apocalyptic assessments of North Korean, Iraqi and Cuban weapons programs. Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin apparently had to intervene to protect a Latin American analyst from Bolton's wrath; Carl W. Ford Jr., the State Department's former assistant secretary of intelligence and research — the only government bureau to get it right on Iraq — describes him as a "serial abuser." And Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is rightly inquiring about Bolton's unusual request to look at National Security Administration intercepts and why he asked for the identities of analysts. Why indeed?

Once again I find myself admiring Michael Isikoff for his latest Newsweek piece.

Excerpt: President George W. Bush’s former ambassador to South Korea has contacted the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to report two confrontations he had with United Nations Ambassador-designate John Bolton, NEWSWEEK has learned. And Senate investigators are raising more questions about how Bolton and his staff handled sensitive intelligence matters while serving as under-secretary of state for arms control and international security.

Even Bush's Ambassadors are speaking out now.

A Couple Of Things

2005-04-20T16:03:00.000-05:00

James Carville and Paul Begala wrote a piece about what the Democratic Party must do. It's interesting, but I was expecting much better from them.

Someone got one of their articles published by the Democratic Underground. I'm so proud. I've been trying to get published there for quite a while now, so hats off to the DU.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece that's worth reading about the new Pope.

Emailing The President

2005-04-20T00:32:00.000-05:00

So, I'm talking to my girlfriend and I'm feeling a bit cheesy. She showed me a poem she wrote, and inspired me to write the President.

Hello there, Mr. President.

In response to your radical policies, I became a young liberal activist. (You can find my blog here: http://www.politicaligloo.blogspot.com.) In the course of pursuing the destruction of your policies and the fall of the Republicans in the 2006 elections, I met a wonderful girl, and we are now in love.

So, because of your "victory" in the year 2000, I met the woman I'm going to spend the rest of my life with. Thanks. But seriously, Mr. Bush. Good luck with Iraq, Iran and the rest of the problems you face.

I know you don't read these (can't read them?) but my thanks go to you.

-G. Pratt.

Real political blogging will come momentarily.

Odds and Ends

2005-04-19T19:03:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Church has elected a new Pope, but did you know he used to be a member of the Hitler Youth? Oh my, how do we go from John Paul the Second to this guy? [Edit: Yeah, you have a point. I just now stumbled upon an article explaining his situation. I was under the impression that he had been a voluntary member. My mistake.]

In other news, John Bolton appears to be headed for defeat. Maybe I'm declaring Mission Accomplished a little early, but I think he's done for. Bernie Kerik all over?

United Nations, The WTO and Tangents

2005-04-19T17:17:00.000-05:00

Just not neccessarily in that order.

It seems to me that people are missing the boat in regard to my last post. The great point about the mainstream media is that it is being held hostage by the powers-which-control-the-money-flow in America. It was a piece calling for independent media, as well as a piece defending the CIA. Frankly, the United States of America has no independent media, as I said, and that must stop for it is wreaking havoc on our system.

Off of that note, I agree with Sweden's former Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark that the United Nations must be made to stand for freedom.

While Republicans like John Bolton attack the United Nations, I believe the World Trade Organization needs some serious reform, at the very least, as it has too much power, frankly. No multinational organization should ever be able, except for rare circumstances, to strongarm a country into changing its laws, regulations and precedents, as discussed by Fareed Zakaria. I agree with every word that's said, and I thought this column interesting.

Often, while discussing Global Government, we forget that it is needed, and we confuse what "global government" should really mean. We should never, and will never, place our security into the UN's hands. That doesn't mean we don't work together with the United Nations on other things, because there's much we can work with the rest of the world on.

John Bolton, as my teacher has put it, will "hold the UN's feet to the fire and force them to reform," and that is the stronger case for him. Honestly, I think he'll put the gas tank too close to the fireplace and set UN Headquarters on fire. I hope he gets defeated (though it's looking unlikely at this point) and George W. Bush appoints a Paul Wolfowitz-type man to represent us at the UN. (Here's an article that makes me think about how good a job Wolfowitz could do at the UN.)

A Tyranny of Misperceptions

2005-04-18T17:46:00.000-05:00

The United States of America is ruled by a tyrannical force, and I do not mean the Republican Congress, the Conservative Supreme Court, or even George W. Bush. At the end of the day, these men in power now will have been booted out of office at the voting booth, be term limited, step down and retire, or they will die, as we all must. They do not hold true power in this country. There is a stronger force behind them - behind all of America - and it is the tyranny of misperceptions.

