Why does Laura hate Christmas?


Laura Bush gets ready to punch
Christmas in the face.

MRS. BUSH: Well, all things bright and beautiful is the theme this year. I think it will be really bright and beautiful with this fabulous tree. But thank you all very much. Happy holidays. I know this is the real start of the season, the Monday after Thanksgiving, and so I want to wish everybody happy holidays. And we'll see you later this week with the White House decorations...
Next thing you know, Bill O’Reilly will invite her on his show—and she won’t go, the coward!

Full transcript at WhiteHouse.gov. Hat tip C&L.

Open Wide...

CREW After Dobson

Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family is the focus of a new IRS complaint filed by CREW.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Services (IRS) complaint against Focus on the Family, a conservative, non-profit organization led by its Founder and Chairman James C. Dobson. The complaint asks for the IRS to investigate activities by the group which may violate IRS regulations and require a revocation of its tax-exempt status.

Although barred from electioneering, Mr. Dobson has endorsed candidates for political office several times. In early April, 2004, Mr. Dobson endorsed Republican Representative Patrick J. Toomey in his race for Senate in Pennsylvania. In addition, it was reported that Mr. Dobson actively campaigned during a rally for Rep. Toomey. Other candidates that Mr. Dobson reportedly endorsed in 2004 include North Carolina Republican candidate Pat Ballentine for Govenor [sic] and Oklahoma Republican candidate Tom Coburn for Senate.

“Mr. Dobson’s egregious violations of IRS code demand an investigation into his improper activities that break both the spirit and the letter of IRS law,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today.
It’s completely ridiculous that an organization like this even has tax-exempt status in the first place. I hope the IRS slaughters them for their outrageous violations of an already-generous statute, but sincerely doubt they will.

Open Wide...

GOP Congressman Busted; Weeps and Begs for Forgiveness

I think I’m just going to save that headline and re-use it the once-a-month or so that it’s required.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges and tearfully resigned from office, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to conspirators.
Uh-oh! Somebody call the wahhhhhhhhhmbulance for the newest Republican dickwit to shed some tears after getting busted for being a soulless criminal.

Cunningham, 63, entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.

Cunningham answered "yes, Your Honor" when asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted bribes from someone in exchange for his performance of official duties.

Later, at a news conference, he wiped away tears as he announced his resignation.

"I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," he said.
Ahhh, atonement. The magical gift from the conservatives’ warmongering, homo-hating Jeebus*, washing away all manner of sin. Infidelity, embezzlement, drunk driving, gambling, draft-dodging, lying…I’m sure being reborn free and clear of any scarlet letters (no B for bribery, WF for wire fraud, TE for tax evasion, or MF for, ahem, mail fraud) is no problem with Jeebus on your side.

Cunningham's pleas came amid a series of GOP scandals. Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas had to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted in the CIA leak case.
GOP: 4. Moral Values: 0.

-----------------

* Not to be confused with the peaceful philosopher and anti-poverty advocate known as Jesus.

Open Wide...

Another Fun Billboard


Yeah, Angelina—you godless hussy!

Is it just me, or is there something mind-bogglingly incongruous in an “abstinence mission” referring to bling? And does that mean that once you get an engagement ring, it’s okay to, uh, engage? What about one of the promise rings that are all the rage with the virgin set?

I’m so confused.

(Nicked from D-listed.)

Open Wide...

Will the Christmas Crusaders jump on this one?

CNN Money reports:

Calls made to several Wal-Marts around the country revealed that one of the hottest items on the holiday sale list, a $378 Hewlett-Packard laptop, sold out within the first hour the stores were open.

"They trampled each other for 'em," said one Wal-Mart employee at a Maryland store. "It was great."

Four Wal-Marts contacted by CNNMoney.com said they received limited supplies of the HP laptop, ranging from 15 at a store in Michigan to about 65 at the Maryland location.

"There were a couple hundred people waiting in line to get into the electronics department and many were angry about waiting around for nothing," Tim Severance, in an e-mail to CNNMoney.com, said of a Wal-Mart in Martinsburg, W.Va. "Turns out that it was only a gimmick to get people into their store."
At the above link, there’s a video of a scuffle at an Orlando Wal-Mart where, as per an eyewitness, laptops were being thrown "20 feet in the air and people were collapsing on each other to grab them. It was ridiculous."


Merry Christmas, motherfucker!

Open Wide...

