Shameless Display

If Yglesias was upset by the non-partisan behavior of Kerrey yesterday during the hearings, he is certainly loving the obscene tongue kissing going on between the hideously and transparently partisan Richard Ben-Veniste and Sandy Berger.

This is downright shameless.

Fan Mail

I got some more fan mail today:


Been a long time. See you are still an ARA – ardent republican a..hole. If Satan were running on the republican ticket and God on the Democrat – who would you vote for?

ed nugent
marietta, oh

p.s. – still don’t think it was about the oil?

I feel all gushy inside.

BTW- I would vote libertarian, given those choices.

9-11 Commission

Bob Kerrey just unloaded on the bullshit plan that the Clinton administration supposedly sent to the Bush administration to deal with Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda.

You know- the bullshit that Matt Yglesias and others have been lying about for two years, including in one of Matt’s first Prospect pieces.” For those who don’t remember this line of horse manure, this was the ‘comprehensive plan of all plans’ that Clarke, Berger, et. al devised and handed over that the Bushies just didn’t get around to implementing.

Good for Kerrey. I wish we could have had Gary Hart and Sam Nunn on this commission, too.

*** Update ***

MY bad- Kerrey hammered the New plan, which he said was not much more. At any rate, this still underscores the fact that no useful plan, as has been spun repeatedly, was put forth:

Well, Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, say for the record, since Dr. Rice is not going to be here in this — yesterday we heard both Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld refer to the failure of the Clinton administration to deliver a plan dealing with Al Qaida, and they’d spent seven or eight months developing their own plan.

I was briefed this morning on that plan. And I would say, fortunately for the administration, it’s classified because there’s almost nothing in it. It calls for more diplomacy. It calls for increased pressure. Basically the same thing that Director Tenet just talked about, using tribals against Al Qaida. And lastly, calls for some vague things to try to oust Mullah Omar.


If you want to advertise here, blogads are set up to the right. I should probably put something up so it looks like they are selling. Anyone got a charity that is worthwhile?

Or, of course, you could email me and we could discuss advertising that you might like to pay for…

The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Contrary to Oliver’s histrionics, there is no personal jihad against Richard Clarke. Few but those on the fringe have launched personal salvos against the man, and for the most part, the criticisms have focused mainly on what the man has said, what his past postions on issues have been, and how his statements simply do not add up. This is not a function of an ‘Republican Attack Machine,’ it is an entirely fair examination of the record of a man who has made outrageous, and in my not so humble opinion, demonstrably false and slanderous accusations about the current administration and the President.

For fun, let’s look at what personal attacks might look like. Anyone remember the smear campaign that accompanied George Stephanopoulos’s All Too Human?

He has been criticized by Clinton supporters as disloyal and a traitor for writing a book that often paints a less than flattering portrait of the president. Mr. Stephanopoulos bristles at the criticism.

Just the facts, right? There was nothing to the jihad against George, was there? Do a google search yourself about George and see what turns up.

On the other hand, what has been examined about Richard Clarke is not about his character, but what he has done. As far as I can tell, the three most widely distributed quotes from Clarke’s book or about Clarke’s book are the following:

1.) The assertion that Bush somehow pressured him to blame Iraq for the 9/11 attacks and somehow was pressured to fabricate information. I think that claim has been decimated by yours truly below.

2.) This one is a gem:

As I briefed Rice on Al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, “Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden’s group, but it’s much more than that. It’s a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over 50 countries, including the U.S.”

And then, of course, the audio tapes of Condi Rice coherently and intelligently discussing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a year before ever meeting Clarke surface. Oops.

3.) In testimony before the commission yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz stated:

But with respect to the quote that the reporter presented as having been put in my mouth, which was an objection to Mr. Clark suggesting that ignoring the rhetoric of Al Qaida would be like ignoring Hitler’s rhetoric in Mein Kampf, I can’t recall ever saying anything remotely like that. I don’t believe I could have. In fact, I frequently have said something more nearly the opposite of what Clark attributes to me. I’ve often used that precise analogy of Hitler and Mein Kampf as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein. So I am generally critical of the tendency to dismiss threats as simply rhetoric. And I know that the quote Clark attributed to me does not represent my views then or now. And that meeting was a long meeting about seven different subjects, all of them basically related to Al Qaida and Afghanistan.