At its conception, this piece was to be a spirited defense of the Central Intelligence Agency's handling of Iraqi Intelligence, for they have been unfairly faulted by a press all-too-willing to gloss over significant facts and repeat partisan garbage rather than cover the news. This isn't to say that I won't be covering the CIA, as I will, but there are a few notes that must be touched upon before we get to this.

National polls, taken before the election, have shown that approximately forty two percent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to the September Eleventh terrorist strikes. As has been noted by several angry Education activists over the years, the number one newspaper in this country is the National Enquirer. I remember Bill Maher ranting furiously on his show's season premier last year that convention viewership had fallen for the Democratic Convention as opposed to their 2000 ratings. The significance of this must be stressed: During a war, the American public doesn't care about its government or the election, certainly not enough to take it seriously.

The 2004 Presidential Election drew the largest voter turn-out since 1968, but it wasn't enough. During a war, the American public couldn't be asked to rise at the polls in unprecedented numbers. This is largely because of the press, I feel. Conservatives love to blame liberals for the media - biased reporters! - but the problem with the media comes with its insatiable need for money. Editors are no longer in the business for the reckless pursuit of truth, they are in it for the love of money. This isn't entirely their fault. We've made it very difficult for a newspaper to succeed without money, to get big money they need big advertisers, and they can't get that without subscribers. Then tabloids created the sensationalistic buzz in newspapers over the last few years, and now newspapers must become beacons of filth.

Hence the coverage of angry Swift Boat Veterans, Janet Jackson's breast and Laci Peterson over the last year.

I have read what I consider horror stories about newspaper editors spiking pieces for fear of a corporation pulling the plug on its promotions in that paper. When it comes crunch time, a newspaper's job - a real newspaper - is to provide the news to the American public without fear of the Government. Freedom of the press is one of a few things that has kept this country going for so long, but our media is currently being held hostage by big money and tabloid trash and they, in turn, are holding the gun of ignorance to the American public's temple. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the coverage given to the CIA about Iraqi WMD over the course of the last few years, and the crimes of misrepresentation and poor analysis that have come to be perpetrated against the public record in regard to the driving forces behind the invasion of Iraq.

Intelligence Failures and Iraq have become synonymous, but how much of it was a failure on the behalf of George Tenet? I take the position that there wasn't much of a failure on his fault. Sure, there were a handful, on his part and on the CIA's. The CIA had no real assets in Iraq and thus it had to rely on dated information, as well as on shifty characters whose background we didn't fully comprehend. For its inability to infiltrate the Hussein Regime or his state, the CIA deserves a certain level of shame. That, however, does not equate to botching the case for war.

In Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, George W. Bush is seen calling the CIA for Iraqi Intelligence and becoming disappointed by the lack of truly frightening information that he had, and thus he requested more and more briefings, telling his briefers that the information must be scarier so as to be better presented to the American public. In Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, the Cabinet is presented with map-sized spy photographs of alleged Chemical Weapons plants, prompting Paul O'Neill to dissent, telling the room that he's seen many plants which looked just like it all over the world, so what made this one a chemical weapons facility? Dissent is not particularly valued by this Administration, so you know what happened to Treasury Secretary O'Neill? He was fired.

From what I have gathered through books such as Suskind's and Woodward's, the Bush Administration (starting straight at the President) demanded the best (read: scariest) intelligence on Iraq, and ignored Tenet's frustration (displayed in several accounts of his time at the CIA) over the Agency's lack of in-Iraq sources. The Central Intelligence Agency, like the rest of the world, believed that Hussein was armed with Weapons of Mass Destruction because, as the Duelfer Report concludes, Saddam Hussein gambled on the idea that the western world would buy an elaborate charade of his - that being that he was still in the possession of WMD - and be deterred from ever deposing him. This does not equate to a CIA intelligence failure, and it doesn't lead to "George Tenet, by presenting Americans with faulty intelligence, led us into war." So far as I've read, the President asked Director Tenet for information and Tenet gave him what the agency suspected, always expressing his anger at our lack of concrete information on Iraq.

There is one incident that must be addressed in this defense of the CIA, for it has been used to depict Tenet as either a liar or a buffoon, depending on who you speak with. When asked how solid the intelligence was by Bush, Tenet told him that it was "a slam dunk" case against Iraq. If any CIA Director had taken his information, contrasted it to the world's, and found that all these international spy agencies, as well as the United Nations, believed in the existence of Hussein's programs then said, "Well, it might not be right, Mr. President," or "Mr. Bush, we're swimming against the tide of conventional wisdom here," then he woudln't be fit to hold the office of CIA Director.

