Fact-esque

Open Letter to Dear Leader

From Malcolm in the Middle:

It's not lying if what you say would be true if the facts were different.

You can feel free to use that one, sir.

Thank You. Goodnight and Farewell.

These comments from Kerry and Reid came after Big Swingin' Dicks latest McCarthyite attacks on anyone who wasn't clapping hard enough:

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said that "It is hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq than Vice President Cheney. The vice president continues to mislead America about how we got into Iraq and what must be done to complete the still unaccomplished mission."

Also Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticised the Vice President’s remarks, saying that in "the last 24 hours, 10 of our brave soldiers have been killed in far-off Iraq. On such a night, you would think Cheney would give a speech that honors the fallen and those still fighting by laying out a strategy for success. Instead we have the vice president of the United States playing politics like he's in the middle of a presidential campaign."

President Who?   It's smart for the minority party to lay the blame for Iraq, first of all where it belongs, but also at the door of the guy with 19% approval ratings.  Thirty four percent of Americans polled may be remaining faithful to Dear Leader, but essentially all of us are ready and willing to see Bigtime thrown over the side and directly under the wheels of the biggest bus we can find.  With Patrick Fitzgerald still hard at work, we may see that happen.   I wonder if Dick will compare his resignation to Lincoln's assassination.

He's Buck Naked, Sir

Dan Froomkin reports on BushCo's McCarthyite Veterans' Day speechifyin' and exposes what we on the left have known all along:

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism.

That's the first time I've read anyone in the corporate media, outside of op-ed writers, come out and say that the emperor is naked and that he's been getting crucial help from the corporate media to hide that fact all along.

I only take issue with Froomkin's idea that we are in the midst of BushCo's third campaign. We're playing way past that.

There was the first campaign in 2000, which followed the format described by Froomkin and which BushCo lost.

There was the second when he began his first term and threw the weight of the White House behind dismantling anything Clinton touched (including the pursuit of bin Laden), fighting pornography and starving the beast.

There was the third campaign to get us into Iraq, which began publicly on 9/11 and relied heavily on the complicity of the corporate media.

There was the fourth to divide the country against itself, which probably started in January of 2000, but really picked up steam after 9/11.

There was the fifth, which ended in 2004 and which he also lost.

There was the sixth: the drive to destroy Social Security, which, up until Katrina exposed the result of beast starvation, had been his most visible loss so far.

So by my count we're in the seventh major BushCo campaign: the drive to save the midterms. Don't fall for the Saving My Agenda nonsense. The only agenda Team BushCo cares about (winning the Class War) isn't reported in the corporate media in any kind of meaningful way and as I've written, they're making excellent progress on that front. But the midterms are a problem. *   What we saw on Veterans' Day was the official opening of the '06 races. The corporate media is asleep at the switch, or worse, if it fails to put every one of BushCo's speeches from November 11 on in that context.

* When I write that the midterms are a problem, I'm setting aside the fact that essentially the entire country will be voting on unverifiable machines in 2006, which, of course, knocks everything off the table. I'm waiting to see when exit polling will be outlawed and guessing that it will happen very shortly after some seriously confusing results turn up nationwide just a little under a year from now.

The Colonel Homer Defense

And only the American Corporate Media (and other state-run media organs) would accept it as legitimate:

Marge: Hm...  I thought you said she was overweight.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie.  One to lie and one to listen.

What is it They Say About Returning to the Well? How About if That Well is Poisoned?

The pro-war WaPo and the NYT both, of course, covered BushCo's recycled Stay the Course of Disaster Veterans' Day speech.  But while Richard Stevenson turned in a piece that was unnecessarily long and complicated (equivocating takes lots of space), Milbank and Pincus get to the point and stay there:

... Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

He's a liar. 

Context

I'll add something to the Kerry quote that Greg found and Atrios posted as well.  First, here's the quote:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

I think Kerry's vote was wrong  but I also think it's worth noting that his position reflected that of the majority of Americans at that time. (Here and here - scroll down to G)  BushCo lied and terrorized and dragged this country to war against its better judgment and that of the people who were actually qualified to lead it.

 

Veterans' Day

Jerome a Paris posted a very good Veteran's Day post at the European Tribune.   It's called The War Everybody Lost:

In many ways, 11 November is still a much more important holiday in France than the end of WWII (also a holiday, on 8 May). WWI, also called "La Grande Guerre" marks the real end of France as a major power, as the country effectively lost the will to fight after that senseless orgy of death and destruction. Having "won", the country had to face the senselessness of that war (Germany, despite the fact that it faced the same levels of death and absurdity, was still to burn with the desire for revenge after the humiliation of "losing", and would require yet another war to learn the same lesson) and, effectivly, said "never again". Every family, every village was bled to death of its young men. Northeastern France was ravaged, with a number of village abandoned, never to be reoccupied. Bombs and ammunition are still found with regularity on construction sites, in fields. Death and destruction were everywhere, their absurdity impossible to hide - and it is still seared in the collective memory of the country.