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark’s creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month, unquote.

Four statements by Clarke, varying from a snide dismissal of the capabilities of Condi Rice to an outright Lie on Clarke’s part to an overstatement of his own intuition in 1993 to a mischaracterization of Paul Wolfowitz’s statements.

And that is before anyone even has a chance to read the book and google it and fact-check his ass. Mind you- there have been no personal attacks, no ad hominems, nothing of the sort. Instead, an examination of his statements and his record, which is completely legitimate, no matter how much Oliver whines.

And let’s get to some of the other questions. Tell me why these lines of inquiry are unfair?

– Is it unfair to note that he may be disgruntled because he was turned down for a position?

– Is it unfair to note that the company that owns CBS also stands to profit from the book, and thus could explain the softball interview on 60 Minutes?

– Is it unfair to note that before Clarke was demoted, he was the terrorism czar while Al Qaeda attacked the United States numerous times and grew into the behometh we are currently dealing with?

– Is it unfair to note that depending on the month, Clarke asserted that the greatest threats to the nation were cyber-terrorism, or narcotic trafficking, or whatever the cause of the day might have been?

– Is it unfair to note that he may not have had the same level of information and access in the Bush administration that he did during the Clinton years, and thus might be characterized as ‘out of the loop?”

– Is it unfair to ask him what he actually did accomplish, and what specific suggestions he may have had that were ignored that turned out to be true?

– Is it unfair to question his politics and his relationship with Kerry’s advisor?

– Is it unfair to question why he stayed on for several years after 9/11 if he was so appalled at this administration?

– Is it unfair to ask why none of these criticisms were leveled before the heart of the election cycle?

Someone please explain this to me, because I am at a loss. I don’t think any of this is out of bounds- and if ithere are legitimate answers to those questions, why wouldn’t they be fair questions. Honest answers that make sense would seem to STRENGTHEN Clarke’s assertions.

But then again, that is just me.

Appalling ‘Judge’ ment

I hate mandatory minimums, as I believe it restricts the ability of judges to make appropriate sentencing decisions, and in the case of drug laws, sends non-violent offenders to prison for excessive and cruel lengths. However, when I read things like this, it just makes me shake my head:

Our Hall of Shame Award today goes to Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan.

TChris wrote yesterday about Philadelphia public defender Fred Goodman who got decked by his client in front of the jury during a murder and rape trial which might bring the death penalty. It was inevitable that the Judge would allow Mr. Goodman to resign after the punch. It also should have been inevitable that a mistrial be declared–Mr. Goodman shouldn’t have to continue the trial, and, after all, the jury saw what happened too.

But no, the Judge in the case tried to force Mr. Goodman’s associate counsel, Andrea Konow, to continue by herself. She refused. Now she’s in jail. The Judge says she’s staying there until she changes her mind and resumes representing the client.

Go read the rest of this apalling story, and if you dont already, you should make Talk Left a daily read.

Some of you are probably wondering why I always sound like such a softy on matters of crime and punishment, so I will digress for a moment. As far as I am concerned, government is simply an institution which should not be trusted. The most powerful things the government can do are to execute a citizen, imprison a citizen, send a citizen to war, confiscate the property of a citizen, and tax a citizen. All of those powers have the ability to destroy the citizen.

Having worked briefly in the criinal justice system (interned in the probation office for 6 months, then spent 6 moths as a PO while one officer was ill), I can assure you, without exageration, that the deck is stacked against the poor, the unintelligent, and those of minority status when it comes to matters of criminal justice, with financial status and the ability to hire good legal representation the most damning of the three. I don’t think anyone even debates this issue anymore, it is so clearly and undeniably true.

