Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]
|
| Think at your own risk. |
|
| The Katrina tragedy - Any news on Pascagoula? |
Update: Paul at Wizbang has some poigniant words from the heart of the tragedy, in New Orleans. I've posted some helpful links below and will scour for more.
Original Post, 11: 15 a.m.: The rolling tragedy that is Hurricane Katrina just keeps on compounding.
Among what are probably myriad personal stories of loss and devastation, is that of a woman named Annie Seawright, from Moss Point, Mississippi. Annie lives on Waupon Street in the Moss Point/Pascagoula area. Her daughter, Toni Seawright is looking for her, and for Toni's sister and her family and children.
I talked by phone with a good friend of Toni's in northern Florida a short while ago. She says Tony's sister evacuated her home, which was completely submerged in the flooding that followed Katrina, and she was headed to their mother's home to check on her. Annie Seawright had chosen not to evacuate, having heard threats of so many storms before -- she decided to try and ride it out. Toni is looking for her family. It's possible that they already evacuated and simply can't get to a phone (I doubt many cellphone towers are standing). They also could be in a shelter somewhere in Mississippi.
If anyone has information about this family, or if anyone knows the status or conditions in Pascagoula and Moss Point, Mississippi, please email me at joy@reidreport.com and I will forward the information to the family friend. I'm also trying to get in direct touch with Toni to get more details and information that could help locate her loved ones, so I'll post any edits and corrections to this story as it goes along. Also any bloggers who have strong readership in Mississippi, and who would be willing to post this call for help would be much appreciated. I've asked the family to email me pictures, which I'll post as soon as I get them. For now, the key is to get info on what's happening in Moss Point. |
posted by JReid @ 3:26 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, August 30, 2005 |
| Back on the blog |
It's been a weekend of eratic blogging from me, between the power outages from Katrina (nothing compared to the devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, but Florida did have its share of pain) and a couple of days out of town. This seems like a day for putting aside politics, and for the most part, I probably will ... for the most part. OK I probably won't entirely, but at least I know I should...
The SF Chronicle has a nice roundup of world press opinion (though admittedly cherry picked to suit the Gate's POV) on Iraq, Venezuela's Chavez versus the GOP's crazy Pat Robertson and Japan's isolation on the Asian subcontinent. The conclusions aren't promising, across the board. The Chronicle also picks up where the NYT left off in querying actual OIF vets on the F/X series "Over There," which I (and apparently many other civilians) love, but soldiers generally seem to either hate or find pretty funny and inacurate. Interesting how that works. It just goes to show you how disconnected we Americans are from the experiences of our uniformed military. They go to war, we watch TV... |
posted by JReid @ 10:44 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Call me 'Tone Deaf' |
| With Katrina's victims still reeling from the aftermath of death and destruction, and Iraq lurching toward thecracy, what is the President focusing on? Instituting a national call to service in order to repair our spent military, Guard and Reserves? A renewed push for a permanent settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians to take advantage of the Gaza momentum? A fresh call for international help in stabilizing Iraq? Maybe a quick call to his friends in Russia or the Gulf to ease oil prices? Nope. None of the above. George W. Bush is renewing his push to privatize Social Security. |
posted by JReid @ 10:12 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| Saturday, August 27, 2005 |
| Questions for the right |
| Is there a dime's worth of difference between the Muslim clerics Britain is fighting to deport, and our own million-follower-having, cable empire overseeing, Fox News frequenting Christian cleric, Pat Robertson? Both espouse violence. Both hold millions of fanatical supporters in thrall. Both have influence that overlaps religion and politics. So what's the difference, besides the fact that our Patwa-issuer is native-born? Just wondering... |
posted by JReid @ 11:16 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| More proof of insanity in the present age... |
| Or could have filed this one under "unsurprising headlines...": NewsMax, Fox News and the so-credible Bill Bennett radio show line up former military and intelligence hacks to back up (that's "up", not "away from",) killer televangelist Pat Robertson. GOP shame check on register two ... GOP shame check on register two...! |
posted by JReid @ 11:04 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| How pathetic is it... |
| That the pro-Bush Iraq protests headed to Crawford had to be cobbled together by a P.R. firm? Way to meet a grass roots movement with ... the exact opposite. |
posted by JReid @ 11:02 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proof of insanity in the present age |
As I'm sitting here recovering from Katrina and enjoying having power in the house again... the LA Times offers me a reason to sink back into dispair:
Adam, Eve and T. Rex Giant roadside dinosaur attractions are used by a new breed of creationists as pulpits to spread their version of Earth's origins.
