Blunder #14423

Juan Cole:

Al-Hayat has a long interview with an "informed Iraqi source" who is close to US officials in Iraq. He maintains that the US officials there were astounded that the United Iraqi Alliance did so well, and that they felt helpless and resigned as the process unfolded. He says that they are now asking privately if the US shed so much blood and treasure in Iraq to help fundamentalist Shiite allies of Iran take over Baghdad.

Uhh, No?

DFP:

How is it that an administration that screened thousands of people for attendance at Bush campaign rallies repeatedly let a fake reporter into the sanctorum of the White House pressroom under a false name? Who was running that background check? How could a president who declares that national security is his prime concern be so ill served for nearly two years by his own security detail?


What is the public to make of the fact that legitimate protesters are kept far away from President George W. Bush while an illegitimate "journalist" who's really working for a Republican propaganda mill is repeatedly allowed into the White House pressroom and regularly called upon by the president and the president's press secretary to ask questions?


Is it possible that the administration's formidable public relations machine was well aware that reporter "Jeff Gannon" of the Talon News Web site was really James Guckert, and that Talon and the Web site GOPUSA have the same owner and often the same pro-Republican content?


Is it possible that an administration that is so careful about scripting events and managing information approved of Guckert being planted in the pressroom to ask softball questions and even to keep an eye on the real reporters working there? Isn't that fair to ask, considering this is the same administration that used its taxpayer-funded, $250-million public relations apparatus to pay columnists to say nice things about its programs?


Once Guckert was exposed, shouldn't the administration, for the sake of security and integrity, have run identity checks on the other members of the White House press corps? Are there any pseudo-reporters planted there from Democratic organizations to ask hard questions?


Based on the Guckert case, can any self-styled journalist from an obscure Web site or blog expect to obtain a daily pass to attend White House press briefings? Given the proliferation of same, is the White House prepared for a stampede of applications? Will all identities be verified? Will reporters from GOP-friendly media receive preferred seating?


Is anyone in the Bush administration asking these questions? Or interested in answering them?

Of course, Maureen Dowd who works for a small paper called the New York Times couldn't get her press credentials, but hotmilitarystud.com could.

:(

Apparently the Social Security Administration has removed their Craigslist post. If you didn't see it, and I wish I had saved it, it was a $175 offer to participate in a focus group. Basically, they want to see which phrases work best as they attempt to trick Americans into a privatization scheme.

While walking last night a thought popped into my head that is seemingly so clear to me, and yet I wonder why it isn't to others.

Basically, when it comes to issues, conservatives only care about the present world they live in. Concern for the future of this world is sorta secondary. I can go issue by issue, but I'd rather not. You can do it yourself.

That's why it's so blatantly obvious that privatization of Social Security has to have an immediate benefit. The people pushing it aren't really concerned with the actual benefits since in all likelihood they won't really need them, so there has to be something else, right? Riiiight.

That something else is simply: Money for Wall Street and a desire to watch the most succesful government program in history come to an end. Think about it, if you can cast aside something as succesful as Social Security then what is sacred? What can't you destroy? Nothing, obviously.

Quick!

Visit Canada before they are erased!

Social Security Survey Group

Because of this great offer, I just want to throw out some hypothetical questions and results of the survey (for those who want practice).

Circle One

1) Would you like more money when you retire?

Yes
No

2) Would you like to keep more of your own money?

Yes
No

3) Social Security is minutes from going bankrupt. Do you think that should happen?

Yes
No

4) Do you think it's fair that millions of taxpaying Americans may not receive benefits for a program they paid into?

Yes
No

5) President Bush favors private accounts that will give you a greater return when you retire? Do you support President Bush's plan?

Yes
No

6) President Bush's plan for privatizing Social Security is fool-proof. If you don't support privatization does it bother you that you also don't support our troops fighting in Iraq?

Yes
No

Results (+/- 3%)

97% of those surveyed believe Social Security should have private accounts.
3% were dismissed for not completing the survey.

Unconstitutional

Has any president ever heard that word so often?

A bipartisan panel of state lawmakers that studied the effectiveness of President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative assailed it today as a flawed, convoluted and unconstitutional education reform effort that had usurped state and local control of public schools.

