Flight 93

It seems like too much is being made of Rumsfeld's recent quote while visiting Iraq, regarding the downing of Flight 93 on 9/11:

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

My first thought was that if the plane had been shot down, that Rumsfeld would be equating the military pilots with terrorists carrying out bombings in Mosul and Spain, which is certainly not what he was intending. He meant the people who had hijacked the plane, of course. The suggestion of the article cited above is apparently that his reference of terrorists shooting down the plane could be a slip of the tongue caused by the supposed fact that the plane had been shot down by the military. This seems like a stretch not only because it is reading so much into a single quote, but also because the evidence surrounding the events of 9/11 does not support the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. The 9/11 Commission looked at the evidence and concluded that this was not the case. Cheney admitted that authorization had been given, albeit too late. This leads to an essential point: the administration was willing to admit that it had given the authorization, and had they used the authorization then I am convinced that they would level with the American people about it, as most people would find it completely understandable that a single plane be shot down to avoid potential catastrophe in DC. I give the administration the benefit of the doubt in this respect.

Geography

Rumsfeld got in a few jabs at the press while visiting with troops in Iraq, when asked why the media coverage of the war seems to be so negative (which, by the way, might be due to an unnecessary war that has unleashed months of mayhem with no end in sight). His response:

"I think the country does understand that we lost 3,000 people on September 11th and the fact that those people were operating in this part of the world ... You've seen the evil up close and personal, you know the danger that this poses."

By "this area of the world" he must mean east of France and west of Thailand. And how big of him to note that he "thinks" that Americans know we lost 3000 people on September 11th.

2004

Media Matters has a helpful look back at 2004, from the vantage of the nuttiest of the nutty right-wingers. And in the spirit of Christmas, enjoy these warm, yuletide thoughts from the Very Revolting Pat Robertson. My eggnog suddenly tastes bitter.

Gregoire

Two victories for Gregoire today: even without the 700+ disputed votes, she would apparently win by 8 votes. Second, the state Supreme Court has ordered that the 700+ votes be included in the recount, votes that will most likely favor her. An earlier version of the P-I article had a quote from a state GOP spokeswoman saying that Gregoire would not be a legitimate governor if she won the recount by such a small margin. Funny, they were willing to declare Rossi the winner when he had a forty-odd margin of victory. After the article was updated at 4:13 PST that quote is no longer in the article. One valuable outcome of this election has been learning how ethically-challenged the WA GOP is. Concern for disenfranchisement? Nope. Intent to honor the outcome of a democratic election? Nope. I'm curious if the local newsstations will finally stop referring to Rossi as "governor-elect." He never was, by the way.

Conversion

This is an example of me being a bit nitpicky, but anyhow, I don't understand why newpapers on both sides of the Atlantic regularly do unnecessary alterations to stories that come from overseas. This recent story of the Northern Ireland bank heist is a perfect example. All American news outlets are reporting that "$39 million was stolen," when in fact it was 20 million pounds sterling that was stolen. If you are discussing somebody's wealth or a company's net worth, then I can understand converting it to the currency of the country that the newspaper serves, because it is easier for readers to understand the amount and all that is important is the value anyway. But in this case, the amount stolen should refer to the actual items stolen, which in this case were pounds. So unless the thieves stole 20 million pounds from the vault and then walked over to the bureau de change and enquired as to the conversion rates, it's a mistake to be referring to $39 million being stolen. You might as well say that they stole 39 million Lotto tickets or 39 million copies of the NYT.

I've noticed an analogous trend in British newspapers, wherein quotes from American officials are often peppered with Britishisms that you know weren't in the original quotes.

The Service on Mars

Another Christmas miracle ?

8 Votes

Democrats who have been receiving daily recount tallies are claiming that Gregoire will win by 8 votes . The state GOP is saying that they reserve all their options if the original result is overturned (i.e. they won't accept Gregoire winning the recount without a fight).