By Ashley PowersTimes Staff Writer August 27, 2005
CABAZON, Calif. — Dinny the roadside dinosaur has found religion.The 45-foot-high concrete apatosaurus has towered over Interstate 10 near Palm Springs for nearly three decades as a kitschy prehistoric pit stop for tourists.
Now he is the star of a renovated attraction that disputes the fact that dinosaurs died off millions of years before humans first walked the planet.
Dinny's new owners, pointing to the Book of Genesis, contend that most dinosaurs arrived on Earth the same day as Adam and Eve, some 6,000 years ago, and later marched two by two onto Noah's Ark. The gift shop at the attraction, called the Cabazon Dinosaurs, sells toy dinosaurs whose labels warn, "Don't swallow it! The fossil record does not support evolution.
"The Cabazon Dinosaurs join at least half a dozen other roadside attractions nationwide that use the giant reptiles' popularity in seeking to win converts to creationism. And more are on the way.
"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.
"They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people," he said. "Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."
The nation's top paleontologists find the creation theory preposterous and say children are being misled by dinosaur exhibits that take the Jurassic out of "Jurassic Park."
"Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah's Ark? Give me a break," said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. "For them, 'The Flintstones' is a documentary."
Tyrannosaurus rex and his gigantic brethren find themselves on both sides of the nation's renewed debate over the Earth's origins and the continuing fight over whether Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" or Genesis best explains the development of life.
Science holds that dinosaurs were the Earth's royalty for about 160 million years. Their reign ended abruptly, possibly after a meteorite smacked into the planet, but they're considered the forebears of birds.Unearthing dinosaur bones that are millions of years old "doesn't prove evolution, but it shows the Genesis account doesn't work," said Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education.
Drivers who pull off Interstate 10 in Pensacola, Fla., are told a far different story at Dinosaur Adventure Land. Its slogan: "Where Dinosaurs and the Bible meet!"The nearly 7-acre museum, low-tech theme park and science center embodies its founder's belief that God created the world in six days. The dinosaurs, even super carnivores such as T. rex, dined as vegetarians in the Garden of Eden until Adam and Eve sinned — and only then did they feast on other creatures, according to the Christian-based young-Earth theory.
About 4,500 years after Adam and Eve arrived, the theory goes, pairs of baby dinosaurs huddled in Noah's Ark, and a colossal flood drowned the rest and scattered their fossils. The ark-borne animals repopulated the planet — meaning that folk tales about fire-breathing beasts are accounts of humans battling dinosaurs, who still roamed the planet.
Kids romping through the $1.5-million Florida theme park can bounce on a "Long Neck Liftasaurus" swing seat; launch water balloons at a T. rex and a stegosaurus, and smooth their own sandbox-size Grand Canyons, whose formation is credited to the flood. A "fossilized" pickle purports to show that dinosaur bones could have hardened quickly. Got an upcoming birthday? Dinosaur Adventure Land does pizza parties."Go to Disneyland, they teach evolution. It's subtle; signs that say, 'Millions of years ago' " said evangelist Kent Hovind, the park's founder. "This is a golden opportunity to get our point across." The most frightening part: they're serious... |
posted by JReid @ 10:49 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| Friday, August 26, 2005 |
| Hurricane Katrina |
| This has been one hell of a storm down here. Broward County is littered with trees pulled up from the roofs, Miami apparently is seeing heavy flooding. We're learning to live without TV and the Internet, since the power is out (I'm blogging from elsewhere today...) What a mess... Pray for the folks in the Panhandle. Katrina's coming their way next, and while it was just a category 1 for those of us in southern Fla, it's forecast to be a category 3 once it hits land up north... |
posted by JReid @ 3:36 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Thursday, August 25, 2005 |
| Back on the block ... Damn you ipower! |
It's been a tough week of server problems, crashes, and a very bumpy change of web hosts. For those who kept checking in, thanks for hanging in there. And to think, I was forced to sit out the first wave of Pat Robertson nutty goodness and Dubya's Idaho vacation within a vacation (and the attendant "hanging loose") ... God must want me to step back and work on being nice to the expensively educated yet intellectually challenged ...