While the report, based on hearings in several cities, praised the legislation's goal of ending the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students, most of its 77 pages was devoted to a detailed inventory and discussion of the initiative's flaws.

It found that the law undermined other school improvement efforts already under way in many states, and it said that the law's accountability system, which punishes schools whose students fail to improve steadily on standardized tests, relied on the wrong indicators.

"Under N.C.L.B., the federal government's role has become excessively intrusive in the day-to-day operations of public education," the National Conference of State Legislatures said in its panel's report. "The task force does not believe that N.C.L.B. is constitutional."

Has any president ever cared less?

Pffffffffffff

You wouldn't believe it if I told you. You have to see it for yourself.

Thank you to Brian for emailing this to me.

Sure Pal

WaPo:

"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said at the Electoral Palace in Mainz.

Of course, it wasn't important for the Iraqis.

New Tune

By Malkmus.

Maker of Modern.

I don't know how he does it every time.

Takes a few seconds to get going.

If It Doesn't Jive

Just remove it!

At the National Security Council's request, the White House excised a full chapter on Iraq's economy from last week's Economic Report of the President, reasoning in part that the "feel good" tone of the writing would ring hollow against the backdrop of continuing violence, according to White House officials.

The decision to delete an entire chapter from the Council of Economic Advisers' annual report was highly unusual. Council members -- recruited from the top ranks of economic academia -- have long prided themselves on independence and intellectual integrity, and the Economic Report of the President is the council's primary showcase...

There was also a basic turf battle. The National Security Council believed the Council of Economic Advisers strayed too far from its domain, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid the appearance of dissent within the White House.

In fact, the Economic Report of the President almost always addresses international trade issues and has often dealt with the economic policies of other countries. The 2001 report, the Clinton White House's last, contained two sections on raising the economic performance of other countries and bolstering incomes in the developing world. The 2003 report, a product of the Bush administration, contained a section on economic "Developments in the Rest of the World." A section on "Economic Freedoms" discussed at length economic policymaking from Chile to Austria, from India to Cote d'Ivoire...

"They just don't seem to show that serious study is an important part of politics," Bartlett said. "It's a very casual, hands-off, almost lackadaisical approach to the policy process."

That's because they have faith.

It's one thing to lie about oral, but it's another to lie about policy. I'll take the former anytime.

I'm sure the reason a report about the economy was edited because people at the NSC were concerned about how it would be received. That makes a lot of sense.

Ok, I Get It

I see what the Democrats are going for, and it's sad Republicans aren't bothered by it as well, but instead of just signing a letter, go on TV and call them out. Tell everyone that these cheating, lying, bastards are trying to trick all Americans with fake journalists, and fake journalism.

Have some guts! Say they wrong thing, please. Have an edge already.

Here's the story.

5 Ring Circus

Hooray! for Diversity!

"They keep telling us New York is so diverse and using it as a selling point for getting the Olympics, but they haven't let us see any of it firsthand," said Deon Lamprecht, 43, a Washington correspondent for a chain of South African newspapers. "I've learned more about the city's diversity in my cab ride from the airport than from anything they've let us see firsthand so far."

The commission is spending most of its time holed up in a banquet meeting hall in the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, mulling presentations, complex studies and proposals, and watching slick presentations and hearing speeches.

Jay Carson, a spokesman for the city's Olympics committee, said the visitors' schedule was so full that there was no time for spontaneous walks through city neighborhoods.

Uhh, Jay, how about you schedule some walks to avoid having to do them spontaneously? Riiight.

Can I get some action on who wants the Olympics in New York City?

I'm putting a BIG X in the "No" column.

Can I get the over/under on how many politicians and businessmen use 9/11 as a selling point? I'm going with 5,000.

If You Hate Travel

Bush is your guy.

Weak dollar, high oil prices. Good time to stay home with the family.

The Capital Years

Will be on Carson Daly tonight thru Wednesday.

Check em out!

Support the band!

Nascar

I must admit: I watched at least 70% of the Daytona 500 this weekend, and was certainly locked in for the last 30 minutes.

Not sure how it happened, but after watching "3" on ESPN (Dale Earnhardt story) about 5 times I found myself watching random tidbits about NASCAR. I never thought it would happen. NEVER.