Washington Recount

State GOP chairman Chris Vance has basically taken to character assassination in his attempt to disenfranchise hundreds of voters whose ballots were mistakenly rejected during the first tabulation and recount. He has said things along the lines of "I am trying very hard not to call King County election officials 'liars'," and hints that they might be pulling off vote fraud at the worst, and in the least are changing the rules midway through the election process. He's making these personal attacks because there is little legal wiggle-room for trying to disenfranchise voters, and the best he can do at this point is to spread conspiracies about deliberate, partisan fraud. Now we find that it is not unusual for counties to include ballots that were rejected the first time around. Isn't this precisely what recounts are for? It is actually hilarious that Vance would argue otherwise, for recounts exist precisely to make sure that the process was carried out thoroughly and fairly. What he wants to ensure at all costs is that the result doesn't change from the first time around. What then, Mr. Vance, is the point?

Iraq Arrangements

I haven't seen any other blogs or commentators pick up on this thread from yesterday's Meet the Press, but Richard Lugar's response to Tim Russert's question about the impending Iraq elections was a bit disturbing. Russert suggested that the Iraq elections might result in an Iran-sponsored Shiite government that ends being more theocracy than democracy:

So the United States loses 1,200 men, 10,000 injured, and the Iraqis vote for someone who is sponsored by the Iranian government next door.

Here is the first part of Lugar's response:

SEN. LUGAR: Well, that column is joined by others who feel that somehow we are not sufficiently involved in a politically savvy way in trying to arrange the election, the list, how it may come out. Now, others are writing -- equally distinguished columnists -- that we already are deep in the weeds, that the CIA is manipulating the various parties and so forth. Both cannot be right at the same time, and the knowledge about what we are doing is interesting.

Lugar doesn't give, and can't give, a direct answer as to the extent we are manipulating the process, but if the likely outcomes of the election are a) an Iran-sponsored Shiite theocracy, or b) an American pick, then it is not going to be unsettling merely for those who anticipated a "Jeffersonian-Madison" type of democracy, but for those who expected fair democracy at all.

Half of Us

The closing of the American mind:

Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

Update: It reminds me of this .

Several politicians — including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a liberal MP of Somali origin and van Gogh’s co-producer — were forced into hiding after death threats from Islamic extremists, and a poll revealed that 40% of the Dutch now hope their 900,000 Muslim neighbours no longer feel at home. Some 80% want tougher policies against immigrants.

GOP History

Let's see how proud the party of Lincoln is regarding their supposed favorite son. They failed to carry the mantle of Lincoln for most of the 20th century, so what's to suggest that they would do so now?

Gregoire vs. Rossi

King County's Canvassing Board has decided to include 573 mistakenly rejected ballots in the present recount. Here's the position of the state GOP chairman :

"At some point it just lacks credibility that they keep finding ballots," Vance said. "None of these ballots should be counted."

I'm not sure that the party wants to take a pro stance on the issue of opportunistic rejection of people's voting rights, but I'll let them hang themselves.

The Rumsfeld List

It's the hottest thing this Christmas season, and everyone's clambering to get on the Rumsfeld List: the non-partisan list of high-profile politicians calling Rumsfeld inept and undeserving of a second term in his position. These are the ones I'm aware of:

John McCain
Chuck Hagel
Norman Schwarzkopf
Joe Biden
Jon Corzine
Susan Collins
Trent Lott
William Kristol

Silent Killer

Defend this , Bill O'Reilly!

Richard Clarke

The Kerik soap opera sure gets more entertaining by the minute. McClellan says that they will be interviewing (and vetting) several people for the position, and it got me thinking about who the best choice is. No doubt about it, it's this guy - and he doesn't have a prayer. After reading through the 9/11 Commission Report, Clarke comes off seeming like an astoundingly solitary hero in the very early days of the fight against al-Qaeda. He was eerily prescient about the group as far back as the early 90's and experienced frustration after frustration as those around him didn't take the threats as seriously as he did. In a perfect world, one where presidents are big enough to take a little criticism and learn, Clarke would be the new homeland security secretary.

Still No Confidence After All These Days

McCain said it again to make sure that we heard.

"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."

Linguists, special forces, civil affairs...reminds me, why is the biggest item in the intelligence budget a a satellite system that will duplicate existing technology and not work at night or in cloudy weather? Couldn't we spend 9.5 billion a little more efficiently? We could form an army of one million kung-fu kicking robo-sapiens for that kind of jack. I bet those boys work at night; Amazon gives 5 stars for durability.

