Month: September 2007

Bomb Iran And Win The Election. Yea!

by digby

Yep. That’s the latest pro-war argument (Via Froomkin):

“All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours – the time it will take to destroy Iran’s fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.”

[…]

“[The Iranians] would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. . . .

“Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress.”

(Can someone explain to me why right wingers always, always describe the vanquishment of their enemies as being the victims of anal rape …pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying..?)

But I do appreciate the honesty. Start a war, as Norm! himself “hopes and prays” we will, “unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest,” and Republicans run the table! What an awesome hallucination that is. (I wonder if the Bush administration had pig faces?)

And these people are out there calling Ahmadinejad, Hitler. I mean, really. Hitler was the guy who gave wars of aggression a bad name. The last I heard, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody. But then, they don’t have the same needs to up the ante with their bloodthirsty base of religious fundamentalists and rabid nationalists. The Republican religious fundamentalists and rabid nationalists, on the other hand, are apparently getting quite restive.

.

Oh My Stars!

by digby

Greenwald discusses the Ahmadinejad visit and notes, depressingly, that some people are now preparing to punish Columbia University for allowing this man a forum. Dear me. More vapors. These lovers of freedom and democracy need to loosen their corsets or they’re going to get brain damage from all the smelling salts.

Ahmadinejad is fool, an authoritarian and an anti-semite. But allowing him to speak his nonsense in public is the essence of free speech. In any case, the Chancellor of the University attacked him so aggressively that it’s hard to say he was given any kind of a free forum to make his point. (I assume that all but the worst Iraq warhawks are somewhat appeased.)

Greenwald points out that this is a neocon pearl clutch, designed to advance the absurd notion that we’ve actually been at war with Iran for 40 years.

In their minds, we are at war with Iran — even though, in reality, i.e., according to our Constitution, we are not — and all of the ensuing hysteria is rooted in the fantasy world they occupy in which Iran is our Enemy at War. By their nature, such fantasies cannot be reasoned with.

Here’s an example of the reasoning which both liberals and paleos like Pat Buchanan are struggling to fend off:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Should the decision regarding whether a foreign head of government can place a wreath at the World Trade Center site be left up to local authorities? Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: Oh, that’s a ruse. They’re just hiding behind the local authorities. Look, this is a PR stunt by the Iranian leader, but why not? What do we have to fear from letting him go to Ground Zero?

First of all, the Iranian people were in the streets in Tehran in solidarity with this country after 9/11. And I don’t see how this could be a negative in terms of trying to advance a dialogue between these two countries to have him pay his respects.

MR. BLANKLEY: Iran —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want an answer to my question.

MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, I’m going to give you an answer.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is it not true that the Constitution stipulates that international relations is handled by the federal government?

MR. BUCHANAN: It does, John.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is that not an international relation?

MR. BUCHANAN: It does. And let me agree with Eleanor. Look, he has been obnoxious. He has been nasty. He has been stupid. But he’s also the elected president of Iran and he’s saying, “I’d like to come to America,” a country with which you’re at odds, “and lay a wreath at one of your most sacred sites.” To me he has tried a couple of times to make openings, and we —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did Reagan —

MR. BLANKLEY: Let me get a word —

MR. BUCHANAN: Reagan —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute.

MR. BUCHANAN: He wrote a —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He laid a wreath at Bitburg.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And you wrote his comments.

MR. BUCHANAN: No, Ken Khachigian wrote them.

MR. BLANKLEY: That was —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute.

MR. BLANKLEY: That was a war that had been over for 40 years. Iran today is trying to kill American troops in Iraq. To let a war leader against us come and put a wreath there is shocking.

He is a “war leader” you see. Just like Hitler. Only worse. Because we’ve been fighting him for years and now he’s speaking on our sacred soil and Hitler never did. Or something.

Greenwald also talks about that bizarre broadcast with Ahmadinejad last night with Scott Pelley on CBS. It was supposed to be an interview but it was more like a rhetorical beating using neocon war drumsticks as weapons. You can see in the excerpt below, that he echoes Blankley pretty closely:

PELLEY: Mr. President, you say that the two nations are very close to one another, but it is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, this is what the American officials are saying. . . .

PELLEY: Mr. President, American men and women are being killed by your weapons in Iraq. You know this.