But it has.

I'm not going to get into what about it I find interesting, but there are quite a few things I've come to enjoy about the sport, even though I'm not sure it is a sport.

I don't think I'd actually goto an event since I don't enjoy attending most sporting events, but I have a feeling I'll be watching more races in the future.

Being that basketball is so boring to watch, hockey doesn't exist, and baseball nauseating, I guess I find myself looking for some entertainment.

Cross Him Off

The White House guest list.

Questionable

You buy this story?

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A former Virginia high school valedictorian who had been detained in Saudi Arabia as a suspected terrorist was charged Tuesday with conspiring to assassinate President Bush and with supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea. He contended that he was tortured while detained in Saudi Arabia since June of 2003 and offered through his lawyer to show the judge his scars.

The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

The White House had no comment on the indictment.

Abu Ali was born in Houston and moved to Falls Church, Va., where he was valedictorian of his high school class. Federal prosecutors say Abu Ali joined an al-Qaida cell in Saudi Arabia in 2001. The alleged Bush plot occurred while he was studying in that country.

His family contends that U.S. officials were behind his detention by Saudi authorities and wanted him held in that country so he could be tortured for information. A lawsuit brought on their behalf in U.S. District Court in Washington seeks to compel the government to disclose what it knows about Abu Ali and his detention.

Have to love interrogations taking place in Saudi Arabia, and then being used in American courts.

Personal Responsibility

I think Doug Wead needs to take full responsibility for releasing the audio of George W. Bush admitting to using drugs.

The White House is letting everyone know whose fault this whole thing is:

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said that the tapes were "casual conversations with somebody (Bush) considered a friend."

How dare he.

The best part about this, for me at least, is how Bush admits his desire to become president is reason enough for him to hide the facts. Doesn't his religion tell him otherwise?

A few weeks ago Randy Cohen, aka, The Ethicist, discussed a similar issue. It seems a child of 17 can make better decisions than our President. But we already knew that, didn't we?

DHAAAAAAA!

You must be kidding me.

GEORGE Bush has banned Camilla Parker Bowles from the White House - because she is a divorcee.

The unprecedented snub has effectively sabotaged Charles's plan to take his bride on a Royal tour of America later this year.

The trip would have been the pair's first official tour as a married couple.

But the US President - a notoriously right-wing Christian and reformed alcoholic - told aides it was "inappropriate" for him to be playing host to the newly-weds, who are both divorcees.

The decision was made even though the late President Ronald Reagan was divorced.

Apparently, having multiple wives like a Saudi prince is more acceptable.

I imagine it'll be difficult for George's brother Neil to stay the night, being that he was banging Asian whores, and is recently divorced because of it.

More from the Theatre of the Absurd

Comes more Newt Gingrich.

This is his Op/Ed form the Chicago Tribune on Friday. It's worth a read if only for a laugh.

The gist of the piece is how Paul Bremer/US needed the ability to spend money more freely in Iraq without the oversight of Congress, aka, "the bureaucracy", because it slowed down the rebuilding process.

When this argument first came to light some Democrats half-heartedly agreed. There's an obvious argument as to why Gingrich's is right. Too bad there are many more arguments for why he is wrong, and this is where the divide begins between people who think they know what's best for everyone and those who believe in the rule of law. Gingrich, of course, is part of the former camp.

The problem with spending money in Iraq is more the fault of people like Gingrich than those who call for oversight. Remember, Gingrich and others like Richard Perle, sit on the Defense Policy Board which advises the Pentagon. Groups like this were given a greater hand in formulating a war plan than Congress. Before, and during the Iraq War all I heard was "What's our exit strategy?" Of course, there was no exit strategy beyond, "We will be welcomed as liberators." I'm not really sure which statement is more absurd because both lack logic on many levels. However, I am aware our government conducted this war, and the process leading up to it, without the help of not just democrats, but many republicans, who used to be against the idea of "nation building" (and I'm sure still are). Had Congress been involved in pre-war planning, had they not been stonewalled by an Administration who only hired "Yes" men, Congress would have been better prepared to deal with the spending problems. Instead, Congress was supposed to work in the dark, with little time to react.

