Goldberg and Guthrie

According to Drudge, George W. Bush, our President, is going to be on the Rush Limbaugh show today. Perhaps Rush can ask him to compare the torture of Iraqi soldiers with his days as a frat boy at Yale...

At The Corner, Katie O'Beirne, a prominent pundit, writes:

Tonight's Message: Republicans fight back. Democrats light candles. It is so striking that the Democrats' Boston tribute to 9/11 was a remembrance of helpless victims who lost their lives that day. Those gutsy women reminded us of the stakes in this election by seeing a call to arms as the fitting tribute to their loved ones. Such a stirring reminder of the selfless heroes who walk among us would be an impossible display for the modern Democratic party.

One reason such a stirring reminder might be impossible is that George W. Bush (who incidentally was a coward when his country called him to serve) would have his Republican friends run ads claiming that these women didn't really lose relatives on 9/11, weren't really close to the relatives they lost, and are in no way deserving of our respect or admiration? Of course, those ads wouldn't be true, but...

Apparently, a popular item at the RNC is a small band-aid with a purple heart, intended to mock John Kerry's war record. Via Atrios, via someone else....

Why isn't something like this in every news story concerning attacks on Kerry's service:

While John Kerry received those so-called minor wounds, George W. Bush used his family's connections to avoid service in Vietnam by landing a spot in the National Guard. Those attacking Kerry's war record have been unable to produce a single piece of documentary evidence to support their claims. Meanwhile, all documentary evidence has supported what Kerry has said about his Vietnam service and Bush has been unable to produce records that prove he fulfilled all of his obligations to the National Guard.

Well, a better written version of that paragraph should be in all such news stories.

While writing that last post, I'm listening to Giuliani in the other room. Another blatant attempt to create a false connection between Iraq and 9/11, despite the fact that Iraq is and was, in Michael Moore's words:

A nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.

Giuliani said this:

And it was here in 2001, in the same lower Manhattan, that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

Well, they heard from us.

They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.

They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

And we put him where he belongs, in jail.

Was Bush actually promising that he would attack Iraq that day? Were there terrorists in Iraq that had been involved in 9/11? I ask again - are there any Bush-supporters out there who still read this blog with any thoughts on this matter? I really want to know: do you think this administration has been responsible for linking 9/11 and Iraq? Do you deny this, do you defend Bush's saying it, or do you think that it's true?

I was moving tonight, and have only had time to watch part of McCain's speech - on C-Span. I have heard no analysis. Has anyone claimed this speech his good? It's not - it's terrible. I've always thought he was a bad speaker - much worse than Dean on a bad day (except, of course, that ONE bad day) or even Bush on a bad day.

But beyond that... I wonder how conservatives respond to the liberal critique that Bush and the Republicans have tried their hardest to tie September 11 and Iraq together - despite the evidence that there was no such link. I have spoken about this to a few intelligent conservatives, and they insist that Bush has done no such thing. (Anyone out there care to comment on this? Do any of you U of C Federalist types still read our partisan bomb throwing - and also still support Bush? Do you think that Bush did this? Does it bother you?)

And they are right, to an extent. I can point to no transcript where Bush or any important Republican explicitly links the two. Bush, like Clinton, is usually too smart for that. Except, Clinton used clever word games so he wouldn't have to admit that he engaged in consensual face fucking in the oval office. Bush (to the extent that he is able) engages in clever word games so that the American people will support his decision to send young men and women to a foreign land to die.

McCain's speech is a perfect example:

Four years ago, in Philadelphia, I spoke of my confidence that President Bush would accept the responsibilities that come with America's distinction as the world's only superpower.

I promised he would not let America "retreat behind empty threats, false promises and uncertain diplomacy," that he would "confidently defend our interests and values wherever they are threatened."

I knew -- I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his arm around a hero of September 11 and in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong, and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear.

He promised our enemies would soon hear from us. And so they did. So they did.

He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies and away from our shores, seriously injuring Al Qaeda and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven.

He worked effectively to secure the cooperation of Pakistan, a relationship that's critical to our success against Al Qaeda.

He encouraged other friends to recognize the peril that terrorism posed for them and won their help in apprehending many of those who would attack us again and in helping to freeze the assets they used to fund their bloody work.

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Where does his discussion of the response to 9/11 end and his discussion of the Iraq war begin? In what way are the connected? How is this speech not planting in the mind of the listener the idea that 9/11 and Iraq are connected?

Moving on... later, McCain said this:

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Not our political opponents. And certainly -- and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe...

