Your vital guide to election year mis-information and correction, Annenberg's Fact Check has another piece up.
Today's corrective action involves taxing social security benefits, and a dubious(single source) claim about Kerry and an alleged 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax.
I really cannot add any color to the issue, as Annenberg has touched all the bases.
I don't know when the piece was posted. I checked it late in the evening (US Eastern) and it wasn't posted.
a lowly engineer 's attempt at hard science reporting and digressions into a childhood ecstacy not yet lost
Saturday, March 27, 2004
U.S. News and World Report has a nice three page article summarizing Clarke v. White House.
The NYT offers more.
I'm sure it's abundantly clear to the Bushies that the more news cycles that this story dominates, the more damaging it's likely to become. With Rice on 60 Minutes tomorrow evening that will likely keep the collected Washington Punditocracy's brain cells engaged through another full news cycle at minimum.
I'm sure that tomorrow's news daytime news programs will be filled with White House staff in full damage control mode save for Russert. He scored Clarke for tomorrow's MTP. If the attack dog has any bite left, this could provide still more revelations for the White House to contend with.
I'll bring the popcorn.
The NYT offers more.
I'm sure it's abundantly clear to the Bushies that the more news cycles that this story dominates, the more damaging it's likely to become. With Rice on 60 Minutes tomorrow evening that will likely keep the collected Washington Punditocracy's brain cells engaged through another full news cycle at minimum.
I'm sure that tomorrow's news daytime news programs will be filled with White House staff in full damage control mode save for Russert. He scored Clarke for tomorrow's MTP. If the attack dog has any bite left, this could provide still more revelations for the White House to contend with.
I'll bring the popcorn.
Condoleezza won't testify in public..at least not as is yet being reported.
The law:
Of course, even the most casual observer will note that Dr. Rice has been sprinting from network to network to tell her tale.
Am I the only one that sees a touch of irony here?
Then there was Bush's odd statement this past week:
While the GOP wants secret documents released in an effort to discredit Clarke, Dick Cheney's Energy Policy documents -- which have been ordered released by two court decisions -- remain secreted away.
Then there are the Presidential Daily Briefs many of which haven't been made available to the 9-11 Commission, and those that have are available only to Executive Director Zelikow and commission member Jamie Gorelick.
Zelikow is a horrible pick to serve on the Commission, much less be the Director.
I think everything should as transparent as possible. Not what the White House, and the Commission deem necessary.
Let's get it all out in the open, and see if some simple truths can be found.
Rice and Bush should testify publicly, under oath. That is what we deserve as citizens. Anything less will leave much doubt in the minds of thinking peoples everywhere.
These people tend to vote.
The law:
"This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. "There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press."Sorry, Condi. No apparent legal cover.
Of course, even the most casual observer will note that Dr. Rice has been sprinting from network to network to tell her tale.
Am I the only one that sees a touch of irony here?
Then there was Bush's odd statement this past week:
"If our administration had intelligence that terrorists were going to hijack an airliner on Sept. 11 and fly it into the World Trade Center we would have acted on it."Very guarded statement. Bush may have been careful to name the specific date and target..no mention of the Pentagon. Why not?
While the GOP wants secret documents released in an effort to discredit Clarke, Dick Cheney's Energy Policy documents -- which have been ordered released by two court decisions -- remain secreted away.
Then there are the Presidential Daily Briefs many of which haven't been made available to the 9-11 Commission, and those that have are available only to Executive Director Zelikow and commission member Jamie Gorelick.
Zelikow is a horrible pick to serve on the Commission, much less be the Director.
I think everything should as transparent as possible. Not what the White House, and the Commission deem necessary.
Let's get it all out in the open, and see if some simple truths can be found.
Rice and Bush should testify publicly, under oath. That is what we deserve as citizens. Anything less will leave much doubt in the minds of thinking peoples everywhere.
These people tend to vote.
Soldiers Are Speaking Out
A Soldier Speaks Out
A must read. Here's a tiny bit:
Care to listen?
Friday's Democracy Now! features two stories that might be of interest to my readers.
Of course, there is the engaging Karen Kwiatkowski as well.
A Soldier Speaks Out
A must read. Here's a tiny bit:
Stationed in the area of the Baghdad Airport at the time of President Bush’s Thanksgiving 2003 visit to the troops there, he also recounts that on the day before the president’s visit, the troops were given a questionnaire that asked them whether they “supported the president.” Those who did not declare their support with sufficient enthusiasm were not permitted to take part in the Thanksgiving meal, and had to make do with MREs (meals ready to eat, referred to by the soldiers as “meals refused by Ethiopians”) in their quarters.
This interview offers a rare, unfiltered report from a first-hand participant in the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq.
Care to listen?