It is also possible that Tenet was telling the President that, as a case of international law and as a reason for war with Iraq, the WMD case was dead-on because of Saddam's past programs, as well as his forced ejection of Weapons Inspectors. It is a very real possibility that Tenet was saying, "Hey, does this information warrant war, under our laws and the world's? You bet." But, even in the unlikely event that Tenet was exclusively discussing whether or not Iraq had WMD, then George Tenet made a human mistake that the rest of the world made. That doesn't equate to botching the intelligence, or misinterpreting it. CIA analysts made it clear to Bush that these reports were not concrete.

George W. Bush cherry picked his information and then, when it turns out to be "all wrong," the White House, the Congress, and the American public all blame the CIA. What does the press do? Go along with it, writing scathing piece after scathing piece about Tenet's incompetence, or about how badly the CIA botched the case for war, or about how the CIA could be so incredibly wrong. Not in too many pieces - and in none that I could find - did I read spirited defenses of Tenet, or the CIA, aside from brief mentions by Republicans who were pointing out that John Kerry and the UN believed what Bush did, so take that liberals who believe Iraq was the wrong country! It was a man named George who botched the case for war, but it wasn't George Tenet who was often unequivocal about the lack of backbone to the skeleton of the intelligence, but it was George Bush who botched it by choosing what would best scare a nation and presenting it as nothing-less-than-fact.

And, on a semi-side note, I blame the Pentagon's intelligence agencies - unfairly influenced by Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld - as well as the Vice President's Office for the flawed interpretations of the intelligence. But I blame Karl Rove, Andrew Card and the President for the misleading presentations of it.

It is clear, to me, from affairs such as this whole sordid one, that a media which must find a way to make money before it delivers truth, a press which is concerned over financial retribution rather than the content of its pieces (or which places a greater emphasis on the former), will be the death of this country. Somehow, whether it be through Federal Matching Fees, or however it may come, the Press needs to become fully independent, not just of the Government (looking at Rupert Murdoch) but of the financial interests that are more than capable of destroying a newspaper. This tyrannical force has driven good men out of office, such as George Tenet, for what they weren't responsible. It nearly drove great men, like President Clinton, from the Capitol for trivial reasons.

This tyrannical force must be stopped, for this nation will not fully rise until it has a press that can and will take the truth, take the nation's best interests, into the greatest amount of consideration before running a story. This country will suffer the humiliation of misinformed masses for decades and maybe centuries if we do not rid it of the tyrannical prejudice toward cash and sensation in our present press. The media has become corrupted with cash and hushed by Economic terrorists who will cripple a news enterprise for the wrong stories. Until we have solved the problems in our media and created true independence for it, we will continue to live under a tyranny of misperceptions perpetrated upon us by ill-intentioned media.

That's the worst tyranny of all.

Addendum On Ann

2005-04-18T17:28:00.000-05:00

Coulter.

Media Matters has analyzed the TIME article, and it has come to the conclusion that, despite TIME's fanfare in favor of Coulter, you still do not know the "real" Ann Coulter.

Leading into the dissection of the piece, MMFA notes this: But after reading the magazine's nearly 6,000-word profile of Coulter, readers still don't know the real Ann Coulter. They don't know the real Ann Coulter because Time carefully hid her from view, glorifying her legal work, whitewashing her habitual lies, and downplaying her -- at best -- grossly inappropriate rhetoric.

After excerpting a small piece about how Coulter helped Paula Jones sue Bill Clinton, TIME fails to note the following: Left out is one seemingly important detail: the case was dismissed for complete and total lack of merit. It was a glorified nuisance suit:

In a ruling that shocked both sides, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright rejected all of Jones's claims stemming from her 1991 encounter with Clinton in a hotel suite. Even if Clinton did make a crude proposition, the judge concluded that it would not constitute sexual assault and that there was no proof Jones was emotionally afflicted or punished in the workplace for rebuffing him. "There are no genuine issues for trial in this case," she wrote.

Read the rest of the piece and marvel at how wonderful the media is.

Newt Gingrich Is Not An Expert

2005-04-17T14:15:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich recently proclaimed Hillary Clinton to be a "very formidable" opponent in 2008. And Newt Gingrich is the same man who declared that the Democrats would sustain unprecedented losses in the 1998 elections. He's a bright guy, but it's time for the press to not care what a disgraced deadbeat dad has to say about current affairs.

