Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]
|
| Think at your own risk. |
| Tuesday, January 31, 2006 |
| The blogging of the president - SOTU edition |
Well, this is no longer the guy who eschewed nation building ... Oh, and you're gonna have to face it, we're addicted to oil. ...
Overall, I think it was a good speech (see, Jay? I am capable of responding to Bush with something other than frothing Moonbattery...) Very elegant at the end, and it hit the major points that Bush needed to: freedom (15 mentions), victory (5mentions), staying the course in iraq (14), terror (15), globalism (4 mentions of "isolationism"), and a sort of compassionate global hegemony articulated by Mr. Bush in a series of flourishes about the need to spread democracy (9 mentions), liberty (2 mentions) and a sort of Christianity-based, tax and disease-free life (7 nods for AIDS and 10 mentions of the U.S. and global economy.) It's all just lovely, if only you could shut off the actual world and the crap that's overrunning it under Bush's leadership... He also bowled for the history books, putting his decisions on foreign policy in the same light as the historic chess moves of FDR, JFK and Reagan (history got 7 mentions). Now all he needs is for Iraq's new fundamentalist Shiite leaders not to do anything too crazy, at least for the next two years. ...
I think I'll associate myself with the comment of Newsweek's John Meacham on the speech: Bush has cast himself as a Republican Woodrow Wilson, pushing this idealistic, highly ideological vision of an American war to end all wars, and an unbroken global American social science project that will make the whole world peaceful, free (well, not free of us...) and abstinant! He's now officially a neocon -- but without the intellectual stuff...
Bush "named the enemy" as some pundits (Lou Dobbs) have urged him to do, mentioning "radical Islam" twice and calling out the mullahs in Iran. He also spoke directly to the Iranian people, saying he hoped the U.S. and Iran would one day be "the best of friends" but also warning that the U.S. cannot allow the current regime to obtain "nucular" weapons (I wonder if Bush makes his staff say "nucular" too...) I think he's treading on thin ice with the "let freedom and elections ring" stuff directed at Egypt, where the Hamas/al-Qaida-linked Muslim Brotherhood would win any "free and fair" elections, Syria (where Hezbollah would take over from the Baathists) and Lebanon (ditto). But hey, neocons don't deal with that sort of reality-based drivel.
Bush defended the NSA spy program and got big applause from the Republicans with his in-your-face assertion that he has not just Constitutional authority (I suppose in the Constitution inside her own mind...) but also statutory authority to eavesdrop. The Democrats could make him eat those words if they take over the House or Senate in the Fall... He even dug up Osama bin Laden (2 menitons) who has been tremendously helpful to the administration in pushing its eavesdropping scheme, and he kept the "September the eleventh" references to a merciful two. I didn't think he'd have the cojones to mention the Palestinian elections, given the way they went for him, but he did, and you've got to love the "Jew cam" that seeks out Joe Lieberman like a laser-guided missile every time anyone mentions the word "Israel..." (there's also a Black guy cam that finds John Lewis at any mention of civil rights or Dr. King, the Obama "African-American-cam," the Hilary cam (various uses) and the Laura cam that catches the first lady's lovely Xanax and martini smile -- and her fabulous suit. (Off white was a good choice, Mrs. President! Loved it.)
The Dems got in a good dig when they all stood up for Bush's statement that the Congress failed to pass his Social Security reforms. (Bush's supposed signature reform, on which he was to spend his "political capital" last year, got only two mentions...) Bush also apparently does like black people! He touched on New Orleans for about 2.2 seconds, and mentioned African-Americans a couple of times, including an opening remark about Coretta King and one nod in relation to the higher incidence of HIV and AIDS. I'm sure kanye West is writing an updated, pro-Bush version of "Jesus walks" just for Dubya even as we speak. John McCain basically clapped alone for the lobbying reform stuff. And darnit, no Tom DeLay cam there ...
Oh, and Bush has decided that he's for scientific research and wind farms. Go figure. I guess John Kerry can feel comforted that at least a small part of him got elected. And the theme of the second have of the speech can be summed up in one word: "competitiveness." Bush is apparently all for it. Okey-dokey.
Overall, I think it was a well written speech, well delivered for Bush, but not much news (there never is with these things). Bush talked a lot about changing the tone (Karl Rove exempted of course), and made a coherent case for Americans being able to debate without hating one another. (Yeah right, tell that to the Freepers and the "Democrats are Communists who should be shot" crowd...) And he gave the obligatory big SOTU laundry list of cleverly named programs for this and that lovely thing that the federal government shouldn't be poking its nose into, including something on compassion or some jazz that Laura's going to be in charge of but that will be well forgotten in about a week (remember Bush's vow to get us to Mars? I didn't think you did...) I was expecting to see that dog who served in Iraq, or at least for Cindy Sheehan to light herself on fire and swan dive from the balcony to try and take out Dick Cheney in a ball of flames and high-pitched, nasal fury, but hey, you can't have everything... She did apparently manage to get herself arrested for wearing the wrong shirt, which should really help kick-start her Senate bid. (I wonder if that lady who yelled at Ed Schultz today for not being liberal enough lives in California...better get her registered to vote...)