Friday's Democracy Now! features two stories that might be of interest to my readers.
- Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful"
- Navy Public Affairs Officer Who Worked in Iraq Condemns President Bush & The U.S. Invasion
Of course, there is the engaging Karen Kwiatkowski as well.
Kerry's 10 Million Jobs Gambit
You've no doubt heard about John Kerry's ambitious plan to create 10 million jobs in four years. If you haven't, follow the link.
If the NRO's Kudlow thinks it's clever, it is bound to resonate well with voters.
Without getting into great detail, Kerry's plan repeals much of the Bush cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and uses the revenue to encourage corporate America to keep jobs here through a series of tax incentives.
I saved roughly 10% of my personal tax liability under Bush's plan. I am in favor of paying my old higher personal rate, in return for some services.
I have not spent a nickel of my tax reduction. I suspect that many others are in the same situation as I am. Bush's series of tax cuts in the face of huge increases in federal spending are the most fiscally irresponsible in my memory.
Whether or not Kerry's plan is the magic bullet to jumpstart job growth is unknown. I am inclined to think that it is not. There is too much of a wage differential between workers in the U.S. and workers in emerging regions to make it likely that a tax benefit package is likely -- by itself -- to keep jobs from being moved overseas. Or over our northern and southern borders.
I do applaud Kerry for making an attempt to keep jobs here. He is using the only real tool at his disposal. But I fear it will not be enough.
That Kerry is focused on job creation, and actually has a potentially viable plan set-up to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs out of the U.S. is certain to play well with voters.
Another side of the tax issue that we hear little about from our lying corporate media, is that in order to offset the loss of revenue form the federal level, state and municipal taxes have been raised..or services cut. Either option isn't particularly attractive, and I would make this an issue.
It is a big issue.
I could go on for days about the subject of progressive taxation, but I'll not bore my readers any longer than necessary.
I think you've had enough. :)
You've no doubt heard about John Kerry's ambitious plan to create 10 million jobs in four years. If you haven't, follow the link.
If the NRO's Kudlow thinks it's clever, it is bound to resonate well with voters.
Without getting into great detail, Kerry's plan repeals much of the Bush cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and uses the revenue to encourage corporate America to keep jobs here through a series of tax incentives.
I saved roughly 10% of my personal tax liability under Bush's plan. I am in favor of paying my old higher personal rate, in return for some services.
I have not spent a nickel of my tax reduction. I suspect that many others are in the same situation as I am. Bush's series of tax cuts in the face of huge increases in federal spending are the most fiscally irresponsible in my memory.
Whether or not Kerry's plan is the magic bullet to jumpstart job growth is unknown. I am inclined to think that it is not. There is too much of a wage differential between workers in the U.S. and workers in emerging regions to make it likely that a tax benefit package is likely -- by itself -- to keep jobs from being moved overseas. Or over our northern and southern borders.
I do applaud Kerry for making an attempt to keep jobs here. He is using the only real tool at his disposal. But I fear it will not be enough.
That Kerry is focused on job creation, and actually has a potentially viable plan set-up to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs out of the U.S. is certain to play well with voters.
Another side of the tax issue that we hear little about from our lying corporate media, is that in order to offset the loss of revenue form the federal level, state and municipal taxes have been raised..or services cut. Either option isn't particularly attractive, and I would make this an issue.
It is a big issue.
I could go on for days about the subject of progressive taxation, but I'll not bore my readers any longer than necessary.
I think you've had enough. :)
Still puzzled over Bush's joke.
At least none of the usual suspects have defended him as far as I can tell.
Ed Gillespie of course defended Bush's gaffe, but none of the Corporate Punditocracy.
It's too hot to handle, and really indefensible.
***************************************
Polls:
Lou Dobbs wants to know what you think the best measure of the strength of the U.S. economy is...
....while MSNBC wants to know who you'd vote for if the presidential election "were held this week."
***************************************
I've uploaded a short Chomsky piece from 03/21/2004. It's around 9MB. Short and a good listen. You can download it here
***************************************
Gotta feed. Give Noam a listen if you have the time.
At least none of the usual suspects have defended him as far as I can tell.
Ed Gillespie of course defended Bush's gaffe, but none of the Corporate Punditocracy.
It's too hot to handle, and really indefensible.
***************************************
Polls:
Lou Dobbs wants to know what you think the best measure of the strength of the U.S. economy is...
....while MSNBC wants to know who you'd vote for if the presidential election "were held this week."
***************************************
I've uploaded a short Chomsky piece from 03/21/2004. It's around 9MB. Short and a good listen. You can download it here
***************************************
Gotta feed. Give Noam a listen if you have the time.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Bush's Big Joke
I now must put Bush in the category of: Wholly Unfit to Manage a 7-11.