By the way now that I'm back I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome John Bolton to the U.N. Those 750 debt relief scuttling, climate change torpedoing amendments to the previous international agreement should usher you and your mustache in nicely...
Update, 9:54: One thing you learn when you have tech problems, or when you migrate web hosts, is that the Internet seems deceptively simple, but it isn't necessarily so. And when it gets complicated for you, you're forced to rely on a strange species of human being called the "IT person." They're usually male, and blessed with technical knowledge, but not always with the most pleasant or vibrant personalities ... I ran into a doozy of a techie at my new host, ace-net, and learned the hard way that while my old host had technical flaws (server meltdown and inability to resolve it for four days being the main one ...) telephone tech support was a blessing. The new guys are online "ticket" help only, and that gives them so much more freedom to be that particular kind of IT-guy snarky that makes you want to lock them in a room for 24 hours with Pat Robertson ... who, by the way, is insane.
It's good to be back... |
posted by JReid @ 3:54 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| Monday, August 22, 2005 |
| Pimp my reporter |
| Apparently, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell has officially been fitted for her George W. Bush super secret decoder ring. Filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball last night, the trussed-up Texan managed to characterize the Democrats' official position on Iraq as "cut and run," laud the president's mention of the number of troop deaths in Iraq at least three times in 30 seconds, and join a generic white male talk host in gang tackling 9/11 truth teller Colleen Rowley, all without breaking a sweat (or letting her 'W stands for Women' lapel button show). A bravura performance if I've ever seen one... Norah O, you have officially been pimped. |
posted by JReid @ 11:27 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Whose constitutioon is it, anyway? |
From the WashPost, a peek at the Iraqi constitutional process:
Negotiators here described American officials as playing a major role in the draft. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad shuttled among Iraqi leaders, pushing late Monday for the inclusion of Sunnis in talks, negotiators said. U.S. Embassy staff members worked from a Kurdish party headquarters to help type up the draft and translate changes from English to Arabic for Iraqi lawmakers, negotiators said. No wonder the Iraqis are so enthusiastic about their new government. It's like a Christmas present -- make that a Ramadan present ... from an overbearing American Santa. And Santa Claus apparently doesn't believe women should be better off than they were under Saddam:
The opponents also said women would lose gains they made during Hussein's rule, when they were guaranteed equal rights under civil law in matters including marriage, divorce and inheritance. The draft constitution says individuals can choose to have family matters decided by either religious or civil law. Supporters say a separate bill of rights would protect women, and provisions of the constitution say no law can contradict democracy or that bill of rights.
Khalilzad, speaking to CNN early Tuesday, called the proposed constitution a "very good" draft that guarantees equal rights for all. An American serving as adviser to the Kurds, Peter Galbraith, disagreed that the charter protected women's rights and condemned what he called the Bush administration's "hypocrisy" on that issue in the constitution. Break out those Burkas, Iraqi laddies! The Americans have brought you equality with Saudi women! ... you didn't like to drive, did you?
And if Howard Fineman is right, the right won't be happy with the enshrining of Islam as the basic tenet no law can contradict. ... do you smell that? I think it's called "freedom..."!
Here's the text of Iraq's proposed new Made in the U.S.A. constitution. |
posted by JReid @ 11:13 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Things fall apart |
Did the Pentagon have information about Mohammad Atta before 9/11 or didn't they? Now the Pentagon says they didn't. And the former intel officer, who previously admitted that the recollections of Able Danger actually were not his own, turns out not to have documentation either, because ... ahem ... his security clearance was pulled over mileage reimbursements... What will Limbaugh and the other Blame Clinton firsters do now?