AHMADINEJAD: No, no, no.

PELLEY: Why are those weapons there?

AHMADINEJAD: Who’s saying that?

PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There’s no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir. . . .

This has become an article of faith now, through sheer repetition. But it is hardly a settled fact, particularly since the military and the administration have cried wolf on this issue more than once. The mere fact that Joe Lieberman is frantically making this accusation every time he opens his mouth is enough to make me suspicious of it’s credibility.

But, it’s certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Iran is meddling in the Iraq civil war and that Americans could be killed by Iranian weapons. That’s not good.

This is why it’s so surprising that The Man Called Petraeus, about whom no words of criticism must ever be spoken lest you be struck down by the Lord himself, was so … cavalier about allowing nearly 200,000 weapons to disappear on his watch:

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.

I’m sure he didn’t mean to allow those arms to go missing and I’m sure he would feel terrible if he found out that any of those arms killed Americans. But, you know, it’s quite likely that some of them did.

It wasn’t treason, needless to say, for him to lose track of hundreds of thousands of weapons but it was a very, very grave mistake and dangerous for all concerned. If we are going to declare war on the basis that Iran is killing US troops by giving insurgents weapons, it just strikes me as a tad inconsistent to be simultaneously hailing the man who mistakenly let some of those 200,000 American weapons into the hands of those same insurgents. I’m not saying it was a betrayal or anything (God forbid!) or that TMCP has “the blood of Americans on his hands.” I’m just saying it is very, very bad to arm insurgents.

Oh, btw, the Jane Austen Book Review and Ladies Circle Jerk Society is having yet another hankywringer, this time in the House:

Hunter: I Will Try To ‘Cut Off Funds To Columbia University’ Because Of Ahmadinejad Speech

.

Tomorrow, Bush Consults Britney Spears On The Short-Term Mortgage Crisis

She’s certain to give him more sensible advice than he got today recently on the Middle East.

Think I’m exaggerating? Then you don’t know NoPod.

Strike!

by digby

“It’s our duty. It’s the only power we have.”
–Eric Lehtonen, 50, of DeWitt Township who works at the Lansing Grand River assembly plant, where the Cadillac CTS, STS and SRX are made.

Amen brother.

GM says it needs to cut costs. Perhaps it would like to work with the Democrats and the Unions to get universal health insurance. It would be good for their workers, good for the country and good for the bottom line.

.

Scandal Mongering 101

by digby

Here is a perfect example of the difference between the left and the right. The right can choreograph a huge, over-the-top scandal out of one dubious play on words, while the left can’t even create a tiny talking point out of something like this:

Why Should God Bless America?

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land

The courts ruled prayer out of our schools
In June of ‘62
Told the children “you are your own God now
So you can make the rules”
O say can you see what that choice
Has cost us to this day
America, one nation under God, has gone astray

Why should God bless America?
Shes’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

In ‘73 the Courts said we
Could take the unborn lives
The choice is yours don’t worry now
It’s not a wrong, it’s your right

But just because they made it law
Does not change God’s command
The most that we can hope for is
God’s mercy on our land

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

(Reading from 2nd Chronicles 7:14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land

God have mercy on America forgive her sins and heal our land

It’s true that the front runners weren’t at this event. However, all the Republican candidates will be on television often and if we made a big enough stink perhaps we could get the marionettes of the media to ask them all if they feel they should to condemn this degradation of the song “God Bless America” which says that the United States is so sinful that God has abandoned it.

Perhaps someone should submit a censure of the far right “Values Voter” organization to the Senate forcing all the Senators to support or censure this unpatriotic bastardization of the nation’s most sacred song.

(Of course, that would require that Democrats abandon their crafty, counterintuitive electoral strategy of appealing to the farthest of far right groups to win the election, so it might be hard to get them to go along with it. Never mind…)

Update: And btw, is Rudy Giuliani the craziest nutball they’ve ever tried to foist on us, or what? How can anyone think this man is an appropriate choice to be president?

Of course, Junior has proved that standards are of no importance in this matter, so I don’t know why I’m even questioning it. If they thought they could sell Carrot Top for president, they wouldn’t think twice.

Update II: Kevin Drum finds another example of Giuliani’s epic stupidity.