In general, these speeches are pretty useless, except as a way for presidents to impress their detractors at how well they can deliver the laugh lines despite dire political circumstances (Bush's best line tonight was the one about himself and Bill Clinton being two of his father's favorite soon-to-be sextagenarians... although he didn't say sextagenarians... this, after all, is George W. Bush... Seriously, what's interesting about Bush is his unfailing ability to come off as a completely harmless, goofy sort of get-along guy, who wouldn't dream of starting an unnecessary war, tearing up the Constitution, granting himself unlimited war powers, sanctioning torture, opening the southern borders to Mexican wage slaves and tapping Christiane Amanpour's phone. ... oh dear... maybe I'd better start over...
... oh yeah and Tom Kaine said something boring afterward that no one really listened to. ... except Howard Dean. He liked it a lot.
Speech grade: B (points taken off for failure to cause Sheehan to ignite)
Predictions: Bush will get a four point bump in the polls, Chris Matthews will declare the speech a masterpiece and in a surprise move, will kiss Rudy Giuliani full on the lips (sorry, off topic...) Cindy Sheehan won't have enough money for bail and will be sprung by an anonymous donor hamed Chugo Havez, and Norah O'Donnell will put a copy of the speech transcript under her pillow.
Update: More reax from the blogosphere:
Update 2:Matthews is so far resisting the Giuliani oral magnetism. In fact, he's actually disagreeing with him! ... oh, no wait he's kissing his behind again... (By the way am I the only one for whom the thought of Rudy Giuliani with limitless presidential police state powers triggers a reaction involving cold sweats and throwing up?) ... Anyway, Andrea Mitchell and Chip Reid sure are downers tonight -- both waxed pessimistic on the speech, and Reid made a good point that it's a little odd for Bush to be calling for a bipartisan love and respect-fest after his side turned sliming the other side into an art-form...
Want more? Get audio commentary from the Juicecaster podcast...
Tags: Bush, State of the Union, Speech, Politics, |
posted by JReid @ 10:06 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Oscar loves the gay cowboys! |
 Let's not kid ourselves. Hollywood does have an agenda beyond just making lots of money, and it is pretty darned liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that, and I think liberals err by denying it for no reason...) That's why every year, the movies that win awards often make as much of a political statement as they do an artistic one. (As do the ones that don't. Remember when Denzel Washington lost out on a Best Actor Oscar probably because the character he played in "The Hurricane" had in real life been convicted of murder? And don't think the "Lord of the Rings" sweep in 2004 had nothing to do with that film's serreptitious jabs at the "Mordor" who lives at 1600 PA Ave...)
So what are we to make of the 8 Oscar nods for the gay cowboy flick "Brokeback Mountain?" (Not to mention the nods for George Clooney's "Syriana" and Spielberg's "Munich?" Exactly what the right is going to make of it. Hollywood is making a dual statement. Good films, messages they endorse. Nuff said.
By the way, go ahead and stamp "bona fide star" on Heath Ledger's forehead. I still haven't seen the movie (too queasy, sorry. Hey, I may have been born in Broooklyn, but grew up in Colorado for God's sakes. As far as I'm concerned, cowboys are supposed to shoot people and rope cows. Don't spoil my mental imagery...) but people apparently can't stop talking about the guy...
Previous:
Tags: Movies, Oscars, academy awards, Brokeback Mountain |
| posted by JReid @ 11:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| The West plays hardball |
Okay, so the E.U. and the U.S. are playing hardball in their drive to upend the recent Palestinian elections (declare them invalid? re-do them more to our liking? who knows...) and the weapon of choice is a good one: money. The demands on Hamas vary, but generally revolve around two things Hamas must do in order to keep the about $1 billion a year in western aid flowing: renounce violence as a political tactic, and recognize Israel (which is now withholding tax payments due to the Palestinian authority). Something tells me Hamas isn't going to put away its weapons (unless Israel renounces violence, too, which ain't gonna happen) and getting down on one knee to the Israelis is likely to make the Hamas leader who does it a big, fat assassination target.
So what now? Well, the West could mess around and push the Palestinian people (like we already have done with the Iraqi Shia) into the arms of Iran... and not just the Hamas members, who already are in bed with the Iranians -- the regular folks running shops or taking theid kids to school every day. Want to radicalize the entire Palestinian population? Cut them off entirely.