Previous post: Able Dangermice |
posted by JReid @ 4:29 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr. Bubble |
This quote jumped out at me from the WashPost Sunday story about President Bush's decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan or other war protesters:
Aides said they discussed Sheehan several more times in the days that followed, and Bush said when he and his national security team met with reporters: "I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position."
Two days later, Bush explained his approach to journalists invited to ride mountain bikes on his ranch. "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," he said. "But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." Go on with your life??? Funny, that doesn't sound like a man who's agonizing over the deaths and maiming of thousands of American G.I.s he sent to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq... just how many naps does this guy get on a given day? |
posted by JReid @ 12:05 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Sunday, August 21, 2005 |
| Sundays on the ranch with George |
Thankfully, President Bush does find time to meet with American citizens on the ranch from time to time ... "just steer away from the pesky war protesters, Lance, just steer away..." |
posted by JReid @ 2:05 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Around the world in five days |
President Bush plans to devote a whole five days to defending the Vietnam ... I mean Iraq war this week. That's just one-twelfth of the time he spent tooling around the country to promote his plan to turn Social Security into a hedge fund... sure, that should work, especially if he keeps tossing out tired rhetoric like this:
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," the president said in the recorded broadcast.
"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail." ... "On that day (Sept. 11, 2001), we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors no longer protect us from those who wish to harm our people," he said. "And since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy."
Wonderful, except that the "savage enemy" that attacked us on 9/11 wasn't in Iraq, or from Iraq. It was in and from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt and Morocco, among other places we're not bombing ...
Bush will get nowhere with the American public by rehashing the same tired platitudes and attempting to tie Iraq by the hearstrings of 9/11. The two simply aren't related, except for the fact that one provided the justification for the other. The American people (at least those who aren't members of the cult) know that now. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, more and more American troops and their families know it too. And with the Army preparing for another exctrutiating Bush presidential term's worth of time in Iraq, American's get it: we screwed up by going in there, and now we're stuck. As a famous C student once said: "Fool me once, shame on ... me ... fool me twice ... you ... you can't we can't gon' get fooled a'gin..." |
posted by JReid @ 1:12 PM   |
|
|
|
|
| Saturday, August 20, 2005 |
| The good news on Gaza |
| So far, so OK... except for those pesky Al-Qaida cells in the port of Aqaba ... a maritime threat that seems to have slipped past the GWOT junkies in the Bush administration ... Anyway, let's hope things keep moving forward, including Palestinian elections in January that hopefully will strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas against Hamas... here's hoping... |
posted by JReid @ 10:57 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Anything to get elected |
| Bill Frist -- who I hear has had some official, and very expensive, scientific training -- has come out for "intelligent design" teaching in schools. Please pass this on to all Freepers who have sworn never to vote for the nuclear-option cringing majority leader, for immediate comment. |
posted by JReid @ 10:54 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| Friday, August 19, 2005 |
| U.S. Navy ships targeted in Red Sea |
From Debka:
Same Al Qaeda group that bombed Sharm el Sheikh and Taba claims rocket attack on US ships in Aqaba
August 19, 2005, 5:00 PM (GMT+02:00)
Signed Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades of the al Qaeda Organization in the Levant and Egypt, the Web site statement claims firing three Katyusha rockets targeting “US vessels in Jordan and (Israel’s) Eilat port” before “returning safely to base.” “Zionists are a legitimate target and we warn the Americans… to expect even more stinging attacks.” Soon we will reach Tel Aviv.
“This is our debut operation in Jordan,” said the statement. “As we have begun to destroy the throne of the Egyptian tyrant, we warn the Jordanian tyrant to release our jailed brothers and abdicate before we force you to go.” and this:
A Jordanian al Qaeda team controlled by Abu Mussab al Zarqawi carried out the Katyusha rocket attack that killed a Jordanian soldier in Aqaba but missed two US naval vessels docked in the port. The rocket fired at Eilat left no casualties either.