AUDIENCE (Booing filmmaker Michael Moore who attended the convention):

Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

MCCAIN: Please, please, my friends.

That line was so good, I'll use it again. Certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe, my friends, who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact -- when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children inside their walls.

And if you could have heard those boos - unlike anything I heard at the DNC. (At least Bush hatred, if it exists, is directed at the actual person in charge of the conservative movement right now.)

Of course, there are many things to criticize about Moore's movie. But his response to this frequently made accusation makes sense. Nobody who watches this movie is unaware that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator. The media, the President, the Democrats and even the most ardent critics of the war - including Howard Dean, the most vocal - had told us this for years. That doesn't change the fact that somewhere in Iraq, children played in the streets. The actual choice before Iraq was not whether nor not to let a bad man remain in power or to do nothing - the choice involved deciding whether or not it was worth incinerating some of those children remove him. The choice involved deciding how many American mothers had to sacrifice their children to remove him. The media did an abysmal job of presenting that choice; Moore presented only the other side. Whether this is most useful response - and it's probably not - it's understandable, defensible, and certainly not worth talking about during a nationally televised speech.

Funny.

Sent by occasional G&G reader D O'B.

Bill O'Reilly has said something very stupid.

His Talking Points Memo from a few days ago starts off with the intriguing question:

The USA dominating at the Olympics, but why?

Why indeed. Basically, the answer is because Americans are achievers; we encourage people to succeed; in general we are better than other people. Fine. I agree, I guess.

Before we move on to this next point, you should know a little background. O'Reilly has recently been focusing his no-spin brilliance on the Canadians. He dislikes them, and if Canada grants asylum to two U.S. Soldiers, he may even propose a boycott of Canada.

His next point is this:

In other countries, the emphasis on self-reliance has been beaten down by nanny states and entitlement cultures. Just take a look at Australia and Canada, for example. The Aussies have 20 million people to draw from. Canada has 30 million. Yet the Aussies have 35 Olympic medals, Canada just five.

"Talking Points" believes this is reflective of the systems in those countries. Australia is a place where self-reliance is emphasized and competition is celebrated. Canada has become increasingly socialistic, as big government programs ensure everyone is marginally taken care of. I may be wrong here, but I see the entitlement culture as a force against self-discipline and motivation.

Remember, more people choose to get their news from this man then any other cable new source.

Apparently, however, Canada's socialistic, big government society must move to Australia during the winter... look at these shocking numbers from the 2002 Salt Lake Games:

Canada: 6 Gold Medals, 3 Silver Medals, 8 Bronze Medals, 17 Total Medals

Australia: 2 Gold Medals, 0 Silver Medals, 0 Bronze Medals, 2 Total Medals.

Will those commie outback freaks ever teach their people about self reliance?

Are there any other possible reasons that explain Canada's relative lack of success in the Summer Olympics as compared to the Winter Olympics other than the welfare state?

Is it worth asking how already-Factor-boycotted France has somehow been able to pull itself out of its O'Reilly-caused recession to win 27 medals?

Is there anything funnier than Bill O'Reilly saying "'Talking Points' believes...."?

...with this column on ESPN Page 2. There is something a little racist about Americans rooting against their own basketball team in the Olympics - in fact, there may be something very racist about it. Thoughts anyone?

Bush uses Iraq Olympic team in ads. Iraq Olympic team complains, say they do not want to be part of Bush ads. Bush Campaign's response:

BUSH CAMP SAYS OLYMPIC AD WILL STAY UP:
"We're on very firm legal ground to mention the Olympics, to make a factual point in a political advertisement," said BC'04 spokesman Scott Stanzel... when the olympics is over the campaign will take the ad down, as scheduled.

Kerry uses John McCain in ad. John McCain complains, says he does not want to be part of Kerry ads. Kerry Campaign's response:

KERRY TO TAKE DOWN McCAIN AD:
"We respect John McCain's wishes, and will stop running the ads of him challenging Bush to denounce the attacks on his service. It's long past time that George Bush also take John McCain's advice and do the right thing by putting an end to the smears and lies attacking John Kerry's military service. George Bush needs to say this is wrong, he needs to say it must end," said Kerry spokesperson David Wade.

Remember when Al Gore said "no controlling legal authority" and the Republicans threw a fit. Guess what, Scott Stanzel? Most people who complained about your ad thought it was in poor taste; not illegal. Removing it isn't compelled by law; it's compelled by class and a sense of responsibility for the ads supported by your campaign. Obviously, the Bush campaign has none of that.