Now that's what I call a revolting development...
Tags: Palestinian election, Palestine, democracy, Hamas, Israel |
| posted by JReid @ 4:47 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Feithwatch |
From Raw today:
The second part of the Senate investigation into bungled pre-war Iraq intelligence is still being held up by an internal Pentagon investigation of Douglas Feith, one of the war's leading architects, RAW STORY has learned.
As previously reported by Raw Story, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) inquiry -- titled Phase II -- is waiting on a report from the Pentagon inspector general as to Feith's alleged role in manipulating pre-war intelligence to support a case for war. Feith, who is also being probed by the FBI for his role in an Israeli spy case, resigned in January 2005.
More broadly, a RAW STORY investigation has found that Feith's access to classified information and his alleged wrongdoing can likely be laid at the feet of more senior officials in the Bush Administration -- namely Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- who would have had to have overruled Pentagon background checks to reissue Feith's clearances after he was booted from the National Security Council for allegations of espionage in the mid 1980s ... Of course, the Israeli spy case is the Franklin/AIPAC case, which could yet reach out and touch the Pentagon war hawks. Read the rest of the Raw story here. And more on the AIPAC spy follies in this previous post.
Tags: Neocons, Doug Feith, Israel, Iraq |
| posted by JReid @ 3:22 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Jay Tea Moonbat Test |
Okay so I surf over to Wizbang to see what the wingers are up to today, and I come across this, in which he freaking called me a dude... oh, sorry, I meant this:
Last week, I brought up a really stupid "survey" one leftist whacko cooked up in his fried little brain to "test" the depths of their support. I turned it around, taking an almost-as-hyperbolic hypothetical situation and asked anti-Bush readers to answer that one.
In the comments, though, they wouldn't take the bait. But a couple of them in particular proved my point in their refusal. jreid (mentioned earlier today and No Exit both exhibited the frothing moonbat mentality in fine fettle. In fact, No Exit so captured the lunacy, his remarks ought to be printed out and saved in the Smithsonian as an examplar of the species.
But one recurring theme was that the Bush backers (like me, presumably) are mindless automatons, unthinking, willing puppets who just voice their support regardless of whatever he does, and defend his decisions, policies, and actions without any thought for themselves.
This is a load of crap, and sheerest projection. As Synova pointed out, Bush supporters tend to be far more issue-oriented than focusing on the individual. It's the Left that automatically denounces and gainsays Bush.
You want proof? Fine. Let's do a little compare and contrast.
A few months ago, Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. At that time, a lot of his traditional base differed with him -- and quite vocally, to the point where he had to withdraw her and replace her with Samuel Alito. I was one of those voices. Also, when I endorsed Bush for re-election, I specifically cited several instances where I disagreed with his positions.
So, let's see how things are on the other foot. I challenge liberal bloggers to go back and find a single posting where they -- no matter how reluctantly -- supported a single Bush policy, decision, statement, or action. If you don't have a blog of your own, go poking through the archives of some of the bigger left-lurching blogs and find one there. Kos, Atrios, TPM, Cousin Oliver Willis -- find ONE INSTANCE where they didn't just mindlessly oppose Bush.
I'm betting you won't. Come again? Now let's keep in mind that I like Wizbang. It's almost always a good read. But Jay? You're just dead wrong. Here is JReid's huffy response:
Sweet Jesus, Jay. You cite THIS as your example of disagreeing with George Bush?: "For just a few examples, I think he's wrong on the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. But I also believe that he has derived his positions from sincere beliefs and ethical principles, and that is something I can respect." Why not add that you also love him desperately, just the same? As one of the supposed "frothing moonbats" who can't stop hating George W. Bush, permit me to say that it IS the issues, man! If Mr. Bush (whatever my personal feelings about his intellectual candle wattage or other personal characteristics -- the inarticulateness, the smirk, the radio pack on his back... oh, sorry, frothing again...) were to suddenly espouse a policy I agreed with, I would certainly say so (and I wouldn't feel the need to qualify my support).
However, my problem with Mr. Bush is the very "principles" (your word) by which he seems to have come to all of his policy prescriptions: like hiring corporate cronies to oversee their former industries and then having the PR flaks massage the cronies' boosterism for their former industries into good governance talking points for the regurgitating devices on MSNBC, Fox and CNN to read. Or his habit of hiring campaign flaks (to run the Iraq CPA, FEMA, and now ICE) and shrugging off their clear incompetence and lack of qualifications. Without those things, Mr. Bush's proposals for New Orleans, his stewardship of the mining industry, his ideas for healthcare, social security etc. would be coming from a very different place, and I might even be able to support those ideas.