Therefore, I find it sickening that a judge would behave this way with a public defender- someone who herself is probably radically underpaid, working for a client who probably doesn’t have a chance in hell in the courtroom anyway for a variety of reasons.

Bill O’Bigot?

I lam so stunned by what I just heard on the O’Reilly factor that my fingers are shaking while I type this.

I hate Bill O’Reilly- longtime readers are well aware of that. However, tonight I have it on Fox because I want to watch the re-run of Hannity and Colmes to see Clarke faced with the videotape of Condi Rice talking about Al Qaeda in 2000, making Clarke look like an idiot (Hanks has the rundown here).

At any rate, O’Reilly has guests on discussing the ‘browning’ of America. One of the pundits noted that one of the reasons for the fact that in 50 years whites will be a minority in America is due to the higher birth rate in the Hispanic community. Another white guest pipes in that another reason for the demographic shift is the aging of the predominantly white baby boom generation. O’Reilly then states, and I must paraphrase until I see the transcript:

Yeah, fifty years from now, we will all be dead. Thank God.

Un. Fucking. Believable. Trust me Bill- ‘darkie’ doesn’t want to live with you either. I am still stunned.

*** Update ***

Many people have stated that I have mis-heard or mis-interpreted Bill O’Moron’s statement last night. That might be possible, as I was only half listening while reading- a firm argument can be made that half of my attention is far more than Bill O’Reilly ever deserves. I will await the transcript for final judgement.

*** Update #2 ***

Atrios, late to the game as usual, has the transcript up– guess it took a while for him to get the tip from his readers.

I was not mistaken, I had the remarks in the right context, and O ‘Reilly is an ass. Typically, the Atriettes are siezing upon this as evidence that all Republicans are racist. Check out the comments at his site.

Clarke’s Lie

With all of the attempts to discredit Richard Clarke that have sprung up in recent days, some of which I find credible and reasonable, some much less so, I wonder why no one is focussing on the fact that Clarke was caught in and out and out lie on the very 60 Minutes program that launched his new political celebrity. From the transcript:

STAHL: You talk about a conversation you personally had with the president.

CLARKE: Yes. The president — we were in the situation room complex — the president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said ‘Iraq did this.’

STAHL: Didn’t you tell him that you’d looked and there’d been no connection?

CLARKE: I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.

STAHL: In other words, you did go back and look.

CLARKE: We went back again and we looked.

STAHL: You did. And was it a serious look? Did you really … ?

CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer.’

STAHL: Come on!

CLARKE: Do it again.

STAHL: Wrong answer?

CLARKE: Do it again.

STAHL: Did the President see it?

CLARKE: I have no idea to this day if the President saw it because after we did it again it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, Leslie, I don’t think the people around the President show him memos like that. I don’t think he sees memos that he wouldn’t like the answer [to].

Three times Clarke asserts, on national television, that he submitted a report that was rejected for political reasons. His words are clear- “Wrong Answer. Do it again.”

Why then, when Lesley Stahl and CBS reproduce the document, a document that absolutely rejects Clarke’s assertion, do they not examine this lack of credibility, particularly when they have done their own investigation into the memo in question. Let’s check the transcript again:

STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.

HADLEY: Look, the — I — I stand on what I said. But the point I think we’re missing in this is of course the President wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.

STAHL (exp): {So he’s not denying the President asked for another review, nor is he denying that Clarke wrote a memo stating once again that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. In fact the White House showed us the memo dated September 18th. As Clarke said, it was bounced back. The notation reads, ‘Please update and resubmit,’ and it was written by Steven Hadley.}

HADLEY: I asked him to go back — not ‘wrong answer’ — I asked him to go back and check it again a week or two later to make sure there was no new emerging evidence that Iraq was involved.

A blatant lie from Clarke, and when you examine the timeframe, it is completely reasonable for both President Bush and Deputy Director Stephen Hadley to want to examine any possible Iraq connection. Why?

