Friday, May 07, 2004

Here's the newest letter the Bush Team is sending out. I added any red highlighting (the words are, uh, hers) and any comments in red, and deleted any links lest you fall for this schmaltz. -------------------- Subject: A Mother's Pride With Mother's Day coming up this weekend, I've been thinking about how proud I am of our children. And it's with a mother's pride that I'm writing you today to ask you to support our eldest, George W., and his re-election campaign with a donation of $1000, $500, $250, $100 or $50. George W. has been President during challenging times and he has met the tasks at hand with a steely determination and clarity of purpose.  From fighting the War on Terrorism to defending the homeland, the President has shown steady and strong leadership. He has worked with Congress to lower taxes three times so American workers and entrepreneurs can get the economy growing again; pass the No Child Left Behind Act to help every child learn to read; and provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit. The President has accomplished a lot in the past three and half years but there is much more he would like to accomplish.  He will continue to help strength our homeland defense and lay a strong groundwork to win the War on Terrorism.  He has put forward plans to save Social Security, secure pension plans and enhance retirement security for all Americans.  And he has a comprehensive energy plan to make America less dependent on foreign oil. What's that, Barbara: drilling in the ANWR? Earlier this week, our son's re-election team announced their "March to a Million" campaign.  Never before has a presidential campaign received contributions from over one million supporters.  With your help, we'll make history. This election is going to be a tough one.  That is why I'm asking for your support.  For months the President has been facing negative advertising from John Kerry and all sorts of pro-Kerry groups. I've been particularly disappointed in the personal attacks.   Don't make Mom mad. Your donation, no matter what the size, will help advertise the President's positive agenda for America and deliver his compassionate conservative message directly to the voters. America needs a strong leader like George W. Bush.  He is the right man to lead America during these challenging times. Thank you very much for your support today. I hope you and your family enjoy a wonderful Mother's Day. Sincerely, Barbara Bush ------------- Thanks, Ma. Can you get Poppy to write one too? Father's Day is next month. 12:01:05 AM    comment []

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

DINO sore Accuse opponents of what you do yourselves, 3rd in a series You can't buy material like this. Here's Sen. Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia, reading straight from the Karl Rove handbook: "The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher, and his ax-to-grind advocates unleashed?" No doubt the Bushies wanted Sen. Miller's statement on the record so they can call the criticism being leveled at Richard Clarke "bipartisan." But using Zell Miller to represent Democratic views in a bipartisan forum is like appointing Clarence Thomas to continue the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. You know the drill: read Sen. Miller's language ("vindictive," "revenge," "ax-to-grind") and ask yourself who or what comes first to mind. Ax-grinding, vindictive revenge is Rove and the RNC's calling card. Sen. Miller added that "this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps -- the wimps and the warriors." Repeat the drill and ask yourself which category--wimp or warrior--better suits which candidate: the Congressman's son who landed a cushy spot in the Guard and then ducked out on much of his obligation, or the decorated Vietnam war veteran who rescued his soldiers during a firefight at great personal risk? Sen. Miller is exposing Bush's weak flank to return fire. According to Sen. Miller's dualistic worldview (you're either with us or agin' us), the two camps are "the ones who want to argue and assess and appease" and "the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us." Alliterative argumentation Fellow English majors will note Sen. Miller's--or whoever scripted this talking point for him--use of alliteration ("argue and assess and appease"). Makes your argument more memorable for morons. But alliteration is a device strong writers avoid. Note well the recurring theme of appeasement. One of Team Bush's paramount goals is to link their opponents in the public mind with history's appeasers of tyrants, who invariably led their nations to ruin and moral decay. All who hesitated as the Bushies rushed to avenge Pappy and invade Iraq are appeasers. Remember too that it was Pappy who suffered so much from the "wimp" label, which in his case was unjustly applied. If GHWB's approach is wimpy compared with his son's, bring back wimpy. When Sen. Miller lauds as warriors "the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies," he doesn't mean those giving the orders to fight should personally carry them out. As a means of settling disagreements, war is much preferred by those who've never experienced it. If Republicans who don't support every policy of Team Bush and the Christian right wing are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), then Sen. Zell Miller is a DINO. Should the Democrats ever retake the Senate, look for Miller to pull a reverse Jeffords. Thanks again, Jim. At least you tried. 1:16:03 PM    comment []