Then there's this habit Bush has ... or rather, that Cheney has for him ... of discovering new and expansive powers for the president that aren't in the Constitution. I dunno, somehow that bothers me, man...
On Iraq, we have the same problem. Mr. Bush began with a principle I cannot accept (and that other non-Moonbats like George Will and Pat Buchanan don't accept either): namely that it is a proper use of America's military to attack a country that didn't attack or threaten us, and which we have failed to prove could do so in the forseeable future. And then to do it BADLY, without enough troops to pacify the damned country and hand it back to its people in one, rather than a million little pieces? I should support that, why? Bush's roll of the dice with the mad neocons has doomed his presidency, shattered America's prestige, soiled its good name with the dregs of torture, prisoner abuse, secret jails and other Saddam-lite crap, and has brought his fundamental judgment into such question for me, that I really can't see how I support his foreign policy ideas going forward. And Bush seems to be making the same bad judgment calls on everything from Iran to North Korea to Latin America. Am I just supposed to support him because he's the president? (didn't work for Clinton) Because you say he's "principled?" ... or just because you say so?
In other words, I think your question is rather absurd. My disagreements with Mr. Bush ARE about issues -- they're about his POLICIES. His personal attributes are simply made more galling and annoying because he is a total incompetent as president. And by the way, why is it required that opponents of the president, who by definition oppose his methods of arriving at policy, "find something to agree with?" What's the point? To prove that we can? If you ask me, it's far more alarming to watch Bush bot types like yourself prostrate yourselves before the man and insist that he must be supported, even when his policies violate your own supposedly conservative principles (on immigration, for instance).
Trust me, Jay, if Dubya manages to do something -- anything -- right over the next three years, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.
...oh wait! Marriage. ... I support Bush on marriage. Yes! I KNEW I could do it! Okay, so I got a bit off topic. But you get my point.
Upate: To be fair, I decided that I really should take Jay up on his challenge. So I'm searching my archives to see if I can find anything -- a single post -- in which I agreed with George W. Bush. Okay Jay? Happy?
... searching ... searching ... (developing...)
Previous: Tags: politics, Bush, blogs, Moonbats, |
| posted by JReid @ 1:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Feel free to thank us later... |
One of my most searing memories from growing up was a pre-travel get-together my sister and I attended before we became two of three minority kids to participate in a summer in Europe program when I was 16 years old. The other dozen or so participants in the program were mostly rich, white kids from St. Mary's Academy prep school. The other minority kid was a huge, Mexican-American kid named Moises, who was traveling on scholarship (my sister and I were on partial scholarship, those scholarships being based on your grades and an essay, btw...) At one point, one of the trip sponsors, an old lady who had to be kicking 70, offered a comment on Moises' inclusion in the group. "He's just so grateful," she beamed in that special way only a person who considers the 1950s the "good old days" can. If I hadn't been raised right I would have "accidentally" spat on her shoe.
Now it's the Iraqi people's turn to get a pat on the head, not from some goofball old lady, but from the American people, their liberators. So here you go, Iraqis! We blew all the rebuilding money on strippers and Cuban cigars for the occupation authority and stuffed the rest in Paul Bremer's foot locker, but we did give you Moqtada al-Sadr in parliament and a couple hours a day of not getting blown up! Are you grateful yet???
Other Iraq War news:
Tags: Iraq war, Iraq, corruption
|
| posted by JReid @ 12:37 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Sunday, January 29, 2006 |
| Cindy Sheehan shoots the shark |
Cindy Sheehan has not just jumped the shark -- she has shot it in the head with buckshot and dragged it out of the beach house. Now, granted, I think the Iraq war was the biggest strategic blunder by any U.S. president since LBJ led us into Danang. And I supported this Iraq war mom in the beginning, having found her plaintive, solo protest outside George W. Bush's Texas ranch to be a poignant and meaninful statement about the losses suffered by a small percentage of Americans in this war. I also thought Team Bush erred by not having the president meet with her (remember that shot Bush's motorcade speeding past Sheehan and her supporters on his Crawford ranch last summer? Not a good look.)
But that was then. Now, Cindy Sheehan appears to have taken leave of whatever good sense God at some point surely must have given her. What in the name of God is she doing roaming around Venezuela, cuddling up to leftist dictator in training Hugo Chavez, and getting his endorsement for her next round of protests, not to mention her apparent bid to oust Diane Feinstein in the United States Senate (here's Sheehan's postcard from the edge, courtesy of Little Green Footballs, in which she threatens via a press release, to "challenge Feinstein's seat" if she doesn't agree to lead a fillibuster of Sam Alito -- also here for verification purposes is the version from AfterDowningStreet.org.) It reads in part:
Caracas, Venezuela – Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. While in Venezuela attending the World Social Forum, Sheehan learned that several Democratic Senators had announced their plans for a filibuster but that Senator Feinstein, who’s up for re-election in November, had stated she would vote against the nomination but not filibuster it. "I’m appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn’t recognize how dangerous Alito’s nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I’ve already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said. If this sounds like a big non-sequitor to you, permit me to join you in a great big "... huh???" What in the God's name does Samuel Alito have to do with Sheehan's son dying in Iraq? Isn't this what we call "losing the plot...?"