This rally confuses me. He was a prosecutor, right? He was mayor of America’s largest city. Yet he shows every day that he is simply clueless about even the most basic subjects and simply says everything with an arrogant swagger, much like Bush. Was he always this bizarrely out of touch?

It’s almost as if saying ridiculous non-sequitors and non-answers is now the preferred form of political discourse. Can it be that the dim-witted Reagan/Junior are now actually the new Republican leadership archetype?

.

Teaching Us A Lesson

by digby

I was going to take Dianne Feinstein downtown today, but I see that Glenn Greenwald has already done a fine job of it. She truly is one of the most egregious Village Elders, shockingly uninterested in the views or desires of her constituents or the country at large.

Glenn flagged an interesting little factoid from Election Central that I missed last week in all the hubub:

Now this is curious. In the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing than there are Democrats who approve. According to the poll, 37% of Republicans approve of Congress’ performance, compared to 23% of Democrats and 14% of independents, with an overall rating of 24% approval and 71% disapproval.

This is odd, of course, considering that both houses have Democratic majorities. But on second thought, the current Congress has passed President Bush’s funding requests for Iraq, passed his FISA bill, and has given the White House exactly what it wanted on a host of other issues. So what do Republicans really have to complain about?

From the looks of that poll, it would appear that the Democratic strategy is less obscure than one might think. The only conclusion you can reach is that they are consciously voting against the wishes of Democratic voters in the hopes of picking up Republicans. Apparently they believe Democratic voters will enthusiastically turn out next year no matter what they do, so they might as well poach a few GOPers. Why else would they consistently defy their own voters?

I guess they’ve never heard of the old adage about not counting your chickens. More importantly, they haven’t learned anything about how the Republican party works. Dianne Feinstein could introduce legislation to give fetuses the right to vote and guarantee funding for the war in Iraq through 2050 and they still wouldn’t vote for her.

Of course, as Greenwald points out, Dianne and the other elders don’t really even care about that. They care about the Village. And the outsider DFH Democrats are hooligans who must be taught that their role is to write checks, vote and STFU. The only way we will learn our lesson is if the Elders make it very clear that if we exert ourselves in any way, they will do exactly the opposite: the word from some of the gasbags today is that the “far left” has forced the congressional Democrats to give up on trying to stop the war.

I’m learning my lesson, all right, but it’s not exactly the one they think it is.

Update: Jonathan Zasloff at the Reality Based Community asked an expert what the Dem’s strategy likely is, and here’s her explanation:

1. The Democrats are very invested in the notion that they can get the appropriations bills enacted in a timely manner. This shows their ability to govern.

2. The Democrats are also very invested in getting S-CHIP reauthorized. Many Republicans are VERY nervous about not getting this done: their governors and publics are screaming at them about this. The Democrats may not be able to override the President’s veto, but would be happy to have him veto S-CHIP and undermine the Republicans in their districts.

So? “Remember,” she told me, “that the Senate grinds to a halt unless you can get a unanimous consent agreement.” Making the GOP filibuster prevents these agreements and it will essentially clog up the calendar so much that nothing can get done. Also remember, she told me, just how slim the Democratic majorities are.

Zasloff replies:

I don’t buy it. If Mitch McConnell is committed to making the Democrats look bad, then he will also filibuster the appropriations bills (which the GOP can do) unless the Dems give the President everything he wants, and even then he will hold it up to make them look incompetent. I can see not forcing a public filibuster on habeas–that’s hard for people to understand–but I think that doing it for the Webb Amendment works. I also endorse Mark’s proposal to put the Webb Amendment in the conference report.

But if that’s the case, then once McConnell does this, we might get these public filibusters–and it will probably come on Webb or S-CHIP (if those GOP senators who voted for it now reverse themselves to protect the President). If we don’t, then we have only two more options:

1. The Senate Democrats are brain-dead; or
2. They are so cynical that they would like the war to continue through 2008 to give the Democrats an issue.

Or maybe both.

Or maybe they just don’t actually disagree with their Republican friends except on a few small issues around the edges and don’t want to upset the apple cart. It’s always possible that these narrow majorities suit them very well indeed.

.

Michael Mukasey

by tristero

In today’s Times, Adam Liptak discusses the career of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. The general impression is one of a non-ideological judge, very “conservative” in the older sense of the term, and one who is intelligent, educated, and articulate.