The White House web page (the president one, not the porn site) has an "Ask the White House" feature, wherein average citizens can ask questions of noted administration officials via the internet.

Here is a list of recent participants in the chat:

August 12, 2004
Andy Card, Chief of Staff

August 13, 2004
David L. Johnson, Director of the National Weather Service

August 18, 2004
John Snow, Treasury Secretary

August 19, 2004
Don Evans, Commerce Secretary

OK, this all makes sense. Then, this:

August 20, 2004
Kerri Strug

Say what? Lovable Olympian Kerri Strug is authorized to speak on behalf of the White House? Apparently so... here is the full transcript.

The whole thing is pretty stupid. Here was one thing I enjoyed:

Katie, from Washington, DC writes:
Hi Kerri - What is like going from Olympic gold to the frantic world of Washington (especially the White House)? Were you able to carry any lessons you learned as a competitive athlete into politics?

Kerri Strug
It is so exciting living in Washington DC! I think it is essential for young people to work in DC for some period of time. There are so many things to do, see, and learn.

I think this is a strange message for the White House to send, given that the Republican party is supposed to be about states rights. On the other hand, that is so last decade.

Overall, there's nothing too bad in the chat. It's seems obvious to me that Kerri Strug did not write it - though there is nothing as obviously fake as there was when the Bush twins were permitted to speak for the White House for a week.

UPDATE: I tried to post this yesterday, but wanted to post a link to a blog - I thought Wonkette - who demolished an "Ask the White House" with the Bush twins, pointing out how obvious it was that two twenty-something girls did not write this. I couldn't find it. But, yesterday, Wonkette posted this, which similarly mocks a mailing allegedly from the Bush twins. Here is that post:

The twins haven't been especially reliable in keeping up our correspondence, so you can imagine our delight yesterday, when we received a long-awaited email from them. We hadn't heard from them since Christmas, which is fine, because that's apparently the last time someone took a picture of the two of them in which they were neither dressed in ball gowns nor horizontal. And this wasn't just any email: It was a "special message from Jenna and Barbara Bush." Sure, if by "special" you mean stump-speech pabulum, if by "from" you mean put their names on it, and if by "Jenna and Barbara Bush" you mean "Ken Mehlmann." Wait, that's not fair. . . of course Ken Mehlmann didn't write that email. Some assistant of his did. The campaign has as much as admitted this, telling Lloyd Grove that while the girls didn't necessarily write the letter, "the language is largely their own." Huh. What language exactly, you think? We're guessing the words "parties" and maybe "big." Certainly not "integrity."

Click on the link to read the full message. Very funny stuff.

UPDATE: Because I know that many of our 5 readers will not follow the link and read the whole letter by the Bush Twins, here is my favorite paragraph:

Our Dad has qualities that are needed in a good President - loyalty, humor (embarrassing as it sometimes may be), compassion, and, most importantly, integrity. We're not the only ones who see it. In fact, our friends - from varying political backgrounds - are supporting our Dad in November. Not only because of his decisions to liberate the women of Afghanistan or bring freedom to the people of Iraq, but because during the last ten years they met a man whose title was Governor or President, but who was always happy to be known as "our Dad." He made everyone feel welcome and comfortable in our house (except for the occasional boyfriend) and our friends got to know him as a really good guy.

UPDATE: This post is getting too long, but I have to point out that Pandagon has the definitive post on the letter from the Bush twins.

This settles it. Last year, John Kerry said this at a speech:

I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence. When the news reports brought home to me and my crew mates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King.

Now, it turns out that JOHN KERRY WAS ACTUALLY IN A BOAT NEAR VIETNAM at the time, and not actually in Vietnam. How can I a man possibly expect to be President when he gave a speech noting the irony that, during the 1960s, there was a lot of violence at home while he was fighting the war abroad, when he fails to mention that at the time he was only on a boat ready to go to war, not actually fighting in a war.

The funny thing is, the above link is to Instapundit, who actually sort of corrects himself and admits that this a "stretch" and not a "lie." (Which, in itself, is at best a "stretch" and more like a "lie.") However, this story apparently came up on Fox News last night - as is noted in these two Corner posts: here and here. I'll let you know if similar corrections are posted there. (In fairness, the second Corner post links to Instapundit.)

I think I tried to make this point before, but The New Republic does a better job than me.