In addition to Chavez, Sheehan has hooked up with Medea Benjamin, the Global Exchange founder and Code Pink activist who remains an ardent supporter of the other Hugo Chavez; Fidel Castro. ... Earth to Cindy, assuming you're still here on the planet: permission to blast off to the far-away planet of our choosing. Go grieve in private for your son. Right now, you're embarrasing yourself and proving every right winger's point about the far left being totally freaking insane. (You're also forcing me to use the same Yahoo! pic as Michelle Malkin, and to agree with her on something, for which I actually hate you...)
I've had a few run-ins with dyed in the wool lefties who with a straight face will tell you that Fidel is a misunderstood victim of American aggression and that his "revolution" is something that American workers should long to see replicated. I remember arguing into the wee hours of the morning with one such Fidelista during the Kerry campaign -- and we were, at least for the purposes of the election -- on the same side (working for the same 527). Now I feel like I'm seeing her replicated on CNN, live from Caracas and Crawford... and that's not a good look, either...
Related: Jesus, Mary and Joseph I actually agree with Rob Port... (especially this sentence: "If ever there were a group of people who needed to heed the warning "Be careful what you wish for lest you receive it," it is the American socialists.") I sure hope he agrees that allowing the feds to spy on our phonecalls without a warrant is muy Castroista as well ...
Updated note: Pat Buchanan agreed with me on the war and on Sheehan way back in August of '05... my doubts about her started to escalate right about here...)
Great line alert: Ok, ok, no more winger links, but you've got to admit this post is pretty damned funny ("Say "NO TO CAPITALISM!" or, BUY OUR SHIRTS! . . .or our, um, pins. . . or this crap. . .")
Update: Matt O (Not Iglesias. My bad, Matt...) at Second Civil War has Diane Feinstein's way too frantic reaction to Mother Cindy's possible Senate challenge. And he makes the very good point that Ms. Sheehan's one issue candidacy is something of an affront to those who have formed, shall we say, more complete views on politics...
Tags: Cindy Sheehan, Iraq war, protests |
| posted by JReid @ 9:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Make that Bush 42... |
 Bush is trowelling around in Nixon territory in the polls. If he can squeeze five poll points out of his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, he still won't crack 47 percent approval (he's at 42 percent now.) ABC News & Wapo combine for the survey. ABC's writeup focuses on the GOP ethics problem, (43 percent of respondents think the level of honesty and ethics has fallen since Bush came into office to "restore honor and integrity to the White House" -- just 24 percent thought the same about Bill Clinton... and Dems are trusted 46 percent to 27 percent over Republicans to "stand up to lobbyists and special interest groups." ... Sorry, Tim Russert, no spinning this one as "bipartisan," though I know you and Katie will do your best to do so anyway, over there at GE...)
Meanwhile, WaPo fixes in on the big, ugly picture for Bush and his party going into the SOTU. On Bush, only 25 percent strongly approve of his job performance, while 42 percent strongly disapprove (overall he's at 42-56). 60 percent disapprove of the situation in Iraq, 57 percent on immigration, it's 51-38 on the downside for the prescription drug plan and 64 percent frown on the deficit. (52 percent are negative on the economy, Larry Kudlow -- see, cause only really rich people can get geeked up about the Dow. The rest of us poor schmucks don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock options...
Tags: politics, News, Bush, polls, government, corruption, miserable failure |
| posted by JReid @ 2:42 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hear hear |
Sometimes the Times just nails it. This is one of those times.
Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. Tags: politics, News, Bush, national security, NSA, government, spying, president, impeachment |
| posted by JReid @ 2:31 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Saturday, January 28, 2006 |
| Beetlejuice |
Okay, putting aside the rather pathetic fact that I'm watching Book TV on a Saturday night ... Peter Beinart is dismantling Fred "Beetle" Barnes and his ridiculous new book piece by pathetic, Bush-bum-powdering piece. Beinart challenged Barnes on his exceptionally positive book, his failure to interview a single Bush critic from among former Bush staffers or members of the administration, let alone outside the "family," and Barnes' apparent forgetfulness when it comes to the rudiments of journalism. (Beinart: "would you counsel a young journalism student to only interview sources who confirmed the thesis of an article? And wouldn't your arguments be stronger if you tested them against opposing points of view...?" Barnes response: "I ... I ... uh ... I did talk to John Dilulio ... he's a friend of mine ... I know his criticisms of Bush and didn't find them to be particularly weighty...")
