After reading this Matthew Yglesias post, I am beginning to understand how David Dinkins got elected.
BTW- From what movie did this post derive its name?
by John Cole| 14 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
After reading this Matthew Yglesias post, I am beginning to understand how David Dinkins got elected.
BTW- From what movie did this post derive its name?
by John Cole| 12 Comments
This post is in: Politics
The Instapundit seems to think that Andrew’s statement that he will not endorse Bush means that he will not support him at all. The IP notes:
There are plenty of things that I disagree with Bush on — stem cell research (and pretty much all other biotech/bioethics issues), abortion, gay marriage, the Drug War, etc. If it weren’t for the war, I’d probably be on the fence. But I can’t take Kerry seriously on the war, and for me it’s the number one issue. For Sullivan, I guess, it’s not. I had thought that it was.
Yeppers. At any rate, I continue to find it fascinating that Democrats are crowing about polls that show the war is losng support. While I understand their immediate glee at anything that can be perceived to be negative for Bush, I think they are forgetting something.
Kerry opposed almost everything Reagan did during the Cold War, and Kerry was against the first Gulf War. That makes him 0-2, from my perspective. Now the Democrats want to spin this as a failed war, but they fail to remember that their candidate SUPPORTED this war. From their own perspective, their candidate is 0-3 on the three major national security issues of the last three decades.
And yes, I know- Kerry supported the operation in Afghanistan. So did everyone else on the planet, except Ralph Nader (he wanted to send in a multinational police force to arrest Osama- really- stop giggling). I think we can effectively call Afghanistan a no-brainer.
by John Cole| 4 Comments
This post is in: Humorous
Jeff Goldstein at his best.
by John Cole| 40 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
Check out this Bush “Whopper” from Tim Noah. First, he has this quote up:
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
He then posts this letter to Congress, claiming it is proof that Bush lied and did state there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda in regards to 9/11:
[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Unless you are a resident of the Planet Democratic Underground, this is in no way, shape, or form a whopper. The President, in the letter to congress, clearly defined several groups. The larger, more ambiguous groups were ‘international terrorists’ ( Osama, Saddam Hussein) and ‘terrorist organizations,’ (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Ba’athist party in Iraq) the third group being those who ‘planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001’ (Osama, Al Qaeda).
Jeebus.
For the slow-witted:
2 entries found for including.
in
by John Cole| 29 Comments
This post is in: Politics
It’s a Pandagon twofer today!
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very heart of the matter. There is no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11th. There is, however, evidence of him being a bad guy. And so supporters of the Iraqi war are never going to honestly disavow the connection between the two separate events, because in the muddleheaded Noonan-view of the world, all events are connected in a sort of neoconservative karma. September 11th was bad, and Saddam was bad, therefore the former justifies dealing with the latter. It requires a level of abstraction that is in itself actually simpler than what Matthews is putting forward.
The case “rested on multiple pillars”…but WMD was the central pillar. Of the reasons cited, two come back to the WMD justification (the WMD problem becoming unmanageable, and the lack of trust for Hussein in the long run), and two come back to al-Qaeda ties that are also nonexistent. Truly masterful.
Does anybody remember when the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties were first being alleged by nuts such as Laurie Mylroie and relatively respectable folks like the President of the United States of America? Anyone remember how the almost uniform response from the doubters was that there was no real Iraq/al-Qaeda connection now, but the second you invade the country, there’s going to be a lot more collusion, if not outright recruitment?
The problem, at this point, isn’t that the document or sources don’t seem credible. It’s that we don’t seem credible. After being breathlessly told that we’ve found weapons, terrorist links and chemical munitions again and again, just to have them quickly drop off the news as they are proved to be other things (a comic book, a pigeon and a fruit roll-up, respectively), I have little initial trust in huge finds like this. The idea that a 17-page strategic document being sent to Al-Qaeda simply fell into our hands is a bit of a stretch, and given our past history with these sorts of finds, I just can’t muster up the necessary trust to wholeheartedly believe it.
And considering that most of the import of the Zarqawi memo was the realization that al-Qaeda might not even be involved in Iraq now, lending a whole new dynamic to the operation, I can understand why reporters might overlook the memo saying that America wouldn’t leave.
*** Last link removed- I errantly used an Ezra post, which, in all fairness, does not show an inconsistency when the previous posts were all from Jesse. Regardless, Jesse was and still is wrong that there were no ties. Period. ****
For extra fun, Jesse yesterday:
Cheney and the 9/11 Commission directly contradict each other in terms of their plain meaning. Cheney wants you to think that Iraq and al-Qaeda worked together. The Commission says they didn’t. Cheney is wrong, and the debate over the nature of his wrongness is nowhere near the level of disingenuousness and, yes, dishonesty inherent in the argument that nonproductive and noncollaborative Iraq/al-Qaeda contacts constitute a war-level reaction.
There’s no sensical way to say the debate over how someone’s being out of accord with reality is as much of a problem as the people being out of accord with reality themselves. The Commission says the contacts were there, but point out, factually, that they went no further. Cheney is using the exact same information to make the exact opposite (and dishonest) point. But, you see, the problem’s not there.
Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, 911 Commissioners:
THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that’s what our staff has found. Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a connection. How do we rectify that? Is your commission going to clarify that to the extent that people won’t still be singing country music that says
by John Cole| 19 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
When someone says that someone is “the most shamelessly dishonest — if crudely effective — propagandist since Joseph Goebbels and Nazi documentarian Leni Riefenstahl,” they are specifically AVOIDING calling that individual a NAZI. What is eing referenced is the skill of Goebbels and Riefenstahl at dispensing propoganda, and not their NAZI ideals.
Therefore, this response is a touch overblown:
Yep. Moore’s a Nazi. Again. Regardless of what you think of his relationship to the truth, the most he’s calling for is electoral change through the avenues of constitutional democracy – not genocide. Correct his facts, please! If he gets something wrong, let us know what’s right. But he’s not a Nazi.
Can we indict the entire right yet? Please? I’ve got my indictin’ shoes on!
If you want to know what it is like to be called a Nazi, here is a refresher course from the folks at DC Indymedia:
Or you might go watch the two ads submitted to MoveOn.
It can’t be said often enough- being a liberal means never being able to pass up the opportunity to play victim.
This post is in: Open Threads
Go over to the right and click on the new ad for SnarkBait. They aren’t trying to sell you anything, they don’t want you to do anything- except read.
Pretty site, btw.