There is little doubt that Libya's surrender of its nuclear ambitions has made the world safer. Even human rights advocates like Representative Tom Lantos encourage deeper ties with Tripoli to ensure that Libya does not resume its WMD program. "I'm strongly in favor of moving ahead with normalization. It's clearly in our national interests," Lantos told me. But, while the achievement is to be celebrated, the quick rush to reward Qaddafi, an unpredictable and vicious dictator, has cast further doubt on the White House's commitment to one of the pillars of its post-September 11 foreign policy: democratic reform in the Middle East...

Bush has hardly been shy about touting his democratization efforts. Last November, in perhaps his most significant foreign policy speech, the president cast aside six decades of American commitment to stability in the region. Instead, he announced that democratic reform in the Arab world "must be a focus of American policy." After the speech, White House spokesman Scott McClellan described advancing freedom and democracy as "a central element of our national security strategy." And, at the June nato summit in Turkey, a day after Iraq's new government assumed control in Baghdad, Bush again called for democratic change across the Middle East, urging Arab nations to "recognize the direction of the events of the day."

Yet, while Bush champions reform, Libya's massive human rights violations have not retarded Washington's drive toward normalizing relations with Tripoli. "I haven't seen the U.S. emphasize that they want to see progress on human rights," said one analyst with a leading human rights group. "They're too busy rejoicing [over] the encouraging signals on weapons." Adds one Capitol Hill lobbyist, "They're not making it the centerpiece of their discussions. The most important thing for Bush in Libya is that [Qaddafi] gave up WMD. I guess human rights were the price."

Bush can't have it both ways. Why did we go into Iraq? If it was to protect ourselves from WMDs, then it was a mistake: perhaps a mistake made in good faith, but a mistake nevertheless. If we happened to do good while there and overthrow an evil dictator, fine. But that is not U.S. policy. As demonstrated by our Libyan policy, the U.S. message to the citizens of the Middle East is clear: we will let you live in dictatorships, we will let your citizens be tortured, we will let your dissidents rot in jail cells - as long as your government makes our citizens a little safer.

UPDATE: My previous thoughts on Libya here - scroll down for all three posts. I think this is the best point I've made on this blog - I think the second of those posts is the best. (The best posts on this blog are the first post, and this one, both by Goldberg.)

searching through the CNN archives. From the late 90s... very interesting.

I have wanted to post about this strange lie that Hannity tells over and over again. Incomparably, the Daily Howler has beaten me to it. Read it: Hannity consistently shows an interview with John Kerry from the 1970s, and then misquotes it. He does this over and over again. Why? Because he can.

In the midst of another terrible Reds season, Adam Dunn just hit a home run 535 feet. For those who aren't baseball fans: that's far.

The ball went into the Ohio River, which I believe is technically in Kentucky. Therefore, he hit the ball into another state. Nice work, Adam.

...did this:

Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

I was going to comment on this, but what's the point?

I have been hesitant to link to this site, mostly because there is a shirt available for order on it which appears to advocate killing Bill O'Reilly. (It's a play on the movie title Kill Bill, but it still seems inappropriate to me.)

However, two things have changed my mind:

1.) For the most part, this web site perfectly captures my feelings about Bill O'Reilly - to the point where I seriously wonder whether I'm running this web site in my sleep.

2.) Only about three people read Goldberg and Guthrie, so I don't think this link will do all that much harm.

Enjoy: www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com.

Apparently, George W. Bush is now against legacy admissions to Yale. This is somewhat akin to Justice Thomas being opposed to affirmative action.

On a related note, I am now against admitting theatre majors from Otterbein to the University of Chicago. The last thing my alma mater needs is those fruit cakes prancing about its hallowed halls.


(A harsher comparison would be my intellectual opposition to most legalized gambling and the lottery coupled with my frequent poker-playing trips to Gary, IN.)

Kerry is criticizing Bush for what he did on 9/11. I don't think this is fair - the only reason it was so great in Fahrenheit 9/11 was because it debunked the myth of Bush as fearless leader. But Kerry shouldn't be getting into this muck.

I agree with him; I just don't think it's smart politics. I think Bush is going to get a bounce after his convention because he will "remind" people how great he was after 9/11 - and he did provide some measure of comfort by, you know, not dying or immediately surrendering to Osama. I just think this attack comes off as petty.

G & G hasn't commented on this, because it's so disgusting that I can't really think about it without wanting to vomit. It's typical Bush-family politics: even when they are favored to win an election, they simply can't do it without resorting to vicious and ugly personal attacks. Dukakis. Clinton (ironically, the one time it didn't work was when most of the attacks were true). McCain. Gore. Now Kerry.