Apparently, Barnes had a "thesis" ("it's a short book ... I had a short deadline ... uh ... I didn't think I needed to interview Howard Dean to find out what I think about George Bush ... you little bastard...") and he wasn't out to test it. At all. He is "generally favorably disposed toward the posture of the Bush administration," so he saw no need to write about anything not favorably disposed toward the following adjectives: strong, bold, manly, "hunky ..."
Beinart (and this is while actually giggling, by the way) stunned the poor bastard on his contention in the book that Bush has significantly strengthened America's position in the world, with not a mention of Iran and North Korea's growing nuclear potential and assorted other international disasters that have unfolded under Dubya's watch. (From Barnes, more "uh ... uh ... I didn't think I needed to interview Al Gore about that either ..."
More Barnes gems:
- He originally wanted to call the book "The insurgent president" ... unfortunately the Iraq totally freaking sucking as a war messed that up...
- His biggest surprises in doing his "research" for the book: Bush really, really IS in charge! And "he's a reader" -- reads five books for every one Condi Rice does (and two of five those books aren't even about fart jokes! In your face, Bush haters!)
- The inspiration for the book was a 1,000 word article Barnes wrote for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Luckily all he needed to add was another 400 words and little hearts over all the i's and it was straight to press!!!
Note to Barnes: Stick to the Fox News circuit. You can be damned sure Hannity will support your book. In fact, your only problem out of him might be an elbow in the gut as he dives over you to grab the presidential knee pads...
Previous Fred Barnes bouquets:
Oh God yes, it WAS helpful!
Short takes
Oh God yes, it WAS helpful!
Tags: Conservatives, Whining, Book reviews, Fred Barnes, Bushbots |
| posted by JReid @ 8:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| It talks! |
Sweet Jesus, I'm slow! The audio edition of the Reid Report, affectionately known as the Reid Report Juicecast (aka podcast), is finally (fingers crossed) on and popping. This should provide confirmation to all the rightie bloggers I've argued with by blog over the past year that yeah, man, this particular Reid is a girl...
You can surf on over to our new little thought experiment (in honor of Mr. CNN, Bill Bennett) here. Like Glenn Beck, we're trying something new. The podcasts are being served by a new company called Juice Wireless, and the product their serving it on is called the Juicecaster. We're still working on getting all the bells and whistles added to the main site and the blog, so this will all makes sense to you eventually...
Playing catch up this week, be sure to check out the belated edition of a weekly feature that's going to add audio to our semi-regular Intelligent Design Fridays posts, featuring our old friend Pat Robertson (previous text only installments here and here ). And of course we'll be PodBlogging and regular blogging the president's State of the Union speech on Tuesday (haven't seen the speech, but I'm thinking it will go something like this: "Osama Osama Osama, terror, terror, TERROR!!!! Boogie men! AAAAAAUGHhh!!!!")
... and don't forget to look for Mrs. Alito weeping copiously in the special seating section of the congressional rotunda, warming up the seat the Bushies yanked Ahmad Chalabi out of after that unfortunate 16 word incident in 2003...
Holla!
Tags: blogs, podcasting |
| posted by JReid @ 5:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| WWJPOCRS (What would Jesus put on the cover of Rolling Stone?) |
 Nope ... no real reason for putting this up... just like pissing off the Super-Christians ... especially that wacked-out Bill Donohue. I wonder what he's going through ... right ... now...
("That... that's not Jesus ... Goddammit where are the blue eyes???? Where's the pasty white skin!!!??? For Chrissakes, Jesus didn't look like some Goddammed jigaboo like this guy West ... what good is he, is he even funny like that Chris Tucker guy from the movies? 'Don't mess with a Black man's radio boy, hehe you gotta love that ... Our lord and savior Jesus Christ looked more like ... like freaking Heath Ledger than this guy... well ... Heath Ledger without the sodomizing ... on the freaking broke back prairie dog mountain ... oh yeah... prairie dogs ... ohhh yeah ... oh CRAP, I think I just busted a blood vessel...")
Tags: Kanye West, Christians, Bill Donohue, Wingnuts |
| posted by JReid @ 12:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Thursday, January 26, 2006 |
| Five true things |
1. Whatever else you want to say about her, Oprah knows how to do an apology. She comes off as a stand-up gal despite the million little screwup...