August 19, 2005, 11:47 AM (GMT+02:00)
Jordanian police discovered the rocket launcher on a rooftop, cleared the port of shipping and placed part of the town under curfew to hunt for three perpetrators. The coordinated attack was directed at three targets:
1. Two US warships anchored in Aqaba. One, the USS Ashland landing ship with elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Force aboard, was just missed and damaged. The rocket struck a warehouse on a nearby pier. No US marines or sailors were hurt. Both ships have put out to sea.
2. Another rocket exploded on the Emir Haya base parade ground during drill practice and killed one Jordanian soldier and wounded others. 3. The Katyusha aimed at Eilat landed on a road outside the airport, exploded partially and injured one Israeli.
Israeli and Jordanian security are cooperating in the investigation. Are these attacks coordinated with the Gaza pullout? If so, why? Palestinians are reading the pullout as a victory , so what would be the point? Or were they a fresh shot at the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Either way, not good news that a rocket attack could come so close to repeating the USS Cole disaster... |
posted by JReid @ 4:43 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Acid test |
Some Israelis, including a Knesset member, are denying the acid attack stories that have played in the European press and tabloids, outraging fellow Israelis eroding the publicity advantage the evacuating Gaza settlers have been enjoying all week. The stories threaten to make clear the extremist nature of the settlement movement, which is based on a religious quest to use the Torah to define Israel's national borders. It will be interesting to see if the media climb down from the stories. Nonetheless, the withdrawal from Gaza is proceding on or ahead of schedule.
Previous posts:
|
posted by JReid @ 12:36 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Able danger-mice |
Is the Able Danger bombshell a bomb? WaPo has this interesting retrack of the story, with the intelligence officer responsible for the dustup now saying his story isn't based on his own recollections, but on those of two other people. Congressman Kurt Weldon, who has been hawking the story that intelligence officials were essentially forbidden in 2000 from passing on "data mining" information that identified 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta to the FBI (which the right has seized on to say the Clinton administration -- and not their successors -- are to blame for being asleep at the wheel before the attacks). Interesting that this story didn't make top headline on the WaPo website -- the editors decided instead to big-font yet another MY GOD! JOHN G. ROBERTS IS A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE!!! barn burner... but I digress ...
Kevin Drum wrote an interesting piece on A.D. for the Washington Monthly website last week, which bears revisiting:
August 11, 2005
ABLE DANGER....Here's a funny thing. Last Friday I got an email from a PR guy for Government Security News telling me about a story they were preparing to publish later that day (link here). The story was about a U.S. Army military intelligence program called "Able Danger" that had supposedly used data mining techniques to identify the al-Qaeda cell run by Mohamed Atta a year before 9/11. Unfortunately, as the story went, nothing was done about it because Defense Department lawyers prevented the Able Danger team from telling the FBI about the Atta cell.
For better or worse, I scanned the email briefly, saw that the primary source of the story was Pennsylvania congressman Curt Weldon, and decided to pass on it. On Tuesday, though, Douglas Jehl of the New York Times ran a piece about Weldon's accusations (here) and then followed it up on Wednesday with another piece (here) that quoted a number of people wondering why this information was only being made public now and why the 9/11 commission hadn't investigated it last year. That's an especially good question, Laura Rozen says (here), because Weldon has been beating the Able Danger drum since at least 2002, when she heard him give a talk about it at the Heritage Foundation.
So who's the culprit? Why didn't the 9/11 Commission investigate this? Weldon's source for his story is a "former defense intelligence officer" who worked closely with the Able Danger program, and he told GSN exactly where he thought the fault lied:
“I personally talked with [Philip] Zelikow [executive director of the 9/11 Commission] about this,” recalled the intelligence officer. “For whatever bizarre reasons, he didn’t pass on the information.”The State Department, where Zelikow now works as a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was traveling and unavailable for comment. Drum, who admits to being agnostic on the Able Danger tale, points out that Kurt Weldon has made something of a hobby out of the data mining issue, and may have an axe to grind in pushing the Atta in Data story, and he speculated that the whole thing was being plussed up a bit (perhaps by the "bored press corps seeking juicy August stories during the Congressional recess and clinging to anti-war protesters for lack of access to Natalee Holloway's mom... Damn you, Greta Van Susteren...!!!!)