Hollypops

I remember awhile ago reading an article about the stunning and inimitably interesting Liv Tyler, in which she recounted being told over and over that she was “too fat.” It was enough to make me want to scream on her behalf—and on behalf of all the women in the entertainment business who don’t have the wherewithal, luxury, self-esteem, or whatever it is that Tyler has that makes her respond to such insanity with a resolute, “Fuck off.”

Hardly a week goes by without Mr. Shakes or I gasping at a photo of some Hollywood starlet who suddenly looks as though she’s just escaped an internment camp, trading in womanly curves for jutting collarbones. The truly luscious Kate Winslet of Heavenly Creatures and (ugh) Titanic is now dreadfully thin. Joan Cusack looks absolutely scary in her new role as a skeletal pitchperson for some phone company. Christina Ricci looks likely to collapse from malnutrition at any moment.

There are, of course, women who are naturally this thin, but they don’t look gaunt and disproportionate. Their heads don’t appear to be oversized orbs floating above emaciated bodies.


Nicole Richie, Teri Hatcher, and Christina Ricci
have collaberated to create a guilt-free snack that is
causing a sensation in Hollywood. These NO calorie,
NO fat Hollypops are the perfect meal for the gal
who just can't seem to get thin enough. Three
mouthwatering flavors, Lettuce, Water, and Espresso
are sure to satisfy your appetite and sooth your hunger pangs.

It was with both amusement and sadness that I regarded this piece from 14, who runs the blog Gallery of the Absurd. Her commentary on the absurdly thin is spot-on, if painfully ironic.

In the run-up to Batman & Robin, there was a non-stop deluge of stories about how Alicia Silverstone had gained egregious amounts of weight, how the wardrobe team had to refit her costume because she was too fat to fit into it, how her career was over because she had become such a hideous heifer. The director, Joel Schumacher, was disgusted by the press. I remember at the time reading that he said something like, “What is this girl’s big sin—that she ate some pizza?” Eventually, the roar got so loud, he started lashing out at the journalists who continued to harp on the issue.

Schumacher, who also directed "The Client" and "A Time to Kill," was angry during the making of "Batman & Robin" when gossip writers made a big deal about Batgirl Alicia Silverstone's brief weight gain.

"It was horrible. I thought it was very cruel," Schumacher says. "She was a teenager who gained a few pounds -- like all of us do at certain times. I would confront female journalists and I'd say, 'With so many young people suffering from anorexia and bulimia, why are you crucifying this girl?"'
Why only female journalists, I don’t know (where they the only ones asking about it?), but the point is still salient. Famous women who are well within normal weight ranges are routinely accused of being “too fat.” Karen Carpenter, who died from anorexia, famously developed the obsession with her weight after being dubbed by Billboard as “Richard's chubby sister.” The emphasis on bony-thinness has no regard for health, nor, in many cases, the youth and beauty that is meant to be the staple of stars, as apple-round cheeks are dispatched in favor of a hollowed-out look, indicative of aging women. One of the most popular new plastic surgery procedures is fat deposits in the cheeks, to replace what women naturally lose during the aging process. Now, however, it’s increasingly being done on younger and younger women, who have prematurely aged themselves by losing more weight than is appropriate for their frames.

When woman are overweight, there is much hand-wringing concern about their health, but in reality, it’s little more than a cover for sizism. It’s their appearance to which one is reacting. If women’s health was such a concern, surely there would be as great an outcry over women who starve themselves and rely on plastic surgery to give the appearance of youth and health of which extreme weight loss has robbed them. Surely, there would be more concern about the message being sent to impressionable girls who seek to emulate their idols.

After being barraged by negative stories about her weight gain, Silverstone noted to Fashion Wire Daily:

I've never been heavy. What really hurts is, when they say that, I know I have a lot of young fans. So for them to go, “Wait a second. Alicia Silverstone is fat? Then what the hell am I?”

Open Wide...

A Tale of Three Stories

One: Via Raw Story, I see that Bruce Willis, “angered by negative portrayals of the Iraq conflict, actor Bruce Willis is to make a pro-war film in which US soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy.” Willis is (emphasis mine):

expected to base the film on the writings of the independent blogger Michael Yon, a former special forces green beret who was embedded with Deuce Four and sent regular dispatches about their heroics…

Yon, 41, went to Iraq after a friend from high school, Scott Helveston, a former navy Seal, was hanged from a bridge in Fallujah in an incident that shocked the world. Yon had never blogged before but was the author of Danger Close, a book about his experience as a green beret when he killed a man in a bar-room brawl. He was charged with murder and acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.
Two: At Crooks and Liars, I see the video of what is being described by The Telegraph as “appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians.”