Maybe Bush ran out of incompetent neo-Birchers to appoint, but that doesn’t seem possible, given his incredible enthusiasm for dipping into sewers to locate the worst-conceivable candidates available. More likely, Bush knew that if he nominated one more shit-eating rat, he knew he was in for a huge fight which he couldn’t entirely control.

In any event, I hope that the Senate takes notice of this for a potential line of questioning:

In a 1989 copyright case brought by Kennett Love, a former New York Times reporter who claimed that too much of an unpublished manuscript of his had been used in the defendant’s book, Judge Mukasey revealed a deep knowledge of history and journalism.

“It was once accepted,” Judge Mukasey wrote, “for journalists not to print information they believed disserved the national interest.” He went on to cite coverage of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s disability, of the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Judge Mukasey then quoted ruefully from an article by Max Frankel, a former executive editor of The Times, discussing how things changed after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and as the Vietnam War progressed: “The essential ingredient was trust, and that was lost somewhere between Dallas and Tonkin.”

These somewhat ambiguous comments jibe with other hints that, for Mukasey, the government may, perhaps, deserve to be trusted. Needless to say, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in 2007 – whether it ever does is a whole other question – so it would be useful for someone to ask Mukasey whether he thinks the Bush administration should be entitled to any benefit of a doubt in its claims of trust.

I, for one, would very much like to hear his answer.

There’s another question I’d like him to address: Given the extent that the Bush administration has transformed the once prestigious office of Attorney General into a pathetic joke – when, that is, they haven’t exploited it for the most corrupt kind of politics – why on earth would he want the job?

—
[Full disclosure: Adam Liptak is a friend of mine. I immensely respect his journalism, but no one is immune to criticism (except The Man Called Petraeus and Crawford’s Own Churchill, but we knew that already). If you feel his article is biased – I didn’t – please say so. ]

To The Editors Of The Rocky Mountain Collegian

by tristero

Dear Editors,

I gather that your recent editorial has landed you in a small amount of trouble:

The Rocky Mountain Collegian on Friday published an editorial that reads, in total, “Taser this… F— BUSH,” spelling out the expletive, along with an explanation that “this column represents the views of the Collegian’s editorial board.”

The second two words of the editorial are printed in extremely large print, about twice the size of a headline…

In a letter addressed to the university community and Collegian readers, Jeff Browne, director of student media, said he is planning to launch an internal investigation into “the decision-making process” followed in publishing the editorial.

Noting that the paper has First Amendment rights to publish “what they see fit,” Browne continued, “We do not support the specific editorial statement on page 4 of today’s Collegian. We find it unnecessary and unbefitting the proud 116-year tradition of the Collegian.”

I would suggest you respond to this with Vice President Cheney’s immortal phrase, uttered on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

Fuck yourself.

Love,

tristero

Saturday Night At The Movies

Like endless rain into a paper cup (with dancing!)

By Dennis Hartley

When I first heard that there was a new movie musical based on interpretations of classic Beatle songs, that nervous tic in my left eye started up again. I don’t think I have ever quite fully recovered from the trauma of watching “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”, the final straw that broke the back of entertainment mogul Robert Stigwood’s empire back in 1978. Sometimes, during those long dark nights of my soul, the apparition of George Burns still appears unbidden before me; singing “Fixing a Hole” (shudder!). (And let’s pretend that “All This and World War II” never even happened, mmmkay?)

However, when I found out that the gifted film and stage director Julie Taymor (“Titus”) was at the helm, I decided to, er, give her new piece a chance; and to my pleasant surprise I was treated to the most imaginative, eye-popping screen musical since Baz Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!” breathed new life into the genre back in 2001.

“Across the Universe” is fundamentally a collection of visually stunning, slickly choreographed production numbers, all propelled by Beatles covers and loosely connected by the requisite “boy meets girl” motif. Toss in a sprinkling of iconic 60s counterculture references (Vietnam, Leary, Kesey, Owsley, the Weathermen, Hendrix, Joplin, etc.). and voila! Admittedly, the plot is a bit thin; this will likely be a sticking point for those looking for a deeper meditation on the peace love and dope generation.