...The new relevations make the plussing up theory a lot more intriguing... |
posted by JReid @ 1:50 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Krugman on elections |
Just in time for Katherine Harris' run for the Senate ... Paul Krugman passes along the stark warnings from a new book on the history of American vote stealing, including rundowns of the 2000 and 2004 elections, and on the perils for voters inherent in one-party rule. His conclusion:
Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation. Brief pause for the Freeper backlash, followed by the Freeper backlash disguised as sober National Review rebuttal article... |
posted by JReid @ 1:41 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Iran's options |
The WSJ yesterday offered a sobering assessment of the cards Iran holds in its poker deck vs. the U.S.: namely, oil, gas and Iraq.
Iran's role as both an oil producer at a time of record prices and as a player in the politics of neighboring Iraq have made it trickier for the Bush administration to get tough on Tehran in the nuclear showdown. The administration has threatened to seek United Nations sanctions against Iran in the fall if the country refuses to accept international oversight of its nuclear program.
For their part, Iran's leaders seem to sense their advantages. In recent weeks, they have made clear they believe they have plenty of leverage and are less vulnerable to economic pressures from the outside. The country's new, hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently said "no economic or political incentive can dissuade us from getting peaceful nuclear energy."
...
The nuclear standoff comes at a particularly inopportune time for the Bush administration. In Iraq, the administration is scrambling to help the country's factions overcome differences and hammer out a constitution, taking a crucial step toward solidifying the country so U.S. troops might eventually withdraw.
Iran, which shares a long border with Iraq, has huge sway over much of Iraq's now-dominant Shiite population, and it could disrupt the constitutional process if it so chose. Western diplomats in Tehran say Iranian officials have been blunt in recent weeks on that point, threatening to cause problems in Iraq if the Bush administration tries to punish Iran with international sanctions.
The most influential man in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a Shiite leader whose approval has been central to every political twist and turn, is Iranian. When Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, visited Iraq recently he visited Mr. Sistani -- an audience so far denied to top U.S. officials. "It didn't exactly please us to see the Iranians getting face time with Sistani," said a senior American diplomat in Iraq.
At the same time, oil prices have become a domestic thorn for President Bush, and any move that might push them higher could cost him support. Oil hit a nominal record of more than $66 a barrel last week before slipping slightly to $63.25 a barrel yesterday in New York trading.
Iran pumps around 3.5 million barrels a day, or about 4% of global oil production. It is the second-largest producer of oil in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has the world's second-largest natural-gas fields. Analysts are divided over whether Tehran would openly use its energy leverage in a diplomatic standoff, if only because the Iranian government is so dependent on oil revenue. So much for Bush's brilliant "axis of evil" strategy. We've lashed two spokes of the axis together at the hip: Grand Ayatolla Ali al-Sistani's hip, to be exact ... |
posted by JReid @ 12:29 AM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| The ten people you meet in ... "good heavens!" |
| Person number one: Jude Law. Poor guy. Left hanging by the paparazzi, only to have his nanny-catcher snickered at by the New York Post. I thought we loved the Brits these days! I'll take you just this far. You'll have to click the rest of the way yourself. Hey Jude, at least there's still Sienna... who's either being really kind to you for the purposes of "publicity reversal" by being seen with you the day after the photo drop, or who's very, very understanding of the ironies of Godly endowment ... |
posted by JReid @ 12:00 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| Thursday, August 18, 2005 |
| The Iraq conundrum |
Every time I hear the president's supporters argue that "we have to succeed in Iraq" in order to make progress in "the war on terror that started on 9/11", and that "the stakes are too high for us to fail," I come back to a central, nagging point: 9/11 was visited on the U.S. by outside forces. The Iraq war was not.