The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on "route Irish", a road that links the airport to Baghdad.
Three: The LA Times reports on the tragic death of Col. Ted Westhusing, one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics. The Army has ruled his death a suicide.

In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military…

Then, in May, Westhusing received an anonymous four-page letter that contained detailed allegations of wrongdoing by USIS.

The writer accused USIS of deliberately shorting the government on the number of trainers to increase its profit margin. More seriously, the writer detailed two incidents in which USIS contractors allegedly had witnessed or participated in the killing of Iraqis…

Most of the letter is a wrenching account of a struggle for honor in a strange land.

"I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars. I am sullied," it says. "I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

"Death before being dishonored any more."
(Arthur Silber has much more on this story.)

What’s the connection; what’s the point? Hunter at DailyKos, discussing the “trophy video” mentioned above, notes:

And so the circle -- or spiral -- continues. For those with short memories, it was the alleged misconduct of armed contractors in Iraq that led to the killing and public display of four of them, hanging from a bridge... which led to two separate massive retaliatory assaults against Fallujah... which led to a widespread backlash in Iraq... which led to, among other things, a widened insurgency... which contributed to a situation in Iraq in which armed contractors are necessary for protection of private clients... which led to the alleged misconduct of several of them...

Which leads to what, I wonder?
Iraq is a snake eating its own tail.

I’ve absolutely no doubt that our soldiers are accomplishing lots of good things in Iraq, but I’ve also no doubt that there’s lots of horrible shit going on over there, too, by our own hands. War proponents argue that Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, and I’m sure that’s true. But that really isn’t the question anymore. The question now is whether Iraqis would be better off without us.

Last Monday, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces. Maybe we ought to listen.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day- Hot Air Radio

Hello, everyone. Did you Americans have a nice holiday weekend? Good. Did our non-American friends have a nice, yet shorter weekend? Excellent.

Okay, I'm inspired by Shakes' post below, and my wiseass response. Here's the question of the day:


What would be a more appropriate tagline for this billboard?

Mine were "Liberals stare in slackjawed awe at the bullshit we spew day after day after day after day..." and "Liberals Stand and Shake Their Heads at Our Willful Ignorance."

I'm sure you all can come up with some better ones. I was up at 5:30, I haven't finished my coffee yet, and I'm a little bleary-eyed. Have at it!

Open Wide...

Junkyard Dog Still Chasing Side of Beef

Fitzy still hasn’t let Rove off the hook:

A second Time magazine reporter has been asked to testify in the CIA leak case, this time about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.
TalkLeft has some info on Novak’s reporting.

Open Wide...

Back in the Saddle

I’ve returned from our weekend Thanksgiving celebration at my sister’s house, which was exceedingly pleasant, aside from the drive home, which was completely annoying, as holiday traffic, nasty weather, and construction all conspired to nearly double our travel time.


Mr. Shakes: I’m turning into a
chubby volcano of annoyance!

I didn’t discover any telltale signs of a war on Christmas, oppressed Christians, or otherwise maligned conservatives on our voyage, but I did see this massive billboard flanking the highway:


Isn’t that sweet? It’s nice to know our collective opinion is so important to the rightwing blowhards that produce and listen to such swill that they’ll put it right on a billboard. Aww shucks, WIND—we didn’t know how much you cared.

Open Wide...

Inherit the Dumbassery

A California couple is trying to take SOCAS and use it against evolution. Apparently these people think that since the University of California-Berkeley has a site designed to help teachers teach evolution that is partially funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation; SOCAS has been violated. From the article:

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the Caldwells contend the site is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true".


Yes, it a conspiracy to brainwash kids into believing in science and not god! The eeeevil scientists and science teachers are out to get your children! Be alert! They're using websites to train those teachers in the best way to "modify" students' beliefs.

So get this:

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" — a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence — but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.


Because, you know, it's not a scientific theory or anything. WTF. And just what is it that these people would like taught? I'm guessing outright creationsim--given their fear that the site to help teachers teach is going to "modify" student beliefs into accepting evolution as possible and that they think that since the NSF gave a grant to the site, this is endorsing "certain" religious groups (read: not theirs).

Here is the site: Understanding Evolution. Check it out for yourself.