Is this the only way to learn that war is not smart? By experiencing total destruction?

Is this what awaits us?

Well, it's certainly what awaited Iraq because American leaders didn't understand what it means to wage war.  Or worse, understood and were too cowardly to resist. 

I wish I had something profound and hopeful to say about war.  I'd love to blame the American people for Iraq since that would give me hope that the people had a voice in what is always an economic decision made by the wealthy and the powerful.   But Americans, and the world, were opposed to starting BushCo's War and made that sentiment clear through polls (and here, scroll down to G) and demonstrations.  But the war mongers got their war and we got everything that goes with (graphic) it. 

If you want to do something for vets on Veteran's Day, Operation Truth is requesting that you hand out some of their flyers to people who aren't aware of the shameful way Team BushCo treats the people who serve in uniform.  Some of those who are unaware may be vets themselves.   

If you want to do something more personal, you can join a volunteer group that visits patients at VA hospitals.  Thanks to Dear Leader, there will be a big upswing in the demand for those paticular services.

We're Gassing Our Own People!

If you consider Iraqi civilians our own people, which, for all intents and purposes, the Geneva Conventions do.  From dKos:

The question is not whether the United States is technically in violation of any treaty obligations. It is not. The issue here is the use of a weapon that is further eroding the US's moral standing in this war. We supposedly invaded because of Saddam's use of chemical weapons and torture. Well, now we torture and use WP. And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

White phosphorus is a poison which can be absorbed through skin contact, ingestion, or breathing. If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life. Long-term absorption, particularly through the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract, can cause chronic poisoning, which leads to weakness, anemia, loss of appetite, gastrointestinal weakness, and pallor.

Eating or drinking less than one teaspoon of white phosphorus can cause vomiting; stomach cramps; liver, heart or kidney damage; drowsiness; and even death. Being burned with white phosphorus can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage. Breathing white phosphorus may damage lungs and throat.

White phosphorus can cause changes in the long bones; seriously affected bones may become brittle, leading to spontaneous fractures. White phosphorus is especially hazardous to the eyes and can severely damage them.

High concentrations of the vapors evolved by burning white phosphorus are irritating to the nose, throat, lungs, skin, eyes, and mucus membranes.
Breathing white phosphorus can cause coughing and the development of a condition known as phossy jaw -- poor wound healing in the mouth and a breakdown of the jaw bone. The most common symptom of exposure to white phosphorus is necrosis of the jaw.

Exposure to white phosphorus can also cause nausea, jaundice, anemia, cachexia, dental pain, and excess saliva.

And we know for a fact that U.S. forces used WP in the attack on Fallujah, with predictable results for the city's innocent civilian population. (Including the babies).

WP has legit military applications for battlefield illumination and artillery spotting. But from a moral standpoint, its use as an anti-personnel munition is, by all measures, unconscionable. That is, unless we're willing to abandon outrage over Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Hunter also has some fair and balanced thoughts, and one graphic image, on the topic of melting the skin off children.   This is the money quote, what should be the legacy of BushCo and what would be, in a just world, the theme of the case against him at the Hague:

Melting the skin off of children is an inevitable part of urban warfare, which is one of the reasons that most military planners and foreign policy leaders prefer to avoid putting themselves in positions where melting the skin off of children comes into play.

 

Beware of Dripping Cynicism

Here's part of Howard Fineman's Tuesday night interview with Keith Olbermann.   They're chatting about the fact that the Dems haven't let up on Traitorgate, although Fineman describes the Dems plan as watching the Sunday talkshows for "something to go after." 

FINEMAN:  I think they have a plan.  And I think what the plan is, a new form of wedge politics.  You remember that term, wedge politics?  Well, that was a tactic invented by the Republicans, by Lee Atwater and others.   And the idea there was to divide the constituencies of the Democratic Party, set, for example, the labor unions against the African-American community on something like affirmative action.

Hang on.  Lee Atwater invented wedge politics?  Why does the corporate media overstate the accomplishments, however evil, of GOP masterminds?   Civil War era Dems, who looked around after the Civil War and decided to drive the mother of all wedges into American politics, might want some of the dubious credit Fineman seems to want to shower on the long-dead Atwater. 