Of course, there is no evidence that the Bush campaign supports these ads - there never is. But it does not appear that the White House has taken John McCain's suggestion and denounced them.

For those who don't know, a group of "veterans" - I hesitated to use a word normally associated with honor and heroism to describe this collection of human filth - have released a book that argues that Kerry's service in Vietnam was less than honorable; that he fabricated conduct in order to receive medals (but that they were given anyway to boost his unit's morale); that Kerry shot a bunch of small animals with a machine gun (I'm not making it up - that's the allegation); that Kerry shot a teenager in the back; that this brave group was forced to keep quiet until now because of the "military machine" (always well known to favor liberal Democratic Senators from Massachusetts).

Here's the kicker, though: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE SERVED WITH KERRY AND THE PEOPLE WHO SERVED WITH HIM SUPPORT HIM. Despite this fact, millions of idiots will read Drudge and see the ad and think there is a semblance of truth to these allegations. There isn't. Six soldiers served with John Kerry on his boat - five support his campaign and one is dead.

In fact, these allegations are so preposterous and such obvious fabrications that I have actually entertained the possibility that Kerry is somehow behind them - to make Bush look desperate; to convince McCain to come over to our side, etc. But then I remembered - you can tell absurd lies - e.g., claiming that Gore said he "invented" the internet - and despite irrefutable and widely available proof that what you are saying is a lie - the "fair and balanced" media will still report it; after all they have to report both sides.

I personally think Democrats need to respond to this with a vicious personal attack of their own - I don't care. There were always the rumors that Bush impregnated some woman and forced her to have an abortion. You could have a nice ad, run it in the south: "While John Kerry was serving his country, George Bush stayed at home and killed unborn children." That should cut into his base. Of course, this story isn't true - but that's not the standard any more.

On both sides... I can think of no reason not to believe this Spinsanity article: neither Kerry's nor Bush's plan for reducing the deficit makes any sense. Of course, why should one bother to tell the truth about your own numbers when Bush proved in 2000 that you can lie about them at will and the media will never call you on it? I am so glad to be supporting a liar who lies only slightly less than Bush. However, the liar I support served in Vietnam - so take that, Bush.

Chad Johnson is fast becoming my favorite Cincinnati athlete... Sean Casey, Adam Dunn and Wily Mo Pena are also in the running. From the Bengals' web site... I bolded my favorite parts.

7/11 OR CNN?
Pro Bowl receiver Chad Johnson’s enthusiasm is everywhere down here at Georgetown College. On Wednesday, he called for a cameraman to take a shot of him lined up against cornerback Deltha O’Neal in one-on-drills.

On Tuesday, he leaped head first into a scuffle between receiver Kevin Walter and defensive back James Allen to break it up and ended up doing a handstand. If he’s not doing that, he’s on the camp walkie-talkies telling workers to come over and watch him, or running downfield on the scout kick team screaming his head off.

“I’m going to do something,” said Johnson of the end-zone celebrations that got him so much notoriety and at least one 15-yard penalty last year. “But nothing that’s going to hurt the team.”

As for the officials supposedly cracking down on DBs for putting their hands on receivers after the wideouts are behind them at least five yards down field, Johnson shrugged.

“No one is going to touch me after five yards,” he said.

I needed a break at work, so I thought I'd take on a Corner post. Kathryn Lopez didn't disappoint...

KERRY'S WAR [KJL]

I'm on some annoying Kerry-Edwards e-mail list for donations and nonsense. The e-mail that just came in has the subject line: " What we're fighting for: health care." Yep. That's the war. Over health care. Can we please lay off the war/battle analogies while we're actually fighting a war against people who WANT US DEAD RIGHT NOW?

I sent her an e-mail with the following.

Ms. Lopez-

With regard to your "Kerry's War" post, I found the following after searching for the word "fight" on the Bush/Cheney web site. I look forward to another post along these lines.

President Names Leader in Global Fight Against AIDS
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=1927


President Helps Communities Fight Illegal Drug Abuse
"There's another war at home, too, and that's to win the war against the scourge of drugs..." George W. Bush
(This only 3 months after 9/11.)
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=1547

Mrs. Bush Salutes Those Dedicated to Alzheimer's Fight
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2365

"The fight against domestic violence is a national movement. I urge people to join the movement. Part of an awareness month is not only making people aware, but a call to service." George W. Bush
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2053

I'll let you know if she responds.

UPDATE: Before I actually sent the e-mail, I realized another reader had already made the exact same point. DOH!