Such short memories we have. Anyone remember who was responsible for aiding Al Qaeda in the first WTC attack?

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq.

Ooops. Tricky things, those facts. Two months later, 17 Iraqis were arrested for another act of attempted terrorism when they tried to assasinate the then President Bush.

A failure to attempt to identify any role played by Iraq in the 9/11 attacks by Bush and his administration would have been foolish and irresponsible. Once again, the fierce partisans, ideological blinders on and focused directly ahead at the 2004 elections, are attacking the administration for doing exactly the right thing- investigating all options.

Before you get confused and start to think that perhaps they were trying to rush to war with Iraq post 9/11, as the hucksters would like for you to believe, remember the timeframe. When this memo was written, 18 September 2001, the one in which Clarke has been caught in an out and out lie, it was already pretty well decided that Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan were the target. We know that the choice of action was already decided from the numerous write-ups, most easily accessible of which is this excerpt from the Sept. 18th 2001 portion of the lengthy Washington Post Series titled 10 Days in September:

Tuesday, September 18

President Bush and Vice President Cheney marked the seventh day since the terrorist attacks with a moment of silence on the White House lawn, then met with the National Security Council. After the president began the meeting, CIA Director George J. Tenet told the group that the agency was sending an eight-man team to Afghanistan to work with the Northern Alliance. “We are launching our plan,” he said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reported that military planning was proceeding, now that Bush had signed off on an option that included cruise missiles, manned bombers and U.S. forces on the ground.

Keeping options open is important but not the primary focus, Bush told Rumsfeld. “The top priority is shaking [Osama] bin Laden’s tree.”

With preparations underway to go to war, Bush had begun to think of how he would explain — both to the country and the world — what he planned to do. He wanted to announce his plans before a joint session of Congress. But before he set a date for his appearance, he wanted to feel comfortable with the tone and the language of what he was going to say — no presidential speech in recent history would be more important to national morale or more scrutinized than this one.

Despite Clarke’s vile assertion that the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks was nothing more than the Bush Administration creating reasons to invade Iraq, history disproves this assertion and shows Clarke and those who peddle this crap for what they are. If you doubt me, go read the entire WaPo ten part series. Refresh your memory. Put yourself back in that time and place, and you won’t know whether to laugh or scream at Clarke’s ludicrious statement that the administration’s response to 9/11 was “akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, “Let’s invade Mexico.” It’s very analagous.”

It is not analogous at all. It is demonstrably and verifiably fales, an out and out lie, and shameless political posturing on the part of anyone who attempts to make such a claim. The order to check up on any Iraq connections was nothing more than, as Hadley noted, a routine follow-up to make sure that in the chaos that ensued in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11, all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s crossed.

They didn’t say “Wrong Answer,” as if they didn’t like what they heard. They asked him to update the memo and resubmit it. Responsible government , or, in other words, your job, Mr. Clarke.

In closing, CBS has a videotape of a man lying three times, the memo to prove he was lying (I wish I had a screenshot- if you do, please email it to me), his boss explaining how it was a lie, and the mainstream media misses it all in their rush to attack the Bush administration through their new proxy weapon.

That liberal media, Mr. Alterman.

*** Update ***

Randy Barnett addresses this myth about pursuing Iraq and fills in more blanks, but fails to note the blatant lie by Clarke:

Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq’s past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa’ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to “please update and resubmit,” to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it.

*** Update ***

One quick note. This was not a mischaracterization of what happened by Clarke, this was a lie. I find it truly amusing that the same people who claim this is just a ‘paraphrasing’ or ‘characterization’ of events are generally the same people who took this statement:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Publicly and magically turned it into this statement:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger.”

and then shrieked for 8 months that it was a LIE, when the original statement was and still is 100% completely accurate and the second statement was never uttered.