Fineman continues acting like exposing the crimes and failings of a political opponent is the same thing as designing campaign strategies rooted in hatred fear and lies:

Well, this is kind of wedge politics inside the Beltway.  The Democrats‘ aim is to divide the White House itself and the Republicans inside the Beltway.  So they want to set Bush against Cheney.  They want us to get—set Rove against Bush.  They want to set the Hill against the White House, and Republicans on the Hill against each other.

That‘s why Reid was out there, talking about the focus on Cheney. 

They want to make the White House either defend Cheney or give up Cheney. So it‘s a new kind of wedge attack.  And I think they‘re being pretty successful with it right now.

Yes, a "new kind of wedge attack."  If you've spent the last decade in a cave on the moon.

Olbermann buys in:

OLBERMANN: Well, in part, if that‘s true, certainly it‘s in part because they‘re—they seem to be getting the cooperation of the Republicans.  I mean, the response today was, Let's find out who let “The Washington Post” in on those secret CIA prisons, particularly the repurposed Soviet gulag we happen to be using.

I mean, do they, A, really want to be backing some sort of environment in which the words “CIA leak” and “investigation” are all linked, and in the news, and B, based on what Senator Lott said today, what‘s the point in starting an investigation, a high-profile investigation, in which you wind up finding one of your own leaders?

FINEMAN: Well, yes.  I mean, I think the Democrats win doubly on that, for the reasons that you said, especially if Trent Lott is right, and it was a Republican who is the leaker.  And, you know, one of the standard rules of political investigations is, you want to know what the conclusion is before you start it, if politics is your aim.  So before they sent that letter, Hastert and Frist might have considered who was really at fault.

We're "repurposing" (read: reopening)  gulags in Eastern Europe to add to our global secret prison network and Fineman and Olbermann want to act like the whole thing is a parlor game.   Exactly how far up each other's asses do they have their heads?   Is it possible that they haven't read accounts of what's being done to human beings in our name?   Or is it more likely that the word's come down to keep the whole torture thing upbeat, just another day on the crazy Hill?

Fineman persists in staying as far away from anything like a real story as he possibly can:

The other part of it is, the mere fact that the Republicans in their closed policy luncheon were discussing this topic is another benefit for the Democrats, because it shows that the Republicans, in private, were concerned about this before it ever hit print.  So they benefited all the way around.

Yes!  Being locked out of policy meetings is a benefit for the Dems, to say nothing of the security  benefits it poses for the country to have the Congress run like more like Stalin's Politburo than any American Congress.  We have the ruling party restricting access to highly secure information about BushCo's continuously botched War on Terror and it doesn't bear mentioning according to Howard and Keith.   If another 9/11 happens are we going to be tracking down memos from lunches and secret GOP-only Congressional  meetings where important national security information was overlooked or covered up?

Fineman doesn't care about all that.  He's more interested in the melodrama the corporate media is writing.  After all, it's so much easier to write.   Take us home, Howard.  Cue Do Not Forsake Me:

And the other way that they‘re succeeding here is that George Bush is playing right into their hands.  George Bush is a loyalist.  He‘s drawn the circled the wagons, as we say.  He‘s not about to abandon Dick Cheney.   He‘s not about to abandon Karl Rove, unless Karl Rove is indicted.  And that‘s just the kind of mentality that the Democrats are going to try to make George Bush pay for.  You have a situation today where “The New York Times” editorial page is basically calling for Bush to freeze Cheney out.  You can see the Democrats are going to be pursuing that theory from now through next year‘s election.

But why?  Oh, that would be telling.

It's Time for the Spotlight Dance

Where we feature a particularly perceptive NYT letter to the editor.  This one is from Samuel R. Gross of Ann Arbor, Michigan, who corrects a misquote made by our favorite Brierney Borg:

Lying in Court

To the Editor:

In his Nov. 1 column, "Let's Have a Big Hand for...," John Tierney discussed the perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr. While "perjury is extremely common," Mr. Tierney quotes me as saying, "perjury prosecutions are incredibly uncommon."

I did say that. But I added an important qualification: The most common perjury cases that are prosecuted, at least in federal courts, are for perjury before an investigative grand jury - the type of perjury with which Mr. Libby is charged.

I am troubled by the fact that we do little to enforce the laws against perjury in depositions, in civil trials and even in criminal trials. Federal grand jury hearings, however, seem to be an exception to this pattern of neglect. If you lie in court as a witness in a murder trial, you'll probably never have to answer for it. If you lie to a grand jury in an important federal investigation, you're taking a big risk.

Samuel R. Gross
Ann Arbor, Mich., Nov. 1, 2005
The writer is a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

Be careful, people, if you get interviewed by a Brierney.  Save your notes.  You never know what's going to show up in print.