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Frist at war, Frist in pieces Frist at war, Frist in pieces "Smithers, free the hounds." --Mr. Burns The hounds are baying after Richard Clarke, but the scent on the wind is RNC desperation. Let's look at some excerpts from Friday's AP story, headed "GOP moves to declassify Clarke testimony." "...hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms...[and] flattering statements he made as a White House aide." Can anyone imagine an aide who wants to remain in this White House making anything but flattering statements? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have developed a sudden fondness for openness of government documents. One wonders if this fondness will extend beyond this attempt to smear Richard Clarke, who shares their fondness. "The allegations against Clarke could linger for weeks..." We're not told who thinks these could linger so long, but we know who needs an extended distraction. "Frist made clear Friday that he isn't accusing Clarke of perjury." See how he does this? He's not accusing Clarke of perjury. But somehow he's linked the two in the public mind. I'm not accusing Sen. Frist of supporting assisted suicide either. Perjury is a big one for the Republiban. It's what they finally nailed Clinton for, and if what they desperately hope is the lingering stench from that debacle should taint Clarke, so much the better. It's also what they want to prevent Condi getting nailed for, which is why she's not being permitted to testify under oath. Speak all you want, Dr. Rice, but not under oath. Why? So she can't be accused of perjury. Give me one other reason that isn't manifest hogwash like "separation of powers." "Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity..." Another Rove/RNC hallmark: anonymous attacks. Anyone see Dick Cheney's or Scooter Libby's fingerprints on this? On Saturday, March 27, The New York Times notes that "Dr. Frist and other Republican Congressional leaders said their decision to seek declassification had not been coordinated with the White House." Here's how the discerning process works: Anything these guys deny is probably true. "I'll take Colin Powell to block" Colin Powell cements his isolation from the Bush team by defending Clarke's service and expertise. Powell is more likely to appear on "Hollywood Squares" than in a second Bush administration. The Times quotes White House spokesman Sean McCormack as saying that "to my knowledge there was no coordination between Congressional Republicans and the White House on the request for the declassification of the documents." Did anyone see if he said it with a straight face? Memo to Sean: They wouldn't tell you, precisely so you can get this statement on the record. Plausible deniability, remember? Accuse opponents of what you do yourselves, 2nd in a series: Spin, Doctor! Dr. Frist accuses Richard Clarke of "profiteering" with his book. Dr. Frist hopes to link profiteering in the public mind with anything other than Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Dr. Frist describes Clarke's apology to relatives of 9/11 victims as "an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation." Can anyone hear the phrase "supreme arrogance and manipulation" without thinking of the Bushies' drive to invade Iraq? They can if Bill Frist has his way. 11:38:18 AM    comment []

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

The dualists Every time a credible source puts forth information that conflicts with the administration's black-and-white world view, the Bushies send out loyal members of the team to generate spin, discredit the source, and dominate the news cycle. They're very good at it, and until the Democrats marshal a similarly strong and aggressive team, the Republiban (thanks, Gautam) view will hold sway. Anagram fun: Condoleeza Rice = No Dazzle, Ice Core No team member is more loyal than National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. According to an earlier version of CNN's article on the Bushies' multifanged attack on former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, Dr. Rice "[i]n her CNN interview repeatedly pointed out that Clarke served as counterterrorism chief under the Clinton administration." The writers add that Clarke also served under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Never mind that until yesterday Richard Clarke, a registered Republican, was by all accounts a well-respected figure who has long served administrations of both parties. When you see the world through dualistic goggles, everyone falls into two camps: pro-Bush or anti. Clarke's story does not support the Bush re-election team's projected self-image as the only people American can trust to defend the realm, so Clarke must be tarred, and Clinton is the worst they have. Given the Bush family's dismal record (0-fer) against Clinton, I find it amusing how badly they want to run against him. No doubt the moralists occupying the White House think the mere mention of Clinton's name is enough to conjure gag reflexes among voters who found that whole intern business so distasteful. The Bushes like to think of themselves as America's ruling elite, touched by grace, suffused with class. (I've partied enough with a Bush cousin to know how much of that image is projection.) That anyone could knock them from power sticks to them like tar on a boot. So they fling tar at critics like Richard Clarke, because they fear getting the boot. Accuse your opponents of what you do yourselves CNN quotes Dr. Rice as calling Richard Clarke’s assertions a “rewriting of history.” She ought to be expert on that subject by now. Dr. Rice is on record as saying that no one could have predicted hijackers would "try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile." Why then does she still refuse to appear before the 9/11 commission? Because she knows what was in the one-and-a-half-page President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, which, while refusing to read it to the press on May 16, 2002, she repeatedly described as "very general." Not like her very specific description of what they could not foresee. As their motive for not permitting Dr. Rice to testify publicly before the nonpartisan commission, the White House cites concerns about “separation of powers.” I think their true concern is separation from power. Final note: Happy birthday, Simon (though by now it was yesterday). I love you, sweet boy. 12:28:38 AM    comment []