2. George W. Bush needs a thesaurus and a dictionary ... now... (and apparently he's afraid of little old Helen Thomas...) 3. John Kerry is trying too hard. And his entire soul-crushing PR ineptitude is encapsulated in the following passage: Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, is cutting short a trip to Switzerland to fly back to Washington Friday to lead the filibuster effort. Mr. Kerry, you have a fascinating back story and clearly you would have done a better job as president than the current clod prince of Pennsylvania Avenue. Now kindly go away.
4. Actually, there is no honor among thieves... 5. There's more than one way to skin an investigation... WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush. The prosecutor, Noel L. Hillman, is chief of the department's public integrity division, and the move ends his involvement in an inquiry that has reached into the administration as well as the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. The administration said that the appointment was routine and that it would not affect the investigation, but Democrats swiftly questioned the timing of the move and called for a special prosecutor.
Good luck Dems, you guys are like farm team players going up against the Evil All Stars... Tags: News, Opinion, Current Affairs, Republicans, Bush, Corruption, GOP, Oprah, James Frey, Abramoff, John Kerry |
| posted by JReid @ 11:14 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| The fall and fall of CNN |
First they dumped Aaron Brown so they could further exploit Anderson Cooper ... then they forced us to endure the axis of Kagan, Kyra and Wolf all afternoon, five days a week... then came Glenn Beck and J.C. Watts added to the lineup... now, they're asking us to take the Bookie of Virtues, Bill Bennett, seriously again. I'd call it a gamble on CNN's part, but that would just be too easy... why don't these clowns just bring Pat Robertson and David Duke over to the network and get it over with?
Flashbacks:
Tags: Bill Bennett, CNN, gambling |
| posted by JReid @ 9:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| The 'I miss Aaron Brown' reader |
| This guy was good. CNN's brass are a bunch of putzes. Here's the first dispatch I've heard from Aaron Brown since he was unceremoniously ousted from CNN. |
| posted by JReid @ 4:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Down with democracy? |
President Bush doesn't like democracy so much today. Bush took questions today on whether the U.S. would deal with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. He same some stuff about how good it is for people to say "hey, vote for me!" ... (Let's review: it was Washington that pushed the Palestinian Authority to hold elections now, and to allow Hamas to participate. It was also Washington that called off the Israeli hawks to allow Hamas to campaign in East Jerusalem. Both supportable decisions, but decisions the U.S. must now live with, like it or not.) Here's an interesting quote from Dubya today: "Well, aren't we surprised at the outcome?" or this, that or the other. If there is corruption, I'm not surprised that people say, "Let's get rid of corruption." If government hadn't been responsive, I'm not the least bit surprised if people say, "I want government to be responsive." Glad you feel that way, Mr. President ... On the warrantless wiretaps, Bush essentially said "they're legal because I say they're legal" -- and he referred to FISA, not as a law he is duty bound to follow, but as a "tool..." interesting take... Bush also pinned down the origin of the spying program (call it the "prosecute the other guy" gambit): Right after September the 11th, I said to the people, "What can we do? Can we do more?" -- the people being the operators, a guy like Mike Hayden -- "Can we do more to protect the people? There's going to be a lot of investigation and a lot of discussion about connecting dots. And we have a responsibility to protect the people, so let's make sure we connect the dots." BUSH: And so he came forward with this program. It wasn't designed in the White House. It was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the NSA. And he said he ain't showing no stinking Abramoff pictures, because they'd be used in the wrong way by his political foes. Best question of the day: QUESTION: Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when the nation is at war, the president, by definition, can order measures that might not be acceptable or even perhaps legal in peacetime. And this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was, "When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal in areas involving national security." So how do the two differ? See any number of RNC talking points for Bush's answer. Not much different... More on the presser from Newsday Transcript of the presser from WaPo BTW Blogger is down (no surprise there!) so I'm emailing it in, which means no edits. (sigh). |
| posted by JReid @ 12:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Holy crap... |
Hamas ... won ...??? outright...??? hmm... Allow me to adjust what I said before. Hamas winning some seats -- even lots of seats -- would have been a tidal wave, and one which would have clearly changed the negotiating posture of the Quartet and the Israelis. This is more like a tsunami. The very real possibility now exists that Hamas will be the only biggest negotiating game in town (The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas (of the Fatah party), is still in power, and will be the big man in the new coalition government, so Fatah still has his voice, plus 43 out of 132 seats in Parliament. Also, turns out the U.S. spent $2 million in USAID money to try and help Abbas' party out, boosting the party founded by the man Bush wouldn't even talk to, Yasser Arafat. Not that it worked, Condi... and now Dr. Rice is scampering around trying to get Europe to bail us out again) And the hope that a Hamas that's heavy with the burden of governing will choose politics over war seems more like an imperative. If the Palestinian people are smart, they will keep a firm hand on the mandate they've given to the new guys. The last thing the world needs -- and the Palestinians themselves -- is to have the desperate Palestinian Diaspora looked upon (by more than just the Likudnik Israelis and the neocons in the U.S.) as an Islamist/terrorist state in waiting. Arafat screwed up big time by not taking the deal at Camp David in 2000 (or the second shot at it at Taba in January 2001). And the Fatah crowed blew it by cuddling up to Saddam Hussein. It is now, apparently, Hamas' turn to have a go. Here's hoping they get serious about helping their people get a state, renounce the blustery talk and the violence and come to the table. Worth a re-read: Ian Black's prescient article in the day-before-the-election Guardian... Update: Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian's main negotiator with Israel over the years and whom you frequently see on television as a very coherent spokesman for the Palestinian cause (he's a former journalist, it turns out), won his legislative seat, as did the person I have found the most compelling among the Palestinian leadership over the years, Hanan Ashrawi. Neither of them sounded too hopeful today: Fatah legislator Saeb Erekat said the party does not want to join a Hamas government. "We will be a loyal opposition and rebuild the party," Erekat said, after meeting Abbas.