(cross-posted at expostulation)

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

A few days ago, someone mentioned in a comments thread the possibility (for which all LotR fans fervently hope) that The Hobbit will also be brought to the big screen by Peter Jackson. (Or someone else, but I think PJ's got to get the gig.) Ian Holm being a bit too old for the part, who would you cast as Bilbo?

I think I'll get a lot of flak for this choice, but I'd choose Zach Braff, who's good at both comedy and drama and has the sort of round features of hobbits, including the requisite big, soulful eyes you'd expect of Bilbo. I know he seems a bit "modern" for such a role, but I remember having the same thought when I heard Elijah Wood had been cast, and now I can't imagine anyone else as Frodo.

Open Wide...

Best. Picture. Ever.

My least favorite person makes
my most favorite word.



Nicked from A Socialite’s Life.

Open Wide...

The Correct Word Is: Oops

A Vermont high school teacher is being called onto the carpet after giving a vocab quiz that included questions mocking the pres:

Bret Chenkin, a social studies and English teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, said he gave the quiz to his students several months ago. The quiz asked students to pick the proper words to complete sentences.

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.
I like how the AP felt the need to offer up the correct answer.

Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned. She said she also would talk with Chenkin. School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.

"It's absolutely unacceptable," Knapp said. "They (teachers) don't have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint."

Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn't shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.

"The kids know it's hyperbolic, so-to-speak," he said. "They know it's tongue in cheek." But he said he would change his teaching methods if some are concerned.

"I'll put in both sides," he said. "Especially if it's going to cause a lot of grief."
If we were all just a little more mature, and the nature of political debate hadn’t been reduced to a vice president telling a senator on the Senate floor to go fuck himself, and one congressperson calling another a coward on the House floor, there probably wouldn’t be any problem with the tone of this quiz. But because hysterical rantings now pass as legitimate political statements, even what ought to be obvious sarcasm is going to be taken at face value (by members on both sides of the aisle). Good for Chenkin for being mellow about it, while still making it clear he thinks it’s much ado about nothing.

Open Wide...

Get It Together, Britain

Following on the heels of the recent survey, commissioned by Amnesty International, which found that 34% of Britons believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner, a Swansea rape victim’s case has been dropped, and the jury ordered by the judge, Justice Roderick Evans, to bring in a verdict of not guilty "even if you don't agree,” after the woman admitted under cross-examination that she was too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to sex.

Vera Baird QC, Labour MP for Redcar and a leading criminal lawyer, called the prosecution's decision "outrageous". She said the law had been changed to provide that no one can consent to sex except by choice, with "the freedom and capacity to make that choice". The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious will not be taken as having consented, and in such cases the onus shifts to the accused to raise evidence of consent.
Part of the impetus of the Sexual Offences Act is the appalling record of successful rape prosecutions:

The most recent Home Office statistics show that in 2003 an estimated 50,000 women were raped in the UK, although just 11,867 went to the police. Of those cases, 1,649 went to trial but only 629 resulted in successful prosecutions. Some were unsuccessful despite the rapist pleading guilty. If you reported a rape in 2003 you had a 5.3% chance of securing a conviction…

Welsh politicians have called for a further tightening of the law in light of the case so that the onus is placed on the accused to prove consent was given.

Plaid Cymru assembly member Leanne Wood, a former chairwoman of Welsh Women's Aid, said: "A woman should be able to get drunk if she wants to without fear of being raped. Men should not be given the impression that it is acceptable to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent."
Of course, the Act, even if strengthened, doesn’t do British women a damn bit of good if prosecutors and judges aren’t willing to apply it.

The victim in the aforementioned case was actually passed out when the guard who walked her to her flat had sexual intercourse with her on the floor of the corridor, yet when the prosecution dropped the case, it noted that "drunken consent is still consent.” Charming.

And what, exactly, constitutes content? Simply not saying no? Unfortunately, the “nice guy” who offers to walk an alcohol-impaired girl home and ends up raping her once she’s unconscious is not exactly a rare tale. In my immediate circle of friends, there are two women who have been victimized in exactly that way, waking up to the horrific realization that the man who offered to look after them is having sex with them instead.