Friday, March 19, 2004

Quick shots at falsehoods Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., had this to say in a Wall Street Journal piece entitled "A Spanish Surrender?": "In the minds of al Qaeda's adherents, the population of entire nations, if subjected to suitably horrific carnage just prior to an election, might now be manipulated into voting for governments that disavow armed opposition to terrorism." See how it's done? Because the new Spanish government is opposed to the war in Iraq, they "disavow armed opposition to terrorism." By continuing to equate the fight against terrorism with the invasion of Iraq, the neocons attempt to tar opponents of the latter as soft on the former. But reasonable minds have grasped a distinction perhaps too subtle for this administration: Al Qaeda is not Iraq. Whip poor Will In a Washington Post piece headlined "When Events Overtake Politics," George Will slams both Ted Kennedy and retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, without addressing any of her recent points. Here's my favorite paragraph, broken into bits. The Weekly Standard reports that she, a retired Air Force officer, has written about "the Zionist political cult that has lassoed the E-Ring" of the Pentagon (the offices of senior civilian Defense Department officials). By all means use William Kristol's neocon house organ when you need an objective source noted for sticking to the facts. She says the war in Afghanistan was "planned of course before 9/11/01" because of "Taliban non-cooperation" regarding a trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Just because conventional wisdom hasn't yet caught up to a story doesn't mean it won't. A year ago, few would have believed a president could mislead Congress and the people into war. She says that with "Bush and his neoconservative foreign policy implementers"-- those E-Ring Jews -- resembling propagandists like Lenin, Hitler and Pol Pot, "all evidence" points to "a maturing fascist state" in America and, in foreign policy, "fascist imperialism touched by Sparta revived." Note the phrase "E-Ring Jews" is Will's, not Kwiatkowski's, though he likely wouldn't mind if your outrage were misdirected at her. So what was it she said that we're supposed to find so offensive? Will doesn't bother refuting any of these quotes, preferring to let your manifest indignation provide the refutation he cannot. But how can one not think of this administration after reading the famous quote from Hermann Goering? Naturally, the common people don't want war.... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. Not all fascists will wear the symbol on their sleeves. As citizens it is our duty to recognize them anyway, and throw them out of power. It may not work that way in a fascist or communist dictatorship, but it works the same way in any democracy. 1:24:53 AM    comment []

Monday, March 15, 2004

Broken record, repeated and amended The carefully worded statement from Daniel James III, cited below (and if anyone knows how to link to entries, please drop me a note), is repeated verbatim in yesterday's Spokesman-Review story on Bush's mysterious grounding and elusive records pertaining thereto: "I have never been involved in, nor would I condone, any discussion or any action to falsify any record in any circumstance for anyone," James said. The only difference is someone with an editorial eye added a comma after "condone," to the delight of copyeditors everywhere. If on the next pass someone could reduce the recurrence of "any," which now appears five times in the quote, we'd all be grateful. But don't change "falsify," which keeps this statement honest, if evasive. The piece cites James's quote as coming from a "prepared statement released Thursday," presumably March 11. Prepared by whom it does not say, nor does it ponder why James keeps using the same precise phrasing. The question Gen. James has failed to answer--or apparently to be asked--remains, "Were you ever involved in or would you condone any action to discard any military records?" Instead we hear from a variety of government officials who refuse to release any information or answer questions about the missing records. White House spokesman Ken Lisaius refers questions about Bush and HRP regulations to the DoD and repeats the refrain that Bush was honorably discharged. We know. We don't care. Welcome to hell, Ken. Enjoy your stay. The National Guard Bureau's chief historian, Charles Gross, has this to say: "If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you." Why not, Mr. Gross? Never mind--we know. Hope you're saving up for retirement. Rose "Give 'em the" Bird, the bureau's FOIA officer, directs all queries to the Pentagram. She says her office stopped taking requests for W's military records in mid-February, which is about when this open sore erupted. She does not say why her office stopped taking requests. We already know why: They were told not to. Pentagram records coordinator James Hogan is more forthcoming. He admits that "senior DoD officials" directed the bureau to stop responding to these questions. These officials are not yet named. The stench of coverup about this mess is far too strong to ignore, and all the hot wind coming out of the Bush camp won't blow it away. They say those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. It's also true of those who fail history, and those whom history will brand failures. 11:12:58 PM    comment []

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Quick quiz To which presidential candidate does this phrase best apply? "rich elitist ... who says he's a man of the people." a) George W. Bush b) John F. Kerry If you said George Bush, you haven't been reading your right-wing agitprop. Which is good--continue to pay those folks no attention. If I include the three words missing from their ad ("liberal from Massachusetts"), it's obvious they mean Kerry, but I think it's obvious they're projecting their own vulnerabilities onto their opponent. Both sides are saying this will be the dirtiest election in a long time. The attack ads from ostensibly nonpartisan groups are coming already, but so far little of the mud seems to be sticking. One reason might be that Americans are so oversaturated with the lies, misrepresentations, selective use of evidence, cronyism, vengefulness, war profiteering and general contempt for the truth and fair play coming out of the White House these days that we've become inured to the effects of attack ads. Strained inoculation metaphor Call it what you want--dirt, character assassination, opposition research, mud--the folks who want to continue occupying (def. 4) the White House will drudge up whatever they can find--and make up the rest--to smear Sen. Kerry and his wife. But it may not work this time. By exposing us for so long to the kind of inflammatory material we normally face only in election years, the Bushies may have unwittingly inoculated the citizenry against the arsenal of germ warfare they'll unleash as the battle nears its end. Perhaps I'm just being optimistic, but the sense I have is that people have put up with so much b.s. already that nothing shocks them anymore. I think the Bush team has done us a favor. 12:05:25 PM    comment []