Gregoire vs. Rossi (still)

Here's an interesting development that could swing the whole thing around.

Backlash

It seems to be the case that, since the election, the Christian right has been working itself into a lather with the conviction that 99% of their countrymen share the same moral beliefs and that the other 1% is a sort of obscene minority that needs to be dealt with via legislation "promoting traditional values." They have an extreme amount of motivation at the moment, and the fact that they are perhaps the best-organized constituency in the country is what allows them to believe that they represent the vast majority. I am wondering how long it will be until we see a well-organized backlash against this fundamentalist movement, for it is truly only the lack of an organized opponent that prevents them from seeing that the nation is not, in fact, a Christian monolith. There are so many people who are fed up with Michael Powell's FCC, with Brent Bozell's nannying, with anti-gay legislation, with the attack on reproductive rights, and there simply needs to be better organization so that we saturate the media in the same way that Bozell saturates the FCC. The Christian right sees itself as one tent of people fighting the good fight, and it's time that their victims started seeing themselves as one group rather than as disparate besieged entities.

Read it and weep.

Here are the choice bits:

"It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back."

So, half the people in the country are just like the 9/11 terrorists?

In 1999, the Kansas board voted to erase any mention of evolution from the state science curriculum, opening the door for the teaching of creationism. That was reversed in 2001, after three board members who supported the move were defeated in a Republican primary. Kathy Martin, a newly elected member of the board who favors teaching alternatives to evolution, said the board would probably take a different route this time, like introducing the teaching of "intelligent design," a theory that holds that the development of the universe and earth was guided at each step by an "intelligent agent."

From what I've read, teaching "intelligent design" does not violate the prohibition of promoting religion in the classroom, apparently because it is just generic enough. The agenda is plenty clear, though.

The Christian right, of course, believes it has a monopoly on morality, but...

But Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said that beyond filing legal challenges, liberals needed to appropriate the language of morality from Christian conservatives to capture the popular imagination.

"Lawsuits are about telling stories, and we need to talk about why we picked this case and why it's important," he said. "For instance, we need to ask, where is the morality when a partner of 20 years is denied hospital access because a state doesn't believe in gay marriage? Where is the morality in forcing a teenage girl into a back-alley abortion?"

What's impressive about the politically-active Christian right is how they so successfully portray themselves as being under attack, from gays, from feminists, from the media, from Hollywood, from the ACLU, you name it, when they are so clearly in the driver's seat in this country.

No Confidence

How long can Rumsfeld really last? With the election over and nothing to lose, even the hawks are turning on him and calling out his incompetence for what it really is. The criticisms from McCain, Biden and Hagel can't be dismissed as partisanship or potshots from some lunatic fringe. They all supported the war and have all voiced votes of no confidence. If Bush is smart he'll cut this albatross from around his neck; how many people on the right have to wake up to the Defense Secretary's ineptitude before Bush realizes that he is being tainted by association every day that Rummy stays in office?

Update: Biden made a really good point here, in response to Rumsfeld's quote about how "you go with the army you have, not the army you wish you had":

The truth is, as I believe Senator Hagel would agree with me because we have been there four times together, we did not go with the army we had. We had an incredibly heavy mechanized army we left at home.

When the history books discuss the Iraq War, they will note that Rumsfeld stubbornly insisted that he could fight a new type of war that did not involve a number of boots on the ground that would normally be expected. He locked horns with the generals about this and he was proved wrong as the war unfolded. Once the decision to go to war was made, whatever you might think about that original decision, Rumsfeld failed in execution and commitment. It's as simple as that.

99%

I was checking out the website for Brent Bozell's Parents Television Council , the group responsible for about 99% of FCC complaints, and they have this listing of supposedly the best and worst shows on TV. I just thought this item from the description of The Tracy Morgan Show was a bit odd:

Even though many of the jokes are racially driven, they always preserve a certain level of decorum.

In other words, Tracy Morgan may be black, but he also manages to be respectable. Wow. Thanks, Bozo.

And this is just funny:

Offensive content is very minimal on this program, but there is some mild innuendo. Tracy owns a garage where he employs his friends Spoon and Bernard. In one episode Spoon tells them that he made love on a train.