Much less this country.
589 dead. Untold billions spent and to be spent. How many thousand Iraqis dead?
Bastard.
"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought.'' - John Kerry regarding Bush's "joke(?).
"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. Nope, no weapons over there. Maybe under here?"
I now must put Bush in the category of: Wholly Unfit to Manage a 7-11.
Much less this country.
589 dead. Untold billions spent and to be spent. How many thousand Iraqis dead?
Bastard.
"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought.'' - John Kerry regarding Bush's "joke(?).
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Well, it looks like Clarke has won round one.
Kaplan and Saletan over at Slate have summed things up nicely.
Clake is not going to be easily discredited. In fact, I would argue that the Bushies full frontal assault merely confirms what Clarke wrote in his book, and testified to the 9-11 Commission about.
No one is providing any documents to counter Clarke's most serious charges.
Bush should have never kept an honest man on as a staffer.
Kaplan and Saletan over at Slate have summed things up nicely.
Clake is not going to be easily discredited. In fact, I would argue that the Bushies full frontal assault merely confirms what Clarke wrote in his book, and testified to the 9-11 Commission about.
No one is providing any documents to counter Clarke's most serious charges.
Bush should have never kept an honest man on as a staffer.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Clarke's Introductory Statement Before The 9-11 Commission:
"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.
"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
************
Clarke's the first person to apologize to the survivors. Is this the kind of person that the Bushies want to smear? I think not.
"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.
"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
************
Clarke's the first person to apologize to the survivors. Is this the kind of person that the Bushies want to smear? I think not.
Yes Virginia, the DNC plays games with facts, too.
I don't know why we can't have the level of debate that we need as citizens to make informed decisions as voters. Bush's record on pretty much everything is bad. There's no need to make $hit up about his policies.
I am partisan. Partisan to the truth.
I don't know why we can't have the level of debate that we need as citizens to make informed decisions as voters. Bush's record on pretty much everything is bad. There's no need to make $hit up about his policies.
I am partisan. Partisan to the truth.
Information wants to be free - Cheney vs. The People
I recall a time when anyone that suggested that Cheney's Energy Policy Group had designs on Iraq's oil was labeled a tin hat conspiracy theorist. But as with much with this Adminidtation yestrday's conspiracy theory becomes tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
**************************************
On a compleltey unrelated note: when is the NYT going to pink-slip that shallow Bush apologist, neconservative shill David Brooks?
That guy has no imagination. When he strays from his 'neocanned' script, he is utterly asea. It's shameful.
I'm only pointing this out because I like the guy ;)
....Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration's decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq.Much More at Link
In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group.
They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at JudicialWatch.org.
These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.
The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."....[snip]
I recall a time when anyone that suggested that Cheney's Energy Policy Group had designs on Iraq's oil was labeled a tin hat conspiracy theorist. But as with much with this Adminidtation yestrday's conspiracy theory becomes tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
**************************************
On a compleltey unrelated note: when is the NYT going to pink-slip that shallow Bush apologist, neconservative shill David Brooks?
That guy has no imagination. When he strays from his 'neocanned' script, he is utterly asea. It's shameful.
I'm only pointing this out because I like the guy ;)
'Your Government Failed You'
I haven't read through all of today's testimony, but from reading the above article, Richard Clarke appears to have laid out a plan which may have thwarted the 9/11 attacks.
I caught Clarke about 50 minutes into his testimony.
I haven't read through all of today's testimony, but from reading the above article, Richard Clarke appears to have laid out a plan which may have thwarted the 9/11 attacks.
I caught Clarke about 50 minutes into his testimony.
I have now listened to somewhere on the order of 8 hours of the 9-11 Commission testimony..and I feel that the Commission is a tool to mollify the outrage of the survivors of the attacks.
I don't think that's being cynical, I think it's being realistic. All I have heard is a series of softballs with the rare curve thrown in an attempt to look legitimate.
I understand the today's yestimony is being rebroadcast on C-Span radio, if not television.
I don't think that's being cynical, I think it's being realistic. All I have heard is a series of softballs with the rare curve thrown in an attempt to look legitimate.
I understand the today's yestimony is being rebroadcast on C-Span radio, if not television.
Here is a portion of the transcipt from the 9-11 commission from yesterday concerning Deputy Wofowitz, and hia somewhat evasive answer to related questions posed by Commission member Timothy J. Roemer.
Simple enough. Wolfowitz's answer:
This is the extent of his answer about Iraq. He mentions Iraq not once, in a question directly about Iraq. I have no idea why Mr. Roemer didn't reframe the question to cause Mr. Wolfowitz to answer in a yes or no manner. I certainly would have.