We weren't forced into Iraq by circumstances, the way you could argue we were in Afghanistan. We had no attack to avenge, no terrorists to chase or to demand that Saddam Hussein turn over. We had, in fact, no impetus to attack Iraq at all. Even the original rationale for the war, Iraq's failure to account for vast stores of weapons of mass destruction it was known to have ten years earlier, and it's "desire" -- or if you believed Cheney and Condi Rice then and perhaps even now -- their initiative to build nuclear weapons -- fail to provide a cogent rationale for war. If a state we consider an enemy attempts to get WMD or nuclear weapons the Bushian argument follows that we have no choice but to attack it -- yet we aren't invading Iran, Syria or North Korea (at least not yet). If we did, it wouldn't stop terrorism either -- like the Iraq war itself, it would only further ignite it. And if an attack on the U.S. by citizens of a given country is cause enough for war, then Britain should be at war with Pakistan and we should be at war with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the countries where the 9/11 hijackers came from).
None of it holds up. And so the idea that we "have to succeed in Iraq" doesn't hold up either. We shouldn't ever have been there, under any logical argument. It is a conflict of our own making. So our need to succeed sounds more like a need for the Bush administration to succeed. Or a sense that we broke the place, and now we have to try and fix it. Or worse, an acknowledgment that we have created what could be THE destabilizing force in the Mideast -- a haven for terrorists we drew there, but whose reach will be as global as al-Qaida's. Even if that's the case, than the Iraq war (or whatever we're calling it today), isn't a struggle against terrorism at all. It's a struggle to undo an American mistake.
Update: Cindy Sheehan is going home to take care of her mother, who had a stroke. I'm sure the president's people hope her supporters would leave. They shouldn't count on it. |
posted by JReid @ 7:08 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| The hand that rocks the cradle: college edition |
| Why is an American university, Virginia Tech, offering gender-segregated classes at the behest of Saudi Arabia? For the cash, apparently: around $246,000. |
posted by JReid @ 6:58 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Slap fight on the Senate floor |
| Trent Lott to Bill Frist: you've been served. |
posted by JReid @ 6:49 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Roberts Agonistes |
Where are the Sandy Berger brigades on the right asking how a raft of John G. Roberts papers from his time in the Reagan Justice Department went missing from the Reagan library after being reviewed by a pair of White House and J.D. lawyers...?
And why is the Roberts nomination becoming so painful for Democrats? Because elected Democrats have little control over "the base" -- the activists and donors want the Dems to fight Bush tooth and nail on everything, including the SupCo nomination, but the electeds realize they can't fight it all -- they have to pick their battles. To be sure, in the recent pass, the D.C. Dems have been guilty of choosing no battles at all -- but now that they realize they have to become a distinct party from the GOP, not just a weak echo chamber, which battles they choose is no small matter.
In my opinion, as I've said before, the Roberts nomination is the wrong fight. To win the confidence of the majority of Americans, Democrats need to resume being the party of three basic things:
- economic fairness (decent wages, jobs that stay in America, small business flourishing amid big corporations, and a decent immigration policy); -a sane foreign policy and responsible use of the military (no more Iraqs, cooperation with allies, better pay and treatment for our troops);
- and a 21st century economy (including scientific progress, jump-starting manufacturing through innovation, more judicious trade policy, and a balanced federal budget).
The social issues that underly the Roberts fight: abortion, gay marriage and the like -- are precisely the niche issues that are keeping the Democrats out of national contention. They are important to the interest groups who champion them, but they will not bring the country under the Democratic banner. The screaming over Roberts only highlights the Democrats' social issue baggage at the expense of nationalizing the party's core strengths. |
posted by JReid @ 3:22 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Pat Buchanan: hero of the anti-war left? |
Pat Buchanan does it again. having come full circle from his continued defense of the Vietnam campaign, to firmly and consistently oppose the nearly identical (in its flawed reasoning and execution) Iraq war (Buchanan would differ, saying the fight against communism was no neocon fantasy). This time he takes on the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon:
Cindy Sheehan: Antiwar Catalyst
When he flew off to San Clemente, Calif., in the summer of 1969 for his August vacation, Richard Nixon was riding a wave of popularity.
He had announced the first troop withdrawal from Vietnam. He had met the Apollo 11 crew of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins on touchdown in the Pacific. He had become the first president to visit a captive nation with a triumphal tour of Bucharest. And he had just proposed a sweeping reform of welfare praised by both parties.