[S]ome contributors to website talkboards suggest that women must take responsibility for their actions, including how much they drink. And that to convict a man of rape is wrong when the alleged victim cannot remember whether or not she consented.
Same old story. Here’s one problem with that story: It requires all women to modify a legal behavior to accommodate some men who refuse to modify an illegal one. Saying, “There are always going to be some men who are willing to take advantage of an impaired woman” is not sufficient reason to expect only women to monitor their alcohol intake to protect themselves against crime, particularly when the legal system is currently providing rapists with a 94.7% chance of getting away with it. Those are pretty good odds. How about, before the onus is put exclusively on women, undertaking a comprehensive attempt at drastically deincentivizing rape?

Another, unspoken problem with that story: If a young straight man were raped by another man while being passed out drunk, would anyone question whether he’d given consent? In fact, a straight man’s sexual history would likely be used in his defense—he’s had sex with lots of women before; he wouldn’t have consented to this—whereas a woman’s sexual history can be used against her in the same instance.

Perhaps the biggest problem with that story, however, is that women who are assaulted while under the influence of alcohol will just remain unlikely to come forward. It not only leaves them without justice, but also leaves rapists on the loose—resulting in more victims in the future.

Open Wide...

More on Bush’s “Joke”

The story currently not being touched with a ten-foot pole by the American media—the leaked memo revealing President Bush suggesting a military strike against the Arab television station al-Jazeera and Tony Blair arguing against an attack—is a big story in Britain. Channel 4 has an in-depth report on the subject that I really recommend you watch in whole, but here are some highlights (please note: the transcriptions are mine).

The report starts with the news that the two leakers have been charged under Britain’s Official Secrets Act and will likely be tried in secret. Though Bush’s remarks about bombing al-Jazeera are being framed, particularly in America, as a joke, it has been indicated in Britain that the memo focuses on a dispute over military tactics, which would make more understandable the use of the Official Secrets Act, which is being used to threaten journalists with prosecution for the first time ever. Later in the report, the former editor of The Guardian, Peter Preston, is interviewed, and notes that not only is the invocation of the Official Secrets Act “a direct threat to the press,” but that the wide disparity in contentions—insensitive, tasteless joke versus tactical dispute—creates an urgency for the British press to not play dead.

This is a case where it doesn’t fit, it’s messy, the government looks on the back foot, and the media, I think, ought to feel extraordinarily threatened by all of this, because it’s either, as I say, absurd or it's really rather sinister.
Also interviewed is Clive Stafford-Smith, an attorney representing Sami Muyhideen al-Haj, an al-Jazeera cameraman who has been interned at Gitmo for four years. According to Stafford-Smith, al-Haj has been interrogated by the US approximately 130 times, with the sole focus of 125 of those interrogations being whether al-Jazeera is a front for and/or funded by al-Qaida. al-Haj has flatly denied the veracity of the assertion, and so remains incarcerated.

Finally, the Channel 4 anchor interviewed Wadah Khanfar, the Managing Director of al-Jazeera, who was in Rome. He asked Khanfar if al-Jazeera had taken President Bush’s remark as a joke. Khanfar, who seemed more bemused but frank, rather than angry (as he certainly has a right to be), replied:

Of course we cannot take it as a joke. A joke from President Bush cannot be regarded as an ordinary joke…Why? Because al-Jazeera was attacked twice before. Once in Kabul and again in Baghdad during the war in Iraq, and one of our colleagues was killed.
Khanfar went on to explain why this is such an important issue to resolve:

It is not a matter of al-Jazeera. It is a matter of a new definition of democracy. If that is correct, then we are in front of a story that is redefining freedom of expression. You are speaking about civilian journalists, who have been reporting for nine years, who are on the forefront of reforming democracy in the Arab world…

I would like an official explanation about what has happened. I would like to inform my people, my journalists of al-Jazeera, who have issued a statement tonight, asking for an official investigation. [Tony Blair] should be clear about this matter because it is not only al-Jazeera; it is the Arab world who is waiting for that explanation. It is the world at large; it is every journalist who feels that this is a new rule for the game of journalism.
Hat tip to BradBlog, which also points to a column in The Daily Telegraph by MP Boris Johnson, called "I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera."

[I]f his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?

We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.

What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.
I have to go with the aforementioned Peter Preston on this one. Threatening journalists with the Official Secrets Act is either a ludicrous over-reach designed to help Bush save face over a thoughtless comment, in which case the British press ought to be outraged they are being silenced for such a stupid reason, or it’s a practical application, and Bush wasn’t joking at all. Which is it?