And this wasn’t a geography problem, either…

The Hobgoblin of Small Minds

Yesterday, Big Media Matt got his panties all in a bunch about the way the Instapundit had been treating the new Democratic Party hero, Richard Clarke. It appears Matt thought the Instapundit was treating Clarke unfairly.

Today, after hearing ‘rumors that today at the hearing Bob Kerrey, ostensibly a Democratic member, has been carrying water for the GOP,’ Big Media Matt shifts gears and decides that maybe discrediting people for past positions and behaviors really is a good thing when you don’t like their line of questioning or testimony.

And, for the record, Kerrey was as middle of the road in his questioning of all our Secretaries as anyone on the panel. Of course, Kerrey did not engage in the shameless political prostitution that Gorelick and Ben Veniste attempted, so maybe that is whathas Matt all pissy. You do know that failure to strictly toe the wildest of the DNC line is tantamount to treason.

All together now- consistency is for smaller minds.

This Should Be Fun

“Peace Protestors in San Francisco”


Remember now- all dissent is patriotic! It’s ok to march with fascists, International A.N.S.W.E.R., and the rest of the cretins, because really- it takes all types to be Patriotic!

Someone Explain This To Me

Remember this man:


Nope, that isn’t Sauroman, but rather the vile sewer trout Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a man whose evil was neither fictional nor banal. He was the leader of Hamas, and responsible for who knows how many deaths in the Middle East.

I say was, because now he is nothing more than a stain on a road somewhere in the Middle East after a successful rocket attack by the IDF (nice shooting, lads- ED.).

Not surprisingly, the usual suspects are all upset:

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana also condemned what he called the extra-judicial killing as very, very bad news for the peace process…

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters on arrival at a regular EU foreign ministers’ meeting that Israel had a right to defend itself against terrorism but had to act within international law.

“It is not entitled to go for this kind of unlawful killing, and we therefore condemn it,” he said. “It’s unacceptable, it’s unjustified, and it’s very unlikely to achieve its objective.”

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, France condemns the action against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilise for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence.”

Before leaving Berlin for the EU session, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said all sides should contribute to avoiding further escalation.

Other EU ministers voiced fears that retaliation by Hamas supporters could inflame the Middle East and spread to Europe.

“I’m afraid that it may have very, very negative consequences not only in terms of Israeli-Palestinian conflict but I’m afraid that the threat of terrorist attacks also on other countries, including European (ones), is growing,” Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz told a press breakfast.

“I really fear that we will see new violence,” Luxembourg’s Lydie Polfer told reporters.

Yassin was spiritual leader of the Hamas Islamic militant group, which has vowed to destroy Israel.

When they say spiritual leader, they mean it in the same sense that Osama bin Laden is the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda, and that Tony Soprano is the spiritual leader of the Sopranos. Translation- these are the thugs behind all the violence.

Good riddance., and I fail to understand how Israel killing this man is any different from us hunting Osama.

My Governor

My Governor, who can not keep his zipper up, now his knickers in a twist over this ‘outrage:’

ov. Bob Wise sent a letter to Abercrombie & Fitch on Monday demanding that the clothing retailer stop selling a T-shirt that spoofs the state with the slogan, “It’s All Relative in West Virginia.”

Wise said the T-shirt depicts “an unfounded, negative stereotype of West Virginia.”

“I write to you today to demand that you immediately remove this item from your stores and your print and online catalogues,” Wise wrote. “In addition, these shirts must be destroyed at once to avoid any possibility of resale and proof be given thereof.”

Abercrombie & Fitch spokesman Tom Lennox said the T-shirt, which features the slogan on an outline of the state, has been selling well at $22.50. He could not say how much it would cost the company if the T-shirts were destroyed.

“We love West Virginia. We love California, Florida, Connecticut, Hawaii and Nebraska too. Abercrombie & Fitch was born and raised in the USA, and we honor all 50 states in the union,” said Lennox, director of investor relations and corporation communications for the New Albany, Ohio-based company.

Wise called the T-shirt an “offensive item” that “subjects our youth to unsubstantiated and false impressions of West Virginia.”