Wolfowitz deftly dodges answering the Iraq question directly.
ROEMER: So the cost-benefit ratio of a million dollar cruise missile to taking out some people that can come kill others was one we just didn't consider, I don't think, in the right kind of cost-benefit analysis in the long run.
One final question: Again, Secretary Wolfowitz, this is again to be fair, and I want to shoot straight with you on this. We have Mr. Clarke coming up tomorrow. And he has a reference in his book to an April 30th deputies meeting, where he claims -- and we want to know if this is accurate or not, so that we can ask him the direct questions tomorrow -- he claims that in this meeting, when they were talking about a plan to go forward to go after bin Laden and Al Qaida, that you brought up the subject of Iraq and that you put too much attention on Iraq as a sponsor, as a state sponsor of terrorism and not enough emphasis on Al Qaida as a transnational sponsor of terrorism.
I have just two comments or two questions on that. One would be: Is that fairly accurate? Is his portrayal of that deputies meeting accurate at all or accurate to some degree?
And secondly, in an interagency meeting, where dialogue and discussion of these things should take place, that's what the interagency process is about, isn't that where these discussions should take place, that opinions should be bounced back and forth and debate should be heated at times about the different threats to the world?
Simple enough. Wolfowitz's answer:
WOLFOWITZ: In case I wasn't clear,[and he certainly wasn't. ed.] I was not dismissive of Al Qaida as a threat. The whole meeting was about Al Qaida. I also believed that state support for terrorism was a problem. But I have never been dismissive of Al Qaida, and I think precisely because I think terrorism is such a serious problem, as I testified as early as my confirmation hearing.
This is the extent of his answer about Iraq. He mentions Iraq not once, in a question directly about Iraq. I have no idea why Mr. Roemer didn't reframe the question to cause Mr. Wolfowitz to answer in a yes or no manner. I certainly would have.
Wolfowitz deftly dodges answering the Iraq question directly.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Update on our Coalition of One series Croatia dumps US, Backs EU
A snip:
Meanwhile in Iraq...
The Media Continues to Only Carry BAD Stories
Iraq is, by all published accounts, growing more deadlier for Iraqis. What a terrible mistake. This must never be allowed to happen again. This month alone, at least 240 Iraqis have died in occupation related violence. How do you address that? I simply cannot.
Bush sleeps, but the killing never does.
A snip:
ZAGREB, Croatia (Reuters) - Croatia drew back Tuesday from previous indications it would send troops to Iraq and sign a deal with Washington exempting U.S. troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Speaking just before a visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Miomir Zuzul's comments represented a turnabout by the new government, which took office in December pledging to seek better ties with Washington.
The new stance was likely to disappoint President Bush's administration as it seeks to broaden a U.S.-led global anti-terror alliance. It follows Spain's decision after elections this month to pull its troops out of Iraq.
"In the current global relations, I do not think it would be good to consider (sending troops to Iraq) now. I think everyone is aware of that," Zuzul told Reuters.
He stressed Croatia remained firmly "part of the global anti-terror coalition," adding that he hoped Washington would understand the former Yugoslav republic's new stance.
Zuzul, a former Croatian ambassador in Washington, also said his country had no plans to sign an accord barring the handover of U.S. military or state officials to the International Criminal Court.
He said Zagreb had told Washington it had to take into account European Union views on the issue. The EU has advised countries against signing the agreement.
Meanwhile in Iraq...
The Media Continues to Only Carry BAD Stories
Iraq is, by all published accounts, growing more deadlier for Iraqis. What a terrible mistake. This must never be allowed to happen again. This month alone, at least 240 Iraqis have died in occupation related violence. How do you address that? I simply cannot.
Bush sleeps, but the killing never does.
Record Gasoline prices to Fuel Bush's Defeat
Well, that's not exactly how the headline reads. But, if you have to spend more on energy costs, then you have less to spend on everything else, which costs more due to increased shipping costs due to higher energy costs.
This has to be another chink in Bush's armor.
Or a 'twofer,' if you're so inclined. Not only have his abysmal foreign policies increased geo-political risks, but he has gutted the EPA whilst doing so. A real bonus for those of you lucky enough to hitch a ride to the nearest habitable planet.
For the rest of us, it's just really bleak.
Well, that's not exactly how the headline reads. But, if you have to spend more on energy costs, then you have less to spend on everything else, which costs more due to increased shipping costs due to higher energy costs.
This has to be another chink in Bush's armor.
Or a 'twofer,' if you're so inclined. Not only have his abysmal foreign policies increased geo-political risks, but he has gutted the EPA whilst doing so. A real bonus for those of you lucky enough to hitch a ride to the nearest habitable planet.
For the rest of us, it's just really bleak.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)