The story’s central character is Jude (Jim Sturgess), a young working class Liverpudlian who stows away illegally to the States in search of his father, an American GI who had a brief wartime fling with his mother. He ends up at Princeton University, where he finds out his father now works as a janitor. Jude soon falls in with Max (Joe Anderson), a free-spirited Ivy League slacker, through whom he meets the love of his life, Max’s sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood). Eventually, the trio decides to “drop out” and move to Manhattan, where they find an apartment managed by the (sexy!) Sadie (Dana Fuchs), a hippie earth mother archetype who also is an up and coming rock singer (replete with a bluesy Janis Joplin wail). The three roommates are soon sucked into the vortex of 60’s turbulence. Max is drafted and shipped to Vietnam; Lucy throws herself into political activism and the mercurial Jude, still trying to find himself, flirts with becoming an artist.

There are other “main” characters, but they are somewhat underwritten and largely there for color. For example, one character named Prudence (I assume you’ve caught on to the name game by now?) appears to exist solely to make her grand entrance in the film’s lamest visual pun-she comes in through the bathroom window (yeah, it’s a real groaner!).

There are some memorable cameos. Joe Cocker belts out a great version of “Come Together”, U-2’s Bono dispenses hallucinogens and hams it up as the day tripping Dr. Robert, crooning “I Am The Walrus” and Eddie Izzard (bearing an eerie resemblance to the late Oliver Reed as he appeared in “Tommy”) cavorts with a chorus line comprised of Pixar-worthy Blue Meanies, to the strains of “For the Benefit of Mr. Kite”.

Inevitably, a few of the more exuberant numbers recall Milos Forman’s 1979 film version of “Hair”. In fact, one could say that some elements of the storyline in “Across the Universe” recall “Hair” as well; but I think Taymor is sharp enough to navigate that fine line between “inspiration” and “plagiarism” (or as film makers are fond of calling it: “paying homage”). I also gleaned references to “The Graduate” and “Alice’s Restaurant”.

If the film has a weakness, it lies in the casting of the two leads. The character of Jude, as written, holds many obvious parallels to the life of John Lennon; the Liverpool roots, the estranged father, the creative angst and inherent cynicism. Jude’s NYC apartment and his eventual deportation is undoubtedly a reference to Lennon’s later visa issues (Check out my review of “The U.S. vs. John Lennon” here). Sturgess doesn’t quite have the depth that a more seasoned actor might have put into those particular elements of the Jude character. Wood sleepwalks through the film as well; it’s a disappointing follow-up to her acclaimed performance in “Thirteen”.

At the end of the day, however, we must keep in mind that this is, after all, a musical. Audiences seem to be much more forgiving about rote line readings when there’s lots of good singin’ and dancin’. Even a genuine genre classic like “West Side Story ” had weaknesses on that front; Richard Beymer was no Brando, and Natalie Wood could have used a better dialect coach. But what do people remember most about that film? The kickass choreography and the incredible music score. And do you want to know what the best part is about “Across the Universe” is? The Bee Gees are nowhere to be seen.

The Reel Deal: “A Hard Day’s Night”, “Help!”, “Magical Mystery Tour”, “Yellow Submarine”, “Let It Be ”, “The Beatles Anthology”, “The Compleat Beatles”, “Imagine”, “The Concert for Bangladesh”, “The Magic Christian”, “Candy”, “200 Motels”, “That’ll Be The Day“, “How I Won the War”, “Give My Regards To Broad Street”,“Wonderwall” (George Harrison score), “The Family Way” (Paul McCartney score).

Fab Faux: “Beatlemania – The Movie”, “Birth Of The Beatles” (made for TV),“Backbeat ”, “The Hours and Times” (sleeper-highly recommended!), “That Thing You Do!”, “The Rutles – All You Need Is Cash”, “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, “Stardust” (1974)

.

They’re Making A List And Checking It Twice

by tristero

For those who have a problem with the F word in describing our present government, please read this:

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.

The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years…

But don’t worry!

“I flatly reject the premise that the department is interested in what travelers are reading,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. “We are completely uninterested in the latest Tom Clancy novel that the traveler may be reading.”

See? If you like paranoid gadget-porn potboilers penned by rightwingers, there’s nothing to worry about. And I’m sure if you wanted to read this they’d probably give you a Junior GI Badge and an autographed picture of J. Edgar Hoover (without mascara, no less, a very rare photo) when you disembark.