Yeah- everyone knows the real impression of West Virginian’s is that we are nailing maried women who work with us and leaving an incredibly embarassing trail of e-mail love notes that can be published in the state newspapers, assuring that we are a one time Governor. Right, Gov. Wise?

Partisan Asshats

Democrats may not be very good leaders, but they sure as hell are great Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Check out this absurd post from Atrios and the comments from the equally vile Atriettes (and no, I do not mean all Democrats, but if you agree with Atrios and his commenters, then I do mean you):

Since our press seems to lack long term memory, let’s bring us back to those sweet sweet days of September 2001. Bush was fresh off a month of clearing brush in Crawford, and the tee-ball season was about to begin. The White House had already announced what the fall offensive would be. Al Qaeda? No. “Communities of Character.”

Get it? September 11th could have been stopped if Bush had his priorities right and was not supporting some other initiatives.

Two can play that game. Let’s remind the press what Bill Clinton was doing the first time Al Qaeda (with Iraqi help) attacked the world Trade Center:

Gays in the military — January 27, 1993

White House officials say President Clinton will order the military to stop its policy of discriminating against gays in the military. The issue gained little attention during the campaign, but incites heated opposition and debate after its announcement.

Clearly, this radical re-thinking of our strategic priorities led to little increase in national security or protection from terrorism.
The Clinton’s were quick learners, though, and months later tehy figured out how to handle religious extremists who wanted to terrorize America:

Waco compound burns — April 19, 1993

A compound occupied by a religious cult burns to the ground in what is described as a mass suicide. The heavily armed Branch Davidians have been in a standoff with law enforcement officials near Waco, Texas, for 51 days. The compound catches fire hours after federal agents in armored vehicles begin battering the compound’s walls and pumping tear gas into it. Eighty-six cult members, including Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, die in the flames.

Woops- wrong religious radicals. Oh, well.

I wonder what President Clinton and his gang of incompetents were doing when Al Qaeda attacked in Somalia on 4 October 1993?

September 22, 1993 – Bill Clinton, delivers his health care speech to a joint session of Congress. Despite an initial snafu with the wrong text being loaded onto the TelePrompTer, the speech is a smash. The President’s delivery is superb, powerful, and compelling. Response is overwhelmingly favorable.

Maybe if he had been paying attention to Somalia and Haiti, those troops would have been alive? That is how this game works, right Atrios?

Let’s check in on the President while Al Qaeda was blowing up our embassies abroad on 7 August 1998:

The Kyoto Protocol and the President’s Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis

I guess the intense heat from the explosions and laming aftermaths in Tanzania and Kenya did change the climate in the short term.

I wonder what was on the schedule for the White House when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? According to the Clinton White House Archive, here is one headline event for the day:

October 12, 2000

100th Anniversary of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force, 2000

Who said the Democrats aren’t patriotic? On the 100th anniversary of the US Navy’s Submarine Force, Bill Clinton was doing nothing while Al Qaeda was helping to add to the Navy’s list of submerged vessels.

Gee, Atrios. You are right, I wish Clinton was back in charge.

BTW- All the events above have one thing in common besides President Clinton’s incompetence. You guessed it- Richard Clarke was running the show.

Lost in Translation

Finally got around to watching Lost in Translation this afternoon. and as predicted, I thought it was great.

Murray was hilarious, and overall the movie was sweet and tender and innocent and rather refreshing. No wonder no one in Hollywood like Sofia Coppola. There were no explosions, no T&A, and no graphic violence.

I have hear people claim they did not find the movie amusing or that it was boring or too long. If you thought it was boring or too long, and you did not understand the metaphor of the movie, then just understand one thing- Sofia Coppola just sneered at you for the last 90 minutes.

Friday Boredom


He looks like he is having so much fun. No little people in his way or anything, with clear slopes all the way to the $8 million mansion.

Go here and donate to Bush/Cheney 2004, and help give John Kerry four years of vacation time.