But when Nixon returned in September, a storm had broken. Wrote David Broder: “It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969.“The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”
They did not succeed in breaking Nixon’s presidency. He broke them. The crucial moment was his “Great Silent Majority” speech of Nov. 3, 1969, which rallied Middle America behind his war policy.
George W. Bush is approaching a similar moment of truth. And Cindy Sheehan may be the catalyst of crisis for the Bush presidency.
As a Gold Star mother of a soldier son slain in Iraq, Sheehan has authenticity and moral authority. Wedded to the passion of her protest, these make her a magnet for a bored White House press corps camped in Crawford for August. Cindy and the president are the only stories in town. And as a source of daily derogatory commentary on the president, Sheehan is using the media, and the media are using her, for the same end: to bedevil George W. Bush.
They are succeeding. When one considers the non-stop cable TV coverage given the mother of Natalie Holloway, the Alabama teen missing in Aruba, Cindy Sheehan will soon be a household name. The more media she attracts, the more people she draws to Crawford. The more people who join Cindy in Crawford, the more media coverage they will attract. It is hard to see what breaks this cycle before Labor Day and the president’s return.
The purity of Sheehan’s protest has lately been diluted by her association with the far Left, the extravagance of her language and the arrival of political operatives to manipulate and manage her. But in a slow news month, Cindy Sheehan has helped turn the focus of national debate back to the war, at a moment of special vulnerability for the president.
According to Newsweek, support for Bush’s handling of the war has fallen for the first time below 40 percent—to 34 percent, with 61 percent now disapproving of his war leadership. Compare these numbers to the 68 percent support Nixon commanded on Vietnam after that November 3 address, and the gravity of Bush’s condition becomes evident.
Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for the commander in chief. What is remarkable is that no Democrat has stepped forward, as Gene McCarthy did, to lead an antiwar crusade and call for a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Cindy Sheehan is filling that vacuum.
... Americans do not want an endless no-win war, but they also do not want to cut and run, or walk away and leave a debacle, when they believe that 1,850 Americans have died and 13,000 have been wounded in a noble cause If President Bush cannot describe “victory” in terms convincing enough to Americans willing to spend blood indefinitely, he will have to persuade them to stay the course by describing what a disaster defeat will mean for Iraq and for the America’s position in the world.
But to do that would raise a question: Why, then, in heaven’s name, did America take such a risk, when Iraq was never a threat? Read the whole thing. It's worth it. Buchanan never favored the war and has been a consistent bedeviler of the neocons. In the case of Ms. Sheehan, who has become a politicized figure thanks to the left and the right, he has nailed it. She is a sympathetic figure no matter where you stand on the war, simply on the basis of her loss. If she becomes less sympathetic when she talks to the media, she regains stature every time another parent of a son or daughter killed in Iraq steps forward to join her.
Buchanan begins his column with a story about Richard Nixon. Here's another, courtesy of Truthout:
In May of 1970, right after the Kent State shootings, when civil unrest across the nation had reached a fever pitch and opposition to the war had roared again to the forefront, Nixon woke his personal valet in the middle of the night. He grabbed a few Secret Service agents and set off for the Lincoln Memorial. There, he spent an hour talking with a large gathering of war protesters encamped around the monument.
The Time Magazine article from May 18, 1970, recalls the scene this way: "When the conversation turned to the war, Nixon told the students: 'I know you think we are a bunch of so and so's.'" Before he left, Nixon said: 'I know you want to get the war over. Sure you came here to demonstrate and shout your slogans on the ellipse. That's all right. Just keep it peaceful. Have a good time in Washington, and don't go away bitter.' The singular odyssey went on. Nixon and his small contingent wandered through the capital, then drove to the Mayflower Hotel for a breakfast of corned beef hash and eggs - his first restaurant meal in Washington since he assumed power. Then he withdrew to his study in the Executive Office Building to sit out the day of protest." In this sense, at least, George W. Bush is no Richard Nixon.
Interesting links: a brief history of the anti-Vietnam war movement. |
posted by JReid @ 11:38 AM   |
| | |