Americans need to be concerned with this story as well. If Bush was serious, we ought to demand accountability on behalf of the killed al-Jazeera journalist as well as those currently being held at Gitmo and in Spain. If he was joking, we ought to demand at minimum that he acknowledge it and apologize for it. A man whose job affords him the protection of having arrested anyone who makes even a joke about hurting him surely ought to understand that not every joke is so easily dismissed.

In either case, refusing to address the issues raised by the leak of these remarks will allow people to believe about them whatever they want to believe—or whatever their experiences predisposes them to believe. What will the Arab world believe?

Open Wide...

Another Dem War Hawk Bites the Dust

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA):

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

[…]

Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would "absolutely not" have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was "doctored." And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

"A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs," he said.

He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.
Dicks relied on “briefings” and “information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress” to draw his conclusion that “Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon,” which he asserted in an October 2002 House debate. By the time Joe Wilson’s piece in the New York Times was published on July 6, 2003, Dicks started to question that about which he had previously been so sure.

There’s a part of me that’s really angry at Democrats like Dicks. There was plenty of information available casting doubt on the administration’s claims leading up to the war. There were plenty of people sounding the alarm that the pretenses were false. When I think about the time leading up to the war, it seems as though there was something in my gut telling me Bush was full of shit, but it really wasn’t my gut—it was reading lots and lots of stuff from credible people who were claiming that the intelligence was being cooked, and noticing that the Bushies had no real interest in undermining the widely-held notion that Saddam and 9/11 were linked, and recognizing all the reasons the Bushies had to go to this particular war.

But at the same time, I can’t imagine what it’s like to be a part of the government and have administration officials and intelligence agencies giving you information, which one would reasonably assume is credible, while being under the pressure of being tagged traitorous if you withhold support for the issue being debated. All of Congress was put in a pretty shitty situation, and one might quite reasonably suggest that the Dems shouldn’t have bowed to that pressure, or that the pressure itself maybe should have clued them in that the rationale wasn’t solid, but sitting in judgment from here is all too easy.

Still, there’s something that’s being left unsaid by Democrats who now admit they made a mistake. Irrespective of the reasons for their votes, they voted for a war of preemption, which was unprecedented. They weren’t overtly told that Saddam was behind 9/11, that we were going to war with Iraq in response to having been attacked. They knew it was a preemptive war, and they voted for it anyway. And that’s a mistake for which there is no excuse.

When will they address that collective failure? Or don’t they think it was one?

(Hat tip to Oddjob, who hat tips HuffPo.)

Open Wide...

Friday Blogrollin'

Stop by and say hello to:

Open Wide...

Strawfeminists

Just go.

Open Wide...

“First learn stand, then learn fly.”

Pat Morita, the Oscar-nominated actor who most famously played Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid and Matsuo 'Arnold' Takahashi in Happy Days, has died at age 73.

Morita was prolific outside of the "Karate Kid" series as well, appearing in "Honeymoon in Vegas," "Spy Hard," "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" and "The Center of the World." He also provided the voice for a character in the Disney movie "Mulan" in 1998.

Born in northern California on June 28, 1932, the son of migrant fruit pickers, Morita spent most of his early years in the hospital with spinal tuberculosis. He later recovered only to be sent to a Japanese-American internment camp in Arizona during World War II.

"One day I was an invalid," he recalled in a 1989 AP interview. "The next day I was public enemy No. 1 being escorted to an internment camp by an FBI agent wearing a piece."

After the war, Morita's family tried to repair their finances by operating a Sacramento restaurant. It was there that Morita first tried his comedy on patrons.

Because prospects for a Japanese-American standup comic seemed poor, Morita found steady work in computers at Aerojet General. But at age 30 he entered show business full time.

"Only in America could you get away with the kind of comedy I did," he commented. "If I tried it in Japan before the war, it would have been considered blasphemy, and I would have ended in leg irons."
I don’t think I’ve ever known someone of my age cohort who hasn’t used the phrase “Wax on, wax off” at least a billion times—and didn’t feel compelled to try to catch an imaginary fly each time they had a pair of chopsticks in hand. Pat Morita’s Mr. Miyagi left indelible images in my young mind, as I watched The Karate Kid endlessly, not for Ralph Macchio, but for him. I found his character eternally cool, and because he made me curious about Japan, I read Eleanor Coerr’s Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, the story of a Japanese girl, just a baby when the A-bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, who later develops leukemia as a result of her exposure to the radiation—a book which I can honestly say played no small role in my being a liberal today.

RIP Mr. Morita.

Open Wide...