But he's not just out licking Hillary's stilettos. He's bringing down the hammer on Tom DeLay.

Excerpt: In an exclusive interview with CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said it's time for DeLay to stop blaming a left-wing conspiracy for his ethics controversy and to lay out his case for the American people to judge.

"I don’t want to prejudge him and my hope is that Tom will be able to prove his case," said Gingrich, who engineered the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. "But I think the burden is on him to prove it at this point."

Now, why it's newsworthy for him to say this is beyond me. Tom DeLay is human filth, but being criticized on ethics by Newt Gingrich is like being told you're fat by Michael Moore. It might be true, but it doesn't mean a damn thing coming from them.

TIME For The News?

2005-04-17T13:54:00.000-05:00

Not really. Or, not really, at least according to TIME.

You know, with two wars across the world, an AIDS epidemic in Asia, a rough Economy, a Social Security battle to cover, deficits, a crisis in darfur, and what does TIME have on its cover?

Ann Coulter. Someone at TIME wants to get into a certain woman's pants.

But this is a good lesson for those who are coarsening our national dialogue: Keep throwing bombs and the press will love you. To hell with reason, baby, because the press has no standards anymore.

A woman who has said that women shouldn't vote, who told a disabled Veteran "it's people like you who made us lose the Vietnam War," who called Clinton a "horny hick," and whose insanity knows no boundaries, is of more importance to cover than anything in the world.

I'm loving this. There's a fascist barbie doll on the cover of TIME! Oh, look at me. I just said something completely outrageous. Please, please, maybe now I deserve to be on TIME's cover, too? Hell, I can insult minorities and call Conservatives traitors, if that's what the press is looking for in cover stories.

They tease the piece with the phrase, "love or her hate her, you don't know the real Ann Coulter." Ann Coulter really needs help with her social skills if this side of her is a fake side she puts on. And it needs to be said: Someone buy this woman a sandwich.

Cold Warriors

2005-04-16T11:26:00.000-05:00

Remember that fight over the filibusters, with Senator Frist threatening to tear down the Democrats' ability to filibuster, thus taking away the one weapon our handcuffed Senators have? Well, the stakes have gotten higher and we're looking at a nuclear showdown.

Senator Reid has upped the ante and is threatening to not only filibuster a few of Bush's judges, but also John Bolton and the Administration's nominee to head the EPA, and he's got Bill Frist seeking a compromise until "at least mid-May."

The Hill is discussing the possibility that red-state Democrats will stop backing the filibuster against Judges, and it had this paragraph in it:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D), who represents North Dakota, where Bush enjoyed a double-digit margin of victory last year, said that he would “prefer not to have these battles” over nominees, adding that for red-state Democrats the issue is “certainly more sensitive than for people from other states.”

They forgot to mention that, in Conrad's last re-election effort, he beat his opponent worse than John Kerry was defeated by George W. Bush in that state. He's in no political trouble, and he's sticking with Reid. Of course, not that the Hill would want to admit that straight out, because then the unity of Senate Democrats is illustrated and that's not too exciting, now is it? So we need confrontation and fighting!

Senator Frist looks as though he's come to terms with the decision to go nuclear, and Bob Novak thinks Frist already has the votes to do it.

My oh my, I can't believe they're seriously thinking of doing it. We're going to have some serious problems in the Senate. But I love Reid even more because he's not backing down. Reid's going to shut the Senate down when the Republicans do this, for everything except National Security bills, and who knows where that will lead. But if the Right wants to get extreme, we'll take them to the Extreme.

Selling Social Security Stalinistically

2005-04-15T14:43:00.000-05:00

From the Corzine Connection comes a great piece about the White House's Social Security forums, and how open these things are.

Excerpt: Late last night I learned that Vice President Dick Cheney is holding a Town Meeting on Social Security at Burlington County College on Friday. Last month, President Bush held a similar Social Security "open forum" in Westfield, where tickets were only distributed to a pre-approved list of supporters through the White House and through Congressman Ferguson's office.

I wanted to find out if this was more of the same, if Dick Cheney is also going to hand pick his audience, or if there was any possibility getting a ticket so I could ask some of the REAL QUESTIONS about the Social Security Plan.

First, I called Burlington County College to see if the event hosts had information about tickets for the Town Hall Meeting. I was told that the College has nothing to do with ticketing for the event. All that the operator at BCC knew was that it is a CLOSED EVENT that is strictly INVITE ONLY, great concept for an "open forum."

Go check it out and marvel at the wonders of Dick's Democratic Ideals.