But Nabil Shaath, another senior Fatah lawmaker, said the party's leadership would make a decision later on Thursday. ... ... Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, who apparently was re-elected on a moderate platform, said the Hamas victory was a dramatic turning point. She said she is concerned the fighters will now impose their fundamentalist social agenda and lead the Palestinians into international isolation.
She said Fatah's corruption, Israel's tough measures and international indifference to the plight of the Palestinians were to blame for Hamas's strong showing. Some in Hamas were trying to be reassuring:
"Don't be afraid," Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, told the BBC. "Hamas is a Palestinian movement, it is an aware and mature movement, one which is politically open in the Palestinian arena, and to its Arab and Islamic hinterland, and similarly open to the international arena." And clearly, the people who voted for the new guys had one thing on their mind: change. For Maher Riyad, 55, owner of an electrical store, Thursday was a day of celebration. He said Hamas worked for the people and not themselves, and this was why he had voted for them.
"Fatah had opportunity after opportunity, but they squandered them all," said Mr Riyad.
While some Palestinians are concerned that the Islamic nature of Hamas will lead to greater conservatism in Palestinian society, most seem happy that Fatah has been defeated.
This morning in Ramallah, it was almost impossible to find someone who had voted for Fatah.
The party seemed to have been swept from the streets, just as it has been swept from its dominant position in the Palestinian legislature. Unfortunately, the history of "people powered" movements not turning into the same old corruption with different faces isn't too good. And earlier hopes that the PA could attract billions in investment are now teetering. God only knows what happens next. Update: The obligatory Who's who in Hamas (amazing how many of these guys have been Israeli assassination targets...) And a good analysis of the situation from the Times of London. By the way good luck to Israel trying to get the EU to ignore the new Palestinian parliament. Fixing the Balfour mess is a large part of what Britain is all about, and the Germans and other countries are keen to get a settlement as well, I'd guess Hamas or no Hamas, especially if Abbas stays on and tries to form a coalition. If he goes, I guess all bets are off... and Washington hasn't much credibility or sway over there anymore, so I can't see how the Bush administration can improve things. At the least, this election result probably strengthens the extreme right in Israel, and gives the expansionists reason not to negotiate... not good. Tags: Middle East, Palestinian, Elections, Democracy, Fatah, Hamas |
| posted by JReid @ 9:38 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Now they tell us |
Alberto Gonzales is just doing his job, which in the case of this White House and this attorney general, is to shill for the president even at the expense of your own integrity as an advocate for the rule of law. However, about three years ago, a different odor was emanating from the DOJ:
White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; A04
The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.
The proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-U.S. citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants.
The administration has contended that it launched a secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency in part because of the time it takes to obtain such secret warrants from federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
The wiretapping program, ordered by President Bush in 2001, is used when intelligence agents have a "reasonable basis to believe" that a target is tied to al Qaeda or related groups, according to recent statements by administration officials. It can be used on U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, without court oversight.
Democrats and national security law experts who oppose the NSA program say the Justice Department's opposition to the DeWine legislation seriously undermines arguments by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, who have said the NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are often too cumbersome to obtain.
"It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. "The only reason to do what they've been doing is because they wanted a lower standard than 'probable cause.' A member of Congress offered that to them, but they turned it down." Hmm... does anybody else smell trouble? ...I sure hope Mike DeWine has his retraction ready tomorrow -- either that or that he doesn't have any Vietnam-era medals, cause if he does they're gonna get trashed tomorrow...
Tags: politics, News, Bush, national security, NSA, government, spying, president, impeachment |
| | |