I'm not sure the conservatives were upset by this. Maybe they figured if Congress had no time to respond they would have to keep green-lighting everything presented to them in order to secure Iraq and "protect the troops." This may be too clever for even these people, but you just never know.

The idea we should make spending easier to fight a war against terrorism, as Gingrich asserts, is pretty ridiculous.

The U.S. did not have a problem responding to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after we were attacked. Congress seemingly was able to get the job done as they saw fit. Of course the President started using funds allocated for Afghanistan to begin his campaign in Iraq. Yes, that's illegal, but he did it, and there was little oversight evident by no one calling him out. The Republicans did a marvelous job of couching this whole thing as the War on Terror, so misuse of funds was deemed okay, even necessary by some. This should not have been allowed. Again, Congress needs to know!

Gingrich would like more of this free spending. He is part of the conservative clique that knows what is better for everyone! Conservatives like Gingrich view themselves as the parents of America, telling us what is right, wrong, and how our lives should be lived. When constraints get in the way it's time to change the laws. This of course is happening with the American Justice system (the most important aspect of the Bush Presidency). On a smaller scale, Gingrich would like the same pimp hand in Iraq. He wants no oversight because the parents know what is best, obviously.

Well, apparently you don't know what you're doing, and Iraq is evidence of that.

I would grant making spending easier would certainly help the Iraqis right now, and may make the war effort slightly easier, but that's not enough for me to allow Congressional oversight to be weakened. We needed more of it before the war, not less. Unfortunately, and ironically, the Iraq War may suffer because of the our laws and processes, but that's not because it is flawed. It is because those running the show have tried to end around our laws, and it seems Iraqis (and the world) will pay the price. Let Congress in on what you're doing and maybe they can conclude what is necessary a bit faster. That's how it's supposed to work.

Conservatives want to fix the problems they've begun in Iraq, but oversight is making it harder. Congress was so willing to rubber stamp everything before the war, and certainly before the election, but once they realized what a disaster Iraq is they sensed it was time to actually get involved. Gingrich and others do not want their involvement now, and didn't want it then. Congress is at fault for not demanding more accountability from the outset, and can certainly be blamed now with regard to what Gingrich is saying. However, I'd rather see them fix their mistakes instead of allowing another mistake to grow.

Taking away Congressional oversight so people can conduct wars much easier is the last thing Americans should ever want because you know they will start wars. That's not what this country is about.

Whether it is the job of the United States to fix a country (start a war) should be made by the people. Not just a select unelected few who sit inside the Pentagon dictating how the world will be, and how they and the military should spend our money.

Ida Hoes

Gotta love it:

A strip club in Boise, Idaho has found an artful way to prance past a city law that prohibits full nudity.

On what it calls Art Club Nights, the Erotic City strip club charges customers $15 for a sketch pad, pencil, and a chance to see completely naked women dancers.

In 2001 the Boise City Council passed an ordinance banning total nudity in public unless it had "serious artistic merit" -- an exemption meant to apply to plays, dance performances and art classes.

Harken Back

What was it, a year, maybe two years ago when the AARP was gathering its members to stand behind President Bush and the Republicans overhaul of Medicare? Yeah, that was a good idea.

At the time the AARP figured they'd offer their support, and then down the road they'd tweak the program to gain more benefits. Well, that's obviously not happening.

However, don't think the conservatives aren't thankful for AARP's support. Just look how they return a favor.

Good Read

Frank Rich.

Sad Day

For Republicans because they won't be able to use "I didn't inhale" anymore.

Notice how Bush mentions coke, LSD, and marijuana in such an off hand manner. During his days in college those were the big three, and we all know he used them all.

I do appreciate his not mentioning drug use to protect the children. That's so noble.

Why is it the people who all tried drugs in their youths don't want the kids of today trying them? Was that not part of their life experience? Does it not contribute to the makeup of the individual? Granted, I wouldn't like to see the young people of the world hooked on cocaine, LSD, and whatever else is available, but I do believe usage is part of the learning process for many kids.

Is it okay for the Bush daughters to be drunk all over whatever town they're in, but of course avoiding marijuana like it's the plague?

I'm going to assume we don't see President Bush fielding questions for a while, just like his first term.